Good afternoon everyone. Um, I now call
to order the hearing of the assessment
review board to order for July 15, 2026
at 10:01 p.m.
Please note that today's hearing is
being streamed lived and recorded on
YouTube. Attendees acknowledge
acknowledge names, addresses, and other
details provided when speaking in
today's hearing will be publicly shared.
You should have, should you have any
questions, please contact legislative
and advisory services division for the
town of High River by sending an email
to atiphy river.ca.
First, I would like to introduce myself.
Um, I am Renee Clemens, chair of the
assessment review board for the 2026
term, and I'm serving as the presiding
officer in today's uh local assessment
review board hearing.
Um, at this time I will introduce or
allow my fellow board members to
introduce themselves.
>> Hello, my name is Taylor Cameron. I'm a
» Hello, my name is Taylor Cameron. I'm a
member of the assessment review board.
>> My name is Hank Lee Frank. I'm a member
» My name is Hank Lee Frank. I'm a member
as well.
>> The matter before the board today is a
» The matter before the board today is a
merit hearing regarding the following
role numbers and property addresses.
Roll number 80139
0 located at 38 Sunrise Place Northeast
and RO number 8161
0 located at 64 Sunrise Place Northeast.
These properties are owned by Paul and
Sarah Jane Bloomfield.
This hearing will consider the
complaintant filed and the evidence
presented by both parties respecting the
assessed value.
I will now ask those present to
introduce themselves for the record. Uh
we will begin with board administration
followed by the complainant and then the
respondent.
Good afternoon. I am Jod Hipkin,
co-chair with my colleague
Alicia Plet.
» Complainant.
>> Hi, my name is Paul Blumfield and I am
» Hi, my name is Paul Blumfield and I am
the complainant.
Good afternoon. My name is Stuart Dumple
um representing the respondent.
>> My name is Brandon Garner. I'm uh an
» My name is Brandon Garner. I'm uh an
assessor with the town of High River.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Before we begin, I'll briefly outline
» Before we begin, I'll briefly outline
the hearing process. Um this is a quasi
judicial hearing and the board will
consider the evidence and submission
presented by both parties. All parties
are expected to provide truthful and
accurate information as the board will
rely on this in making their decision.
All questions are to be directed through
the chair
and the complainant will present their
case followed by the respondent. The
complainant will then be able to present
their rebuttal. Each party will have the
opportunity to ask any questions of each
other um or one another and the board
may ask questions at any time.
We will conclude the closing submissions
and any evidence not disclosed in
accordance with the required timelines
may not be accepted by the board. Before
we proceed, are there any preliminary
matters from either party such as
questions about the hearing process and
how the hearing will proceed?
>> Not from me.
» Not from me.
>> No, no questions from the respondent.
» No, no questions from the respondent.
Thank you.
>> Thank you. concerns about potential
» Thank you. concerns about potential
conflict of interest or bias with any of
the board members?
» Again, not for me. Thank you, chair.
>> Thank you. And none here, too. Thank
» Thank you. And none here, too. Thank
you.
>> Thank you. Concerns about documents and
» Thank you. Concerns about documents and
evidence that were submitted or not
received.
» Uh, again, no from me
>> and none from the respondent either.
» and none from the respondent either.
Thank you.
requests to have someone speak on your
behalf or assist during the hearing. I'm
assuming no because we are all present.
And any other procedural issues that
should be addressed before we begin
discussing the property assessment?
>> All good here. Thank you.
» All good here. Thank you.
>> Yeah. All good. Thank you very much,
» Yeah. All good. Thank you very much,
Madam Chair.
>> Thank you.
» Um I will now invite the complainant to
present their case. Um and you may
proceed whenever you're ready.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um good morning
» Thank you, Madam Chair. Um good morning
uh to everybody on the board and to uh
the respondents and uh everyone else
present. Thank you for the opportunity
to present um our appeal regarding the
2026 assessments for 38 and 64 Sunrise
Place Northeast.
Um, I would like to begin by
acknowledging that the town has reviewed
our complaint, uh, corrected errors
relating to garage and suite sizes and
reduced both assessments, and we
appreciate those corrections.
However, we respectfully submit that the
amended assessments of 418,400
and 421,300
still do not represent market value as
of July 1st, 2025 as required under the
municipal government act.
Um, our appeal is not about whether the
town is permitted to use the market
adjusted depre depreciation depreciated
cost model. We accept that it is an
approved mass appraisal methodology. Our
concern is that for this particular
group of properties, the model has
produced values that are inconsistent
with the actual market evidence.
[snorts]
The stronger strongest evidence of
market value is the sale of 50 Sunrise
Place Northeast.
It sold for 380,000 on May the 9th,
2025.
just 7 weeks before the legislated
valuation date.
Because it occurred so closely to July
1st, it required virtually no time
adjustment.
Despite this, the town's own amended
assessment for that property is
approximately 416,300
or about 109% of its actual sale price.
We submit that when the best comparable
sale immediately preceding the valuation
date is assessed significantly above
what a willing buyer actually paid for
it, it [snorts] raises serious questions
about whether the assessment reflects
market value.
[snorts] The town's disclosure also
shows that the valuation model relies
heavily on sales from 2022 through 2024.
Those older sales required time
adjustments ranging from approximately
11% to 46% before being used in the
model. These adjustments increase nearly
every historical sale to values that
exceed what buyers have actually paid on
Sunrise Place.
One example illustrates this clearly.
The property at 32 Sunrise Place
Northeast sold twice. It sold for
339,500
in February of 2023
and again for 398,600
in April of 2024.
That represents actual market
appreciation of approximately 17.4%.
However, the town's adjustment curve
appears to apply an increase of roughly
26% over the same period.
In other words, the model assumes
significantly greater market
appreciation than the market itself
actually demonstrated.
Another important observation is that
seven of the eight adjusted Sunrise
price place sales are adjusted upwards
to values above the 398,600.
[snorts] And yet 398,600
was the highest price ever actually paid
for a Sunrise Place property before the
valuation date.
The model is therefore producing
adjusted values that exceed the highest
prices buyers were willing to pay in the
real market.
Uh we also note that 42 Sunrise Place
Northeast sold for 375,000
in January of 2026.
And while we recognize that this sale
occurred after the valuation date and is
not direct evidence of a July 1st sale
at 375,000,
sorry. Um,
it does provide a useful check on
whether the town's market trend was
realistic. If the market was continuing
to rise, as the town suggests, it's
difficult to reconcile that with a sale
at 375,000
only 6 months later, while assessments
remain above 418,000.
Taken together, these sales consistently
indicate a market level well below the
amended assessments.
Throughout this process, we have not
argued that the town's methodology is
unlawful.
Rather, we submit that the methodology
has overestimated market appreciation
for this specific group of attached
villas. The actual market evidence does
not support assessments in excess of
418,000.
Instead, it supports a value much closer
to the observed sales immediately before
and after the valuation date.
Our original complaint requested a value
of 360,000.
We acknowledge that the evidence may
support a value somewhat above that
amount. However,
the evidence before the board does not
support values of 418,400
and 421,300.
And therefore, we respectfully ask the
board to determine an assessment that is
supported by the actual market evidence
rather than by adjusted values that
exceed what purchasers have demonstrated
they are willing to pay.
Thank you.
» Thank you. I will now um ask the
respondent if they have any questions.
[snorts]
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I might have
» Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I might have
missed missed hearing or I guess to
clarify what is what is the request
through the through the chair. What is
the requested assessment for the for the
two condos in Sunrise Place that being
38 Sunrise Place and 64 Sunrise Place?
When when can I continue, Madam Chair?
When we had originally submitted our
complaint, our complaint had um asked
for
an assessment value of 360,000.
through this process that we have gone
through and through what has been
clearly demonstrated to me through the
the the gathering of more information, I
accept that the properties are worth
around 380,000.
So that's now the property value that
we're looking to have them reduced to,
>> right?
» right?
>> Especially considering that particular
» Especially considering that particular
property sold seven weeks prior to the
actual date.
Just to confirm for the record that's
for both role numbers.
>> Yes, madam chair.
» Yes, madam chair.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Um I will now ask the respondent um to
» Um I will now ask the respondent um to
present their case and you may proceed
at any time. Thank you madam chair. Uh
good afternoon everybody. It's a
pleasure to speak to you today to
respond to the complaint for 30 38
Sunrise Place and 64 Sunrise Place uh
previously identified
uh here. Um I do have the assessment
information on page 53 of So I've got
the we got the original assessment
uh for 38 Sunrise Place at 430,200.
It's near the back.
» Which one you want the map?
>> It's near It's near the back of the in
» It's near It's near the back of the in
the addendum. [snorts] I've got page 53
of my submission or our submission.
Sorry.
[snorts]
>> We don't have to go there. I can I can
» We don't have to go there. I can I can
just refer to it, but it's just just
that it was included just for
information.
» [clears throat]
>> Yeah, it's Yeah, it'll be Yeah, it's
» Yeah, it's Yeah, it'll be Yeah, it's
near the It'll be near the end. Okay,
here we go.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Thank you. So, this is 38. So, this is
» Thank you. So, this is 38. So, this is
the original assess original assessment.
So, just scroll down a page. That was
430,200.
And then the next page is the proposed
amendment which we'll get to at 428
uh 300 sorry 421300.
And then the next page is the original
assessment for 64 Sunrise Place at
426900.
And then the next page would be the
amended proposed assessment for 64
Sunrise Place Northeast at 418400.
Thank you, Joey.
So, we just go back to page three.
Three, I guess would be good.
Although, we could start. We could
start. Yeah, page three is good. That'd
be awesome. Thank you.
[laughter] Sorry.
So this is just just to go through our
um our submission. Uh page three just
identifies it's just the assessment
review board receipt of complaint and
notice of hearing. It's the same for
both properties uh as identified number
number 38 and 64.
Uh page six is just a complaint for the
for the one for 38 Sunrise Place.
Page seven uh just shows the relative
location of uh sunrise place in High
River. So on the top of the page, we've
got a a map overall map of High River
with the blue rectangle uh highlighted
representing
Sun well the area of Sunrise Place.
And then at the bottom of page seven,
the blue highlighted area is Sunrise
Place and in of itself.
And then just north of Sunrise Place is
Mundy Park which [snorts] is not it's
not a condo. Uh but the the one area
immediately north of Mundy Park is
Sunvil Place which will be discussed
will be included in this presentation.
And then immediately west of Sun Sunvil
Place is uh Sunville Crescent uh which
are similar units just for information.
So the highlighted areas, Sunrise Place
where uh in the northeast and then on
page eight
shows the relative location of uh number
38 Sunrise Place on um the east side of
that development and 64 almost
immediately across the way.
I think it's turning to page page nine.
Uh the following table shows the factual
information regarding these two
properties. Um and we'll get into the
I'll discuss the legal information in a
minute. Uh so the the top of it shows
the the site area 124.9 for both and the
site and in in square feet it shows that
should be square feet sorry at 1344 ft
for both units. That's the total size
with the respective suite size of number
38 being originally at 1,060 with the
garage of 274 for a total of 1334.
And then for number 64 the sweet size on
the original assessment is 1,037 with a
garage at 307 again with the total at
1344.
The original assessment of third number
38 is 43200
and of 64 is 426,900
with the relative uh value per square
foot shown at the bottom.
So this is the assessment information
and property information used for the
2025 assessment. So
reflecting a value as of July 1, 2025,
physical condition as of December 31st.
[snorts]
So page 10, uh this some pictures of 32
sunrise place includes included for
information. So top of page 32 is a a
picture street side of 32 Sunrise Place
shows the building with a single car
garage. same as on the bottom just with
a side view as well. The at the photo at
the top of page 11 shows uh the suite
from behind looking toward the front
door. Uh at the bottom of page 11 shows
the kitchen and the living area relative
uh to each other.
Page 12 shows a picture of the kitchen.
Uh bottom of page 12 shows a kitchen
from the living from the living room.
at bottom at top of page 13 shows um the
master suite and the bottom of page 13
is the bedroom I mean the bathroom
I believe that's the the on suite
and on page top of page 14 we have the
additional bathroom and then we have the
laundry room at the bottom of page 14
uh top of page 15 we show the back of um
this unit and again just the back and
the side of the unit on page the bottom
of page 15.
[clears throat]
So um
upon uh reviewing uh the inquiry from
the owner uh regarding the suite um we
were we were brought to our attention
that we we needed to check the size of
the unit relative to the sizes of the
garage.
Um for this for this particular
development there are let me see I think
there's one two one two three four five
six seven condo plans so built-in stages
and and uh we've were able to obtain the
blueprints also.
So up and across the top we've got the
roll, the address, the legal. This is
the condo plan total me squared. And
then the in the pink area there that is
the original garage size, original sweep
size and original totals post that we
used for the 2026
assessment uh that was mailed. And then
for the green areas, so the condo plan
total, uh, that's the the total size.
And then we have the amended garage
size.
And then the amended suite size. So the
garages for these suites are not all
identical. They're just a little bit
different in some situations, but
there's not much in it. So to do this
proper, all the blueprints are pulled
and we we've adjusted um the suite size
and the grass size so that they're
they're proper. The garages aren't all
identical, but we looked at them all
specifically and made the appropriate
adjustment. So, there's quite a few
sweets scenarios, but if we're going to
do this for the for the um appeal, it's
perfect opportunity to do it for the
rest of for next year and make sure uh
we start off with on on um for a clean
slate next year. Again, this this
development was built uh what's the
original age?
>> 2012, I believe.
» 2012, I believe.
>> 2012.
» 2012.
So in back in the day back, you know,
there are different ways to do to do uh
assess condos.
Uh we typically we use a schedule. I
don't have any of the condo plans
printed, but typically on a condo plan,
it comes with a schedule of sizes for
the condo plan and it just shows a
footprint and it doesn't show where the
garage walls are. Like it could be it
could be anywhere. So that's why we had
to refer to the blueprints to make sure
that we we get the size of the suite
proper because the garage isn't such a
big deal cuz it's just a garage. It
doesn't have a great value per square
foot. But for the suite, we we're
showing that the we're showing a value
in the 400 $400 range a square foot. So
for out five 10 or 15 square ft makes a
significant difference. So it's really
important to get that get the sizes
correct especially for the suite. So,
we've been through each of these. We've
we've we've gleaned the blueprints to
make sure these sizes are correct. I'd
be happy to talk if if if uh the
complainant has any questions about
sizes down the road. Happy to or anybody
has questions about how those sizes are
determined. We can happy to happy to
review that with them as well. But we
did our due diligence to make sure we're
starting on a clean slate here,
especially if we're talking about an
amended assessment.
Foundation of assessment is having
correct data. So we always endeavor to
do to do that uh to the best of our
ability.
So So just to show you then for number
38 Sunrise Place the overall condo the
overall size didn't change but the but
the this slightly changed the garage the
suite went from 1,60 to,62
the garage went from 274 to 273 for
number 38. For number 64, the overall
size didn't change, but the size of the
suite did. It would change from 1334
uh square feet to 1049 and the garage
changed from 262 to 286. So number 64
changed quite a bit, but not for 38.
Uh on page 17, this gives shows the
salient facts as were presented before.
showing the original 2025 assessment and
the respective suite and garage sizes
for each of those in that that case and
the assessment. And then highlighted in
red at the bottom of this of the of this
uh information is the amended size of
the suite and the garage
for an amended uh total assessment for
421300 for number 38
and 418400 for number 64. So the
respective value per square foot is 3.97
a square foot for number 38 and 399 for
number 64.
So the following pages so pages 18
through to [cough]
[snorts and clears throat] 22 is
legislation specific to assessment. The
process of assessment is fairly heavily
regulated and for good reason. um to
make sure the assessments are calculated
consistently not only within the town
high river and following legislation but
throughout the province. [snorts] Uh
some of the main um uh items that we we
touched upon today would be uh the
second uh
uh item on page 16 from the top. It
reflects that that the assessment must
reflect the condition of the property as
of December 31st.
Um the second column from second row
from the bottom market value is our is
our the standard with which the
assessments have to adhere to. Um market
value is defined as as what might be
expected to the what might be expected
to realize if a property is sold on the
open market by a willing [clears throat]
seller to a willing buyer. And at the
bottom of this page, a pro an assessment
of a property based on market value for
assessment purposes must be prepared
using mass appraisal. Must be an
estimate of the value of the fee simple
estate in a property and must reflect
typical market conditions for properties
similar to that property not identical
to the property but similar to the
property.
Um the process of assessment use is um
mass appraisal.
So which means the process of preparing
assessment for a group of properties
using standard methods methods and
common data and allowing for statistical
testing. So an assessment of property
for market value which is the discussion
of this appeal today. The assessment
prepared for the 2025 assessment and in
the in the amended assessment proposed
is prepared um based on property market
value using mass appraisal not actual
sales or pinpointed values but it's
prepared using mass appraisal and the fe
simplest state of property and must
reflect typical market conditions
similar to the property. So the
assessment is in every case for the
models is always the model is represents
the value for a group of properties.
Uh the quality standards are required to
adhere to as it's a third row from the
bottom. Uh very heavily regulated. These
quality standards must be met when we
submit uh the assessment information to
the prop to the province. on
page.
Uh it doesn't say that just a minute.
Um I can't find it, but it says um uh
models must be met and must and it's a
statistical test. So the statistical
test for residential assessments must be
between 0.95 and 1.05 or 95 to 105%.
So the valuation model for a group of
properties must the sales a sales to
assessment ratio median sales to
assessment ratio for
uh for the assessments in that group
must be within that quality range.
It's a minute and there is at the top.
So the valuation date, this is also an
important uh point that any assessment
prepared in accordance with the act must
be an estimate of the value of a
property on July one of the of the
assessment year. So that's the year
before the tax year and that's July 1,
2025.
And that's different from an an
appraisal too because the appraisal can
be any specific date. But for assessment
is always July 1 of the year before the
tax year.
Just turning to page 23. Uh just to just
explain at the top data collection and
verification that every every
municipality in Alberta following
regulations must must review and and um
the assessments of properties in a town
every 5 years just to make sure we um we
keep on top of any property changes,
renovations or permitted development.
That's so there's a reinspection cycle
that helps to make sure that we the data
is up to date and correct. Then just the
bottom part there is just assumptions
and limiting conditions. [clears throat]
On page 24 speaks to the portions to
value for residential assessments. The
appropriate assessment method is a
direct comparison approach or sometimes
called the sales comparison approach.
It's defined as for the for the
valuation of residential properties in
high river. The direct comparison
approach is used. This method of
valuation determines a property's value
by comparing it to similar recently sold
properties in the same geographic area.
Again, it says similar properties, not
identical properties.
So, um, page 25 speaks to the difference
between single property appraisal and
mass appraisal. So, single property
appraisal is a valuation of one property
for many different purposes.
It uses the valuation the valuation date
is determined by the appraiser. So it
could be any date.
Uh typically in an appraisal uh three to
five comparable sales are reviewed as
close in location, style, quality and
construction to the subject property as
possible to arrive at an estimate of
value based on those comparables used.
Uh so it's different to mass appraisal.
A mass mass appraisal is a valuation of
an entire group of property for taxation
purposes.
The valuation date is July 1st condition
um [snorts] July the 1st with the
condition of the property uh as of
December 31st in the year preceding the
tax year.
Evaluation models is developed for each
property group with similar style and
quality of construction.
An equitable and consistent estimate of
values derived for each property group
value valuation model is statistically
tested for accuracy there. That's what I
want was looking for. And after meeting
required provincial qualities testing is
submitted to ASID. So acid is the
overlying umbrella in Alberta um through
municipal affairs and it must pass those
quality standards before and to be to be
um to go through two stages of audit and
uh then town can be approved to use that
assessment for the assessment notices.
on page 26 is just an explanation of the
mass appraisal process.
Um how how the how the assessment models
are tested is to take the assessment
divided by a selling price and that
gives us an assessment to sales ratio
which we we call as the ASR.
So through the stratification of similar
properties and the respective sales
value models are developed with the
resulting assessed values being required
to meet that regulated quality standard
of 0.9 of 95% to 105%.
Typically um [clears throat] in the town
high river we usually aim for 98%. If we
if we if we go for the 95% it's really
close uh to the bottom of the valuation
scale and it it doesn't really matter so
long as it's a consistent process. We
could develop an assessment at 105% and
for the distribution of the taxes for
assessment purposes the taxes wouldn't
change because the level of assessment
remains consistent.
But we always go and it's if we all go
for 98% if we went for 100% it's a
harder assessment to to present.
So in High River from December uh from
as of December 31st, 2025
of the 300 1324 condo properties in
town, there were 381 sales from July
1,22
to well June, yeah, July 1, 2022 to June
30th, 2025.
So this is all of the condo sales. This
is just showing us an example of how the
assessment will look and how this how
meets quality standard.
These sales were verified as suitable
indicators of value with respective
valuation models being developed and
statistically tested with the overall
results as follows.
Each of the red bars below represents a
respective assessment divided by a
selling price of each sale with the
overall ASR shown with the yellow arrow
there uh at 90 98.1%
mean required provincial quality
standard. Now this these sales are all
the condos. So 1324 condos 381 sales
these all these sales represent all the
groups. It's just shown here is to show
you how the the model process works.
This is this is not how we developed the
model. It's just illustrative.
But it does show that for all all of the
con all of those sales from each of the
respective model groups, it still it
meets a quality standard.
On page 27 on the table at the top of
the page, the title titled ratio versus
adjusted selling price. The line the
purple line there is represents the
assessment at 98%. You'll see there are
the distribution of the sales which is
each of these red dots represents the
assessment divided by a selling price of
each of the three each of the 381 sales.
So it shows a distribution of those
sales around the assessment.
So that's what mass appraisal is is
intended to show or develop a value
model that re represents a typical
market or we call that the median market
the middle of the market. So obviously
some assessments will be higher than the
higher than the selling price and some
will be lower but the assessment
reflects the middle of the market
and the table at the bottom just shows
the relationship between the assessment
and the selling price. And then the the
the width the width of the distribution
those red dots is called the coefficient
of dispersion. It just shows that the
range and actually that's a really
important point to make because the
assessment represents a range of value
not the value. So that's so for
assessment purposes the maximum cood can
be 15. That's quite a widespread. So
regulation states for for this kind of
assessment should be about 8.
So it's a fairly tight range. But that
said, we're required to be within 95 and
105. So that's a range. And then within
each group, there's also a range. So
when references are made to a specific
sale at a specific time, it's just one
sale within a range. It doesn't refresh.
If the sale is higher lower than the
assessment, well, it's a range and we
need to calculate when you have a number
of sales, you can find out where it is.
But you've only got one sale does we
don't know where it is in the range. So
we can only assume that it's in the
range. But when we build the models, we
include all the sales. So it with the
assessment reflecting the middle. So one
sale doesn't reflect a model is not we
we can't use one sale for a model
even if even if uh there is only one
sale whether it's a residential group or
condo group or non-res one sale doesn't
make a market it's a it gives you an
idea where where it might sit but for
mass appraisal process we're required to
model everything by by range and it's
statistically tested that's just what we
So all properties in town.
So on page 28
um because the valuation date is July 1,
2025.
So sales because we use a range of sales
in the for instance city of Calgary or
even Cochran or Edri they'll use just
one year's worth of sales because they
got loads of sales because hundreds of
sales but in a small town like how river
we still struggle with getting enough
sales of of certain groups right the
more sales we have the more confidence
we have in in in the um appropriate
value value range of of specific
property types. So this graph included
on page 28, this is what we call our
time adjust. It's just a graphical
representation of the change in value
over time specifically for condos from
July 2022 to June 2025.
So obviously up to 2023 the the market's
pretty flat. or postcoid but from 2023
through these these different time
periods the markets increased and it
kind of tapered off in December 24.
So this is developed it's it's a method
that we used it's uh from similar so the
same property that sells twice or
similar properties that sell twice
during that time period. So it's a very
it's a very uh stringent process to
develop the time adjustment. is actually
audited by the provincial government and
has to be approved before we can use it
for valuation purposes. So as we're
going through this presentation, you'll
hear us talk about the selling price and
then the time adjusted selling price. So
a property sells say in January 2024,
that's the selling price and then the
distance between the top of that graph
and the red line is the adjustment. So
all sales when how whenever they occur
along this line they are all adjusted in
the in the same manner using a
consistent method.
And an important note the time
adjustment is determined before the
determination of each specific model. So
this isn't the modeling process. This
just ch this just suggests the the
selling price the the change in value
over time. That's what this does.
So on page 29, this is we when we submit
our um assessment role to the provision
government through assets. This is to
Alberta Municipal Affairs. It has to
pass two stages of audit to meet the
quality standards as previously
mentioned.
So we're talking about the residential
uh quality standard. So our overall
residential quality standard is uh that
we met is 98.4%. So it passes the
required standard for audit and this is
once was actually signed off by audit
here at April 13th 2026 Michael Lavager
being our our auditor at that time.
So on page 30
um in a review of the assessments in um
Sunrise Place uh with the complainant
and um uh and reviewing all of those
properties and correcting the sizes
um it made us aware of like typically
for condos we'll develop models specific
to each condo. So Sunrise Place would
have its own model. Sunrise Crescent
would have its own valley model and so
would Sunvil Place.
But uh other appeals and the information
brought up by by Paul the complainant
has brought to light that these these
three uh condo developments Sunville
Place, Sunville Crescent, and Sunrise
um with the with with condors as we've
described for Sunrise Place with the
pictures shown on pages 10 through 15,
they're very similar. They're they're
about 1,030,60
ft² with a single car garage and they're
very they're very much the same.
So in the review of these condo
developments with the property owners
through the inquiry period through this
appeal process
um it seemed appropriate to combine
these three condo communities into one
value model
when by doing so we've we now have um
there's 20 23 sales of units similar to
the subject property or the two subject
properties.
Um so these 23 hills represent 29% of 79
similar properties within these three
communities and these are shown below.
So all the 29 these 23 sales are shown
by those the red respective red bars uh
representing the assessment to sales
ratio
with the overall result being 96.8%.
So this value model passes quality
standard.
So the amended assessments as proposed
is determined from the correction of the
sizes and the re rerunning of the model
using all three communities.
And it's the the assessor our our it's
our um not belief but it we believe the
the assessment is better representation
now in communicating with the
complainant and other inquiries. This is
more representative of the of the market
of these properties.
Um on page 31 it just shows the
dispersion of the respective sales. So
that that red line rep is about 96%.
So of those 29 sales some are above the
assessment and some are below.
So the development and use of the value
model of these similar properties within
these communities results in a
consistent and equitable assessment and
also meeting required quality standards.
So on page 32
this shows
uh all of the sales within that we have
from July 122 to June 30th 25 in sunrise
place. So there are nine altogether.
So we'll just pick that top one. Um he'd
sold 17th of April 2024
for 3986.
The time just selling price for this
property is 4426.
The current assessment of 4184.
Um now the the complainant did mention
this particular sale. So and it did sell
twice.
So this is the latter sale. This is the
last sale in 24. Right immediately below
this, this is the first time it sold. So
it sold in the 28th of February 23 for
3395.
That time adjusted value is 4764
when the assessment the amended
assessment is 4184.
So the first sale, the first one is at
88%.
with the second one being 95. So in both
cases the assessment to sales ratio is
less than 100.
Uh that's just the ones that sold twice.
Um so each this assessment to sales
ratio is a range. Uh and if you go to
page 34
those red bars each of these red bars
represents each of those sales. So there
are nine.
So you see 80 a little less than 80 for
the third one is about 90 fourth one is
85 let's say and there's a range so the
overall median assessment to sales ratio
is 94.5
if we just look at the assessment to
sales ratio in sunrise place regarding
the amended assessment.
So, we've we've reviewed every one of
these sales and tested to make sure
they're arms length. We've applied the
time adjustment to these condo condo
sales like every other condo like all
the other 381
sales which present which gave us on
page 26 which gave us an overall assess
assessment to sales ratio 98%.
So it shows that it's being it's that
the it's um an appropriate time
adjustment. Um [clears throat]
let's see here.
So if if uh these assessment sales
ratios were used with sun sunrise place
the model would be 94.5. It's it
wouldn't pass a on its own because it's
less than 95%.
But when we combine it with with the
overall modeling of Sunrise, Sunrise uh
place, Sunville Crescent, and Sunvil
Place, the value and that's on page
page 30, we get an overall assessment of
sales ratio of 96.8%.
Uh and just for information also on page
32
if we look at uh 38 Sunrise Place um it
shows the role the address the legal
year your built and building size. So
1,62 ft um assessment per square foot is
at 396.
So with this model we've amended model
we're applying to these units
uh it's 396 for 38 sunrise place 398 for
32
398 well again it's the same one 50 is
50 sunrise place is 391 a square foot 34
sunrise place is 391 they're all within
a very consistent value per square foot
all being valued the same way with the
model. It's statistically tested as
passing quality standard.
On page 35,
this shows comparable sales between the
communities of Sunville Place Northeast,
Sunville, Sunville Crescent Northeast,
and Sunrise Place Northeast. So, we have
Tus Sunvil Place at um 397 a square
foot. We got Sunville Crescent at 397 a
square foot. All similar sized units.
The top one's,062.
Um 702 is 1,036 square feet. It's at 397
a square foot. 14 Sunrise Place is 1,57
ft at 396 per square foot. And 32
Sunrise Place
is 1,049 ft at 398 ft². So you can see
that with this new valuation model is
consistency applied using a value model
that would that passes required
provincial standard as of July 1, 2025.
These assessments are all all have
consistent
um values per square foot.
Well, these are the sales, sorry.
And then on page 36, this shows
comparable assessments between each of
those communities with the yellow arrow
representing the value per square foot.
So within a very close tight close
range. So these are comparable
assessments within Sunville Place,
Sunrise Place and Sunville Crescent
showing consistent
consistent assessments
or a consistent application of the model
uh for consistent and equitable
assessment.
On page 37,
um the the chart at the bottom of this
page that was sent without with
everyone's assessment notices reflects
the the overall median assessment change
uh from 2024 to 2025. So this would be
the July the July 1 median overall
change in each of these condominium
developments. So in Sunrise, Sunville
Place, Sunrise Place and Sunvil, the
median assessment in 2024 was 393750
and the median assessment in 2025 was
42350
and that also being consistent with the
with the proposed amended assessment and
their respective values per square foot.
So to conclude, upon the review of the
Sunrise Place Northeast condos during
the 2026 inquiry period, it became
evident that there were historic data
errors in the calculation of the 2025
assessment, specifically related to the
sizes of the condo suite and the garage.
Upon review of all the condo plans and
blueprints specific to the Sunrise
development, corrections were made as
included in the submission. Originally
and typically value models for all
condos are specific to each condo
development. However, through
discussions with property owners and
upon review of comparable sales and
similar properties within Sunrise Place,
Sunville Crescent, and Sunville Place,
it appeared appropriate to develop a
single value model for the similar
sidebyside conds in each of these
locations.
The resulting value model meets the
required provincial quality standards
and is shown to be consistent and
equitable within these three similar
areas and moving forward will be our
standard approach to the assessment of
these condos. It is a recommendation of
the assessor that the amended
assessments of the properties identified
in this submission as shown in page 17.
I better check that. There they are uh
are used in a 2025 assessment year.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
>> Thank you. Uh, complainant, you may ask
» Thank you. Uh, complainant, you may ask
any questions now.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, thank you,
» Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, thank you,
Stuart. Um,
I think Stuart's done a good job, as he
did this morning, of explaining the
process that the town has gone through
to uh um
proceed with the model and and come out
with a with a valuation on these
properties. And um what what I can't
fathom and can't understand [snorts] is
how
um none of the values that are on um
these assessments actually equate to
sales values within these three
communities that he's talking about. And
and I think we've established that these
three communities are at least similar.
They're not they're not identical, but
they're at least similar. Um, and if if
I can refer you to page 46.
[snorts]
» Sorry, I just want to confirm. Is that
page 46 within your
>> No, it's it's within the submission the
» No, it's it's within the submission the
the um respondents documentation.
Would
that be this page?
>> That would be that page. Yeah.
» That would be that page. Yeah.
>> Okay. Let me just see if I can rotate
» Okay. Let me just see if I can rotate
[clears throat] it.
>> Obviously, I don't have access to all of
» Obviously, I don't have access to all of
the data like the town has. So, I was
only able to collect certain data from
various um residents that I'm
representing for the Sunil properties,
but I do know them for Sunrise, which is
the ones that I own personally.
um and the tax assessments there even
[clears throat] for 2025
um
ne never have we achieved those sales um
[clears throat]
um in in any of these three areas that
we're talking about. So, if you look I
know it's all good. Um, you need to be
looking at page 47 as well, which
highlights all of the sales that I was
able to obtain off the MLS
um for these three areas. Sunrise uh
place, Sunvil Place, and Sunvil Cresant,
which are the three areas that Stuart
has um determined that we're grouping
together now for an evaluation purpose.
none of the sales since 2022 have ever
reached the assessment prices that he's
now saying. Um, their model has has
calculated and even even the sales that
have occurred since then haven't reached
those values either as I made in my
opening statement. Um what what I'd like
to know is
it's great that we have these models
that we follow and that are legislated
but is there any type of calibration
done after those models have have come
up with the calculation to look at the
actual sales that are taking place
because in these three communities I
can't see that any calibration will have
been done because none of these sales um
are anywhere close to those values that
have now been determined.
So that's my question. Has there been
any calibration done after the model has
been done? And I know that, you know,
you've got to meet these legislative
requirements, but the reality is does
this model represent market value?
That's what we're trying to establish.
Thank Thank you u the complaint. Thank
you, Madam Chair. Uh to answer the
question, I'll I'll kind of answer with
an example. So let's say we have these
three communities and then we have let's
say there were no sales in Sunvil Place,
zero sales.
So and they're all we've identified
there as the complaint says they're all
similar properties. So there are no
sales in one of these communities. Do we
say do we say well [snorts]
they're not what are we going to use if
there's no sales? We have so that the
the value for that similar community
comes from the sales in the other
properties. the models the model sales
are coming from the other two
communities. We use those
so that we can apply a consistent
equitable value on those properties that
don't sell. And in in a nutshell, that's
what assessment does. We take sales of
properties. We call them indicators of
value. We develop a value model process
for the properties that sell. It's
statistically tested. Does it reflect
those those specific sales for those
similar properties correctly? And once
it passes that statistical test, it's
just applied to the properties that
don't sell [snorts]
where we have no control over what sales
occur where we can't go, well, there's
only two sales in place. What are we
going to do?
In either way, we need sufficient sales
for us to develop a valuation model that
makes sense that is capable of being a
an appropriate reflection of the market
value of properties. That's our mandate
to be to be a properties
market value using mass appraisal. We
have no control over the sales.
Obviously, we use three years worth of
sales to get as many sales as possible.
The more sales we have, the more
confidence we have in the valuation pro
in the models that are developed that
are stat statistically tested. So in the
example of say either sunrise place or
one of the other communities not having
any sales,
we model we take all those similar
properties. We'll be de we've developed
a value model that includes all of them
now not even separately. Now they all
all the same. So they're all on they're
all on the same level. So they're all
identical and the val with a consistent
valuation process mass appraisal the
sales of time adjusted all the cond
properties every property is adjusted
for time because it has to be July 1. So
we follow we followed the the provincial
legislation, we followed best practice
using mass appraisal. And even if the
example of um if there were no sales in
one of those communities, if if there
were one sale, it could be high, it
could be lower, but it's just one sale.
And we talked about that coefficient of
dispersion. It's in there somewhere.
It's in that range
of value. Just because there's only one
sale, it doesn't mean it's the highest
or the lowest, we have no control over
that. All we required to do is look all
the sales of a consistent group of
properties by location, develop a model
that's statistically tested following
all the provincial regulations we have,
and then that's the assessment. I I
understand the argument that um this
these these couple of sales in 22 or
some in 23 but we have we just time and
location or right and there's all kinds
of other property groups but we're
looking at similar properties a similar
process a similar and consistent
statistical test so we that's what how
the assessments are developed that's the
only defense I have right we we're we're
bound by legis legislation bound by mass
appraisal as imperfect as it may be.
Right? But that's that's that's the
standard by which we are complete the
assessment process.
» Thank you. I will now ask any members of
the board if you have any questions
to the assessor through the chair. Are
so we're just taking the sales. Are we
now looking at quality
of the homes that are involved in these
sales? The amp like
are all the condos in that area the same
quality?
» Yep. They're all identical. They're all
They're all assessed exactly the same.
They all have different It's marketed
just a depreciated cost. So they have
different ages, different sizes, but the
style and quality of construction is
consistent throughout. It's not there's
not there's not sufficient differences
that would that would would cause any to
be different than another. Not not on
the assessor's opinion anyway.
U Madam Chair, may I interject?
>> Go ahead. Um,
» Go ahead. Um,
yeah, I obviously have the privilege of
of being on the condominium board of
Sunil Place that we spoke about this
morning and I'm also on the condominium
board of Sunrise Place that we're now
assessing. Um, the quality of the homes
in Sunil are actually superior to the
ones in Sunrise. I know cuz I own two of
them and they have different finishings
inside.
um you know their laminated countertops
rather than um marble or anyway it's
it's it's a little bit different. The
flooring is very different. You got
plush wooden floors in Sunvil. You don't
have the same flooring in Sunrise. The
property that they've got in the picture
is obviously one that's been renovated
and and actually looks very nice. Um but
not all of the properties are exactly
the same and they do that does determine
a different value. it wouldn't be
significant but it it might be enough.
Um
I guess guess what I would have to say
is that
even though the model seems to suggest
that these values should be accurate. Um
on on this this diagram here or this
chart here we can we can see sales um
that have taken place um over a period
of years since 2022.
and
all of the comparable sales. We would we
would consider these three communities
as called Sunrise Meadows. Am I correct?
>> I don't know that I know you by
» I don't know that I know you by
specifically by each one, but you're
probably right. Yeah,
>> Sunrise Meadows is what I understand
» Sunrise Meadows is what I understand
that these three communities are are
referred to, but it's it's Sunrise
Place, Sunrise Cresant, and Sunvail
Place. Um
so these three air these three
communities are the most comparable
properties available in High River
because they are most similar. Um but
but they are different. Um they they the
sales that I've got in this chart depict
arms length market transactions between
willing buyers and willing sellers. Um,
and actual sales, actual sales are the
strongest evidence of market value. Not
a model, not a formula, actual sales.
And every comparable sale supports
values significantly below these
assessed values. Every single sale. Now,
I g gather that there's a time
adjustment factor, but even the sales
that have occurred since July 1st, 2025
are well below this assessment value.
So, obviously, something is broken
within the model and that's our contest
our our our
position. Um, it's it's a consistent
pattern that we're seeing. um it's not
one sale um within this community. All
of the sales that I've got on this
document demonstrate that we're not
anywhere near those values. Now, yes,
it's over a time period, but not anyone
of the sales that took place within that
1st of July 2024
to 30th of June 2025 hit that value at
all. And I mentioned at the very
beginning,
unit 50 was sold
just a matter of weeks on May 9th, it
sold for 380,000,
7 weeks before the legislated valuation
date. And yet the town's value for that
property
is 416.
Well, that's a significant jump.
[snorts] Um, and so we contest that the
model doesn't seem to be working. It's
not representative of what actually is
happening on the ground. [snorts] Um and
and I don't I don't understand it. I
don't know what the
um the model does in its calculations. I
just see the numbers of the actual sales
that I was able to obtain details of and
they're they're not they're not equating
to what um Stuart [snorts] is reporting.
Anyway, I rest. Thank you, Madam Chair.
>> Sorry, I just want to clarify. You said
» Sorry, I just want to clarify. You said
unit 50. I don't see that on this list
here.
>> It's not um this this particular unit
» It's not um this this particular unit
was not on the MLS. It was actually data
that the town provided me. So, it must
have been a private sale is what I
assume.
>> But I will contest as well, like I did
» But I will contest as well, like I did
this morning, that that doesn't matter.
The people that are residing in these
homes are all mostly retired folks,
right? They're mostly retired folks. And
um there's going to be a lot of estate
sales in these communities as a result
of that. Um that's that's just an
apparent fact because of the age
population of the people that are living
there.
They're they're either staying there
till they die or they're moving from
there into a care facility of some sort.
>> Any other questions from the board?
» Any other questions from the board?
>> Yeah, I have several here. Just uh
» Yeah, I have several here. Just uh
confirm what page number is that for the
location you were just talking about?
>> 50.
» 50.
>> Um
» Um
>> because I don't see it in this report
» because I don't see it in this report
when I reviewed it through lunch.
>> That's a great question. Um it's in the
» That's a great question. Um it's in the
rebuttal that was sent to us from the
city. So it's somewhere in this
document. Okay.
>> And uh
» And uh
>> I don't know if we can do like
» I don't know if we can do like
>> I'll see if I can find it
» I'll see if I can find it
>> a control search function on it.
» a control search function on it.
>> Okay. I'll just jump to a couple other
» Okay. I'll just jump to a couple other
ones here.
>> Um to the complaintant here. You
» Um to the complaintant here. You
discussed a few times in regards to
direct sales. Most recent sales is this
50 and then the prior ones just to
confirm with you is 42 cresant place and
then 32
specifically. Is that correct?
Uh 42 at 375,000
>> and then 32 was your other direct
» and then 32 was your other direct
>> 398,600.
» 398,600.
Yes, that's correct.
>> Those are your direct comparisons that
» Those are your direct comparisons that
you want to equate to this.
>> Yes. Thank you. Thank you for
» Yes. Thank you. Thank you for
confirming. Uh in regards to the
condition of the property itself, um as
you've already stated before, but I just
want to make sure it's clear to
everybody online here. What is your
depiction of the condition of the
properties? The subject properties would
you recommend or would you advise as
it's fair, good, excellent condition or
referring to does the roof need to be
replaced? I understand the interior may
have small adjustments but major
structural issues.
>> These these properties are about 4 years
» These these properties are about 4 years
older than the properties that we were
talking about this morning in Sunil.
They're from 2012. They're all of a
similar um condition. Um the roofs are
all in good condition. Um obviously the
exterior of these properties are managed
by the condo board, not by the
individual tenants or owners. Um and
yeah, they're all in good condition.
>> Okay. Thank you.
» Okay. Thank you.
>> The interiors are slightly different.
» The interiors are slightly different.
>> Thank you. To the respondent just to
» Thank you. To the respondent just to
confirm for myself here and I know the
complaintant did bring it up here. Um in
regards to the time weight, what's the
actual weight? I know you guys did a
confidence to confirm if it hit the
medium through the government, but
what's the actual weight when we're
applying a weight of a sale of 2022?
What what's the actual weight itself?
Like how are we adjusting that specific
number versus a sale of 2024?
>> Yeah, it's it's
» Yeah, it's it's
>> I just I couldn't find it in the page
» I just I couldn't find it in the page
reviewing it through like an hour
before. I just do you have uh
information for me? There's no there's
no specific it's developed from the like
you say on page 28 of the of our
submission there's a graph there's a
graph there representing the time
adjustment so it's it's there's not
there's no set standard that time
adjustment is calculated specifically
only from those condos
>> from all the condos here in town there's
» from all the condos here in town there's
not a in high river we we this is it the
time adjustment is calculated from the
sales and so there isn't there is an
adjustment that's a coefficient we don't
we don't I get come with a statistical
regression to build for a difference of
timing. I'm just trying to understand
where it would be aligned or is it just
exponential? At the end of the day, it's
this is an estimate of assessment, an
estimate of value using mass appraisal
and it's tested for our so our models
are tested the statistical test is 95 to
105.
So that's after the time adjustments are
calculated determined then that's how
the respective sales are adjusted but
then modeling is specific to similar
groups and I just want to add add to
that um the complaint said did say that
Sunvil place were better units
but similar so you know there the
assessment is not we can only divide
properties into so many small groups and
then we have no sales left so it's mass
appraisal for similar groups
If we really get into the weeds and want
to divide stuff into hundreds of groups,
good luck trying to come up with a sale
price with a model. So that's why we're
looking at that's why I think we would
be in agreement that I've heard from the
complaintant also that these three
communities are very close. That's why I
say this is a a good idea moving ahead
to make them all the same, right? But
they're not perfectly identical. We
can't we it's just residential groups.
Imagine trying to place some like some
place like water tower or the southwest
looking for tight groups. Good luck,
right? We we have to we have to divide
them up into consistent similar groups
and not into smaller groups. So, it's
mass appraisal for ma for as consistent
groups as we can get right. They don't
have to be identical but similar.
>> I appreciate that. Okay. Couple
» I appreciate that. Okay. Couple
>> sorry, just for the purpose of this, if
» sorry, just for the purpose of this, if
you're not speaking, can you please turn
off your microphone? Apologies,
that was myself. [laughter]
Um, in regards to the assessments, uh,
similar question to the complainant to
the respondent here, uh, when you went
to the properties, just to confirm
through, uh, everybody live streaming
this. Uh, when you checked out the
property itself, would you consider the
condition good, fair, excellent
condition, no major faults or issues?
just to confirm other property
>> I believe uh I don't I haven't looked at
» I believe uh I don't I haven't looked at
everyone specifically but for this group
I think we believe we all have them as
average they're not that old
>> okay
» okay
>> right they're not that old to have
» right they're not that old to have
experienced significant depreciation
which we don't already uh already
considered in the age of the age of the
condos whether they're built in 2012 or
built in 2016 that there's an adjustment
for depreciation in the mass in the
market adjusted depreciated cost method
So we don't we don't we haven't had any
feedback from property owners of any
extreme condition like we we and we have
them all at average.
>> I appreciate that. Thank you. That's all
» I appreciate that. Thank you. That's all
I have for a question.
>> Go ahead.
» Go ahead.
>> Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, you had
» Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, you had
at one point wanted the assessed value
at 360 and you said, "Now taking into
all that I've learned, I'd like to see
an assessment of what?"
>> Um, Madame Chair, thank you for the
» Um, Madame Chair, thank you for the
opportunity to answer the question. Um,
just just before I do answer that
question, I do want to go back to what
Taylor had said about um the one
property unit 50. It's found on page 32.
um you'll see that the ASR on page 32
was 109%
and that is the property that we learned
about being sold at 380,000.
Um
anyway, just wanted to bring that back
to your attention and answer that
question. Um based based upon um
everything that we had learned um during
this process um we recognize that we may
have been a little bit um
you know [snorts] uh keen to get a lower
value and so we we feel that the Sunrise
Place properties sell for less than the
Sunvail Place properties typically.
Um that's that's what we've seen over
time and and so we we did have a reduced
value. Um but when when we went through
this process, we're accepting now that
hey, a lot of the values that we're
seeing these properties be sold for is
around that that price point. And so it
doesn't seem to matter that the Sunil
Place properties might be a little bit
better um interior. They're still being
sold for a similar value to the ones in
Sunrise. And so hopefully that answers
your question and that's why we've we've
adjusted what we're applying for.
>> So to confirm,
» So to confirm,
380 is
>> Does that Does that Yeah, 380. Yeah.
» Does that Does that Yeah, 380. Yeah.
Does that answer your question? [snorts]
>> I believe so. Thank you.
» I believe so. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair.
» Thank you, Madam Chair.
>> Any other questions?
That appeared like a rebuttal but um
thank you. So now I will invite the
complainant um to speak to a rebuttal um
clos disclosure um and you any closing
remarks.
» Thank you Madam Chair. um
really uh
I think I think we've repeated ourselves
uh a number of times um that
we we recognize that the town has an
obligation to follow a mass appraisal
model in its calculations of these
assessments. Um our argument is not that
they haven't done their job. it's that
these mass appraisal calculations don't
actually um equate to what's actually
happening in reality and the evidence
we've provided shows that none of those
those homes will fetch the values that
they're currently being assessed at. Um,
and I think uh I I don't know whether or
not it's a time adjustment problem in
their model um uh or whether or not um
there's some other miscalculation in the
model that's currently being used. But
uh we we affirm that uh our request to
have the board um determine a value that
equates to what the market will bear um
should be what these properties be
assessed at as we move forward. Thank
you.
um to the respondent um any closing
remarks or rebuttals
for last considerations here.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um just to
» Thank you, Madam Chair. Um just to
reiterate, um uh my favorite saying is I
don't write the music. I just play the
piano. We we just reflect what happens
in the marketplace. We have no control
over what the sale is. Uh what value it
is, what when it's sold. We are required
we when we reflect we've taken all of
the sales all the actual all the sales
the complainants used in the submission
actual sales they're in they're in our
analysis. If it's sold even ones has
been made clear the ones that aren't on
MLS we include we have to include all of
them. So they all are included not some
of them all of them. So they are in the
model and the models are statistically
tested. We've wrapped both these three
communities together. There may be some
subtle differences between the three of
them. Mass appraisal there's a it's a
range of value. So that's that's our
current and it's for the distribution of
tax. It's not for borrowing money. It's
not for any other purpose for but for
the fair and equitable distribution of
the tax load using advalar
principle of valuation. Right? So we've
met the standards, we've followed the
market sales, we've made appropriate
adjustments for the change in value over
time. We've developed uh a model that
suits that is developed from the three
communities. And we've even shown that
if those models were were used
specifically within Sunrise Rice Place,
those assessments wouldn't pass audit.
They're they're on they're 95 they're
94.5% or whatever it was it was. But to
together as a group they they pass audit
and that's that's what we're supposed to
do. We we we can't if we had developed
if these were the original 2025
assessment going to asset for uh
approval they wouldn't pass. So these
are the rules we have to follow using
mass appraisal developing models that
are statistically tested that represent
a range of value. We've shown that some
of we we show you assessment it's at
96%. Some sales are higher, some sales
are lower. If you were to pick one of
those sales out, like one one could be
lower, one could be higher. We use all
of them and the middle represents the
whole. So we've done we've done that in
this case with the with the assess the
amended assessments for Sunrise Sunrise
Place.
So I I respect the fact that some a
recent sale might be lower than the
current assessment. It's after it's
after July 1 if it is if it's after that
time and it's one it's one sale. Next
this whole next year is a whole new
year. We drop 22 2022 sales would drop
off. We pick up the 2026 sales. It's a
brand new model. If the market's
tapering off this year that would be
reflected in next year's assessment.
Again, it's all the sales for one one
point in time value. So, um I respect
the opinion. It's mass appraisal is um
it's unique to assessment. It's not an
appraisal like a regular appraisal in
the market. Um our role is to reflect
the typical market. our our mandate as
per legislation is market value standard
using mass appraisal passing new
required quality standards and this has
been a great process right to to both
Sunville Place and Sunrise Place with
the patience of people like Paul right
to help us shed some light on maybe
improving things as we move forward
that's what it's all about we we don't
stand in a a corn of silence and we're
not open to any new information on how
to value things it's it's it's this
process and this process I respect we
respect that, right? That's how we
that's how we make our assessments
better and decisions of the board. So,
this is a great process. I've I've
enjoyed going through this with Paul and
and the people in Sunville Place. And
like I say, we're just following the
rules we have and this is just our
estimate value for mass appraisal
process. So, I appreciate your time.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
One question for me personally, um,
because it follows the mandate of the
province and it it passes the the test,
is there an opportunity that the test
valuation overall in High River is too
high?
Um it's they're all all so all the
models are developed specifically for
every single like we don't model we
don't have a volume model for condos
like we don't by by it's stratified by
property type within each community. So
those models develop by property type
and each community they're all at 98%.
So you take all of those and compile
them together. Like remember the the the
the example of this mass appraise mass
appraisal all of the 1300 and some
condos like they were all they're all in
the different model groups all 98%. So
they're all believe me the audit audit
are very very stringent. They pick they
pick it apart and so they should because
people pay tax based on this. So we
should be scrutinized here, here, and
with you and with the province. So the
rules are very strict. I would say no,
there there's a range of course like we
always have people come in and if there
if a property sold for 350 and we've got
to assess at 370, they come in and say,
"What's going on?" Well, there's a
range. And so we can't we can't be lower
than everyone's selling price. It's not
possible. So we I'm I'm confident that
we've we've met the standard. It's been
we've passed the audit. They the they
passed we've passed that test and at
this level we're we're getting more
specific, right? And that's fine. You
know, it's like I said, it's a good
learning opportunity as well for
everybody, right?
>> Yeah, absolutely. The reason I come to
» Yeah, absolutely. The reason I come to
that question is because a lot of the
market ratio reports that were provided
um for example it was your page 26 but
the overall document page 59 the mean
came in for the square footage at 312
square ft and I'm wondering the
valuation of square footage as we do an
assessment would be like the replacement
cost of a property.
>> Could you can I ask that question again
» Could you can I ask that question again
please?
>> Sure. The reason I'm asking that
» Sure. The reason I'm asking that
>> which p which page which page
» which p which page which page
>> so it's your page 26.
» so it's your page 26.
>> All right. Yes.
» All right. Yes.
>> So um the price for per square foot the
» So um the price for per square foot the
mean here you have it 312
» dollars.
>> Oh yeah that's this is just this is just
» Oh yeah that's this is just this is just
we don't use that like we this is not
it. This is just a reflection. This is
reflect. This is not the numbers on here
are not they're just um
they're we don't use that. We don't use
that. It's just it's just a number. It's
just a of this group for this like this
is every all the condos all the condo
sales. So we wouldn't this doesn't rep
reflect anything. It's just information.
We wouldn't we wouldn't use that 312
because this is rep represents every
condo in town. apartment condo like a
Sunvail condo
uh every condo this is this is just this
is um like we don't we don't use that to
calculate assessments because this this
is all condos in every community
every all the all the strata groups this
is not this is not a measure of value
like it's not
>> yeah we wouldn't we wouldn't use that
» yeah we wouldn't we wouldn't use that
it's just a
>> although it does form part of the
» although it does form part of the
evidence for us
>> yeah it's not the what's specific to
» yeah it's not the what's specific to
these these condor groups is what's been
shown today because these are different
a whole every condor this is only used
as as an example like for instance if
you go to
let's go to page 30
you'll see it's for for this group so
this is for all of them [clears throat]
it says 423
>> right and we're the assessment the me
» right and we're the assessment the me
the proposed assessment is not 423 like
it doesn't mean it's just it's a
different group the groups that matter
is is the group that we have used right
here for 96. This is not that's not the
measure. It's the group the measure of
the value is the the model that's built
from the assessment divided by the
selling price for all for all those 23
sales to arrive at a median ASR of
96.8%. That's the destination right
there. That the median ASR that's the
quality standard. what you're referring
to this price median mean like this all
these numbers they're just a measure
they're just another way to look at the
same number but they're not used in our
analysis these are irrelevant the the
number we're that's that we the quality
standard we're required to meet is that
median percentage because that's statist
that's a stat statistical test of this
model for similar units of sales within
the three years as of July 125 That's
that's our standard and that's what's
being communicated here like all this
we've talked about the sales specific to
sun these three communities there are
similar properties and that's our
destination is an assessment rule the
total assessment value we don't do we
don't say a median square footage and
apply that this is just a result you
right it's just a massive process
>> so it's an area essentially no different
» so it's an area essentially no different
than you having
>> if you use that as a measure of
» if you use that as a measure of
comparison
Fine, you can you can anyone can use
whatever they want. But for us, we this
the destination is the total assessment
divided by the selling price for all of
the sales in the model. Does it pass the
quality standard? And on page 30, the
the median ASR is 96.8%. That's our
requirement. We're market value
assessment for the total value of the
property.
So, it would be fair to say that the
mean is 423 and the median is 422 of
what?
>> I wouldn't Yeah, I wouldn't I wouldn't
» I wouldn't Yeah, I wouldn't I wouldn't
use those numbers. I'm not suggesting I
I didn't I haven't used that in my in
this in this submission.
Right. That's we're talking we're
talking about the
the valuation model that's applied
consistently within similar similar
properties.
So just me personally I um so you don't
want us to assess the square foot value
that is being presented in some of this
documentation.
>> We're we're talking we're we're we're
» We're we're talking we're we're we're
def we're we're we're defending the
total assessed value of the property not
the square foot value of the property.
Right? We could use the we could use the
garage and say the gra based on the
garage size. You could build a model on
that. Right? You could build a model in
anything, but we're saying we've we've
we've corrected the size of those condo
suites. The assessment comprises of the
suite at a certain square footage and a
garage square footage. They come up with
a value
for a total and that total for us. That
total assessment has to be divided by
that that assessment divided by the time
it just selling price
of of these 23 sales has to be within
quality standard.
That's what that's what we've that's how
the model's built. That's how we're
defending it today. We're not defending
it on any other any any other metric.
>> Okay. Thank you.
» Okay. Thank you.
>> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, if
» Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, if
there are no further questions from the
board, um, this is an opportunity for
either party to make any final comments
um, before we conclude this hearing. Um,
and please note that additional comments
are not required. If you feel your
position has already been heard.
» Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't really
feel like I need to make any other
comments. Appreciate everybody's time
this afternoon. Uh, England are one up,
so sorry, Hank.
>> [laughter]
» And
[laughter]
>> thank you everybody for your time. I
» thank you everybody for your time. I
appreciate it.
>> Uh similar to the complaint, Madam
» Uh similar to the complaint, Madam
Chair, uh we've shared lots of
information. We have no other further
comments to make. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you. Appreciate that. Um
» Thank you. Appreciate that. Um
thank you. Uh the board will deliberate
following the conclusion of this hearing
and will issue a written uh decision in
accordance with the legislated
timelines. Generally, parties can expect
the board decision to be within 30 days
of this hearing. Uh after the decision
is finalized, the clerk has up to seven
additional days to distribute the final
notice um to all parties. This concludes
the local assessment review board
hearing for July 15, 2026. And this
hearing is adjourned at 2:28