Lehigh County Exec Don Cunningham today vetoed a unanimous decision by the Board of Commissioners to move ahead with reassessment. His message appears, in its entirety, in The Morning Call, and can be distilled to this single sentence. "I am vetoing this because it is the wrong thing to do at the wrong time and it will have grave and lasting consequences for our county and our property owners."
Earlier this week, when I stopped by the Lehigh County Voter Registration office, I bumped into Commissioner Vic Mazziotti, and told him his board now owns reassessment, and could suffer some political repercussions.
"So we own it," Vic replied. "I'd rather lose an election than do the wrong thing."
A little over a year ago, that's exactly what former Commissioner Dean Browning was saying.
32 comments:
anybody honest about real estate knows that it is the wrong time. the market is completely volatile, with comps all over the place. some real estate agents may advocate for it, hopping for some appraisal work from the appeal process. this first act from the new commissioners is very disappointing.
Amazing how no County in the Commonwealth is doing this while somehow Lehigh County thinks its the right thing to do. I am shocked by the misguided wisdom being displayed by the County commissioners.
i'm not shocked. these cuckleheads have shown to be blinded by extremist ideology.
in the race to stupidity it seems to be a toss up as to whether lehigh or norco councils will fall flat on their asses for lack of brains or common sense
they're apparently trying to assert themselves; but it's totally on the wrong issue, which will have painful consequences to many homeowners. sort of like going for a physical when you have the flu.
Michael:
Those who are expert in the assessment field confirm that the Lehigh County reassessment is right on target. Please look at the numbers. If, after you review the numbers, you wish to discuss this matter, please contact me.
We are not trying to assert ourselves, as you claim. We are doing our job. We are confronted with a difficult situation. I would rather not deal with it. But, it is before us and we are obligated to do so to be fair to all. If we "kick the can down the road" as Mr. Cunningham wants to do (and as the county has done for many years), the appeals that are costing the taxing bodies million of dollars each year will continue. These reductions are made up by those who do not appeal their assessments. That is wrong.
Many people believe that reassessment is designed to generate additional revenue. It is not and can not be used for such purpose. But politically, it is good to be against a reassessment. That is the driving force behind Mr. Cunningham's change of heart, and we all know it.
I didn't run for office to be a "rubber stamp" for the county executive. My responsibility to those who voted for me is to apply my best judgment to the issues which come before me. That is what I intend to do.
Please keep in mind, the vote was 8 to 0. (Two Ds and 6 Rs.) Is that a vote based on "party politics" as Mr. Cunningham stated?
It is sad that Mr. Cunningham is more concerned about his own political future then he is about doing the right thing. He is making a difficult situation more difficult. Rather than helping to educate on this complex matter he is pandering for his own political gain. Sad, but not a surprise.
Vic Mazziotti
Mr. Mazziotti you ran on a platform of cutting spending and lowering taxes.So you wanna play with property assessments in a down market.Good luck.So when thats all said and done and theres a shortfall what are you gonna do raise the tax rate? That will go over big with your T party friends.Cut spending first.You claim to know how.
vic, i purport to have some expertise on the matter. you may not know it, but this is the first thing i have agreed with cunningham on since he was elected, in nov. of 05. even a broken clock is correct twice a day. if he is being motivated by politics in this instance or not, reassessment at this time is wrong. if you thought there were many appeals in 90-91, and since, it will pale to the number which will occur now. i study deed transfers. tell me the type of property you have, and tell me what price point you want, and i can find comps. the prices now are based more on the sellers situation, than the marketplace. perhaps there should have been a reassessment in 2000 or 2005, but there's no way you can inject more equity into the assessment sheets at this point in time.
Michael:
Take a look at the assessment ratios. Please.
The Common Level Ratio goes from 35.7 to 93.3. (100 is perfect.)
The Coefficient of Dispersion goes from 27.4 to 8.7. (Over 20 is "unacceptable", below 15 is "good")
Price-Related Differential goes from 1.09 to 1.00 (Above 1.02 is regressive, 1.00 is perfect.)
That is a great improvement!
Or are you just saying, I don't care what the numbers are, I am right?
Vic Mazziotti
Bernie, Is this one of those schemes that wind up benefitting those with homes in parkland and east penn while those in emmaus get the shaft?
Don't know. I've heard both.
vic, i apparently have less expertise than i purported. i should said that i recall how off so many property assessments were in 1991, in a much more stable market than now, and how many people lined up for some equitable reevaluation. i must assume at that time the assessors claimed that the ratio and other factors were being improved. i've been led to understand that there are more appeals now than ever, because of the real estate market, so i can understand that incentive for proceeding.
Can you imagine where the State of the County would be if Scott Ott were elected Exec. Scary thought.
I does not surprise me he would champion a vote based on emails from the Realtors Association.
Here's what I find interesting. Republicans in Lehigh County elect a new team of commissioners to reform the Democrats and 1RINO turncoat who gave us an underhand tax increase followed by "surprise" surpluses.
We got screwed by backroom deal after backroom deal between Cunningham and Browning and everybody else on the board at the time. So we do something about it. We vote in people who promise to have some morals and promise to stand up to the Democratic Executive's Iron Fist Rule.
Now, the guys who we are supposed to be able to trust---who just campaigned to KEEP OUR TAXES DOWN--- are so blinded by showing force to veto Cunningham that they are about to SCREW US EVEN WORSE.
ON WHAT PLANET does a lifelong republican EVER think a reassessment is a good idea. These politicians are RIDICULOUS.
Just when you think you elected a good bunch and you are safe, they screw you even worse than the last group did.
I'm beginning to think that there is not a conservative that holds elective office in the Lehigh Valley. Pat Browne on the hockey arena, Charlie Dent. You get it.
I mean, OK, great, veto proof majority. But veto the big government spending, veto our grant money as it oozes out to pay for Pawlowski's restaurants and arenas. Don't veto a vote NOT to reassess.
I know, I know, reform team --- you all know better than the rest of us what is good for us now. Who does THAT argument sound like?
See your point. Weed out the Cunningham patronage jobs in the county. That would be a great feat by the new group.
Vic knows about this.
Michael & others:
It is patently UNTRUE that no one else is doing a reassessment. Erie County, approximately the same size as Lehigh, is expecting to release their new reassessment numbers shortly and is proceeding on the same schedule at Lehigh--effective January 1, 2013. You don't have to believe me--call them
It is also UNTRUE that anyone OTHER THAN CUNNINGHAM and the ADMINSTRATION knows the effect of the output on any particlar individual or district. Those individual numbers have not been released.
If one were to construe motivations--then one might conclude that he is protecting his political donors--the same individuals/businesses who tend to be able to afford donations--and who also will be the LIKELY recipients of higher tax bills based on the statistics that ARE publicly available--namely the PRD-which unequivocably indicates that the current assessments are REGRESSIVE. I suggest you buy a book and look up "price related differential" and stop protecting Cunningham based on his diversionary appeal to taxpayer's fear of ANY TAX.
As for the results and impact of the 1991 re-assessment--the numbers of both informal appeals and then formal appeals thereafter where "AS EXPECTED". There was no "mess"--simply the expected and typical corrections necessary after ANY reassessment under ANY market conditions.
As for benefiting appraisers/Realtors---again patently UNTRUE--after the initial reassessment year--the number of appeals typically settles down to under per year level as it was from 2002-2008.
NOT doing reassessment will likely result in MORE appeals such as 2009-444; 2010-707; and 2011-474. (See Page 11 of the Administration's 2012 Proposed Budget--dated September 13, 2011.
One also has to wonder why everyone is concerned about reassessing in a "down market"??
That simply means that EVERYONE's property values are "down". What an unhelpful word anyway--"down". No more useful than "up". The system shouldn't "care" what anyone's INDIVIDUAL value is--the system is meant to make everyone fair in RELATION to each other.
It is the relationship BETWEEN propert values that matters. NOT the individual values.
Those of you against reassessment need to look at the facts and ignore the politics.
Typo in one paragraph above--the level of assessment appeals from 2002 to 2008 was under 200 per year.
Also, relative to the 1991 reassessment, which did NOT create chaos--and the COD and PRD's were corrected in much the same way from 1973 to 1991 as are NOW going to be correctd from 1991 to 2012---that reassessment was conducted and numbers generated in 1990 based on an "up" market in 1988-89, by 1990-1991, the market had declined--and yet that reassessment was a success in restoring equity. (By the way in 1973, the market "stank" too!).
Today we are valuing properties based on 2010-2011 data--already reflecting the decline and the 93.3 CLR means that "ON AVERAGE" the County is being UNDERVALUED by 6.7% based on the newly generated numbers--which I construe as good because IF the market goes down by that much in 2012--the numbers will be near "perfect" by 2013.
Yes, more reliable, credible and supportable numbers CAN AND HAVE been created by the new reassessment generated by the Assessment Department in concert with the GIS Department.
We finally have two department's in government actually working well and having done a remarkable job in these "down" times--and everyone wants to throw their work out and pay more to start over at some undefined time in the future---all the while the HIGHER PRICED PROPERTIES are paying less than their fair share.
Yes, I am a professional appraiser; and no I have nothing to gain. I have enough work that has nothing to do with this reassessment both in and out of this county and many other counties.
The folks in Lehigh are truly blessed. Lehigh has one of the best, if not the best, assessment departments in the Commonwealth. Philadelphia by contract is corrupt and loathsome. Trust what you have.
I only wish to educate and illuminate based on the facts--NOT OPINIONS--the CLR, COD, and PRD's before and after the reassessment are valid statistical tools that speak for themselves.
A refresher course in math:
Real Estate Taxes = Individual Assessment X Millage Rates.
Individual real estate taxes + individual real estate taxes + individual real estate taxes + .... =
Gross Revenue for Taxing Authorities.
NO millage rates = NO taxes.
If you want to complain about your real estate taxes--get off the computer and attend a BUDGET MEETING of the taxing authority--i.e. School District, County, Municipality.
Reassessments are about EQUITY in taxation.
Act 1 limits School Districts such that the year following a reassessment their GROSS REVENUE may NOT increase---EXCEPT if they can show cause why it would have in any event.
The County and Municipalities are each limited by statute to no more than a 10% revenue increase in a year following a reassessment. It is my understanding that there are other restrictions in the Home Rule Charter that confine the County to no increase during a reassessment year--but I have not researched that thoroughly--and frankly would apprecate someone directing me to that ordinance/statute.
In any event, the Lehigh Commissioners have pledged no tax increases. This reassessment does NOT have anything to do with tax increases. Hold them accountable by attending 2012 Budget hearings.
To the best of my knowledge, it can't be said that municipalities (i.e. City/Boroughs/Townships) won't necessarily increase their taxes up to the 10% cap. They may have anyway, regardless of reassessment. If you are concerned, the place to go is your municipal budget hearings in 2012 where they will set the millage rate for 2013.
anon 6:59 and your subsequent comments; it always amazes me how some people blather on, then sign their tome anonymous. cunningham mentions that 60% of the comps were rejected for the new assessment model, that certainly confirms how volatile the market place is. as for erie, what's their schedule? some places assess every year, some every five. as for realtors, please see my next post, this evening.
anon 6:59, i think it's apparent that despite cunningham's veto, that reassessment will be implemented. the unanimous vote suggests that the veto will be overridden. as an appriser you suggested you don't have a horse in the race, but conceded that appeals do spike the year of reassessment. never the less, i do believe that you are sincere in your promotion of reassessment as a means of equitable taxation.
I sign my name anonymously precisely because I don't want people to think I have a horse in this race other than to defend the factually correct, non-political position. If I post my name, everyone and his mother will want me to support their appeal. I don't have time to talk to all these people about their taxes. Focus on one issue when you get your reassessment--Is my property worth more less than what is on the notice?
Prior to this issue, though have read this blog often, I have NEVER posted here.
BTW--Erie County last did a reassessment in 2003. How often a County does a reassessment is less important than how the results statistically measure up. There have been many counties across the Commonwealth who have really messed them up. The Lehigh numbers STRONGLY suggest that is not the case here. If there end up being a high number of appeals--it will be because of people raging about taxes, NOT because the numbers are "bad". Again--the 93.3 CLR PROVES the "average output" is BELOW market value based on the 2011 sales prices.
Make no mistake, there are MANY Counties across the state who have far worse inequities. That doesn't mean Lehigh shouldn't reassess.
The system state-wide is out of conrol due to the legislatures failure to take the system out of the hands of the politicians.
PA & DE are the ONLY two states that don't have some metric in place to trigger an authomatic reassessment wihtout the approval of local officials.
Thank you Michael. I am sincere. I will disclose that I have a "professional services contract" with Lehigh County and have performed appraisal services for both the County on defending appeals and taxpayer's supporting their appeals.
My support of the reassessment effort against the Adminstration probably means that my contract with them is already in the trash can. LOL I really don't care--I have more than enough work here and in the surrounding counties to keep me more than well occupied and frankly the time I'm spending tryiog to educate the public is time I could be spending making money.
Oh, BTW---60% rejected mentioned by Cunningham---ask him how many are rejected EVERY YEAR.
Yes, it is true a higher than normal number of transactions are rejected and labeled by STEB as INVALID during the past three years.
The important question is, how many VALID sales were left and the fact is--there were a sufficient number to produce a credible and supportable result which the CLR, COD, and PRD illustrate.
In any year, I would venture that 40% of all sales are labeled invalid because those would include the inter-familial and other non-arm's length sales that occur in ANY year under ANY market conditions.
I'lll stop "blathering" now--I really don't know anything at all about this topic.
dear appriser friend, aka anon 10:12, one fact not mentioned is that the numbers stay legal for five years. if the reassessment was postponed, as per request of the administration, nothing spent would be "wasted." this postponement would soften both the adverse effect of the erratic marketplace, and allegations that the "new" commissioners and/or the county executive have a political agenda.
10:20 pm True conservatives. Yeah right. Ya see how they are doing nationally and your not living in South carolina. Romney a true conservative? A true conservative no different than true liberal,Too extreme.You voted for the gang of "T" hree.So we shall see how this plays out while Bernie and MM have a field day with all the goings on.
The statement by the Adminstration about the numbers staying "legal" for five years is simply a diversion to make you feel good about it. Has nothing to do with "legal".
Think about it, would you be more comfortable using the numbers generated today, where sales data was cut off as of 12/31/2011 to send out notices in February 2013 or February 2018? By then some neighborhoods will have appreciated more than others, etc--and the equity would most likely once again be out of balance. (All valuations be they individual appraisals or mass appraisals are a "snap-shot" in time).
Of course not, the truth is that the assessment department will continue to log in new valid sales during 2012 (just as they have done EVERY year since 1991--and before)--and the model needs to be recalibrated and rerun for the new data. It isn't as simple as you may think--the model needs "tweeked".
Now that seems simple enough and from a technical standpoint it is. Now the question becomes, how much improvement do you honestly thing the 2012 data will make to the model to improve on a CLR of 93.3, a COD 8.7, and PRD of 1.00?
Also think about this--what if the employee(s) who are knowledgable enough to do this highly technical function retire or leave for greener pastures?
Why do you think Lehigh is capable of doing this in-house and very few other counties are able? Why do think the cost so far on this is only $305,000--whereas quotes and actual costs in other counties often reach into the millions?
Think about it.
As long as you have me blathering on again--think about this--
Who outside of the Adminstration has reviewed the work of the Assessment-GIS departments?
Who in the Adminstration is a Certified Assessor or Appraiser other than the ones who did the work?
Why hasn't the Administration allowed those who are so certified to address the Commissioners?
If you were the Adminstration and personally didn't think the numbers were any good, wouldn't you have hired an outside independent consultant from the other side of the State to write a report on why these numbers shouldn't be used?
Nah, this isn't political at all. LOL
friend appraiser, as i stated before, i don't see how cunningham's veto will not be overridden. i don't have the background to understand and analyze CLR, COD or PRD. I do know that the market is, and has been, a crap shoot, and assessments are supposed to be based on comps. on my blog I have mentioned the return of the $25,000 center city row. I've seen dozens and dozens transfered in that range and lower. should i assume if i live there, and my assessment is over that, i have basis for appeal? (rhetorical question) from my observation, I'd prefer to wait. thanks for the informed dialogue. michael molovinsky
Bernie: I have attempted to post some rational thoughts on here. I thank you for the forum. I don't always agree with you on everything you blog on here, but there is NO doubt in my mind that these blogs serve a purpose and allowing people to spew keeps them from having heart attacks. LOL
I promise below are my last words on this subject---for now! LOL
Michael:
It is of course likely to be overridden. Professional unbiased, supported valuations don't stop because the market is down, any more than when the market is up. Balance is very rare.
Condemnations, loans, estate taxes, divorcing couples, buyers, sellers--everyone needs valuations during any market condition. Assessments are no different.
In fact, in an up market the lower-end properties are biased in a regressive manner before you can even mail the notices-because of the one year lag in any circumstance.
What disturbs me is the waste of time caused by the veto, throwing his own people under the bus, and misdirecting the public to fuel their anger over taxes instead of informing the public of the facts.
Trying to blame the Commissioners for doing what shouldn't even be in their hands if we had a State Legislature who would have grasped this during the past forty years!
He's wasted valuable time for both his own department and the taxpayer's of the County--limiting the window for appeals.
Hiding the facts about the output until the Jan 25th meeting only after the Commissioners insisted on seeing some statistics.
And also,failing to send out any mailings to explain reassessment to property owners or hold any townhall meetings to educate---these things were done in the past and should have been done again over the course of 2011.
I wrote a note to the Administration AND last year's Commissioners about how this had been done during past reassessments. Commissioner McCarthy was kind enough to acknowledge the merit, but nary a word from the Administration.
It is despicable that someone who championed the need to reassess since 2006 waited this long---oh there was a relection in between wasn't there? LOL
He championed the need to reassess in his Administration's September 13, 2011 Budget Hearings, and stated how far along it was without a hint of "problems of volatility" He didn't know the market was in a "downturn" in September 2011? How disingenious.
Michael---that's what I find so disturbing--bs over facts and selling it to the MCall and anyone who will listen like some of the irrational bloggers on here who no matter how much anyone shouts about it--they STILL think it's about taxes.
We can all rage about taxes, but at least they should be fair.
": I have attempted to post some rational thoughts on here. I thank you for the forum"
I love the debate between you and MM. He is giving the perspective of someone who studies the local real estate market and has done quite well as a result. You represent a more scholarly approach. You both make excellent points and both support the proposition that this is not really a political question at all. There is room for honest disagreement among people of good will.
Realestate sales people are even lower than used car sales people. Most of them are just house flippers with a paintbrush in hand, they want to make big bucks and never fix the mechanicals of a home ie bandaids on pissing wounds. This is all under the watchful eye of Allentown officials were blight is overrunning the city above and beoyned the orange decorations.
If you bought your home within the last three to four years, it is likely that your current assessed property value -- the basis for your property taxes -- is higher than the current market value of your home. And in many areas, the annual reassessment is an assumed, automatic increase in value, rather than an actual reevaluation of fair market value based on the factual market dynamics.
Post a Comment