HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-0922IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant,
VS.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee.
VS.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTHAMPDEN TOWNSHIP and
SHIPPENSBURG AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties.
CiVIL DiVISION
NO.
PETITION FOR APPEAL
Filed on behalf of Appellant,
Spectrasite Communications
Counsel of Record for this Party:
Dusty Elias Kirk, Esquire
PA I.D. No. 30702
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
Firm I.D. No. 143
50th Floor, One Mellon Center
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
(412) 454-5000
PT: #172660 vi (3P8401 !.DOC)
1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant,
VS.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee.
VS.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTHAMPDEN TOWNSHIP and
SHIPPENSBURG AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties.
CiVIL DIVISION
No. -
PETITION FOR APPEAL
AND NOW, comes Spectrasite Communications ("Appellant"), by and through
its attorneys Pepper Hamilton LLP and Dusty Elias. Kirk, Esquire, and files the within Petition
for Appeal, and in support thereof states as follows:
1. Spectrasite Communications is the record owner of commercial property
situate at 44 Kline Road, Southampden Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (the
"Property") and identified as Parcel No. 39-12-0324-004-LL in the Cumberland County
assessment records.
2.
Cumberland County, Southampden Township and Shippensburg Area
School District are the taxing bodies interested in the taxable status of the Property.
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.S. {}5342 et seq.,
and is authorized to assess and value real property for the purpose of taxation in counties of the
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 Forty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Dollars ($244,860).
5. As of September 1, 2003, the Property was described for the 2004 tax year
on the official records of Cumberland County as follows:
Description Assessment
Land $0
Improvements $244,860
$244,860
6. On August 29, 2003, Appellant duly appealed the 2004 assessment to the
Board for regress and reduction of said assessment. A copy of said Appeal Application is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
7. After a heating, the Board reduced the assessment on the Property for the
year 2004 to One Hundred Thirty Six Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Dollars ($136,530) by
issuing a Decision Order ("Decision") dated February 9, 2004. A copy of the Decision is
attached hereto as Exhibit "B."
8. This Petition is herewith presented within thirty (30) days from the
mailing date of the Decision.
9. Appellant is aggrieved by the Board's adjudication. Specifically,
Appellant avers, on information and belief, that the assessment remains unfair, unreasonable and
excessive, Appellant further avers as follows:
a. The assessment is not equal or uniform with other properties
similarly located in Cumberland County.
PT: #172660 vl (3P8401 !.DOC)
-2-
b. There is a complete lack of uniformity in the assessment of real
estate within Cumberland 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 hearing.
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,
Dated: March ,~ , 2004
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
Firm No. 143
One Mellon Center, 50th Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
(412) 454-5000
-3-
PT: #172660 vi (3P8401 !.DOC)
CUMBERLAND COUNT~ · ·. ASSESSMENT APPEAL ~ COMMERCIAL*I INDUSTRIAL
RIK~)Id OWllel~S) Name Spectr'asite . . t '
... C?mmuntcatior~ ,
~ ' ~00 Regency Forest' Drive .-, .. "
" " cary, N.C.. 27511 ' '
~ L~n d ~e~'8~ ~1: '4~ .. Kline. Roa~', ' Shiovensbur~. South Hampton
~ ~.' . .~
. ~~ f2~,~60'(1001)'O~no~Ma~'~bP~ .. $0,00
~P~ No~ ·Available ~w~ot Available .'~M[~No~ Av~tlabl~
in excess of the property% value,' The assessmen~
.o~er. property in the County, The assessment includes the value oi..personal p~op~rty~
contrary to Penns~lvanta a~sesQmenfi la~,
~~: ~ ~.~.~~: '" ., ..
X ~:." ~ '.Te~e~o~nications To,er.-:' : ..
If L~: ~ Re~
.,, I~tg~: T~.~m ~ · ~ ~ R~
~m~P~A~ ~r~ ..,
Te~ ~'
~ ~: ~ ' ' G~ , ~n~ ~ Co~
~r: , ~ : '
~ L~;~.~ Rem, '. D~
C.~~,.m~~.~b~. -. ' ,~... . ~. . .
·' :. ..:..'...
. ' ~; 400 Re~encv Forest Drive' EXHIBIT
Car~. N.C. 27511
~. (~)
.
~ by'l~3e: ..
.$
- $,. · .!:.. $
........... GROSS ANNUAIj EXPENSES FOR $ P
~'A,,~,~':. '...' '..' ,~'". ....... .""' ~'~' '/i ....... ,.
', Real E~tate Ta~ee $
FDhD ....... I~umnM..i .
. - .. '.~.R~;~'".. ' ~ :~'" '-' ' '~:-..~'~'~.
· In Rent.
· 0 E~ac~rk~ty
I~ .Water
"~:~ Carpet
.... ~ R~
- ~ ~her
o ~a~3age
· I~ Parking
· ...!.-"Lega ..... & A~ounilng.., ..... ' ' ' "; ~, ,~ ,.-%.' ' ,'., ';: I~ Pool
~,~ ..
;, ~i: "' ' ' "' '1 "
· I~ OTHER:
~:' ' ,'-$uppll~'.~:.· "- ' : -. ' " ,." '", ~i~:' .... ·
TOTAL EXPENSES
]~.me me,~.pages'for ~my othel-
· ~: ..... I~ of Furnished
" :' ' ':' ' ':;' Units:
$ .~ ,.: .$,.. , .Owmd~c,
· '" ' ' . . "' .'l~'~:'~iwner
Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals
Old Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
(7t7) 240-6350
(717) 240-6354 (fax)
Board of Assessment Appeals
Lloyd W. Bucher
R. Fred Hefeiflnger
Sarah Hughes
BONNIE M, MAHONEY
Chief Assessor
STEPHEN D, TILEY
Assistant Solicitor
DECISION ORDER
MAILING DATE: February 9, 2004
· PARCEL NUMBER: 39-12-0324-004.-LL
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS
400 REGENCY FOREST DRIVE
CARY NC 27511
Dear Property Owner:
This letter is lo officially notify you of the decision of the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals
regarding the above-referenced parcel.
DATE OF APPEAL HEARING: 02/03/2004
DATE DECISION RENDERED: 02/09/2004
EFFECTIVE FOR TAX YEAR: 2004
DECISION RENDERED:
[ ] Withdrawn By Applicant .
[ ] Abandoned For Failure ToApp~ar ' ..
[ ] Denied - No Change
[ ] Approved Review Appraiser's Changes
[X~ Revised Assessment Based on Hearing ....................
[ ] Other:
TOTAL VALUE FAiR MARKET CLEAN AND GREEN
Old Assessed Value: 244,860 NOT
New Assessed Value: 136,530 APPLICABLE
CLEAN AND GREEN
STATUS
Any person aggrieved by the order of the Board cf,Assessment may appeal to the Court of Common
Pleas by filing ~ petition in the Prothonotary's office on or before March 9, 2004.
EXHIBIT
VERIFICATION
I, o ~ ~2~.[ttlrlO,~ , of Spectrasite Communications, declare
under penalty of perjury that I am the ~-. '~'~ of Spectrasite 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. §4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Executed this ~day of February, 2004.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a tree and correct copy of the within Petition for Appeal has
been served upon the following parties by first class mail, postage prepaid on this 3~W,{ day
of March, 2004.
Edward L. Schorpp, Esquire
Solicitor, Cumberland County
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire
Solicitor, Cumberland County Board of
Assessment Appeals
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
Richard L. Webber, Jr., Esquire
Solicitor, Southampden Township
Weigle & Associates
126 East King Street
Shippensburg, PA 17257
Jerry A. Weigle, Esquire
Solicitor, Shippensburg Area School District
Weigle & Associates
126 East King Street
Shippensburg, PA 17257
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.
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant,
VS.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee,
VS.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTH MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP, and
SOUTH MIDDLETON SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties.
CIVIL 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
PA I.D. No. 30702
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
PA I.D. No. 74520
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
Firm I.D. No. 143
One Mellon Center
50th Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
(412) 454-5000
PT: #175332 vi (3R~C01 !.DOC)
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant,
VS.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
VS.
Appellee,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER
FRANKFORD TOWNSHIP and BIG
SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties.
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant,
VS.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
VS.
Appellee,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTHAMPDEN TOWNSHIP and
SHIPPENSBURG AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties.
PT: #175332 vi (3R~C01 !.DOC)
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Appellant,
VS.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
VS.
Appellee,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, EAST
PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and EAST
PENNSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties.
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Appellant,
VS.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
VS.
Appellee,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH
NEWTON TOWNSHIP and BIG
SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties.
PT: #175332 vl (3R(~C01!.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
)
) Nos. 03-4921
) 04-920
) 04-921
) 04-922
) 04-949
) 04-950
)
)
)
)
)
)
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
AND NOW, comes Spectrasite Communications ("Spectrasite"), by and through
its attorneys, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Dusty Elias Kirk, Esquire, and files the within Motion to
Consolidate, and in support thereof states as follows:
1. Spectrasite is a telecommunication tower company, and the owner of
commercial real estate and taxable property situate in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and
identified as Parcel Numbers 40-10-0632-016-LL, 43-06-0031-012-LL and 39-12-0324-004-LL
in the Cumberland County assessment records (the "Spectrasite Properties").
2. Spectrasite placed upon the Spectrasite Properties telecommunication
towers and other structures and related equipment, which, in each instance, the Board of
Assessment Appeals of Cumberland County (the "Board") assessed as real property.
3. On or about March 4, 2004, Spectrasite filed Petitions for Appeal with this
Court for the Spectrasite Properties docketed at Nos. 04-920, 04-921 and 04-922, challenging the
PT: #175332 vi (3R(~C01 !.DOC)
Board's assessment of the telecommunication towers as real property for purposes of real estate
taxation.
4. SBA Towers, Inc. ("SBA") is a telecommunication tower company, and
also owns properties in Cumberland County upon which it placed telecommunication towers (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 Petitions for Appeal for the SBA
Properties, docketed at Numbers 04-949 and 04-950, raising the same issues as Spectrasite's
appeals.
6. Spectrasite and SBA are represented by the same counsel with respect to
the above-referenced real estate tax assessment appeals.
7. On September 18, 2003, Shenandoah Mobile Company and Shenandoah
Personal Communications Company (collectively, "Shenandoah"), by and through its attorney,
Carl C. Risch, Esquire, filed a Petition for Appeal at Docket Number 03-4921 for its property
identified as Parcel Number 25-25-0006-315-LL (the "Shenandoah Property"), raising the same
issues as Spectrasite's and SBA's appeals.
8. Counsel for Spectrasite and SBA contacted counsel for Shenandoah to
discuss a consolidation of real estate tax assessment appeals pending for the Spectrasite
Properties, the SBA Properties and the Shenandoah Property, and counsel for Shenandoah has
consented to a consolidation of these appeals.
9. Counsel for Spectrasite and SBA has contacted the respective taxing
bodies having an interest in these appeals, through their respective solicitors, to discuss a
consolidation. Upon information and belief, Stephen D. Tiley, solicitor for the Cumberland
PT: #175332 vl (3R(~C01!.DOC) 2
County Board of Assessment Appeals and Cumberland County, also attempted to contact each of
the solicitors to discuss a consolidation of these appeals. The respective taxing bodies consent to
a consolidation as follows:
a. Cumberland County and the Cumberland County Board of Assessment
Appeals, through their solicitor, Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire, consented in writing to a
consolidation. A copy of the written consent is attached hereto as Exhibit "A";
b. Big Spring School District and South Middleton School District,
through their solicitor, Philip H. Spare, Esquire, consented in writing to a consolidation. A copy
of the written consent is attached hereto as Exhibit "B";
c. East Pennsboro Area School District, through its solicitor, Donna S.
Weldon, Esquire, consented in writing to a consolidation. A copy of the written consent is
attached hereto as Exhibit "C";
d. Southampden Township, through its solicitor, Richard L. Webber, Jr.,
Esquire, consented in writing to a consolidation. A copy of the written consent is attached hereto
as Exhibit "D";
e. Shippensburg Area School District, through its solicitor, Jerry A.
Weigle, Esquire, consented in writing to a consolidation. A copy of the written consent is
attached hereto as Exhibit "E".
f. Upper Frankford Township, through its solicitor, Steven Fishman,
Esquire, consented in writing to a consolidation. A copy of the written consent is attached hereto
as Exhibit "F".
g. South Middleton Township, East Permsboro Township and South
Newton Township have not yet provided a response with respect to a consolidation.
PT: #175332 vi (3R~C01 !.DOC) 3
10. Spectrasite, jointly with 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 multiplicity of trials and (ii) eliminate an unnecessary duplication of effort and
reduce the expense to the parties, because the appeals involve a common question of law that can
be resolved with one trial.
b. Consolidation of the appeals will result in judicial consistency,
because Spectrasite, SBA and Shenandoah, seek to establish uniform law in the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania with respect to the treatment of telecommunication towers for purposes of real
estate taxation.
C.
Consolidation of the appeals will not prejudice any party.
11. Rule 213(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedures provides that
when actions in a county involve a common question of law or fact, or which arise from the
same transaction or occurrence, the court may upon motion of any party or sua sponte order all
such actions consolidated and triable jointly as a single action.
PT: #175332 vl (3R(~C01 !.DOC) 4
WHEREFORE, Spectrasite Communications, jointly with 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 at Number 03-4921.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: ~*~ ,2004
PA I.D. N37. 30702
Sharon F. DiPaolo
PA I.D. No. 74520
Pepper Hamilton LLP
One Mellon Center, 50th Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
Attorneys for Spectrasite Communications
PT: #175332 vl (3R(~COI !.DOC) 5
Of Counsel:
ROBERT M. FREY
STEPHEN D. TILEY
ROBERT G. FREY
FREY & TILEY
ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
5 SOUTH HANOVER STREET
CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013-3385
Telephone: (717) 243-5838
Facsimile: (717) 243-6441
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.
Frey & Tiley
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Re: Cell Tower Cases
April 2, 2004
Page 2 of 2
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 intervention. He asked me to report back to him in a couple of weeks.
The Shenandoah case is ~resently scheduled for pre-trial next Thursday
and trial a week from Monday. I believe that Cad 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
Stephen D. Tiley
cc: Cad C. Rich, Esquire
Via email only
SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P. C.
44 Wc~t Maiss S~et
M~haaicztna'g., ~'A 17055
(717) 69%8528
Richard C. SneXbaker Fax No. (717) 697-7681
Keith O. Brenneman
Philip Il. Spare
FACSIMILE COVER LETTER
PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWINO PAGES:
DATE: April 6, 2004
TO: Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Pepper Hamilton LLP
FAX #: (412) 454-5005
FROM: Phil Spare
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER LETTER: 1
COMMENTS:
Re: Spectrasit¢ Communications and SBA Tower Cases
CCP Cumberland County, PA
Dear Sharon:
As we discussed this morning, our firm represents Big Spring School District and South
Middletou 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 Spr'mg School District
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire (717) 243-6441
RECEIVED TIME APR. 6. NT TIME APR. 6, 9:00AM
KrI='F"'ER WOOD ALLI='N F,. RAHAL, LiP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
;EIO WALNUT eTRI'E?
P. O. BOX IJ~ea
HARRI-~EUR($, PA 171o8-1ea3
PHON~' (717) ~lSe-~O00
w.k#leM~xI.cnm
April 5, 2004
(717) 255.8O49
Emait Address:
~waldon~keafeMood.com
Sharon F. DIPaolo, Esquire
Pepper Hamilton LLP
50'" FIm3r
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
Vll F~.(;slmlle M12.~1.0717
RE: Motion to Consolidate
Dear Ms. DiPaolo:
I am the solicitor of East Pennsboro Area School District ("District"). You have asked
for my concun'ence with regard to a Motion to Consolidate. The assessment appeal related to
the District is entitled SBA Towers, Inc. vs. Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals,
Parcel No. 09-22-0533-001-LL.
On Friday, I received a fax from 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 Fax #717-243.6441)
Lind== J. BiOOS. D.Ed., Superintendent
RECEIVED TIME APR.
TIME APR. S. 4:0?PM
JERRY A. WEIGLE
Associates
JOSEPH P. RUANE
RICHARD L. WEBBER, JR.
Of Counsel
THOMAS L. BRIGHT
WEIGLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Attorneys-at-Law
126 EAST KING STREET
SHIPPENSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17257-1397
TELEPHONE (717) 532-7388 or (717) 776-4295
FAX (717) 532-5289
weigleassociates(&~ear thlink.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.C.
Richard L. Webber, Jr., Esquire
RLW/paf
cc: Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire (via facsimile to 243-6441)
Southampton Township Board of Supervisors
JERRY A. WEIGLE
Associates
JOSEPH P. RUANE
RICHARD L. WEBBER, JR.
Of Counsel
THOMAS L. BRIGHT
WEIGLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Attorneys-at-Law
126 EAST IO/~G STREET
SItlPPENSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 1725%1397
TELEPHONE (717) 532-7388 or (717) 776-4295
FAX (717) 532-5289
weigleassociates~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, PA 15219-2502
2004 Real Estate Tax Assessment appeals
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
Speetrasite 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,
, ,flE~GLE & ASSOCIATES, e.c. /
Jer~y ,.6. Weigl(~, Esquire
So~91tor for Sl~ippensburg Area School
JAW/paf
cc: Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire (via facsimile to 243-6441)
Dr. David R. Landis, Superintendent SASD
istrict
04/02/2004 11:27 7172497334
Shazon F. DiPaolo, Esq,
Pe~per Hamilton, L.L.P.
50 Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
April 2, 2004
P,c: Spectracite Communications Assessment
VIA IrAX AND 1sr CLASS iVIAIL
Dear Ms. DiPaolo,
· County, Pennsylvania. The
This oi~ce serves as Solicitor to Upper Frankford Township, Cumberland
Towuship 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 f~rther required of the Township at this time·
Very truly yours,
Solicitor
J EXHIBIT
~ fFINO IN EI~,%'IRON MENT/d~, LAND US ,,¥,,
CONCE. ~ '~ s
RECEIVED TIME ~PR. E. 1~:~
HUNtCiPAL AND F. fiTATE .~DMiNiSTRA'TI'ON LAW
E aPR. 2. 10: 22~M
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.
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant,
VS.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee,
VS.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTH MIDDLETON TOWNSHII~, and
SOUTH MIDDLETON SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties.
CiVIL DIVISION
Nos. 03-4921
04w920
04-921
04-922
04-949
04-950
MOTION TO CONTINUE
Filed on Behalf of Spectrasite Communications
Counsel of Record for This Party:
Dusty Elias Kirk, Esquire
PA I.D. No. 30702
Sharon F. Dil:'aolo, Esquire
PA I.D. No. 74520
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
Firm I.D. No. 143
One Mellon Center
50th Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
(412) 454-5000
PT: #178263 vi (3TJR01 !.DOC)
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant,
VS.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee.
VS.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER
FRANKFORD TOWNSHIP and BIG
SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties.
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant,
VS.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee.
VS.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTHAMPDEN TOWNSH1P and
SHIPPENSBURG AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties.
PT: #178263 vi (3TJR01!.DOC)
SBA TOWERS, 1NC.,
Appellant,
VS.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee.
VS.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, EAST
PENNSBORO TOW2qSHIP and EAST
PENNSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties.
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Appellant,
VS.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee.
VS.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH
NEWTON TOWNSHIP and BIG
SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties.
PT: #178263 vl (3T JR01 !.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
)
) Nos. 03-4921
) 04-920
) 04-921
) 04-922
) 04-949
) 04-950
)
)
)
)
)
)
MOTION TO CONTINUE
AND NOW, comes Spectrasite Communications ("Spectrasite"), by and through
its attorneys, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Dusty Elias Kirk, Esquire, and files the within Motion to
Continue, and in support thereof states as follows:
1. Spectrasite is a telecommunication tower company, and the owner of
commercial real estate and taxable property situate in Cumberleaad County, Pennsylvania, and
identified as Parcel Numbers 40-10-0632-016-LL, 43-06-0031-012-LL and 39-12-0324-004-LL
in the Cumberland County assessment records (the "Spectrasite Properties").
2. On or about March 4, 2004, Spectrasite filed Petitions for Appeal with this
Court for the Spectrasite Properties challenging the Board's assessment of the
telecommunication towers as real property for purposes of real estate taxation.
3. SBA Towers, Inc. ("SBA") is a telecomraunication tower company, and
also owns properties in Cumberland County upon which it placed telecommunication towers (the
PT: #178263 vl (3T JR01 !.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.
4. On or about March 5, 2004, SBA filed Petitions for Appeal for the SBA
Properties with this Court raising the same issues as Spectrasite's appeals.
5. Spectrasite and SBA are represented by the same counsel with respect to
the above-referenced real estate tax assessment appeals.
6. On September 18, 2003, Shenandoah Mobile Company and Shenandoah
Personal Communications Company (collectively, "Shenandoah"), by and through its attorney,
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 the same issues as Spectrasite's and
SBA's appeals.
7.
8.
This Court scheduled Shenandoah's appeal for trial on April 12, 2004.
Concurrent with filing this Motion to Continue, Spectrasite, jointly with
SBA and Shenandoah, filed a motion to consolidate their appeals, as all of the appeals involve a
common issue of law.
9.
In the event this Court grants the consolidation, in light of the number of
parties having an interest in the outcome of these appeals, Spectrasite, jointly with SBA and
Shenandoah, requests that this Court continue the April 12, 2004 trial date to provide the parties
adequate time for the exchange of discovery and preparation for trial.
10. Counsel for Spectrasite and SBA has contacted the respective taxing
bodies having an interest in these appeals, through their respective solicitors, to discuss a
continuance of the April 12, 2004 thai. Upon information and belief, Stephen D. Tiley, solicitor
for the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals and Cumberland County, also
PT: #178263 vl (3T JR01 !.DOC) 2
attempted to contact each of the solicitors to discuss a continuance of this trial. The respective
taxing bodies consent to a continuance as follows:
a. Cumberland County and the Cumberland County Board of Assessmem
Appeals, through their solicitor, Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire, consented in writing to a
continuance. A copy of the written consent is attached hereto as Exhibit "A";
b. Big Spring School District and South Middleton School District,
through their solicitor, Philip H. Spare, Esquire, consented in writing to a continuance. A copy
of the written consent is attached hereto as Exhibit "B";
c. Southampden Township, through its solicitor, Richard L. Webber, Jr.,
Esquire, consented in writing to a continuance. A copy of the written consent is attached hereto
as Exhibit "C";
d. Shippensburg Area School District, through its solicitor, Jerry A.
Weigle, Esquire, consented in writing to a continuance. A copy of the written consent is
attached hereto as Exhibit "D".
e. Upper Frankford Township, through :its solicitor, Steven Fishman,
Esquire, consented in writing to a continuance. A copy of the written consent is attached hereto
as Exhibit "E".
f. South Middleton Township, East Pennsboro Township, East
Pennsboro Area School District and South Newton Township have not yet provided a response
with respect to a continuance.
PT: #178263 vi (3TJR01 !.DOC) 3
WHEREFORE, Spectrasite Communications, jointly with SBA Towers, Inc. and
Shenandoah Mobile Company and Shenandoah Personal Communications Company,
respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an order continuing the April 12, 2004 trial
to a later date.
Respectfully s abmitted,
,2004
Dusty F~s)Kirk
PA I.D. N'6. 30702
Sharon F. DiPaolo
PA I.D. No. 74520
Pepper Hamilton LLP
One Mellon Center, 50th Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
Attorneys for Spectrasite Communications
PT: #178263 vi (3TJR01 !.DOC) 4
Of Counsel:
ROBERT M. FREY
STEPHEN D. TILEY
ROBERT G. FREY
FREY & TILEY
ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
5 SOUTH HANOVER STREET
CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013-3385
Telephone: (717) 243-5838
Facsimile: (717) 243-6441
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 ~ot 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.
Frey & Tiley
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Re: Cell Tower Cases
April Z 2004
Page 2 of 2
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 intervention. He asked me to report back to him in a couple of weeks.
The Shenandoah case is ~)resently 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
Stephen D. Tiley
cc: Carl C. Rich, Esquire
Via email only
SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P. C.
Attorneys at Law
44 We~ Main 5u~t
Mee.,banicsl~'g, PA 17055
(717) 697-8528
Richard C. Snelbaker Fax No. (717) 69%7681
Keith O. Br~nneman
Philip II. Spare
FACSIMILE COVER LETTER
PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES:
DATE: April 6, 2004
TO: Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Pepper Hamilton LLP
FAX#: (412)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 firm represenis Big Spring School District and South
Mickileton School Dish'ict in the above referenced tax assessment appeals. Last evening, both
school Boards adopted resolutions approving of thc consolidation oftheso cases with the other
similar cases pending in Cumberland County. Please let me know if you require any thing else
from mc at this time. Thank you. ~~
Cc: Dr. Patricia B. Sanker, Supcrintendcnt
South Middleton School District
Dr. William K. Cowden, Superintendent
Big Spring School District
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire (717) 243-6441
RECEIVED TIME RP~. 6.
I'IFE APR, G. 9:O0flm
JERRY A. WEIGLE
JOSEPH P. RUANE
RICHARD L. WEBBER, JR.
Of Counsel
THOMAS L. BRIGHT
WEIGLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Attorneys-at-Law
126 EAST KING STREET
SHIPPENSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17257-1397
TELEPHONE (717) 532-7388 or (717) 776-4295
FAX (717) 532-5289
weigleassociates(d~ear thlink, 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, Permsylvania.
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.C.
Richard L. Webber, Jr., Esquire
RLW/paf
cc: Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire (via facsimile to 243-6441)
Southampton Township Board of Supervisors
JERRY A. WEIGLE
Of Counsel
THOMAS L BRIGHT
WEIGLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Attorneys-at-Law
126 EAST KING STREET
SHIPPENSBURG, pENNSYLVANIA 17257-1397
TELEPHONE (717) 532-7388 or (717) 776-4295
FAX (717) ~2-5289
weiglea,qsociates~earth link.net
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 Coumty, Pennsylvania
Spectrasite Conm:nunications
Docket Numbers: 04-920, 04-921 and 04-922
SBA Towers, Ira:.
Docket Numbers 04-949 and 04-950
Shenandoah Mobile Company and Shenandoah
Personal Commtmications 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
Thank you for your attenti°n to this matter.
Very truly yours,
ff~je~~GLE & ASSOCIATES' P'C' /
~A. Weigl~, Esquire
So~/o~tor for St~ippensburg Area School
JAW/pal
cc: Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire (via facsimile to 243-6441)
Dr. David R. Landis, Superintendent SASD
[strict
u~/uz/2uu4 i1:27 7172497334
oALZMANN '
HUGHES & IS
G. ~ ~, ~-~Q' P'~; ~ A~ S~ ~ ' $~ ~ ' C~TS~ PA 17013
B,u~a~t'~J. Moslol~
L~umzl. po~eI'l~
ANOn,A F. UNO-gm
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esq.
Pe~per Hamilton, L.L.P.
50 Floor
500 Orant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
April 2 2004
Re: Spectracite Communications Assessment VIA FAX AND Is~ CLASS MAIL
Dear Ms. DiPaolo,
This office serves as Solicitor to Upper Frankford Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. The
Township has authorized us to Concur in the proposed Order of Consolidation as well as the proposed
Motion to Continue.
Please advise if there is anything further required of the Township at this time.
Very truly yours,
Solicitor
CONCE.N-FRATINO IN ENVIRONIW. ILNTAL, LAND USS CORPORATE, REAL ~$TATE, MUNICIPAL AND ,~STATE ADMINISTRATION LAW
RECEIVED TIME APR. Z. 10:~IAM PRINT TIME APR. 2. 10:22aM
SHENANDOAH MOBILE:
COMPANY and
SHENANDOAH
PERSONAL
COMMUNICATIONS
COMPANY,
Plaintiffs
CUMBERLAND
COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 03-4921 CIVIL TERM
SPECTRASITE
COMMUNICATIONS,
Plaintiff
CUMBERLAND
COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUMBERLAND
COUNTY, SOUTH-
HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP,
and SHIPPENSBURG
AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
NO. 04-922 CIVIL TERMJ
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.
BY THECOURT,
J~/esley Oler, d~, J~. - '
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, PA 17013
Solicitor, Cumberland County
Carl Risch, Esq.
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 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
Jerry A. Weigle, Esq.
126 East King Street
Shippensburg, PA 17257
Solicitor, Shippensburg Area
School District
Richard L. Webber, Jr., Esq.
126 East King Street
Shippensburg, PA 17257
Solicitor, Southampden Township
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATiONs,
Appellant
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD
OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
Appellee
CUMBERLAND COUNTy,
SOUTHAMPDEN TOWNSHIP and
SHIPPENSBURG AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT
Interested Parties
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAs OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTy, PENNSYLVANiA
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 2004-922
..
:
SHENANDOAH MOBILE
COMPANY, ETAL.
Plaintiffs,
Vo
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD
OF ASSESSMENT APPEALs
Defendants,
NOW BY CONSOLIDATION
: NO. 2003-4921. CIVIL TERM
AND NOW' c°mes Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals and Count of
Cumber/and by Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire, Assistant County Solicitor for tax matters, and i~es this
Answer to the Petition for Appea/, of which the following is a statement.
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
h~wever~he B~ Aar~si~t~e~nedpu~n~e?~ne~;p~a~fT~ 7~ur~s;f~ th~s paragraph are admitted~
'ghth C/ass County Assessment Law
(72 P.S. §5453.301) and not the assessment law applicable to Second Class "A" and Third Class County's
as referenced by the Petitioner.
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted.
7. Admitted.
8. Admitted.
9. Denied. The averments of this paragraph, and each of its sub-lettered paragraphs are
denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required.
WHEREFORE, Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals and County of Cumberland
pray Your Honorable Court for an Order denying Petitioner's appeal and fixing the value of the real estate
in such amount as to the Court may seem proper.
Dated: x¢ ~/~o,~,J/
Respectfully submitted,
By ~~'c. ~7~- 7~ ~/
Stephen D. 'l<iley, Esquire
Assistant Cumb. Cty. Solicitor
For Tax Matters
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5838
Supreme Court I.D.#32318
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer are tree and correct, partially
upon personal knowledge and partially upon my belief; to the extent language in the Answer is
that of my attorneys, I have relied upon my attorneys in making [his Verification. I understand
that false statements herein are made and subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to
unsworn falsification to authorities.
onnie M. Mah~ney, Chief Assegsor
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the: foregoing Answer by placing a
certified true and correct copy of the same in the United States mail, postage pre-paid, addressed
to:
Carl C. Risch, Esquire
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
Counsel for Appellant
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Dusty Elias Kirk, Esquire
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
Counsel for Appellant
50th Floor, One Mellon Center
500 (kant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
Date;
Stel~hen f). Tiley, Esquire
Assistant Cumb. Co. Solicitor
For Tax Matters
5 S. Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5838
Attorney I.D.#32318
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant
V
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
V
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH
MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP and SOUTH
MIDDLETON SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant
V
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
V
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER
FRANKFORD TOWNSHIP and BIG
SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 2004-920 CIVIL TERM
PETITION FOR APPEAL
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 2004-921 CIVIL TERM
PETITION FOR APPEAL
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant
V
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
V
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTHAMPDEN TOWNSHIP and
SHIPPENSBURG AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
SBA TOWERS,
CUMBERLAND
ASSESSMENT
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
: CIVIL DIVISION
: ~q~. 2004-922 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Interested Parties : PETITION FOR APPEAL
INC., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Appellant : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V
COUNTY BOARD OF
APPEALS,
Appellee
V
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, EAST
PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and EAST
PENNSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
: CIVIL DIVISION
: NO. 2004-950 CIVIL TERM
PETITION FOR APPEAL
~,~l',d~O~!Oi-~O~ EHI .90
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Appellant
V
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
V
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH
NEWTON TOWNSHIP and BIG
SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 2004-949 CIVIL TERM
PETITION FOR APPEAL
SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY,
and SHENANDOAH PERSONAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY,
V
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION LAW
NO. 03-4921 CIVIL TERM
:
:REAL ESTATE 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 Co~nunications versus
Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals versus Cumberland
County, South Middleton Township and South Middleton School
District, at No. 2004-920 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; 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 Cumberla~d 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, 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 Ter~, 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, ~nd 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.
and Appellee was represented by Stephen D. Tiley,
Risch, Esquire,
Esquire.
Robert L. Knupp,
amicus curiae,
Association.
It is noted further that in all of these cases
Esquire, was present in the capacity of an
on behalf of the Pennsylvania County Commissioners
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 improvements 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.
not appear
amicably.
With respect to settlement negotiations, it does
to the Court that these cases will be resolved
By the Court,
,~.//W~sley Oi~r, ~Irl ,a
~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
~/~6Lert L. Knupp, Esquire
407 North Front Street
Box 11848
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1848
and SBA Towers, Inc.
For County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania
/~tephen D. Tiley, Esquire
5
South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
For Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals
~hilip H. Spare, Esquire
~44 West Main Street
P.O. Box 318
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
For Big Spring and South Middleton School Districts
:mae
SPECTRASITE COM/~UNICATIONS,
Appellant
V
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
V
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH
MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP and SOUTH
MIDDLETON SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant
V
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
V
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER
FRANKFORD TOWNSHIP and BIG
SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
:IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
:CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 2004-920 CIVIL TERM
PETITION FOR APPEAL
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 2004-921 CIVIL TERM
PETITION FOR APPEAL
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant
CUMBERLAND
ASSESSMENT
V
COUNTY BOARD OF
APPEALS,
Appellee
V
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTHAMPDEN TOWNSHIP and
SHIPPENSBURG AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION
: ~/O. 2004-922 CIVIL TERM
: PETITION FOR APPEAL
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Appellant
V
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
V
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, EAST
PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and EAST
PENNSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
IN THE. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 2004-950 CIVIL TERM
PETITION FOR APPEAL
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Appellant
V
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
V
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH
NEWTON TOWNSHIP and BIG
SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ]DIVISION
NO. 2004-949 CIVIL TERM
PETITION FOR APPEAL
SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY,
and SHENANDOAH PERSONAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY,
V
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 03.-4921 CIVIL TERM
:
:REAL ESTATE 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, June 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 41l) 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, LL?
One Mellon Center, 50th Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
For Spectrasite Communications and SBA Towers,
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
V
CUMBERLAND cOUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
IN THE cOURT OF cOMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND cOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH
MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP and SOUTH
MIDDLETON SCHOOL DISTRICT,
CIVIL DIVISION
v : NO. 2004-920 CIVIL TERM
Interested Parties : PETITION FOR APPEAL
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS, : IN THE cOURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
V
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF :
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
V
CIVIL [DIVISION
NO. 2004-921 CIVIL TERM
Appellant
CUMBERLAND
ASSESSMENT
V
COUNTY BOARD OF
APPEALS,
Appellee
V
CUMBERLAND cOUNTY,
SOUTHAMPDEN TOWNSHIP and
SHIPPENSBURG AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
: CUMBERLAND cOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: CIVIL DIVISION
::/NO. 2004-922 CIVIL TERM
:
:
:
:
PETITION FOR APPEAL
SBA TOWERS,
V
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
V
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, EAST :
PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and EAST :
PENNSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT, :
Interested Parties :
Interested Parties :
*******************************
INC., : IN THE cOURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Appellant
CUMBERLAND cOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. ~.004-950 CIVIL TERM
PETITION FOR APPEAL
CUMBERLAND cOUNTY, uPPER :
FRANKFORD TOWNSHIP and BIG :
SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT, :
Interested Parties : PETITION FOR APPEAL
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Appellant
V
CUMBERLAND cOUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
V
CUMBERLAND cOUNTY, sOUTH
NEWTON TOWNSHIP and BIG
SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND cOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: CIVIL DIVISION
: NO. 2004-949 CIVIL TERM
interested Parties : PETITION FOR APPEAL *********************************
SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY, : IN THE COURT OF cOMMON PLEAS OF
and SHENANDOAH PERSONAL
cOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY,
V
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
CUMBERLAND cOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 03--4921 CIVIL TERM
iREAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL
IN RE: TAX ASSESSMENT APPEALS
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,
record is declared closed, and the matter is taken under
the
advisement.
It is noted that at the time of completion of the
record, in addition to the exhibits whioh 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,
anrl 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
:mae
SHENANDOAH MOBILE :
COMPANY, and :
SHENANDOAH PERSONAL :
COMMUNICATIONS :
COMPANY, :
Plaintiffs :
:
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
SPECTRASITE
COMMUNICATIONS,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTy, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION--LAW
NO. 03-4921 CIVIL TERM
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTy, PENNSYLVANIA
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
CUMBERLAND COUNTy,
SOUTH MIDDLETON
TOWNSHIP, and SOUTH
MIDDLETON SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
SPECTRASITE
COMMUNICATIONS,
Plaintiff
CIVIL ACTION--LAW
NO. 04-920 CIVIL TERM
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
CUM]SERLAND COUNTy,
UPPER FRANKFORD
TOWNSHIP, and BIG SPRING
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
SPECTRASITE
COM~ICATIONS'
Plaintiff
CUMBERLAND COUNTy
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALs,
Defendant
CUMBERLAND COUNTy,
S OUTHAMPDEN TOWNSHiP,
and SHIPPENSBURG AREA
SCHOOL D/STRICT,
Interested Parties
SBA TOWERs, INC.,
Plaintiff
CUMBERLAND COUNTy
CIVIL ACTION---LAW
NO. 04-921 CIVIL, TERM
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTy, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION--LAW
NO. 04-922 CIVIL TERN/
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTy, PENNSYLVANIA
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, :
SOUTH NEWTON TOWNSHIP,
and BIG SPRING SCHOOL
DISTRICT, :
Interested Parties :
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Plaintiff
CUMBERLAND COUNTy
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
CUMBERLAND COUNTy,
EAST PENNSBORO
:
TOWNSHIP, and EAST :
PENNSBORO SCHOOL
DISTR/CT, :
Interested Parties :
:
CIVIL ACTION---LAW
NO. 04~949 CIV/L TERM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND
: COUNTy, PENNSYLVANIA
2
CIVIL ACTION--LAW
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:
NO. 04-950 CIVIL TERM
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 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 $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, Cumber/and 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 Jess 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.
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, Pennsylvani,% is fixed at $136,530.00.
THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO l~)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 I, 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 9~.4 percent. The predetermined ratio is I00 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 $I00,000.00 as of January 1, 2004, for county and municipal taxes, and
Suly i, 2004, for school real estate taxes.
BY THE COURT,
C'/C~I C. Risch, Esq.
10 East High Street
Car/isle, PA ~70~3
Attorney for Shenandoah Mobile Company
and ~henandoah Personal Communications Company
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.
Oq.t9
~ark A. Mateya, Esq.
407 North Front Street
Box 11848
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Attorney for County Commissioners
Association of Pennsylvania
Stephen D. Tiley, Esq.
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Cumberland County
Board of Assessment Appeals
~hilip 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
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND
: COUNTy, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION--LAW
NO. 03-4921 CIVIL TERM
SPECTRASITE
COMMUNICATIONS,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTy, PENNSYLVANIA
CUMBERLAND COUNTy
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
CUMBERLAND COUNTy,
SOUTH MIDDLETON
TOWNSHIP, and SOUTH
MIDDLETON SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION--LAW
:
:
:
:
:
: NO. 04-920 CIVIL TERM
SPECTRASITE
COMMUNICATIONS,
Plaintiff
:
:
:
:
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
CUMBERLAND COUNTy,
UPPER FRANKFORD
TOWNSHIP, and BIG SPRING
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
CIVIL ACTION--LAW
NO. 04-921 CIVIl, TERM
SPECTRASITE
COMMUNICATIONS,
Plaintiff
CUMBERLAND COUNTy
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTy, PENNSYLVANIA
CUMBERLAND COUNTy,
SOUTHAM~DEN TOWNSHIP,
and SHIPPENSBURG AREA
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
CIVIL ACTION--LAW
NO. 04-922 CIVIL TERM
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND
: COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CUMBERLAND COUNTy
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTH NEWTON TOWNSHIP,:
and BIG SPRING SCHOOL
D/STRICT, :
:
Interested Parties :
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Plaintiff
CUMBERLAND COUNTy
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
CIVIL ACT/ON---LAW
NO. 04-949 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTy, PENNSYLVANIA
CUMBERLAND COUNTy,
EAST PENNSBORO
TOWNSHIP, and EAST
PENNSBORO SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
CIVIL ACTION--LAW
NO. 04-950 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: TAX ASSESSMENT APPEALS
BEFORE OLER, J.
OPINION and ORDER OF COURT
OLER, J., September 15, 2004.
In these six cases, which have been consolidated by agreement of counsel because
ora common question of law, Plaintiffs are appealing fi.om real estate tax assessments by
Defendant of Plaintiffs' telecommunication tower facilities.~ 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?
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 flied 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, Pla/ntiff 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 03-492~ 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.
~pectrasite/SouthampdenTownshinPet ,,)'a .... ,,.~r. ~App, eal, filed Mar. 4, 2004 - ~_
f . for ,~pp,Ul], vet. tot Anneal fi~^-~ ~ - . _ (here~nafr~
~Towers~outh Newton Township Pet. for Appeal): Pet. for Appeal, flied Mar. 5, 2004 (hereinafter SBA
lOwers/east Pennsboro Township Pet. for Appeal)j ,f , ~,u tv~ar. >, 2004 (hereinafter SBA
] Shenandoah's Pet. of Appeal.
4 Answer, filed Oct. 2, 2003 (hereinafter DeE's Answer to Shenandoah's Pet.).
s Praecipe for Listing Case for Trial, filed Jan. 7, 2004.
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);
Cumberland County, Southampden Township, and Shippensburg Area School District as interested
parties). Spectrasite/Southampden Township Pet. for Appeal (listing
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 03-492~ Civil Term.9
A pre-hearing conference was held on June 9, 2004,~° and a two-day hearing was
conducted on June 24, 2004, and June 28, 2004.TM
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.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiffs are Shenandoah Mobile Company, Shenandoah Personal
Communications Company, Spectrasite Communications, and SBA Towers, Inc.~2
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.~4 Defendant is the Cumberland County Board of' Assessment Appeals. Z5 The
? See SBA Towers/South Newton Township Pet. for Appeal (listing Cumberland County, South Newton
Township, and Big Spring School District as interested parties); SBA Towers/East Pennsboro Township
Pet. for Appeal (listing Cumberland County, East Pennsboro Township, and East Pennsboro School
District as interested parties).
s Mot. to Consolidate, flied Apr. 13, 2004 (hereinafter Spectrasite's Mot. To Consolidate).
9 Order of Ct., Apr. 16, 2004.
l0 In Re: Pre-Hearing Conference, June 9, 2004.
~ Notes of Testimony 2, Hr'g., June 24, 2004, and June 28, 2004 (hereinafter N.T. ~).
~2 N.T. 1-2.
Stipulations of Fact ¶ ,Pls. Ex. 13, Hr g., June 24, 2004, and June 28, 2004 (hereinafter Stipulations
of Fact ¶~).
St~pulations of Fact ¶3.
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 Peunsboro School District.~6
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? A lattice ~Iower will be defined as a self-
supporting, three- or four-legged tower which is widest at the bottom and tapers as it
rises? Lattice towers can reach heights of up to 1,000 feet? Finally, it should be noted
that Plaintiffs' lease the underlying land on which their tower facilities are located.2° 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.2!
These cases involve six telecommunication towers located in Cumberland County
(identified as Towers "A-F").22 Tower "A," parcel nnmber 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, Pennsylvania? 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
is N.T. 1-2.
~6 N.T. 1-2.
17 Stipulations of Fact ¶4.
is Stipulations of Fact 94.
~9 Stipulations of Fact ¶4.
20 Stipulations of Fact 910.
2~ Stipulations of Fact ¶12.
22 Stipulations of Fact 9¶5, 7.
2~ Stipulations of Fact 97.
24 Stipulations of Fact ¶7.
four more five-year periods.2S 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
C°mmunications.27 It is a 150-foot lattice tower located at 200 Center Road, Upper
Frankford Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania? 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?
The original assessment issued for the improvements at Tower "B's" facility specified an
assessed value of $217,560.00, which was modified by the Board of Assessment Appeals
to $~42,000.00.30
Tower "C," parcel number 39-12-0324.004 LL, is owned by Spectrasite
C°mmtmications.3~ It is a 180-foot lattice tower located at 44 Kline Road, Southampton
Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.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 ¶11.
26 Stipulations of Fact 913.
27 Stipulations of Fact ¶7.
2s Stipulations of Fact 97.
29 Stipulations of Fact 911.
30 Stipulations of Fact ~[13.
3~ Stipulations of Fact 97.
32 Stipulations of Fact 97.
Stipulations of Fact 911.
Stipulations of Fact 913.
Tower "D," parcel number 40-10-0632-016 LL, is owned by Spectrasite
Communications? It is a 160-foot lattice tower located at 1500 Holly Pike, South
Middleton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania? 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? The original assessment issued for tile improvements at Tower "D's"
facility specified an assessed value of $221,060.00, which was modified by the Board of
Assessment Appeals to $136,530.007
Tower "E," parcel number 09-22-0533-001 LL, is owned by SBA Towers? It is a
120-foot monopole tower located at 4404 Industrial Park Road, East Pennsboro
Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania? 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 months? 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,(100.00.42
Tower "F," parcel number 41-11-0304-019 LL, is owned by SBA Towersfi3 It is a
195-foot lattice tower located at 212 Hammond Road, South Newton Township,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania? 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 ¶7.
36 Stipulations of Fact ¶7.
37 Stipulations of Fact ¶11.
3, Stipulations of Fact ¶13.
39 Stipulations of Fact ¶7.
40 Stipulations of Fact ¶7.
4~ Stipulations of Fact ¶11.
42 Stipulations of Fact ¶13.
43 Stipulations of Fact ¶7.
44 Stipulations of Fact ¶7.
terminated by the tower company, through four more five-year periods and one period of
four years and eleven months.4S 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 COUllty.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. SO
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? The bid
forms are broken down by the tasks which need to be perfi>rmed. S2 These tasks include,
but are not limited to, foundation work, tower erection, electrical work, fencing, and
landscaping? Al[er bids have been submitted and jobs awarded, preparation of the
tower facility site begins, including erecting a fence, clearing the trees and vegetation,
4s Stipulations of Fact ¶11.
46 Stipulations of Fact ¶13.
47 See Act of Aug. 9, 1955, P.L. 323, §210, as amended 16 P.S. §210.
48
Stzpulations of Fact ¶15.
49 Stipulations of Fact ¶I 5.
50 Stipulations of Fact ¶15.
5t N.T. 146.
52 See Pls.' Ex. 3, Hr'g, June 24, 2004 and June 28, 2004 (hereinafter Pls.'/Def.'s Ex. _~; Pis.' Ex. 5;
Pis.' Ex. 6.
5a N.T. 145-48; Pis.' Ex. 3; Pls.' Ex. 5; Pis.' Ex. 6.
9
grading, stoning, and matting? Sometimes it is also necessary to have an access road
constructed from the highway or roadway to the tower lhcility site?
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 of Internal
Controls Compliance with Shenandoah, and Patrick Doyle, an employee of Crown
Castle, testified as to this procedure? Their testimony was corroborated by Patrick
O'ReiIIy, a Director of Field Operations for Spectrasite, and Andrew Getsy, a Field
Operations Manager for SBA? First, engineers conduct a geotechnical analysis to
determine whether they will be drilling in soft dirt, hard dirt, or bedrock? The softer or
looser the ground is, the deeper the concrete foundation must be.6° After the needed
depth of the foundation is determined, the ground is drilled, and rebar cages are placed in
the ground? 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? Otherwise, a straight
caisson is created in the same manner as the mat and pier foundation. 65
54 N.T. 146-47.
5~ N.T. 147.
56 N.T. 140.
57 N.T. 27-28, 99.
58 N.T. 204-05, 221.
59 N.T. 48.
6o N.T. 48.
6~ N.T. 140.
62 N.T. 140.
63 N.T. 213.
64 N.T. 213.
65 See N.T. 213.
I0
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? 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? A lock washer is then placed over the bolts, and, finally, a
large nut is used to securely fasten the tower to its fotmdation.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.TM 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.TM
During the hearing, Mr. Doyle also gave extensiw~ testimony on the disassembly
process for telecommunication towers as he narrated a videotape showing the
disassembly of a tower in West Virginia? The West 'Virginia tower was a 180-foot
lattice tower which was composed of nine sections and over I00 parts.73 Before any
disassembly could begin, the lights were taken off the tower, and the tower facility site
was de-energized? 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?
66 N.T. 140-41.
67 N.T. 140.
6g N.T. 42, 141.
69 N.T. 42, 141-42.
7o See N.T. 42-43, 114; see also Def.'s Ex. 1.
7~ See N.T. 147, 156-57.
72 N.T. 110, 114; Pis.' Ex. 35.
73 N.T. 114-15.
74 N.T. 156-57.
See N.T. 157-58.
11
Once these preliminary matters had been addressed, riggers ascended the tower
and securely attached the strapping from the crane to the top section of the tower? The
riggers then began unfastening the bolts which held the top section of the tower in place,
and, once the section was loose, the crane lowered the section to the ground? 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 grc,und.TM The tower sections were
not disassembled before they were taken away fi.om the site unless they were too large to
transport? Once the sections became too large to transport, the sections were
disassembled and the parts were categorized before being taken away.so Eventually, the
riggers unbolted the final section of the tower, which was the section attached to the
concrete fotmdation? After the last section had been unbolted fi.om 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? 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,s4 Additionally, Mr. Doyle testified that disassembling
a monopole tower would be a much simpler process than disassembling a lattice tower,ss
After the antennas and power cables have been removed, disassembling a monopole
76 N.T. 116-17.
77 N.T. 117-18.
78 N.T. 118-19.
79 N.T. 119.
8° N.T. 119.
8~ N.T. 131.
s2 N.T. 131-35.
S3SeeN.T. 126, 135.
s4 N.T. 126-27.
85 N.T. 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,s6
Once a tower has been disassembled, only the cement foundation, equipment
building, and fence are left at the site? These parts of the facility are not damaged
during disassembly, and could be used if another tower were later erected at the site.ss In
fact, the fencing and cement foundation are removed from the site only if their removal is
a specified condition in the lease?
The towers themselves are also reusable after disassembly.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.9~ 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?
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? 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
86N.T. 150-51,170-71.
87 N.T. 55.
88 See N.T. 55, 144-45, 207. The lack of any damage to parts of the ~tower facility during disassembly is
evidenced by · ·
the tower ~ndustry'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--tower. N.T. 144-45.
s9 N.T. 55.
9o N.T. 139.
9~ N.T. 138.
92 N.T. 120, 156.
93 N.T. 120, 139.
94 N.T. 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 unvia.ble 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?
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?°
Mr. 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.~°~ Mr. 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?2 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 N.T. 64.
96 N.T. 144.
97 N.T. 144-45.
98 N.T. 159.
99 N.T. 196-97.
loo See N.T. 27-28, 74, 103, 109-10, 215, 226.
~o~ N.T. 27-28, 74.
1°2 N.T. 103, 109-10.
14
Pennsylvania?3 Mr. Getsy testified that, of the over 400 towers which SBA Towers
owns in Pennsylvania, he was not aware of any being removed?4
Finally, Plaintiffs called Brian Kostel, a senior tax accountant for Crown Castle. l°s
Mr. Kostel 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. ~06
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 inw>lved in the mill, mine
manufactory or industrial process, and all other real estate not exempt by
law fi.om taxation ....
Act of May 21, 1943, P.L. 571, §201, as amended, 72 P.S. §5453.201.
Assessment of Chattels as Real Property for Real Estate Taxation. As a general
proposition in real property law, there are three classificatiuns for chattels that are used in
connection with real estate:
~03 N.T. 215.
1o4 N.T. 226.
~0~ N.T. 230.
~06 N.T. 234-35; Pis.' Ex. 9.
15
First, those which are manifestly furniture, as distinguished fi.om
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 .... 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 nse of an owner or tenant
but readily removable.
Clayton v. Lienhard, 312 Pa. 433, 436-37, 167 A. 321,322 (1933) (citations omitted).
The court in In Re Sheetz, Inc., 657 A.2d 1011 (Pa. 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 ~vho attached or installed it." t~ 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 ~mother item more suitable for
the purpose. '" Id. (quoting Mich. Nat7 Bank v. City of Lansing, 293 N.W.2d 626, 627
(Mich. Ct. App. 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 e, ssential 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 Co. v. 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/'or Cumberland County has been
stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetermined ratio is 100 percent.
THERE BE1NG 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 $95,000.00 as of January 1, 2004, for county and municipal taxes, and
July I, 2004, for school real estate taxes.
With respect to parcel number 43-06-0031-012 LL.'
THE MARKET VALUE as of January I, 2004 (and for succeeding years until
revised), for the parcel owned by Spectrasite Comrnunications, 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 Com~munications, situated in South
Middleton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is fixed at $136,530.00.
THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO fbr Cumberland County has been
stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetermined ratio is 100 percent.
THERE BE1NG 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, Ine., 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 eounty 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 county and municipal taxes, and
July 1, 2004, for school real estate taxes.
BY THE COURT,
s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr.
J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.
Carl C. Risch, Esq.
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 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, PA 17055
Attorney for Big Spring and
South Middleton School Districts
21
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY et al., C1VIL DIVISION
Appellants, No. 03-4921 4
No. 04-920
vs. No. 04-921 ,//
No. 04-922: ,..~/
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF No. 04-949
ASSESSMENT APPEALS, No. 04-95(}
(Consolidated at No. 03-4921)
Appellee.
CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATTERS
ET AL. COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL
Filed on Behalf of Appellants
Counsel of Record for These Parties:
Dusty Elias Kirk, Esquire
PA I.D. No. 30702
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
PA I.D. No. 74520
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
Firm I.D. No. 143
One Mellon Center, 50th Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
(412) 454-5000
Counsel for S~oectrasite Communications and
SBA Towers, Inc.
and
Carl C. Risch, Esquire
PA I.D. No. 75901
Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Counsel for Shenandoah Mobile Company and
Shenandoah Personal Communications
Company
PT: #1981 ! 1 vl (48V301 !.DOC)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND' COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY et al.,
Appellants,
VS.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee.
ET AL.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL DIVISION
No. 03-4.921
No. 04-920
No. 04-921
No. 04-922
No. 04-949
No. 04-950
(Consolidated at No. 03-4921)
CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL
1. This Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal is filed
purusent to the order of this Court dated October 11, 2004 and Rule 1925(b) of the Pennsylvania
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
2. The matters complained of by appellants on appeal are as follows:
a. the Court committed an error of law in ruling that
telecommunication towers are classified as realty as opposed to personalty for real estate
assessment purposes, pursuant to 72 P.S. § 5020-201;
b. the Court committed an error of law in ruling that the
telecommunication towers "although their removal is not a practical impossibility" are firmly
affixed to the ground, given that the manner in how the towers are affixed to the ground is
designed for removability;
c. the Court committed an error of law in ruling that the
telecommunication towers are essential to the use of the rest of the facility;
PT: #198111 vl (48V301 [.DOC)
d. the Court committed an error of law in ruling that the intention of
the parties at the time of annexation was for the telecommunication towers to become part of the
realty; and
e. the Court committed an error of law in ruling that
telecommunication towers are classified as realty for the purposes of real estate assessment
purposes, given that telecommunication towers are classified as personalty for purposes of sales
and use tax, and where the determination of the classification of the towers for the respective
taxes is made by applying the same legal test to the same towers using the same legal analysis.
Dated: October ~, 2004
Respectfully submitted,
Dusty Eli/-r~(irk
PA I.D. No. 30702
Sharon F. DiPaolo
PA I.D. No. 74520
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
Firm I.D. No. 143
50th Floor, One Mellon Center
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 1:;219-2502
(412) 454-5000
Counsel for Spectrasite Communications and
SBA Towers, Inc.
and
Carl C. Risch
PA I.D. No. 75901
MARTSON, DE~LDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Counsel for Shenandoah Mobile Company and
Shenandoah Personal Communications Company
PT: #198111 vl (48V301!.DOC)
-2-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a tree and correct copy of the within Concise Statement of
Matters Complained of on Appeal was served upon the following parties by first class mail,
postage prepaid, on this ~W~clay of October, 2004:
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire
Solicitor, Cumberland County and Board
of Assessment Appeals
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
Robert L. Knupp, Esquire
Knupp, Kodak & Imblum, P.C.
407 N. Front Street
P.O. Box 11848
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Steven Fishman, Esquire
Solicitor, Upper Frankford Township
95 Alexander Spring Road
Carlisle, PA 17013
Philip H. Spare, Esquire
Solicitor, Big Springs School District
Solicitor, South Middleton School District
Snelbaker, Brenneman & Spare, PC
44 West Main Street
P.O. Box 318
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Richard P. Mislitsky, Esquire
Solicitor, South Middleton Township
1 West High Street
P.O. Box 1290
Carlisle, PA 17013
Jerry A. Weigle, Esquire
Solicitor, Shippensburg Area School District
Weigle & Associates
126 East King Street
Shippensburg, PA 17257
Richard L. Webber, Jr., Esquire
Solicitor, Southampden Township
Weigle & Associates
126 East King Street
Shippensburg, PA 17257
Donna S. Weldon, Esquire
Solicitor, East Pennsboro School District
Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal LLP
210 Walnut Street
P.O. Box 1.1963
Harrisburg:, PA 17108-1963
Henry F. Coyne, Esquire
Solicitor, East Pennsboro Township
3901 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire
Solicitor, South Newton Township
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Mark A. Mateya, Esquire
P.O. Box 127
Boiling Springs, PA 17007
PT://198111 vi (48V301 !.DOC)
SHENANDOAH MOBILE
COMPANY, and
SHENANDOAH PERSONAL
COMMUNICATIONS
COMPANY,
Plaintiffs
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
SPECTRASITE
COMMUNICATIONS,
Plaintiff
Vo
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
Vo
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, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION--LAW
NO. 03-4921 CIVIL, TERM
IN THE COURT OI7 COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION--LAW
NO. 04-920 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT OF coMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COLINTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
Vo
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
UPPER FRANKFORD
TOWNSHIP, and BIG SPRING
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
SPECTRASITE
COMMUNICATIONS,
Plaintiff
Vo
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
Vo
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, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION--LAW
NO. 04-922 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
Vo
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTH NEWTON TOWNSHIP,
and BIG SPRING SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Plaintiff
Vo
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendam
Vo
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
EAST PENNSBORO
TOWNSHIP, and EAST
PENNSBORO SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
CIVIL ACTION--LAW
NO. 04-949 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION--LAW
NO. 04-950 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 22nd day of December, 2004, the Opinion Pursuant to Pa. R.A.P.
1925 dated December 16, 2004, is amended by the substiitution 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,
esley Oler~2[~ ' J.
Mark A. Mateya, Esq.
Carl C. Risch, Esq.
Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Shenandoah Mobile Company
/
407 North Front Street
Box 11848
Harrisburg, PA 17108 /
Attorney for County Commissioners Assqiziation of Pennsylvania
Robert L. Knupp, Esq.
Knupp, Kodak & Imblum, P.C.
407 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17108 /,;
Attorney for Shenandoah Personal Commur)4'~a' tions Company
/
Stephen Douglas Tiley, Esq.
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Cumberland County Boarc~ of Assessment Appeals
Philip Haring Spare, Esq.
Snelbaker, Brenneman & Spare, P.C.
44 West Main Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esq.
Pepper Hamilton, LLP
One Mellon Center, 50th Floor
500 Grant Street
Attorney for Big Spring and South Middleton School Districts
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Attorney for Spectrasite Communications and SBA Towers, Inc.
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA., 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.~ 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 Plaintiffs have expressed the issues being pursued on appeal
as follows:
a. IT]he Court committed an error of law in ruling that telecommunication
towers are classified as realty as opposed to personalty for real estate
assessment purposes, pursuant to 72 P.S. § 5020.-201;
b. the Court committed an error of law in ruling that the
telecommunication towers "although their removal is not a practical
~ 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. t'or Appeak filed Mar. 4, 2004 (hereinafter Spectrasite/Upper
Frankford Township Pet. for Appeal); Pet. f?.,r 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
Towers/East Pennsboro Township Pet. for Appeal).
3 Notes of Testimony 2, Hr'g, June 24, 2004, and June 28, 2004 (hereinafter N.T. ___).
4 Shenandoah Mobile Co. v. Cumberland County Bal. of Assessment Appeals, Civ. No. 03-4921, (C.P.
Cumberland County, Sept. 15, 2004).
s 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