Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Solicitor urges Scranton SD to pursue reverse-assessment reviews of nonprofit properties to recover revenue
Summary
District solicitor recommended the board authorize reverse-assessment reviews of tax-exempt properties in Scranton, citing a baseline list of about 250 properties and an estimated subset that may not qualify for exemptions; staff recommended beginning work before August 1 to preserve options.
The Scranton School District's solicitor told the board on May 4 that the district should pursue reverse-assessment reviews of certain tax-exempt or nonprofit properties in Scranton, a move he said could yield material revenue for the district while potentially costing less than defending individual assessment appeals.
Solicitor Tom Moran said the district has a baseline list of roughly 250 properties flagged for review and estimated that about 100 of those might not survive a legal challenge to their tax-exempt status. He said the recommended process is to coordinate with the county assessor's office, issue notices and ask property owners to demonstrate that they meet exemption tests.
Moran said the approach relies on the HUB test and similar legal standards used in prior litigation and emphasized a deadline of Aug. 1 for some filing and assessment timelines. Several board members raised concerns about the completeness and sourcing of the list and requested that the city and county provide the district with the underlying materials and any redactions; one member also proposed a low-cost initial verification using IRS Form 990 records.
Moran said the city and county are engaged and that the district would coordinate with taxing districts where appropriate. Board members recommended transparency and requested a clean (unredacted) list be shared with directors and central administration for review. The board indicated support for further work and collaboration with the county and city but asked staff to return with documentation and next steps.
Provenance: Solicitor's report and board discussion about reverse assessment reviews, HUB test references and the timetable for next steps.
