A closer look
Robert Zanakis has experienced a sharp rise in the assessed value of his home, which is reflected in his Washington County tax bill. He said because of the uncertainties associated with the recent reassessment and its effect on tax bills, he had no idea how much to begin setting aside last year.
When property owners received their Washington County tax bills during the fourth week of January, they may have reacted by hitting the roof or breathing a sigh of relief.
But Zanakis, 62, had a unique response when he saw the 83.8 percent increase. He dug out a 10-page paper he had written as a senior at Washington & Jefferson College in 1976 on what was then Washington County’s most recent reassessment – conducted in 1960 – as related to his home community of Canonsburg, ferreting out several examples of inequalities decades ago.
“The county should have a general reassessment every three years to keep an adequate check on the different classes of people not only to insure quality within the classes, but also a relative equality among the classes,” he wrote as a student.
Property reassessment is not a topic that would interest most collegians, but Zanakis explained that during his student days, he anticipated receiving a share of his family home for “$1 and love and affection.” This is the opposite of what real estate professionals refer to as an “arm’s-length transaction” determined by an unrelated buyer and seller.
Zanakis has been a property co-owner since 1978, so he went through a countywide reassessment in 1981. He was diagnosed in 2002 with chronic myeloid leukemia and had a bone marrow transplant, and his condition has left him with a disabling limp.
But he’s contemplating the possibility of remortgaging a share of the family home to pay tax bills, seeking help from relatives or borrowing against a life insurance policy. The county’s tax bill may have been the first to arrive, but he’ll soon be getting another from Canonsburg Borough and a third, during the summer, from Canon-McMillan School District.
Although this former economics major has paid close attention to the last three Washington County property reassessments, he never filed an appeal for either the 1981 or 2016 assessments, the most recent of which valued his home at $116,000.
He said wrapping up the affairs of his late mother took priority during the most recent assessment.
“It costs money,” he said of the appeals process. “I wouldn’t go into any legal proceeding without an attorney.”
Zanakis also owns an adjacent lot, the assessment for which decreased 13.7 percent.
He checked the online real estate database Zillow, using technology that was unavailable to those seeking information during Washington County’s previous reassessments, and he said he’s found differences in Zillow’s numbers and Tyler’s Technologies, which did the recent assessment. Zanakis latched onto an idea that is broader than just his own property: requiring a performance audit of reassessments to determine if Washington County actually got its money’s worth through the $6.96 million contract with Tyler Technologies.
He called the office of state Auditor General Eugene DePasquale about the possibility of auditing Tyler’s work. The auditor general’s office referred him to the office of County Controller Michael Namie, who has no record of Zanakis calling. The controller said it would be inappropriate to discuss the matter without first speaking to Zanakis.
Recorder of Deeds Debbie Bardella, who also oversees the Washington County Tax Revenue Department, said, “The controller would not audit (property) values,” but both were open to talking with Zanakis, who opined he’d prefer to see Pennsylvania collect revenue based on people’s ability to pay rather than on property tax.
Tyler Technologies considers the software it used to determine property assessments to be proprietary, so its formula was not included in the copy of the county’s contract with Tyler obtained through the Observer-Reporter’s request under the state Right-To-Know Law. County Chief Assessor Bradley Boni said, however, that included in Tyler’s analyses are sales data from comparable properties in and around a community.
Zanakis discussed his views with Boni, who said Thursday, “This is not a philosophical office. We don’t have that latitude. We’re doing things in accordance with the law. If it deals with philosophical or legislative questions, I can’t answer them.”
Home prices have gone up in the 39 years since a deed changed hands at the Zanakis home, so assessors “look at similar real estate that has sold and use their assessments as a barometer or comparison to his,” Boni said.
County Commission Chairman Larry Maggi said he and fellow board members, until running out of legal options to avoid a property reassessment demanded by the McGuffey and Washington school districts, were hoping for relief from the state Legislature that never arrived.
Meanwhile, in Blair County, a group of 100 plaintiffs calling itself Blair County Citizens for Accurate Reassessment has retained an attorney, Robert Donaldson, to litigate its complaint against the county. The group went to court in Hollidaysburg to seek an injunction to vacate the certification of the assessment by Evaluator Services and Technology Inc. of Greensburg, Westmoreland County. EST submitted a proposal to perform Washington County’s most recent reassessment, but the Washington County commissioners chose Tyler Technologies.
In a separate complaint, the Altoona-area group asked the court to void parts of state reassessment law, claiming they are unconstitutionally vague.
The Washington County prothonotary’s office logged 1,089 property appeals as of the close of 2016, and additional appeals have been filed since the first of the year. “Every case has been assigned,” said Patrick Grimm, Washington County court administrator.
Conciliation is an initial step taking place with one of the seven appointed “masters” who will attempt to negotiate a settlement between property owners and the taxing entity or entities. A judge would then issue an order. Only hearings before a judge will be open to the general public.
The first day for litigants to appear will be Thursday, Feb. 23. Grimm said all parties will be asked to report to the information desk in the Family Court Center for assignment to a hearing room or courtroom.
The county did not differentiate among commercial, business and industrial property assessment appeals, combining them for a total of 521 cases. The remainder – 568 – are residential property appeals.
“It was almost 50-50, really,” Grimm said.
Counties and municipalities operate on a calendar year, sending their tax bills before those generated by school districts, whose first tax bills since the reassessment will sent out this summer.
School districts have higher property tax bills than either the county or a municipality, so the arrival of school district tax bills are expected to produce another round of property assessment appeals. With this calendar in mind, the court hopes to dispose of the majority of cases within six months.
“We want to get as many out of the way as we can before July 1, 2017, to reduce the level of uncertainty for everyone involved,” Grimm said. “We think there may be some rebound once the school tax bills go out. We would like to give the property owner certainty in an expedited fashion and provide budgetary certainty to the taxing body, as well.”
Trinity Area School District had the largest number of appeals, followed by Canon-McMillan, Peters Township and, because of coal assessments, McGuffey. Grimm said after that come the Washington and Ringgold school districts. Washington County has 15 school districts, including Fayette County’s Brownsville Area, which includes West Brownsville Borough. Grimm said he didn’t think any of the appeals filed so far came from West Brownsville.