Kingston Board of Assessment Review hears corrections, stipulated agreements and multiple valuation appeals

The Board of Assessment Review of the City of Kingston convened to review corrections to the assessor roll, seven stipulated agreements submitted by a single representative and a slate of property valuation complaints affecting city parcels.

A staff member from the assessor’s office told the board two corrections were needed on the roll: a change to the exempt value handling for 22-28 East Chester Street (a city-owned parcel) and a reclassification of 28 Abbey Street from a two-family to a single-family home while the parcel was owned by the Kingston City Land Bank. The assessor’s office said the land bank parcel is exempt while held by the land bank and that exemption could end if the property is sold and becomes taxable under ordinary rules.

The assessor handed the board seven stipulated-agreement packets (parcel IDs provided) submitted by a single complainant representative and said the first three listed were commercial properties. The assessor told the panel that for many of the filings — including several additional packets expected later in the meeting — the sales the complainant relied on were “not representative of the subject property and/or not arm’s-length transactions,” limiting their usefulness for lowering assessed values. For other parcels the assessor said supporting documentation validated the current assessments.

During a detailed review of several appealed residential and commercial parcels, the assessor presented comparable-sales analyses and, in many cases, recommended no change. For 214 West Chestnut Street the assessor reviewed five comparable sales that produced per-square-foot indicators ranging from $274 to $362 and said those comps implied values roughly between $489,500 and $647,100; the assessor concluded a market value “somewhere around $600,000” was reasonable and noted the property had sold in August 2022 for $442,500. For 290 North Manor Avenue, the assessor said the current market-supported value was closer to $614,000 while the complainant put the property at $455,000; the assessor retained supporting comparable sales and planned to supply supplemental information for board deliberation.

The assessor called out an apparent error on a complaint form for 91 Crane Street (owner’s estimate duplicated the assessment-row number) and said some filers had not provided evaluation analyses needed for the board to decide. Properties represented repeatedly by the same representative — including filings for Camelot RJ LLC, Parkview RJ LLC, Franklin Apartments LLC and others — lacked evaluation information, the assessor said, limiting the board’s ability to grant reductions without further documentation.

The assessor also reviewed other, topic-specific issues raised by appellants. For a parcel on Washington Avenue, the owner argued the Emergency Tenant Protection Act (ETPA) suppressed rents and that assessment should reflect actual rents; the assessor said there are no valuation guidelines in New York’s real property tax law for valuing properties because they fall under ETPA and recommended no change. On a senior-exemption appeal (287 Lucas Avenue), the assessor explained the property received the maximum 50% county benefit but a smaller city and school reduction this year because the owner’s income placed them on a lower sliding scale; the assessor said the change reflected the adopted county, school and city exemption schedules.

The assessor noted Golden Hill Owners LLC had an exemption on the roll and that the city had entered into a tax agreement and community-impact arrangement related to new construction on that parcel; the filing nonetheless appeared on the appeals list and lacked evaluation material. The assessor indicated they would retrieve missing evaluation sheets and other documents during the meeting so the board could continue deliberations.

No formal votes or final decisions were recorded in the portion of the transcript provided; the board recessed twice during the session and planned further review of the packets and additional filings when they resumed. The assessor left multiple comparable-sales analyses, contract copies and evaluation sheets with the panel for its review and indicated additional packets were still coming upstairs for consideration.

The Board of Assessment Review closed the session after the planned review and recesses; the board did not record formal adopted changes on the record in the transcript excerpt provided.