Syracuse assessment staff defends $1.9 million budget ask as revaluation planning continues

Assessment Department presenters told Syracuse City Council members during a budget review session that the department is asking for a $1.9 million operating budget that would support staffing, professional services and a planned citywide revaluation process.

The assessment presenter, identified in the transcript by the first name Matt (Assessment Department presenter; full name not specified in the record), said the department is budgeted for 12 positions and currently has 10 filled. “We have 10 people on staff right now,” Matt said, adding that the front office is fully staffed for the first time since 2017 and that the department serves “literally thousands of our constituents” in person each year.

Why it matters: The department says the requested funds would pay for increased professional services and the operational work needed for a multi-year citywide revaluation (described in the meeting as a competitive RFP-derived contract “not to exceed” $1.8 million). Council members pressed staff on whether the department has the internal capacity to manage the revaluation without hiring an outside project manager.

Officials’ overview and revaluation funding

The budget documents reviewed by Council include a $1.1 million professional-services line that was adopted for FY2025 but largely unspent, and the assessment presenter described a project-cost estimate for the revaluation process of up to $1.8 million after a competitive RFP. The presenter said the department does not expect to spend the full revaluation amount by June 30 of the current fiscal year and described the revaluation as a multi-year effort.

On the professional-services line, Council asked about intent and whether the department anticipated using the full amount. The presenter said part of that line historically paid for appraisals for litigation and for consultants to stand up process enhancements (moving paper-based workflows to digital platforms such as SharePoint). The meeting record also notes a separate legislative item for a $20,000 expenditure tied to initial revaluation support.

Staffing, vacancies and a proposed change-management role

Council members and staff discussed head count and vacancies in detail. The department is budgeted at 12 positions with 10 currently filled. Two vacancies identified in the transcript are: an information aid position that was furloughed during COVID and has not been refilled, and a senior real-property appraiser who retired in June of the prior year.

The presenter told Council that valuation professionals are hard to recruit and that the department traditionally promotes from within. He said filling the Senior Appraiser position would increase departmental output but that recruiting has been difficult. To support the revaluation and other process changes, staff described the potential value of either contracting for a project manager or adding an internal “Director of Change Management and Innovation” to devote part-time hours to managing the revaluation and broader process improvements. That proposed in-house role was discussed as a roughly $65,000-per-year position in the presentation materials, though the presenter said the role did not make it into the printed budget that was before Council.

Board of Assessment Review workload, fees and timing

Councilors asked about the Board of Assessment Review, which the presenter described as a five-member board that adjudicates grievances in February and March. The presenter said the board heard about 400 cases this cycle and that the budget proposes a staggered per-day rate to encourage wrapping hearings early. The Board’s appointments are made by Council (the transcript cites Councillor Williams in the appointment role), and staff said there is a current vacancy they hope to fill before September of the coming year.

Exempt property share, valuation gains and revenue impact

The presenter said that in the four years of his tenure the department has added about $625 million in taxable assessed value to the roll, which translated to roughly $37 million in additional levy revenue in aggregate over that period. The transcript shows Council and staff also discussed the exempt share of total value on the roll: the presenter said 48.6% of total value on the most recent roll is exempt, a small change from 47.7% the prior year. The discussion referenced large exempt holders in the city’s valuation mix.

Property sales, lease and other revenue items

Councilors pressed staff about several asset and revenue lines in the budget. The transcript records discussion about the City’s interest in divesting the Public Safety Building (PSB), where respondents to a county-issued RFP are currently being vetted. Staff said the City’s interest is to divest the PSB because the City has “no operational need to be there” and because carrying costs are substantial; one staff estimate stated the City was being billed about $1.7 million in the current fiscal year for the PSB. Councilors also discussed the City’s new leased space at 1 Park Place and the lease structure (a roughly 10-year deal with a 25-cent-per-square-foot annual escalator and about 33,000 square feet under lease, described in the meeting as producing a lease cost on the order of “a little over half a million a year”). Staff said certain parcel conveyances (for example, City Hall Commons and a PEMCO lot) are at various stages of closing and that some sale proceeds were included conservatively in the budget.

Other items and requests from Council

Council asked staff to provide a clearer organizational mapping showing which outside or centralized City teams support assessment work (the transcript cites API or “API” as a central support group with roughly 20 positions but several vacancies). Council members also requested a clearer breakdown of revenue lines (for example, miscellaneous revenue and reimbursements) and additional detail on anticipated pilot agreements tied to conveyances and development projects.

Votes and formal actions

The meeting record concludes with a procedural motion to adjourn, which was moved and seconded and recorded in the transcript. No formal vote tallies on the assessment budget or a revaluation contract appear in the provided transcript excerpt.

Ending

Council and staff agreed to continue conversation later in the budget cycle and to return with more detailed mappings of interdepartmental support, vacancy plans, and clearer revenue breakdowns. The department emphasized that its work affects tax levy revenues and day-to-day constituent services and that successful delivery of a citywide revaluation would likely require outside help or a dedicated internal manager.