HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-7440V
IN RE: APPEAL OF
HOWELL P. BROOKES
and
NANCY S. BROOKES
Appellants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. fn
NO.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
r?
ASSESSMENT, CUMBERLAND COUNTY REAL ESTATE TAX
ASSESSMENT APPEAL
Appellee
Parcel No. 17-24-0789-161 yam::
APPEAL OF HOWELL P. BROOKES AND NANCY S. BROOKES FROM THE `
DECISION OF THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
cn
rmr
-ca
rv
AND NOW, Appellants, Howell P. Brookes and Nancy S. Brookes,
represented by Mr. Brookes, hereby appeal the decision of the
Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals (hereinafter the
"BOARD")
Summary of Exhibits
Exhibit "A" - Spreadsheet containing values for ten comparable
Properties sold between Spring 2010 and Fall 2011.
Exhibit "B" - Market Analysis performed by RAYAC
Exhibit "C" - Estimate to add central A/C to the Property
=5r
r:;
1. Appellants Howell P. and Nancy S. Brookes of 403 Alison
Avenue, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-6657 are the titled owners of
real estate identified as Tax Parcel Number 17-24-0789-161
(hereinafter the "Property").
2. Appellee, Cumberland County Board of Assessment, is an
agency of the County of Cumberland with an address of Old
9v -1eq "od, e?a?4
Page 1 of 7
Courthouse, First Floor, One Courthouse Square, Carlisle, PA
17013.
3. Mechanicsburg Borough is a municipality and affected
taxing authority with offices located in the Borough Hall at 36
West Allen Street in the Borough of Mechanicsburg.
4. Mechanicsburg School District is a school district and
affected taxing authority at 100 East Elmwood Avenue,
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
5. Cumberland County is a fourth Class County of
Pennsylvania and affected taxing authority with an address of One
Courthouse Square, Carlisle, PA 17013.
6. The appealed assessed value of the Property was
$214,800 for the building and land combined. The suggested new
assessed value of $180,000 is based on a statistical analysis of
comparable properties presented to the Board.
7. Appellants appealed the assessment to the Board and a
hearing was held by the Cumberland County Board of Assessment
Appeals on September 1, 2011.
8. The Appellant's believe the Board did not fully
consider the statistical evidence compiled from the Board's
online database (TAXDB.CCPA.NET) and presented in the form of a
spreadsheet, like Exhibit "A", which clearly demonstrates the
following factual information and calculated analytical data:
(a) Ten (10) properties located within the Property's sub
division of Heritage Acres were selected from those that were
Page 2 of 7
sold for less than their assessed value (based on actual sales)
in the time period from May 2010 to September 2011 clearly
demonstrating a reduction in true market value consistent with
observed local (see Exhibit B), state and national trends since
the collapse of the residential housing market that occurred
subsequent to the period when the 2010 reassessment was performed
by 21st Century Appraisers (Mr. Tim Barr, et. Al.). As such, the
assessed values used by the Board do not reflect current market
conditions.
(b) The street address, the date of sale, the assessed
value, the sale price and the square footage of the ten
properties are used to calculate several statistical values which
are then compared to the Property to determine a new market
value.
(c) The "Percent" column represents the reduction of market
value when the higher assessed value is compared to the actual
sale price. The reduction in value ranges from 6.56% to 24.750
with an average of 15.18% which is calculated by comparing the
sum of the ten assessed values ($1,429,700) with the sum of the
ten sold values ($1,212,700).
(d) The calculated "per square foot value" is calculated by
dividing the sold price by the square footage of each house which
are both taken from the Tax Data Base (TAXDB.CCPA.NET).
(e) The "Average Value per Square Foot" is calculated using
two methods: (1) A simple average of the column values ($97), and
Page 3 of 7
(2) dividing the total "Sold" value by the total square footage
($93) and then used to calculate two fair market values for the
Property.
(f) Each value in the Sq. Ft. Column is then multiplied by
1854, the size of the House on the Property, to determine a
normalized, new assessed value for the Property. The two values
in item (e) above and a third new assessed value of $181,900
(calculated by reducing the assessed value of the Property by the
average percent reduction in sold values of the ten comparable
properties) is used to determine the recommended new assessed
value of $180,000 for the Property.
8. The Appellants allege they are being penalized in the
form of a higher tax assessment which does not reflect current
market conditions as demonstrated by an analysis of recorded
sales from the Board's own data base which illustrates a clear
pattern of property devaluation in the period from Spring 2010 to
Fall 2011.
9. The Appellants believe the Board can not present to the
Court an equal number of comparable sales that would
statistically validate its assessed value of $214,000 as a true
"current market value" for the Property.
10. The Appellants dispute the contention put forth by the
Board during the Formal Appeal that only two-story homes of
nearly identical size can be used as comparables when appealing
an assessment. Specifically, the Appellants reject the
Page 4 of 7
contention put forth by the board that "ranch homes" can not be
compared to "two story homes" despite the Assessor's Office
acknowledging during the hearing that ranch homes have a higher
average per square foot values and their inclusion would
disadvantage the Appellants' analysis.
11. Furthermore, the Appellants dispute the contention put
forth by the Board during the Formal Appeal that "square footage"
values can not be used as a basis for comparing property values
since the Board's own data base contains square footage for both
buildings and land which were accurately calculated from
measurements made by the field agents of the Board's paid
Appraisal Company (21st Century) and are a generally accepted
metric used by professional appraisers, residential builders and
real estate brokers as a primary tool (along with other factors
like location and condition) to properly ascribe value to a
property.
12. The Appellants believe the ten comparable properties
used in their market value analysis are comparable by virtual of
the following facts:
(a) They are located within the same subdivision which was
developed by a small subset of builders using a small set of
standard home models of similar character and size that would be
marketed within a narrow price range that would appeal to a
specific market segment.
Page 5 of 7
(b) They therefore share characteristics of construction,
design and price which remain constant in today's market.
(c) Lot sizes are also consistent ranging between .21 and
.25 acres making the square footage of the house the biggest
variable in initial and future market pricing.
(d) The overall character of the subdivision remains
constant and influences home prices equally.
13. For these reasons the Appellants believe using square
footage values for comparing market values of similarly situated
homes within a subdivision where most other considerations of
value (location, neighborhood character and lot size) are nearly
identical should be accepted and used by the Board as it is in
other professions to calculate accurate market values.
14. The Appellants believe that Exhibit "B" should be
accepted by the Board as evidence of a "regional" (i.e. Central
PA) decline in property values from which Cumberland County is
not immune.
15. The Appellants therefore request the Honorable Court to
direct the Board to adjust the assessment value of the Property
consistent with the evidence provided in this appeal and outlined
in Exhibit "A".
16. The Appellants submit Exhibit "C" as evidence that the
Board greatly underestimated the cost to install Central A/C in
the Property during the Formal Appeal when adjusting valuations
for comparable properties with A/C.
Page 6 of 7
WHEREFORE, the Appellants request this Honorable Court to
accept this factual analysis of the Board's own data collected by
their authorized appraisers and reverse the Decision of the
Cumberland County Board of Appeals, reduce the assessment to the
true market value proposed in Exhibit "A" and thereafter make all
necessary orders and decrees to effectuate said Decisions.
Respectfully submitted,
and
Nancy S. Br okes Howell P. Brookes
403 Alison Avenue
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-6657 -
(717) 697-8657
Page 7 of 7
:S O 0 M 00 O m N 0?/? N//? 1?`/? T- 1` v o
-Fu 0 /0? ?/? 0 O O d• 0 Y/ 0 V/ 00 M No
O V/ YJ 1` ? M 00 0 O M 1` 1\ w m
MO 1` O CO M M N? 00 ? 00 N N ?
W M 0 0 0 N N m 1-- m 1` w 00
N T- N ? ? ? N ? N ? r' V r
Q 41} 69 619, 69 69 69 69 09- 69 69 619, 609, 40
M
O
qq
+-' ti 00 O 1` 00 O 0 e- 1` 'T 1` M 1`
? O? ? f` O 00 r- CO N O 07 O Q? C7 °
Ef3 r Ef} r 6q r 69 r 69 ?- 49. Eg 00
Cl) 69 69 69 69 t} 69
6F} ?
V- W? M O It M 0 0? 0 ON T- ti
&O M?' 1` O 0 N 0 0 m m O
r co
V
a 0 0 o
a) 1` co
?00coq-
Lo 00
a N
X X
ti ti
N
0 0
co O
N ?
O N
0 0 0 0 0
1?- Lo It O co
V- T- c?Lf) -r->
LC) co r- CO 0 Q
x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 M Lo O O M 0 0 0 0 1`
O 00 M N O O O O M O O N
co 0 ti 00 00 ti It 0) N L O T-
N T- N N
(h0 Q0 I-
N r I` N
fn N N
Q
O
O
O
N
O
N
6
cle)
N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lo 0 O CO O ti
O 1? CV CA O
CA 00 O ?t CO N
N N ?- N
r
V- O r- ..- O - ? T- O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N O
N
Q > .Q •L
Cl)
Z 0
Z
Q
LL
Q CL
Q
.E..r
(D
to
C
0
0
0
L-
c U)
0 N
CU
Rf Y
U
?c
y •? `? ?' q-
m
o
j
?
Q
Q
Q .
c)
?
c) C
cn m
? V o
U
M T 14' E N O co 0 0 Lo
0 M
Q 0
v 0
Lo 0
F- ,
Lo 0
00
CO
? 0
Lo
ti ?
- 0
CO
C
Sr
A nionthlyrevicwofthe residential peal estate mavketin fork K Adams Counties
July 2011 Housing Statistics
The REALTORS Association of York & Adams Counties (RAYAC) reports that a total
of 383 homes were sold in Adams County through July of 2011, the same amount of
homes sold in the same time period in 2010. In York County 2,002 homes were sold in
the first seven months of 2011, an 15% decrease from 2010. The median sales price in
Adams County was $163,000, a 12% decrease from last year. The median sale price in
York County was $142,000, a 5% decrease from 2010 sales.
"With record high affordability conditions and interest rates at historic lows we are encouraged by a positive trend that we see when
July 2011 sales are compared to July 2010," stated Marty Sowa RAYAC President. "Across both counties the median sales price has
trended upwards since March of 2011. Tight loan standards are keeping some buyers from purchasing homes and the national
economic issues could be causing hesitation among some consumers and lenders. The stabilization in median home prices, jobs and
consumer confidence are keys to the recovery of our housing market."
RAYAC MLS Statistics by School District
,2 v1O-,2011 (January ] July 31) Comparison
School District 2011
Median
Sale
Price 2010
Median
Sale
Price % Change 2011
Number
Sold 2010
Number
Sold % Channe
Adams County
Bermudian Springs $135,000 $191,000 -29% 49 54 -9%
Con+ Valley $156,490 $173,250 -10°!0 1t}9 115 -5%
Fairfield $185, 000 $175.000 6% 42 32 31
Gettp burg $182, 500 $195, 000 -$% 90 89 1 %
Littlestown $160,000 $190,000 -16% 59 62 -51/,
Upper Adwns $150,000 $176,000 -15% 34 31 10%:
Total Adams
County
$163,000
$184,900
-12%
383
383
0%
York County
Central $171,175 $164,000 4% 194 265 -27%
DaikWown $159,000 $177,050 -10%a 219 258 -15%
Dover $138,450 $144,445 -4% 144 156 -8%
Eastern $131,500 $135,000 --3% 75 91 -18%0
Hanover $131,450 $138,450 -5% 72 74 -3%
Nortxmtern $145,000 $154,9W $% 117 155 -25°10
Northern $205,000 $171,000 20% 41 57 -28%
Red Lion $139,950 $149,900 -7% 194 215 -10%
South Eastern $179,000 $184,000 -3% 91 74 23%
South Westem $153,500 $169,250 -9°k 120 134 -10%
Southern $185,000 $195.000 -5% 98 101 -3%
Spring Grove $144,498 $163,900 -12% 116 123 $°!°
West Shore $164,220 $165,000 0% 65 65 0%
West York $129, 900 $139, 8W -7% 123 150 -180A
York City $38,250 $55,000 -30% 198 252 -21%
York Suburbs $145,000 $162,000 -10°10 135 173 -22%
Total York Count $142,000 $150,000 -5% 2002 2343 -15%
AMMON LanCasler 717.625.1500
Harrsbuig 717.795.1700
York 717.845.4500
4 ?s- Lebanon 717.838.6837
8BB Chester 610.518.2350
PLUA48ING • HEATING • COOLING www. hallemW
ELECTRICAL • WATER CONDITIONING erpTlSes COR1
HALLER-ONE CALL HANDLES IT ALL Lancaster 717.625.150o Harrisburg 717 795.17oo York 717.845.45oo Chester/Berks
61o.518.235o
Name: Hal Brooks Consultant Nick Potocki
Site Address: 403 Alison Ave Date: 9/26/2011 Billing Address:
City: M- Burg Proposal #: RCCO50926201193358-3 City:
State: PA State:
Phone: 717 697 8657Zip: 17050 Phone: Postal Code:
TRANE XL15i HEAT PUMP System Investment
Base System: $12,907.82
Optional Items Total: $0.00
<$0.00>
<$0.00>
Sales Tax: $0.00
System Total: $12,907.82
Initial Investment: $0.00
Balance: $12,907.82
Term: Rate: % Est. Payment : $0.00
Investment Type:
Net Investment After Credit & Rebates $12,907.82
V (f " I
By signing this agreement I acknowledge that I have read and
understand each page, including the terms and conditions.
Customer Date
• 212 Bucky Drive , PC Box 375 • Lititz , PA 17543 - Ph : 717.625.1500 -
www.hallerenterprises.com
Representative Date
Approved by Date
Serving Lancaster, Harrisburg, York, Lebanon - Home Improvement Contractor
Registration # PA 1867
Page 1
IN RE: APPEAL OF
HOWELL P. BROOKES
and
NANCY S. BROOKES -
Appellants
V.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF .
ASSESSMENT, CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Appellee
Parcel No. 17-24-0789-161
IN THE COURT OF C0MNlON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. r r 7 y?y ei(,N?"'
REAL ESTATE TAXI
ASSESSMENT APPEAL
. ;r
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW this 43 day of l , 2011, upon
consideration, Appellant's (Howell P. Brookes and Nancy S.
l-,
F
:70
w CD
-'s-1
c,• )
Brookes represented by Mr. Brookes on behalf of himself and his
wife, Nancy) Petition for Appeal of the Decision Order of the
Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals dated September 1,
2011, it is hereby ORDERDED and DECREED that said petition is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that hearing relative to the
above-referenced appeal will occur in Court Room No. of
the Cumberland County Courthouse on the `D day of
20/ at o'clock M.
'Id
., 04Pq c?5. gooks (oI . d
HO=l P. &r&S de['`e`?
? Ct? "1 Page I of I
BY THE COURT
IN RE: APPEAL OF : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
HOWELL P. BROOKES and : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
NANCY S. BROOKES, : PENNSYLVANIA
Appellants _
V.
rnW
rn
r
• .L
CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 2011-7440 CIVIL TERM = '
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
: REAL ESTATE TAX X
Appellee : ASSESSMENT APPEAL ?` R-,
Parcel
No. 17-24-0789-161 s-
?-;
ORDER
AND NOW, this Z 4 * day of February, 2012, upon Stipulation and Joint Motion
for Agreed Order, it is Decreed and Ordered that the fair market value of the property which is
the subject of this appeal, as of the date of the original Petition to the Cumberland County Board
of Assessment Appeals, to wit: August 30, 2011, is $190,000. As a result of the year 2010
Cumberland Countywide reassessment, the predetermined ratio is 100% of year 2010 fair market
value. The Common Level Ratio is not applicable to the year 2010 Countywide reassessment
values. Therefore, the assessment of the property shall be $190,000. This assessment shall be
implemented with year 2012 County and municipal taxes and year 2012/13 school real estate
taxes, and shall continue thereafter until revised in accordance with law.
The Cumberland County Assessment Officer shall allocate the said assessment between
land and improvements in accordance with the law and procedures of the Cumberland County
Assessment Office, and shall instruct the taxing bodies to make any appropriate refunds. The
said Stipulation and Joint Motion for Agreed Order is incorporated herein.
By The Co rt
Kevin A. ess, P. J.
cc: /Mr. and Mrs. Howell P. Brookes
i/ Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire
C p,es ?r ? l{e4 3 f 1 JI