Let's go back to last night's school board meeting. David Huston asked our solicitor about the appeal process. Link to podcast Listen to the tail end of the meeting. It is in the Questions or Comments from Residents portion of the meeting.
In an email to Tom Peterson, David wrote this:
Mr. Peterson,
According to the P-G, attached, "Shortly afterward, (March 2006) the school board decided to hire the firm Diversified Municipal Services to represent the school board at appeal hearings."
My RTK request revealed there is no agreement with DMS.
How can the District use their services without any written agreement?
David was able to locate the meeting minutes that included the agreement.
From the 18-SEP-2006 meeting minutes:It was moved by Garson and seconded by Rose that the Superintendent [Wilson] is authorized to retain representatives for representation of the District at residential tax appeal hearings before the Board of Property Assessment Appeals and Review.ROLL CALL For: Campbell, Garson, Remely, Rose, Silhol, Walton, RodellaAbstained: PostiAgainst: NoneMOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED
Posti and Remely were the only current directors on the board at the time. Wilson was two superintendents ago. Posti abstained because she was in the process of appealing her own assessment. Does this authorization extend six years, two boards and two supers later? At Monday's meeting, Peterson referenced the authorization of 2006.
Other Districts, such as West Jefferson, hire DMS on retainer at $1000 a month. Their agreements are online. Ours is $100-$150 a case because we have more appeals. There is no written agreement for ours.
I want to know if there have been any recent appeal hearings in which DMS was not present. Any feedback from readers?
Listening to Elaine Cappucci's report, she really took a shot at the commissioners for not sharing the expense of the appeals. Rumor has it that Josephine Posti has no plans to go after the underassessments. Of course not.
Other Districts, such as West Jefferson, hire DMS on retainer at $1000 a month. Their agreements are online. Ours is $100-$150 a case because we have more appeals. There is no written agreement for ours.
I want to know if there have been any recent appeal hearings in which DMS was not present. Any feedback from readers?
Listening to Elaine Cappucci's report, she really took a shot at the commissioners for not sharing the expense of the appeals. Rumor has it that Josephine Posti has no plans to go after the underassessments. Of course not.
8 comments:
No contracts for appeals- no appeals for under assessments - no information on YSA - forced to file Freedom of Information requests for meeting handouts - giving the super a raise - lies -lies- lies ! this is b.s. ! Your readers should send this to 10 of their friends to get the word out how we are getting treated here. Why isn't anybody going ape sh*t ?
Start with the Cyclops building assessment if you are looking for under assessed properties. The address is 650 Washington Road - right in the middle of our core business district. The assessment was reduced from
$6,193,900 to $4,483,500 for a loss of
-$1,710,400 and the Board didn't even consider appealing this under assessment.
Does anyone know who owns this property? It is titled in the name of
"650 WASHINGTON ROAD ASSOCIATES" and the address given in the assessment records is
0 Washington Road.
A second building at 0 Florida Ave is also in the name of "650 WASHINGTON ROAD ASSOCIATES" and their assessment was lowered from $350,000 to $9,300 for a loss of assessed value of-$340,700.
Together the properties owned by 650 WASHINGTON ROAD ASSOCIATES lost assessed value of
-$1,710,400 and
- $340,700 for a total loss of assessed value of
-$2,051, 100
At 27.13 mills the school district lost taxes of
$55,646.34 because of the assessment loss.
At $150 per appeal that would pay for 370 assessment appeals and the Board left the money off the table.
The $55,636.34 taxes lost will require the Board to cut one additional senior teacher in favor of a new hire next year.
Actually anon@12:11, those reduced assessments will be made up for by increased taxes on those that are fairly assessed.
Reduce the income from the upper tiers and that income has to be made up for somewhere. In our case, its the low to middle homeowners that are going to get completely screwed.
It is time to put to rest that all this spending on turfing ball fields and recreating a high school building will keep our property values high.
We have more than enough evidence to shoot enough holes in that song and dance. The nealy $2 million devaluation of the Cyclops building is just one. The failed development of the Washington/Bower Hill is #2 and the Kossman Castle Shannon project is #3.
Couple that with the "apparent" falling home reassessment values of Virginia Manor homes. Anyone that believes their home investment is going to increase long-term is indeed living in a bubble.
Sure, housing prices have risen in the lower priced neighborhoods, but that bubble will burst soon as the tax implications of runaway spending by the SD and commissioners take hold.
A thousand or two in additional property taxes on a modest $200,000 home will be a deal breaker when compared to alternatives in up and coming areas.
Oh yeah, the money people are going to flock here because we turfed Wildcat Field.
Yep, sure Natalie, keep sitting in the corner repeating over and over.... "I believe, I believe."
Sorry this isn't Hollywood and Washington Road isn't 34th Street.
From The PA School Code:
"Section 439. Receipt and Payment of School Funds.--The treasurer of each school district shall receive all State appropriations, district school taxes, and other funds belonging to the school district, and make payments out of the same on proper orders approved by the board of school directors, signed, except in districts of the first class, by the president, and, in any school district of the first class by the secretary. The treasurer may pay out such funds on orders which have been prepared and signed by the secretary, and in school districts other than in school districts of the first class, signed by the president, without the approval of the board first having been secured, for the payment of amounts owing under any contracts which shall previously have been approved by the board, and by the prompt payment of which the district will receive a discount or other advantage. In all school districts of the first class, all school orders before being paid by the school treasurer shall be approved by the school controller of such district."
Got that- "The treasurer may pay out such funds on orders which have been prepared and signed by the secretary, and in school districts other than in school districts of the first class, signed by the president,..." Jan to pay on the JMA agreement should have orders to do so signed by the secretary and SB president! There should be a document existing where she informed these individuals that the YSA didn't pay their share towards the agreement.
If not she broke the law.
My 11:12 comment on Virginia reassessed values is with the understanding that one MUST buy into the case, as the school district has, that the reassessed values in this neighborhood are indeed accurate.
Some interesting figures from Vince Gastgeb's website.
For years we've all heard about how the excessive spending in investments and raises are keeping our property values high. That to stay a premier community we've got to keep raising taxes.
How come with all that "elevating" Vince shows this for MTL property?
Taxable Value
Certified Value 1/4/2012 $2,174,705,011
Value as of 6/15/2012 $2,156,254,223
All Real Estate
Certified Value 1/4/2012 $2,426,715,151
Value as of 6/15/2012 $2,408,433,963
Doesn't look like the runaway high school, district pay raises and artificial turf talk are having a position effect on our property values, are they.
How many of you saw a huge increase in your reassessment? Somebody's getting a break!
Post a Comment