HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-0921
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellanl,
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 01./ - 9:t f
C;(.)~l ~~
YSo
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
PETITION FOR APPEAL
Appelleeo
YS.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER
FRANKFORD TOWNSHIP a!ld BIG
SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Filed on behalf of Appellanl,
Spectrasite Communications
Interested Parties.
Counsel of Record for Ihis Party:
Dusty Elias Kirk, Esquire
PA LD. No. 30702
PEPPER HAMIL TON LLP
Firm LDo Noo 143
50th Floor, One Mellon Center
500 Granl Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
(412) 454-5000
PT: #172651 vi (3P7VOI !.DOC)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant,
vs.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee.
VSo
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER
FRANKFORD TOWNSHIP and BIG
SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Partieso
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 04 - q~J
C,"ucL Ift2..,
PETITION FOR APPEAL
AND NOW, comes Spectrasite Communications ("Appellant"), by and Ihrough
ils attorneys Pepper Hamilton LLP and Dusly Elias Kirk, Esquire, and files Ihe within Petition
for Appeal, and in support thereof states as follows:
1. Spectrasile Communicalions is the record owner of commercial property
situate al Center Road, Upper Frankford Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (the
"Property") and idenlified as Parcel Noo 43-06-0031-012-LL in the Cumberland County
assessment records.
2. Cumberland Counly, Upper Frankford Township and Big Springs School
District are the taxing bodies inleresled in Ihe taxable slatus oflhe Propertyo
3. The Board of Assessment Appeals of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
(the "Board") is a Board created under the Act of June 21, 1939, P.L. 626, 72 P.So 95342 et seq.,
and is authorized to assess and value real property for the purpose of taxation in counties of Ihe
Fourth Class and to hear appeals from said assessments by aggrieved parties.
4. Pertaining to the year 2004, the Board assessed the Property in the amount
of Two Hundred Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Dollars ($217,560)0
50 As ofSeplember 1, 2003, the Property was described for the 2004 tax year
on the official records of Cumberland County as follows:
Descriplion
Land
Improvements
Assessmenl
$0
$217.560
$217,560
6. On Augusl 29, 2003, Appellant duly appealed the 2004 assessment to the
Board for regress and reduction of said assessment. A copy of said Appeal Applicalion is
altached hereto as Exhibil "A."
7. After a hearing, the Board reduced Ihe assessment on the Property for the
year 2004 to One Hundred Forty Two Thousand Dollars ($142,000) by issuing a Decision Order
("Decision") dated February 9,2004. A copy of/he Decision is altached hereto as Exhibit "Eo"
80 This Petition is herewith presented within thirty (30) days from the
mailing date of/he Decision,
90 Appellanl is aggrieved by the Board's adjudication. Specifically,
Appellant avers, on information and belief, that the assessment remains unfair, unreasonable and
excesslveo Appellant further avers as follows:
a. The assessment is not equal or uniform with olher properties
similarly located in Cumberland County.
-2-
PT: #172651 vi (3P7VOl !.DOC)
b. There is a complete lack of uniformity in the assessment of real
estate within Cwnberland County which makes the Property assessment unjust, unreasonable and
discriminatory.
c. The assessment contains a cellular communications tower, which
is improperly being assessed as real estate.
d. Other such reasons as will be developed at the time of hearingo
WHEREFORE, Appellant, being aggrieved by the assessment of the Board, files
this Petition for Appeal and requests that this Honorable Court herein determine its appeal and
decrease the assessment of the Property to such amount as may be right and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
~ ~u\-k
a Kirk, Esquire
P ALD. . 30702
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
Firm No.143
One Mellon Center, 50th Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
(412) 454-5000
Dated: March L, 2004
-3-
PT: #172651 vI (3P7YOI!.DOC)
.
CUMBERLAND COUNTl ASSeSSMENT APP~... COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
Undetlhepl'G'Jtllont otlawelPfpel8On' ~ hveny II Illmlll1l~ ID eFPeei.....IiIl!...I.lIt. ,"WIllIng, wlhlha Boanlol
1lI1111n_1I ~ on or beIonI . Such lIIalIIMnIlhaI dlle/gnal8\he llllllmeiIt IpI1 I III d from andlha llddr.-lowNth
lha Board ehalmaliIDIIce 01 whan 8IId wh8I8lD eppe.1llr. MMng. No appeeJ.... be '*"d bylhe boinIunI_1IPP11laI4 ItIIII tint
. 11M filed l"Up'" 8IlCI NqWncf~ on OI'befod .. 1Mt1arth by IaW.M.1ncIudaa taldng dIatIlcIlI
Rticonl Owner(~) Name S"ectiasi~ll Connrlllnications
Address 400 Reg"ncy Foresto Drive o'
Cary, N.C. 0 275~f
Site Lqcatlon of Properl)' SUbject 01 Appeal:
o Upper Frankford
~
?no Center RQad.o~ewville
NtmIer . . -- . .
Ass!i$sOr8 Tax Map Identlflcallon': 43-06':'0031-012 LL
. .~sessment~ $217.560 "(100%) .. .OJ,lnlonofMarketValueoflhlsproperty $0,00.
Date Purchased Not oAvailahle Purch88e PrlceNot Available 0 AtnounI of FIre Insurarice Not
Avail..hle
o 0
. Stat8",asoOs~~ngth18app8aJ: Thp ~,qi~ mRr~p-!,". 'tp1111.P .1Ir~n TJ'~~~h .rhj:l' j:u:zi::i,:lo~~mAn~.'i~ lU1Q,:Io,:i ie!'
in excess of the property'S value. 0 The assessment is not uniform with assessments of
o!!tner property in theo county. 'i'he assessment incl"des the value of oopersonal property,
contrary to Penn~vlvania a~se..~ment law.
property1YPe: Check 8ndCQmplete Proper~: .
X Coriln1$rcfai: 0 0 USe 00 Teieco~u'nicatiQns Tower- 0
Office:
GrosS Square Fl.
Owner OcCupIed
o "Leased: AnnuIII Rent '1'01 Be
. . Gross Square Fl
Owner Oc:cupled
. If Leased: Annual Rent
. .SqI,IaI8 Fl Rentable Nee... .
. . . TennlInl Occupied
provideodDateCCln8lrucled, Rtc~, V
. ... .. .. EO
o . 0
Square FL RentableoAnte _
Ath; ., Q ?""
Tenant Occupied . " t ud
. Date Coilstrucled
.
ToIalSquaI8 A. . Squal8 Fl Rentable.ANa
Squa/8 Fl Plant Ante Owner OccupIed
Tenant Occupied If Leased: Annual Rent
Lease~: Net ~ Gross _ CombInallon ~ Dat8 Constructed
0Itier: Use
,
Gross&jual8 R. Owner ~ TeI'ie!lt OccupIed
" Leased: Annual Rent 0 OilJe Con8fructeil
o 0
o 0
"AnACH LAST a YEARS: INCOME. EXPENSE STATEMENTS OR COMPLETEntE AnACHED INc:OIQl.JiXPENSE FORM"
,', . ......
'0
Industrial:
.
. c;.tIft... otAppi.! ..... . ..
IIwe hereby cIe<iIln mylour InIenlIonto IIJlPlNI/ ffom /ll8WoUlud valuation o/lhe plQjlerty deiCIIIllid liI>oY!l.nddO heAlbywrify lh8tthe
8laIeIIleIlI8 made In"~'" true 8ild.COI'I8Cl.I und8r8Wid Ihal fafse ~~"'made~tO thepellalllell 0/ 18 fa.
C.S. SecIion 4llO4, .re1llIIng~o ..... .faIll~ authol1IIe&, . . . . .
Signed:. ..... ......... ..J(, ([;L A ~08te;:R~~,-0~3
. . . . . . .... - .Ph0n.8t:~)
. .0000r(~oIRecOnI JDeyIOlIice)' .. .(QI9)0 4fin-';n'i
. All ~ Of t/JeSe~e8c1nQ8 shall bema/led IQ: .... . ...... .. .
Name: Ja~eso S; Felmim. ..cfb S'pe.cJrf1..Slk..
Add~: 400 Reeencv Forest Drive
Oft\ae u.. 0ftIy ..
1Fe81
car,!: N.C. . 27511
EXHIBIT
I
A
(OVBR)
'11II
,
.
.
.
; '$',_{olo,-<o _~,: <, o;;~o: 0 CJ:Aeallh,-"
.. ~. ..' .
, 0 0 ;;0 C"CJ Air. Cond.
o ClElectrlclly
CJ TV Cable
CJ Wafer
,
, , 0 ':'GRC,...jANNuAl:~ES FOR3PRIOF. _ jARS;o~.'
o*To Be Provided 0 0
19-.:..
. , .'
ProJeclecUncome::UlO% QQCUpIed ",
, Including v8tue oIrent.fl'ee lIf\Iis
AcltIaIincome r8CflIved "
, V8canc:y
Actual other incGme
Us! by Type: " " ','
19_
Total Actual,lncome RltI:e~o,
. ,'.":
GROSS ANNUAL EXPENSIUfFOR 3 PRIOR YEARS ~
Gro.. Annual exp,ns.. 0'
, 0, Real E8tilte Taxes $
, IQ8U1l11lC8o 00
'0 liincj oRilAl::" 0 ",
19~
19~
$:' 0
. , ~'..:r:4-i~.~ ~':"l:'"
:.t...'
FJXEDo 00
EXPENSES
'-, :~~. " .~.~.
o 0
':. ~.' :. . ~;:.
. :~: '....l..
, ,,"other, 0
!.,;.'::.:'
, 00
."~' ;';, ," '" .~. .
.:) .
. ...~.'
..... ...... .....
.~. . .' :"".:;, .l; ".'
.' :if' '.:: ."
:.:..:....,'.:::
oEredricity,o,,:,o '0 0:;0 c,~~ 0" ::: '0' ::0
....1. ,", "
JelephORe "'00'0 ,
".,' .
Gas 0
o WatSrA &Mer 0'")
1lBSb.Removal "',
:HeidJng ,,0 ';;0/'0 0'
Ma/iarl8r's.oSalary >
OPERAnONAL Fees
EXPENSU.' '00 , ,
o -' 0- ,,!-agal " A,oooillitlng
." .... ..'.., ....
o 'Plio oOITlllC$Il 00,1,0 ";;'0:"
, '" YJ.'O:"-qO'O_,,, , ' ,
.:-.,~ ,.'; ;~f'O!~pl~;:.~l:~~\"'; .....: ..~..':J"';'~r.J;:;,','.'1:;'f "1":>'
. ~.:..t ... ...,- ,..-_.......,...~.."..,...... "
,0'AcfVij"...ng''" ,. :,'.0
!l'.:.'.'::~"', 'i, '~.~" '~~:V'"
" , 0 ~ag,.;~;~_ . ..... "":",_,~:,J{;.~ .'.
. oSuppllas' 00;:. . ._ 0 00 '0 0 ;" aio
. ,.-::
Matni. & Repair
. Replace. Reserve
Other
0$
00'.: 00,00; ol ,:.;-
." .' '.~f_.. .'
~~. :;y.'C:
. b~:.'.:.
. "I ~r.
., : ~,:. .
~ .~. .'
", ",.
.....,.1'
.. . ~. .
. ~"',.: '", '
",::';./;":l
o ,0
......,J
..' .
."';.~<'.
,. :
", \~ ~ I:. r:. ", ,': I "
;.',;":; ";
r .. ~
I.:'
-$
$
19_~.
; ~.
....,.
..".,:..:.,. t ":':~'
. 19":'-;
$
'.. .
....
$
$
$<
$
$
$
$
$
.
,,:
.' itemS InoIuded
o In Rent
. ':~t:J Carpet
CJ Drapes
CJ Range
- d RefJi{j.
. CJ DIshwasher
CJo Garbage
Disposal
. "0 ,0 PlIrkln~
o PoQI
CJ Reo. Facllty
.... .
.,...... .
c:i oTHER:'
000
Od' 'Ie'" 0
";'1;-:': .
. "'\ l~' .;. "
'::...".:
:" . ," .':", : ~ .~.. .:~~.: '.",'/
.:,).; ,....
I~r .
--. ;-. .-
.... f,,;.-....: ",;
...,.
.....';.1:.;'..:
.'. .
...1.... ......;.... . ':;
"f:.:.:,;;:..
TOTALJEX~.N.SES
$..
$
. ". ... .
. . .. . .. ..
PIe8se .'Iill<ioilid pages for any other remarks relative ~ the property.
. ....-- ".' . .' ,"..
'0
',t,'\.,
. CJ Furniture
. 'of Furnished
Units:
.~lnlWll
. $,'~.By;o
'0, :trSldGJ'WIl8r
.-0 Rent8t Co.
. '[j Ollie..
Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals
Old Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle. PA i7013
(717) 240-6350
(717) 240-6354 (fax)
BOctrd of Assessment Appeals
Lloyd W. BlIcher
R. Fred Hefelfinger
Sarah Hughes
BONNIE Mo MAKONEY
Chief Assessor
";.
STEPHEN D. TI LEY
. Assistant Solicitor
DECISION ORDER
'/
t
MAILING DATE: February 9, 2004
PARCEL NUMBER: 43-06-0031-012,-LL
,
",;
,
I
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS
400 REGENCY FOREST DRIVE
CARY NC 27511
Dear Properly Owner:
This letter is to officially notify you of the decision of the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals
regarding the above-referenced parcel.
DATE OF APPEAL HEARING: 02103/2004
DATE DECISION RENDERED: 02/09/2004
EFFECTIVE FOR TAX YEAR: 2004
DECISION RENDERED: [] Withdrawn By Applicant
[ ] Abandoned For Failure To Appear
[] Denied - No Change
[ ] Approved Review Appraiser's Changes
[X] Revised Assessment Based on Hearing
[ ] Other:
TOTAL VALUE
FAIR MARKET
CLEAN AND GREEN
STATUS
CLEAN AND GREEN
Old Assessed Value:
New Assessed Value:
217,560
142,000
NOT
APPLICABLE
Any person aggrieved by the order of the Board of Assessment may appeal to the Court of Common
Pleas by filing a petilion in the Prothonolary's office on or before March 9. 2004.
EXHIBIT
I B
III'
VERIFICATION
I,
Jo.Wles FJWla. V\
, of Spectrasite Communications, declare
under penalty ofpetjury that I am the t\sst-. Ireo.sv.rer of Spectra site Communications;
that I am authorized to make this verification of the foregoing Petition for Appeal on behalf of
Spectrasite Communications, the record owner of the property on appeal; that I know the
contents thereof as to all matters of fact therein stated and the same are true; and as to all matters
therein stated on information and belief, I believe them to be true.
I understand that false statements herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.
Cons. Stat. 94904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Executed this ~tfday of February, 2004.
(iMrdL
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy ofthe within Petition for Appeal has
been served upon the following parties by first class mail, postage prepaid on this .3-1l{ day
of March, 2004.
Edward L. Schorpp, Esquire
Solicilor, Cumberland County
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, P A 17013
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire
Solicitor, Cumberland County Board of
Assessment Appeals
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, P A 17013
Steven Fishman, Esquire
Solicitor, Upper Frankford Township
95 Alexander Spring Road
Carlisle, P A 17013
Philip H. Spare, Esquire
Solicitor, Big Springs School District
Sne1baker, Brenneman & Spare, PC
44 Wesl Main Slreet
P.O. Box 318
Mechanicsburg, P A 17055
~~~~
p ~
""P 'i 0
l:l:..
V) er,
-- 0
J::: ...0
"'Q lJ
UJ ( -:U
~
,..
o
c
""
c-~
~1
:::r
;:r.;,a.
;::0
r
.
.........,
n
-11
~-::!
nlf':"::'
~'t=J
;,-~S r
'''tC)
...-"};
G
(5
....')
'on
::-;1
J--
f-')
LAW OFFICES
SNELBAKER,
BRENNEMAN
& SPARE
"
i
I'
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
CIVIL ACTION
vs.
: NO: 04-921
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS, : TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL
Appellee
vs.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER
FRANKFORD TOWNSHIP and BIG
SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
PRAECIPE TO INTERVENE
TO: The Prothonotary of Cumberland County
Big Spring School District, a local taxing body with regard to the subject real estate in
this matter, hereby intervenes in accordance with law as a party, respondent-appelleeo
SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, p.e
By: Cf7QR~
~i~l(~pare, Esquire
Pao Supreme Ct. LD. # 65200
44 West Main Street
P.Oo Box 318
Mechanicsburg, P A 17055-0318
(717) 697-8528
Attorneys for Intervener: Big Spring School District
March 26, 2004
LAW OFFICES
SNELBAKER.
BRENNEMAN
& SPARE
II
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this date serving a true and correct copy of the within Praecipe
to Intervene upon the following attorneys by sending the same by first-class mail, postage paid
addressed as follows:
Date: ;f;6' 2004
Dusty Elias Kirk, Esquire
PeEper Hamilton LLP
50 Floor, One Mellon Center
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
(Attorney for Spectrasite Communications)
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
(Attorney for Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals)
SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P.CO
By: ~~qcire
Pa. Supreme Ct. 1.0. # 65200
44 West Main Street
PoO. Box 318
Mechanicsburg, P A 17055-0318
(717) 697-8528
Attorneys for Intervener: Big Spring School District
" . . ,
g ..., ~
=
=
;;::: .r-
IJrI:! 3: :c
fT....r. "..
2:-.0 :::0 ~~
ze- N
cn,-r:,: ~,
~b C'
~
~O ".. :J:d:l
l.--:(j ::J: Q5
;po c: - t'rn
- o I
Z ':;::1
:< s:- ~~
:;;0
N .<
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY and
SHENANDOAH PERSONAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY,
Appellants,
vs.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appelleeo
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant,
vs.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee,
vs.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTH MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP, and
SOUTH MIDDLETON SCHOOL DISTRICT,
lnteresled Parties.
PT: #175332 vl (3R@COILOOC)
CNIL DIVISION
Nos. 03-4921
04-920
04-921
04-922
04-949
04-950
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
Filed on Behalf of Spectrasite Communications
Counsel of Record for This Party:
Dusty Elias Kirk, Esquire
P A LD. No. 30702
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
PA LDo No. 74520
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
Firm LD. Noo 143
One Mellon Center
50th Floor
500 Grant Slreet
Pittsburgh, P A 15219-2502
(412) 454-5000
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant,
VSo
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee,
VSo
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER
FRANKFORD TOWNSHIP and BIG
SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Partieso
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant,
VS.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee,
VS.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTHAMPDEN TOWNSHIP and
SHIPPENSBURG AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
1nlerested Parties.
PT: #175332 vI (3R@COI1.DOC)
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Appellant,
vs.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee,
vs.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, EAST
PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and EAST
PENNSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Inlerested Parties.
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Appellant,
vs.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee,
vso
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH
NEWTON TOWNSHIP and BIG
SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties.
PT: #175332 vi (3R@COI!.DOC)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY and
SHENANDOAH PERSONAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY,
Appellants,
vs.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appelleeo
ET AL.
) CIVIL DIVISION
)
) Nos. 03-4921
) 04-920
) 04-921
) 04-922
) 04-949
) 04-950
)
)
)
)
)
)
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
AND NOW, comes Spectrasite Communicalions ("Spectrasile"), by and through
its attorneys, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Dusly Elias Kirk, Esquire, and files the within MOlion 10
Consolidate, and in support thereof states as follows:
I. Spectrasite is a telecommunication tower company, and the owner of
commercial real eslate and taxable property situale in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and
identified as Parcel Numbers 40-1O-0632-016-LL, 43-06-0031-012-LL and 39-12-0324-004-LL
in Ihe Cumberland County assessmenl records (the "Speclrasite Properties").
20 Spectrasite placed upon the Speclrasite Properties telecommunication
lowers and olher structures and related equipment, which, in each inslance, the Board of
Assessment Appeals of Cumberland County (the "Board") assessed as real property.
30 On or about March 4, 2004, Spectrasite filed Petitions for Appeal with this
Court for the Spectrasite Properties docketed at Noso 04-920, 04-921 and 04-922, challenging Ihe
PT: #175332 vi (3R@COILDDe)
Board's assessment of the lelecommunicalion towers as real property for purposes of real eslale
taxation.
4. SBA Towers, Inc. ("SBA") is a telecommunication tower company, and
also owns properties in Cumberland County upon which it placed telecommunication lowers (the
"SBA Properties'} The SBA Properties are identified as Parcel Numbers 09-22-0533-001-LL
and 41-11-0304-019-LL in the Cumberland County assessment records.
5, On or about March 5, 2004, SBA filed Petilions for Appeal for the SBA
Properties, dockeled at Numbers 04-949 and 04-950, raising Ihe same issues as Spectrasite's
appeals,
6. Spectrasite and SBA are represented by the same counsel with respect to
Ihe above-referenced real estale tax assessment appealso
70 On Seplember 18, 2003, Shenandoah Mobile Company and Shenandoah
Personal Communications Company (collectively, "Shenandoah"), by and Ihrough its attorney,
Carl C. Risch, Esquire, filed a Petition for Appeal al Docket Number 03-4921 for its property
idenlified as Parcel Number 25-25-0006-3l5-LL (the "Shenandoah Property"), raising the same
issues as Speclrasite's and SBA's appealso
8. Counsel for Speclrasite and SBA contacted counsel for Shenandoah to
discuss a consolidalion of real estate tax assessment appeals pending for the Spectrasile
Properties, the SBA Properties and the Shenandoah Property, and counsel for Shenandoah has
consented to a consolidalion oflhese appeals.
9. Counsel for Spectrasile and SBA has contacted the respective taxing
bodies having an interest in these appeals, through Iheir respective solicitors, to discuss a
consolidation. Upon information and belief, Stephen D. Tiley, solicitor for the Cumberland
PT: #175332 vI (3R@COI!.DOC)
2
County Board of Assessment Appeals and Cumberland County, also attempted to conlact each of
Ihe solicitors to discuss a consolidation of these appeals. The respeclive taxing bodies consent to
a consolidation as follows:
ao Cumberland County and the Cumberland County Board of Assessment
Appeals, through their solicilor, Stephen Do Tiley, Esquire, consenled in wriling 10 a
consolidaliono A copy of the written consent is attached hereto as Exhibit "A";
b. Big Spring School District and South Middleton School Dislricl,
through their solicitor, Philip H. Spare, Esquire, consented in writing to a consolidation. A copy
ofthe written consent is attached hereto as Exhibit "B";
c. East Pennsboro Area School Dislrict, through its solicilor, Donna So
Weldon, Esquire, consenled in wriling to a consolidation. A copy ofthe written consent is
attached hereto as Exhibit "C";
d. Southampden Township, through its solicitor, Richard L. Webber, Jr.,
Esquire, consenled in writing to a consolidationo A copy of the written consent is attached hereto
as Exhibit "D";
e. Shippensburg Area School District, through ils solicitor, Jerry A.
Weigle, Esquire, consented in writing to a consolidalion, A copy of the written consent is
attached hereto as Exhibit "E".
f. Upper Frankford Township, through its solicitor, Steven Fishman,
Esquire, consented in wriling 10 a consolidation. A copy of the written consent is attached herelo
as Exhibit "F".
go South Middleton Township, East Pennsboro Township and South
Newton Township have not yet provided a response wilh respect to a conso1idaliono
PT: #175332 vi (3R@COI!.DOC)
3
10. Spectrasite, jointly wilh SBA and Shenandoah, requests that the appeals
described hereinabove be consolidated for the following reasons:
a. Consolidation of the appeals will (i) promote judicial economy by
avoiding the mulliplicity of trials and (ii) eliminate an unnecessary duplication of effort and
reduce the expense to the parties, because the appeals involve a common queslion of law that can
be resolved with one trial.
bo Consolidation of the appeals will resull in judicial consistency,
because Speclrasite, SBA and Shenandoah, seek to establish uniform law in the Commonweallh
of Pennsylvania wilh respect to the treatment of telecommunication towers for purposes of real
estale laxaliono
Co Consolidation ofthe appeals will not prejudice any part Yo
1 L Rule 213(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedures provides thaI
when actions in a county involve a common question oflaw or facl, or which arise from the
same transaclion or occurrence, Ihe court may upon motion of any party or sua sponle order all
such aclions consolidated and triable jointly as a single action.
PT: #175332 vI (3R@COI!.DOC)
4
WHEREFORE, Spectrasite Communications, jointly wilh SBA Towers, Inc. and
Shenandoah Mobile Company and Shenandoah Personal Communications Company,
respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an order consolidating the appeals docketed
at Numbers 03-4921, 04-920, 04-921, 04-922, 04-949 and 04-950 al Number 03-4921.
Respectfully submitted,
Dusty EJ" s irk
PALDo 0.30702
Sharon F, DiPaolo
PALD. No. 74520
Pepper Hamilton LLP
One Mellon Center, 501h Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
Daled: A- phLl
Attorneys for Speclrasite Communications
,2004
PT: #175332 vi (3R@COILDOC)
5
ko":OOo
'....)'1
,"I,.....
n'" 0,,,/ "')
ot. .U; t\"
[; I ~d/ liDDl
).,,;_J'.~~C:'<CIH ~CX:'d :31---11 ;10
3J:j.:IO-O:Jlf3
FREY & TILEY
ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
5 SOUTH HANOVER STREET
CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013-3385
Telephone: (717) 243-5838
Facsimile: (717) 243-6441
Of Counsel:
ROBERT Mo FREY
STEPHEN Do TILEY
ROBERT Go FREY
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Via email only
FROM: Steve Tiley
DATE: April 2, 2004
RE: Cell Tower Appeals
Dear Sharon:
In response to your transmission of March 30th, on behalf of the County
and Board, I concur in the motions.
I have sent a fax to the counsel for the other taxing bodies asking that they
give their concurrence to you as soon as possible.
I spoke with Attorney Carl Risch this morning and he continues to concur,
so long as trial is not delayed beyond May (I indicated June 15th and he was
agreeable to that).
Do you plan to file a separate motion for each case? I would think that at
least we will need an order entered in each case or that the final order should
reference all case numbers. I have not reviewed the procedure.
I note that I have never been served with filed copies of the original
appeals, giving file numbers. For that reason, I have not yet filed Answers.
(Although Answers are not required, I customarily do so.) No need to serve filed
copies now. I will go the courthouse and get the file numbers and I will assume
that what was filed is identical to the copies I received.
EXHIBIT
~
i IIAII
Frey & Tiley
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Re: Cell Tower Cases
April 2, 2004
Page 2 of2
I am not sure that we need consent, and I am not sure that we can get
consent within the timeframe required. Some solicitors will be away. Others will
feel the need to consult with their client before making a decision.
Your cases were assigned to President Judge Hoffer. About two weeks
ago his chambers called to schedule the hearings. 1 advised that Judge Oler had
the Shenandoah case and that there had been some talk of consolidation and
CCAP intervention. He asked me to report back to him in a couple of weeks.
The Shenandoah case is presently scheduled for pre-trial next Thursday
and trial a week from Monday. I believe that Carl Rish and I need to advise
Judge Oler that a motion for consolidation is likely. At the same time I believe
that I, or Carl Rish and I, should advise Judge Hoffer. I recommend that, after
my conversation with Judge Oler, that I deliver to Judge Hoffer a letter indicating
where we are, and that I suggest that the Court may want to simply order
consolidation on its own motion. We may find that this results in consolidation of
the cases before all of the taxing body solicitors have had the opportunity to
respond.
I am not yet sure who will be attending the tower removal.
Sincerely yours,
Steve
cc: Cart C. Rich, Esquire
Via email only
Stephen D. Tiley
llf"'"""" ."'.. ...
'.l' VD.' Vq.l.
o.I~~....~a.o-.-.n ......~......._..... _.0_.
SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P. C.
,---
AttofNeys III Law
lP'. 00 f,rJ:l ~Jl:~
44 We~ Main Sl:reet
MechaJrU(:gb1l1og, lP'A 17055
(717) 697-8528
Richard C. Snelbaker Fax No. (717) 697-7681
Keith O. Brenneman
Philip H. Spare
FACSIMILE COVER LETTER
PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES:
DATE: April 6, 1004
TO: Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Pepper Hamilton LLP
FAX #: (4U) 454-5005
FROM: Phil Spare
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER LETTER: 1
COMMENTS:
Re: Spectrasite Communications and SBA Tower Cases
CCP Cumberland County, PA
Dear Sharon:
As we discussed this morning, our fillll represents Big Spring School District and South
Middleton School District in the above referenced tax assessment appeals. Last evening, both
school Boards adopted resolutions approving of the consolidation of these cases with the other
similar cases pending in Cumberland County. Please let me know if you require any thing else
from me at this time. Thank you.
~
Cc: Dr. Patricia B. Sanker, Superintendent
South Middleton School District
Dr. William K. Cowden, Superintendent
Big Spring School District
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire (717) 243-6441
EXHIBIT
I
liB"
RECEIVED TIME APR. 6.
NT TIME APR. 6. 9:00AM
1!14/1!I::t/l!I"l- 1 (;;.1.1
HEATH l. ALI..EN
N. DAVID ItAt1AL
CHA"LC5 W. llIU8ENOALL u:
ROBERT L. WE",QOfll
EUGeNe 1.- PEPI".KY, .J#I
.JOHN H ENe. m
QARY C. F'RENCt1
C10NN". 5 W[LOON
.R",oro"O DO.flANCl
...IE"R EY S . TOICE.
llIOBEIIT R. CHUlltCH
liTE-PM EN L. GIlOIE
lit. .eOTT SHC"lIIICfIl
ELV.C C. "00&".
CRAIG A. LONGYEA"
DONALD M L.I:Wlam:
l"IDOIET M. WHITLEY
JOHN A. '!EIC:HTI'L
EL,IZ"Bt:TH ,J. GOlO.T[:IN
B,."IAltA II&. GAi.L
5TE~HANllE KlIE:IN"[l,.TEIII
"CE:.rE:."" u.n.JI.JU ML.L.~I' 0< l'rlI tr'1,-, '-'-I ' ............................,...,
KEEF"ER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
210 WALNUT STREET
P. O. !lOX 11863
HARRISBURG, PA 1710B-1863
PHOl'llE 17171 255-eOoo
L. L P nTA8~I.H[D IN 1878
or COU".IEL:
.'-'fIIIIUt:t c. HAi"IIIY
WElT SHORE O"ICI.
418 f ALL.OWfIIELD IIOAD
CA." HILL., fl. 17011
11111 812'.'00
EIN NO. 23.0"813.
WWW.kH..rwooGI.Com
WRITIEIII'. CONY ACT ...,OMt.... TION:
AprilS, 2004
(717) 255-8049
Email Address:
dweldontalkeefef'Wood,com
VI. Fle.'m". tu12-211-0111
Sharon F. DIPaolo, Esquire
Pe~per Hamilton LLP
50' Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
RE: Motion to Consolidate
Dear Ms. DIPaolo:
I am the solicitor of East Pennsboro Area School District ("District"). You have asked
for my concurrence with regard to a Motion to Consolidate. The assessment appeal related to
the District Is entitled SBA Towers, Inc. vs. Cumberlend County Board of Assessment Appeals,
Parcel No. 09-22-QS33-001-LL.
On Friday, I received a fax trom Steve Tiley asking for my consent to the consolidation
motion. This is to notify you that I do consent on behalf of East Pennsboro Area School
District.
Very truly yours,
KEEFER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL, LLP
~~~
Donna S. Weldon
DSW/drw
cc: Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire (VIa FIUl 11717-243-8441)
Linda J. Bigos, D.Ed.. Superintendent
EXHIBIT
J
..
lie"
~T THE APR. 5. 4:07PM
RECEIVED TIME APR. 5.
WEIGLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Attorneys-at-Law
126 EAST KING STREET
SHlPPENSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17257-1397
JERRY A. WEIGLE
Associates
JOSEPH p, RUANE
RICHARD L. WEBBER, JR.
Of Counsel
THOMAS L. BRIGHT
TELEPHONE (717) 532-7388 or (717) 776-4295
FAX (717) 532-5289
weieJeassociates(a)eartblink.net
April 2, 2004
VIA FACSIMILE TO (412) 281-0717 AND U.S. MAIL
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP
50th Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
RE: 2004 Real Estate Tax Assessment appeals
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
Spectrasite Communications
Docket Numbers 04-920, 04-921 and 04-922
SBA Towers, Inc.
Docket Numbers 04-949 and 04-950
Shenandoah Mobile Company and Shenandoah
Personal Communications Company
Docket Number 03-4921
Dear Ms. DiPaolo:
I represent Southampton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
I hereby consent to your proposed Motion to Consolidate as well as the Motion to
Continue.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
WEIGLE & ASSOCIATES, PoCo
c:LA 7vvJL
Richard L Webber, Jr., Esquire
RLW/paf
cc: Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire (via facsimile 10 243-6441)
Southampton Township Board of Supervisors
EXHIBIT
~
j "n"
WEIGLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Attorneys-at-Law
126 EAST KING STREET
SHIPPENSBURG, PENNSYLV ANlA 17257-1397
JERRY A. WEIGLE
Associates
JOSEPH P. RUANE
RICHARD L. WEBBER, JR.
Of CouDsel
THOMAS L. BRlGlIT
TELEPHONE (717) 532-7388 or (717) 776-4295
FAX (717) 532-5289
weil!Jeassociateslaleartblink.net
VIA FACSIMILE TO (412) 281-0717 AND U.S. MAIL
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
PEPPER HAMIL TON, LLP
50th Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
RE: 2004 Real Estate Tax Assessment appeals
Cwnberland County, Pennsylvania
Spectrasite Co=unications
Docket Nwnbers 04-920, 04-921 and 04-922
SBA Towers, Inc.
Docket Nwnbers 04-949 and 04-950
Shenandoah Mobile Company and Shenandoah
Personal Co=unications Company
Docket Nwnber 03-4921
Dear Attorney DiPaolo:
On behalf of the Shippensburg Area School District, the District hereby consents to your
proposed Motion to Consolidate as well as the Motion to Continue in the above captioned
matter.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
./
OLE & ASSOCIATES, PoCo
t;:JEfl /
'tor for Sh'ippensburg Area Schoo
~
Je
So
JA W/paf
cc: Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire (via facsimile to 243-644 I)
Dr. David R. Landis, Superintendent SASD
EXHIBIT
j
~
i "E"
l '''''''''' '"'' - --''''''''''
. "ALZMANN HUGHES &FISHMAN P,C.
I,..,........ u....
G. BllY~ SALZ.'-tANN. E'~IIiQ.
J AMI.~ n. HUGHts. )::.SQ,
STE'"ElIJ FlS!lloi>.N. E.'Cl.
ANN fo DEP"UW. DQ.
NoR)ol")' B~ llTKO. ESQ:
WlLL1A.'VI W. THoMpSON, E,.ljQ. .
MEUS$A ]{. DJVELY. LIljQ.
RE.&ECCA U.. HUGHES. EsQ.
'At,lO"'DMrt"fttl1"O~MD"'"
PMlAU:GAU:
PMfl!lA Ro BoUJNGU
BAllll<\llA). MoIlok
L\U1UtJ,poln'!:ll
1"KlCl^ t.. B^lLtY
~S.COJU"fM"""f
ANGI:t.\'o UNr,,,,
Rl:PLYTO:
gSi\J.!:lWIDUSJ'lW<<' RoAD. Surn:8' CtJlLl.u. PA 17013
(7I71I49-lill3S ,,,,,(717) i49.73M
455PHOVIIX DRIVE' Surn:A. c;,w.mu.IBURG. PA 17201
(717) !l5S.2121 FA>< (717) !l53.0663
107 Nolm< FIION"l'S=zr . Sum: 115' H.'.lUllSBUllC. PA 17101
(7171232.9420 FI>l< (717)232.1970
April 2, 2004
Sharon Fo DiPaolo, Esq.
Pe&per Hamilton, L.LoP 0
50 Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
Re: Spectracite Communications Assessment
VIA FAX AND 1ST CLASS MAD..
Dear Mso DiPaolo,
This office serves as Solicitor to Upper Frankford Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. The
Township has authori:i:ed us to Concur in the proposed Order of Consolidation as well as the proposed
Motion to Continue.
Please advise if there is anything further required of the Township at this time.
Very truly yours,
~.~~ ~ :-:>
Solicitor
EXHIBIT
CONCt:'o-rnATlNG IN EN'ol110NMENTAL. LAND USE j
RECEIVED TIME APR. 2. 10:2
"FII
MUN1ClPALA1'D ESTi\TEADMlNISTlIATlON LAw
ME APR. 2. 10: 22AM
c)
<;..~
'2
(.)
1.0
~"
('""-j
c;.:;.;.
-e-
;t-..
-'U
;-D
"
-h
--j
-r
fi'l:7J
r"--
-;:./rn
:::':;CJ
()(L
_.J..:.-::J
~it!
_~_J
-<
w
~~.,
=--~,;:
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY and
SHENANDOAH PERSONAL
COMMUNICA nONS COMPANY,
Appellants,
vs.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee.
SPECTRASlTE COMMUNICA nONS,
Appellanl,
VSo
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee,
vs,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTH MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP, and
SOUTH MIDDLETON SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interesled Parties.
PT: #178263 vI (3TJROl LDOe)
CNIL DIVISION
Noso 03-4921
04-920
04-921
04-922
04-949
04-950
MonON TO CONTINUE
Filed on Behalf of Spectrasite Communications
Counsel of Record for This Party:
Dusty Elias Kirk, Esquire
PA LDo No. 30702
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
PA LD. Noo 74520
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
Firm LD. No, 143
One Mellon Cenler
50th Floor
500 Grant Street
Piltsburgh, P A 15219-2502
(412) 454-5000
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICA nONS,
Appellant,
vs.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee.
vs.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER
FRANKFORD TOWNSHIP and BIG
SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Inleresled Partieso
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICA nONS,
Appellant,
VSo
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee.
vs.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTHAMPDEN TOWNSHIP and
SHIPPENSBURG AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Partieso
PT: #178263 vI (nJROI LDDC)
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Appellant,
vs.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee.
vs.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, EAST
PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and EAST
PENNSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties.
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Appellant,
vs.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appelleeo
VSo
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH
NEWTON TOWNSHIP and BIG
SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties.
PT: #178263 vI (3TJR01!.DOC)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY and
SHENANDOAH PERSONAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY,
Appellants,
vs.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee.
ET AL.
) CIVIL DIVISION
)
) Noso 03-4921
) 04-920
) 04-921
) 04-922
) 04-949
) 04-950
)
)
)
)
)
)
MOTION TO CONTINUE
AND NOW, comes Spectrasite Communications ("Spectrasite"), by and through
ilS altomeys, Pepper Hamillon LLP and Dusty Elias Kirk, Esquire, and files Ihe within Motion 10
Continue, and in support thereof states as follows:
10 Spectrasile is a te1ecommunicalion lower company, and the owner of
commercial real estate and taxable property situale in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and
identified as Parcel Numbers 40-1O-0632-016-LL, 43-06-0031-012-LL and 39-12-0324-004-LL
in the Cumberland County assessment records (lhe "Spectrasite Properties')
20 On or about March 4, 2004, Spectrasite filed Petitions for Appeal wilh Ihis
Court for Ihe Spectrasite Properties challenging Ihe Board's assessmenl ofthe
telecommunication towers as real property for purposes of real estate taxation.
30 SBA Towers, Inc, ("SBA") is a telecommunication tower company, and
also owns properties in Cumberland County upon which it placed telecommunication towers (the
PT: #178263 vi (3TJROl !.DOC)
"SBA Properties"). The SBA Properties are identified as Parcel Numbers 09-22-0533-001-LL
and 41-11-0304-019-LL in the Cumberland County assessment records.
40 On or about March 5, 2004, SBA filed Petitions for Appeal for the SBA
Properties with this Court raising the same issues as Spectrasile's appeals.
5. Speclrasite and SBA are represented by the same counsel wilh respect to
the above-referenced real eslate tax assessment appealso
60 On September 18, 2003, Shenandoah Mobile Company and Shenandoah
Personal Communications Company (colleclively, "Shenandoah"), by and through its atlomey,
Carl C. Risch, Esquire, filed a Petition for Appeal for its property identified as Parcel Number
25-25-0006-315- LL (the "Shenandoah Property"), raising Ihe same issues as Spectrasile' s and
SBA's appeals.
7. This Court scheduled Shenandoah's appeal for lrial on April 12, 2004.
8. Concurrent with filing this Motion to Conlinue, Speclrasite, jointly with
SBA and Shenandoah, filed a motion to consolidate Iheir appeals, as all ofthe appeals involve a
common issue oflaw.
90 In the event Ihis Court grants the consolidalion, in light of the number of
parties having an interest in Ihe outcome ofthese appeals, Spectrasile, jointly wilh SBA and
Shenandoah, requests that Ihis Court continue Ihe April 12, 2004 trial dale to provide the parties
adequate time for Ihe exchange of discovery and preparation for trial.
10. Counsel for Speclrasile and SBA has contacted Ihe respective laxing
bodies having an inlerest in these appeals, Ihrough their respeclive solicitors, 10 discuss a
continuance of the April 12, 2004 trial. Upon information and belief, Slephen Do Tiley, solicitor
for the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals and Cumberland Counly, also
PT: #178263 vi (3TJROl !.DOC)
2
atlempted to contacl each of the solicilors to discuss a continuance of this lriaL The respective
taxing bodies consent to a continuance as follows:
a. Cumberland County and the Cumberland County Board of Assessment
Appeals, through their solicilor, Stephen Do Tiley, Esquire, consenled in writing to a
continuanceo A copy of the writlen consent is atlached herelo as Exhibit "A";
bo Big Spring School Dislrict and South Middleton School District,
through their solicilor, Philip H. Spare, Esquire, consenled in writing to a continuance. A copy
of the writlen consent is atlached hereto as Exhibit "B";
c. Soulhampden Township, Ihrough its solicilor, Richard L. Webber, Jr.,
Esquire, consented in wriling 10 a continuanceo A copy of the writlen consent is atlached hereto
as Exhibit "C";
do Shippensburg Area School Districl, Ihrough its solicitor, Jerry Ao
Weigle, Esquire, consented in writing to a continuance. A copy oflhe writlen consent is
atlached hereto as Exhibit "D".
eo Upper Frankford Township, Ihrough its solicitor, Steven Fishman,
Esquire, consenled in writing to a continuance. A copy of the written consenl is atlached hereto
as Exhibil "E".
f. South Middlelon Township, Easl Pennsboro Township, East
Pennsboro Area School Dislrict and Soulh Newton Township have not yet provided a response
with respect to a continuance.
PI; #178263 vi (3TJROI!.DOC)
3
WHEREFORE, Spectrasite Communications, joinlly with SBA Towers, Inc, and
Shenandoah Mobile Company and Shenandoah Personal Communicalions Company,
respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an order continuing Ihe April 12, 20041rial
to a later dateo
Respeclfully submitted,
~ 'ih.J -'<v<h
Dusly as Kirk
P A LDo o. 30702
Sharon F. DiPaolo
PA LD. No. 74520
Pepper Hamilton LLP
One Mellon Center, 50th Floor
500 Granl Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
Daled:~, 2004
Atlorneys for Speclrasile Communications
PT: #178263 vI (3TJROI LDOC)
4
IU.Nn
::,i:inJ
0;, .r" ''''
I 'UI ~,'~;;
t: I ~!d~ ileez
Ji:.ViC:.....(){-/,'"_",;,',.,, :7.W; '10
. -- " "'"' -"-;'~ ~"'I i..... _,
;:)i:dO~G97j:l
FREY & TILEY
ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
5 SOUTH HANOVER STREET
CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013-3385
Telephone: (717) 243-5838
Facsimile: (717) 243-6441
Of Counsel:
ROBERT M. FREY
STEPHEN Do TILEY
ROBERT G. FREY
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Via email only
FROM: Steve Tiley
DATE: April 2, 2004
RE: Cell Tower Appeals
Dear Sharon:
In response to your transmission of March 30th, on behalf of the County
and Board, I concur in the motions.
I have sent a fax to the counsel for the other taxing bodies asking that they
give their concurrence to you as soon as possible.
I spoke with Attorney Carl Risch this morning and he continues to concur,
so long as trial is not delayed beyond May (I indicated June 15th and he was
agreeable to that).
Do you plan to file a separate motion for each case? I would think that at
least we will need an order entered in each case or that the final order should
reference all case numbers. I have not reviewed the procedure.
I note that I have never been served with filed copies of the original
appeals, giving file numbers. For that reason, I have not yet filed Answers.
(Although Answers are not required, I customarily do so.) No need to serve filed
copies now, I will go the courthouse and get the file numbers and I will assume
that what was filed is identical to the copies I received.
EXHIBIT
J
j "A"
Frey & Tiley
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Re: Cell Tower Cases
April 2, 2004
Page 2 of2
I am not sure that we need consent, and I am not sure that we can get
consent within the timeframe required. Some solicitors will be away. Others will
feel the need to consult with their client before making a decision.
Your cases were assigned to President Judge Hoffer. About two weeks
ago his chambers called to schedule the hearings. I advised that Judge Oler had
the Shenandoah case and that there had been some talk of consolidation and
CCAP inteNention. He asked me to report back to him in a couple of weeks.
The Shenandoah case is presently scheduled for pre-trial next Thursday
and trial a week from Monday. I believe that Carl Rish and I need to advise
Judge Oler that a motion for consolidation is likely. At the same time I believe
that I, or Carl Rish and I, should advise Judge Hoffer. I recommend that, after
my conversation with Judge Oler, that I deliver to Judge Hoffer a letter indicating
where we are, and that I suggest that the Court may want to simply order
consolidation on its own motion. We may find that this results in consolidation of
the cases before all of the taxing body solicitors have had the opportunity to
respond.
I am not yet sure who will be attending the tower removal.
Sincerely yours,
Steve
cc: Carl C. Rich, Esquire
Via email only
Stephen D. Tiley
r..,....
v~:~v rAA ,~,uo,/uo~
o.I~~&.....................&, ...............___. _~ ._.
SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P. C.
.--
AttO'lIeyllll Law
roo 00 1B;r,,>r JI:;}
44 We~ Msin 3Dll1Jet
'0.1 .1._0_' '- ""A 10'/001'
lVJLef:"...uiWl~:SIJlIJllg~ K . ~..)
(717) 697-8528
Richard C. Snelbaker Fax No. (717) 697-7681
Keith O. Brenneman
Philip H. Spare
FACSIMILE COVER LETTER
PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES:
DATE: April', 1004
TO: Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Pepper Hamilton LLP
FAX #: (412) 454-5005
FROM: Phil Spare
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER LETTER: 1
COMMENTS:
Re: Spcctrasite Communications and SBA Tower Cases
CCP Cumberland County. PA
Dear Sharon:
As we discussed this moming, our fillll represents Big Spring School District and South
Middleton School District in the above referenced tax assessment appeals. Last evening, both
school Boards adopted resolutions approving of the consolidation of these cases with the other
similar cases pending in Cumberland County. Please let me know if you require any thing else
from me at this time. Thank you.
~
Cc: Dr. Patricia B. Sanker, Superintendent
South Middleton School District
Dr. William K. Cowden, Superintendent
Big Spring School District
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire (717) 243-6441
EXHIBIT
.Ii
j nB"
TIME RPR. 6. 9: 00RM
RECEIVED TIME RPR. 6.
WEIGLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Attorneys-at-Law
126 EAST KING STREET
SHlPPENSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17257-1397
JERRY A. WEIGLE
Associates
JOSEPH P. RUANE
RICHARD L. WEBBER, JR.
Of CouRsel
THOMAS L. BRIGHT
TELEPHONE (717) 532-7388 or (717) 776-4295
FAX (717) 532-5289
weie:leassociates(ii)earthlink.net
April 2, 2004
VIA FACSIMILE TO (412) 281-0717 AND U.S. MAIL
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP
50th Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
RE: 2004 Real Estate Tax Assessment appeals
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
Spectrasite Communications
Docket Numbers 04-920, 04-921 and 04-922
SBA Towers, Inc.
Docket Numbers 04-949 and 04-950
Shenandoah Mobile Company and Shenandoah
Personal Communications Company
Docket Number 03-4921
Dear Ms. DiPaolo:
I represent Southampton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
I hereby consent to your proposed Motion to Consolidate as well as the Motion to
Continue.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
WEIGLE & ASSOCIATES, p.e
t~ ?~.dL
Richard L. Webber, Jr., Esquire
RLW/paf
cc: Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire (via facsimile to 243-6441)
Southampton Township Board of Supervisors
EXHIBIT
J
lie"
WEIGLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Attorneys-at-Law
126 EAST KING STREET
SIllPPENSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17257-1397
JERRY A. WEIGLE
Associates
JOSEPH P. RUANE
RICHARD 1. WEBBER, JR.
Of Counsel
mOMAS 1. BRIGHT
TELEPHONE (717) 532-7388 or (717) 776-4295
FAX (717) 532-5289
wei!!leassociates[al,earthlink.net
VIA FACSIMILE TO (412) 281-0717 AND U.S. MAIL
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP
50th Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, P A 15219-2502
RE: 2004 Real Estate Tax Assessment appeals
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
Spectrasite Communications
Docket Numbers 04-920, 04-921 and 04-922
SBA Towers, Inc.
Docket Numbers 04-949 and 04-950
Shenandoah Mobile Company and Shenandoah
Personal Communications Company
Docket Number 03-4921
Dear Attorney DiPaolo:
On behalf of the Shippensburg Area School District, the District hereby consents to your
proposed Motion to Consolidate as well as the Motion to Continue in the above captioned
matter.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
OLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
/
JAW/paf
cc: Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire (via facsimile to 243-6441)
Dr. David R. Landis, Superintendent SASD
EXHIBIT
~
D
.
"nn
me/lf9
III ..,.",.., ""'- --7"""'"
,)~MANN, HUGHES &FISHMAN, P,C.
PAGE In
G. BRYN"I SAlZMANN. E'.~Q.
JA.Mr.~ D.HooHts.ESQ.
STE;"El< J FlSIlMAN. E-'Qo
_~'o DEPAULl~o EsQo
NOIllOA) 0 U ""'0. EsQ:
Wu..Ll~ w. nioM,SON. E.~Q...
MEWMK. DM:LY. E-'Q.
Ru'ECC^ R. HUGHD, EsQ.
'A.1,IO^DI<C~'t'O~NDaAR
P ,'lIALEC-ALS:
PANElA Ro BoLIJNGU
BAB&hI'''') 0 MOIIOR
L\IJ1lIE), poRl"Ell
1'1uCl^ t. B^lLEY
KAMS.COKl'OL\.~
ANGE:t.\ '0 UNCFJl
RI:PLV-r<l:
gSi\LE>WlDERSnuIC RoAD . sUITE~ . CAllLT!LL PA li013
(l1il U!l-61lS8 FiIX (l1il249.7834
455 PHou<1XDlIM: . SUITE A . CHAJolDEJ,'BtlKCl, PA li201
(71illGll.2121 F",,0Iil203-0663
107 NOJm<FlIOlITSTRtET . sum: 115' HAlUUSBURC, PA mOl
0171232-9<20 PAl< 0171232.1910
April 2, 2004
Sharon Fo DiPaolo, Esq.
Pefper Hamilton, L.L.P.
50 Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, P A 15219-2502
Rc: Spectracite Communications Assessment
VIA FAX AND 1ST CLASS MAIL
Dear Mso DiPaolo,
This office serves as Solicitor to Upper Frankford Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. The
Township has authorized us to Concur in the proposed Order of Consolidation as well as the proposed
Motion to Continue.
Please advise if there is anything further required of the Township at this time.
Very truly yours,
s..~k ~
Solicitor
EXHIBIT
I "EII
CONCE:>OTMTTNG IN EN'>1RONMENTAL, LAND USE, CORPORATE, REAL Enl\TE, MUNICIPAL AND ESTATEADMINISTRATTON LAw
RECEIVED TIME RPR 2 10'21RM
..' PRINT TIME RPR. 2. 10: 22RM
'"
C:;;l 0
'-;,_J "T/
~
:-.:-" .-/
-,-
, "'0 "cc---r;
:;;-; fllr::-
-,-'1""';1
'^-) ~_dy
'-~:C)
"'~" -c,
(:~; -rl
:-i.':: ,c'O-::;
'>f~1
(~
:2 -r-
CJ
SHENANDOAH MOBILE:
COMPANY and
SHENANDOAH
PERSONAL
COMMUNICATIONS
COMPANY,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUMBERLAND
COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
NO. 03-4921 CIVIL TERM
SPECTRASITE
COMMUNICATIONS,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUMBERLAND
COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
v.
CUMBERLAND
COUNTY, UPPER
FRANKFORD
TOWNSHIP, and
BIG SPRINGS SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
NO. 04-921 CIVIL TERM/
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 16th day of April, 2004, upon due consideration of the Motion To
Consolidate filed by Spectrasite Communications jointly with SBA Towers, Inc., and
Shenandoah Mobile Company and Shenandoah Personal Communications Company, it is
hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Motion To Consolidate is
hereby GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the Prothonotary of Cumberland
County shall consolidate the actions docketed at Numbers 03-4921, 04-920, 04-921, 04-
922, 04-949 and 04-050 at Number 03-4921.
Stephen D. Tiley, Esq.
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Cumberland County Board
of Assessment Appeals
Edward L. Schorpp, Esq.
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, P A 17013
Solicitor, Cumberland County
Carl Risch, Esq.
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
Attorney for Shenandoah Mobile
Company
Dusty Elias Kirk, Esq.
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esq.
Pepper Hamilton LLP
One Mellon Center, 50th Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
Attorneys for Spectrasite
Communications
Philip R Spare, Esq.
44 West Main Street
P.O. Box318
Mechanicsburg, P A 17055
Solicitor, Big Springs
School District
BY THE COURT,
~.
~ ,;
-~
!=-:
~i J :".,;
(. J ;~:_
()~:<
, '-..'
&1IL
i=!iE!
IL.
c)
...:::r~
';::l
,,:;~-'
',-;
'0
(0)
f')
C:J
<'oJ
n~
"":..;;:
Steven Fishman, Esq.
95 Alexander Spring Road
Carlisle, PA 17013
Solicitor, Upper Frankford Township
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
CIVIL DIVISION
v
NO. 2004-920 CIVIL TERM
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH
MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP and SOUTH
MIDDLETON SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties PETITION FOR APPEAL
*****************************
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
CIVIL DIVISION
v
~. 2004-921 CIVIL TERM
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER
FRANK FORD TOWNSHIP and BIG
SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties PETITION FOR APPEAL
****************************
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
CIVIL DIVISION
v
NO. 2004-922 CIVIL TERM
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTHAMPDEN TOWNSHIP and
SHIPPENSBURG AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties PETITION FOR APPEAL
*******************************
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Appellant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERcAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
CIVIL DIVISION
v
NO. 2004-950 CIVIL TERM
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, EAST
PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and EAST
PENNSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
PETITION FOR APPEAL
ViNVIIlASNN3d
Ah'l!nOJ (i/f,n+?Si'lnC>
'18 :8 14d OlllnnOOl
At.i\!lOi'JOHlOl:ld 31-U dO
30i::l:i0-G31l::l
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Appellant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
CIVIL DIVISION
v
NO. 20C4-949 CIVIL TERM
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH
NEWTON TOWNSHIP and BIG
SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties PETITION FOR APPEAL
*********************************
SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY,
and SHENANDOAH PERSONAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
CIVIL A.CTION - LAW
NO. 03-4921 CIVIL TERM
: REAL ESTA.TE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL
IN RE: PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE
A pre-hearing conference in the above-captioned
cases was held in the chambers of Judge Oler on Wednesday, June
9, 2004.
In the case of Spectrasite COffinunications versus
Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals versus Cumberland
County, South Middleton Township and Souti Middleton School
District, at No. 2004-920 Civil Term, ApP'=llant, Spectrasite
Communications, was represented by Dusty :~lias Kirk, Esquire, and
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire; Appellee, CU~Jerland County Board of
Assessment Appeals, was represented by St'=phen D. Tiley, Esquire;
Interested Party Cumberland County was represented by Stephen D.
Tiley, Esquire; Interested Party South Middleton School District
was represented by Philip H. Spare, Esquire, and Interested Party
South Middleton Township was unrepresented.
In the case of Spectrasite Communications versus
Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals versus Cumberland
County, Upper Frankford Township and Big Spring School District
at No. 2004-921 Civil Term, present on behalf of Appellant,
Spectrasite Communications, were Dusty Elias Kirk, Esquire, and
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire. Appellee, Cumberland County Board of
Assessment Appeals, was represented by Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire;
Interested Party Cumberland County was represented by Stephen D.
Tiley, Esquire; Interested Party Big Spring School District was
represented by Philip H. Spare, Esquire; and Interested Party
Upper Frankford Township was not represented.
In the case of Spectrasite Communications,
Appellant, versus Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals
versus Cumberland County, South Hampden Township and Shippensburg
Area School District at No. 2004-922 Civil Term, Appellant,
Spectrasite Communications, was represented by Dusty Elias Kirk,
Esquire, and Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire; Appellee, Cumberland
County Board of Assessment Appeals, was represented by Stephen D.
Tiley, Esquire; Interested Party Cumberland County was
represented by Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire; and Interested Parties
South Hampden Township and Shippensburg Area School District were
not represented.
In the case of SBA Towers,o Inc., Appellant,
versus Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals versus
Cumberland County, East pennsboro Township and East Pennsboro
School District at No. 2004-950 Civil Term, Appellant, SBA
Towers, Inc., was represented by Dusty Elias Kirk, Esquire, and
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire; Appellee, Cumberland County Board of
Assessment Appeals, was represented by Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire;
Interested Party Cumberland County was represented by Stephen D.
Tiley, Esquire; and Interested Parties East pennsboro Township
and East Pennsboro School District were not represented.
In the case of SBA Towers, Inc., versus
Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals versus Interested
Parties Cumberland County, South Newton Township and Big Spring
School District at No. 2004-949 Civil Term, Appellant, SBA
Towers, Inc., was represented by Dusty Elias Kirk, Esquire, and
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire; Appellee, Cumberland County Board of
Assessment Appeals, was represented by Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire;
Interested Party Cumberland County was represented by Stephen D.
Tiley, Esquire; Interested Party Big Spring School District was
represented by Philip H. Spare, Esquire, and Interested Party
South Newton Township was not represented.
In the case of Shenandoah Mobile Company and
Shenandoah Personal Communications Company, Appellants, versus
Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals at
No. 03-4921 Civil Term, Appellants were represented by Carl C.
Risch, Esquire, and Appellee was represented by Stephen D. Tiley,
Esquire.
It is noted further that in all of these cases
Robert L. Knupp, Esquire, was present in the capacity of an
amicus curiae, on behalf of the Pennsylvania County Commissioners
Association.
This case involves tax assessment appeals with a
common issue: Whether telecommunication towers are realty or
personalty for purposes of Pennsylvania real estate taxation.
Counsel have indicated that they believe they will be able to
stipulate as to the value of the improverrLents in question so that
that valuation will not be an issue for the Court. Counsel have
all agreed that the aforesaid issue regarding realty/personalty
is the only issue being pursued for a disposition by the Court in
these cases.
By separate Order of Court, the hearing in these
cases, which have been consolidated at Number 03-4921 Civil Term,
will be held on Thursday, June 24, 2004, commencing at 9:30 a.m.,
and Monday, June 28, 2004, commencing at 9:30 a.m.
With respect to settlement negotiations, it does
not appear to the Court that these cases will be resolved
amicably.
By the Court,
~rl C. Risch, Esquire
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
For Shenandoah
~;ty Elias Kirk, Esquire
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Pepper Hamilton, LLP
One Mellon Center, 50th Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
For Spectrasite Communications
JC~ &1
> L-=fYr1}tB
ot -/0-0";
and SBA Towers, Inc.
~obert L. Knupp, Esquire
407 North Front Street
Box 11848
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1848
For County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania
~~phen D. Tiley, Esquire
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
For Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals
~lip H. Spare, Esquire
44 West Main Street
P.O. Box 318
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
For Big Spring and South Middleton School Districts
:mae
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant
:IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
:CUMBERL1\ND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
CIVIL DIVISION
v
NO. 2004-920 CIVIL TERM
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH
MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP and SOUTH
MIDDLETON SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
PETITION FOR APPEAL
*****************************
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBEHLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
CIVIL DIVISION
v
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER
FRANKFORD TOWNSHIP and BIG
SPHING SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties PETITION FOR APPEAL
****************************
~O. 2004-921 CIVIL TERM
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v
CUMBEHLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
CIVIL DIVISION
v
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTHAMPDEN TOWNSHIP and
SHIPPENSBURG AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
NO. 2004-922 CIVIL TERM
Interested Parties PETITION FOR APPEAL
*******************************
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Appellant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
CIVIL DIVISION
v
NO. 2004-950 CIVIL TERM
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, EAST
PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and EAST
PENNSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
PETITION FOR APPEAL
pi
&":)
~
il..,
~
L
:t
-<
"-
,-
o
~
~
~
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Appellant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
CIVIL DIVISION
v
NO. 2004-949 CIVIL TERM
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH
NEWTON TOWNSHIP and BIG
SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties PETITION FOR APPEAL
*********************************
SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY,
and SHENANDOAH PERSONAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
CIVIL }\CTION - LAW
NO. 03-4921 CIVIL TERM
: REAL EST}\TE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL
IN RE: NONJURY TRIAL
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 24th day of June, 2004, upon
consideration of the tax assessment appeals in the
above-captioned cases, and following an initial day of hearing,
the record shall remain open, and it is noted that a second full
day of hearing is scheduled for Monday, ~'une 28, 2004, commencing
at 9:30 a.m.
It is noted further that at the time of
adjournment on today's date Patrick Doyle was being subjected to
cross examination by Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire, counsel for the
Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals.
It is noted further that at the time of
adjournment Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals Exhibit
1 had been identified and admitted and Taxpayer's Exhibit 2 (sub
items 1 through 34, 36 through 37, and 41) had been identified
and admitted as had Taxpayer's Exhibits 35, 53, and 3.
By the Court,
Carl C. Risch, Esquire
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
For Shenandoah
Dusty Elias Kirk, Esquire
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Pepper Hamilton, LLP
One Mellon Center, 50th Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
For Spectrasite Communications and SBA Towers,
~~
Inc.
(,. ).?o 't
Mark A. Mateya, Esquire
407 North Front Street
Box 11848
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1848
For County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
For Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals
Philip H. Spare, Esquire
44 West Main Street
P.O. Box 318
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
For Big Spring and South Middleton School Districts
:mae
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
CIVIL DIVISION
v
NO. 2004-920 CIVIL TERM
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH
MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP and SOUTH
MIDDLETON SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties PETITION FOR APPEAL
*****************************
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
CIVIL DIVISION
v
~~.
2004-921 CIVIL TERM
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER
FRANKFORD TOWNSHIP and BIG
SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties PETITION FOR APPEAL
****************************
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
CIVIL DIVISION
v
NO. 2004-922 CIVIL TERM
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTHAMPDEN TOWNSHIP and
SHIPPENSBURG AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties PETITION FOR APPEAL
*******************************
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Appellant
v
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
CIVIL DIVISION
v
NO. 2004-950 CIVIL TERM
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, EAST
PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and EAST
PENNSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
PETITION FOR APPEAL
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Appellant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
CIVIL DIVISION
v
NO. 2004-949 CIVIL TERM
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH
NEWTON TOWNSHIP and BIG
SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties PETITION FOR APPEAL
*********************************
SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY,
and SHENANDOAH PERSONAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 03-4921 CIVIL TERM
:REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL
IN RE: TAX ASSESSMENT A.PPEALS
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 28th day of June, 2004, upon
consideration of the tax assessment appeals in the
above-captioned cases, and following a second day of hearing, the
record is declared closed, and the matter is taken under
advisement.
It is noted that at the time of completion of the
record, in addition to the exhibits which were referred to in the
Order of Court dated June 24, 2004, the following exhibits had
been identified and admitted:
Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals
Exhibit 2, Taxpayers' Exhibit 1, Taxpayers' Exhibit 4, Taxpayers'
Exhibit 5, Taxpayers' Exhibit 6, Taxpayers' Exhibit 7, Taxpayers'
Exhibit 8, Taxpayers' Exhibit 9, Taxpayers' Exhibit 10,
Taxpayers' Exhibit 11, Taxpayers' Exhibit 12, Taxpayers' Exhibit
13, and Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals Exhibit 3.
Pursuant to a request of counsel, counsel are
afforded a period of 30 days from today's date within which to
submit briefs to the Court on the issues which they perceive to
exist in these cases.
By the Court,
r.
~rl C. Risch, Esquire
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
For Shenandoah
Dusty Elias Kirk, Esquire
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Pepper Hamilton, LLP
One Mellon Center, 50th Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
For Spectrasite Communications and SBA Towers, Inc.
Mark A. Mateya, Esquire
P.O. Box 127
Boiling Springs, PA 17007
For County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
For Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals
Philip H. Spare, Esquire
44 West Main Street
P.O. Box 318
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
For Big Spring and South Middleton School Districts 0
:mae
SHENANDOAH MOBILE
COMPANY, and
SHENANDOAH PERSONAL
COMMuNICATIONS
COMPANY,
Plaintiffs
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
SPECTRASITE
COMMuNICATIONS,
Plaintiff
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTH MIDDLETON
TOWNSHIP, and SOUTH
MIDDLETON SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
* * * *
SPECTRASITE
COMMUNICATIONS,
Plaintiff
v.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
NO. 03-4921 CIVIL TERM
* * * *
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
NO. 04-920 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
uPPER FRANKFORD
TOWNSHIP, and BIG SPRING
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
SPECTRASITE
COMMuNICATIONS,
Plaintiff
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTHAMPDEN TOWNSHIP,
and SHIPPENSBURG AREA
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
* * * *
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Plaintiff
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION--LA W
NO. 04-921 CIVIL TERM
* * * *
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
NO. 04-922 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
V. CIVIL ACTION--LA W
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTH NEWTON TOWNSHIP, :
and BIG SPRlNG SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties NO. 04-949 CIVIL TERM
* * * *
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
V.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
V.
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
EAST PENNSBORO
TOWNSHIP, and EAST
PENNSBORO SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
NO. 04-950 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: TAX ASSESSMENT APPEALS
BEFORE OLER, J.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 15th day of September, 2004, after careful consideration of the
tax assessment appeals filed herein, following a hearing, and for the reasons stated in the
acCompanying opinion, it is ordered as follows:
With respect to parcel number 25-25-0006-351 LL:
THE MARKET VALUE as of January 1, 2004 (and for succeeding years until
revised), for the parcel owned by Shenandoah Mobile Company, situated in New
Cumberland Borough, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is fixed at $95,000.00.
THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO for Cumberland County has been
stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetennined ratio is 100 percent.
THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of less than 15 percent between the common
level ratio and predetermined ratio, as a result of which assessments are to be determined
by application of the predetennined ratio, the assessment with respect to the aforesaid
parcel is fixed at $95,000.00 as of January 1,2004, for county and municipal taxes, and
July 1, 2004, for school real estate taxes.
With respect to parcel number 43-06-0031-012 LL:
THE MARKET VALUE as of January 1, 2004 (and for succeeding years until
revised), for the parcel owned by Spectrasite Communications, situated in Upper
Frankford Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is fixed at $142,000.00.
THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO for Cumberland County has been
stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetennined ratio is 100 percent.
THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of less than 15 percent between the common
level ratio and predetennined ratio, as a result of which assessments are to be detennined
by application of the predetennined ratio, the assessment with respect to the aforesaid
parcel is fixed at $142,000.00 as of January 1, 2004, for county and municipal taxes, and
July 1,2004, for school real estate taxes.
With respect to parcel number 39-12-0324-004 LL:
THE MARKET VALUE as of January 1,2004 (and for succeeding years until
revised), for the parcel Owned by Spectrasite Communications, situated in Southampton
Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is fixed at $136,530.00.
THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO for Cumberland County has been
stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetennined ratio is 100 percent.
THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of less than 15 percent between the common
level ratio and predetermined ratio, as a result of which assessments are to be detennined
by application of the predetermined ratio, the assessment with respect to the aforesaid
parcel is fixed at $136,530.00 as of January 1, 2004, for county and municipal taxes, and
July 1, 2004, for school real estate taxes.
With respect to parcel number 40-10-0632-016 LL:
THE MARKET VALUE as of January 1,2004 (and for succeeding years until
revised), for the parcel owned by Spectrasite Communications, situated in South
Middleton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is fixed at $136,530.00.
THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO for Cumberland County has been
stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetermined ratio is 100 percent.
THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of less than 15 percent between the common
level ratio and predetermined ratio, as a result of which assessments are to be determined
by application of the predetermined ratio, the assessment with respect to the aforesaid
parcel is fixed at $136,530.00 as of January 1, 2004, for county and municipal taxes, and
July 1, 2004, for school real estate taxes.
With respect to parcel number 09-22-0533-001 LL:
THE MARKET VALUE as of January 1,2004 (and for succeeding years until
revised), for the parcel owned by SBA Towers, Inc., situated in East Pennsboro
Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is fixed at $70,000.00.
THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO for Cumberland County has been
stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetermined ratio is 100 percent.
THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of less than 15 percent between the common
level ratio and predetermined ratio, as a result of which assessments are to be determined
by application of the predetermined ratio, the assessment with respect to the aforesaid
parcel is fixed at $70,000.00 as of January 1, 2004, for county and municipal taxes, and
July 1, 2004, for school real estate taxes.
With respect to parcel number 41-11-0304-019 LL:
THE MARKET VALUE as of January 1,2004 (and for succeeding years until
revised), for the parcel owned by SBA Towers, Inc" situated in South Newton Township,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is fixed at $100,000.00.
THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO for Cumberland County has been
stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetermined ratio is 100 percent.
THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of less than 15 percent between the common
level ratio and predetermined ratio, as a result of which assessments are to be determined
by application of the predetermined ratio, the assessment with respect to the aforesaid
parcel is fixed at $100,000.00 as of January 1,2004, for county and municipal taxes, and
July 1,2004, for school real estate taxes.
BY THE COURT,
~1 C. Risch, Esq,
10 East High Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
Attorney for Shenandoah Mobile Company
and Shenandoah Personal Communications Company
~~y Elias Kirk, Esq.
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esq.
Pepper Hamilton, LLP
One Mellon Center, 50th Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Attorneys for Spectrasite Communications
and SBA Towers, Inc.
)
(J 17.0/
0-' .
11
eJ\1ark A. Mateya, Esq.
407 North Front Street
Box 11848
Harrisburg, P A 17108
Attorney for County Commissioners
Association of Pennsylvania
Slephen D. Tiley, Esq, i /)
5 South Hanover Street r-crsv~ .5e(~
Carlisle, P A 17013 0 l
. q-d>o,
h JaN--f Wa(-t..e.,r
Attorney for Cumberland County
Board of Assessment Appeals
~p H. Spare, Esq.
44 West Main Street
P.O. Box 318
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Attorney for Big Spring and
South Middleton School Districts
SHENANDOAH MOBILE
COMPANY, and
SHENANDOAH PERSONAL
COMMuNICATIONS
COMPANY,
Plaintiffs
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
SPECTRASITE
COMMuNICATIONS,
Plaintiff
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTy
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTH MIDDLETON
TOWNSHIP, and SOUTII
MIDDLETON SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
* * * *
SPECTRA SITE
COMMUNICATIONS,
Plaintiff
v.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
NO. 03-4921 CIVIL TERM
* * * *
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
NO. 04-920 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
UPPER FRANKFORD
TOWNSHIP, and BIG SPRING
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
SPECTRA SITE
COMMuNICATIONS,
Plaintiff
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTy
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
v.
CUMBERLANDCOUNT~
SOUTHAMPDEN TOWNSHIP,
and SHIPPENSBURG AREA
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
* * * *
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Plaintiff
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION--LA W
NO. 04-921 CIVIL TERM
* * * *
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
NO. 04-922 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
2
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
v. CIVIL ACTION--LA W
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTH NEWTON TOWNSIDP, :
and BIG SPRING SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties NO. 04-949 CIVIL TERM
* * * *
SBA TOWERS, INC"
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
v.
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
EAST PENNSBORO
TOWNSHIP, and EAST
PENNSBORO SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
NOo 04-950 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: TAX ASSESSMENT APPEALS
BEFORE OLER, J.
OPINION and ORDER OF COURT
OLER, 1., September 15,2004.
In these six cases, which have been consolidated by agreement of counsel because
of a common question of law, Plaintiffs are appealing from real estate tax assessments by
3
Defendant of Plaintiffs' telecommunication tower facilities.l At issue on the appeals is
the correctness of Defendant's underlying classification of Plaintiffs' telecommunication
towers as realty as opposed to personalty for real estate tax purposes.2
The procedural history of the cases may be summarized as follows. On September
18, 2003, Plaintiffs Shenandoah Mobile Company and Shenandoah Personal
Communications Company filed a petition for appeal from Defendant's tax assessment of
their telecommunication towers.3 Defendant filed an answer to Plaintiffs' petition on
October 2, 2003,4 and the case was listed for trial on January 7, 2004.5 On March 4,
2004, Plaintiff Spectrasite Communications filed three petitions for appeal, each listing
the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals as Defendant, as well as
Cumberland County and the local townships and school districts in which the towers
were located as interested parties.6 On March 5, 2004, Plaintiff SBA Towers filed two
petitions for appeal, each listing the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals
I The following cases have been consolidated at Number 03-4921 Civil Term: Numbers 03-4921 Civil
Tenn, 04-920 Civil Tenn, 04-921 Civil Tenn, 04-922 Civil Tenn, 04-949 Civil Tenn, and 04-950 Civil
Term. See Order ofCt., Apro 16,2004.
2 See Pet. of Appeal from Detennination of Real Estate Tax Assessment, filed Sept. 18, 2003 (hereinafter
Shenandoah's Pet. of Appeal); Pet. for Appeal, filed Mar. 4, 2004 (hereinafter Spectrasite/South
Middleton Township Pet. for Appeal); Pet. for Appeal, filed Mar. 4, 2004 (hereinafter Spectrasite/Upper
Frankford Township Pet. for Appeal); Pet. for Appeal, filed Maro 4, 2004 (hereinafter
Spectrasite/Southampden Township Pet. for Appeal); Pet. for Appeal, filed Mar. 5, 2004 (hereinafter SBA
Towers/South Newton Township Pet. for Appeal); Pet. for Appeal, filed Maro 5, 2004 (hereinafter SBA
Towers/East Pennsboro Township Pet. for Appeal).
3 Shenandoah's Pet. of Appeal.
4 Answer, filed Oct. 2, 2003 (hereinafter Def's Answer to Shenandoah's Pet.).
5 Praecipe for Listing Case for Trial, filed Jan. 7, 20040
6 See Spectrasite/South Middleton Township Pet. for Appeal (listing Cumberland County, South
Middleton Township and South Middleton School District as interested parties); Spectrasite/Upper
Frankford Township Pet. for Appeal (listing Cumberland County, Upper Frankford Township, and Big
Spring School District as interested parties); Spectrasite/Southampden Township Pet. for Appeal (listing
Cumberland County, Southampden Township, and Shippensburg Ar,ea School District as interested
parties )0
4
as Defendant, as well as Cumberland County and the local townships and school districts
in which the towers were located as interested parties. 7
On April 13, 2004, Plaintiff Spectrasite Communications filed a motion to
consolidate the six cases pending against Defendant.8 On April 16, 2004, pursuant to an
agreement of counsel, the court ordered the cases consolidated, with filings to be made at
Number 03-4921 Civil Term.9
A pre-hearing conference was held on June 9, 2004,10 and a two-day hearing was
conducted on June 24, 2004, and June 28, 20040 II
For the reasons stated in this opinion, Defendant's treatment of Plaintiffs'
telecommunication towers as realty for purposes of the county's tax on real property will
be sustained.
Plaintiffs are Shenandoah Mobile Complmy, Shenandoah Personal
Communications Company, Spectrasite Communications, and SBA Towers, Inc. 12
Shenandoah, Spectrasite, and SBA Towers are all telecommunication tower companies
which own towers throughout Pennsylvania. 13 Spectrasite and SBA Towers are also part
of an industry group, along with Crown Communications and American Tower
Company, which is cooperating in the coordination of real estate tax assessment
appeals. 14 Defendant is the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals.ls The
STATEMENT OF FACTS
7 See SBA Towers/South Newton Township Pet. for Appeal (listing Cumberland County, South Newton
Township, and Big Spring School District as interested parties); SBA TowerslEast Pennsboro Township
Pet. for Appeal (listing Cumberland County, East Pennsboro Township, and East Pennsboro School
District as interested parties).
8 Mot. to Consolidate, filed Apr. 13,2004 {hereinafter Spectrasite's Moll. To Consolidate)o
9 Order ofCt., Apro 16,2004.
10 In Re: Pre-Hearing Conference, June 9, 20040
II Notes of Testimony 2, Hr'go, June 24,2004, and June 28, 2004 {hereinafter NT-->.
12 NoT. 1-20
13 Stipulations of Fact 1[2, PIs! Ex. 13, Hr'go, June 24, 2004, and June 28, 2004 {hereinafter Stipulations
of Fact 1[-->0
14 Stipulations of Fact 1[3.
5
Interested Parties of record are Cumberland County, South Middleton Township, Upper
Frankford Township, Southampden Township, East Pennsboro Township, South Newton
Township, South Middleton School District, Big Spring School District, Shippensburg
Area School District, and East Pennsboro School District 16
For the sake of clarity, the word "tower" will be used when referencing the actual
telecommunication towers, and the term "tower facility" will be used when referencing
the tower, fence, concrete foundation and equipment building on each site. With respect
to the types of towers, a monopole tower will be defined as a self-supporting, tubular
tower which ranges 50-200 feet in height 17 A lattice tower will be defined as a se1f-
supporting, three- or four-legged tower which is widest at the bottom and tapers as it
rises.I8 Lattice towers can reach heights of up to 1,000 feet 19 Finally, it should be noted
that Plaintiffs' lease the underlying land on which their tower facilities are located.20 The
assessments at issue in these cases were made only on Plaintiffs' tower facilities;
assessments on the leased land were separately issued to the landowners.21
These cases involve six telecommunication towers located in Cumberland County
(identified as Towers "A_F").22 Tower "A," parcel number 25-25-0006-351 LL, is
owned by Shenandoah Mobile Company.23 It is a 70-foot monopole tower located at 102
Market Street, New Cumberland Borough, Cumberland County, Pennsy1vania.24 The
lease for Tower "A's" facility commenced on August 23, 1999, and is a five-year lease,
which will automatically be renewed, unless terminated by the tower company, through
15 NoT. 1-20
16N.T.I_20
17 Stipulations of Fact 'U4.
18 Stipulations of Fact 'U40
19 Stipulations of Fact 'U4.
20 Stipulations of Fact 'UIO.
21 Stipulations of Fact 'U120
22 Stipulations of Fact 'U'U5, 70
23 Stipulations of Fact 'U7.
24 Stipulations of Fact 'U70
6
four more five-year periods. 25 The original assessment issued for the improvements at
Tower "A's" facility specified an assessed value of$202,860,00, which was modified by
the Board of Assessment Appeals to $95,000.00.26
Tower "B," parcel number 43-06-0031-012 LL, is owned by Spectrasite
Communications.27 It is a 150-foot lattice tower located at 200 Center Road, Upper
Frankford Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.28 The lease for Tower "B's"
facility commenced on June 3, 1998, and is a four-year lease, which will automatically be
renewed, unless terminated by the tower company, through four more five-year periods.29
The original assessment issued for the improvements at Tower "B's" facility specified an
assessed value of $217,560.00, which was modified by thl~ Board of Assessment Appeals
to $142,000.00.30
Tower "C," parcel number 39-12-0324-004 LL, is owned by Spectrasite
Communications.31 It is a 180-foot lattice tower located at 44 Kline Road, Southampton
Township, Cumberland County, Pennsy1vania.32 The lease for Tower "C's" facility
commenced on March 6, 1998, and is a five-year lease, which will automatically be
renewed, unless terminated by the tower company, through five more five-year periods.33
The original assessment issued for the improvements at Tower "C's" facility specified an
assessed value of $244,860.00, which was modified by the Board of Assessment Appeals
to $136,530.00.34
25 Stipulations of Fact 'VII.
26 Stipulations of Fact 'V13.
27 Stipulations of Fact 'V70
28 Stipulations of Fact 'V7.
29 Stipulations of Fact 'VII.
30 Stipulations of Fact 'Vn
3I Stipulations of Fact 'V7.
32 Stipulations of Fact 'V7.
33 Stipulations of Fact 'VII.
34 Stipulations of Fact 'V 13 0
7
Tower "D," parcel number 40-10-0632-016 LL, is owned by Spectrasite
Communications.35 It is a 160-foot lattice tower located at 1500 Holly Pike, South
Middleton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.36 The lease for Tower "D's"
facility commenced on August 22, 1998, and is a five-year lease, which will
automatically be renewed, unless terminated by the tower company, through four more
five-year periods.37 The original assessment issued for the improvements at Tower "D's"
facility specified an assessed value of $221,060.00, which was modified by the Board of
Assessment Appeals to $136,530.00.38
Tower "E," parcel number 09-22-0533-001 LL, is owned by SBA Towers.39 It is a
120-foot monopole tower located at 4404 Industrial Park Road, East Pennsboro
Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.4o The lease for Tower "E's" facility
commenced on January 1, 2001, and is a five-year lease, which will automatically be
renewed, unless terminated by the tower company, through four more five-year periods
and one period of four years and eleven months041 The original assessment issued for the
improvements at Tower "E's" facility specified an assessed value of $244,860.00, which
was modified by the Board of Assessment Appeals to $70,000.00.42
Tower "F," parcel number 41-11-0304-019 LL, is owned by SBA Towers.43 It is a
195-foot lattice tower located at 212 Hammond Road, South Newton Township,
Cumberland County, Pennsy1vania.44 The lease for Tower "F's" facility commenced on
November 21, 1997, and is a five-year lease, which will automatically be renewed, unless
35 Stipulations of Fact 117.
36 Stipulations of Fact 1170
37 Stipulations of Fact 1111.
38 Stipulations of Fact 11130
39 Stipulations of Fact 117.
40 Stipulations of Fact 117.
41 Stipulations of Fact 1111.
42 Stipulations of Fact 1113.
43 Stipulations of Fact 1170
44 Stipulations of Fact 117.
8
terminated by the tower company, through four more five-year periods and one period of
four years and eleven months.45 The original assessment issued for the improvements at
Tower "F's" facility specified an assessed value of $244,860.00, which was modified by
the Board of Assessment Appeals to $100,000.00.46
Cumberland County is a fourth class county.47 The predetermined assessment
ratio for real estate in Cumberland County is 100 percent. 48 The above assessment values
which were determined by the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals
represent the fair market value of each of the tower facilities.49 The common level ratio,
which is set at 95.4 percent for Cumberland County, is not implicated as a factor in these
cases because it does not vary by more than 15 percent from the predetermined ratio. 50
Much of the testimony at the hearing focused on the question of whether
Plaintiffs' towers were, or were at least intended to be, permanent fixtures at the tower
facilities. This testimony included explanations about the erection and disassembly of
telecommunication towers, reasons for removing or replacing towers, and general trends
in the tower industry pertaining to the erection and removal of towers.
The process of erecting a tower begins with the submission of bids.51 The bid
forms are broken down by the tasks which need to be performed. 52 These tasks include,
but are not limited to, foundation work, tower erection, electrical work, fencing, and
landscaping. 53 After bids have been submitted and jobs awarded, preparation of the
tower facility site begins, including erecting a fence, clearing the trees and vegetation,
45 Stipulations of Fact 1/1l.
46 Stipulations of Fact 1/130
47 See Act of Augo 9, 1955, P.L. 323, ~21O, as amended 16 P-S. ~21O.
48 Stipulations of Fact 1115.
49 Stipulations of Fact 1/150
50 Stipulations of Fact 1115.
SlN.To 146.
52 See PIs.' Ex. 3, Hr'g., June 24, 2004 and June 28, 2004 (hereinafter Pls.'/Def.'s Exo --"l; PIs.' Ex. 5;
PIs.' Exo 6.
53 NT 145-48; PIs.' Exo 3; PIs.' Exo 5; PIs.' Ex. 60
9
grading, stoning, and matting. 54 Sometimes it is also necessary to have an access road
constructed from the highway or roadway to the tower filcility site055
The first step in the actual erection of either a monopole or a lattice tower is the
laying of the concrete mat and pier foundation. 56 Leonard Greisz, a Director ofIntemal
Controls Compliance with Shenandoah, and Patrick Doyle, an employee of Crown
Castle, testified as to this procedure. 57 Their testimony was corroborated by Patrick
O'Reilly, a Director of Field Operations for Spectrasite, and Andrew Getsy, a Field
Operations Manager for SBA.58 First, engineers conduct a geotechnical analysis to
detennine whether they will be drilling in soft dirt, hard dirt, or bedrock.59 The softer or
looser the ground is, the deeper the concrete foundation must be.60 After the needed
depth of the foundation is detennined, the ground is drilled, and rebar cages are placed in
the ground.61 Bolts are then placed inside the rebar cages, and the cement is poured.62
Additionally, Mr. O'Reilly testified that instead of a mat and pier foundation, lattice
towers may have a straight caisson under each leg of the tower.63 A straight caisson is
simply an individual concrete foundation under each leg of the tower which is about eight
feet in diameter, and anywhere from twenty to thirty feet deep.64 Otherwise, a straight
caisson is created in the same manner as the mat and pier foundation.65
54 NT 146-47.
55 N.T. 1470
56 N.To 140.
57 NT 27-28, 990
58 N.T. 204-05, 221.
59 NT. 480
60 NoTo 480
61 NT 140.
62 NT 140.
63 N.To 2130
64 NT 213.
65 See NT 213.
10
Mr. Greisz and Mr. Doyle next testified about the erection of towers. While the
cement is curing, the next stage of erecting the tower proceeds.66 Usually workers will
begin constructing the individual sections of the tower during this time.67 After the
cement has cured, a crane lifts the first section of the tower over the bolts and onto the
mat and pier foundation.68 A lock washer is then p1ace:d over the bolts, and, finally, a
large nut is used to securely fasten the tower to its foundation.69 After the first segment
of the tower has been securely fastened to its foundation, the remaining segments of the
tower are moved into place by crane and attached to the previous segments of the tower
until the entire tower has been erected.70 After the tower has been erected, lights will be
attached to it and electricity will be run to it, making the tower ready to host antennas. 71
During the hearing, Mr. Doyle also gave extensive testimony on the disassembly
process for telecommunication towers as he narrate:d a videotape showing the
disassembly of a tower in West Virginia.72 The West Virginia tower was a 180-foot
lattice tower which was composed of nine sections and over 100 partS.73 Before any
disassembly could begin, the lights were taken off the tower, and the tower facility site
was de-energized.74 Additionally, any antennas or co-axle cables which would have been
attached to the tower would also have had to have been taken down or disconnected
before disassembly could begin. 75
66 N.T. 140-4l.
67 NTo 140.
68 N.T. 42, 14l.
"NT 42,141-42.
70 See N.T. 42-43,114; see also Def.'s Exo I.
71 See N.To 147, 156-57.
72NT 110, 114; PIs.' Ex. 35.
73 NoTo 114-15.
74 N.T. 156-57.
75 See N.T. 157-580
II
Once these preliminary matters had been addressed, riggers ascended the tower
and securely attached the strapping from the crane to thll top section of the tower.76 The
riggers then began unfastening the bolts which held the Itop section of the tower in place,
and, once the section was loose, the crane lowered the section to the ground.77 The
riggers then moved down to the next section of the tower, attached the crane's strapping,
unfastened the bolts, and lowered the section to the ground.78 The tower sections were
not disassembled before they were taken away from the site unless they were too large to
transport. 79 Once the sections became too large to transport, the sections were
disassembled and the parts were categorized before being taken away.80 Eventually, the
riggers unbolted the final section of the tower, which was the section attached to the
concrete foundation. 81 After the last section had been unbolted from the foundation and
disassembled, the riggers cleaned up the site, the last of the tower pieces were taken
away, and the tower disassembly was complete.82
The entire disassembly process for the West Virginia tower lasted about twelve
hours. 83 Mr. Doyle testified that the time period which was required to disassemble the
West Virginia tower was longer than the time normally needed to disassemble a lattice
tower because the access to the site was poor, and there was little room at the site for the
cranes and trucks to move around.84 Additionally, Mr. Doyle testified that disassembling
a monopole tower would be a much simpler process than disassembling a lattice tower.85
After the antennas and power cables have been removed, disassembling a monopole
76 No To 116-170
77N,T.117-18.
78 No To 118-19.
"N.T.II9.
80 NoTo 1190
81 N.T. 13L
82N.To 131-35.
83 See N.T. 126, 135.
84 N.T. 126-27.
85N
To 150-51, 170-71.
12
tower requires loosening the foundation bolts, using a crane to pick the tower up and lay
it on its side, and disassembling the tower segments once the tower has been laid on the
ground.86
Once a tower has been disassembled, only the cement foundation, equipment
building, and fence are left at the site,87 These parts of the facility are not damaged
during disassembly, and could be used if another tower were later erected at the site.88 In
fact, the fencing and cement foundation are removed from the site only if their removal is
a specified condition in the 1ease.89
The towers themselves are also reusable after disassemb1y.90 The only parts of the
towers which must be replaced after disassembly are the bolts which hold the pieces and
sections of the tower together. 91 Additionally, any pieces of the tower which are
damaged during disassembly also must be replaced before the tower can be
reassembled.92 Otherwise, the towers can either be transported to a new site and erected,
or put in a storage facility until they are needed for another site. 93
During the hearing, the witnesses testified to a number of reasons that towers
might be disassembled and moved to another location. The major reason cited for tower
removal was a change in business circumstances.94 For example, if there were a
population shift and a tower were no longer needed in one area, but instead needed in a
more densely populated area, then the tower would be moved into the more densely
86 NoTo 150-51, 170-71.
87 NTo 550
88 See NoT. 55,144-45,2070 The lack of any damage to parts of the tower facility during disassembly is
evidenced by the tower industry's occasional "drop and swap" practice, in which one tower is taken down
at a site, only to be replaced at the site by another-usually taller-towero N.T. 144-45.
89 N.T. 550
90 N.T. 139.
91 N.T. 138.
92 N.T. 120, 156.
93 NT 120, 1390
94 NT 60-62, 196.
13
populated area.95 Additionally, there might be times when a tower would no longer be a
sufficient height; therefore, the original tower would be disassembled and a taller tower
would be erected in its place.96 This procedure is referred to in the industry as a "drop
and swap.',97 Finally, sometimes a company will build a spec site, which is a tower
facility that is built in anticipation that companies will eventually want to attach antennas
to it.98 If the tower were to become financially unviab1e because companies did not
attach antennas to it, or if zoning requirements mandated that the tower be taken down
because of non-use, then the tower would have to be taken down.99
Notwithstanding the availability of technology to disassemble a tower, the process
IS highly laborious, expensive, and demanding in terms of expertise, courage, and
equipment. Furthermore, notwithstanding the theoretical reasons recounted above for
taking down or moving towers, the practice in the telecommunication tower industry is
that these towers are not being taken down or moved on a frequent basis. 100
ML Greisz testified that, during the almost ten years in which he has worked for
Shenandoah, he could not remember a tower that was built where the lease was
terminated and the tower was taken down.101 Mro Doyle testified that, of the well over
400 towers which his company owns in Pennsylvania, his company is considering
moving or taking down only 30 of the sites.102 Mr. O'Reilly testified that, of the 2,200
towers which Spectrasite owns in the northeastern United States, only ten have been or
are in the process of being moved or swapped, none of which is located in
95 NoT. 64.
96NT 144.
97 NT 144-45.
98NT 159.
99 NoT. 196-970
100 See NT 27-28, 74,103,109-10,215,2260
10] NT 27-28, 74.
102 NT. 103, 109-100
14
Pennsylvania. 103 Mr. Getsy testified that, of the over 400 towers which SBA Towers
owns in Pennsylvania, he was not aware of any being removed, 104
Finally, Plaintiffs called Brian Kostel, a senior tax accountant for Crown Castle.105
Mr. Koste1 testified that, according to an advisory letter issued by the Pennsylvania
Department of Revenue, telecommunication towers which are bolted to their foundations,
instead of being sunk into their foundations, are considered personal property, thus
subjecting the rental space on the towers to sales tax. 106
DISCUSSION
Statement of Law
Assessability of Real Estate. Section 201 of the Fourth to Eighth Class County
Assessment Law provides for the assessment of all real estate in the county:
The following subjects and property shall as hereinafter provided be valued
and assessed and subject to taxation for all county, borough, town,
township, school, (except in cities), poor and county institution district
purposes, at the annual rate,
(a) All real estate to wit: Houses, house trailers and mobile homes
permanently attached to land or connected with water, gas, electric or
sewage facilities, buildings, lands, lots of ground and ground rents, trailer
parks and parking lots, mills and manufactories of all kinds, all office type
construction of whatever kind, that portion of a steel, lead, aluminum or
like melting and continuous casting structures which enclose, provide
shelter or protection from the elements for the various machinery, tools,
appliances, equipment, materials or products involved in the mill, mine
manufactory or industrial process, and all other re:a1 estate not exempt by
law from taxation. . . .
Act of May 21, 1943, P.L. 571, 9201, as amended, 72 P.S. 95453.201.
Assessment of Chattels as Real Property for Real Estate Taxation. As a general
proposition in real property law, there are three classifications for chattels that are used in
connection with real estate:
IOJNT2150
104 NT 2260
105 N.To 230.
106 NoT. 234-35; Pis.' Exo 9.
15
First, those which are manifestly furniture, as distinguished from
improvements, and not peculiarly fitted to the property with which they are
used; these always remain personalty. Second, those which are so annexed
to the property that they cannot be removed without material injury to the
real estate or to themselves; these are realty, even in the face of an
expressed intention that they should be considered personalty. . '0 Third,
those which, although physically connected with the real estate, are so
affixed as to be remov[able] without destroying or materially injuring the
chattels themselves, or the property to which they are annexed; these
become part of the realty or remain personalty, depending upon the
intention of the parties at the time of the annexation; in this class fall such
chattels as boilers and machinery affixed for the use of an owner or tenant
but readily removable.
Clayton Vo Lienhard, 312 Pa. 433, 436-37,167 A. 321, 322 (1933) (citations omitted).
The court in In Re Sheetz, Inco, 657 A.2d 1011 (Pao Commw. Ct. 1995), elaborated
on the third classification of chattels, setting out a test for determining whether a chattel
has become a fixture of real property for purposes of real estate taxation. Id. at 1013.
The considerations which must be taken into account when making this determination are
"(1) the manner in which [the chattel] is physically attached or installed, (2) the extent to
which it is essential to the permanent use of the building or other improvement, and (3)
the intention of the parties who attached or installed it." Id. The intention of the parties
is the most important consideration to examine, with the first two considerations acting as
"objective manifestations that aid in determining the intention of the parties." Id. at
1014. Furthermore, permanence is not to be equated with perpetuity, but rather with the
intention to "'remain where affixed until worn out, until the purpose to which the realty is
devoted is accomplished or until the item is superseded by another item more suitable for
the purpose.'" Id. (quoting Mich. Nat'! Bank v. City of Lansing, 293 N.W.2d 626, 627
(Mich. Ct. API'. 1980)).
In Sheetz, the Commonwealth Court held that canopies which cover gas pumps at
gas stations are fixtures of real property, and hence are taxable as such similar facilities.
Id The Court held that the canopies were affixed to a poured concrete foundation by
bolts, which were then covered by concrete. Id. Next, the court held that the canopies
were essential to the permanent use of the gas pumps because stations with canopies had
16
a higher sales volume. Id. Additionally, the canopies essential nature was demonstrated
through Sheetz's seeking variances of zoning requirements in a number of cases to allow
for the erection of canopies at their stations. Id. These facts led the court to conclude
that Sheetz intended the canopies to be a permanent fixture of its gas stations which
would remain until they were worn out, or Sheetz no longer occupied the premises. Id.
Finally, the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Bratton, J., has in a
recent decision addressed the specific issue of real estate taxation of telecommunication
towers. In holding that the tower was real property for purposes of real estate taxation,
Judge Bratton noted that although the tower itself could be removed without injury to the
tower, the concrete foundation to which the tower was attached could not be removed
without causing injury to the real estate. See, e.g, Shenandoah Mobile Coo Vo Dauphin
County Bd. of Assessment Appeals, docketed at 2003 CV 3196 TX, Dauphin County,
2004.
Application of Law to Facts
In the court's view, Plaintiffs' telecommunication towers are properly classified as
realty for purposes of Pennsylvania's real property taxation scheme. An analysis of the
considerations set forth in Sheetz leads to this conclusion.
First, the towers are firmly affixed to the ground, and, although their removal is
not a practical impossibility, the process involves a high degree of expense, manpower,
equipment, and skill. Second, the towers are essential to the use of the rest of the facility,
which is clearly real estate.
Third, and perhaps most important, the intent of the parties that the towers be
features of the real estate as opposed to transient items of personalty is manifest in the
extended terms of the leases and the practice of the industry, whereby dismantling of
towers is almost exclusively a theoretical matter.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 15th day of September, 2004, after careful consideration of the
tax assessment appeals filed herein, following a hearing, and for the reasons stated in the
accompanying opinion, it is ordered as follows:
17
With respect to parcel number 25-25-0006-351 LL:
THE MARKET VALUE as of January 1,2004 (and for succeeding years until
revised), for the parcel owned by Shenandoah Mobile Company, situated in New
Cumberland Borough, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is fixed at $95,000.00.
THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO for Cumberland County has been
stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetermined ratio is 100 percent.
THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of less than 1:5 percent between the common
level ratio and predetermined ratio, as a result of which assessments are to be determined
by application of the predetermined ratio, the assessment with respect to the aforesaid
parcel is fixed at $95,000.00 as of January 1, 2004, for county and municipal taxes, and
July 1, 2004, for school real estate taxes.
With respect to parcel number 43-06-0031-012 LL:
THE MARKET VALUE as of January 1,2004 (and for succeeding years until
revised), for the parcel owned by Spectrasite Communications, situated in Upper
Frankford Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is fixed at $142,000.00.
THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO for Cumberland County has been
stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetermined ratio is 100 percent.
THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of less than 15 percent between the common
level ratio and predetermined ratio, as a result of which assessments are to be determined
by application of the predetermined ratio, the assessment with respect to the aforesaid
parcel is fixed at $142,000.00 as of January 1,2004, for county and municipal taxes, and
July 1, 2004, for school real estate taxes.
With respect to parcel number 39-12-0324-004 LL:
THE MARKET VALUE as of January 1,2004 (and for succeeding years until
revised), for the parcel owned by Spectrasite Communications, situated in Southampton
Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is fixed at $136,530.00.
THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO for Cumberland County has been
stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetermined ratio is 100 percent.
18
THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of less than 15 percent between the common
level ratio and predetermined ratio, as a result of which assessments are to be determined
by application of the predetermined ratio, the assessment with respect to the aforesaid
parcel is fixed at $136,530.00 as of January 1,2004, for county and municipal taxes, and
July 1, 2004, for school real estate taxes.
With respect to parcel number 40-10-0632-016 LL:
THE MARKET VALUE as of January 1,2004 (and for succeeding years until
revised), for the parcel owned by Spectrasite Communications, situated in South
Middleton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania,. is fixed at $136,530.00.
THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO fc)r Cumberland County has been
stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetermined ratio is 100 percent.
THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of less than 15 percent between the common
level ratio and predetermined ratio, as a result of which assessments are to be determined
by application of the predetermined ratio, the assessment with respect to the aforesaid
parcel is fixed at $136,530.00 as of January 1,2004, for county and municipal taxes, and
July 1, 2004, for school real estate taxes.
With respect to parcel number 09-22-0533-001 LL:
THE MARKET VALUE as of January 1,2004 (and for succeeding years until
revised), for the parcel owned by SBA Towers, Inc., situated in East Pennsboro
Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is fixed at $70,000.00.
THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO for Cumberland County has been
stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetermined ratio is 100 percent.
THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of less than 15 percent between the common
level ratio and predetermined ratio, as a result of which assessments are to be determined
by application of the predetermined ratio, the assessment with respect to the aforesaid
parcel is fixed at $70,000.00 as of January 1, 2004, for county and municipal taxes, and
July 1, 2004, for school real estate taxes.
With respect to parcel number 41-11-0304-019 LL:
19
THE MARKET VALUE as of January 1,2004 (and for succeeding years until
revised), for the parcel owned by SBA Towers, Inc., situated in South Newton Township,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is fixed at $100,000.00.
THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO for Cumberland County has been
stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetermined ratio is 100 percent.
THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of less than 15 percent between the common
level ratio and predetermined ratio, as a result of which assessments are to be determined
by application of the predetermined ratio, the assessment with respect to the aforesaid
parcel is fixed at $100,000.00 as of January 1, 2004, for wunty and municipal taxes, and
July 1,2004, for school real estate taxes.
BY THE COURT,
sf J. Wesley Oler, Jr.
J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.
Carl C. Risch, Esq.
10 East High Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
Attorney for Shenandoah Mobile Company
and Shenandoah Personal Communications Company
Dusty Elias Kirk, Esq.
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esq.
Pepper Hamilton, LLP
One Mellon Center, 50th Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Attorneys for Spectrasite Communications
and SBA Towers, Inc.
Mark A. Mateya, Esq.
407 North Front Street
Box 11848
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Attorney for County Commissioners
Association of Pennsylvania
20
Stephen D. Tiley, Esq.
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Cumberland County
Board of Assessment Appeals
Philip H. Spare, Esq.
44 West Main Street
P.O. Box 318
Mechanicsburg, P A 17055
Attorney for Big Spring and
South Middleton School Districts
21
SHENANDOAH MOBILE
COMPANY, and
SHENANDOAH PERSONAL
COMMUNICATIONS
COMPANY,
Plaintiffs
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
SPECTRA SITE
COMMUNICATIONS,
Plaintiff
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTH MIDDLETON
TOWNSHIP, and SOUTH
MIDDLETON SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
SPECTRASITE
COMMUNICATIONS,
Plaintiff
v.
* * * *
* * * *
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
CIVIL ACTION-LA W
NO. 03-4921 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
NO. 04-920 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
,
,
)\l,,'\:f~;~I:* ,I
~ ,
': :.J
~.~ ,
'- ,
'.-:~J
~ :~.~ t~; ,J i'~~~2Z
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
UPPER FRANKFORD
TOWNSHIP, and BIG SPRING
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
SPECTRASITE
COMMUNICATIONS,
Plaintiff
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTHAMPDEN TOWNSHIP,
and SHIPPENSBURG AREA
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Plaintiff
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
* * * *
* * * *
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
NO. 04-921 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
NO. 04-922 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
v. CIVIL ACTION-LAW
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTH NEWTON TOWNSHIP, :
and BIG SPRING SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties NO. 04-949 CIVIL TERM
* * * *
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
v.
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
EAST PENNSBORO
TOWNSHIP, and EAST
PENNSBORO SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
NO. 04-950 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 220d day of December, 2004, the Opinion Pursuant to Pa. R.A.P.
1925 dated December 16, 2004, is amended by the substitution of the attached page for
page 2. The purpose of the amendment is to reflect that the appeal in these cases is to the
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.
BY THE COURT,
Carl C. Risch, Esq.
Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto '\
10 East High Street \\
Carlisle, P A 17013
Attorney for Shenandoah Mobile Company )
Mark A. Mateya, Esq.
407 North Front Street /
Box 11848 i
Harrisburg, PAl 7108 /
Attorney for County Commissioners Assqtiation of Pennsylvania
Robert L. Knupp, Esq. (C!~ ~
Knupp, Kodak & Imblum, P.C. I
407 North Front Street " "\ l J.- J 7 -of
Harrisburg, P A 17108 /
Attorney for Shenandoah Personal Commul,)ications Company
/
Stephen Douglas Tiley, Esq. /
5 South Hanover Street ;'
Carlisle, P A 17013
Attorney for Cumberland County Boar~ of Assessment Appeals
I
I
2
Philip Haring Spare, Esq.
Snelbaker, Brenneman & Spare, P.C.
44 West Main Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 /
Attorney for Big Spring and South M'iddleton School Districts
\
I
!
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esq.
Pepper Hamilton, LLP i
One Mellon Center, 50th Floor \
i
500 Grant Street i
Pittsburgh, PA 15219 \
Attorney for Spectrasite Communicatio~s and SBA Towers, Inc.
i
\
\ (7\
> v~/~
I~ J-'J-O'-f
!
/
/
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO P A. R.A.P. 1925
OLER, J., December 16,2004.
In these six cases, Plaintiffs appealed Defendant's real estate tax assessments of
Plaintiffs' telecommunication tower facilities. 1 At issue on the appeals was the
correctness of Defendant's underlying classification of Plaintiffs' telecommunication
towers as realty as opposed to personalty for real estate tax purposes.2 A two-day hearing
was conducted on this issue on June 24, 2004, and June 28, 2004.3 On September 15,
2004, this court issued an order, accompanied by an opinion, classifying Plaintiffs'
telecommunication towers as realty and upholding the: Defendant's assessments of
Plaintiffs' telecommunication tower facilities.4
Plaintiffs have filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court from the
September 15,2004, order.5 Plaintiff') have expressed the issues being pursued on appeal
as follows:
a. [T]he Court committed an error of law in ruling that telecommunication
towers are classified as realty as opposed to pl~rsonalty for real estate
assessment purposes, pursuant to 72 P.S. S 5020.-201;
b. the Court committed an error of law in ruling that the
telecommunication towers "although their removal is not a practical
I The following cases have been consolidated at Number 03-4921 Civil Term: Numbers 03-4921 Civil
Term, 04-920 Civil Term, 04-921 Civil Term, 04-922 Civil Term, 04-949 Civil Term, and 04-950 Civil
Term. See Order of Ct., Apr. 16, 2004.
2 See Pet. of Appeal from Determination of Real Estate Tax Assessment, filed Sept. 18, 2003 (hereinafter
Shenandoah's Pet. of Appeal); Pet. for Appeal, filed Mar. 4, 2004 (hereinafter Spectrasite/South
Middleton Township Pet. for Appeal); Pet. for Appeal, filed Mar. 4, 2004 (hereinafter Spectrasite/Upper
Frankford Township Pet. for Appeal); Pet. f01" Appeal, filed Mar. 4, 2004 (hereinafter
Spectrasite/Southampton Township Pet. for Appeal); Pet. for Appeal, filed Mar. 5,2004 (hereinafter SBA
Towers/South Newton Township Pet. for Appeal); Pet. for Appeal, :filed Mar. 5, 2004 (hereinafter SBA
TowerslEast Pennsboro Township Pet. for Appeal).
3 Notes of Testimony 2, Hr'g., June 24,2004, and June 28,2004 (hen:inafter N.T.~.
4 Shenandoah Mobile Co. v. Cumberland County Bd. of Assessment Appeals, Civ. No. 03-4921, (C.P.
Cumberland County, Sept. 15, 2004).
5 Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, filed Oct. 25, 2004; Supplement to Concise
Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, filed Nov. 8,2004.
2
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Charles R. Hostutler
Deputy Prothonotaty IChief Clerk
August 12,2005
Notice of Discontinuance of Action
RE: Shenandoah Mobile et al. v. Cumberland Cnty Bd
Appeal of:
Type of Action: Notice of Appeal
No. 2173 CD 2004
Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas
Agency Docket Number: 03-4921
04-920 j
04-921
04-922
04-949
04-950
Irvis Office Buildine. Room 624
HarrisburlZ. PA 17120
717~255~1650
C8I1Ified from the Record
~122005
and Order ExIt
The above-captioned matter has been marked "DisGOntinued" with this court.
Certification is being sent to the lower court.
Attorney Name
Party Name
Jeffrey S. Blum, Esq.
Joseph Anthony Cortese, Esq.
Kristi Akins Davidson, Esq.
Robert L. Knupp
Spectrasite Communications
Verizon Wireless
Speclrasite Communications
County Commissioners Association of
Pennsylvania
Spectrasite Communications
Shenandoah Mobile Company
Big Springs School District
Cumberiand County Board of Assessment
Appeals
Stanley Joel Parker, Esq.
Carl C. Risch, Esq.
Philip Haring Spare, Esq.
Stephen Douglas Tiley, Esq.
Party Type
Appellant
Amicus Curiae
Appellant
Amicus Curiae
Appellant
Appellant
Appellee
Appellee
g
:<::
-r..J\.\:,1
mr':--
~-y -"\
Z\:
rJ1,~:-'
~t::".
-C? '-',
:Z(t;
7t.~
z
'2
~
%:kl
-oh;:f
_ ~"o
(J'\ '9~)
~-c'
.,,"'1]
-0 ';2"(-;
:% .r:.-[t'l
o
~~
~
r. ::c.
s:'
~
'5\
~
G"'>
-
V'