As one newcomer said, "More propaganda from mtl Magazine"

property assessments

More articles by Merle Jantz »

Written by: Merle Jantz

Properties in Mt. Lebanon, as all other municipalities in Allegheny County, were reassessed in 2013 by Allegheny County.

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.

Here we go again with School District Assessment Appeals UPDATED

At the last Municipal Discussion Session, Dave Brumfield brought up school district assessment appeals. You may recall that Dave thought it would be a good idea to share the expense of appeals with the school district. This was when he was under the impression that the school district would be going after both underassessed and overassessed homes. Josephine Posti denied that she ever said anything about underassessed homes. Well, Josephine brought up appeals with Dave again. The most recent agenda shows that school district assessment appeals may be a topic for this Tuesday's Discussion Session. http://mtlebanon.org/archives/35/Discussion%20Session%2007-23-12.pdf  Dave had mentioned at the last meeting how he THOUGHT he understood the school district's plan to be going after underassessed homes next year, but now he is not so sure. Posti claims that they were never planning to go after underassessed homes. Interestingly enough, this letter went out to some of the commissioners today, which I was cc'ed, and ties in with the whole assessment topic.  Even though it was signed, he would rather not have his name published on Lebo Citizens. I am reprinting it with his permission. Here it is:

In today's Almanac in the deed transfers it shows Joe D's property recently transferred at $650,000. Though that conflicts with the sale price reported on the county site of the sale dated 6/18/2012 at $550,000. Don't misunderstand I'm not singling out Joe because I have a vendetta against him, today's paper only brought the assessment fiasco to mind and his property is a good example. It also appears to support James [Fraasch]and Tom Moertel's conclusions.

The 2013 assessed value on Joe's property is $345,000! Since the sale took place in 2012 and his 2012 assessed value is $187,000 the inequity of the system looks even worse. The difference being $463,000 (or $363,000 if the real sale was $550,000). Still the average home value is around $245,000!

So let's look at this another relative way. What does Joe's property have to do with me or any other homeowner. If the deed transfer is accurately reported in the almanac, if Joe's place were assessed at it's "fair market value" and isn't that what the reassessment is suppose to reflect, the $650,000 deed transfer IS the "fair market value." It is what a buyer is willing to pay and what the seller is willing to accept.

That means there is $305,000 of taxable value the school district and municipality is missing out on IN 2013 AND EVERY YEAR UNTIL NEW ASSESSMENTS. With a 27.13 SD millage rate that's approximately $8,300 in actual uncollected taxes each year from just ONE property. Looks like the muni misses out on approximately $1,600/yr due to underassessment. 53 homeowners wouldn't have to chip in $30/yr for Kelly's rec plan from just this one property if correctly assessed.

So, if you/they pursued that fair value they could essentially give say 15 senior citizen homeowners a $20,000 exclusion and still remain revenue neutral. They could give 30 homeowners a $10,000 exclusion. They could give 60 a $5,000 exclusion. Or 120 a $2,500 exclusion.

And how many high priced homes are paying less than their fair market value based on recent sale prices and reassessed values in Lebo?

I find it horrible that the school district will spend $150 arguing against a homeowner that may think his assessment is $20, 40 or $60,000 too high while there are properties that are underassessed by hundreds of thousands.

If the municipality undertook corrective action maybe we wouldn't have to charge stormwater fees, or borrow for street paving, or float bonds for pool upgrades.

Update August 10, 2012 3:45 PM The latest Commission Discussion Agenda is showing "School District Assessment Appeals" has been moved back to the August 27, 2012 meeting.

Commissioner Fraasch writes about the Muni's involvement in the appeal hearings - UPDATED

Take a look at Kelly Fraasch's blog, Muni involvement in property assessment appeal hearings… As I had written in a previous post and commented at last night's meeting, there was an item on last night's agenda, where the motion was made, but not seconded for Consideration to financially participate in the Mt. Lebanon School District’s involvement in property assessment appeal hearings. 


From reading Kelly's blog, it appears that the Commission never discussed this. Dave Brumfield said that it was his idea.  Kristen Linfante made the motion, so it looks like the school board liaison is all for it too.

Make sure you see the link Kelly provided to Tom Moertel's map on Blog-Lebo which illustrates the large concentration of over assessments in Ward 5 as well as Ward 1.


Update May 31, 2012 11:18 pm To be fair, here is a link to Kristen Linfante's blog, Why I voted "no" (anyone hear "Dueling Banjos" playing in the background?) She writes:

The commission met this past Tuesday night and had a lively discussion about a variety of issues.  One such issue was a propsal [sic] that Kelly Fraasch and Matt Kluck jointly proposed with regards to spending money out of our undesignated fund. 

She goes on to say:

It is my hope that we will come to a consensus that a bond is not only necessary, but the right thing to do.

As well as:

A bond, (and I'm not talking a huge bond, but a bond) along with a portion of our undesignated fund could address these concerns.

Her previous post was about Field Signs/New Revenue

...it is the responsibility of the commission to find new revenue sources for the municiaplity [sic]. 

 I am confused.  Is a bond, not a huge bond, but a bond a way to find new revenue sources?

Feasibility study, naming rights, donations, budget, assessments...

As you might have read the legal notice in Thursday's paper, there will be a special meeting on Monday at 6:30 to discuss a feasibility study for a capital fundraising campaign at Jefferson Middle School concerning the high school renovation.

Monday's School Board meeting agenda is packed with items.  The Board will discuss revisions to three policies:

Revisions to Policy FF, Naming Rights
Revisions to Policy KCD, Donations to the School District
Revisions to Policy JLI, School Violence, Terroristic Threats and Terroristic Acts

Also very important topics up for discussion are the 2012-2013 Budget, property assessments, the feasibility study discussed previously, and community field use.