Decision and Order
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO S. 50 OF THE ASSESSMENT ACT
CONCERNING:
AND
Assessor Of Area #21 - Nelson/Trail
|
Appeal No.: |
|
|
|
|
|
Refer to as: |
Ortega v. Area 21 (2010 PAABBC 20100627) |
|
|
|
|
Date of Decision: |
August 10, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
Property: |
C Avenue, Village of Kaslo |
|
|
|
|
Heard: |
|
|
|
|
|
Submissions: |
From the Appellant received June 30 & July 13, 2010 |
|
From the Respondent received July 2, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Board Panel: |
Shiela Toth, Panel Chair |
INTRODUCTION
[1] The property under appeal (the Property) is a vacant 25 X 100 foot residential lot in the village of Kaslo.
[2] The Appellant, Mr. Ortega, contends the assessment is too high and does not reflect the market value. Specifically, he suggests poor access to the lot negatively impacts its market value.
[3] The Respondent, Mr. McGinnis, on behalf of the Assessor, submits the current assessment of $14,600 is representative of the market value for the property as of July 1, 2009.
Issue
[4] The issue is whether the assessed value reflects the actual value of the Property. For the 2010 roll, the actual value of the property is the market value as of July 1, 2009 in its condition as of October 31, 2009.
Facts
[5] The Property is a vacant, 25 X 100 foot residential lot with access off C Avenue in Kaslo. This access is a narrow, unpaved, hard pan gravel road. The lot has no access to the Kaslo municipal sewage service. The most probable use for the property comes from the potential for assembly with neighbouring properties.
Evidence and Submissions
[6] The Appellant submits the Property is located on a narrow dirt alley road that becomes muddy in rainy and snowy weather. Furthermore, he states the Property has no sidewalk, curbs, sanitary sewer, septic tank, or storm sewer. He concludes the poor access affects the market value of the Property. Mr. Ortega does not include any comparative market data to support how much of an effect the poor access may have on the value of the Property.
[7] Mr. Ortega includes a BC MLS residential sales forecast that shows the volume of sales dropped in 2008 to approximately 70,000 and rose to 85,028 in 2009 and is forecasted to be 82,350 in 2010. Mr. Ortega states the volume of sales has not reached the pre 2008 volumes of around 100,000 sales and equates this to a market slump that does not justify an assessment increase over the 2003 (?) assessed value of the Property at $5,200.
[8] Mr. Ortega summarizes that the sales have slowed down considerably because property values are too high. He feels it is unreasonable to increase the assessed value of the Property within the current market and suggests an assessment value of $12,500 for the Property.
[9] For the Assessor, Mr. McGinnis submits a residential appraisal report to provide an opinion of market value for the Property. He states the Property has access to most services except sanitary sewer and the size of the lot would not permit a septic field. He concludes the highest and best use of the Property is amalgamation with a neighbouring property either to enlarge an existing improved home site or to create a larger, buildable lot.
[10] Mr. McGinnis states there were no recent sales of properties with the same amalgamation issue in Kaslo, however, there were sales of properties with similar characteristics in other communities in the West Kootenays.
[11] He submits three comparable property sales. The first is a 30 X 110 foot lot that sold for $19,526 in December 2007 in Slocan. Mr. McGinnis adjusts the sale price for the larger lot size and an inferior market area, resulting in an adjusted sale price of $21,426.
[12] The second comparable property is a 25 X 135 foot lot that sold for $15,000 in October 2009, located in New Denver. Mr. McGinnis also adjusts this sale price for a larger lot and an inferior market area. The resulting adjusted sale price remains at $15,000.
[13] The third comparable sale is a 25 X 110 foot lot located at Trout Lake that sold in June 2009 for $28,500. Mr. McGinnis adjusts this sale for an inferior market area resulting in an adjusted sale price of $31,400.
[14] Mr. McGinnis states the New Denver sale is the most comparable because of its similar utility because it was purchased to increase the size of an existing improved residential lot. Also the lot is situated on a highway which he concludes negates any loss attributable to the Property’s location on an unpaved, narrow road. Based on this comparable, he estimates a market value at $15,000 for the Property.
Analysis
[15] Actual value for the Property is based on market value. The Appellant provides data regarding the volume of sales across BC, but no actual sales data or comparable sales that give an indication of the specific market value for the Property or how that market value may be affected by the access road. He also submits a list of assessment values for the Property over the past 10 years. This information also does not give any indication of market value of the Property as of July 1, 2009.
[16] The sales data before me from which a market value for the Property can be estimated includes the three property sales submitted by the Assessor. The Appellant argues these sales are located over 50 kilometres away from the Property and cannot be comparable. However, both parties agree that there have been no sales of comparable lots in Kaslo. Mr. McGinnis states the communities can be compared because they are of similar size and all located in the same general area of the West Kootenays. I accept these sales as reasonably comparable because they are of similar size, similar utility and are all located within small, similar, somewhat isolated communities through out the West Kootenays. If there are no comparable sales within Kaslo, then I must rely upon the best evidence available in the market, that is, these sales located in other, similar communities.
[17] I prefer the New Denver and the Trout Lake sales over the Slocan sale because they occurred closer to the valuation date, that is, in 2009 as opposed to 2007. Furthermore the New Denver sale is the least adjusted sale and was purchased for the same utility as suggested for the highest and best use for the Property. It also has an inferior highway access as compared to a residential street. I have no data to substantiate if and how much of an impact the unpaved, narrow access has on the value of the Property. However, I accept that it and the New Denver property have accesses inferior to a paved, residential street. I find the New Denver sale is the best comparable sale because it has minimal adjustments, and has a similar utility and access issues as does the Property.
Conclusion
[18] I find the adjusted sale price of my preferred comparable is the best indication of actual value for the Property. I find $15,000 a reasonable estimate of market value for the Property as of July 1, 2009. I find the existing assessment of $14,600 at 97% of the estimated market value is an accurate refection of that market value.
ORDER
[19] The Board confirms the decision of the 2010 Property Assessment Review Panel as follows:
Roll No. 21-08-533-00155.020:
|
Land: |
$ |
||
|
Total Assessed Value: |
|
$ |