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

:

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, :

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, :

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. 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 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 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 Nineteen 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 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 :

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 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, :

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 RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

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

OPINION FILED: October 6, 2023

BY SENIOR JUDGE LEAVITT

The School District of Philadelphia (School District) has appealed 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

 

The 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, PA. CONST. art. VIII, §1.

2 For 

the reasons to follow, we affirm.

Background

On August 9, 2016, the School District issued a request for proposals

seeking 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 Proposals at 6; Reproduced Record at 262a (R.R. __). The 

School District chose Keystone Realty 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 appeals. 

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

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

settled, leaving 74 appeals with this Court. Thereafter, the appeal at No. 194 C.D. 2021 was 

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

By orders of this Court, the School District’s appeals at Docket Nos. 195-224, 226-229, 

252-256, 257, 258-266, 268-288, and 419 C.D. 2021, were consolidated.

2 The Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania 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[.]” PA. CONST. art. VIII, §1. 
2

On 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 papers,” 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. Upper 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 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 (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 limited its 2017 assessment appeals to 

commercial properties, these appeals violated the Uniformity Clause. The School 

District responded that it used a monetary threshold to determine which property 

assessments to appeal, and this policy conformed to the requirements of the 

Uniformity 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 reasons 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) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). 

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

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

support its findings. This Court agreed, concluding that an evidentiary 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 

Taxpayers’ 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 crossexamination. He testified that for the 2017-2018 tax year, the School District 

devised a program to target those underassessed 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 Testimony (N.T.), 11/16/2020, at 

32-33; R.R. 35a-36a. To generate an annual tax increase of $7,500, the property had 

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

District targeted commercial and industrial properties because they “had not been 
4

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

explained that on 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; rather, it followed 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 crossexamination. He testified that he was tasked with the responsibility to identify those 

underassessed properties 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 65; 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 properties 

from that 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 70; R.R. 77a. In his words, “I eyeballed it.”

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

properties. To choose properties from that list for review, Rudderow 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 Greater 

Philadelphia Market, and Zillow. Except for Zillow, the sources Rudderow 
5

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 

compiled a list of 266 properties for review. Of the 266 properties, he recommended 

138 properties for tax assessment appeals, believing that they 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 singlefamily 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. 86a87a. Accordingly, he did not consider those 33 residential properties. However, in 

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

At the hearing on November 25, 2020, Taxpayers’ expert, Kevin Flynn,

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

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

Flynn identified 33 underassessed residential properties that met the School 

District’s monetary threshold of a $7,500 tax increase but were not appealed. Flynn 

found that the commercial properties appealed 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 beginning 

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 assessments 
6

ranging from $40 million to $700 million. Properties “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 Taxpayers’ motions to quash the School District’s tax assessment appeals. 

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

that would generate $7,500 in additional annual tax revenue for each property, which 

it then rushed to implement. By the time the School District selected Keystone and 

the Law Firm, and had those 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 nonresidential properties. In the end, all the 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 appeals. 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.3d at 979). In its rush to meet the 

2017 appeal deadline, the School District ignored all properties, save a select and 
7

small number of commercial properties. On these findings, the trial court concluded 

that the School District’s 2017 tax assessment appeals violated the Uniformity 

Clause and granted Taxpayers’ motions to quash. 

The School District filed the instant appeals.

Appeal

On appeal,5the 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 appeals program for the 2017 tax year violated 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.

The Uniformity 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. 

PA. CONST. art. VIII, §1. The Uniformity Clause ensures that “a taxpayer should 

pay no more or no less than his proportionate share 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 quash an 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 Area School District, 19 A.3d 29, 31 n.3 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2011). 
8

A.2d 397, 401 (Pa. 1965)). The 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 the Constitutions and statutes of almost every state in this 

country.

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

Within a taxing district, 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 subclassifications in a disparate manner.” Id. In Clifton v. Allegheny County, 969 A.2d 

1197, 1212 (Pa. 2009), our Supreme Court established 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 Law6authorizes 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 appeals only “the assessments of one sub-classification of properties, 

where that sub-classification is drawn according to property type,” it acts outside

applicable constitutional boundaries. Id. at 978. 

In Valley Forge, 163 A.3d 962, several taxpayers challenged the school 

district’s program 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 court 

dismissed the complaint as not stating a claim, and this 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 

properties, 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 disparate 

enforcement of the tax laws based on property sub-classification, even absent 

wrongful conduct, is constitutionally precluded[.]” Id. The Supreme Court 

cautioned, however, that its holding should not be construed as an 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. The Supreme Court held that because the 

taxpayers’ 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. Cmwlth. 2021) (GM 

Berkshire I). There, the school district’s tax assessment appeals program 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 with the 

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

the school district applied the county’s applicable common level ratio7 of 68.5% to 

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

assessment was greater than $150,000, the school district pursued 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 

the 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 violates both the federal Equal 

Protection Clause8and Pennsylvania’s Uniformity Clause. This Court rejected this 

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

an improper classification, reasoning that such sales are used to establish market 

value in any assessment appeal. Further, the school district’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, an equally divided Supreme Court affirmed this Court’s decision 

7 Section 102 of The 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 act 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. CONST. 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, 250 (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 affirmed 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 property sub-classification

for reassessment, while leaving other sub-classifications of property alone, violated 

the Uniformity Clause.

In Duffield, we distinguished Kennett Consolidated School District v. 

Chester County Board of Assessment 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 challenged a

school district’s tax assessment appeal of its property on the grounds that it 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 concluded that the appeal program was constitutional because it 

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

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

property 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.

The School District argues that the trial court proceeded under the

incorrect assumption that because the 2017 assessment appeals were all commercial 
12

properties, those 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 School 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 

assessments to appeal did not violate the Uniformity Clause). The School District 

argues 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 rendered 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 violated the Uniformity Clause. The School District’s “slipshod and 

piecemeal” implementation fixed on commercial and industrial properties, which

created an unlawful classification. Taxpayers Brief at 2. As the Supreme Court has 

observed, “disparate enforcement of the tax laws based on property subclassifications, even absent wrongful conduct, is unconstitutionally precluded[.]” 

Valley Forge, 163 A.3d at 978 (emphasis added). Taxpayers argue that the School 

District simply ignores the trial court’s “core holdings” 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.” 

Taxpayers Brief at 2. Although the School District’s tax assessment appeal was 

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

its 2017 appeal of 138 assessments was 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 properties without explanation. N.T., 11/16/2020, at 68, R.R. 

74a-75a. To 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 and industrial properties” because they had not 

been “recently reassessed.” N.T., 11/16/2020, at 47; 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 the 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 fell on properties with the highest 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 toward 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 targets 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. The prevailing 

requirement remains that “similarly situated taxpayers should 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, but 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 produced an arbitrary implementation. 
15

Rudderow acknowledges that he randomly rejected 520,000 properties by 

“eyeball[ing],” and it 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 properties on the second 

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

single-family residential properties. Rudderow acknowledged 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 was 

not at issue in these cases but, rather, the stated terms of the policy. 

Here, the findings of the trial court support its conclusion that the 

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

Rudderow’s idiosyncratic and subjective selection of underassessed properties was 

arbitrary and deliberately exempted from review numerous properties that could 

have yielded an additional $7,500 in annual tax revenue. At 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 “systematic disparate 

enforcement 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 Clause, 

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 recent 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 change 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 applied to all properties meeting the monetary threshold. 

Even so, our holding received 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 the 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. Cf. Kennett, 

228 A.3d 29. The School District’s monetary threshold may have been neutral, but 
17

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 The General 

County 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

:

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, :

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, :

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. 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 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 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 Nineteen 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 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 :

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 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, :

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 :
ORDER

AND NOW, this 6

th day of October, 2023, the order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, dated February 5, 2021, in the abovecaptioned matters, is AFFIRMED.

____________________________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita
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

:

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, :

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, :

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 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, : No. 258 C.D. 2021

The 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 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 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, : No. 284 C.D. 2021

The 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 Nineteen 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 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 :

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 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, :

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 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 which property assessments 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 Merion 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 school

district’s preliminary objections 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 taxfairness requirements of the Uniformity Clause and the Federal Equal Protection 

Clause, see U.S. Const. amend. XIV, the Valley Forge Court 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 subclassifications 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 subthe 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 School District, 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, instead, 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 979 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.

Id. 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.” Valley 
RCJ - 4

Forge, 163 A.3d at 980. Those constitutional boundaries 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 Forge and our previous decision in 

Kennett Consolidated School District v. Chester County Board of Assessment 

Appeals, 228 A.3d 29 (Pa. Cmwlth.), 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 argued 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 affirmed 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 only 
RCJ - 5

appealing assessments that would 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 appellate 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 based 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, 2019),] 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 Punxsutawney.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, before the Court of Common Pleas 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 Zvi 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 presented 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 this 

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 25, 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 assessment 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 class of property. (Id. at 58a59a, 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 properties in [the 

City of 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

recommend 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 approximately 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 “delta,” which represented “the 

difference between the current assessed value and the most recent sale price” of a 
RCJ - 9

property. (Id. at 79a.) He labeled a second column “tax,” 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. Although no single-family residences were 

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

office, retail, vacant land, and multi-family residential apartment buildings. (Id. 70a72a.) During his review, Mr. Rudderow would highlight properties on his

spreadsheet; if 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. Rudderow 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 good use of his time to continue searching further for other 

residential properties that would have met the monetary threshold. (Id. at 110a-13a.) 

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 reviewed 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 the 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. 

Rudderow had highlighted certain properties on his 2017 review spreadsheet as

being residential properties, none ofthemare single-family residential dwellings. (Id.

at 164a.) Mr. Flynn observed that Mr. Rudderow’s spreadsheet contained roughly 
RCJ - 11

65,000 lines 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; rather, 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 174a-76a.)

Following 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 data 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 ruling on the validity of the [p]olicy itself, but its implementation,” the trial court 
RCJ - 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 

constitutionality 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 ofsuch a hurried, hasty application of a monetary threshold 

as the 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 record 

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 deeming 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 carved out another criterion which must 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 focused 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

in question or the residency status of its owner.” (Trial Court Op. at 13-14 (citing

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

implementation of the [p]olicy excluded other sub-classifications, such as singlefamily residential properties that met the monetary threshold stated in the School 

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

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

well outside 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 

holdings’” 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 industrial, as found by the trial court.” The Sch.

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

Pharmaceuticals 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 the 
RCJ - 14

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

assessments 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 established 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.) 

Significantly, while he found 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 monetary 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 hisresearch did not direct himto many

residential properties that would have met the threshold, he “absolutely would have 
RCJ - 15

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

would have met it. (Id. at 113a.) Nowhere does Mr. Rudderow indicate that 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 arbitrary and deliberately exempted from review numerous 

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

Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, __ 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 review 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 logically 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 fallen 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 appealed 
RCJ - 16

properties were commercial does not perse 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 classification.

***

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 record 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 decided not to rule on the plan itself, deeming

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 this 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.