ShareThis Page
Owner wants more cuts in tower’s tax bill |

Owner wants more cuts in tower’s tax bill

| Sunday, August 25, 2002 12:00 p.m

The owner of Pittsburgh’s tallest office building, already delinquent on $4.8 million in city and school property taxes, wants an Allegheny County judge to order an assessment cut that would trim tax bills.

Unhappy with the modest results from a county assessment appeal on U.S. Steel Tower, 600 Grant Street Associates will argue to lower the tower’s 2001 and 2002 assessments further at a hearing before Common Pleas Judge Joseph James next month.

The 64-story tower initially was assessed at $279.3 million last year; the owner appealed and the Board of Property Appeals Assessment Review reduced the assessment to $265.7 million.

Grant Street Associates wanted an assessment of $155 million, arguing the building’s value had been hurt by declining occupancy, rising insurance rates, asbestos and security concerns in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The company then took its case to the county Board of Viewers, which is overseen by James.

The tower is assessed for $264.3 million this year, according to the county’s real estate Web site.

Lawyers for Allegheny County are expected to defend the assessments before James, but might not get much support from the city and the school district, which last summer reached an undisclosed settlement on a lower value with Grant Street Associates, according to court papers filed in the case.

David R. Cohen, a lawyer for Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, a Downtown law firm representing the tower owners, declined to discuss the case or the tentative assessment agreement with the city and the school district.

“That information is protected by a confidentiality agreement,” he said. “We will be presenting our evidence in court.”

In a July 10 letter to the county, city and school district, Cohen wrote that any attempt to negotiate a compromise assessment probably would fail because the owner “will not agree to any settlement value that is worse than the settlement already negotiated with the city and school district for 2001. It is my understanding that the city and school district are still amenable to proceeding with that number, but that the county is unwilling to sign on.”

At the same time Grant Street Associates is seeking a tax-saving assessment reduction, the company is delinquent for both 2001 and 2002 city and school property taxes, according to records from the city Treasurer’s Office.

The company paid about $4.5 million in combined taxes last year, but still owes about $2.4 million in taxes, interest and penalties. This year, the company paid about $4.2 million, but still owes about $2.4 million in taxes, interest and penalties.

Nearly all evidence in last year’s county hearing on the building assessment by hearing officer Terry Camburn is no longer public. That evidence would show why Grant Street Associates believed the assessment was too high or why Camburn decided on a smaller reduction than sought by the owner.

Common Pleas Judge R. Stanton Wettick Jr. sealed the file May 31 after the owner argued it contained financial information useful to rivals. Under the order, Grant Street Associates can mark as “confidential” any information it wishes and later remove that evidence permanently from the file once James makes his ruling.

Assistant County Solicitor Bob Reith declined to comment on the case, saying all information from the county file is confidential unless Wettick directs otherwise. County Manager Bob Webb also declined to comment because of the litigation.

Attempts to reach Wettick and James were unsuccessful.

Ira Weiss, counsel to the city school district, declined to comment, and Pittsburgh Assistant City Solicitor Ronald H. Pferdehirt did not return several calls.

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.