The heading in the print edition of the editorial is “Needed: Regular reassessments and more taxation options.”
The web site heading is “Memo to next county commissioners: Stick to property reassessment schedule.”
It in part observes: “Under the once-every-eight-years schedule set in the 1990s, a countywide reassessment should have been effective last year.
“Regularly scheduled reassessments make sense. As homes and businesses are built and building improvements are made, they help to more fairly spread the property tax burden…”
Not made clear is that homes and businesses built are taxed at values comparable to what they would have been taxed had they existed during the re-assessment period. The State provides a ‘Common Level Ratio’ annually for each county to accomplish this. Our experience is, to the extent it favors any party, it is likely to be the taxpayers.
“According to Mayor Rick Gray, the City of Lancaster — and by extension, the School District of Lancaster — have suffered from not being able to tax improved properties at their increased rates.”
This is from the mayor who provided the Marriott Hotel with a 100% real estate tax exemption and is dedicating via Pennsylvania Senator Lloyd Smucker’s disreputable The City Revitalization and Improvement Zone (CRIZ) that pledges future real estate tax revenue to pay for giant gifts to today’s special interests.
In many discussions with Lancaster leaders from government, media and elsewhere, we have yet to encounter anyone that is not critical of the thieving CRIZ program.
The first recipient is the former Hilton / Ramda / Brunswick and now Lancaster Hotel. Adding to the irony is that the $15 million to fully renovate the structure will make it a direct competitor to the City owned Marriott Hotel which is leased to Penn Square Partners. Gray must be eager to become a hotelier because, when the full impact of a direct competitor is felt, Penn Square Partners may give the hotel back to the City…along with about $40 million in its debt.
The editorial continues: “The devaluation of real estate values that followed the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis led to appeals that cost school districts across the county millions…
They said they wanted to avoid reassessing properties while property values were in flux.”
Theirs was not an unreasonable position to take. They probably also did not want to be voted out of office, which usually happens to sitting commissioners because taxpayers blame them for increases resulting from re-assessment.
Our sense is re-assessing once a decade is sufficient and spreads the multi-million dollar costs and public angst over a number of years.
As usual, the focus is on increased revenue rather than cost reduction. Furthermore, as I understood reassessment, the process is supposed to be revenue neutral, not a ploy to generate more funds.
It seems to me that the best time to reassess a property is when it is sold. An appraisal is almost always required, a bank must approve the price, along with a buyer and seller. Several experienced and interested parties agree on a value. And the cost can be tacked as a transaction fee.