A recent Policy Brief noted “there are several factors that could bring about a reassessment in Allegheny County. Two lawsuits—one by [Pittsburgh Public Schools] and another by a taxpayer—are seeking a court-ordered reassessment. Both point to the assessment appeals on commercial property as eroding the commercial tax base and unfairly burdening residents.”
Not long after publication of the Brief, Pittsburgh Public Schools’ (PPS) lawsuit was dismissed. It was not thrown out on whether Allegheny County needs to reassess property values but on PPS’ standing in the matter. This was the preliminary objection the county raised after the lawsuit was filed in April of last year in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court.
The judge’s opinion noted “the burden is on a plaintiff to establish a cognizable interest for the purpose of standing” and summarized PPS’ allegations of harm as “the County’s failure to reassess all properties is ‘no way to run a railroad.’” A previous decision found that associations may bring an action that alleges harm to its members, but PPS “is not such an association, and therefore has no standing to argue that it represents the interests of overassessed real estate taxpayers or any kind of taxpayer.”
Thus, the question then turned to whether PPS itself—as a governing body that levies property taxes on the values established by the county and has to refund taxpayers who successfully appeal property values—was harmed and had standing in the case.
After highlighting “occurrences” from the time Allegheny County put into place the 2012 base year, which was court-ordered, the opinion noted the impact of COVID, the lawsuit over the Common Level Ratio and how that affected appeals and lastly PPS’ finances, including its millage rate in the years 2018 to 2025. In that time period, there were two tax increases totaling 0.41 mill (4 percent). The opinion concluded “[PPS] allowed the refunds to impair its financial condition … because it chose not to act.” Note that the opinion spoke only to tax increases, not spending reductions on PPS’ high per-pupil spending or its non-action on facilities.
With its dismissal, PPS will have to decide if it continues the lawsuit to Commonwealth Court or if the litigation is over. When PPS’ board authorized the lawsuit it permitted its solicitor to notify other taxing bodies in the county, but no municipality or school district took the offer up.
The problem with court-ordered reassessments is that one will occur but it might not put into motion a subsequent one. A better approach is for the county to carry out regularly scheduled reassessments.
