Property Assessment Grievance Hearings – Syracuse, NY – February 17, 2026

The Board of Assessment Review for the City of Syracuse held grievance hearings on February 17, 2026, beginning at approximately 9:10 AM. The board, chaired by Joe Saya, heard four cases from property owners challenging their assessed values. The meeting concluded with a reminder that the next session would be held on Wednesday, February 18, 2026, from 5:00 PM to 8:00 PM.

Case 1: 805 Highland Street – Priscilla Brown (Owner)

• Summary: Ms. Brown purchased the property for $155,000 on August 4, 2025, with an appraisal of $156,000. The current tentative assessed value was $72,000 (full market value $138,462), but she argued the fair market value should be $80,769 (assessed $42,000). The increase of $30,000 in assessed value after only six months of ownership was the basis of her grievance.
• Key Details: The assessor, Tom, explained that the assessment was based on a neighborhood review triggered by the sale. He noted interior photos from the realtor indicated renovations (though Ms. Brown stated no major improvements were done). Tom offered a 485-J exemption (five-year phase-in of half the increase) if the board allowed a late application. Ms. Brown was advised to amend her grievance application to request the exemption.
• Outcome: The board instructed Ms. Brown to initial amendments on her application and submit the 485-J form. The board will consider the evidence and the exemption request; a decision will be mailed in early April.

Case 2: 853 Emerson Avenue – Richard J. Goldman (Estate Representative)

• Summary: Mr. Goldman, the son of the deceased owner, lives in the single-family home but is not the legal owner; the property remains part of the estate. The current assessed value was $56,000 (full market $107,692), and he requested a reduction to $25,000 market value ($13,000 assessed). He cited a recent sale next door for $25,000.
• Key Details: Mr. Goldman has agoraphobia and limited income (about $1,000/month). The senior exemption previously applied to his mother’s name was improperly continued after her death; the city has now canceled it. He has not yet gone through probate to obtain ownership. The board noted he has no standing to grieve the assessment and cannot apply for the senior exemption until he has owned the property for at least one year.
• Outcome: The board provided contact information for Hiscock Legal Aid Society, legal services of CNY, and a lawyer referral service. They advised him to obtain the surrogate court documents and transfer the property into his name before reapplying for exemptions. No action on the assessment was taken.

Case 3: 5105 Skyline Drive Rear – Oh Mulhound (Owner)

• Summary: This is a small rear parcel (1,800 sq. ft.) attached to the owner’s main property, which is in the Town of Onondaga. The current assessed value was $300 (land only), with a full market value of $577. The petitioner argued the assessment should be $174 (assessed $90) and objected to a sidewalk fee of $80 (rising to $100 next year) on a parcel with no sidewalk.
• Key Details: The parcel is within Syracuse city limits but the house is in the town. Consolidation of the parcels is not possible across municipalities. The board suggested contacting the Common Council office to discuss the sidewalk fee ordinance. The assessor for this parcel, Matt, was not present; the board will consult with him.
• Outcome: The board will review the assessment with Matt and send a notice in early April. The petitioner was advised to speak with the Common Council about the sidewalk fee.

Case 4: 141 Shotwell Park – Diana Clayton and Joseph Luss (Buyer)

• Summary: Ms. Clayton purchased the property for $185,000 in a private sale on June 16, 2025. The current tentative assessed value was $114,000 (full market $219,231), and she requested a reduction to $100,724 assessed (market $193,700). She provided comparables and noted the house was in poor condition (vacant for four years, significant damage, old kitchen/baths).
• Key Details: The assessor, Joe Luss, explained the full market value is derived from the city’s 52% level of assessment based on current sales in the Eastwood neighborhood, which has appreciated rapidly. The board noted the sale was not on the open market and may not be an arms-length transaction. Ms. Clayton expressed concern about being priced out of her home; she is required to hold the property for five years due to a first-time homebuyer grant.
• Outcome: The board requested interior photos by Friday, February 21, 2026, to assess condition. They will consider the comparables and photos in their decision. A notice will be sent in early April.

Key Outcomes

• The board will mail decisions on all grievances in the first week of April 2026.
• For Case 1, the board will consider a late 485-J exemption application along with the assessment grievance.
• For Case 2, no action was taken; the petitioner was directed to legal aid and to obtain ownership of the property.
• For Case 3, the board will consult with the assessor and review the sidewalk fee issue with the Common Council.
• For Case 4, the board will review submitted photos and comparables before making a decision.