Decision and Order
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO S. 50 OF THE ASSESSMENT ACT
CONCERNING:
Beverley A Lake
AND
Assessor Of Area #21 - Nelson/Trail
|
Appeal No.: |
|
|
|
|
|
Refer to as: |
Lake v. Area 21 (2010 PAABBC 20100535) |
|
|
|
|
Date of Decision: |
July 27, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
Property: |
303 Silica Street, City of Nelson |
|
|
|
|
Heard: |
|
|
|
|
|
Submissions:: |
From the Appellants, dated April 21, 2010 |
|
From the Respondent, dated June 24, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Board Panel: |
Patricia Begg, Panel Chair
|
INTRODUCTION
[1] The property that is the subject of this appeal is a single family residence located at 303 Silica Street, in the Lower Uphill neighbourhood of Nelson, BC. It is a 9,900 square foot lot with a 1 1/2 storey heritage house built in 1926 that has been renovated and is in good condition. The property is zoned R3 allowing multi-family development. However, the Assessor considers the current single-family use the highest and best use for the property. It is assessed for the 2010 roll at $548,000, an increase of $99,000 from the previous year. The Appellant submits that the assessment of the property is too high compared with the assessed values of other comparable properties and submits an opinion of value of $295,000 for the improvements and $154,000 for the land for a total assessed value of $449,000.
[2] The Assessor submits that the market value for the property is $623,000 and that the assessed value for the property at $548,000 is less than the market value. However, the Assessor also submits that the assessed value is equitable in comparison to other similar properties in the area and does not seek an increase for the 2010 roll.
ISSUES
[3] The issues are whether the property’s assessed value accurately reflects its market value as of July 1, 2009 and is equitably assessed in relation to other similar properties in the area.
SUBMISSIONS AND ANALYSIS
Actual Value
[4] The Assessor submits an appraisal report prepared by Mr. Dennis Hickson, of B.C. Assessment. Using the direct comparison method referencing three comparable properties that sold between August 2008 and August 2009 and adjusting for time, size, quality, location and improvements, Mr. Hickson determines a market value for the property of $623,000 at July 1, 2009.
[5] Mr. Hickson’s sale #1 at 523 Cottonwood Street in the Fairview neighbourhood sold for $580,000 in August 2009. He considers this sale most comparable to the subject because it has been substantially updated, as is the subject. However, he notes that the subject’s design and interior are superior. He does not adjust for location because although sale #1 is located in a superior neighbourhood, the subject is located on a desirable block that is developed with large heritage style homes that make its location comparable. Mr. Hickson determines an adjusted value for sale #1 of $623,000.
[6] Sale #2 at 713 Hoover Street in the Uphill neighbourhood sold for $594,000 in August 2008. Mr. Hickson notes that the house sits below the road and that the location, view and quality of design and finish require substantial adjustments. He determines a market value of $617,000.
[7] Sale #3 at 1121 Hall Street in the Uphill neighbourhood sold for $607,500 in August 2009. It was built in 1901 and was substantially rebuilt in 2008. Mr. Hickson’s adjusted market value for this sale is $629,000.
[8] The Appellant, Mr. Lake, acknowledges that the Assessor’s role is to determine market value and that the Assessor’s opinion of value is supported by historic sales. However, in his opinion, the Assessor’s sales information provides inconclusive results and he notes that assessments are altered to reflect sale prices after they sell.
[9] Mr. Lake submits that the assessed value of his property is too high compared with the assessments of comparable properties that have not sold. He submits an opinion of market value for his property at $449,000. He lists addresses of properties but does not provide any other evidence to support his opinion of market value.
[10] Mr. Lake’s comment that sale prices are reflected in assessed values is valid. Sale prices are market or actual values and assessed values must reflect actual values. The best indication of actual value is market information of sales of similar properties. Comparing sales of similar properties and adjusting for dissimilarities is the best determination of market value. The Assessor’s appraisal report uses market sales information and standard appraisal techniques to determine a market value for the property and it is the only market information before me. I find that the property’s market value is $623,000.
Equity
[11] 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 land 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 changes in assessments from one year to the next may not be the same for similar properties, including that a property may have been under assessed 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.
[12] The Assessor provides B.C. Assessment’s statistical information that indicates that properties in the Nelson area are assessed equitably during the valuation period.
[13] Mr. Lake’s principle concern is that the increase in his assessment over the previous year will result in an increase in taxes. He notes that the average assessment for the City of Nelson is approximately the same as 2009 and he submits a list of 13 properties that he notes he is familiar with and has current knowledge of. However, he does not provide details of the 13 properties or their assessment values to show how they are similar to the subject or how they indicate that the subject may be assessed inequitably in comparison. I have no evidence before me to support a conclusion that an inequity exists. Therefore, I am unable to find that an inequity exists.
CONCLUSION
[14] I find that the market value of the property is $623,000 and that although the assessed value of the property at $548,000 is less than its market value, it is equitable in relation to other similar properties in the area.
ORDER
[15] The Board confirms the decision of the 2010 Property Assessment Review Panel as follows:
Roll No. 21-08-219-00157.000:
|
Land: |
$ |
||
|
Improvements: |
$ |
||
|
Total Assessed Value: |
|
$ |