Under the Home Rule Charter, the Administration and all city officials are obligated to follow the advice of the Solicitor. 91 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING The Solicitor does not overrule City Council. The Solicitor looks at the relevant ordinances, the relevant provisions of the Home Rule Charter, the relevant provisions of state law and case law to determine whether Council was within its power to pass that ordinance --
-- and if in the Solicitor'S judgment that ordinance was not a lawful act of City Council, it's the Solicitor's obligation to advise the Administration and Council of that fact.
Well, I have that part, but I thought you said earlier that when Council passed a law, it's a law until the Court deems otherwise. How does the Solicitor get to then tell another client to ignore that law?
The Solicitor's job is to determine whether a law was lawfully enacted. If a law is passed but it's clearly not within Council's power, it's the Solicitor's obligation to tell the Administration not to enforce that law.
What was the unlawful enactment? Didn't they have public hearings? Wasn't there a vote of the Council? 92 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Didn't they vote with at least a majority? I think it was unanimous to pass the bill. Didn't the Mayor veto the bill? Didn't the Council override the veto in accordance with the City Charter? What was unlawful about the way they passed the bill?
What was unlawful in the Solicitor's opinion back then, and we agree with it, is that under state law Council did not have the power to enact that ordinance.
And, Councilman, we could disagree over that. I recognize there are legitimate disagreements. Council has the right to pass a law notwithstanding what the Solicitor says and ultimately the Court will decide if --
And the Solicitor takes the opinion that whatever Council does, that's all well and good, but the Solicitor's the Solicitor and if the Solicitor thinks that it's illegal, he'll tell the other clients to ignore that particular law. I mean, that's the bottom line, right? 93 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING
It's not ignore law, Councilman. The Solicitor is obligated to advise his clients with respect to all laws. I'm sure, Councilman, you can appreciate there are sometimes --
Well, the Solicitor has a conflict in that situation because he's got two different clients with two different opinions with two different responsibilities.
Which is why the solicitor simply states in his best judgement what the law is, not with respect to what his various clients' views may be.
Okay. We'll come back to that one. Ms. Kammerdeiner, the next paragraph, you say that the Administration does support tax reform, you support the creation of the Tax Reform Commission. Let me ask this question: Based on the timing of when the Tax Reform Commission, hopefully, by the voters would be approved, what, if any, relief could the actions of the Tax Reform Commission provide the people who received a notice of increase assessment this summer? I believe those 94 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING assessments, subject to any appeals, will be certified in November. The voters won't have the opportunity to vote on the Tax Reform Commission until November. And so what possible substantive relief could the Tax Reform Commission provide to the citizens of this City who will have a tax bill 8 come to them sometime in January?
The paragraph of my testimony that you're referencing is in terms of longer term relief in dealing with the underlying problems and issues. The following paragraph, I indicated that in considering short-run actions that the Administration could support. And I went on and I addressed --
I understand that. Why don't we just take it one question at a time? What relief can the Tax Reform Commission which this Council approved and will be on the ballot in November, it's a statement in your testimony, what relief can the Tax Reform Commission provide to anyone who received an assessment notice this summer? The answer is either some or none.
It would not provide immediate relief. It would be long-term relief and, 95 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING therefore, it would not address the immediate problem.
When the budget was put together -- and it goes back to the point that Councilman O'Neill raised. I'm actually trying to keep track now of some of the timing issues involved here. And it is intriguing, as much as some people would like to deny, it's certainly intriguing that the two representatives we have here today are the Board of Revision of Taxes responsible for assessments and then we have the Revenue Department responsible for collections. Now, lay out for me how was the FY 2003 budget put together in the context of what you expected to receive in the way of property taxes when the FY 2003 budget, I'm going to assume, was put together sometime in late 2001 somewhere in the November, December time period, introduced by the Mayor in January of 2002, you will not get the revenues for FY 2003 from real estate taxes until February or March of 2003, yet the assessment notices just went out this summer, we're in the appeal process after October 7 going toward certification. So what was the expectation when the FY 2003 budget was put together in terms of total 96 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING dollar revenue from the real estate tax? What was the City expecting?
The City was expecting a 2.5 percent growth in real estate taxes.
I'm not sure of the exact dollar amount. I'm not good at doing the calculations on the fly. But we bring in about $750 million a year, City and school, on real estate tax.
Approximately. I don't have the numbers here with me in terms of what last year's --
Somewhere in that neighborhood. So you're expecting 2 1/2 percent. So what's that? Every percent is 7 1/2 mill?
About 18. So you're expecting in FY 2003 an additional $18 million in real estate tax, and that's what the budget was 97 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING built around; is that what you're saying?
I'm just thinking back to some of the comparisons that I have seen. And I don't have numbers right here, but I did reference in my testimony last week that if we compare the revenue we actually received in fiscal 2002 to the budget projection for 2003, we were looking at a difference, I believe it was about 10 million for the City and 14 million for the School District. And that would be probably a closer comparison than what we were just doing using round numbers right now.
Approximately 17 million between City and School District. 18
But I thought you 19 were anticipating a 2 1/2 percent growth. 20
I may have 21 understated the amount of money we received between 22 City and School District. I don't have the figures 23 right here in front me. 24
How would we get to these numbers or tell me where we would find it in 98 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING the -- it must be in the five-year plan?
It's a combination of the five-year plan and the monthly reports we do internally to identify the collections. I was using a number that would come from the end of the fiscal year. That's one of the problems we have here, the tax year is a calendar year and then we're looking at fiscal year numbers, so we go back and forth depending upon whether you're using fiscal year or tax year, and I don't want to confuse the issue greatly on that.
When the Mayor makes his budget address and the budget is submitted to City Council, there are numbers in that budget that anticipate a certain amount of growth in revenues.
I am trying to understand for the FY '03 budget which was put together before these notices went out, so you had no benefit of the notices or who was going to get hit with what amount of tax or what it would generate. You made the judgment call, not you personally, the Administration made a judgment call in constructing that budget that a certain amount of 99 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING additional real estate revenue would come to the City. What I am trying to understand is, what was that number?
The final numbers are put together through the Budget Office. Revenue provides some forecasting information, historic data in terms of what has happened in terms of growth in prior years both in terms of the assessments and in terms of collection activity because we have to factor in how much is collectable in addition to have the assessment changes. Not every assessment increase is going to be collected. And so it's a judgment call that is generally a conservative judgment call so that we don't overestimate the amount of revenue that we anticipate.
Can you get someone over here this morning to answer that question?
Okay, I'm going to move on. 100 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Now, does the Revenue Department or the Finance Department ever have a conversation with the Board of Revision of Taxes about how the budget is put together or what the physical needs of the City are?
I can't totally speak for finance. I know that it doesn't happen in Revenue. And to the best of my knowledge, it doesn't happen from Finance either. We may inquire about how many increases might be going through. I do that from, I will say, a very different perspective than the one you're alluding to now. The Department of Revenue runs the outgoing mail center for the City. And so --
The outgoing mail center, all of the bulk mailing that goes for the City goes from Revenue. So in addition to the bills, we mail a number of other things, things like pension checks and notices for other departments and among the things that we mail are these assessment notices that go to people. So my inquiry was in terms of numbers of notices as opposed to the dollar impact. 101 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING
I understand, and I would probably just stipulate for the record that I don't think the people who are down in the mail room 5 have anything to do with the level of the assessments going out. I think they probably have no influence on the process.
I thank you for recognizing that. They will thank you also.
Please let them know how I feel about them. Let me ask you about of your testimony. You talk about Councilman O'Neill's bill. You talk about at the bottom, "A cap that allowed a maximum increase of only 4 percent would not meet the 'gradualism principle' contained in Coleman v. Green because in many instances it would take far more than six years approved in that case to achieve full compliance with the statutory mandate of taxation based on current values. Further, with such a cap in place, it would be unlikely that the revenue projections in the City's five-year plan would be met." Now, what do you project in terms of revenue from the proposed 4 percent cap bill? Have 102 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING you done those?
We don't know what the numbers would actually look like because we know that there are some people who had no increases, some people who had increases that were under 4 percent, so we don't know what the dollar differential would be. Until the Board certifies numbers to us, Revenue doesn't have the ability to make those forecasts.
Well, I understand that. But you have in your testimony already that you oppose it based on that basis, but you've not done any economic analysis to come to that conclusion yet.
A 4 percent cap would mean that we would have less than a 4 percent growth rate because not everyone is going to have an increase. And so our basic reaction to that is that it would be an increase that would be less than the amount that was projected in the five-year plan.
Well, let me ask this question: How long will our present system take to reach the statutory mandate of taxation based on current values? 103 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING
How long will our present system take to reach, in your words, the statutory mandate of taxation based on current values?
If there are no caps, it would happen in the year in which the assessments are levied.
You're assuming that the assessments are at the current values?
The assessments are the current values that are certified to us by the Board.
Okay. So you don't deal with the whole 70 percent or 71 percent? I mean, the numbers, for your purposes at Revenue, the numbers are what the numbers are and that's the end of that discussion?
That's correct from our end. You will hear later from the Board of Revision in terms of how they derive those numbers.
Okay. Let me ask this one last question. The Chair has been very 104 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING accommodating. In Bills 020537 and 020538, your testimony down at the bottom is, on , "The impact would likely be substantial and would result in the permanent loss of revenue, not a deferral. Solicitor concluded that these bills are not lawful with respect to the current fiscal year and that Bill 020538 is not defensible for any tax year because of Act 46 constraints." One, can you define for me back on "substantial"? Compare that to the five-year plan. And could you enlighten us as to the interplay between any of these proposed cap-type bills and Act 46 and the jurisdiction of that particular legislation?
We have found it extremely difficult to make any calculations or dollar estimates on the impact of any of these bills that provide caps because we at the Administration's end do not have the raw data on what the assessments would look like. We don't know how many assessments would have 10 percent increases and what the base was on which those 10 percent increases were being calculated. 105 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING
You don't have the data disk from the Board of Revision of Taxes?
No, we do not. And that is something that we -- and I emphasize again because of the separation in this process, we do not have that data until it is certified to us in November. And so we could make hypothetical guesses, but we wouldn't know whether those guesses were anywhere in the right range or not in the right range. It's possible that the Board in their analysis can give you some more insight into that, but we --
Well, let me ask this question: Is anybody else in the government looking at this particular issue? I understand the need for the technical separation between the entities, but, I mean, the Revenue Department, with every respect, is -- I mean, I'm assuming that you're not the only ones around this government with an Excel spreadsheet on your computer.
It is possible that they're making some guesstimates in the Budget Bureau but, again, they would be basing those on 106 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING hypotheticals that are not tied to the raw data.
All right. Let me ask you this then. Does the Administration believe that the current system is fair to taxpayers?
We know that there are problems and that there are inequities in any systems and there can always be improvements to the way the process works so that it is fairer. There are concerns that we have as individuals and as an Administration in terms of just how the process works.
If this were another hearing, I'd probably kind of let you go with that. What I'd like to ask is, does the Administration believe that the current system is fair? And it's now a yes-or-no question.
And I don't think it's a straight yes or no. I think there are gradations here that there are parts of it that may have concern that need to be looked at closer. I cannot give a yes-or-no answer to that.
Does the 107 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Administration feel it would be fair to raise real estate taxes this year, the rate of tax percent? 4
I'm talking about 7 by Council ordinance sponsored by the 8 Administration. 9
We do not at this 10 point have a firm position on any legislation that 11 would be proposed. 12
Well, by inference, 13 I mean, we have never received a real estate tax 14 increase bill from this Administration or the last, 15 I believe. So it would seem to me by inference they think it's unfair to increase taxes at any rate, let alone the exorbitant rates that we've seen this year in the tax assessment process. And I'm going to infer from that lack of activity and initiative on the Administration's part that they think it's unfair. Because if they thought it was fair, I think they would do it. The City needs revenue. The only thing that would be stopping you would be the unfairness of it all. And that seems to be stopping because we have not received a bill in this 108 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Administration or the last to raise real estate tax rates, even the indistinguishable percent. We 4 have not had anything at that level. So I'm going to take the answer from the lack of initiative on the Administration's part that they really think it's unfair and that's why they haven't done it. Michael, one other thing, because we don't have the numbers in front of us. But while we're talking about projections, in the Mayoral election years that I've been in City Council, which are now starting to add up, we've never had any net assessments done in the City, at least that I've ever heard from anybody about. This past -- I don't know what the projections were in the fiscal year '99-2000. And then the following year we didn't have any increases because of a computer turnaround. It would be interesting to see if the projections were met without any assessments -- I know last year there were some pretty heavy assessments in different parts of the City and then this year probably even more. But for two years running, the election year and the one after, there was virtually no -- with very few exceptions, there were no 25 increases. And it might be interesting, Michael, as 109 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING a follow-up to see what those projections were, what the total was and whether the City fell apart as a result of those lack of assessments. Because it seems like if we cap people at 4 percent, you know we'd be closing the City down. Thank you.
Last question. I asked last week, and I think your response was you were working on it. What plan does the Administration have for any system reform? You were very good at repeating verbatim your response to fairness questions about the systems problems. What would the Administration do to change or reform the system?
Do you know if anyone within the Administration is working on any plans to propose reform to the system.
I am not certain of anyone. I know we were looking at all pieces of the process. I don't know whether it's coming to a point at this juncture of being a plan. I don't think I would characterize it at as that at this point. 110 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING
So the Administration is basically opposing all of the bills that are coming forward from Council. But is your answer to Michael Nutter's question is that the Administration has no idea what it is that it has to do except to maintain the current system? That it has no idea as to what changes, if any, should be done or what modification should be coming forward?
We are not yet at the point of being able to present something. That doesn't mean that it's not being --
How long will it take? Because this issue, I think the citizens of Philadelphia started talking about this quite a long time now. How long does it take for the Administration to start formulating a policy as to these assessments?
We, like you, want to 111 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING hear the points of view of various people and get as many facts as possible. And I think we would be shortchanging to come up with something before we heard --
Well, we as a legislative body would like to hear from the Administration what their position is and where they believe we should be going. And you're coming here and you're saying that you're waiting to hear but you have no idea where it is that we should -- you're supposed to lead.
Thank you very much. In fact, Mr. Glancey hasn't made his statement yet and we have some questions for him. But with regard to Commissioner Kammerdeiner, Councilman DiCicco, then Councilman Kenney and then Councilman Ortiz.
Thank you. Councilman DiCicco and then Councilman 112 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Ortiz.
Thank you again, Madam Chair. And good afternoon, Commissioner.
I just need some information as to the noticing. Could you explain to me -- I'm sure Mr. Glancey would probably want to get involved in this conversation as well. BRT does reassessments, they prepare the documentation for the following year, the upcoming years' real estate taxes. I assume that there's a disk, some sort of a computer printout, whatever, that goes from the BRT to the Department of Revenue for billing purposes.
We get a computer file, and that's what I've been referencing that we get mid- to late-November. I believe by law they're required to certify those values to us by September 1st. In the last several years, it's been mid-November.
So the BRT supplies you with the addresses for the particular properties?
Are you talking about 113 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING the notices that get mailed about the assessment increases, or are you talking about the billing?
Both. Where does that information come from? Who supplies the data for property addresses on reassessments and then ultimately for the tax bill?
Councilman, thank you. Let me address the notices. They have nothing to do with it except mailing. Revenue has nothing to do with notices of real estate property tax, values or increases except to mail them. What we do is we have cartridges printed. Our evaluation staff does the upload from our computer to a computer over at MOIS. They print cartridges. Cartridges are then delivered to the Mail Center -- the product of the cartridge is a notice. Those are then delivered to the Mail Center, and the Mail Center delivers them. That's the only contact Revenue has in that process.
Where does the information come from that gets on or into the cartridge? 114 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING
How do you determine there's a property at 1207 South 11? The CAMA System?
The process is an evaluator over the course of the year makes a determination as to a value of a property. Each residential evaluator roughly has about 10,000 accounts. That evaluator then looks at all the sales in his or her given geographic area. Those sales are compiled and analyzed by a CAMA System. And we can go through this later on. I think it would be helpful. And what happens at that point is that a printout -- something on the screen. We're not going to printout anymore, but something comes up on the screen of that individual evaluator who then looks at all the data, looks at all the properties and makes the determination whether or not to override. There's still that human 115 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING involvement in the end. If there is no override, that is uploaded eventually to the mainframe at MOIS; and from MOIS, cartridges get printed. But the ultimate answer to your question is that myself, our technical staff make those determinations, entirely free from anybody else's interference.
So the block that I live on, the six new houses relatively anywhere from 5 to 10 years old, 1201 through 1211, South 11th Street, the information that is gathered as to the property owner of each respective property, who determines that? How does that get -- how do you know that Frank DiCicco owns 1207?
That's what I'm getting at. Now, the Department of Records gives you, the BRT, the information as to the owner of the particular property?
Councilman, excuse me a minute. Would you like us to formally 116 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING have Mr. Glancey make his testimony so we can get into his area of questioning?
I was trying to go, starting with the Revenue Commissioner who ultimately has --
Okay. If it's still with regard to her, then we'll wait.
Well, I want to make sure that it's not the Revenue Department who's generating the name and address of a particular property owner who will receive the bill. That starts with the BRT. And then the BRT's telling me that they're getting that information from the Recorder of Deeds?
And Revenue also has in the real estate system information on the parcels with the BRT numbers, the owner information. We confirm the same information with the Records Department. So we have the name and address based on the deed information in the revenue system, but we will get information on the mass certification from the Board of Revision that we compare to what we have so that if they have updated information, we 117 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING do have the benefit as well as, at the time that they send the file to us.
How often is your information updated? Or do you rely again on the Department of Records?
We update on a daily basis, and I would say we're probably -- it varies from time to time depending upon how many deeds are being filed, but we're usually within a month of the filing of the deed in Records.
So if I were to sell my house to David Glancey, tomorrow next year this time if there's activity on that property concerning reassessments and/or tax billing notices, it should be in the name of David Glancey next year?
It should be. I won't say that we're 100 percent on that but, yes, that is our effort to update and keep those records as accurate as possible.
Excuse me. Wouldn't that depend on the time line? Because I know that the Department of Records, you file your deed but that deed does not go into the rolls immediately. I mean, there is usually, depending on where we're at, 118 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING anywhere from four to six months, maybe even longer periods of time in which deeds really are not really filed. You may take them into Department of Records.
That had been the case. And I know that they have worked very diligently to improve their process. I can't give you exact statistics on the turnaround time on that.
Joan Decker I think would give you a much shorter time period on that as the time for turnaround. In any case, as soon as it's recorded there, we do get access to that information. It's now electronic, and we work with that data to ensure that our system is updated. And we're working on a process that's similar to the one that the Board of Revision has where most of that's done by electronic file, file interchange from one system to another. And then the only thing that staff actually works with are exceptions where there's a problem in reading the data.
Is it to correct to say then BRT -- does the BRT do any reevaluation as 119 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING to the authenticity of the property owner as it relates to the reassessments which ultimately becomes the building by way of Department of Revenue?
Probably not not unless we are told to do so. Unless there's some evidence that might pop up to indicate that the ownership information is incorrect.
I don't know. Somebody might know a property and know that that's not a property owner. I mean, that's very rare, I'm sure. But it seems to me, Councilman, that once you see the ownership name on the deed, that's the basic document that we have to believe in.
So, again, you're relying on the information that is supplied to you by the Department of Records? No evaluation, no 21 people on your staff go out to check that Frank DiCicco still owns that property at 1207?
Let me just double check with my senior staff. They're sitting right here. No, we don't. 120 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Glancey, first, I know this has been a very difficult time. There's been a lot confusion and a lot of anger and frustration on everyone's part. And just for the record, I would like to say that I've attended a number of meetings that were held in the neighborhoods with Councilman DiCicco. And your staff is there, they are like the Christians in the Lions' den. They stand there and take unbelievable and sometimes indescribable, or I can't describe it in mixed company, abuse that they've been getting. Every meeting I've been, they've been very forthright. They answer the questions they can answer. They try to be as honest and open as the information that they have. And they really deserve some extra pats on the back for going through what they've been going through. So I just wanted to let you know your staff has really been there under fire and has their best to respond 121 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING in the best way possible.
And it's been tough, I know. It's been tough on everybody. The thing I think that's made -- in addition to the percentage increases and the numbers associated with the percentages, the thing that's, again, been very difficult to understand is just the whole process itself. I mean, basically, as I understand it, you value property based on, I guess -- correct me anywhere where I'm wrong -- a combination of what the perceived market value is and also a combination of what the recent sales in a particular neighborhood are.
That's true, but we have a mathematical difference -- it's a relationship, clearly, but we don't go to 100 percent of market value. We're somewhere between 71 and 75 percent of market value. Madam Chairman -- Mr. Kenney, I'd certainly answer all your questions, but I would like to deliver my testimony and then we can get into all of this. 122 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING
That will be fine. Madam Chair, I'll be happy to do that.
Thank you. So if it is the will of the committee, we would be very happy to move forward and to have Mr. Glancey make his testimony. Thank you very much. Please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would certainly just like to introduce -- first of all, we thank you for this opportunity to, hopefully, bring some light into a process that, I guess, we're not doing good enough job in explaining and will say that today. I mean, I'm not defensive about what we have to do. We think we're doing a good job, but we also -- we're not the repository of all the greatest ideas in the world, so we're happy to listen. I have with us today, just to show you the seriousness with which we take this process, the Secretary of the Board, Bob Nix, and two other members of the Board Devereux Silverstein and Harvey 123 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Levin and will stay with us through the process. I also have about five members of our senior staff here, folks who have been the Christians tossed to the Lions.
Well, we thank you all for your attendance and for your patience. Thank you very, very much for being here.
Good afternoon. My name is David Glancey, and I'm Chairman of the Board of Revision of Taxes. I'm before your committee today to offer testimony regarding the Board's city-wide Assessment Equalization Program, the standardized methods and procedures behind the program, and the effect of Equalization 2003 on the market values of properties in the City of Philadelphia. At the same time, I would like to address some issues that have been recently raised by our citizens that concern the public perception of the BRT's assessment administration policies. It is my objective today to lay out the facts about the BRT's assessment system in hope that 124 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING at the end of day you're clear about what we do, why we do it, and what could responsibly be done to ease the pain of our citizenry when they are faced with rising property values. And as we all know, rising property values ultimately translate to rising tax bills. Briefly, I would like to speak to our Assessment Equalization Program. The BRT is mandated by law to place a fair and equitable opinion of market value on each and every property in the City. Our method of accomplishing this mandate is to empower the technical staff of our department to implement a computer-assisted mass appraisal system using nationally-accepted operating standards that will perform within nationally-accepted parameters for large urban jurisdictions. As I said earlier, there is a handout that I placed up on your desk this morning which, hopefully, with the pictography will also explain our methodology. At this time, while I emphasize that our work is not yet complete, I can say that city assessments are within those nationally-accepted parameters. As proof of this, I've submitted along 125 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING with my testimony the accepted standard measures of assessment uniformity known as the coefficient of dispersion and the price related differential. And I, again, have given you a very short handout which includes material that explains the relevancy of these measurements for your examination. But, again, I must remind the Committee that the BRT is not satisfied where we are today. We want to further reduce the numbers and become the most fair and equitable assessment jurisdiction in the country. At this point, I'd like to address some of the concerns about the policies of the BRT, particularly the perception that the process and methodology used is not conducive to public scrutiny and to examination. In previous testimony before City Council, I promised to make this process as transparent as possible. And with that promise in mind, the BRT directed our staff to open the process in several tangible ways. Initially, we redesigned the notice of change in market value. This notice is now easier to read and contains more information about the reasons and the effects of a reassessment on your 126 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING real estate taxes. I'm going to skip over some of this because I think some of you may have already read it. We've redesigned the assessment appeal form. And the importance of that is that what we are able to do is to make sure that the taxpayer can in their appeal form tell us the characteristics of their property upon which that valuation is based. The BRT website and the property assessment search which went into effect on January 1st of 2000. It's probably the most effective initiative that we've undertaken. gov site. 0 which is taking the current application that we 127 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING have and expanding it in a demonstration model. We won't be on-line until probably sometime in late November, early December. And being able to push a button and get block information, push a button and get every comparable that the evaluator used to value your property and push a button to get any different kinds of information that we think will help the citizenry look at those property values and look at their own.
And, hopefully, help them, again, be able to compare and contrast for fairness. Users of this service have fostered a new era of accountability at the BRT by pointing out corrections or additions to the data that we house about City real estate. Property owners can verify that they're being treated fairly and equitably -- or they can tell us they are not, it works both ways -- by our assessment system by viewing the sales prices of homes on the block. By using our e-mail link, our citizens are interacting with the staff and administration of the BRT on a daily basis, effectively keeping us open for business 24/7. As evidence of this, I've attached a copy of our most recent WebTrends report which details the volume and other characteristics of our daily users. 128 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING I've supplied you with summary pages of that report. The week before last, we had 188,000 hits. This past week, we had 156,000, I believe. All of those hits aren't people looking at information, but we have a substantial amount of visitors and they're the folks who are looking for information. Those visits basically, I think, average somewhere between four and eight minutes, depending on which week we get a report back from WebTrends. And we'll be happy to e-mail to each and every one of you a copy of that report every week if you'd like see it. Community outreach is another thing that we've done at the BRT for the last 10 years. Our senior staff members have attended community and civic association meetings throughout the City, from Chestnut Hill/Mount Airy to Packer Park, from Roxborough/East Falls to Society Hill and Fitler Square, they've been describing our system, our methodology, answering questions about the BRT, and assisting people filing appeals. This year alone they will have attended over 20 community meetings since September 10th. While the staff has been in the field, I have been the BRT spokesman in the mass media. That 129 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING is a role that is far from my favorite job. I think I would rather walk on ground glass rather than have to do that for the time that I have spent doing that for the last couple of months. But since we're a public agency, accountability to the public is paramount. I perceive this as a duty that must be performed. I have not nor will not turn down any inquiry or information request from any media source. I look upon these occasions as opportunities to communicate with the larger audience of our citizens. Further, the BRT sees at least 2 to 3,000 citizens face-to-face every year during the appeal process. With the possible exception of all of our elected officials, we may be the agency in the City that sees taxpayers face-to-face more than anybody. And we see them four or five months a year every year, and we've done that since I've been there. So we get to see firsthand the results of our actions. And believe me, the citizens we meet are the backbone of the City of Philadelphia. They're always forthcoming with evidence concerning their properties. And ultimately, we are accountable to the citizens of Philadelphia through 130 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING the prism of the law. Another subject that residents have expressed concerns about is the fairness of this most recent evaluation. And some of you may have heard me say part of this message last week, but I think it bears repeating. Putting aside what I've said previously about national standards, I can say with certainty that both fairness and conservatism have been designed into our assessment system every step of the way. The problem, as we see it, is that in any assessment system, regardless of how much fairness is built in, seems inherently unfair when you own property in a desirable area and the market value of your property is skyrocketing.
Our current real estate market has had dramatic and volatile increases during the last five to seven years in the locations in our City where the demand far outpaces the supply. If the BRT adjusts market values to keep pace with this market, equity, fairness, and uniformity are diminished. Inequities in valuation ultimately become inequities in the real tax system. Under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that govern the operation of assessment boards, if we were to ignore the market and freeze 131 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING values at last year's level, we would, in my opinion by definition, institutionalize all inequities that we have attempted to cure with the proposed 2003 equalized values. Now, having said all that, I ask each of you how fair to the citizens would it be if this Board ignored the rising market in the face of its own sworn responsibilities under state law? Not very fair, and I think you'll agree. Our goal was to make sure that the market value of any given property is determined by the sales of other similar properties. We believe the removal of subjective judgments to be replaced by objective standards brings fairness to all property owners. In truth, the fairness of our assessment system is in conflict with what many people in the City want out of any system that results in a tax bill. There is a conflict. Under current law, the BRT is mandated to follow the movement of the market. This, of course, builds volatility into the process. There is no certainty that the next hot neighborhood won't be the one that you live in. The one thing that is predictable is 132 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING that values rise and fall at different rates on different streets and in various neighborhoods over a period of years. The other thing that is certain is that the BRT must set that value wherever it takes place, whatever the market conditions. So, as I said last week, where do we go from here? And with all due respect, I'd like to offer several suggestions. I believe we must redefine the relationship between property values and assessments and revenue raising. My duty is to value all the real estate in the City. Your duty and the duty of the Administration among a host of other things is to create and fund a budget for the City and School District. I don't want your duties and authority and you don't want mine. I think the bills introduced by Councilman Nutter and Council President Verna, which would be Bills 020537 and 020538, are a responsible attempt to separate the valuation function from the revenue-raising function. The BRT is in the business of real estate valuations and should not be in the revenue-raising business. That's your responsibility along with the executive branch. Let's work cooperatively to be 133 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING un-band these two functions. Secondly, we would be happy to explore with you the discarding of the present system of fractional assessments for a 100 percent market value to sale price system. This must be done, however, with a good deal of forethought and planning, since there will be shifts of taxation within and between property types, even with a millage reduction, to produce revenue neutrality overall. Thirdly, while the BRT cannot divest itself of its legally mandated substantive valuation function and surrender its authority to any other agency or body, we would be pleased to cooperate with Council to establish and implement any reasonable procedural standards that you may suggest. And No. 4, anything else that we haven't discussed. As I said, we're not the repository of every good idea in the world. We are open to every suggestion that makes our system more transparent and allows it to be better, fairer, and more equitable. There have been six or seven bills -- I 134 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING was told this morning eight. There are eight bills introduced in this Council on this issue.
And at least 70 bills introduced in the State Legislature in both special and regular sessions concerned with real property taxes, both systemically and procedurally. We believe lots of good can come out of the energy and, yes, even the anger stirred up by this recent round of valuations. Hopefully, more clarity than confusion will be the result of this critical mass of ideas and opinions. And if you don't mind, if I can just go off the script for a second, I want to reiterate that we are open to all good ideas. I'm not here in a defensive posture. I am here to explain. I certainly am here to give data to what we think sometimes has been an anecdotally-driven kind of problem. And I think we have to get the anecdotes, at least the data that we have on those anecdotes out of way. And then secondly, as I said, we're willing to work with this Council. We're willing to work with the Administration. We believe at the BRT that this is a special moment in time to take a look at this process, to take a look at what we ought to 135 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING be doing, where the responsibilities ought to lie. We ought to be doing valuation. Whatever takes place with revenue-raising certainly ought to be a function where you oversee it. It is not our responsibility. And finally, I think as I said last week, I'm 58 years old and I've lived in the City all but actually, Councilman Nutter two years. I said one year; I made a mistake, I did work in Harrisburg for a year. And there is nothing, nothing that I would rather see than a great Philadelphia. There is nothing that myself, any member of the Board or any member of our staff is trying to do to hurt the City of Philadelphia. But we take it very seriously, ladies and gentlemen, when we put our hand on the Bible and we raise our arm and we take an oath that says that we have to defend the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Home Rule Charter of the City of Philadelphia, we take our responsibility seriously. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.
Thank you very 136 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING much. Mr. Glancey, we were told that there are thousands and thousands, obviously, of value increases of 100 percent, 200 percent, and even more than 300 percent. Can you tell us how many increases fall into those categories?
I'd be happy to. I supplied Council with this bar chart this morning, and I hope everybody has a copy of it. If not, I will make sure that we have that given to you. This bar chart shows -- I would run through this very quickly. Where we say 300 percent or higher -- well, the title of this is "Number of Percentage of Accounts with Value Changes in Excess of 10 percent of 267,000 Parcels Affected by Equalization 2003." There were 87 parcels that were increased 300 percent or higher. And I will tell you, those 87 parcels were not in the equalization program. Those 87 parcels were because there was a significant change of use in the property, whether it was vacant land and a home was built on that vacant land, and of course, you're going to see some value increase because the improvement is going to increase the value of that property over what the land was. Each of those 87 was performed manually by an evaluator 137 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING who had evidence generally from a building permit to make that change. So there were no 300 percent or higher changes done by equalization. Now, having said that, could there have been a typo somewhere? I don't know. I mean, I'm not going to say that didn't take place with 267,000 notices. But if that's the case, it should be pretty obvious to whomever the homeowner is that there is a typo on that, and we'd certainly do something to correct it. On the next bar down you see 200 to 300 percent increase. It's 169 properties. I'm sorry, I don't have the backup with me today on whether or not -- how many of that 169 were part of the Equalization Program. I can read these numbers, but I think you can read them as well. What we are basically saying here is that there are between percent -- 20 any increase of 20 percent or over out of the total 267,000, there were roughly 27,000 increases that were 20 percent or more based on the data that we have. There was another 69,000 from 10 to 20. And, of course, the balance between 0 and 10 percent is below that. 138 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING
You testified as you're reading this that anything above percent 4 was 26,000? I think it's 30 percent. 5
Above 20 percent would be 9 47,000. I'm sorry. That was my error. 10
Thank you. 11 What is the total market value of all City 12 properties, and how does that translate into real 13 estate taxes? 14 Also, second part to that same question, 15 how much of those taxes go to the School District 16 and how much to the City? 17
Let me answer that, Madam 18 Chair, by telling you what the total taxable market 19 value is. The total market value would also include 20 exempts, but let me just tell you what the total taxable market value is. The total taxable market value, certified, which was the 2002 number, was $31,745,000,000. The proposed 2002-2003 is $33,108,000,000.
Can you repeat that, 139 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING please?
Sure. The certified taxable market value is 31,745,000,000. I'm giving you gross figures. The proposed 2002-2003 taxable market value which includes this round of reevaluations is 33,108,000,000. Included in that are any other commercial and industrial increases as well. And I believe the second part of your question is how does that translate to taxes. And as opposed to Ms. Kammerdeiner, I'm going to give you gross numbers. I have no idea what's delinquent. I have no idea what's collected. I will give you what that number that I just gave translates simply using 32 percent times the tax rate. In 2002 the gross numbers, these are gross, remember, according to our records are -- for all real property taxes in the City of Philadelphia, $839,505,000. And the proposed is 875,555,000. That is total, City and School District. And I think your final question, Madam Chairman, is how does that break out. I haven't done the math, but it's easy to do. It's 58 percent of those numbers are for the School District for the 140 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 200,000-plus kids in the Philadelphia School District and, therefore, the 42 percent is the City share.
Thank you. How many appeals does the Board of Revision of Taxes hear each year?
Annually, we hear roughly 2000 or so appeals. This year, I did -- before I came over today, I did a download as of the 27th of September. We have 4,070 or something filed as of this date. This week is usually what we call geometric progression week. Whatever we have today might geometrically progress tomorrow and geometrically progress the next day. So I think we will probably end up this year with 7000 appeals, if I had to guess.
Wow, so that's more than triple. Do you believe there is a quote/unquote bubble in the real estate market that will soon burst?
I do not. As I said in my testimony, this market has been rising for the last five to seven years and it's still rising right now. 141 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING It is still rising. So there is no bubble that's going to last that long. I brought with me a clipping from the Philadelphia Inquirer of September 11, 2002, where Alan Greenspan had testified before, I guess it was a Senate committee, and Greenspan said when asked if there was a bubble, if he thought it was -- in his opinion was there a bubble in the real estate market. He said, "We've looked at the bubble question and we've concluded that it is most unlikely." That sounds very Greenspan-like, I'm sure. And I know he's speaking nationally, but what I think we're able to see in Philadelphia does follow the national trend. There is no hotter market in the United States than the residential real estate market. And when we look in Philadelphia, I think I just saw the other day that some very substantial commercial developers, Lupert and Adler have joined at least in concept with Westram (ph) who is a substantial residential developer. They've seemed to have joined in an attempt to put fair market housing inside the boundaries of the City of Philadelphia. I think they're very astute investors. And I think normally somebody who's a commercial investor you don't see 142 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING jump into the residential market really quickly. But I do think that's an indication that we are not in a bubble market, that we are still in a very good market.
Well, do you think our system punishes people who try to improve their real estate property?
No, I don't. And I'll tell you why. Again, I gave a handout to Councilmembers. If you don't have it in front of you, please let me know. It's a single sheet that says, "Common Misconceptions About Property Taxes in Philadelphia." The very first question is, minor repairs such as painting, mowing your lawn, new windows cause real estate taxes to increase? My response to that is, market values used to derive property taxes are changed in response only to changes in the physical condition or characteristics of the property only if those changes would result in significant change in the anticipated sale price of the property. I'm not going to read the whole thing to you. What happens in reality, and I believe that, again, this is one of the myths across the 143 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING United States about a real property system. If you want to fix up your house, if you want to paint your house, you want to put window boxes out like I do, if you want to put a planter in front of your house like I do, that's not going to cause your market value to go up. You pull a permit and add a deck or add an addition to your property, something that physically changes the nature of your property, it may very well add value. It's not necessarily dollar for dollar in the cost, but something like that is what the evaluator looks at. We don't punish people for keeping their homes in a well-maintained manner.
As Part B to that, do you think the Historic Commission punishes people or do you think since there is no basic change to the property that it does not as well?
I'm not sure "punish" would be the right word. I think what the Historic Commission asks people to do is that if you have a historic front, to keep it that way. But in most instances, you almost have to voluntarily get involved in that program. So if you make that effort to voluntarily get involved, I mean, you know 144 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING going in what you have to do. So I don't believe it's punishment per se. It might cost you some more to keep it that way.
Thank you. Finally, my last question and I'll turn it to my colleagues. Would you be in favor of contracting with some neutral third party to analyze BRT's process of valuing properties, including its methodology, Administration, and governance?
You bet. I think one of the things that we hear today -- and again, maybe it's our fault for not getting the information out, and we have to do better at that. But I would absolutely welcome some neutral third party to take a look at our system. We employ the best practices, we believe, in the United States. And if a neutral third party -- and by that, I mean it could be university-driven or it could be the organization that oversees assessments throughout the United States, the IAA0. If any of those kinds of institutions wanted to do a third-party analysis of our practices, we would welcome them with open arms. We would take whatever criticisms -- in any respect, the answer is yes. We welcome it with open arms. 145 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING
Thank you, Madam Chair. Chairman Glancey, first I'd like to say what I've been telling people for the last month or so at community meetings that first if they feel their assessment is unfair for whatever reason, value being a large part of it but often the size of the increase and there is such thing pleading for mercy. But I've told them that even though it's a quasi-judicial panel, that I've never seen a panel, starting with yourself and other members, listen as well and treat people with as much courtesy as you do. And I want to compliment you publicly on that and not just say in small community meetings.
Because it's a very unusual situation where people feel like their trip has been worthwhile even if they're not successful because of how they've been treated. And I appreciate you doing that and the other members. And also, I think the other members bring from different parts of the City a familiarity with areas 146 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING that if you're all from the same area may not happen. But I wanted to mention two things to you or ask you. You mentioned the Verna bill and the Nutter bill and I believe one is the freeze bill 7 and the other is the 10 percent bill?
No, let me ask a question because it can be real quick. I don't have to get into -- the 4 percent cap bill that I introduced has no effect at all on what you do; we've had that discussion.
That's fine. I don't want to get into that. It seemed like you had said those two did not affect the processes at the Board --
I probably should have been more limited and simply said those bills that somehow impact on what we believe is the valuation prerogative granted to us by the State Legislature would be the bills that we as a board would personally oppose. Everything else, seems to me, 147 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING that we would be for.
And the percent 4 bill does not impose any limitations on you.
But the bar graph you handed out, I found it interesting -- and I hope this wasn't a subjective thing on your part because I've got an awful lot of appeals that fall below the bar graph. There's no indication at all on how many between 4 and 8 percent or 4 and 7 percent or 7 and 10 percent. And there's 200,000 appeals that are under 10 percent.
I mean potential appeals. I'm sorry. I'm wondering if we could get some real good information because my argument, and one that I believe is very reasonable, is that the Adminstration needs some money -- this is on the bill. It does not affect what you do, just the information you've given me may -- I hear enough in the public arena in the community that the Administration and the BRT are tied at the hip and nobody is going to convince anybody otherwise. 148 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Well, this will be an argument, if I made that argument, this would support it, that your bar graph only went down to percent; the inference being 5 that there's a subjective opinion that 10 percent 6 and up is what you should be upset about. I've got 7 people upset anywhere from 3 to 10 percent just as 8 much as who makes a lot more money or has a lot more 9 expensive house at a much higher number. And so if 10 you can get that for me, I'd appreciate it.
I don't think it was intentional, I'm just pointing out that someone may interpret that. The other thing is the bubble's been mentioned and I hear an awful lot of that from people that, what happens next when the values go down in my neighborhood? Well, I think, you know, Alan Greenspan's been not so right for the last two years or so. I mean, he hit a lot of grand slams, a lot of home runs, he's having trouble with singles lately. But there is a difference of opinion even within the Board. But I don't think there's any question that high-wealth individuals who have stock 149 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING portfolios -- and I can tell you, I don't represent many people with stock portfolios. But they have gotten out of the market in a large part in the last few years. The market is scaring them. Real estate is where they're going. Buying an expensive condominium or house is something that they make a decision on. I don't have any problem with that. What I have a problem with is that there's neighborhoods getting lumped into this real estate phenomenon that aren't experiencing the same rates because these people aren't buying $80,000 or $120,000 houses. Mortgage rates are driving everyone. It's hard to pass up. People are stretching. That could change tomorrow. So I think there is a bubble. And I think it's a bubble in the expensive housing market based on what stocks you're doing and where people want to put their investments and mortgage rates covering everybody from the low end to the high end. But the one thing I like about my bill, in addition to having what I think is a reasonable cap, is if I'm the high-wealth individual, I look at Rittenhouse Square -- I'll use that because that's kind of our highest other than Chestnut Hill homes. The condos around Rittenhouse 150 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Square are usually seen as pretty top flight stuff. So I want to buy a very expensive, maybe a seven-figure property. I go in and I make all my evaluations as to where I'm putting my investment and I look at the taxes and the taxes are $5,000, say. Well, the next year, they're $20,000. I mean, this is an argument that really doesn't affect my district, but I just want to point it out because it comes back on the way to my district and the bill 11 that has the 4 percent cap. I buy that property and then I get a $25,000 tax bill next year, which may be very fair based on equalization. Under the 4 percent cap, the person owning doesn't get more than 4 percent a year. They're being treated very fairly. That person making that decision to buy the million dollar condo who gets the $25,000 bill, because you're only looking at value, they're being treated very fairly too. And they just make another decision based on investment. They're no more upset by the $25,000 than the 5 because they'll probably just negotiate the price down to meet that because they're investors. These are people that are very sophisticated financially. But I believe it applies everywhere. It helps long-term homeowners because 151 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING they aren't being gouged in any one year. A person buying their house goes in with their eyes open. They make their mortgage decisions, their affordability decisions on that. So I think if we're trying to help people and not seeing how much we can squeeze out of a system to help run a government -- and we're really squeezing on the margins. I mean the difference between -- because I think you'll show us when you give us the bar graph, between 4 percent increase and how many that would affect and the $3 billion we spend a year is going to be fairly marginal. It may be indistinguishable, to use a term I'm starting to like a lot. So I think it's fair, but I do think the Board and the assessor should at least take a look at some of the dissent from Mr. Greenspan. It may be his own dissent today because he may have a different opinion. I don't know what the date of that was.
That there are two factors out there that could change tomorrow: Mortgage rates and the stock market. Mortgage affect everyone. I think the stock market affects your highest properties that are getting these real high increases. And look at 152 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING that in terms of gradualism within the mind of the assessor. You said the last person that looks at that screen is a human. " I'm doing my job if it's a lot lower than that but there's a substantial increase. And I point that out because it seems like you have assessors who are more aggressively guessing high as opposed to less aggressively guessing low. Because this is all guesswork when you get into the comps. No two are alike and all that. I say that because just the other day, I believe it was a the Inquirer, it might been on Sunday, did a story about a fellow that works for the Mayor who is a contract employee. And those were examples they gave in different parts of the City, assuming they're true, the anecdotes all come out. I mean, now it's in the Inquirer -- and maybe at some future time we can find out what those were, but I believe each four of those assessors thought they were doing their job the same. And looking at the comps, I believe you have aggressive 153 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING assessors, you have push-the-limit assessors, and you have assessors that are a little more reasonable. I won't say rational because I think they're all being rational. But there is a very big human impact here that one property that sells for the same amount of money is $2,000 more in taxes than another that sells for the same amount of money. I just mention that because I wish some of this could happen before the envelope is sealed and these get out in the -- they're inhuman. These increases -- I mean, I don't have to deal with them personally, the ones that are 100 percent, 200 percent. What is anybody thinking sending out a 200 percent increase. I just can't figure that one out. The last thing, because you asked for advice and I don't know if this advice or not, but I have found in several thousand hearings at the Board that one of the things that is the toughest for people to deal with is getting the comps that were used on their particular assessment about 10 seconds before they sit down to talk to you. They don't know in the process. They're terribly nervous. They're not sophisticated. And then they get hit with three properties that they may not even know. 154 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING But had they had a little bit of time -- so I'm going to suggest one of two things. One, they go out with the appeal form so they can look at it and maybe not appeal; they'd say, "Oh, if these are the three, I don't have the a chance," because they may be very reasonably compared. Or that they in some way have the opportunity after they file the appeal to have it sent to them, whether it's accompanied by a phone call from the assessor or not. And the last thing is, if you could check -- I understand the assessors are trying hard to compromise some of these appeals before they get to you. If you could provide them with some envelopes because I understand as of yesterday there was so much activity they were running out of envelopes. I'm saying that lightly but apparently there's a shortage of envelopes. I'll leave with you that. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam 155 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Chair. Mr. Glancey, if you want to check back with the office, there might be some sentiment this is wrong committee that I'd be glad to talk to Councilwoman Krajewski, Chair of the Appropriations Committee if you think you need some additional appropriation for envelopes. We'd be glad to have that discussion in another hearing.
We'll just walk over the Staples and take care of that problem ourselves.
What I'd like to do is do a little bit of some background questions on the BRT and then become very current with the testimony, talk a little bit about what goes on in other jurisdictions and then get into some more detail questions. The board has seven members, correct?
All appointed by the Board of Judges of the Court of Common Pleas.