IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO S. 50 OF THE ASSESSMENT ACT

CONCERNING:

John F Swib

APPELLANT

AND

Assessor Of Area #14 - Surrey/White Rock

RESPONDENT

INTRODUCTION

[1] The Appellant, Mr. John Swib, owns two adjacent residential acreage properties located at 15729 and 15721 112^th Avenue, Surrey.  They are zoned RA allowing single family housing on suburban lots of one acre or larger and have older buildings of nominal value assessed at $25,000.  Mr. Swib contends that the assessments of the properties are too high and that the Assessor has not taken into consideration the negative impacts of a ravine and creek, as well as City of Surrey bylaw and Department of Fisheries (DFO) restrictions that limit the usable area and development potential. 

[2] Mr. Swib also contends that the assessed values are inequitable in relation to other similar properties in the neighbourhood and that 15751 112^th Avenue qualifies for consideration under section 19(8) of the Assessment Act.

[3] The Assessor contends that the appropriate market value for the property at 15729 112^th Avenue is $771,000 for the land and $25,000 for the improvements for a total of $796,000, and for 15751 112^th Avenue is $982,000 for the land and $25,000 for the improvements for a total of $1,007,000.  The Assessor contends that the assessed values of $659,000 for 15729 112^th Avenue and $927,000 for 15751 112^th Avenue are within a reasonable range of market value and are equitable in the area and requests confirmation of the 2009 roll.

ISSUES

[4] The first issue is whether the properties’ assessed values accurately reflect their market values as of the valuation date.  For the 2009 roll the valuation date is the lower of the property’s market value as of July 1, 2007 or July 1, 2008 in its condition as of October 31, 2008.  The parties agree that the appropriate valuation date is July 1, 2007.

[5] The second issue is whether the assessed values are equitable in relation to other similar properties in the area.

[6] The third issue is whether the property at 15751 112^th Avenue qualifies for and is entitled to relief under section 19(8) of the Assessment Act.

SUBMISSIONS AND ANALYSIS

Preliminary Matters

[7] Mr. Swib’s submission is a lengthy and repetitive document that is unclear in several areas.  He makes analogical references to the airport police and lottery and questions the Board’s neutrality suggesting that it favours BC Assessment, that BC Assessment does not follow its procedures and is not subject to any procedural governance.  He also suggests that BC Assessment employees have the ability to provide under market assessments to friends and special interest groups and are in conflict of interest. 

[8] The Board does not have a supervisory role over BC Assessment.  Its sole jurisdiction is to determine whether or not assessments are correct.  Therefore, I will not rule on issues concerning the conduct of BC Assessment.

[9] Mr. Swib does not provide specifics or details that substantiate his suggestions with respect to the Board’s neutrality.  The evidence before me does not support Mr. Swib’s opinions and suggestions of neutrality, conflict of interest and procedural anomalies and I will not give them further consideration.

[10] Mr. Swib takes issue with various wording and notations in the Assessor’s documents, the Appeal Management Conference record and previous appeals suggesting that, in his opinion, his references, comparables or notations have been missed or ignored.  Mr. Swib’s references to past appeals and evidence are not relevant to this appeal and I will not give them further consideration. 

Actual Value – 15729 112 Avenue

Appellant’s Submission

[11] Mr. Swib contends that BC Assessment fails to take the market into consideration and values his properties as if flat and developable with no restrictions. 

[12] Mr. Swib takes issue with the Assessor’s Argument document and quotes:

“Grounds for Appeal

Mr. Swib has indicated the value of his single family property in Surrey is too high.”

[13] He submits that it should read:

“Mr. Swib has indicated the value of his 21/2 A property (15751 – 112 Ave) (zoned RA) is too high in comparison to like size properties in the same jurisdiction namely

10219 176 St – 1 ½ Acres

And formally 10177 – 176 St and now 17517, 17533, 17551, 17569 and 17585 Abbey Drive by subdivision

And the 15729 112 Ave is too high in comparison to 10061 – 176 St. which is flat and can be subdivided into 3 – ½ A lots”.  (sic)

[14] The Assessor’s document is submitted as evidence.  It is the Board’s jurisdiction to decide its relevance with respect to the issues, not to make changes to it.

[15] Mr. Swib refers to a Provincial publication and quotes:

“How does the Assessment Authority come up with actual value?

When valuing your property, the assessor takes into account location, size, topography, shape, replacement cost, age, condition, sales of comparable properties in the area and anything else that might affect the value of your property.”

[16] Mr. Swib contends that the Assessor does not consider the ravine as something affecting his properties and fails to determine the actual value of the land for the comparables he provides as well as his properties. 

[17] Mr. Swib contends that he is unfairly criticized for using only assessed value comparisons and he refers to a Provincial publication and specifically the word “or” (underlined) that provides:

“FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

WHAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE SHOULD I BRING?

The best evidence will support the change you wish to see to your property assessment.  For example, if you think your property is assessed too high, then you need to bring relevant property assessment or sales information that supports this position.”

[18] Mr. Swib notes that BC Assessment bases assessments on market sales information.  He, therefore, argues that assessment information is a valid indication of market value and suggests that if not, the Assessor could be in a conflict of interest. 

[19] Mr. Swib calculates his property at 15729 112 Avenue as having 0.23 acres usable area of its total 1.26 acres.  He also refers to it as having 80% unusable and 20% (0.252 acres) usable.  He does not provide details of his calculations.  He submits that it is assessed at $503,175 per acre based on its usable land. 

[20] The Assessor does not agree with Mr. Swib’s calculation and notes the usable area as approximately 0.973 acres using the City of Surrey’s Cosmos mapping service. 

[21] Mr. Swib refers to a comparable property located at 10061 176 Street.  He submits that it is 1.6 acres with no restrictions and development potential for three 0.5 acre lots.  He notes that it has a view of the Golden Ears Bridge and that Barnston Drive to the north is partially complete with services.  He also notes that it is assessed at $799,000 or $499,375 per acre.  He argues that his property’s usable land is unfairly assessed at $2,756,521.  He does not provide details of his calculations.

[22] Mr. Swib also submits that 10061 176 Street has been used for commercial purposes and, in his opinion, because he has used it in his previous appeals, in 2009 the commercial uses were removed.  He does not provide evidence to support his information.

[23] Mr. Swib argues that because BC Assessment values other 0.5 acres lots at $420,000 in his opinion, based on its development potential for three 0.5 acre lots and sale listing information of other 0.5 acre lots, 10061 176 Street is worth from $1,260,000 to $1,800,000 or $420,000 to $600,000 per 0.5 acre lot.  

[24] The Assessor does not agree with Mr. Swib’s calculations and submits that 10061 176 Street is assessed at $493,210 per acre based on one building site and its zoning for one acre single family parcels.  The Assessor also notes that the future expansion of Barnston Road will require a portion of 10061 176 Street limiting its subdivision potential.  The Assessor submits that it is inferior to the subject and that Mr. Swib does not adjust for its location on a busy commuter and truck route portion of 176 Street near the CN Intermodal yard.

[25] The Assessor also notes that larger properties with one building site will generally have smaller per acre values (as does 10061 176 Street) than smaller properties with one building site (as does the subject).

Assessor’s Submission – 15729 112 Avenue

[26] The Assessor submits an appraisal report, prepared by Ms. Burton an employee of BC Assessment.  Ms. Burton uses the direct comparison method analyzing three comparable sales all zoned RA, as is the subject.  She adjusts for size based on usable area and for time, view and location based on evidence of paired sales of properties in the Fraser Heights area.  She determines an adjusted value for the subject of $796,000 as of July 1, 2007. 

[27] Ms. Burton’s first comparable is located at 15675 112 Avenue.  It is 1.26 acres with 0.505 acres usable area and sold for $775,000 in September 2006.  Ms. Burton submits that discussions with the selling agent indicate that it was purchased as a vacant lot and that a new home has been built since the sale.  She notes that it is adjacent to the subject on the same street and has the same location influences.  Given its similar overall and usable size to the subject, she gives it the most weight and determines an adjusted market value of $796,000.

[28] Mr. Swib contends that 15675 112 Avenue is an unusual sale.  He notes that it is his understanding that it sold, resold and then sold again at an above market price.  He notes that it is 0.6 acres of usable land with 85 meters of top land with no DFO restrictions and has a winter view.  Mr. Swib contends that it is not comparable in that his property has only 0.23 acres of top land with DFO restrictions prohibiting similar construction.  He does not provide details of his calculations or evidence to support his information. 

[29] Ms. Burton’s second comparable is located at 9713 182A Street and sold for $820,000 in March 2007.  She notes that its lot size is comparable to the subject at 1.24 acres.  However, the site is entirely usable with no restrictions.  She also notes that it has an older home that is smaller than the subject and that it is further away bordering the industrial area making its location less desirable for single family homes.  She determines an adjusted market value of $758,000.

[30] Mr. Swib argues that, in his opinion, 9713 182A is not comparable, its location is not inferior and it has “market potential with the surrounding lands”.  He does not explain what market potential he refers to or evidence to support his opinions.

[31] Ms. Burton’s third comparable is located at 10146 173 Street and sold for $815,000 in July 2007.  Ms. Burton notes that it is 1.12 acres and entirely usable.  She also notes that an older home has been demolished and a new one built indicating that the property was considered vacant when sold.  She determines an adjusted market value of $666,000.

[32] Mr. Swib argues that 10146 173 Street is surrounded by executive style homes in a quiet secluded area and that it does not have a ravine or DFO restrictions.  In his opinion, it is not comparable and the seller included the value of the home in the sale.  He does not provide evidence to support his opinions. 

[33] Ms. Burton determines a range of market value between $666,000 and $796,000 and an adjusted market value for the subject’s land of $771,000 with a total market value of $796,000 as of July 1, 2007.

Appellant’s Submission – 15751 112 Avenue

[34] Mr. Swib calculates his property at 15751 112 Avenue as having 0.6 acres usable area of its total 2.53 acres.  However, he also refers to it as having 25% (.633 acres) usable.  Mr. Swib argues that his property is unfairly assessed too high at $1,503,333 based on its usable area.

[35] Ms. Burton does not agree with Mr. Swib’s calculation and submits that the usable area is 0.973 acres calculated using the City of Surrey’s Cosmos mapping system and she notes that the subject is assessed at $356,522 per acre.

[36] Mr. Swib submits three comparables and their assessed values.  One of them has been subdivided and he also submits sale listing information for its subdivided lots.

[37] Mr. Swib’s first comparable is located at 10219 176 Street and is 2.5 acres.  He notes that it is flat with development potential for five 0.5 acre lots.  Mr. Swib notes that it is assessed at $965,000 or $386,000 per acre.  In his opinion, its market value is over $2,000,000 and he questions its low assessed value.

[38] Ms. Burton does not agree with Mr. Swib’s per acre calculations and notes that 10219 176 Street is assessed based on its zoning for single family dwellings of one acre or larger at $395,492 per acre.  She also submits that no applications for re-development have been applied for.  Ms. Burton notes that Mr. Swib does not consider and adjust for its location on 176 Street or for a creek that encumbers a portion of it.  Ms. Burton notes that the subject’s lower per acre assessed value confirms that its usable area and restrictions have been considered.

[39] Mr. Swib’s second comparable is located at 10177 176 Street is 2.5 acres and flat with a view.  He provides photocopied photographs of the development proposal and realtor’s sale signs and notes that this property has been subdivided into five 0.5 acre lots that are currently offered for sale at $599,900.  In his opinion, this property is worth over $3,000,000.  He notes that the assessed values are $402,000 per lot and he suggests that the Assessor could be in a conflict of interest.  However, he also provides copies of the current City of Surrey Property Information Reports showing the assessed values between $420,000 and $422,000.  

[40] Ms. Burton submits that the lots were not serviced on October 31, 2008, the date the property’s physical condition is reflected in the assessed value.  She notes that the Multiple Listing Service from June 2009 to November 2009 had them listed at $529,000 and that none had sold as of the date of her report. 

[41] Ms. Burton submits that 10177 176 Street is the same size as the subject and that the subject’s lower per acre assessed value confirms that the subject’s usable area and restrictions are considered. 

[42] Mr. Swib’s third comparable is 0.75 acres and located at 11277 158A Street.  He notes it as flat with a panoramic view, fully developable and assessed at $690,000 or $920,000 per acre. 

[43] Ms. Burton disagrees with Mr. Swib’s per acre calculation and submits that 11277 158A Street is 0.761 acres, assessed at $690,000 or $906,702 per acre.  She notes that this property also confirms that the subject’s usable area and restrictions are considered in its assessed value.

Assessor’s Submission – 15751 112 Avenue

[44] The Assessor submits an appraisal report also prepared by Ms. Burton, using the direct comparison method analyzing three comparable sales, all zoned RA as is the subject.  She adjusts for size, time, view and location on the same basis as her report for 15729 112 Avenue. 

[45] Ms. Burton’s first comparable is located adjacent to the subject at 15775 112 Avenue.  It is 2.26 acres with 1.688 usable acres and sold for $1,150,000 in January 2007.  She notes that discussions with the purchaser indicate that it was purchased as a vacant single family building lot with no intention to subdivide and that since the sale a new home has been built.  Ms. Burton notes that this property’s overall size is slightly smaller than the subject’s while its usable size is slightly larger.  She considers this sale the most comparable to the subject and determines an adjusted market value of $1,007,000. 

[46] Mr. Swib contends that 15775 112 Avenue is not comparable.  He notes that it has a private park-like setting with the building site 100 meters from the road and that the house is designed to open on the lower level providing a view and making the ravine an asset.  He calculates the usable land as 2 acres and notes that it is approved for a five lot subdivision.  He also submits that his discussions with the owner indicate that the owner intends to build a large home and subdivide the front portion sometime in the future.  He also states that, in his opinion, the home has been expanded into the DFO setback.  He does not provide details of his calculation or documentation to support his information.

[47] In her rebuttal, Ms. Burton submits that an engineering proposal was prepared for the previous owner of 15775 112 Avenue and that it was determined that servicing costs were prohibitive making subdivision unviable and that the results of the engineering proposal indicate that the adjacent subject is also not considered viable for subdivision.

[48] Ms. Burton’s second comparable is located at 15675 112 Avenue and is the same one she uses to determine a market value for 15729 112 Avenue.  She determines an adjusted market value of $919,000.

[49] As noted previously, Mr. Swib contends that 15675 112 Avenue is an unusual sale and is not comparable.

[50] Ms. Burton’s third comparable is located at 9716 182A Street.  It is 2 acres entirely usable and sold as a vacant lot in September 2007 for $913,308.  She notes that it is further away than comparables #1 and #2 and that discussions with the listing realtor and purchaser indicate that there are no immediate development plans except the possibility of a single family dwelling.  Given this property’s location, Ms. Burton considers it inferior representing the lower end of the value range and she determines an adjusted market value of $835,000. 

[51] Mr. Swib agrees that 9716 182A Street is 2 acres.  However, he argues that it is flat with development potential for two or more lots, with a secluded park-like setting on a quiet street making it superior to his property.  He does not provide documentation to support his information.

[52] Ms. Burton determines a range of market value between $835,000 to $1,007,000 and an adjusted market value for the subject’s land of $982,000 and a total market value of $1,007,000 as of July 1, 2007. 

Analysis and Decision – Actual Values

[53] Mr. Swib argues that assessed values are based on market value and can be used as indications of market values.  He, therefore, uses assessed values of similar properties to support his opinions of value.

[54] Although the Provincial publication refers to assessed values as a form of evidence it also refers to sales.  It does not distinguish what evidence is best it merely provides a guide to help the individual prepare for the appeal process. 

[55] Mr. Swib makes comparisons by taking his total assessed value, dividing by his usable land area and then determining a value per acre.  He then compares this to other properties per acre assessed values using their total areas.  He does not provide details of his calculations for the subjects and the comparables and he applies no value to the portion of his properties that he considers not usable.  Although portions of his properties may have restrictions and much less utility, I find they should have some value. 

[56] Mr. Swib also states that in his opinion, the Assessor uses calculations that provide larger usable portions for his properties and smaller usable portions for the comparables.  However, the Assessor states that, in the absence of actual survey maps, the City of Surrey’s Cosmos mapping system has been used in all calculations in order to provide consistency.  The Assessor also states that differences between Mr. Swib’s calculations and the Assessor’s are of minimal consequence.

[57] Mr. Swib insists that his comparables are more similar to his properties than those used by the Assessor.  He argues that the Assessor’s comparisons are not comparable because they have more subdivision potential than his properties and that his properties have less value because they have less subdivision potential.  However, Mr. Swib’s comparables also have specific dissimilarities, particularly subdivision potential, that he does not adjust for.

[58] The Assessor’s evidence refutes Mr. Swib’s arguments clearly showing that their comparables are market evidence of sales in the same Fraser Heights area and in some cases, on the same street and that they are adjusted to reflect dissimilarities including the subjects’ negative features and restrictions.  The Assessor’s evidence is also clear that the subjects are valued based on one single family building site of one acre or more and that their comparables have the same one building site of one acre or more.  For these reasons, I find the Assessor’s evidence more compelling.

[59] No two properties are the same.  Therefore, it is necessary to compare to properties that are as similar as possible and adjust for dissimilarities between the subject and the comparables using industry accepted appraisal techniques. 

[60] The best indication of market value is market information.  Recent arms length sales transactions of similar properties provide the best market information and are given the most weight when valuing properties.  While assessed values are based on market information and sale listings provide indications of possible market values, they are not arms length real estate transactions in a current market.  Therefore, I give them much less weight compared to recent arms length sales transactions. 

[61] The Assessor determines a range of market values using market sales and providing detailed explanations for each sale and the adjustments to show how they compare to the subjects.  For 15729 112 Avenue the Assessor places most weight on the sale located on the same street at 15675 112 Avenue.  It has the same location influences and it is steeply sloped, limiting the rear portion with similar restrictions.  Its overall size is the same as the subject and it sold as a single building lot.  The usable area is larger and the Assessor applies an adjustment using standard appraisal techniques.  I accept the Assessor’s evidence and I agree that this sale is most comparable to the subject.

[62] For 15751 112 Avenue, the Assessor places most weight on a sale located adjacent to it at 15775 112 Avenue.  It is also subject to the same location influences and has similar topography and restrictions.  Its overall size is smaller and is its usable area is larger and the Assessor applies an adjustment using standard appraisal techniques.  It also sold as a single building lot.  I accept the Assessor’s evidence and I agree that this sale is most comparable to the subject.

[63] The Assessor’s evidence is supported by market information of comparable sales.  The most comparable sales indicate that the market values for the subjects are at the high end of the range of values.  I accept the Assessor’s evidence and find that the market values for the subjects are at the high end of the range of values.

[64] I find that the best evidence before me is the Assessor’s market sales.  I find that the actual value for 15729 112 Avenue is $796,000 and for 15751 112 Avenue is $1,007,000 as of July 1, 2007.

Equity – Assessor’s Submission

[65] The Assessor submits an equity argument, prepared by Marie Highfield that provides an explanation of the methods that BC Assessment uses to determine consistency and equitable assessments within taxing jurisdictions.  Ms. Highfield provides that the assessment to sales ratio (ASR) and the coefficient of dispersion (COD) are industry standard roll quality measurements set by the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO).  The ASR is used to measure how close assessed values are to actual or market values.  She submits that an ASR between 95% and 100% indicates that a property’s assessed value closely reflects it’s actual or market value.  Ms. Highfield submits that BC Assessment’s standard ASR is set at 97% to 100%. 

[66] Ms. Highfield also provides that the coefficient of dispersion (COD) is a measurement used to determine the quality and uniformity of data used for actual values.  It measures the spread of the ASR’s around the median ASR number.  She explains that the lower the COD the better the data quality.  She submits that BC Assessment’s COD standard for single family residential properties in urban areas is less than 10 and less than 15 in rural regions.

[67] Ms. Highfield submits that in the City of Surrey, from April 2007 to September 2007, 3,401 sales took place with a median ASR of 97% and a COD of 5.7.  She also submits that analysis of the subject’s neighbourhood indicates that 191 sales within the same time frame showed an ASR of 97% and a COD of 5.8.  She submits that the data indicates that assessments are consistent and equitable within the subject's neighbourhood and the taxing jurisdiction as a whole.

Appellant’s Submission

[68] Mr. Swib uses the same comparisons for equity as he does for actual value.  He does not agree with Ms. Highfield’s equity and assessor’s arguments and argues that the Assessor has failed to prove market value for his comparables and his properties.  He also argues that because the comparables are flat and have subdivision potential while his properties are compromised by the ravine and DFO restrictions, the Assessor has failed to ensure accuracy in assessing his comparables at market value and in a consistent manner.

[69] Mr. Swib refers to the Assessor’s argument underlining particular points and quoting:

“Market Value and Equity

BC Assessment is directed under the Assessment Act to provide fair assessments based on actual value of like properties.  This is outlined under section 19(2) of the Assessment Act as follows:

The assessor must determine the actual value of land and improvements and must enter the actual value of the land and improvement in the assessment roll.”

“The Assessor has a responsibility to ensure equity in the application of the assessments in a municipality or rural taxing jurisdiction.  This is further reinforced by section 57(1) (a) of the Assessment Act which indicates the powers and duties of the appeal board in an appeal are to:

…ensure accuracy and that assessments are at actual value applied in a consistent manner in the municipality or rural area.”

[70] Mr. Swib submits that his comparable at 10177 176 Street that is offered for sale at $599,900 per 0.5 acre lot confirms that his properties are assessed inequitably.

Equity – Analysis and Decision

[71] Mr. Swib bases his equity and market value arguments on his contention that his properties are valued based on comparisons to properties that are not similar that have more usable area, no restrictions and development potential.  However, the Assessor’s evidence shows that the comparables are similar and that all the subjects’ negative features have been considered using consistent adjustments based on market information to determine market values.  The Assessor’s evidence also shows that the subjects are valued based on one single family building site of one acre or more.

[72] Mr. Swib also argues that his comparables are similar.  However, the evidence shows that they have specific dissimilarities including development potential, location, overall size and usable size that Mr. Swib does not allow for.

[73] Mr. Swib compares his properties assessed values based on their usable areas to the assessed values of other properties using their overall sizes and argues that it shows his assessments are inequitable.  His method is not acceptable as it does not apply any value to the area of his properties’ that he considers unusable.  Therefore, it does not show that his properties are assessed inequitably.

[74] The Assessor provides evidence to show that the per acre assessed values of the comparables are less than the per acre assessed values of the subjects in all but one case.  Mr. Swib’s comparable at 10061 176 Street is assessed lower due to its inferior location.  The Assessor also provides explanation for adjustments for dissimilarities that provide direct comparison to the subjects.

[75] In order to support an argument of inequity it is necessary to compare total assessed values to similar properties in the area and their total assessed values.  Mr. Swib provides several statements and references to other properties arguing inequity.  The information is often unclear and repetitive and does not show direct comparisons to similar properties in the area and their total assessed values that support his contentions that his properties have been assessed higher.  He also does not provide sufficient market evidence to refute the Assessor’s evidence and explanations.  I do not have sufficient evidence on the market values of the equity comparisons to compare with their assessments.  Therefore, Mr. Swib’s evidence does not support a conclusion that his properties or the comparables he uses are assessed inequitably compared to other similar properties in the area or that inconsistencies exist in the assessments.

[76] The evidence indicates that Mr. Swib’s property at 15729 112 Avenue is assessed at 83% of my finding on actual value and that his property at 15751 112 Avenue is assessed at 92% of my finding on actual value.  Compared to the 97% ASR and the COD’s for the City of Surrey and the subjects’ neighbourhood, these figures suggest that 15751 112 Avenue is at the low end of the equity range and that 15729 112 Avenue may be under assessed.  I note, however, that the Assessor does not seek an increase in the assessments.

[77] I find that the evidence does not indicate that the subjects are inequitably over assessed. 

Qualification Under Assessment Act Section 19(8) - Submissions

[78] Mr. Swib corrects a statement in the Appeal Management Conference (AMC) record that notes:

“Mr. Swib says the assessment for 15751 112 Avenue should be reduced based on section 19(8) of the Assessment Act”.

[79] He provides that it should read:

“qualify for section 19.8 of the Assessment Act.” 

[80] I find that the difference noted by Mr. Swib has no affect with respect to the property’s qualification under section 19(8) of the Assessment Act or to relevant matters respecting this appeal.

[81] Mr. Swib submits that his property qualifies for relief under section 19(8) of the Assessment Act because it has been his residence since 1973, the property is 2.53 acres and can be subdivided into two lots and that it qualified in the past and no changes have occurred.  In his opinion, BC Assessment disallowed the qualification because he questioned the fairness of his assessments.  He submits that his previous qualification under section 19(8) entitles him to be “grandfathered” for future consideration.

[82] The Assessor submits that 15751 112 Avenue does not qualify for relief under section 19(8) and refers to BC Assessment’s fact sheet that provides in part:

“Do all long term property owners qualify for assessment relief?...No.  To qualify, the property’s demonstrated market value must be higher than its current residential value.  For example, a home…..might not qualify for relief under this section of the Assessment Act simply because the current use reflects the most valuable use of the property”. 

[83] The Assessor submits that the property’s 2009 assessed value is based on its current use, being its highest and best use as single family housing on a lot of one acre or more, without consideration for subdivision potential.  The Assessor also submits that the property is valued in comparison to other single family properties of one acre or more without consideration for subdivision potential.  Therefore, section 19(8) of the Assessment Act does not apply. 

Qualification Under Assessment Act Section 19(8) - Analysis and Decision

[84] In order for a property to receive consideration under section 19(8) of the Assessment Act, it must qualify in its current state at the valuation date.  Past consideration does not entitle the property owner or the property to automatic qualification and consideration in the future.

[85] Mr. Swib argues that his property is sub dividable.  However, the Assessor provides evidence that the property is valued based on its highest and best use being its current use as one single family residential property without consideration of subdivision potential.  I accept the Assessor’s evidence, as there has been no additional value attributed to the properties for a potential higher use.  With the properties being valued based on their current use, there is no additional value to deduct from the assessment.

[86] I find that the evidence supports the Assessor’s argument that 15751 112 Avenue does not qualify for and is not entitled to relief under section 19(8) of the Assessment Act.

ORDER

[87] Although the assessed values are less than the market values, the Assessor does not seek an increase and requests confirmation of the 2009 rolls.  The Board confirms the decision of the 2009 Property Assessment Review Panel as follows:

Roll No. 14-36-326-1100-07002-3:

Roll No. 14-36-326-1100-97104-X: