At the May 29, 2012 commission meeting, a motion was tabled to pay the Schood District 17% of the actual costs billed by Diversified Municipal Services.
Consideration to financially participate in the Mt. Lebanon School District’s involvement in property assessment appeal hearings.
Diversified Municipal Services, Inc. (DMS) represents Mt. Lebanon School District at first-level Allegheny County property assessment appeals. DMS develops evidence in support of sustaining current values on owner-filed appeals and appears at hearings to present the evidence. DMS charges the school district $150 for attending a hearing at which the owner is present and $100 for appearing for a hearing at which the owner does not attend.
It is proposed that the municipality participate in funding this effort.
Recommended Action: Move to direct the Municipal Manager to reimburse the Mt. Lebanon School District for 17% of the actual costs billed by Diversified Municipal Services in representing the taxing body at residential reassessment appeal hearings for the 2012 appeal year.Move to direct the Municipal Manager to reimburse the Mt. Lebanon School District for 17% of the actual costs billed by Diversified Municipal Services in representing the taxing body at residential reassessment appeal hearings for the 2012 appeal year.
Diversified Municipal Services is owned by Dominick Gambino. Doing a Google search, I found this PG article about Mr. Gambino.
Get ready: Assessments are coming next week
Mr. Gambino strongly differs, saying reassessment will lift an existing unfair tax burden on residents of poorer communities. Elected leaders, not a county judge, should have launched and directed the project on their own, he said. Mr. Gambino, who worked for the county for 25 years, now runs a consulting firm called Diversified Municipal Services Inc.
As Tom Moertel and Commissioner Fraasch demonstrated, there is an unfair tax burden on certain wards in this community. To counter this "unfair tax burden," Diversified Municipal Services provides this service to assist individual property owners, businesses and governments in analyzing property data in Allegheny County.
http://countypropertyanalyzer.com/about.php
The County Property Analyzer is another service provided by Diversified Municipal Services, Inc. It can be a useful tool for individual property owners, businesses and governments in analyzing property data in Allegheny County.
Diversified has represented clients in literally thousands of property assessment appeal hearings. The County Property Analyzer unleashes the power for anyone to create sales comparison evidence for submission in property assessment hearings.
Welcome to the County Property Analyzer
The product you are about to preview is an amazing tool for anyone in search of property information in Allegheny County. It will invite you through the door to explore the property data for over 550,000 properties.
But more remarkably, this tool allows you to analyze the data even further by exporting and saving the results of your search - over twenty-five different bits of information including property and mailing addresses, sales validation information, assessed values and numerous land and building characteristics - onto an excel spreadsheet.
The countypropertyanalyzer will also be a valuable resource in calculating property values by easily and efficiently helping you acquire comparable sales and granting you the ability to create and prepare sales comparison reports in a pdf format.
This is a product that has a wide variety of functions and uses. It was developed by the former Manager of the Allegheny County Office of Property Assessments specifically to allow the analysis of property data. Sales ratios studies, Comparable Sales Reports and mail merge capabilities are just a few of the possibilities.
Countypropertyanalyzer is a "must-have" for any real estate professional or property owner.
The best part about the product is the cost. Sign up for a "free week trial period" by clicking on "SIGNUP". After the trial period, you can continue having access to this fantastic tool for only $75 per month!
So my questions are:
- Couldn't a homeowner use this service for free during the trial period for their reassessment hearing?
- Why is the District willing to pay $150 per assessment hearing when they could use this service for $75 a month?
- More importantly, why
is the Municipality are Commissioners Brumfield and Linfante willing to fork over 17% towards this charge?
It's really interesting here.
ReplyDeleteOn the one side they allow a homeowner to pay a fee and do a ton of work to find comparables to their newly assessed home.
On the other side they turn around and fight that same homeowner in court based on some pre-determined criteria.
What if DMS (and they certainly will) runs into the situation where a homeowner paid the fee to use the service, prints out all the comps from the website and then gets to court only to find that they school district/ municipality is represented by the same firm?
What information will DMS use then to show that the assessment is a correct one? A different set of data? Oh, how I wish I could be a homeowner in that situation. "Excuse me, Judge, I think there is something you should know..."
Albert Brenneman
I thought the same thing, Albert. Mr. Gambino would be caught in an impossible quandary, wouldn't he? Sure sounds like a conflict of interest to me. But he may have a way out of it, since he was doing the same thing until Onorato fired him in late 2003. Ex assessors rile Onorato
ReplyDeleteElaine
Most importantly,why is the School District using this firm?
ReplyDeleteAlex Hutchinson
Why does this only apply to residential properties...why not commercial properties as well ? Is this not further evidence of the discriminatory aspects of this totally inappropriate undertaking by the School District and support by the Municipality ?
ReplyDeleteBill Lewis
You are absolutely right, Bill. Commercial properties could use this. Then we have another situation where taxpayers are paying both sides of the legal fees. Kinda like the renovation zoning crap when taxpayers paid both sides of the bills.
ReplyDeleteI firmly believe that anyone who has a strong case for an overassessment would be willing to jump through hoops and try to appeal. The money is in the underassessments. Sorry, Jo and Dave.
Elaine
What about the whopping 14.1% increase in municipal real estate tax this year? If your house is unfairly assessed, and your taxes go up 14.1% BEFORE the new assessment takes affect, think of the huge windfall our municipality will extract next year after the new assessments are certified. If the municipality appears at appeal hearings to defend the County's unfair assessment, and our own tax dollars are paying Mr. Gambino's outfit to defend the municipality's position on the County's unfair assessment, it rubs more salt into our wounds that are 14.1% more painful than last year. The Mt. Lebanon Home Rule Municipal Corporation is in business to make money.
ReplyDeleteDavid Huston
Can somebody explain to me why fighting these appeals isn’t a complete waste of the school district’s good money? Isn’t any revenue “generated” by this tactic simply going to be undone come tax time, when the district is forced to adjust its tax rate to comply with anti-windfall laws? Further, wouldn’t the district be better off trying to keep the total property valuation after the reassessment as low as possible? Wouldn’t a lower total mean a higher corresponding tax rate after anti-windfall adjustment and therefore higher tax revenue now and in future years from any new and improved properties?
ReplyDeleteHave I got this wrong? Or is the school district really paying somebody, $150 a toe, to shoot its own foot off?
Tom, based on the information that you provided on your blog,and the presentation made by James Fraasch, when he was the chairman of the Audit and Finance Committee, I would say that you don't have it wrong. Who is the mastermind behind this? Jan Klein? Josephine Posti? When I questioned Dave Brumfield at Tuesday's meeting, he mumbled something about a conversation he had with the School District. Is this part of the wonderful Joint Discussion Committee in action where Dave and Kristen were acting more like school board directors than commissioners? Baaaaa
ReplyDeleteElaine
Tom,
ReplyDeleteConsidering :
1) your 12:21 PM revelations, plus
2) my 10:50 AM comment, plus
3) your mapping of the assessments
strongly suggests that a number of owners of high valued but grossly underassessed residential properties and owners appealing commercial property assessments (in some cases perhaps the same owners ?) will be major financial beneficiaries of this discriminatory farce, at least for a full tax year.
And, there is no official guarantee in place that the District and/or the Municipality would pursue appeals of the properties of these owners next year for 2014 taxation. Such a guaranty would require irrevocable Resolutions by each body...which is highly unlikely.
Who were the individuals behind this, and what are their property ownerships and assessments ?
Bill Lewis
Don't miss the update...With James Fraasch's permission, I am sharing a link to a letter he sent to the Honorable Senior Judge R. Stanton Wettick, Jr on May 30, 2012 concerning the reassessment. It just might blow your mind! It did for me. I hope our elected officials (at all levels) read it VERY carefully.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Nice letter James.
ReplyDeleteIt seems the Right-leaning blue dots have a good case - yet the School District will pay $150 to argue about it, all the while the Left-leaning blue dots are left alone.
Is this a great Bubble - or what!
Once again Mr. Fraasch stands up and along with Mr. Moertel's great analysis shines a light on this absurd mess.
ReplyDeleteBut that not the end of the insult.
The lowly homeowner pays for -
-the company that created tne valuations
- Judge Wettick
- the school districts hired gun, DMS
- and once again should they use DMS's services to evaluate their assessment
- the assessment hearing officers
- the Pittsburgh Parking Authority or PAT transit
Essentially the property owners of Allegheny County pay for each and every entity involved in this cluster f*ck, and then pay once again to try and fight them.
The only individuals not in on the money grab at least here in MTL are Fraasch and Moertel. Thank you gentlemen!!!!
Why the news media and our elected officials like Matt Smith aren't all over this is beyond me.
Remember Kevin Bacon getting paddled in his fraternity pledge?
All together now Allegheny County...
"Thank you sir, may I have another!"
Gffn Gd
Don't forget Kelly Fraasch and Matt Kluck for not seconding Kristen Linfante's motion.
ReplyDeleteElaine
This was asked before and I never saw a response:
ReplyDeleteYou didn't file an appeal because your property was in line with numbers for your comparables.
But the owners of your comparables did file an appeal and say they win. Now your overassessed in comparison!
Is it tough crap, you shoulda filed dummy or can you appeal based on the change in your comparables numbers?
According to Kinzer Law firm's web site: "Record number of appeals filed
The media coverage shows how controversial the recent reassessment was. In fact, the Allegheny Office of Property Assessments reports that in total, 134,725 formal appeals were filed. Of those, only 22,361 had been entered into the system and only 2,227 had been scheduled as of early May."
Knowing how your property compares will be a continually moving target!
A resident
Property owners that are appealing your assessment, it boils down to this.
ReplyDeleteWin or lose, you've sent the school district $150 to hire Mr. Gambino to FIGHT AGAINST your appeal!
Yet you still believe your school taxes are all for the kids.
The jokes on you!
Gtrm Gd
Here's another way to look at it.
ReplyDeleteIf just 100 MTL property owners appeal their assessments, the school district will spend $15,000 ($150x100) to argue against the property owners that show up in person.
This is the same district that in their cost-cutting list said they were going to reduce legal expenses and outside consultant fees.
But, really don't worry about it. They can raise the the $50 student parking fee ($10,000 projected this year) by another $25.
Gffn Gd
6:02 AM you could save the district $50 if you don't show up, according to the motion. Why don't you be a sport and not show up for your appeal? :-P "Do it for the kids."
ReplyDeleteHere is a little factoid. The commissioner who introduced the motion is living in an underassessed home. It was purchased in 2005 for $359,000. The old assessment was $262,100 and the new one is still under the sale price at $315,300. What is this with my commissioners?
So let's summarize. The super's is underassessed. The SB president's house is underassessed. The commissioner who made the motion is living in an underassessed house. And they MAY go after the underassessed homes NEXT year?
Elaine
Elaine
In the old days the mobsters used to charge neighborhood property owners protection money so that they wouldn't get robbed.
ReplyDeleteToday the school district, with the courts consent, has done the mob one better!
They now make the property owner pay.them $150 to have someone insure that the school district gets to "steal" every last dime they want!
Plus, if that isn't enough they've hired a PR firm to come up with a plan to make you feel guilty that you're not giving them enough!
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Mr. Roberts
You elected them, folks. Out of all the SB directors, I only voted for two of them. And quite frankly, I was let down. I didn't vote for any of the commissioners. In fact, the Same group of rep. Committee people that held me back when i was running for icommissioner are also the ones who endorsed T. Michael Brown, as well as had connections to the Parking Authority. Can't say that I am proud to be a Republican in Mt. Lebanon.
ReplyDeleteElaine
The commissioner that wants to mortgage Lebo's future by borrowing more money paid almost $100,000 over her home's assessed value in 2005.
ReplyDeleteSeven years later that home is still assessed at a fair market value of $46,700 under her 2005 purchase price.
Now there is one smart financial wizard I want to entrust with managing my property value!
Hey, Kristen wanna buy a wooded lot on McNeilly Road for your recreational purposes.
Let's see its appraised at around $500,000. Bettin' you find it a steal at $1.5 million... Right?
Then Kelly and Matt will have that much more to maintain our parks and fields with floating a bond.
Mr. Roberts
Elaine, there's an active republican committee in Mt. Lebanon? Really?
ReplyDeleteAre Raja, Joe D. still commissions? Sue Rose still a SB director. Somebody pinch me, I'm having bad nightmares that Linfante and Bendel are commissioners beside Brumfield.
Mr. Roberts
Correction:
ReplyDeleteThen Kelly and Matt will have that much more to maintain our parks and fields 'without' floating a bond.
Mr. Roberts
They are RINOS. It sure was active when I was running. They did their best to knock me down. Too bad they don't update their website. The whole committee is a joke.
ReplyDeleteSee, I look at it differently. I don't see her paying too much for her house. I see it as her home is underassessed (again) and she dodged a bullet. And to rub it in, the get-along gang wants to go after those who got robbed with the reassessment.
Elaine
In 2008-09 expenditures in the school district were $73.8 million. For 2013 their budget is $80.5 million.
ReplyDeleteAn increase of $6+ million in 4 years!
Pretty appalling and you might justify it by say not so bad because we're building a $113 million high school. Yes we are,... but we've only borrowed for a little over half of it. They need to float another bond yet.
Couple that with the fact they are educating about 200 fewer students over that time period. But we're paying for more staff.
How long can this trend continue?
Gffn Gd
Giffen,
ReplyDeleteThe trend will continue as long as we keep electing people into office who have no concept of or interest in responsible fiscal decision making.
-Wilma Zellers
baggage free commissioner, elaine?
ReplyDeletebatman
Yes, "batman." Same one. In fact, here is an interesting article that someone sent to me, about her.
ReplyDeleteSan Jose faces the music.
Wilma, you will be interested to read that article. That musician needs to face the music.
Elaine
in the face of a $3 million deficit, the 123-year-old orchestra has only a few physical assets to its name said les white, the former san jose city manager who was brought on five weeks ago as interim chief operating officer they include sheet music office equipment and a movable acoustical shell worth no more than $300,000 altogether
ReplyDeleteasked about cash reserves, white responded only with a derisive chuckle
first san jose then mount lebanon
batman
Unfortunately, Commissioner Linfante didn't learn the pitfall of carrying too much debt.
ReplyDeleteIt is also unfortunate that the Mayor of San Jose didn't immigrate here rather than her.
From an article on the public worker pension cuts in two California cities.
"Fiscal Responsibility Requires Tough Decisions in Difficult Times
There are no easy answers or painless solutions to balancing San José’s budget and eliminating the structural budget deficit. But under Mayor Reed's leadership, the City Council has worked in partnership with residents, businesses and city workers to close budget gaps while preserving critical services such as police, fire, libraries and community centers.
Mayor Reed has led the drive to implement much-needed fiscal reforms - including retirement reform - in order to end the city's chronic budget deficits and restore key services to the community.
After enduring 10 straight years of budget cuts, Mayor Reed has drawn a line in the sand and set a goal to restore core services to January 2011 levels and open the city's vacant libraries, community centers, fire stations and police substation before he leaves office.
In his 2010 State of the City Address, Mayor Reed called on city employees to give back 10% in total compensation to help close the city’s ongoing budget gaps. By June 2011, the City had achieved the 10% concession for all employees (including the Mayor, Council and executive management), saving hundreds of jobs and vital city services.
Mayor Reed has instituted a community-based budgeting process to gather public input and ensure that the city's budget reflects the community's spending priorities. Read the Mayor's Budget Messages
Recognizing the importance of leading by example, Mayor Reed has voluntarily reduced his pay (to the level it was during his predecessor’s term) and waived his monthly car allowance every year since taking office in 2007."
Gffn Gd
According to a brief by the Allegheny Institute at least 2 school districts realize where the money is!
ReplyDelete"
The appeals initiated by school districts are most likely due to an assessment coming in under sales price. The four school district-initiated appeals came from two districts: North Allegheny and West Allegheny. For example, a home that sold for $393,225 saw its assessment rise from $285,000 to $377,400, under its sales price and thus the target of an appeal. On average, new assessments were 33 percent higher than the base year assessments. The gap between assessed value and sales price shrank for the four homes but the new assessment remained lower than sales price. "
WONDER WHY OUR DISTRICT IS RELUCTANT TO APPEAL UNDERASSESSED PROPERTIES and going instead after homeowners that think they've been overassessed? The district has abridge to appeal underassessed property without the owner instigating it.
The Kossman Castle Shannon Blvd property would be a good start. Posti's and Steinhauer's a close second.
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
ReplyDelete$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.
ReplyDelete