IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

The School District of Philadelphia, : CASES CONSOLIDATED

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 195 C.D. 2021

: No. 265 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, :

and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 196 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, :

and 401 Market Street a/k/a :

MREF 401 LP :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 197 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and :

1500 Net Works Associates :

a/k/a Net Works Build ing :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 198 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and PR Chestnut :

Associates LP :The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 199 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and : Hub Properties Trust now owned by :

Commonwealth of PA

- SEPTA :

: The School District of Philadelph ia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 200 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and : Two Logan Square Associates :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No . 201 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and OLS Office :

Partners LP :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 202 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and Commerce : Square Partners :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 203 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, :The City of Ph iladelphia, :

and Maguire/Thomas PTNS :

Phila Plaza Phase II :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 204 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, :

and Cedar South Philadelphia :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 205 C.D. 2021

: No. 223 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes, : No. 259 C.D. 2021

The City of Philadelphia, : No. 260 C.D. 2 021

and ARD Grant LP a/k/a : No. 285 C.D. 2021

The Court at Grant :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 206 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, :

and 17 60 Market Partners LP :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 207 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and SWP Real :

Estate LLC :

:

The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant ::

v. : No. 208 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and BA Parkway : Associates II a/k/a Embassy Suites :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 209 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and : Public Storage Properties XVIII :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 21 0 C.D. 2021

: No. 266 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and : SPSP Corporation :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 211 C.D. 2021

: No. 252 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : No. 258 C.D. 2021

City of Philadelphia, and 2400 : No. 286 C.D. 2021

Market VII LP a/k/a Marketplace : Design Center :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v

. : No. 212 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and 4401 : Walnut Holdings LLC ::

The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 213 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revi sion of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and : T C Pepper Building G P LLC : a/k/a The Pepper Building :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 214 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and : Hill House Apartment Association :

a/k/a The Watermark :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 215 C.D. 2021

: No. 218 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision o f Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, : and WWW Premier Holdings LLC :

a/k/a Winchester Walk :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 216 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, : and Offices at Two Liberty PL :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:v. : No. 217 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and CRP

- Grep :

Rushwood LP a/k/a Rushwood : Apartments now owned by : RSW Premier Holdings LLC :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 219 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and Charter Court : Holdings LL a/k/a Charter Court : Apartments :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 220 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and : Cedar Quartermaster LLC :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 221 C.D. 2021

: No. 283 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : No. 284 C.D. 2021

City of Philadelphia, and PR : Northeast Limited Partnership :

a/k/a Northeast Tower Center :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 222 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, The :City of Philadelphia, and Red Lion :

MZL LP :

The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 224 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and : Center City Chestnut LLC :

a/k/a Ni neteen Thirty Chestnut :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 226 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, :

and 777 South Broad Street AS :

:

The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 227 C.D. 2021

: No. 256 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and PR Walnut :

Associates LP :

: The School District of Philadelphi a, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 228 C.D. 2021

: No. 229 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and Market Square :

Plaza I LLC :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:v. : No. 253 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, : and Super Salvage, Inc. a/k/a CVS :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 254 C.D. 2021

: Board of Revision of Taxes, The City : of Philadelphia, and 23rd Street : Garage VII LP :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 255 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and :

618 Market LP :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 257 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and Brandywine : Operating Partners LP a/k/a Bell :

Atlantic Tower :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 261 C.D. 2021

: No. 262 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and Two : Liberty Place LP :

:The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 263 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and : Brandywine Operating Part :

: The School District of Philadelphia

, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 264 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and : Philadelphia

- Harbison LP :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 268 C.D. 2021

: Board of Revision of Taxes, The City : of Philadelphia, and Treeco/Manor :

Limited Part :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 269 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Tax es, The City : of Philadelphia, and Jar Chocolate Works :

LP :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 270 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and 1616

- 26 :Walnut Street :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 272 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and PECO : Energy Company :

:

The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant, :

:

v. : No. 273 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, : and Charter School Holdings LL : a/k/a Charter Court Apartments :

: The School District of Philadelph ia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 274 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and : Phila Liberty PLA E LP a/k/a/ Liberty One :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 275 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and :

Panco CC Rittenhouse Row :

Rittenhouse Row Investors a/k/a : American Patriots Bldg :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant ::

v. : No. 276 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and :

Post Rittenhouse Hill LP a/k/a : Rittenhouse Hill Apartments :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 277 C.D. 2021

: Board of Revision of Taxes, The City : of Philadelphia, and Boulevard North : Associate a/k/a Whitman Square :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 278 C.D. 2021

: Board of Revision of Taxes, The City : of Philadelphia, and Cedar Quartermaster :

II LL :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 279 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, :

Th e City of Philadelphia, and :

Boulevard North Associate LP : a/k/a Whitman Square :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 280 C.D. 2021

: No. 282 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes , The City :of Philadelphia, and Delaware East Assoc :

LP a/k/a Columbus Commons :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 281 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and Delaware :

East Assoc a/k/a Columbus :

Commons :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 287 C.D. 2021

: Board of Revision of Taxes, The City : of Philadelphia, and Center City Walnut :

LLC :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 288 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and Delaware :

East Associates a/k/a Columbus :

Commons :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 419 C.D. 2021

: Argued: March 7, 2023

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and G2 S2 :

ASSPC LP a/k/a 1605 Sansom :

BEFORE: HONORABLE REN É E COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, JudgeHONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION FILED: October 6, 2023

BY SENIOR JUDGE LEAVITT

The School District of Philadelphia (School District) has appeal ed an

order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) that

quashed the School District’s appeal of 138 commercial property tax assessments

. 1

T he School District argues that the trial court erred in holding that the School

District’s decision to appeal only commercial property assessments violated the

Uniformity Clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution, P A

. C ONST

. art. VIII, §1

. 2 For

the reasons to follow, we affirm.

Background

On August 9, 2016, the School District issued a request for proposa l s

s eeking professional assistance to prosecute tax assessment appeals of properties in

the City of Philadelphia “where it is reasonably likely that an appeal of [the] assessed

value will yield a minimum of an additional $7,500 of School District tax

annually[.]” Request for Proposal s at 6; Reproduced Record at 2 6 2 a (R.R. __). T he

School District chose Keystone Re alty Advisors, LLC (Keystone) to identify tax

assessment appeals that could meet the targeted yield and Fellerman & Ciarimboli

Law, P.C. (Law Firm) to provide legal representation in the assessment appeal s

.

1 On October 20, 2021, the trial court issued an “Addendum to Opinion,” w hich explained that a

number of the 138 assessment appeals initially filed by the School District with the trial court ha d

settled, leaving 74 appeals with this Court. Thereafter, the appeal at No. 194 C.D. 202 1 was

discontinued. Before the Court, then, a re 73 appeals of the trial court’s order of February 5, 2021.

By order s of this Court, the School District’s appeals at Docket Nos. 19 5

- 224

, 226

- 229,

252

- 256, 257, 258

- 266, 268

- 288, and 419 C.D. 20 21

, were consolidated

.

2 T he Uniformity Clause of the Pen nsylvania Constitution provides , in relevant part, that “[a] ll

taxes shall be uniform, upon the same class of subjects, within the territorial limits of the authority

levying the tax [

. ] ” P A

. C ONST

. art. VIII, §1.2 O n October 3, 2016, the School District appealed the assessments on

138 commercial properties to the Philadelphia Board of Revision of Taxes. 3 The

School District did not appear at the hearings on its appeals , explaining that it did

not have the information necessary to prosecute its appeals

. The Board of Revision

of Taxes upheld the assessments “on the pape rs, ” which the School District appealed

to the trial court. 4

On July 6, 2017, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Valley Forge

Towers Apartments N, LP v. Uppe r Merion Area School District , 163 A.3d 962 (Pa.

2017) , which construed the Uniformity Clause as follows:

[A] taxing authority is not permitted to implement a program of

only appealing the assessments of one sub

- classification of

properties, where that su b

- classification is drawn according to

property type

– that is, its use as commercial, apartment

complex, single

-

family residential, industrial, or the like.

Id

. at 978 (emphasis added). Relying on this holding

, owners of some of the 138

properties appealed by the School District ( Taxpayers ) filed motions to quash

. They

argued that because the School District limit ed its 2017 assessment appeals to

commercial properties

, these appeals violated the Uniformity Clause. The School

Di strict responded that it used a monetary threshold to determine which property

assessment s to appeal

, and this policy conformed to the requirements of the

Un iformity Clause, as construed in Valley Forge , 163 A.3d 962.

Following oral argument, the trial court ruled from the bench and

quashed the School District’s assessment appeals. The trial court stated as follows :

3 The Board of Revision of Taxes hears appeals of assessments. See Section 14 of the Act of June

27, 1939, P.L. 1199, as amended

, 72 P.S. §5341.14.

4 “[A]n appeal from the Board’s ruling is heard by the trial court de novo

. ” Lincoln Philadelphia

Realty Associates I v. Board of Revision of Taxes of City and County of Philadelphia , 758 A.2d

1178, 1187 (Pa. 2000).3 What I do have to find is that 140 cases, I can take judicial notice

that there are way more commercial properties in the City of

Philadelphia and there are way more residential properties, and

that this was clearly a decision that was made to pick these 140

cases and to me that’s clearly what Valley Forge said I’m right.

. . . It’s the decision to appeal. For other rea sons that I don’t need

to state on the record I find that the motion to quash should be

granted and in all cases the motion [s] to quash [are] granted.

School District of Philadelphia v. Board of Revision of Taxes , 217 A.3d 472, 482

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (emph asis added) (citation omitted)

.

The School District appealed to this Court, arguing, inter alia , that the

trial court erred in us ing judicial notice and statements by counsel as evidence to

support its findings. T his Court agreed, concluding that an ev identiary record was

required to make the above

- related factual determinations . Accordingly, we vacated

the trial court’s decision and remanded the matter to the trial court to adduce

evidence on the School District’s tax assessment appeal program before ruling on

T axpayers ’ motions to quash

. On remand, the trial court conducted a two

- day

evidentiary hearing.

On November 16, 2020, Taxpayers presented the testimony of Uri

Monson, the Chief Financial Officer for the School District, as on cross

examination. He testified that for the 2017

- 2018 tax year, the School District

devis ed a program t o target those undera ssessed properties where an assessment

appeal was likely to generate an additional $7,500 of school tax revenue per annum

.

Monson arrived at this monetary threshold through a combination of “experience,

gut, and back of envelope” calculations. Notes of T estimony (N.T.) , 11/16/2020

, at

32

- 33; R.R. 35a

- 36a. To generate a n annual tax increase of $7,500

, the pro perty had

to be underassessed by approximately $1 million. Monson testified that the School

Distric t targeted commercial and industrial properties b ecause they “had not been4

reassessed most recently by the City .” N.T., 11/16/2020, at 47; R.R. 52a. Monson

explained that o n September 8, 2016, the School District awarded the contract to

Keystone , which left a “fairly compressed timeframe” to identify properties for

appeal because they had to be filed by October 3, 2016. N.T., 11/16/2020, at 37;

R.R. 41a. The School District did not evaluate the fair market value of underassessed

properties ; r ather, it foll owed Keystone’s recommendation in that regard. N.T.,

11/16/2020, at 51; R.R. 54a.

Daniel Rudderow, a Keystone principal , also testified as on cross

examination. He testified that he was task ed with the responsibility to identify those

underassess ed prop erties that were reasonably likely to generate at least $7,500 in

additional tax revenue per annum . He “only had three weeks” to conduct his review.

N.T., 11/16/2020, at 96; R.R. 106a. He acknowledged that not a single

- family

residence was contained in his “recommended list of 138 properties” for a tax

assessment appeal. N.T., 11/16/2020, at 6 5 ; R.R. 71a.

Rudderow began his review by listing 580,000 properties in the City on

a spreadsheet . He then eliminated “right off the bat” whole “blocks of proper ties

from th at spreadsheet ,” i.e. , more than 520,000 properties. N.T., 11/16/2020, at 68;

R.R. 74a

- 75a. He did not use a system to remove the blocks of properties ; rather, he

did it “randomly.” N.T., 11/16/2020, at 7 0 ; R.R. 77a. In his words, “ I eyeb alled it.”

Id

. This random selection produced a spreadsheet of approximately 65,000

properties. To choose properties from that list for review, Rudder ow would “look

at some lines” and “would skip some lines” highlighting certain properties on the

spreadsheet

. N.T., 11/16/2020, at 75 ; R.R. 83a. He also consulted sources for real

property sales data, such as CoStar, the Philadelphia Business Journal, the G reater

Philadelphia Market, and Zillow. Except for Zillow, the sources Rudderow5

consulted are oriented to commercial properties. N.T., 11/16/2020, at 76

- 78 ; R.R.

84a

- 86a

.

In this way, out of the spreadsheet of 65,000 properties, Rudderow

comp i led a li st of 266 properties for review. Of the 266 properties

, he recommended

138 properties for tax assessment appeals, believing that the y were reasonably likely

to meet the School District’s threshold for an annual tax increase of $7,500

.

Finally, Rudderow testified that he reviewed a report prepared by

Taxpayers’ real estate appraisal expert , Kevin Flynn , which identified 33 single

family residential properties that met the School District’s criteria for a tax

assessment appeal in 2017 but were not appealed . Rudderow testified that because

he “had a limited amount of time, ” he “allocated more time towards looking at those

properties that were not recently reassessed [

. ] ” N.T., 11/16/2020, at 79; R.R. 86a

87a. Accordingly , he did not consider those 33 resid ential properties

. However, in

2018, the School District appealed the assessments of 32 of these 33 properties

.

At the hearing o n November 25, 2020, Taxpayer s’ expert, Kevin Flynn

,

testified

. He explained that to meet the School District’s threshold of $7,500 in

annual addition al tax revenue, the property had to be underassessed by $976,000.

Flynn identified 33 underassessed residential properties that me t the School

District’s monetary threshold of a $7,500 tax increase but were not appeal ed

. Flynn

found that t he commercial properties appeal ed in 2017 by the School District had

assessments between $20 million to $150 million. Flynn testified that Rudderow’s

highlighting on the spreadsheet of 65,000 properties fell on lines at the beginnin g

and at the end of the spreadsheet, with almost no highlighted lines in the middle.

The properties at the beginning of the spreadsheet had assessments ranging from $10

million to $70 million. The properties at the end of the spreadsheet had assessments6

ranging from $40 million to $700 million. P roperties “in the middle” of the

spreadsheet of 65,000 properties were not highlighted. N.T., 11/25/2020, at 32; R.R.

167a.

Following the hearing, the trial court issued an opinion and order

granting Taxpayer s’ motion s to quash the School District’s tax assessment appeals.

The trial court found that the School District adop ted a tax assessment appeal policy

t hat would generate $7,500 in additional annual tax revenue f o r each property , which

it then rushed to implement

. By the time the School District selected Keystone and

the Law Firm, and had th ose contracts ratified by the School Reform Commission,

only three weeks remained before the deadline for filing the 2017 tax assessment

appeals

.

The trial court found that to identify properties for tax assessment

appeal, Rudderow “took a sample” of the 580,000 properties, randomly removing

large blocks of properties. Trial Court Op. at 6. Once Rudderow whittled the list

down to 65,000 properties , he then looked at some properties, and skipped other

properties, which produced a list of 266 properties for review. Rudderow did not

use a listing service for information on residential property sales data; instead, he

used services geared towards nonr esidential properties. In the end, all t he properties

he recommended for tax assessment appeals were commercial properties.

The trial court acknowledged that Valley Forge left open the possibility

of using monetary thresholds to choose tax assessment a ppeals . However

, it noted

that the Supreme Court also cautioned that any policy must be “implemented without

regard to the type of property in question or the residency status of its owner.” Trial

Court Op. at 13

- 14 (quoting Valley Forge , 163 A. 3 d at 979 ). In its rush to meet the

2017 appeal deadline, the School District ignored all propert ies

, s ave a select and7

small number of commercial p r o pert ies. On these findings , the trial court concluded

that the School District’s 2017 tax assessment appeal s viol ated the Uniformity

Clause and granted Taxpayers’ motions to quash.

The School District filed the instant appeals

.

Appeal

On appeal, 5 the School District raises two issues. First, the School

District argues that the trial court erred in holding that the implementation of the

School District’s tax assessment appeal s p rogram for the 2017 tax year violate d the

Uniformity Clause. Second, the School District argues that, notwithstanding the trial

court’s decision to quash its assessment appeals for 2017, the trial court should have

addressed assessments for tax years 2018 through 2021 , which were automatically

appealed by reason of the School District’s 2017 appeal

.

Analysis

We begin with a review of the law.

T he Uni formity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution states as

follows :

All taxes shall be uniform, upon the same class of subjects,

within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax,

and shall be levied and collected under general laws.

P A

. C ONST

. art. VIII, §1. The Uniformity Clause ensures that “ a taxpayer shoul d

pay no more or no less than his proportionate s hare of the cost of government. ” In

re Sullivan , 37 A.3d 1250, 1254

- 55 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (quoting Deitch Company

v. Board of Property Assessment , Appeals and Review of Allegheny County , 209

5 This Court’s standard of review of the trial court’s order granting a motion to qu ash a n appellant ’s

appeal determines whether the trial court committed an error of law, an abuse of discretion, or a

violation of constitutional rights. Ray v. Brookville A rea School District , 19 A.3d 29, 31 n.3 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 2011).8

A.2d 397, 401 ( Pa. 1965)). T he value of the Uniformity Clause has been

summarized as follows:

While every tax is a burden, it is more cheerfully borne when the

citizen feels that he is only required to bear his proportionate

share of that burden measured by the value of his property to that

of his neighbor. This is not an idle thought in the mind of the

taxpayer, nor is it a mere speculative theory advocated by learned

writers on the subject; but it is a fundamental principle written

into t he Constitutions and statutes of almo st every state in this

country

.

Delaware, L. & W. R ailway Company’s Tax Assessment , 73 A. 429, 430 (Pa. 1909).

Within a taxing dist rict

, all real property “is a single class.” Valley

Forge , 163 A.3d at 975. For this reason, “the Uniformity Clause does not permit the

government, including taxing authorities, to treat different property sub

classifications in a disparate manner.” Id. In Clifton v. Allegheny County , 969 A.2d

1197, 1212 (Pa. 2009)

, our Supreme Court e stablish ed that real property is “a

classification” and that the Uniformity Clause requires “all real estate [ be ] treated as

a single class entitled to uniform treatment.”

The General County Assessment Law 6 authorizes any taxing authority

to appeal a real property assessment. Section 520 states as follows :

The corporate authorities of any county, city, borough, town,

township, school district or poor district, which may feel

aggrieved by any assessment of any property or other subject of

taxation for its corporate purposes, shall have the right to appeal

therefrom in the same manner, subject to the same procedure,

and with like effect, as if such appeal were taken by a taxable

with respect to his property.

6 Act of May 22, 1933, P.L. 853, as amended , 72 P.S. §§5020

- 1

- 5020

- 602.9

72 P.S. §5020

- 520. It is axiomatic that when a taxing authority

, such as a school

district, exercises its discretion to appeal a real property assessment, it must do so

within “ constitutional boundaries .” Valley Forge

, 163 A.3d at 980. Where a taxing

authority appeal s only “ the assessments of one sub

- classification of properties,

where that sub

- classification is drawn according to property type

, ” i t a cts outside

applicable constitutional boundaries

. Id. at 978.

In Valley Forge

, 163 A.3d 9 6 2, several taxpayers challenged the school

district’s p rogram of appealing commercial property tax assessments but not

residential property assessments. The taxpayers sought to enjoin the school district’s

tax assessment appeal policy as violative of the Uniformity Clause

. The trial c ourt

dismissed the complaint as not stating a claim, and t his Court affirmed. The

Supreme Court reversed, holding as follows:

[A] taxing authority is not permitted to implement a program of

only appealing the assessments of one sub

- classification of

pro perties, where that sub

- classification is drawn according to

property type

– that is, its use as commercial, apartment complex,

single

- family residential, industrial, or the like.

Id

. at 978. The Supreme Court further explained that “systematic disparat e

enforcement of the tax laws based on property sub

- classification, even absent

wrongful conduct, is constitutionally pr ecluded[

. ] ” Id

. The Supreme Court

cautioned, however, that its holding should not be construed as a n absolute

prohibition of a neutral selection criterion, such as a monetary threshold, so long as

it “ were implemented without regard to the type of property in question or the

residency status of its owner.” Id . at 979. T he Supreme Court held that because the

t axpayers’ complaint alleged that only commercial property assessments were

appealed, it stated a valid claim under the Uniformity Clause

.10 Following Valley Forge , this Court decided GM Berkshire Hills LLC v.

Berks County Board of Assessment , 257 A.3d 822 (Pa. Cmwlt h. 2021) ( GM

Berkshire I

). There, the school district’s tax assessment appeals p rogram used

monthly reports generated by the State Tax Equalization Board to identify properties

for appeal. These reports listed recent property sales in each county along w ith the

sales prices and current assessed values. Beginning with recently sold properties,

the school district applied the county’s applicable common level ratio 7 of 68.5% to

each recent sale price. If the difference between the recent sale price and th e

assessment was greater than $150,000, the school district purs u ed a tax assessment

appeal. The $150,000 figure represented the threshold at which the revenue from a

successful appeal would justify the cost of the legal and appraisal fees necessary for

t he school district to undertake the appeal.

GM Berkshire challenged the school district’s use of recently sold

properties as a basis for selecting properties for tax appeal. It argued that challenging

the assessment of properties under new ownership viol ates both the federal Equal

Protection Clause 8 and Pennsylvania’s Uniformity Clause. This Court rejected this

claim. We concluded that using the recent sale of an assess ed property did not create

an improper classificatio n

, reason ing that such s ales a re used to establish market

value in any assessment appeal

. Further

, the s chool d istrict’s use of recent property

sales did not differentiate on the basis of property type

. As such, the school district’s

method did not violate either the Equal Protection Clause or the Uniformity Clause.

On further appeal, a n equally divided Supreme Court affirmed this Court’s decision

7 Section 102 of T he General County Assessment Law defines the “common level ratio” as “the

ratio of assessed value to current market value used generally in the county as last determined by

the State Tax Equalization Board pursuant to the a ct of June 27, 1947 (P.L. 1046, No. 447), referred

to as the State Tax Equalization Board Law.” 72 P.S. §5020

- 102

.

8 U.S. C ONST

. amend. XIV, §1.11

that the school district’s method of selecting properties for a tax assessment appeal

did not violate the Uniformity Clause. GM Berkshire Hills LLC v. Berks County

Board of Assessment , 290 A.3d 238, 2 5 0 (Pa. 2023) ( GM Berkshire II )

.

More recently, in Duffield House Associates, L.P. v. City of

Philadelphia , 260 A.3d 329 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021), appeal denied , 279 A.3d 1185 (Pa.

2022), this Court affirm ed an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia

County that enjoined the City of Philadelphia’s reassessment of 41,730 commercial

properties

. We held that the City ’s decision to target a propert y sub

- class ification

for reassessment

, while l ea v ing other sub

- classification s of property alone , violated

the Uniformity Clause

.

In Duffield , we distinguished Kennett Consolidated School District v.

Chester County Board of Asse ssment Appeals , 228 A.3d 29 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020 ),

appeal granted , 240 A.3d 611, appeal dismissed as improvidently granted , 259 A.3d

890 (Pa. 2021)

, on which the City had relied. In Kennett , a taxpayer challenge d a

school district’s tax assessment appeal of its property on the grounds that i t violated

the Uniformity Clause . In that case, the school district set a monetary threshold of

a $1 million underassessment

, which affected only commercial property

assessments . We conclud ed that the appeal program was constitutional because it

was not based on type of property but on the amount of the underassessment. T he

fact that the program’s implementation resulted in an appeal of only commercial

propert y assessments did not establish a per se violation of the Uniformity Clause.

With these principles in mind, we turn to the School District’s first

claim of error.

T he School District argues that the trial court proceeded under the

incorrect assumption that because the 2017 assessment appeals were all commercial12

properties , t hose appeals violated the Uniformity Clause

. The School District

contends that its tax assessment appeals policy used a neutral monetary threshold

,

and the fact that only commercial property assessments were appealed is irrelevant

,

as established in Kennett

, 228 A.3d 29

. In further support , the Sc hool District directs

the Court to East Stroudsburg Area School District v. Meadow Lake Plaza, LLC (Pa.

Cmwlth., No. 371 C.D. 2018, filed October 17, 2019) (unreported) 9 (holding that a

$10,000 monetary threshold did not violate the Uniformity Clause even though only

commercial properties met the threshold ); and Punxsutawney Area School District

v. Broadway Timber, LLC (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1209 C.D. 2018, filed October 29,

2019) (unreported) (holding that the use of recent sales prices to decide which

assessm ents to appeal did not violate the Uniformity Clause )

. T he School District

argue s that the number of properties it selected for assessment appeals is irrelevant

as is the fact that there were residential properties that met its monetary threshold

but were not appealed. Neither fact render ed the School District’s 2017 appeals of

138 commercial property assessments unconstitutional.

Taxpayers respond that it was the implementation of the School District

policy that viol ated the Uniformity Clause. The School District’s “slipshod and

piecemeal” implement ation fixed on commercial and industrial properties , which

created an unlawful classification

. Taxpayers Brief at 2. As the Supreme Court has

observed, “disparate enforc ement of the tax laws based on property sub

classificat i ons, even absent wrongful conduct , is unconstitutionally p recluded[

. ] ”

Valley Forge , 163 A.3d at 9 78 (emphasis added)

. Taxpayers argue that the School

District simply ignores the tr ial court’s “c ore hold ings” on the implementation of its

9 An unreported panel decision of this Court, “issued after January 15, 2008,” may be cited “for

its persuasive value[.]” Section 414(a) of the Commonwealth Court’s Internal Operating

Procedures, 210 Pa. Code §69.414(a).13

policy , which “ unconstitutional process yielded an unconstitutional result.”

Taxp ay ers Brief at 2. Although t he School District’s tax assessment appeal wa s

stated in terms of a neutral monetary threshold , that fact alone did not establish that

its 2017 appeal of 138 assessments w as constitutional

.

The record fully supports the trial court’s “core holdings.” Out of

580,000 properties , Rudderow selected 266 properties to review

, using a random and

piecemeal methodology that was neither objective nor neutral. He eliminated

“whole blocks” of propertie s without explanation. N.T., 1 1 /16/2020, at 68, R.R.

74a

- 75a. T o select the 266 properties for “review

, ” Rudderow used commercial real

property services . Monson acknowledged that the School District’s program’s

purpose was “ to target commercial an d indu strial properties” because they had not

been “ recently reassessed. ” N.T., 11/16/2020, at 4 7 ; R.R. 52a. Rudderow also

rationalized the focus on commercial properties by claiming that the properties had

not “recently” been reassessed . N.T.

, 11/16/2020, at 79; R.R. 86a

- 87a. Their claim

of a recent reassessment of residential properties was neither explained nor

documented. It seems unlikely that the City did a countywide assessment of only

residential properties , and t he School District presented no evidence, for example,

that prior to 2017 it used recent sales to file assessment appeals, which sales had not

included commercial and industrial properties. Rudderow ’s “highlighting” of the

spreadsheet of 65,000 properties f ell on properties with the hig hest assessments and,

not surprisingly, properties in the range of $40 to $700 million turned out to be

commercial and industrial properties. Simply , the evidence showed that the

implementation of the School District’s policy was not neutral but tilted to ward the

selection of a sub

- classification of properties

, i.e. , commercial and industrial , as

found by the trial court

.14 Further, the School District assumes that its monetary threshold for

selecting assessments satisfies the Uniformity Clause, but this is not a correct

assumption. The Supreme Court’s statement that the “use of a monetary threshold”

may be constitutional was not the holding

. Valley Forge

, 163 A.3d at 979

. As

explained in an opinion in support of reversal in GM Berkshire II

, Justice Donohue,

joined by Chief Justice Todd and Justice Dougherty , stated as follows:

It is true that we, in unfortunate dicta, commented on the

potential propriety of a purely monetary threshold in Valley

Forge []

. However, we have never decided whether such

thresholds are permissible under the Uniformity Clause.

GM Berkshire II , 290 A.3d at 253 (Donohue, J.) (opinion in support of reversal)

.

Even so, the monetary threshold must be “implemented without regard to the type

of property in question or the residency status of its owner.” Valley Forge , 163 A.3d

at 979.

The holding in Valley Forge is that taxing districts may not exercise

their discretion in a discriminatory manner that target s certain types of properties for

appeal. Further, Valley Forge did not hold that a monetary threshold to choose

properties for an assessment appeal satisfies the Uniformity Clause. T he prevailing

requirement remains that “similarly situated taxpayers sho uld not be deliberately

treated differently by taxing authorities.” Downingtown Area School District v.

Chester County Board of Assessment Appeals , 913 A.2d 194, 201 (Pa. 2006). This

principle governs our analysis here.

The School District’s stated tax assessment appeal policy may be

facially neutral , b ut its haphazard implementation of this policy was not neutral

. For

tax year 2017, Keystone had three weeks to identify and recommend properties

before the assessment deadline , and this produce d an arbitrary implementation.15

Rudderow acknowledges that he randomly rejected 520,000 properties by

“eyeball [ ing ]

, ” and i t cannot be assumed that Rudderow’s work was free of bias

.

N.T., 11/16/2020, at 74; R.R. 77a. From the 65,000 propert ies on the second

spreadsheet

, Rudderow selected a mere 266 properties to review, none of which were

single

- family residential properties

. Rudderow a cknowledged that there were other

underassessed properties that met the School District ’s monetary threshold

, whose

assessments were not appealed. N.T., 11/16/2020, at 102

- 04; R.R. 112a

- 14a.

The School District’s reliance on East Stroudsburg

, Punxsutawney

, and

Kennett is misplaced. The implementation of the tax assessment appeal policy wa s

not at issue in these cases but

, rather

, the stated terms of the policy.

Here, the findings of the trial court s upport its conclusion that the

School District’s 2017 tax assessment appeals violat ed the Uniformity Clause.

Rudderow’s idiosyncratic and subjective selection of underassessed properties was

arbitrary and deliberately exempt ed from review numerous properties that could

have yield ed an additional $7,500 in annual tax revenue

. A t least 33 single

- family

residential properties met the monetary formula threshold that could have been

appealed but were not. Trial Court Op. at 13. This “system atic disparate

enforcem ent of the tax laws” created the violation of the Uniformity Clause. Valley

Forge , 163 A.3d at 978 . It is well established that a “ taxpayer is entitled to relief

under the Uniformity Clause where his property is assessed at a higher percentage

of fair market value than other properties throughout the taxing district.”

Downingtown Area School District , 913 A.2d at 199. Here, Taxpayers showed that

the School District’s appeal sought to assess their properties at a higher percentage

of fair market value than most other properties in the City.16 Because Taxpayers demonstrated a violation of the Uniformity Clau se,

the trial court appropriately quashed the School District’s outstanding appeals of 138

commercial and industrial properties for 2017

.

Conclusion

The purpose of any assessment appeal, whether by the taxpayer or the

taxing authority, is to correct mistakes in the most re cent countywide assessment. It

is not intended to function as a substitute for the countywide assessment required by

law. In GM Berkshire I , 257 A.3d 822, this Court upheld an assessment policy that

was triggered by a chang e in circumstance, i.e. , a sale that showed the most recent

countywide assessment amount for that particular property to be in error. Further,

the policy was uniformly appli ed to all properties meeting the monetary threshold.

Even so, our holding receive d divided support from our Supreme Court.

Taxing authority appeals yield more revenue for the taxing authority.

However, the purpose of a countywide reassessment is to correct all mistakes,

including those that fall upon overassessed properties . When th e taxing authority

attempts an ersatz countywide correction of underassessments, it is the sole

beneficiary. Under the Uniformity Clause, however, some of that correction should

inure to the benefit of the overassessed taxpayer.

Here, the School District ’s stated policy was to appeal assessments that

were understated by $1 million. This will garner for the School District the entire

benefit and leave overassessed property owners bearing an unfair share of the tax

burden. Even so, the School District did not even attempt to capture each and every

assessment that was at least $1 million short of the fair market value. C f. Kennett

,

228 A.3d 29. The School District’s monetary threshold may have been neutral, but17

the implementation, perhaps too ambitious in scope, created a systematic and

disparate treatment of taxpayers, both the overassessed and the underassessed.

For these reasons , we affirm the decision of the trial court. 10

____________________________________________ MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita

10 As a result of our holding, we need not reach the School District’s second issue that tax years

2018 through 2021 became part of the appeal by operation of law. Section 518.1(b) of T he General

Coun ty Assessment Law, added by the Act of December 28, 1955, P.L. 917, 72 P.S. §5020

- 518.1(b). See also Macy’s Inc. v. Board of Property Assessment, Appeals, Review of Allegheny

County , 61 A.3d 361, 363 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

The School District of Philadelphia, : CASES CONSOLIDATED

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 195 C.D. 2021

: No. 265 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, :

and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 196 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, :

and 401 Market Street a/k/a :

MREF 401 LP :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 197 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and :

1500 Net Works Associates : a/k/a Net Works Building :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 198 C.D. 2021

:

Bo ard of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and PR Chestnut :

Associates LP :The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 199 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Ph iladelphia, and : Hub Properties Trust now owned by :

Commonwealth of PA

- SEPTA :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 200 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and : Two Logan Square Associates :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 201 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and OLS Office :

Partners LP :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 202 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and Commerce : Square Partners :

:

The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 203 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, :The City of Philadelphia, :

and Maguire/Thomas PTNS :

Phila Plaza Phase II :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appel lant :

:

v. : No. 204 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, : and Cedar South Philadelphia :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 205 C.D. 2021

: No. 223 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes, : No. 259 C.D. 2021

The City of Philadelphia, : No. 260 C.D. 2021

and ARD Grant LP a/k/a : No. 285 C.D. 2021

The Court at Grant :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 206 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, :

and 1760 Market Partners LP :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 207 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and SWP Real :

Estate LLC :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant ::

v. : No. 208 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and BA Parkway : Associates II a/k/a Embassy Suites :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 209 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and : Public Storage Properties XVIII :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 210 C.D. 2021

: No. 266 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and : SPSP Corporation :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 211 C.D. 2021

: No. 252 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : No. 258 C.D. 2021

City of Philadelphia, and 2400 : No. 286 C.D. 2021

Market VII LP a/

k/a Marketplace : Design Center :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 212 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and 4401 : Walnut Holdings LLC ::

The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 213 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and : T C Pepper Building G P LLC : a/k/a The Pepper Building :

:

The School D istrict of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 214 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and : Hill House Apartment Association :

a/k/a The Watermark :

:

The School District of Philad elphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 215 C.D. 2021

: No. 218 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, : and WWW Premier Holdings LLC :

a/k/a Winchester Walk :

:

The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 216 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, : and Offices at Two Liberty PL :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:v. : No. 217 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and CRP

- Grep :

Rushwood LP a/k/a Rushwood : Apartments now owned by : RSW Premier Holdings LLC :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellan t :

:

v. : No. 219 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and Charter Court : Holdings LL a/k/a Charter Court : Apartments :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 220 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and : Cedar Quartermaster LLC :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 221 C.D. 2021

: No. 283 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : No. 284 C.D. 2021

City of Philadelphia, and PR : Northeast Limited Partnership :

a/k/a Northeast Tower Center :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 222 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, The :City of Philadelphia, and Red Lion :

MZL LP :

The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 224 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, :

The C ity of Philadelphia, and : Center City Chestnut LLC : a/k/a Nineteen Thirty Chestnut :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 226 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philade lphia, :

and 777 South Broad Street AS :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 227 C.D. 2021

: No. 256 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and PR Walnut :

Associates LP :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 228 C.D. 2021

: No. 229 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and Market Square :

Plaza I LLC :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:v. : No. 253 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, : and Super Salvage, Inc. a/k/a CVS :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 254 C.D. 2021

: Board of Revision of Taxes, The City : of Philadelphia, and 23rd Street : Garage VII LP :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 255 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and :

618 Market LP :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 257 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, The :

C ity of Philadelphia, and Brandywine : Operating Partners LP a/k/a Bell :

Atlantic Tower :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 261 C.D. 2021

: No. 262 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and Two : Liberty Place LP :

:The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 263 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and : Brandywine Operating Part :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 264 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and : Philadelphia

- Harbison LP :

:

The School D istrict of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 268 C.D. 2021

: Board of Revision of Taxes, The City : of Philadelphia, and Treeco/Manor :

Limited Part :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 269 C.D. 2021

: Board of Revision of Taxes, The City : of Philadelphia, and Jar Chocolate Works :

LP :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 270 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and 1616

- 26 :Walnut Street :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 272 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and PECO : Energy Company :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant, :

:

v. : No. 273 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, :

and Charter School Holdings LL : a/k/a Charter Court Apartments :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 274 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and : Phila Liberty PLA E LP a/k/a / Liberty One :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 275 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and :

Panco CC Rittenhouse Row :

Rittenhouse Row Investors a/k/a : American Patriots Bldg :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant ::

v. : No. 276 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and :

Post Rittenhouse Hill LP a/k/a : Rittenhouse Hill Apartments :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 277 C.D. 2021

: Board of Revision of Taxes, The City : of Philadelphia, and Boulevard North : Associate a/k/a Whitman Square :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 278 C.D. 2021

: Board of Revision of Taxes, The City : of Philadelphia, and Cedar Quartermaster :

II LL :

: The School District of Philadelphia

, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 279 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and :

Boulevard North Associate LP : a/k/a Whitman Square :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 280 C.D. 2021

: No. 282 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes, The City : of Philadelphia, and Delaware East Assoc :LP a/k/a Columbus Commons :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 281 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and Delaware :

East Assoc a/k/a Columbus :

Commons :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appel lant :

:

v. : No. 287 C.D. 2021

: Board of Revision of Taxes, The City : of Philadelphia, and Center City Walnut :

LLC :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 288 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and Delaware :

East Associates a/k/a Columbus :

Commons :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 419 C.D. 2021

: Argued: Marc h 7, 2023

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and G2 S2 :

ASSPC LP a/k/a 1605 Sansom :ORDER

AND NOW, this 6 th day of October , 202 3, the order of the Court of

Common Pleas of Philadelphia County , dated February 5, 2021, in the above

captioned matters, is AFFIRMED

.

____________________________________________ MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge EmeritaIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

The School District of Philadelphia, : CASES CONSOLIDATED

Appellant :

:

v. : No . 19 5 C.D. 2021

: No. 265 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes

, : The City of Philadelphia

, and :

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 196 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and 401 :

Market Street a/k/a MREF 401 LP :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 197 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and 1500 :

Net Works Associates a/k/a Net :

Works Building :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 198 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and PR :

Chestnut Associates LP :The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 199 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and : Hub Properties Trust now owned by :

Commonwealth of PA

– SEPTA :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 200 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and : Two Logan Square Associates :

:

The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 201 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and :

OLS Office Partners LP :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appell ant :

:

v. : No. 202 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and :

C ommerce Square Partners :The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 203 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and :

Ma g uire/Thomas PTNS Phila :

Plaza Phase II :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 204 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and : Cedar South Philadelphia :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 205 C.D. 2021

: No. 223 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes, : No. 259 C.D. 2021

The City of Philadelphia

, and ARD : No. 260 C.D. 2021

Grant LP a/k/a The Court at Grant : No. 285 C.D. 2021

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 206 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and :

1760 Market Partners LP :The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 207 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and :

SWP Real Estate LLC :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 208 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and : BA Parkway Assoc iates II a/k/a : Embassy Suites :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 209 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and : Public Storage Properties XVIII :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 210 C.D. 2021

: No. 266 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and : SPSP Corporation :The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 211 C.D. 2021

: No. 252 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes, : No. 258 C.D. 2021

The City of Philadelphia, and 2400 : No. 286 C.D. 2021

Market VII LP a/k/a Marketplace : Design Ce nter :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 212 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and 4401 : Walnut Holdings LLC :

:

The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 213 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and : T C Pepper Building G P LLC : a/k/a The Pepper Building :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 214 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and : Hill House Apartment Association :

a/k/a The Watermark :The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 215 C.D. 2021

: No. 218 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and : WWW Premier Holdings LLC :

a/k/a Winchester Walk :

:

The S chool District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 216 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and : Offices at Two Liberty PL :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellan t :

:

v. : No. 217 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and :

CRP

- Grep Rushwood LP a/k/a : Rushwood Apartments now owned : by RSW Premier Holdings LLC :

:

The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 21 9 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and :

C harter Court Holdings LL a/k/a : Charter Court Apartments :The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 2 20 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and : Cedar Quartermaster LLC :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 22 1 C.D. 2021

: No. 283 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes, : No. 284 C.D. 2021

The City of Philadelphia

, an d PR : Northeast Limited Partnership :

a/k/a Northeast Tower Center :

:

The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 22 2 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and :

Red Lion MZL LP :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 22 4 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and : Center City Chestnut LLC : a/k/a Nineteen Thirty Chestnut :The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 22 6 C .D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and :

777 South Broad Street AS :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 227 C.D. 2021

: No. 256 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and PR :

Walnut Associates LP :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 228 C.D. 2021

: No. 229 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and : Market Square Plaza I LLC :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 25 3 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and Super : Salvage, Inc. a/k/a CVS :The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 254 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, :

T he City of Philadelphia

, and :

23 rd Street Garage VII LP :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 2 55 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and :

618 Market LP :

:

The School Distr ict of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 257 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, The : City of Philadelphia, and Brandywine : Operating Partners LP a/k/a Bell :

Atlantic Tower :

:

The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 2 6 1 C.D. 2021

: No. 262 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and : Two Liberty Place LP :The School District of Philadelphia, : Ap pellant :

:

v. : No. 2 63 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and : Brandywine Operating Part :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 2 64 C.D . 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and : Philadelphia

- Harbison LP :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 2 68 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and :

Treeco/Manor Limited Part :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 26 9 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, :

The City of Philadelphia

, and :

Jar Chocolate Works LP :The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 27 0 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and :

1616

- 26 Walnut Street :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 2 72 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and : PECO Energy Company :

:

The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 273 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and : Charter School Holdings LL : a/k/a Charter Court Apartments :

:

The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 2 74 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and : Phila Liberty PLA E LP a/k/a : Liberty One :The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 2 75 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and :

Panco CC Rittenhouse Row :

Rittenhouse Row Investors a/k/a : American Patriots Bldg :

:

The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 2 76 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and :

Post Rittenhouse Hill LP a/k/a : Rittenhouse Hill Apartments :

:

The School District of Philadel phia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 2 77 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and :

Boulevard North Associate a/k/a : Whitman Square :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 2 78 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and : Cedar Quartermaster II LL :The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 2 79 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and :

Boulevard North Associate LP :

a/k/a Whitman Square :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 2 80 C.D. 2021

: No. 28 2 C.D. 2021

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and :

Delaware East Assoc LP a/k/a :

Columbus Commons :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 281 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia, and :

Delaware East Assoc a/k/a :

Columbus Commons :

: The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 2 87 C.D. 202 1

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and : Center City Walnut LLC :The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 288 C.D. 2021

:

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and :

Delaware East Associates a/k/a :

Columbus Commons :

:

The School District of Philadelphia, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 419 C.D. 2021

: Argued: March 7, 2023

Board of Revision of Taxes, : The City of Philadelphia

, and :

G2 S2 ASSPC LP a/k/a 1605 Sansom :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY

, Judge

HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

DISSENTING OPINION BY

PRESIDENT JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER FILED: October 6, 2023

Because I believe that the School District of Philadelphia’s (School District)

policy for determining wh ich property assessment s to appeal was based on a specific

monetary threshold and was implemented without regard for a real property’s

classification, sub

- classification

, or ownership , I would hold that the policy does not

violate the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Pa. Const. art. VIII,

§ 1

, 1 and is not inconsistent with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s holding in Valley

1 The Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that “[a]ll taxes shall

be uniform, upon the same class of subjects, within the territorial limits of the authority levying

(Footnote continued on next page...)RCJ

- 2

Forge Towers Apartments N, LP v. Upper Meri on Area School District , 163 A.3d

962 (Pa. 2017) and its progeny . Therefore, I must respectfully dissent from the

majority’s careful analysis.

In Valley Forge , the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the s chool

district’s preliminary objecti ons should not have been sustained because the

appellant’s complaint had “set[] forth a valid claim that the [s]chool [d]istrict’s

appeal policy violate[d] the Uniformity Clause.” 163 A.3d at 980. Upon noting that

a salient aspect of the parties’ dispute involved the manner in which this Court had

understood the Supreme Court’s pronouncements regarding the comparative tax

fairness requirements of the Uniformity Clause and the F ederal Equal Protection

Clause, see U.S. Const. amend. XIV, the Valley Forge Co urt summarized two

precepts it had previously articulated and found relevant to its analysis therein as

follows:

First, all property in a taxing district is a single class, and, as a

consequence, the Uniformity Clause does not permit the government,

including taxing authorities, to treat different property sub

classifications in a disparate manner. Second, this prohibition applies

to any intentional or systematic enforcement of the tax laws

, and is not

limited solely to wrongful conduct.

Id . at 975 (citations omitted). The Supreme Court held that these principles lead to

a conclusion “

that a taxing authority is not permitted to implement a program of only

appealing the assessments of one sub

- classification of properties, where that sub

the tax, and shall be levied and collected under general laws.” Pa. Const. art. VIII, § 1. This Court

has held that the Uniformity Clause ensures that “a taxpayer should pay no more or no less than

[the taxpayer’s] proportionate share of the cost of government.” In re Sullivan

, 37 A.3d 1250,

1254

- 55 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (quoting Deitch Co. v. Bd. of Prop. Assessment

, Appeals & Rev. of

Allegheny Cnty. , 209 A.2d 397, 401 (Pa. 1965)).RCJ

- 3

classification is drawn according to property type

— that is, its use as commercial,

apartment complex, single

- family residential, industrial, or the like.” Id

. at 978.

The Supreme Court explained that it did not disagree with the result this Court

reached in In re Springfield Sch ool Dist rict

, 101 A.3d 835 (Pa. Cmwlth

. 2014)

,

wherein property owners had challenged a school district’s policy of utilizing a

monetary threshold to determine which properties to appeal and “did not allege a

scheme involving disparate treatment of property sub

- classifications drawn

according to property type or the status of its owner as a resident or non

- resident of

the taxing district.” Valley Forge , 163 A.3d at 975 n.13. The Supreme Court noted

that, inst ead, the school district appealed only “ properties for which a recent sales

price was at least $500,000 greater than its implied market value, defined as the

assessed value divided by the ” County’s Common Level Ratio. Id . at 9 79 n. 19. The

Supreme Court stressed:

We pause at this juncture to clarify that nothing in this opinion should

be construed as suggesting that the use of a monetary threshold

— such as the one challenged in Springfield

— or some other selection

criteria would violate uniformity if it were implemented without

regard to the type of property in question or the residency status of

its owner

. Such methodologies are not presently before the Court.

I d

. at 979 (footnote omitted) (emphasis added)

.

In addition, Section 8855 of the Consolidated County Assessment Law

provides in relevant part that “[a] taxing district shall have the right to appeal any

assessment within its jurisdiction in the same manner, subject to the same procedure

and with like effect as if the appeal were taken by a taxable person with respect to

the assessment.” 53 Pa.C.S. § 8855. However, when a taxing authority exercises

this discretionary power, it must do so within “constitutional boundaries.” ValleyRCJ

- 4

Forge , 163 A.3d at 980. Those constitutional b oundaries are violated if a taxing

authority has a policy to appeal only “the assessments of one sub

- classification of

properties, where that sub

- classification is drawn according to property type.” Id. at

978.

Most recently this Court discussed Valley Fo rge and our previous decision in

Kennett Consolidated School Distric t v. Chester County Board of Assessment

Appeals , 228 A.3d 29 (Pa. Cm wlth .)

, appeal granted , 240 A.3d 611 (Pa. 2020),

appeal dismissed as improvidently granted

, 259 A.3d 890 (Pa. 2021) as follows:

In Kennett , we considered a taxpayer’s challenge to a trial court’s denial

of its motion to quash the school district’s assessment appeal of its

property. 228 A.3d at 31. Relying on the Supreme Court’s analysis in

Valley Forge

, the taxpayer arg ued that the school district violated the

Uniformity Clause by: (1) appealing the assessments of only

commercial properties; and (2) setting a monetary threshold targeting

properties under [ ] assessed by $1 million. Id. at 34.

On appeal, this Court affir med the trial court’s ruling, holding:

We conclude that [ the school district’s ] appeal practices

did not violate the Uniformity Clause. Under Valley

Forge , [the school district’s] actions were constitutionally

firm. The record reflects that [ the school district ]

intentionally disregarded the type of property and, thus, it

cannot be said that [its] actions in appealing the

assessments of commercial properties were intentional.

Where, as here, a taxing authority intentionally disregards

the type of property when deciding what property

assessments to appeal, its conduct is inherently not

deliberate. Moreover, [the school district’s] actions did

not systematically target commercial properties, but,

rather, only focused on properties that would be worth the

cost and expense of an appeal

. Valley Forge makes it

abundantly clear that there is a balance to be struck

between a school district’s ability to appeal an assessment

and the Uniformity Clause. Thus, a school district’s

policy that attempts to be fiscally responsible by onlyRCJ

- 5 appealing assessments that woul d generate enough

revenue to justify the cost of the appeal does not violate

the Uniformity Clause.

Id. at 37 (emphasis added). We further clarified that “[t]he mere fact

that all appealed properties were commercial does not per se create

a violation of the Uniformity Clause. This is especially so in light of

[ the school district’s ] intentional disregard for the nature of the

property .” Id. at 39 (emphasis added). Thus, Kennett reiterates the

principle that selection of properties for assessment based solely on

property type violates the Uniformity Clause, whereas selection

based on financial reasons, without regard to property type, does

not

.

Duffield House Assocs., L.P. v. City of Philadelphia

, 260 A.3d 329, 343

- 44 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 2021) ( Duffield House ) (italics in original, boldface type added)

.

A few weeks before our Duffield House decision, this Court decided GM

Berkshire Hills LLC v. Berks County Board of Assessment, 257 A.3d 822 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 2021) ( GM Berkshire I )

, affirmed by an equally divided court, 290 A.3d

238 (Pa. 2023) ( GM Berkshire II )

. 2 In GM Berkshire I , GM Berkshire challenged

the school district’s use of recently sold properties as a basis for selecting properties

for tax appeal and maintained that a consideration of only a subclass of properties

that were under new ownership violates both the federal Equal Protection Clause and

Pennsylvania’s Uniformity Clause. This Court concluded that

the [d]istrict’s method of selecting properties for assessment appeals

comports with the Commonwealth’s present jurisprudence on the

subject of property assessment uniformity. Using recent sales prices as

part of the selection of properties for appeals is a quantitative method

2 Where our Supreme Court is equally divided, the effect of the split is affirmance of the

intermediate a ppellate court decision. Borkey v. Twp. of Ctr. , 847 A.2d 807, 814 (Pa. Cmwlth.

2004).RCJ

- 6

of reasonably ascertaining a property owner’s fair share of the tax

burden, because such figures represent the kind of evidence of market

value that a school district must show when it appeals an assessment.

See Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Assessment

Appeals

, 111 A.3d 267, 283 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (“evidence of private

sales is admissible to determine fair market value”).

Further, as applied by the [d]istrict, this method employs a purely

economic approach that is practical for the [d]istrict yet does not

improperly differentiate base d on property type, which is the type

of approach our Supreme Court condoned in Valley Forge [] and

which this Court subsequently accepted in Punxsutawney [ Area

School District v. Broadwing Timber, LLC

, (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1209

C.D. 2018, filed October 29, 2 019)

, ] and East Stroudsburg [ Area

School District v. Meadow Lake Plaza, LLC, (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 371

C.D. 2018 , filed October 17, 2019)] . As such, we agree with the trial

court that the [d]istrict’s method did not violate either the Equal

Protection Clause of the [United States] Constitution or the Uniformity

Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

GM Berkshire I , 257 A.3d at 835 (emphasis added)

. We also explained that we had

affirmed the trial court in Kennett based upon Valley Forge

, Springfield Township

,

and Punxsutawne y. 3

[b] ecause the evidence established that the school district used a purely monetary approach and had not intentionally selected

property assessments to appeal based on property type (commercial

vis

- à

- vis residential), we held [in Kennett ] no constitutional violation

occurred, reasoning that the school district’s “disregard of property type

cannot logically equate to unlawful treatment based upon property

type.” [228 A.3d] at 39. We also rejected [commercial property

owner’s] as

- applied or disparate impact claim: “ The mere fact that all

appealed properties were commercial does not per se create a

violation of the Uniformity Clause .” Id

.

3 In Punxsutawney , this Court stated that even though the district’s practice had not resulted

in any appeals of residential properties, the monetary threshold employed was facially neutral and

did not foreclose the possibility of that occurrence in the future. Id ., slip. op. at 9.RCJ

- 7

Id

. at 832. As previously stated, an equally divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court

recently affirmed this Court’s decision in GM Berkshire I that the school district’s

method of selecting properties for appeal did not violate the Uniformity Clause. See

GM Berkshire II

, 290 A.3d at 238.

Herein, b efore the Court of Common Plea s of Philadelphia County ( trial

court )

, owners of some of the 138 properties ( Taxpayers ) appealed by the School

District of Philadelphia (School District) presented the testimony of Uri Zv i Monson,

the Chief Financial Officer for the School District, as on cross

- examination. Mr.

Monson was the chief architect of the tax assessment program implemented by the

School District starting in tax year 2017 and pres ented his idea to the School Reform

Commission. ( Reproduced Record ( R.R. ) at 33a. ) The policy concentrated only on

properties for tax years 2017 and 2018 where it would be “ reasonably likely that an

appeal of assessed value [ would ] yield a minimum of ” $7 ,500 of additional school

tax revenue

, which would require that the properties have been under assessed by

approximately $ 1 million. ( Id. at 33a

- 34a, 37a, 53a

- 54a.) When making t his

business decision, Mr. Monson considered the “risk and reward” in using the

monetary threshold of $7,500 as that was a number at “ which the value to the School

District outweighed its cost. ” ( Id. at 36a.) The request for proposals (RFP) was issued

by the School District on August 9, 2016, and Mr. Monson directed prospective

bidders to submit proposals by August 2 5

, 2016, which left him a fairly compressed

time frame in which to implement the policy. ( Id. at 37a, 41a.) Mr. Monson knew

he could not evaluate all of the properties in the City within that time frame. ( Id

. at

41a. )

One of the reasons for the tax asses sment program “was to assess those

properties that had not been reassessed most recently by the City, and one portion of

those was commercial and industrial properties.” ( Id. at 52a.; see also id. at 335a. )RCJ

- 8

The School District was not responsible for doing an evaluation of fair market value

when identifying properties. ( Id. at 54a.) Critically, Mr. Monson did not reject any

property because it was a residence if it met the other criteria the School District had

established, and the School District did not perform an analysis as to what impact

the $7,500 threshold would have on any particular clas s of property. ( Id. at 58a

59a, 64a.)

Daniel Charles Rudderow also testified as on cross

- examination. Mr.

Rudderow served as a member of Keystone Realty Advisors, LLC (Keystone)

. ( Id.

at 65a

- 66a). One of the “ tasks of Keystone was to recommend properti es in [ the

City o f Philadelphia (City) ] where an appeal of ” its assessed value was reasonably

likely to yield in excess of $7,500 in additional tax revenue for the School District.

( Id. at 68a.) The deadline for the completion of the project was the appeal filing

deadline of October 3, 2016, leaving Mr. Rudderow three weeks to complete his

recommendations as to any properties that he “ felt were appropriate under the

[ monetary ] threshold. ” ( Id. at 68a

- 69a.) As part of his review of properties to

reco mmend for appeal, Mr. Rudderow employed a spreadsheet from information that

appears on OpenPhillydata.com and was prepared by the Office of Property

Assessment. ( Id. at 74a.) Although he had approximately 580,000 properties in the

City from which to choose, Mr. Rudderow decreased the properties that appeared on

the spreadsheet by randomly removing approximately 520,000 of them to make the

list more manageable . Mr. Rudderow explained that he then “eyeballed” the

remaining approximate ly 65,000 properties and reviewed about 266 of them. ( Id. at

77a

- 78a.) To aid him in his review, Mr. Rudderow added some columns to his

spreadsheet. He labeled one of those columns “ d elta

, ” which represented “ the

difference between the current assessed val ue and the most recent sale price ” of aRCJ

- 9

property. ( Id. at 79a.) He labeled a second column “ t ax

, ” which illustrated what

would be the likely additional tax revenue based on the delta if that particular

property was to be appealed

. Id

. From his initial list, Mr. Rudderow ultimately

identified a sample of 138 properties

. A lthough no single

- family residences were

among them , the properties chosen were a combination of industrial, commercial

office , retail, vacant land, and multi

- family residential apartme nt buildings

. ( Id. 70a

72a.) During his review, Mr. Rudderow would highlight properties on his

spreadsheet ; i f he did not think a particular property met the monetary threshold, he

would not recommend it for appeal. ( Id. 81a

- 82a.)

Mr. Rudderow did not employ a specific system for his review, but rather

sought to “get a broad base of properties” and sorted them “ by the size of the

assessment. ” ( Id. at 83a.) Mr. Rudder ow consulted with CoStar, a source which

contains significant transaction information pertaining to commercial properties, and

the Philadelphia Business Journal and Greater Philadelphia Market, both of which

primarily report commercial transactions , but he did not locate any residential

properties by using these sources

. ( Id. 83a

- 86a.) Mr. Rudderow also consulted a

mapping feature to target certain neighborhoods on Zillow, a site that deals primarily

with residential properties, to look for big sales of single

- family residential

properties , as well as Google

, but was unable to discover single

- family residences to

review as part of his project . This did not surprise him because they had recently

been reassessed. ( Id. at 86a

- 89a.) He ultimately did highlight 26 properties on his

spreadsheet that he identified as single

- family residential

, which were single

- family

condominium units. ( Id. 90a

- 91a, 109a.) However, after he further studied a

particular residential unit, it became “crystal clear” to Mr. Rudderow that neither it

nor any of the others in the neighborhood would meet the School District’s threshold.RCJ

- 10

( Id. at 105a .) Because he had only three weeks in which to complete his review, he

did not deem it to be a go od use of his time to continue searching further for other

residential properties that would have met the monetary threshold. ( Id

. at 110a

- 1 3 a.)

As Mr. Rudderow clarified :

I devoted my time to the properties that had not been recently

reassessed

—

the majority of my time to properties that had not been

recently reassessed, including some of the most under assessed

properties in the [C] ity. And I only had three weeks, so I had to make

a judgment call in that regard. But I think if I revi ewed any of these, I

absolutely would have recommended them if I were comfortable in that

they would have met the threshold.

( Id. at 113a.)

On November 25, 2020, Kevin Flynn testified for Taxpayers as an expert in

real estate appraisals as follows . Mr. Flynn stated his understanding was that “[ t ] he

policy established under the RFP was to identify properties that would, if appealed,

would likely generate an additional $7,500 in revenue to the School District.” ( Id.

at 144a.) To achieve this, the assessment would have to increase by roughly

$976,000. ( Id .) Mr. Flynn noted that when he conducted his review, he discovered

Keystone’s list for 2018 included 33 single

- family properties that were

recommended for appeal that could have met th e requirements of the School

District’s policy in 2017. ( Id. at 145a

- 48a.) Mr. Flynn noted that 15 of the

properties were identified on Mr. Rudderow’s 2017 spreadsheet, but they had not

been highlighted. ( Id. at 172a

- 73a.) Mr. Flynn proceeded to detail the methodology

he utilized in reviewing assessments and ultimately concluded that even though Mr.

R udderow had highlighted certain properties on his 2017 review spreadsheet as

being residential properties, none of them are single

- family residential dwellings. ( Id.

at 164a.) Mr. Flynn observed that Mr. Rudderow’s spreadsheet contained roughlyRCJ

- 11

65,000 li nes with the highlighted lines being located generally at the beginning and

end, with no highlights in the bulk of the middle. ( Id. at 166a.) Mr. Flynn admitted

he did not perform any independent research to identify properties that satisfied the

monetary threshold, as that was beyond the scope of his analysis ; r ather, he reviewed

the list of properties Keystone recommended for appeal in 2018 and determined

which of them may have met the monetary threshold in 2017. ( Id. at 17 4 a

- 76 a .)

Followin g the hearing

, the trial court issued findings of fact and an order on

February 5, 2021, wherein the trial court granted Taxpayers’ motions to quash the

School District’s appeals from the decisions of the Board. In doing so, the trial court

found that “[t]he [ p]olicy was for the School District to appeal properties that, based

upon a comparative review and evaluation, appeared to be under

- valued in relation

to the then existing tax assessments, with a focus on properties which were

reasonably likely to generate at least $7,500.00 in additional tax revenue to the

School District

. ” ( 2/5/21 Trial Court Opinion (Op.) at 4

- 5 (emphasis added).) The

trial court further found that the School District did not file any appeals to the

assessment of single

- family, residential dwellings in the City

. ( Id

. at 6

. ) The trial

court observed that Mr. Rudderow did not use Multiple Listing Services

, which

would have given him residential property sales d ata and instead he relied on

services geared towards non

- residential transactions. ( Id . at 7.) The trial court

stated, “[t]his is a situation where the School District’s policy may have been sound,

but the hasty implementation of the policy and its ultimate result were not.

Therefore, the School District violated the Uniformity Clause in the selection of [its]

2017 assessment appeals.” ( Id . at 9.)

Likening this case to Valley Forge and stressing it “ [ i ] mportantly

. . . [was]

not ruli ng on the validity of the [p]olicy itself, but its implementation,” the trial courtRCJ

- 12

stated that because the end result herein was that only commercial property

assessments were appealed, the “uniformity concepts set forth in Valley Forge ” were

violated. ( Id . at 12 ; see also id. at 14 (“[T]he Court is not making a finding as to the

consti tutionality of the ‘policy’

, or the intent, but the implementation.” ) .) The trial

court also noted that none of the cases upon which the School District had relied

“contain a factual record of such a hurried, hasty application of a monetary threshold

as t he one discussed above” and that but for the lack of time, 33 residential properties

could have been appealed in tax year 2017. ( Id . at 12

- 13.) The trial court stated that

“regardless of whether or not the School District’s conduct was wrongful, the reco rd

is clear that the rushed, piecemeal implementation of its assessment appeal [p]olicy

violated fundamental uniformity principles” in that it excluded sub

- classifications

such as single

- family residential properties that met the monetary threshold. ( Id

. at

14.)

Critically, in Valley Forge the Supreme Court did not find a Uniformity

Clause violation based upon the fact that the selection process led to appeals being

filed to only commercial property assessments. Rather, Valley Forge required that

the “other selection criteria” used by a taxing authority, whether a monetary

threshold or some other methodology, be implemented in a neutral manner

without regard for property sub

- classification. 163 A.3d at 979 see also

Punxsutawney , slip op. at 8. In de eming the policy to be unconstitutional by

interpreting the term “implemented” without consideration of the cited quote in the

larger context of the Supreme Court’s analysis in Valley Forge

, the trial court

effectively carve d out another criterion which mu st be met for a policy to be deemed

constitutionally sound, i.e

. , a consideration of the timeline of its implementation.RCJ

- 13

However, in light of Valley Forge and its progeny, the time period in which Mr.

Rudderow was given to complete his review in 2017 is inapposite.

Moreover, the trial court focuse d upon the Supreme Court’s use of the word

“implemented” in Valley Forge when it stated that a neutral selection criterion is

constitutional so long as it was “implemented without regard to the type of property

i n question or the residency status of its owner.” ( Trial Court Op. at 13

- 14 ( citing

Valley Forg e

, 163 A.3d at 979 ) (emphasis omitted) .) Noting “ that the

implementation of the [

p ] olicy excluded other sub

- classifications, such as single

family residential properties that met the monetary threshold stated in the School

District’s appeal policy[,]” the trial court conclude d Taxpayers have demonstrated a

Uniformity Clause violation through the School District’s “exercise[] [of] discretion

well outs ide of the constitutional boundaries by failing to take the time to ensure that

the taxing system was implemented in a non

- discriminatory way.” ( Id. at 14

- 15.)

The majority finds that “[t]he record fully supports the trial court’s ‘ core

holding s’” as “the evidence showed that the implementation of the School District’s

policy was not neutral but tilted toward the selection of a sub [

- ] classification or

properties, i.e., commercial and in dustrial, as found by the trial court.” The Sch

.

Dist

. of Phil adelphia

. v

. Bd. of Rev. of Taxes, The City of Philadelphia, and Teva

Pharma ceuticals USA , __ A.3d __, __ (Pa. Cmwlth.

, No. 195 C

. D

. 2021

, et al

. , filed

October 6, 2023 ), slip op

. at 13

- 14. The majority also states that Mr. Rudderow

selected properties to review “using a random and piecemeal methodology that was

neither objective nor neutral[]” Id

. , __ A.3d at __, slip op at 13 . However, the

School District did not treat property sub

- classifications in a disparate manner as

proscribed by Valley Forge

, but rather, in an effort to be fiscally responsible by

appealing only tax assessments that would generate sufficient revenue to justify theRCJ

- 14

cost of an appeal, prescribed a monetary threshold to determine which property tax

asse ssments to appeal. This practice is permitted by Springfield Township and

deemed to be constitutional under Valley Forge so long as the School District’s

actions did not systematically target commercial properties. Mr. Rudderow’s

unrefuted testimony esta blished that he had not been tasked with targeting specific

types of property when engaging in the selection process and that his analysis was

based solely on an application of the $7,500 monetary threshold. (R.R. at 68a

- 69a,

77a, 82a

- 83a.)

Significantl y, while he f

ound fault with Mr. Rudderow’s methodology and the

timeline in which he had to conduct his review, Taxpayers ’ own witness, Mr. Flynn,

explained his understanding of the policy’s purpose “was to identify properties that

would, if appealed, would likely generate an additional $7,500 in revenue to the

School District.” ( Id

. at 144a

. ) While it is true that Mr. Rudderow was working

within time constraints which prevented him from analyzing as many properties as

he may have otherwise liked to consider in the first phase of the policy in 2017, he

explained that the manner in which he worked and the reasoning behind his ultimate

recommendations were done without regard to property type.

Moreover, Mr. Rudderow explained the methodology under which he worked

to complete his recommendations. The spreadsheet he created contained a broad

base of both commercial and residential properties, and residential properties were

among those he highlighted and felt would meet the $7,500 m onetary threshold. He

also consulted with multiple online sources as an aid in identifying potential

properties and focused upon those which had not been reassessed recently. ( Id

. at

83a

- 90a.) Mr. Rudderow explained that while his research did not direct him to many

residential properties that would have met the threshold, he “absolutely would haveRCJ

- 15

recommended ” residential properties for appeal if he were comfortable that they

would have met it. ( Id. at 113a.) Nowhere does Mr. Rudderow indicate th at the

School District either explicitly or implicitly directed him to consider only

commercial properties when deciding whether to recommend a property for an

assessment appeal. Indeed, Mr. Flynn acknowledged that Keystone’s list for 2018

recommended 33 single

- family, residential properties for appeal, and 15 of them

were on Mr. Rudderow’s 2017 spreadsheet

. ( Id. at 172a

. ) For these reasons, I cannot

agree that “[Mr.] Rudderow’s idiosyncratic and subjective selection of under [

] assessed properties was ar bitrary and deliberately exempted from review numerous

properties that could have yielded an additional $7,500 in annual tax revenue.” The

Sch

. Dist

. of Phil adelphia

, __ A.3d at __, slip op

. at 15.

In this regard, our analysis in Kennett is instructive herein.

Our conclusion in Punxsutawney is persuasive and applicable here,

because the actions of [ the school d]istrict are similar to those of the

school district in Punxsutawney

. First, just as the school district in

Punxsutawney did not base its decision to appeal the assessment based

on the type of the property, neither did [ the school d]istrict.

Specifically, [ the school d] istrict directed its consultant as follows,

“[p]lease do not limit your re view to any particular class of properties

in the [s]chool [d]istrict, but review all classes of properties including

commercial, residential, and otherwise.” In the same likeness, both [ the

school d]istrict and the school district in Punxsutawney disregarded the

nature of the property. As we explained above, this is in accord with

our Supreme Court’s holding in Valley Forge

, because [ the school

d]istrict’s disregard of property type cannot logicall y equate to unlawful

treatment based upon property type.

Moreover, the facially neutral action employed by [ the school d]istrict

is not sufficient to result in a violation of the Uniformity Clause. As in

Punxsutawney , there is no indication [ the school d]istrict would not

have appealed the assessment of residential properties in the event that

such properties would have f allen within its fiscal parameters. [The

school d] istrict is concerned with maximizing its revenue, as was the

school district in Punxsutawney. The mere fact that all appealedRCJ

- 16

properties were commercial does not per se create a violation of the

Uniformity Clause. This is especially so in light of [ the school

d]istrict’s intentional disregard for the nature of the property.

Therefore, this Court concludes there is no violation of the

Uniformity Clause with respect to a property type classificati on

.

***

In East Stroudsburg , the taxpayers owned property within the East

Stroudsburg School District. Id. [, slip op.] at 2. In 2016, the school

district began filing assessment appeals in an attempt to increase

revenue. Id. at 3. The school district wanted to assure that it was

targeting properties for which the assessment appeals would generate

sufficient revenue to justify the costs of appeals. Id. Thus, the school

district decided that it would target “any and all properties” that would

generate at least $10,000.00 in additional revenue. Id. at 4.

Significantly, we noted that the school district would have filed

assessment appeals relating to residential properties had any

residential properties met the threshold. Id. at 4.

Kennett

, 228 A.3d at 39

- 41 (emphasis added; citations to the record omitted; some

brackets added)

.

The reco rd reveals that Mr. Rudderow implemented his analysis without

consideration of property type or owner and focused on meeting the $7,500 monetary

threshold set by the School District. The trial court did not consider the neutral and

pecuniary nature of the process and decid ed not to rule on the plan itself, deem ing

it to be unconstitutional based upon its view that time constraints under which

the plan was implemented led the School District to appeal only commercial

properties. In doing so, the trial court committed an error of law, for t his result

contravenes that reached in Kennett

, East Stroudsburg

, and Punxsutawney

.

In accordance with the foregoing , I would hold that the School District’s

policy for determining what property assessments to appeal

, which is based on a

specific monetary threshold and without regard for a real property’s classification,RCJ

- 17

sub

- classification, or ownership

, does not violate the Uniformity Clause and is

not inconsistent with our Supreme Court’s holding in Valley Forge and its

progeny. Accordingly, I would reverse the trial court’s Order granting Taxpayers’

motions to quash the School District’s assessments appeals ; this Court would then

not need to reach the School District’s second issue as tax years 2018 through 2021

became part of the appeal by operation of law. 72 P.S. § 5020

- 518.1(b) 4 ; see also

Macy’s Inc. v. Bd. of Prop. Assessment, Appeals, Rev. of Allegheny Cnty.

, 61 A.3d

361, 363 n. 2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013 ).

_____________________ _____________________ RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

4 Section 518. 1 of the Act of May 23, 1933, P.L. 853, as amended , added by the Act of

December 28, 1955, P.L. 917.