Sunday, October 20, 2002
Twenty-nine people have appealed their new values to common pleas court.
By LAURE CIOFFI
VINDICATOR NEW CASTLE BUREAU
NEW CASTLE, Pa. -- With appeal hearings in Lawrence County's first reassessment in nearly four decades finishing this week, it appears that arguments against implementing it, and putting out new property values, have not held up.
Chief Assessor Mary Bullano said her office is keeping the common pleas courts informed about the progress of appeal hearings and recently handed over a study showing that the majority of the new fair market values are in line with standards set by the International Assessor's Association, a group that sets guidelines for property reassessment.
Earlier this year, county commissioners tried to halt reassessment, contending the numbers were flawed.
Commissioners Ed Fosnaught and Roger DeCarbo asked a common pleas court judge for an extension on a 1998 agreement the county made with the city of New Castle that stated reassessment would end this year. They wanted more time to study and adjust the numbers.
Sending out figures
Commissioner Brian Burick did not agree to the court action. He has contended that the figures should be sent out.
Despite the county study findings and a small number of appeals, Fosnaught said he will not agree to send out the new property values, but he was unsure if the decision to send out the notices would end up with commissioners or the judge.
Commissioner Roger DeCarbo said he is wavering and might vote to send the figures out as planned because there were a small number of appeals.
"We really anticipated a lot more [informal appeals]. We anticipated a lot more of the formal appeals in court, too," DeCarbo said.
In the summer, Fosnaught and DeCarbo had claimed there would be more appeals than the county appeal boards could handle because of problems with the values.
Judge J. Craig Cox ruled that the county should start appeal hearings, and then he would decide if there were too many to complete by the state deadline of Oct. 31.
About 3,200 people appealed the reassessment and appeal hearings are expected to end Monday night, Bullano said.
"People were very cooperative. They brought in what they had to bring [to the hearings]," she said. "There were some mistakes made when entering figures, and things were adjusted at the hearings."
Bullano added that others who disputed values that did not include any clerical errors were later notified by mail if their values had been adjusted. About 2,000 people have received mailed notices informing them if their appeals were successful.
As of Friday, 29 people had appealed those decisions to common pleas court.
No reason for delay
New Castle officials say they believe the number of appeals and the fact that the hearings are ending this week bolsters their argument that reassessment should not be delayed.
"We've taken the position since Day One that the process ought to proceed as state statute provides, and if that were to occur, there wouldn't be any problems that could not be overcome," said James Manolis, New Castle's solicitor.
By law, the new property values must be sent to municipalities and school districts by Nov. 15 to give them time to adjust their millage rates for next year's taxes.
Adjustments are necessary because municipalities are only allowed to take in an extra 5 percent in tax revenue and schools an extra 10 percent when a reassessment occurs.
"I haven't seen anything that convinces me that we should implement reassessment," Fosnaught said. "Many people may have had legitimate reasons to appeal and did not."
Fosnaught said the county study showed that the majority of new property values fell either 25 percent above or below actual property sales. Property sales are one indicator appraisers use to determine value.
He said the lower-valued properties tended to be valued in the 25 percent higher range than actual sales, while higher-end properties were found to be in the 25-percent range that was lower than actual sales.
He believes that will result in a property tax increase for those with less ability to pay and a tax break for those with more ability to pay.
"The reassessment was necessary. I'm glad we did it, but I think that the effect is going to be negative, and I think we should move carefully," Fosnaught added.