Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-2769 CivilEAST PENNSBORO AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, - Appellant Mo CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT and PROSPERITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Appellees IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY-; PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -- LAW No. 97-2769 CIVIL TERM AND NOW, this 21st day of September, 1998, upon consideration of the tax assessment appeal filed herein, following a hearing and in accordance with the accompanying Opinion, it is ordered as follows: THE MARKET VALUE as of August 1, 1996 (and for succeeding years until revised), for the 10.37 acre parcel owned by Appellee Prosperity Development Company, situated in East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and bearing tax parcel number 09-20-1854-004, is fixed at $8,500,000.00. THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO for Cumberland County has been stipulated to be seven percent. The predetermined ratio was 25 percent. THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of more 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 common level ratio to market value, the assessment with respect to the aforesaid parcel is fixed at $595,000.00 as of the aforesaid date. BY THE COURT, Richard C. Snelbaker, Esq. SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SP~P.C. 44 West Main Street MechaniCsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Appellant Stephen D. Tiley, Esq. 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Appellee Cumberland County Board of Assessment Michael J. Pykosh, Esq. Suite 205, Wagner Building 355 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Prosperity Development Company EAST PENNSBORO AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, '~ - Appellant Vo CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT and PROSPERITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Appellants IN THE COURT OF coMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNT¥~ PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -- LAW No. 97-2769 CIVIL TERM IN RE: TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL BEFORE OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., September 21, 1998. This case is a tax assessment appeal filed on behalf of East Pennsboro Area School District with respect to certain real estate owned by Prosperity Development Company. A hearing on the matter was held on June 3, 1998. The county board of assessment initially determined the market value of the property to be $6,590,000.00) On the present appeal, the owner's expert has placed its value at $7,830,000.00.z The school district's expert has placed its value at $9,000,000.00.3 Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the following Statement of Facts, Discussion and Order of Court are made and entered. ~ This valuation followed an appeal to the board by the owner of an assessment of $662,100.00, which indicated a market value of $9,458,571.00. See Appellant's Petition and Notice of Appeal, paragraphs 6-8; Reply of Appellee Prosperity Development Company, paragraphs 6-8. z Appellee's Exhibit 1 (Appraisal of Equity Appraisal Co., Inc.), at 67. 3 Appellant's Exhibit 1 (Appraisal of Hirsh Valuation Group), at 83. STATEMENT OF FACTS ' - Appellant is the East Pennsbor~-::Area School DiStrict, a pubii.c _school districtin Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, ._~having offices at ~890 Valley Street, Enola, Pennsylvania? Appellee Cumberland County Board of Assessment is the board which hears and determines appeals from assessments made by the chief county assessor? Appellee Prosperity Development Company, is a business entity having offices at 2525 North 7th Street, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, and is the record owner of a 10.37 acre tract of land situated generally at the intersection of North 21st Street and Routes 11/15 (Camp Hill Bypass) in East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.6 It bears Tax Parcel Number 09-20-1854-004.7 This property is located in the south-central part of the Commonwealth, about three miles west of Harrisburg, the state capital (and county seat of Dauphin County), and about 15 miles east of the Borough of Carlisle, the county seat of Cumberland County.8 The area is generally prosperous.9 The property is within five miles of an interchange of the 4 Appellant's Petition and Notice of Appeal, paragraph 1; Reply of Appellee Prosperity Development Company, paragraph 1. s Appellant's Petition and Notice of Appeal, paragraph 23; Reply of Appellee Prosperity Development Company, paragraph 23; Act of May 21, 1943, P.L. 571, §302(b)(1), as amended, 72 P.S. §5453.302(b)(1). 6 Appellee's Exhibit 1 (Appraisal of Equity Appraisal Co., Inc.), at 10; Appellant's Exhibit 1 (Appraisal of Hirsh Valuation Group), at 9, 21. Access to the property is available only from North 21st Street. Id., at 21. 7 Appellant's Petition and Notice of Appeal, paragraph 4; Reply of Appellant Prosperity Development Company, paragraph 4. 8 Appellant's Exhibit 1 (Appraisal of Hirsh Valuation Group), at 9. 9 In 1996, the Harrisburg Area population was estimated to be 613,062, with a population growth rate of 4.3 percent. Icl., at 10. As of August 1996, the unemployment rate 2 Pennsylvania Turnpike.l° The land is zoned Commercial General by the mUniciPality, aCCording to one ~xis~/~;tt and Professional Office District, according to another.~2 The improvements on the tract, in addition to a pump station,13 have been summarized as follows: The site currently is improved with a 1-story detached service station building, a 1-story detached fast-food restaurant building, a 5-story detached office building, a 3-story detached office building, and a retail strip center with a 1-story semi- detached drugstore, and a 1 and part 2-story semi-detached restaurant building with a mezzanine? More specifically, these improvements are occupied by an Exxon gasoline service station, a Wendy's fast-food establishment, an office building known as Plaza 21, an office building known as the American Office Center, and a strip shopping center consisting of a Weis food market, a Thrift drug store, and a J.C. Dunphy's Pub? Paved drive and parking areas surround the buildings? The areas and property rights associated with the buildings have been outlined as follows: in Cumberland County was the lowest in the state (2.7%), and the unemployment rate in Dauphin County was the second lowest in the state (3.0%). Id., at 13. ~0 Appellee's Exhibit 1 (Appraisal of Equity Appraisal Co., Inc.), at 3. ~ Appellant's Exhibit's 1 (Appraisal of Hirsh Valuation Group) at 26. ~2 Appellee's Exhibit 1 (Appraisal of Equity Appraisal Co., Inc.), at 10. ~3 Appellant's Exhibit 1 (Appraisal of Hirsh Valuation Group), at 21. ~4 Id. ~S ld., at6. 16 Id., at 22. The subject site i~ ~wned by Prosperity DeveloPment [Company] ~ -The subj~rovements are owned as follows:-.. 1. Semi-deta ~c~d retail building, 35,897 SF, owned by Prosperty~' Development [Company] and leased to Weis Markets 2. Semi-detached retail building, 14,000 SF, owned by Prosperity Development [Company] and leased to Thrift Drug 3. Semi-detached restaurant building, 5,597 SF, owned by Prosperity Development [Company] and leased to J.C. Dunphy's 4. Detached fast-food restaurant building, 2,685 SF, owned by Wendy's of New York (land-lease) 5. Detached gas-station building, 1,854 SF, owned by Thomas E. Zimmerman (land-lease) 6. Detached 4-story [sic] office building, 63,010 SF, owned by Plaza 21 Realty Associates (land-lease) 7. Detached 1-story pump house, 500 SF 8. Detached 3-story office building, 46,638 SF, owned by Penn 21 Associates (land lease)27 These enterprises are compatible with other uses in the vicinity? One negative aspect of the site is that ingress and egress can be hampered by traffic congestion? Parking on the premises, in the form of 604 spaces, is also somewhat below the optimal amount?° Leases, including renewal options, applicable to the Weis market occupancy provide for gradual increases in rent for the building from $2.23 per square foot in 1987 to $6.10 in ~ 7 Id., at6. ~8 Id., at 23. ~9 Appellee's Exhibit 1 (Appraisal of Equity Appraisal Co., Inc.), at 3. ~o Id., at 8-9. 2007, and gradual increases in rent for a parking area from $14,175.00 Per year in 1987 to $17,550.00 in 20107 The lea~se' including renewal optionS~ apPlicable' to. the Thrift drug store occupancy, provides for rent of $3.57 per square foot, plus 2.5% of net annual retail sales in excess of about $2,000,000.00.22 The lease, including renewal options, applicable to the J.C. Dunphy's occupancy, provides for gradual increases in rent from $11.29 per square foot in 1995 to $23.73 per square foot in 2014. The ground lease, with renewal options, applicable to Wendy's occupancy provides for an annual base rent of $40,000.00, plus 5% of gross sales in excess of $800,000.00, until 2009.23 The ground lease, with a renewal option, applicable to the Exxon Station occupancy, provides for an annual base rent of $30,000.00 in 1993, increasing by 4% each year thereafter until 2023. Lessees in the Plaza 21 Office Building include, or have included, a medical group, a renal treatment center, an accounting firm, and Pennsylvania Blue Shield? Lessees in the American Office Center include several medical practitioners or groups?5 An appeal to the county board of assessment by the property owner (from an assessment implying a market value of $9,458,571.00) was filed on August 1, 1996. The board reduced the assessment so as to indicate a market value of $6,590,000.00.2a The township appealed to this court from this determination by the board on May 23, 1997. Ic~, at 19. Id., at 16. Id., at 21. Id., at 29-31. Id., at 24-28. See note ! supra and accompanying text. 5 Traditionally, sales at this location have not reached this figure. Gross sales appear generally to exceed this amount. Id. At the hearing on the townshiP"~ appeal from the board's determination, i-t was stipulated'by counsel that the applicable common level ratio was. seven percent.' The -- county's predetermined ratio was 25 p~rcent.27 Appellant (the township) presented the testimony of Laurence A. Hirsh, CRE, MAI, president of the Hirsh Valuation Group, on the subject of the property's market value. Appellee Prosperity Development Company presented the testimony of William T. Bott, MAI, CCIM, a principal of Equity Appraisal Co., Inc., on the subject. Both experts felt that, as improved, the property was being subjected to its highest and best use? Both believed that an income approach was a useful method for valuation of the property,z9 that a sales comparison approach was also useful,3° or at least helpful for certain purposes,3~ and that a cost approach was not helpful. 32 Both experts viewed the Weis market and Thrift drug leases as below market.33 The township's expert, with respect to the income approach, valued the property by 27 See In re: Appeal of Penn Harris Company, 43 Cumberland L.J. 51 (1993). zs See Appellant's Exhibit 1 (Appraisal of Hirsh Valuation Group), at 44; Appellee's Exhibit ! (Appraisal of Equity Appraisal Co., Inc.), at 11. 29 See Appellant's Exhibit 1 (Appraisal of Hirsh Valuation Group), at 80; Appellee's Exhibit 1 (Appraisal of Equity Appraisal Co., Inc.), at 12, 34. 3o See Appellant's Exhibit 1 (Appraisal of Hirsh Valuation Group), at 56. 3~ See Appellee's Exhibit 1 (Appraisal of Equity Appraisal Co., Inc.), at 42. 32 See Appellant's Exhibit 1 (Appraisal of Hirsh Valuation Group), at 46; Appellee's Exhibit 1 (Appraisal of Equity Appraisal Co., Inc.), at 12. 33 See Appellant's Exhibit 1 (Appraisal of Hirsh Valuation Group), at 66; Appellee's Exhibit 1 (Appraisal of Equity Appraisal Co., Inc.), at 14. the direct capitalization, band of-investment, method? follows: This method was described as In order to convert net operating income into an indication of value which is reflective of market conditions, a capitalization rate must be used ... which also is reflective of the market. This capitalization rate blends the rate necessary to service a typical mortgage ... with the rate required to attract equity investment at similar levels of risk. This blending methOd, known as the band of investment, combines these two components as a weighted average to form the overall rate of capitalization by which net operating income will be capitalized.35 Utilizing market (as opposed to actual) income and estimated expenses and vacancy rates to arrive at net operating income, and applying a uniform capitalization rate of 11.5 percent (10.2% plus a 1.3% tax load36), the township's expert valued the components of the $3,237,065 $2,100,343 $217,630 $315,176 $3,147,45537 property as follows: Plaza 21 Office Building American Office Center Exxon Service Station Fast-Food [Wendy's] Restaurant Strip Center The total estimated value for the property on the basis of this application of the income approach was rounded off to $9,000,000.00.38 The same figure was reached by this 34 See Appellant's Exhibit 1 (Appraisal of Hirsh Valuation Group), at 78. 35 See Appellant's Exhibit 1 (Appraisal of Hirsh Valuation Group), at 69. 3a "Real estate tax [has been] loaded into the overall capitalization rate." Appellant's Exhibit 1 (Appraisal of Hirsh Valuation Group), at 68. 37 Appellant's Exhibit 1 (Appraisal of Hirsh Valuation Group), at 78. ss Appellant's Exhibit 1 (Appraisal of Hirsh Valuation Group), at 83. 7 expert utilizing the comparable sales approach.39 The property owner's expert relie_,c[cprimarily upon an ihc0me apPr°ach.t° vhl/ie the components of the property, with the exfteption of the service s~[ion,-which wasvalued by the comparable sales approach.4° As to those components valued according to the income approach, the expert employed one of the following two methods: (1) Estimate and divide first-year stabliized net income before debt service by an appropriate overall capitalization rate. This procedure is known as direct capitalization. (2) Extimate over a normal projection period future annual net incomes and reversionary value, and discount all net cash flows by a rate sufficient to attract investment capital. Commonly known as yield capitalization, this method can employ discounted cash flow analysis, or an overall capitalization rate which weight the effect of debt cost, loan amortization, equity yield, and changes in income and property value over a normal projection period.4~ The first technique was used for the two office buildings, the building occupied by Wendy's and that.occupied by J.P. Dunphy's Pub;42 a capitalization rate of 12.3 percent (with a 1.31% tax load factor included) was utilized for the office bUildings, and a capitalization 39/d. ~0 This exception was explained by the expert as follows: Existing gas stations generally lease based on a percentage of gas sales. In order to avoid the inclusion of business value for this portion of the subject, the value of the service/gas station on support land will be determined only through the Sales Comparison Approach. Appellee's Exhibit 1 (Appraisal of Equity Appraisal Co., Inc.), at 32. 41 Appellee's Exhibit 1 (Appraisal of Equity Appraisal Co., Inc.), at 14. 4z Id., at 14. rate of 10.5 percent'~vas utilized for the Wendy's and J.P. Dunphy's Components,43 The second technique was used for the Weis market component and the Thrift d~ .C_~pon~nt.'" These applications by the property owner's expert-yielded the following valuations: Plaza 21 Office Building American Office Center Exxon Service Station Wendy's and Dunphy's Thrift Drug Weis Market $2,940,000.00 $2,350,000.00 $200,000.00 $810,000.00 $291,000.00 $1,236,000.00 The total estimated value for the property on the basis of this analysis was rounded off to $7,830,000.00.45 An overall evaluation based primarily on the comparable sales method was not provided by the property owner's expert. As will be discussed hereinafter in this opinion, the court, after weighing the opinions of the experts, has concluded that the market value of the property should be set at $8,500,000.00. STATEMENT OF LAW In tax assessment cases, the taxing authority's assessment is given a rebuttable presumption of validity. Deitch Co. v. Board of Property Assessment Appeals and Review of Allegheny County, 417 Pa. 213, 221,209 A.2d 397, 402 (1965). The taxpayer, then, must come forward with credible, relevant evidence to overcome this presumption. Id. Once the 43 Id., 36-38. 44 "We have chosen to value the subject property using both direct and yield capitalization .... The current leases with the exception of Weis Market and Thrift Drug, are generally at market. Because of the long term, below market leases associated with the Weis Market and Thrift Drug space, these portions of the subject have been value[d] using a discounted cash flow analysis." Id., at 14. 45 Id., at 67. 9 taxpayer l/as done so, the taxing authorit?,s presumption of validity endg, Id at 221-22, 209 "In a tax assessment appeal theitn..'al court hears the case de novo and must determine the fair market value of the property based on the competent, credible and relevant evidence. If, as is typically true, the expert testimony conflicts, the trial court must determine the weight and credibility it will afford to each expert." Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., Inc. v. McLaughlin, 77 Pa. Commw. 565,568, 466 A.2d 1092, 1094 (1983); see Act of May 21, 1943, P.L. 571, § 704, as amended, 72 P.S. § 5453.704 (1993 Supp.). The market value is to be determined "as of the date such appeal was filed before the board of assessment appeals." Id., § 704(b)(1), as amended, 72 P.S. § 5453.704(b)(1). "Pennsylvania case law has consistently held that actual market value is that price which a purchaser, willing but not obliged to buy, would pay an owner, willing but not obliged to sell, taking into consideration all uses [to] which the property is adapted and might in reason be applied" County of Monroe v. Pinecrest Development Corp., 98Pa. Commw. 200, 203, 510 A.2d 1274, 1276 (1986); see In re Johnstown Associates, 494 Pa. 433, 431 A.2d 932 (1981); Serluco v. Cumberland County Board of Assessment and Revision of Taxes, 41 Cumberland L.J. 286 (1991). "The function of the [court] in a tax assessment case is not to independently value the property ... but to weigh the conflicting testimony and values expressed by the competing experts and arrive at a valuation based on the credibility of their opinions." County of Monroe v. Bolus, 149 Pa. Commw. 458, 463,613 A.2d 178, 181 (1992). Moreover, the court "is not bound to accept the expert's testimony merely because it is the testimony of someone having special skill or knowledge. All the components that the expert considered are matters which the [court] considers in determining the persuasive quality of the testimony." In re Appeal of Avco Corp., 100 Pa. Commw. 616, 621,515 A.2d 335, 338 (1986). Approaches to valuation are the "cost .... comparable sales and income approaches .... " 10 Act of May 211 1943, P.L. 571,§ 602(a), as amended, 72 P.S. § 5453.602(a). "The Assessment Law requires that all three approaches 'must be consid~'red ifflconjuncti_0n with one another.'" Serluco v. Cumberland County Board of Assessment ancl Revision of Taxes, 41 Cumberland L. J. 286, 290 n.13 (1991).46 "The cost approach values the property by considering the reproduction or replacement cost of the property, less depreciation and obsolescence." In re Appeal of Property of Cynwyd Investments, 679 A.2d 304, 308 n.2 (Pa. Commw. 1996) (citations omitted).47 Under the income approach, the value of a property [generally] is calculated by capitalizing the property's annual net income (gross income minus expenses). In re Appeal of V.V.P. Partnership, 167 Pa. Commw. 282, 285 n. 1, 647 A.2d 990, 991 n.1 (1994). Finally, under the comparable sales approach the value of a property is determined by comparing the property to several similar properties, taking into consideration differences in size, age, physical condition, location and other relevant factors. In re Appeal of Property of Cynwydlnvestments, 679 A.2d 304, 308 n.3 (Pa. Commw. 1996) (citations omitted). With respect to the income approach, in determining the net rental income for a property an appraiser will employ either contract rent or market rent for the property. In re Appeal of Property of Cynwydlnvestments, 679 A.2d 304 (Pa. Commw. 1996). "Contract rent is '[t]he actual rental income specified in a lease.'" American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal 71 (1984), quoted in In re Appeal of 46 Act of May 21, 1943, P.L. 571, § 602(a), as amended, 72 P.S. § 5453.602(b); see Reichard-Coulston v. Revenue Appeals Bd., 102 Pa. Commw. 227, 517 A.2d 1372 (1986), allocaturdenied, 517 Pa. 611,536 A.2d 1335 (1987). 47 "Specifically, this method entails (1) estimating the value of the land assumed vacant and available for its highest and best use; (2) estimating the reproduction cost or cost new of the facility; (3) subtracting from the latter amount the facility's depreciation; and (4) adding to this depreciated balance the value of the land estimated in (1) above." In re Appeal of Property of Cynwyd Investments, 679 A.2d 304, 308 n.2 (Pa. Commw. 1996) (citations omitted). 11 Property of'Cynwydlnvestments, 679 A.2d 304, 308 n.5 (Pa~ Commw. I996). "Market rent is '[t]he ~'ental income that-a property ~o_uld mOst probfil3iy Eo~'ahdin- itie":~pefilmarket; indicated by current rents paid and asked, for comparable space as of, the date:of appraisal. Normally, contract rent should be utilized in determining the net rental income for purposes of the income capitalization approach only if two conditions are met: First, the remaining term of the lease must be of adequate length so that if the property were placed on the market, a potential purchaser would recognize the lease and be willing to pay more or less for the property because of its existence than if the property were unemcumbered by the lease. Secondly, the contract rent must be either higher or lower than existing market rent. Again, the difference between the contract rent and the market rent must be large enough to affect what an able and willing buyer would pay for the property.48 Where a long-term lease is below market value, it is appropriate to utilize contract rent for purposes of determining net operating income. See In re Appeal ofMarple SpringfieM Center, Inc., 530 Pa. 122, 607 A.2d 708 (1992). To arrive at an assessed value of property, "[t]he court, after determining the market value of the property .... shall then apply the established predetermined ratio to such value unless the corresponding common level ratio ... varies by more than fifteen percentum (15%) from the established predetermined ratio, in which case the court shall apply the respective common level ratio to the corresponding market value of the property."49 The "established predetermined ratio" is "the ratio of assessed value to market value established by the board 48In re Appeal of Property of Cynwyd lnvestments, 679 A.2d 304, 308 ( Pa. Commw. 1996). 49 Act of May 21, 1943, P.L. 571, § 704(c), as amended, 72 P.S. § 5453.704(c). 12 of county commissioners .... ,,5o The "common level ratio" is "the ratio of assessed value to current market value used generally in the county as laSt determined ~by-tIfi~e state Tax Equalization Board ,,si APPLICATION OF LAW TD~F~.ET~ In the present case, the court was impressed with the analyses of both experts. In this regard, each expert frankly acknowledged the existence of factors which tended to support a result less favorable to the party which had engaged him. The school district's expert, for instance, noted that "the site has limited parking, as well as difficult egress to North 21st Street due to traffic congestion at the traffic light at its intersection with US 11/15 (Camp Hill Bypass).''52 The property owner's expert asssumed that one of the operations, which had been producing declining revenues, would reverse this trend,53 and that an existing 31 percent vacancy rate in one of the office buildings would not continue;54 this expert also declined to support the relatively low value placed upon the property by the board. It is the court's view that a willing buyer and willing seller would find both of the reports submitted on the subject of the value of the property helpful. The report of the property owner's expert appears to the court to have been more faithful to the principle that contract rent, as opposed to market rent, is appropriately considered in the case of long-term, below market leases. In addition, the report of the property owner's expert endeavored to treat the components of the property more individually in terms of capitalization rate and method of appraisal. S°Id., § 102, as amended, 72 P.S. § 5453.102. S~ Id. 52 Appellant's Exhibit 1 (Appraisal of Hirsh Valuation Group), at 23. 53 Appellee's Exhibit 1 (Appraisal of Equity Appraisal Co., Inc.), at 35. 54 Id., at 14. 13 The report of the school distriCt'S~pert had the virtue of presenting a fully developed and compelling compdrable sales anal~s and a i~0r~ coifii~reh-e-ris~¥~i~xpl~a~_/itio-a Of-~the~ expert's position. It also displayed mor' familiarity with local conditions,. Being cognizant of the court's obligation to weigh the conflicting testimony and values expressed by the competing experts, and to refrain from independently valuing the property, the court is of the view that the value of the property in question lies between the appraisals of the experts, with the position of the school district's expert being accorded slightly more weight primarily because of a more developed comparable sales analysis. The result is a valuation of $8,500,000.00. For the foregoing reasons, the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 21st day of September, 1998, upon consideration of the tax assessment appeal filed herein, following a hearing and in accordance with the accompanying Opinion, it is ordered as follows: THE MARKET VALUE as of August 1, 1996 (and for succceeding years until revised), for the 10.37 acre parcel owned by Appellee Prosperity Development Company, situated in East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and bearing tax parcel number 09-20-1854-004, is fixed at $8,500,000.00. THE PERTINENT COMMON LEVEL RATIO for Cumberland County has been stipulated to be seven percent. The predetermined ratio was 25 percent. THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE of more than 15 percent between the common level ratio and predetermined ratio, as a result of which assessments are to be determined by ap- 14 plication of the common level ratio to market value, the assessment with respect to the aforesaid parcel is fixed at $595,000.00 as of the aforesaid date. BY THE COURT, Richard C. Snelbaker, Esq. SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P.C. 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Appellant Stephen D. Tiley, Esq. 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Appellee Cumberland County Board of Assessment Michael J. Pykosh, Esq. Suite 205, Wagner Building 355 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 1701! Attorney for Prosperity Development Company [sZ~ Wesley Oler+Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. 15