The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-0949 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SBA TOWERS, INC., CNIL DNISION Appellant, NO. 04 - 9L1? C;c;lC ~~ vs. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, PETITION FOR APPEAL Appellee. vs. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH NEWTON TOWNSHIP and BIG SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT, Filed on behalf of Appellant, SBA Towers, Inc. Interested Parties. Counsel of Record for this Party: Dusty Elias Kirk, Esquire PA LD. No. 30702 PEPPER HAMILTON LLP Firm LD. No. 143 50th Floor, One Mellon Center 500 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502 (412) 454-5000 PT: #172643 vI (3P7NOl!.DOC) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 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. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CNIL DNISION NO. 0"-/ -q"f CiulL y~ PETITION FOR APPEAL AND NOW, comes SBA Towers, Inc. ("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: I. SBA Towers, Inc. is the record owner of commercial property situate at 212 Hammond Road, South Newton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (the "Property") and identified as Parcel No. 41-II-0304-019-LL in the Cumberland County assessment records. 2. Cumberland County, South Newton Township and Big Springs School District are the taxing bodies interested in the taxable status ofthe 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. g5342 et seq., and is authorized to assess and value real property for the purpose oftaxation in counties ofthe 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 Land Improvements Assessment $0 $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 hearing, the Board reduced the assessment on the Property for the year 2004 to One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) 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. -2- PT: #172643 vi (3P7NOl !.DOC) 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 subrnitted, ~~q~ PA LD. No. 30702 PEPPER HAMILTON LLP Firm No.143 One Mellon Center, 50th Floor 500 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502 (412) 454-5000 Dated: March~, 2004 -3- PT: #172643 vI (3P7NOl LOGe) , .cg~~W, 0~7b CUMBERLAND COUNTY. ASSESSMENT APPEAL - COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL . Under lie prlIIIieione. oi IIIw eny pel8llll' ~ by erry arnn'T18lll deHIng to .pp.1hd _ .~ In willing, ....the IloIId 01 A_A ... ~AppM on 01 bIIonI . Such Il8IIlmlinIIhd de8IgIlIIII11e Ilmllldll'l*llldllom end lhe Itiwa lollhkh . lhe 9oMI1hd1lllll1llllice 01 when end whe1810 ~Iar a '-Ing. No appe8I aha. .. '-d"''' bo8nI.... IFF In "........ Mwllad Ihnp...1 and ~cIoct8Mra on 01,..... . ... lit forth.., laW. ' 'Mnuae.1aldng cIIIIricIa R<<:onlOwner(s) Name '..; -: ~"'&l-.,\ 'ff~S ;;-;.c:.. Address ,::;~rOC" d..'oJ('i.. _ <'f.(~d f.(,"~ JZ,',{!. .-8U;J. /4Un I-L. ,1~'f~7- 'J.7<l? SlIe LQCllIion of Property SIJlject of Appeal: ~ S1rHI ' , BararT-. Ass!iSSorS Tax Map ldenllllcallon .: ~/- /1 - c.:~ c.J - M -; L.L Assessment Appealed J.. '-i 4- g" () Opinion of Markel Valua of this Properly "y c- () c Date Pun:hased JJ t' ., I I ~rchiIse P~, crt? I qf {'\ Amount of FIre Insula"'; ~J/4 State reeaonSfor filing lhluppGaJ: Sf I' 11t,h''/', "I.(n.\'i........ ,d~C)o;..,,~ .,,{; . ~Type: Check and Com"" Proper CllMIIIcalIaai; " . 0 , '-::J' J''-- J . ColI'II\'I!!rclaI: Use (,in"',' '\., 0' "")>0 \" 0": II C pI 7 ,oe...... ' , 'v t;c... 0 o Gross Square FL 0 ,"") A- .' $que,. R. Rentable MIa .AII I+- Owner,Ooc:l4lIedA.70 ,0. TennBntOccupled .>?'S 0 If l8ased:AnluI Rent ~ t: :-}tl"c-.l., \.ri-ConItrutted ,/h,j(T\n..:~ o G!OIIS Sqtarll FL ' SqIl8l8 FL Rentable MIa - 0 0 Owner Occupied Tlneni Occupied '. -' ... If Leased: AnnIlIJ Rent Date Conitiucted 0IfIce: Industrial: ToIaJ Square FL Square FL RenlabIe.Are Square FL Plant Anti Owner OccupIed TeNnl Oa:upled If Leased: Annual Rent lease'TYPe: Net_ Gross _ CombinaUon _ Dalli Cons OIlier: Use , GroesSquare FL Owner~ Tenant~ If LlII8ecI: AnruI Rent 0 ,0 0", Collllrucled -ATTACH LAST a YEARSINCOIIE a EXPENSE STATEMENTS OR COIIPLETETHE ATT~D INCoME".ElCPENS~ fOAIr o Certlft.... oUppeal Ifw heNby deCl8re mylour InlenIIon 10 IFp8IIInlm lhIill"~ ~ -..on of1he ~ .deetdlecl.1bcMo and dO he,*, wrtfy hi fie IIIalernar'D made In lhIa 8ppIII_lNa end 00I'I8C:l1 (ndelltlllid IIud false ~'Mnln _ made ~iO Ihe IlI/IIIlIeI! 0118 Pa. 0 c.s. SecIon 41104, ....ng to -lIIailicelIo.llo lIIIlhoIIIea. 0 0 , SJsJlecf: '/~-? ) k, i \: - '0 0 0 Date: ,'~l} -11; j ',..' ,Pho!lel:~) . OwneI(a) of RecDriI(DIIyIOIIIce) 5"(j~' ~ ? <if:;' 1 "70 AD nollces of theSe proceedings shall be mailed to: '0 0 0 0 EXHIBIT OffJceUuOnly 000 Name:' '<;Rit-~-rr:,,,,(~<.. LTX'. o/~ "Rk f>~/1.li I Fee I Address: ~ro'f':O .J..\.t.'cA:!c-., ~cl~"..1 jJu.I.~Y "';i,J ~ A _ l ~ ex' A Id .++", "\. F L.. "n H,\ - 7 _ :J --J(; '7 . . . . '. . . . ~ A-ttf'tciJ ill~~SANNUALINCOMES,FOR3 PRIOR YEARS . " ..., .. . ". '. 19,' 19 .roi8cted.lllOI1Je100%.~ed '. -- Int:Iudk1g v8Iue at nIIll.fi8e units , $ . .' $ , Actual Income rece1ved '. ~ AcluaJ other Income lIslby~. , $ '$ $ $ $ $ $ ,$ ,.. '$ $ $ $. :'$ To'" Actual Income R*ceIMd' .. GROSS ANNUAL EXPENS.:s F'OR 3 'PRIOR YEARS Grou AnnwII ExP!IfW" . . Reel Eli.... Taxes $ . InsutaI1C8. .. .,L8nd.R....a:.'. ' '.' 19....:...... 19~ $'.- " " . .:',.,.;a~' : ", FIXED, , EXPENSES ," .~~ . 'Other, , . ' ...';........'1:'. !.>:.". ....".;.. .;;'." ,,::" . ~rk:IIY'" ':."~~" 81_-"""- .",;.. T~--,..... .,,' _ : Gas . . i.-.-",:, ., Water & S4IWer ,"" TlB8b.Removal ", :HealIng .,: :,-..;:',.. ,,',: . l.1aIief8I'a<Saiaiy,: OPIlAATIONAL Fees EXPENSES . .. . . , .:....\JIgaJ.._~ng , 'Pay..oIIJ'_ ' . . ", ." ',,:,,?~ -' ....-.-- . . ..:',. ;Groupl~",,;::..";, -. -. ." ...'-'", 'AcMIi'tI8IiTg , . ~,& $alaries .. ; '. . . .-' ~'_:',:. ..', .il:._' , ." SuppIlIl8'-:", .\, " . MUlt & Repalr . Repl8ce. Reserve Other .. , $ . ,'! ~ .-. ,"..;'. . " . ,~'.. .. "....... ';)',~'. . ...1..: ~ ":'.' , , :. ';<!......~:',.:'~:? (", . 'r":','<-, .,.. .' :':~"',.', . 1.1 .......:'it! . p- "" - . . ". ....~... ~ ':.' . . . _~Et:fSES $. $ $ $ $. $' , ',$':"":" ,;1" ".' ....,.;.. .. , .','.' . .- ".",.t $' " . :,.;:\-';.: ',". :' "".,C',' . ~. t,.".. . . '-~. .... .... ~ .;: .: $ Please USe'lidtJK.lo.... pages for eny other ,remarks reladve ~ the property. -$H $ $, $ $ $ ..... 1,9~. . -. ", ~ ':",1- r ':'.~. ,... " ., .. 19--: $ $ $ $ $ $ , itemS Included . In Rent . CJ',Reali;.9' 'CJ Air, Cond. CJEIectrIcity CJ TV Cable CJ Water ,""','" . 'd Carpet CJ Drapes CJRII/lllI d Refrig. CJ DIshwasher CJ, Garbage DisposaJ ". I:) Parking o Pool Cl Rec. Facility .' ..-. .... ~., . , .~ '6 airIER:' Cl . ': 'CJ ' "i:i' CJ Furniture , . at FI,II i8had UnilI: $. . FumlUI ~ 1Ha . ~, .tJ'aidg:bwner , 0 R8ntaJ Co, . .~ Other Reason for fair actual valualion of the telecommunicalion lower. . fair markel value upon which Ihe assessment is based is in excess of the property's value. assessment is nol unitoRn with assessments of other property in the county, The assessment includes Ihe value of personal property contrary to Pennsylvania assessment law. " . . .. '.' Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals Old Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 , '1717) 240-6350 (717) 240-6354 (fax) S",,'" of AssesSll'lenr ApplY'" Lloyd W, Bucher R. Fred Hefelflnger Sarah Hughes BONNIE M. MAHONEY Chief .A....alll' STEPHEN 0, TILEY Aaisut Sollchor DECISION ORDER MAILING DATE: FebnJary 9. 2004 PARCEL NUMBER: 41-11-0304-019.-LL SBA TOWERS. INC 5900 BROKEN SOUND PKWY NW BOCA RATON FL 33487 Dear Property Owner: This leller is to officially notify you of the decision of lhe Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals regarding the above-referenced parcel. DATE OF APPEAL HEARING: 0210312004 DATE DECISION RENDERED: 02/09/2004 EFFECTIVE FOR TAX YEAR: 2004 DECISION RENDERED: r] Withdrawn By Applicant [ ] Abandoned For Failure To Appear [ ] Denied - No Change [ ] Approved Review Appraiser's Changes [X] Revised Assessmenl Based on Hearing [] Other: TOTAL VAlUE FAIR MARKET CLEAN AND GREEN CLEAN AND GREEN STATUS Old Assessed Value; New Assessed Value: 244,860 100,000 NOT APPLICABLE Any person aggrieved by the order of the Board of Assessment may appeal 10 the Court of Common Pleas by filing a pelition in the Prothonotary's office on or before March 9, 2004. EXHIBIT I 6 . I, -pq\'Y\~Ia.. \If VERIFICATION KI ,of'(.....- ,0fSBA Towers, Inc., declare under penalty of peIjury that I am the ofSBA Towers, Inc,; that I am authorized to make this verification of the foregoing Petition for Appeal on behalf of SBA Towers, Inc., the record owner of the property on appeal; that I know the contents thereof as to all matters offact therein stated and the same are true; and as to all matters therein stated on information and belief, I believe them to be true. I understand that false statements herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. Cons, Stat. 94904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Executed this 2 day of March, 2004, SBA T~~C. BY: ~ ' Title: y:f CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the within Petition for Appeal has 14 been served upon the following parties by first class mail, postage prepaid on this ~ day of March, 2004. Edward L. Schorpp, Esquire Solicitor, Cumberland County Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, P A 17013 Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire Solicitor, Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire Solicitor, South Newton Township 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, P A 17013 Philip H. Spare, Esquire Solicitor, Big Springs School District Snelbaker, Brenneman & Spare, PC 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 ~t~~~M - (J ~ r 'l 0 n ....., C") C) ,:'::'j -" -71 - ~ f0 -- ...., ~ -l:::: " ,- 0 ~:. ',~J r~1.]J ~ I'" ~ I :~I:l V) l.( p:: L'l -. --0 :,.,,.., ':J (~s ',.J ;n "<.~ , "'",'" , c,) SBA TOWERS, INC., Appellant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA CIVIL ACTION vs, CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, : TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL : NO: 04..949 Appellee vs. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH NEWTON TOWNSHIP and BIG SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties PRAECIPE TO INTERVENE TO: The Prothonotary of Cumberland County Big Spring School District, a local taxing body with regard to the subject real estate in this matter, hereby intervenes in accordance with law as a party, respondent-appellee, SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P.C, LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE 3/r/o y By: Qo...a/A~ ~ , Esqwre Pa. Supreme Ct. LD. # 65200 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PAl 7055-03 I 8 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Intervener: Big Spring School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this date serving a tme and correct copy of the within Praecipe to Intervene Upon the following attorneys by sending the same by first-class mail, postage paid addressed as follows: Date: t.f (I ,2004 LAW OFFICES SNElBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE Dusty Elias Kirk, Esquire PeEper Hamilton LLP 50 Floor, One Mellon Center 500 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502 (Attorney for SBA Towers, Inc,) Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Attorney for Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals) SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P.C, By: ~t/~ Philip . Spare, Esquire Pa. Supreme Ct. J.D. # 65200 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055-0318 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Intervener: Big Spring School District (') r- ~ iT;i(-:~:) p3<: ri ,~(-; :~'_~. C'~ -~?:~ -< '" => eo> ~ o "'0 :-f f1~ ::0 " -om ::00 02: :r.,-l d:D 2C) 6fn ---l ~i ~< ;,;,. 1.) :::0 I ". ::;c W N IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY and SHENANDOAH PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, Appellants, Ys. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee, SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS, Appellant, Ys. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee, Ys. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP, and SOUTH MIDDLETON SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties, PT: #175332 vI (3R@COl1.DOC) 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 LD. No. 30702 Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire PA LD, No. 74520 PEPPER HAMILTON LLP Firm LD. No, 143 One Mellon Center th 50 Floor 500 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502 (412) 454-5000 SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS, Appellant, Ys. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee, YS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER FRANKFORD TOWNSHIP and BIG SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties, SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS, Appellant, YS. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee, YS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTHAMPDEN TOWNSHIP and SHIPPENSBURG AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties. PT: #175332 vI (3R@COl!.DOC) SBA TOWERS, INC., Appellant, vs, CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee, vs, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and EAST PENNSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties. SBA TOWERS, INC., Appellant, vs. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee, vs. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH NEWTON TOWNSHIP and BIG SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties, PT; #175332 vi (3R@COILODe) 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. ) CNIL DNISION ) ) 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 40-1O-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 PI: #175332 vI (3R@COILDOC) 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 ofthese 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 vI (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 ofthe 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 Pennsboro 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 oflaw 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 2 13 (a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedures provides that when actions in a county involve a common question oflaw 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 vI (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, ~ Dusty El' s irk P A LD, o. 30702 Sharon F. DiPaolo PALD. No, 74520 Pepper Hamilton LLP One Mellon Center, 50th Floor 500 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502 Dated: ~ l Attorneys for Spectrasite Communications ,2004 PT: #175332 vi (3R@COl!.DOC) 5 A;.i .,.''(~] 82 :Of It; f: I !JdV 1DDZ ))" /~C:'--,;'CiH {),;:;'d :31--l1 :10 :iJd:!(}-C1:Jlid FREY & TILEY ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW 5 SOUTH HANOVER STREET CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013-3385 Telephone: (717) 243-5838 Facsimile: (717) 243-6441 Of Counsel: ROBERT M, FREY STEPHEN D. TILEY ROBERT G. FREY MEMORANDUM TO: Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire Via email only FROM: Steve Tiley DATE: April 2, 2004 RE: Cell Tower Appeals Dear Sharon: In response to your transmission of March 30th, on behalf of the County and Board, I concur in the motions. I have sent a fax to the counsel for the other taxing bodies asking that they give their concurrence to you as soon as possible, I spoke with Attorney Carl Risch this morning and he continues to concur, so long as trial is not delayed beyond May (I indicated June 15th and he was agreeable to that). Do you plan to file a separate motion for each case? I would think that at least we will need an order entered in each case or that the final order should reference all case numbers. I have not reviewed the procedure. I note that I have never been served with filed copies of the original appeals, giving file numbers. For that reason, I have not yet filed Answers. (Although Answers are not required, I customarily do so.) No need to serve filed copies now, I will go the courthouse and get the file numbers and I will assume that what was filed is identical to the copies I received. EXHIBIT ~ j "An Frey & Tiley Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire Re: Cell Tower Cases April 2, 2004 Page 2 of2 I am not sure that we need consent, and I am not sure that we can get consent within the timeframe required, Some solicitors will be away. Others will feel the need to consult with their client before making a decision. Your cases were assigned to President Judge Hoffer. About two weeks ago his chambers called to schedule the hearings. I advised that Judge Oler had the Shenandoah case and that there had been some talk of consolidation and CCAP intervention. He asked me to report back to him in a couple of weeks. The Shenandoah case is presently scheduled for pre-trial next Thursday and trial a week from Monday. I believe that Carl Rish and I need to advise Judge Oler that a motion for consolidation is likely. At the same time I believe that I, or Carl Rish and I, should advise Judge Hoffer. I recommend that, after my conversation with Judge Oler, that I deliver to Judge Hoffer a letter indicating where we are, and that I suggest that the Court may want to simply order consolidation on its own motion. We may find that this results in consolidation of the cases before all of the taxing body solicitors have had the opportunity to respond. I am not yet sure who will be attending the tower removal. Sincerely yours, Steve Stephen D, Tiley cc: Carl C. Rich, Esquire Via emait only !!r.,..,",..'.... ,.. ",..",.. '>I~~".....u.n..l;""''''' ......_....__.... -.. .-. SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P. C. ,-- Atto,.,.eyJ III Law .1'" 0, IBm:: ::l1 'J 44 We'JI. Main Street MedI3llli(:sblll'g, :f'A 170:3::; (717) 697-8528 Richard C. Snelbaker Fax No, (717) 697-7681 Keith O. Brenneman Philip H, Spare FACSIMILE COVER LETTER PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES: DATE: Apri16,1004 TO: Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire Pepper Hamilton LLP FAX #: (4U) 454-5005 FROM: Phil Spare NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER LETrER: 1 COMMENTS: Re: Spectrasite Communications and SBA Tower Cases CCP Cumberland County, PA Dear Sharon: As we discussed this moming, our finn represents Big Spring School District and South Middleton School District in the above referenced tax assessment appeals. Last evening, both school Boards adopted resolutions approving of the consolidation of these cases with the other similar cases pending in Cumberland County. Please let me know if you require any thing else from me at this time. Thank you. ~ Cc: Dr. Patricia B. Sanker, Superintendent South Middleton School District Dr. William K. Cowden, Superintendent Big Spring School District Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire (717) 243-6441 EXHIBIT I liB" NT TIME APR. 6. 9:00AM RECEIVED TIME APR. 6. \!I4/1!]::J/t:J4 ~ (;..L..l HEATH L. ALL[N N. DAVID A.tlAL CtlA"L..t:5 ViI IIIUaENOALL It ROBERT L. WELDON EUGeNE I.. fl'EPINS-'Y, "',. .JOHN H ENOS m GAR'" It "AENC" QONNA 5 WELGON .R.-OrORD OO"".NCa: JE"UY s nOICE. "OBa:IIT .. CtlU"Ctl 5TC.PI"lItH L.. 0..0.1:: III. seOTT SHCAflICflI ELYSe IE. "OOEtt. e.AlG A. ,",OHOYI'.. DONALoD'" LIWlllm ...IDOET M. WHITLEY .JOHN A. I'EICHTEI.. ELlZA8ltTI"I ,J. GOLD.TEIN eAAI.III". A- GALL STEPHANIE KLEINFELTER "cc,rcl"'\. UJUU.IJ nL.L.t;;.!, QI I'rlf ,,,",,-' '-'-' . .............................,....' KEEFER WOOD AL.L.EN & RAHAL. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 210 WAI.NUT STREET P. 0, BOX 11863 HARRISBURG, PA 1710e-1983 PHONE 17171 255-8000 LLP UTA....HED IN ,.7. 0' couNSEL: 5.....Ut:L c. HA....,. WItIT IlHOAC OFFICE' 41e r ALI..QWflllLD IIOAO CAMP HILI... fl. 17011 11171.12-..00 IlEIN No. a3-0,.813. W\NW.IlH..rwood.CDm .IIITU'. co,," ACT ,,0.114. TIO.... April 5,2004 (717) 255-8049 Email Address: dweldon8keeferwood.com VI. F.cslmlle #1412-2'1-0717 Sharon F, DIPaolo, Esquire pe,f,lper Hamilton LLP 50 Floor 500 Grant Street Pittsburgh. PA 15219.2502 RE: Motion to Consolidate Dear Ms. DiPaolo: I am the solicitor of East Pennsboro Area School District ("District"), You have asked for my concurrence with regard to a Motion to Consolidate. The assessment appeal related to the District Is entitled SSA Towers, Ino, vs. Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals, Parcel No. 09-22-0533-OO1-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 jJ;,~~.~ Donna S. Weldon DSW/drw cc: Stephen 0, Tiley, Esquire (VIa Fax '717-243-8441) Linda J, Bigos. D.Ed., Superintendent EXHIBIT I "c" TIME APR. 5, 4:07PM RECEIVED TIME APR. S. WEIGLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys-at-Law 126 EAST KING STREET SHIPPENSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17257-1397 JERRY A. WEIGLE Associates JOSEPH P. RUANE RICHARD L. WEBBER, JR. Of Counsel THOMAS L. BRIGHT TELEPHONE (717) 532-7388 or (717) 776-4295 FAX (717) 532-5289 weil!leassociates@earthlink.net April 2, 2004 VIA FACSIMILE TO (412) 281-0717 AND U.S. MAIL Sharon F, DiPaolo, Esquire PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP 50th Floor 500 Grant Street Pittsburgh, P A 15219-2502 RE: 2004 Real Estate Tax Assessment appeals Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Spectrasite Communications Docket Numbers 04-920, 04-921 and 04-922 SBA Towers, Inc. Docket Numbers 04-949 and 04-950 Shenandoah Mobile Company and Shenandoah Personal Communications Company Docket Number 03-4921 Dear 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. t:ld. 7~.dL Richard L. Webber, Jr., Esquire RL W /paf cc: Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire (via facsimile to 243-6441) Southampton Township Board of Supervisors EXHIBIT .Ii II J!I "D" WEIGLE & ASSOCIATES, P.c. AUorneys-at-Law 126 EAST KING STREET SHlPPENSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17257-1397 JERRY A. WEIGLE Associates JOSEPH P. RUANE RICHARD L. WEBBER, JR. Of Counsel mOMAS L. BRIGHT TELEPHONE (717) 532-7388 or (717) 776-4295 FAX (717) 532-5289 weil!leassociatestalearthlink.net VIA FACSIMILE TO (412) 281-0717 AND U.S. MAIL Sharon F, DiPaolo, Esquire PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP 50th Floor 500 Grant Street Pittsburgh, P A 15219-2502 RE: 2004 Real Estate Tax Assessment appeals Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Spectrasite Communications Docket Numbers 04-920, 04-921 and 04-922 SBA Towers, Inc. Docket Numbers 04-949 and 04-950 Shenandoah Mobile Company and Shenandoah Personal Communications Company Docket Number 03-4921 Dear Attorney DiPaolo: On behalf of the Shippensburg Area School District, the District hereby consents to your proposed Motion to Consolidate as well as the Motion to Continue in the above captioned matter. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, OLE & ASSOCIATES, P,C. I4SL 'tor for Sh'ippensburg Area Schoo JA W/paf cc: Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire (via facsimile to 243-6441) Dr. David R. Landis, Superintendent SASD EXHIBIT ~ j "E" 1 "',,,,,,, '"'' - -,,,,"n" ,)ALZ~NN HUGHES &FISHMAN P.C. 1'"""""'- V.I. G. 'BRYAN SAL1J.tA.Nl4. E.~Q. J AML~ n, HUGHt.li. )::.SQ. 5n\'E:'I j, FlSID4AN, E.,a, .'-NIJ F, Di:PAUU~. E>Q. NOll)olAj, 1l~ RTKO. EsQ: Wu..Ll"-'4 w. TIiClMJtSON. E.,-o..' MEUS.~A 1\.. DJVELY, L'Q. REsECCA R. H,UGlnS, ESQ. . AUO ...l;foCtnaDTD M.UYlJl.ND IAI. p,_TU.LtC=: PAMlUA ii, BoWl'IGU IlAJaht'",j, Mo510J. UIJ1UEJ, potmJl "I'1UCl^ 1..1l^l1ZY .\W45,CO"""'....~ !J<GfU F. Ul'I(\r.R 1U;Pl.yTQ: gSAu:>W'DERS?'I!l'I(l \lOAD' SIllT"~ . CARLTSlL. Ph 170\3 (it7l i49-653S FIIX (im 249.7834 45.1 PHOnIIX OIUVE . Sum: A . C>\No<1ltlSBUKG. Ph 17201 (ili)2liS.2121 FIIX(iIi)!l63.06G3 107 No!m< FRO,",STllF.ET . sum liS . Il.AUJSJ.UR(\, PA mOl (ili) 252.9420 'NJ< (i11) 231-1970 April 2, 2004 Sharon F, DiPaolo, Esq, Pe~per Hamilton, L.L.P, 50 Floor 500 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502 Re: Spectracite Communications Assessment VIA FAX AND 15T 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 ifthere is anything further required of the Township at this time, V ery truly yours, ~~:;~ ~ Solicitor CONCE:'>o'TRATlNG IN EN"'1RONMENTAL. LAND US I RECEIVED TIME APR. 2. 10:2 s "F" UNIClPALAND EsTATEADMlNISTRATTON LAw APR. 2. 10: 22AM EXHIBIT (. i3 (,,) co ~ ~-~~ """ ::... ;.g <) -q :;3 fG::J r--- ~Clf"i1 _:JCJ ()/ -,Jd .~:~? (-Jsi' --.:;fT/ ;--j w ._of, _J., -,'I -...;: " 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. PI: #178263 vI (3TJROl LODe) CIVIL DIVISION Nos. 03-4921 04-920 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 LD, No. 30702 Sharon F, DiPaolo, Esquire PA LD, No. 74520 PEPPER HAMILTON LLP Firm LD. No. 143 One Mellon Center 50th Floor 500 Grant Street Pittsburgh, P A 15219-2502 (412) 454-5000 SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS, Appellant, Ys. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee. Ys. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER FRANKFORD TOWNSHIP and BIG SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties. SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS, Appellant, YS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee, YS. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTHAMPDEN TOWNSHIP and SHIPPENSBURG AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties. PT: #178263 vI (3TJROl i.DOC) SBA TOWERS, INC., Appellant, vs, CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee. vs, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and EAST PENNSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties. SBA TOWERS, INC., Appellant, vs. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee. vs, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH NEWTON TOWNSHIP and BIG SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties, PT: #178263 vl (3TJROl LOGC) 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 Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and identified as Parcel Numbers 40-1O-0632-016-LL, 43-06-0031-012-LL and 39-12-0324-004-LL in the Cumberland County assessment records (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 ofthe telecommunication towers as real property for purposes of real estate taxation. 3, SBA Towers, Inc, ("SBA") is a telecommunication tower company, and also owns properties in Cumberland County upon which it placed telecommunication towers (the PT:#178263 vi (3TJROl!.DOC) "SBA Properties"). The SBA Properties are identified as Parcel Numbers 09-22-0533-001-LL and 4l-ll-0304-0l9-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 25-25-0006-3l5-LL (the "Shenandoah Property"), raising the same issues as Spectrasite's and SBA's appeals, 7, This Court scheduled Shenandoah's appeal for trial on April 12, 2004, 8. Concurrent with filing this Motion to Continue, Spectrasite, jointly with SBA and Shenandoah, filed a motion to consolidate their appeals, as all ofthe appeals involve a common issue oflaw. 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 trial. Upon information and belief, Stephen D. Tiley, solicitor for the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals and Cumberland County, also PT: #178263 vI (3TJROl!.DOC) 2 attempted to contact each of the solicitors to discuss a continuance ofthis trial. The respective taxing bodies consent to a continuance 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 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 ofthe 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 (3TJROI LDOC) 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 submitted, ~ ~ -I<vth Dusty as Kirk P ALD. 0, 30702 Sharon F. DiPaolo PA LD, No. 74520 Pepper Hamilton LLP One Mellon Center, 50th Floor 500 Grant Street Pittsburgh, P A 15219-2502 Dated:~, 2004 Attorneys for Spectrasite Communications PT: #178263 vI (3TJROI !.DOC) 4 ',., "~,- t liNn . in] 07 :0; f,:~ t I '\!ci~ !/CDZ )"b~lC."\'()/),: (~,,(:',_}r ::,~..:,' .!J,~) --., '~'" --r '''' ... 3:)i::.::rO--Q3}j FREY & TILEY ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW 5 SOUTH HANOVER STREET CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013-3385 Telephone: (717) 243-5838 Facsimile: (717) 243-6441 Of Counsel: ROBERT M, FREY STEPHEN D. TILEY ROBERT G. FREY MEMORANDUM TO: Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire Via email only FROM: Steve Tiley DATE: April 2, 2004 RE: Cell Tower Appeals Dear Sharon: In response to your transmission of March 30th, on behalf of the County and Board, I concur in the motions. I have sent a fax to the counsel for the other taxing bodies asking that they give their concurrence to you as soon as possible. I spoke with Attorney Carl Risch this morning and he continues to concur, so long as trial is not delayed beyond May (I indicated June 15th and he was agreeable to that). Do you plan to file a separate motion for each case? I would think that at least we will need an order entered in each case or that the final order should reference all case numbers. I have not reviewed the procedure. I note that I have never been served with filed copies of the original appeals, giving file numbers. For that reason, I have not yet filed Answers, (Although Answers are not required, I customarily do so,) No need to serve filed copies now, I will go the courthouse and get the file numbers and I will assume that what was filed is identical to the copies I received. EXHIBIT ~ D B "All Frey & Tiley Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire Re: Cell Tower Cases April 2, 2004 Page 2 of2 I am not sure that we need consent, and I am not sure that we can get consent within the timeframe required, Some solicitors will be away. Others will feel the need to consult with their client before making a decision. Your cases were assigned to President Judge Hoffer. About two weeks ago his chambers called to schedule the hearings. I advised that Judge Oler had the Shenandoah case and that there had been some talk of consolidation and CCAP intervention. He asked me to report back to him in a couple of weeks. The Shenandoah case is presently scheduled for pre-trial next Thursday and trial a week from Monday. I believe that Carl Rish and I need to advise Judge Oler that a motion for consolidation is likely, At the same time I believe that I, or Carl Rish and I, should advise Judge Hoffer. I recommend that, after my conversation with Judge Oler, that I deliver to Judge Hoffer a letter indicating where we are, and that I suggest that the Court may want to simply order consolidation on its own motion, We may find that this results in consolidation of the cases before all of the taxing body solicitors have had the opportunity to respond. I am not yet sure who will be attending the tower removal. Sincerely yours, Steve Stephen D. Tiley cc: Carl C. Rich, Esquire Via email only !Ii.'..'.... ..'.. ... 1.LIUOIIUQ.1. ",~~",,"""'n.o......."" .....~............_. -. .-. SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P. C. ,-- Attorneyl lit LIIW IP'.. U]:,IBio>r J}:;~ 44 West Main Silll!Jtlt Mt('JJam(,slnll'lJ:. JP'A 1705S (717) 697-8528 Richard C. Snelbaker Fax No, (717) 697-7681 Keith O. Brenneman Philip H. Spare FACSIMILE COVER LETTER PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES: DATE: April 6, 2004 TO: Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire Pepper Hamilton LLP FAX #: (4U) 454-5005 FROM: Phil Spare NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER LETrER: 1 COMMENTS: Re: Spectrasite Communications and SBA Tower Cases CCP Cwnberland County, PA Dear Sharon: As we discussed this morning, our finn represents Big Spring School District and South Middleton School District in the above referenced tax assessment appeals. Last evening, both school Boards adopted resolutions approving of the consolidation of these cases with the other similar cases pending in Cumberland County. Please let me know if you require any thing else from me at this time. Thank you. ~ Cc: Dr. Patricia B. Sanker, Supcrinlendent South Middleton School District Dr. William K, Cowden, Superintendent Big Spring School District Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire (7J 7) 243-6441 EXHIBIT ~ j liB" TIME APR. 6. 9:00RM RECEIVED TIME RPR. 6, WEIGLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys-at-Law 126 EAST KING STREET SHlPPENSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17257-\397 JERRY A. WEIGLE Associates JOSEPH p, RUANE RICHARD L. WEBBER, JR. Of Counsel THOMAS L. BRIGHT TELEPHONE (717) 532-7388 or (717) 776-4295 FAX (717) 532-5289 weil!leassociates@earthlink,net April 2, 2004 VIA FACSIMILE TO (412) 281-0717 AND U.S. MAIL Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP 50th Floor 500 Grant Street Pittsburgh, P A 15219-2502 RE: 2004 Real Estate Tax Assessment appeals Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Spectrasite Communications Docket Numbers 04-920, 04-921 and 04-922 SBA Towers, Inc. Docket Numbers 04-949 and 04-950 Shenandoah Mobile Company and Shenandoah Personal Communications Company Docket Number 03-4921 Dear 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, t~ ?~.dL Richard L. Webber, Jr., Esquire RL W /paf cc: Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire (via facsimile to 243-6441) Southampton Township Board of Supervisors EXHIBIT I "e" WEIGLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys-at-Law 126 EAST KING STREET SHIPPENSBURG. PENNSYLVANIA 17257-1397 JERRY A. WEIGLE Associltes JOSEPH P. RUANE RlCHARD L. WEBBER, JR. or Counsel THOMAS L. BRlGHT TELEPHONE (717) 532-7388 or (717) 776-4295 FAJl(717) 532-5289 weil!Jeassociateslalearth 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 County, Pennsylvania Spectrasite Communications Docket Numbers 04-920, 04-921 and 04-922 SBA Towers, Inc. Docket Numbers 04-949 and 04-950 Shenandoah Mobile Company and Shenandoah Personal Communications Company Docket Number 03-4921 Dear Attorney DiPaolo: On behalf of the Shippensburg Area School District, the District hereby consents to your proposed Motion to Consolidate as well as the Motion to Continue in the above captioned matter. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, ~ Je So GLE & ASSOCIATES, P.c. t:2 Ef! ' 'tor for Slllppensburg Area Schoo /// JAW/paf cc: Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire (via facsimile to 243-6441) Dr. David R. Landis, Superintendent SASD EXHIBIT ~ j "n" I """ "" '" " - ~"""'" LJALZMANN, HUGHES &FISHMAN, P.C. PAGE En G. BRY.r\l'I SAl.2.!dANN. F.IliQ, JAMr.< 1), HUGH!:.'.~, S'ft\o'EN J. FISID4.\N, E-IQ, .'J<N f, Or.PAUW. EsQ. NOIO<AJ, BMITKO. EsQ.' Wu.LIA."W. TIioMPSON, ESQ.' MWSM]{. DJvu:r. E.-;Q. REaEC'.cA R. HUCHES, 'ESQ. . ALSOAJ>>(I'T'TED'T'C 1rMJ.Yl.Jl.ND au P"RAU:t:AU: PAMEU> R, 1l0t.l.lllGU. B"",^\l'J, MOSlOR L\U1lItJ. POtm:l< THleI^ L BAl= .'KAM.S,COJU'OrfA.'" ^",>E!.\, F, UN"'" RtPLYTO' 9SAT.DtAl<DEIlSrXll<t'RoAD' SUlTE8' CAllLlILL PA 17013 ('/\71 Ull-6SSS FAX (717) 249.7384 4.55P11Oi>11X OBIVE . SUlTEA' ClWomEl.IBUKG. PA 17201 (717) 1li8.2121 F ^" (717) 103.0663 107 NOKrHFlIOmSTRFn 'SurrE 115' HAllllISBU"", PA 17101 (717) 21I2.9-o!O FNC (717) 2J2.1970 April 2, 2004 Sharon F, DiPaolo, Esq, Pefper Hamilton, L.L.P, 50 Floor 500 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502 Re: Spectracite Communications Assessment VIA FAX AND 1ST CLASS MAn.. 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, ~:~b :::> Solicitor EXHIBIT ! ~ liE" CONCE:-'TMTING IN EN"lRONMENTAL, LilNo USE, CORPORATE, REAL Enl\tt, MUN1C1PALANO EsTATEADMINIS1MTTON LAw RECEIVED TIME APR Z 10'ZlAM ,,' PRINT TIME APR. Z, 10:ZZAM "-> ~~';;;> 0 (~":J '" ~ ):"'>0 '-j .'() -r- :n iTi ;.:;;.::; --:--,i~~ c., ',u'rJ ~'~.. ~~? ~~ :..,,~- ~~~ ,;.~~I ',) , 1~1 (~ ., -' .r- ., -'. C,) -< SBA TOWERS, INC" IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Appellant V, CIVIL DIVISION NO. 2004-949 CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS Appellee CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH NEWTON TOWNSHIP and BIG SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT Interested Parties NOW BY CONSOLIDATION SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY, ET AL. Plaintiffs, V. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS Defendants, NO. 2003-4921 . CIVIL TERM ANSWER AND NOW, comes Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals and County of Cumberland by Stephen D, Tiley. Esquire, Assistant County Solicitor for tax matters, and files this Answer to the Petition for Appeal. of which the following is a statement. I, Admitted, 2. Admitted, 3. Admitted in part, Denied in part, The averments of this paragraph are admitted. however, the Board is created under Section 301 of The Fourth to Eighth Class 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: ?~.PflY Respectfully submitted, By ~~. 4/, ?crc> Step n D. iley, EsqUIre Assistant Cumbo Cty. Solicitor For Tax Matters 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 243-5838 Supreme Court 1.10.#32318 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer are true 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 this 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. Dated: /huur !'1/ J-OtJ f? ;( 'd~ )n. /Juk<!:'1/ ~ Mahoney, Chief Asses~r 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 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502 Date: 0~[).& 1" /~ cCJ,7<<1; Steph D. Tiley, Esquire Assistant Cumbo Co. Solicitor For Tax Matters 5 S, Hanover Street Carlisle, P A 170] 3 (717) 243-5838 Attorney I.D.#32318 () '" c ('~ 0 "'-~ -c~ <~ "'"' ..." r " ~ 7! ;;:' """ -.: fll ,:ry < ,- (I] - -nm !::~~' \.0 ::OC1 '. c) r .,- - -0 ~fQ ~~L~; ::~ C) :J..1 .;:'".r) r:-~) ..:~:;ril ~ :.::J -. 0::> ~] ......;,: oq-qlj~ SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS, Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee CIVIL DIVISION v CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP and SOUTH MIDDLETON SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties NO. 2004-920 CIVIL TERM PETITION FOR APPEAL ***************************** SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS, Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee CIVIL DIVISION v CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER FRANKFORD TOWNSHIP and BIG SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties PETITION FOR APPEAL **************************** NO. 2004-921 CIVIL TERM SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS, Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee CIVIL DIVISION v CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTHAMPDEN TOWNSHIP and SHIPPENSBURG AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO. 2004-922 CIVIL TERM Interested Parties PETITION FOR APPEAL ******************************* SBA TOWERS, INC., Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee CIVIL DIVISION v CUMBERLAND COUNTY, EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and EAST PENNSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties NO. 2004-950 CIVIL TERM PETITION FOR APPEAL lfiN'W\lASNN3d AlNno::; C1~NTEi81Ino +j 8 :8 ~,!d 0 I 1/nr ~OOZ 'H'I'(""Qi"Ci'd :JHl ~o A...tr.L......I,1,i .l.l 0 oJ -' 3Ji.:!~O-{]31t:! SBA TOWERS, INC., Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee CIVILJIVISION v ~~ 2004-949 CIVIL TERM CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH NEWTON TOWNSHIP and BIG SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties PETITION FOR APPEAL ********************************* SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY, and SHENANDOAH PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee CIVIL l~CTION - LAW NO. 03-.4921 CIVIL TERM : REAL ESTl,TE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL IN RE: PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE A pre-hearing conference in the above-captioned cases was held in the chambers of Judge Oler on Wednesday, June 9, 2004. In the case of Spectrasite Communications 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 Cumberland County was represented by Stephen D, Tiley, Esquire; and Interested Parties South Hampden Township and Shippensburg Area School District were not represented. In the case of SBA Towers, Inc., Appellant, versus Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals versus Cumberland County, East Pennsboro Township and East Pennsboro School District at No. 2004-950 Civil Term, Appellant, SBA Towers, Inc" was represented by Dusty Elias Kirk, Esquire, and Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire; Appellee, Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals, was represented by Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire; Interested Party Cumberland County was represented by Stephen D, Tiley, Esquire; and Interested Parties East Pennsboro Township and East pennsboro School District were not represented, In the case of SBA Towers, Inc., versus Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals versus Interested Parties Cumberland County, South Newton Township and Big Spring School District at No, 2004-949 Civil Term, Appellant, SBA Towers, Inc., was represented by Dusty Elias Kirk, Esquire, and Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire; Appellee, CUcilierland County Board of Assessment Appeals, was represented by Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire; Interested Party Cumberland County was represented by Stephen D, Tiley, Esquire; Interested Party Big Spring School District was represented by Philip H. Spare, Esquire, and Interested Party South Newton Township was not represented, In the case of Shenandoah Mobile Company and Shenandoah Personal Communications Company, Appellants, versus Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals at No. 03-4921 Civil Term, Appellants were represented by Carl C. Risch, Esquire, and Appellee was represented by Stephen D, Tiley, Esquire. It is noted further that in all of these cases Robert L. Knupp, Esquire, was present in the capacity of an amicus curiae, on behalf of the Pennsylvania County Commissioners Association. This case involves tax assessment appeals with a common issue: Whether telecommunication towers are realty or personalty for purposes of Pennsylvania real estate taxation. Counsel have indicated that they believe ~hey 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. With respect to settlement negotiations, it does amicably. not appear to the Court that these cases will be resolved By the Court, vCarl C, Risch, Esquire 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 For Shenandoah 7 ~;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 and SBA Towers, Inc, vR6bert L. Knupp, Esquire 407 North Front Street Box 11848 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1848 For County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania ~tephen D. Tiley, Esquire 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 For Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals vPhi1ip H. Spare, Esquire 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 For Big Spring and South Middleton School Districts :mae SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS, Appellant :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee CIVIL DIVISION v NO, 2004-920 CIVIL TERM CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP and SOUTH MIDDLETON SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties PETITION FOR APPEAL ***************************** SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS, Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee CIVIL DIVISION v NO. 2004-921 CIVIL TERM CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER FRANKFORD TOWNSHIP and BIG SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties PETITION FOR APPEAL **************************** SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS, Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee CIVIL DIVISION v NO. 2004-922 CIVIL TERM CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTHAMPDEN TOWNSHIP and SHIPPENSBURG AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties PETITION FOR APPEAL ******************************* SBA TOWERS, INC., Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee CIVIL DIVISION v NO, 2004-950 CIVIL TERM CUMBERLAND COUNTY, EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and EAST PENNSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties PETITION FOR APPEAL SBA TOWERS, INC., Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee CIVIL DIVISION v ~~. 2004-949 CIVIL TERM CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH NEWTON TOWNSHIP and BIG SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties PETITION FOR APPEAL ********************************* SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY, and SHENANDOAH PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee CIVIL l,CTION - LAW NO. 03-.4921 CIVIL TERM : REAL ESTl\TE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL IN RE: NON JURY TR::AL 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 41) had been identified and admitted as had Taxpayer's Exhibits 35, 53, and 3. By the Court, Carl C. Risch, Esquire 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 For Shenandoah Dusty Elias Kirk, Esquire Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire Pepper Hamilton, LLP One Mellon Center, 50th Floor 500 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502 For Spectrasite Communications and SEA TUNers, , ~ ~.;; ';.0'1 rnc: 9-- Mark A. Mateya, Esquire 407 North Front Street Box 11848 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1848 For County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 For Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals Philip H. Spare, Esquire 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 For Big Spring and South Middleton School Districts :mae SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS, Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee CIVIL DIVISION v NO. 2004-920 CIVIL TERM CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP and SOUTH MIDDLETON SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties PETITION FOR APPEAL ***************************** SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS, Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee CIVIL DIVISION v NO. 2004-921 CIVIL TERM CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER FRANKFORD TOWNSHIP and BIG SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties PETITION FOR APPEAL **************************** SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS, Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee CIVIL DIVISION v NO. 2004-922 CIVIL TERM CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTHAMPDEN TOWNSHIP and SHIPPENSBURG AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties PETITION FOR APPEAL ******************************* SBA TOWERS, INC., Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee CIVIL DIVISION v NO. 2004-950 CIVIL TERM CUMBERLAND COUNTY, EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and EAST PENNSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties PETITION FOR APPEAL SBA TOWERS, INC" Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee CIVIL DIVISION v i~O, 2004-949 CIVIL TERM CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH NEWTON TOWNSHIP and BIG SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties PETITION FOR APPEAL ********************************* SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY, and SHENANDOAH PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 03-4921 CIVIL TERM :REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL IN RE: TAX ASSESSMENT 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, the record is declared closed, and the matter is taken under advisement. It is noted that at the time of completion of the record, in addition to the exhibits which were referred to in the Order of Court dated June 24, 2004, the following exhibits had been identified and admitted: Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals Exhibit 2, Taxpayers' Exhibit 1, Taxpayers' Exhibit 4, Taxpayers' Exhibit 5, Taxpayers' Exhibit 6, TaxpayerE: ' 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, ti/~ , off J. ~l 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 v, CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Defendant SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS, Plaintiff v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Defendant v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP, and SOUTH MIDDLETON SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties * * * * SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS, Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW NO. 03-4921 CIVIL TERM * * * * IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW NO. 04-920 CIVIL TERM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA k J-fXJ?:: '"'If ~8 ~ -1 /Yi/\;j-C''''/~ C::'.l?3l ~ CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Defendant v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, uPPER FRANKFORD TOWNSHIP, and BIG SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties CIVIL ACTION--LA W NO, 04-921 CIVIL TERM * * * * SPECTRASITE COMMuNICATIONS, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Defendant v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTHAMPDEN TOWNSHIP, and SHIPPENSBURG AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties CIVIL ACTION-LAW NO. 04-922 CIVIL TERM * * * * SBA TOWERS, INC" Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Defendant CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH NEWTON TOWNSHIP, : and BIG SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties NO. 04-949 CIVIL TERM v, CIVIL ACTION--LA W * * * * SBA TOWERS, INC., Plaintiff V. IN TIIE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Defendant V. CIVIL ACTION-LA W CUMBERLANDCOUNT~ EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP, and EAST PENNSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties NO. 04-950 CIVIL TERM IN RE: TAX ASSESSMENT APPEALS BEFORE OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 15th day of September, 2004, after careful consideration of the tax assessment appeals filed herein, fOllOWing a hearing, and for the reasons stated in the accOmpanying opinion, it is ordered as follows: With respect to parcel number 25-25-0006-351 LL: THE MARKET VALUE as of January 1, 2004 (and for Succeeding years until revised), for the parcel owned by Shenandoah Mobile Company, situated in New Cumberland Borough, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is fixed at $95,000,00. THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO for Cumberland County has been stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The 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 assessme:nt with respect to the aforesaid parcel is fixed at $95,000.00 as of January I, 2004, for county and municipal taxes, and July 1, 2004, for school real estate taxes. With respect to parcel number 43-06-0031-012 LL: THE MARKET VALUE as of January 1, 2004 (and for Succeeding years until revised), for the parcel owned by Spectrasite Communications, situated in Upper Frankford Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is fixed at $142,000.00, THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO for Cumberland County has been stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetermined ratio is 100 percent. THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of less than 15 percent between the common level ratio and predetermined ratio, as a result of which assessments are to be determined by application of the predetermined ratio, the asseSSment with respect to the aforesaid parcel is fixed at $142,000.00 as of January 1, 2004, for county and municipal taxes, and July I, 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 predetennined ratio, the assessment with respect to the aforesaid parcel is fixed at $136,530.00 as of January 1, 2004, for county and municipal taxes, and July 1, 2004, for school real estate taxes, With respect to parcel number 40-10-0632-016 LL: THE MARKET VALUE as of January 1,2004 (and for succeeding years until revised), for the parcel owned by Spectrasite Communications, situated in South Middleton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is fixed at $136,530.00. THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO for Cumberland County has been stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetennined ratio is 100 percent. THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of less than 15 percent between the common level ratio and predetennined ratio, as a result of which assessments are to be determined by application of the predetennined 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 predetennined ratio, the assessment with respect to the aforesaid parcel is fixed at $70,000.00 as of January 1, 2004, for County and municipal taxes, and July 1,2004, for school real estate taxes. With respect to parcel number 41-11-0304-019 LL: THE MARKET VALUE as of January 1,2004 (and for Succeeding years until revised), for the parcel owned by SBA Towers, Inc" situated in South Newton Township, CUmberland County, Pennsylvania, is fixed at $100,000.00. THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO for Cumberland County has been stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetennined ratio is 100 percent. THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of less than 15 percent between the common level ratio and predetennined ratio, as a result of which assessments are to be determined by application of the predetennined 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, ~l C. Risch, Esq. 10 East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 Attorney for Shenandoah Mobile Company and Shenandoah Personal Communications Company ,,- Austy Elias Kirk, Esq. Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esq. Pepper Hamilton, LLP One Mellon Center, 50th Floor 500 Grant Street Pittsburgh,PA 15219 Attorneys for Spectrasite Communications and SBA Towers, Inc. ) (J (i .01 0-" II a:1ark 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 r-c~. . SetlkL Carlisle, P A 17013 . l ./ q -(~-C>, h ~NJ. ~'./a ({ev- Attorney for Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals ~p H, Spare, Esq. 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Big Spring and South Middleton School Districts SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY,and SHENANDOAH PERSONAL COMMuNICATIONS COMPANY, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. CIVIL ACTION--LA W CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Defendant NO, 03-4921 CIVIL TERM * * * * SPECTRASlTE COMMuNICATIONS, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V ANlA v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Defendant v. CIVIL ACTION-LAW CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP, and SOUTH MIDDLETON SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties NO. 04-920 CIVIL TERM * * * * SPECTRASlTE COMMuNICATIONS, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Defendant v. CUMBERLAND COUNTy, uPPER FRANKFORD TOWNSHIP, and BIG SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties SPECTRASITE COMMuNICATIONS, Plaintiff v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Defendant v. CUMBERLANDCOUNT~ SOUTHAMPDEN TOWNSHIP, and SHIPPENSBURG AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties * * * * SBA TOWERS, INC., Plaintiff v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION--LA W NO. 04-921 CIVIL TERM * * * * IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW NO. 04-922 CIVIL TERM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA 2 BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Defendant CUMBERLANDCOUNT~ SOUTH NEWTON TOWNSHIP, : and BIG SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties NO. 04-949 CIVIL TERM v, CIVIL ACTION--LA W * * * * SBA TOWERS, INC" Plaintiff v. IN mE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Defendant v. CIVIL ACTION-LA W CUMBERLAND COUNTy, EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP, and EAST PENNSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties NO. 04-950 CIVIL TERM IN RE: TAX ASSESSMENT APPEALS BEFORE OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J" September 15, 2004, In these six cases, which have been consolidated by agreement of COunsel because of a common question of law, Plaintiffs are appealing from real estate tax assessments by 3 Defendant of Plaintiffs' telecommunication tower facilities.! At issue on the appeals is the correctness of Defendant's underlying classification of Plaintiffs , telecommunication towers as realty as opposed to personalty for real estate tax purposes. 2 The procedural history of the cases may be summarized as follows, On September 18, 2003, Plaintiffs Shenandoah Mobile Company and Shenandoah Personal Communications Company filed a petition for appeal from Defendant's tax assessment of their telecommunication towers.3 Defendant filed an answer to Plaintiffs' petition on October 2, 2003,4 and the case was listed for trial on January 7, 2004.5 On March 4, 2004, Plaintiff Spectrasite Communications filed three petitions for appeal, each listing the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals as Defendant, as well as Cumberland County and the local townships and school districts in which the towers were located as interested parties.6 On March 5, 2004, ]~Iaintiff SBA Towers filed two petitions for appeal, each listing the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals I The following cases have been consolidated at Number 03-4921 Civil Term: Numbers 03-4921 Civil Tenn, 04-920 Civil Tenn, 04-921 Civil Tenn, 04-922 Civil Term, 04-949 Civil Term, and 04-950 Civil Term. See Order ofCt., 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 SpectrasitelUpper Frankford Township Pet. for Appeal); Pet. for Appeal, filed Mar, 4, 2004 (hereinafter Spectrasite/Southampden Township Pet. for Appeal); Pet. for Appeal, filed Mar, 5,2004 (hereinafter SBA Towers/South Newton Township Pet. for Appeal); Pet. for Appeal, filed Mar, 5, 2004 (hereinafter SBA TowerslEast Pennsboro Township Pet. for Appeal). 3 Shenandoah's Pet. of Appeal, 4 Answer, filed Oct. 2, 2003 (hereinafter De['s Answer to Shenandoah's Pet.). 5 Praecipe for Listing Case for Trial, filed lan, 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); SpectrasitelUpper Frankford Township Pet. for Appeal (listing Cumberland County, Upper Frankford Township, and Big Spring School District as interested parties); Spectrasite/Southampden Township Pet. for Appeal (listing Cumberland County, Southampden Township, and Shippensburg Area School District as interested Parties), 4 as Defendant, as well as Cumberland County and the local townships and school districts in which the towers were located as interested parties. 7 On April 13, 2004, Plaintiff Spectrasite Communications filed a motion to consolidate the six cases pending against Defendant. 8 On April 16, 2004, pursuant to an agreement of counsel, the court ordered the cases consolidated, with filings to be made at Number 03-4921 Civil Tenn.9 A pre-hearing conference was held on June 9, 2004,]0 and a two-day hearing was conducted on June 24, 2004, and June 28, 2004.11 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. 12 Shenandoah, Spectrasite, and SBA Towers are all telecommunication tower companies which own towers throughout Pennsylvania.13 Spectrasite and SBA Towers are also part of an industry group, along with Crown Communications and American Tower Company, which is cooperating in the coordination of real estate tax assessment appeals.]4 Defendant is the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals.I5 The 7 See SBA Towers/South Newton Township Pet. for Appeal (listing Cumberland County, South Newton Township, and Big Spring School District as interested parties); SBA Towers/East Pennsboro Township Pet. for Appeal (listing Cumberland County, East Pennsboro Township, and East Pennsboro School District as interested parties). 8 Mot. to Consolidate, filed Apr. 13,2004 (hereinafter Spectrasite's Mot. To Consolidate). 9 Order of Ct., Apr, 16, 2004. 10 In Re: Pre-Hearing Conference, June 9, 2004, II Notes of Testimony 2, Hr'g., June 24, 2004, and June 28, 2004 (hereinafter N.T,~. 12 N.T, 1-2. 13 Stipulations of Fact ~2, PIs.' Ex, 13, Hr'g., June 24, 2004, and June 28, 2004 (hereinafter Stipulations of Fact ~~, 14 Stipulations ofFact~3, 5 Interested Parties of record are Cumberland County, South Middleton Township, Upper Frankford Township, Southampden Township, East PelIDsboro Township, South Newton Township, South Middleton School District, Big Spring School District, Shipp ens burg Area School District, and East Pennsboro School District. 16 For the sake of clarity, the word "tower" will be used when referencing the actual telecommunication towers, and the term "tower facility" will be used when referencing the tower, fence, concrete foundation and equipment building on each site. With respect to the types of towers, a monopole tower will be defined as a self-supporting, tubular tower which ranges 50-200 feet in height.17 A lattice tower will be defmed as a self- supporting, three- or four-legged tower which is widest at the bottom and tapers as it rises.18 Lattice towers can reach heights of up to 1,000 f(:et.19 Finally, it should be noted that Plaintiffs' lease the underlying land on which their tower facilities are located.20 The assessments at issue in these cases were made only on Plaintiffs' tower facilities; assessments on the leased land were separately issued to the landowners,2! These cases involve six telecommunication towers located in Cumberland County (identified as Towers "A_F").22 Tower "A," parcel number 25-25-0006-351 LL, is owned by Shenandoah Mobile Company.23 It is a 70-foot monopole tower located at 102 Market Street, New Cumberland Borough, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.24 The lease for Tower "A's" facility commenced on August 23, 1999, and is a five-year lease, which will automatically be renewed, unless terminated by the tower company, through ISN.T.I_2. 16N,T.I_2, 17 Stipulations of Fact '1[4. 18 Stipulations of Fact '1[4, 19 Stipulations of Fact '1[4. 20 Stipulations of Fact '1[10. 21 Stipulations of Fact '1[12. 22 Stipulations of Fact '1['1[5, 7, 2J Stipulations of Fact '1[7. 24 Stipulations of Fact '1[7. 6 four more five-year periods.25 The original assessment issued for the improvements at Tower "A's" facility specified an assessed value of$202,860.00, which was modified by the Board of Assessment Appeals to $95,000,00.26 Tower "B," parcel number 43-06-0031-012 LL, is owned by Spectrasite Communications.27 It is a l50-foot lattice tower located at 200 Center Road, Upper Frankford Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvan:ia,28 The lease for Tower "B's" facility commenced on June 3, 1998, and is a four-year lease, which will automatically be renewed, unless terminated by the tower company, through four more five-year periods.29 The original assessment issued for the improvements at Tower "B' s" facility specified an assessed value of $217,560.00, which was modified by the Board of Assessment Appeals to $142,000,00.30 Tower "C," parcel number 39-12-0324-004 LL, is owned by Spectrasite Cornmunications, 3 I 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 tenninated 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 'lfl!. 26 Stipulations of Fact 'If 13 , 27 Stipulations of Fact 'lf7, 28 Stipulations of Fact 'lf7. 29 Stipulations of Fact 'lfll. 30 Stipulations of Fact 'If 13 , 31 Stipulations of Fact 'lf7, 32 Stipulations of Fact 'lf7. 33 Stipulations of Fact 'lfl!. 34 Stipulations of Fact 'If 13 , 7 Tower "D," parcel number 40-10-0632-016 LL, is owned by Spectrasite Communications.35 It is a 160-foot lattice tower loeated at 1500 Holly Pike, South Middleton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.36 The lease for Tower "D's" facility commenced on August 22, 1998, and is a five-year lease, which will automatically be renewed, unless terminated by the tower company, through four more five-year periods.37 The original assessment issued for the improvements at Tower "D's" facility specified an assessed value of $221,060.00, which was modified by the Board of Assessment Appeals to $136,530.00.38 Tower "E," parcel number 09-22-0533-001 LL, is owned by SBA Towers.39 It is a 120-foot monopole tower located at 4404 Industrial Park Road, East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.40 The lease for Tower "E's" facility commenced on January I, 2001, and is a five-year lease, which will automatically be renewed, unless tenninated by the tower company, through four more five-year periods and one period of four years and eleven months.41 The original assessment issued for the improvements at Tower "E's" facility specified an assessed value of $244,860.00, which was modified by the Board of Assessment Appeals to $70,000.00.42 Tower "F," parcel number 41-1 1-0304-019 LL, is owned by SBA Towers.43 It is a 195-foot lattice tower located at 212 Hammond Road, South Newton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania,44 The lease for Tower "F's" facility commenced on November 21, 1997, and is a five-year lease, which will automatically be renewed, unless 35 Stipulations of Fact '!I7. 36 Stipulations of Fact '!I7, 37 Stipulations of Fact '!III. 38 Stipulations ofFact'!l13, 39 Stipulations of Fact '!I7. 40 Stipulations of Fact '!I7. 41 Stipulations of Fact '!III. 42 Stipulations of Fact '!I13, 43 Stipulations of Fact '!I7, 44 Stipulations of Fact '!I7. 8 terminated by the tower company, through four more five-year periods and one period of four years and eleven months,45 The original assessment issued for the improvements at Tower "F's" facility specified an assessed value of $244,860,00, which was modified by the Board of Assessment Appeals to $100,000.00.46 Cumberland County is a fourth class county.47 The predetermined assessment ratio for real estate in Cumberland County is 100 percent.48 The above assessment values which were determined by the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals represent the fair market value of each of the tower facilities.49 The common level ratio, which is set at 95.4 percent for Cumberland County, is not implicated as a factor in these cases because it does not vary by more than 15 percent from the predetermined ratio. 50 Much of the testimony at the hearing focused on the question of whether Plaintiffs' towers were, or were at least intended to be, permanent fixtures at the tower facilities. This testimony included explanations about the erection and disassembly of telecommunication towers, reasons for removing or replacing towers, and general trends in the tower industry pertaining to the erection and removal of towers, The process of erecting a tower begins with the submission of bids,5l The bid forms are broken down by the tasks which need to be performed. 52 These tasks include, but are not limited to, foundation work, tower erection, electrical work, fencing, and landscaping. 53 After bids have been submitted and jobs awarded, preparation of the tower facility site begins, including erecting a fence, clearing the trees and vegetation, 45 Stipulations of Fact 1)11, 46 Stipulations of Fact 1113. 47 See Act of Aug, 9,1955, P.L. 323, ~21O, as amended 16 P.S. ~21O. 48 Stipulations of Fact 1115. 49 Stipulations of Fact 1)15, 50 Stipulations of Fact 1115. 5lN,T,146, 52 See PIs.' Ex. 3, Hr'g., June 24, 2004 and June 28, 2004 (hereinafter Pls.'lDef.'s Ex. --.l; PIs.' Ex, 5; Pis.' Ex. 6, 53 N.T. 145-48; PIs.' Ex. 3; Pis.' Ex. 5; PIs.' Ex, 6, 9 grading, stoning, and matting. 54 Sometimes it is also necessary to have an access road constructed from the highway or roadway to the tower facility site. 55 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. 57 Their testimony was corroborated by Patrick O'Reilly, a Director of Field Operations for Spectrasite, and Andrew Getsy, a Field Operations Manager for SBA.58 First, engineers conduct a geotechnical analysis to detennine whether they will be drilling in soft dirt, hard dirt, or bedrock. 59 The softer or looser the ground is, the deeper the concrete foundation must be.60 After the needed depth of the foundation is detennined, the ground is drilled, and rebar cages are placed in the ground. 61 Bolts are then placed inside the rebar cages, and the cement is poured,62 Additionally, Mr. O'Reilly testified that instead of a mat and pier foundation, lattice towers may have a straight caisson under each leg of the tower. 63 A straight caisson is simply an individual concrete foundation under each leg of the tower which is about eight feet in diameter, and anywhere from twenty to thirty feet deep.64 Otherwise, a straight caisson is created in the same manner as the mat and pier foundation.65 54 N,T, 146-47. 55 N.T. 147, 56 N.T, 140, 57 N,T, 27-28, 99. 58 N.T. 204-05, 221. 59N.T,48, 60N.T.48, 61 N.Y. 140. 62 N.T. 140, 63 N.T. 213, 64 N.T, 213, 65 See N,T. 213, 10 Mr. Greisz and Mr. Doyle next testified about the erection of towers. While the cement is curing, the next stage of erecting the tower proceeds,66 Usually workers will begin constructing the individual sections of the towl~r during this time.67 After the cement has cured, a crane lifts the first section of the tower over the bolts and onto the mat and pier foundation.68 A lock washer is then placed over the bolts, and, finally, a large nut is used to securely fasten the tower to its foundation.69 After the first segment of the tower has been securely fastened to its foundation, the remaining segments of the tower are moved into place by crane and attached to the previous segments of the tower until the entire tower has been erected.70 After the tower has been erected, lights will be attached to it and electricity will be run to it, making the tower ready to host antennas. 71 During the hearing, Mr. Doyle also gave extensive testimony on the disassembly process for telecommunication towers as he narrated a videotape showing the disassembly of a tower in West Virginia.72 The West Virginia tower was a 180-foot lattice tower which was composed of nine sections and over 100 parts,73 Before any disassembly could begin, the lights were taken off the tower, and the tower facility site was de-energized.74 Additionally, any antennas or co-axle cables which would have been attached to the tower would also have had to have been taken down or disconnected before disassembly could begin. 75 66 NT 140-41. 67N,T.140. 68 N,T, 42,141. 69 N,T, 42,141-42. 70 See N.T, 42-43, 114; see also Def.'s Ex, 1. 71 See NT 147, 156-57. 72N.T, 110, 114; PIs.' Ex, 35, 73 NT 114-15. 74 NT, 156-57. 75 See N.T, 157-58. II 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,76 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.77 The riggers then moved down to the next section of the tower, attached the crane's strapping, unfastened the bolts, and lowered the section to the ground.78 The tower sections were not disassembled before they were taken away from the site unless they were too large to transport, 79 Once the sections became too large to transport, the sections were disassembled and the parts were categorized before being taken away.80 Eventually, the riggers unbolted the final section of the tower, which was the section attached to the concrete foundation,8! After the last section had been unbolted from the foundation and disassembled, the riggers cleaned up the site, the last of the tower pieces were taken away, and the tower disassembly was complete.82 The entire disassembly process for the West Virginia tower lasted about twelve hours ,83 Mr, Doyle testified that the time period which was required to disassemble the West Virginia tower was longer than the time normally needed to disassemble a lattice tower because the access to the site was poor, and there was little room at the site for the cranes and trucks to move around.84 Additionally, Mr. Doyle testified that disassembling a monopole tower would be a much simpler process than disassembling a lattice tower.85 After the antennas and power cables have been removed, disassembling a monopole 76N,T,116_17, 77N,T,117_18, 78 N,T, 118-19, 79N,T,119. 8oN,T,I19, 8I N,T, 131. 82 N,T, 131-35, 83 See NT 126, 135. 84 N.T. 126-27. "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. 86 Once a tower has been disassembled, only the cement foundation, equipment building, and fence are left at the site.87 These parts of the facility are not damaged during disassembly, and could be used if another tower were later erected at the site.88 In fact, the fencing and cement foundation are removed from the site only if their removal is a specified condition in the lease,89 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. 91 Additionally, any pieces of the tower which are damaged during disassembly also must be replac<~d 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 anothe:r site,93 During the hearing, the witnesses testified to a number of reasons that towers might be disassembled and moved to another location. The major reason cited for tower removal was a change in business circumstances.94 For example, if there were a population shift and a tower were no longer needed in one area, but instead needed in a more densely populated area, then the tower would be moved into the more densely 86 N, T, 150-51, 170-71. 87 N.T. 55, 88 See NT. 55, 144-45,207. The lack of any damage to parts of the tower facility during disassembly is evidenced by the tower industry's occasional "drop and swap" practice, in which one tower is taken down at a site, only to be replaced at the site by another-usually taller-tower, N.T. 144-45, 89 N,T, 55. 90 N.T. 139. 91 NT, 138, 92 N.T, 120, 156. 93 N.T. 120, 139, 94 NT 60-62, 196. 13 populated area.95 Additionally, there might be times when a tower would no longer be a sufficient height; therefore, the original tower would be disassembled and a taller tower would be erected in its place.96 This procedure is refeITed 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 unviable because companies did not attach antennas to it, or if zoning requirements mandated that the tower be taken down because of non-use, then the tower would have to be taken down.99 Notwithstanding the availability of technology to disassemble a tower, the process IS highly laborious, expensive, and demanding in terms of expertise, courage, and equipment. Furthermore, notwithstanding the theoretical reasons recounted above for taking down or moving towers, the practice in the telecommunication tower industry is that these towers are not being taken down or moved on a frequent basis,lOO 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,lOI 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.102 Mr. O'Reilly testified that, of the 2,200 towers which Spectrasite owns in the northeastern United States, only ten have been or are in the process of being moved or swapped, none of which is located in 95 N.T, 64, 96N,T.144, 97 N.T. 144-45. 98N.T,159, 99N,T.196_97, 100 See N.T. 27-28, 74,103,109-10,215,226, lOIN .T. 27-28, 74, 102 N.T, 103, 109-10. 14 Pennsylvania. 103 Mr. Getsy testified that, of the over 400 towers which SBA Towers owns in Pennsylvania, he was not aware of any being removed. 104 Finally, Plaintiffs called Brian Kostel, a senior tax accountant for Crown Castle.105 Mr. 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. 106 DISCUSSION Statement of Law Assessability of Real Estate. Section 201 of the Fourth to Eighth Class County Assessment Law provides for the assessment of all real estate in the county: The following subjects and property shall as hereinafter provided be valued and assessed and subject to taxation for all county, borough, town, township, school, (except in cities), poor and county institution district purposes, at the annual rate, (a) All real estate to wit: Houses, house trailers and mobile homes permanently attached to land or connected with water, gas, electric or sewage facilities, buildings, lands, lots of ground and ground rents, trailer parks and parking lots, mills and manufactories of all kinds, all office type construction of whatever kind, that portion of a steel, lead, aluminum or like melting and continuous casting structures which enclose, provide shelter or protection from the elements for the various machinery, tools, appliances, equipment, materials or products involved in the mill, mine manufactory or industrial process, and all other n:al estate not exempt by law from taxation. , . , Act of May 21, 1943, P.L. 571, g20l, as amended, 72 P.S. g5453.201. Assessment of Chattels as Real Property for Real Estate Taxation. As a general proposition in real property law, there are three classifications for chattels that are used in connection with real estate: 103N,T.215, 104 NT. 226. 10' N.T, 230. 106 N,T. 234-35; PIs.' Ex, 9, 15 First, those which are manifestly furniture, as distinguished from improvements, and not peculiarly fitted to the property with which they are used; these always remain personalty, Second, those which are so annexed to the property that they cannot be removed without material injury to the real estate or to themselves; these are realty, even in the face of an expressed intention that they should be considen:d 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 use 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 re:al estate taxation. Id. at 1013. The considerations which must be taken into account when making this determination are "(1) the manner in which [the chattel] is physically attached or installed, (2) the extent to which it is essential to the permanent use of the building or other improvement, and (3) the intention of the parties who attached or installed it." Id. The intention of the parties is the most important consideration to examine, with the first two considerations acting as "objective manifestations that aid in determining the intention of the parties," Id. at 1014. Furthermore, permanence is not to be equated with perpetuity, but rather with the intention to '''remain where affixed until worn out, until the purpose to which the realty is devoted is accomplished or until the item is superseded by another item more suitable for the purpose. ", Id. (quoting Mich. Nat'l Bank v, City of Lansing, 293 N. W.2d 626, 627 (Mich. Ct. ApI', 1980)). In Sheetz, the Commonwealth Court held that canopies which cover gas pumps at gas stations are fixtures of real property, and hence are taxable as such similar facilities. Id. The Court held that the canopies were affixed to a poured concrete foundation by bolts, which were then covered by concrete. Id. Next, the court held that the canopies were essential to the permanent use of the gas pumps because stations with canopies had 16 a higher sales volume. Id. Additionally, the canopies essential nature was demonstrated through Sheetz's seeking variances of zoning requirements in a number of cases to allow for the erection of canopies at their stations. Id. These facts led the court to conclude that Sheetz intended the canopies to be a permanent :fixture of its gas stations which would remain until they were worn out, or Sheetz no longer occupied the premises. Id. Finally, the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Bratton, J., has in a recent decision addressed the specific issue of real estate taxation of telecommunication towers. In holding that the tower was real property for purposes of real estate taxation, Judge Bratton noted that although the tower itself could be removed without injury to the tower, the concrete foundation to which the tower was attached could not be removed without causing irljury 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 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 I, 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 1,2004 (and for succeeding years until revised), for the parcel owned by Spectrasite Communications, situated in Upper Frankford Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is fixed at $142,000.00. THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO for Cumberland County has been stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetermined ratio is 100 percent. THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of less than 15 percent between the common level ratio and predetermined ratio, as a result of which assessments are to be determined by application of the predetermined ratio, the assessment with respect to the aforesaid parcel is fixed at $142,000.00 as ofJanuary 1,2004, for county and municipal taxes, and July I, 2004, for school real estate taxes. With respect to parcel number 39-12-0324-004 LL: THE MARKET VALUE as of January 1,2004 (and for succeeding years until revised), for the parcel owned by Spectrasite Communications, situated in Southampton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is fixed at $136,530.00. THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO for Cumberland County has been stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetermined ratio is 100 percent. 18 THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of less than 15 percent between the common level ratio and predetermined ratio, as a result of which assessments are to be determined by application of the predetermined ratio, the assessment with respect to the aforesaid parcel is fixed at $136,530.00 as of January 1,2004, for county and municipal taxes, and July 1, 2004, for school real estate taxes. With respect to parcel number 40-10-0632-016 LL: THE MARKET VALUE as of January 1,2004 (and for succeeding years until revised), for the parcel owned by Spectrasite Communications, situated in South Middleton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is fixed at $136,530.00, THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO fur Cumberland County has been stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetermined ratio is 100 percent. THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of less than 15 percent between the common level ratio and predetermined ratio, as a result of which assessments are to be determined by application of the predetermined ratio, the assessment with respect to the aforesaid parcel is fixed at $136,530,00 as of January 1,2004, for county and municipal taxes, and July 1,2004, for school real estate taxes. With respect to parcel number 09-22-0533-001 LL: THE MARKET VALUE as of January 1,2004 (and for succeeding years until revised), for the parcel owned by SBA Towers, Inc" situated in East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is fixed at $70,000.00. THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO for Cumberland County has been stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetermined ratio is 100 percent. THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of less than 15 percent between the common level ratio and predetermined ratio, as a result of which assessments are to be determined by application of the predetermined ratio, the assessment with respect to the aforesaid parcel is fixed at $70,000.00 as of January 1, 2004, for county and municipal taxes, and July 1, 2004, for school real estate taxes. With respect to parcel number 41-11-0304-019 LL: 19 THE MARKET VALUE as of January 1,2004 (and for succeeding years until revised), for the parcel owned by SBA Towers, Inc" situated in South Newton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is fixed at $100,000.00. THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO for Cumberland County has been stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetermined ratio is 100 percent. THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of less than 15 percent between the common level ratio and predetermined ratio, as a result of which assessments are to be determined by application of the predetermined ratio, the assessment with respect to the aforesaid parcel is fixed at $100,000.00 as of January 1,2004, for county and municipal taxes, and July 1, 2004, for school real estate taxes, BY THE COURT, sf 1. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley 0ler, Jr., J. Carl C. Risch, Esq. 10 East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 Attorney for Shenandoah Mobile Company and Shenandoah Personal Communications Company Dusty Elias Kirk, Esq. Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esq. Pepper Hamilton, LLP One Mellon Center, 50th Floor 500 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Attorneys for Spectrasite Communications and SBA Towers, Inc. Mark A. Mateya, Esq. 407 North Front Street Box 11848 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania 20 Stephen D. Tiley, Esq. 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, P A 17013 Attorney for Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals Philip H, Spare, Esq. 44 West Main Street P.O.Box318 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 aI., CIVIL DIVISION Appellants, No. 03-4921 ;; No. 04-920 V No. 04-921./ No. 04-922./ No. 04-949'; / No. 04-950 '-/ (Consolidated at No. 03-4921) vs. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee, CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL ET AL. 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 HMJILTON LLP Firm I.D, No. 143 One Mellon Center, 50th Floor 500 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502 (412) 454-5000 Counsel for Spectrasite Communications and SBA Towers, lnc, and Carl C. Risch, Esquire PA I.D. No, 75901 Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 243-3341 Counsel for Shenandoah Mobile Company and Shenandoah Personal Communications Company PT: #198111 vI (48V301 LDOC) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY et aI., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL DIVISION Appellants, No, 03-4921 No. 04-920 No. 04-921 No, 04-922 No, 04-949 No. 04-950 (Consolidated at No. 03-4921) vs. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee. ET AL. CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLA.INED 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 oflaw in ruling that telecommunication towers are classified as realty as opposed to personalty for real estate assessment purposes, pursuant to 72 P,S. 9 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 ofthe facility; PT; #198111 vI (48V301!.DOC) d. the Court committed an error oflaw in ruling that the intention of the parties at the time of armexation 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 purpOSI~S 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. Respectfully submitted, Dated: October ~d-., 2004 ~~ Cc.lUJiJ -KvJv Dusty Eli~rk PA J.D. No. 30702 Sharon F. DiPaolo PA J.D. No, 74520 PEPPER HAMILTON LLP Firm J.D. No. 143 50th Floor, One Mdlon Center 500 Grant Street Pittsburgh, P A 15219-2502 (412) 454-5000 Counsel for Spectrasite Communications and SEA Towers. lnc, and Carl C. Risch PA J.D. No. 75901 MARTS ON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Counsel for Shenandoah Mobile Company and Shenandoah Personal Communications Company -2- PT; #198111 vi (48V301 !.DOC) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of th,: within Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal was served upon the following parties by first class mail, postage prepaid, on this ~~..uay of October, 2004: Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire Solicitor, Cumberland County and Board of Assessment Appeals Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, P A 17013 Steven Fishman, Esquire Solicitor, Upper Frankford Township 95 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, P A 17013 Richard P. Mislitsky, Esquire Solicitor, South Middleton Township 1 West High Street P.O, Box 1290 Carlisle, P A 17013 Richard 1. Webber, Jr" Esquire Solicitor, Southampden Township Weigle & Associates 126 East King Street Shippensburg, PA 17257 Henry F. Coyne, Esquire Solicitor, East Pennsboro Township 3901 Market Street CampHill,PA 17011 Mark A. Mateya, Esquire P.O, Box 127 Boiling Springs, P A 17007 PT: #198111 vi (48V30l!.DOC) Robert 1. Knupp, Esquire Knupp, Kodak & Imblum, P.C. 407 N. Front Street P.O, Box 11848 Harrisburg, P A 17108 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 Jerry A. Weigle, Esquire Solicitor, Shippensburg Area School District Weigle & Associates 126 East King Street Shippensburg, P A 17257 Douna S. Weldon, Esquire Solicitor, East Pennsboro School District Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal LLP 210 Walnut Street P.O. Box 11963 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963 Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire Solicitor, South Newton Township 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 ~~~~~~ :"0 (::::, (' " ~l'~ /'1.; "" I.> ('/1 -~"" ;'<~ t"..., ,,,~ SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY, and SHENANDOAH PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, Plaintiffs v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Defendant SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS, Plaintiff v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Defendant v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP, and SOUTH MIDDLETON SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS, Plaintiff v. * * * * * * * * IN THE COURT OJF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW NO. 03-4921 CIVIL TERM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW NO. 04-920 CIVIL TERM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA :i\ !, )\l.~\!i.~'.~I:~: r, I:) ;:: (~ to' ,'- . l-J, ' -:~J 1 }; _".~ CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Defendant v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER FRANKFORD TOWNSHIP, and BIG SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS, Plaintiff v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Defendant v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTHAMPDEN TOWNSHIP, and SHIPPENSBURG AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties SBA TOWERS, INC., Plaintiff v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY * * * * * * * * CIVIL ACTION-LAW NO. 04-921 CIVIL TERM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW NO. 04-922 CIVIL TERM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Defendant v. CIVIL ACTION-LAW CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH NEWTON TOWNSHIP, : and BIG SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties NO. 04-949 CIVIL TERM * * * * SBA TOWERS, INC., Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Defendant v. CIVIL ACTION-LAW CUMBERLAND COUNTY, EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP, and EAST PENNSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties NO. 04-950 CIVIL TERM 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 substitution of the attached page for page 2. The purpose of the amendment is to reflect that the appeal in these cases is to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. BY THE COURT, Carl C. Risch, Esq. Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto '\ 10 East High Street \ Carlisle, P A 17013 \ Attorney for Shenandoah Mobile Company ) Mark A. Mateya, Esq. 407 North Front Street / Box 11848 i Harrisburg, PA 17108 / Attorney for County Commissioners Assqbation of Pennsylvania Robert L. Knupp, Esq. ((f~ ~ Knupp, Kodak & Imblum, P.C. \, I 407 North Front Street "", l cLJ 7 -of \ Harrisburg, P A 17108 / Attorney for Shenandoah Personal Commul)1cations Company / Stephen Douglas Tiley, Esq. 5 South Hanover Street i Carlisle, P A 17013 I Attorney for Cumberland County Boar~ of Assessment Appeals ! , ! 2 Philip Haring Spare, Esq. Snelbaker, Brenneman & Spare, P .C. 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 " Attorney for Big Spring and South !\1iddleton School Districts \ , I ! \ Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esq. \ ", >.. Pepper Hamilton, LLP / One Mellon Center, 50th Floor \, 500 Grant Street \ Pittsburgh, PA 15219 \ Attorney for Spectrasite Communicatio~s and SBA Towers, Inc. J / Cr~ Id- J-"-()1 , .I /' IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO P A. R.A.P. 1925 OLER, J., December 16, 2004. In these six cases, Plaintiffs appealed Defendant's real estate tax assessments of Plaintiffs' telecommunication tower facilities. I 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 fad lities. 4 Plaintiffs have filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court from the September 15,2004, order.5 Plaintiff') have expressed the issues being pursued on appeal as follows: a. [T]he Court committed an error of law in ruling that telecommunication towers are classified as realty as opposed to personalty for real estate assessment purposes, pursuant to 72 P.S. S 5020--201; b. the Court committed an error of law in ruling that the telecommunication towers "although their removal is not a practical 1 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 ofCt., Apr. 16,2004. 2 See Pet. of Appeal from Determination of Real Estate Tax Assessmc~nt, 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. fc,r Appeal, filed Mar. 4, 2004 (hereinafter Spectrasite/Southampton Township Pet. for Appeal); Pet. fl)r Appeal, filed Mar. 5, 2004 (hereinafter SBA Towers/South Newton Township Pet. for Appeal); Pet. for Appeal, filed Mar. 5, 2004 (hereinafter SBA TowerslEast Pennsboro Township Pet. for Appeal). 3 Notes of Testimony 2, Hr'g., June 24,2004, and June 28,2004 (hereinafter N.T.-->. 4 Shenandoah Mobile Co. v, Cumberland COUJlty Bd. of Assessmen.t Appeals, Civ. No. 03-492], (C.P. Cumberland County, Sept, 15,2004), 5 Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. tiled Oct. 25, 2004; Supplement to Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, filed Nov. R, 2004, 2 SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY, and SHENANDOAH PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, Plaintiffs v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Defendant SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS, Plaintiff v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Defendant v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP, and SOUTH MIDDLETON SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties SPECTRA SITE COMMUNICATIONS, Plaintiff v. * * * * * * * * IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LA W NO. 03-4921 CIVIL TERM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA CIVIL ACTION-LA W NO. 04-920 CIVIL TERM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA L:,\ 'I', }\l:\~(~.=i:-: ,j r;, _0:",0-,,) ::;: ;~ r j rl~~C'Z CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Defendant v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER FRANKFORD TOWNSHIP, and BIG SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties SPECTRA SITE COMMUNICATIONS, Plaintiff v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Defendant v. 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, PENNSYL VANIA BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Defendant v. CIVIL ACTION-LAW CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH NEWTON TOWNSHIP, : and BIG SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties NO. 04-949 CIVIL TERM * * * * SBA TOWERS, INC., Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Defendant v. CIVIL ACTION-LAW CUMBERLAND COUNTY, EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP, and EAST PENNSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties NO. 04-950 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 22nd day of December, 2004, the Opinion Pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925 dated December 16, 2004, is amended by the substitution of the attached page for page 2. The purpose of the amendment is to reflect that the appeal in these cases is to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. BY THE COURT, Carl C. Risch, Esq. Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto '\ 10 East High Street \ Carlisle, P A 17013 \ Attorney for Shenandoah Mobile Company ) Mark A. Mateya, Esq. 0 407 North Front Street / Box 11848 ' Harrisburg, PAl 71 08 / Attorney for County Commissioners Asso,biation of Pennsylvania I Robert 1,. Knupp, Esq. \ Knupp, Kodak & Imblum, P.C. \ 407 North Front Street """ Harrisburg, PAl 71 08 ) Attorney for Shenandoah Personal Commur,ications Company .I C!~~ ~ lJ-,J 7 -of Stephen Douglas Tiley, Esq. 5 South Hanover Street I Carlisle, P A 17013 i Attorney for Cumberland County Board! of Assessment Appeals I i ./ i 2 Philip Haring Spare, Esq. Snelbaker, Brenneman & Spare, P.C. 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 Attorney for Big Spring and South t1iddleton School Districts '\ i ! \ \ Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esq. \, >- Pepper Hamilton, LLP / One Mellon Center, 50th Floor i \ 500 Grant Street \ Pittsburgh, P A 15219 \ Attorney for Spectrasite Communicati~s and SBA Towers, Inc. J cv~ ,~ I'd- J- 'l-oi / /0 IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO P A. R.A.P. 1925 OLER, J., December 16,2004. In these six cases, Plaintiffs appealed Defendant's real estate tax assessments of Plaintiffs' telecommunication tower facilities. 1 At issue on the appeals was the correctness of Defendant's underlying classification of Plaintiffs' telecommunication towers as realty as opposed to personalty for real estate tax purposes.2 A two-day hearing was conducted on this issue on June 24, 2004, and June 28, 2004.3 On September 15, 2004, this court issued an order, accompanied by an opinion, classifying Plaintiffs' telecommunication towers as realty and upholding the: Defendant's assessments of Plaintiffs' telecommunication tower facilities.4 Plaintiffs have filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court from the September 15,2004, order.5 Plaintiff~ have expressed the issues being pursued on appeal as follows: a. [T]he Court committed an error of law in ruling that telecommunication towers are classified as realty as opposed to pl~rsonalty for real estate assessment purposes, pursuant to 72 P.S. ~ 5020.-201; b. the Court committed an error of law in ruling that the telecommunication towers "although their removal is not a practical I The following cases have been consolidated at Number 03-4921 Civil Term: Numbers 03-4921 Civil Term, 04-920 Civil Term, 04-921 Civil Term. 04-922 Civil Term, 04-949 Civil Term, and 04-950 Civil Term, See Order of Ct., Apr. 16,2004. 2 See Pet. of Appeal from Determination of Real Estate Tax Assessment, filed Sept. 18, 2003 (hereinafter Shenandoah's Pet. of Appeal); Pet. for Appeal, filed Mar. 4, 2004 (hereinafter Spectrasite/South Middleton Township Pet. for Appeal); Pet. [or Appeai. filed Mar. 4, 2004 (hereinafter Spectrasite/Upper Frankford Township Pet. for Appeal); Pet. f0l" Appeal, filed Mar. 4, 2004 (hereinafter Spectrasite/Southampton Township Pet. for Appeal); Pet. f0r 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 (herdnafter N.T.~. 4 Shenandoah Mobile Co. v. Cumberland County Bd. of Assessment Appeals, Civ. No. 03-4921, (C.P. Cumberland County, Sept. 15, 2004). 5 Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. tiled Oct. 25, 2004; Supplement to Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, filed Nov. R, 2004. 2 Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania Charles R. Hostutler Deputy Prothonotary jChief Clerk August 12,2005 Notice of Discontinuance of Action RE: Shenandoah Mobile et aL v. Cumberland Cnty Bd Appeal of: Type of Action: Notice of Appeal Noo 2173 CD 2004 Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas Agency Docket Number: 03-4921 04-920 04-921 04-922 'J 04-949 04-950 Itvis Office Buildinli:. Room 624 Harrisbur". PA 17120 717-255-1650 Cerlllied from the Record IiJ6 1 2 2005 and 0Rler ExIt The above-captioned matter has been marked "Discontinued" with this courto Certification is being sent to the lower court. Attorney Name Party Name Jeffrey S. Blum, Esqo Joseph Anthony Cortese, Esq. Kristi Akins Davidson, Esq. Robert L Knupp Spectrasite Communications Verizon Wireless Spectrasite Communications County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania Spectrasite Communications Shenandoah Mobile Company Big Springs School District Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals Stanley Joel Parker, Esqo Carl Co Risch, Esqo Philip Haring Spare, Esqo Stephen Douglas Tiley, Esq. Party Type Appellant Amicus Curiae Appellant Amicus Curiae Appellant Appellant Appellee Appellee () ~ 0 = <= = " s:: <:on -nrr, )> ~::n nln', c:: ;:::'.- en ~JE z en U1 ../ Ot r;:.C; ~..,J, j;:u -0 -S:''!J -7( .' :::l: Z(') $C~' ,5m C --I Z ;;t> =< -:;- .n .::- -<