HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-0950
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Appellant,
CNIL ONISION
NO. 0"1. - q,ju
Ciu;{~~
vs,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
PETITION FOR APPEAL
Appellee.
vs,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, EAST
PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and EAST
PENNSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Filed on behalf of Appellant,
SBA Towers, Inc.
Interested Parties.
Counsel of Record for this Party:
Ousty Elias Kirk, Esquire
PA 1.0. No. 30702
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
Firm 1.0, No. 143
50th Floor, One Mellon Center
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
(412) 454-5000
PT: #172635 vI (3P7FOl !.OOC)
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, EAST
PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and EAST
PENNSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. Cl4 -
C~~~CT~
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:
1. SBA Towers, Inc. is the record owner of commercial property situate at
4404 Industrial Park Road, East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (the
"Property") and identified as Parcel No, 09-22-0533-001-LL in the Cumberland County
assessment records.
2. Cumberland County, East Pennsboro Township and East Pennsboro
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, ~5342 et seq.,
and is authorized to assess and value real property for the purpose of taxation in counties of the
Fourth Class and to hear appeals from said assessments by aggrieved parties,
4, Pertaining to the year 2004, the Board assessed the Property in the amount
of Two Hundred Forty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Dollars ($244,860),
5, As of September 1,2003, the Property was described for the 2004 tax year
on the official records of Cumberland County as follows:
Description
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 Seventy Thousand Dollars ($70,000) 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 ofthe 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: #172635 vI (3P7FOl I.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 submitted,
~ ~vtk.-
Dusty ias 'rk, Esquire
PA I.D, 0,30702
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: #172635 vi (3P7FOI !.DOC)
.
r i i t. 1.3 l f
CUMBERLAND COUNTYL (g~ ~~SESSMENT APPEAL - COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
Under ... proviIionI oi law ""Y '**"'. aggi8v8d by eny !. I B ,,-lIIlI deIimg 10 ... ....... a ''-''/IIl1l. In wrlIing. wIh !he lloInf 01
iJ-l ...11 AjlpeIIle on or IllIIcw .Suc:IIlllIdlllnllnIlIh8I cIeIIgn8IlI!he I -." IIJ'PNIo't Inlm 1IllI!he .....IoWhidJ
!he BoIId lIhd 1111i11IDIkle of when ~ whellllO appeartJr a hMi1g. No lIpPI8I..... be '-'d.... bon .... aPllJl"-><lIt........
... tWlhiI...... and...... dac_1la an ar...... ..... blh by.... 'M i1CIude8l1ldng cIIIIic:Ia
Rl!COrdOwner(s)Name ~iY1-'A.<:,~,L~ < .1...,....(< . .
Address . 5:.'/('" tth ~ $',~ ~Pll"";.,d tl<i.y . /J, ill)
, I:~r ~ KHf,~ F L. 3 'J '-I !/7 - :J.. 7 97
Site Location of PropertySlibject of Appeal: 1" C <I- ~n d.f d',.- l A. , jhl~1t.. e.;
NurnI/W. StrNl . ~
Ass4lSSorS Tax Map Identllk:allon I: () '1 - 2.; t.. - C ~ 3 3 - t: cJ I t.. L
AssessmentAppee/ed.l '11 ~"() '. OpinbnolMerlcetVaJueoflhisProperty it.;";,',7!"
Dale Purchased Li ~. Pun:hue Price: All,. rAmourt of Fn Insurance A!j If-
State Ifasons lor filing IhIs epp8aJ: 5 "- L A +l:~ d\t..l_r~M <;.~ .~411'h: ~, \:n 1-
.
PIOt.elty'JWe: CMck and CQmpIetII Proper Cll!MIIkatiori:' . ' , "
/. Colll/ll!lrclel:' Use h.h C to'>y.. ""\ i-(,)) , e ~+, n, k ~.i "-,': .
, Gros8 Squa/8 Ft A/) A- , Square Fl Rentable Area L I It
, ,\
OWner~ ',t.r ' "" TennantOecupled Y fSo
llLaaslld:AnnuaIRenl-~~rlIftttL.\.(, O8IeConatrUcted. :J,N (
,Gross Square Ft Square Fl Rentable Area
owner Oc:i:upIed ' Tenant Oc:cupled r= IF"'
ri L-~ArnlaI Rent Date Conitructed U ~ ~ ~ n VI ~ :.
To/aI Square Ft Square Ft Rentable-A18
Squa/8 Ft PIanl AI88 Owner OccupIed
T8Il8lll Oa:upIed' II Leased: Annual Rent
Laase Type: Nel_ Gross _ Combination _ Dalli COll6~~:;l!
08.
,
Gross Square Ft OWner 0c:cl.4lied
If Leuecl; AnruI Rent , . . , Date Conslructed
. .
-AnACH LAST a YEARS. INCOME . EXPENSE STATnlENTS 0'- COUPLETETHE ATfAC:ifED ..COU!!lAJ5llPENSe fORM""
0tIlce:
Industrial:
~;.G ,g Will
OIlier:
Tenant 00cupIed
'~'of~
11M herwbr deClIIlI nrpo.. _1lIan1o IIpp88I frllm 1M ..., lIB 1W1k1a1ion atb pt'QptIly cieicotbed IbcM lIIId dO he~ -"Y....1he
lIIlIIltInInIs made In .. .,....... "'" n, COfI8ClI ~nIlliIlci 1hIl.......ll...m.'Ili'*'""... IIIIde ~ iD the pena/lI8I; cl18 Pa. .
;~~4804..~)~~......-nIo..O)fV 0*, (f/J~/~" .
. P~I:~)
(DtIyiOlIIce) . St.l.. 'j9~,-,lt-'7D
. 0wnIt(.) 01 Reclird ,
. AD notices Of these proceedings shalf be mailed to:
()ffIw UN only .',' Name:" ,~k4- -r;.,,,, 'T"-- 'S
1Fe8 'I Address: S4Do d.<!cKCn
8(;0('1-} Ie It -I- n,
~-. I
;J.;,,;C.. \
... --' . )..; \, I , i
;:)"" .,n , f^-.,,"! /I, ..'~, j
F L. :..:=n .j r:; 7 '-J. 7 ~7
EXHIBIT
fJ
s~.~ ,tkfIJ0~C iNC.""[ tE">':fl01)CJ ,- .\ecfdlt.
GRO$S A.NNOALINCOMES FOR 3 PRIOR YEARS .
19-.;. 19_
.$ '$
$ $ '. $
'S " S $
$ $ $
$ $ .... $
. '
$ $. $
$ " 'S' $.
'$ .. $'
. .
19--,
. .
. Projected 1ncome1~'lOC11pied .
, includi1g value of IlII1t-liee u~
Actull Jncome 1'llCe1ved '
Vacancy
ActuaJ other Income
Usl by'l)Pe: '..,
$
$$
$ $
$.' $
$ $
$
Total Actuatlncome ~w.d'
GROSS ANNUAL EXPENSES FOR 3PRlOAYEAAS
Groa Annual Expenaea . ,
, , Real ~t8te T~s $
19~
19~
111--.:
, itemS Included
, In Rent
'$'" ,
", .-~~l'" ",
,.', t"
'.$"'" .:,', ,;1" .,.. ,,:: . CJ;Rea6~lj
". ~CJ Air. Conct
o Electricity
o TV Cable
o Water
1:"""':
. 1:1 Carpel
1:1 Drapes
ORange
, ., d Refrig.
CJ Dishwasher
o Garbage
Disposal
. '0 ParkIng
OPoQl
CJ Rae. Facility
""'.
fIXED, ,
EXPENSES
, Insul8l1C8, '.
',lIincI.RenC',
','
. t.,"
. .'
'~"
.other.. ..... !,:'-:. "-';:/,....('.
, "
......,;., ""
~; ;:.:.. .
'.~ ,"." . ~ ..
.
~1tY"'.:' :: ..~~ "
~".. ,'.-,.""
;.!.......""- .
.. Gas . ,;,':-
" Walllr & Se.ftI, , :').
TlBsbRemovaI "
:HealIng .' :;,,~:'i.. ,,"
. Ma/iBfer'a::Sal8iy,: '
OPERAnOHAL Fee8
EXPEN8E& '" ,
, .' ',' ,l,egal & Aceodng
. .. ,.. ~. .... '" . .
. . 'pijroITPN .'.
. . ' -:. .::"t: .' . ... n, .... ;. ~. .'- . . . . .
. ' " Group JIll/lfIIfIPIt;::' ",:, . ~ '.: ' '
, AcMli'UiIii9'" .. i..
, ~~~I~~
:,~,,::,,'1,.."
Makli. & Repair
. Replace. ReServe
Olher
$
$' .'
:. ; ~\- '" ;
. ," ~ :... " ;." .
"'.'
=.f.;:'
.,Or
,,'
";)"".
. .t. i.;'
..r,.:.': ".'",:.
,-.:', "
. .
:-. ....-.J~, ~:';.:"/;;'-':-
.. ',~
. "'~'. ......~.... . "
,"
". ,:;.t!.
. . .
"0 oTHER:
o
..c,:....,.~ .' .'j, ."f] '"
;'" .r ,:,". "',. '1! tj~.' .
'I'>,:~ ,
'.~ . - ,-' ~;' '.
. ',.' "
.-.' .-"..'
, ':'.'~;:':"~- : ..'
o Fumiture
, .01 Ftmsh8d
Units:
. ....-.
.
, TOTAL~~ES
$.
$
'. FI.IniUt ~ lkiII ,
'$,:~,
.0 Bldg.Owner
,0 R.mi1 Co.
(J0lher
-.. . ".'
PIeue uSe'~aaI pegt!S ror any oCher 1'elll8l'b reladve ~ Che property.
Reason for fair actual valuation of the telecommunication tower:
.e fair market value upon which the assessment is based is in excess of the property's value,
e assessment is not uniform with assessments of other property in the county.
The assessment includes the value of personal property contrary to Pennsylvania assessment law.
.
.
. r
This letter is to officially notify you o. ".w .Jecislon of the Cumber1ano vU"
regarding the above-referenced parcel,
.......... UI ~::n:~~o"'"",,,, "t"~.:..::.=
DATE OF APPEAL HEARING: 02/0312004
DATE DECISION RENDERED: 02/09/2004
EFFECTIVE FOR TAX YEAR: 2004
DECISION RENDERED: [) Withdrawn By Applicant
[ ] Abandoned For Failure To Appear
[ ) Denied - No Change
[ ) Approved Review Appraiser's Changes
[X) Revised Assessment Based on Hearing
[ ) Other:
I
TOTAL VALUE
FAIR MARKET
CLEAN AND GREEN
CLEAN AND GREEN
STATUS
Old Assessed Value:
New Assessed Value:
244,860
70.000
NOT
APPLICABLE
Any person aggrieved by the order of the Board of Assessment may appeal to the Court of Common
Pleas by filin9 a petition in the Prothonotary's office on or before March 9. 2004.
Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals
Old Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle. PA 17013
(717) 240-6350
(717) 240-6354 (fax)
Soattl of Ass_mem Appeal.
Lloyd W. B"cher
R. Fred Hefelfingor
Sarah Hughes
BONNIE M. I'MHONEY
ChiefA__
STEPHEN D. TILEY
Asaisrant Solie/lor
DECISION ORDER
MAILING DATE; February 9. 2004
PARCEL NUMBER: 09-22-0533-001.-LL
SBA TOWERS. INC
5900 BROKEN SOUND PARt<!-IVAY NW
BOCA RATON FL 33487
~p~r Pro"~1y Owner:
EXHIBIT
( I
6
>'...,
'I"
I,
.pGt~~
\If
VERIFICATION
K\I~
,ofSBA Towers, Inc., declare under penalty
of peljury 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 of fact
therein stated and the same are true; and as to all matters therein stated on information and belief,
I believe them to be true.
I understand that false statements herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.
Cons. Stat. S4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Executed this '>-day of March, 2004.
SBA Towers, I~r
BY:
Title: vf
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the within Petition for Appeal has
Ll-P1t
been served upon the following parties by first class mail, postage prepaid on this I
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, P A 17013
Henry F, Coyne, Esquire
Solicitor, East Pennsboro Township
3901 Market Street
Camp Hill, P A 17011
Donna S. Weldon, Esquire
Solicitor, East Pennsboro School District
Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal LLP
210 Walnut Street
P,O. Box 11963
Harrisburg, P A 171 08-1963
~~~-t<~
()
t-\Tt
--- ~
~ ~
IN
It"-
a
!"'<> 0
(j ~.;l ,1
~
.~
Crt
o
~
:#-
,
0i
-on
;-::::
.~:.~?
\..J
"
"
,...-',
.-
t..,)
I....,)
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@COI!.DOC)
CNIL DIVISION
Nos. 03-4921
04-920
04- 921
04-922
04-949
04-950
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
Filed on Behalf of Spectrasite Communications
Counsel of Record for This Party:
Dusty Elias Kirk, Esquire
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, 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@COILOGC)
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Appellant,
Ys.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee,
Ys.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, EAST
PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and EAST
PENNSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties.
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Appellant,
Ys.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee,
Ys.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH
NEWTON TOWNSHIP and BIG
SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties.
PT: #175332 vI (3R@COl1.DOC)
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.
ET AL.
) CNIL DIVISION
)
) Nos. 03-4921
) 04-920
) 04-921
) 04-922
) 04-949
) 04-950
)
)
)
)
)
)
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
AND NOW, comes Spectrasite Communications ("Spectrasite"), by and through
its attorneys, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Dusty Elias Kirk, Esquire, and files the within Motion to
Consolidate, and in support thereof states as follows:
I. Spectrasite is a telecommunication tower company, and the owner of
commercial real estate and taxable property situate in Cumberland County, Pennsylyania, and
identified as Parcel Numbers 40-1 0-0632-01 6-LL, 43-06-0031-012-LL and 39-12-0324-004-LL
in the Cumberland County assessment records (the "Spectrasite Properties").
2. Spectrasite placed upon the Spectrasite Properties telecommunication
towers and other structures and related equipment, which, in each instance, the Board of
Assessment Appeals of Cumberland County (the "Board") assessed as real property.
3. On or about March 4, 2004, Spectrasite filed Petitions for Appeal with this
Court for the Spectrasite Properties docketed at Nos. 04-920, 04-921 and 04-922, challenging the
PT: #175332 vI (3R@COl!.DOC)
Board's assessment ofthe telecommunication towers as real property for purposes of real estate
taxation.
4. SBA Towers, Inc. ("SBA") is a telecormnunication 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@COl!.DOC)
2
County Board of Assessment Appeals and Cumberland County, also attempted to contact each of
the solicitors to discuss a consolidation of these appeals. The respective taxing bodies consent to
a consolidation as follows:
a. Cumberland County and the Cumberland County Board of Assessment
Appeals, through their solicitor, Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire, consented in writing to a
consolidation. A copy of the written consent is attached hereto as Exhibit "A";
b. Big Spring School District and South Middleton School District,
through their solicitor, Philip H. Spare, Esquire, consented in writing to a consolidation. A copy
of the written consent is attached hereto as Exhibit "B";
c. East Pennsboro Area School District, through its solicitor, Donna S.
Weldon, Esquire, consented in writing to a consolidation. A copy of the written consent is
attached hereto as Exhibit "C";
d. Southampden Township, through its solicitor, Richard L. Webber, Jr.,
Esquire, consented in writing to a consolidation. A copy of the written consent is attached hereto
as Exhibit "D";
e. Shippensburg Area School District, through its solicitor, Jerry A.
Weigle, Esquire, consented in writing to a consolidation. A copy of the written consent is
attached hereto as Exhibit "E".
f. Upper Frankford Township, through its solicitor, Steven Fishman,
Esquire, consented in writing to a consolidation. A copy of the written consent is attached hereto
as Exhibit "F".
g. South Middleton Township, East Pennsboro Township and South
Newton Township have not yet provided a response with respect to a consolidation.
PT: #175332 vI (3R@COl!.DOC)
3
10. Spectrasite, jointly with SBA and Shenandoah, requests that the appeals
described hereinabove be consolidated for the following reasons:
a. Consolidation ofthe 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 oftelecommunication towers for purposes of real
estate taxation.
c. Consolidation of the appeals will not prejudice any party.
11. Rule 213(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedures provides that
when actions in a county involve a common question of law or fact, or which arise from the
same transaction or occurrence, the court may upon motion of any party or sua sponte order all
such actions consolidated and triable jointly as a single action.
PT: #175332 vi (3R@COILOGC)
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,
(~k~
Dusty Er s 'rk
P ALD. o. 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: J1~l
Attorneys for Spectrasite Communications
,2004
PT: #175332 vi (3R@COl!.DOC)
5
ku
n~ ~I ,..,
ot.. :UJ n~'
C I i:!d'/IJDDZ
),,:,,"vlC;"-';iJH>Jb'd :3Hl :10
38:.:!.:K)-O:Jl!: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
~
i nAil
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
r.t\.4. '.11 UI:'I I UO.1
.........A.oU.rw.u..o.... ...................__. _e .-.
l!f.'..".........
SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P. C.
.----
Attorneys tit Law
J'.. O. Bo)! :H~)
44 We'JI. Main Street
Medy,nit:sblll'e, F'A 170:5:)
(717) 697-8528
Richard C. Snelbaker Fax No. (717) 697-7681
Keith O. Brenneman
Philip H. Spare
FACSIMILE COVER LETTER
PLEASE DELNER THE FOLLOWING PAGES:
DATE; Apri16,2004
TO: Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Pepper Bamiltoo LLP
FAX #; (412) 454-5005
FROM: Phil Spare
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER LETTER: 1
COMMENTS:
Re: Spectrasite Communications and SBA Tower Cases
CCP Cumberland County, PA
Dear Sharon:
As we discussed this 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
UBn
NT TIME APR. 6. 9:00AM
RECEIVED TIME APR. 6.
1!14/1!I:::l/la~ .L (;.L.1
HIATH L AL.L[N
N. DAVID RAHAL
CHAJ'L.C5 W. "UaItNOALL 11
ROBERT L. WEL.OO"
EUGeNe c. P'E~IN.K'f, ....
.JOHN H ENO. m
GARY It f'RCNCf1
DONNA $. W[LOON
eAADraMO OOlllIllANCE-
J~"AIY S aTO_ES
PlOBE"T A. eMu.eH
aTEPI"lEN L. a"o.E
PI, SCOTT SHIAfIlCfIl
ILV.C Co "00<<".
eflAIO A. LONGVEAfI
DONA.~D Il4 L.IEWI&m:
..UDOltT M. WHITLEY
JOHN ft. 'CICHTE'L
ELIZA.tn-ol J. GOLD.Tf'IN
.A".A"A A. GAioL
STi:.PHANI[ KL[INFIlLTtR
"c:.c:.rc:.I'" WlJUU f"'\l-l.-~" 0< .,rIIWll.... l...l...1 ' ......~..........,....
KEEFER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL. L....P
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
210 WALNUT STREET
P. O. BOX 11863
HARRISBURG. PA. 17108-1883
PHONE 17t71 21111-8000
l".TAeL.I'H~D tN 1878
OF cOu....EL:
&AtIlUt:L 1:. "'''fl:IliY
WE5T 5HOAIE O"ICI:
... f AL,"owrIELD "OAO
c.... HlL~. fl. 11011
'7'7' 812,..00
EIN NO. 23.0".13.
www.kHf.rwoocI.com
."ITIE". CONY ACT 1Nf'0000MA TtOJrt
April 5,2004
(717)255-8049
Email Address:
dweldon8keefelWood.com
VI, F.e.lmll. #14'2-2"-0717
Sharon F. DIPaolo, Esquire
Peeper 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 Distrlct ("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, Inc. vs. Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals.
Parcel No. 09-22-0533-001-LL.
On Friday, I received a fax from Steve Tiley asking for my consent to the consolidation
motion. This is to notify you that I do consent on behalf of Eest Pennsboro Area School
District.
Very truly yours,
KEEFER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL. LLP
~;<I~
Donna $, Weldon
DSW/drw
cc: Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire (VIa Fax '717-243-1441)
Linda J. Bigos, D.Ed., Superintendent
EXHIBIT
I
"c"
~T TIME APR. 5. 4:07PM
RECEIVED TIME APR. 5,
WEIGLE & ASSOCIATES, P.c.
Attorneys-at-Law
126 EAST KING STREET
SHlPPENSBURG. PENNSYLVANIA 17257-1397
JERRY A. WEIGLE
Associates
JOSEPH P. RUANE
RICHARD L. WEBBER, JR.
Of Counsel
THOMAS L. BRIGHT
TELEPHONE (717) 532-7388 or (717) 776-4295
FAX (717) 532-5289
weieIeassociates<aiearthlink.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:?d. 7~.dL.
Richard L. Webber, Jr., Esquire
RLW/paf
cc: Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire (via facsimile to 243-6441)
Southampton Township Board of Supervisors
EXHIBIT
~
~ "n"
WEIGLE & ASSOCIATES, P.c.
Attorneys-at-Law
126 EAST KlNG STREET
SHlPPENSBURG, PENNSYLV ANlA 17257-1397
JERRY A. WE1GLE
Associates
JOSEPH P. RUANE
RlCHARD L. WEBBER, JR.
or Counsel
mOMAS L. BRlGHT
TELEPHONE (717) 532-7388 or (717) 776-4295
FAX (717) 532-5289
weil!leassociates@earthlink.net
VIA FACSIMILE TO (412) 281-0717 AND V.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,
GLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
t:J~'
'tor for Slllppensburg Area Schoo
JA W/paf
cc: Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire (via facsimile to 243-6441)
Dr. David R. Landis, Superintendent SASD
EXHIBIT
.l!
II
a
"EII
~~~~
1~ U.&.
I """ "" "'" - -,"'''''''
'JALZ~NN HUGHES &FISHMAN P.C.
G. BllYN'I SA1.ZMANN. f~IIiQ.
JAJI[r.~ o. HUGH:t~. EsQ.
Sn\'El<J. FtSllM>.N. "-'Cl.
_~ r. DEP"UU~. EsQ.
NOIO'''J. B~1Ul<O. 'ESCl:
WlLt..1A.'\4 w. TIioMJlSON. E.ftQ.. .
MtU'~^ K. DJVELY. "-'Cl.
REaECCA R. HUGHES. EsQ.
.ALlO^l'64mxD'TOMAJl,'fVlollD~
p.A....u:c;AU:
p~R.BOLl.ll'l-
Bf3BhllAJ. MOSlOR
UU1IltJ. potmll
1'Blctfl L BhlLEY
JWoI.S.COIll<M"-"
j\NGt1.A 1. Ul'l(\Y.1t
R>:f\.YTO:
gS^UlW'DUS)'lllN(' RoAD' surn;~' ClJU,lU.L Ph 170\3
017lU9-li1lSS 1",(17)249.78154
455I'HOVIIXD1UV1:' Surn;h' ClW'1'BIBUllG.l'hI720\
(717) 1l63.2121 FAX (717) _0663
107 NOItl'l<FIlOJ<t'STItFZT. SUITE \15 '1lI>JUQSl\UIlC, 1'1\1710\
(7\7) 2S2.B~0 ,^" (717) 232_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 ifthere is anything further required of the Township at this time.
V ery truly yours,
~~..;-~ :>
Solicitor
EXHIBIT
CONCl;:'>-rnATlNG IN EN'<1RONMENThL. LAND USE I
RECEIVED TIME APR. 2. 10:2
"F"
~UNIC!rAL^ND EsThTEADMlN1STMTTON LAW
ME APR. 2. 10: 22AM
C)
C."
~.:
9
Co.)
\.0
_e
""
"",
c;.;.)
.c-
Q
-q
;,.
..t}
;:{J
"--I
.,-
fi"i ::Q
r---
~':Jrn
:_:J~7
(\1.
_!..::::)
,ioS ::+-1
.~-:;- r:)
;:~;rf-J
w
;'"'..
~.:~
-<
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.
PT: #178263 vI (3TJROl !.DOC)
CNIL 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
P A LD. No. 30702
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
P A 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,
vs.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee.
vs.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER
FRANKFORD TOWNSHIP and BIG
SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties.
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant,
vs.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee.
vs.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTHAMPDEN TOWNSHIP and
SHIPPENSBURG AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties.
PT: #178263 vI (3TJROI LDDC)
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Appellant,
vs.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee.
vs.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, EAST
PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and EAST
PENNSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties.
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Appellant,
vs.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee.
vs.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH
NEWTON TOWNSHIP and BIG
SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties.
PT: #178263 vl (3TJROI !.DOC)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY and
SHENANDOAH PERSONAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY,
Appellants,
vs.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee.
ET AL.
) CNIL DNISION
)
) 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:
I. Spectrasite is a telecommunication tower company, and the owner of
commercial real estate and taxable property situate in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and
identified as Parcel Numbers 40-10-0632-016-LL, 43-06-0031-012-LL and 39-12-0324-004-LL
in the Cumberland County assessment records (the "Spectrasite Properties").
2. On or about March 4, 2004, Spectrasite filed Petitions for Appeal with this
Court for the Spectrasite Properties challenging the Board's assessment of the
telecommunication towers as real property for purposes ofreal 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
PI: #178263 vi (3TJROl !.DOC)
"SBA Properties"). The SBA Properties are identified as Parcel Numbers 09-22-0533-001-LL
and 41-11-0304-019-LL in the Cumberland County assessment records.
4. On or about March 5, 2004, SBA filed Petitions for Appeal for the SBA
Properties with this Court raising the same issues as Spectrasite's appeals.
5. Spectrasite and SBA are represented by the same counsel with respect to
the above-referenced real estate tax assessment appeals.
6. On September 18, 2003, Shenandoah Mobile Company and Shenandoah
Personal Communications Company (collectively, "Shenandoah"), by and through its attorney,
Carl C. Risch, Esquire, filed a Petition for Appeal for its property identified as Parcel Number
25-25-0006-315-LL (the "Shenandoah Property"), raising the same issues as Spectrasite's and
SBA's appeals.
7. 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 of the 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
PI: #178263 vI (3TJROl LDOe)
2
attempted to contact each of the solicitors to discuss a continuance of this trial. The respective
taxing bodies consent to a continuance as follows:
a. Cumberland County and the Cumberland County Board of 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
of the written consent is attached hereto as Exhibit "B";
c. Southampden Township, through its solicitor, Richard L. Webber, Jr.,
Esquire, consented in writing to a continuance. A copy of the written consent is attached hereto
as Exhibit "C";
d. Shippensburg Area School District, through its solicitor, Jerry A.
Weigle, Esquire, consented in writing to a continuance. A copy of the written consent is
attached hereto as Exhibit "D".
e. Upper Frankford Township, through its solicitor, Steven Fishman,
Esquire, consented in writing to a continuance. A copy of the written consent is attached hereto
as Exhibit "E".
f. South Middleton Township, East Pennsboro Township, East
Pennsboro Area School District and South Newton Township have not yet provided a response
with respect to a continuance.
PI; #178263 vi (3TJR01!.DOC)
3
WHEREFORE, Spectrasite Communications, jointly with SBA Towers, Inc. and
Shenandoah Mobile Company and Shenandoah Personal Communications Company,
respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an order continuing the April 12, 2004 trial
to a later date.
Respectfully submitted,
~ 'cfu,; -'<<Al1-
Dusty as Kirk
P ALD. o. 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 vl (3TJROI !.DOC)
4
(11../("
I<j>/;<
'.'
".nJ
W,!
01"1 'f!!I,., ,.., \
I '(" "," C. 1.1,"" II"n7
\./'~, 1 L.n.J(,
,) Ji\// r,,'.,Jt)I'! '~"~'.' _~'"
"- '........,.','..... J..' "':"} -'-11
;"~ji...'-i-';:';;:I?J_'I-~ j
..........,......... \,J-'!.J
:.10
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.
1 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 "A"
Frey & Tiley
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Re: Cell Tower Cases
April 2, 2004
Page 2 of2
I am not sure that we need consent, and I am not sure that we can get
consent within the timeframe required. Some solicitors will be away. Others will
feel the need to consult with their client before making a decision.
Your cases were assigned to President Judge Hoffer. About two weeks
ago his chambers called to schedule the hearings. I advised that Judge Oler had
the Shenandoah case and that there had been some talk of consolidation and
CCAP 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 emailonly
o,Il..&'O&Ao>o<aoou..... .................--. -..-.
l!f""""'" ..'.. ,.. ..........
SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P. C.
,--
Atto"'l!jI$ tit Law
JP'. O. 18,(;:,>:: ::H;~
44 weot MBin 3n~t
Mel'hain.i(;;sblll:Cg, JP'A 17055
(717) 697-8528
Richard C. Snelbaker Fax No. (717) 697-7681
Keith O. Brenneman
Philip H. Spare
FACSIMILE COVER LETTER
PLEASE DELNER THE FOLLOWING PAGES:
DATE: April 6, 2004
TO: Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Pepper Hamilton LLP
FAX #: (411) 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 morning, our firm 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 flBn
RECEIVED TIME APR. 6. (
TIME APR. 6. 9:00AM
WEIGLE & ASSOCIATES, P.e.
Attorneys-at-Law
126 EAST KING STREET
SHlPPENSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17257-1397
JERRY A. WEIGLE
Associates
JOSEPH P. RUANE
RICHARD L. WEBBER, JR.
Of Counsel
THOMAS L. BRIGHT
TELEPHONE (717) 532-7388 or (717) 776-4295
FAX (717) 532-5289
weil!leassocialesiWearthlink.net
April 2, 2004
VIA FACSIMILE TO (412) 281-0717 AND U,S. MAIL
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP
50th Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
RE: 2004 Real Estate Tax Assessment appeals
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
Spectrasite Communications
Docket Numbers 04-920, 04-921 and 04-922
SBA Towers, Inc.
Docket Numbers 04-949 and 04-950
Shenandoah Mobile Company and Shenandoah
Personal Communications Company
Docket Number 03-4921
Dear Ms. DiPaolo:
I represent Southampton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
I hereby consent to your proposed Motion to Consolidate as well as the Motion to
Continue.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
WEIGLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
t~ ?~.dL
Richard L. Webber, Jr., Esquire
RLW/paf
cc: Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire (via facsimile to 243-6441)
Southampton Township Board of Supervisors
EXHIBIT
I
IIC"
WEIGLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Attorneys-at-Law
126 EAST KING STREET
SIllPPENSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17257-1397
JERRY A. WEIGLE
Assoc:iates
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!leassociatesliilearthlink.net
VIA FACSIMILE TO (412) 281-0717 AND U.S. MAIL
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
PEPPER HAMIL TON, LLP
50th Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
RE: 2004 Real Estate Tax Assessment appeals
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
rnatter.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
/
GLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
t::J. SL
'tor for Slllppensburg Area Schoo
JA W/paf
cc: Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire (via facsimile to 243-6441)
Dr. David R. Landis, Superintendent SASD
EXHIBIT
I "n"
I .., '" "" '" " - --7"""'''
,)ALZMANN, HUGHES &FISHMAN, P.C.
PAGE 1111
G. BRYAN' SAl2.MANN. E.IliQ.
J AMI.' n. HUGH". ESQ.
5TE'I\:l< J. FlSIlMAN. F.'Q.
All!l r. DEPAUUS. EsQ.
NOIlMAJ.IlA1<rKO. ];SQ,"
Wn..Ll/UlIW. TIioMJlSON, f..l\Q..
MEUSM ]{. DJVELl', E.II!.Q.
REaECCA it, HUGlUS. EsQ.
'.ALlO^nMIT'tEtlTO~NDa.u
P.<RAl.Et:AU:
PMlElA R. BOUJNGER
B-...MJ. MosIOR
L\U1llEJ.POI!I'ER
1'BIClA L BAILtY
:KAM. S. COJU'fMA."'l
AN'>!"" r. UN"""
llEPloY TO:
g5 AU:X/II<OERSJ'lllNc: RollO' surn:8 . CtJQ..1SL!. Ph 170\3
(ll7ll4!lolillSS 'AX (717) 249-7884
455PHOD<1XD1U'IE . SumA' C>\t.M1>EAIBUKC. PA 17201
(7\7) 1li8-212\ F"" (717) 203.06G3
107 NOIm<FIIO!<l'STllEET . sum: 115' IlAlllllSBU",," FA mOl
(717) 232-9.20 PAl< (7171282-1970
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 MAIL
Dear Ms. DiPaolo,
This offiee 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.
V ery truly yours,
~~;~ C>
Solicitor
EXHIBIT
!
j tiE"
CONCr.:-.-rw.T1NG IN EN'.1RONMENTAL, LAND USE, CoRFOII!I.TE. REALE~ThTE. MUNICIPAL AND EsTATEADMINISTRATTON LAw
RECEIVED TIME APR 2 10'21AM
..' PRINT TIME APR. 2. 10: 22AM
-~
::t~"
~~
-r:-
C)
t'-o.,
C;:;,)
<:;_:J
J<:-
o
-.,
--j
~-
i'i1;:.:
-:-<1~1
;~)y
>1(:)
;:~;rl
,-'I
.,
:;-~
'''0
;;0..:;
w
:.~
-<
SHENANDOAH MOBILE:
COMPANY and
SHENANDOAH
PERSONAL
COMMUNICATIONS
COMPANY,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUMBERLAND
COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
NO. 03-4921 CIVIL TERM
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUJ'l'TY, PENNSYL VANIA
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUMBERLAND
COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
v.
CUMBERLAND
COUNTY, EAST
PENNSBORO
TOWNSHIP and EAST
PENNSBORO SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
NO. 04-950 CIVIL TERM /
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 16th day of April, 2004, upon due consideration of the Motion To
Consolidate filed by Spectrasite Communications jointly with SBA Towers, Inc., and
Shenandoah Mobile Cornpany and Shenandoah Personal Comrnunications Cornpany, it is
hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Motion To Consolidate is
hereby GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the Prothonotary of Cumberland
County shall consolidate the actions docketed at Nurnbers 03-4921, 04-920,04-921,04_
922, 04-949 and 04-050 at Number 03-4921.
Stephen D. Tiley, Esq.
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
Curnberland County Board
of Assessment Appeals
Edward L. Schorpp, Esq.
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, P A 17013
Solicitor, Curnberland County
Carl Risch, Esq.
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
Attorney for Shenandoah Mobile
Company
Dusty Elias Kirk, Esq.
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esq.
Pepper Hamilton LLP
One Mellon Center, 50th Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
Attorneys for Spectrasite
Comrnunications
Donna S. Weldon, Esq.
210 Walnut Street
P.O. Box 11963
Harrisburg, P A 17108-1963
Solicitor, East Pennsboro
School District
BY THE COURT,
J.
L'
(.5
U)
t,,;:,)
(:,-,
cC
C,
(\.:
~t::
~::
~
<::::~":'J
(.::::)
<'-J
Henry F. Coyne, Esq.
3901 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Solicitor, East Pennsboro Township
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
IN THE COURT 011 COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
VS.
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 2004-950
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD
OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
Appellee
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, EAST
PENNSBORO TOWNSIDP and EAST
PENNSBORO 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 avennents 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: ~00P7
Respectfully submitted,
/
By ~~;; ..j~'. 7~'~:
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire
Assistant Cumbo Cty. Solicitor
For Tax Matters
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5838
Supreme CoUrt LD.#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: ~ I~ zoOf
/1 ~ )},. }no L'o/
~ Mahoney, Chief Asses5.0r
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
Counsellor Appellant
10 East High Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
Dusty Elias Kirk, Esquire
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
Counsellor Appellant
50th Floor, One Mellon Center
5013 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
Date: ? r};y
, /~/f? ~ 7 >;7
t;; 1-/ ;;' I'
Stephen . Tiley, Esquire
Assistant Cumbo Co. Solicitor
For Tax Matters
5 S. Hanover Stre:et
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5838
Attorney LD.#32318
(/)
-<
r-
:<S
";^r
sc-.
,-
~
(')
c:
--~-
~~',i'/ ;
t;;>
<""
""
~'"
C';'
....-
-..
5:':
"'"
-
o
-'"
:::;!
F'i'1 ::n
r-
~r:.fIT1
_tJ l:J
0'
::;JV
("" '''1'1
.,:';';'(J
!~~ n,
.::,;'
-<
\.0
-"
~
ol./-9S6
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. 20J4-921 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
v'O. 2004-950 CIVIL TERM
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, EAST
PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and EAST
PENNSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
PETITION FOR APPEAL
I/INVmASNN3d
Al"'nn'l (":V"'..'::n"'n'"
11 !~'-" -..,1-./ "W^.~.~'l V
lJ8 :8 IJd 0 I NnnOOZ
lJ:NlONOH.LOUd 3Hl ::JO
3b!:Jj()-Q31!::J
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Appellant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
CIVIL DIVISION
v
NO_ 2004-949 CIVIL TERM
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH
NEWTON TOWNSHIP and BIG
SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties PETITION FOR APPEAL
*********************************
SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY,
and SHENANDOAH PERSONAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
CIVIL .z\CTION - LAW
NO. 03--4921 CIVIL TERM
: REAL EST.z\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 Corrmunications 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, CUITberland 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; .~ppellee, Cumberland
County Board of Assessment Appeals, was represented by Stephen D.
Tiley, Esquire; Interested Party Cumberla:~d County was
represented by Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire; and Interested Parties
South Hampden Township and Shippensburg Area School District were
not represented.
In the case of SBA Towers, Inc., Appellant,
versus Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals versus
Cumberland County, East Pennsboro Township and East pennsboro
School District at No. 2004-950 Civil Term, Appellant, SBA
Towers, Inc., was represented by Dusty Elias Kirk, Esquire, and
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire; Appellee, Cu~)erland 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, Cunilierland 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 represer.ted by Stephen D. Tiley,
Esquire.
It is noted further that in all of these cases
Robert L. Knupp, Esquire, was present in the capacity of an
amicus curiae, on behalf of the Pennsylvania County Commissioners
Association.
This case involves tax assessment appeals with a
common issue: Whether telecommunication towers are realty or
personalty for purposes of pennsylvania real estate taxation.
Counsel have indicated that they believe they will be able to
stipulate as to the value of the 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
not appear to the Court that these cases will be resolved
amicably.
By the Court,
~l C. Risch, Esquire
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
For Shenandoah
'/
0& - /() -01
~sty 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.
~b~rt L. Knupp, 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
~ilip H. Spare, Esquire
44 West Main Street
P.O. Box 318
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
For Big Spring and South Middleton School Districts
:mae
SPECTRASITE Co~UNICATIONS,
APpellant
OMMOtl P1f.AS Of
.ltl 'ItiE COUR'I O!,"'~ pf.tltlS'L1'.JAtl1A
'. CUMBf.R1AtlD COU,'. ,
CUMBERLAND
ASSESSMENT
v
COUNTY BOARD OF
APPEALS,
APpellee
CIVl1 DIVISION
NO. 2004-920 C1Vl1 'IERM
v
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUd'I~OUTti
MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP an
MIDDLETON SCHOOL DISTRICT, . : PE'II'II0N FOR APPEP,L
Inter:ested par:t1-es* **.* * *** * ** * * *** * *
***********
IN 'ItiE COUR'I OF COMMON PLEAS OF
SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIONS, CUMBERLAND COUUT'L Pf.NNS'L1'.JANIA
APpellant '
v
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
CIVIL DIVISION
v
NO. 2004-921 Cl\'IL TERM
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER
FRANKFORD TOWNSHIP and BIG
SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Inter:ested par:ties 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,
Inter:ested par:ties PETITION FOR APPEAL
*******************************
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS C
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANl
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
APpellant
v
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
v
CIVIL DIVISION
~, 2004-950 CIVIL TERM
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, EAST
PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and EAST
__...~n"O() SCHOOL DISTRICT,
. ......_ __.\-..; oel.
PETITION FOR APPEAL
~Otl '2Lf.J\.S Of
1tl '1tri; CODR'1 0:''1;0 '2f.tltlS'lL\]J\.tl1J\.
CDMBf.'8-LJ\.tlD COD" '
SBJ\. '1Ov:lf.RS, 1tlC.,
J\.ppell"nt
C~Dtl'1'l BOJ\.RD Of
J\.'2'2f.J\.LS,
J\.ppellee
C1\]IL D1\]1S 10tl
tlO. 2004-949 C1\]1L '1f.~
CDMBf.RLJ\.tlD
J\.SSf.SSMf.tl'1
tl'1'l SOD'1t\ :
CDMBf.RLJ\.tlD COD ' 0. B1G :
.,.'0' 'O"S"~,~R'C" "",'0' fOR ,~~'"
S~R,.G SC'O~;'e,e'ted ~a't~"~";",,,,"""""~ coMMG" ~L,,5 Of
, " ,," " ' . " ", CoOR' 0 " ~,,,,,S"L ,,,""
"00N' "OR,L' COR'''""' C coeB"",,o CO~, ,
St\f.tlJ\. t\f.tlJ\.tlDOJ\.t\ '2f.RSOtlJ\.L .
~~tl1CJ\.'110tlS COM'2J\.tl'l'
v
v Of
DMBf.RLJ\.tlD CoDtl'1'l BOJ\.RD
isSf.SSMf.tl'1 J\.p'2f.J\.LS,
J\.ppellee
C1\]1L J\.C'110tl - LJ\.v:I'1f.~
tlO. 03-4921 C1\]1L
"'S","'1f. '1J\.'f, J\.SSf.SSMf.tl'1
:Rf.J\.L '" ,-"
J\.'2 '2f.J\.L
J\.tlD tlOv:l,
1tl Rf.: tlOtlJDR'l '1R1J\.L
ORDf.1? Of ~
~~ 2004, upon
tniS 24tn d"~ of June,
e"ls in tne
"ssessment "pP
-' of ne"rin
"n initi"l u."~
is noted tn"t " second'
June 28, 2004, CO~E
. of tne t,,%
consider"t1-on
"nO. foll00ing
"bove_c"ptiOned c"ses,
, ~ "nO. it
tne record sn"ll rem,,1-n opel'
Scnedulecl for Mond"~'
0" ne"ring is
d"~ ~
"djOUrnment on
cross e%"min"tion b~
_~ ,~~-' count" Bo"rd
cu",,,,er.l-~"u. J
1t is noted
tod"~'s d"te '2"tric\<.
",' le" f.sCl.uire,
stepnen D. ,-1- J'
t J\.ppe"ls.
of )',ssessmen
n time of
furtner tn"t "t t e
0. of J\.ssessment J\.ppeo
cumberl"ncc count~ BO"r '" '1
adjOU,n~ent and ,",paye'" ,~,'
identified "nO. "o.mitted
0. 41) n"d been iC
34, 36 tnroUgn 31, "n
f.%nibitS 35, 53, "nO. 3
n"d '1,,%p,,~er' s
~ "o.mitted "s
1t is noted furtner
tn"t "t tne time of
DO~le 0"s being subjec
counsel f
"t 9:30 ".m.
1 n"d been
itemS 1 tnroUgn
By the Court,
Carl C. Risch, Esquire
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
For Shenandoah
Dusty Elias Kirk, Esquire
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Pepper Hamilton, LLP
One Mellon Center, 50th Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
For Spectrasite Communications and SBA TOllJers, Inc.
. ~ 6.).'/00'(
~ 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
*******************************
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMB'~RLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SBA TOWERS, INC"
Appellant
v
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
v
CIVIL DIVISION
~ 2004-950 CIVIL
TERM
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, EAST
PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and EAST
PENNSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
PETITION FOR APPEAL
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Appellant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
CIVIL DIVISION
v
NO. 2004-949 CIVIL TERM
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, SOUTH
NEWTON TOWNSHIP and BIG
SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties PETITION FOR APPEAL
*********************************
SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY,
and SHENANDOAH PERSONAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Appellee
CIVIL .ACTION - LAW
NO. 03-4921 CIVIL TERM
:REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL
IN RE: TAX ASSESSMENT 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, Taxpayers' Exhibit 7, Taxpayers'
Exhibit 8, Taxpayers' Exhibit 9, Taxpayers' Exhibit 10,
Taxpayers' Exhibit 11, Taxpayers' Exhibit 12, Taxpayers' Exhibit
13, and Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals Exhibit 3.
Pursuant to a request of counsel, counsel are
afforded a period of 30 days from today's date within which to
submit briefs to the Court on the issues which they perceive to
exist in these cases.
By the Court,
~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 To,;ers, 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
COMMUNICATIaNS
COMPANY,
Plaintiffs
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BaARD aF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
SPECTRASITE
COMMUNICATIaNS,
Plaintiff
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTH MIDDLETaN
TOWNSHIP, and SaUTH
MIDDLETON SCHaaL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
* * * *
SPECTRASITE
COMMUNICATIaNS,
Plaintiff
v.
IN THE CaURT OF COMMON PLEAS aF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
CIVIL ACTIaN--LA W
NO.. 03-4921 CIVIL TERM
* * * *
IN THE COURT OF COMMaN PLEAS aF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
NO. 04-920 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT aF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND CaUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
v.
CIVIL ACTION--LA W
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
UPPER FRANKFORD
TOWNSHIP, and BIG SPRING
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
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.
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
CUMBERLANDCOUNT~
SOUTHAMPDEN TOWNSHIP,
and SHIPPENSBVRG AREA
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
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 THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
V.
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
EAST PENNSBORO
TOWNSHIP, and EAST
PENNSBORO SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
NO. 04-950 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: TAX ASSESSMENT APPEALS
BEFORE OLER, J,
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 15th day of September, 2004, after careful consideration of the
tax assessment appeals filed herein, following a hearing, and for the reasons stated in the
acCOmpanying opinion, it is ordered as follows:
With respect to parcel number 25-25-0006-351 LL:
THE MARKET VALUE as of January 1, 2004 (and for Succeeding years until
revised), for the parcel owned by Shenandoah Mobile Company, situated in New
Cumberland Borough, Cumberland County, Pennsylvarlia, is fixed at $95,000.00.
THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO for Cumberland County has been
stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetermined ratio is 100 percent.
THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of less than 15 percent between the common
level ratio and predetermined ratio, as a result of which assessments are to be determined
by application of the predetermined ratio, the assessment with respect to the aforesaid
parcel is fixed at $95,000.00 as of January 1, 2004, for county and municipal taxes, and
July 1,2004, for school real estate taxes.
With respectto parcel number 43-06-0031-012 LL:
THE MAR.KET VALUE as of January 1,2004 (and for Succeeding years until
revised), for the parcel owned by Spectrasite Communications, situated in Upper
Frankford Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is fixed at $142,000.00.
THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO for Cumberland County has been
stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetermined ratio is 100 percent.
THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of less than 15 percent between the common
level ratio and predetermined ratio, as a result of which assessments are to be determined
by application of the predetermined ratio, the assessment with respect to the aforesaid
parcel is fixed at $142,000.00 as of January 1,2004, for county and municipal taxes, and
July 1,2004, for school real estate taxes.
With respect to parcel number 39-12-0324-004 LL:
THE MARKET VALUE as of January 1,2004 (and for Succeeding years until
revised), for the parcel owned by Spectrasite Communications, situated in Southampton
Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is fixed at $136,530.00.
THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO for Cumberland County has been
stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetermined ratio is roo 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 I, 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 lor Cumberland County has been
stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetennined ratio is 100 percent.
THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of less than 15 percent between the common
level ratio and predetermined ratio, as a result of which assessments are to be determined
by application of the predetennined ratio, the assessment with respect to the aforesaid
parcel is fixed at $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 predetennined ratio is 100 percent.
THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of less than 15 percent between the common
level ratio and predetermined ratio, as a result of which assessments are to be determined
by application of the predetennined ratio, the assessment with respect to the aforesaid
parcel is fixed at $70,000.00 as of January I, 2004, for COWlty and municipal taxes, and
July 1, 2004, for school real estate taxes.
With respect to parcel number 41-1 1-0304-019 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,
Curnberland 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 lis 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,
~I C. Risch, Esq.
10 East High Street
Carlisle, P A 170 I3
Attorney for Shenandoah Mobile Company
and Shenandoah Personal Communications Company
~~y Elias Kirk, Esq.
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esq.
Pepper Hamilton, LLP
One Mellon Center, 50th Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Attorneys for Spectrasite Communications
and SBA Towers, Inc.
)
Og-I~ol
/1
~ark A. Mateya, Esq.
407 North Front Street
Box Il848
Harrisburg, P A 17108
Attorney for County Commissioners
Association of Pennsylvania
Stephen D. Tiley, Esq. J /)
5 South Hanover Street r-crsv~ -Se.f'lk...L
Carlisle, P A 170 I3 , I
q -((>0 I
In Jai'~ ~..Ja({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
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--LA W
NO. 03-4921 CIVIL TERM
* * * *
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
NO. 04-920 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUJ\lTY, PENNSYL VANIA
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
uPPER FRANKFORD
TOWNSHIP, and BIG SPRING
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
SPECTRASITE
COMMUNICATIONS,
Plaintiff
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
v.
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
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 'IRE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
v.
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
EAST PENNSBORO
TOWNSHIP, and EAST
PENNSBORO SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
NO. 04-950 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: TAX ASSESSMENT APPEALS
BEFORE OLER, J.
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 Appe:als as Defendant, as well as
Curnberland County and the local townships and school districts in which the towers
were located as interested parties.6 On March 5, 2004, Plaintiff SBA Towers filed two
petitions for appeal, each listing the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals
I The following cases have been consolidated at Number 03-4921 Civil Term: Numbers 03-4921 Civil
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 Assessmf: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 SpectrasitefUpper
Prankford Township Pet. for Appeal); Pet. for Appeal, filed Mar. 4, 2004 (hereinafter
Spectrasite/Southampden Township Pet. for Appeal); Pet. for Appeal, 1iled Mar. 5,2004 (hereinafter SBA
Towers/South Newton Township Pet. for Appeal); Pet. for Appeal, filled Mar. 5, 2004 (hereinafter SBA
Towers/East Pennsboro Township Pet. for Appeal).
J Shenandoah's Pet. of Appeal.
4 Answer, filed Oct. 2, 2003 (hereinafter Def.' s Answer to Shenandoah'8 Pet.).
5 Praecipe for Listing Case for Trial, filed Jan. 7, 2004.
6 See Spectrasite/South Middleton Township Pet. for Appeal (listing Cumberland County, South
Middleton Township and South Middleton School District as interested parties); SpectrasitefUpper
Prankford Township Pet. for Appeal (listing Cumberland County, Upper Prankford 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 weU as Cumberland County and the local townships and school districts
in which the towers were located as interested parties. 7
On April 13, 2004, Plaintiff Spectrasite Communications filed a motion to
consolidate the six cases pending against Defendant.8 On April 16, 2004, pursuant to an
agreement of counsel, the court ordered the cases consolidated, with filings to be made at
Number 03-4921 Civil Term.9
A pre-hearing conference was held on June 9, 2004,10 and a two-day hearing was
conducted on June 24, 2004, and June 28, 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 FACn1
Plaintiffs are Shenandoah Mobile Company, Shenandoah Personal
Communications Company, Spectrasite Communications, and SBA Towers, Inc. 12
Shenandoah, Spectrasite, and SBA Towers are aU telecommunication tower companies
which own towers throughout Pennsylvania.13 Spectrasite and SBA Towers are also part
of an industry group, along with Crown Communications and American Tower
Company, which is cooperating in the coordination of real estate tax assessment
appeals. 14 Defendant is the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals. 15 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 Molt. To Consolidate).
9 Order ofCt., Apr. 16,2004.
to In Re: Pre-Hearing Conference, June 9, 2004.
It Notes of Testimony 2, Hr'g., June 24,2004, and June 28, 2004 (hereinafter N.T.-->.
t2N.T.I_2.
13 Stipulations of Fact 112, PIs.' Ex. 13, Hr'g., June 24, 2004, and June 28, 2004 (hereinafter Stipulations
of Fact 11-->.
t4 Stipulations of Fact 113.
5
Interested Parties of record are Cumberland County, South Middleton Township, Upper
Frankford Township, Southampden Township, East Pelillsboro Township, South Newton
Township, South Middleton School District, Big Spring School District, Shippensburg
Area School District, and East Pennsboro School District. 16
For the sake of clarity, the word "tower" will be used when referencing the actual
telecommunication towers, and the term "tower facility" will be used when referencing
the tower, fence, concrete foundation and equipment building on each site. With respect
to the types of towers, a monopole tower will be defined as a self-supporting, tubular
tower which ranges 50-200 feet in height.17 A lattice tower will be defined as a self-
supporting, three- or four-legged tower which is widest at the bottom and tapers as it
risesY Lattice towers can reach heights of up to 1,000 fi~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
"N.T.I-2.
16N.T.I_2.
17 Stipulations of Fact ~4.
18 Stipulations of Fact ~4.
19 Stipulations of Fact ~4.
20 Stipulations of Fact ~1O.
2t Stipulations of Fact ~12.
22 Stipulations of Fact ~~5, 7.
23 Stipulations of Fact ~7.
24 Stipulations of Fact ~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
Prankford Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.28 The lease for Tower "B's"
facility commenced on June 3, 1998, and is a four-year Iease, 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 $2 I 7,560.00, 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
Communications.3l It is a l80-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 wi11 automatically be
renewed, unless terminated by the tower company, through five more five-year periods.33
The original assessment issued for the improvements at Tower "C's" facility specified an
assessed value of $244,860.00, which was modified by the Board of Assessment Appeals
to $136,530.00.34
25 Stipulations of Fact 1111.
26 Stipulations of Fact 1113.
27 Stipulations of Fact 117.
28 Stipulations of Fact 117.
29 Stipulations of Fact 1111.
30 Stipulations of Fact 1113.
3l Stipulations of Fact 117.
32 Stipulations of Fact 117.
33 Stipulations of Fact 11] 1.
34 Stipulations of Fact 1113.
7
Tower "D," parcel number 40-10-0632-016 LL, is owned by Spectrasite
Communications.35 It is a 160-foot lattice tower located at 1500 Holly Pike, South
Middleton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.36 The lease for Tower "D's"
facility comrnenced on August 22, 1998, and is a five-year lease, which will
automatically be renewed, unless terminated by the tower cornpany, 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, whkh was modified by the Board of
Assessment Appeals to $136,530.00.38
Tower "E," parcel number 09-22-0533-001 LL, is owned by SBA Towers.39 It is a
120-foot monopole tower located at 4404 Industrial Park Road, East Pennsboro
Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.4o The lease for Tower "E's" facility
commenced on January 1, 2001, and is a five-year lease, which will automatically be
renewed, unless terminated by the tower company, through four more five-year periods
and one period of four years and eleven 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 41-11-0304-019 LL, is owned by SBA Towers.43 It is a
I95-foot lattice tower located at 212 Hammond Road, South Newton Township,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.44 The lease for Tower "F's" facility commenced on
Novernber 21, 1997, and is a five-year lease, which will automatically be renewed, unless
J5 Stipulations of Fact 117.
36 Stipulations of Fact 117.
37 Stipulations of Fact 1111.
38 Stipulations of Fact 1113.
39 Stipulations of Fact 117.
40 Stipulations of Fact 117.
41 Stipulations of Fact 1111.
42 Stipulations of Fact 1113.
43 Stipulations of Fact 117.
44 Stipulations of Fact 117.
8
terminated by the tower company, through four more five-year periods and one period of
four years and eleven months.45 The original assessment issued for the improvements at
Tower "F's" facility specified an assessed value of $244,860.00, which was modified by
the Board of Assessment Appeals to $100,000.00.46
Cumberland County is a fourth class county.47 The predetermined assessment
ratio for real estate in Cumberland County is 100 percent.48 The above assessment values
which were determined by the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals
represent the fair market value of each of the tower facilities.49 The common level ratio,
which is set at 95.4 percent for Cumberland County, is not implicated as a factor in these
cases because it does not vary by more than 15 percent from the predetermined ratio. 50
Much of the testimony at the hearing focused on the question of whether
Plaintiffs' towers were, or were at least intended to be, permanent fixtures at the tower
facilities. This testimony included explanations about the erection and disassembly of
telecommunication towers, reasons for removing or replacing towers, and general trends
in the tower industry pertaining to the erection and removal of towers.
The process of erecting a tower begins with the subrnission of bids. 51 The bid
forms are broken down by the tasks which need to be performed. 52 These tasks include,
but are not limited to, foundation work, tower erection, electrical work, fencing, and
landscaping. 53 After bids have been submitted and jobs awarded, preparation of the
tower facility site begins, including erecting a fence, clearing the trees and vegetation,
45 Stipulations of Fact 1)11.
46 Stipulations of Fact 1)13.
47 See Act of Aug. 9, 1955, P.L. 323, ~21O, as amended 16 P.S. ~21O.
48 Stipulations of Fact 1)15.
49 Stipulations of Fact 1)15.
50 Stipulations of Fact 1)15.
"N.T.146.
52 See PIs.' Ex. 3, Hr'g., June 24, 2004 and June 28, 2004 (hereinafter Pls.'/Def.'s Ex. -.-:J; 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 ofInternal
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 Spectras:ite, and Andrew Getsy, a Field
Operations Manager for SBA.58 First, engineers conduct a geotechnical analysis to
determine 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 determined, 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
54N.T.146-47.
55 N.T. 147.
56 N.T. 140.
57N.T. 27-28, 99.
58 N.T. 204-05, 221.
"N.T.48.
60 N.T. 48.
61 NT 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 towc: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.7o 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 telecornmunication towers as he narratled a videotape showing the
disassembly of a tower in West Virginia.72 The West Virginia tower was a ISO-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.
67 N.T. 140.
"NT 42, 141.
69N.T.42,141_42.
70 See N.T. 42-43, 114; see also Def.'s Ex. 1.
71 See N.T. 147, 156-57.
72 N.T. 110, 114; PIs.' Ex. 35.
"N.T.114-15.
74 N.T. 156-57.
75 See NT 157-58.
II
Once these preliminary matters had been addressed, riggers ascended the tower
and securely attached the strapping frorn 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
disassernbled and the parts were categorized before being taken away.80 Eventually, the
riggers unbolted the final section of the tower, which was the section attached to the
concrete foundation. 81 After the last section had been unbolted from the foundation and
disassembled, the riggers cleaned up the site, the last of the tower pieces were taken
away, and the tower disassembly was cornplete.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.
"N.T. ]17-18.
78 N.T. 118-19.
79 N.T. 119.
80N.T.119.
"N.T.13!.
82N.T.131_35.
83 See N.T. 126, 135.
84 N.T. ]26-27.
85N.T.150-51,170_7!.
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 thf: 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.9o The only parts of the
towers which must be replaced after disassembly are the bolts which hold the pieces and
sections of the tower together. 91 Additionally, any pieces of the tower which are
damaged during disassembly also must be replaced before the tower can be
reassembled.92 Otherwise, the towers can either be transported to a new site and erected,
or put in a storage facility until they are needed for 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 circurnstances.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
'ON.T. 150-51,170-71.
87 N.T. 55.
88 See N.T. 55, 144-45,207. The lack of any damage to parts of the tower facility during disassembly is
evidenced by the tower industry's occasional "drop and swap" practiee, 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.
'9N.T.55.
90 N.T. 139.
91 N.T. 138.
92 N.T. 120, 156.
93 N.T. 120, 139.
94 N.T. 60-62, 196.
13
populated area.95 Additionally, there might be times when a tower would no longer be a
sufficient height; therefore, the original tower would be disassembled and a taller tower
would be erected in its place.96 This procedure is referred to in the industry as a "drop
and swap.',97 Finally, sometimes a company will build a spec site, which is a tower
facility that is built in anticipation that companies will eventually want to attach antennas
to it.98 If the tower were to become financially unviable because companies did not
attach antennas to it, or if zoning requirements mandatt:d 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
equiprnent. 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.lOl Mr. Doylt: testified that, of the well over
400 towers which his cornpany owns in Pennsylvania, his cornpany 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.
96 N.T. 144.
97 N.T. 144-45.
98 NT 159.
99N.T.196_97.
100 See N.T. 27-28, 74,103,109-10,215,226.l101 N.T. 27-28, 74.
102 NT 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, telecornmunication towers whic:h 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 20 I of the Fourth to Eighth Class County
Assessment Law provides for the assessrnent 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 exernpt by
law frorn taxation. . . .
Act of May 21, 1943, P.L. 571, 9201, as amended, 72 P.S. 95453.201.
Assessment of Chattels as Real Property for Real Estate Taxation. As a general
proposition in real property law, there are three classifications for chattels that are used in
connection with real estate:
IOJN.T.215.
104N.T.226.
105 N.T. 230.
106 N.T. 234-35; PIs.' Ex. 9.
15
First, those which are manifestly furniture, as distinguished from
irnprovements, and not peculiarly fitted to the property with which they are
used; these always rernain personalty. Second, those which are so annexed
to the property that they cannot be rernoved WitllOut material injury to the
real estate or to themselves; these are realty, even in the face of an
expressed intention that they should be considere: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 personality, 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. Comrnw. 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 ofre: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 irnportant 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 itern rnore 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 sirnilar 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 volurne. 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 Comrnon Pleas of Dauphin County, Bratton, J., has in a
recent decision addressed the specific issue of real estate taxation of telecomrnunication
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 rernoved
without causing injury to the real estate. See, e.g., Shenandoah Mobile Co. v. Dauphin
County Ed. of Assessment Appeals, docketed at 2003 CV 3196 TX, Dauphin County,
2004.
Application of Law to Facts
In the court's view, Plaintiffs' telecommunication ltowers 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 rnost irnportant, the intent of the parties that the towers be
features of the real estate as opposed to transient iterns 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 Septernber, 2004, after careful consideration of the
tax assessrnent appeals filed herein, following a hearing, and for the reasons stated in the
accornpanying 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 predeterrnined ratio is 100 percent.
TIIERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of less than 15 percent between the comrnon
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 nurnber 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 Cornmunications, 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 cornmon
level ratio and predeterrnined ratio, as a result of which assessrnents are to be determined
by application of the predetermined ratio, the assessrnent with respect to the aforesaid
parcel is fixed at $142,000.00 as of January 1,2004, for county and municipal taxes, and
July 1, 2004, for school real estate taxes.
With respect to parcel nurnber 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 Comrnunications, situated in Southampton
Township, Curnberland County, Pennsylvania, is fixed at $136,530.00.
THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO for Curnberland 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 assessrnent with respect to the aforesaid
parcel is fixed at $136,530.00 as of January 1,2004, for county and municipal taxes, and
July 1, 2004, for school real estate taxes.
With respect to parcel number 40-10-0632-016 LL:
THE MARKET VALUE as of January 1,2004 (and for succeeding years until
revised), for the parcel owned by Spectrasite Communications, situated in South
Middleton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is fixed at $136,530.00.
THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO for Cumberland County has been
stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetermined ratio is 100 percent.
THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of less than 15 percent between the comrnon
level ratio and predetermined ratio, as a result of which assessments are to be determined
by application of the predetermined ratio, the assessm(:nt with respect to the aforesaid
parcel is fixed at $136,530.00 as of January 1,2004, for county and municipal taxes, and
July I, 2004, for school real estate taxes.
With respect to parcel number 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 115 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 I, 2004, for school real estate taxes.
With respect to parcel number 41-11-0304-019 LL:
19
THE MARKET VALUE as of January 1,2004 (and for succeeding years until
revised), for the parcel owned by SBA Towers, Inc., situated in South Newton Township,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is fixed at $100,000.00.
THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO for Cumberland County has been
stipulated to be 95.4 percent. The predetermined ratio is 100 percent.
THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of less than 15 percent between the common
level ratio and predetermined ratio, as a result of which assessments are to be determined
by application of the predetermined ratio, the assessment with respect to the aforesaid
parcel is fixed at $100,000.00 as of January 1,2004, for county and municipal taxes, and
July 1, 2004, for school real estate taxes.
BY THE COURT,
s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr.
J. Wesley Oller, 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 Comrnissioners
Association of Pennsylvania
20
Stephen D. Tiley, Esq.
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
Attorney for Curnberland County
Board of Assessment Appeals
Philip H. Spare, Esq.
44 West Main Street
P.O. Box 318
Mechanicsburg, P A 17055
Attorney for Big Spring and
South Middleton School Districts
21
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Appellants,
CNIL DIVISION
No. 03-4921 /.
No. 04-920 ;;
No. 04-921./
No. 04-922./
No. 04-949 J /
No. 04-950 V
(Consolidated at No. 03-4921)
SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY et a!.,
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 LD. No. 30702
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
PA LD. No. 74520
PEPPER HAJ\1ILTON LLP
Firm LD. No. 143
One Mellon Center, 50th Floor
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
(412) 454-5000
Counsel for Spectrasite Communications and
SEA Towers, Inc.
and
Carl C. Risch, Esquire
PA LD. 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!.DOC)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee.
) CNIL DIVISION
)
) No. 03-4921
) No. 04-920
) No. 04-921
) No. 04-922
) No. 04-949
) No. 04-950
) (Consolidated at No. 03-4921)
)
)
)
SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY et aI.,
Appellants,
vs.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
ET AL.
CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAJNED OF ON APPEAL
I. 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. S 5020-201;
b. the Court committed an error of law in ruling that the
telecommunication towers "although their removal is not a praetical impossibility" are firmly
affixed to the ground, given that the marmer 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 annexation was for the telecommunication towers to become part of the
realty; and
e. the Court committed an error of law in ruling that
telecommunication towers are classified as realty for the purpos<es 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
\-:)~u~-KvJv
Dusty Eli irk
PA LD. No. 30702:
Sharon F. DiPaolo
PA LD. No. 74520
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
Firm LD. No. 143
50th Floor, One M<ellon Center
500 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, P A 15219-2502
(412) 454-5000
Counsel for Spectrasite Communications and
SBA Towers, Inc.
and
Carl C. Risch
PA LD. No. 75901
MARTSON, DEPJIDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
(717) 243-3341
Counsel for Shenandoah Mobile Company and
Shenandoah Personal Communications Company
-2-
PT: #198111 vI (48V3011.DOC)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy ofth" within Concise Statement of
Matters Complained of on Appeal was served upon the following parties by first class mail,
postage prepaid, on this .;?~~ay 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
I West High Street
P.O. Box 1290
Carlisle, P A 17013
Richard L. Webber, Jr., Esquire
Solicitor, Southampden Township
Weigle & Associates
126 East King Street
Shippensburg, P A 17257
Henry F. Coyne, Esquire
Solicitor, East Pennsboro Township
390 I Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Mark A. Mateya, Esquire
P.O. Box 127
Boiling Springs, P A 17007
PT: #198111 vI (48V301 !.DOC)
Robert L. 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, P A 17055
Jerry A. Weigle, Esquire
Solicitor, Shippensburg Area School District
Weigle & Associates
126 East King Street
Shippensburg, P A 17257
Donna S. Weldon, Esquire
Solicitor, East Pennsboro School District
Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal LLP
210 Walnut Street
P.O. Box 11963
Harrisburg, P A 17108-1963
Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire
Solicitor, South New10n Township
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
~~~~~~
.,
-.'
'1
"
;1.:
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, 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, PENNSYLVANIA
.
"
,
t ; "d,,-,.......,rl
I\~ _, "__,'
" .
7,
:".,..
,'- .
'_',_J
..-::}
,',
f. ,-. ~
,3 '_ ,-,u
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
UPPER FRANKFORD
TOWNSHIP, and BIG SPRING
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
SPECTRASITE
COMMUNICATIONS,
Plaintiff
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
Defendant
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
SOUTHAMPDEN TOWNSHIP,
and SHIPPENSBURG AREA
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Interested Parties
SBA TOWERS, INC.,
Plaintiff
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
* * * *
* * * *
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
NO. 04-921 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
NO. 04-922 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, 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 .
Harrisburg, PA 17108 I
Attorney for County Commissioners Assqbiation of Pennsylvania
I
Robert L. Knupp, Esq. \
Knupp, Kodak & Imblum, P.C. \
407 North Front Street ",
.,
Harrisburg, PA 17108 /
Attorney for Shenandoah Personal Commu1,)i'cations Company
/
C!~~ ~
lJ-J 7 -of
Stephen Douglas Tiley, Esq.
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
Attorney for Cumberland County Board! of Assessment Appeals
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 Middleton School Districts
\
j
!
\
Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esq. \ "'>-
Pepper Hamilton, LLP /
One Mellon Center, 50th Floor l
500 Grant Street \
Pittsburgh, P A 15219 \
Attorney for Spectrasite Communicati~s and SBA Towers, Inc.
1
c~~
Id- J- ~I-O~
/
/
/'
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.! 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? 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 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 ofCt., Apr. 16,2004.
2 See Pet. of Appeal from Determination of RChl Estate Tax Assessment, filed Sept. 18, 2003 (hereinafter
Shenandoah's Pet. of Appeal); Pet. for Appeal, filed Mar. 4, 2004 (hereinafter Spectrasite/South
Middleton Township Pet. for Appeal); Pet. for AppeaL filed Mar, 4, 2004 (hereinafter Spectrasite/Upper
Frankford Township Pet. for Appeal); Pet. f(,1' Appeal, filed Mar. 4, 2004 (hereinafter
Spectrasite/Southampton Township Pet. for Appeal); Pet, fi)r Appeal, filed Mar. 5, 2004 (hereinafter SBA
Towers/South Newton Township Pet. for Appeal): Pet. for Appeal, filed Mar,S, 2004 (hereinafter SBA
Towers/East Pennsboro Township Pet. for Appeal).
3 Notes of Testimony 2, Hr'g., June 24, 2004, and June 28,2004 (hereinafter N.T..->.
4 Shenandoah Mobile Co, v. Cumberland County 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 Matlers Complained of on Appeal, filed Nov. 8,2004.
2
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Charles R. Hostutler
Deputy Prothonotary IChief Clerk
August 12, 2005
Notice of Discontinuance of Action
RE: Shenandoah Mobile et al. v. Cumberland Cnty Bd
Appeal of:
Type of Action: Notice of Appeal
No. 2173 CD 2004
Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas
Agency Docket Number: 03-4921
04-920
04-921
04-922
04-949
04-950 v
Irvis Office Buildinfl. Room 624
Harrisbure. PA 17120
717-255-1650
Cerllfied from the RllCOId
1m 1 2 Z005
and Ortler ExIt
The above-captioned matter has been marked "DisGontinued" with this court.
Certification is being sent to the lower court.
Attorney Name
Party Name
Jeffrey S. Blum, Esq.
Joseph Anthony Cortese, Esq.
Kristi Akins Davidson. Esq.
Robert L. Knupp
Spectrasite Communications
Verizon Wireless
Spectrasite Communications
Coun\y Commissioners Association of
Pennsylvania
Spectrasite Communications
Shenandoah Mobile Compclny
Big Springs School Dis\ric\
Cumberland County Board of Assessment
Appeals
Stanley Joel Parker, Esq.
Carl C. Risch, Esq.
Philip Haring Spare, Esq.
Stephen Douglas Tiley, Esq.
Party Type
Appeilant
Amicus Curiae
Appeilant
Amicus Curiae
Appeilant
Appeilant
Appeilee
Appeilee
(') ....., 0
=
C <'" "
s: ""
-o\~ > :i:!,.,
flIrT c:::
Z'" c:> ~~
~)~:u CJ1
-<~- 0
r;: c>, '!!-f'
~-;<- -0 .. --1
0"-
Z'. 3 ;;>,0
5>0 Om
c
~ c- ~
&'" -<