Looking at the homes on Roycroft, the commissioners appealed six (6) homes for this year. They appealed two last year.
2014 Mt. Lebo Appeals
1. 25 Roycroft based on 2007 sale
2. 51 Roycroft
3. 55 Roycroft
4. 65 Roycroft based on 2006 sale
5. 73 Roycroft
6. 80 Roycroft based on 2008 sale
2013 Mt. Lebo Appeals
1. 30 Roycroft increased to sale price of $560000
2. 56 Roycroft increased to sale price of $427000
Here's the kicker. Remember this anti-turf sign destroyed on Roycroft?
It was ripped out of the yard of one of the homes that the commissioners appealed. The Roycroft Block Party will be very interesting this year. Write the damn check, Kristen.
Update May 27, 2014 7:51 AM Not everyone can avoid writing the check, so Mike Suley, former manager of Allegheny County’s Office of Property Assessments, former member of the county’s Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review, and Lebo Citizens reader, offers this solution in his Post-Gazette Letter to the Editor, Overassessed homeowners should pay taxes under protest.
Interesting.
ReplyDeleteI wonder-- that house that received the award for the $85,000(?) kitchen/dining remodeling... did they get reassessed?
That shouldn't even need to be an appeal by the municipality.
Someone gets a building permit for an extensive remodeling or addition definitely ups the value of their home.
A reassessment should be automatic once the project is completed. Who ever heard of an addition reducing the value of a home?
See there another reason to push for Senate/House Bills 76 for property tax reform. The taxing bodys wouldn't need to track this stuff and homeowners wouldn't get penalized for improving their property!
SB76 only eliminates the school tax. There will still be assessments and tax bills from the municipality and county. They will never eliminate the property tax.
ReplyDeleteGood point I hadn't considered, thanks Mike.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the county and municipal taxes are manageable, it's the school taxes that go every year practically that hurt.
Here's a topic that Mr. Gideon brings up regularly when we comment on property taxes. He rightly says residents aren't like farmland and such and don't generate income.
ReplyDeleteBut now, if someone installs solar panels on their as was featured in MTL magazine awhile back aren't they engaging in a business on their property which would then mandate a reassessment?
The way I understand it, if your solar panels generate more electricity than your home consumes the electric company must purchae that excess power from the homeowner.
So what is the difference if you grow corn or fruit and send it to market or generate electricity and send it to market?
At the very least installation of solar panels should mandate an immediate reassessment because the home is more valuable, its making money for the owner.
The property tax is static and regressive. Land taxes do not levy against ability to pay or income of any sort where private residential homes are concerned. It is an anachronism that ironically falls with disproportionate adverse effect on those who have already paid for their homes after decades of hard work but now live on fixed incomes. Dave Brumfield says that such people "cannot afford to live in these houses," but he is wrong. We have already paid for them. But consider this, the combination of higher than fair assessments and the combined tax levies of county, municipality and school district, result in payments that equal or exceed the mortgage payments people have or formerly had on their homes. We only rent, "home ownership" is an illusion as the taxing authorities own the land and take the full value back from us in the life span of most mortgages (30 years).
ReplyDeleteThat is why Kristen will not write a check. That is why the commissioners will not lead by example and pay their fair share as they hide behind a "protocol" that they themselves wrote and approved just coincidentally exempting themselves.
10:16 That is what the "earned income" tax covers. P
ReplyDeleteMr. Suley:
ReplyDeleteYou are correct; and, frankly, I don't think SB76 goes far enough. Pennsylvania is not the only state that collects property taxes at three different levels, but not all states do this. In Connecticut the school districts submit budgets to the towns in which they are located, and property owners do not get two tax bills. There are moves in some states - Oklahoma comes to mind - to eliminate residential property taxes altogether. Hawai'i does not have a real estate tax to fund their schools at all! Hawaii's real estate taxes are collected to cover "local services" - such as police, fire, and infrastructure. I know this as my youngest daughter lives in Oahu. According to Honolulu Magazine, "...for example, if you are looking at a $500,000 residential condo in Honolulu county, your real property tax will be $1,750 for the year. That same property in Maui county would cost you $2,875 in property taxes for the year, $4,550 in Hawaii county, and $2,125 in Kauai county, so as you can see, rates differ quite a bit island to island."
What comes up on this Blog seemingly "ad infinitum" is a complaint about real estate tax "fairness." I maintain that the tax on personal property is inherently unfair and archaic, and cannot be fixed. Interestingly, what I don't read on this Blog is a defense of the tax on personal, non-productive, real estate. If you are a supporter of such a tax I'd like to read your reasons for it.
V/r
Richard Gideon
The solar panel issue adduced by May 27, 2014 at 10:16 AM reminds me of a situation currently being debated on Oahu in Hawai'i. There are now so many homes with both solar power (and solar hot water heating - the latter being a different system) that the power companies are complaining that their costs are being negatively affected. But Mt. Lebanon isn't Oahu - as anyone who has lived through a winter here can attest. I dare say Duquesne Light is probably not fearing going out of business over solar electricity generation from private homes. And as far as a business is concerned, unless one has registered with the state as a business and has a profit motive, it seems doubtful that the legal system would classify a house containing a solar panel as a "business." If "tax" is the basic concern then I would point out that the profit from such home generation would be more a candidate for a tax than what some assessor seems to think a property is worth because a homeowner installed a residential solar panel. The state taxes interest and dividends, but because I receive a dividend check in the mail that does not make my house a bank.
ReplyDeleteWhy cannot owner occupied and investment residential property be taxed differently ? In the past this question has been answered to the effect "...equal treatment under the law", which just doesn't make any sense. But of course, this is PA where nonsense is SOP.
ReplyDeleteOh I agree with you, Richard @12:13 and with 10:55, but the point I was trying to make, badly I guess, is that if one added solar panels to their home after the 2012-13 reassessment— they've made a substantial investment improvement to their home that escapes under the "newcomers" tax radar. Same goes for an expensive rremodeling or addition, I believe.
ReplyDeleteHere's is an important paper explaining PA Senate Bill 76: http://www.ptcc.us/solution.htm
ReplyDeleteSome important facts-
"Statewide, current school district budgets, on average, increase at twice the rate of inflation!"
"If your school property tax bill is $3,500/year and is completely eliminate by SB/HB 76, you would have to spend $50,000 annually on newly-taxed property and services to equal the amount of property tax eliminated."
"
SPENDING CONTROLS
Current school spending regularly exceeds tax revenue and The Property Tax Independence Act addresses it head on.
- At enactment of The Property Tax Independence Act, all districts will receive 100% funding sufficient to meet all financial obligations with a dollar-for-dollar replacement of the eliminated property tax. In the future, every district will receive identical percentage annual base funding increases that will be limited to the increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), effectively tying annual school budget increases to the increase in available revenue and economic activity.
- If a district desires additional revenue, they can present a no-exception ballot referendum to the voters of their district to raise additional revenue by either an earned income tax or a personal income tax. However, property taxes will not be able to be re-instituted to raise revenue.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
School property taxes need to be prohibited from ever being imposed on Pennsylvanians again.
Companion legislation to the The Property Tax Independence Act will provide for a constitutional amendment which GUARANTEES that, once eliminated, school property taxes would be gone forever and that a future legislature could never re-institute the taxing of our properties.
Current school spending regularly exceeds tax revenue and The Property Tax Independence Act addresses it head on.
- At enactment of The Property Tax Independence Act, all districts will receive 100% funding sufficient to meet all financial obligations with a dollar-for-dollar replacement of the eliminated property tax. In the future, every district will receive identical percentage annual base funding increases that will be limited to the increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), effectively tying annual school budget increases to the increase in available revenue and economic activity.
- If a district desires additional revenue, they can present a no-exception ballot referendum to the voters of their district to raise additional revenue by either an earned income tax or a personal income tax. However, property taxes will not be able to be re-instituted to raise revenue.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
School property taxes need to be prohibited from ever being imposed on Pennsylvanians again.
Companion legislation to the The Property Tax Independence Act will provide for a constitutional amendment which GUARANTEES that, once eliminated, school property taxes would be gone forever and that a future legislature could never re-institute the taxing of our properties.
I understand that property taxes in the "Mainline" area of Philadelphia are very much lower than here. This is an affluent area mindful of the needs of education and other services. Does anyone know how they compare to our situation?
ReplyDeleteWell, maybe Kristen is not such a good neighbor to have, and just maybe she really doesn't represent as many of her constituents' point of view as she thinks she does.
ReplyDeleteHer house is still overpriced. And, she still won't write the check. It must be so nice to have other people carry your load for you. This all gives a new definition to the term "welfare queen."
I say, give everyone vouchers and close the public schools. That will not only keep a lid on discretionary costs and overheated compensation, but will likely improve the quality of education all around.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone seen the documentary "Waiting for Superman"? The whole picture is there.
it is a sweet deal, the school district can't fight the assessments and raise taxes .54 mills, too....so, instead, their friends and allies on the commission take care of the assessment "problem" while the school board makes the commission look good by comparison....a Faustian deal if there ever was one...
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the comments from such anonymous posters as May 27, 2014 at 10:16 AM, May 27, 2014 at 10:53 AM, May 27, 2014 at 12:17 PM, or May 27, 2014 at 1:24 PM, as well as the comments from Mike Suley. In addition, I'm sure any improvements to a home made after the 2012/2013 reassessment probably did fly under the so-called "newcomers tax" radar.
ReplyDeleteSo let me take a slightly different track and ask the general audience the same question that I asked Mr. Suley: Is there anyone out there who supports the private residential property tax in its most basic form, and, if you do, why? Please don't bring up ways to make the system fair; or how often property should be assessed; or who isn't paying his or her fair share - I don't care about any of that. Go back to the basics and defend the practice of the county, municipality and school district sending you a yearly bill (which you or your mortgage company will pay with after-tax income) for the "privilege" of owning a home.
If you'd like to have a public one-on-one please sign your name; I don't do anonymous debates.
1:24 here Richard.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you 100%.
another point to consider is the cost of these reassessments.
I believe I read somewhere that the 2002 reassessment cost in the end $40,000,000 and that doesn't include the money aand time spent by homeowners appealling faulty or inequitable numbers.
This money doesn't pay for teachers, books, schools, roads, parks or infrastructure.
It will be interesting to hear someone defend the present system as you have asked.
Especially, candidates for Governor, State Representative or the County Commissioner.
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/money-guides/10-cheap-fixes-to-boost-the-value-of-your-home-1.aspx
ReplyDeleteThe article states these improvements can add thousands of dollars to the value of your home.
None are considered in county property assessments. Two identical houses (comparables) could be assessed at the same value. One could have an $85,000 kitchen remodeling, the other the original 1950s era kitchen. The county doesn't care. Your home is pretty much worth what they say it is worth and that is that!
This article states the 2001 Allegheny County Reassessment cost $23.9 million and the 2010 reassessment cost $12.4 million.
ReplyDeleteIt does not state if those numbers are just to conduct the reassessments or include hearing appeals, etc.
http://www.naco.org/newsroom/countynews/Current%20Issue/1-30-12/Pages/Pacountiesstrugglewithassessmentwoes.aspx
Seems like a monumental waste of money that does nothing to enhance anything except the amount of money taxing bodies get to collect.
what ever happened to self-reliance? why can't clubs (clubs of adults or for children), pay their own collective way? If the new High School only costs the average taxpayer the equivalent of "one latte a day" as School Director Cappucci has said, why can't Lebo's sports field users pay their own way?
ReplyDeletei do know the answer, it comes from Commissioner Brumfield himseld: people who can't afford to pay the property tax can't afford the houses they pay for.
there is simply no shame among office holders in this town
10:51-- how did these "office holders with no shame" become office holders?
ReplyDeleteMr. Gideon,
ReplyDeleteThe administration of the property tax is a complicated topic. An excellent book on this is "The Worst Tax?: A History of the Property Tax in America" by Glenn Fisher.
I also teach an assessment class for CPAs at CCAC if anyone would like to dig deeper on the subject.
The property tax is hated because it is transparent. This leaves it open to criticism.
Here are a couple of questions:
How much did you pay in sales tax last year?
The property at 777 Casino Drive paid $2.5M in school taxes this year. Who picks up the tab if the school tax is eliminated?
By the way, it doesn't matter if you're for or against the property tax. If it is law, it should be administered fairly. If it is not, you must still pay the tax or go to court to seek fairness.
If SB76 becomes law, we are trading the devil we know for the devil we don't know.
Mr. Suley, that is a good point, and on the surface, lookas like an argument against SB76.
ReplyDeleteBut, you do not provide any evidence of how much the owners of 777 Casino Drive spent on goods or services that would be taxed under SB76.
The other point is to SB76 is to put in place some controls on schools district spending.
In the MTLSD we have seen $2,000,000 average spending increases over the past 10 years or so.
They spend because they know they can. Even with the limitations imposed against "windfalls" due to the reassessment, Klein knew full well she had exemptions available to avoid the cap. She told SB Director Fraasch in one of his Audit & Finance meetings as much.
Now then SB 76 does not limit the district from raising money locally... if they can make the case for the need the voters can approve it under a mandated referendum.
Hello Mr. Suley:
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting; however, I don't think you addressed my questions, which were 1) do you support a tax on personal, non-productive, real estate, and 2)if so, why? The property at 777 Casino Drive is NOT private, non-productive real estate; it's a Casino. I can't give you a firm answer to how much I paid in sales taxes last year but I know where you're going with this. Of course it was much less than the property taxes I paid to the county, municipality, and school district. Now let me ask this one to you: Did you pay less than 10% of your take-home pay in combined property taxes on your private residence?
I am not as easily placated as some are by the argument that the current system is the law in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the poster child for archaic laws and thinking. Other states have different systems for funding some of their essential services, including schools, as I'm sure you know.
Mr. Suley, please don't misconstrue my comments; we have never met, and I'm sure you're an honorable person with the best of intentions. I taught school for 23 years, and I know that most teachers are happy with the 19th century Prussian style education system we have in this state because it is in their self-interest to keep it as it is. In the same way I can't help but think that, given your background, you may have a propensity to "stick up" for the current property tax system because you've invested you life in it. If I am incorrect I apologize.
More on SB 76.
ReplyDelete"Pa. property tax reform would have ‘winners and losers'"
By Andrew Staub, PA Independent POSTED: 05/04/14, 7:16 PM EDT |
"HARRISBURG — The debate over property tax reform trudged along this week as the state Senate continued to vet legislation that would replace the unpopular school funding mechanism with money from the personal income tax and sales tax.
Much of the attention during a Wednesday public hearing focused on what would and would not be subject to an expanded sales tax, which Senate Bill 76 would increase to 7 percent from the current 6 percent rate."
"While Argall has been confident about the legislation’s chances in the Senate, the state has continued to face sobering financial news. The outlook for April revenue is likely bleak, further complicating not only the issue of property tax reform but Gov. Tom Corbett’s latest budget proposal as a whole.
“It’s no secret that commonwealth revenues are lagging behind projections,” said state Sen. Michael Brubaker, the Lancaster County Republican who chairs the Finance Committee.
So far, sales and use tax revenue are behind by about $111 million, Brubaker said.
It’s that sort of volatile funding stream that has opponents of Senate Bill 76 concerned that the legislation would leave school districts in tenuous budget predicaments."
Several interesting topics.
• "Commonwealth revenues are lagging behind projects." Yet "Corbett Sucks" Brumfield wants the Governor to send the schools MORE money. Brumfield never suggests where the governor get it from, of course!
• SB 76 would force school districts to manage their money just like the average middle class family does. When times are lean you spend less. When times are good you spend more.
• SB 76 would give families a little more control over their household budgets. Don't want to pay 7% tax, forgo buying clothing over $50. Buy chicken instead of lobster tail. Better than the school district holding a financial gun to your head-- "pay the new millage rate or we'll take your house!"
• Paying a 1% additional tax on goods or services that you choose to partake of or not is a lot easier to bear than getting hammered with a huge school district tax bill every year!
Thanks Richard for that info on the Casino Drive property. It is not a personal residence as I assumed, though I thought the tax amount was suspicious.
Mr. Suley, how much did 777 Casino Drive rake in in goods and services that would be subject to the SB 76 1% increase in applicable sales taxes?
ReplyDeleteAccording to WPXI, 777 Casino Drive- "Slot revenue at the Rivers Casino is about $282 million, almost a 2.5 percent increase from 2011." The article doesn't say if that includes revenue from meals, alcohol etc.
ReplyDeletehttp://m.wpxi.com/news/news/local/pa-casinos-track-generate-countrys-second-highest-/nTmyx/
SB 76's proposed new 1% tax would fetch $2.82 million in taxes, Mr. Suley!
That would be $320,000 more going to the school district.
Nice thing about it... I can choose to frequent the casino or not and avoid the tax.
AND THE COUNTY SAVES AT LEAST $12,000,000 not having to appraise every property!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteAparently, 4:42 and 4:45 get the last word SB 76.
ReplyDelete