Debate Rages Over Delay in Lackawanna County Reassessment Implementation
Lackawanna County is embroiled in a contentious debate over whether to postpone the effective date of newly assessed property values by a year. The county, which was required by a court settlement to implement these values by January 1, now seeks to delay this until January 1, 2027, as outlined in a letter by attorney John Dean.
County Commissioner Bill Gaughan has sharply criticized this proposal, describing it as “ridiculous” and potentially burdensome for taxpayers. Attempts to contact Commissioners Brenda Sacco and Chris Chermak, who recently formed a new majority, were unsuccessful.
According to Dean, the delay is necessary to address a flaw in the notices sent to taxpayers. These notices, required by state law to include both current and proposed property values, only contained the new values. Additionally, local governments and school districts were not notified of their right to appeal the new values, Dean wrote.
Dean emphasized in his letter that the delay is crucial for ensuring that the reassessment is implemented lawfully and that taxpayers receive proper notification, which he argues will promote fairness.
The Reassessment Lawsuit
In 2018, attorney Marielle Macher filed a lawsuit against Lackawanna County to compel a reassessment of property values, which had not been updated since the 1960s. The lawsuit argued that outdated property values were causing inequitable tax burdens. Dean, representing the county, sought a response from Macher by Wednesday.
To settle the lawsuit, the county agreed in 2022 to conduct the reassessment, hiring Tyler Technologies for $5.1 million. Tyler completed the reassessment earlier this year, and the county began processing appeals in August, with certification of new values scheduled by November 15.
Support for and Against the Delay
Commissioner Chris Chermak, a longtime opponent of the reassessment, has advocated for postponing the implementation, citing numerous errors in the values, a rushed appeals process, and a lack of public understanding. However, his calls for a pause were previously unsupported due to a vacant commissioner’s seat until Commissioner Sacco joined the board.
Conversely, Gaughan has dismissed the idea of a delay, arguing that the process is complete and halting it at this stage is unreasonable. He stated, “It’s like jumping off a roof with an umbrella at this point. It makes no sense whatsoever.”
Gaughan has also pointed out that state law does not require a reassessment to be set aside due to the omission of current values in notices. He cited a legal opinion from former county Solicitor Don Frederickson supporting this interpretation.
Macher has confirmed her intention to return to court if the county attempts to change the timeline, stating, “If the county unilaterally changed the timeline, it would be in blatant violation of the court order, and we would have no choice but to move to enforce the court order.” She insists that delaying reassessment would unfairly burden low-income homeowners.
Gaughan warns that a year-long delay could cost the county an additional $2.5 million due to the need for new notices and further appeals.
