Property Reassessment

November 2, 2008

Combining adjoining parcels on the rise

Reassessment has property owners filing for reverse subdivisions to lower taxes.

By Jerry Lynott jlynott@timesleader.com
Business Writer
Jerry Lynott on Facebook   |   @TLJerryLynott on Twitter

To combine or not to combine, that is a question facing property owners looking for a way to reduce their taxes as a result of countywide assessment.

Since new values were issued, more people have applied for reverse subdivisions to combine adjoining parcels than in the past, Luzerne County officials said.

The one-out-of-more-than-one approach has its advantages. A single parcel assembled from smaller ones carries one tax bill and the land within it can vary in value. That can result in a lower overall assessment – and lower tax bill – for combined properties.

“It’s been a flurry of interest in them because of the reassessment,” said Adrian Merolli, director of the county planning commission.

His office does not keep track of those filings, he said, adding there were likely others filed with municipalities that have their own planning offices.

“This is not necessarily a new thing,” Merolli explained.

Any time a lot line is changed, whether it is through subdividing a large parcel into smaller ones or the reverse, it has to be recorded and a new deed and new property identification number are issued.

A new value used to determine the property tax also has to be assigned.

“The process is uniform, but the real estate market is not,” said Tim Barr of 21st Century Appraisals Inc. The county hired the company to update property values from the last reassessment done in 1965.

Property taxes are set to increase the most on vacant land and residential properties, according to the company. Lots of 10 acres or more have a projected average tax increase of 115 percent. Vacant lots of a smaller size are projected to increase by an average of 38 percent.

Taxes on residential properties in the same range are projected to go up an average of 52 percent.

Vacant lots of a smaller size are projected to increase by an average of 38 percent and 3 percent for residential properties under 10 acres.

The increases were based on values mailed on or before July 1 and could change because of the informal reviews, formal appeals and participation in the Clean and Green land conservation program.

Values vary between municipalities and within them. “Location is the most important variable when you’re talking about land,” Barr said.

The reassessment company uses a complex calculation to arrive at the value and it applies to properties large and small.

A multi-acre parcel’s value is the sum of the individual acres and each has a different value. The first acre is assigned a base price. The remaining acres receive their own values. The method is used to calculate values of parcels under an acre as well.

Property owners who try to divide the value of a one-acre parcel in half to arrive at a value for their half-acre parcel will not get an accurate amount, according to the appraisal company.

A drive along Maple Leaf Road in Kingston Township illustrates the point. The road is less than 1,000 feet from one end to the other in the small development where lots of varying sizes have been assessed uniformly. According to Assessment Office records, the value of a one-third acre lot is $44,300. While nearly double the size, a .65 acre lot is assessed at $59,100, only 33 percent more. A .49 acre lot falls in between, with an assessment of $51,500.

Costs involved

A few people have hired Baer & Evans to survey their properties for reverse subdivisions because of the reassessment.

“There was one lady who had 13 lots and combined them all into one,” said Dennis Evans.

Others have combined two or three parcels, he added. The immediate advantage is one tax bill instead of one for each parcel. But it may take time for property owners to see the savings after paying up-front costs for surveying and fees that could run several thousand dollars.

The work of Evans and other surveyors eventually ends up in the county’s Mapping department.

“We’ve seen an increase of individual property owners that had an interest in trying to combine their lots,” said David Skoronski, director of the Geographic Information Systems used in the department.

Whether it makes sense to do so, Skoronski said that’s up to the property owner and advised them to get legal advice.

“Is it worth it in the long run? That is the question,” he said.

Should their request be approved by the planning commission Elizabeth Glycenfer and her husband Ronald of Courtdale will have only one less tax bill from the county.

The reassessment “had a lot to do with it,” she said.

The couple has two adjoining lots of equal size on Cooper Street. Most of their house sits on one lot, but an addition extends over the line onto the other lot.

Under the new assessment, the lot with the addition now includes a building value that has raised the couple’s taxes on that parcel to more than $900 from around $55, according to county tax data.

“Hopefully in the end it will work out better,” said Elizabeth Glycenfer.

On their plan under review by the county planning commission is a notation that the purpose is to combine the individual parcels into one final lot and no construction is proposed.

Property owners combine parcels to make sure they are being taxed as fairly as possible “based on how they intend” to use the land, Barr said.

For property owners who have no plans to split up what they’ve joined, “it’s logical to do that,” Barr said.

Tweet	Follow @TLnews

Send Question or Remark to the Publisher