Blog

Task Force Quiet on Appeals, But Mentions Circuit Breaker

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

 

In April the Mayor of Pittsburgh withdrew all City-initiated appeals of property values for 2016 and a press release from the Mayor’s office stated “The moratorium will remain in effect for the remainder of 2016, and a new policy will be implemented by the Administration as part of the Mayor’s Affordable Housing Task Force.”  As we noted in a Policy Brief Council passed a resolution prior to the moratorium that contained some recommendations of what could constitute a new appeal policy for the City.

The Task Force report was released yesterday, and the Mayor’s press release on the topic notes that one of the recommendations is to “[protect] existing homeowners and tenants citywide through efforts including controls over reassessment spikes” and the report’s recommendation 3.2 calls for the establishment of a “real estate tax circuit breaker provision”, which has basis in PA Constitutional and statutory law, and some history with Allegheny County and the City of Pittsburgh, but does not deal with appeals of property.

Article VIII, Section 2(v) allows counties of the first and second class (Philadelphia and Pittsburgh) to enact programs for long-term owner-occupants where property values have risen because of improvements in the areas around them (this was approved in a referendum in November of 1984).  Act 146 of 1988 provided the statutory language of the provisions and allowed Allegheny County and its subdivisions (municipalities and school districts) could opt in as well.  The program allows for a “deferral or exemption” that must be uniform and in specifically designated areas where “…the market value of the real property as a consequence of the refurbishing or renovating of other residences or the construction of new residences in long-established residential areas or areas of deteriorated, vacant or abandoned homes and properties.”

According to the Task Force Report, Allegheny County had enacted a provision for this purpose in 1990, but it was struck down by the courts in 1995.  The City has language in its code of ordinances for the provision, but the Report notes “…it appears to be dormant for some time.”  Three years ago there was a proposal by a member of City Council to use part of the City’s share of the RAD tax to enable the provision, but as we noted in 2014, that money went into the City’s general fund.

The Report makes suggestions on how this provision should be revived, and most of it deals with asking the County to determine how to make the program compliant for municipalities and then tweaking the City’s language.  Of course, if the provision is reactivated it would exist alongside the City’s homestead exemption and the senior citizen tax relief program under Act 77 (the RAD law).  But it would not keep a property from being appealed, as there are thousands that are that carry one or all of the existing exemptions.  As the Report does not appear to address appeals, it is not clear at this point what the City will do unless it will utilize the language and guidelines from the Council resolution from February.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Allegheny Institute
Allegheny Institute

The Allegheny Institute is a non-profit research and education organization. Our mission is to defend the interests of taxpayers, citizens and businesses against an increasingly burdensome and intrusive government.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Weekly insights on the markets and financial planning.

Recent Posts