Category:

2013 Allegheny County Property Assessment Information and What YOU Can About It

3/17/2012

By: Leigh Lyons, Esquire

The much anticipated 2013 Allegheny County Property Assessments have now been released for the entire county, and many homeowners and commercial property owners have been surprised that their assessment may have increased by fifty percent (50%) or more. Below you will find a breakdown of some of the communities that have had the highest average property assessment increases, as well as what you can do to appeal your own property assessment.

Average Increases

Property assessments in Allegheny County increased an average of 35.4%. This figure includes all 130 municipalities throughout the county. Residential properties increased an average of 27.7%, while commercial properties increased a whopping 54.4%.

The 2013 reassessment was conducted because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered Allegheny County to reassess the values of properties after a group of homeowners instituted a lawsuit against the county. The homeowners contended that homes of higher value were being under-assessed, while homes of lower value were being prejudiced by being over-assessed. Before the court ordered 2013 reassessment, the last reassessment in Allegheny County was conducted in 2002.

Comparing the new assessed values of properties has left many scratching their heads as some communities with lower-value properties increased by a greater percentage than those with higher-value properties. Three municipalities in Allegheny County with some of the highest average increases in assessments were West Elizabeth (66.8%), Green Tree (52.6%), and Dormont (52%). Other notable municipalities include Upper St. Clair’s average increase of 21.8% and Bridgeville’s average increase of 42%.

How to Interpret Your Assessment

The average increase in assessments in your municipality and your school district is significant because if your specific assessment increased by more than the average in your municipality or school district, then you are likely to have an increase in your taxes for those taxing authorities starting in 2013.  Conversely, if your increase is less than the average in your municipality or school district, then you may likely see a decrease in your taxes in 2013. The same applies for the average increase in Allegheny as a whole; although, in general, county real estate taxes tend to be significantly lower than municipal and school district taxes. The reason that the averages are so important is because pursuant to state anti-windfall laws the taxing authorities have to adjust their millage rates downward after a reassessment so that their overall tax collection remains revenue neutral.

For example, if you own property in Upper St. Clair, and your property’s assessment increased by 13%, then you are likely to see a decrease in your real estate taxes because the average increase in assessments in Upper St. Clair was 21.8% (which applies to both township and school district real estate taxes) and in Allegheny County it was 35%. Therefore, even if you are upset or shocked by the increase in the assessed value of your property, it may not be in your best interest to file a formal appeal if your increase is less than than the average increases in your municipality, school district and in Allegheny County.

What You Can Do About Your Assessment

There are two types of appeals that you may file.

Informal Appeal: a one-on-one meeting between a property owner and a representative of the Office of Property Assessments to review information on a property’s characteristics and 2013 court-ordered reassessment value. Representatives from municipalities and school districts are not present at informal reviews. Property owners may provide corrections to property characteristics and bring pictures and written documentation supporting a change in the 2013 court-ordered reassessment value.

* Informal reviews will be conducted on the third floor of the County Office Building located at 542 Forbes Avenue in Downtown Pittsburgh and at remote sites throughout the county. Reviewers will only discuss information regarding your property characteristics and 2013 court-ordered reassessment value. They will not discuss taxes. You will be notified, in writing, of the results several weeks after the review.

Formal Appeal: A quasi-judicial hearing before the Board of Property Assessment Appeals & Review. The hearing provides property owners and/or the three taxing bodies (municipality, school district and county) an opportunity to challenge a property’s assessed value. Property owners, other interested parties, and the three taxing bodies may present evidence at the formal appeal hearing.

* You may obtain the 2013 Court-Ordered Reassessment Value Formal Appeal Form by downloading it on the Allegheny County Assessments page at http://www.alleghenycounty.us/opa/2013NewAppealForm.pdf by calling 412-350-4600. This form is also available onthe third floor of the County Office Building located at 542 Forbes Avenue in Downtown Pittsburgh. The deadline for filing a formal appeal of your new 2013 court-ordered reassessment value is April 2, 2012.

You will be notified of the time, date and location of your formal appeal hearing. Representatives from your municipality and school district may or may not be present at your formal appeal hearing.

If all of the above seems a bit overwhelming, whether you are just too busy to do everything yourself or you just don’t completely understand all of the language, you can always look into retaining an attorney to help you along your journey to, hopefully, get your 2013 assessment reduced, thereby lowering your future real estate taxes.

If you have any questions or would like to schedule a consultation with Neighborhood Attorneys, LLC please call 724-884-0864 or visit us at our website: http://www.neighborhoodattys.com.

4 Comments

New Ruling Casts Doubt on Century Old “Dunham Rule”

2/19/2012

2 Comments

By Leigh Lyons, Esquire

A recent ruling in Pennsylvania in the Butler v. Powers Estatecase has made quite a wave in local communities by casting doubt on the 100 year old “Dunham rule” in regards to ownership of mineral rights, and in this particular
case, ownership rights to the Marcellus Shale. The ruling, if it stands through remand and the appeals process, could mean a hefty pay day for mineral owners, and a lot of litigation for their counterparts who have previously believed that they are the rightful owners to the prosperity associated with ownership rights to
the Marcellus Shale.

The“Dunham rule” basically holds that a conveyance of “mineral rights” in a deed or other instrument does not include “oil and gas rights,” unless there is specific language in the conveyance that the parties intended to use the word
“mineral rights” in a way that differs from the standard rule. In this light, the parties must be very specific in their use of “mineral rights,” or else the presumption will be that the wording “mineral rights” does not include “oil and gas rights.”
The “Dunham rule” is a minority among courts across the country though, and Pennsylvania is only one of two states that follow the minority rule. In the 130 some years that Pennsylvania courts have followed the “Dunham rule,” the
courts have only made a few notable exceptions that varied from this age old rule.

In U.S. Steel v. Hoge, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that coalbed methane is owned by the owner of the coal and not the owner of the gas rights. The court decided that “subterranean gas is owned by whoever has title to the property in which the gas is resting,” citing the facts that coalbed gas is seen as a waste product from coal
production, that unconventional methods are used to extract the gas, and also that the actual extraction of the gas would have major effects on the underlying coal. The decision in Hogeturned, in part, on coal’s lengthy history as a mineral that is extracted in Pennsylvania, which differs immensely from the relatively short history that Marcellus Shale has here in the state.

The potentially revolutionary case that has brought about all this discussion is Butlerv. Powers Estate. Here’s
the summary: the Butlers’ owned the property surface and also a portion of the subsurface rights in question, while the heirs of Charles Powers (Powers Estate) owned a one-half interest in the minerals and petroleum oil underlying the same
property. The Powers Estate claimed that their mineral interest should include a one-half interest in the
Marcellus Shale that is below the property. If the trial court were to follow Hoge, then the Powers Estate would
be entitled to the Marcellus Shale and the gas it contains which is released by a process called fracking.
However, the trial court weren’t convinced by the Powers Estate’s argument, and instead relied on the “Dunham rule,” where the use of “mineral rights” would not include “oil and gas rights.” The Superior Court, on the other hand,
reversed the decision of the trial court because they questioned whether ownership of the Marcellus Shale gas should follow the “Dunham rule,” as the trial court had decided, or if it should follow the Hoge decision that if the gas comes
from the fracking of the Marcellus Shale, then it could be considered gas that was trapped inside of a mineral formation. The Superior Court remanded the case with instructions for the trial court to explore these issues more completely.

For right now, Pennsylvania property owners, including the separate owners of minerals and of oil and gas rights, and the drilling companies, are left hanging, awaiting the possibility of what is to come after the Butler v. Powers Estate case is eventually decided, which may, and probably will, take many years. There are pros and cons to the arguments of each side waging this battle for rights to the coveted Marcellus Shale. The Butlerside has the deep-rooted “Dunham
rule” in their favor, which purports that mineral rights do not include oil and gas rights unless specifically stated.
Conversely, the Powers side has the fact that the process of fracking, which releases gas trapped in the
shale, in their favor, because in Hoge, when the coalbed methane was released, the owner of the methane was determined to be the same owner of the actual coal. The question really comes down to whether the court will allow the
Hogeruling, involving coalbed methane coming from the coal, to extend to the gas  coming from the Marcellus Shale. This question arises in an unparalleled time of prosperity from natural resources in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania due to the Marcellus Shale drilling. However, until a final decision is made, the gas companies and all potential owners of
the gas from the Marcellus Shale are left waiting on a ruling that could mean the difference of millions of dollars either gained… or lost.

2 Comments

2013 Allegheny County Property Assessment Information and What YOU Can About It

New Ruling Casts Doubt on Century Old “Dunham Rule”

Author

Archives

Categories