Property Taxes in Pittsburgh

[BrianTH]

Currently Allegheny County is on a 2002 base year system, so the assessed value could be above or below current market value depending on what has happened in the relevant area since 2002. As noted above, a new assessment has been court-ordered--but because of PA's anti-windfall law, that may trigger an adjustment to tax rates as well (the law basically mandates that an assessment not increase total revenues unless the jurisdiction adopts a specific measure to do so).

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Currently Allegheny County is on a 2002 base year system, so the assessed value could be above or below current market value depending on what has happened in the relevant area since 2002. As noted above, a new assessment has been court-ordered--but because of PA's anti-windfall law, that may trigger an adjustment to tax rates as well (the law basically mandates that an assessment not increase total revenues unless the jurisdiction adopts a specific measure to do so).

I'm familiar with the revenue neutral (don't know if you're familiar with Philly's property taxes but there hasn't been a coutywide reassessment in my lifetime, property values are usually far below market but rates are much higher, assessments can vary from house to house pretty dramatically)...the collar counties are more consistent. It seems the millage is 10.82 for the city and 13.92 for the schools, is that correct? If I understand it correctly, if I purchase a house for $200k, the tax is $4948?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

It seems the millage is 10.82 for the city and 13.92 for the schools, is that correct? If I understand it correctly, if I purchase a house for $200k, the tax is $4948?

First, don't forget the 4.69 mills for the County.

Second--right now the purchase price is more or less irrelevant. You would need to know the 2002 base year assessment, which the sellers should provide to you, but you can also look up on the Allegheny County Assessment page.

Down the road, you will likely get an assessment closer to what you are actually paying, but the tax rate could also be different. Of course if you are paying a lot more now than it was assessed for in 2002, your taxes will likely go up regardless. But they may not go up quite as much as simply applying the current tax rates would imply.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

First, don't forget the 4.69 mills for the County.

Second--right now the purchase price is more or less irrelevant. You would need to know the 2002 base year assessment, which the sellers should provide to you, but you can also look up on the Allegheny County Assessment page.

Down the road, you will likely get an assessment closer to what you are actually paying, but the tax rate could also be different. Of course if you are paying a lot more now than it was assessed for in 2002, your taxes will likely go up regardless. But they may not go up quite as much as simply applying the current tax rates would imply.

thanks. pittsburgh's system is only marginally less f'ed up than Philly's (and I hear most of PA isn't any better). so 10.82+13.92+4.69? wow.

In retrospect, 2002 was probably a good year to pick. Onorato claims that revaluing would put the county at a competitive disadvantage to other counties who do not. IF that reassessment is revenue neutral, what logic is there to his statement or is he assuming it's not revenue neutral?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

In retrospect, 2002 was probably a good year to pick. Onorato claims that revaluing would put the county at a competitive disadvantage to other counties who do not. IF that reassessment is revenue neutral, what logic is there to his statement or is he assuming it's not revenue neutral?

There is no logic to it, aside from the political. People whose property taxes go up are going to become angry single-issue voters, whereas people whose property taxes go down will be somewhat pleased, but they will not become happy single-issue voters. So even a revenue-neutral redistribution of the property tax burden is a net loser politically for any relevant incumbents.

[scrapp]

Originally Posted by pman

thanks. pittsburgh's system is only marginally less f'ed up than Philly's (and I hear most of PA isn't any better). so 10.82+13.92+4.69? wow.

In retrospect, 2002 was probably a good year to pick. Onorato claims that revaluing would put the county at a competitive disadvantage to other counties who do not. IF that reassessment is revenue neutral, what logic is there to his statement or is he assuming it's not revenue neutral?

keep in mind that the 2002 base year was not his first plan. Instead, he tried the 1%/2%/3%/4% cap with the number from the 2005 assessment (which never ended up being used). When Judge Wettick threw that out, he then tried this "trending" plan for a while (he even put the numbers for trending on the county web site for a while). He then dropped the "trending" plan before it got to the courts and went with the 2002 base year, leaving all the post 2002 reassessment appeals in place (meaning that if you had a recent sale, got appealed by a taxing body, and lost then you kept the higher assessment and Onorato's advice was to appeal again based on 2002 base year... this led to a large number of appeals and cases being forwarded to the Board of Viewer with mixed results for homeowners and taxing bodies).

I believe Onorato has repeatedly stated to the media that he does not believe that a reassessment will be revenue neutral because the taxing bodies will ignore state law and take a windfall.

[pman]

I'd say citizens in Philly largely agree with onorato, no one trusts the city NOT to raise taxes. everyone feels that "somehow we're going to get screwed" cuz, you know, that's the way it works. I'd be fine with a tax that increases at the rate of the PPI (rather than a fixed percentage). that way, citizens do not get screwed by the city's inability to contain costs but the city, in turn, isn't hamstrung by federal monetary management. it would lead to a situation where long timers had lower taxes than newcomers but no system is perfect and I think it's a nice balance between stability and risk.

this ws about abatements highlights a huge problem IMO:
it states that a $350k condo would be taxed an enormous sum of $8,823 a year without the abatement, and a more reasonable sum of $2623 with the abatement

[BrianTH]

Personally, I'd prefer a property tax with very regular assessments and few exceptions, but for a lot less revenue to come from this source such that the rate could be pretty low. In other words, I think the real problem is how much we rely on property taxes, not the basic idea of a property tax closely tied to present values.

[rhondee]

For me the issue is not the county or local real estate tax-it's the school tax. My $75k assessed home , I pay approx $450. in local tax , $250. in county tax but my school tax is $1,600.

Prock you may want to keep in mind the quality of the schools,too. I don't know if that pertains to your situation but I heard complaints about some ( not all) public schools in Denver not being that great, whereas here some districts are ranked very high but yeah, you're going to pay the high school tax for that quality.
But if you don't have to think about public schools then it's a no -brainer to move to Denver.