Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parcel Assessment Apportionment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Townhouse owner questions separate garage parcel and $173,913 full-market valuation
Summary
A Syracuse townhouse owner asked the Board of Assessment Review to clarify why her townhouse and a separately assessed rear garage were valued and billed separately; staff explained apportionment and advised consulting the HOA or an attorney about parcel consolidation and sidewalk charges.
A Syracuse townhouse owner who appealed the tentative assessment for 3401 James Street, Unit 16 pressed board staff on Friday, Feb. 14, about why her townhouse and a separately assessed rear garage received separate tax parcel numbers and how that affected the assessed value.
The assessor’s materials showed separate assessments: the townhouse unit assessment was listed as $95,000 and the garage as $5,000, producing a combined assessed total the assessor converted (using the city equalization rate) to a full-market figure the city identified as about $173,913.
Why it matters: Separately assessed parcels can mean duplicate charges for certain municipal special assessments. The petitioner raised the example of sidewalk district charges of $100 per parcel and asked whether the separate garage parcel meant owners might be billed twice.
At the hearing, the petitioner — Shaolin Wagner — said her deed includes the garage, and she is confused why the county shows different parcel numbers. She told the Board the combined assessed figure appeared higher than expected when she reviewed online property-data sources. The assessor’s representative explained the office apportioned part of the combined sale-based market value to the garage so the garage would not read as zero on the tax rolls.
Board staff reviewed how the city arrived at the full-market figure: the assessor divides assessed value by the city’s equalization rate to estimate full market value. In this case, staff said the combined assessed value of $100,000 (unit $95,000 plus garage $5,000) divided by the city equalization rate (0.575) produced the full-market number of approximately $173,913.
On the question of sidewalk charges, the assessor advised owners to consult their Common Council member or a real estate attorney if they sought to combine parcels or change how parcels are held. Staff said the municipal code currently charges sidewalk fees by parcel number and that a council resolution would be required to change that billing practice.
The petitioner also raised the distribution of garage ownership among unit owners and whether the homeowners association (HOA) pays land taxes for common areas. Staff said one parcel appears to be in the HOA’s name and another reflects the multiple unit holders, and that precise ownership records are best verified by reviewing deeds.
No formal decision was issued. Staff advised Wagner to file the required form (two forms are needed when two parcel numbers are involved), to note the garage issue on her submission, and to consult the HOA and legal counsel if neighbors want to explore parcel consolidation to avoid duplicate special assessment charges. The city will send written determinations in April.
Quotes: "It's really just what a garage in that situation would sell for. I don't have any data to support it. It's really just an apportioned value that I took from what I thought was the overall value," the assessor’s representative said. Wagner said she would pursue HOA-level discussion and possibly legal advice about parcel consolidation.
Context: The case arose during a property-class review of storage and other property types that the assessor said is distinct from a full city revaluation. The board said it would consider the petitioner’s completed forms and any supporting documentation when it finalizes its review.
