[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6678866,"mediaKeyId","2380880-70f8f4a52cf3546dbca3a7e5756af3ff","parentId",2380880,"title","Board of Assessment Review hears wide range of property grievances; city seeks dismissals when petitioners do not appear","audioSeconds",6413,"startMs",4657000,"endMs",11070000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2380880-70f8f4a52cf3546dbca3a7e5756af3ff&start=4657&end=11070","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2380880-70f8f4a52cf3546dbca3a7e5756af3ff/thumbnail_4657000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6678866/Syracuse-City/Onondaga-County/New-York/Board-of-Assessment-Review-hears-wide-range-of-property-grievances-city-seeks-dismissals-when-petitioners-do-not-appear","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6678866-fd9af23df64f303cf59ae908be5a5062/orig.mp4?Expires=1771181918&Signature=Y8z24zj2qWkugUZLW-B1ObdpZ6N-C6948QOdAGYNkXbGuewi9QmGqYzL1UZd9Bm4oGYBqIxe-JtdUkHEr~ggq6IYvytlRyA1-LAbp9yHtIdZtUSKoMHeN5KhN0lcj~hi-p7c5EJQottX7ApkGRqnBz~lx5HPD~WR4ctQnBiyaEveO2miHwadrd85G-OpNv-~9WriRy7xGNgwh3cymvFIdxyVy9UT84pqRt6VKx7gf-~~L51QDFBygeZR33-94ChdUtzmas3JniMS14yk69Noq2GCJsbW5AEwENnCS~F~0plxJ-hswoBNS0pcPGYFZCfIQ-LN~~hIGufIEjSZ9cG0gg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Syracuse, NY","date","2025-02-24T17:27:22.497Z","article","The Syracuse City Board of Assessment Review spent most of its Feb. 24 session hearing grievances over property assessments across the city, receiving testimony from multiple property owners and hearing repeated requests from city counsel to dismiss petitions filed by parties who did not appear.

Several owners and representatives appeared in person to explain why they consider their tentative assessments too high and to supply documents the board requested. Taittong Tontat described two adjacent mixed storefront-and-apartment properties on North Salina and said narrow storefront sizes, intermittent rental occupancy and chronic street‑parking and snow‑removal problems had limited commercial use. He told the board he would submit tax returns and updated income/expense statements.

Landlord Kevin Rowe presented financial statements for a 220‑space parking lot at 115 North Warren Street and said gross parking income ranged roughly $160,000–$190,000 annually; the city characterized the property as comparable with local sales and said it would stand by the assessment and seek appraisal evidence if necessary.

Multiple large institutional and commercial properties were on the docket. City staff asked that many petitions filed by absent claimants be dismissed with prejudice — a request the city made repeatedly for a package of properties the record described as university‑affiliated student housing, mixed‑use downtown parcels and self‑storage facilities. Board staff said the city had submitted sales comparisons, income‑and‑expense data and other exhibits; the board indicated it would consider those submissions and would send individual notices in April.

A notable conversion matter concerned a former Class B office building on Erie Boulevard West that was converted in 2024 into a 509‑unit self‑storage facility and listed on LoopNet; the owner said it received one $5,000,000 offer that included an adjacent parcel. The city said it had inspected the project and placed an initial “unfinished” reduction on the roll during construction, then raised the assessment after the conversion was completed and occupied. The building manager/operator is listed in filings as CubeSmart.

In several cases, petitioners pressed nonassessment arguments and neighborhood complaints during their presentations. Owners described parking being blocked by street parking, diminished city snow removal and increased disorder that they say reduced attractiveness to tenants and potential storefront renters. Board members repeatedly noted that while public‑safety and code complaints are not within the board’s valuation remit, such factors are considered as part of market valuation evidence.

Several petitioners said they would provide updated 2023 and 2024 tax returns, rent rolls and income‑and‑expense statements to support their requests. The board repeatedly told petitioners how and where to file those documents and said it would accept late submissions in specific circumstances related to ongoing litigation or confidential documents produced under court protective orders.

Why it matters: The hearing covered dozens of parcels and highlighted recurring valuation themes — income capitalization for parking and self‑storage; the treatment of conversions from office to other uses; and how neighborhood conditions factor into market value. The city’s repeated requests to dismiss absent petitioners may narrow the number of contested assessments the board will decide this cycle.

The board did not take final votes on the large batch of items during the meeting; it indicated follow‑up and review and will issue notices in April.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board of Assessment Review Meeting - Monday Febraury 24th, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Syracuse City Board of Assessment Review took testimony or receipts for a large set of contested property assessments on Feb. 24. Several property owners presented details about income, occupancy and local conditions; the city asked the board to dismiss multiple nonappearing petitions with prejudice.","taxTitle","Syracuse City, Onondaga County, New York","taxId",3762,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6678870,"Syracuse University’s Shine Student Center exemption disputed in ongoing litigation before Board of Assessment Review",1607,2955000,4562000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2380880-70f8f4a52cf3546dbca3a7e5756af3ff&start=2955&end=4562","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2380880-70f8f4a52cf3546dbca3a7e5756af3ff/thumbnail_2955000.jpg","/articles/6678870/Syracuse-City/Onondaga-County/New-York/Syracuse-Universitys-Shine-Student-Center-exemption-disputed-in-ongoing-litigation-before-Board-of-Assessment-Review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6678870-22c70edb23db3a13730b5705daa87ddf/orig.mp4?Expires=1771181918&Signature=BuZSIJtNN1WOtBu2Jz4Hv9GxGgcBuGHOm4r7RqDZyL8E3wBnmRwZiblkhu1lO742WPhY~s~qYTBKJDTE4GcTG6VfzkjaHppXXU8pTI6DNjr9EgH8dD58jmH5YOXl-yxpuFwGqJ5R~PNfx6vrJNTFOq4liQgMaiwrSeXN6Nd0rJyPtX4fkMHzXXZCFmmJjoRldcrdIt6w2m~Qh8TFWes-Px6L03QqNsPM6tyIcVxM5FpZnBybibjmHeSsmG-qJHCLpcD-9LfoGHfD648jI0QFu77Ei6C7meoA-v0Ws15moBHaUucDp~LZl8viKVAqAcvsSGv42ma-IFc8sJiGlm8NSw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Attorneys for Syracuse University appeared before the Syracuse City Board of Assessment Review on Feb. 24 to respond to a grievance over the tax status of the Schein (Shine) Student Center, which the city challenged after a major renovation.

The university’s representative, Mark McNamara of Barclay Damon, said the property’s tentative assessed value is $18,900,000 with a land value of $1,140,000 and that litigation covers roll years 2022, 2023 and 2024 before Judge Neri. McNamara said a 2019–2021 renovation totaled roughly 104,000 square feet and that the assessor’s office this year determined about 8% of the property was not tax-exempt, citing the food court and part of the campus store.

McNamara told the board the university disputes the city’s finding and maintains that the food court and campus store operations are integral to Syracuse University’s nonprofit educational purposes and are “entirely student driven for the Syracuse University community, faculty, staff, etc.” He said the university operates the food stations and campus store as the franchisee or licensee; employees are Syracuse University employees and the university owns all improvements and personal property in the building.

Board members pressed for clarification about public access and use. Joe Seia, speaking for the board, observed that the Shine Student Center is “open to the public” but asked whether parents or other nonuniversity patrons would change the exemption analysis. McNamara and Joe Feder (identified in the record as Syracuse University real estate) said that while anyone can enter the building, patronage is overwhelmingly Syracuse-related and that surveys submitted in the litigation show non‑Syracuse patronage is “de minimis.”

The parties also discussed a recent conversion of about 4,100 square feet of campus store space into an esports and gaming center (opened in December) with an owner’s-cost line item recorded as “0.4” in filings, which McNamara confirmed represented $400,000. The university said that conversion was performed and that Barnes & Noble is operating the campus store space under an operational arrangement but without an ownership change to the underlying real property.

Board members and university counsel noted a settlement and confidentiality posture in the ongoing court proceeding; McNamara said competing summary‑judgment papers have been submitted and are under the court’s review. Board representatives said they would review documents the university offered — including a patron‑traffic survey and renovation drawings — and follow up as needed. The board recorded that it will issue notices in April as part of its grievance calendar. No board decision on the exemption was made at the hearing.

Why it matters: The dispute centers on how municipal assessors apply tax‑exemption rules to campus facilities that mix student‑focused services and public access retail. The outcome will affect the city’s tax base and how other university facilities are assessed going forward.

Speakers quoted above are recorded in the meeting transcript and appeared during the agenda item on the Schein/Shine Student Center.","Attorneys for Syracuse University told the Syracuse City Board of Assessment Review that the Shine Student Center remains in litigation over a partial tax-exemption decision tied to food-court and campus store operations; the university says most activity serves the Syracuse community and remains exempt.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board of Assessment Review hears wide range of property grievances; city seeks dismissals when petitioners do not appear

Syracuse University’s Shine Student Center exemption disputed in ongoing litigation before Board of Assessment Review