Recently, Sharon council members expressed concern when it appeared the city could lose more than $300,000 in tax revenue in 2003, and questioned how the revised assessments were done.

"Very carefully," according to Michael P. DeForest, director of the county's department of revenue.

"Most people who file an assessment appeal, especially commercial properties, must show cause for why the assessed value is inappropriate," said DeForest, adding that the appeals hearings are generally held in October.

"We don't even talk about taxes here. It's about property value," he said. "We don't want to hear about your taxes. We want to hear about the value of your property."

The tax director used the example of a one-story, two-bedroom home valued at $50,000, and a similar home nearby that sells for $40,000.

"Using that information would be a comparative sales approach," DeForest said, adding that submitted appraisals, comparable properties and comparable sales are some of the reasons property owners use to get a revised assessment.

DeForest explained that most of the business owners who appeal use a lawyer to submit evidence for review. That evidence is examined by the tax assessment office and the Mercer County Board of Assessment Appeals, made up of the three county commissioners.

"It would be foolish for me to make decisions that don't reflect the current market value," he said.

He said in a normal year, some 150 to 160 property owners request a review, but this year the number jumped to more than 300.

He explained that when residents received notification of the change in assessment ratios they had the opportunity to view their present assessment and appeal it.

"Actually a number of people who asked for an appeal didn't want to appeal. They wanted to understand the new ratio change," said DeForest.

Properties that were assessed at one-third of the 1970 market value are now assessed at 100 percent.

As for the city of Sharon possibly losing $300,000 in 2003 because of revised assessments, DeForest explained that the reassessment of Shenango Valley Water Co. from $5,249,600 to $1,687,200 would not directly impact the city tax-wise.

"Public utilities don't pay local real estate taxes. They pay their taxes directly to the state," said DeForest.

He explained that the total projected loss of tax revenue for the city is only about $31,000 because the water company's taxes were not included in the local tax base and should not be included in their projected tax revenue loss.

The large drop in the revised assessment for the Sharon site was because it was originally assessed too high, he said.

"When they brought in materials cost, construction cost, equipment value, personal property value, we had no choice but to revise the assessment," the tax director said. "It will have a very small affect on the total state pool. It will affect the statewide distribution, not the local distribution."