Charlene Bell, Alexandra Trail and Ian Trail v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 06, 2020 CanLII 52454

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

July 29, 2020

FILE NO.:

WR 164895

Assessed Person (s):

Charlene Elizabeth Bell

Appellant(s):

Charlene Bell, Alexandra Trail and Ian Trail

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 06

Respondent(s):

Township of Alnwick/Haldimand

Property Location(s):

Concession 7 Part Lot 7

Municipality(ies):

Township of Alnwick/Haldimand

Roll Number(s):

1450-116-070-04700-0000 and

1450-116-070-04750-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3389458, 3398018, 3389459 and 3398021

Taxation Year(s):

2019 and 2020

Hearing Event No.:

730005

Legislative Authority:

Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

Parties

Representative

Charlene Elizabeth Bell

Ian Trail

Alexandra Trail, Ian Trail

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Sarah Moll – Advocate Terri-Lyn Wright – Valuations Officer

Township of Alnwick/Haldimand

No one appeared

HEARD:

April 15,16, and 20, 2020 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S):

Anthony LaRegina, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Ian Trail and Alexandra Trail (the “Appellants”), son-in-law and daughter of Charlene Elizabeth Bell, the owner of the Subject Properties, filed appeals for the 2019 taxation year with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) for each property. Pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c, A.31 (the “Act”), the Appellants are deemed to have brought the same appeals in respect of the 2020 taxation year. For the purposes of this decision, the property identified by Roll Number 1450-116-070-04700-0000 is referred to as Subject Property 1 and the property identified by Roll Number 1450-116-070-04750-0000 is referred to as Subject Property 2.

2It is the Appellants’ position that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation’s (“MPAC”) current value assessments of $155,000 (2019) and $195,000 (2020) for Subject Property 1, and $9,300 (2019) and $17,200 (2020) for Subject Property 2 are too high; and that the correct current value for Subject Property 1 should be $89,540, and for Subject Property 2 should be $4,720, for both the 2019 and 2020 taxation years. At this hearing, MPAC takes the position that the correct current value for Subject Property 1 is $159,000 and for Subject Property 2 is $9,500 for both the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

3MPAC takes the position that an equitable reduction is not required for either Subject Property. The Appellants did not assert that an equitable reduction is required and presented no evidence in support of an equity argument. Therefore, in this proceeding, this ground for appeal is not in issue.

4The Appellants have taken the position that the soil of the Subject Properties should be classified as a Class 6 soil while MPAC has taken the position that the properties have always been classified as a Class 5 soil and should remain as Class 5 soil. On behalf of the Appellants, Mr. Trail submits that the difference in soil classification impacts the current value of the properties. Mr. Trail is currently the tenant farmer on the Subject Properties.

5Pursuant to s. 40(11) of the Act, the Township of Alnwick/Haldimand (“Township”) is a party to this proceeding. No one appeared at the hearing on behalf of the Township and no evidence was submitted on its behalf.

Preliminary Matters – Qualification of Expert Witness

6Mr. Trail objected to Terri-Lyn Wright, Valuations Officer for MPAC, being sworn-in as an expert witness because she is not a pedologist and therefore, does not have a good understanding of soil science, specifically regarding the limitation of pontypool sands which is the soil type of the Subject Properties. Mr. Trail also submitted that Ms. Wright is an MPAC employee and therefore, is not independent of MPAC.

7Ms. Wright presented her credentials as a valuation expert with extensive experience in Farm Property Valuation and not as a soil expert. Ms. Wright has been employed with MPAC since 1989 and has extensive experience specializing in the appraisal and valuation of farm property. Ms. Wright is also a farmer and owns farm property in the same area as the Subject Properties and assists her family in farming the properties they own. Ms. Wright also filed an acknowledgment of expert witness confirming that her duty is to the Board.

8Ms. Wright was sworn in as an expert witness with expertise in the valuation of farm properties.

Areas of Agreement

9The classification of both properties was also at issue but was settled by the parties in advance of the hearing. The classification for the 2019 taxation year was returned for both properties as Farm Full; and for the 2020 taxation year was returned at $92,000 Residential Full and $103,000 Farm Full for Subject Property 1 and $17,200 Residential Full for Subject Property 2. The classification for both properties was settled as Farm Full (FL FT) for both 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

Issues for the Hearing

10The issue in this proceeding is to determine the correct current value of the Subject Properties.

11A further issue is to determine the soil classification of the Subject Properties.

Result

12The Board finds that the correct current value is $159,000 for Subject Property 1 and $8,370 for Subject Property 2 for both the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

13The Board confirms the 2019 assessment of Subject Property 1 at $155,000 and reduces the 2020 assessment from $195,000 to $159,000. The Board reduces the assessment for Subject Property 2 from $9,300 to $8,370 for the 2019 taxation year and from $17,200 to $8,370 for the 2020 taxation year.

14The Board confirms that the soil classification is Class 5 for both properties.

15The Board confirms the property classification of Subject Properties 1 and 2 as Farm Full (FL FT) for the 2019 taxation year as agreed to by the parties. For the 2020 taxation year for Subject Property 1 the Board confirms the property classification as Farm Full (FL FT) and cancels the Residential classification. For the 2020 taxation year for Subject Property 2 the Board changes the property classification from Residential (Full) to Farm Full (FL FT).

ANALYSIS

Subject Property 1 – Description

16Subject Property 1 is located at Concession 7 Part Lot 7 in the Township of Alnwick/Haldimand in Northumberland County, which is part of the Oak Ridges Moraine and therefore, subject to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. The Subject Property has a site area of 95 acres with 40.3 acres currently cultivated to produce hay to feed livestock; and the remaining 54.7 acres are forest and are not put to any other use other than farming purposes. MPAC has classified the soil as Class 5 soil and agrees with the Appellants that the soil is of the pontypool sand series. The property is classified as Farm Full (FL FT) with a 2019 returned assessed value of $155,000 and a 2020 returned assessed value of $195,000 of which $103,000 is classified as Farm Full and $92,000 as Residential. The Subject Property has no direct road access but does have a road allowance on the west side of the property. Subject Property 1 is classified as only having summer or seasonal access.

Subject Property 2 – Description

17Subject Property 2 is also located at Concession 7 Part Lot 7 abutting the northern boundary of Subject Property 1. Subject Property 2 has a site area of 5 acres all of which is forest also not put to any other use other than farming purposes. MPAC has classified the soil as Class 5 and agrees with the Appellants that the soil is also of the pontypool sand series. Subject Property 2 is classified as Farm Full (FL FT) with a 2019 returned assessed value of $9,300 and classified as Residential full (RT) in 2020 with a returned assessed value of $17,200. Subject Property 2 has no direct road access and is classified as only having summer or seasonal access.

Issue – Current Value

18The issue to be determined on these appeals is the correct current value of the Subject Properties for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years. Pursuant to s. 19(1) of the Act, the assessment of land shall be based on its current value. The Act also provides that, for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years, MPAC is required to assess this value as of the valuation date, January 1, 2016 (“current value”). As defined in the Act, current value means “in relation to land, the amount of money the fee simple, if unencumbered, would realize if sold at arm’s length by a willing seller to a willing buyer”, which translates into the market value of the Subject Properties as of January 1, 2016.

19The Subject Properties are farm lands used only for farm purposes and therefore, when determining current value, the parties shall also have reference to s. 19(5) of the Act, which states:

For the purposes of determining the current value of farm lands used only for farm purposes by the owner or used only for farm purposes by a tenant of the owner and buildings thereon used solely for farm purposes, including the residence of the owner or tenant and the owner’s or tenant’s employees and their families on the farm lands,

(a) consideration shall be given to the current value of the lands and buildings for farm purposes only;

(b) consideration shall not be given to sales of lands and buildings to persons whose principal occupation is other than farming; and

Direct Sales Comparison Approach

20To determine the property values, MPAC has utilized the direct sales comparison approach and submitted into evidence ten sales of proposed comparable properties coded 200 which are farm properties without any buildings or structures. Ms. Wright testified that all ten proposed comparable property sales are in compliance with s.19(5) of the Act in that they are farmer-to-farmer land sales and the properties continued to be used as farm properties for farm purposes after the sales. These properties sold between 2008 and 2013 in the vicinity of the Subject Properties and are shown in Attachment 1 to this decision.

21Ms. Wright conducted an analysis of mean time-adjusted sale value per acre for; all ten proposed comparable properties, the six closest properties to the Subject Property, the four properties of the most similar in size to the Subject Properties and the best comparable property based on soil classification to the Subject Properties. The values are as follows:

Subject Properties

All

Properties

Closest Properties distance (km) (Property 1-6)

Closest Properties (acres) (Property 1, 5, 9, 10)

Best Comparable Property 7

Mean Time-Adjusted/Acre ($)

$3,565

3,290

4,411

Mean Acreage

107

100

Acreage Range

40.93 to 150

58.9 to 150

40.93 to 72

MPAC Recommended Assessment ($)/Acre

1,674/

1,900

Time-Adjusted sale value/Acre ($)

2,481

Actual sale value/Acre ($)

2,000

22Utilizing the proposed comparable sales MPAC established a time-adjusted sale value per acre by soil classification:

Soil 1 (based on Sale 9)

$8,121

Soil 2 (based on Sale 8)

$5,415

Soil 3 (based on Sales 1 and 2)

$3,300

Soil 4 (no land sale available)

n/a

Soil 5 (based on Sale 7)

$2,481

23MPAC submits that the best comparable land sale to the Subject Properties is Property 7 because it is the only property that has no road access similar to both Subject Properties which only have seasonal road access. The other nine property sales all have year-round road access and, for the most part, have different soil classifications. Property 7 also has 70% or 70 acres of Class 5 soil, the same soil classification as the Subject Properties.

24MPAC submits further that the time-adjusted sale value per acre of Property 7 is $2,481 and that the recommended current value of Subject Property 1 at $1,674 per acre and Subject Property 2 at $1,900 are very reasonable current values for both properties. Based on the sale of Property 7 and the descending values by soil class, MPAC submits that the current value of Subject Property 1 should be $159,000 based on $1,674 per acre and Subject Property 2 should be $9,500 based on $1,900 which reflect the land values used in the 0609 economic neighbourhood.

25MPAC also introduced a Sales Ratio Time Analysis (“SRTA”) to determine appropriate time adjustment factors for the sale values of comparable property sales over time. The study includes 557 sales of vacant or improved land from the Subject Properties’ neighbourhood and adjacent areas from January 2012 to December 2015. The analysis showed an increase in value of 41.95% over a 48-month period.

26MPAC pointed out that six of the ten proposed comparable property sales used in support of current value were properties which sold before 2012. The time adjustment factors to those properties with sales dating back to 2008 were determined using MPAC’s time adjustment factors from its model. These time adjustment factors were applied to the sale values of Properties 1, 2, 4, 5, 9 and 10.

27During cross-examination, Mr. Trail indicated that ten of the 557 properties used in the SRTA are anomalies and possible outliers; he asked Ms. Wright to consider whether these ten properties could skew the SRTA analysis. Ms. Wright returned the following day indicating that she reviewed these properties and concluded that excluding them would have only a minor impact on the analysis considering the study has a total of 557 property sales. Furthermore, Ms. Wright submitted that it was well established that farm land value had risen 60% over the same period and that the 42% being applied by MPAC during this period is very reasonable in comparison.

28The Appellants did not submit any comparable sales evidence in support of current values for the Subject Properties. The Appellants’ case focused on challenging the soil classification, attempting to show that the Subject Properties should be classified as Class 6 soil as opposed to Class 5 soil and then applying the cost approach to determine the current values.

Issue – Soil Classification

29Ms. Wright presented MPAC’s soil classification point system that was utilized by the assessment authority in the late 1960s and early 1970s to classify soil. According to Ms. Wright, when the responsibility for property assessment was transferred from municipalities to the Province of Ontario’s Ministry of Revenue, each farm property was inspected and rated by the assessment authority in conjunction with the owner/farmer on the property.

30MPAC’s soil classification point system for Subject Property 1 yielded the following scores based on the evidence presented by MPAC and the Appellants:

Range

MPAC

Appellant (95 Acres)

40.3 Acre

54.7 Acre

Soil Texture

10 to 20

Topography

0 to 65

Stoniness

0 to 40

Drainage

0 to 40

Flooding

0 to 30

Erosion

0 to 20

Depth of Bedrock

0 to 65

Total Soil Points

Classification Score (100 - Soil Points)

31MPAC’s soil classification point system for Subject Property 2 yielded the following scores based on the evidence presented by MPAC and the Appellants:

Range

MPAC

Appellant

5 Acres

Soil Texture

10 to 20

Topography

0 to 65

Stoniness

0 to 40

Drainage

0 to 40

Flooding

0 to 30

Erosion

0 to 20

Depth of Bedrock

0 to 65

Total Soil Points

Classification Score (100 - Soil Points)

32MPAC’s Mineral Soil Class table below shows that MPAC’s evidence resulting in 35 and 30 points falls at the upper range of Class 5 soil while the Appellants’ 10 points result is in the middle range of Class 6 soil.

Mineral Soil Class

Description

Points

This land has good drainage; good loam texture; and is nearly level. No physical limitations to a high level of farm production exist.

95-85

This land is subject to moderate limitations in use for farm crop production. These limitations may be drainage, rolling topography, moderate erosion, moderate stoniness, or a combination of two or more factors.

80-70

Similar limitations to those of Class 2 above only to a greater extent. This land has moderately severe limitations that restrict the range of crops or may require some development or management practices.

65-55

This land is subject to severe limitations for use in farm crop production such as: too susceptible to erosion, too stony, or too poorly drained to be cultivated frequently.

50-40

This land is generally unsuited for cultivation, but can be used for grazing. It is subject to similar but more severe limitations than those of Class 4.

35-25

This land should be kept in vegetation because of steepness of slope, severe erosion, shallow soil, or other features that make cultivation impractical. This land is capable of producing only indigenous crops and is suitable for moderate grazing.

0-20

33MPAC established the classification of soil on Subject Properties 1 and 2 from a combination of the previous scoring that was on file, a desk inspection using digital imagery produced from the Agricultural Mapping Service as well as further discussion with the Appellants and a review of their evidence. Ms. Wright concludes in her assessment that Subject Property 1 is a Class 5 soil, which is being partially cultivated, and not a Class 6 soil, which she characterizes as “garbage or the poorest quality land which for the most part cannot be cultivated and only used for grazing”. Ms. Wright asserts that while Subject Property 2 is not being cultivated because it is a forest property, it abuts Subject Property 1 and therefore, is also a Class 5 soil.

34The Appellants agree with MPAC’s point scores for both Subject Properties for stoniness, flooding and depth to bedrock; they do not agree with the scores for soil texture, topography, drainage and erosion.

Soil Texture

35The classification range for soil texture is between 10 and 20 points. The Appellants argue that the soil texture should be at the top of the range or 20 points and not 15 as per MPAC’s rating. Mr. Trail submits that the properties are made up of pontypool sand which is poorly suited for agriculture due to its course texture and naturally low fertility. This, he claims, is supported by Subject Property 1’s low crop yield for hay as compared to other soils in the Northumberland County area. Mr. Trail asserted that his property produces less hay compared to the five-year average hay crop yield of all other farm lands in Northumberland County but did not produce specific yield data for this property.

Topography

36The classification range for topography is between 0 and 65 points. The Appellants argue that topography for Subject Property 1 should be rated at 20, while MPAC has taken the position that the cultivated portion of 40.3 acres is rated at 10 and the forested area of 54.7 acres is rated at 15. Mr. Trail submits that according to the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (“OMAFRA”) soil mapping the pontypool sand in the vicinity of the Subject Property has a mean slope classification of Class F, which means a slope of 22.5% and an associated slope range of 15 to 30%. Mr. Trail asserts that this is indicative of complex slopes with steep ridges, as compared to MPAC’s assertion that these are rolling ridges, and therefore should be rated at 20 points. In cross-examination, Sarah Moll, MPAC’s advocate, points out, and Mr. Trail agrees, that anything up to a 30% slope range can also be indicative of Class 4 and 5 soil.

Drainage

37The classification range for drainage is 0 to 40 points. For both Subject Properties the Appellants have rated drainage at 25 and MPAC has rated drainage 20. Mr. Trail submits that the drainage of pontypool sand is rapid and therefore, should be 25 points. Mr. Trail submits that OMAFRA mapping classifies the drainage in this area as R-rapid which is in line with MPAC’s rating for drainage but MPAC’s definition of drainage is different from OMAFRA’s definition of drainage.

38MPAC’s definition is “Drainage refers to the ease of movement of water and air in the soil or to the height of the water table” whereas OMAFRA’s definition is “Soil drainage refers to the frequency and duration of periods during which the soil is free of saturation”. Mr. Trail argues that OMAFRA’s hydrological soil group classification A would yield 25 points under the MPAC soil classification system for rapid drainage.

Erosion

39The MPAC point range for erosion is between 0 and 20. For both Subject Properties MPAC has rated it as 10 points and the Appellants argue that the rating should be 15 citing moderately severe erosion. Once again, Mr. Trail refers to the OMAFRA mapping indicating soil capability subclassification ‘M’ and ‘T’ to the pontypool sand are associated with the properties in the vicinity of the Subject Properties. Mr. Trail submits that during cultivation he has observed that there is little to no top soil on the Subject Property. The cultivated layer is primarily a sandy soil that Mr. Trail claims is consistent with MPAC’s description of severe erosion which, in his opinion, should be rated at 15 points.

40The Appellants’ total score for both Subject Properties is 90 points based on their opinion of the soil characteristics using the MPAC soil classification point system. This leaves 10 remaining points which indicates that the Subject Properties should be classified as Class 6 soil.

41Mr. Trail submits that the value per acre attributed to Class 6 soil in the 0609 economic farm neighbourhood area is $1,000. Utilizing the cost approach to value, he determines the value of the entire Subject Property 1 by applying $1,000 per acre to 95 acres to get $95,000. He made no size adjustment because the Subject Property is 95 acres and therefore, very close to the 100 acre threshold for size adjustments as per the MPAC Methodology Guide. Mr. Trail then applies a negative adjustment of $5,460, which represents 5.46 acres for forest exemption under s. 3.19 of the Act bringing the assessed value of the Subject Property to $89,540 based on a Class 6 soil.

42Mr. Trail applied the same $1,000 per acre for Subject Property 2 arriving at $5,000 based on 5 acres. He then applied the forest exemption under s. 3.19 of the Act of $280 to arrive at a current value of $4,720 for Subject Property 2. Mr. Trail did not apply a size adjustment factor to this property because he claims that this property would likely be sold with Subject Property 1 for a combined total of 100 acres therefore, not requiring a size adjustment as per MPAC’s Methodology Guide to valuing farm properties.

Findings on Soil Classification

43The Board has reviewed the evidence and determined that the point ratings submitted by MPAC and the Appellants regarding soil texture, topography, drainage and erosion are all very close. The Appellants did substantial research in each of these areas and in the end made a subjective opinion of the rating for each of these categories. While the Board understands that Mr. Trail is a farmer with many years of experience, he himself admitted that he is not a soil scientist. Both MPAC and the Appellants asserted that “soil capability for agriculture cannot be determined by the vegetation on the soil” but rather the soil itself. The Board sees this as a subject of expert opinion in relation to soil sciences for which admittedly neither Mr. Trail nor Ms. Wright have the appropriate qualification.

44While the Board has reviewed the Appellants’ evidence supporting a Class 6 soil which, according to OMAFRA and MPAC, is the poorest soil that does not lend itself to cultivation and the use of farm equipment, it is quite clear from Mr. Trail’s testimony and the digital imagery provided by MPAC, that 40.3 acres of Subject Property 1 land are being cultivated with hay production and the use of farm equipment.

45Mr. Trail spoke to low crop yield and poor soil conditions to further support a Class 6 soil on Subject Property 1. In this case, Mr. Trail provided no crop yield figures for Subject Property 1 making it difficult to compare to the average crop production per acre over a five-year period for all farm property in Northumberland County.

46Mr. Trail also provided OMAFRA maps showing that the Subject Properties are labelled as Class 6MT soil but MPAC questioned the credibility of the maps pointing out the maps are from the OMAFRA website which allows the user to edit the maps to their needs. Furthermore, according to Mr. Trail’s evidence, as pointed out by Ms. Moll in cross-examination, OMAFRA describes Class 6 soil as:

unsuited for cultivation, but are capable of use for unimproved permanent pasture. These soils may provide some sustained grazing for farm animals, but the limitations are so severe that improvement through the use of farm machinery is impractical.

It is clear from the evidence that Mr. Trail is cultivating the lands on Subject Property 1 using farm machinery and producing hay for the purposes of feeding his livestock on other farm operations which he owns. Regarding Subject Property 2, which is entirely forest, Mr. Trail testified that the forest plays a very important part in the farming process by assisting to protect the cultivated portions of the land.

47Both parties agree that the Subject Properties are made up of pontypool soils. Ms. Moll pointed out that on page 35 in the publication “The Soils of Northumberland County” submitted into evidence by the Appellants, it clearly states that “Pontypool soils occur mainly in Haldimand Township” and “50% of the areas mapped as Pontypool are class 6 for agriculture and the remaining 50% are class 4”.

48Mr. Trail has done substantial research in relation to soil classes, produced OMAFRA mapping of the soils in the area and Ms. Wright produced digital imaging and agricultural mapping of the area, all of which point to the fact that parts of the Subject Property are being cultivated. The Board notes that there has been no on-site joint inspections and little site-specific evidence to tie the soil conditions of the Subject Properties to the definitions, mapping and other documentation provided in evidence by both parties. The Appellants submit that the soil classification is Class 6. MPAC submits that the soil classification is Class 5 and furthermore, that all sales within 16 kilometres of the Subject Properties are classified as Class 4 or 5 and no Class 6 land sales exist in the vicinity.

49The Board concludes that there has been insufficient evidence specific to the Subject Properties to warrant a soil classification change to Class 6. In fact, as per the evidence provided by both parties, the land on Subject Property 1 is clearly being cultivated using farm equipment to produce hay, which is more indicative of a Class 5 soil as opposed to a Class 6 soil and the forest on Subject Property 2 is assisting to protect the crop on Subject Property 1. The current soil classification established in the early 1970s between the assessment authority and the then farmer is a Class 5 soil. The Board will therefore confirm the current soil Class 5 for both Subject Properties 1 and 2.

Findings on Current Value

50In accordance with s. 44(3)(a) of the Act, the Board is to determine “the current value of the land”. Section 1 of the Act defines current value as “the amount of money the fee simple, if unencumbered, would realize if sold at arm’s length by a willing seller to a willing buyer”.

51For the 2019 and 2020 taxation years, the Board must determine what the Subject Properties would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the January 1, 2016 valuation day set by s. 19.2(1) of the Act.

52MPAC has chosen the direct sales comparison method which has the advantage of being a market driven approach to establish the current value of any given property, and, therefore, in this case, the Board will rely on this method in conjunction with MPAC’s Methodology Guide for valuing farm property to determine the correct current value of both Subject Properties 1 and 2.

Subject Property 1

53The Board has reviewed all ten proposed comparable sales submitted into evidence by MPAC and agrees with MPAC that Sale 7, which sold in July 2013, is the best comparable property and most similar to Subject Property 1. This property has 20% Class 4 soil, 10% Class 2 soil and 70% (translating into 70 acres) of Class 5 soil, the same soil classification as Subject Property 1. Comparable Property 7 has no road access while the Subject Property has seasonal road access and a road allowance therefore, from a practical standpoint, Subject Property 1 also has no road access similar to comparable Property 7.

54When analysing the time-adjusted value per acre by soil classification, it is evident from MPAC’s comparable sales that there is a sliding scale with soil Class 1 being the highest quality soil at $8,121 per acre and soil Class 5 at $2,481 per acre being the lowest of the submitted comparable property sales in evidence.

55MPAC’s recommended current value per acre of Subject Property 1 based on $159,000 is $1,674 per acre which is in line with MPAC’s valuation per acre for the 0609 economic farm neighbourhood which has Class 5 soil valued at $1,775 per acre with the adjustment for size and forest exemption. MPAC’s valuation per acre for the 0609 economic farm neighbourhood is part of its model for establishing valuation of farm properties. The values established for each soil class are based on market sales of farm properties with similar soil classes in the entire 0609 market. The benefit of the ten proposed comparable property sales and specifically, the sale of Property 7, the best comparable property, is that they assist the Board in determining if the current value is in line with the values of similar properties sold in the vicinity of Subject Property 1.

56Based on the evidence before me, I believe the most likely market value of Subject Property 1, based on a Class 5 soil classification, is between $1,674 per acre at the bottom of the range and $2,481 per acre at the top of the range which was established using the time-adjusted sale value of Property 7. Property 7 is clearly superior to Subject Property 1 because 30% of Property 7 consists of Class 2 and Class 4 soils which are superior to the Class 5 soil of Subject Property 1. I therefore agree with MPAC and conclude that Subject Property 1 would likely sell closer to the bottom end of the range or $1,674 per acre.

Subject Property 2

57Both parties submitted that Subject Property 2 would likely sell with Subject Property 1 as the forest on Subject Property 2 protects the crops on Subject Property 1 from the northern winds, and that it was highly unlikely that anyone would buy this 5 acre parcel of forest as a stand alone property. I therefore determine that the current value of this property should be in line with the current value per acre of Subject Property 1 at $1,674.

CONCLUSION

58The Board finds that the correct current value of Subject Property1 is $159,000 and Subject Property 2 is $8,370 based on $1,674 per acre for both, as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date.

59MPAC has not filed a notice of intention to seek a higher assessment, as required by Rule 40 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

ORDER

Subject Property 1

60The Board orders that the assessment of Subject Property 1 for the 2019 taxation year is confirmed at $155,000 and the classification is also confirmed as Farm Full. For the 2020 taxation year, the assessment is reduced from $195,000 to $159,000 and the classification is changed from a combination of Farm Full and Residential Full to Farm Full for the entire property.

Subject Property 2

61The Board orders that the assessment of Subject Property 2 for the 2019 taxation year is reduced from $9,300 to $8,370 and the classification is confirmed as Farm Full. For the 2020 taxation year, the assessment is reduced from $17,200 to $8,370 and the classification is changed from Residential Full to Farm Full.

“Anthony LaRegina”

ANTHONY LaREGINA

MEMBER

Assessment Review Board

A constituent tribunal of Tribunals Ontario

Website: www.arb.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

ATTACHMENT 1

MPAC’S PROPOSED PROPERTIES AND SALES INFORMATION

Subject Property 1

Subject Property 2

Property 1

Property 2

Roll Number

1450-116-070-04700

1450-116-070-04750

1411-011-050-21701

1450-116-050-08200

Address

Neighbourhood

F047 - 609

F031 - 609

F047 - 609

Property Code & Desc.

(260) Vacant Residential/Commercial/ Industrial Land Owned by A Non-Farmer with A Portion Being Farmed

(200) Farm Property Without Any Buildings/Structures

Distance in km

3.7673

4.5417

Valuation

Current Value Assessment

$159,000 (proposed)

$9,500 (proposed)

$246,000

$597,000

CVA / acre

$1,674 (proposed)

$1,900 (proposed)

$4,173

$4,295

Sale

Sale Date

2011-11-29

2009-01-09

Sale Amount

$130,000

$240,000

Time Adjusted Sale Amount

$201,809

$431,884

TAS / acre

$3,423

$3,107

Site

Actual Site Area (Acres)

58.95

138.99

Access

Summer or Seasonal Access Only

Year-Round Road Access

Farm Land

Farm Lands Class 1 Area

Farm Lands Class 2 Area

Farm Lands Class 3 Area

138.99

Farm Lands Class 4 Area

Farm Lands Class 5 Area

8.95

Farm Lands Class 6 Area

Managed Forest Total Area (Acres)

Conservation Land Total Area (Acres)

Page 1 of 5

MPAC’S PROPOSED PROPERTIES AND SALES INFORMATION

Subject Property 1

Subject Property 2

Property 3

Property 4

Roll Number

1450-116-070-04700

1450-116-070-04750

1411-011-050-19902

1450-116-080-02300

Address

TAIT RD

MACKLIN RD

Neighbourhood

F047 - 609

F031 - 609

F047 - 609

Property Code & Desc.

(260) Vacant Residential/Commercial/ Industrial Land Owned by A Non-Farmer with A Portion Being Farmed

(200) Farm Property Without Any Buildings/Structures

Distance in km

4.8192

5.4008

Valuation

Current Value Assessment

$159,000 (proposed)

$9,500 (proposed)

$563,000

$525,000

CVA / acre

$1,674 (proposed)

$1,900 (proposed)

$4,481

$3,500

Sale

Sale Date

2013-04-05

2008-01-03

Sale Amount

$360,000

$235,000

Time Adjusted Sale Amount

$459,572

$426,378

TAS / acre

$3,658

$2,843

Site

Actual Site Area (Acres)

125.64

150

Access

Summer or Seasonal Access Only

Year-Round Road Access

Farm Land

Farm Lands Class 1 Area

Farm Lands Class 2 Area

Farm Lands Class 3 Area

Farm Lands Class 4 Area

Farm Lands Class 5 Area

27.64

Farm Lands Class 6 Area

Managed Forest Total Area (Acres)

Conservation Land Total Area (Acres)

Page 2 of 5

MPAC’S PROPOSED PROPERTIES AND SALES INFORMATION

Subject Property 1

Subject Property 2

Property 5

Property 6

Roll Number

1450-116-070-04700

1450-116-070-04750

1450-1160-8015-000

1411-011-040-04050

Address

RAE LANE

COWIE RD

Neighbourhood

F047 - 609

F031 - 609

Property Code & Desc.

(260) Vacant Residential/Commercial/ Industrial Land Owned by A Non-Farmer with A Portion Being Farmed

(200) Farm Property Without Any Buildings/Structures

Distance in km

6.8671

9.6957

Valuation

Current Value Assessment

$159,000 (proposed)

$9,500 (proposed)

$386,000

$346,000

CVA / acre

$1,674 (proposed)

$1,900 (proposed)

$5,361

$3,627

Sale

Sale Date

2010-08-20

2014-07-03

Sale Amount

$200,000

Time Adjusted Sale Amount

$350,011

$224,014

TAS / acre

$4,861

$2,348

Site

Actual Site Area (Acres)

95.4

Access

Summer or Seasonal Access Only

Year-Round Road Access

Farm Land

Farm Lands Class 1 Area

Farm Lands Class 2 Area

Farm Lands Class 3 Area

Farm Lands Class 4 Area

38.4

Farm Lands Class 5 Area

Farm Lands Class 6 Area

Managed Forest Total Area (Acres)

Conservation Land Total Area (Acres)

Page 3 of 5

MPAC’S PROPOSED PROPERTIES AND SALES INFORMATION

Subject Property 1

Subject Property 2

Property 7

Property 8

Roll Number

1450-116-070-04700

1450-116-070-04750

1411-011-030-19500

1450-116-080-20300

Address

LILAC VALLEY RD

Neighbourhood

F047 - 609

F031 - 609

F047 - 609

Property Code & Desc.

(260) Vacant Residential/Commercial/ Industrial Land Owned by A Non-Farmer with A Portion Being Farmed

(200) Farm Property Without Any Buildings/Structures

Distance in km

10.7814

10.8493

Valuation

Current Value Assessment

$159,000 (proposed)

$9,500 (proposed)

$219,000

$650,000

CVA / acre

$1,674 (proposed)

$1,900 (proposed)

$2,190

$5,331

Sale

Sale Date

2013-07-11

2012-11-23

Sale Amount

$200,000

$490,000

Time Adjusted Sale Amount

$248,092

$660,286

TAS / acre

$2,481

$5,415

Site

Actual Site Area (Acres)

100

121.93

Access

Summer or Seasonal Access Only

No Access

Year-Round Road Access

Farm Land

Farm Lands Class 1 Area

Farm Lands Class 2 Area

111.93

Farm Lands Class 3 Area

Farm Lands Class 4 Area

Farm Lands Class 5 Area

Farm Lands Class 6 Area

Managed Forest Total Area (Acres)

Conservation Land Total Area (Acres)

Page 4 of 5

MPAC’S PROPOSED PROPERTIES AND SALES INFORMATION

Subject Property 1

Subject Property 2

Property 9

Property 10

Roll Number

1450-116-070-04700

1450-116-070-04750

1408-2060-601-1700

1408-206-060-21000

Address

COUNTY RD 27

ARANDA WAY

Neighbourhood

F047 - 609

F031 - 609

Property Code & Desc.

(260) Vacant Residential/Commercial/ Industrial Land Owned by A Non-Farmer with A Portion Being Farmed

(200) Farm Property Without Any Buildings/Structures

Distance in km

15.5105

16.289

Valuation

Current Value Assessment

$159,000 (proposed)

$9,500 (proposed)

$343,000

$272,000

CVA / acre

$1,674 (proposed)

$1,900 (proposed)

$8,380

$4,678

Sale

Sale Date

2011-04-01

2008-03-28

Sale Amount

$200,000

$120,000

Time Adjusted Sale Amount

$332,399

$217,500

TAS / acre

$8,121

$3,740

Site

Actual Site Area (Acres)

40.93

58.15

Access

Summer or Seasonal Access Only

Year-Round Road Access

Farm Land

Farm Lands Class 1 Area

40.93

Farm Lands Class 2 Area

31.16

Farm Lands Class 3 Area

Farm Lands Class 4 Area

Farm Lands Class 5 Area

12.99

Farm Lands Class 6 Area

Managed Forest Total Area (Acres)

Conservation Land Total Area (Acres)

Page 5 of 5