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

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.