Taxing jurisdictions have struggled to properly value big-box retail buildings for many years, and the potential for improperly assessing the real estate value of these buildings remains high. Yet the ongoing dance between big-box owners and assessors provide useful insights for property owners in other commercial property types, particularly industrial.

A big box of confusion

Assessing the taxable value of a big-box retail property touches on many of the hot-button issues in property tax law. Some of the circumstances that often lead to incorrect tax assessments include development of big-box retail under build-to-suit arrangements, in which the tenant’s rent is a contractual repayment of the developer’s costs, rather than a market-rate rent. Big-box tenants are often creditworthy national companies under absolute net leases, valuable to a potential investor as a guaranteed income stream, but irrelevant to taxable value of the real estate.

The sale/leaseback transactions that big-box retailers often enter to free up capital for business operations, and the strong investor demand to buy buildings leased on a net basis to a single user that handles all property expenses, can all lead to incorrect tax assessments. Many assessors value the wrong interest, confused over whether to reflect investment value, leased-fee interest, fee simple interest, or value in use versus value in exchange.

The potential for improperly capturing non-taxable items in the property tax assessment is high. Often assessors and appraisers lack sufficient education about the nuances of valuing these types of properties. Depending on whether a tax assessor adopts the correct methodology, the difference in both value and tax liability can be significant. And for cash-strapped governmental entities, there is a strong inclination to try to capture as much taxable value as possible.

Implications beyond retail

Owners of non-retail property types shouldn’t dismiss these valuation issues as pertaining only to big-box retailers. Consider the potential for similar valuation errors with other single-tenant properties developed and exchanged in a similar way. A corporate headquarters building with “superadequacies” - or features only valuable to that particular tenant - is particularly vulnerable to overvaluation, for example.

In Ohio, the state tax appeal board recently dealt with that scenario, related to a large industrial building. The property was constructed to a national bank tenant’s unique specifications for its use as a data center, with gated entrances, impact-resistant windows, raised floors with subfloor cooling, battery backup rooms, and fire-suppression systems. The tenant had specific security needs based on its use, and had the building constructed to protect servers from weather events.

The two expert appraisers involved in the case concluded to drastically different overall values. One appraiser viewed the building as used for general office or warehouse space, and did not perform a cost -approach analysis because of the large degree of economic obsolescence related to a single-tenant industrial building used as an operations center.

The other appraiser posited that the building was unique, rather than tailored to the use of that particular tenant. That conclusion led the appraiser to use out-of-state sales for comparison in his analysis and to develop a cost approach. The resulting difference in the conclusions of value was $8.38 million, and the appeals board adopted the higher value.

According to the current appeal pending at the Ohio Supreme Court, more than half of the property was basic office and warehouse space; and the tenant only used a small portion of the remaining space for its specific purpose: a data center.

A recent Pennsylvania case involved a large, industrial, single-occupant, mixed-use property that consisted of an office building, a conference center, and a third building used for offices, research and development, and manufacturing, all constructed at different times. Again, the value conclusions and appraisal methodologies of the experts differed significantly.

Similar to the Ohio case, one appraiser viewed the property as a special-purpose facility with a limited market. Both appraisers developed cost and sales comparable approaches to value, but the appraiser who viewed the property as special-purpose put more weight into a cost-based conclusion, while the other put more weight on his sales-comparison approach.

Unlike the Ohio case, however, neither appraiser included the replacement costs of specific features that an entity replacing the facility would consider unnecessary, such as acoustic rooms, vibration floor slabs, special piping and chilling equipment.

As in assessments of big-box properties, this divergence in appraisal methodology and the definitions of the interest to be valued led to significant gulfs in the final tax assessments. Assessors are more likely to value properties deemed to be special-purpose with primary reliance on the cost approach, with its inherent difficulties in accurately measuring all forms of depreciation and obsolescence, both functional and economic.

Traditionally, appraisers applied this special-purpose classification to properties that did not readily transfer in the open market-houses of worship, sports arenas, schools. Additionally, primary reliance on the cost approach lacks the built-in market “check” that is present when using data from actual sales and rent transactions that have occurred in the marketplace. Even if not considered as special use, improvements only valuable to the current user can be improperly included in the assessment. Rather, the assessor should measure the value-in-exchange, and avoid cherry picking data for comparables.

Avoid complacency in industrial

The U.S. industrial real estate market is booming, with Los Angeles and the Inland Empire standing out as particularly hot markets, according to Diana Golob, managing director at Hanna Commercial Real Estate in Cleveland, Ohio, who represents both U.S. and European multinational firms. Speculative development has even started to reappear in multiple markets.

Do not let the good news of a thriving market create a blind spot when it comes to reviewing property tax assessments.

In the retail context, jurisdictions are still identifying the correct interest to be valued for real estate tax purposes, and the best appraisal methods to do so. Courts, legislatures, tax assessors and independent appraisers are all grappling with these nuanced issues.

It appears that owners of single-tenant, net-leased or owner-occupied industrial properties will be dealing with similar assessment issues. The applicable assessment law is in flux and sometimes is the polar opposite from one jurisdiction to the next.

It is vital to consult with professionals, familiar with both the legal and appraisal complexities of the jurisdiction, to determine whether a property tax assessment is fair. With a few changes, an expression from psychologist Abraham Maslow is appropriate here: Do not view every assessment challenge as a nail because you only have a hammer in your belt; make sure you have the right tool - for the right assessment approach - for the job.

Cecilia Hyun is an associate attorney at the law firm Siegel Jennings  Co, L.P.A., which has offices in Cleveland and Pittsburgh.  The firm is the Ohio and Western Pennsylvania member of American Property Tax Counsel. She can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

While it is common knowledge that tax relief is available for newly constructed industrial facilities that bring jobs and infrastructure to a region, business owners often overlook the opportunity to reduce property taxes on their existing facilities. That’s a pity, because successful property tax contests are a source of found money that goes straight to the company’s bottom line.

Those savings can be significant. In Pennsylvania, a 2.5 million-square-foot manufacturing plant that had not challenged its assessments in more than a decade was overvalued by $30 million. An appeal ultimately yielded $500,000 in annual tax relief.

Public perception vs. reality. Tax appeals for industrial properties present unique challenges. In rural areas, the property owner is often the region’s largest employer and the largest taxpayer in the jurisdiction, so that reducing the assessment also reduces funds available to local schools. Development costs are both widely publicized and somewhat misleading, because investment in equipment, site preparation, training arid other items frequently exceeds the real estate’s fair market value. News stories about that $100 million plant can come back to haunt the owner who tries to argue for a more realistic assessment.

Moreover, for properties developed with the help of government incentives or tax abatements, an owner seeking a tax reduction may run into community resentment when local media report on the contest.

Expect a fight. Taxing jurisdictions will fight hard against a tax contest. Authorities typically delay the litigation, often from a sense of outrage rather than anything else. When an appeal seeking hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax relief stretches into multiple years, winning a favorable ruling becomes progressively more difficult for the property owner. At trial, the case is typically decided by a local judge, who is mindful that a reduction would have a negative effect on local districts. The property owner must strike a delicate balance, continuously pushing the litigation forward while staying sensitive to its larger impact.

“Face-to-face meetings, both internal and external, are essential when managing property taxes for a large industrial property owner”, said Christine Rohde, manager of property tax and incentives at Alcoa Inc., where she oversees tax protests. When possible, I make every effort to inspect our sites and meet with plant management to explain the process and answer questions. Meeting personally with out-of-state assessors helps build relationships and allows both parties to work through the valuation issues to arrive at assessments that are fair to all concerned.

The property owner’s tax counsel must also push the litigation. Courts seldom specify a timetable for bringing the case to trial and jurisdictions will try to delay the process by asking for continuances. Tax counsel must produce an appraisal promptly, call the jurisdiction’s counsel regularly, invite representatives of the jurisdictions to inspect the facility and ask the judge to schedule conferences or pre-trial meetings. As Rohde noted, tax counsel should meet face to face with the jurisdiction’s representatives whenever possible and be prepared to travel to the property repeatedly.

Valuation challenges. Differences among industrial properties - heavy manufacturing, light manufacturing, office/flex, warehouse and distribution centers - greatly affect valuation, so hire professionals with demonstrated expertise in appraising the specific category of the industrial property in question.

Owner-occupied properties, which have no rental income to capitalize, present another challenging situation. Or the property may have a mix of uses, as with a corporate headquarters campus that has offices, research and development space and training facilities.

Finding comparable properties for the appraisal can be an issue as well. A special-purpose property, such as an ethanol plant, cannot be easily used by another user. Even generic manufacturing space is subject to external obsolescence or incurable factors that affect valuation and are beyond the physical boundaries of the property. External obsolescence might reflect a scarcity of a natural resource used in the manufacturing process, or extended travel time to the closet interstate highways, either of which can severely impair value.

If the property is the only one of its kind in the state, the appraiser may seek comparable sales out of state. The assets being used as the basis of comparison are often attracted by economic incentives to places where they would not otherwise go perhaps far from suppliers or interstate highways. These locational issues detract from fair market value and the associated comps can reduce the assessment and property taxes for the contested property.

The checklist. Evaluate industrial property for potential tax appeals annually, and know the jurisdiction’s idiosyncrasies. Can the property owner meet informally with the assessor? Does the taxing authority have a reputation for being litigious?

Keep the property owner’s public relations department involved, and be mindful of how an appeal is presented and perceived. Get an appraisal from the most experienced professional in the property type and one who presents well on the stand. And finally, push the appeal through to conclusion.

Sharon DiPaolo is a partner in the law firm of Siegel Jennings Co., L.P.A., the Ohio and Western Pennsylvania member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. She can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

UPDATED March 2025

Pennsylvania Legislator Proposes Cyclical Reassessment System

In January 2025, Pennsylvania State Senator Wayne Fontana announced that he plans to introduce legislation to move Pennsylvania to a cyclical reassessment system, as is the system in nearly every other state.

This is good news for taxpayers and other stakeholders. Pennsylvania is the only state in the United States to have a “base year” system under which counties can choose to stay in their “base year” (last year of the countywide reassessment) indefinitely. The State of Delaware - the only other state which had a base year system – in a decision by its highest court -- declared in May 2020 that a base year system of assessment is unconstitutional.

Due to Pennsylvania’s base year system, it is not uncommon for counties to fail to reassess for decades or more. The Pennsylvania County with the oldest reassessment year is Franklin County (south central Pennsylvania) which last reassessed in 1961. Pennsylvania is also one of a handful of states that allows government bodies to file increase assessment appeals (labeled “illegal spot appeals” in most states).  These two factors taken together – a county’s failure to reassess coupled with a school district’s right to “cherry pick” some taxpayers for increase appeals – leads to, as a practical matter, a disparate tax experience (especially for commercial taxpayers who tend to be the targets of school increase appeals) and a complete lack of uniformity in taxation, contrary to Pennsylvania ‘s Constitution.

APTC Western Pennsylvania Representative Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire, CRE, was invited to testify at Senator Fontana’s July 2024 hearing on the need for cyclical reassessment in Pennsylvania.  Ms. DiPaolo’s testimony called for cyclical reassessment to address the best practices of tax policy, namely, fundamental fairness, transparency, and consistency. As of this writing, the proposed legislation is in the process of being drafted. Siegel Jennings will advise of developments as they occur.

In the meantime, to discuss the specifics of this proposed legislation or your property tax needs in Pennsylvania, please reach out to:

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.Siegel Jennings, Co., L.P.A.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Many taxpayers pay more than their fair share of property taxes. Yet in a tax arena fraught with nuance, it can be difficult for a taxpayer to recognize an inflated assessment. The key to spotting a bad assessment lies in knowing precisely what the assessor is measuring and the requirements of the state's property tax law.

What, then, is being assessed? The simplistic answer is that real estate is being assessed, but that response doesn't fully address commercial real estate, where values often hinge on contracts, encumbrances and regional legal definitions.

That said, all states attempt to tax at similar levels properties that are similar to one another.

The challenge to meeting that goal is that commercial real estate is subject to a variety of contracts and encumbrances, creating situations where nearly identical properties are taxed at significantly different assessments. Causing more trouble is assessors' tendency to rely on recent sales to determine values, resulting in tremendous differences in assessments among similar properties.

In a Pennsylvania case, an owner filed to reduce his property's taxable value based on a long-term lease in place at below-market rent. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that assessors must weigh all the interests associated with a parcel, specifically the impact of leased-fee interests and leasehold interests on value. However, the typical commercial property sale only reflects the leased-fee portion of the sale, because the buyer is essentially buying a rental income stream.

Kentucky has yet to fully address the uniformity problem. The Kentucky constitution states that "all property, not exempted from taxation by this Constitution, shall he assessed for taxation at its fair cash value, estimated at the price it would bring at a fair voluntary sale." As a result, nearly identical buildings could be taxed at significantly different amounts.

Ohio legislators recently passed a statute to achieve uniform taxation. Ohio simply stated that the assessor must assess all real property at the fee-simple value as if it were unencumbered. In this way the state is requiring the assessor to use market terms regardless of above-market or below-market rents in place at the property.

The remedy to unfair taxation based on recent sales is to tax all property using market terms and market rates applied to the conditions specific to the property. Without knowing what the assessor is measuring, however, a taxpayer may consider a sales price to be a fair assessment value. As demonstrated by these examples, understanding how the states assess properties goes a long way to knowing whether a taxpayer is paying a fair share in that particular state.

J. Kieran Jennings is a partner in the law firm of Siegel Jennings Co. LPA, the Ohio and Western Pennsylvania member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

The tax assessor's notice arrives in the mail with the seemingly inevitable increase in your property's assessment. Is this just another expense line item creeping upwards? Should you start budgeting now for an increase in next year's real estate taxes?

Not so fast. Taking the time to review the notice with an experienced property tax professional could reveal opportunities for significant savings.

What Can I Gain?
Successful appeals can generate thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax savings per year. Property taxes are one of the few expense line items that a property owner can manage with an eye toward not just keeping the expense flat, but in many cases actually reducing taxes compared with the current and prior years. Yet property taxes are often overlooked as a controllable expense. As Robert L. Gordon, a partner who specializes in property tax with the law firm of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP in Wisconsin, says, "One of the things I continue to see is that clients who are sensitive to the smallest increments in their income taxes, and engage in highly sophisticated planning to manage their income taxes, will at the same time accept property tax assessment increases as an inflexible cost that cannot be managed or addressed."

For many companies, a reduced assessment is the equivalent of "found money" and is a great boost to the bottom line.

Why Assessments Change
Typical conditions triggering an assessment change include new construction, renovation or demolition. More unusual cases can occur in places like California, where a change in ownership will generate a change in the assessment. Another reason for assessment change is error correction, as when an assessor finds that they had missed the existence of a building in previous assessments.

But the No. 1 reason for assessment changes is periodic district-wide reassessments. Most states have mandatory reassessment cycles while a few do not (see table).

In Pennsylvania, which doesn't require periodic reassessment, assessments can get far afield from actual market value, contends attorney M. Janet Burkardt, managing partner of Weiss Burkardt Kramer LLC, which advises Pennsylvania counties on reassessment. "Not reassessing regularly means taxing inefficiently, because counties are not capturing changes in value," Burkardt says. "The more often a county reassesses, the more equitable and uniform the values."

Pennsylvania, Oklahoma and California are examples of states that lack mandated reassessments. States that do reassess vary widely in frequency: Florida, Minnesota, Arizona, Kansas and Washington, D.C., are some states that reassess every property, every year. Some others – Wisconsin, for example – require annual reassessments, but in practice those don't always happen.

Don't Miss an Opportunity to Appeal
Even if an assessment goes unchanged in a given year, there may still be opportunities to reduce real estate taxes. In many states, like Pennsylvania, there is a ratio calculation that does change annually. For example, a property in Butler County, Penn., generated the same $100,000 assessment in 2012 and in 2014. By application of this ratio calculation for each year, the property is on the tax rolls at a fair market value of $523,000 and $740,000 for these years, respectively. If the property is worth $600,000, that would mean an appeal opportunity in 2014, but not in 2012.

Practices vary widely by state and even within states, so reviewing all assessments annually can turn up opportunities that might otherwise be missed.

What Will it Cost?
Filing fees for property appeals are modest, and in many jurisdictions the initial appeal is free. Fees in other places average about $100. The cost of the appraisal will vary based on the property's type, uniqueness, and the relative ease or difficulty of the valuation calculation. Commercial appraisals can range from $2,500 to $25,000 or more. Legal fees vary, but it is common for property tax attorneys to work on a contingency-fee basis, where there is no fee unless an appeal achieves tax savings.

Experience Matters
Asking an experienced property tax professional to evaluate assessment notices pays off. Working with a professional who knows the nuances of the jurisdiction, the law, how the system works in practice, which appraiser is right for the job, and who has a working relationship with the government employees that administer that system can be the difference between winning and losing appeals. Finding the right person to evaluate your assessments on a regular basis is the first step toward realizing tax savings.

Sharon F. DiPaolo is a partner in the law firm of Siegel Siegel Johnson & Jennings, the Ohio and Western Pennsylvania member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. She can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Pittsburgh-area commercial property owners who received dramatic increases in their 2013 real estate assessments may see those taxable values go even higher. This wave reflects the growing nationwide issue of changes in property values and how they are assessed.

In the case of the Steel City, Allegheny County's first revaluation in 10 years dramatically increased assessments, which had remained static even during market highs in the mid-2000s and the crash in 2008 and 2009. While the overall increase in county assessments was 35 percent, commercial owners bore the brunt of the increase, seeing their assessments rise 54 percent overall.

More recently, however, local legislators enacted an unusual deadline extension that has effectively put property owners — especially commercial owners — at risk for even higher assessments.

Note that, rather than rely upon a central tax authority, each of Pennsylvania's 67 counties sets its own assessment. Because the state lacks a mandate for periodic revaluation, counties normally only undertake revaluation when a taxpayer files suit but will occasionally do so on the county's own initiative. Historically, reassessments are so infrequent in Pennsylvania (sometimes a decade or more passes between reassessments) that property values spike when a county eventually does reassess, which leads to public outcry and confusion.

Following publication of the new 2013 assessments for Pittsburgh-area properties, property owners filed 100,000 appeals before the original deadline on April 1, 2012. Then, in early 2013, Allegheny County's chief executive asked the county council to reopen the filing of 2013 appeals until April 1, 2013, ostensibly to help property owners.

At the time, the chief executive told local reporters that the deadline extension would give taxpayers another opportunity to appeal. What he didn't say, however, is that extending the deadline also opened the door for school districts to file appeals.

Increases in Store for Property Owners
Reopening the appeals process hurt more property owners than it helped. Most taxpayers who needed to appeal had already filed, but Pennsylvania law gives school districts a right of appeal as well. When the county council voted to reopen the deadline and allow new appeals, thousands of school appeals followed. School districts filed most of the 7,000 new appeals in 2013.

What's more, Pittsburgh's office market was hot in the latter part of 2012. The districts tracked sale prices in the last three quarters of 2012 and subsequently appealed to increase the property owners' new assessments based on these sale amounts. Most of these appeals to increase valuations target commercial owners.

Of the new appeals filed by property owners, the vast majority are attempts to re-hear appeals that were previously filed. Those are likely to be thrown out by the courts. That will leave mostly school-initiated appeals.

As of this writing, administrative hearings are complete for the original 100,000 appeals, and administrative decisions that caused the taxpayer or school district to be unhappy with the outcome are already pending in court. Hearings on the 7,000 new appeals are underway.

What to Do
When a taxing district files an appeal, state law requires it to send notice of the appeal to the address listed in county records as the property's Change Notice Mailing Address, which is published on the county's website (alleghenycounty.us). Some of the county records are outdated as to owners' addresses and, in those instances, some new owners are unaware of appeals on their properties.

New owners should check the address the county has on record for their properties and watch for notices sent to this address in the coming months. If a school district does appeal, the property owner would be wise to seek counsel, appear at hearings and defend his property's taxable value, otherwise risk having his assessment increased even more.

Sharon F. DiPaolo is a partner in the law firm of Siegel Siegel Johnson & Jennings Co., LPA, the Ohio and Western Pennsylvania member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. She can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

While the taxing jurisdictions' consultants maintain that they are not doing appraisal work or appraisal consulting work, a review of USPAP definitions suggests differently. The Uniform Standards define appraisal consulting as "the act or process of developing an analysis, recommendation, or opinion to solve a problem, where an opinion of value is a component of the analysis leading to the assignment results."

By John E. Garippa, Esq. & Brian A. Fowler, Esq., as published by National Real Estate Investor - Online, October 2012

As U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall observed two centuries ago, "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." That statement applies today in the Delaware Valley, where taxing jurisdictions are delegating the tax assessment function to outside consultants.

Incredibly, these consultants are compensated on a contingent fee basis for the additional tax revenue they can accumulate for the jurisdiction. In a typical contract, the fee has been 25 percent of the additional revenue received over a three-year period.

In practice, these consultants can pick and choose which properties to recommend for reassessment. It's not surprising that the most valuable commercial assets, which offer the largest potential for gain in a reassessment, attract the most attention from these bounty-hunting consultants.
Here's how the process typically works. Once consultants have determined which properties are under-assessed, the school districts file affirmative appeals to raise the assessments on the affected properties. Property owners who choose to defend their existing assessments must hire attorneys and independent appraisers at considerable cost.

This system of taxation grows less uniform with each reappraisal. And while it may seem absurd to hand over the reins of tax policy to an outside consultant, the practice is becoming routine under current Pennsylvania law.

Taxing questions

Experience has shown that at any given time there will always be disparities in tax assessments within a given jurisdiction. However, most taxpayers assume that the assessment function is being performed by tax assessors in an ethical and uniform manner, and that those assessors are not paid based on the increased revenue they find.

The increasingly prevalent use of tax assessment consultants raises serious issues that communities must address.
First, the Pennsylvania legislature has prohibited contingent fee agreements where it has deemed them to be contrary to public interest. Specifically, Pennsylvania law prohibits real estate appraisers from accepting an appraisal assignment where the fee is contingent on the valuation reached.
While consultants to taxing entities might argue that they are not appraisers, the fact that they are concluding to a value or value range arguably makes their work product an appraisal.

Second, Pennsylvania has adopted the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), which can help to level the playing field for the property owner in appealing an assessment. Those rules include minimum standards for the retention of records, referred to as the "record-keeping rule." An appraiser or consultant must prepare a work file for each appraisal, appraisal review or appraisal consulting assignment.

A work file must exist prior to the issuance of any conclusion, and a written summary of any oral report must be added to the work file within a reasonable time after the issuance of the oral report. Any appraiser or consultant who willfully or knowingly fails to comply with the obligations of this record keeping rule is in violation of the state's ethics rule.

While the taxing jurisdictions' consultants maintain that they are not doing appraisal work or appraisal consulting work, a review of USPAP definitions suggests differently. The Uniform Standards define appraisal consulting as "the act or process of developing an analysis, recommendation, or opinion to solve a problem, where an opinion of value is a component of the analysis leading to the assignment results."

The Uniform Standards also indicate that an appraisal may be numerically expressed as a "range of numbers or as a relationship (e.g. not more than, nor less than) to a previous value opinion or numerical benchmark (e.g. assessed value, collateral value)." Clearly, concluding that certain properties are under-assessed requires a conclusion of value and a comparison to an existing assessment benchmark. The point is, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck--or in this case, an appraisal.

Allowing consultants to wander the tax lists on the basis of bounty hunting for under-assessed properties is essentially a free trip for the taxing authorities, which bear no burden of cost. When the targets are identified and appeals are filed to increase the assessments, the consultants are rewarded for their efforts by being paid a fee contingent on whatever additional revenue is raised.

If taxing authorities had to fund these efforts on an ongoing basis, rather than on a contingent fee basis, much of this bounty hunting would end. Moreover, if state licensing authorities would examine this conduct under existing appraisal law and the Uniform Standards, the inevitable conclusion would be that appraisal consulting services are taking place. Again, this would serve to restrain the current, unbridled practice of targeting large taxpayers.

	John E. Garippa is senior partner and Brian A. Fowler is an associate in the law firm of Garippa, Lotz & Giannuario with offices in Montclair, N.J., the New Jersey member of the American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys.

Tim Schooley, Pittsburgh Business Times Reporter covers the case lead by APTC Pennsylvania Member - Sharon DiPaolo, Esq., as published by Pittsburgh Business Times January, 2012

The owners of the Robert J. Casey Industrial Park on the North Side are petitioning the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas Judge R. Stanton Wettick to ensure commercial property owners have to same opportunity to appeal their reassessments as residential property owners in Allegheny Count, according to a court filing.

The petition to intervene in the ongoing legal challenge of the reassessment values for Allegheny County is the latest plea to argue for uniform standards to tax the value of real estate in Allegheny County in a legal battle in which the issue of uniformity has been upheld by Wettick.

The family ownership of the eight-parcel industrial park saw its reassessed value jump by 340 percent, according to court documents, rising from a little more than $2.6 million in its 2011 assessed value to a reassessed value for 2013 of $11,864)00.

Sharon F. DiPaolo, a lawyer who represent the owners of the Robert J. Casey Industrial Park, argued in her petition that Allegheny County currently provides no information online regarding comparable sales to determine new assessments or other pertinent information used.

"The interests of commercial property owners are not adequately represented by the current parties and intervenors in the instant action", she wrote.

Of major concern for DiPaolo and her client is the ability to pursue an informal hearing before the Board of Property Assessment Appeals and Review, where a broader a discussion of a property's relative worth can be discussed, rather than a formal appeal before the county's board of viewers.

So far, the reassessment appeals process has been negotiated over between Allegheny County, the plaintiffs, who represent residential property owners, and Pittsburgh Public Schools, which convinced Wettick to delay implementation of the new assessed values

until 2013 so that reassessment appeals can be established to determine how to reset tax rates.

According to court documents, the reassessed values of commercial properties in Pittsburgh rose by 71.08 percent while the city's residential property increased by 46.89 percent.

"If this process were to be adopted, a commercial property owner which files an appeal before the Board of Property Assessment Appeals and Review could be entirely deprived .... by its adjudication by a taxing body's unilateral request to move the appeal to the board of viewers," wrote DiPaolo. "If this procedure were to be adopted, it would violate commercial property owners' right to due process."

At a hearing on Thursday morning, Judge Wettick agreed to consider the petition for next Thursday's scheduled hearing, said DiPaolo.

She added that the owners of the industrial park as well as other commercial property owners expressed the concern that the scale of the increased assessments on their real estate could force them out of business.

She emphasized the importance of the informal review process for commercial property owners, noting a commercial appraisal costs $5,000 to $10,000. A successful voluntary review can result in immediate tax relief, she added, further explaining that a burden of proof shifts to the taxing body after a successful informal review as well.

"If the commercial owners have to pay on their new assessments before it gets adjudicated it's really going to hurt," she said.

Tim Schooley covers retail, real estate, small business, hospitality and media. Contact him at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or (412) 208-3826.

Sharon F. DiPaolo is a partner in the law firm of Siegel Siegel Johnson & Jennings, the Ohio and Western Pennsylvania member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. She can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

"Pennsylvania has no mandatory requirement for periodic revaluation, meaning that, as a practical matter, no county spends the time and political currency to reassess properties unless a lawsuit is filed forcing it to do so..."

By Sharon DiPaolo, Esq., as published by National Real Estate Investor Online - City Reviews, August 2011

Imagine you are a property owner trying to budget now for 2012 real estate taxes on your high-rise downtown office building, and no one can tell you what assessment your taxes will be based upon.

What number do you budget? What will you bill your tenants?

That property management nightmare is reality in Pittsburgh. The state Supreme Court ordered Pittsburgh and the rest of Allegheny County to reassess properties in 2012, the county's fourth reassessment in 12 years. But with the third quarter drawing to a close, the county hasn't released even tentative assessments, and has no plan to do so before the 2012 real estate bills go into the mail.

Pittsburgh's debacle is but one chapter in an ongoing tragedy, as Pennsylvania's broken property tax system plays out against the day-to-day practicalities of managing real estate. In recent years, the state's system for assessing real property has been under attack — in the courts, in the legislature, in the media and around kitchen tables.

Decentralized property tax system

Pennsylvania is one of only nine states that decentralize the property tax assessment process to the local government level. Its property assessment system operates under six separate statutes which are implemented and funded at the county level.

Pennsylvania has no mandatory requirement for periodic revaluation, meaning that, as a practical matter, no county spends the time and political currency to reassess properties unless a lawsuit is filed forcing it to do so.

As a result, assessments on aging properties grow stagnant while new construction is assigned higher assessments. New assessments occur on a property-by-property basis, either when taxpayers file individual appeals or when taxing districts cherry pick properties to appeal, usually based on recent sales.

For example, two identical office buildings built at the same time by the same builder might originally be assessed at the same id="mce_marker"0 million. But if one of the buildings sells at id="mce_marker"5 million, the taxing district will appeal the assessment of that property, resulting in two identical properties with dramatically different assessments.

Seven Pennsylvania counties have not reassessed in more than 30 years, and Blair County's last reassessment was in 1958. The reason Allegheny County is undergoing yet another reassessment is that multiple lawsuits have forced it to do so.

Currently, Allegheny County is under order from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to revalue every property within its borders, with new assessed values to take effect for the 2012 tax year. Erie and Lebanon counties are preparing for reassessments to take effect in 2013.

Washington County is in on-again, off-again litigation and currently preparing for a reassessment for 2014. Lancaster County has cancelled its reassessment for 2013 and now will not reassess until 2017.

Call for statewide solution

When the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered Allegheny County to reassess, it stopped short of directing the state's other 66 counties to do the same but called on the legislature to study the system. Motivated by imminent reassessment projects with price tags upwards of id="mce_marker"0 million, both Allegheny and Washington counties asked the legislature to issue a moratorium on reassessments until a state-wide solution could be found.

Two years ago, legislation mandating a moratorium died in committee. Then in late June, 2011, the legislature passed a moratorium on just Washington County's revaluation project in a measure tacked onto Pennsylvania's budget.

On July 8, Gov. Corbett vetoed the bill, so Washington County's reassessment was back on but is now delayed until at least 2014. Currently some legislators are putting together yet another task force to study the issue. If history is any predictor, no statewide solution is on the horizon.

Delay in Allegheny County

Allegheny County's revaluation project has been repeatedly delayed. The county is behind on its preparations for the reassessment project and, in particular, behind on its valuation of commercial properties.

At the latest court conference before Judge Stanton Wettick, who is overseeing the reassessment project, the county admitted that it is behind in valuing commercial properties. At the judge's request, the county produced two alternate plans — neither of which will provide taxpayers with tentative 2012 values until next year.

Under the county's preferred plan, in which it would issue all notices at the same time, preliminary notices would be mailed out Jan. 31, 2012 with final values to be certified by early April 2012.

Under the alternate plan, notices would go out first to property owners in Pittsburgh, in December 2012, with certified values following in February 2012. Property owners in the rest of the county would be forced to wait until March for their preliminary notices and May for certified values.

Further, Allegheny County's plans call for an informal review process to analyze preliminary values. But as the reassessment project and preliminary notices have been delayed while the project drags on, the county has shortened the time for informal reviews from five months to five weeks.

Complicating the matter for taxpayers and taxing districts alike, Pennsylvania law requires municipalities to set the 2012 tax rates in January, before the 2012 assessment is final. And in Pittsburgh, the school district will issue its 2012 tax bills before the assessment deadline.

Progress?

Last week, Judge Wettick heard a dozen representatives of school districts and municipalities describe how the delay in the reassessment project is affecting their budget process, hiring decisions and tax rates while it increases administrative costs and overhead. The City of Pittsburgh School District reported that it would have to take out a $66 million tax anticipation loan just to make payroll, costing the school district almost id="mce_marker".5 million.

Judge Wettick is expected to select one or the other timetable at a hearing on Sept. 15. Taxpayers and taxing districts alike are keeping a close watch on the outcome.

Gov. William Penn announced Pennsylvania's first property tax in 1683; within two weeks of the tax's enactment, a property owner filed the first complaint challenging an assessment. More than 300 years later, Pennsylvanians still struggle to find the right solution to meet Pennsylvania's constitutional requirement of uniformity in taxation.

Sharon F. DiPaolo is a partner in the law firm of Siegel Siegel Johnson & Jennings, the Ohio and Western Pennsylvania member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. She can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..