Syracuse Housing Strategies Corporation Board of Directors Meeting - August 25, 2025
Syracuse Housing Strategies Corporation Board of Directors Meeting - August 25, 2025
The Syracuse Housing Strategies Corporation Board of Directors met on August 25, 2025, to approve prior meeting minutes, formalize amendments to the Block Challenge Program (BCP) eligibility rules, address a conflict of interest for the upcoming Resident Advisory Committee, and receive updates on the BCP launch and community outreach.
Consent Calendar
- Approved the minutes from the June 23, 2025 Board of Directors meeting.
- Approved the minutes from the August 4, 2025 Board of Directors meeting.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No formal public comments or testimony were heard during this meeting.
Discussion Items
- Block Challenge Program Eligibility Amendments: The board reviewed and voted to adopt a set of amendments to the BCP eligibility policy to enhance transparency. Newly designated ineligible expenses included: enclosing an open front porch, removing a porch without an in-kind replacement, and removing a tree on private property without an opinion from a qualified arborist confirming it is a hazard or diseased. A significant debate occurred regarding the inclusion of chain link fencing in the front yard. Councilor Caldwell noted its affordability and safety benefits (acting as a guardrail for cars), while other members expressed design preferences for materials like wood or PVC. The board opted not to explicitly list chain link fencing as an ineligible expense but reached a compromise requiring that any submitted fence proposal undergo review and approval by the full board to encourage alignment with program design goals.
- Procurement Policy Clarifications: Michelle presented clarifications to procurement language developed with the law department regarding contractor quotes and insurance. The board acknowledged the difficulty of obtaining three contractor quotes in a timely manner due to a limited contractor pool. Staff confirmed that online supplier quotes would be acceptable for smaller projects, with stricter requirements reserved for larger grant amounts triggering formal procurement thresholds.
- Resident Advisory Committee Conflict of Interest Resolution: Sue (corporate counsel) presented a proposed solution to an unintended conflict between the ordinance establishing the resident advisory committee and the board's code of ethics, which could have barred committee members from participating in the program. The proposed fix requires amending the ordinance to limit the advisory committee's role strictly to making programmatic recommendations to the board (e.g., suggesting programs for designated areas). The board will retain sole authority over application review and program adoption. If a recommended program is adopted, an advisory member who recommended it may apply to participate, provided full disclosure is made and applications are reviewed blindly by staff.
- BCP Launch and Outreach Update: Michelle reported that the BCP formally launched with a press release and has already received its first application from the Tipperary Hill neighborhood. Questions from residents have focused primarily on the "line of sight" proximity requirement for neighbors. Staff indicated flexibility, stating they are willing to adjust street radii or pair up individual homeowners to facilitate participation. The larger grant programs are under development, with a target launch date of early 2026. An extensive outreach schedule was outlined, including a webinar, in-person meetings in Tipperary Hill (Burnett Park) and the Far West Side (James Commons), open houses in September, and door-to-door canvassing.
Key Outcomes
- Minutes Approved: The board unanimously approved the minutes for the June 23 and August 4, 2025 meetings.
- BCP Eligibility Amendments Adopted: The board approved the package of BCP eligibility amendments, including the explicit ineligible expenses and the case-by-case board review process for fencing projects.
- Advisory Committee Conflict Resolution: Counsel was directed to submit formal legislative changes to the enabling ordinance and proposed updates to the code of ethics for consideration at the next board meeting.
- BCP Implementation: The program is actively receiving applications, and the outreach schedule was finalized. Staff will continue developing the larger grant program terms for a launch in January 2026.
Meeting Transcript
Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and call the meeting to order. This is a meeting of the Syracuse Housing Strategies Corporation Board of Directors. I will note that proof of notice was provided and is on the second page in our packets. I'll move. We've got two looks like two sets of minutes, Michelle. Uh first one is our June 23rd, 2025 board meeting minutes. And I will entertain a motion to approve those minutes. I'll move. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed. Minutes are approved for June 23rd. We'll move to the minutes of the August 4th, 2025 Board of Directors meeting. And it's again I will entertain a motion to approve. Second. Okay. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Carry. All right. Looks like we have one item of new business. And I will turn it over to Michelle to introduce it. Uh thanks, Mayor. So uh the main item that we wanted to uh formalize today were the amendments to the block challenge program eligibility terms that we had discussed at the governance committee meeting last week. Um so there was just a couple things that we wanted to kind of clear up in terms of uh ineligible expenses that we wanted to just make sure it was clearly uh called out for applicants uh that way that that was um something that we were being transparent about prior to accepting an application. Obviously, if we don't have anything uh explicit explicitly numerated as a uh ineligible expense, it's something that we have to accommodate. So um the ones consider, yes. Um the items that we had uh uh discussed uh last week's meeting that were based off of uh just a combination of things that I think are would be considered kind of um in line with other policy objectives that we have related to things kind of like urban tree canopy, um things of that nature, uh as well as just a couple other kind of design considerations and they're also in line with um uh the terms of programs and other communities where we have been modeling this off of. So um the main ones being uh in the event that uh a homeowner is looking to do uh actually if you look at page 13 uh in your packet, these are all called out kind of in order. Um so the first one being uh we would not consider cost to enclose a front porch that is currently open. We would not allow a porch removal without an in-kind replacement, so you can do a porch removal, you just need to put it back comparably. Um in the event that you were looking to remove a tree on your private property, uh we would consider that, but we would look for some additional documentation to kind of substantiate that number one, it's something that's visible from the right of way, and then number two that there's a opinion from a qualified uh arborist or landscape professional that uh kind of ascertains that it is either a hazard to the immediate property surrounding uh or um uh disease tree itself uh that needs to be removed. And then uh additionally uh chain link fencing uh with in a in a front yard fence. I think I thought that we had landed on no chain link fence in the front yard. But if I got that incorrect, that is fine, and we can scrap it. Okay. Yeah. And what a what um and I'm sorry, I I didn't I missed this one, but um the enclosure of the front porch. Um why is that a something that we wouldn't do? Uh I think the idea there being that uh if your front porch is currently open and kind of walling off, it just separates you further from the street in a way that kind of sends a signal that is uh not necessarily the signal that we're trying to send, right? So if your porch is already enclosed, obviously you're looking to do new windows or something like that. You got it like that. That's that's fine. But I think just in terms of kind of new work like that, something in the front yard, um, it's just something that looking to avoid for right now, understanding the scope of there's many other things that we would consider allowable. So what about the reverse? So if someone already has a closed and portion want to open it up. That's fair, game.
openpublica.com