Adams Co Real Estate Tax Assessment ...

[Venter]

Paul and Moose,
Please put this in English for us!

NOTICE-CLERK OF COURTS

LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE is hereby given that the County of Adams, Pennsylvania, by the Adams County Board of Commissioners, intends to enact, adopt, and ordain the following Ordinance at the Board's regularly-scheduled public meeting on Wednesday, December 11, 2013, commencing at 9:00 a.m., prevailing time, in the Ceremonial Historic Courtroom, Second Floor, at the Adams County Courthouse, 117 Baltimore Street, Adams County, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325: ORDINANCE NO. 3 of 2013 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF ADAMS, REPEALING ORDINANCES NOS. 1 OF 1993 AND 2 OF 1996, PROVIDING FOR AN ESTABLISHED MEANS FOR THE EVALUATION AND DETERMINATION OF THE UNIFORMITY OF AD VALORUM REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR THE PERIODIC COUNTY-WIDE REASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY TO ENSURE CONTINUED UNIFORMITY WHEREAS, the County of Adams ("County") undertook a county-wide reassessment of all Adams County real property in 2010, the objective of which was to ensure uniformity in all real estate taxation, the equitable distribution of taxes, and to ensure the fairness of the real estate taxing system; and WHEREAS, the Consolidated County Assessment Law, Act No. 93 of 2010, as amended, codified at 53 Pa. C.S. \c 8801 8868, and case law interpreting this Act, previous assessment laws, and the Pennsylvania Constitution, require that ad valorum real estate taxes be fair, uniform and equitably applied; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners and the Board of Assessment Appeals, also known as the Board of Assessment Revisions, desire that real estate taxation remain a uniform and fair system so as to equitably apply real estate taxation to all real property owners of the County; and WHEREAS, the County desires to establish a means for reassessment that relies upon statistical measures, and not simply a chronological process which could cause unnecessary expense for the County; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners recognizes insights into economic, market, and other factors that may be provided to the County through the volunteer efforts of local professionals. NOW THEREFORE, be it ENACTED AND ORDAINED by the County and Board of Commissioners, and it is hereby ENACTED AND ORDAINED by the authority of the same, as follows: Section I - Objective: The following Ordinance is adopted by the Board of Commissioners to provide guidance and standards in the area of ad valorum real estate taxation, and to enhance the County's ability to fairly and consistently measure property values throughout Adams County, despite major shifts and fluctuations in the local and national economies and real estate markets. Section II - Definitions: 1. Coefficient of Dispersion ("COD"): A measure of the average percent of deviation of valid property sales from the median assessment as developed using a statistical analysis and type of ratio study applying standard methodologies approved by the International Association of Assessing Officers ("IAAO"), and included in their Standard on Ratio Studies. 2. Full Reassessment: A statistical analysis that is completed by the Adams County Tax Services Department or an outside vendor, which includes field observations and\ r field studies. 3. Statistical Reassessment: A statistical analysis that is completed by the Adams County Tax Services Department or an outside vendor, which does not include field observation or field study. 4. Invalid Sale: A transfer of real estate in which the purchase price does not meet the definition of Market Value as defined in the IAAO Standard on Ratio Studies and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice ("USPAP"). 5. Ratio Study: A study of the relationship between assessed values and market sale prices. A common interest in ratio studies or the level of uniformity of assessments which can be used to determine if and at what level a reassessment is required. Section III - Scope of Policy: All real estate properties that are located within the legal geographic boundaries of Adams County are subject to this policy. Section IV - Procedures: The process to determine whether or not the County shall undertake a county-wide reassessment will consist of two primary steps: A. Step One: Ratio Studies 1. On an annual basis as of July 1st, the Adams County Tax Services Department will calculate the COD based upon sales which occurred in Adams County between January 1st and December 31st of the previous year. 2. The COD will be calculated using accepted IAAO Standards utilizing various recognized practices, including the screening of Invalid Sales, statistical trimming at 1.5 times the interquartile range, and other practices accepted by the IAAO standards. 3. If the COD calculation for all of Adams County is greater than 20.0 in any year, then Step Two of this section shall be initiated. In addition, a budgetary line item shall be considered by the Board of Commissioners for planning purposes when the COD is approaching 20.0 so as to minimize fiscal impacts on the County budget during the timeframe the reassessment is conducted.. B. Step Two: Reassessment Task Force 1. A Reassessment Task Force ("Task Force") shall be appointed by the Board of Assessment Appeals to examine and recommend potential courses of action, and to discuss options as a result of the determination that the county-wide COD exceeds 20.0. 2. The Task Force will be appointed by the Board of Commissioners, in consultation with the Board of Assessment Appeals (if separately existent), and will contain an odd number of members, no larger than seven (7). Task Force members shall be Adams County residents who represent a cross section of property ownership within the County. The following expertise and professional skills shall be considered for Task Force membership, while remaining mindful of current or prospective conflicts of interest: a. Licensed Real Estate Agent. b. Certified General Appraiser. c. Banking or Finance Industry. d. Local Municipal or School District official. 3. The following shall also attend Task Force meetings to provide assistance and support to Task Force members: a. Director of Adams County Tax Services and\ r the Adams County Chief Assessor. b. One Adams County Commissioner. c. One member of the Adams County Board of Assessment Appeals (if the Board of Assessment Appeals consists of members other than the Adams County Board of Commissioners). d. County Solicitor. 4. The Task Force shall examine by whatever means they believe prudent, the need, impacts, costs, and general timing of a county-wide reassessment, and whether it should be performed by the County itself or an outside vendor. Included in the analysis will be the review of the statistical techniques used to arrive at least the past two (2) years' CODs to confirm the accuracy of those calculations. An outside consultant may be hired at the expense of the County to verify the previous CODs, if the Task Force has a basis to believe that the County's techniques were incorrect, or that the COD results are erroneous. The meetings of the Task Force will be open to the public unless the Board of Commissioners determines a need exists for confidential discussions (e.g. attorney - client privileged, reviews of contracts or proposals, etc.). The Task Force shall establish meeting schedules, parameters, and rules. 5. On or before December 1st of the same year as the COD determination noted in section IV. A. 3., the Task Force will provide the Board of Commissioners, and the Board of Assessment Appeals (if separately existent), with its recommendations on the following: (a) whether to perform a county-wide reassessment; (b) the need for a county-wide reassessment based upon results of a COD study, if such a study was undertaken by an outside consultant and the results indicated the County's calculated CODs were in error, and whether a COD below 20.0 existed for the year; or (c) what other course of action the committee believes is appropriate, within the scope of reassessment law and procedure. 6. Upon recommendation to perform a reassessment, the Board of Commissioners, in consultation with the Board of Assessment Appeals (if separately existent), will decide whether to undertake such a reassessment, whether such a reassessment if undertaken will be a Full Reassessment or a Statistical Reassessment, and whether it will be performed by the Adams County Tax Services Department or an outside vendor. A decision on whether to conduct a Full Reassessment or Statistical Reassessment, and whether it is performed by the Adams County Tax Services Department, an outside vendor, or through a combination of the two, shall be made within 180 days of receipt of a written recommendation of the Reassessment Task Force, as required in section IV. B. 5. The intention is to maximize the use of County resources in any reassessment. The Board of Commissioners may elect to include the Task Force in the selection of a vendor to perform any facet of the reassessment, if the Board decides that such outside assistance is either necessary or appropriate. C. Board Autonomy: Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, the Board of Commissioners, and the Board of Assessment Appeals (if separately existent), may decide on their own initiative to conduct a Statistical Reassessment or a Full Reassessment when conditions suggest a reassessment is appropriate. Section V - Type of Reassessment 1. If it is determined that a reassessment is necessary, and it has been less than ten (10) years since the last Full Reassessment (the 2010 Reassessment is considered a Full Reassessment), it is assumed a Statistical Reassessment will be performed, unless other factors apply. 2. If it is determined that a reassessment is necessary, and if it has been ten (10) years or longer since the last Full Reassessment, it is assumed that a Full Reassessment will be performed. 3. If a Statistical Reassessment is undertaken, the County will have twenty-four (24) months to complete the reassessment, and shall prepare to have change of assessment notices mailed by the next July 1st following that twenty-four (24) month period. 4. If a Full Reassessment is undertaken, the County will have thirty-six (36) months to complete the reassessment, and shall prepare to have change of assessment notices mailed by the next July 1st following that thirty-six (36) month period. 5. Upon completion of any re-assessment a Predetermined Ratio of 100% shall be adopted. 6. The Board of Commissioners, in consultation with the Board of Assessment Appeals (if separately existent), may decide to use an outside vendor if, in the Board of Commissioner's sole judgment, the complexity, market factors, or other variables suggest that use of an outside vendor will provide the County with a better product. Section VI - Funding 1. The Board of Commissioners shall create a line item to be added to the County budget with annual funding to assist with the cost of future reassessments. The amount allocated to this function shall be at the Board of Commissioner's discretion, and shall be undertaken so as to minimize or eliminate the need for borrowing or issuance of bonds to pay for the reassessment. 2. The Treasurer's Office, in cooperation with the Board of Commissioners, shall establish a committed reserve fund. The fund is to be used as a depository for assets to be used to pay for future reassessment, as provided for in Section VI., No. 1. Section VII Outreach 1. The Board of Commissioners, and the Board of Assessment Appeals, may identify and educate major audiences within the County to the basic components of the reassessment process. These groups may include: a. Chambers of Commerce. b. Veterans' Organizations. c. Realtors Association of York and Adams Counties. d. Area or County Business Associations. e. Farm Associations. f. Service clubs and organizations. 2. The Board of Commissioners and the Board of Assessment Appeals may use tools in order to educate the County's citizens to the reassessment process such as, but not limited, to: a. Public or Group Meetings. b. Flyers or Brochures. c. Newsletters. d. Newspapers. e. Public Service Announcements. f. Public Television. g. DVDs. h. Internet. Section VIII - Repeal: Any and all prior Ordinances or portions of prior Ordinances that are in conflict with this Ordinance, including Ordinance No. 1 of 1993 and Ordinance No. 2 of 1996, are hereby repealed. Section IX - Savings Clause: Should any section, provision, or other part of this Ordinance be found to be illegal, unenforceable or void, such shall not affect the remainder hereof, which shall remain fully binding, valid and enforceable, and such section, provision or other part shall be modified to the extent necessary to conform to the law. The Board of Commissioners of the County of Adams hereby declares its intention that should any section, provision or other part of this Ordinance found to be illegal, unenforceable or void, it would have made the foregoing Ordinance without such part, or with such part so modified so as to conform to the law. Section X - Effective Date: This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its enactment. ENACTED AND ORDAINED into an Ordinance this 11th day of December 2013. ATTEST ADAMS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Paula V. Neiman, Chief Clerk Randy L. Phiel, Chairman James E. Martin, Vice Chairman Marty Karsteter Qually, Commissioner The above proposed Ordinance may be examined without charge at the Adams County Commissioners Office, Second Floor, 117 Baltimore Street, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325, telephone [phone], during regular business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Adams County Commissioners John M. Hartzell, Esquire, Solicitor ....
Appeared in: Gettysburg Times on Monday, 12/02/2013

[moose]

Dec 5, 2013 12:27:14 GMT -5 Venter said:

Paul and Moose,
Please put this in English for us!

Venter, I'd be glad to simply this. There's an ordinance (or two) on the books that compels the county to perform a reassessment every four years. Of course, we now know that the county failed to perform a reassessment from 1991 thru 2010. They attempted to perform one around 1997 (I think) but the numbers the vendor (21 Century Appraisals...surprise, surprise) came up with were so far out of whack, they opted NOT to certify the numbers. So, those ordinances were never adhered to.

What they NOW want to do, is repeal those ordinances that cite a reassessment must be done every four years and replace it with an ordinance that would initiate a Task Force to start the reassessment process, once the COD reaches 20% for two consecutive years.

Two local media outlets have gone heads over heels showering the Commissioners with praise for "fixing" the reassessment process. HA! What they've actually done is "kicked the can down the road!" They haven't "fixed" shit! What they've actually managed to do is "spin" the political process so it looks like they've done something.

What they've done is proposed an ordinance to raise the Pa. Supreme Court rendered "bright line" decision, which established an acceptable COD limit of 15%, to a 20% threshold. They have no authority to knowingly defy the Supreme Court by altering the intent of the law. This "case law" threshold of 15% was recognized in the FACTnow Adams County ruling of 2008, which John Hartzell and the former Commissioners agreed to, and signed off on. Case law is routinely used as a "precedent" (or, Stare Decisis) which should govern future actions. The County's actions, if voted on favorably, will essential say, "piss on the earlier court decision(s), we'll do things our way".

I voiced my opposition to this ordinance at the Nov 13th Commissioners' meeting by reading and distributing the attached document to each of the Commissioners AND the Solicitor. It appears that they intend on voting on this ordinance at their next meeting, regardless of the consequences.

By enacting this ordinance, they will raise the bar (and postpone any imminent reassessment) by unconstitutionally enacting an unlawful ordinance which has no legal binding. They have been notified (via attachment) that they have no legal authority as a political subdivision of the state, to alter the intent of the law. If they choose to vote favorably on this ordinance, they risk personal damages as their sovereign protections do not protect them in the event they knowingly break, violate, and/or ignore the law. The oath they took entering office maintained that they would uphold the laws of the Commonwealth.

This ordinance, if approved, would likely postpone any reassessment until after the next election cycle. How convenient! Now, I am not anxious for a new reassessment! However, there are still many people who have been screwed by the last one and never got to change their values, for whatever reason. There are plenty of disparities lingering from the last one. And, to think these three Commissioners were swept into office because of the last piss poor reassessment. I thought they vowed to "make it right", or at least try to be fair and transparent! They haven't done shit for the disparities in assessments, overhauling Clean & Green, OR making things more transparent! They won't even respond to your questions in their meetings! How's that for transparency? If you ask me, these three are as bad, if not worse, then the last group. At least George Weikert would feign trying to answer your inquiries at the meetings.

If they vote favorably on this ordinance, they may open themselves to a shitbag of problems.



opposition_to_ordinance_no3_2013.pdf (152.14 KB)

[paulkellett]

Now, what Moose is trying to say is that when you compare observed sold prices to assessed values, the statistical tool used to determine how far off the assessed values are is the Coefficient of Dispersion (COD). Now if the properties are all assessed equally too high or too low, the COD would be close to zero, because they are not unequally assessed. ( note the common level ratio would reflect that) The analogy used is shot gun splatter, if you are really close the shot pattern is close together, (a low COD) if you are really far off, the splatter is wide spread giving you a wide range of results ( high COD) Now as Moose said, the Courts through out the land have said that to follow the constitution, and have taxes be equal, that a COD of 15% or less is required. They got that idea from the organization that oversees these things- The International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) These folks are like the American Medical Association, they decide when the cholesterol is too high etc. Well, the IAAO says that you should reassess at intervals of no more than 5 years, and that a COD of 5%to 15% is acceptable. Over 15% is TOO HIGH. Now, when the folks out at the Links sued, the COD was 26%, and everyone said that the whole problem was that they had just let it go too long, and that is why everyone was upset. True, they had let it go too long, and 26% COD was way too high, so people saw huge swings in their tax bills, many rightfully so. This ordinance is to replace one that says do a reassessment every 4 years with an ordinance that says wait until the numbers are really out of whack 2 years running, and then appoint a committee to determine if the numbers are out of whack and then when they decide that finish a reassessment 2 to 3 years after that.
I agree that maybe every 4 years is too quick given the hassles, but why don't they just repeal the ordinance and not replace it. There is no mandatory trigger, as it is up to the Commissioners always whether or not they wish to obey the law, their own ordinance or the Constitution of the United States, or the PA Constitution.

[moose]

Dec 5, 2013 16:05:54 GMT -5 paulkellett said:

There is no mandatory trigger, as it is up to the Commissioners always whether or not they wish to obey the law, their own ordinance or the Constitution of the United States, or the PA Constitution.

True, there is no automatic trigger, BUT the Commissioners should be compelled to follow the laws that have been established...whether they were established by either by the Pennsylvania Legislature, or those established/interpreted by the Courts. The Commissioners have NO AUTHORITY to raise the COD to one higher than the Court set. The US Constitution has no bearing on property values/assessments in Pennsylvania, so it's basically a matter of Pa law and case law. It is clear that case law prevailed in FACTnow, as that is the basis for the court's decision. No case law has since transpired that changed the bright line threshold of 15% as an acceptable COD. Once the COD surpasses 15% in any municipality, ANYONE in the affected area can challenge the County method of assessments via a mandamus action, just as FACTnow did. It matters not if the county passes an ordinance raising the threshold to 20%...as it would not be recognized in a court of law as they have no legal authority to do so, being a political subdivision of the state. The political subdivision relationship is basically like a parent/child relationship. The county may only do what the Commonwealth expressly allows them to do, and it must be in writing.

[Venter]

That whittled it down pretty well.
Thanks

So, to simplify it even further:

We're still being screwed...
by the SAME Solicitor,
the SAME Assessment Company...
but now, by THREE NEW COMMISSIONERS!

Is that over-simplified?

[Alex Oreilly]

And what does the County Solicitor have to say on this?

[moose]

Dec 5, 2013 17:22:47 GMT -5 Alex Oreilly said:

And what does the County Solicitor have to say on this?

That, you would have to ask him. I can cite a couple of examples of what could/did transpire.

• By County Code, the Solicitor is the ONLY one who can write an ordinance. It's his job to write an ordinance that will withstand any court challenges, and in essence, conform to the law.
• IF, the Commissioners instructed/ordered him to write an ordinance that is unlawful, as an Officer of the Court, he MUST advise them of the potential ramifications. Failure to do so could be detrimental to his practicing law in the Commonwealth.
• IF, the Commissioners AND the Solicitor conspired to write an ordinance that is unlawful, that could constitute a conspiracy and ALL of them could be culpable as individuals, without sovereign immunity and be subject to potential civil AND criminal charges.
• IF, the Solicitor advised the Commissioners properly, and they acted contrary to his sound legal advice, he would be in the clear...although I still think that as a government lawyer, he would still be compelled to report such actions to the appropriate authorities.

Whether any of these things apply is anyone's guess. Once an unlawful act is committed (particularly with prior knowledge of the ramifications), attorney-client privilege is moot, and the fun begins. I personally believe that their stubbornness, pigheadedness and legal advisement will cause them to pass this ordinance. It is possible they could take this off the table, amend it in some way, or just vote against it. Knowing how the county works...I suspect they will pass it. To do any other thing would add validity to my objections in this particular circumstance...but more importantly add credence to my assertions in other litigation matters. The county continues to stand by a Solicitor that spins a litigious web...assuming that he has acted, as I believe he has. I don't feel that the three new Commissioners, two years into office, could/would collectively devise a plan such as this. I truly believe they were advised that this would pass muster. 

[Alex Oreilly]

December 11th, 2013 is the next County Commissioner's Meeting at 9:00am in the Historic County Courtroom.

[paulkellett]

I find this whole new ordinance quite interesting. Certainly crafted by the solicitor as who else in the county writes like that, and it certainly is not taken from any other county's ordinance. Notice that they give themselves permission (but are not obligated) to: budget money for a reassessment, conduct out reach for a reassessment, vote to reassess. Wow, how did they do this in the past without such an ordinance. The ordinance also gives definitions of items already legally defined by the state, such as valid sale, with a little more latitude. Moose, as an aside, the US constitution has an equal protection clause, that prohibits the law from being applied differently. The Feds do have a rule that all tax matters are first heard in state court, but you can take it up to the Supremes if need be. Another point to look at: The COD was (supposedly) 3.5% in 2010, it is now 12.9% according to the county's own tabulation. So in three years it moved 9.4, and this ordinance says that you need 2 years of >20% COD to have a reassessment, and at the fastest 2 years after their panel agrees that the COD is too high, so at a minimum of 3 years after the first 20+ COD appears, move it 9.4 and we have a COD of 29.4% or 3.4% higher than the "WE Waited too Long" 1990 COD. Again, why write an ordinance that clearly violates all standards and laws?

[lifesaver]

Could someone please explain to me why the County would continue to use the services of 21st Century after the last disaster of a tax assessment?  Surely they aren't the only game in town!

I had the opportunity to talk to the person who came to do my assessment.  Very nice lady.  Asked her about her job.  She said she was out of work and attended a 6 wk (if I remember correctly) course to adequately perform the job. And, the job was a temporary one.

That being said, the very nice lady asked me whether we owned a building on the neighboring property.  I said no and showed her where the property line was. The building in question was several HUNDRED yards away! She said, "Oh, they have here that you own that."

Then a call came from the tax office, asking whether the line was straight between the house and  attached garage.  It isn't.  Mistake number two.  Said they would need to send someone else out to remeasure.

The third was a questionable assessment of an animal pen which they assessed as an outbuilding.  We never challenged the assessment.  We simply removed the building.

I don't think there is anyone that likes paying taxes, but I do support the idea of regular reassessments to make the pain of a tax increase more palatable.  But dag gone it find someone who will do the job right the first time!

[gburger717]

BEND OVER RESDIDENTS OF ADAMS COUNTY. ITS TIME FOR YOUR SCREWING! AGAIN