Allegheny County Council Public Hearing on Property Reassessment Practices - May 22, 2024

This public hearing of the Allegheny County Council was held on May 22, 2024, to discuss property reassessment practices, including the common level ratio (CLR), the need for a countywide reassessment, and potential legislation for regular assessments. The hearing featured presentations from county officials, experts from Lackawanna County, Tyler Technologies, and the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO), followed by public testimony. The meeting began at 10:15 AM and was scheduled to wrap up by 7:30 PM.

Presentations

• Fargas Day, Chairman of the Allegheny County Board of Viewers: Argued that reassessment is necessary because the CLR is imprecise and manipulable. He proposed a computer system to constantly update valuations using data from multiple departments. He noted that commercial properties are not included in CLR data, which unfairly penalizes them. He also highlighted the hardship on seniors facing tax increases, stating that as a hearing officer he could only follow the law and not consider personal circumstances.
• Patrick Tobin, Director of Lackawanna County’s Office of Assessments and Appeals: Described their ongoing reassessment (base year 1968) with Tyler Technologies, a 4-year process costing approximately $5.1 million. He emphasized public education and relief measures, including a two-year reassessment relief initiative that defers payment of increases interest-free.
• Paul Miller, Tyler Technologies: Discussed reassessment methodologies, costs (approx. $50-65 per parcel in recent contracts), and the challenges of labor and public acceptance. He noted that Pennsylvania is one of the last base-year states and advocated for cyclical reassessment over trigger-based systems, citing the predictability of a calendar-based cycle.
• Shannon Hiss and Justin Elmers, IAAO: Presented technical standards, including the importance of physical inspections every 4-6 years, timely sales verification (within 6-8 weeks of recording), and statistical measures like coefficient of dispersion (COD) and price-related differential (PRD). They emphasized data accuracy and public trust.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Mike Sulley (27 years in assessment business): Supported reassessment but stressed the need for a chief assessor with experience. He noted that in 2012, the appeals process was done first, then values implemented, and that only about 7,500 appeals were filed this year out of 600,000 properties, indicating an unfair system.
• Dana O’Connor (Lawrenceville resident): Supported frequent reassessments for fairness, noting that neighborhoods like Lawrenceville and the Strip District have drastically changed since 2012.
• Jack Billings (Squirrel Hill): Offered three suggestions for the legislation: strike the ban on computer-assisted mass appraisal, clarify the chief assessor liability clause, and consider annual cycles instead of COD trigger. He cited a quote of $219,000 per year for annual assessments from the firm Value Base.
• Nicholas Ritzia (downtown resident): Supported regular assessments and land value tax, linking to public safety funding. He shared an anecdote about waiting on hold with emergency services, arguing that lost revenue from inequitable assessments harms essential services.
• Christopher Beam (Bloomfield): Shared personal stories of inequity, including friends who pay six times more in taxes despite similar home values. He argued that regular reassessments are essential for fairness.
• David Fats (Pro Housing Pittsburgh): Endorsed the ordinance for equitable housing, stating that the current system taxes new homeowners and younger, less wealthy residents disproportionately.
• Lisa Schwartz: Raised concerns about data accuracy, noting that exterior inspections in 2012 missed interior details. She warned that Allegheny County is losing population to neighboring counties with lower property tax rates, and that reassessment could drive more people out.
• John Aikey (via comment): Noted that until the 1970s, Allegheny County had regular assessments, and urged the council to mandate frequent assessments to close loopholes.

Discussion Items

• Councilmembers debated the merits of trigger-based (COD) vs. cyclical reassessment. Councilmember Hallam explained her bill using Vermont’s COD model, but Councilmember Klein noted that Vermont is moving away from COD to a cyclical system effective January 1, 2025.
• Councilmember DeMarco questioned the inclusion of commercial properties in CLR and the impact on seniors. He highlighted that Allegheny County has 1,224,825 residents, with 20.4% (249,865) over 65, and that reassessment could tax unrealized capital gains.
• Councilmember Grisbeck pointed out that areas like Carrick are overpaying now and would benefit from reassessment, while Councilmember DeMarco countered that wealth is only realized upon sale, not on paper.
• Councilmember Howell asked about cost and timeline for a potential reassessment. Paul Miller estimated 5 years for Allegheny County due to scale and labor challenges, with costs around $50-65 per parcel currently, but likely higher in the future.
• The IAAO recommended physical inspections every 4-6 years and timely sales verification, and noted that digital tools like aerial imagery can reduce costs.

Key Outcomes

• No formal votes were taken. The hearing was informational.
• Councilmembers indicated they would consider the testimony and presentations in future deliberations. President Katina noted that the next public hearing will start with public comments.
• The proposed ordinance (Hallam’s bill) remains under consideration. Councilmember Filiaggi, chair of the special committee on assessment practices, indicated that technological updates and a repository for data are already being worked on.
• The overall sentiment among presenters and many public speakers was in favor of regular, predictable reassessments to improve equity and transparency, with concerns about cost, public education, and protection for fixed-income homeowners.