Allegheny County Council Public Hearing on Property Reassessment Practices - May 22, 2024
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.
Meeting Transcript
Also fortunate enough to be joined by Lackawatka Lackawanna County Commissioner William Goggan and the director of Lackawanna County's Office of Assessments and Appeals, Patrick Tobin. Lackawanna County is currently in the midst of conducting a countywide reassessment, and they have very kindly offered to share their experience with us. I would also like to welcome representatives from Tyler Technologies. Tyler is assisting Lackawanna County in their current efforts and was also the company that Allegheny County contracted with during our last reassessment in 2012. These individuals will be able to provide insight regarding how in how reassessment methodologies may have evolved since then. Finally, I would like to thank Shannon Hiss and Justin Elmers from the International Association of Assession Officers who have agreed to join us to provide information about the IAAO and their technical standards in the context of assessments. I would like these two presenters to speak in turn, make any opening remarks, and provide a 10 to 15 minute presentation if they have one prepared, then field relevant questions and appropriate questions from members of councils assembled this evening. My plan is to be finished with the invited guest presentations by 6.45 or so. At what point we will move to the 13 individuals who signed up for the public comment. When your name is called, please come to the present presentation table to make your remarks. Please note that all rules relating to public comment at regular council meetings will apply this evening as well. If all goes as planned, we should be wrapping up around 7:30. At this point in time, Jared, would you please recognize the council members in attendance? We have Councilmember DeMarco, Councilmember Filiagi, Councilmember Grisbeck, Councilmember Hallam, Councilmember Klein, Councilmember Nakarati Chakis, Councilmember Pritzio, and of course President Katina. Thank you very much. Mr. Fargas Day, I will turn it over to you at this point in time. Thank you, President Cantina. Thank you for the invitation and carrying over there. Um to the rest of the council. Quasi judicial. Ah, I hear the echo now. Um and put me in a position of trying to explain what I observed in 16 years as a hearing officer and an additional five years on uh the Allegheny County Board, and I will be glad to do that with you and more happy to answer any questions that you may have for me. Uh with regard to addressing whether or not there should be a reassessment, I absolutely believe that there should. The biggest reason for that is the CLR that is used to try and bring property values in today's dollars back to the base year of 2012. Just does not work. The CLR is imprecise at best. It's artificial. It's easy to manipulate as we've seen is what caused the problems we dealt with last year. I believe, however, a reassessment, although it could be the quickest way of coming about this, is actually the second best way we can address property assessments in Allegheny County. Primary tack that I would take is build a computer system, and this has been approached before that would pull data from all the departments that would help the computer program or make the computer program keep a constant current valuation going for properties in the county. This would be tying into everybody from deed registry to changes to the properties on a municipal basis. Um construction requiring deeds and permits and uh construction plans for new construction being turned in at the time of deed registry. A number of other factors could be incorporated into this that will go well beyond my time here. So I'll try and keep it on the simple side here. There's many moving parts to an assessment, and there are many experts out there who can help guide us along to address all of those moving parts. Again, just running quickly through the different departments that are involved. We've got deed registry, we've got the assessor's office, we've got the collection of municipal permits on the municipal level, West Penn multilist agreements, Department of Finance, and builders' final contracts. All of these could be collected, inputted, and keep an ongoing true market value going, which would alleviate the need and the huge expense. If we go back to the original reassessment by Saber back in 2001, we paid them 24 million dollars plus. If I may ask, are you aware of how many commercial properties are included in the data collection of a CLR? No. I would you have the answer? None. Can I ask a quick question? You may. I'm sorry to interrupt them. Interrupt you, obviously. Why is that? That's a good question.
openpublica.com