Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: January 31, 2019
Assessed Person(s): William John Dunlop; Sandra Kathleen Dunlop
Appellant(s): William John Dunlop; Sandra Kathleen Dunlop
Respondent(s): City of Orillia
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 16
Property Location(s): 709 Broadview Ave.
Municipality(ies): City of Orillia
Roll Number(s): 4352-010-113-39700-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3269056 and 3308400
Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018
Hearing Event No. 706164
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard: October 30, 2018 in Orillia, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel+/Representative
William John Dunlop; Sandra Kathleen Dunlop
Self-represented
MPAC
Darren Manuel
City of Orillia
No one appeared
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY VINCENT STABILE
INTRODUCTION
1The subject property is a single-storey detached residential dwelling on the water built in 1984 with a building area of 2,022 square feet. In 2013, 226 square feet were added to the dwelling, resulting in a total building area of 2,248 square feet and an effective year built of 1985. It has an attached garage of 697 square feet. The quality of construction is 6.5. It is situated on a lot with 134.31 feet frontage and 184.14 feet in depth. The subject property is on a peninsula on the shores of Lake Couchiching.
2For the January 1, 2016 valuation date, MPAC returned the assessment at $695,000. As a result of a Request for Reconsideration (RforR) MPAC reduced the assessment to $625,000. The adjustment was for equity (see Exhibit #3).
3The parties agree that the valuation day is January 1, 2016. The assessor has used the direct sales comparison approach to determine current value, relying on six (6) sale transactions completed within one year before and one year after the valuation day, commonly referred to as the ‘shoulder years’.
4The appellants agree, in part, to the direct sales comparison approach, but rely on nineteen (19) sale transactions from June 2102 to December 2015. They also rely on the assessed values of other properties in the vicinity, which is a departure from the direct sales comparison approach to value.
ISSUE
5The issue to be determined is the correct current value of the property as of January 1, 2016.
DECISION
6I have determined that the correct current value for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years is $677,000. The value is greater than the assessed value of $625,000 as returned on the roll. MPAC did not serve notice to the Board, pursuant to Rule 40 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, that it would be seeking a higher assessment at the hearing. Accordingly, I confirmed the assessment at $625,000. Further, I determined that no adjustment for equity is warranted.
EVIDENCE
MPAC
7The assessor, Darren Manuel, filed a Valuation Report proposing an assessment of $625,000 as of January 1, 2016 (Valuation Day) using the Direct Comparison Approach. He proposed the sales of six (6) comparable properties with a range of values, time adjusted, of $581,390 to $771,958 (Exhibit #1).
8Relying upon a study of 423 sales from 2014-01-07 to 2017-12-28, a period of 35 months, Mr. Manuel stated that there had been an overall change in the market of 49.11 per cent.
9All of the proposed comparable properties are on the same street as the subject property. Two (2) have been described as similar to the subject, one (1) superior and three (3) as inferior on account of their respective attributes, including lot dimensions, living area, effective year built and quality of construction.
Appellant
10The appellants stated that the subject property is located on the east shore of the peninsula. As