The so-called "windfall" protection for homeowners? Is it real or not? (for sale, homes)

[gg]

Originally Posted by squarian

I also live in Regent Square and I am also going to get hammered. I'm operating on the assumption that I will not be able to afford our house next year and will have to move - probably back to my home state, since if I'm going to shoulder the burden of moving house, I might as well move closer to my family. It's a nice house and I've enjoyed living in it, but what will really be difficult is my daughter's associations with it - since my wife died, my daughter has come to feel the house gives her a connection to her mother, who certainly left her mark on the house in the form of the interior decoration and a garden and brick patio she created. I'm afraid leaving here will be a kind of "second death in the family" for her. But one mustn't stand in the way of the free operation of market forces, whatever the human cost.

This is a pretty sad story and the reassessment is going to really add to your stress. My heart goes out to you and yours. Hope the move works out well.

I will also probably move in a few years. I would love to stay, but I can't pay $10K a year in taxes. I don't have that kind of income and even if I did, I wouldn't do it. That is too many hundred dollar bills being thrown into the fireplace for my liking. I think I will head east into Westmoreland County. Closer to skiing and probably a good fit. A log cabin perhaps or a little A-Frame?

[gg]

Originally Posted by squarian

One corner of Regent Square (which is an unofficial neighborhood) is in Wilkinsburg (which is a very official municipality with its very own very expensive and very dysfunctional school district).

We both live there.

For now.

Maybe Fitzgerald will put a stop to this madness before it gets to the burbs and the city will just get smacked.

[robrobrob]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

This is a pretty sad story and the reassessment is going to really add to your stress. My heart goes out to you and yours. Hope the move works out well.

I will also probably move in a few years. I would love to stay, but I can't pay $10K a year in taxes. I don't have that kind of income and even if I did, I wouldn't do it. That is too many hundred dollar bills being thrown into the fireplace for my liking. I think I will head east into Westmoreland County. Closer to skiing and probably a good fit. A log cabin perhaps or a little A-Frame?

There is no way you are going to be paying 10,000 in taxes. No way. You bought your house recently and therefore your assessment should be quite accurate. I bet your taxes go down.

[gg]

Originally Posted by robrobrob

There is no way you are going to be paying 10,000 in taxes. No way. You bought your house recently and therefore your assessment should be quite accurate. I bet your taxes go down.

I bought my home 4 years or so ago. The appraisers obviously didn't look at sales or anything if you look at the examples given by UK. They must just drive by and slap a number on each home. My home looks expensive. It sits on the lot in a way it looks very big. It is actually quite small inside. I am going to get crushed with a drive by'er.

[robrobrob]

One can only hope that assessments takes into consideration sales prices. We bought our home in 2008. I am hoping that our sales price helps keep down our assessment.

I have relatives in the city and each of their houses are still underassesed by about 25%.

The South Side is still going to be the most underassesed in the city. No way any house in the Flats should be assessed under 200,000.

There should be a "rat" on your neighbor line to allow you to point out houses that are drastically underassessed.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by robrobrob

There should be a "rat" on your neighbor line

PA doesn't need informers, it needs leaders. A wholesale reform of school district finance, shifting rate-setting from PA's tiny districts to the IUs or counties as a whole and transferring payments on a per capita basis, would provide the equity and predictability in property taxes which PA signally lacks. Marry the larger pools to the accountability provisions already in Act 1, and require regular, predictable state-wide FMV reassessment every three or five years to keep it fair.

[Scott2187]

I'm no mathemetician (or speeling bee winner), but let me see if I have this right based on an example of a house:

2011 Assessment: $83,000

2011 Taxes:
County millage rate: 4.69 = $389.27
City of Pitts millage rate: 10.8 = $896.40
Pittsburgh SD millage rate: 13.92 = $1155.36

Total 2011 taxes: $2441.03.

2012 Assessment: $129,000

2012 Taxes (based on same city and SD millage as 2011):
County millage rate: 5.69 = $734.01 (county already changed for 2012)
City of Pitts millage rate: 10.8 = $1393.20
Pittsburgh SD millage rate: 13.92 = $1795.68

Total 2012 taxes: $3922.89

Now, if I've read everything right, the 'windfall protection' says that the SD and city can't gain more than 5% added revenue from the reassessment. Here's what that means to me:

Based on 2011 figure, the city can only gain $44.82 (896.40*.05) and the SD can only gain $57.77 (1155.36*.05). This would equate to 2012 tax figures of:

$941.22 to the city and $1213.13 to the SD. I'm assuming the county still gives a bit in the rear and charges the full $734.01 for 2012, giving a total tax for 2012 as $2888.36.

This 5% increase in income limit would equate to the city dropping their millage rate to 7.3, and the SD dropping theirs to 9.4 (millages are calculated using new assessment value and 5% increase of 2011 numbers, or: 941.22/129000 for city and 1213.13/129000 for SD).

I'm trying to understand this whole thing (and avoiding doing actual work for the remainder of 2011). Does any of this make sense, or am I waaayyyy off base?

[gg]

Originally Posted by Scott2187

I'm trying to understand this whole thing (and avoiding doing actual work for the remainder of 2011). Does any of this make sense, or am I waaayyyy off base?

Your thought look pretty good, if all works out. I feel this whole thing is a crap shoot though. I don't feel you can generalize at all. Each home will get hit with something, but who knows what? UK posted an area that looks like it made no sense at all. How did they come up with those assessments?

This is a very scary time for many. The stress level is mind blowing and as I stated before the emergency rooms are no doubt filled. I hope there will be no one having heart attacks when they open the letter, but there will no doubt be some deaths from that shock.

Hope all is well out there. Just be prepared to move if needed. That is all anyone can do.

[stburr91]

Originally Posted by squarian

I also live in Regent Square and I am also going to get hammered. I'm operating on the assumption that I will not be able to afford our house next year and will have to move - probably back to my home state, since if I'm going to shoulder the burden of moving house, I might as well move closer to my family. It's a nice house and I've enjoyed living in it, but what will really be difficult is my daughter's associations with it - since my wife died, my daughter has come to feel the house gives her a connection to her mother, who certainly left her mark on the house in the form of the interior decoration and a garden and brick patio she created. I'm afraid leaving here will be a kind of "second death in the family" for her. But one mustn't stand in the way of the free operation of market forces, whatever the human cost.

There are many that have been very happy with all the recent "progress" in Regent Square, unfortunately, progress always comes at a price. This kind of rapid increase in demand, leads to people being taxed out of their homes, homes and neighborhoods that people have a real connection to.

I wish you luck squarian.

[caroline2]

Originally Posted by Scott2187

I'm no mathemetician (or speeling bee winner), but let me see if I have this right based on an example of a house:

2011 Assessment: $83,000

2011 Taxes:
County millage rate: 4.69 = $389.27
City of Pitts millage rate: 10.8 = $896.40
Pittsburgh SD millage rate: 13.92 = $1155.36

Total 2011 taxes: $2441.03.

2012 Assessment: $129,000

2012 Taxes (based on same city and SD millage as 2011):
County millage rate: 5.69 = $734.01 (county already changed for 2012)
City of Pitts millage rate: 10.8 = $1393.20
Pittsburgh SD millage rate: 13.92 = $1795.68

Total 2012 taxes: $3922.89

Now, if I've read everything right, the 'windfall protection' says that the SD and city can't gain more than 5% added revenue from the reassessment. Here's what that means to me:

Based on 2011 figure, the city can only gain $44.82 (896.40*.05) and the SD can only gain $57.77 (1155.36*.05). This would equate to 2012 tax figures of:

$941.22 to the city and $1213.13 to the SD. I'm assuming the county still gives a bit in the rear and charges the full $734.01 for 2012, giving a total tax for 2012 as $2888.36.

This 5% increase in income limit would equate to the city dropping their millage rate to 7.3, and the SD dropping theirs to 9.4 (millages are calculated using new assessment value and 5% increase of 2011 numbers, or: 941.22/129000 for city and 1213.13/129000 for SD).

I'm trying to understand this whole thing (and avoiding doing actual work for the remainder of 2011). Does any of this make sense, or am I waaayyyy off base?

I think you're way off base in that the 5% limit does not apply to individual houses, just municipalities. So if you live in a neighborhood that has flourished while others in your municipality have not, they won't necessarily lower the millage rate at all and you could pay the full $3900.

In fact, technically I think a municipality could increase rates so long as they don't net more than 5%.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong.