*1 V. DOWNINGTOWN AREA SCHOOL foregoing dispos-
Because the discussion DISTRICT appeal, es of this we need not address arguments concerning the Municipal v. Planning, Recycling and Re- Wasté Waste CHESTER COUNTY BOARD OF AS 101). (Act duction Act Act July SESSMENT APPEALS Lion amended, P.L. 556 as 53 P.S. ville Station S.C. Associates §§ 4000.1014000.1904.8
Accordingly we affirm.9 Appeal of Lionville Station S.C. Associates.
ORDER Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. NOW, March, AND this day 18th 2003, the order of the Environmental Submitted on Briefs Dec. 2002. Hearing Board is affirmed. Decided March 2003. Serv., (PEMS) Mgmt. substance, sion in Pa. Envtl. Inc. v. purpose, limited but not for its Res., Dep’t Envtl. 1981 EHB 395 the basis disagree. for its decision. We applied permit PEMS for a solid waste unsupported. Leatherwood’s assertion is Moreover, construct a landfill less than a mile from an unaccompanied this by assertion is airport. application DER denied the based prove prejudice. Dep’t an offer to See Gen. on its belief that the landfill would create a Co., Serv. v. United States Mineral Prod. by attracting hazard birds. DER relied al- (Pa.Cmwlth.2002) (to A.2d 994 constitute re- exclusively most on a letter from PennDOT error, evidentiary ruling versible must not opposition appeal, to the landfill. On erroneous, prejudicial be but also to the reversed, holding EHB that PEMS established complaining party). through expert testimony credible Leatherwood further asserts the EHB erred bird hazard could be controlled. by ruling plan on its bird control because inapposite PEMS is for several reasons. yet DEP had to issue its final decision on the First, analyzed poten- PEMS the EHB plan. argument This lacks merit. In con- using public tial bird hazard nuisance review, ducting de novo the EHB considers doctrine, regulations rather than the attend- Also, duty case anew. the EHB’s is to SWMA, yet ant to which were not in effect. supported determine if DEP's actions can be Also, PEMS, unlike Leatherwood failed to de- Pequea the evidence taken the EHB. velop adequate Bird Control Plan to show Moreover, Township. Leatherwood fails to And, it could control the hazard. unlike the explain prejudiced by how it was EHB’s con- PEMS, objectors in Local Government Offi- Thus, plan. sideration of the we discern no presented cials substantial evidence on the adjudge error from the EHB’s decision to risk of bird strikes and the defectiveness of efficacy plan. of the bird control mitigation plan. Leatherwood’s Also, issue, as a final Leatherwood asserts by revoking the EHB erred the residual waste “many 8. The EHB noted of the Act 101 relat- provisions of the Permit without make find regulations ed issue in this have However, amended, ings on this issue. Leatherwood repealed significantly now been or EHB, (thus failed to raise this issue rendering before regula- discussion of these academic)....” Mining has waived Adjudi- tions somewhat it. McDonald Land & Co. EHB Res., (Pa. Dep’t v. cation at 66. Envtl. A.2d 194 Cmwlth.1995) (issue which is not raised be purposes appellate Leatherwood also contends the EHB fore erred EHB is waived for review). by relying hearsay evidence introduced for *2 Fiorillo, Chester, ap- for K. West
John pellant. Exton, Sommer, appel- for
Jeffrey R. lees. COLINS, Judge, President
BEFORE: McGINLEY, SMITH-RIBNER, FRIEDMAN, PELLEGRINI, COHN SIMPSON, Judges. BY McGINLEY. JUDGE
OPINION (Lion- Associates Lionville Station S.C. ville) an appeals from order Court (trial court) of Chester Common No. the value of Tax Parcel that assessed (Property) for the 33-01-0032.0000 $8,500,000.00. at tax Lion- Shoppes March On Station, LLP, Pennsylvania Limited ville Partnership, Property, sold the Liability 83,488 neighborhood shop square-foot center, purchase Lionville for a ping $10,422,978.23. January On County Board of Assess the Chester (Board) Prop Appeals ment $6,500,000.00 for the 2000 tax erty at Downingtown Area School District R.R. at 48a. acknowledged Shooster that (District) and a de novo hearing appealed $10,422,978.23 paid he par- held. Before the trial court the “I think it is money.” worth much 1) stipulated following: ties to the 42; N.T. R.R. at 51a. 6/5/01 *3 Property fair market value of the for the Eiffes testified that he applied the ratio 2) $8,500,000.00; year 2000 tax was that of assessed value to market value to seven (STEB) Equalization the State Tax centers) commercial properties (shopping equaled ratio 85.2% of market value for Property similar to the and that the as- 3) year; prede- the 2000 tax and sessed value of these commercial taxpayers termined ratio used to assess ties was lower than the Property. Notes County was 100% of fair market Chester (N.T. 6, 2001, 6/6/01) Testimony, June at for the 2000 tax 14, 31, 37; 63a, 80a, R.R. and at and 86a. presented testimony Lionville of However, Eiffes testified on cross that he (McRae), Robert R. McRae Chief Asses- did not conduct a “complete appraisal” on sor, (Fazio), Anthony Richard Fazio Chief these properties “completed but an exteri- District, Financial Officer for the School inspection or similar drive-by apprais- to a (Shooster) David Shooster owner of the 43; al.” N.T. at R.R. at 92a. Fi- 6/6/01 (Eiffes), Property, and Scott Eiffes a com- nally, Eiffes stated that shopping center appraiser. mercial real estate paid owners less proportionately taxes McRae testified that the con- Property single-family than property owners and 83,488 square sisted of feet and was as- appears that that “[i]t that would be in- $6,500,000.00 sessed at which amounted to equity 47; in the system.” N.T. at 6/6/01 per square foot. Notes of Testimo- $77.86 R.R. at 96a. (N.T. 6/5/01) 14; ny, June at Re- The trial court prop- concluded that the (R.R.) produced Record at 23a. McRae er Property assessment of the for the 2000 County stated that Chester has a prede- $8,500,000.00: tax termined ratio of a 100% of market value “predetermined and that under the argues setting Lionville that in this case Property scenario” the should be assessed value, the assessment at the fair market $8,500,000.00. 24; at N.T. at R.R. 6/5/01 while County’s consistent 100% at 33a. ratio, results in an assessment which is unconstitutional for lack of uniformi-
Fazio testified that the School District ty. appealed the assessment after he com-
pared Property the transfer to goes entirely Lionville’s evidence to 27; its assessed value. N.T. at R.R. 6/5/01 property, issue of its whether at 36a. Fazio also stated that the School center, uniformly as com plans appeal District to the assessment of pared to other shopping centers. our properties. other commercial N.T. 6/5/01 view, shop is irrelevant as 27; at at R.R. 36a. ping centers do not constitute a class purposes considering uniformity
Shooster
he
origi-
testified
believed the
Indeed,
very
tax assessments....
nal
assessment
$5,833,040.00
argument
advanced"
Lionville would
was accurate
that he
but
result in an
Tax
agreed
improper
to the Board’s
increase
to
assessment.
$6,500,000.00
commercial, industrial,
“just
ing
and residen
dispute,
resolve
so
go through
going
differently
we would not
what we’re
tial real estate
has been held
39;
through
today.”
here
Uniformity
N.T.
to violate the
Clause. Fidel
6/5/01
Bank,
ity
By
Through
N.A. v.
ters in Chester
and therefore the
Com.
Revenue,
assessment violated the
clause.
Dept. of
165 Pa.Cmwlth.
(1994). Therefore,
we
VIII,
Article
1 of the
Section
position to be without
found Lionville’s
provides
Constitution
in ac
merit and we set the assessment
uniform, upon
taxes shall be
“[a]ll
stipulated
cordance with the
fair market
subjects,
within the territori
same class
value.
tax,
authority levying
al limits of the
foregoing
For the
reasons and those
under
and shall be levied
collected
footnote[1]
set forth in the
taxation,
reasons
general
laws.” “In matters of
decision,
our
we rendered the decision allegations
equal pro
of violations of the
from which this
has been taken.
tection clause of the United States Consti
*4
uniformity
tution and the
clause of the
Court,
of the Trial
March
Opinion
in
Pennsylvania
analyzed
Constitution are
2-4.
manner, requiring equality
the same
of
appeal2,
again
On
Lionville
contends
upon
subject
or things
burden
classes
trial
application
court’s
of the
tax in question.” Equitable
As
Life
Prop-
ratio of 100% to the
Society
surance
the United States v.
of
338,
erty
principles
uniformity
violated the
of
Murphy, 153
621
Pa.Cmwlth.
A.2d
equal protection.3 Succinctly,
1078,
(1993),
and
Lion-
citing
1086 n. 12
Aldine
Commonwealth,
ville
that its
center
shopping
Apartments,
asserts
Inc. v.
493
(1981).
480,
Further,
than
higher
shopping
other
cen- Pa.
619 the administration same common taxpayer alleging level ratio to the market added). rights property, a tax violates its to be taxed value of the (emphasis of of must uniformly with others its class In Hromisin v. Board Assessment deliberate, purposeful demonstrate dis- Appeals Luzerne County, 719 A.2d the tax application crimination (Pa.Cmwlth.1998), 819 denied, allocatur safeguards before constitutional are violat- (1999), 558 Pa. this Armco, Inc., Appeal ed.” In re 100 Court reviewed the 1982 amendments to Pa.Cmwlth. the Law and noted: citing Commonwealth v. Aside from the fact that the conclusions Westinghouse Corp., Elec. by taxpayers’ expert reached here do A.2d 491 support not a uniformity challenge, we briefly must comment upon Section 1.1 of the “Assessments Law” the nature (Law)4, First, § of the methodology employed. 5342.1 the term P.S. defines ratio” there is serious whether “common level as ratio of “[t]he approach commonly assessed value to current market value used to mount a uniformity challenge generally prior used in the deter- to the last amendments, that expert Tax is to offer an Equalization mined State *5 compute to pursuant to the act of June 1947 common level ratio based (P.L. 1046, 447), upon tax county, records within the No. referred to as the is (foot- any longer permissible light in Equalization State Board Law.”5 of the omitted). statutory current mandate *6 data on all in that two Fiorillo: He testified that he ... has not year period? performed appraisal, an so there's no need Cole-Layer-Trumble, A: contractor get appraisal into what an is. did.... Q: Well, point Court: their would if be he And, sir, Okay. you do know whether appraisal, hasn't an done that the value of Cole-Layer-Trumble pro- or not did what a testimony his whole is either limited or not appraiser all, ap- fessional would call a anything formal purpose worth at and for that praisal any just properties? important of those it's to know what he No, didn’t they A: do as what he did do. Overruled. did not. This was a mass appraisal. Q: gave opinion Court: ... [Y]ou of value appraisal per So there was no se on very sketchy based on some information. any property, big picture but rather a look? Why appraisal? is that not an A: That's correct. Eiffes: What I did said was I not conduct a 23; N.T. at R.R. at 32a. 6/5/01 complete appraisal. complete appraisal? Court: What's a following 7. The discussion occurred: complete appraisal Eiffes: A would include redundant, McErlane: Not to be but it's development comparison of the sales you appraisal real clear that did not do an approach, approach the income and the as that term is defined the American approach. cost any properties, Institute on of these your Court: That’s definition? possible exception subject proper- Eiffes: That's correct. ty? any Court: Does that differ in substantial complete apprais- Eiffes: I have not done way Appraisal from the Institute’s defini- properties. al on these I have done a limited tion? valuation, scope being what I've de- Eiffes: I do not believe so. morning, scribed to the Court this for com- you Court: And didn't do that for these parative purposes properties? within this chart. No, A: I wouldn’t. appraisal that no official cross-examination commercial regarding these was conducted N.T. at 40: R.R. at 49. 6/5/01 fig- support centers to shopping Accordingly, this Court affirms.9 entered into evidence. ures that were ORDER Further, Fazio testified that School NOW, March, day AND this 20th appealing in the process District was 2003, the order of Court of Common Pleas shopping other centers the assessments of County above-captioned of Chester they were under they because believed affirmed. matter is fact, Shooster testified assessed.8 shopping if centers were reas- the other Dissenting opinion by Judge objection have no with the sessed he would FRIEDMAN. current assessment: Property’s DISSENTING OPINION BY JUDGE Well, Q: appealed if the school district FRIEDMAN. and the shopping those other centers cen- respectfully assessments on all those I dissent. The raised, have you presented were then wouldn’t here is whether the ters Court (trial you? would Common Pleas of Chester complaint, ap- perform complete within its boundaries to determine if a Eiffes: I did not assessed, praisal. What I did was a limited valua- is under other than re- viewing prices? tion. sale 38-42; discussing A: We're that. N.T. R.R. 87a-91a. 6/6/01 (Fiorillo), 8. John K. Fiorillo attor- Lionville's Q: Okay. you discussing Are with other ney, to Fazio: whether or school districts not to Q: And, however, Okay. it true that isn't proper- various assessments of commercial currently investigating the school district is ty? filing appeals Yes, on other commercial A: sir. 29-31; its district similar to the Lion- ties within N.T. at 27 and R.R. at 36a and 6/5/01 [Property]? Station ville 38a-40a. A: Yes. 9. Because of this Court determination that Q: you looking What are at? not violate the assessment of the did property Downingtown Bor- A: There's clause, we need not address appeal- ough Springton Meadows. We’ve *7 remaining issue that the School Lionville's ed.... present any District failed to evidence before Company the trial court. In Deitch v. Board Q: you considering filing appeal Are an Assessment, 213, 221, Property 417 Pa. 209 of A.2d Village Center? the Lionville (1965), Pennsylvania our Su- 402 preme Court noted: my to is A: What initiates decision taxing compare procedure requires that the au- when we market value or sales will, thority present you So first its assessment record price, if to assessed value. presentation usually my generated into evidence. Such makes determination is prima validity the what out a facie case for the of when we have information on the property the that it fixes the time a would be. assessment in sense sales of coming the burden of forward with when Q: Well, taxpayer. any the If the tax- there other circum- evidence shifts to are credible, payer respond with rele- you fails to stances under which would initiate evidence, body prevails. then the tax appeal? vant Here, knowledge the trial court found that Lionville A: If I had to the value of the produce sufficient evidence to suc- property other than the assessed value. failed to Q: challenge validity the cessfully the of assess- Okay. And does the school district un- any investigation properties ment. dertake of the 622
court) in ra- constructing appropriate failed to consider relevant evidence rabie to value. determining prede- in that the “established tio of assessed value market uniformity require- ratio” of in this case This is because the termined 100% does uniformity provision Pennsylvania in ment of the of not violate the tax Constitution VIII, Pennsylvania require Article been construed to that all Section of has Relying rulings Constitution.2 on the of real estate is a class which is entitled to Court, Pennsylvania establishing which uniform treatment. In such Supreme district, ratio in a interpreter Pennsylva- particular proper- the ultimate of the Constitution,3 owner, authority, ty taxing nia I would conclude that and the regard. may rely any the trial court erred in this courts relevant evi- dence. Supreme I. Law Court Case supplied by taxpayer The evidence In Building, the case of In re Brooks by in Brooks illustrates one method 94, 101, 391 Pa. a taxpayer which can meet his burden supreme taxpayer our court stated that a proving uniformity, a lack we but of of satisfies his proving property burden it do not consider to be the method. uniformity by tax violation producing “evi- satisfactory equally pro- It would be to dence of the market his regarding duce evidence the ratios of properties and of similar of the same na- assessed values to market values as the in neighborhood by proving ture latter are in any reflected actual sales of the assessments of each of those other real estate in the taxing district ties and the ratio of assessed value to period prior for a reasonable as- actual or market value.”4 sessment date. Subsequently, in Company Deitch v. Thus, the court in Deitch validated the Assessment, Appeals properties” Brooks “similar method of Allegheny County, and Review 417 Pa. proving violation under Arti- 213, 223, (1965) (em- 402-03 VIII, Pennsylvania cle Section of the added, omitted), phasis citation our su- Constitution. This is because the ratio of preme court stated: assessed value to market value for similar determining ... whether the consti- in a properties taxing district is relevant to
tutional with uni- requirement respect of whether the ratio is uni- formity has complied taxing been form for all within the district, all properties compa- are district.5 Id. Pennsylvania 1. The "established ratio” is 3. See AFL-CIO v. Common- wealth, the "ratio (2000) of assessed value to market value the board established commis- (stating Pennsylvania Supreme Court uniformly applied sioners and interpreter is the ultimate any year.” assessed value in Section 1.1 of Constitution). the Act of June P.L. added *8 13, 1982, section 1 of Act the of December 4. ratio of value The assessed to market value 1165, amended, § P.L. as 72 P.S. 5342.1. is known as the common level ratio. Keebler Company v. Board Revision Taxes VIII, of of of 2. Article Section 1 of the 140, Philadelphia, 496 Pa. states, Constitution “All taxes shall be uni- form, upon subjects, the of same class within authority levying territorial the limits of the words, tax, properties 5. In other because similar the and shall be levied and collected Const., VIII, properties, general are a sub-class of all the ratio for under laws.” Pa. art. § similar is relevant. 1.
623
II.
Statutory
Provisions
Later,
Company v. Board
in Keebler
Philadelphia,
Taxes
Revision
A. STEB Common Level Ratio
583,
relying
A.2d
in
In
after the court’s decision
Deitch,
explained
court
supreme
our
Keebler,
Assembly
the General
amended
that,
considerations
“[p]ractical
because
Equalization
Tax
law
the State
of a common-
...
the construction
prohibit
(STEB Law)7
require
to
the STEB to
way of an evaluation of
by
level ratio
“establish,
annually, prior
July
a com-
fair market value of each
assessment
market
mon level ratio of assessed value to
in the
every parcel
realty
in
county
prior
each
for the
calendar
district,”
may
ratio
be
the common-level
Law,
year.”
7 of the
Section
STEB
by “any relevant evidence.”6
constructed
4656.7(9).
ratio,
§
arriving
In
at this
P.S.
to use “statistical-
required
the STEB was
in
a shopping
this case is
ly acceptable techniques,
including sales
with a market
center
Chester
ratio studies.” Section 16.1 of the STEB
Lionville
value of 8.5 million dollars.
Sta-
4656.16a(b).
Law,
§
72 P.S.
(Lionville),
tion
Associates
S.C.
that
regulations
The STEB’s
indicate
owners,
ty
presented evidence
seven
adopted
the STEB has
the “sales ratio
i.e.,
other
cen-
properties,
similar
approach
studies”
to establish a common
County,
were assessed at
ters
Chester
county
particular
level ratio for each
for a
of their
thirty-four
sixty-nine percent
§
603.1. In
calendar
Pa.Code
argued
market values. Lionville
fair
gathers
using
approach,
this
the STEB
shows that
the established
such evidence
county,
from
property sales data
each
rate of 100% violates the
eliminating property transfers where
Pennsylva-
uniformity requirement
selling price is not bona fide or where the
The trial court refused
nia Constitution.
ex-
selling price
ratio of assessment to
evidence, stating
Lionville’s
to consider
tremely
high or
low.
61 Pa.Code
However,
it
irrelevant.
as indi-
that was
(c), (d).
603.31(a), (b),
Periodically,
§
above,
Pennsylvania Supreme
cated
compare
selling prices
will
STEB
specifically
has
stated that such evi-
Court
values,
market
which tend to be
appraised
Deitch; Brooks.
dence is relevant.
more
61 Pa. Code
much
conservative.8
(f).
603.31(e),
§
I would
the trial
Accordingly,
vacate
court’s determination and remand this case
level
Significantly, the STEB common
study
the ratio of
is not
on a
for consideration of Lionville’s evidence.
ratio
based
Properties
Keebler,
parties
Value—BF Sold
6.
chose to utilize sales Assessed
In
Properties
proposed
data to construct their
common lev- Market Value—BF Sold
Id.
el ratios.
contrast,
equation
the common
for
of all
ratio would be the assessed value
level
amended,
P.L.
7. Act of June
properties, including those sold at non-bona
§
§
72 P.S.
4656.17.
4656.1 —
unsold,
county
prices
a
fide
and those
within
Thus,
(Assessed
general equation for
Proper-
the STEB
year
Value All
in a calendar
only
value for
those
would be
ties)
prop-
all
divided
the market value of
county
a bona fide
properties sold within a
erties, including
fide
those sold at non-bona
(Assessed
year
Value—BF
in calendar
unsold,
county
prices
within a
in a
and those
Properties)
divided
the market value
Sold
(Market
Properties):
Value—All
calendar
properties sold
those
within
*9
Properties
AssessedValue—All
(Mar-
price
fide
in a calendar
at a bona
Properties
Value—All
Market
Properties):
ket Value—BF Sold
assessed value
that,
to market value for
appears
all
It
to me
in establishing the
Rather,
county.
a
rule,
the STEB
percent
fifteen
legislature
ratio
only
is based
on the
proper-
ratio for
attempting
bright-line
to create a
test for
in a county
ties
that have been sold for a property tax uniformity. The fifteen per
bona fide
during
particular calen-
certainly
that,
cent rule
suggests
if an
year. Moreover,
dar
rep-
the STEB ratio
predetermined
established
ratio does not
average
resents an
ratio
for those
vary by more
percent
than fifteen
from the
ties;
the STEB ratio does not represent
ratio,
STEB common level
proper
there is
the ratio at which all properties in a coun-
ty tax uniformity
county.
within a
To the
ty are taxed in particular
calendar
extent
legislature
has made the
Nevertheless,
percent
because our
fifteen
rule
supreme
the exclusive method
court has approved the use of
sales data to for
property tax uniformity,
ratio,
establish a common level
legislature
STEB the
usurped
has
the judiciary’s
ratio is relevant evidence for determining
function of interpreting the Pennsylvania
whether a county’s
predeter-
established
Constitution. See Pottstown School Dis
However,
mined ratio is constitutional.
School,
(Pa.
trict v. Hill
ratio,
vary
as much as
by
ratio could
the
properties”
“similar
evidence is unneces-
This is not
county.
within a
thirty percent
sary
“pro-
because the Assessments Law
uniformity.
essentially complete
vides an
mechanism of
assuring uniformity
county.”
within each
III. Hromisin
Hromisin,
However,
819.
matter is not incon
My
this
position
that
Hromisin does not state
the Assess-
v.
holding in Hromisin
with the
sistent
provides
Law
the exclusive mecha-
ments
Luzerne
Appeals
Assessment
nism for
whether
there is
(Pa.Cmwlth.1998),
A.2d 815
County, 719
county.
property tax
within
denied,
Pa.
trict. added). Thus, properties” “similar evi-
sis that it does flawed to the extent
dence is taxing in a dis-
not consider all read now to 11. If this court were to Hromisin STEB ratio for the I note that 85.2% which fails to consider all state that evidence year val- calendar 2000 means irrelevant, properties in a district average appreciated in the have ues would be irrelevant be- then the STEB ratio of the last since 14.8% properties that cause it considers those county-wide assessment. price during a bona fide have been sold for a particular calendar notes the STEB common level ratio be used. Sec- Law, § Section 1.1 of the 72 P.S. 5342.1 ond, expert testimony even when such also defines the term “established prede- available, was the form of evidence termined ratio” as ratio of “[t]he assessed clearly our courts held that at the heart value market value established of uniformity requirement lay equal- board of uni- commissioners and among ization of the ratio all formly in applied determining assessed Thus, Supreme in the district. our in any year.” value Court held: 8(d.2) Law, Finally, Section of the 72 study valid of the ratio of assessed [A] § provides: P.S. 5349 covering value to market value the en- preferred tire district is the way board, determining after the market of a common level ratio. property, apply value of the shall then Since heart has as its predetermined the established ratio to equalization among prop- of the ratio all corresponding such value unless district, Deitch, in supra, erties published by common level ratio upon determination based the district as Equalization State Tax Board on or necessarily a whole is more conducive July year prior to the tax before of achieving a constitutional than result on the board varies before one upon properties. based a few (15%) percent more than fifteen from ratio, predetermined the established in Appeal Company, F.W. Woolworth of 583, 586-87, which case the board shall 426 Pa. apply 26, 1931, 4. Act June commonly P.L. as amended. 5. This ratio is referred to as the ratio, Section 1.1 was added the Act of Decem STEB 13, 1982, ber P.L. 1165. (1967). Deitch, 219, $8,500,000.00. 417 Pa. See also at constitutional man- “[T]he (emphasis original requiring uniformity 209 A.2d at date met where the omitted.) taxing authority and footnotes all property assesses at value; percentage the same of its actual Here, dispute there is no application such a uniform ratio assures countywide Chester conducted taxpayer responsible each will held be for at which reassessment time the pro its rata share of the burden of local County Commissioners set the established Armco, government.” Appeal predetermined ratio at 100% of market 329, citing Appeal at Johnstown Associ- Also, dispute value. there is no that the ates, purchase price Property was $10,422,978.23 persists STEB ratio for Lionville that assessments of actually 1999 was 89.8% and that the STEB ratio similar centers were (the year appeal) predetermined for 2000 of the tax less than the 100% ratio of 85.2%. See Statement of the fair ranged Matters Com market value and from plained Appeal, February of on 36% to of the fair market 63% value. I., Background, at 2. Because the McRae and they STEB Eiffes testified that ar- (85.2%) varied less than of the rived at percentages 15% these various of mar- 100%, established ratio of ket value based either the sale or properly the trial court the appraisal the fair of the estimated value. Crit- market ically, 100% or McRae6 and Eiffes7 stated on (McErlane), attorney 6. James E. McErlane McErlane: Does the American Institute de- District, appraisal? fine an the School to McRae: Objection. Fiorillo: Q: And did the assessment office collect Court: Basis? 167,000 properties