A Common Pleas Court ruling yesterday may have been the first step toward dismantling Allegheny County's base year property assessment system.

Judge R. Stanton Wettick Jr. ruled that a property owner filing an appeal can ask for the assessment to be based on the current market value of the property rather than the 2002 value, which the county established as a base year for assessments. The ruling specifically applies to a Wilkinsburg couple who claim their property's value declined substantially since 2002, but it is expected to allow appeals from taxing bodies such as school districts on properties that have increased substantially in value since 2002.

County Chief Executive Dan Onorato switched to the base year system last year instead of having regular reassessments. He claimed that school districts used increasing property values to raise their revenue without increasing the tax rate, especially by filing appeals on recently sold properties to raise their assessments.

As a result of switching to the base year system, the county filed appeals that are pending on about 11,000 properties that had their assessments increased as a result of school district action. The county's goal is to roll those assessments back to 2002 levels.

The county also passed a rule making such appeals based on current market values illegal. Judge Wettick overturned that rule yesterday.

Mr. Onorato reacted angrily to the ruling, which he called "limited" and said only applies to property owners filing appeals, not others. The county Law Department still is reviewing the case but likely will appeal, he said.

"The reason I'm extremely frustrated is that state law allows a base year system and 19 other counties use it," Mr. Onorato said.

"We're frustrated that the judiciary is trying to change what has been the law of the land. We're being blocked at every turn of the way."

He stressed that yesterday's ruling doesn't change any of the base year assessments and the county will fight to continue using the base year system.

"We should be allowed to use the base year system. It's legal. It's needed to establish some stability in the assessment system," he said.

Attorney Charles McCullough, who has filed numerous appeals seeking higher assessments on behalf of Upper St. Clair township and its school district, said "there will be little doubt" that the case also applies to those seeking to increase assessments. He said he expects either the appeals board to interpret the decision to apply to anyone challenging an appeal or a school district to file another case on exactly the same grounds for an additional ruling authorizing those appeals

Mr. McCullough also has filed another case challenging the constitutionality of the base year system, which Judge Wettick has scheduled for trial in December.

"I think [the Wilkinsburg case] is the first step toward getting this whole thing straightened out," he said. "This is an important first step in getting to that constitutional issue."

James P. and Jennifer Daugherty bought a house in Wilkinsburg in January 2004 for $31,500, but the county assessment in 2002 was $66,900, which was used for property tax purposes. The assessment appeals board refused to allow the couple to argue the property had declined in value since 2002 and should be assessed at the lower value.

Attorneys Lee Price and Anthony Giglio, who represented the Daughertys, said at the least the case will allow others with pending appeals to claim their property value has decreased since 2002. They denied a claim by the county's attorney that the Daughertys were a "straw client" put forth by the school districts to open the door to their appeals.

"They had a particular problem that they needed to have addressed," Mr. Price said. "They have already paid taxes for several years that were twice as high as they should have been."

There is no way to recover those overpayments because the appeal is only for 2006.

County Solicitor Michael Wojcik had argued that the county has the power to set its own rules for conducting appeals because it operates under a home rule charter rather than the state's Second Class County Code. Judge Wettick disagreed.

"The provisions in the Second Class County Code allowing taxpayers, in an appeal before the Appeals Board, to have their property assessed based on current market value is a substantive rule regarding the making of assessments," the judge wrote. "In other words, the county may enact ordinances addressing who is going to assess properties within the county and who is going to hear assessment appeals.

"However ... the Second Class County Assessment Law governs how property is to be valued," and it allows appeals based on current market value.

In a related matter, Mr. Onorato also complained yesterday that the appeals board has taken too long to decide the appeals filed by the county. His position is that those should be easily handled merely by determining whether the property value had been increased by a school district or municipal appeal based on sales price.

"I don't know why this is taking so long," he said. "They should move on these appeals as soon as possible to return those people to their proper assessments."

Appeals board officials couldn't be reached for comment.