[0:23] Good afternoon everyone. Um, I now call
[0:26] to order the hearing of the assessment
[0:28] review board to order for July 15, 2026
[0:32] at 10:01 p.m.
[0:36] Please note that today's hearing is
[0:37] being streamed lived and recorded on
[0:40] YouTube. Attendees acknowledge
[0:43] acknowledge names, addresses, and other
[0:44] details provided when speaking in
[0:46] today's hearing will be publicly shared.
[0:49] You should have, should you have any
[0:51] questions, please contact legislative
[0:53] and advisory services division for the
[0:56] town of High River by sending an email
[0:58] to atiphy river.ca.
[1:03] First, I would like to introduce myself.
[1:05] Um, I am Renee Clemens, chair of the
[1:07] assessment review board for the 2026
[1:09] term, and I'm serving as the presiding
[1:12] officer in today's uh local assessment
[1:15] review board hearing.
[1:17] Um, at this time I will introduce or
[1:21] allow my fellow board members to
[1:23] introduce themselves.
[1:25] >> Hello, my name is Taylor Cameron. I'm a
[1:27] » Hello, my name is Taylor Cameron. I'm a
[1:27] member of the assessment review board.
[1:31] >> My name is Hank Lee Frank. I'm a member
[1:33] » My name is Hank Lee Frank. I'm a member
[1:33] as well.
[1:36] >> The matter before the board today is a
[1:37] » The matter before the board today is a
[1:37] merit hearing regarding the following
[1:39] role numbers and property addresses.
[1:41] Roll number 80139
[1:44] 0 located at 38 Sunrise Place Northeast
[1:49] and RO number 8161
[1:52] 0 located at 64 Sunrise Place Northeast.
[1:56] These properties are owned by Paul and
[1:59] Sarah Jane Bloomfield.
[2:02] This hearing will consider the
[2:03] complaintant filed and the evidence
[2:06] presented by both parties respecting the
[2:08] assessed value.
[2:10] I will now ask those present to
[2:12] introduce themselves for the record. Uh
[2:15] we will begin with board administration
[2:17] followed by the complainant and then the
[2:19] respondent.
[2:22] Good afternoon. I am Jod Hipkin,
[2:24] co-chair with my colleague
[2:26] Alicia Plet.
[2:34] » Complainant.
[2:36] >> Hi, my name is Paul Blumfield and I am
[2:38] » Hi, my name is Paul Blumfield and I am
[2:38] the complainant.
[2:42] Good afternoon. My name is Stuart Dumple
[2:44] um representing the respondent.
[2:48] >> My name is Brandon Garner. I'm uh an
[2:50] » My name is Brandon Garner. I'm uh an
[2:50] assessor with the town of High River.
[2:52] >> Thank you.
[2:55] » Thank you.
[2:55] >> Before we begin, I'll briefly outline
[2:56] » Before we begin, I'll briefly outline
[2:56] the hearing process. Um this is a quasi
[2:59] judicial hearing and the board will
[3:01] consider the evidence and submission
[3:03] presented by both parties. All parties
[3:06] are expected to provide truthful and
[3:08] accurate information as the board will
[3:10] rely on this in making their decision.
[3:12] All questions are to be directed through
[3:14] the chair
[3:17] and the complainant will present their
[3:19] case followed by the respondent. The
[3:21] complainant will then be able to present
[3:23] their rebuttal. Each party will have the
[3:26] opportunity to ask any questions of each
[3:28] other um or one another and the board
[3:31] may ask questions at any time.
[3:34] We will conclude the closing submissions
[3:36] and any evidence not disclosed in
[3:39] accordance with the required timelines
[3:41] may not be accepted by the board. Before
[3:44] we proceed, are there any preliminary
[3:46] matters from either party such as
[3:49] questions about the hearing process and
[3:52] how the hearing will proceed?
[3:55] >> Not from me.
[3:57] » Not from me.
[3:57] >> No, no questions from the respondent.
[3:59] » No, no questions from the respondent.
[3:59] Thank you.
[3:59] >> Thank you. concerns about potential
[4:02] » Thank you. concerns about potential
[4:02] conflict of interest or bias with any of
[4:04] the board members?
[4:08] » Again, not for me. Thank you, chair.
[4:11] >> Thank you. And none here, too. Thank
[4:12] » Thank you. And none here, too. Thank
[4:12] you.
[4:13] >> Thank you. Concerns about documents and
[4:15] » Thank you. Concerns about documents and
[4:15] evidence that were submitted or not
[4:17] received.
[4:21] » Uh, again, no from me
[4:23] >> and none from the respondent either.
[4:25] » and none from the respondent either.
[4:25] Thank you.
[4:26] requests to have someone speak on your
[4:29] behalf or assist during the hearing. I'm
[4:31] assuming no because we are all present.
[4:34] And any other procedural issues that
[4:36] should be addressed before we begin
[4:37] discussing the property assessment?
[4:42] >> All good here. Thank you.
[4:44] » All good here. Thank you.
[4:44] >> Yeah. All good. Thank you very much,
[4:45] » Yeah. All good. Thank you very much,
[4:45] Madam Chair.
[4:46] >> Thank you.
[4:50] » Um I will now invite the complainant to
[4:53] present their case. Um and you may
[4:55] proceed whenever you're ready.
[4:57] >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um good morning
[5:01] » Thank you, Madam Chair. Um good morning
[5:01] uh to everybody on the board and to uh
[5:03] the respondents and uh everyone else
[5:05] present. Thank you for the opportunity
[5:07] to present um our appeal regarding the
[5:10] 2026 assessments for 38 and 64 Sunrise
[5:14] Place Northeast.
[5:16] Um, I would like to begin by
[5:18] acknowledging that the town has reviewed
[5:20] our complaint, uh, corrected errors
[5:23] relating to garage and suite sizes and
[5:25] reduced both assessments, and we
[5:28] appreciate those corrections.
[5:31] However, we respectfully submit that the
[5:33] amended assessments of 418,400
[5:37] and 421,300
[5:40] still do not represent market value as
[5:43] of July 1st, 2025 as required under the
[5:47] municipal government act.
[5:50] Um, our appeal is not about whether the
[5:53] town is permitted to use the market
[5:55] adjusted depre depreciation depreciated
[5:58] cost model. We accept that it is an
[6:01] approved mass appraisal methodology. Our
[6:03] concern is that for this particular
[6:05] group of properties, the model has
[6:08] produced values that are inconsistent
[6:10] with the actual market evidence.
[6:12] [snorts]
[6:14] The stronger strongest evidence of
[6:16] market value is the sale of 50 Sunrise
[6:19] Place Northeast.
[6:23] It sold for 380,000 on May the 9th,
[6:27] 2025.
[6:28] just 7 weeks before the legislated
[6:31] valuation date.
[6:33] Because it occurred so closely to July
[6:36] 1st, it required virtually no time
[6:38] adjustment.
[6:41] Despite this, the town's own amended
[6:43] assessment for that property is
[6:45] approximately 416,300
[6:49] or about 109% of its actual sale price.
[6:54] We submit that when the best comparable
[6:56] sale immediately preceding the valuation
[6:58] date is assessed significantly above
[7:00] what a willing buyer actually paid for
[7:02] it, it [snorts] raises serious questions
[7:05] about whether the assessment reflects
[7:07] market value.
[7:09] [snorts] The town's disclosure also
[7:11] shows that the valuation model relies
[7:14] heavily on sales from 2022 through 2024.
[7:18] Those older sales required time
[7:21] adjustments ranging from approximately
[7:23] 11% to 46% before being used in the
[7:28] model. These adjustments increase nearly
[7:31] every historical sale to values that
[7:33] exceed what buyers have actually paid on
[7:35] Sunrise Place.
[7:38] One example illustrates this clearly.
[7:42] The property at 32 Sunrise Place
[7:44] Northeast sold twice. It sold for
[7:49] 339,500
[7:51] in February of 2023
[7:54] and again for 398,600
[7:58] in April of 2024.
[8:01] That represents actual market
[8:03] appreciation of approximately 17.4%.
[8:09] However, the town's adjustment curve
[8:11] appears to apply an increase of roughly
[8:13] 26% over the same period.
[8:16] In other words, the model assumes
[8:18] significantly greater market
[8:20] appreciation than the market itself
[8:22] actually demonstrated.
[8:25] Another important observation is that
[8:27] seven of the eight adjusted Sunrise
[8:30] price place sales are adjusted upwards
[8:33] to values above the 398,600.
[8:38] [snorts] And yet 398,600
[8:41] was the highest price ever actually paid
[8:43] for a Sunrise Place property before the
[8:45] valuation date.
[8:48] The model is therefore producing
[8:50] adjusted values that exceed the highest
[8:52] prices buyers were willing to pay in the
[8:54] real market.
[8:56] Uh we also note that 42 Sunrise Place
[8:59] Northeast sold for 375,000
[9:03] in January of 2026.
[9:06] And while we recognize that this sale
[9:09] occurred after the valuation date and is
[9:12] not direct evidence of a July 1st sale
[9:16] at 375,000,
[9:18] sorry. Um,
[9:21] it does provide a useful check on
[9:23] whether the town's market trend was
[9:25] realistic. If the market was continuing
[9:28] to rise, as the town suggests, it's
[9:30] difficult to reconcile that with a sale
[9:32] at 375,000
[9:35] only 6 months later, while assessments
[9:37] remain above 418,000.
[9:41] Taken together, these sales consistently
[9:44] indicate a market level well below the
[9:47] amended assessments.
[9:49] Throughout this process, we have not
[9:51] argued that the town's methodology is
[9:52] unlawful.
[9:54] Rather, we submit that the methodology
[9:57] has overestimated market appreciation
[9:59] for this specific group of attached
[10:01] villas. The actual market evidence does
[10:04] not support assessments in excess of
[10:07] 418,000.
[10:08] Instead, it supports a value much closer
[10:11] to the observed sales immediately before
[10:14] and after the valuation date.
[10:18] Our original complaint requested a value
[10:20] of 360,000.
[10:23] We acknowledge that the evidence may
[10:25] support a value somewhat above that
[10:27] amount. However,
[10:30] the evidence before the board does not
[10:32] support values of 418,400
[10:36] and 421,300.
[10:39] And therefore, we respectfully ask the
[10:41] board to determine an assessment that is
[10:43] supported by the actual market evidence
[10:46] rather than by adjusted values that
[10:49] exceed what purchasers have demonstrated
[10:51] they are willing to pay.
[10:53] Thank you.
[10:59] » Thank you. I will now um ask the
[11:05] respondent if they have any questions.
[11:09] [snorts]
[11:09] >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I might have
[11:12] » Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I might have
[11:12] missed missed hearing or I guess to
[11:15] clarify what is what is the request
[11:16] through the through the chair. What is
[11:18] the requested assessment for the for the
[11:20] two condos in Sunrise Place that being
[11:24] 38 Sunrise Place and 64 Sunrise Place?
[11:27] When when can I continue, Madam Chair?
[11:30] When we had originally submitted our
[11:32] complaint, our complaint had um asked
[11:35] for
[11:37] an assessment value of 360,000.
[11:40] through this process that we have gone
[11:43] through and through what has been
[11:45] clearly demonstrated to me through the
[11:48] the the gathering of more information, I
[11:51] accept that the properties are worth
[11:52] around 380,000.
[11:54] So that's now the property value that
[11:56] we're looking to have them reduced to,
[11:59] >> right?
[12:01] » right?
[12:01] >> Especially considering that particular
[12:02] » Especially considering that particular
[12:02] property sold seven weeks prior to the
[12:05] actual date.
[12:10] Just to confirm for the record that's
[12:12] for both role numbers.
[12:14] >> Yes, madam chair.
[12:16] » Yes, madam chair.
[12:16] >> Thank you.
[12:19] » Thank you.
[12:19] >> Um I will now ask the respondent um to
[12:22] » Um I will now ask the respondent um to
[12:22] present their case and you may proceed
[12:25] at any time. Thank you madam chair. Uh
[12:29] good afternoon everybody. It's a
[12:30] pleasure to speak to you today to
[12:31] respond to the complaint for 30 38
[12:35] Sunrise Place and 64 Sunrise Place uh
[12:39] previously identified
[12:41] uh here. Um I do have the assessment
[12:45] information on page 53 of So I've got
[12:49] the we got the original assessment
[12:52] uh for 38 Sunrise Place at 430,200.
[12:58] It's near the back.
[13:03] » Which one you want the map?
[13:05] >> It's near It's near the back of the in
[13:07] » It's near It's near the back of the in
[13:07] the addendum. [snorts] I've got page 53
[13:10] of my submission or our submission.
[13:12] Sorry.
[13:13] [snorts]
[13:14] >> We don't have to go there. I can I can
[13:15] » We don't have to go there. I can I can
[13:15] just refer to it, but it's just just
[13:17] that it was included just for
[13:18] information.
[13:22] » [clears throat]
[13:24] >> Yeah, it's Yeah, it'll be Yeah, it's
[13:27] » Yeah, it's Yeah, it'll be Yeah, it's
[13:27] near the It'll be near the end. Okay,
[13:36] here we go.
[13:37] >> Thank you.
[13:39] » Thank you.
[13:39] >> Thank you. So, this is 38. So, this is
[13:41] » Thank you. So, this is 38. So, this is
[13:41] the original assess original assessment.
[13:44] So, just scroll down a page. That was
[13:46] 430,200.
[13:48] And then the next page is the proposed
[13:50] amendment which we'll get to at 428
[13:55] uh 300 sorry 421300.
[13:58] And then the next page is the original
[14:01] assessment for 64 Sunrise Place at
[14:04] 426900.
[14:06] And then the next page would be the
[14:08] amended proposed assessment for 64
[14:10] Sunrise Place Northeast at 418400.
[14:17] Thank you, Joey.
[14:19] So, we just go back to page three.
[14:23] Three, I guess would be good.
[14:31] Although, we could start. We could
[14:32] start. Yeah, page three is good. That'd
[14:33] be awesome. Thank you.
[14:39] [laughter] Sorry.
[14:41] So this is just just to go through our
[14:44] um our submission. Uh page three just
[14:48] identifies it's just the assessment
[14:49] review board receipt of complaint and
[14:51] notice of hearing. It's the same for
[14:53] both properties uh as identified number
[14:57] number 38 and 64.
[15:00] Uh page six is just a complaint for the
[15:04] for the one for 38 Sunrise Place.
[15:08] Page seven uh just shows the relative
[15:11] location of uh sunrise place in High
[15:15] River. So on the top of the page, we've
[15:17] got a a map overall map of High River
[15:19] with the blue rectangle uh highlighted
[15:23] representing
[15:25] Sun well the area of Sunrise Place.
[15:28] And then at the bottom of page seven,
[15:31] the blue highlighted area is Sunrise
[15:33] Place and in of itself.
[15:36] And then just north of Sunrise Place is
[15:39] Mundy Park which [snorts] is not it's
[15:41] not a condo. Uh but the the one area
[15:44] immediately north of Mundy Park is
[15:46] Sunvil Place which will be discussed
[15:48] will be included in this presentation.
[15:50] And then immediately west of Sun Sunvil
[15:54] Place is uh Sunville Crescent uh which
[15:58] are similar units just for information.
[16:00] So the highlighted areas, Sunrise Place
[16:02] where uh in the northeast and then on
[16:05] page eight
[16:07] shows the relative location of uh number
[16:10] 38 Sunrise Place on um the east side of
[16:15] that development and 64 almost
[16:18] immediately across the way.
[16:22] I think it's turning to page page nine.
[16:25] Uh the following table shows the factual
[16:29] information regarding these two
[16:30] properties. Um and we'll get into the
[16:34] I'll discuss the legal information in a
[16:36] minute. Uh so the the top of it shows
[16:40] the the site area 124.9 for both and the
[16:44] site and in in square feet it shows that
[16:47] should be square feet sorry at 1344 ft
[16:51] for both units. That's the total size
[16:53] with the respective suite size of number
[16:56] 38 being originally at 1,060 with the
[17:00] garage of 274 for a total of 1334.
[17:03] And then for number 64 the sweet size on
[17:07] the original assessment is 1,037 with a
[17:10] garage at 307 again with the total at
[17:13] 1344.
[17:15] The original assessment of third number
[17:16] 38 is 43200
[17:19] and of 64 is 426,900
[17:23] with the relative uh value per square
[17:26] foot shown at the bottom.
[17:28] So this is the assessment information
[17:31] and property information used for the
[17:33] 2025 assessment. So
[17:37] reflecting a value as of July 1, 2025,
[17:41] physical condition as of December 31st.
[17:44] [snorts]
[17:46] So page 10, uh this some pictures of 32
[17:50] sunrise place includes included for
[17:53] information. So top of page 32 is a a
[17:56] picture street side of 32 Sunrise Place
[18:00] shows the building with a single car
[18:03] garage. same as on the bottom just with
[18:05] a side view as well. The at the photo at
[18:08] the top of page 11 shows uh the suite
[18:12] from behind looking toward the front
[18:13] door. Uh at the bottom of page 11 shows
[18:17] the kitchen and the living area relative
[18:20] uh to each other.
[18:22] Page 12 shows a picture of the kitchen.
[18:26] Uh bottom of page 12 shows a kitchen
[18:28] from the living from the living room.
[18:33] at bottom at top of page 13 shows um the
[18:37] master suite and the bottom of page 13
[18:40] is the bedroom I mean the bathroom
[18:44] I believe that's the the on suite
[18:48] and on page top of page 14 we have the
[18:52] additional bathroom and then we have the
[18:54] laundry room at the bottom of page 14
[18:59] uh top of page 15 we show the back of um
[19:03] this unit and again just the back and
[19:06] the side of the unit on page the bottom
[19:07] of page 15.
[19:10] [clears throat]
[19:10] So um
[19:13] upon uh reviewing uh the inquiry from
[19:15] the owner uh regarding the suite um we
[19:20] were we were brought to our attention
[19:22] that we we needed to check the size of
[19:25] the unit relative to the sizes of the
[19:28] garage.
[19:29] Um for this for this particular
[19:31] development there are let me see I think
[19:34] there's one two one two three four five
[19:40] six seven condo plans so built-in stages
[19:45] and and uh we've were able to obtain the
[19:49] blueprints also.
[19:51] So up and across the top we've got the
[19:54] roll, the address, the legal. This is
[19:58] the condo plan total me squared. And
[20:01] then the in the pink area there that is
[20:04] the original garage size, original sweep
[20:07] size and original totals post that we
[20:10] used for the 2026
[20:12] assessment uh that was mailed. And then
[20:16] for the green areas, so the condo plan
[20:19] total, uh, that's the the total size.
[20:23] And then we have the amended garage
[20:24] size.
[20:26] And then the amended suite size. So the
[20:29] garages for these suites are not all
[20:33] identical. They're just a little bit
[20:34] different in some situations, but
[20:37] there's not much in it. So to do this
[20:41] proper, all the blueprints are pulled
[20:43] and we we've adjusted um the suite size
[20:48] and the grass size so that they're
[20:50] they're proper. The garages aren't all
[20:52] identical, but we looked at them all
[20:53] specifically and made the appropriate
[20:55] adjustment. So, there's quite a few
[20:57] sweets scenarios, but if we're going to
[20:59] do this for the for the um appeal, it's
[21:02] perfect opportunity to do it for the
[21:04] rest of for next year and make sure uh
[21:08] we start off with on on um for a clean
[21:11] slate next year. Again, this this
[21:13] development was built uh what's the
[21:16] original age?
[21:18] >> 2012, I believe.
[21:19] » 2012, I believe.
[21:19] >> 2012.
[21:20] » 2012.
[21:20] So in back in the day back, you know,
[21:24] there are different ways to do to do uh
[21:26] assess condos.
[21:28] Uh we typically we use a schedule. I
[21:31] don't have any of the condo plans
[21:33] printed, but typically on a condo plan,
[21:35] it comes with a schedule of sizes for
[21:37] the condo plan and it just shows a
[21:40] footprint and it doesn't show where the
[21:42] garage walls are. Like it could be it
[21:45] could be anywhere. So that's why we had
[21:47] to refer to the blueprints to make sure
[21:50] that we we get the size of the suite
[21:53] proper because the garage isn't such a
[21:56] big deal cuz it's just a garage. It
[21:57] doesn't have a great value per square
[21:59] foot. But for the suite, we we're
[22:01] showing that the we're showing a value
[22:03] in the 400 $400 range a square foot. So
[22:06] for out five 10 or 15 square ft makes a
[22:09] significant difference. So it's really
[22:11] important to get that get the sizes
[22:13] correct especially for the suite. So,
[22:16] we've been through each of these. We've
[22:17] we've we've gleaned the blueprints to
[22:20] make sure these sizes are correct. I'd
[22:22] be happy to talk if if if uh the
[22:24] complainant has any questions about
[22:26] sizes down the road. Happy to or anybody
[22:28] has questions about how those sizes are
[22:31] determined. We can happy to happy to
[22:32] review that with them as well. But we
[22:34] did our due diligence to make sure we're
[22:36] starting on a clean slate here,
[22:37] especially if we're talking about an
[22:38] amended assessment.
[22:40] Foundation of assessment is having
[22:42] correct data. So we always endeavor to
[22:44] do to do that uh to the best of our
[22:47] ability.
[22:49] So So just to show you then for number
[22:52] 38 Sunrise Place the overall condo the
[22:56] overall size didn't change but the but
[22:59] the this slightly changed the garage the
[23:01] suite went from 1,60 to,62
[23:04] the garage went from 274 to 273 for
[23:07] number 38. For number 64, the overall
[23:10] size didn't change, but the size of the
[23:13] suite did. It would change from 1334
[23:16] uh square feet to 1049 and the garage
[23:20] changed from 262 to 286. So number 64
[23:25] changed quite a bit, but not for 38.
[23:30] Uh on page 17, this gives shows the
[23:34] salient facts as were presented before.
[23:38] showing the original 2025 assessment and
[23:41] the respective suite and garage sizes
[23:43] for each of those in that that case and
[23:45] the assessment. And then highlighted in
[23:48] red at the bottom of this of the of this
[23:51] uh information is the amended size of
[23:53] the suite and the garage
[23:56] for an amended uh total assessment for
[24:00] 421300 for number 38
[24:04] and 418400 for number 64. So the
[24:07] respective value per square foot is 3.97
[24:10] a square foot for number 38 and 399 for
[24:14] number 64.
[24:19] So the following pages so pages 18
[24:22] through to [cough]
[24:24] [snorts and clears throat] 22 is
[24:26] legislation specific to assessment. The
[24:28] process of assessment is fairly heavily
[24:30] regulated and for good reason. um to
[24:34] make sure the assessments are calculated
[24:35] consistently not only within the town
[24:38] high river and following legislation but
[24:40] throughout the province. [snorts] Uh
[24:42] some of the main um uh items that we we
[24:46] touched upon today would be uh the
[24:48] second uh
[24:50] uh item on page 16 from the top. It
[24:53] reflects that that the assessment must
[24:55] reflect the condition of the property as
[24:57] of December 31st.
[24:59] Um the second column from second row
[25:02] from the bottom market value is our is
[25:05] our the standard with which the
[25:06] assessments have to adhere to. Um market
[25:09] value is defined as as what might be
[25:12] expected to the what might be expected
[25:14] to realize if a property is sold on the
[25:16] open market by a willing [clears throat]
[25:18] seller to a willing buyer. And at the
[25:21] bottom of this page, a pro an assessment
[25:23] of a property based on market value for
[25:26] assessment purposes must be prepared
[25:28] using mass appraisal. Must be an
[25:31] estimate of the value of the fee simple
[25:32] estate in a property and must reflect
[25:35] typical market conditions for properties
[25:38] similar to that property not identical
[25:40] to the property but similar to the
[25:42] property.
[25:45] Um the process of assessment use is um
[25:47] mass appraisal.
[25:49] So which means the process of preparing
[25:51] assessment for a group of properties
[25:52] using standard methods methods and
[25:54] common data and allowing for statistical
[25:56] testing. So an assessment of property
[25:59] for market value which is the discussion
[26:01] of this appeal today. The assessment
[26:04] prepared for the 2025 assessment and in
[26:08] the in the amended assessment proposed
[26:10] is prepared um based on property market
[26:14] value using mass appraisal not actual
[26:17] sales or pinpointed values but it's
[26:20] prepared using mass appraisal and the fe
[26:23] simplest state of property and must
[26:26] reflect typical market conditions
[26:28] similar to the property. So the
[26:30] assessment is in every case for the
[26:33] models is always the model is represents
[26:36] the value for a group of properties.
[26:43] Uh the quality standards are required to
[26:44] adhere to as it's a third row from the
[26:47] bottom. Uh very heavily regulated. These
[26:50] quality standards must be met when we
[26:52] submit uh the assessment information to
[26:54] the prop to the province. on
[26:58] page.
[27:01] Uh it doesn't say that just a minute.
[27:07] Um I can't find it, but it says um uh
[27:11] models must be met and must and it's a
[27:13] statistical test. So the statistical
[27:16] test for residential assessments must be
[27:18] between 0.95 and 1.05 or 95 to 105%.
[27:24] So the valuation model for a group of
[27:26] properties must the sales a sales to
[27:29] assessment ratio median sales to
[27:32] assessment ratio for
[27:34] uh for the assessments in that group
[27:36] must be within that quality range.
[27:45] It's a minute and there is at the top.
[27:48] So the valuation date, this is also an
[27:51] important uh point that any assessment
[27:53] prepared in accordance with the act must
[27:55] be an estimate of the value of a
[27:56] property on July one of the of the
[27:58] assessment year. So that's the year
[28:00] before the tax year and that's July 1,
[28:03] 2025.
[28:06] And that's different from an an
[28:07] appraisal too because the appraisal can
[28:09] be any specific date. But for assessment
[28:11] is always July 1 of the year before the
[28:13] tax year.
[28:17] Just turning to page 23. Uh just to just
[28:20] explain at the top data collection and
[28:22] verification that every every
[28:24] municipality in Alberta following
[28:27] regulations must must review and and um
[28:30] the assessments of properties in a town
[28:32] every 5 years just to make sure we um we
[28:35] keep on top of any property changes,
[28:38] renovations or permitted development.
[28:40] That's so there's a reinspection cycle
[28:42] that helps to make sure that we the data
[28:44] is up to date and correct. Then just the
[28:47] bottom part there is just assumptions
[28:48] and limiting conditions. [clears throat]
[28:52] On page 24 speaks to the portions to
[28:55] value for residential assessments. The
[28:58] appropriate assessment method is a
[29:00] direct comparison approach or sometimes
[29:02] called the sales comparison approach.
[29:05] It's defined as for the for the
[29:07] valuation of residential properties in
[29:09] high river. The direct comparison
[29:11] approach is used. This method of
[29:13] valuation determines a property's value
[29:16] by comparing it to similar recently sold
[29:18] properties in the same geographic area.
[29:21] Again, it says similar properties, not
[29:24] identical properties.
[29:28] So, um, page 25 speaks to the difference
[29:32] between single property appraisal and
[29:34] mass appraisal. So, single property
[29:37] appraisal is a valuation of one property
[29:40] for many different purposes.
[29:43] It uses the valuation the valuation date
[29:45] is determined by the appraiser. So it
[29:48] could be any date.
[29:51] Uh typically in an appraisal uh three to
[29:53] five comparable sales are reviewed as
[29:56] close in location, style, quality and
[29:59] construction to the subject property as
[30:00] possible to arrive at an estimate of
[30:02] value based on those comparables used.
[30:06] Uh so it's different to mass appraisal.
[30:10] A mass mass appraisal is a valuation of
[30:13] an entire group of property for taxation
[30:15] purposes.
[30:17] The valuation date is July 1st condition
[30:20] um [snorts] July the 1st with the
[30:23] condition of the property uh as of
[30:26] December 31st in the year preceding the
[30:28] tax year.
[30:29] Evaluation models is developed for each
[30:32] property group with similar style and
[30:34] quality of construction.
[30:37] An equitable and consistent estimate of
[30:39] values derived for each property group
[30:42] value valuation model is statistically
[30:44] tested for accuracy there. That's what I
[30:46] want was looking for. And after meeting
[30:48] required provincial qualities testing is
[30:50] submitted to ASID. So acid is the
[30:52] overlying umbrella in Alberta um through
[30:56] municipal affairs and it must pass those
[30:59] quality standards before and to be to be
[31:02] um to go through two stages of audit and
[31:05] uh then town can be approved to use that
[31:08] assessment for the assessment notices.
[31:12] on page 26 is just an explanation of the
[31:15] mass appraisal process.
[31:18] Um how how the how the assessment models
[31:20] are tested is to take the assessment
[31:23] divided by a selling price and that
[31:25] gives us an assessment to sales ratio
[31:26] which we we call as the ASR.
[31:30] So through the stratification of similar
[31:32] properties and the respective sales
[31:34] value models are developed with the
[31:36] resulting assessed values being required
[31:38] to meet that regulated quality standard
[31:40] of 0.9 of 95% to 105%.
[31:45] Typically um [clears throat] in the town
[31:48] high river we usually aim for 98%. If we
[31:51] if we if we go for the 95% it's really
[31:54] close uh to the bottom of the valuation
[31:57] scale and it it doesn't really matter so
[32:00] long as it's a consistent process. We
[32:02] could develop an assessment at 105% and
[32:05] for the distribution of the taxes for
[32:07] assessment purposes the taxes wouldn't
[32:10] change because the level of assessment
[32:12] remains consistent.
[32:14] But we always go and it's if we all go
[32:16] for 98% if we went for 100% it's a
[32:19] harder assessment to to present.
[32:23] So in High River from December uh from
[32:28] as of December 31st, 2025
[32:31] of the 300 1324 condo properties in
[32:34] town, there were 381 sales from July
[32:39] 1,22
[32:40] to well June, yeah, July 1, 2022 to June
[32:44] 30th, 2025.
[32:46] So this is all of the condo sales. This
[32:49] is just showing us an example of how the
[32:52] assessment will look and how this how
[32:54] meets quality standard.
[32:57] These sales were verified as suitable
[32:59] indicators of value with respective
[33:01] valuation models being developed and
[33:03] statistically tested with the overall
[33:05] results as follows.
[33:07] Each of the red bars below represents a
[33:10] respective assessment divided by a
[33:12] selling price of each sale with the
[33:15] overall ASR shown with the yellow arrow
[33:18] there uh at 90 98.1%
[33:22] mean required provincial quality
[33:23] standard. Now this these sales are all
[33:26] the condos. So 1324 condos 381 sales
[33:31] these all these sales represent all the
[33:33] groups. It's just shown here is to show
[33:36] you how the the model process works.
[33:39] This is this is not how we developed the
[33:40] model. It's just illustrative.
[33:43] But it does show that for all all of the
[33:46] con all of those sales from each of the
[33:48] respective model groups, it still it
[33:51] meets a quality standard.
[33:54] On page 27 on the table at the top of
[33:57] the page, the title titled ratio versus
[34:00] adjusted selling price. The line the
[34:03] purple line there is represents the
[34:06] assessment at 98%. You'll see there are
[34:09] the distribution of the sales which is
[34:12] each of these red dots represents the
[34:14] assessment divided by a selling price of
[34:17] each of the three each of the 381 sales.
[34:20] So it shows a distribution of those
[34:22] sales around the assessment.
[34:24] So that's what mass appraisal is is
[34:27] intended to show or develop a value
[34:30] model that re represents a typical
[34:32] market or we call that the median market
[34:35] the middle of the market. So obviously
[34:37] some assessments will be higher than the
[34:40] higher than the selling price and some
[34:41] will be lower but the assessment
[34:43] reflects the middle of the market
[34:46] and the table at the bottom just shows
[34:47] the relationship between the assessment
[34:49] and the selling price. And then the the
[34:51] the width the width of the distribution
[34:54] those red dots is called the coefficient
[34:56] of dispersion. It just shows that the
[34:58] range and actually that's a really
[35:00] important point to make because the
[35:03] assessment represents a range of value
[35:06] not the value. So that's so for
[35:09] assessment purposes the maximum cood can
[35:13] be 15. That's quite a widespread. So
[35:16] regulation states for for this kind of
[35:18] assessment should be about 8.
[35:22] So it's a fairly tight range. But that
[35:24] said, we're required to be within 95 and
[35:28] 105. So that's a range. And then within
[35:31] each group, there's also a range. So
[35:34] when references are made to a specific
[35:37] sale at a specific time, it's just one
[35:40] sale within a range. It doesn't refresh.
[35:44] If the sale is higher lower than the
[35:46] assessment, well, it's a range and we
[35:49] need to calculate when you have a number
[35:51] of sales, you can find out where it is.
[35:53] But you've only got one sale does we
[35:56] don't know where it is in the range. So
[35:58] we can only assume that it's in the
[36:00] range. But when we build the models, we
[36:02] include all the sales. So it with the
[36:05] assessment reflecting the middle. So one
[36:08] sale doesn't reflect a model is not we
[36:11] we can't use one sale for a model
[36:15] even if even if uh there is only one
[36:18] sale whether it's a residential group or
[36:21] condo group or non-res one sale doesn't
[36:24] make a market it's a it gives you an
[36:26] idea where where it might sit but for
[36:30] mass appraisal process we're required to
[36:32] model everything by by range and it's
[36:35] statistically tested that's just what we
[36:37] So all properties in town.
[36:40] So on page 28
[36:42] um because the valuation date is July 1,
[36:45] 2025.
[36:47] So sales because we use a range of sales
[36:52] in the for instance city of Calgary or
[36:55] even Cochran or Edri they'll use just
[36:57] one year's worth of sales because they
[36:59] got loads of sales because hundreds of
[37:01] sales but in a small town like how river
[37:04] we still struggle with getting enough
[37:06] sales of of certain groups right the
[37:08] more sales we have the more confidence
[37:10] we have in in in the um appropriate
[37:14] value value range of of specific
[37:17] property types. So this graph included
[37:20] on page 28, this is what we call our
[37:23] time adjust. It's just a graphical
[37:25] representation of the change in value
[37:28] over time specifically for condos from
[37:31] July 2022 to June 2025.
[37:35] So obviously up to 2023 the the market's
[37:39] pretty flat. or postcoid but from 2023
[37:43] through these these different time
[37:45] periods the markets increased and it
[37:47] kind of tapered off in December 24.
[37:51] So this is developed it's it's a method
[37:53] that we used it's uh from similar so the
[37:58] same property that sells twice or
[38:00] similar properties that sell twice
[38:02] during that time period. So it's a very
[38:04] it's a very uh stringent process to
[38:07] develop the time adjustment. is actually
[38:09] audited by the provincial government and
[38:11] has to be approved before we can use it
[38:13] for valuation purposes. So as we're
[38:15] going through this presentation, you'll
[38:17] hear us talk about the selling price and
[38:19] then the time adjusted selling price. So
[38:22] a property sells say in January 2024,
[38:25] that's the selling price and then the
[38:27] distance between the top of that graph
[38:29] and the red line is the adjustment. So
[38:33] all sales when how whenever they occur
[38:36] along this line they are all adjusted in
[38:39] the in the same manner using a
[38:41] consistent method.
[38:44] And an important note the time
[38:45] adjustment is determined before the
[38:47] determination of each specific model. So
[38:50] this isn't the modeling process. This
[38:53] just ch this just suggests the the
[38:58] selling price the the change in value
[39:00] over time. That's what this does.
[39:04] So on page 29, this is we when we submit
[39:07] our um assessment role to the provision
[39:10] government through assets. This is to
[39:12] Alberta Municipal Affairs. It has to
[39:14] pass two stages of audit to meet the
[39:16] quality standards as previously
[39:18] mentioned.
[39:19] So we're talking about the residential
[39:22] uh quality standard. So our overall
[39:25] residential quality standard is uh that
[39:28] we met is 98.4%. So it passes the
[39:31] required standard for audit and this is
[39:34] once was actually signed off by audit
[39:36] here at April 13th 2026 Michael Lavager
[39:39] being our our auditor at that time.
[39:43] So on page 30
[39:47] um in a review of the assessments in um
[39:51] Sunrise Place uh with the complainant
[39:54] and um uh and reviewing all of those
[39:58] properties and correcting the sizes
[40:02] um it made us aware of like typically
[40:04] for condos we'll develop models specific
[40:07] to each condo. So Sunrise Place would
[40:10] have its own model. Sunrise Crescent
[40:12] would have its own valley model and so
[40:14] would Sunvil Place.
[40:16] But uh other appeals and the information
[40:20] brought up by by Paul the complainant
[40:23] has brought to light that these these
[40:26] three uh condo developments Sunville
[40:30] Place, Sunville Crescent, and Sunrise
[40:34] um with the with with condors as we've
[40:37] described for Sunrise Place with the
[40:39] pictures shown on pages 10 through 15,
[40:43] they're very similar. They're they're
[40:45] about 1,030,60
[40:47] ft² with a single car garage and they're
[40:50] very they're very much the same.
[40:53] So in the review of these condo
[40:55] developments with the property owners
[40:57] through the inquiry period through this
[40:59] appeal process
[41:01] um it seemed appropriate to combine
[41:04] these three condo communities into one
[41:07] value model
[41:09] when by doing so we've we now have um
[41:14] there's 20 23 sales of units similar to
[41:17] the subject property or the two subject
[41:19] properties.
[41:21] Um so these 23 hills represent 29% of 79
[41:26] similar properties within these three
[41:28] communities and these are shown below.
[41:31] So all the 29 these 23 sales are shown
[41:34] by those the red respective red bars uh
[41:38] representing the assessment to sales
[41:40] ratio
[41:42] with the overall result being 96.8%.
[41:45] So this value model passes quality
[41:48] standard.
[41:49] So the amended assessments as proposed
[41:52] is determined from the correction of the
[41:55] sizes and the re rerunning of the model
[41:58] using all three communities.
[42:02] And it's the the assessor our our it's
[42:05] our um not belief but it we believe the
[42:10] the assessment is better representation
[42:13] now in communicating with the
[42:16] complainant and other inquiries. This is
[42:18] more representative of the of the market
[42:20] of these properties.
[42:24] Um on page 31 it just shows the
[42:26] dispersion of the respective sales. So
[42:29] that that red line rep is about 96%.
[42:33] So of those 29 sales some are above the
[42:36] assessment and some are below.
[42:40] So the development and use of the value
[42:42] model of these similar properties within
[42:43] these communities results in a
[42:45] consistent and equitable assessment and
[42:47] also meeting required quality standards.
[42:51] So on page 32
[42:54] this shows
[42:56] uh all of the sales within that we have
[42:59] from July 122 to June 30th 25 in sunrise
[43:04] place. So there are nine altogether.
[43:09] So we'll just pick that top one. Um he'd
[43:13] sold 17th of April 2024
[43:16] for 3986.
[43:18] The time just selling price for this
[43:20] property is 4426.
[43:22] The current assessment of 4184.
[43:26] Um now the the complainant did mention
[43:29] this particular sale. So and it did sell
[43:32] twice.
[43:34] So this is the latter sale. This is the
[43:37] last sale in 24. Right immediately below
[43:41] this, this is the first time it sold. So
[43:44] it sold in the 28th of February 23 for
[43:47] 3395.
[43:49] That time adjusted value is 4764
[43:52] when the assessment the amended
[43:54] assessment is 4184.
[43:57] So the first sale, the first one is at
[44:00] 88%.
[44:02] with the second one being 95. So in both
[44:05] cases the assessment to sales ratio is
[44:08] less than 100.
[44:10] Uh that's just the ones that sold twice.
[44:13] Um so each this assessment to sales
[44:17] ratio is a range. Uh and if you go to
[44:21] page 34
[44:23] those red bars each of these red bars
[44:26] represents each of those sales. So there
[44:27] are nine.
[44:29] So you see 80 a little less than 80 for
[44:33] the third one is about 90 fourth one is
[44:36] 85 let's say and there's a range so the
[44:40] overall median assessment to sales ratio
[44:43] is 94.5
[44:46] if we just look at the assessment to
[44:48] sales ratio in sunrise place regarding
[44:51] the amended assessment.
[44:54] So, we've we've reviewed every one of
[44:57] these sales and tested to make sure
[44:59] they're arms length. We've applied the
[45:02] time adjustment to these condo condo
[45:04] sales like every other condo like all
[45:07] the other 381
[45:10] sales which present which gave us on
[45:13] page 26 which gave us an overall assess
[45:16] assessment to sales ratio 98%.
[45:19] So it shows that it's being it's that
[45:22] the it's um an appropriate time
[45:26] adjustment. Um [clears throat]
[45:29] let's see here.
[45:36] So if if uh these assessment sales
[45:38] ratios were used with sun sunrise place
[45:41] the model would be 94.5. It's it
[45:43] wouldn't pass a on its own because it's
[45:46] less than 95%.
[45:48] But when we combine it with with the
[45:51] overall modeling of Sunrise, Sunrise uh
[45:55] place, Sunville Crescent, and Sunvil
[45:58] Place, the value and that's on page
[46:02] page 30, we get an overall assessment of
[46:05] sales ratio of 96.8%.
[46:10] Uh and just for information also on page
[46:14] 32
[46:16] if we look at uh 38 Sunrise Place um it
[46:20] shows the role the address the legal
[46:22] year your built and building size. So
[46:25] 1,62 ft um assessment per square foot is
[46:30] at 396.
[46:32] So with this model we've amended model
[46:35] we're applying to these units
[46:38] uh it's 396 for 38 sunrise place 398 for
[46:43] 32
[46:45] 398 well again it's the same one 50 is
[46:49] 50 sunrise place is 391 a square foot 34
[46:52] sunrise place is 391 they're all within
[46:55] a very consistent value per square foot
[46:59] all being valued the same way with the
[47:02] model. It's statistically tested as
[47:03] passing quality standard.
[47:08] On page 35,
[47:10] this shows comparable sales between the
[47:13] communities of Sunville Place Northeast,
[47:16] Sunville, Sunville Crescent Northeast,
[47:18] and Sunrise Place Northeast. So, we have
[47:21] Tus Sunvil Place at um 397 a square
[47:26] foot. We got Sunville Crescent at 397 a
[47:30] square foot. All similar sized units.
[47:33] The top one's,062.
[47:36] Um 702 is 1,036 square feet. It's at 397
[47:40] a square foot. 14 Sunrise Place is 1,57
[47:46] ft at 396 per square foot. And 32
[47:50] Sunrise Place
[47:52] is 1,049 ft at 398 ft². So you can see
[47:56] that with this new valuation model is
[47:59] consistency applied using a value model
[48:02] that would that passes required
[48:04] provincial standard as of July 1, 2025.
[48:09] These assessments are all all have
[48:11] consistent
[48:13] um values per square foot.
[48:16] Well, these are the sales, sorry.
[48:20] And then on page 36, this shows
[48:22] comparable assessments between each of
[48:23] those communities with the yellow arrow
[48:26] representing the value per square foot.
[48:28] So within a very close tight close
[48:31] range. So these are comparable
[48:35] assessments within Sunville Place,
[48:36] Sunrise Place and Sunville Crescent
[48:40] showing consistent
[48:42] consistent assessments
[48:44] or a consistent application of the model
[48:48] uh for consistent and equitable
[48:50] assessment.
[48:53] On page 37,
[48:55] um the the chart at the bottom of this
[48:57] page that was sent without with
[48:59] everyone's assessment notices reflects
[49:01] the the overall median assessment change
[49:05] uh from 2024 to 2025. So this would be
[49:09] the July the July 1 median overall
[49:12] change in each of these condominium
[49:15] developments. So in Sunrise, Sunville
[49:18] Place, Sunrise Place and Sunvil, the
[49:22] median assessment in 2024 was 393750
[49:26] and the median assessment in 2025 was
[49:29] 42350
[49:30] and that also being consistent with the
[49:33] with the proposed amended assessment and
[49:35] their respective values per square foot.
[49:39] So to conclude, upon the review of the
[49:41] Sunrise Place Northeast condos during
[49:44] the 2026 inquiry period, it became
[49:47] evident that there were historic data
[49:49] errors in the calculation of the 2025
[49:51] assessment, specifically related to the
[49:53] sizes of the condo suite and the garage.
[49:56] Upon review of all the condo plans and
[49:58] blueprints specific to the Sunrise
[50:00] development, corrections were made as
[50:02] included in the submission. Originally
[50:05] and typically value models for all
[50:06] condos are specific to each condo
[50:08] development. However, through
[50:11] discussions with property owners and
[50:13] upon review of comparable sales and
[50:15] similar properties within Sunrise Place,
[50:17] Sunville Crescent, and Sunville Place,
[50:20] it appeared appropriate to develop a
[50:22] single value model for the similar
[50:23] sidebyside conds in each of these
[50:26] locations.
[50:28] The resulting value model meets the
[50:31] required provincial quality standards
[50:33] and is shown to be consistent and
[50:35] equitable within these three similar
[50:37] areas and moving forward will be our
[50:39] standard approach to the assessment of
[50:41] these condos. It is a recommendation of
[50:44] the assessor that the amended
[50:45] assessments of the properties identified
[50:47] in this submission as shown in page 17.
[50:50] I better check that. There they are uh
[50:52] are used in a 2025 assessment year.
[50:55] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[50:59] >> Thank you. Uh, complainant, you may ask
[51:02] » Thank you. Uh, complainant, you may ask
[51:02] any questions now.
[51:05] >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, thank you,
[51:07] » Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, thank you,
[51:07] Stuart. Um,
[51:10] I think Stuart's done a good job, as he
[51:12] did this morning, of explaining the
[51:14] process that the town has gone through
[51:16] to uh um
[51:20] proceed with the model and and come out
[51:22] with a with a valuation on these
[51:24] properties. And um what what I can't
[51:26] fathom and can't understand [snorts] is
[51:29] how
[51:31] um none of the values that are on um
[51:35] these assessments actually equate to
[51:38] sales values within these three
[51:40] communities that he's talking about. And
[51:43] and I think we've established that these
[51:44] three communities are at least similar.
[51:46] They're not they're not identical, but
[51:48] they're at least similar. Um, and if if
[51:52] I can refer you to page 46.
[51:56] [snorts]
[52:06] » Sorry, I just want to confirm. Is that
[52:08] page 46 within your
[52:10] >> No, it's it's within the submission the
[52:12] » No, it's it's within the submission the
[52:12] the um respondents documentation.
[52:17] Would
[52:21] that be this page?
[52:22] >> That would be that page. Yeah.
[52:23] » That would be that page. Yeah.
[52:23] >> Okay. Let me just see if I can rotate
[52:25] » Okay. Let me just see if I can rotate
[52:25] [clears throat] it.
[52:26] >> Obviously, I don't have access to all of
[52:28] » Obviously, I don't have access to all of
[52:28] the data like the town has. So, I was
[52:30] only able to collect certain data from
[52:32] various um residents that I'm
[52:35] representing for the Sunil properties,
[52:38] but I do know them for Sunrise, which is
[52:40] the ones that I own personally.
[52:43] um and the tax assessments there even
[52:47] [clears throat] for 2025
[52:50] um
[52:52] ne never have we achieved those sales um
[52:55] [clears throat]
[52:56] um in in any of these three areas that
[53:00] we're talking about. So, if you look I
[53:02] know it's all good. Um, you need to be
[53:06] looking at page 47 as well, which
[53:08] highlights all of the sales that I was
[53:10] able to obtain off the MLS
[53:13] um for these three areas. Sunrise uh
[53:16] place, Sunvil Place, and Sunvil Cresant,
[53:20] which are the three areas that Stuart
[53:23] has um determined that we're grouping
[53:26] together now for an evaluation purpose.
[53:28] none of the sales since 2022 have ever
[53:31] reached the assessment prices that he's
[53:33] now saying. Um, their model has has
[53:36] calculated and even even the sales that
[53:40] have occurred since then haven't reached
[53:43] those values either as I made in my
[53:44] opening statement. Um what what I'd like
[53:47] to know is
[53:50] it's great that we have these models
[53:52] that we follow and that are legislated
[53:56] but is there any type of calibration
[53:58] done after those models have have come
[54:02] up with the calculation to look at the
[54:04] actual sales that are taking place
[54:07] because in these three communities I
[54:09] can't see that any calibration will have
[54:12] been done because none of these sales um
[54:15] are anywhere close to those values that
[54:17] have now been determined.
[54:21] So that's my question. Has there been
[54:23] any calibration done after the model has
[54:25] been done? And I know that, you know,
[54:27] you've got to meet these legislative
[54:28] requirements, but the reality is does
[54:32] this model represent market value?
[54:34] That's what we're trying to establish.
[54:38] Thank Thank you u the complaint. Thank
[54:40] you, Madam Chair. Uh to answer the
[54:42] question, I'll I'll kind of answer with
[54:44] an example. So let's say we have these
[54:46] three communities and then we have let's
[54:48] say there were no sales in Sunvil Place,
[54:51] zero sales.
[54:53] So and they're all we've identified
[54:55] there as the complaint says they're all
[54:56] similar properties. So there are no
[54:58] sales in one of these communities. Do we
[55:01] say do we say well [snorts]
[55:03] they're not what are we going to use if
[55:06] there's no sales? We have so that the
[55:09] the value for that similar community
[55:12] comes from the sales in the other
[55:14] properties. the models the model sales
[55:16] are coming from the other two
[55:17] communities. We use those
[55:20] so that we can apply a consistent
[55:22] equitable value on those properties that
[55:24] don't sell. And in in a nutshell, that's
[55:27] what assessment does. We take sales of
[55:30] properties. We call them indicators of
[55:32] value. We develop a value model process
[55:35] for the properties that sell. It's
[55:38] statistically tested. Does it reflect
[55:41] those those specific sales for those
[55:43] similar properties correctly? And once
[55:46] it passes that statistical test, it's
[55:48] just applied to the properties that
[55:50] don't sell [snorts]
[55:52] where we have no control over what sales
[55:54] occur where we can't go, well, there's
[55:57] only two sales in place. What are we
[56:00] going to do?
[56:02] In either way, we need sufficient sales
[56:04] for us to develop a valuation model that
[56:07] makes sense that is capable of being a
[56:11] an appropriate reflection of the market
[56:12] value of properties. That's our mandate
[56:15] to be to be a properties
[56:18] market value using mass appraisal. We
[56:21] have no control over the sales.
[56:23] Obviously, we use three years worth of
[56:25] sales to get as many sales as possible.
[56:28] The more sales we have, the more
[56:29] confidence we have in the valuation pro
[56:32] in the models that are developed that
[56:34] are stat statistically tested. So in the
[56:37] example of say either sunrise place or
[56:40] one of the other communities not having
[56:41] any sales,
[56:43] we model we take all those similar
[56:45] properties. We'll be de we've developed
[56:47] a value model that includes all of them
[56:49] now not even separately. Now they all
[56:51] all the same. So they're all on they're
[56:54] all on the same level. So they're all
[56:56] identical and the val with a consistent
[56:59] valuation process mass appraisal the
[57:01] sales of time adjusted all the cond
[57:04] properties every property is adjusted
[57:06] for time because it has to be July 1. So
[57:09] we follow we followed the the provincial
[57:12] legislation, we followed best practice
[57:14] using mass appraisal. And even if the
[57:16] example of um if there were no sales in
[57:20] one of those communities, if if there
[57:21] were one sale, it could be high, it
[57:25] could be lower, but it's just one sale.
[57:28] And we talked about that coefficient of
[57:30] dispersion. It's in there somewhere.
[57:32] It's in that range
[57:35] of value. Just because there's only one
[57:37] sale, it doesn't mean it's the highest
[57:40] or the lowest, we have no control over
[57:42] that. All we required to do is look all
[57:45] the sales of a consistent group of
[57:47] properties by location, develop a model
[57:51] that's statistically tested following
[57:52] all the provincial regulations we have,
[57:55] and then that's the assessment. I I
[57:57] understand the argument that um this
[58:02] these these couple of sales in 22 or
[58:04] some in 23 but we have we just time and
[58:09] location or right and there's all kinds
[58:12] of other property groups but we're
[58:13] looking at similar properties a similar
[58:16] process a similar and consistent
[58:19] statistical test so we that's what how
[58:21] the assessments are developed that's the
[58:23] only defense I have right we we're we're
[58:25] bound by legis legislation bound by mass
[58:28] appraisal as imperfect as it may be.
[58:30] Right? But that's that's that's the
[58:32] standard by which we are complete the
[58:34] assessment process.
[58:39] » Thank you. I will now ask any members of
[58:41] the board if you have any questions
[58:46] to the assessor through the chair. Are
[58:50] so we're just taking the sales. Are we
[58:53] now looking at quality
[58:55] of the homes that are involved in these
[58:58] sales? The amp like
[59:02] are all the condos in that area the same
[59:06] quality?
[59:09] » Yep. They're all identical. They're all
[59:11] They're all assessed exactly the same.
[59:13] They all have different It's marketed
[59:15] just a depreciated cost. So they have
[59:18] different ages, different sizes, but the
[59:21] style and quality of construction is
[59:23] consistent throughout. It's not there's
[59:25] not there's not sufficient differences
[59:28] that would that would would cause any to
[59:30] be different than another. Not not on
[59:33] the assessor's opinion anyway.
[59:36] U Madam Chair, may I interject?
[59:38] >> Go ahead. Um,
[59:40] » Go ahead. Um,
[59:40] yeah, I obviously have the privilege of
[59:42] of being on the condominium board of
[59:44] Sunil Place that we spoke about this
[59:46] morning and I'm also on the condominium
[59:47] board of Sunrise Place that we're now
[59:50] assessing. Um, the quality of the homes
[59:54] in Sunil are actually superior to the
[59:55] ones in Sunrise. I know cuz I own two of
[59:58] them and they have different finishings
[1:00:01] inside.
[1:00:02] um you know their laminated countertops
[1:00:05] rather than um marble or anyway it's
[1:00:10] it's it's a little bit different. The
[1:00:12] flooring is very different. You got
[1:00:14] plush wooden floors in Sunvil. You don't
[1:00:16] have the same flooring in Sunrise. The
[1:00:19] property that they've got in the picture
[1:00:20] is obviously one that's been renovated
[1:00:22] and and actually looks very nice. Um but
[1:00:24] not all of the properties are exactly
[1:00:25] the same and they do that does determine
[1:00:29] a different value. it wouldn't be
[1:00:30] significant but it it might be enough.
[1:00:33] Um
[1:00:34] I guess guess what I would have to say
[1:00:36] is that
[1:00:38] even though the model seems to suggest
[1:00:40] that these values should be accurate. Um
[1:00:43] on on this this diagram here or this
[1:00:47] chart here we can we can see sales um
[1:00:51] that have taken place um over a period
[1:00:54] of years since 2022.
[1:00:56] and
[1:00:58] all of the comparable sales. We would we
[1:01:01] would consider these three communities
[1:01:02] as called Sunrise Meadows. Am I correct?
[1:01:06] >> I don't know that I know you by
[1:01:08] » I don't know that I know you by
[1:01:08] specifically by each one, but you're
[1:01:09] probably right. Yeah,
[1:01:10] >> Sunrise Meadows is what I understand
[1:01:11] » Sunrise Meadows is what I understand
[1:01:11] that these three communities are are
[1:01:13] referred to, but it's it's Sunrise
[1:01:15] Place, Sunrise Cresant, and Sunvail
[1:01:19] Place. Um
[1:01:21] so these three air these three
[1:01:23] communities are the most comparable
[1:01:24] properties available in High River
[1:01:27] because they are most similar. Um but
[1:01:29] but they are different. Um they they the
[1:01:32] sales that I've got in this chart depict
[1:01:35] arms length market transactions between
[1:01:38] willing buyers and willing sellers. Um,
[1:01:41] and actual sales, actual sales are the
[1:01:46] strongest evidence of market value. Not
[1:01:49] a model, not a formula, actual sales.
[1:01:53] And every comparable sale supports
[1:01:55] values significantly below these
[1:01:57] assessed values. Every single sale. Now,
[1:02:00] I g gather that there's a time
[1:02:01] adjustment factor, but even the sales
[1:02:05] that have occurred since July 1st, 2025
[1:02:09] are well below this assessment value.
[1:02:13] So, obviously, something is broken
[1:02:15] within the model and that's our contest
[1:02:18] our our our
[1:02:20] position. Um, it's it's a consistent
[1:02:23] pattern that we're seeing. um it's not
[1:02:27] one sale um within this community. All
[1:02:30] of the sales that I've got on this
[1:02:32] document demonstrate that we're not
[1:02:34] anywhere near those values. Now, yes,
[1:02:36] it's over a time period, but not anyone
[1:02:38] of the sales that took place within that
[1:02:41] 1st of July 2024
[1:02:44] to 30th of June 2025 hit that value at
[1:02:48] all. And I mentioned at the very
[1:02:49] beginning,
[1:02:52] unit 50 was sold
[1:02:56] just a matter of weeks on May 9th, it
[1:02:59] sold for 380,000,
[1:03:01] 7 weeks before the legislated valuation
[1:03:04] date. And yet the town's value for that
[1:03:07] property
[1:03:09] is 416.
[1:03:11] Well, that's a significant jump.
[1:03:14] [snorts] Um, and so we contest that the
[1:03:18] model doesn't seem to be working. It's
[1:03:20] not representative of what actually is
[1:03:23] happening on the ground. [snorts] Um and
[1:03:26] and I don't I don't understand it. I
[1:03:29] don't know what the
[1:03:31] um the model does in its calculations. I
[1:03:34] just see the numbers of the actual sales
[1:03:37] that I was able to obtain details of and
[1:03:40] they're they're not they're not equating
[1:03:42] to what um Stuart [snorts] is reporting.
[1:03:49] Anyway, I rest. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[1:03:54] >> Sorry, I just want to clarify. You said
[1:03:56] » Sorry, I just want to clarify. You said
[1:03:56] unit 50. I don't see that on this list
[1:03:58] here.
[1:03:59] >> It's not um this this particular unit
[1:04:02] » It's not um this this particular unit
[1:04:02] was not on the MLS. It was actually data
[1:04:04] that the town provided me. So, it must
[1:04:07] have been a private sale is what I
[1:04:08] assume.
[1:04:10] >> But I will contest as well, like I did
[1:04:12] » But I will contest as well, like I did
[1:04:12] this morning, that that doesn't matter.
[1:04:15] The people that are residing in these
[1:04:17] homes are all mostly retired folks,
[1:04:21] right? They're mostly retired folks. And
[1:04:25] um there's going to be a lot of estate
[1:04:28] sales in these communities as a result
[1:04:30] of that. Um that's that's just an
[1:04:34] apparent fact because of the age
[1:04:35] population of the people that are living
[1:04:37] there.
[1:04:40] They're they're either staying there
[1:04:41] till they die or they're moving from
[1:04:43] there into a care facility of some sort.
[1:04:48] >> Any other questions from the board?
[1:04:50] » Any other questions from the board?
[1:04:50] >> Yeah, I have several here. Just uh
[1:04:52] » Yeah, I have several here. Just uh
[1:04:52] confirm what page number is that for the
[1:04:55] location you were just talking about?
[1:04:57] >> 50.
[1:04:58] » 50.
[1:04:58] >> Um
[1:04:58] » Um
[1:04:58] >> because I don't see it in this report
[1:04:59] » because I don't see it in this report
[1:04:59] when I reviewed it through lunch.
[1:05:01] >> That's a great question. Um it's in the
[1:05:04] » That's a great question. Um it's in the
[1:05:04] rebuttal that was sent to us from the
[1:05:06] city. So it's somewhere in this
[1:05:08] document. Okay.
[1:05:09] >> And uh
[1:05:09] » And uh
[1:05:09] >> I don't know if we can do like
[1:05:10] » I don't know if we can do like
[1:05:10] >> I'll see if I can find it
[1:05:11] » I'll see if I can find it
[1:05:11] >> a control search function on it.
[1:05:14] » a control search function on it.
[1:05:14] >> Okay. I'll just jump to a couple other
[1:05:16] » Okay. I'll just jump to a couple other
[1:05:16] ones here.
[1:05:18] >> Um to the complaintant here. You
[1:05:20] » Um to the complaintant here. You
[1:05:20] discussed a few times in regards to
[1:05:23] direct sales. Most recent sales is this
[1:05:26] 50 and then the prior ones just to
[1:05:28] confirm with you is 42 cresant place and
[1:05:31] then 32
[1:05:34] specifically. Is that correct?
[1:05:36] Uh 42 at 375,000
[1:05:40] >> and then 32 was your other direct
[1:05:42] » and then 32 was your other direct
[1:05:42] >> 398,600.
[1:05:43] » 398,600.
[1:05:44] Yes, that's correct.
[1:05:45] >> Those are your direct comparisons that
[1:05:47] » Those are your direct comparisons that
[1:05:47] you want to equate to this.
[1:05:49] >> Yes. Thank you. Thank you for
[1:05:51] » Yes. Thank you. Thank you for
[1:05:51] confirming. Uh in regards to the
[1:05:53] condition of the property itself, um as
[1:05:56] you've already stated before, but I just
[1:05:58] want to make sure it's clear to
[1:06:00] everybody online here. What is your
[1:06:02] depiction of the condition of the
[1:06:06] properties? The subject properties would
[1:06:08] you recommend or would you advise as
[1:06:10] it's fair, good, excellent condition or
[1:06:13] referring to does the roof need to be
[1:06:15] replaced? I understand the interior may
[1:06:17] have small adjustments but major
[1:06:20] structural issues.
[1:06:21] >> These these properties are about 4 years
[1:06:23] » These these properties are about 4 years
[1:06:23] older than the properties that we were
[1:06:24] talking about this morning in Sunil.
[1:06:26] They're from 2012. They're all of a
[1:06:28] similar um condition. Um the roofs are
[1:06:32] all in good condition. Um obviously the
[1:06:35] exterior of these properties are managed
[1:06:36] by the condo board, not by the
[1:06:38] individual tenants or owners. Um and
[1:06:41] yeah, they're all in good condition.
[1:06:43] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:06:43] » Okay. Thank you.
[1:06:44] >> The interiors are slightly different.
[1:06:45] » The interiors are slightly different.
[1:06:46] >> Thank you. To the respondent just to
[1:06:49] » Thank you. To the respondent just to
[1:06:49] confirm for myself here and I know the
[1:06:52] complaintant did bring it up here. Um in
[1:06:56] regards to the time weight, what's the
[1:06:58] actual weight? I know you guys did a
[1:07:00] confidence to confirm if it hit the
[1:07:03] medium through the government, but
[1:07:06] what's the actual weight when we're
[1:07:07] applying a weight of a sale of 2022?
[1:07:10] What what's the actual weight itself?
[1:07:14] Like how are we adjusting that specific
[1:07:16] number versus a sale of 2024?
[1:07:19] >> Yeah, it's it's
[1:07:20] » Yeah, it's it's
[1:07:20] >> I just I couldn't find it in the page
[1:07:22] » I just I couldn't find it in the page
[1:07:22] reviewing it through like an hour
[1:07:23] before. I just do you have uh
[1:07:26] information for me? There's no there's
[1:07:27] no specific it's developed from the like
[1:07:30] you say on page 28 of the of our
[1:07:34] submission there's a graph there's a
[1:07:35] graph there representing the time
[1:07:36] adjustment so it's it's there's not
[1:07:39] there's no set standard that time
[1:07:41] adjustment is calculated specifically
[1:07:42] only from those condos
[1:07:44] >> from all the condos here in town there's
[1:07:46] » from all the condos here in town there's
[1:07:46] not a in high river we we this is it the
[1:07:49] time adjustment is calculated from the
[1:07:51] sales and so there isn't there is an
[1:07:52] adjustment that's a coefficient we don't
[1:07:55] we don't I get come with a statistical
[1:07:57] regression to build for a difference of
[1:07:59] timing. I'm just trying to understand
[1:08:02] where it would be aligned or is it just
[1:08:05] exponential? At the end of the day, it's
[1:08:08] this is an estimate of assessment, an
[1:08:10] estimate of value using mass appraisal
[1:08:12] and it's tested for our so our models
[1:08:15] are tested the statistical test is 95 to
[1:08:18] 105.
[1:08:19] So that's after the time adjustments are
[1:08:21] calculated determined then that's how
[1:08:24] the respective sales are adjusted but
[1:08:27] then modeling is specific to similar
[1:08:29] groups and I just want to add add to
[1:08:31] that um the complaint said did say that
[1:08:34] Sunvil place were better units
[1:08:38] but similar so you know there the
[1:08:41] assessment is not we can only divide
[1:08:43] properties into so many small groups and
[1:08:45] then we have no sales left so it's mass
[1:08:48] appraisal for similar groups
[1:08:50] If we really get into the weeds and want
[1:08:51] to divide stuff into hundreds of groups,
[1:08:54] good luck trying to come up with a sale
[1:08:55] price with a model. So that's why we're
[1:08:57] looking at that's why I think we would
[1:08:59] be in agreement that I've heard from the
[1:09:01] complaintant also that these three
[1:09:03] communities are very close. That's why I
[1:09:06] say this is a a good idea moving ahead
[1:09:08] to make them all the same, right? But
[1:09:10] they're not perfectly identical. We
[1:09:13] can't we it's just residential groups.
[1:09:15] Imagine trying to place some like some
[1:09:17] place like water tower or the southwest
[1:09:19] looking for tight groups. Good luck,
[1:09:22] right? We we have to we have to divide
[1:09:24] them up into consistent similar groups
[1:09:27] and not into smaller groups. So, it's
[1:09:29] mass appraisal for ma for as consistent
[1:09:33] groups as we can get right. They don't
[1:09:35] have to be identical but similar.
[1:09:37] >> I appreciate that. Okay. Couple
[1:09:40] » I appreciate that. Okay. Couple
[1:09:40] >> sorry, just for the purpose of this, if
[1:09:42] » sorry, just for the purpose of this, if
[1:09:42] you're not speaking, can you please turn
[1:09:44] off your microphone? Apologies,
[1:09:48] that was myself. [laughter]
[1:09:50] Um, in regards to the assessments, uh,
[1:09:53] similar question to the complainant to
[1:09:55] the respondent here, uh, when you went
[1:09:57] to the properties, just to confirm
[1:09:59] through, uh, everybody live streaming
[1:10:02] this. Uh, when you checked out the
[1:10:04] property itself, would you consider the
[1:10:05] condition good, fair, excellent
[1:10:08] condition, no major faults or issues?
[1:10:10] just to confirm other property
[1:10:14] >> I believe uh I don't I haven't looked at
[1:10:16] » I believe uh I don't I haven't looked at
[1:10:16] everyone specifically but for this group
[1:10:18] I think we believe we all have them as
[1:10:20] average they're not that old
[1:10:21] >> okay
[1:10:22] » okay
[1:10:22] >> right they're not that old to have
[1:10:24] » right they're not that old to have
[1:10:24] experienced significant depreciation
[1:10:26] which we don't already uh already
[1:10:29] considered in the age of the age of the
[1:10:31] condos whether they're built in 2012 or
[1:10:33] built in 2016 that there's an adjustment
[1:10:35] for depreciation in the mass in the
[1:10:37] market adjusted depreciated cost method
[1:10:40] So we don't we don't we haven't had any
[1:10:44] feedback from property owners of any
[1:10:45] extreme condition like we we and we have
[1:10:49] them all at average.
[1:10:50] >> I appreciate that. Thank you. That's all
[1:10:53] » I appreciate that. Thank you. That's all
[1:10:53] I have for a question.
[1:10:56] >> Go ahead.
[1:10:57] » Go ahead.
[1:10:57] >> Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, you had
[1:11:00] » Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, you had
[1:11:00] at one point wanted the assessed value
[1:11:02] at 360 and you said, "Now taking into
[1:11:06] all that I've learned, I'd like to see
[1:11:09] an assessment of what?"
[1:11:13] >> Um, Madame Chair, thank you for the
[1:11:15] » Um, Madame Chair, thank you for the
[1:11:15] opportunity to answer the question. Um,
[1:11:17] just just before I do answer that
[1:11:19] question, I do want to go back to what
[1:11:21] Taylor had said about um the one
[1:11:24] property unit 50. It's found on page 32.
[1:11:27] um you'll see that the ASR on page 32
[1:11:31] was 109%
[1:11:33] and that is the property that we learned
[1:11:35] about being sold at 380,000.
[1:11:38] Um
[1:11:40] anyway, just wanted to bring that back
[1:11:42] to your attention and answer that
[1:11:43] question. Um based based upon um
[1:11:48] everything that we had learned um during
[1:11:52] this process um we recognize that we may
[1:11:57] have been a little bit um
[1:12:01] you know [snorts] uh keen to get a lower
[1:12:05] value and so we we feel that the Sunrise
[1:12:08] Place properties sell for less than the
[1:12:10] Sunvail Place properties typically.
[1:12:14] Um that's that's what we've seen over
[1:12:16] time and and so we we did have a reduced
[1:12:20] value. Um but when when we went through
[1:12:24] this process, we're accepting now that
[1:12:27] hey, a lot of the values that we're
[1:12:29] seeing these properties be sold for is
[1:12:31] around that that price point. And so it
[1:12:34] doesn't seem to matter that the Sunil
[1:12:36] Place properties might be a little bit
[1:12:38] better um interior. They're still being
[1:12:41] sold for a similar value to the ones in
[1:12:43] Sunrise. And so hopefully that answers
[1:12:45] your question and that's why we've we've
[1:12:47] adjusted what we're applying for.
[1:12:50] >> So to confirm,
[1:12:53] » So to confirm,
[1:12:53] 380 is
[1:12:54] >> Does that Does that Yeah, 380. Yeah.
[1:12:56] » Does that Does that Yeah, 380. Yeah.
[1:12:56] Does that answer your question? [snorts]
[1:12:59] >> I believe so. Thank you.
[1:13:01] » I believe so. Thank you.
[1:13:01] >> Thank you, Madam Chair.
[1:13:02] » Thank you, Madam Chair.
[1:13:02] >> Any other questions?
[1:13:07] That appeared like a rebuttal but um
[1:13:10] thank you. So now I will invite the
[1:13:12] complainant um to speak to a rebuttal um
[1:13:15] clos disclosure um and you any closing
[1:13:20] remarks.
[1:13:24] » Thank you Madam Chair. um
[1:13:27] really uh
[1:13:30] I think I think we've repeated ourselves
[1:13:32] uh a number of times um that
[1:13:36] we we recognize that the town has an
[1:13:40] obligation to follow a mass appraisal
[1:13:43] model in its calculations of these
[1:13:45] assessments. Um our argument is not that
[1:13:49] they haven't done their job. it's that
[1:13:51] these mass appraisal calculations don't
[1:13:54] actually um equate to what's actually
[1:13:57] happening in reality and the evidence
[1:14:01] we've provided shows that none of those
[1:14:03] those homes will fetch the values that
[1:14:05] they're currently being assessed at. Um,
[1:14:07] and I think uh I I don't know whether or
[1:14:10] not it's a time adjustment problem in
[1:14:13] their model um uh or whether or not um
[1:14:18] there's some other miscalculation in the
[1:14:21] model that's currently being used. But
[1:14:24] uh we we affirm that uh our request to
[1:14:29] have the board um determine a value that
[1:14:32] equates to what the market will bear um
[1:14:36] should be what these properties be
[1:14:38] assessed at as we move forward. Thank
[1:14:41] you.
[1:14:47] um to the respondent um any closing
[1:14:52] remarks or rebuttals
[1:14:55] for last considerations here.
[1:14:58] >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um just to
[1:15:01] » Thank you, Madam Chair. Um just to
[1:15:01] reiterate, um uh my favorite saying is I
[1:15:05] don't write the music. I just play the
[1:15:06] piano. We we just reflect what happens
[1:15:08] in the marketplace. We have no control
[1:15:11] over what the sale is. Uh what value it
[1:15:14] is, what when it's sold. We are required
[1:15:18] we when we reflect we've taken all of
[1:15:21] the sales all the actual all the sales
[1:15:24] the complainants used in the submission
[1:15:26] actual sales they're in they're in our
[1:15:28] analysis. If it's sold even ones has
[1:15:30] been made clear the ones that aren't on
[1:15:32] MLS we include we have to include all of
[1:15:36] them. So they all are included not some
[1:15:38] of them all of them. So they are in the
[1:15:40] model and the models are statistically
[1:15:43] tested. We've wrapped both these three
[1:15:44] communities together. There may be some
[1:15:47] subtle differences between the three of
[1:15:49] them. Mass appraisal there's a it's a
[1:15:52] range of value. So that's that's our
[1:15:54] current and it's for the distribution of
[1:15:56] tax. It's not for borrowing money. It's
[1:15:58] not for any other purpose for but for
[1:16:00] the fair and equitable distribution of
[1:16:02] the tax load using advalar
[1:16:05] principle of valuation. Right? So we've
[1:16:08] met the standards, we've followed the
[1:16:10] market sales, we've made appropriate
[1:16:13] adjustments for the change in value over
[1:16:15] time. We've developed uh a model that
[1:16:18] suits that is developed from the three
[1:16:21] communities. And we've even shown that
[1:16:23] if those models were were used
[1:16:25] specifically within Sunrise Rice Place,
[1:16:29] those assessments wouldn't pass audit.
[1:16:31] They're they're on they're 95 they're
[1:16:33] 94.5% or whatever it was it was. But to
[1:16:36] together as a group they they pass audit
[1:16:39] and that's that's what we're supposed to
[1:16:40] do. We we we can't if we had developed
[1:16:44] if these were the original 2025
[1:16:46] assessment going to asset for uh
[1:16:49] approval they wouldn't pass. So these
[1:16:51] are the rules we have to follow using
[1:16:53] mass appraisal developing models that
[1:16:56] are statistically tested that represent
[1:16:58] a range of value. We've shown that some
[1:17:00] of we we show you assessment it's at
[1:17:02] 96%. Some sales are higher, some sales
[1:17:06] are lower. If you were to pick one of
[1:17:08] those sales out, like one one could be
[1:17:11] lower, one could be higher. We use all
[1:17:13] of them and the middle represents the
[1:17:16] whole. So we've done we've done that in
[1:17:19] this case with the with the assess the
[1:17:20] amended assessments for Sunrise Sunrise
[1:17:23] Place.
[1:17:24] So I I respect the fact that some a
[1:17:28] recent sale might be lower than the
[1:17:30] current assessment. It's after it's
[1:17:32] after July 1 if it is if it's after that
[1:17:34] time and it's one it's one sale. Next
[1:17:38] this whole next year is a whole new
[1:17:39] year. We drop 22 2022 sales would drop
[1:17:43] off. We pick up the 2026 sales. It's a
[1:17:45] brand new model. If the market's
[1:17:47] tapering off this year that would be
[1:17:50] reflected in next year's assessment.
[1:17:51] Again, it's all the sales for one one
[1:17:55] point in time value. So, um I respect
[1:17:58] the opinion. It's mass appraisal is um
[1:18:00] it's unique to assessment. It's not an
[1:18:03] appraisal like a regular appraisal in
[1:18:04] the market. Um our role is to reflect
[1:18:08] the typical market. our our mandate as
[1:18:11] per legislation is market value standard
[1:18:14] using mass appraisal passing new
[1:18:16] required quality standards and this has
[1:18:18] been a great process right to to both
[1:18:20] Sunville Place and Sunrise Place with
[1:18:23] the patience of people like Paul right
[1:18:25] to help us shed some light on maybe
[1:18:27] improving things as we move forward
[1:18:28] that's what it's all about we we don't
[1:18:30] stand in a a corn of silence and we're
[1:18:32] not open to any new information on how
[1:18:34] to value things it's it's it's this
[1:18:37] process and this process I respect we
[1:18:40] respect that, right? That's how we
[1:18:41] that's how we make our assessments
[1:18:42] better and decisions of the board. So,
[1:18:45] this is a great process. I've I've
[1:18:47] enjoyed going through this with Paul and
[1:18:48] and the people in Sunville Place. And
[1:18:50] like I say, we're just following the
[1:18:52] rules we have and this is just our
[1:18:54] estimate value for mass appraisal
[1:18:55] process. So, I appreciate your time.
[1:18:57] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[1:18:59] One question for me personally, um,
[1:19:03] because it follows the mandate of the
[1:19:06] province and it it passes the the test,
[1:19:11] is there an opportunity that the test
[1:19:14] valuation overall in High River is too
[1:19:17] high?
[1:19:22] Um it's they're all all so all the
[1:19:24] models are developed specifically for
[1:19:26] every single like we don't model we
[1:19:29] don't have a volume model for condos
[1:19:31] like we don't by by it's stratified by
[1:19:34] property type within each community. So
[1:19:38] those models develop by property type
[1:19:40] and each community they're all at 98%.
[1:19:44] So you take all of those and compile
[1:19:46] them together. Like remember the the the
[1:19:48] the example of this mass appraise mass
[1:19:52] appraisal all of the 1300 and some
[1:19:54] condos like they were all they're all in
[1:19:57] the different model groups all 98%. So
[1:20:00] they're all believe me the audit audit
[1:20:03] are very very stringent. They pick they
[1:20:05] pick it apart and so they should because
[1:20:07] people pay tax based on this. So we
[1:20:09] should be scrutinized here, here, and
[1:20:12] with you and with the province. So the
[1:20:14] rules are very strict. I would say no,
[1:20:17] there there's a range of course like we
[1:20:20] always have people come in and if there
[1:20:23] if a property sold for 350 and we've got
[1:20:26] to assess at 370, they come in and say,
[1:20:28] "What's going on?" Well, there's a
[1:20:31] range. And so we can't we can't be lower
[1:20:34] than everyone's selling price. It's not
[1:20:36] possible. So we I'm I'm confident that
[1:20:40] we've we've met the standard. It's been
[1:20:42] we've passed the audit. They the they
[1:20:45] passed we've passed that test and at
[1:20:47] this level we're we're getting more
[1:20:48] specific, right? And that's fine. You
[1:20:50] know, it's like I said, it's a good
[1:20:52] learning opportunity as well for
[1:20:54] everybody, right?
[1:20:55] >> Yeah, absolutely. The reason I come to
[1:20:57] » Yeah, absolutely. The reason I come to
[1:20:57] that question is because a lot of the
[1:20:59] market ratio reports that were provided
[1:21:02] um for example it was your page 26 but
[1:21:06] the overall document page 59 the mean
[1:21:09] came in for the square footage at 312
[1:21:12] square ft and I'm wondering the
[1:21:15] valuation of square footage as we do an
[1:21:17] assessment would be like the replacement
[1:21:19] cost of a property.
[1:21:22] >> Could you can I ask that question again
[1:21:24] » Could you can I ask that question again
[1:21:24] please?
[1:21:24] >> Sure. The reason I'm asking that
[1:21:27] » Sure. The reason I'm asking that
[1:21:27] >> which p which page which page
[1:21:28] » which p which page which page
[1:21:28] >> so it's your page 26.
[1:21:30] » so it's your page 26.
[1:21:30] >> All right. Yes.
[1:21:31] » All right. Yes.
[1:21:32] >> So um the price for per square foot the
[1:21:35] » So um the price for per square foot the
[1:21:36] mean here you have it 312
[1:21:41] » dollars.
[1:21:41] >> Oh yeah that's this is just this is just
[1:21:43] » Oh yeah that's this is just this is just
[1:21:43] we don't use that like we this is not
[1:21:45] it. This is just a reflection. This is
[1:21:47] reflect. This is not the numbers on here
[1:21:50] are not they're just um
[1:21:54] they're we don't use that. We don't use
[1:21:56] that. It's just it's just a number. It's
[1:21:58] just a of this group for this like this
[1:22:01] is every all the condos all the condo
[1:22:03] sales. So we wouldn't this doesn't rep
[1:22:05] reflect anything. It's just information.
[1:22:08] We wouldn't we wouldn't use that 312
[1:22:10] because this is rep represents every
[1:22:13] condo in town. apartment condo like a
[1:22:16] Sunvail condo
[1:22:18] uh every condo this is this is just this
[1:22:21] is um like we don't we don't use that to
[1:22:25] calculate assessments because this this
[1:22:26] is all condos in every community
[1:22:30] every all the all the strata groups this
[1:22:32] is not this is not a measure of value
[1:22:33] like it's not
[1:22:35] >> yeah we wouldn't we wouldn't use that
[1:22:37] » yeah we wouldn't we wouldn't use that
[1:22:37] it's just a
[1:22:38] >> although it does form part of the
[1:22:40] » although it does form part of the
[1:22:40] evidence for us
[1:22:43] >> yeah it's not the what's specific to
[1:22:45] » yeah it's not the what's specific to
[1:22:45] these these condor groups is what's been
[1:22:48] shown today because these are different
[1:22:50] a whole every condor this is only used
[1:22:52] as as an example like for instance if
[1:22:54] you go to
[1:22:56] let's go to page 30
[1:23:00] you'll see it's for for this group so
[1:23:02] this is for all of them [clears throat]
[1:23:05] it says 423
[1:23:07] >> right and we're the assessment the me
[1:23:09] » right and we're the assessment the me
[1:23:09] the proposed assessment is not 423 like
[1:23:11] it doesn't mean it's just it's a
[1:23:13] different group the groups that matter
[1:23:15] is is the group that we have used right
[1:23:18] here for 96. This is not that's not the
[1:23:20] measure. It's the group the measure of
[1:23:23] the value is the the model that's built
[1:23:27] from the assessment divided by the
[1:23:30] selling price for all for all those 23
[1:23:33] sales to arrive at a median ASR of
[1:23:35] 96.8%. That's the destination right
[1:23:38] there. That the median ASR that's the
[1:23:40] quality standard. what you're referring
[1:23:43] to this price median mean like this all
[1:23:46] these numbers they're just a measure
[1:23:48] they're just another way to look at the
[1:23:49] same number but they're not used in our
[1:23:51] analysis these are irrelevant the the
[1:23:54] number we're that's that we the quality
[1:23:57] standard we're required to meet is that
[1:23:58] median percentage because that's statist
[1:24:01] that's a stat statistical test of this
[1:24:04] model for similar units of sales within
[1:24:08] the three years as of July 125 That's
[1:24:11] that's our standard and that's what's
[1:24:13] being communicated here like all this
[1:24:15] we've talked about the sales specific to
[1:24:18] sun these three communities there are
[1:24:20] similar properties and that's our
[1:24:22] destination is an assessment rule the
[1:24:25] total assessment value we don't do we
[1:24:28] don't say a median square footage and
[1:24:30] apply that this is just a result you
[1:24:33] right it's just a massive process
[1:24:35] >> so it's an area essentially no different
[1:24:37] » so it's an area essentially no different
[1:24:37] than you having
[1:24:38] >> if you use that as a measure of
[1:24:40] » if you use that as a measure of
[1:24:40] comparison
[1:24:41] Fine, you can you can anyone can use
[1:24:44] whatever they want. But for us, we this
[1:24:47] the destination is the total assessment
[1:24:50] divided by the selling price for all of
[1:24:53] the sales in the model. Does it pass the
[1:24:56] quality standard? And on page 30, the
[1:24:58] the median ASR is 96.8%. That's our
[1:25:01] requirement. We're market value
[1:25:03] assessment for the total value of the
[1:25:05] property.
[1:25:06] So, it would be fair to say that the
[1:25:08] mean is 423 and the median is 422 of
[1:25:11] what?
[1:25:12] >> I wouldn't Yeah, I wouldn't I wouldn't
[1:25:13] » I wouldn't Yeah, I wouldn't I wouldn't
[1:25:13] use those numbers. I'm not suggesting I
[1:25:15] I didn't I haven't used that in my in
[1:25:17] this in this submission.
[1:25:20] Right. That's we're talking we're
[1:25:21] talking about the
[1:25:23] the valuation model that's applied
[1:25:25] consistently within similar similar
[1:25:28] properties.
[1:25:31] So just me personally I um so you don't
[1:25:35] want us to assess the square foot value
[1:25:38] that is being presented in some of this
[1:25:41] documentation.
[1:25:42] >> We're we're talking we're we're we're
[1:25:45] » We're we're talking we're we're we're
[1:25:45] def we're we're we're defending the
[1:25:47] total assessed value of the property not
[1:25:49] the square foot value of the property.
[1:25:51] Right? We could use the we could use the
[1:25:54] garage and say the gra based on the
[1:25:57] garage size. You could build a model on
[1:25:59] that. Right? You could build a model in
[1:26:01] anything, but we're saying we've we've
[1:26:03] we've corrected the size of those condo
[1:26:06] suites. The assessment comprises of the
[1:26:08] suite at a certain square footage and a
[1:26:10] garage square footage. They come up with
[1:26:13] a value
[1:26:14] for a total and that total for us. That
[1:26:18] total assessment has to be divided by
[1:26:21] that that assessment divided by the time
[1:26:24] it just selling price
[1:26:26] of of these 23 sales has to be within
[1:26:29] quality standard.
[1:26:31] That's what that's what we've that's how
[1:26:33] the model's built. That's how we're
[1:26:34] defending it today. We're not defending
[1:26:35] it on any other any any other metric.
[1:26:39] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:26:40] » Okay. Thank you.
[1:26:40] >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, if
[1:26:43] » Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, if
[1:26:43] there are no further questions from the
[1:26:45] board, um, this is an opportunity for
[1:26:48] either party to make any final comments
[1:26:51] um, before we conclude this hearing. Um,
[1:26:53] and please note that additional comments
[1:26:56] are not required. If you feel your
[1:26:58] position has already been heard.
[1:27:02] » Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't really
[1:27:03] feel like I need to make any other
[1:27:05] comments. Appreciate everybody's time
[1:27:06] this afternoon. Uh, England are one up,
[1:27:08] so sorry, Hank.
[1:27:11] >> [laughter]
[1:27:13] » And
[1:27:16] [laughter]
[1:27:17] >> thank you everybody for your time. I
[1:27:18] » thank you everybody for your time. I
[1:27:18] appreciate it.
[1:27:21] >> Uh similar to the complaint, Madam
[1:27:22] » Uh similar to the complaint, Madam
[1:27:22] Chair, uh we've shared lots of
[1:27:25] information. We have no other further
[1:27:26] comments to make. Thank you very much.
[1:27:29] >> Thank you. Appreciate that. Um
[1:27:33] » Thank you. Appreciate that. Um
[1:27:33] thank you. Uh the board will deliberate
[1:27:35] following the conclusion of this hearing
[1:27:36] and will issue a written uh decision in
[1:27:39] accordance with the legislated
[1:27:40] timelines. Generally, parties can expect
[1:27:43] the board decision to be within 30 days
[1:27:45] of this hearing. Uh after the decision
[1:27:47] is finalized, the clerk has up to seven
[1:27:50] additional days to distribute the final
[1:27:52] notice um to all parties. This concludes
[1:27:56] the local assessment review board
[1:27:57] hearing for July 15, 2026. And this
[1:28:00] hearing is adjourned at 2:28