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.

All right, so yeah, uh I do recall counselor Caldwell mentioning chain link fences and um as you know that's something that people opt for.

So I think we we were not able to achieve any consensus on that one.

So I think we agreed that we were just gonna leave that off of the list.

There were so anything goes.

So I heard no fences.

I heard some fences, but not chain link.

And I heard chain link is okay too.

So um, do you want you want you want me to call it to vote?

Sorry, it's not anything goals.

I just think we have to come to a consensus because a fence is a fence.

And like uh Counselor Carwell pointed out, and Michelle, you attested to it that the cars run through those fences on certain corners.

Right.

Yeah, I completely understand why people want right there, so I just hope that we get you put a wood fence up on Middle East's corner, that car is straight through that wood fence into that house.

Chain one says guardrail.

Stop a car.

Can we have a preference stated and then subject to review?

I mean, you guys don't allow Sharp to do fencing.

Interesting.

Yeah, we have to get a million sign-offs for it.

So it is possible.

It's still in question.

Um so I mean, I think that it's important to note that if folks want to put up a chain link fence pending permit, you know, and zoning approval, they can.

I think what we're trying to do is encourage um investments in projects that we think are aligned with the with the goals of of our housing strategy.

So to to your point, Karen, we could articulate those or encourage those, but not prohibit um the use of a chain link fence.

Um as a point of clarification with the Sharp, I think it's been something that there's been some policy changes over periods of time.

I know that there's certainly been some exceptions that have been made in very specific cases where there's been um in the neighborhoods, I think understanding where a lot of the neighborhoods where Sharp is most widely used, there's specific homeowners that have concerns that amount to kind of from a crime prevention standpoint.

There's a lot of traffic that they're trying to create some defensible space.

Um so uh and understand kind of there's a lot of ways that you can maybe think about it.

Uh I think in the context that we're working in, particularly in some of these early neighborhoods.

I don't know that that's necessarily always the same case that residents would be having.

Certainly doesn't preclude anyone from wanting something like that, but it is a consideration, and in the same way, um, from a signal standpoint, again, uh a chain link for instance in a front yard does send a signal in a way that you know I think people obviously clearly uh as evidenced by the discussion here have different schools of thought with it.

So I think that because this is our first go at it in our first year.

Who even says people are even gonna ask for fences?

We don't know what they're gonna have to do.

I don't know that they're going to ask for them, but I think in in the I think we raise the question just understanding that some of the programs that we were modeling it off of, um it is something that is explicitly called out.

Um if we do not uh enumerate it, it does make it, it doesn't mean that we cannot deny it, but it does mean that um I mean I think just from kind of a transparency and uh being clear about what we will and will not do.

I've noticed that a lot of the buyers who are purchasing home headquarters as new builds are choosing to put fun or fences, and they mostly seem to be choosing that white vinyl.

Yeah, they there's like a little almost not official neighborhood association there.

So the ladies tell the other ladies.

Um, on the white um PVC fencing.

Okay.

It's very nice.

Are they using a particular funding source or are they doing out of pocket?

Um it's a mix.

Okay.

Whereabouts which on um woodlawn there's quite a few of them on Kennedy too that have fences like that.

What about somebody wants to do bushes or house?

Would that be an eligible expense?

I mean, it takes a lot of effort, so I never will do it.

But I mean it seems like that it's a valuable option.

So yeah, landscaping is uh very much welcomed.

So back to the um porch, not the enclosure or non-enclosure, but um the entrance portion.

Say someone has uh most people have the regular middle of the house entryway.

Um if someone wants to move their entrance to their porch um on their driveway side, uh they no longer want to get out their driveway walk up and walk around.

And they is that eligible?

I think uh we would first need to clear what the scope of the design is with the zoning and permits team for something like that.

Um so I think it would be kind of situational.

Um but I think what we're trying to get at there is if you have an existing front porch, we don't want you to just completely tear your front porch out.

I just wanted to ask that question and that is something that would be did not necessarily have to do with the enclosure part, just more or less if someone wants to change their entrance um to their porch.

I think it would come down to a question of the design.

Uh obviously it would need to be for this particular program, it would still need to be something that's visible from the right of way, and then I think it would be a permitting egress kind of question of um I think there's some particular rules there as far as two entry exit points.

So um we would we would consider it though.

Steps on the side of the porch.

Yeah, so normally steps are in the middle.

Yeah, yeah.

If you if they are adding a rail in in the middle, taking out that sidewalk and and maybe are they may already have a sidewalk on their driveway side um and have their entryway on that.

Yeah, again, I think that that sounds pretty straightforward, just subject to kind of permit sign-off on that, but yeah, there shouldn't be any zoning impediment to that.

I've seen people do that.

So Michelle, on um fencing, is is the the way in which we're listing this, is it is it appropriate it is listing other material types um as a preference and option here or yeah, I think so.

Okay, yeah.

Um while not explicitly um saying that chain, you know, saying chain links are not eligible, just saying that's not no, that's not our preference.

Do you think council president that that achieves um the objective or or should we just leave it alone?

Okay, yeah, and I I suspect if counselor called well were here, she would she would say the same.

So let's not uh we've we spent a lot of time on this already.

I think that we can revisit some someday if we end up with chain link fences.

When was that case coming in?

I want to see what came in for fences.

Yeah, yeah.

Uh okay.

So that's it for ineligible.

Did you go over uh visual participant requirements?

Just a couple additional articulations that uh through some subsequent communication with the law department.

We're putting these in here as kind of uh out of an overabundance of caution to clarify some nuances related to the um the language that we have in our procurement policy as well as in the Surah procurement policy.

Um so essentially I think in some of these cases it is is going to be largely dependent on the scope of work.

So if you're doing something that is just basic landscaping, it doesn't require any kind of permit that it basic kind of straightforward whatever.

Um we would likely not require any additional paperwork to be submitted for something like that.

Uh there may be a situation in which if you're doing work that is over a certain dollar threshold or otherwise pulling a permit, we will ask for just a copy of homeowners insurance and if you are hiring a contractor, proof of liability insurance for the contractor.

So does it have to be three vendors?

It is really difficult.

It is almost impossible right now to get three quotes in a timely manner in any way.

Yeah.

I do think that for a lot of the scopes of these programs, understanding that there is a significant amount of things that people might be doing that very well could be DIY projects.

I think what would be sufficient to fulfill this would be even something as simple as I got an online quote from three suppliers.

So I think things like that we can work with it.

I think where we'll have to be a little bit more intentional about it is when we get into the larger grant dollar amounts just because you trigger a lot more stuff with procurement at that point.

But it just it's laborous, and we have such a limited pool of contractors in this city.

Yeah, that it just extends the time.

Yeah.

And sometimes you miss the window of being able to accomplish that.

Yeah, totally understand.

I think the goal is that we work with people on their scopes in such a way where we will minimize the instances in which we need to ask for this.

But I think we wanted to make sure that the language was at least in there so that we have the again, going back to kind of being transparent about worst case scenario, what we might need someone to do.

We just want to communicate that it may be something that we would need to ask for depending on their specific situation.

Okay.

And I think that's the bulk of any of those additional changes.

So I think we would just be looking to memorialize that the board is in agreement that we would add these into the current eligibility policy, and then obviously we will still in any instance that we would have kind of a deviation from uh policy on the books, we would bring those back to the board to clarify or approve on a case by case basis as appropriate.

Okay.

So I don't believe we have yes, so somebody need to make a motion.

Um I guess that motion should clarify that currently fencing is not aneligible front yard fencing, is not an eligible project.

Um so I'll entertain a motion.

We got okay.

Offers the motion.

We have a second second.

Any further discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed, carried.

Thank you.

Okay, other business.

Back to you, Michelle.

All right.

So um, I think I'm gonna ask Sue to come up and give us a little bit of an update.

I think the bulk of our discussion um, besides the eligibility requirements when we met last week was centered on uh next steps for how we would proceed with the resident advisory committee appointments.

Uh so I think Sue hopefully has some good news for everyone, so she's just gonna kind of walk us through that, and there's any further questions we can talk through.

Yeah, I think I think all everyone was well, Karen wasn't here last week, and but uh counselor Jones Rousser wasn't here, but really we were looking at at the time at two different options.

One was just um uh proceeding with the um with the um with the language ordinance language as written and developing a um uh advisory committee, and at the time we were or the other one was that we would just um abandon the um the committee altogether.

Uh I think you know what we heard from members of the governance committee was that you know having a retisant advisory committee is important.

Um, but I think we all agreed that when when we went down this path, we didn't anticipate that it would present the conflict that Corp Council believed that it was presenting in terms of being able to um participate in the program.

So, with that uh context, just wanted to turn it over to Sue.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, and to the mayor's point, I think the ordinance was done uh with wonderful intentions, and so is the code of ethics that this board adopted.

I think there is an unintended consequence when you read those documents together.

Um I have made a proposal that I submitted to Michelle just a short time ago that would require an amendment of the ordinance to make clear that the advisory board, which is an important part of this, will be used to help identify potential programs in your designated areas that they feel could help further your mission, and they will make those recommendations to this body, and this body will decide whether or not you want to adopt and move forward with that program.

What they won't be able to do as a body is review and determine applications by making those changes in your ordinance and a couple of tweaks to your code of ethics, it would allow board members of the advisory board who made a recommendation about a program to this body.

If this body adopted it, they could then seek to participate as long as they disclose this part of their application.

I am a board member.

Right?

You have to almost review them as if they were blind.

You didn't know who the applicants were.

But as long as staff understands that that has to be done when they go to review the applications, I think if we make these few changes, you will continue to be able to have an advisory board that you appoint the members of.

They will be able to provide programmatic recommendations to the board, and then ultimately they can participate if they are located in that neighborhood.

So what I propose to do is submit these formal requests through legislation as appropriate.

It won't be me, it'll be whoever does it.

And I will give Michelle proposed changes to your code of ethics that you can consider at your very next meeting.

Any questions?

Sound good?

Yeah, then we still get to keep the advisory.

Yes, yes, that was the goal.

Yeah, yep.

So it just makes clear that they only will do it be doing recommendations on programs.

Right.

So thank you.

Let me know if anybody has any questions.

Thank you, Sue.

Good job.

Um, so that uh so we'll see some legislation advancing shortly to amend the ordinance.

That leaves us with uh the BCP launch updates, Michelle.

Yeah, um, so just a couple quick kind of FYIs.

Uh obviously, we uh formally rolled out the program.

Uh we got press release out today.

Um got a little bit of news coverage for that already.

We've been out uh in the neighborhoods, we were out at Salt Springs uh for neighborhood picnic last night, uh promoting the program, talking to neighbors about it, um, have gotten a lot of inquiries already.

We've actually received one application already from some folks in Tipill.

So uh first thing this morning, so they were on it, um, which is great to see.

Um, I think largely we've gotten good feedback from people.

I think there's certainly a couple areas that are just a matter of kind of making sure that people understand kind of the the design of it.

So um, one of those being the again, a lot of questions kind of around the proximity uh thing of line of sight of houses.

Uh I think our response to that um for anyone who is asking or coming before us is obviously a big part of the program is people getting to know their neighbors, working together.

We're not looking to use that as a uh uh be a stickler about that requirement.

So um, I think in the event that someone is in a situation where they absolutely can't find any neighbors on their street that are willing to go in on this program, but they really want to do it.

I think we would absolutely work with them to see can we widen out your street radius a little bit?

Can we pair you up with some other neighbors who are in similar situations that are finding themselves kind of the only one on their street and put them together as kind of a package team?

So absolutely willing to work with people on that kind of stuff.

Um, because again, it gets us to the same place of people getting to know their neighbors working together, um, and that's what we want at the end of the day.

So um that and as well as just kind of the questions around the larger grant programming.

There's certainly um, I think people are very excited for when bigger programs are coming, so that's a good challenge for everyone here at this table of uh keeping us on schedule.

Uh, there's a lot of eager folks that would like to see those rolled out as soon as possible.

So continue work on uh kind of formalizing the terms of what those look like over the next couple months, but I think the timeline that we're working on for that is um we would definitely like to be live at the first of the year.

So they'll got an application in already.

That's amazing.

Wasn't you, counselor, was it?

No, okay.

No, I'm the eligible.

Okay, I don't know.

I'll do that.

Nobody wants to pair up with me anyway.

Um, but it's uh I'm copied on, so there's a lot of interest in critiques from our favorite future.

I I have to do that.

I am but I actually I you know I think it it's for me, and I have I haven't read the latest yet, but to Michelle's point, you know, there's a there's a lot of appetite.

I think we just also have to acknowledge that when we're working with different neighborhoods, different neighborhoods are in different places.

I mean, Tip Hill has been organized as a neighborhood association for many years, has gone through probably what multiple rounds of the Syracuse Neighborhood Initiative.

I mean, they've they've been through this before.

Salt Springs, on the other hand, is the neighborhood is just beginning to get organized, which is really cool to see.

And and I think um, so I think we just need to acknowledge that not um that neighborhoods are gonna be in different places, and perhaps what is what works for one doesn't work for the other, and that's just something that we're gonna have to continue to evaluate.

Um, but I I think that's what we're seeing right now.

And I think demographically it's interesting that neighbor the Tipperary Hill neighborhood.

I mean, the houses are only three yards apart.

So people are open porches, people just know their neighbors all the way up and down the street.

So they have we're partnering is sort of natural type thing or neighborhood stuff, you know.

Yeah, a lot of interest.

Good problem to have.

Absolutely.

Yep.

Um, so we'll be having a series of meetings.

We have a um webinar that will be uh scheduled for tomorrow afternoon at noon.

Um so we'll record that so anyone who isn't able to watch it live, we'll be able to go back and uh watch the recording of it.

Uh we will also be having meetings on Wednesday.

We're gonna be in uh Tip Hill up at the Burnett Park uh warming room.

Thursday, we will be at uh James Commons at Lemoine.

Uh and then two weeks from now, the week of uh September 10th and 11th, we will be at Sewell Library and then uh back at Burnett Park warming rink, respectively, uh for some open houses.

That'll be a little bit more kind of informal drop-in.

We'll have staff there to talk to people, answer questions, do technical assistance, uh, and then kind of based on uh what participation is in those meetings.

We might look to get a couple other meetings scheduled a few weeks out.

We were trying to kind of avoid the first week of back to school uh for everyone, just knowing it's a busy week, um, but we're certainly happy to always add presentations.

Um we are also going to be doing uh series of mailers, uh, postcard mailers out to houses uh and we'll be doing some door knocking too in the next couple weeks while we still got some weather.

Um so the far west side for this uh portion of the time for the block challenge program will take applications from neighbors that are over there.

Um so anyone if they are meeting the requirements will uh allow them to participate in this.

They actually on that particular area paying attention to what's going on.

Um we're circulating all of the information to everyone the same way that we are, everyone else sending information out to homeowners in that area.

Um so I mean I think we're in in terms of kind of how we're I identifying homeowners to be on the mailing list, like when we're sending out postcards, we're doing the same kind of methodology of selecting homeowners for that.

So sending uh well for this uh round we'll be sending them directly to every single property address as well as the tax billing address for any of the property owners.

So it gives you um can still reach tenants that might be interested in the program since that is a uh eligible group that is able to participate at this point.

So we have some neighborhood watch groups over there too.

Yeah, yeah.

Neighborhood watch, certainly.

Uh any of those we're happy to uh have staff uh do presentations there.

We'll be making the rounds at TNT and uh all the usual neighborhood associations.

So let's have uh meetings.

Yep, yeah, we'll do.

Good idea any uh any other questions, comments, business to come before the board.

Good.

Okay, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye, opposed meeting is adjourned.

Thanks, everybody.

Moving.