Summit Housing appeals preliminary assessments for 10 Syracuse low‑income apartment buildings, cites preservation obstacles after state tax‑credit change

The owner of a portfolio of low‑income multifamily properties asked the Syracuse City Board of Assessment Review on March 3 to reduce tentative 2025 assessments for ten buildings, saying federal subsidy rules and state policy changes have limited rents and delayed planned renovations.

The petitioner, Chris Sluschke, representing Summit Housing Associates LLC and Springtide Housing, told the board the properties operate under project‑based Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contracts that cap rent increases to about 1.9–2.1% annually and prevent the owner from charging market rents. "We are not allowed as some, you know, Section 8 contracts do to compare ourselves against the market," Sluschke said. He said the caps, combined with deferred maintenance, have left several buildings operating "underwater for the past at least three years."

Sluschke and board members discussed five properties acquired as a package in 2021 for about $4,000,000 and five additional low‑income housing (LIH) properties. The petition listing included addresses, unit counts, tentative assessed values and the petitioner's own fair‑market estimates; examples cited during the hearing include 301 Columbus Ave (27 units; tentative assessed value $738,200; petitioner FMV $342,000) and 417 University Ave (24 units; tentative assessed value $1,120,000; petitioner FMV $304,000).

Why this matters: The petitioner said the buildings were purchased with plans to preserve them using tax‑exempt bonds and low‑income housing tax credits (LIHTC). Sluschke said a 2024 New York State policy change removing eligibility for existing properties from the 4% LIHTC program has closed the most straightforward preservation pathway and delayed comprehensive rehabilitation. "Very early 2024 last year, while we were ready to get this closed as a preservation, the state of New York decided that existing properties were no longer eligible for low income housing 4% tax credits," Sluschke said. He said that change has pushed the company to cobble together weatherization and other public funds while it waits for a new preservation avenue.

Board members pressed for documentary details. The board asked for allocation of the 2021 purchase price across the portfolio, any appraisals done at acquisition, and per‑property profit‑and‑loss statements. One board member said the $4 million purchase price is an important comparable but asked the petitioner to provide transaction allocation and appraisals for further review.

Sluschke said occupancy across the portfolio is roughly 78%, with lower occupancy at two Martin Luther King properties due to roof and facade issues. He also said the owner expects to spend roughly $80,000 per unit in hard costs for substantial rehabilitation when funding is available.

The board agreed that additional per‑property financials and clearer allocation of the 2021 purchase price would be helpful. "Even if we couldn't disentangle the P&Ls, just looking at those contracts and running a quick market analysis to try to back check our work there, I think might be helpful if you're willing to provide," a board member said. Sluschke agreed to provide more detailed financial breakdowns by property.

Votes and actions: There was no formal vote on changes to assessments during the hearing. The board took the petitions under advisement and moved into executive session to deliberate.

Context and next steps: Sluschke said his firm has pushed to preserve the properties despite financial strain, noting staff layoffs and deferred salaries, and that two preservation closings in other New York locations were imminent. The board said it will review the additional materials and take them into account during deliberations. The petitioner withdrew one application during the meeting (2028 South Celina Street) and the board said city staff would issue notices to parties after deliberation.

Ending note: The hearing record shows the board requested the requested financial documents and comps; deliberation was scheduled in executive session and final decisions were not announced on the record during the March 3 session.