Good afternoon, all.

I will go ahead and call this meeting to order.

I will know that the proof of notice was provided in a timely fashion and is included on the second page of the committee packet.

For the record, this is a meeting of the Syracuse Housing Strategies Corporation Governance Committee.

And I will turn it over to Michelle to give us all an update on it.

So thanks for your support.

So resident advisory committee.

Um, I think this is something that we have talked about a little bit uh in prior meetings about the role of the resident advisory committee uh as it pertains to the organization.

Um, just for a little bit of a recap for everyone, uh, when the ordinance uh and enabling legislation was authorized by the common council to incorporate the housing strategies corporation.

We also included uh a provision that established a resident advisory committee that was made up of residents of the city of Syracuse, did not necessarily need to have any particular background or experience related to housing, but the intent was always that we would kind of mirror the existing structure that exists uh with the Syracuse Land Bank, which also has a resident advisory committee.

Um we established the inclusion of the resident advisory committee for the purposes of the housing strategies corporation.

Uh, we did not necessarily uh envision that it participation on that committee would in any way affect um residents' ability to access funding from the organization.

At this point, from the conversations that we have had with uh corporation council, both of the city of Syracuse and of outside council for housing strategies corporation, we at this point have gotten a firm and unanimous opinion from everyone that uh the ethics provisions that apply to all board members and staff of the housing strategies corporation uh would apply to any members of the resident advisory committee.

So that means basically in its simplest form that residents would not be able to apply for funds through the organization if they were on that committee for the duration of their term on the committee, uh, and then for a period of two years after their term concludes.

So the path forward that we have been kind of recommended from Corp Council, there's basically two options that they have laid out.

Um the first option would be that we could look to kind of understanding that that is a limitation and understanding that uh I don't think it was anyone's idea that we would in any way limit access of residents to be able to get funding as a um a term of kind of participating in a body such as this.

There's other ways that we could go about doing community engagement that would get us to the same place, but understanding that we do also have to comply with public authorities law and all of those related provisions.

Um we could look to simply dissolve the committee or dissolve the provisions in the ordinance that uh kind of uh created it in the first place, the board would just stay as it uh currently is with the appointments uh as we have right now.

Uh and then we could uh we being kind of under the umbrella of City of Syracuse, neighborhood and business development, continue doing community engagement in the same way that we are doing anyways and will continue to do regardless of the existence of the committee or not, um, which is really kind of working closely with the neighborhood groups uh to ensure that uh feedback that we're getting from those uh committees is uh uh represented kind of in the programmatic terms that we're putting forward to the board to adopt and kind of just sunset it in that way.

Um the option B that we could also look uh to pursue is that if the board felt that the role of the resident advisory committee still made sense for us to keep, uh, we could simply just comply with the limitations, acknowledge the fact that it does mean that anyone who is appointed to those seats does have to comply with those rules.

We would just be uh make sure that that's made explicitly clear to people kind of from the beginning at the point that they would be accepting those appointments.

Um I think the way that the appointments are currently structured within the uh enabling ordinance.

It's set up in such a way where it's basically 50-50 split between uh mayor and common council, um, so five and five.

Uh the common council appointments are one uh is made by the common council president and then one from each of the four at-large counselors.

Um so inherently, I think with that structure we were selecting it in that way, uh, understanding that if you're an at-large representative, you're representing the interests of the city as a whole.

Um so I certainly think that there's uh in a town of 144,000 people, you could find 10 people at any given time that understand kind of their limitations as far as accessing program funds, and that could certainly still be good from a policy making perspective.

Um, I think we in either case, like I said, we're committed to continuing to do the community engagement as we are doing anyways, and so um I guess the way that we see it from a staff perspective is that whether it exists or does not exist, it doesn't have a bearing on overall efficacy of what our engagement can be.

Um but I think we wanted to put it to the board for discussion before we were to move anything forward.

We certainly don't want to be bringing anything forward to the council without having kind of a unanimous consensus of this body uh as to how we would like to proceed.

So you have a preference one way or another?

I think that the most important thing is that we're continuing to do community engagement.

I think, like I said, like whether it exists or whether it does not exist, neither guarantees nor diminishes what the impact of what our community engagement and doing that effectively looks like, if that makes sense.

So I think that there's a lot of ways, regardless of I guess the value of having something like that in place is that it does create a little bit more of a formal structure.

I think the flip side of doing community engagement effectively sometimes is that sometimes the best way to do that is not actually in a formal meeting structure.

So is it safe to assume that if the ethics provisions apply, then so does open meetings law?

Yes, open meetings would also apply.

So I mean I I don't want to speak for for the council, and obviously we have counselors here.

I mean, I certainly when the idea of an advised resident advisory board came up, um, I think it sounded like a good idea.

Obviously, we would have residents um you know formally engaged, and it's worked really well for the for the land bank.

I don't think any of us anticipated that the way in which it was written, it would create this this conflict.

Um again, I think we can we can go we can go either way on this.

Um, but you know I think the idea of trying to uh comply with it as currently written to your point, Caitlin, just creates a lot of work and probably results in us not engaging the residents most directly, you know, um engaged in the neighborhoods that we're serving.

There was no other way around.

There's no like because you guys have it, home headquarters have it.

I there's no is it a change that we can do in our verbage?

Home headquarters is not bound by public authorities law in the same way that the city of Syracuse is or that uh as that the housing strategies corporation is.

Um I think uh we have to go based on the direction that we have received as from our council as the housing strategies corporation, and then in turn, kind of as a extension of the city of Syracuse from their council.

So I guess the way that they look at it is the directive that exists for the land bank is doesn't have any bearing on their recommendation, and they have been very firm that there is no way around this.

Um we were planning to have uh corp council here today, and just with the scheduling changes we got, um we're not able to have them here.

So we can certainly set something up kind of separately if there's specific questions that you all have with them, but I think it's fair to say that we've they've been pretty clear that there isn't a way around it.

So I have pushed hard on this, because again, I just don't think it it meets our intent here.

Um I the one thing that maybe I'm not on the same page with my understanding uh as you, Michelle, is that I think the the council's made it crystal clear that the way in which the orn ordinance is written creates this issue.

I guess I got the impression that if the ordinance was written differently, not necessarily just saying no advisory uh board, neighborhood advisory board, but naming it and more explicitly stating what it does and does not do that we may be able to get around it.

Did you not get that impression?

I did not get that impression.

So maybe it's worth us uh clarifying that piece of it, but I think I guess the the question that I would pose for the purposes of keeping uh understanding that we need to kind of move this forward is if we were to it turns out that that is accurate and stands kind of as described, then what is the preference of how we think that we would like to proceed um under the circumstances?

I have a question and a comment.

Um is there a written criteria for what these resident advisors are expected to do?

Um the language and the way that it is phrased is that um you would essentially it would operate kind of as a committee of the housing strategies corporation, we would be looking to kind of run through upcoming agenda items with them in the same way that it would be subsequently presented to the board, uh solicit feedback from them on feedback comments on uh anything that we might be considering.

So examples being kind of as we're looking to uh formalize uh programmatic terms, uh having kind of a similar conversation that we would be bringing to the governance committee, uh then subsequently to the board for approval, but also just getting kind of their formal documented comment and feedback on some of those structures.

I'm thinking, notwithstanding what Caitlin said about the mechanics of it, which could be a little difficult to work, maybe we keep it, keep it just as it is, and look at that advisory committee, not so much as a committee of residents in a particular area, but overall from the entire community, where we might get some more expertise, people who in fact may not want or need, but it's an avenue to get potentially greater expertise throughout the community from people who aren't involved and wanting to do it.

People who in fact may not want or need, but it's an avenue to get potentially greater expertise throughout the community from people who aren't involved and wanting to do it.

So I kind of think we can get both things at the same time.

If we keep it under that kind of a structure, that kind of a definition, and then you continue through uh um BD, your local community pointed discussions.

I think we get the best of both worlds.

Yep.

And I think that's kind of the idea with option B is that there's certainly uh a universe in which we could I suspect that we could find 10 people at any given time that understand what that looks like.

I also think it could be fair to say that based on kind of the timing and the limitations that would exist, understanding that terms are two-year period, and then you cannot apply for two years after your term ends.

There's still a world in which even like a Salt Springs resident or a Tip Hill resident could participate for a term.

Um, if we were kind of judicious about keeping people to a one-term cycle, we roll them off, and you could still then apply for funds after the fact.

Do we have to um and I know we got other things to talk about, but do we have to so put it up under um us?

Can we put it up under like land bank or home headquarters that they're their advisory team of advice because it they're coming through as a partner?

So to take us out of the legal part, they're creating an advisory team under them that helps them guide us through the process or home headquarters.

So it's not like we're going up under, you know, official, it's going up under a pro them already, because they're gonna be a part of this whole process.

The money is some of the money is going to home headquarters.

So why couldn't they say, hey, we just want the voices of 13210, 224, and this is the voice team, right?

So it doesn't officially have to be like a governance, but just a team, and then it just comes through another and we just listen, you know what I mean?

Yeah, so we don't have to go through all these bylaws.

I just want to hear I it'd be it's important to me to hear from the neighbors that live in that neighborhood.

Yeah, so they have a voice.

That's all I'm just trying to figure out ways.

Yeah, so as I understand it from the conversations that we've had with corporation council, in order for that to happen that way, it cannot exist formally in any kind of documentation.

I think what that would look like is we would go through the process of amending the enabling legislation to remove the reference to it, and then I think what that would look like would be neighborhood and business development in the same way that we convene neighbors all the time for any number of purposes.

It would be convened kind of in that context to talk about housing, and then we would take that feedback into consideration and uh in the recommendations that we're putting forth, but it cannot be in any way formalized, it can't be associated within kind of our bylaws, the enabling legislation.

Um I think that's kind of the the other piece of the guidance that we have received is that we have to.

It has nothing to do with actual here, but we are the platform of the voices, no different from the neighborhood advisors that they have going on in their community already.

The neighborhood association, right?

So that's neighborhood association TNT.

Yeah, like pick eight or nine people out of here and say, Hey, you're our voice this time, right?

And they can flip all, but it has nothing, we're not in control of it.

We flip it back to the other people that are actually, and then we just get to information.

So it sounds like NBD is kind of doing that informal.

Yeah, I I think that's kind of the role.

And uh as we uh have been kind of transitioning, we went through the process of doing kind of the small area plans.

We had the steering committees, the ideas that kind of the work and the driving of how things advance, like the the neighborhood associations are really the ones that are kind of driving that work, and so we are working with them.

Um, Salt Springs is a great example there, neighborhood association is off to the races of kind of looking to formally incorporate, we're uh regularly attending those meetings and uh looking to kind of uh avail ourselves where we're able to take feedback from people uh into consideration for our programming, and so that can still happen kind of independently um to whatever level that we want it to without it being formalized.

Council Callwell's, I mean, this is sort of a duplication.

I mean a duplication of services.

We already have neighborhood associations involved in this.

We make every effort to make them involved to help us out.

You know, they're already there, those meetings and everything.

So I see some particular problems which what Don said about, you know, I would certainly wouldn't it's unlikely we live in neighborhoods in which the housing strategy is uh going to be actually be working in.

I I don't think it's a good idea of a bunch of people from a certain neighborhood because they have the means to they don't have to avail themselves of this program to decide what's happened with Salt Springs or temporary help.

It sounds like I was looking at a little bit different.

Well, I always look at it differently than we won't do.

You know, that's good.

That's what makes it work.

That's what makes it work.

But I was thinking more of the what's currently in the legislation now or what's in the um uh incorporation now is we get a higher level of individuals who have expertise in housing, building development, finance, and make them this uh advisory committee.

That's not not so much from the neighborhood, but from the city, but people who have expertise in housing.

We don't need that, we need community.

It has to be neighborhood.

Is enough of us telling them already what to do.

I'm not saying this is in place of a neighborhood.

I totally agree with both of you.

Oh, you mean like another committee?

Well, you know, the advisory committee that is now part of our incorporation, can that be that neighborhood committee?

So I'm thinking let's have the neighborhood committees in whatever force, you know, ones that we're currently working with now, as you said, counselor.

I agree.

But in addition, rather than go and and change the legislation and take it out totally.

I'm just thinking it might be an opportunity for us looking forward next year, five years, ten years.

Do we have as advisory capacity to this job that we're supposed to be doing?

Do we have access to some real expertise?

And maybe that's what that committee could be.

I want to be sensitive to the case.

Because we all know that the public sector isn't going to accomplish this task by themselves.

And the majority of the dollars are gonna come from the private sector, or this isn't gonna work.

So this might be an opportunity to get both of what we're talking about.

I hear where you're coming from, but that's twice as many meetings in the staff are already stretched.

Thank you.

Well, you know, the mechanics for sure would have to be worked out, and I'm not suggesting that that's the way it works.

Yeah, so I uh so I think from my perspective, if if we don't do anything, then I think I think what Don is suggesting is is what we would what we would do and what we would have to do.

Um I think in this case, you know, the council created the the um the enabling legislation, and I think if the council feels strongly about this, um then the council's in a position to revisit the legislation.

Um either remove it completely, as Michelle's indicated is really the only option, or you know, we'll double check with Corp Council to see if we can change the wording to get it to be more like what we what we envisioned.

Um and then we can use the you know, then we can use the existing neighborhood associations and engage the neighbor the the community in however way we want.

We're gonna be engaged anyway, right?

True.

So again, not to put this fully on the council, but I do think um that it's you know, again, if if we don't make any changes, we're gonna have to go with option B.

But if if the council feels strongly about it, then we go with option A, working with Corp Council to get it right.

And I I guess just to kind of underscore timing from a compliance standpoint as the housing strategies corporation, we do need to make a determination one way or the other and either move to make appointments based on the limitations that we understand or move to dissolve the committee because it becomes kind of a by not we we can't simply have it on the books and allow it to exist but never actually appoint people.

Right.

So um, so I think that's just kind of um one other question, just so I I just want to understand something first, really quick.

So when we receive this first um set of money for the block grant program, this is small money.

This is just the 5,000.

It has nothing to do with the bigger money later on, 2026, 27 work.

This first process, once the money they're gonna apply, the money's gonna sort of go through the next channels with home headquarters, right?

Yep.

So they're gonna be the next people, right?

So the people are directly working with them, right?

Well, they're working with our staff.

And so where home headquarters comes into play, particularly for this process is the fiscal management piece of it.

So um they're really uh kind of cutting the checks essentially.

So our staff will be doing the intake, um, kind of conducting all the meetings with residents, meeting with residents as applications are coming in.

Um we'll set up a meeting uh where we'll meet with each team, kind of talk through what they're planning to do, talk through any questions, concerns, help make sure that they kind of understand next steps and what process looks like.

Uh we will, after that meeting, issue kind of a formal uh notice to proceed uh that their applications have been approved.

The residents will go do the work, they will turn in their receipts, we will review all them, make sure everything looks good, and then uh at the point that we kind of check that off, uh we will then route them directly to home headquarters, they will have a designated point person there at home headquarters, and then they will uh coordinate picking up of uh checks so for their reimbursements.

So it seems like you were kind of leaning towards the more informal option.

Yeah, but you still want the ability to appoint people.

Yes, I just think is I just because I heard from the residents, this is directly coming from them.

They want to be involved.

Yeah, they stop me in the stores, they stop me over a go, they want to be involved, they want to know what's going on, they have voices, they know people.

So I just don't want to count out that like it is important in some way somehow we figure it out a way that they're involved in this that and then you know, they can see sometimes when we leave people out when they're directly involved, they don't understand, right?

And I think it'd change everything if they're involved in this process.

They learn, they'll see, and then you know, we figure out when we do the next step what works, but we we gotta figure out a way.

I don't know what a way, I'm just saying a way that their voices count, that they're part of this process, so they feel that they may help make these decisions, not just us.

Would you be comfortable if we keep doing these kind of informal meetings that NBD has been convening and make sure that the district counselors or the at-large counselors from that area are getting the word out and encouraging people to attend and making sure that residents are going to the meetings?

It wouldn't be a formal appointment.

But because doing a formal appointment implies that there's just a set number of people on that committee and that's it.

This would be more like trying to get as many people to participate as possible.

I mean, I mean, time is ticking, so I'm not gonna be difficult.

I just moving forward, we just gotta make sure that our community is at the table.

They are part of this decision making.

That's all.

So I'm not gonna hold anything up to move forward, but we might just have to backtrack and figure out a way to make sure I have to.

Mr.

Mayor, didn't you talk about clarification from court?

Yeah, so so that's what I was gonna say.

So let us circle back with the corporate council.

We will um we will determine exactly you know, uh again, whether or not we just have to the council has to revise it to eliminate it completely, or whether or not we can change the wording in a way that gets you where you ultimately want to be.

Um, and we'll do that, you know, within the next week and and and get to our get ourselves to a point where we're we have clarity ASAP on whether or not we're gonna bring something back to the council, or we're just gonna go with what we got.

To Michelle's point, you know, we have to if if we're not gonna change it, then we've got to set it up.

But um, but it sounds like we're not quite there yet, and I think we can figure that out pretty quickly.

So I'll loop um I'll get I'll get an email going with Corp Council and and um and you you counselors and see if we can get this squared away.

Sound good?

Cool.

All right, good for now, Michelle.

Yep.

All right.

Sorry, we didn't hear answer.

That's all right.

It's more of a consensus than we had coming in, but this is um I think the next thing we just wanted to talk about, uh a couple updates coming into the release of the neighborhood block challenge.

So uh obviously, as you're all aware, the uh board has authorized uh programmatic terms for a first wave of the block challenge program.

Uh I think within your packets, we maybe did some handouts of what that looks like.

I know I circulated everything to the board uh last week via email that included this information and kind of where everything is at online.

Um so just kind of from a process standpoint, uh, as I had mentioned for the benefit of anybody who is watching at home.

Uh, we will be opening up applications uh this Friday.

I'm doing kind of a formal announcement uh that everything is up and live.

Uh and teams will be able to start uh applying for programs uh at that point, and then we will have a series uh kind of included within those announcements, a series of meetings that we have scheduled uh neighborhood meetings uh where people can come to just kind of learn about the program.

Uh we will also be holding one session that is a virtual webinar that we will record and make available online.

You get too far.

Is there an income restriction?

There's no income restrictions.

Uh so kind of the the gist of the program too, I guess just for recap, if it's helpful for anyone, uh, you must be a team of at least uh three homeowners.

Uh you must be able to see at least one of the members of your team from your property.

You don't need to see all of them, but somewhere within a surrounding radius, it could be as many as five doors down from you.

If I can see the door, that counts.

Um, it is all exterior improvements that can be visible from the street right away for this program.

So there's no exterior.

Just for just for this program, right?

For for this, this is really focused on kind of curb appeal, capacity building, um, types of things that you can see from the street right away.

So if you live on a corner and you have two sides of your house that are visible, we'll give you that.

Um, if you're trying to replace 12 windows and only four of them are on your front of your house, we'll give you that.

Um, so there's there's flexibility there, but the idea is that there's a visual impact of the work that is being done.

We don't want to see things that are coming just for backyard improvements that only you are going to be able to enjoy.

Um which may come in future.

Yes, yes.

That that is something that we would certainly be looking to include within some of the larger uh grant programs.

But for if it's a hazardous, like if somebody needed to put a wall up or something type, something like those qualify, right?

Tree.

So tree.

I think the hazardous programs, I think that would be something for for this scope.

Like we would encourage people to submit it and let's have a conversation about how we can make it work.

I think the idea with this is that we try to find a way to get to yes about just about everything within reason.

And I think that that principle would still uh stand even when we get into some of the larger programmatic terms.

Um there's obviously bigger dollars and uh more kind of precautions that we need to put in place to manage kind of risks as we start to get into the larger programs.

But again, for the purpose of this program, we are really focused on resident capacity building, curb appeal, quick wins, and trying not to overcomplicate to the extent possible.

Okay, clarification for me.

I'm a little slow and catching up.

Um so West Side and Chip Hill, they're separate, right?

They are side.

So the geographic boundary, and I can uh I don't know that the map is included in what is in front of you, but I will it's online and I can send it out to everyone.

Uh for this program, we are accepting applications including the far west side section of Tip Hill.

So anywhere within those geographic boundaries, if you apply as a qualifying team, we will review your application.

And we the number, we don't have a lot of money.

So have we uh uh looked at um looking at other aspects of getting other money?

Because what we what did we add up to about 60 houses we could do?

Uh so I think the total number of we have authorized 70,000 for this year.

Uh, I think what we expect based on what we've seen from other communities that have done programs like this, their average per project cost ends up being about four to five hundred dollars per property.

So um we don't necessarily expect that every single person that participates in this program is gonna spend or that we're gonna be reimbursing up to that full 2500 dollars.

What if it does?

If it does, then I think at that point, then we would look based on what we're seeing from the applications that we're receiving where areas that we need to kind of articulate program terms potentially, we would bring that back to the board for consideration to say here's the applications that we're getting.

We think this is working and it justifies us authorizing additional dollars for this specific line item for this program year.

Uh obviously we have a total of 7.5 million to work with that we can uh continue to allocate towards this program.

Um, but I think we would make that decision based on like we we would hit that 70,000 dollar threshold uh and at this point kind of we're committed to accepting applications and improving uh approving them on a rolling basis.

Um, and then we'll as we approach that budgetary limit, like we bring that back to the board.

Not to excuse me, not to I think you're gonna hit it in two days.

Just from the I can say that again, I'm I think you're gonna hit it in two days.

Uh just from the conversations that people probably have to do.

Yeah, I mean, and not being able to serve even half, I guarantee you.

Yeah, so I think what Michelle said was um if we get if that happens, come back to the board, and if we if we want to keep going with it, we can keep going with it.

So we have money to move over, some more money.

Yeah, yep.

Okay, yeah, 50% reimbursement.

50% reimbursement dollar for dollar match.

So if you want to get up to 2,500, you must spend at least $5,000.

If you want to spend only $50 and get $25 reimbursed, that's fine too.

Um so that's just kind of an overview on uh what the board has approved from a programmatic term standpoint so far.

Dan, did you want to add something there?

Okay.

Can I ask you a question?

You want to add some money enough to get a money?

What can I get in you guys some more working?

So that is part of the reimbursement, right?

That once we spend, but that's for the next phase, right?

That's for this phase.

Well, so yeah, I think the program that we have passed right now, the for to be eligible for this program, yes, it is reimbursement based.

So the the property owner themselves does the work, they submit the receipts, and then we reimburse them based on expenses that they have incurred.

No, I can't.

If they're trying to get financing individually, they can uh we will refer people to home headquarters to get their piece of it financed.

No, not apologize.

That's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is, is there any other pocket of money for this that is not ESD?

What other money do we have that is gonna be generated for this pocket?

That's all I was asking for this.

The city the city dollars so far.

So I think there is another component of like work that we are looking to do within our team to secure additional funding separate from the city commitment and separate from the ESD commitment in tandem with rolling all of these programs out.

But we're trying to uh stick to our commitment to be getting programming launched this year, and uh understanding that based on kind of everything that we have received, the work that CZB has done to date, where we anticipate we need to be able to kind of uh number of projects that we need to complete in order to kind of move the needle.

We feel like the amount of money that we have secured, the 7.5 million total, that that is enough to keep us sufficiently moving for a couple years, and we are additionally going to be taking steps to continue to line up additional funding streams uh to help continue the work kind of beyond that.

So just for my say, and I apologize numbers-wise, we have 2.5 million that is already earmarked from the city, but which is already sort of earmarked for the other project.

What else do we have money for?

I mean, not for this.

This is for the next step for 20.

We we did a whole we did a whole budget analysis, right?

And we marked it out per year, right?

Right.

So there was no extra money budgeted for this.

We the way that we kind of bucketed it out.

Um I'm not trying to so uh so let's let me wind.

I'm not trying to put like make it seem like there's I just want to know is if there is any money actually earmarked for this.

If we come into a okay, that's what I think.

Yeah, and I think the budget that the board had approved, we had the board that approve an annual operating budget, um, and that was a a term of the um in order to uh authorize the agreement between the city and SURA to move the dollars.

There was a budget component that went with that that we submitted that was uh uh dollar amounts associated kind of with given programs.

We made it very clear in those conversations that kind of the main provision was that that 2.5 million we could not go over the 10% for admin, and we would not create any new positions.

But um, I think there was uh understanding that between the various tiers of programming, so this being kind of basic tier one block challenge, homeowner renovation.

We know that we're gonna be need to be kind of agile and possibly adjust dollars from line to line, but within those program tiers, that is all considered direct assistance to homeowners, and we can call those audibles as we need to.

Okay.

So where's the 7.5 come from?

That's five from the state and 2.5 from the city.

But it's reimbursement.

So it's like a reimbursement.

Okay.

Michelle, I have to assume safe to assume that as the program gets underway, demonstrate success, that will then allow you to more easily raise additional dollars for this program.

But getting it off the ground, getting it moving, showing that it's making a difference in communities.

You got some more money for us.

I love how you say we as we show success.

Yeah, and I think that's that's part of the again the goal of this first program is we want people to see it and feel it and to get excited about it.

Uh so we can, you know, so we can continue to get some more support.

I will say, counselor, we are working on a larger proposal that doesn't just include the city of Syracuse that could eventually lead to more funds for these types of programs.

We will certainly be coming to you for support in that ask.

As long as we are in it.

Yeah, okay.

Cool.

Um, so I think we we covered kind of uh everything that has been authorized by the board to date.

There are a couple pieces of things within the terms that have been authorized that we did just want to kind of put forward for discussion that are within the current policies as they've been described, a little bit of a gray area.

So just looking for kind of a some additional clarification on them.

Um, one of them as an example uh being uh in relevancy to tree removal on private property.

Um, right now there isn't anything one way or the other that specifies uh what that looks like.

Uh I think looking for uh just kind of uh some feedback from everyone uh to gauge what the board's level of comfort would be with us kind of additionally stipulating.

I think understanding a lot of the policy goals that we have related to urban tree canopy, we don't necessarily want to be removing healthy tree canopy, um, but we also certainly understand that uh hazard trees are a thing that a lot of homeowners have uh challenge with.

Um, if they are not addressed, uh they can create problems for homeowners themselves, their adjacent property owners.

Um, that all kind of fits in with the deferred maintenance piece of it.

So I think what um we're looking for some additional uh thoughts on would be whether or not we might add some uh clarifying terms that we will uh authorize removal of a tree if it is deemed to be a hazard, um, but you need to submit some documentation to that effect.

Um, we don't want to see that you're removing a perfectly fine tree just because you don't like it there.

I agree.

I would agree with that approach.

Okay, there's a lot of still Labor Day Storm trees that are out there that are causing issues.

I see them every day.

Cool.

All right, so uh that's an easy one and very helpful.

I think the other easy one that we were looking to clarify um the time frame that uh applicants have to be able to complete their projects.

Um right now the terms that were approved by the board, you have 90 days from the point that your application is approved.

Uh, and then we have the additional ability kind of on a case-by-case basis to issue an extension.

Um so an example being if you submit documentation that you have a contractor, but they can't come until six months down the road, we would issue that extension.

Um, I think what we are looking to clarify is that we the board is comfortable with us kind of universally saying, understanding that it is uh mid-August at this point, uh, and that some of these because they're exterior projects, 90 days puts you right up against kind of the weather window that for the time being we would uh give people the ability to request uh an extension to complete their projects to June uh until June 2026.

Okay.

Um and then uh we would still kind of revert back to the case-by-case basis, but rather than bringing every single application that someone might want to um uh use that ability to to you all to approve individually, we would just make that a cross the board term.

Nodding.

Okay, great.

Uh I think the other couple of recommendations uh that we wanted to run past people, each of these individually came from uh terms of the programs that were authorized both in uh Des Moines and Oswego for limitations that they had of considered ineligible expenses and independently without prompting, they were all things that were recommended by our preservation planner as well.

Um Kate and uh Kate Alwater and MBD uh as things that would be just from kind of a we may wish to consider not using our dollars to support these activities.

Um we are not in any way obligated to include these.

I think it just means that if we don't say that they are ineligible expenses, that does mean that we have to approve them.

Um so the first one being the installation of a newly enclosed front porch.

So if your front porch is currently open, we do not want to use dollars to seal it off.

Um the case that your front porch is already enclosed.

If you want to do something to kind of improve the improve the windows, something like that, it's already there, that's fine, but we don't necessarily want to facilitate new work that is enclosing things.

I would agree with that.

It always looks goofy.

Um in a similar vein, I think uh the addition of a new front yard fence was the other big one that uh in other communities they did not want to add a new front yard fence.

If you were removing a front yard fence or fixing something that was in uh poor repair, I know that's a I I know it's a I know from my uh sharp uh yeah, it's it's one that people do feel kind of strongly about um in any kind of direction, but and so I think that's where kind of we don't want to hold this.

We don't want to hold anything up, so I think if people feel very strongly that we consider allowing it, we let it ride and see what happens is something that we could do, but it is something again, as I mentioned, that was pretty explicitly limited in uh other communities that have been doing this.

Um about no chain light.

That is a good allow fences, but not chain link.

Just make it look nice.

Yeah.

And that's where I think in Des Moines and other places they get.

I just I think it's cleaner, no fences.

To keep them out.

Yeah, I forgot.

You don't it's not saying that people can't have fences, it's saying this program.

Yeah, we could consider fences.

Right.

Plus fences are expensive.

And that's gonna eat a few.

It could be like a small front.

I think it'd just be cleaner for this program.

No fences.

I agree with that.

Oh, good.

I can't believe it.

I mean, I don't like, I mean, I don't think somebody wants to put a fence up, but I don't know if it's on the front yard and you're not gonna have a big six-footer anyway.

Not for this program.

This program is improvement.

It could prove it, and it could be a safety issue to help.

It depends on where you live in corners.

Because I could see a couple corners in certain neighborhoods might want to fits for safety reasons.

No, Michelle, you did say that's a major if it's not listed as ineligible, then if they ask for it, we have to give it to them.

But that's not really the case, right?

I mean, I think that becomes kind of a customer service constituent.

I I guess just from a transparency standpoint, I guess I would prefer that we be if we feel strongly about wanting to deny something, we would make that clear, I guess, in the event that we have a bunch of them coming forward.

I guess in the event that we have a bunch of them coming forward.

I imagine there may be any number of things that we may need to clarify based on someone does something that was not explicitly prohibited, but we would like to try to minimize it happening in the future, and we can adjust the program terms when that happens.

Um but I guess from a don't they have to get approved first though?

Like permit?

No, yeah, from us first, and then we say, oh yes, and then they can meet from us.

We approve the scope of work, but I think if we don't have the addition of something kind of based on program eligibility terms where it very clearly says you may not do this, that or the other.

Like right now it says very clearly if your scope of work requires a permit, you must pull that permit.

Right.

So that kind of stuff.

Uh I think this would be something where if we're gonna say full stop, we don't want a front yard fence or we don't want a chain link fence, we would just say that.

And then I would say that.

We're a no chain link, I would say that because in the front of the case.

Well, if Consul Hogan and I agree, let's just three of us agree the other way.

Is it first come first serve on when people hit submit on who's going to be accepted?

Because you kind of mean the indication if it's an eligible cost, we're gonna say yes.

But let's say you get a request for 150,000 immediately within like the first the eligibility period.

Are you is it gonna be then competitive for those first applications?

And I think kind of at this point we're approaching it as a rolling basis um based on again, there's a lot of variation of like the total uh uh scopes that people might be submitting.

Um you could be doing something as non-complicated as a new mailbox and some flowers.

Um so for those types of things, it's lower dollars and we have the ability to accommodate a lot of different requests.

Uh obviously, if we receive a flood of applications, I think we would look to call a board meeting pretty quickly and say, here's the applications we've got.

We think that they're all great, or um we are seeing things where um it's not conducive to kind of the overall goals of the organization program of what we're trying to get, and then at that point we would consider uh how do we either um you know kind of adjust what that that process looks like where we give preference based on certain criteria.

I think a situation that we would look to give preference based on is uh I we've certainly been encouraging people to try to uh put together as large of a team as they might be able to, even though technically we will approve a team of three.

Um if it comes down to kind of it understanding limited resources and the fact that what we're asking is that you can see only one of your team members.

It's not like you gotta see all of them from your street.

That's a I think we feel is a pretty reasonable request, and that we would look to try to accommodate places where we can see dentist uh concentration of work.

Um again, understanding limited resources.

But I think we can improve one until you get all of the other ones too, right?

Is that sort of it?

Because if you got to see, I mean, this is I good luck, because this is gonna be complicated.

How are you gonna approve one without the other two?

Like you know what I mean?

So it's is Yeah, I see.

I mean procedurally, yeah.

The whole team has to submit, or or can one because one's going to be ahead of the other.

I mean, no, procedurally, the whole team submits.

So, team, you you put together your team, you find your team captain, that person is so we got three different projects going on at the same time.

Everybody's approved that they're all going to have to we're looking to concentrate the work.

And so this is where there's a level of kind of homeowner participation, and uh this is a part of this is a capacity building program, right?

So I think that that's where kind of in terms of the flood of applications, I do think that it it may take some people a minute before like to kind of put together like work with their team, put together their team, think about their projects that they want to do, hence why we want to give people an extension automatically until June.

So I it goes back to answer the question of do what do we do if we get 150,000 worth of requests on day one.

I think that the nature of how that this is set up a little bit gives it buys us a little bit of time.

So certainly, as I said, if I'm incorrect about that, we will immediately convene a board meeting and discuss how we look into it moving forward.

I would just uh strongly urge uh a template, much like the land bank as far as you know, synopsis of every project, and then we vote then we vote on it.

We vote on the teams.

I think what the board has approved so far to date is that we the board has approved programmatic terms, and that if you meet the terms of the program, we do not need to come back for individual board approval.

If we are asking someone to deviate from the program terms, then that is the point in which we bring it back to the board.

But otherwise, that's a lot of meetings for you guys, and we're gonna make this real hard for residents and timelines are gonna get extended.

Save people from knocking on my door, even though they will.

Why don't we do this why don't we do this for fences um I I hear I hear two no fences I hear a few three no fences like the big ones are you're saying I say fences I say this is where we have to allow people to have their own vision make their own decision about it let me ask this question right because this is a new rollout so the criteria at some point is going to end up changing it.

Sure could sure and very well could but um a suggestion of fences may be you know what is code's requirement on a front yard fence versus a backyard fence and if we say no chain link then we're gonna have to codes does we're gonna have to define the material that is allowed.

So I think there's a little work if you allow fences because the zoning code already does it can't be more than four feet tall it has to be at least 50% transparent when you get it in the setback line you can go up to six feet.

I think this becomes a question of in the suggestion as to no chain link there's nothing that precludes you from having a front yard chain link fence that meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance and part of the purpose of what we are trying to accomplish with these funds is to improve property condition shift the uh overall kind of neighborhood appeal.

Yeah so so we can dictate that yes and that sounds like that's the that that sounds good to me it sounds like the majority of the group of the committee here so fences but no no chain marker I don't even think we should put that I just think we're being honestly I just think fences no I mean honestly because it's your opinion here's my opinion I might like chain fences but now here we go again saying no chain fences a bottom homeowner.

Yeah I mean is they're there selling and it's a purpose because people some people like them for different reasons.

So for us to go in here and say well we don't like them and we think they're not that's just I think again it kind of becomes a question of uh we want to find a way to get to yes to a lot of things that needs to be conducive to overall kind of goals we're not trying to dictate taste per se but we do certainly I mean HUD dictates all day long what we can and can't spend money on.

So from a it does not that's correct really wants to I'm hearing no consensus whatsoever which means we move out of okay luckily I think that that is the uh most complicated one that we have the other one would be uh removal of a front porch without a replacement I think that is well that's the whole thing yeah you can't can't take your yeah porch off can't take it off unless you're putting it back uh and then I think that's the last big one that we're wanted to no brain clear up that was a no brainer.

So all right okay moving on uh as far as uh updates I'm looking at uh team here anything else significant I'm missing for rollout timeline anything that's worth calling out I hate to belabor this but just one thing that I've learned about forches um you may want to say if you can't take it away unless you're gonna put it back you might want to say put it back in kind or the same size because I've had cases where good point our buyers have torn off the porch and our spec says replace the porch and they replace it with something that's like a quarter of the size of the original and it looks weird.

That's helpful okay and then you get into an argument about this and you're taking what is a porch right to be safe for a future day yeah I think that's all I've got at this point unless anyone has any specific questions about anything insurance to uh insurance we have it so our policy is in place so yep okay anything else to come before the committee I'll entertain a motion to adjourn all in favor aye aye meeting is adjourned thanks everybody thank you very hard that I forgot you asked