Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: January 22, 2025
Assessed Person(s): Terry Koufidis
Appellant(s): Terry Koufidis
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 19
Respondent(s): City of Hamilton
Property Location(s): 113 Jerome Park Drive
Municipality(ies): City of Hamilton
Roll Number(s): 2518-260-095-40745-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3527447
Taxation Year(s): 2024
Hearing Event No.: 785802
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Terry Koufidis
Andrew Attard
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Tim Oberle
City of Hamilton
No one appeared
HEARD: January 8, 2025 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S): Dan Weagant, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1113 Jerome Park Drive (the “subject property”) has an assessed value of $1,166,000, returned by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) for the 2024 taxation year. Terry Koufidis (the “Appellant”) believes that assessment is too high and appealed MPAC’s assessment. The appeal was filed under s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”).
Background
2At the outset of the hearing, the parties confirmed their agreement on the correct current value of the subject property. The Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) is also required to determine if that current value requires a downward adjustment to make it fair or equitable when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity, under s. 44(3) (b) of the Act.
3The Parties agree that the current value of the subject property is $879,975.
Issues for the Hearing
4At issue in this proceeding is:
- Whether an equity reduction in the current value should be made and if so, the amount of that reduction.
Result
5The Board finds that the current value of the subject property requires a reduction for it to be equitable when reference is made to the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity. The assessment of the subject property is reduced to $835,976 or $836,000, rounded.
ANALYSIS
Description of the Subject Property
6The subject property is a single-family dwelling, located in the Ancaster area of the City of Hamilton. It comprises a lot of approximately 0.19 acres and is improved with a two-storey dwelling of 3,420 square feet. It has a quality of construction of 8.0 applied by MPAC. The dwelling was constructed in 2003.
Issue 1 – Does the current value agreed to by the parties require a reduction for it to represent equitable assessment?
7The parties took the same approach to determining whether the current value requires a reduction to represent equitable assessment. That approach is known as an Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) study, where the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity are compared with the sale prices of those same properties. When each ASR is derived, the sample of ASRs is listed and the combined list is analyzed to determine the median ASR of that sample. Median ASRs from such samples are generally regarded as an indication of the level of assessment occurring within the vicinity of a subject property.
8ASR studies are a common method of determining whether a specific current value requires a reduction for it to reflect a fair or equitable assessment.
The Appellant’s Evidence and Submissions
9The Appellant relied on a sample of 30 sales of single-detached residential properties in his ASR study. In comparing the assessments to these 30 property sales, the Appellant used their actual sale prices. The result was a range of ASRs from 0.67 to 1.10, with a median of 0.85.
10The Appellant submitted that the current value agreed to by the parties should be reduced by 15% to align with the median ASRs demonstrated by his equity analysis.
MPAC’s Evidence and Submissions
11MPAC relied on a sample of 30 sales of single-detached residential properties in its study. In comparing the assessments to these 30 property sales, MPAC used the time adjusted sale (“TAS”) prices. The time adjustment factors used by MPAC were derived from a price change over time analysis of 411 single-detached properties occurring in the market area in 2015 and 2016. The result was a range of ASRs from 0.91 to 1.33 with a median of 0.99.
12MPAC submitted that median assessments resulting from ASR analyses like this one that fall between 0.95 and 1.05 reflect equitable assessment. Therefore, MPAC submitted further that there was no reason to reduce the current value agree to for that value to be considered equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.
Findings on Issue 1
13The Parties took the same approach to determining the equitable assessment question. Each drew upon a sample of 30 properties in the vicinity of the subject property where their respective assessments were compared to their sale prices. Of the 60 properties in total, one was the subject property. While each party had reservations about the specific properties used in their respective studies the most significant difference in their findings was that the Appellant compared assessments to the actual sale prices and MPAC compared assessments to TAS prices.
14A reasonable approach would be to combine the samples from the two sources, thereby created a much larger and more reliable sample. But that is difficult in this case because the data for each study differs with respect to the time of sales. The Appellant testified that there was no need to time adjust the sales in his sample because those sales occurred in 2015 and 2016, within 12 months before and 12 months after the statutory valuation day of January 1, 2016.
15Review of the data reveals imprecision in that position as 23 of the sales in the Appellant’s sample occurred in 2016 and seven occurred in 2015. This reflects an imbalance in the way the sales in the Appellant’s sample relate to their respective assessments and the valuation day.
16MPAC time adjusted its sales sample so the sale value could be compared directly to the respective assessments of each property sold. Time Adjustment Factors (“TAF”) were determined by MPAC in its valuation analysis from 411 sales of single detached residential properties. The Board finds that in order to apply the results of the combined sample of properties, the sales cited by the Appellant require time adjustment, not only to be comparable to MPAC’s sample, but also because the assessments and sales being compared need to reflect, as closely as possible, the ASR as of the valuation day.
17When the 30 property sales in the Appellant’s sample are time adjusted using MPAC’s TAFs, the range of ASRs changes to a range of 0.65 to 1.07.
18The Board disregards the inclusion of the subject property in the consideration of the ASRs in MPAC’s sample. The resulting 59 ASRs range from 0.65 to 1.15 with a median of 0.95. The Board notes that 15 of these 59 ASRs are at 1.00 or above, with 44 of the ASRs in the combined sample below 1.0. This is good evidence that, on a balance of probabilities, the assessments of single-detached dwellings in the vicinity of the subject property are assessed below their corresponding current values as determined by sales.
19The Board finds therefore, that the current value of the subject property requires a downward adjustment of 5%, consistent with the combined ASR studies in evidence, for it to be equitable when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.
CONCLUSION
20The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $879,975 and that this current value requires a reduction for the purposes of equitable assessment. The current value is therefore reduced to $835,976 ($836,000 rounded).
ORDER
21The Board orders that the assessment of 113 Jerome Park Drive is reduced to $836,000 for the 2024 taxation year.
"Dan Weagant"
DAN WEAGANT
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb