Decision and Order
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO S. 50 OF THE ASSESSMENT ACT
CONCERNING:
AND
Assessor Of Area #06 - Courtenay
|
Appeal No.: |
|
|
|
|
|
Refer to as: |
Nicholls v. Area 06 (2010 PAABBC 20100623) |
|
|
|
|
Date of Decision: |
August 10, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
Property: |
8914 McLarey Avenue, Courtenay Rural |
|
|
|
|
Heard: |
|
|
|
|
|
Submissions: |
From the Appellant received June 29 and July 21, 2010 |
|
From the Respondent received June 29 and July 21, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Board Panel: |
Dave Lee, Panel Chair |
INTRODUCTION
[1] The appeal is from the decision of the 2010 Property Assessment Review Panel (PARP) with respect to the assessment of a single family residence located at 8914 McLarey Avenue, in the Comox Valley Regional District. This region is located approximately 22 kilometers north of the City of Courtenay. The assessed values for the subject are Land, $138,000 and Improvements, $216,000 for a total value of $354,000.
[2] The Appellant, Gloria Nicholls, owner of the property contends that the assessed value is too high for a market value and is also inequitable when compared to similar properties in the immediate area.
[3] The Assessor submits a report that supports the assessed value and seeks confirmation of the assessment.
Issue
[4] The issue is whether the assessed value fairly represents not only the fair market value of the property as of July 1, 2009, but also an equitable value when compared to neighbouring properties.
Description of the Property
[5] The property is located in the Saratoga Beach Rural Area, north of Courtenay and 15 kilometers south of Campbell River. The lot size is .42 acres or 18,295 sq. ft. The lot backs onto the Saratoga Golf Course although the view is obstructed by trees and foliage for part of the year. Access to the lot is by a paved road with no curbs or sidewalks.
[6] The improvements consist of a 1,227 sq. ft rancher on a crawl space, an attached 440 sq. ft. garage, an attached 245 sq. ft. carport, and a detached 840 sq. ft. garage/workshop. The house was built in 1993, which is relatively consistent with many of the other properties in the surrounding area.
Evidence and Submissions
[7] The evidence before me consists of a written submission from Gloria Nicholls dated June 28, 2010, followed by a written response to the Assessor’s submission on July 19, 2010. The Assessor’s submission is an appraisal report from Kerren Shalanski dated June 28, 2010 followed by a written response to Ms. Nicholls report from Kevin McPhail, Senior Appraiser, dated July 20, 2010.
Analysis
What is the Market Value of the Subject property as of July 1, 2009?
[8] Ms. Nicholls states that the assessed value of her property has been excessive for the past three years. In this appeal, the Board must determine whether the assessed value reflects the market value as of July 1, 2009. Whether a property has been over assessed in previous years, the percentage change in values from year to year, or any statements or presentations made to the PARP in the current or previous years, are not relevant to a determination of actual value as of the relevant valuation date.
[9] The Appellant’s evidence in Part 1 of her report is of little assistance in determining the market value of the subject. There is considerable reliance on the assessed values of neighbouring properties and reference to dated sales and what those assessments were at that time. There is no reliable analysis to show the degree of comparability between the subject and the comparables nor any attempt to quantify the difference in value for various features.
[10] Of more assistance is the inclusion of two market evaluations from real estate agents familiar with the property or the area. Both agents referred to sales in the neighbourhood and arrived at very similar conclusions of value. Sutton Group suggests the property would sell in the range of $335,000 to $355,000 and Royal Lepage suggests the selling range would be from $335,000 to $345,000
[11] What is missing from the agents evaluations, however, are any adjustments they may have made to account for the differences between the sale properties they referred to and the subject.
[12] The most contentious issue raised by the Appellant is the value ascribed to the carport and the detached garage/workshop. While all the comparables have at least one garage or carport, few have both or two garages.
[13] The only reference to a change in value for these items is found in the Assessor’s appraisal. Ms. Shalanski reports that two sales studies were conducted in 2007 and 2009 involving sales of properties having two garages versus sales with only one garage. While the studies are not included in the appraisal nor are the costs of the improvements involved, the conclusions reached by the respective Assessment to Sales Ratios (ASRs) suggests that the value the Assessor is using in arriving at their assessed vales is supported by the market.
[14] The one sale that is relied upon by the Assessor, and noted by the Royal Lepage report as being the best comparable, is located at 8840 McLarey Avenue. The sale price is $344,000. This property has a larger house and a similar sized garage/workshop. It does not have a second garage or carport.
[15] The Assessor makes adjustment for these factors consistent with the adjustments made to the other sales presented, and concludes an adjusted sale price of $359,000-slightly above the assessed value of the subject.
[16] As stated previously, neither the Appellant nor her agents noted adjustments in determining their final estimate of value.
[17] Based on the evidence presented, I find the market value of the subject property as of July 1, 2010 was $359,000.
Equity
[18] The second issue raised by the Appellant is the relationship of the assessed value of the subject property to the assessed value of neighbouring properties.
[19] To illustrate her point, the 43 properties total assessed values for 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 of properties on McLarey Avenue were set out in chart form with the differences between the 2009 and 2010 assessments noted.
[20] There is no evidence presented to show how comparable the properties are to the subject and what adjustments may have to be made to place them on an equal footing, i.e. differences in lot size, building size etc. Changes in assessments from year to year, either positive or negative, are not sufficient reason to make a change in the subject’s assessment without further detail.
[21] In addition, the Appellant addressed a perceived difference in land values, particularly for those properties backing onto the golf course and those backing onto a small pond/waterway (lots 8 to 16 as shown on the map as Part 2 of the Appellants brief).
[22] She suggests that there is a premium assigned for the golf course lots and not for those backing onto the pond.
[23] There are no land sales presented by either party to show whether or not a premium is being paid based on the location of these properties. In the absence of such evidence, no adjustment to the land values can be made.
[24] Further, the Appellant provides the sales and assessments for the four transactions presented by the Assessor plus two additional sales in the area. The average Assessment to Sales Ratio (ASR) for these six sales is 92.9%, suggesting that the assessed values may be understated in some instances in this particular neighbourhood.
[25] The Assessor submits the ASR for 177 sales from April 2009 to September 2009 in the rural Comox Valley is 97% with a Coefficient of Dispersion of 6.4. Of the six sales noted above, it appears only one occurred in this time frame. Time adjustments to these sales may result in a different conclusion.
[26] With respect to the equity issue ascribed to the garage/workshop, the Assessor includes the 2009 study listing seven properties having a detached garage workshop along with an attached garage in their rebuttal submission. No construction details of these buildings are provided and the range of assessed values applied is $19 to $64 per sq. ft., with an average of $46. This average is in line with rate applied to the Appellant’s garage/workshop.
[27] I find there is insufficient evidence to make a change to the assessed value for the subject property for reasons of equity.
ORDER
[28] The Board confirms the decision of the 2010 Property Assessment Review Panel as follows:
Roll No. 06-71-771-04894.090:
|
Land: |
$ |
||
|
Improvements: |
$ |
||
|
Total Assessed Value: |
|
$ |