Who do you believe has, or had, the authority -- well, there's no longer a memorandum of understanding.
So who do you believe had the authority to impose a moratorium on property assessments under the memorandum of understanding?
I believe that the board has that authority by state statute. And I believe that while the memorandum of understanding was in place that the board, and only the board, had that authority. And I believe now the 161 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET board has that authority.
So did the board agree to a moratorium on property assessments?
No, we did not -- we were not -- we did not participate. We weren't asked about that. We heard the announcement.
Does the board want and a moratorium on property assessments?
Now, the board hasn't taken any action and had any discussion, so I would have to talk to the board about that.
And just lastly, is there a moratorium on property assessments?
According to the... I would refer you to the Administration on that, but I would -- but my statement stand.
What authority would the Administration have 162 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET -- (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)
Councilman Goode, I'm trying not to get into a, a... Well, I guess we're already in the middle of it, so it doesn't matter.
What I would say is, my statement remains the same; and that is that the Board of Revision of Taxes, the seven board members, are charged with setting policy, and it would be the board that would have to set the moratorium for it to be a legal moratorium and an appropriate moratorium. (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)
My final question was: Is there a moratorium on property assessments?
Right. And with all due respect, I have to let the answer 163 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET stand that I stated.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
So, just picking up on Councilman Goode's excellent questions, the BRT is in charge. The BRT has not officially declared a moratorium. The BRT is required by state law to uniformly value all priority at actual cost. The BRT has certainty within the required standards that 380 to 85,000 homes can be reassessed and sent appraisal notices. Do you feel that you're fulfilling your duty if you don't, when you have a different value on a property that you believe is different than the value on your rolls, and you can compare 164 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET what's in the CAMA system to what's on your actual rolls, do you not believe you have a duty to that property owner to send them an assessment with what you believe to be actual value within the required standards?
Right. We do have a duty. The assessors are still working on that issue and to move it forward because we need to have -- (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)
No, no, I'm talking about the properties that Mr. Levin testified to, to which you have the required certainty under appraisal standards.
You don't have to do it all at once; I mean, you never did in the past, right? You know 380,000 properties that you think are accurate, that's your testimony. What legal right do you have, 165 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET under state law, not to send out an assessment that you think is accurate if that property is not currently assessed within those standards?
Well, there is the issue of the requirement that the citywide assessment include all properties citywide. And so, we --
So keeping -- what we -- what our goal -- our goal was to have commercial and residential, all of the properties --
I understand that's your goal, but we're not going to get there for 18 months. That's not the question. The question is: Will sending out those 380,000 property assessments make the system more uniform today, more uniform than today, or less uniform than today? And based on the testimony I have heard so far today, it would make the 166 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET system more uniform.
Looking at the university of the entire City, would it become more uniform or less uniform if you were to send out those assessments?
Why I'm hesitant is because there is a charge to do the assessments citywide and to --
Of course there are, but you don't annually send out assessments on every single property; you get to what you can get to. You got to 380,000.
Well, with the Actual Value Initiative, our goal was to do the entire City.
Well, state law 167 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET says citywide assessment. (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)
But for uniformity purposes, it has to be for all categories of --
I understand. It doesn't require you to do every property every year. You can make the system more fair than it is today, and you're refusing to do so. And I just, you know --
No, it's not a refusal to do so, either; it's not a refusal to do so. As I've testified and as Mr. Keene has testified, there's an ongoing process to work toward improving the actual-value numbers. That's been going on since --
But I'm not talking about properties where you don't have right; I'm talking about properties 168 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET that you believe you have right and meet standards.
Right. My concern is, you're isolating one group of properties, residential.
No, you're just isolating those properties that you have the assessment correct on. And you shouldn't send out an assessment notice until you have it correct. So you're working to correct the rest. But once you have it correct, you have it correct.
More than half of all residential properties in the City is not isolating or targeting any specific group or neighborhood or anything else.
Or maybe the appropriate answer to that question is that that's something that the board should look toward working with Council 169 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET and if Councilman Green wants to work with us in terms of your investigations on that issue.
Well, I go back to your previous testimony, which is that it is the BRT's whose job this is.
But the issue here is in terms of the view. And our view and our goal, as I said, is to do citywide, the citywide assessment process, not to do it in isolation.
And I'm understanding from you that you're looking at possibly doing one grouping.
I was just asking you what the law is with respect to your duty.
Councilman, we're not sure we can do that, send out one 170 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET category of properties without a citywide reassessment; we're not sure. That's a matter that you're as a qualified to answer as we. It's a matter of constitutional law, as you well know. I can only say the status of where we're at.
What I don't understand about that response is, every year you send out assessments that's not the entire city, and you never have sent out assessments that is the entire city. So I mean, I guess your testimony could be that for the entire history of the BRT, you haven't followed the law state of the state constitution. But, you know, that seems that, you know -- is that your testimony?
And in terms of going to a computerized mass-appraisal system, we've testified before Council 171 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET previously that one of the needs for that was because it was difficult to meet the mandate. And that at best, even with the previous chairman, he testified that at best, it was just about a third of the City was done at any one time oftentimes, and that that --
Right. But there's no requirement under state law to use a computer -- the CAMA system, right?
But that's what allows us to do -- would allow us to do citywide assessment, all properties at one time. That's why that's needed.
Well, but you're 80 percent -- but you're within standards on 385,000 properties.
That's right. 172 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET
That's right. And you're going to continue to work through that process. And next year, you'll have more correct; and next year, you'll have more correct.
Right. But also, what we're trying to do -- and maybe Mr. Keene could best answer this question -- is to include the commercial. The commercial properties --
The 173 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam President. Miss Meade, we've had a discussion over several years of budget hearings about the equalization problem and the fact that there are areas of the City that have been historically overassessed and areas of the City that have been historically underassessed.
The question is: For those residential properties which you believe are 80 percent -- residential assessments which you believe are 80 percent accurate, do you know how many fall in areas that have been historically overassessed versus areas that were historically underassessed?
No. I'd have to review the data to give you a precise answer on that; I'm hesitant to give you the answer. But I know it does fall, for 174 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET instance, in certain areas in the Northeast and the Northwest as well, where, unfortunately, for years, they've paid the brunt. And I'm going back to, say, the '90s; where, in the '90s, you had people -- or properties that were in other sections of the City that were possibly at percent of value. 10 We had a project 20, 30, 40 11 percent -- we had a project at that time 12 at the board in which we are trying to 13 bring properties to 70 percent. And 14 those properties, many of them, when 15 people would file appeals, you'd see that 16 they were higher than 85 percent of the 17 value. 18 So I think clearly in certain 19 sections. And I think it's important 20 because it's in the Northwest and Northeast.
Which areas have been historically across the City overassessed?
Right. I would 175 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET like to look at the data because the market has fluctuated so much and actually look at our chart, but I would say --
Right, but I can say that from the '90s going forward, there have been areas in the Northwest, Northeast, the far Northeast of Philadelphia, Northwest Philadelphia, where there have been issues of overassessment compared -- if you look comparatively to the rest the City.
Are there other areas of the City that have been historically overassessed?
Yes, yes, I'm sure there are. But, again, as I said, I'd prefer to be more precise and look at the 176 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET map. Those two areas stick out in my mind.
Okay. Let's say if we don't know which areas have been overassessed or underassessed at this moment, let's just say that there are areas that have been overassessed and underassessed and that may have changed since the '90s or it may be a problem that dates back several decades.
If you have residential assessments that are 80 percent accurate particularly for those areas that were overassessed for decades, don't they have a right to relief as soon as possible?
Absolutely, absolutely. I believe that, and that's why the board went forward, moving to the Actual Value Initiative, because in doing the studies about four -- three years ago and trying to determine how we could bring everyone to an equal percentage of 177 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET the value, so establishing uniformity based upon a percentage, so a 70 percent of what actual value would be. One of the problems that we faced was that no matter what we did, there would be substantial changes for people. And then, even in trying to do it, and it would change so much over the years, that there would need to be a change in the rate no matter what level we set it at, because some were so very high and some were so very low. And there wouldn't be the level of transparency or ease. And that's why it became the simplest way was to look at the law. The law says to assess at actual value. And then, instead of trying to do a percentage of actual value, to place all of the properties at one hundred percent of value of what a willing buyer and a willing seller would do. But, Councilman, I want to say to you that, um... 178 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET
Let me jest make a request, which is an information request. The request is simply that if you have data that shows which areas have been historically overassessed and which areas have been historically underassessed going back not to just the '90s, but beyond the '90s, that you share that data and particularly any mapping of that data that would show us who has a right to even more relief due to decades of overassessment. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. Did you want to make a statement?
Well, yes, I -- I'm being told not to make this statement, but I do want to make this statement. One of the problems -- one of the problems that the board faces, and one of the reasons that I believe a lot 179 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET of the political activity has occurred around the board, has to do with the actual value project; it has to do with just that point. The fact that in going to actual value, the problem that is faced by some people in the political sphere is that their areas may have been depressed historically over the years in terms of valuation, that given the percentage of those who are paying higher and lower, their people are paying lower in terms of taxes. We're not the tax man, but that's how it's perceived in terms of looking at the value. And the problem that we have is that there are those in the political sphere who don't want actual value to occur and who do all that they can to impede our progress simply because it would affect their districts, their divisions, their areas. And that's one of the things that we find it difficult 180 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET in terms of dealing with. So I'm just -- I shouldn't have said it, but I said it.
If you have any mapping of that data, then the mapping will tell the story.
Right. And we do have mapping, and we can provide you with that mapping.
Provide it through the Chair. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you, Madam President. I just want to make a few clarifying points. 181 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET With respect to the policy of the BRT, what percentage of actual value do you send the assessment out based on today?
That was a goal. There was a time in the late '90s and going into the year 2000 where the --
No, no. The board was aiming toward a level, and that was 70 percent at that time.
Kevin? Mr. Keene? 182 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET
Currently, any changes that we're making to market values, we're aiming for a level of about 35 percent of what we think the property is actual worth.
Okay. And that's what people are -- that's the assessed value, 35 percent.
The market value that we're putting on properties today in lieu of going to actual value, which would be for every property in the City at one time.
Okay. So you're taking what you think it's actually worth, and you're calling the market value 35 percent.
Okay. So if 183 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET you could please provide to the Chair data on the 380,000, 385,000 properties that Mr. Levin has described in, you know, a similar format that you had available last year on a CD, but include a line for the currently -- so create market value at the current value on the rolls, whatever that is, and then market value based at 35 percent of actual value provided by CAMA. And then let's look at what that variance is in two total columns at the bottom. You with me?
35 percent of actual value. So the way you do it today, market value, okay? How long would that take you to do?
Is Monday 184 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET reasonable?
Do you know what current value -- I mean, I could -- I can send someone over.
Well, we'd have to take everything that was done for actual value and come up with a percentage of that. (Discussion continues off-mic.)
Okay. So -- 185 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET great. So --
Are there any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Seeing none, thank you very much. This committee will stand in recess until Wednesday, April 21, at 10 a.m. Thank you very much. (Proceedings end at 3 o'clock p.m.) * * * 186 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings of the City of Philadelphia Council Committee of the Whole are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me on Tuesday, April 20, 2010, and that this is a true and correct statement of same. __________________________________ JOSEPHINE CARDILLO Registered Professional Reporter (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)