Decision and Order
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO S. 50 OF THE ASSESSMENT ACT
CONCERNING:
Kurt H Brause
AND
Assessor Of Area #08 - Vancouver Sea To Sky Region
|
Appeal No.: |
|
|
|
|
|
Refer to as: |
Brause et al. v. Area 08 (2010 PAABBC 20100714) |
|
|
|
|
Date of Decision: |
July 19, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
Property: |
5619 Eagle Harbour Road, District of West Vancouver |
|
|
|
|
Heard: |
|
|
|
|
|
Submissions: |
From the Appellant, received April 15, June 10, & June 17, 2010 |
|
From the Respondent, received June 24, & July 8, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Board Panel: |
Cheryl Vickers, Panel Chair |
INTRODUCTION
[1] The property that is the subject of this appeal is a single family residence on Eagle Harbour Road in West Vancouver. It was assessed for the 2010 roll at $728,700, representing a 0.6% increase to the assessed value from the previous year’s roll. The Appellant submits his assessment is the only one on Eagle Harbour Road that increased over the previous year’s roll, while the assessments of 13 other properties on Eagle Harbour Road decreased by an average of 16.4%. The Appellant submits the assessed value of his property is, therefore, too high and not fair compared to the assessments of other properties on the street. The Assessor submits the assessed value of the subject is supported by market evidence.
ISSUE
[2] The issue is whether the assessment of 5619 Eagle Harbour Road reflects its actual or market value as of July 1, 2009 and whether the property is assessed equitably in comparison to other similar properties in the municipality.
THE PROPERTY
[3] 5619 Eagle Harbour Road is located in the Eagle Ridge neighbourhood of the District of West Vancouver. It is a 9,148 sq.ft. lot, with a one story single family residence of 1,097 sq. ft. constructed in 1959. The home is well maintained but unrenovated from its original construction. The property is zoned RS4 – single family allowing a maximum floor area of 35% of the lot size.
ACTUAL VALUE
[4] I must first determine whether the assessment reflects the probable market value of the property as of July 1, 2009. The market evidence before me consists of an appraisal report authored by Eddy Ma of BC Assessment, including an analysis of three sales of comparable properties, and evidence of six sales of properties on Eagle Harbour Road provided by Mr. Brause.
[5] The Eagle Harbour Road sales occurred between July 2001 and May 2009. With the exception of the May 2009 sale, the other sales are simply not helpful in determining the probable market value of 5619 Eagle Harbour Road as of July 1, 2009 because they are much too old.
[6] The May 2009 sale on Eagle Harbour Road is of a 4,265 sq ft home, constructed in 2006, for $1,950,000. This home is obviously newer, larger, and superior to the subject in terms of the number of bedrooms and bathrooms, and can be expected to have a market value in excess of the market value for the subject. Given the dissimilarity of this property with the subject, and in the absence of evidence with which to adjust the sale price for differences with the subject, the only conclusion I can draw from this sale is that the probable market value of the subject as of July 1, 2009 was likely substantially less than $1,950.000.
[7] Turning to Mr. Ma’s appraisal report, Mr. Ma provides evidence of three sales occurring in 2008 of single family residential properties within the Eagle Ridge neighbourhood but not on Eagle Harbour Road. Two of the properties are in close proximity to the subject on Marine Drive and Cranley Drive, and the third property is just over 1 km away on Greenleaf Road. All three are single story homes. Comparable No. 1 on Marine Drive has both a larger lot and a larger and newer (1975) house but Mr. Ma describes the location as inferior because it is on a busy street. It sold in March 2008 for $885,000. Comparable No 2 on Cranley Drive is the same age as the subject, but also has a larger home and has a significantly larger lot that backs onto a railway. It sold in July 2008 for $938,000. Comparable No 3 on Greenleaf Road also has a significantly larger lot than the subject, as well as a larger and newer (1972) home, which has had some updates. Mr. Ma describes its location as superior to the subject. It sold in July 2008 for $1,100,000. Mr. Ma adjusts the sale prices for time of sale, size, age and location. He provides a paired sales analysis to support the time adjustment of -1.08% per month applied to each sale price. The adjusted sale prices range from $702,000 for Comparable No 1 to $855,000 for Comparable No 3. Mr. Ma estimates the market value of 5619 Eagle Harbour Road as of July 1, 2009 at $735,000.
[8] As is often the case, there are no “perfect comparables” with which to estimate the probable market value of the subject. I find the comparables provided by Mr. Ma provide a better indication of the subject’s market value than the 2009 Eagle Harbour Road sale because they are more comparable to the subject in terms of the age and size of the home. While they are 2008 sales, Mr. Ma has provided market evidence to support the time adjustment applied. On the basis of Mr. Ma’s appraisal, I find that the 2010 assessed value of 5619 Eagle Harbour Road reflects its probable market value as of July 1, 2009.
EQUITY
[9] The Appellant’s principle concern is with the equity of the assessment as it increased over the previous year’s assessment while the assessments of other properties on the street decreased. Equity requires that similar properties be assessed at values that bear a fair and just relationship to the assessed values of other similar properties, having regard to the particular characteristics of individual lands and improvements and to the market’s treatment of those characteristics (Ross and Grubb v. Assessor of Area 10 – Burnaby/New Westminster (1999) Stated Case 419 BCCA); Hilton v. Area 14 (2001 PAABBC 20014823). The difference in the assessed value of one property compared to another from one assessment year to the next does not necessarily point to an inequity. There are many reasons why the percentage changes in assessment from one year to the next may not be the same for similar properties, including that a property may have been underassessed in a previous year, inventory may have been incorrect, or significant changes may have occurred at a property from one year to the next. With residential properties, different sub-markets within the whole residential market may also react differently from one year to the next so that, for example, the values of more expensive homes may fall to a greater extent than the values of modestly priced homes in reaction to various economic circumstances. To ensure the tax burden is fairly distributed in a particular assessment year amongst the owners of similar properties, the assessed values of similar properties must be compared to their market values as of the relevant valuation date. If properties are assessed similarly in proportion to their market value as of the relevant valuation date, then the assessments are equitable.
[10] The evidence before me that is relevant to the issue of whether 5619 Eagle Harbour Road is equitably assessed on the 2010 roll is very limited. Mr. Brause has provided the 2010 assessments for 13 other properties on Eagle Harbour Road, but the only evidence before me to effectively compare those assessed values with their July 1, 2009 market value is the sale of 5652 Eagle Harbour Road and Mr. Ma’s conclusion of market value for the subject. 5652 Eagle Harbour Road sold in May 2009 for $1,950,000; it is assessed on the 2010 roll at $2,031,000 indicating an assessment to sale ratio (ASR) of 104%. The assessment of 5619 Eagle Harbour Road at $728,700 reflects 99% of its estimated market value. There is certainly not an inequity in assessment as between these two Eagle Harbour Road properties.
[11] Mr. Ma’s evidence is that there were 631 sales in the District of West Vancouver in 2009 with 392 sales occurring between April and September 2009. His evidence is that the District had a median ASR of 97% indicating a high degree of appraisal uniformity. However, this evidence does not speak to the nature of the sales, that is whether they are all of detached single family homes similar to the subject, nor is it clear as to the time period for which the ASR relates, and therefore, provides little assistance in determining whether the subject is equitably assessed.
[12] Although the Appellant’s assessment increased marginally over the previous year’s while the assessments of other properties on Eagle Harbour Road fell, I note that 5619 Eagle Harbour Road is the lowest of all of the 13 Eagle Harbour Road assessments before me. The evidence before me does not enable me to conclude that the assessment of the subject bears a higher relationship to its market value than the assessments of other similar properties in the neighbourhood or even that other properties in the neighbourhood are, indeed, similar. Many of the properties for which Mr. Brause provided dated sales information are much larger and newer or updated, so are likely not highly similar to the subject. If I were to reduce the subject assessment by the average reduction of -16.4% applied to the other Eagle Harbour Road properties, as suggested by the Appellant, the resulting value of $609,193 would only represent 82% of its estimated market value as of July 1, 2009. I have no evidence before me to support a conclusion that the subject should be assessed at 82% of its probable market value to be equitable with the assessments of other similar properties in the municipality.
CONCLUSION
[13] I conclude that the 2010 assessment of 5619 Eagle Harbour Road reflects its probable market value as of July 1, 2009 and that the assessment is not inequitable.
ORDER
[14] The Board confirms the decision of the 2010 Property Assessment Review Panel as follows:
Roll No. 08-45-328-03-0394-000-000:
|
Land: |
$ |
||
|
Improvements: |
$ |
||
|
Total Assessed Value: |
|
$ |