Syracuse Board of Assessment Review Hearing - February 18, 2026

The Syracuse Board of Assessment Review (BAR) held a public hearing on Wednesday, February 18, 2026, beginning shortly after 5:00 PM and concluding at 8:00 PM. The meeting was streamed live on YouTube. The board heard appeals from property owners regarding tentative assessed values and exemption requests for multiple properties. Key topics included assessment increases, property condition, market values, and eligibility for full exemptions. The board will issue decisions by the first week of April 2026.

Public Comments & Testimony

• 207 Parish Lane (Petitioner Tracy Politis, represented by Michael Franklin): Mr. Franklin argued that the property is the smallest house on the block but has the highest assessed value. He contended the property's grade is misclassified as 'average' when it should be 'economy' per the New York State Assessors Manual. He noted the property was purchased for $64,000 in 2003 with no improvements except a roof, and that the assessment increased 20% in 2022 without a revaluation. He claimed the city's assessor violated public officers' law by not providing data in a timely manner. He requested a reduction to a fair market value of $150,000 (assessed value $78,000).
• 101 Avondale Place (Petitioner, Korean Surf representative): The petitioner requested a full exemption for a church mission building used for Bible study and fellowship. The property had been exempt previously but was denied this year. The petitioner explained the property is being sold to a buyer (Mr. Park) but the closing was delayed until April 2026. The property is still used weekly for church activities. The board noted that since the exemption would not take effect until July 2026 and the sale is expected in April, the exemption would have no practical effect, but the application was accepted.
• 2706 Midland Avenue (Owner): The owner requested the assessment remain at the previous value of $43,000, opposing a $5,000 increase. He stated the property is a four-bedroom, one-bath rental rented for $900/month, with no major improvements. He argued that comparable sales in the area are for properties in better condition and that he cannot afford higher taxes. The board noted that city comps show higher sale prices.
• 123 Windsor Place (Petitioner Kathleen Boudreau, representing owners Carla and Peter): Ms. Boudreau presented a detailed analysis using per-square-foot comparisons, photographs, and documentation of adverse neighborhood conditions (e.g., a neighbor using the driveway without permission, a hoarding neighbor). She argued the property is the highest assessed per square foot on the street (102.53 vs. average of 76.13) and requested a reduction to an assessed value of $245,000 (down from $265,000). She also noted that the property has had no significant improvements since 2006 and was purchased before the 2008 housing bubble.
• 116 Keen Place (Owner): The owner appealed a $10,000 increase to $67,000. She stated the property is a ranch-style home with an old roof (25 years), old windows (15 years), and a sinking foundation. She believes the fair market value is $75,000 (assessed $39,000). She provided a letter and will send interior photos via email.
• 400 Lynch Avenue (Owner): The owner questioned the assessment increase but did not provide specific comparables. The property is a three-bedroom, one-bath raised ranch. The owner said the property is in good condition. The board noted that the neighborhood was reassessed and that the city provided comps.
• 253 Nickels Avenue (Owner James Carroll): The owner requested the assessment stay at the previous year's level ($72,000 assessed). He is a real estate broker and provided comps and tax returns. He stated the property is a three-bedroom, one-bath rental rented for $900/month with no major upgrades (original windows, no garage, old furnace). He argued the market is high but the property is modest.
• 318 Grant Boulevard (Petitioner Miri Tamira, representing her husband): The owner requested a reduction from $110,000 assessed value (market value of $211,538) to $95,000 assessed. She stated the two-family property is vacant, has not been updated, and comparable sales in the area are much lower (assessed values of $47,000 to $64,000). She noted the property is not for sale and the family is getting out of the rental business due to her husband's health.
• 139, 122 Erickson Street, 523 South Collingwood, 112 Crestline Drive (Owner, with daughter): The owner, who has multiple properties, requested reductions for all four. He explained that 139 Erickson is a gutted home with no kitchen, 122 Erickson is a Land Bank property being renovated, 523 South Collingwood was damaged by fire and is boarded up, and 112 Crestline has had copper stolen and needs extensive work. All are vacant. He stated that the properties are not generating income and that taxes are current. He provided pictures and noted that a previous assessor (Ed) had walked through and lowered some assessments. The board acknowledged the condition and will consult with the current assessor.
• 2217-25 East Fayette Street (Pastor Barbara Madison, representing church): The pastor requested a full exemption for a mixed-use building (former four apartments and barber shop, now vacant). The church plans to use the space for community outreach, Bible study, and women's groups starting in March/April 2026. The building has been vacant since September 2025, and the last tenant was unrelated to the church. The board member Ann Gallagher will conduct a walk-through. The first-time exemption request was noted.
• 720 Beach Street (New owners): The property is a full exemption request. The city assessor reviewed the paperwork and found it in order except for a late filing. The board indicated the exemption will likely be granted.

Discussion Items

• General: The board discussed the lack of a citywide revaluation, noting that the last revaluation was in 1996. Several petitioners argued that assessment increases were based on selective sales or improper methods. The board emphasized that they act as an independent body and consider all submitted evidence.
• Data Request: Mr. Franklin raised a legal issue under Public Officers Law §87(2)(g) regarding the city's failure to provide requested data in a timely manner. He threatened litigation if data is not provided within 20 days. The board took note but did not rule on the matter.

Key Outcomes

• No final decisions were made during the hearing. The board will review all evidence and issue written decisions by the first week of April 2026.
• For 720 Beach Street, the exemption appears likely to be granted.
• For 101 Avondale Place, the board noted that the exemption would have minimal effect due to the pending sale.
• For 2217-25 East Fayette Street, a board member will conduct a site visit before making a decision.
• The board requested that the assessor provide additional data for the multiple properties owned by the petitioner (Erickson, Collingwood, Crestline) to verify current conditions.
• The board did not take any votes during the session; all decisions will be made after the hearing.