The last time Susquehanna County was reassessed was 1993, which was 15 years ago. Given the obvious changes in value of real estate and construction costs in general since then, the amount of new construction throughout the county, and questionable software currently used in determining assessed value of your property and mine, isn’t it time to begin the process once again? Remember, when most people think of reassessment, they think of higher taxes. This is not correct. The purpose of a reassesment is to create a uniform situation, where all property owners are taxed using the same and correct criteria.
Our neighbors to our South, Lackawanna and Luzerne counties are currently in the midst of reassessing. The last time Lackawanna County was reassessed was in 1970. Luzerne County was even longer ago than that.
The last time Our Fair County was reassessed, it is this writer’s recollection that a class action suit had been filed. The commissioners quickly decided it was time. Similar, certainly not identical conditions exist today.
The reassessment process takes at least a couple of years to complete, possibly longer depending on how long it would take to select a reassesment firm.
One last thought here. This is NOT an attack on the personnel in the assessment office.
Question: Is it time for the Commissioners to start the reassesment process again, after the office of Chief Assesor is settled?
I fully accept your premise that the purpose of reassessment is to create uniformity in taxation. However, you rightly point out that most people think of “higher taxes” when the word reassessment is used. While it would actually be beneficial if reassessments were carried out on a regularly scheduled basis, say every five years, I think that would be a hard - if not impossible - idea to sell to the taxpayers. That said, while reassessment may be “good government”, I’m not so sure it’s good politics. I think it would be courageous of our commissioners to examine proposals for reassessment. Whether it is politically feasible to reassess anytime in the near future could be another matter entirely.
The matter at hand I do not believe is good government v. good politics. Rather, it is a case where there is significant deviation from the standard, coupled with an assessment program which could be described as fatally flawed. Unfortunately, the county was sold a bill of goods regarding the computer program which is used to manage values. There are easily enough people who could file a class action against the county on the basis of uniformity (or lack of) to force a reassessment.
Thus, the commissioners do not have to be courageous, rather being ahead of the curve a little, avoiding what could be a court ordered reassessment. Or maybe the lack of courage would let them get sued, then being able to say that it wasn’t their decision to reassess, they were forced into it. That could be good politics
The bottom line is that this county needs to be reassesed. Once completed, it is easier to market the county to perspective businesses looking to consider this county for relocation. At least they will know the score, rather than waiting for the Sword of Damocles (unknown reassessment date).
By the way, it is my understanding that the last reassessment was filed by an attorney located outside the county, on behalf of about 50 taxpayers who (rightfully) sued the county as they had been reassessed when they purchased property, with the new assessment being based on their sales price. Of course, when this occurred, it was no longer legal in the Commonwealth.
I believe that the cost of a reassessment is fairly expensive. The county certainly does not have the funds to dive into this type of project on the fly. It is something that would take a great deal of financial planning. As to the current system and the alleged disparities, there is an assessment appeal process, which not only allows someone to appeal to the Assessment Board, but also to the Court if they are dissatisfied with the assessment of their property. If people are unhappy, they should pursue their rights. It seems strange to suggest that there would be a class action lawsuit against the county when the assessment process itself provides a mechanism to challenge an assessment. So, I do not think that circumstances are the same as they were 15 years ago — at least from the description given by Concerned Taxpayer. I have no recollection of the reason for the last reassessment. If the county was violating the law at that time, then there was a basis for the suit. In this case, there does not appear to be any uniform violation, unless it is merely that the program does not work.
I have no personal knowledge of the current assessment program, or even whether it is defective. I have often heard people complain about their assessment, but this is going to happen even if the perfect program is utilized.
In my view, every county should have a long range plan for reassessment, and it should occur periodically, and the county should set aside money each year to save up for every reassessment. This is good government. How often this should occur is a question that I am sure the county could get advice from experts on — and they should seek out that advice. Before jumping into such a project, they had better have the money to do it.
Yes, the county is in desperate need of a reassessment and the
Commissioners should be thinking of the best way to begin the process -
starting with who they will hire to be the next Chief, followed by how
the county will pay for such an undertaking.
The next-in-line should be expected to be a long term hire. The
assessment office has seen 3 different directors in the past 3 1/2
years. Let’s hope that the next one will have staying power. That person
should also have the qualifications necessary to understand the
complexities of mass appraisal and also have the experience behind them
to show what they are capable of. Any less informed and inexperienced
need not apply!
Once the new director is in place, then is the time to begin researching
the time frame for a reassessment and the options available to carry
out the task. Hopefully, there is at least one applicant who is well
versed in the matter, and could do the legwork for the Commissioners.
Realistically, once a decision is made to reassess, the process would
take 3-5 years to carry out. The time to begin budgeting is now.
Of course, concerned taxpayer was also correct in that the issue of whether or not to reassess could become irrelevant should there be a court order in the near future. That does not seem a likely possibility but is
something to be considered. I would much rather our Commissioners plan
ahead than be thrust upon the issue unprepared.