Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

June 08, 2021

FILE NO.:

WR 170294

Assessed Person(s):

Nicola Lamanna, Incoronata Maria Lamanna, Fernando Lamanna

Appellant(s):

Fernando Lamanna, Nicola Lamanna

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14

Respondent(s):

Town of Georgina

Property Location(s):

9 Queen Street

Municipality(ies):

Town of Georgina

Roll Number(s):

1970-000-070-16900-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3420584 and 3444093

Taxation Year(s):

2020 and 2021

Hearing Event No.:

742386

Legislative Authority:

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Fernando Lamanna

Self-represented

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Dennis Hughes

Town of Georgina

No one appeared

HEARD:

April 13, 2021 by telephone conference

ADJUDICATOR:

Anthony LaRegina, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Fernando Lamanna (the “Appellant”), representing himself as the current property owner, filed a property assessment appeal for the 2020 taxation year with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) regarding his property located at 9 Queen Street (“Subject Property”) in the Town of Georgina (“Town”). Pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Act”), the Appellant is deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of the 2021 taxation year.

2Pursuant to the provisions of the Act, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) conducted a general reassessment of the Subject Property and determined that its current value assessment was $926,000. It is the Appellant’s position that MPAC’s current value assessment is too high and that the correct current value assessment should be no more than $773,000. At this hearing, MPAC has taken the position that the current value assessment should be confirmed at $926,000.

3Pursuant to s. 40(11) of the of the Act, the Town is a party to this proceeding. No one appeared at the hearing on behalf of the Town, and no evidence was submitted on its behalf.

Issues for the Hearing

4The issues in this proceeding are:

1. a determination of the current value of the Subject Property; and

2. whether an equity reduction in the current value should be made to compensate for the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity.

Result

5The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2020 taxation year is $952,673. Pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act, a 5% equitable reduction is required to compensate for the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity, therefore reducing the current value assessment to $905,000. The Board orders 1) a reduction from the returned assessment value from $926,000 to $905,000 for the 2020 taxation year, and 2) that the same value be deemed for the 2021 taxation year.

Description of Subject Property

6The Subject Property is a residential single-family detached (not on water), located at 9 Queen Street in the Town of Georgina. The Subject Property is a two-storey home of quality 7 construction built in 2019. The structure has a building area of 4,005 square feet with 2,721 square feet on the main level, 1,284 square feet on the second level and 1,733 square feet in the basement (with no finished space). The lot has 66 feet of frontage by 202.45 feet of depth for a total effective area of 0.31 acres. The structure has 3 bedrooms, 3.5 bathrooms, one fireplace as well as a 517 square foot attached garage. The street has no curb, gutters or sidewalk. The Subject Property has been returned at $926,000 for the 2020 taxation year.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Issue 1 – A determination of the current value of the Subject Property

7The first issue to be determined on this appeal is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2020 taxation year. 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.”

8To determine market value, MPAC has utilized the direct sales comparison approach and submitted into evidence the sale of comparable properties in the vicinity of the Subject Property. The comparable properties are rarely sold on the valuation day of January 1, 2016, so their sale values are time-adjusted to greater or reduced values depending on whether the date of the sale occurred before or after the valuation day. According to the time-adjusted evidence submitted by MPAC, there was a 46.67% increase in market value over a 20-month period starting January 5, 2015 and ending September 30, 2016. MPAC created a time-adjustment factor table and graph by month covering the same period and applied these values to time-adjust the comparable sales provided in evidence.

MPAC’s Comparable Properties

9The Board has reviewed the details of the Subject Property as well as the two suggested comparable property sales, sold in May 2016 and September 2016, in the same building as the Subject Property, submitted by MPAC (see Table 1 below).

Table 1 - MPAC’s Comparable Property Sales

Subject Property

Property 1

Property 2

Address

9 Queen Street

71 Dr George Burrows Parkway

409 Lake Drive East

Property Code and Description

(P30-108) Single-Family Detached-Not on Water

(P31-108) Single-Family Detached-Not on Water

(O30-4) Single-Family Detached-Not on Water

Current Value Assessment $

926,000

660,000

1,158,000

Sale Date

September 2016

May 2016

Sale Value $

885,000

1,323,000

TAS sale value $

755,590

1,265,081

MPAC adjustment for Corner lot and Garage $

770,702

1,216,352

Effective Year Built

2019

2015

2014

Quality of Construction

7.0

6.5

7.0

Total Building Area – Square Feet

4,005

3,240

3,376

Full Storeys

2

2

2

Effective Site Area in Acres/Variable

0.31

0.25/Corner Lot

0.23/Corner Lot

MPAC’s Opinion of Comparability to Subject Property

Inferior

Superior

10MPAC has taken the position that both 71 Dr George Burrows Parkway and 409 Lake Drive East have similar lot sizes, quality of construction, built within 5 years of the Subject Property and located in the same vicinity and therefore are good comparable properties to establish the current value of the Subject Property. MPAC submits that the current value of the Subject Property falls within the fully adjusted sale range of the two comparable properties, with the lower end of the range at $770,702 and the upper end at $1,216,352. MPAC recommends that the current value of the Subject Property should be $993,527, the average between these two fully adjusted sale values.

11MPAC submits that the correct current value should be $993,000 rounded.

The Appellant’s Evidence

12The Appellant has entered three documents, the statement of issues dated November 2, 2020, four comparable properties submitted by MPAC during the Request for Reconsideration (“RFR”) stage, and an AboutMyProperty Report with 24 comparable properties supporting the Appellant’s case.

13The Appellant submits that during the RFR process, MPAC had presented four comparable properties, 4 Bamburg Street, 71 Dr George Burrows Parkway, 79 Dr George Burrows Parkway and 597 Lake Drive East. The Appellant has analysed the characteristics of these four properties and submits that 597 Lake Drive East is located across the street from Lake Simcoe and is therefore superior and not comparable to the Subject Property. The Appellant accepted the other three as comparable properties and submits that the average assessment value per square foot of 4 Bamburg Street, 71 Dr George Burrows Parkway and 79 Dr George Burrows Parkway is $193. Applying $193 assessment value per square foot to the 4,005 square foot building area of the Subject Property, the appellant submits that the current value of the Subject Property should be $772,965 rounded to $773,000, which is $153,000 lower than the assessed value of the Subject Property at $926,000.

14As an alternative approach, the Appellant also selected the following nine of the 24 properties listed on the AboutMyProperty Report and established the average assessment value of the nine properties which he asserts are the better comparable properties;

Property 1

10 River Street

$715,000

Property 2

34 River Street

$693,000

Property 3

45 S River Bend

$732,000

Property 5

32 River Street

$694,000

Property 6

28 Woodriver Bend

$735,000

Property 7

93 Woodriver Bend

$740,000

Property 9

97A Woodriver Bend

$747,000

Property 10

109 Woodriver Bend

$749,000

Property 11

68 Golfview Crescent

$656,000

Average Assessment Value

$717,888

Utilizing these nine comparable properties, the Appellant submits that the average assessment value is $718,000 which is $208,000 less than the assessed value of the Subject Property at $926,000.

15The Appellant submits that based on the analysis in paragraphs 13 and 14, the current value assessment of the Subject Property should be between $718,000 and $773,000, which represents a reduction from the returned value between $153,000 and $208,000.

Findings on Issue 1 - Current Value of the Subject Property

16In support of establishing a current value for the Subject Property, the Board has analysed all the evidence submitted by both parties and concludes that the best evidence in support of current value for the Subject Property are the two property sales submitted by MPAC of 71 Dr George Burrows Parkway and 409 Lake Drive East. These properties are located in the same vicinity, have similar lot sizes, quality of construction and built within 5 years of the Subject Property.

17The Board also agrees with MPAC that the correct current value of the Subject Property falls within the adjusted sale range of MPAC’s two comparable property sales between $770,702 and $1,216,352.

18However, the Board does not agree with MPAC that the current value should be the average between the lower and upper end of the adjusted sale range, which in this case is also the midpoint of the range at $993,527.

19The Board agrees with the Appellant that 409 Lake Drive East is located across the street from the lake and therefore substantially superior to the Subject Property which is located 5.1 kilometres from the lake. Since 409 Lake Drive East represents the top of the value range, the Board will not rely on the adjusted sale value of 409 Lake Drive East to establish the current value of the Subject Property.

20It is clear from the evidence that the best comparable sale is 71 Dr George Burrows Parkway, which is located only 1.34 kilometres away from the Subject Property, has a slightly smaller lot and building area and was sold in September 2016 for an adjusted sale value of $770,702, translating into an adjusted sale value per square foot of $237.87. Applying this value to the 4,005 square foot building area of the Subject Property yields a current value for the Subject Property of $952,673.

21The Board has analysed the two approaches used by the Appellant and concludes that both approaches are an attempt to establish the current value of the Subject Property based on the assessments of other properties in the vicinity and not based on a market driven approach identifying sales of comparable properties. The Board will therefore not rely on these approaches to determine the correct current value of the Subject Property.

22Furthermore, out of the 24 properties submitted by the Appellant, nine were waterfront properties. The other 15 have substantially smaller building areas and are much older properties as compared to the Subject Property. The Subject Property was built in 2019 and has 4,005 square feet of building area which is 26% to 62% larger than any of the other 15 properties. The Board has determined that these 24 properties are not directly comparable to the Subject Property and will not rely on these properties to establish the current value of the Subject Property.

23In analysing the four comparable properties submitted by the Appellant, which MPAC introduced during the RFR process, the Board notes that one of the properties is 71 Dr George Burrows Parkway, which was submitted by MPAC and utilized by the Board in support of current value of the Subject Property. Regarding 4 Bamburg Street, 79 Dr George Burrows Parkway and 597 Lake Drive East, the Appellant has not provided any sales or property detail information, and therefore the Board cannot determine points of comparability between these three properties and the Subject Property. Based on the lack of detailed information, the Board will not rely on these three properties to establish the current value of the Subject Property.

24Based on the best available evidence, the Board finds the correct current value of the Subject Property to be $952,673 based on a January 1, 2016 valuation day.

Issue 2 – Whether an adjustment to the assessment of the land should be made to compensate for the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity

25Section 44(3)(b) directs that, after determining current value, the Board shall have reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed and “… adjust the assessment of the land to make it equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity if such an adjustment would result in a reduction of the assessment of the land.”

26The Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) of a sample of sold properties is a tool often used to determine if a property in the vicinity is assessed below its current value. If other properties are assessed below their current value, a reduction in the assessment below current value is required to make the assessment equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The ASR is determined by comparing the assessment as returned to the time-adjusted sale price, expressed as a mathematical ratio.

27MPAC presented an equity analysis of 30 property sales of single-family detached homes with a property code of 301 that occurred from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016, located within one kilometres of the Subject Property. This equity analysis of the 30 properties results in a median ASR of 0.95 with a Coefficient of Dispersion (“COD”) of 13.9. MPAC submits that its standards indicate that for residential properties, the median ASR should fall between 0.95 and 1.05, and the COD should be less than 15. In this case, the median ratio has fallen exactly at 0.95 which is the bottom of the acceptable range, and therefore MPAC has recommended a five percent downward adjustment to the current value assessment of the Subject Property in order to compensate for the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

28The Appellant has introduced the same two approaches covered under current value to establishing the assessed value of the Subject Property. In the first approach, he introduced the four properties, which MPAC utilized during the RFR process, and determined that the assessment value of the Subject Property should be based on the three most similar properties establishing an assessed rate per square foot of $193. Applying the value to the Subject Property, the Appellant determined that the assessment of the Subject Property should be $773,000. In the second approach, he utilized nine of the 24 properties in his vicinity to determine the average assessment value of $718,000.

Findings on Issue 2 - Equitable Reduction in Assessed Value

29The Board finds that the best evidence in support of an equitable reduction in the assessment value is MPAC’s equity study which resulted in the ASR of 0.95 and a COD of 13.9. Based on the ASR of 0.95, the Board agrees with MPAC that an additional 5% downward adjustment is warranted to the current value of the Subject Property to ensure that the assessment is equitable with the assessment of similar properties in the vicinity.

30The Board has analysed and rejects both approaches used by the Appellant. In the first approach, the Appellant suggests that his property should be compared to three other properties of which we have no detailed information to do a comparison to the Subject Property other than 91 Dr George Burrows Parkway, which was submitted by MPAC and utilized by the Board to establish the current value. In the second approach, the Appellant has determined the average assessment value of the nine properties with no regard for the fact that these properties are substantially different to the Subject Property. Finally, in both approaches, the Appellant has not time-adjusted any of the sale values and therefore has not adequately compared the assessment values to the time-adjusted sale values in order to understand the relationship between the assessments and market values.

31The Board will therefore rely on the Equity Study presented by MPAC as the best evidence in support of an equity adjustment.

CONCLUSION

32The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $952,673 for the 2020 taxation year. Furthermore, the Board finds that a 5% equity reduction is required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Act to reduce the current value assessment to $905,039 rounded to $905,000.

ORDER

33The Board orders that the assessment of the Subject Property be reduced from $926,000 to $905,000 for the 2020 taxation year and that this value be deemed for 2021 taxation year.