Assessment ruling appeal irks judge

Calls PPS action on matter ‘unjustified’

The judge who set the figure to be used to determine the value at which real estate will be taxed in

Allegheny County assessment appeal hearings is ripping the Pittsburgh Public Schools for appealing his decision.

In a 10-page opinion issued this week, county Common Pleas Court Judge Alan Hertzberg labeled the appeal as “unjustified” and accused the school district of standing in the way of efforts to correct the situation.

“Allegheny County failed to administer the property tax assessment appeal system in a just and impartial manner. After this was detected and exposed, Allegheny County agreed to rectify the situation,” he wrote.

“School District of Pittsburgh, a beneficiary of taxpayers contributing more than their fair share, refuses to allow Allegheny

County to accept responsibility and correct its improper assessment appeal system. Instead, the school district wants the taxpayers that it targets with property assessment appeals to continue paying more than their fair share.”

Ira Weiss, school district

The outcome of the Pittsburgh Public School District’s appeal could have big ramifications for school districts and municipalities that rely on property assessment appeals to generate tax revenue.

solicitor, called the judge’s claims “patently false.”

“The school district takes issue with the content and tone of the court’s opinion. However, the district will fully address these issues in its brief and argument to the Commonwealth Court rather than in the media. We are confident that after a full review, the arguments and position of the school district will be fully and fairly considered by that court,” he said.

The school district’s appeal stems from a Sept. 1 ruling by Judge Hertzberg

SPRING in which he ordered a big reduction — from 81.1% to 63.53% — in the common level ratio for 2022 appeal hearings.

The ratio is used to figure out the value at which a property will be taxed.

It can make a big difference in a property owner’s tax bill.

At the 81.1% ratio, a home valued at $100,000 on appeal would be taxed on $81,100 of its value. But at 63.53%, the same house would be taxed based on a much lower value of $63,530.

In filing the appeal, the district argued that only the state tax equalization board had the authority to set the common level ratio and that anyone who objected to the calculation could take it up with the board or appeal to the state’s Commonwealth Court.

It charged that Judge Hertzberg’s Sept. 1 decision “has resulted in a state of administrative assessment limbo for ongoing assessment appeals which has unknown, far-reaching consequences for both property owners and taxing bodies alike.”

In his opinion, the judge rebuffed the district’s argument, saying the plaintiffs who sued to lower the common level ratio had filed objections with the state tax equalization board, or STEB, last year over the calculation of the 81.1% and that the board dismissed them.

He noted that his Sept. 1 order setting the 63.53% ratio also required the county to submit its data to the

board for a recalculation. If that resulted in the same or

a different ratio, that ratio would prevail. Hence,

STEB’s authority to set the [ratio] was not violated,” he wrote.

The judge also took issue with the district’s contention that he erred because the deadline for filing appeals in 2022 was March 31, contributing to the “state of administrative assessment limbo.”

“If the Allegheny County Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review is ‘in a state of administrative assessment limbo’ ... that is not because I made an error,” he insisted.

“It is because Allegheny County provided incorrect data to STEB that inflated the [ratio] to 81.1% and because the school district attempted to cast uncertainty on the [ratio] of 63.53% by its unjustified appeal to the Commonwealth Court.”

He maintained that the district, through depositions of the county’s property assessment manager and acting chief assessment officer, was aware the 81.1% common level ratio was incorrect. the “Instead reasonable of resolution working on of the situation agreed to by the other parties, the school district refused to be a party to the settlement to correct this injustice,” he asserted. Mr. Weiss took issue with that. “Let’s just say that the district did not consent to the order that came out of a process that lacked a full or fair evidentiary hearing,” he said.

‘Cooking the books’

Judge Hertzberg, in his opinion, did not leave the county off the hook in terms of its handling of the common level ratio calculations.

The lawsuit filed to recalculate the ratio accused the county of improperly invalidating some valid property sales while validating others that should not have been, resulting in an inflated common level ratio.

Those claims, the judge maintained, were supported in depositions of the county’s assessment manager and chief assessment officer and answers to interrogatories.

“From this evidence, there could be no doubt that Allegheny County’s Office of Property Assessment had been ‘cooking the books’ on [ratio] data submitted to STEB,” he wrote.

Not so, county spokeswoman Amie Downs responded.

“This is absolutely a mischaracterization. Mistakes were made by the Office of Property Assessment staff that have since been corrected. They were just that — mistakes,” she said.

As part of the litigation, the county agreed to re-examine the way it coded some 2020 property sales that served as the basis for calculating the common level ratio.

In fact, it was that process that led to Judge Hertzberg determining that the ratio should be 63.53% instead of 81.1%.

Money at stake

The outcome of the district’s appeal could have big ramifications for school districts and municipalities that rely on property assessment appeals to generate tax revenue.

Most of those appeals involve newly purchased properties where the sales price is much higher than the assessed value for taxing purposes.

The new owners pay more in taxes than owners of similar homes bought years ago, creating what is sometimes derided as a newcomers or welcome neighbor tax.

If the common level ratio ends up being 63.53% it may not be worth it for taxing bodies to pursue such appeals, costing them revenue.

On the other hand, the lower ratio could result in lower tax bills for property owners who file their own appeals, depending on the value set at the hearing.

For example, take a house currently valued at $ 100,000 and taxed at $81,100.

Even if the market value is increased to $120,000 on appeal, it would be taxed at $ 76,236 with the lower 63.53% ratio.