Draft rental-rehab program proposes cost-share and affordability terms; board debates displacement risk

Syracuse City neighborhood program (Neighborhood & Business Development) · December 1, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Staff presented draft rental-rehabilitation terms copied from an Invest DSM template proposing a 30/70 cost-share (program/owner), AMI-based tenant eligibility and multi-year affordability durations; board members raised concerns about potential landlord gaming, displacement and AMI targets.

Speaker 2, Neighborhood & Business Development staff, introduced draft terms for a rental-rehabilitation program included in the meeting packet and said the city used Invest DSM language as a starter point. Staff described key elements: a cost share where the program would cover roughly 30% of project costs and the landlord would cover about 70%; affordability periods tied to the grant size (example durations described by staff: $15,000 → 3 years; $45,000 → 5 years; $75,000 → 7 years); and a rent-increase cap in the Invest DSM template (no more than 2% per year) plus annual tenant income monitoring.

Board members asked for clarifications and raised concerns. Speaker 5 and Speaker 6 questioned whether targeting 80% AMI as a default would miss lower-income tenants and argued for considering a 60% AMI threshold in parts of the city. Speaker 6 warned that converting multiunit properties to fewer units or applying strict terms could ‘‘push certain individuals out’’ and reduce naturally affordable units, a concern staff acknowledged and said would be considered when refining language.

Members debated whether code violations should disqualify landlords from the program. Speaker 2 said a single code citation would not automatically disqualify an owner, but a pattern of being a ‘‘bad actor’’ (longstanding unpaid fines, unresolved violations or enforcement actions) could be disqualifying. Board members also asked how affordability obligations would transfer on sale; staff said remaining obligations would be prorated and could be paid out by an owner on sale or transferred to a buyer who agreed to the terms.

Speaker 2 recommended further outreach to landlords — including focus groups and written materials — to test what terms are reasonable and not overly deterrent. The board did not adopt the draft at this meeting; staff will refine terms and return with additional input from landlords.