Let's reappraise appraisals
By Michael J. Suley
Published: Thursday, Jan. 9, 2014, 8:55 p.m.
As we enter the 2014 real estate tax cycle, many property owners and taxing jurisdictions are considering appealing what they believe to be unfair assessments. For many years, it was a good idea to have an appraisal done on a property to see if the assessment was fair. The appraisal was then presented to the county appeals board and, in most cases, the property was reduced to the appraised amount. In Allegheny County, that is no longer the case.
In 2013, some property owners sued the county, claiming that they submitted appraisals at their appeal hearing and did not receive reductions. They asked the court to approve the appraisals without any quasi-judicial review. In other words, the appraisals had to be rubber-stamped by the appeals board. The court correctly rejected this argument because not all appraisals should be taken as gospel.
The county solicitor and the appeals board solicitor argued that the appraisals performed by state-certified appraisers were “bad” and did not warrant consideration or a reduction in the certified assessment. But the county neglected to send these “bad” appraisals to the state appraisal board. The state board has jurisdiction over the work product of state-certified appraisers. If the county had submitted these appraisals, the public would have found out that many of the appraisals complied with assessment standards.
The Fitzgerald administration and the appeals board believe that their victory in court is a victory for tax fairness and uniformity. Only time will tell if public confidence will erode because more appraisals are rejected moving forward.
Last year, I suggested the county pass an ordinance requiring greater scrutiny in reviewing certified appraisals before the county appeals board. I also suggested that the court would not resolve this issue because of the narrow argument before it. For what it's worth, I'm asking the county executive and the county council to recommend changes in the way appraisals are scrutinized on appeal.
The changes would follow state appraisal law and permit only state-certified appraisers to review appraisals. At the present time, appraisals are reviewed by licensed real estate salespeople and real estate brokers. Under state law, real estate licensees are not permitted to give an opinion of value. In the private sector, appraisals for mortgage loans are reviewed by certified appraisers, not real estate licensees.
The county appeals board has only one Pennsylvania state-certified appraiser. The county may want to consider adding another appraiser or two to enhance public confidence in the process. The county should also consider submitting the “bad” appraisals to the State Board of Certified Real Estate Appraisers for review. This would ensure discipline for faulty appraisals by appraisers. It would also result in fair tax bills for the property owners who paid for appraisals.
The appeals period for 2014 begins soon. Allegheny County would instill public confidence in this system by enacting an ordinance that requires appraisal reviews by appraisers. Any taxpayer who is willing to hire an appraiser deserves an appeal process that provides this fail-safe approach to paying his fair share of the tax burden.
I hope that changes are considered and become law before the next round of appeals.
Michael J. Suley was manager of the Allegheny County Office of Property Assessments from 2006-12 and vice chairman of the county Board of Property Assessments Appeals and Review from 1997-2000.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Panthers free agent safety headed to Steelers
- Printing delinquent tax list pays off for Highlands
- Rural Ridge residents question NRG’s plans for landfill
- Orpik rises to occasion as Penguins take down Capitals once again
- Obama budget puts more money into nuclear cleanup, not locks and dams
- Memo confirms VA Pittsburgh officials knew of Legionella threat early on
- Forward supervisors OK park funding proposal
- Chamber event targets small business, health care
- Minorities crucial to filling Marcellus shale gas drilling jobs
- Review: ‘Once’ charms as it breaks rules of musical theater
- Penguins notebook: Letang skating, but no return set