property assessments
More articles by Merle Jantz »
Written by: Merle Jantz
After the reassessment, many homeowners appealed, citing over assessment. Mt. Lebanon, in the interest of equity across all residential property, investigated appealing under assessed properties.
Ideally, counties across Pennsylvania would reassess all properties on a regular basis, but that does not happen. “Reassessments should happen every three years,” says Mt. Lebanon Finance Director Andrew McCreery. “We waited 11 years in Allegheny County, and we’re not sure when the next one will be. Washington County is still using 1981 as a base year.”
With the intention of capturing the most recent market values, Mt. Lebanon decided to appeal the property assessments of 156 houses sold in 2013, and another 138 sold between 2006-2010. The municipality is not appealing the assessments of all houses sold during these time frames, only of houses that sold for a much greater price than their assessed valuation.
Specifically, the properties that are being appealed: sold for more than $100,000; show a difference of at least $58,000 between the sale price and the assessed value, and the ratio between the assessed value and the sale price was 80 percent or less.
For example, a house with an assessed value of $145,100 sold in 2013 for a price of $415,000 has a $269,900 difference between assessed value and sale price, meaning the assessed value is now only 35 percent of the sale price. This house is one of the 156 2013 cases that Mt. Lebanon is appealing. There were 375 2013 residential property sales that did not fit the criteria or were below a sale price of $50,000.
“There are avenues of relief if you believe your house is over assessed,” McCreery says. “But this is our only way of evening out the inequity if a house sells for significantly more than its assessed value.”
The last two property reassessments conducted in Allegheny County were in 2002 and 2013. After conducting a reassessment, the county uses all of the home values obtained that year as the “base year” by which all assessments are calculated. From 2002 to 2012, the base year used for newly sold homes was 2002. Currently, the base year is 2013 until the next reassessment.
Once the municipality notifies a homeowner of its intention to appeal the assessment, the county schedules a hearing sometime within the next six months. At the hearing, homeowners may represent themselves or be represented by an attorney, presenting any information relevant to the fair market value of the property. The county then makes a decision to lower the assessment, maintain the current assessment or raise the assessment.
If the property owner is not satisfied with the county’s ruling, the next step in the process is to appear before the Allegheny County Board of Viewers. Of houses sold in 2011 and 2012, Mt. Lebanon appealed 153 sales, 43 of which sent a notice of their intent to go before the Board of Viewers. Many of those cases are still pending.
The board has a large backlog of cases, and an appeal could take years to resolve, says McCreery, adding that, “Going in front of the Board of Viewers is a considerable expense for the municipality, and for the homeowner.”
To learn more about the assessment and appeals process, visit www.county.allegheny.pa.us/opa/index.aspx.
Ideally, counties across Pennsylvania would reassess all properties on a regular basis, but that does not happen. “Reassessments should happen every three years,” says Mt. Lebanon Finance Director Andrew McCreery. “We waited 11 years in Allegheny County, and we’re not sure when the next one will be. Washington County is still using 1981 as a base year.”
With the intention of capturing the most recent market values, Mt. Lebanon decided to appeal the property assessments of 156 houses sold in 2013, and another 138 sold between 2006-2010. The municipality is not appealing the assessments of all houses sold during these time frames, only of houses that sold for a much greater price than their assessed valuation.
Specifically, the properties that are being appealed: sold for more than $100,000; show a difference of at least $58,000 between the sale price and the assessed value, and the ratio between the assessed value and the sale price was 80 percent or less.
For example, a house with an assessed value of $145,100 sold in 2013 for a price of $415,000 has a $269,900 difference between assessed value and sale price, meaning the assessed value is now only 35 percent of the sale price. This house is one of the 156 2013 cases that Mt. Lebanon is appealing. There were 375 2013 residential property sales that did not fit the criteria or were below a sale price of $50,000.
“There are avenues of relief if you believe your house is over assessed,” McCreery says. “But this is our only way of evening out the inequity if a house sells for significantly more than its assessed value.”
The last two property reassessments conducted in Allegheny County were in 2002 and 2013. After conducting a reassessment, the county uses all of the home values obtained that year as the “base year” by which all assessments are calculated. From 2002 to 2012, the base year used for newly sold homes was 2002. Currently, the base year is 2013 until the next reassessment.
Once the municipality notifies a homeowner of its intention to appeal the assessment, the county schedules a hearing sometime within the next six months. At the hearing, homeowners may represent themselves or be represented by an attorney, presenting any information relevant to the fair market value of the property. The county then makes a decision to lower the assessment, maintain the current assessment or raise the assessment.
If the property owner is not satisfied with the county’s ruling, the next step in the process is to appear before the Allegheny County Board of Viewers. Of houses sold in 2011 and 2012, Mt. Lebanon appealed 153 sales, 43 of which sent a notice of their intent to go before the Board of Viewers. Many of those cases are still pending.
The board has a large backlog of cases, and an appeal could take years to resolve, says McCreery, adding that, “Going in front of the Board of Viewers is a considerable expense for the municipality, and for the homeowner.”
To learn more about the assessment and appeals process, visit www.county.allegheny.pa.us/opa/index.aspx.
13 comments:
Does anyone have any updates about the lawsuit that John Pinto filed? What is the status of the case?
I haven't heard anything lately...
Washington County uses 1981 as a base year of assessment. Now we know why all the multi-million dollar houses are being built in Peters Township. We also know why you can't sell a house in Mount Lebanon for $1,000,000.
I wonder how they came up with this:
"Specifically, the properties that are being appealed: sold for more than $100,000; show a difference of at least $58,000 between the sale price and the assessed value, and the ratio between the assessed value and the sale price was 80 percent or less."
The Seven Dimensions of Tax Equity and Fairness
The AICPA reiterates its position that equity and fairness is an essential attribute of a good tax system, and recommends that equity and fairness be given due consideration in both the making and administration of tax laws. The AICPA further recommends that the following seven dimensions be considered in determining tax equity and fairness:
1. Exchange Equity and Fairness – Over the long run taxpayers receive appropriate value for the taxes they pay.
2. Process Equity and Fairness – Taxpayers have a voice in the tax system, are given due process and are treated with respect by tax administrators.
3. Horizontal Equity and Fairness – Similarly situated taxpayers are taxed similarly.
4. Vertical Equity and Fairness – Taxes are based on the ability to pay.
5. Time-Related Equity and Fairness – Taxes are not unduly distorted when income or wealth levels fluctuate over time.
6. Inter-Group Equity and Fairness – No group of taxpayers is favored to the detriment of another without good cause.
7. Compliance Equity and Fairness – All taxpayers pay what they owe on a timely basis.
For more info search Guiding Principles for Tax Equity and Fairness - AICPA
11:03 has different criteria than Brumfield. What criteria was used to screw the Newcomers?
An FYI to the newcomers, Kristen Linfante will be presiding on Tuesday, but will be missing the April 28 meeting.
Elaine
Aren't there three sets of Newcomers' ?
The first group( 2011-12) 150?
The second group (2013-14) ___
Latest group 2014 ___
Doesn't that exclude 4 of the 5 Commissioners? What are the numbers for groups 2&3?
11:54 PM, the mtl Magazine article ahows 153 for 2011-2012, 156 for 2013, and 138 for 2006-2010.
Elaine
And yes, that excludes four of the five commissioners.
Elaine
Want to seem more gamesmenship in the assessments? Check out 99 Inglewood. VERY connected couple. Magically, their house got smaller and the assessment dropped. And keep in mind after they paid $508K for the house they had a builder there for over 6 months gutting the house. Yet, magically, the value plummeted!
Maybe that can be part of the Lebo Magazine write up!
You can bet his house won't be in ANY of the appeals. He's a good little democrat... But Brumfield better start worrying. A house on his street just recently sold for $125,500 when it was assessed at $228,300. Now that's a big drop! Doesn't seem that houses are hot does it?
the funny thing about the "newcomers" is that they are not only asked to pay the "oldcomers" fair share of what we are spending around here, but that they are the ones Linfante and company always tell us come here for the free stuff that the commission and school board dole out...the problem is that these very people seem to be the loudest voices against the very expenditures our elected officials -- apparently erroneously -- think brought them to our community.....maybe we need to rethink why people do come to Mt. Lebanon--before we drive them all away again.
i get it, it is a tax on "bad" ideas. The Republicans pay for the privilege of letting the Democrats spend their money. If the Republicans would only wise up and join the "right thinking" party, then their "fair share" would shrink based on the political correctness exemption. How could I have missed that?
Post a Comment