YORK (York Co.) Dairy fanner Doug Kilgore got a nasty shock last summer when he opened a notice of reassessment on his southern York County farm. “Our taxes had more than doubled,” he says. “Also, the ini tial notice did not include all the required information. It had only the total market value, which is actually the reassessed Clean and Green value. That’s one of our beefs about thp whole issue.” “And the wording on how to ap peal was very confusing. The no tice was misleading,” adds Kil gore, whose children comprise the fourth generation on the family dairy operation. The extended Kil gore family farms upwards of 800 acres on the western bluffs of the Susquehanna River, near Holt wood Dam. But the Kilgores weren’t the only York County landowners to receive such a jolt following the reassessment of property values conducted prior to the sending of new valuation notices for real es tate taxing purposes. Thousands of other York County rural land owners, with much of their acre age signed up in the Clean and Green tax reduction program to keeping the land undeveloped, un derwent the same sort of property valuation “sticker shock” on open ing their reassessment notices. Kilgore and about a half-dozen other leaders of the county’s Farm Bureau decided to protest the reas sessment They met together, then approached the York County com missioners with their concerns. Though their initial meeting with commissioner Robert Minnich, the only one of the three-member board able to attend that gathering, was congenial, it was several weeks before they received a re sponse. It was not one they were pleased with. The response was that the assessment and valuations would stand. “No one was going to give on anything. That was hard for us to swallow after offering what we believed was a very rational plea to re-evaluate how this had been done,” Kilgore says. Thus, the Fair Reassessment of York County (FRYC) committee was formed as part of the York York County Farmers Appeal Tax Assessment County Farm Bureau. The com mittee has filed a class action ap peal to the county’s Assessment Board on behalf of property own ers with 10 or more acres in the Clean and Green program. A January 27 letter from the FRYC went out to more than York County 9,000 property owners, explaining its positions and detail ing several problems it sees with the reassessment. The group has also hired a law firm with a suc cessful track record on doing bat tle with a similar reassessment problem in the neighboring Lan caster County, a few years ago. Should its appeal to the Assess ment Board not be successful, le gal action is a likely option. According to the FRYC’s letter, the following seven issues erf the reassessment are the base of the dispute: “—Clean and Green rates to the Agricultural-Use portion of the assessment are nearly twice as high as they should be. This is true to tillable, pasture and woodland acres. “—The Clean and Green rates currently used by the county are flat rates applied to all acres throughout the county without re gard to soil productivity. The law requires the Clean and Green val ue on each property be based upon the soil productivity as established by the USDA soil survey, 44 '—The new homes ite acre val ue is based upon the value of a one-acre building lot This results in an extremely high fust acre val ue and may not even be permitted under Pennsylvania law. “ —Building values are too high. County officials believe that the replacement cost of buildings is the same as market value. This results in excessive values on buildings, 44 I—The 1 —The notice of Change of As sessment is defective. The notice did not notify the property owner of the old or new Fair Market Val ue as required by law. The total value printed was, in fact, the Clean and Green value, but was labeled Fair Market Value. “ —lf you file an appeal with the Board of Assessment appeals in York County, it is impossible to receive an impartial, non-biased decision from the Board. The Board of Assessment Appeals has openly documented that it set the new Clean and Green Values and will not, under any circumstances, change items. “ —County officials failed to complete the reassessment ac cording to state-mandated dead lines. It is required by law that all appeal hearings be heard by Octo ber 13, otherwise the reassessment can be ruled invalid. The reason for this is so the new tax base can be certified by November IS, and municipalities can set their tax miliages accurately and on time. It appears that as of this time, there are thousands of hearings not yet heard.” As part of their appeal to York County’s rural taxpayers, the FRYC included a questionnaire which property owners are asked to complete and return for the committee’s use in compiling information and illustrations of in equitable reassessments. The committee is further enlisting fin ancial assistance from affected property owners to pursue a class action lawsuit Suggested contri bution is $4O, plus SO-cents per acre owned. The fund is being ad ministered by York County Farm Bureau’s bonded treasurer, Ailean Detter, Dover. According to A 1 Raniero, acting director of York County’s Assess ment Board, the last prior assess ment in the county was done in the late 1980 s and based on 100 per cent of 1987 market values. Base for the new assessment valuations, which took effect January 1 and were sent to owners July 1997, are Paul B. 2PTIOOO • Attaches to lower 3 pt arms only • Safety chains prevent flip around • 1000 lb capacity Feed Big Round & Regular Bales Call oi wiite lor additional information & the name of your nearest dcalei 100 percent of 1996 market val ues. County tax millage, previous ly at 3.6 mills, has been reduced to 2.52 mills as of January. Farmers are not the only prop erty owners unhappy and filling an appeal, according to Raniero. A condominium complex has taken similar action. Overall, Raniero, says the percentage of appeals over the assessment valuations was quite low. But, it was farmers who saw the largest increase in their assess ments. Average increase across the entire county was 43 percent Farm values, however, increased an average of 76 percent, or nearly twice the county average. Some landowners have seen their as sessed valuations increase by 300 percent. While a consultiong firm was hired for the property appraising process, it was county Assessment Board staffers who did the actual legwork out in the field, says Raniero. Each farm was visited, some twice. Photos were taken and volumes of data gathered. Values for various land uses were based on an average of the Penn sylvania Department of Agricul ture’s valuation of various soils classification. Tillage acres were valued at $625 per acre, pasture at $550, woodland at $415 and wastelands/wetlands at $2OO. One of the farmers’ protests to that methodology of valuation is that soils have a wide range of types and productivity across the county. They are also irked that valuations are also higher than SGDGDQCTGDgICD Heavy Duty Bale Movers Finished with Baked on TGIC Polyester Powder Coating With Kverneland Forged Steel Spears • Electrically Heat Treated These spears are stronger & allow easier bale penetration or Stacks Paul B. Zimmerman, Inc. 295 Woodcorner Rd. • Lititz, PA 17543 717/738-7365 1 mile West of Ephrata it hitch or loader I or 2 cylinders inge from 1 to 2 spears tacity 3PT1252 • Easy to change from 1 spear to 2 • 1250 lb capacity • 1 7/8” CRS-C1144 steel spear U \i PLF 4000 m » • Front end loader fork j | • Includes chain & binders * 1 ' b ca P acit y those for similar soil types in sur rounding counties. Homesite valuation is another contended issue. Ranicro explains that house sites were previously valued at $9500 per acre. Now. the values are based on the neighbor hood values of homesite land, with a 25 percent discounting done across the board on all farm homesite valuations. Still, de pending on the area in which the farm is located, some homesite portions may range as high as $30,000 per acre; average is in the low $20,000-plus range. Clean and Green valuation does not ap ply to the homesite portion of a farm property. However, there is no homesite valuation on parcels not including a house. Prior assessments, ac cording to Raniero, did include a homesite value. “Some homes were previously very low in market value.” he notes. “But the bulk of the far mers’ protest is that the S62S till able-acre-value is too high." County commissioner Chris Reilly says the Board of Com missioners is “very sympathetic to the concerns expressed by the farmers.” “Each of the three of us has at tempted to intercede with the As sessment Board,” Reilly says of the board, which includes fellow commissioners Robert Minnich and Shirley Glass. “Our requests that the board review the assess ments as to changes to valuations were declined.” (Turn to Pago ASS) SSL 2500 • Great for front loaders • Mounts in rflmutes •15001 b capacity Hours Mon - Fn 7-5 Sat 7-11 it hitch lange jar to 2 :apacity
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers