ShareThis Page
New store’s tax reduction questioned |

New store’s tax reduction questioned

| Thursday, January 30, 2003 12:00 a.m

Ross Township officials are looking into discrepancies between the assessed and sale values for properties along the popular McKnight Road corridor to see whether owners of commercial property are being billed their fair share of property taxes.

Peter Ferraro, chairman of the township commissioners until he stepped down this week, said he noticed discrepancies while looking up properties on the county’s real estate Web site.

Ferraro found that in the case of a new business — Jared, The Galleria of Jewelry store — the assessed value was dramatically lowered.

The sale price for the property within Ross Towne Center was $3.57 million. After an appeal, the assessment on the land and the store was reduced to $1.174 million.

Ferraro said the reduction was not warranted.

“If someone just put up a new building, to me this is a no-brainer. (The cost of the building) should be the value of this piece of property,” he said. “You don’t go from $3.57 million and then determine that the value is $1.174 million. That’s about a third (of what) they paid for the (land). Why would a hearing reduce it that much?”

Officials of the Jared store on McKnight Road, as well as corporate owner Sterling Jewelers Inc. of Akron, Ohio, did not respond to phone messages seeking comment. Nor did Stephen Etoll, a Syracuse, N.Y.-based attorney for the developer of the property.

Ross Commissioner Gerald O’Brien said properties should be assessed according to their sale price.

The total assessed value of property in Ross Township is slightly less than $2 billion, according to county records. The value went up by 1.16 percent from 2002 to 2003. Only 15 of the county’s 130 municipalities had an increase in their total property value from last year.

Ross Solicitor Donald Gates has been given the task of looking into the Jared issue further. He said the reduction should be a one-time dip.

“On the assessment where that reduction came from, that was the sale price of the land that used to be Best Feeds,” Gates said. “Now that there’s a building on it, it should go back up. We called this to their attention last year.”

Ed Gillett, assessments manager for Allegheny County, said the assessment is unlikely to change.

“It’s not unusual for developers to go in there and overbuy on a site to get a location. That’s probably the way (the assessment) is going to stay unless the municipality can go in there and appeal it and prove their case,” Gillett said.

“On Neville Island, they did a lot of that when there was speculation of riverboat gambling going in. They paid for basically fouled land, and they paid $1 million for land worth probably no more than $20,000 to $25,000,” he said.

Gillett said the county does not keep records of which municipalities are appealing property assessments or how many appeals they have filed.

“The munis, for the most part, don’t pay a whole lot of attention to it,” he said. “There are a bunch of appeals scattered throughout (the county).”

Gates said Ross Township and North Hills School District officials have until March 31 to appeal any assessments that they think are out of line.

Tina Vojtko, spokeswoman for North Hills School District, said that if the township would appeal, the school district would pay half the legal cost. She said the district would not need to file a separate appeal.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.