The assessed value and appraised value of a property are two different concepts used for distinct purposes in real estate, though they are often confused. Here’s how they differ:

• Assessed Value
  • Purpose: Used primarily for property tax purposes.
  • Who Determines It: The Clarion County Tax Assessor office determines the assessed value. Most recently a firm, Vision Government Solutions, was hired for the county wide reassessment.
  • How It’s Calculated: The calculation is based on a formula or set criteria established by the county, which could take into account factors like property size, market trends, improvements, and the location of the property. In some cases, the assessed value may be a percentage of the appraised or market value.
  • Frequency: It’s typically determined periodically (e.g., annually or every few years) by the local taxing authority.
  • Relation to Taxes: Property taxes are calculated based on the assessed value. For example, if a property is assessed at $200,000 and the tax rate is 1%, the annual property tax would be $2,000.
• Appraised Value
  • Purpose: Used to estimate the current market value of a property.
  • Who Determines It: A licensed or certified real estate appraiser determines the appraised value.
  • How It’s Calculated: The appraiser evaluates the property based on its condition, location, size, recent sales of comparable properties in the area, and other relevant factors. This gives an estimate of what the property would likely sell for on the open market.
  • Frequency: It’s typically done when buying, selling, or refinancing a property.
  • Relation to Market: The appraised value represents the current market value and is used by buyers, sellers, and lenders to make informed decisions about the property.

Key Differences:
Assessed Value is primarily for taxation purposes and may not reflect the property’s current market value.
Appraised Value is a reflection of the property’s market value and is used in transactions like buying, selling, or refinancing.

In many cases, the assessed value is lower than the appraised value because local governments may assess properties at a fraction of their market value for tax purposes. However, we have heard time and time again, "If my home would sell for what it was assessed at, I would sell in a heartbeat!". As of 1/19/25, we have requested the formulas used in the assessments to help understand why prices or seemingly high. Stay tuned!

In Pennsylvania, the Clean and Green Program (formally known as the Pennsylvania Farmland and Forest Land Assessment Act of 1974) is designed to provide a preferential tax assessment for owners of farmland, forest land, and open space land. It essentially allows landowners to have their property assessed based on its use value (agricultural, forest, or open space) rather than its market value, which generally results in lower property taxes for those enrolled.

During a countywide reassessment, which is a revaluation of all properties to bring assessments in line with current market values, properties enrolled in the Clean and Green Program continue to be assessed based on their use value rather than the reassessed market value. This can sometimes cause concern or confusion about the potential tax impact on those who are not enrolled in the program.

Does Clean and Green Enrollment Raise Taxes for Others?
The short answer is no—enrollment in the Clean and Green program itself does not directly raise taxes for people who are not enrolled. However, it can have indirect effects on the overall tax distribution, which might lead to higher taxes for some non-participants depending on how the local tax structure is affected by the reassessment.

Here are some key points to consider:

• How Clean and Green Works:
  • The Clean and Green program lowers property taxes for participants by assessing the land based on its use (such as farming or timber) instead of its full market value.
  • Property taxes are determined by multiplying the assessed value by the tax rate (millage rate) set by the taxing authorities (county, school district, municipality).
  • Since the assessed value for land in Clean and Green is typically much lower than the market value, landowners in the program pay less in property taxes than they would under normal market value assessments.
• Impact on Countywide Reassessments:
  During a countywide reassessment, properties are revalued to reflect their current market values. For those not enrolled in Clean and Green, this means their property’s assessed value may increase, which could lead to higher property taxes if the tax rate remains the same or if there isn’t an adjustment in the millage rate to compensate for the reassessed values.
  • Clean and Green participants will continue to have their land assessed based on its use value rather than the newly reassessed market value, meaning their property tax burden remains comparatively lower.
  • If a significant number of properties are enrolled in Clean and Green and benefit from these preferential assessments, it could shift the overall tax burden to other property owners (who are not enrolled) because the local government still needs to collect a certain amount of revenue (tax levy) to fund public services.
• Tax Burden Distribution:
  • The overall tax levy (the total amount of property taxes a county, municipality, or school district needs to raise) is fixed. If some properties are taxed at a lower rate (like Clean and Green properties), the remaining properties that are not enrolled may end up shouldering a larger proportion of the total tax burden.
  • This doesn't mean that Clean and Green directly raises taxes for others—it simply reduces the tax base, and non-participants could face higher taxes depending on how the reassessment affects the overall distribution of taxable property.
• Millage Rate Adjustments:
  • After a reassessment, counties or municipalities may adjust the millage rates to prevent large swings in tax bills. If property values increase substantially, a government may reduce the millage rate to avoid a dramatic tax increase. However, the burden distribution will still reflect the differences between Clean and Green properties and those assessed at full market value.
  • Non-participants in Clean and Green could see increased taxes if their property is reassessed at a higher market value and if the overall tax base does not adjust to compensate for the reduced taxable value from Clean and Green properties.
• Roll-Back Taxes for Clean and Green:
  • If a property owner enrolled in Clean and Green changes the use of their land (e.g., develops it for residential or commercial purposes), they may be subject to roll-back taxes. This means the landowner will have to pay the difference between the taxes paid under Clean and Green and what would have been paid under regular assessment, plus interest, for the past 7 years.
  • This provision ensures that properties in Clean and Green are not permanently tax-advantaged if they no longer meet the criteria for preferential assessment.

Conclusion:
Clean and Green enrollment itself does not directly raise taxes for non-participants, but it can shift the tax burden. When many properties receive preferential tax treatment under the program, the tax base is reduced, and the remaining property owners may end up paying a larger share of the total tax levy. However, the impact of this shift depends on the local tax structure, millage rate adjustments, and the specifics of the countywide reassessment.

When we initially calculated the numbers (see them here), we assumed that the county would collect less revenue for every parcel that enrolled in the Clean & Green program. However, upon further analysis, it appears the county could still increase its tax revenue by 44%, regardless of Clean & Green participation, by shifting the tax burden to properties not enrolled in the program. This makes it challenging for us to accurately determine which properties will be most impacted and leaves us unable to pinpoint the exact distribution of the county-wide tax burden. As a result, we cannot determine the true percentages of properties that will experience an increase, no change, or a decrease in their tax bills.

Our initial numbers indicate that full participation in Clean & Green would save taxpayers $1,639,380. That still holds true for those participating. However, those who are not eligible would see an increase of $1,639,380. We are still unclear on exactly how that would be distributed.

Again, these have been our findings. We welcome the county's input and gladly offer the opportunity to correct any information that we may be misrepresenting.

One of the biggest concerns for property owners facing an increase in county taxes is the strong likelihood of a significant rise in school taxes. Discussions with school district administrators reveal they share this concern. The new assessments appear likely to bring a windfall profit without any increase in their millage rates.

Although school tax rates differ from county tax rates, both rely on the same property assessments to calculate the appropriate millage rate. With the overall county tax increase ranging from 21% to 44%, school district revenue is expected to rise proportionally. Depending on where the majority of property value increases occur, some districts could experience assessment value growth well above 44%, while others might see less revenue than they currently generate.

We have not yet fully analyzed the data to assess the specific impacts on each district, but further review is forthcoming.

Pedersen v. Monroe County Board of Assessment Appeals

 In this property tax assessment dispute, the Commonwealth Court reversed and remanded the trial court's decision, holding that the evidence failed to demonstrate that a storage shed was attached to the land in a manner sufficient to make it taxable under the law.

 John Pedersen appealed a trial court order that affirmed the Monroe County Board of Assessment Appeals' (BAA) determination that his storage shed was taxable under the Consolidated County Assessment Law, 53 Pa.C.S. §§8801-8868. Pedersen argued that his shed was not taxable under §8811 because it was not permanently attached to the land or connected to utilities such as water, gas, electricity, or sewage.

 The trial court and appellate courts typically employ an analysis to determine whether chattels or fixtures associated with the land can be assessed as realty when the item in question is not explicitly identified as taxable real estate. However, in this case, §8811(a)(1)(iii) expressly addressed storage sheds as buildings potentially subject to taxation. Thus, the court found that the analysis applied in cases involving undefined items was largely irrelevant. The sole issue here was whether Pedersen's shed was "permanently attached" to the land.

 The court noted that while §8811 did not define "attached," its common usage implied more than mere placement on the ground or reliance on weight for stability. Instead, it required a substantial connection, such as fastening or affixing the structure to the land.

 Although evidence indicated that Pedersen intended for the shed to remain in place indefinitely, the record did not establish that it was sufficiently attached to the land to meet the statutory requirements for assessment. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's ruling and remanded the case.

Anecdotal evidence indicates that the new assessments are improperly considering storage sheds/non-permanent structures. As of January 19, 2025, we have a pending RTK request to confirm this information.

Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/pa-commonwealth-court/1654757.html

In 1975, all residential properties underwent a similar reassessment process. During this process, assessors visited homes and used a standardized matrix or rubric to determine property values. This system benchmarked homes of all ages to establish their assessed value. For example, in 1975, a particular property might have been assessed at $20,000, resulting in a tax payment of $490, with an effective tax rate of 2.45%.

If that same home were built today on the same lot with no changes—such as new outbuildings, improvements, or additions—its assessed value might be $131,800. While the assessed value has increased, the tax burden would remain roughly the same at $490 because the effective tax rate would decrease to approximately 0.372%.

Using the same 1975 rubric, a newly constructed home built two years ago would have had an assessed value of $20,000 at that time. Reassessing it with today's updated rubric should yield an assessed value close to its purchase price two years ago, such as $131,800. Assuming no significant changes or improvements were made, the tax burden would remain relatively stable, with the effective tax rate adjusted accordingly.

However, many property owners have increased the value of their homes over the years by adding features like swimming pools, paved driveways, or home additions. These enhancements may not have been reflected in previous assessments and are only now being accounted for because assessors have physically inspected each property.

Conversely, properties where structures like barns or outbuildings have been removed may see a decrease in their tax burden, as these removed features are no longer included in the updated assessment.

This overview is a generalized explanation of what should occur during property reassessment.

See our findings here