Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

January 31, 2022

FILE NO.:

175942

Assessed Person(s):

Dale Randa

Appellant(s):

Dale Randa

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 32

Respondent(s):

Municipality of Greenstone

Property Location(s):

71 Macintosh Road

Municipality(ies):

Municipality of Greenstone

Roll Number(s):

5876-740-009-02600-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3458266

Taxation Year(s):

2021

Hearing Event No.:

759565

Legislative Authority:

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Dale Randa

Self-represented

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Geoffrey Terpstra

Municipality of Greenstone

No one appeared

HEARD:

January 13, 2022 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S):

Subuola Awoleri, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Dale Randa, (the “Appellant”), owner of 71 Macintosh Road (the “Subject Property”), appealed the 2021 assessment of the Subject Property to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) under s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) on the ground that the assessment is too high. The Appellant argued that the current value of the Subject Property should be between $320,000 - $330,000.

2The Subject Property was assessed by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) at $516,000 for the 2021 taxation year, with a revised current value assessment (“CVA”) of $589,000 for new structures and data correction. MPAC’s opinion of value based on market sales is $500,000. MPAC asked the Board to reduce the assessment of the Subject Property to $500,000.

3At the completion of the hearing, the Board reserved its decision.

Issues for the Hearing

4The issues to be determined are:

What is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2021 taxation year?
Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act, and, if so, what the amount of this reduction should be?

Result

5The Board determines the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2021 taxation year to be $439,000 (rounded).

6The Board finds that there is no evidence to support a conclusion that the Subject Property requires a reduction in its determined current value in order to make it equitable with the assessment of similar properties in the vicinity.

7The Board reduces the assessment of the Subject Property from $516,000 to $439,000 (rounded) for the 2021 taxation year.

ANALYSIS

Description of the Subject Property

8The Subject Property is a one and half waterfront residential dwelling built in 2017 located in the Greenstone Municipality. It has a lot with 127.23 feet (“ft.”) of effective frontage and 311.56 ft. of effective depth for an effective site area of 0.91 acres. It has a total building area of 2,353 square feet (“sq. ft.”), with construction quality of 7.0 and no basement area. It has two detached garages, two gazebo’s and one pool house/cabana.

Issue 1 - What is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2021 taxation year?

9In accordance with s. 44(3)(a) of the Act, the first mandate of 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.” That is, for the2021 taxation year, the Board must determine what the Subject Property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the January 1, 2016 valuation day set by the Act.

10The best evidence the Board can receive of current value is an arm’s length and market-tested sale of the Subject Property on the valuation date or close to it. If no such transaction took place, the next best measure of current value is arm’s length and market-tested sales of comparable properties located nearby, as close as possible to the legislated valuation date of January 1, 2016.

11There was a sale of the Subject Property on May 31, 2016 for $100,000. This sale was only for the vacant land and a detached garage. The remaining secondary structures on the Subject Property and the building were built after this sale, therefore these structures were not included in the purchase price.

12The Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property for the 2021 taxation year to be $439,000 (rounded).

Proposed Comparable Properties

13MPAC presented the Board with five proposed comparable property sales. These five proposed comparable property sales were built between 1998 - 2014, with effective site areas ranging from 0.69 - 1.26 acres and building sizes from 1,344 - 2,839 sq. ft. The quality of construction of these property sales are between 6.0 - 7.5. Three of these proposed comparable property sales have basement areas of which only one is finished, unlike the Subject Property that does not have a basement area. The details of MPAC’s proposed comparable property sales are in Table 1: Appendix E - Market Grid Analysis attached at the end of this Decision.

14MPAC submitted that proposed comparable property Sales 2, 3, 4 and 5 are inferior to the Subject Property. The Board agrees with MPAC. These inferior property sales have building sizes ranging from 1,344 - 1,546 sq. ft., compared to the Subject Property that has a larger building size of 2,353 sq. ft. The year built of these inferior property sales ranges from 1998 - 2012, whereas, the Subject Property is newer, built in 2017. Furthermore, the inferior property sales have fewer secondary structures than the Subject Property that has two detached garages, two gazebo’s and one pool house/cabana. Only property Sale 4 has two detached garages and one outdoor sauna, which is still less than the Subject Property’s secondary structures. Although comparable property Sale 3 has a basement area of 1,347 sq. ft. of which 740 sq. ft. is finished, this property has a smaller lot size of 0.74 acres, smaller building size of 1,347 sq. ft. with only a shed. This is still inferior to the Subject Property with a larger lot size and larger building size with more secondary structures. The time adjusted sale price of these inferior sales ranges from $252,217 - $306,127.

15The Board finds that MPAC’s proposed comparable Sale 1 is superior to the Subject Property. It has a larger lot size of 0.94 acres, a building size that is 486 sq. ft. larger than the Subject Property, with a higher quality of construction of 7.5, with an additional bedroom and half bath. It also had an additional attached garage, in addition to its two detached garages. Although it is 3 years older than the Subject property, these features make it superior to the Subject Property.

16In recognizing the fact that the Subject Property does not have a basement area, and some of MPAC’s comparable property sales have basement areas, MPAC provided the Board with the rate per sq. ft. of the land and house excluding the basement and secondary structure values of all its comparable property sales. MPAC provided the rates per sq. ft. for comparable property Sales1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 as $177.25, $187.19, $162.58, $181.87 and $165.30 per sq. ft., with a median rate per sq. ft of $177.25. MPAC further applied the median rate per sq. ft of $177.25 against the total building area of the Subject Property of 2,353 sq. ft., which provides a value of $417,069.25. MPAC added the value of the secondary structures on the Subject Property, which MPAC provided as $83,549, which provides a total value of $500,618.25. MPAC submitted that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $500,000 (rounded).

17The Board finds that using the median rate per sq. ft. of all MPAC’s comparable property sales is not appropriate, since MPAC admitted that four of its comparable properties are inferior to the Subject Property. Furthermore, MPAC made negative adjustments to the comparable property sales with basements and valued the secondary structures on them including the Subject Property but did not provide the Board with evidence on how it quantified these adjustments. MPAC confirmed that the values it provided for the secondary structures and basements was derived from its model, based on the market. A potential buyer of the Subject Property will compare the sale price of similar properties within the vicinity and will not calculate the value of the different structures, as they are already within the purchase price. Moreover, the Board requires evidence to quantify or measure the impact of these factors against the current value of the Subject Property. The Board cannot speculate or arbitrary calculate these impacts to the current value of the Subject Property.

18The Appellant presented the Board with five proposed comparable properties. It used MPAC’s proposed comparable property Sales 2 and 4, which the Board determined to be inferior to the Subject property. The Appellant’s three other comparable property sales are: 45 Macintosh Road, 30 MacPhail Drive and 21 Macintosh Road. 45 Macintosh Road and 30 MacPhail Drive have no recent sale. The Appellant argued that these five comparable property sales have superior features with lower assessment values than the Subject Property, therefore the Subject Property is assessed too high. Consequently, the Appellant argued that based on these assessed values and the sales on these proposed comparable property sales the current value of the Subject Property should be between $320,000 - $330,000.

19The Board has made a determination that MPAC’s property Sales 2 and 4 are inferior to the Subject Property. Furthermore, when an assessed value is used rather than market sales to determine current value, the result may be an incorrect current value pursuant to the definition of current value in the Act.

20The mandate of the Board in accordance with the Act, is to determine the current value of the Subject Property and these can only be done by using the sales of similar properties that sold at or near the valuation date of January 1, 2016. MPAC advised the Board that one of the Appellant’s comparable property sale - 21 Macintosh Road, which sold in 2017, is not a valid sale, based on the Appellant’s testimony, which indicated that it was sold from a transferred company for $255,000. The Appellant did not object to this and did not present any corroborating documentary evidence to prove that it was an arm’s length sale, therefore the Board will disregard this sale.

Finding on Current Value

21The Board determines the current value of the Subject Property based on the current value range established by these inferior and superior property sales. On a balance of probabilities, the current value of the Subject Property should fall within the time adjusted sale price range of the inferior property Sales 2, 3, 4, and 5 being $252,217 - $306,127 and the superior property Sale 1 at $572,627.

22The mid-point of the current value range is $439,377. The Board finds the correct current value of the Subject Property to be $439,000 (rounded).

Issue 2 - Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act, and, if so, what the amount of this reduction should be.

23 Section 44(3)(b) of the Act 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.

24The Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) is a tool often used to determine if a reduction in the assessment below current value is required to make an assessment equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The ASR is determined by dividing the assessment as returned by the Time Adjusted Sale (TAS) price.

25MPAC presented an equity analysis of 24 Single Family Detached On Water and Seasonal/Recreational Dwelling - First Tier On Water with sales that occurred from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2017, within 50 kilometers of the Subject Property. The median ASR of the sales is 0.98. MPAC submitted that the International Association of Assessing Officers standards states that the level of appraisal for all properties should fall between 0.90 and 1.10. MPAC takes the position that equity is achieved if the median ASR falls between 0.95 - 1.05.

26MPAC submitted that with a median ASR of 0.98, based on its equity analysis, similar properties in the vicinity have been assessed at or near their current value, therefore an equity adjustment is not required.

27The Appellant provided five properties and submitted their assessments are lower than the Subject Property. MPAC provided a more representative sample size, which is preferred and will provide a general level of assessment of similar lands in the vicinity. The Board notes that MPAC used two of the Appellant’s comparable property sales, which were also MPAC’s comparable property sales as part of its equity analysis.

28The Board agrees with MPAC that a median ASR of 0.98, reveals that similar properties in the vicinity have been assessed at or near their current value, therefore an equity adjustment is not necessary.

29The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $439,000 (rounded) with no equitable adjustment.

CONCLUSION

30The Board finds the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2021 taxation year to be $439,000 (rounded) and this current value is equitable with the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity, therefore an equitable adjustment is not necessary.

ORDER

31The Board orders that the assessment of the Subject Property is reduced from $516,000 to $439,000 (rounded) for the 2021 taxation year.

"Subuola Awoleri"

SUBUOLA AWOLERI

MEMBER

Assessment Review Board

Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb

Table 1

Appendix E – Market Analysis Grid

Subject Property

Property #1

Property #2

Property #3

Property #4

Property #5

Roll Number

587674000902600

587699000303500

587674000904500

587630000002300

587674000903600

587630000002200

Address

71 MACINTOSH RD

14 MARGO LAKE RD E

29 MACINTOSH RD

16 CAMP 25 RD

11 MACINTOSH RD

14 CAMP 25 RD E

Neighbourhood

P02 - 485

J83 - 485

P02 - 485

J77 - 485

P02 - 485

J77 - 485

Property Code & Desc.

(313) Single Family

Detached On Water

(313) Single Family

Detached On Water

(313) Single Family

Detached On Water

(313) Single Family

Detached On Water

(313) Single Family

Detached On Water

(313) Single Family

Detached On Water

Distance in km

44.9

1.1

15.6

1.1

15.6

Sale

Sale Date

20170818

20150714

20160530

20140730

20150612

Sale Amount

$600,000

$302,000

$255,000

$265,000

$280,000

Instrument Number

TY238304

TY199735

TY215850

TY181196

TY197836

Analysis

Valid For Analysis

Time Adjusted Sale Amount

$572,627

$306,127

$252,217

$276,877

$284,533

Site

Effective Frontage (F)

127.23

125.59

155.98

135

152.87

134.2

Effective Depth (F)

311.56

326.03

329.53

238.77

359.03

223.97

Effective Site Area (Acres)

0.91

0.94

1.18

0.74

1.26

0.69

Water Service Code

Lake Or River

Private Well

Sanitary

Septic Bed

Hydro Code

Hydro Available

Residential Structure

Structure Code & Desc.

(301) Single Family

Detached

(301) Single Family

Detached

(301) Single Family

Detached

(301) Single Family

Detached

(301) Single Family

Detached

(301) Single Family

Detached

Year Built

2017

2014

2012

2000

1998

1995

Structure Variable(s)

Foundation

(B) Basement Walkout

Quality of Construction

7.5

Full Storeys

1 1/2 Storeys

1 Storey

1 1/2 Storeys

1 Storey

Bedrooms

Baths

2.5

1.5

Fire Places

Air Conditioning

Building Total Area (SF)

2353

2,839

1,546

1,347

1,344

1,464

First Floor Area (SF)

1713

2839

884

1347

1344

1464

Second Floor Area (SF)

640

662

Upper Floor Area (3rd and above)(SF)

Basement Area (SF)

884

1,347

1,464

Finished Basement Area (SF)

740

Secondary Structure(s)

Structure Description

(101) Detached Garage

(102) Shed

(101) Detached Garage

Year Built

2010

2008

1973

1980

1987

1955

Building Total Area (SF)

1165

1140

320

648

300

720

Quality of Construction

Structure Description

(101) Detached Garage

(116) Attached Garage

(101) Detached Garage

Year Built

2017

2014

1987

Building Total Area (SF)

1176

446

936

Quality of Construction

Structure Description

(122) Gazebo

(102) Shed

(127) Outdoor Sauna/Hot

Tub

Year Built

2018

2015

1998

Building Total Area (SF)

226

248

112

Quality of Construction

Structure Description

(122) Gazebo

(101) Detached Garage

Year Built

2018

2016

Building Total Area (SF)

175

878

Quality of Construction

Structure Description

(123) Pool House /

Cabana

Year Built

2020

Building Total Area (SF)

194

Quality of Construction

Dale Randa v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 32, 2022 CanLII 7601

Case Summary

DECISION

OVERVIEW

Issues for the Hearing

Result

ANALYSIS

Description of the Subject Property

Issue 1 - What is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2021 taxation year?

Proposed Comparable Properties

Finding on Current Value

Issue 2 - Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act, and, if so, what the amount of this reduction should be.

CONCLUSION

ORDER