Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Housing Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Several low-income multifamily properties challenged in Syracuse assessment hearings; city to review portfolio sales and comps
Summary
Owners or their representatives filed grievances for a bundle of low-income multifamily buildings owned by Summit Housing Associates and LIH Rehab V Associates, prompting city staff to supply comparable sales and note portfolio purchase history.
Multiple grievances covering low-income multifamily apartment buildings owned by two portfolios were read into the Syracuse Board of Assessment Review on Feb. 21 after petitioners did not appear in person. The properties include five parcels owned by Summit Housing Associates LLC and five by LIH Rehab V Associates LLC.
Why it matters: Assessment changes for multifamily housing can materially affect owners, tenants and municipal revenue. Portfolio purchases and allocations of purchase price complicate valuation in a rising market.
Summit Housing properties included 2929 South Salina Street (18 units), 301 Columbus Avenue (27 units), 319 Catherine Street (21 units), and two properties on West Martin Luther King Boulevard (21 and 18 units). Petitioners submitted lower market value estimates—often roughly half the city’s tentative value—while the city provided sales comparables and defended current assessments as consistent with recent sales and local market data.
LIH Rehab V’s batch includes properties at 652 James Street (16 units), 205 North Townsend Street (26 units), 1206 South Avenue (15 units), 723 West Onondaga Street (28 units) and 417 University Avenue (24 units). City staff told the board these buildings were largely acquired in a portfolio sale in 2021 and noted that purchase-price allocations were not provided with the grievance materials; staff said a lender appraisal or allocation from the portfolio sale would help reconcile the parties’ positions.
City staff (Matt) said his office will examine the comps submitted by petitioners and compare them with the city’s sales and income-capitalization approaches. He told the board some of the city assessments had been adjusted in recent reassessment cycles to better reflect market movement in specific wards.
Board members said they would accept the submitted materials and await further documentation; no board vote or settlement was recorded at the hearing. Staff said formal notices will be mailed in April and that petitioners could be contacted for missing appraisal material.
Ending: The board recorded that staff will reexamine the filings, and reiterated that portfolio sale documentation or lender appraisals would be most useful to resolve valuation gaps.
