Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-2852 FX RITE AID REALTY CORPORATION, Appellant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF : NO. t.'J 1- .J ~ '<":l". c.vu.. 1~ ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee PETITION ON APPEAL FROM ASSESSED VALUATION OF REAL PROPERTY Appellant, Rite Aid Realty Corporation, pursuant to the provisions of 72 Pa. C.S.A. Section 5020-518.1, hereby appeals from the decision of the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals, docketed to Property No. 09-19-1590-132 mailed April 12, 2001, with regard to the property known as the Rite Aid Corporate Headquarters and located at 30 Hunter Lane and located in East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania and, in support of such appeal, avers as follows: 1. Appellant is Rite Aid Realty Corporation, a Delaware business corporation, having a usual place of business within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA. 2. Appellee is the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals, having its offices at One Courthouse Square, Carlisle, PA 17013. 3. Appellant is the owner of a certain tract or parcel of improved real property commonly known as the Rite Aid Corporate Headquarters and situate at 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011and bearing Tax Map Identification No.: 09-19-1590-132. 4. Appellants had filed a timely appeal with the Board of Assessment with respect to an interim assessed valuation of the subject property of$15,095,940.00. 1"ffiffi'"., <"- .".', '-'f 1-< -j , " I '1 - -,l1lI'-"_~ _ 5. On or about September 5, 2000, the County Assessment Office, upon further review, established an assessed value at $12,999,840.00. 6. A hearing of the Board of Assessment was held on or about April 3, 2001. 7. By notice mailed April 12, 2001, the Board of Assessment fixed the assessment of the subject property at a total assessed value of$12,999,840.00, a figure intended to be 100% of the indicated fair market value of the property. A true and correct copy ofthe Board's notice of its determination is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A". 8. The decision of the Board of Assessment was in error and/or was an abuse of discretion for the following reasons: (a) The Board failed to properly and lawfully value the property either as a multi-tenant office complex or as a single-user office complex including "Class B" office space and common area/amenities; (b) The Board of Assessment failed to properly and lawfully apply a reduced per square footage valuation for common areas within the office building space; (c) The assessment was based upon an erroneous determination of the fair market value of Appellant's property; (d) The Board failed to properly take into account the uniqueness and specific use for which the property has been constructed, designed and used as Appellant's single- user headquarters and amenities and to take into account the lack of similar prospective purchasers in the marketplace for such properties; (e) By failing to take into account the unique quality of the building, the difficulties likely to be encountered at a time of any prospective sale or transfer, costs associated with ownership during transfer, costs of modification and alteration of the 2 -'- Ii 1'"''='' ,-" . I ,1 - r ".~~_' ,~ _H~ _ property associated with sale, etc., the assessment of the property of the Appellant is arbitrary and capricious; (f) The assessment of Appellant's property as a multi-user/tenant-occupied office space fails to take into account the normal, reasonable and anticipated costs of improvements, alterations and conversion and other costs inherent in the conversion of a single-user facility to a multi-tenant office space and otherwise fails to properly value Appellant's property. (g) The assessment lacks uniformity, is discriminatory and is otherwise unjust, inequitable, improper and inaccurate. 9. Appellant is aggrieved by the action of the Board of Assessment. WHEREFORE, Appellant prays your Honorable Court to hear and determine this appeal and to make such changes in the aforesaid assessment as may be right and proper based upon all ofthe evidence presented. Respectfully submitted, Date sIr! /0/ By Attorneys for Appellant 3 ,~w O','~-'~_' _".,,_~_ I"T I or ~ I ~~~-_'I' Cumberland County aoardof Msessmont Appeals Old CourthOUlIl, One CowthOl.lE,e squllIrB Carlisle. PA 1;'013 (717) 2'\0.5350 (7 '17) 240>63504 (fllx) "'_M~' . .__...._...h_. '.. _..... -,....___..._..........M.. . Sum ot .......m..., A"lJe.ls LICfYd 'h. BLleUlu lit ':rol1 H.'.I'IJl~"1 $.,P~ rtlJQnAA "'''NIW ... w",OQO"'11l Chi.' A......., STIilVIlN p, TII.Po'" A..I.t.", Sp/trt".' r--' -- -" . DECiiiO"NoR"i?E.R-.". .. I . ...___.__.____..., .... . .__I.OR _.. .,. -J MAlI.INO DATil!: April 12. 2001 PAIIICllI" HUM.IIII: QO.1g'1b90-132, RITE AID RF;AL.T'f CORPORATION PO Sox a1Ga HARR.IilSLJI-lG P/\ Hl06 Dear I'roperty O"4m!f. This I.U.. 19 In o",eIIlHy nallty you u11I1111 r)llt:lIlID" 0111\11 c.:Umpsllanll Cuunty Boarel <>, AII.essmenl APPlilllll>> ,..o..ral..g fhe lIbJ:l'IQ-relerlll1t:ua i:lllrCIlI DATa OF APPEAJ. HEAR~G: 041C1$/2Cll11 OATI PI!l~1810N "ElNDIli:RED, 04109/200 I !F"I!C:TIVE PO" TAX VEAR: 2001 DECISION RENDS RED: [J Withdrawn fly AppllclIlnl ( l Abl'lrtlloned "(,If Failure T(,I Appaar IXl Denied. No Cllan(Jll [ ] Appro\f61U R.vlew App,,,I_.r'B ChlllnllflB I] R..vl,~d Aalnwll1111ll EllIstild on Hllsrlng 11 Olho,. TOTAL VALUe; fAlft MARKET CLI!AN AND OREE.... .. u_.. _...__..____ , ~......-.. -..... .. ~~ Old AueBBed Valu.... 12,999.1140 NOT New A~",....$<td V<~u..: 12,I;lQIil,I34C APPLICABLE --- .----. ..--- -_.... .-.......- CLEAN AND Gillet.... STATU' .~ Any plll,acn allllflg,lIed by Ihe order of Ill" Boord ur Aoalilssmol,1 rnflY o"....lIllp ltlll elllolrl of Common Pleas by filing. p"IIlIo" in th.. P'l.Ilhonolltry'lI oHice on or b..rorfl Milly 12.2001. Eyhib;-t A I( , ,-'!_~........ ~" I' , " 05/09/01 WED 08:20 FAX 141007 VERIFICATION I verify that the state1lnents made in the attached pleading are true and correct, partially upon personal knowledge and part~al1y upon my belief; to the extent language in the attached pleading is that of my attorneys, I have telied upon my attomeys in making this Verification. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unswom falsification to auiliorities. Date /VlMj to) ~ I ~~ V/Al-DI M f t2-- j:? I'M c.e:1It C- Vlc.E"~/~T -'TIfX "fAil,,! ," ,._ _ "!',<.....~_!__~,c.,,-'_i , " I' ,T , - ,~. ., , "j CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I today served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition, by placing the same in the u.s. mail, postage prepaid, addressed to: CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire FREY & TILEY 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3385 Date 41r/(J?/ , ':"!'! ,-~ I-j-: - ! r ~- '1' , "~ I" ~~ _r,'I- ~ rt ,Iv " ~ " '" 4i -1 """ ~~.'''7'r IT _ ~f'~~TPI ~O, ~ " - . . . 'T,".,..".m,"~.n... "'~".~'."'~iii"~""""lIiffilllln1ilI!liJl'''1i''r'llf_rlIU1T "'1trl!li' () s:: 'l1t5 d?; [/1 !3-f~ ,-...:0 ~"-':- .....-t--'- ~-,.., ;?c') :b:::C;! s;:- :oj c::) --- ," ~) :Z:: ., . -~.t '-~ --- -. "-' ' ,'2tr, '-'-'e, ..J I >-'f;' ~~ ~ --- -n, '. .,,' ::~.;rf~f -)::.1 '.::;:.:;' ~ " -- (..I'; ~ it '1\ ,~ .(:. .r,; f<-. ~, ~ t1 ~ ~ ~ 'f"l'1~~~~~i~ijll:t!lfllll~~'\\it?'iW'lP>~;:;tl;<~,~",~,,,,,;\""!";'-i'.'it"F,'F~ii;<""',i'f"f<l_"'-';l.'_"""~",,,,",;>\,,,,;~,,j!l'%,,,."'~_"Fl"'''!"''?>'~'~"f~~fi!l~~1l,~. _."4,,.,1 6uj , ~AY 14 2D0JfP r ~ RITE AID REALTY CORPORATION, Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee NO. 0/- :lIr5:L~ -rv- ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this [6 t~ day of r'v1? 1 , 2001, it is hereby ORDERED that a hearing be held on the appeal filed in the above matter l>....-.,.,__,.},_ ~~...". '~"'IA_~""" ~-1a on the /3i;i., day of ~ ,2001 at C;!30 o'clock <t--.m. in Courtroom No. I of the Cumberland County Courthouse, One Courthouse Square, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. BY THE COURT, 1i/L:7 J. C\'()\ rP-~ 'Ffl'I1~_ , ,-~ I "j- -j "f/''',l' - ~~" .".., ~ r~ ~...,.,....,. I' - ~ - ,=q \iiN\fi\lA8NN3d AlNnOC! 0"'nq::nil~ro ~r' 0' IJ'~ t":..:. ) ,,;,,1 ~ ".. . I ! "ll j n L 1-.~~li 1 U Atfv:L(";-i< ~ - ..~.. -. .,.. ,., '.f~~'" "'''-''",,01''''-0 C~-"~-'YJl[-r(ri~Y",i~~~~liJj~-'"'~~(~-^1ii1~j?'$1 ~'1':""'1TJ @t1fmi;~~ ~~~~''''''''''illI'U'#~~~_~.,~ _.J[iI1Qol~~j~"""'W'''''j~'~'''''-'~P'l'~''''r-''"-';-'''itG<~f''',''~~-''"''~~<'J;",!i1~~ffi1~",t8M!iffijj~li'il'!~~~~iI,~~ ,~,l__,~___"i ~' ~-- , RITE AID REALTY CORPORATION, Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee NO. 2001-2852 CIVIL TERM ANSWER TO PETITION ON APPEAL FROM THE ASSESSMENT VALUATION OF REAL PROPERTY AND NOW comes the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals, in the County of Cumberland, by its Assistant County Solicitor, Stephen D, Tiley, Esquire, and file through this Answer to the Petition Appeal from the Assessment Evaluation of Real Property of which the following is a statement: 1. Admitted 2, Admitted 3. Admitted 4, Admitted 5. Admitted. By way of further Answer, the County's outside contractor for the Countywide reassessment revised the assessment as a result of an appeal by the taxpayer and an informal hearing by that contractor. 6. Admitted 7. Admitted Answer to Petition on Appeal from the Assessment Valuation of Real Property Page 1 )1 < ^~, "-- 8. Denied. The averments of this paragraph and of its sublettered paragraphs set forth conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof at trial is demanded. By way of further Answer the Cumberland County Board of Assessment feels for its following: (a) The Board did take into consideration the value of the property either as a multi tenant office complex or as a single user office complex and the quality and condition of the office space and its common area and amenities. (b) The Board of Assessment Appeals did take into consideration the entire value of the building and took into consideration the valuation of the common areas. (c) The fair market value of Apellant's property is at least $12,999,840,00 as indicated by the Board and in fact, may be in excess of that. (d) The Board did hear evidence from the taxpayer, and took into consideration, all the factors averred in this sub-paragraph, including the alleged uniqueness and specific use for which the property was constructed. (e) The Board did hear evidence from the taxpayer and did take into consideration all of the factors concerning this real estate averred in this sub lettered paragraph, (f) The Board did hear evidence from the taxpayer and did consider both a single user and a multi-tenant user as a potential purchaser for this property and heard evidence from the taxpayer and considered the possible cost of conversion into a multiple user property, (g) The $12,999,840,00 value of the property found by the Board, is the minimum value which could be reasonably attributed to this property and in fact the value may be substantially in excess of that. Answer to Petition on Appeal from the Assessment Valuation of Real Property Page 2 ';;;J.,., - . ,~ " - ~ -- " -"- "----_.?'- < . - ~~~ ,~'~.~. LJ 9. Denied. Except that it is admitted that Appellant has the right to appeal to the Court for a hearing de novo. WHEREFORE the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals, prays your Honorable Court to determine the fair market value of the Appellant's property to be in such amount in excess of $12,999,840.00 as, to the Court, may seem just and proper. Dated: 101' Respectfully submitted, BY~ .()<- ~~ tephen D. Tiley, Esquire Attorney for Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals and Cumberland County 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 2430-5838 Supreme Court I.D.#32318 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to Petition on Appeal from Assessment Valuation of Real Property are true and correct, partially upon personal knowledge and partially upon my belief; to the extent language in the Answer to Petition on Appeal from Assessment Valuation of Real Property is that of my attorneys, I have relied upon my attorneys in making this Verification. I understand that false statements herein are made and subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 94904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: flt/al /7 I~ A j )~ Randy ~agg'er, Chief Assessor Answer to Petition on Appeal from the Assessment Valuation of Real Property Page 3 .~ <_, ., . . ~'OT_ " ~~.~ , , . "" ',mw ~ ",. RITE AID REALTY CORPORATION, Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee NO. 2001-2852 CIVIL TERM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer to Petition on Appeal from Assessment Valuation of Real Property by placing a certified true and correct copy of the same in the United States mail, postage pre-paid, addressed to: MARTSOLF & BRATTON F. R. Martsolf, Esquire 2515 N. Front Street P.O. Box 12106 Date l-tf/~/ I I --,. ..... '8 ~/ ~ Ste hen D. iley, Esquire Assistant Cumbo Co. Solicitor 5 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5838 Attorney 1.0.#32318 '1D~n _~~ . , ~ ' RITE AID REALTY CORPORATION, Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee NO. 2001-2852 CIVIL TERM MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND NOW comes the Respondent/Appellee Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals, in the County of Cumberland, by its Assistant County Solicitor, Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire, and files this Motion for Continuance of which the following is a statement: 1. On or about May 11, 2001 Petitioner/Appellant, Rite Aid Realty Corporation, filed a Petition on Appeal From Assessed Value of Real Property, 2. On May 16, 2001 the Court entered an Order setting a hearing date of August 13, 2001. 3. To date the applicable school district has not intervened in this matter but respondent anticipates that they will do so. 4. While at first intending to defend this case with the expert testimony of the assessment office and its reassessment contractor, Respondent now believes that the services of an independent appraiser will be necessary in order to provide an adequate case. 5. The applicable' school district desires to retain the services of an independent appraiser. Motion for Continuance Page 1 of 3 :,"~-VTJfIl_"~ " wo' ,~:' "_c'~<",_,.' ,"'"r "--, " , 6. The Chief Assessor for the County has announced his resignation effective in September of this year. Although technically after the scheduled hearing date, other demands on the Chief Assessor's time connected with his resignation and the transition to a new Chief Assessor make it impossible for him to adequately prepare for a hearing in this matter. 7. Stephen D. Tiley, counsel for the Respondent, has a scheduling conflict with the August 13, 2001 date although that conflict alone would not require a continuance for the length of time requested in this motion. 8. Respondent believes that a continuance of the hearing date of at least three (3) months will be required for it to retain and receive the services of an appraiser to adequately prepare for this Hearing. 9. The subject property is the corporate headquarters of the Petitioner and is a large and highly valuable office building for which every effort should be made to adequately prepare for the hearing. 10. Respondent has requested the concurrence of the Petitioner but due to unusual circumstances associated with the appointment of Bruce F. Bratton to the Court of Dauphin County, and the resulting and pending dissolution of the Petitioner's law firm, to wit: Martsolf & Bratton, the Petitioner does not concur in this request for a continuance. While Respondent is sympathetic to the difficulties this request presents to the Petitioner and its counsel, Respondent must proceed with this request as it is critical to the interests of the County and the taxpaying public. 11. While counsel for the Respondent promptly notified counsel for the applicable municipality and school district concerning the filing of this assessment appeal, due to the unusual nature of such taxing bodies, decisions for intervention can take weeks to be made, depending upon meeting schedules. WHEREFORE, Respondent prays Your Honorable Court for an order Motion for Continuance Page 2 of 3 ;m_, "0_ .. '-'"_p'~'__"'_~'_"'""_."_~,__. _,""", ""'"'''''~'_''__ __'"__,." ,-~ -,,, ">'-. -, , < ~ . ~" -- canceling the hearing scheduled for August 13, 2001 and fixing a new hearing on or after November 13, 2001. Respectfully submitted, Dated: (sj&/ --;)\7 ~ By St hen . Tiley, Esquire Attorney for Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals and Cumberland County 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 2430-5838 Supreme Court I.D.#32318 Motion for Continuance Page 3 of 3 :;::}~;~l! L. '>,m,_" ",-,_"'-"~'''_-fi,!''j,7'''" ,:",,;,;" .!. I":r-,-,-' .-,_. "1'"'-1"" 1-' - '!' RITE AID REALTY CORPORATION, Appellant v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2001-2852 CIVIL TERM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Continuance by placing a certified true and correct copy of the same in the United States mail, postage pre-paid, addressed to: MARTSOLF & BRATTON F. R. Martsolf, Esquire 2515 N. Front Street P.O. Box 12106 Date 7 ;j~~/ ! ";':1\ll1ll ',~,.l!.', ' .''7."c, ,., ,. "':_~'":~'~_~ 'c _ _ ,I,"" ~" I' ~A?~ Steph n D. Tiley, Esquire Assistant Cumbo Co. Solicitor 5 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5838 Attorney 1.0.#32318 "',< ~,,,",,"""~'~~ RITE AID REALTY CORPORATION, Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA , v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUMBERlAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee NO. 2001-2852 CIVIL TERM ORDER AND NOW, this '2..f{t day of July, 2001 it is hereby Ordered that the hearing previously sChedu~d for August 13, 2001 is continued until the p/~ day of ~.b71/ud ,2001, at 9:3tJ o'clock a...-.m. in Courtroom No. 1 of the Cumberland County Courthouse, One Courthousy Square, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. T(,., lS ~<Jf} t17V~ ~c. l~ 'D (" 2J7 tc.c! ~v.->~" v..f fo ">>) 7(j1'C-(.....V>1- J c:o.JU)'l.cJ , BY THE COURT, r~ '___! ',", -:~-, " L..._ r-'-- ~ 'Y)~ 71.< old ~ c- c' ..; - -', ",) \ ,,~' '-'\,,,~ - ,~_" s,_ . . "",_d _~~ . ."_ ,~. ~~~ RITE AID REALTY CORPORATION, Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUMBERLAND ASSESSMENT COUNTY BOARD APPEALS, Appellee NO. 2001-2852 CIVIL TERM OF APPELLANT'S ANSWER TO APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE Appellant Rite Aid Realty Corporation replies to Appellee's Motion for Continuance as follows: 1. Admitted. By way of further answer, however, Appellant submits that the county-wide reassessment process began more than two years ago, a review of preliminary valuations for the subject property by the Cumberland County Tax Assessment Office (which resulted in a small reduction in the proposed valuation from $15,095,940.00 to $12,999,840.00) occurred in August of 2000, and the Appellant's appeal from that review and recommendation has been pending before the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals since last September, until a hearing before the Board was held on April 3, 2001. The decision of the Board rejecting the Appellant's request to lower the valuation was then mailed to all parties on or about April 12, 2001. In other words, the question of the proper JUL 2 o 2001 . 1-"1- 1 1'-'" I ., ~< .~~-- I valuation of the Appellant's property has been the subj ect of discussion and litigation for more than one year. 2. Admitted. 3. Appellant admits that no taxing district, including the school district, has intervened in this matter. Appellant cannot know what the Appellee "anticipates" and such allegations are denied. By way of further response, Appellant submits that the time for intervention by right has passed. 4. Appellant cannot know what the Appellee "believes" and, therefore, such allegations are denied. By way of further response, however, Appellant respectfully submits that the Appellee has been aware for more than a year that the valuation of Appellant's property was in dispute, is vested with the duty to establish the true value of the property and has, only weeks before the hearing date set three months in advance and without any valid explanation given, apparently changed its "belief" as to the need for additional expert testimony. Such change of "belief" by the Appellee fails to state a valid reason for postponement of the scheduled hearing. 5. Appellant cannot know the desires of a non-party and such allegations are, therefore, denied. By way of further response, Appellant respectfully submits that, without timely intervention by the taxing district, its desires form no valid basis for the request for a postponement of the scheduled hearing. Further, as 2 ",,' <-< --" "'-1'-,1-'- ,".-","1 " " r-~ -.~ ,- -~>- an allegation of fact but without verification or affidavit, such allegation is a nullity. 6. Appellant admits that the Chief Assessor for the County has announced his resignation effective after the date of the scheduled hearing. Without verification or affidavit, the remaining allegations of fact are a nullity. Nevertheless, Appellant respectfully submits that the demands of the Chief Assessor's time should include as a high priority preparation for court hearings such as the instant proceeding in which the question of the validity of his valuation of a taxpaying citizen of the county is at issue. As previously stated, the issue in this case has been before the Appellee and the county's Chief Assessor for more than one year and probably two years and Appellant respectfully rej ects and denies any allegations that the Chief Assessor is not or should not be prepared for the hearing in this matter. 7. Appellant is without any information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 7 of Appellee's Motion for Continuance and such allegations are, therefore, denied. By way of further response, Appellant avers that, until the filing of the instant Motion for Continuance, Appellee's counsel had raised no claim of schedule conflict and, in fact, the date selected for the hearing in this matter was specifically coordinated and cleared by the Court and counsel for both Appellant and Appellee. Appellee 3 ~- . . --, . I -f-' ,,-' I ~ . ~" :'-~' ~. has failed to provide sufficient basis or facts for granting the instant Motion for Continuance. S. Appellant has no knowledge of and cannot know the Appellee's belief and such allegations are, therefore, denied. Further, as previously noted and averred herein, the failure of the Appellee to take steps timely to prepare for the scheduled hearing is not a valid or adequate basis for a last-minute request for a postponement of a hearing which has been scheduled three months in advance of the hearing date. 9. Appellant admits that the subject property is its corporate headquarters and includes an office building. The allegations, unverified, as to the size and value of such building are statements of opinion which are the subject to be determined by these proceedings and no response is required. To the extent a response to such allegations is required, such allegations are denied. Appellant agrees the parties should be prepared for the upcoming hearing and, in recognition of that, Appellant has prepared and Appellee has apparently failed to do so but has given no explanation for such failure to prepare. 10. Appellant admits that Appellant's counsel has been appointed to the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County. Further, Appellant's counsel's swearing in has been postponed, in part, so that this matter can be concluded before Bruce F. Bratton becomes unavailable to serve as Appellant's counsel after September 2001, the anticipated swearing-in date. 4 '":,!,,,:,!,,-,, """"'"~", ~" ~- -I "'" "-I < , "- 'llMII" ~". .'-,-'''-'' - 11. Appellant denies that taxing bodies in this case are "unusual" or that any valid, specific facts or reasons have been presented upon which a continuance of the scheduled hearing can properly be based. The Appellee notified the taxing districts "promptly" and, yet, more than two months from the filing of the Appeal and from the Court's Order scheduling the hearing, not one taxing district has taken even one step to participate in these proceedings. WHEREFORE, Appellant respectfully prays that the Motion for Continuance be denied. Respectfully submitted, Bruce F. Bratton, Esquire Pa. Attorney I.D. No. 23949 2515 North Front Street P. O. Box 12106 Harrisburg, PA 17108-2106 (717) 236-4241 Date ()() J1; 0 I By Attorneys for Appellant 5 -;'-",-"",. <" ". ''"--~', . ,-,.- ,'- -. .1 '~1 r , , - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I today served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Appellant's Answer to Appellee's Motion for Continuance, by placing the same in the u.s. mail, postage prepaid, addressed to: Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire FREY & TILEY 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013- --- Date &..tJ ~ \ Bratton, Esquire -":" " "'i",' _ ~""': _ _ ':'_, _.! . c "" ~ 1_',Oj! "'1 ,.' '" '" -~--- '-'r ~ " . ~~-- ~ ,l~ ., ~, ,"""'" pliil~,~ ~~ . Jft" ~,-_ ,,- r 1""",~'>II':: "~ ~~l!.~~~l~ ~ '-N-'~~~ "~M==" '_'m_"~'"~,,~,=_ "~"~-~-, "",U,"""'" (, "'''', c-:: ::.:.:::: r:'.::> "^.~^II ^ n ulJ:J -<;:, ~~~~'t"h!ff'(,,,,,_.)d_"';"'~"'''<;i'ji:i:'\_'''''''''-('C',<' ;,--,%,~!t\'~"'W-f"?fI-'!Fj\jj\ID!!!'~;~1'i:W'!1':,""I"'~~!Iif'f\llil~'~~:'; ~. j RITE AID CORPORATION, Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee No. 01-2852 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 14th day of September, 2001, upon consideration of Appellant's petition on Appeal from Assessed Valuation of Real Property, and following a proceeding in open court in which Appellant was represented by Bruce Bratton, Esquire, and Appellee was represented by Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire, and counsel having recited the substance of an amicable resolution of the matter for the record, and having indicated that they will submit a proposed order for the Court's signature in the near future, the agreement of the parties is approved, the record is declared closed, and the Court will execute the order when it is submitted by counsel for signature. By the Court, Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire For the Appellee VIN\li\lASNN3d JJ.Nnnr; :1' !\-n, l'l'li^'rv"'\ . I JJV '....,!\'j KJ.:J;.,;~.~! IV ~ .:~~ ~ ~ ,,0' \Y Bruce Bratton, Esquire For the Appellant 90 .~ '" ~7 "'s '0 .(, "It! UI" OJ 1\ / wcy }.tNlor\jC+,,_~ ,'.i::\~ .:10 38'U.:!CHJJ1;:l -~m;Mi" ,-'" " ~_. "I~-"f," " __~ _',. [ ;~ '.", FY- f" ,,- " ," - -." , . . RITE AID REALTY CORPORATION, Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLE:AS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee NO. 2001-2852 CIVIL TERM ORD'ER 1 Dc1: foeS AND NOW, this 2'3 t day of 3"'1""'" ."''''f, 2001, upon consideration of the within Stipulation and Joint Motion for Agreed Order, it is Decreed and Ordered that the total market value of the subject property (tax parcel no. 09-19-1590-132) and the applicable assessment of the subject property shall be as follows: YEAR 2000 YEAR 2001 YEAR 2002 YEAR 2003 MARKET VALUE $12,500,000 $12,999,840 $12,999,840 N/A ASSESSMENT N/A $12,500,000 $12,999,840 $12,999,840 As a result of the year 2000 Countywide reassessment, effective January 1, 2001, the common level ratio is not applicable to said reassessment which shall be fixed initially at the new predetermined ratio of 100% of year 2000 value. The assessment of $12,999,840 effective beginning on and after January 1, 2002, shall continue thereafter until changed as provided by law. i~' The Cumberland County Assessment Office shall allocate the said total assessment between land and improvements as provided by law, and by the procedures of the Cumberland County Assessment Office. The Cumberland County Assessment Office shall promptly notify the appropriate taxing bodies of the change in assessment. I:' i I'! I', " ~: '.' I:: !I BY THE COURT d{ , , L~-ff\aU IO'JLj-Of \R~ if,"" ~ . ..~~. - ,-~ , " "^' """ '4 <>"'~'I-_""'~'"-''''=''' ~p~ .. ',0"_,_",;,,,,;:_," "V^"-'~y,:;; '< .. . VINVlilASNN3d ALNn08 O~h'IHjm"lnO 1.0 :Oll,:lf 'it; DO 10 Al-N1C:\(} :!o :JJL,;~iC ,.Cj::nH ~~~.- . ,..~__-J,"'_'.F__' ~~-'= <~ ,,"..r '," _~",%_,,~~,~_,,":"'1""',~'~!l!!I!II:UfijRj'1!1!!1l,I!!~. _~~__. ~~ _ _"~, ..l1olII,iOOJI4 t,~!<- flIiW , . RITE AID REALTY CORPORATION, Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Of CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee NO. 2001-2852 CIVIL TERM STIPULATION AND JOINT MOTION FOR AGREED ORDER ~ {!:)~7'-,J.....- AND NOW, this / tI' day of Ge~teFRliler, 2001, it is hereby agreed and stipulated between Petitioner, Rite Aid Realty Corporation by its attorneys, Martsolf & Bratton, and Respondent, Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals, by its attorney, Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire, Assistant Cumberland County Solicitor, as follows: 1. Petitioner filed a Petition on Appeal From Assessed Valuation of Real Property on or about May 11, 2001 to which an Order of Court fixing a hearing for August 13, 2001 was entered on May 16, 2001. After a certain Motion for Continuance filed by the Respondent Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals on or about July 18, 2001 the Hearing was continued to September 14, 2001. Immediately prior to said Hearing the the parties reached an agreed upon settlement which was, in principle, recited to the Court upon opening the Hearing and to which the Court entered its Order of September 14, 2001 and for which settlement this Stipulation provides a more complete description. 2. This assessment appeal relates to the assessment applicable to the year 2001 as a result of the year 2000 Countywide reassessment. This Stipulation also relates to the assessments applicable for the years 2002 and 2003. 3. The property which is the subject of this appeal is composed of a corporate headquarters building and annex office building, together known as the Rite Aid Corporate Headquarters at 30 Hunter Lane in East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and further identified as Cumberland County Assessment Parcel number " "0">-",,' _H=~,. ~" , "~_ _". _~. ,~~~ _ ~ ~"._<; I"",,^,=~_~,v . ~,_ ,_=_~~, '~""-ry . ,. . ,. ..',"' _ ,~, __= _ ~ '-j I i I I ~~i ;1 ii ':! ':-1 'I I , I I .,! I :;j I ! I i ;"i I ':;1 I! i ;:1 i ;~i~,_"".~~~, ~ '_' _~~ 09-19-1590-132. 4. The common level ratio as certified by the State Tax Equalization Board on or before July 1, 2001, of 6.3%, is inapplicable due to the Countywide reassessment. 5. The predetermined ratio effective as of January 1, 2001 is 100% of year 2000 value. 6. The parties stipulate that the total market value of the subject property and the resulting assessments for the designated years are as follows: MARKET VALUE ASSESSMENT Year 2000 $12,500,000 N/A Year 2001 $12,999,840 $12,500,000 Year 2002 $12,999,840 $12,999,840 Year 2003 N/A $12,999,840 The above table implements assessment law which provides that upon appeal a property's real estate assessment is based upon its market value in the preceding year, and then the assessment remains unchanged until further appeal by any party, Countywide reassessment, or a physical change to the property. The assessment for year 2000 is inapplicable as this appeal resulted from the year 2000 Countywide reassessment which first was implemented on January 1,2001. The year 2000 assessment was based upon the pre-existing assessment methodology dating back to the 1974 Countywide reassessment. The market value for the year 2003 is not applicable as its value would be use to determine the property's 2004 assessment if an appeal occurred. In the absence of an appeal, or other change by law, the assessment shall be maintained at $12,999,840 indefinately after year 2003. 7. The Cumberland County Assessor's Office shall allocate the total assessment between land and improvements as provided by law and the procedures of . h~J , _ ~"~,~ ~ .,__ ~_.~ .om.. ..... _ .. _.... ~~ -- , ~ , ~ ;t the Cumberland County Assessment Office. 8. It is an express condition of this Stipulation that the taxpayer waives its right to appeal its 2003 assessment unless that assessment has been change from $12,999,840. The $12,999,840 assessment shall continue in effect after January 1,2002 and shall remain in effect and unchanged unless and until changed as provided by law. Examples of changes provided by law are: physical changes to the property such as new construction or remodeling, demolition or removal of any portion of the improvements; appeal by the taxpayer or a taxing body; and a new Countywide reassessment. Unless the $12,999,840 assessment is changed as provided by law, the taxpayer agrees not to appeal the same until 2003, effective for the 2004 assessment year. In the event of a change in the assessment effective prior to the year 2004 and resulting from new construction, renovations, alterations or demolition or removal of the physical structure, taxpayer shall have the right to appeal any such change in assessment at which point the value of the entire property would again be at issue. 9. The Cumberland Count Assessment Office shall promptly notify the appropriate taxing bodies of the change in assessment, and instruct the taxing bodies to make any appropriate refunds. The reduction in assessment to $12,500,000 shall be implemented beginning with 2001 County and municipal taxes and beginning with 2001- 2002 school real estate taxes. The increase thereafter to $12,999,840 shall be implemented beginning with 2002 County and municipal taxes and beginning with 2002- 2003 school real estate taxes, This stipulated value will then continue through the 2003- 2004 school real estate taxes, and thereafter unless the value has been changed as provided by law. 10. Each party to this appeal shall bear its own costs. 11. The Court is requested to enter the proposed Order attached hereto. 12. The undersigned Attorneys each hereby warrant to the other and to the !;" ~... 1_> =~"'" -" '"~ ,-~ y" ,.= ~<- ~,- ._~, -- . ' , -.. 4 , . ' parties and to the Court that he has reviewed this Settlement Stipulation with his client or clients and that he has specifically been authorized to enter into this Settlement Stipulation by his client of clients. Respectfully Submitted, PETITIONER, RITE AID REAL TV CORPORATION BY: F. R. Martsolf, Esq re Martsolf & Bratton Attorney's for Petitioner 2515 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17108-2106 RESPONDENT, CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS /0~/~~ BY: ~ -().)~ Stephen . Tiley, Esquire Assistant Cumberland County Solicitor Attorney for Respondent 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 ii l!, Ii" i::k~~_ ::~t!t:.~; ;;-":--;.'; :::;cr;~;';,Yi-:-!:-;:,~;;';\:9Tr" -"* "~, -" <v """1;:,,,,,,-;1,. -"-->>-""'''''~''''-~ Uf2'ilL~"r"nJ'!Ttit " ... " <fr- i ' t:p * (') C) t::-) C -on s: CJ -'" c.-; " n11-T' ~..~ Z::r. Zc-- ~:o (l);-'-"" , .. -</.',. r::::l~'j ~ ~-~> '"' :!'.: I;:~;~ ,c,..C:;' C~, be) \..D C) ~T: >C~ ;;;:! ~ ::; :1:] CJ ,"" __~UtT_~"'",__ --'''-'''-~'