02.-First-Nations.jhujhjutuydrydrtstsererr

yhn

1. CPTA Valuation and Legal Symposium First Nation Assessment Services Paul Campbell, FRICS, Director, Valuation & Customer Relations February 24, 2020

2. In 2016 and 2018, MPAC entered into service agreements to provide assessment services for the following First Nations in accordance with their respective property assessment laws: Chippewas of Kettle and Stoney Point First Nation (KSPFN) Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation (GIFN) Wasauksing First Nation (WFN) 2 Background

3. First Nation Assessment and Taxation Systems in Ontario ONTARIO FIRST NATION ASSESSMENT SYSTEM

4. First Nation Assessment Projects Roadmap

5. First Nation Assessment Projects 2016-2018 Background

6. Definition of “Assessed Value” 6 First Nation Property Assessment Law, 2018 “Assessed value” means in relation to an interest in land, the amount of money the fee simple of that interest, if unencumbered and held off the reserve, would realize if sold at arm’s length by a willing seller to a willing buyer, as determined under this Law. Ontario Assessment Act Current Value Assessment based on current value 19 (1)  The assessment of land shall be based on its current value. “current value” means, in relation to land, the amount of money the fee simple, if unencumbered, would realize if sold at arm’s length by a willing seller to a willing buyer; (“valeur actuelle”) This is a challenge for leaseholders to understand, given they only have a “leasehold” interest in their land which results in property assessments being higher then their “leasehold market value”.

7. 7 Results KSPFN, GIFN and WFN Projects

8. Summary of RfR & Appeals for KSPFN (2016-2019) 8 417 properties assessed by MPAC Type of Appeal Data/Inspection Issue Typical Valuation Appeal (comparables used by appellant) Value/Legal (Land should not be valued) Total 2016 RFR 127 1 4 132 2016 Appeal 1  0 1 2 2017 RFR 6 6 12 2017 Appeal 2 4 6 2018 RFR n/a n/a n/a 10 2018 Appeal n/a n/a n/a 1 2019 RFR n/a n/a n/a 4 2019 Appeal n/a n/a n/a

9. Summary of RfR & Appeals for WFN (2019) 9 Data/Inspection Issue Typical Valuation Appeal (comparables used by appellant) Value/Legal (Land should not be valued) Total 2019 RfR* 38* 65* 67* 109 2019 Appeal* 6  6 9 15 244 properties assessed by MPAC MPAC issued 65 amended notices through the RFR process. 3 Appeals were confirmed. 3 Appeals were abandoned. 2 Appeals were withdrawn. 6 Appeals received reductions. (3 MPAC recommendations) 1 Appeal has been adjourned.

10. Summary of RfR & Appeals for GIFN (2019) 10 453 properties assessed by MPAC MPAC issued 53 amended notices through the RFR process. 1 Appeal has been confirmed. 2 Appeals were withdrawn. 2 Appeals were resolved through Minutes of Settlement. (8 MPAC recommendations) Type of Appeal Data/Inspection Issue Typical Valuation Appeal (comparables used by appellant) Value/Legal (Land should not be valued) Total 2019 RfR 96 n/a n/a 99 2019 Appeal 6 5 46 57

11. GIFN Test Case: Equity 11 39 complainants argued that the assessed values of their properties required a downward adjustment in accordance with s. 37(11). The parties – the complainants, GIFN and MPAC – agreed to hear a test case on this issue. Complainant: Argued that s. 37(11) required considering interests on reserve, and equity should be tested against sales of on-reserve properties. MPAC and GIFN: Argued, in part, that the Complainant’s method would result in undermining the scheme of the Assessment Law, which is to value properties as though held in fee simple and off the reserve. Decision released on September 9, 2019 – Held no equity adjustment was required. Equity requires an “apples to apples” comparison, which was not presented by the complainant. The test put forward by the complainant would “nullify the definitive aspects of ‘assessed value’ within the GIFN Assessment Law .” Complainants judicially reviewed the decision. All 2019 appeals remain on hold.

12. Action Plan The three FN projects have been deemed successful. Below are some best practices and recommendations to continue to improve the process: Use of MPAC staff is beneficial – managing the end to end process with our staff is more efficient and produces better quality results. Project governance and dedicated team to be established for each new First Nation project. Creation of a single ‘First Nations Assessor’ was beneficial to the success of the projects. 12

13. Key Learnings – Communications Strategy Engage leaseholders and other key stakeholders early and often Discuss the purpose of taxation, budget and services Discuss the assessment laws and assessment process Host open houses to hear and address concerns from leaseholders Provide access to taxation and assessment information on First Nations online platforms (e.g. website, social media, e-newsletter) 13

14. Key Learnings – Request for Reconsideration Process Good data is key to reducing and resolving Requests for Reconsideration. Many raised issues about assessing properties as though held in fee simple off the reserve. One on one meetings with an assessor at the open house will streamline the RFR process. 14

15. Key Learnings – Appeals Process Currently, there are no rules of procedure Tight timeline to schedule and hold hearings Seasonal nature of properties complicates appeal scheduling and inspections Issues raised include: Complainants argue against assessing properties as though held in fee simple off the reserve Complainants are raising equity as an issue 15

16. Business Properties Schedule of properties to assess include: Pipelines Retail Communication Towers Marina Cannabis processing Fish Farm 16

17. What’s Next to Assess ? To be determined… MPAC continues to work with both the FNTC and First Nations considering implementation of property assessment in the future. 17

18. 18 Thank you