Thank you all for coming today.

It's 10 o'clock.

We're gonna call this meeting to order.

Um I believe we'll have a few other council members kind of kind of come in, but I feel like it's gonna we're gonna take up the full hour with with some good discussion, I believe, on this uh on this particular topic.

Um thank you all for coming.

This is a really important uh piece of legislation, I believe, and something that's been discussed in uh in some of our neighborhoods for a very long time.

So very grateful for for those who have showed up today.

Uh we're gonna go around the room and just kind of do quick introductions.

Uh Shannon, do you mind starting us off?

Oh, okay.

I was looking for green.

Shannon Blankenship with Riverside Avenel Preservation.

Um Helena Parola with uh the director of the planning department.

You could borrow still touch it.

Uh my bad.

Good morning.

Okay, sorry about that.

Aramis Wells with Planning Department.

Carla Shell, Office of General Counsel.

Matt Carlucci at large group four.

Jamie Peluso, City Council District 7.

Ron Salem group two at large.

Joe Carlucci, District 5.

Renee Hunter, Public Works Real Estate Division.

William Hoff, uh, Vice Chair of the HBC and Chair of the Demolition by Neglect Task Force.

Mike Hoskins, Springfield Preservation and Revitalization.

Thank you all so much for being here.

We also have a uh a few other folks from our auditor's office and from the planning department if you two want to introduce yourselves as well.

Heather Reber, Council Auditor's Office.

Thank you.

Susan Kelly, Planning Department.

Excellent.

So point being is we got all the right people in the room, I believe.

Um so this is a very important um issue throughout a lot of our older neighborhoods.

Um yes, Ernest, I see you too.

Um also Dr.

Waynewood, might as well, he's here.

The man's written more books on the history of the city than probably anyone else in living memory.

Um we've got a great group of folks in here.

So over the past several years, we've seen a number of issues um throughout many of our neighborhoods, but in particular our historic neighborhoods.

A lot of properties are falling apart.

Uh we it's known as demolition by neglect.

Um the historic preservation commission did a great job a couple years ago putting together uh a task force to address this issue, seeing lessons learned from other cities.

How do we ensure that these um historic properties, which have a lot of value, and you could you can't build more historic properties, um, how we help preserve them and ensure that they can uh uh remain in circulation, and also as we have the housing issue that we do, enable ourselves to build more housing for more families for more young families to come to these communities.

Um I asked Michelle um to uh draft this piece of legislation based on some of the recommendations from the task force.

Uh we have a number of folks here who are on the task force and folks in the historic preservation world that are gonna speak to different issues that they're seeing on the ground.

We also have a number of developers who have worked in the space as well.

Um I'm seeing Terrawise and I'm seeing uh Bold City.

And so we've got some folks who understand what it takes to help get these properties up to the standard that we need.

Uh Michelle, do you mind kind of giving us a quick high-level overview of the bill?

Sure, thank you.

So Councilmember Peluso asked me to draft this bill to address a number of things the task force had recommended.

Um this bill touches on a number of places in our ordinance code um with the ultimate purpose of trying to prevent some of these historic structures from being deteriorated to the point of loss.

So we have incorporated the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission in the first part.

Um having them cre annually create a list of homes that essentially homes that are in danger of um demolition by neglect.

And with that, the administration can um take actions as they see fit to to address that.

Um then later on in the bill we touch on different parts of the ordinance code that um deal with surplus property.

So once the city owns a property, um, how we dispose of it.

Um and it creates a separate um category for these historic properties to ensure that they are rehabilitated and get back into use instead of being um obviously demolition is the the thing we really want to avoid.

Um so that that's what it does at a real high level.

I'm happy to answer any questions about specifics.

Thank you, Michelle.

So the point being is a number of these properties um for many many years and sometimes decades.

A lot of these homes just sit there accruing liens and fines from the city.

So the city has been, you know, putting upwards of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars worth of fines and liens.

Point being is we know that these are properties that have property owners are just sitting on them.

Some cases the expectation is the property falls into disarray and gets demolished so they now have a blank slate to build a property that they can make some dollars on.

And you know, it's it's it's blighted, um, it's harmful to the to the historic integrity of the neighborhood.

And some of these properties have decades of liens on them.

So why not take a more active approach on trying to make sure that it gets into the hands of people that can actively work on these properties?

Sometimes people just don't have the capability to handle them and handle the repairs that are needed.

So as the task force has kind of put together you know their thoughts and and their perspective on things, um, it kind of kind of struck me, and I wanted to make sure that we took some action, you know, during our time in office.

Bill, do you kind of want to give a little bit of um kind of a discussion about what the task force was looking to do and where their heads are at?

Sure.

So um the um the task force uh came about because we were receiving um numerous um requests for um demolition.

Um and many of these properties um had been in a um notably um poor state for a very long time.

Um so um we took about a year um to do research um um not only um incorporating uh um um information uh from Northeast Florida um but around the US we came up with um how many um about a dozen-ish um recommendations uh but but five um uh priority uh recommendations um which are um mostly addressed uh within this legislation.

Um so um um we were lucky enough to have um many people uh with expertise that were willing uh to contribute um to the tax force and the final uh report and so um I think um the HBC um sees this as a helpful tool.

Um it's not a silver bullet that will solve all of the issues um but it will be helpful um to address certain um um situations um and um um um and and i think that there is wide um support um in our older neighborhoods um uh for this type of um of um oversight and um opportunity to resolve these issues that have been again in some cases going on for a very very very long time so thank you uh believe Matt Carlucci has a question then Ronald Salon.

Go ahead, sir.

Council Mr.

Salin, sure.

Thank you, Matt.

Very quickly, how many properties do we think we have that are non-city owned that fall into this category just to get a some idea of the universe I think that code compliance could prepare a official list, but we would estimate it's between about 70 and 100 in Springfield.

In Springfield specifically, Riverside Avondale, how many would we have in that area?

During the demolition by neglect um hearings, we were able to hear at several different points from code enforcement about some of these estimates, but they really felt like they needed to spend more time going through some of the code violations in order to get a really accurate number for us.

So I I don't have a um a number on properties in the neighborhood with code enforcement violations that might reach uh particular level.

Can you guesstimate for me?

Um I would say um in the last five years that I've been with RAP, we've had one property um actually uh be demolished due to neglect.

So I think this would be a small number of properties that we're really looking to target.

Um and of course the ultimate goal would be to never reach the potential for neglect or sir for demolition um and to approach properties earlier on before we get to that uh question.

And and how many do we have that are city owned?

And I assume we're focusing on Springfield and Riverside Applenale.

Do we have a feel for that?

Does anybody know?

That are city owned, that is historic properties?

Yes.

So one of the one of the problems um in the past, uh I think in previous administrations, we were trying to do everything we could to offload some of these properties to different nonprofits that didn't have capacity.

So a number of these properties that probably would cat would have normally been maybe stolen city control were given to nonprofits, um, a couple of different C C D Cs, groups that did not have any real funding or means to repair them, and especially because they were in historic, because they are historic properties.

Some of those, some of those nonprofits have now gone away and they're just kind of languishing.

And so I assume we didn't have clawbacks on those properties.

Correct.

Which this legislation attempts to work.

So what would have to happen, and maybe one of our attorneys can kind of jump in and correct me on this.

So for any of those properties, if the city wanted to take those properties back, they would have to go through court filing and actually go through adjudication, go to a judge, everything else, magistrate.

In doing so, that would be tens of thousands of dollars, which is not worth the value of the properties.

So now it's we're just kind of in this weird catch 22.

Okay, last question very quickly.

Who is requesting demolition of these properties?

That you mentioned.

So in some cases, and we could talk about some of the things.

Is that neighbors?

Is it uh the city?

Some of the properties are condemned by the city.

Okay.

Um because of code compliance.

So yeah, it's neighbors that are code calling code compliance.

They show up, they see that oh, the back half of the home is falling apart, oh the roof is caving in.

Um in many cases, neighbors will say, listen, this has been happening for a decade at a time, and we're only just now calling it in.

Some sometimes homeless people go in there, light a fire, now the whole house is on fire.

We've seen those in the past couple years as well.

Um but I mean, we we just had two fall apart in Springfield this year, and the city had to show up and demolish them because of uh uh because of the fact that they were dangerous.

Okay.

And a risk to life and safety.

Just trying to get a feel for the problem.

Thank you.

And thank you, Chair.

You're very welcome.

And and and to that end, I mean that this is meant to be, this is not meant to be some massive citywide program.

This is meant to be concentrated, controlled.

We have HPC, a a board that we have appointments on.

This board is made up of professionals, it's properly staffed.

And so the so the idea was well, okay, let's and let's have them create this list of properties that feasibly could be um foreclosed upon by the city, something that the city has power to do right now, but there's really no process to get it done.

And then the mayor's office, this mayor, future mayors in the in over the next 20, 50, 30, you know, 100 years, that mayor uh administration will say, okay, of these 10 properties that HPC is looking at to potentially foreclose on, well, we think that we can handle five or six of them this year, we'll foreclose on those five or six, wipe the liens, and then one of these nonprofits with historic preservation as a part of their mission, as well as as well as finance as well as actual having a bank account.

If one of them doesn't want it, then it would go out to bid to a contractor who also has historic preservation as a part of their repertoire, who have shown that they could do historic preservation because that's a problem that we see in the city a lot.

A lot of contractors take a property because they know the property value could be good one day, but then they don't know how to do anything historical.

They get upset because of the windows, because of the trusses, because of everything else.

Um we've got some good developers here who specifically know how to work in the historic space.

So the bill requires that they do a class.

So that way no one can just bid on it.

They would actually have to take the wherewithal to take the class.

I think it's gonna be a two-hour class that historic preservation is going to do.

Um then if they bid on the property and they get it, um, they get it for relatively cheap.

That way they're not gonna spend a ton on that property.

Uh if they have to spend 200,000 to get a property that's falling apart and then put another I mean, we got developers here that could probably tell us three to four to five hundred thousand into it.

They're they're never gonna make their money back.

You know, we want the private sector to be able to do this.

So that's kind of the logic is is they'll get it, um, they'll bid on it, they'll get it for relatively cheaper than you normally would see, but they would work on the property, have to fix it up and get a COU, a certificate of occupancy, COO.

Certificate of occupancy within two years.

If it's not done within two years, we have the clawback.

They have one more year of an extension.

Um if HPCC isn't doing actual work, maybe the economy's had a downturn, whatever else, so they can get an extension up to one more year, so up to three years, and if they don't get that COO, then the property goes back to the city, and they will have lost that money.

Um question for Miss Shell, if I may, please.

Um could you um could you um clarify if this uh would also apply to um landmarks as well or not?

It does generally, yes.

So any locally, there's some different parts to the bill, but locally or nationally designated landmark or um property within a historic district.

Okay.

Thank you.

To that end, well how much more does that broaden it?

Does that also include parts of San Marco?

I think Durkeyville or Durkey Gardens has a historic district.

So there's a there's a smaller group there.

Just want to make sure.

That's correct.

So we have around 200 landmarks um interspersed throughout the city.

So national districts.

Great.

And Councilmember Carlushi, do you have a comment?

Um questions if this is a good time.

Uh good morning, everybody.

Some of my favorite people here.

Bill, thanks for your work and the task force work and everybody here's work and Jimmy yours, Councilman Peluso.

Um so these these properties could be owned by the city, they could be owned by individuals, correct?

And then we're talking about homes, residential homes.

For the purpose of this program, these are these are owned in the private sector by a nonprofit that are languishing and have all these fines and liens that the city would then take in possession of after foreclosure, Ms.

Show.

Could I clarify that?

Please okay.

So the first part that talks about the his the historic preservation commission compiling a list of endangered homes, those would be generally things that are not owned by the city, and the purpose of which is to identify structures that have city liens and fines on them that could potentially the the city could potentially initiate foreclosure action.

Um as an and and also we could offer you know grants or other things, I suppose.

Um but identifying the the structures that we want to focus resources on, more or less.

But then later in the bill, when we're talking about disposing of property, those are all city owned assets at that point.

The city always has the ability to enforce their liens at any time.

Um but this creates a pathway once should the city foreclose, and let me clarify that does not necessarily mean the city ends up with the property.

A foreclosure is just a forced sale for an unpaid debt.

So in theory, someone else could bid on these properties, and then this wouldn't apply.

But should the city be left with this the dilapidated residential historic structure?

This creates a path for how to get it to entities that can properly rehabilitate it.

Can those entities like can it be a person or uh a family, or does it have to be a not for profit?

So it how we have structured it is that it's offered to nonprof not for profit organizations who have at their mission rehabilitation of a home.

If if there are none that qualify and want the property, I've structured it so that it could open up to be um competitive competitive bidding process um, which is required under Florida law.

Competitive bidding amongst the um amongst anyone who who wants to bid and meets the criteria.

What's the criteria again?

So let me flip to that page.

There's a two-hour, I think, um educational course that the planning department will offer.

And I'm just looking for some retail, um, not a whole lot of detail, just some retail um, and that they would demonstrate they have adequate financial resource and experience in historic preservation to carry out a successful rehabilitation, and that would be at the discretion of um the real estate division to determine what adequate resources look like for any given property, right?

Because this would be a case-by-case basis.

And some of these properties would be in foreclosure.

No, so we're talking about city-owned assets at this point, city-owned real estate that is a historic um historic property, historic residential structure.

So we're only talking about city owned property?

Correct.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

I thought we were talking about any any any property out there.

But we're just talking about city owned property.

Okay.

Um and how long have some of the liens been on these properties for?

Years and years and years?

Yeah, okay.

Some decades, yeah.

Some decades.

And uh how often do we actually collect anything on these liens?

Very often at all.

Every now and then, sometimes.

Anybody know?

I recall.

Go ahead.

I recall from the demolition by neglect task force that they collect a very small percentage.

Okay.

So we're not it's not exactly a revenue generator.

Um so um so so what this would uh it has us do is is make these available, these properties available to uh organizations that have the ability to uh restore them and uh and they have an interest in restoring them, and then what would they do?

Put them back out on the market, you know?

That's correct.

Okay.

Um is there um any city funding available for like for a private public-private partnership, Aramis for something like this?

Uh like we rehab.

Besides rehab program, that that's the only grant program that we have.

Um we have a tax exemption program, at least that we offer through the planning department, but the rehab program that that would be the only thing.

Okay.

Rehab is just for commercial properties, correct?

And that is correct, so that's a good point.

So it has to be income producing, so not for profit as well.

Yeah, okay.

So that's um I I like this bill a lot.

And um, and uh I I'd like my name to be listed if it isn't already, it isn't.

Um, and and I would support this.

And um, and just a little side note that uh, and I don't want it, I don't want to tag it on to this because I I'd like this to go on through, but I I think there's an opportunity that I'd like to talk with all of these folks and anybody else here to maybe find a way to have some type of public private partnership that would allow some kind of funding uh to help uh with this, and perhaps when the property sells the the money could go back to the city that the city helped with, and then that fund could be somewhat of a revolving fund in uh in some permanents.

So I'm I'm gonna have I'm gonna put together some meetings on that.

I've been looking at that for about the last three weeks, and um would love to have your help.

But that's a side note.

Uh not even sure it's possible, but I that's something that I've had an interest in, but I like the bill, and I appreciate you putting this together and everybody who's done work on this.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Uh Councilman McCarlucci.

And that was my initial design too, is like, all right, we'll create this fund and we'll do all these things.

It was just a matter of where the council's mindset was on spending.

When we spoke with some of the developers, because we had this meeting several months ago, they had come up and said, look, we can fix these prop these properties, we just can't buy them for 150,000 dollars because we'll never make our money back.

So this is meant to ensure that we get get the properties in the hands of folks that can do the work and then be able to make a profit on it.

You know, I've got this is where the private sector could be of massive value add to us um if we could do more grants later on down the road.

I would love to.

Yep, but anyway.

I'm with you, sir.

I'm I'm all about it.

Uh that is if we're all surviving after November the 4th.

That's right.

Um, Council Vice President uh Carlucci, do you have something you want to add?

Yeah, thanks.

Um Councilman Palouso.

So just just to make sure I'm understanding the whole process here.

Um I heard something earlier, like these are not city-owned properties.

Just to clear the deck there, I heard that.

That's this is not what we're talking about.

So step or so here's kind of the the timeline, the process from from seeing this for the first time.

You identify a neglected home.

HPC does, right?

Whoever that has liens and fines, and that it also has to be historically designated with a local historic or a national historic, whatever.

Then it continues to meet the criteria to trigger these things.

Next up, the city forecloses on that property.

The the list is provided to the administration.

The administration decides if they want to move forward on that list or take a few off the list.

We're not saying it's uh gonna be a blank slate.

Oh, these were gonna foreclose and all these.

Um the city decides if they want to foreclose or not, then the city gets the property.

So at that point, now the city has the property.

Then it goes to our surplus folks, and they distribute it to first.

They offer it to nonprofits, nonprofits with a specific mission of historic preservation, not historic restoration.

That was said earlier.

It's historic preservation.

Correct.

That's what it says in the bill.

So yes.

Okay.

Um, and I want I'll probably make a a slight amendment when it comes up to add San Marco preservation along with all the other preservation societies in there.

And so then it goes first dibs goes to all the historic preservation societies from our surplus people at um Ms.

Hunter's shop.

If none of them take it, then it goes to auction.

Correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Um then it's kind of off to the races, they actually get to get the property at a lower value, renovate it, uh, renovate or rehab it, and then it's back on the property tax rolls.

Yes.

That's the that's the whole kind of thing.

Yes, cool.

Um, and to what councilmember Macrelucci was saying, and it I was thinking this, and then he said it.

I mean, I think the money from that auction that could go into the rehab or whatever historic trust fund or whatever we have right now that is there.

Is that in the bill or no?

No, but I love that idea.

Yeah, I mean, I think that's that's sort of your solution for the resolving or the revolving um you know, funding of that um program because I know in our district in my district, it's it's the rehab program is super popular and it's very beneficial, and it only makes the communities better.

Um, and you know, doing any type of work on these historic buildings, whether it's commercial or um residential, it's very expensive.

Um, it's very expensive.

So, yeah, that's kind of my thoughts.

I just want to make sure I was running through it correctly.

Um does does this bill last question does this bill only apply to residential or is it commercial too?

For this particular bill, it's residential, and one of the recommendations that we expand it up to quadruplexes because it was basically just single family residential homes.

I just didn't want to over.

I mean, a commercial property is an immense amount of money.

And frankly, the properties that have fallen apart the most in recent years is residential ones.

True.

This this is meant to be a first step.

This is us, this is us taking a really active role in this process, and then I'm sure the bill and the legislation can evolve in the years to come.

Okay, that was my initial intent.

Yeah, I'm I'm curious about the commercial aspect of it, but obviously don't want to overburden the bill.

Um, because uh this is taking a long time.

This is a big this is a big piece of legislation.

I can identify that.

Um but okay, cool.

I don't have any other questions.

And and just to verify, I believe the question was was asked about so the dollars in the auction could go to this a potential revolving fund, is a recommendation you're making, sir.

Well, I think it would be considered a result a revolving fund, but the rehab program, right?

That we have that right now.

I don't know how much money is in there, but I think we could identify in this bill or wherever um Michelle wants to identify any money that comes from basically this legislation that goes to auction, the sale proceeds from that auction, whether it's all of them or percentage of them or whatever, we'd have to like do the actual numbers, could go straight into the rehab program.

Um I think we're getting getting close to something really good, but the rehab is for commercial and not-for-profit properties, not for residential, this is for residential.

But I I think we're getting close.

I I think what uh councilman Joe Carlucci's talking about has some merits, I'd I'd like to I like to open up that and see.

The bottom line is uh I before I leave this um illustrious uh institution, uh I'd like to see something that would be permanent left.

Rehab was uh um was uh is is a good bill that's commercial and uh and and we we took some five hundred thousand dollars, I say we the council uh at my urging took 500,000 from somewhere, maybe reserves, god forbid.

I don't want to get wrong upset, but um we we took 500,000 from somewhere.

Trying to keep this meeting on the rails, please don't get Ron upset.

Uh don't want to do that.

Um but uh but but anyway, uh and so that money was sitting there until it gets drawn down.

I don't know how many people have used that uh so far.

But um but that money doesn't replenish itself.

Uh I that that's been the the one thing on rehab that's that's always been somewhat of a concern.

Uh something like this, I would like to see there be a mechanism where the the money from a sale or from the auction or whatever uh goes back into the fund so that it continually uh replenishes itself and it's not a drain on on the budget, you know, henceforth.

Uh that's what I would uh like to talk to our council auditors and and uh in the historic folks about and in my colleagues about.

No, I that was actually one of my early thoughts as well, but I also want to make sure that the private sector, if they get the property that they that they reap the benefits of doing the good work.

Councilmember Salem, I believe you had a comment.

I know there are other people in the audience that represent other historic areas.

I see Steve Matchett that's very involved in Arlington out where I live.

Is there any reason they can't be included in this in this bill beyond Riverside, Avondale, and Springfield?

Council Member Silly, the only thing that I would ask is HP.

This is also meant for whatever HPC has authority over now.

Does HPC have authority over any of those properties in Arlington?

They have authority over any landmark in the city.

So some of those landmarks are located in the Arlington area.

But you this is a district, right?

That Arlington actually has a district as well.

No.

So this would include the the landmark properties.

Okay.

So it does go beyond if it's a landmark property, irrespective of where it is, it would be included.

Whatever HPC has purview over now, where this is just kind of putting it in their plate and in their in their camp.

Mr.

Sure.

Uh to Ron's point though, also, I don't know if they have a district over there, but it it doesn't have to be a landmark property, I don't think.

I think it has to be a landmark or a contributing structure.

A contributing structure is not necessarily landmarked, is that correct?

So in San Marco, for example, you know, we have a lot of contributing structures.

My house is a contributing structure, it's not landmarked.

It might be landmarked one day, but it's not.

Um, but it is a contributing structure, and I think it would qualify it if if it somehow um fell into disrepair and so on and so forth.

Is that correct, somebody?

Uh Ms.

Schill.

No.

So San Marco is not a locally designated historic district.

So it would need to be a contributing property within uh locally designated historic district.

Okay, okay.

Or or landmark.

Or locally designated landmark, correct.

Contributing structure, not so much.

So those are in San Marco, yes.

But if it's a contributing structure in a designated historic area, yes.

It then it doesn't need to be a landmark, it just needs it can be a contributing structure.

Which is primarily Riverside Avondale and Spring Park in this case.

That's correct.

But yes, it's broader than just having to be a landmark.

Pretty much whatever HPC has purview over now, they they would continue to have that.

I didn't want to expand it much further because I didn't want to overburden the system.

And frankly, these are properties that if they were to be rehabilitated and put on the market could probably sell.

And and that's the other thing is we want to make sure that we're we're seeing the private sector or these nonprofits that are gonna put in the time and effort and money into them, get something out of it, and it kind of helps the entire neighborhood continue to grow and flourish.

Um I believe there were a few recommendations and edits.

I provided this legislation over to SPAR RAP Historic Center.

I don't see Alan Bliss in the audience, but I know there's plenty of historic center advocates in here.

Um I just kind of want to go through some of those recommendations and kind of get folks' thoughts.

I I do also want to go back real quick to the point of um the auction.

And if there is an auction, and let's say something sells for 30 or 40,000.

My other thought was could that also go towards the cost of prior demolitions that the city did have to do that consistently the city says we we didn't make the money back on that.

I mean, that's another that's another consideration that I was thinking of.

Um, but I would love for it to go to this revolving loan instead, frankly.

Um okay, if you look at the back of your agendas, there's a few recommendations.

Um are relatively uh kind of scriveners errors.

But um one of my first one of my first thoughts when doing this, because HPC doesn't meet super frequently, but but I figured that there would be an annual you know list that they provide the administration um they were requesting.

Can we can we make that more than just annual?

Is that is that a quick fix?

Uh uh, Ms.

Shell.

That's what you want.

That's a quick fix.

Yes.

Yeah, I think so.

Um just say is there a recommend recommended language that you'd prefer SPAR had considered quarterly, but if we're we're also cognizant of the workload of the um historical preservation section, so we would defer to to their recommendation.

Yeah, I I think mandating quarterly does seem a little, I don't I just don't want to overburden staff, right?

And I don't know if Helena or Aramis, you've got thoughts on that.

Quarterly does I just don't want it to be mandated.

Do you want to say a minimum of twice a year?

I think a twice a year would be good.

It will require coordination with MCCD, so we need to make sure we have time for that coordination and for them to do their research as well.

Yeah.

And again, this could always change in the years to come, but I think at a minimum twice a year.

And then if if you get to a point where there's more capacity, we can kind of go forward.

Um CD.

Uh that's code compliance.

Okay.

They're the reason these liens exist.

Um and the property owners.

Um the next uh addition was on page 12, line five to allow up to quadruplexes.

So that means duplexes, triplexes, up to quadruplexes.

There are a number of them in the historic districts as well.

Um I personally would be fine with that.

My concern, and I'm looking at some of the developers in the room.

Like, is that I feel like that's that's probably a heavy lift.

Um, but but I'm willing to have it in here for the purposes of the language.

It will at the end of the day be up to HPC and the city to really determine if they want to do the foreclosure on those properties.

But it's I mean, is that is that of of interest to to folks in the back of the say again?

I would apply.

No, no, no.

But once so nonprofits are the are the first ones to get a look at it.

It's it's my expectation, you know, the don't allow the legislation itself to make you think that there's a certain process.

When HPC meets and looks over these properties, I envision there will be enough people in the room to recognize okay, we would like to see these properties get foreclosed upon, knowing okay, maybe we as SPAR, we as RAP can't handle that this year, but maybe we know that there are folks in the private sector that can.

So they just kind of get first dibs, but in all likelihood, I assume the first year or two, they're not gonna be able to handle a bunch of them, which then brings it up to you guys for at auction.

You just need to take a two hour class and have a uh time working on historic properties, which I imagine you guys have done a lot of historic properties.

Um, you know what you're doing.

So then it would go out to auction where you guys can can bid on them at a at a much lower price than um then maybe you would in a different situation situation.

This could also, if some of these property owners sees that their property is on this list, that property owner could maybe have the wherewithal to say, you know what, rather than have the city foreclose on my property, instead of just sitting on this, I will take an active role in selling this property, maybe two really anyone at that point, um, selling this to another person or entity, and that they are going to put the work into it.

Um that could be a great benefit of this as well.

So that's something that I I believe just I think the market will get us there.

Um rather than have it get foreclosed upon and you make nothing, you could at least sell it for a certain number, dollar number, and then they could work with the city to get rid of the liens to then do work on the property.

Council Member Please go ahead.

Okay, Mr.

Caruchi.

Um I think I don't know if we're if you're asking to include just go up to quadplexes, just include all of it.

Um and then we can identify it as as it comes up.

And um and yeah, I think that's fine.

Quadruplex it is, thank you, sir.

Um next edition, add language that surplus property will be offered to the nonprofit association with locally designated historic district, spar Springfield, Rap Riverside, Chesville History Center, uh, and then San Marco preservation.

Yeah, Michelle, do I need to can you do I need to send you an email on this to get those entities added in here?

Would you prefer that?

I can add I can add San Marco preservation.

My question to you though, Councilmember Peluso, so this also addresses landmarks and things throughout the city that don't necessarily maybe there's a neighborhood organization, but I'm not sure that it can name every neighborhood organization in the entire city.

I believe that the ones we are naming are financially viable and have specifically worked in this space for a number of decades.

So I think it's it's perfectly fine to name the ones that we just named.

And any of these smaller organizations might be able to work with the historic center or might be able to work with one of the developers that that wants to be able to bid on that when it gets to the bidding process.

So I think the ones that we've named have have the funds to handle it, right?

Part of this is also we want to make sure that if it goes in the hands of a nonprofit that they have the funds to handle it, and I did write it to read including but not limited to before naming those, so it's not restricted to those.

So if we can make that change, that'd be is that okay.

Um page 12 item or I'm sorry, line 29, add language at the second tier of nonprofits should also be housing and or historic preservation as part of the primary mission, as opposed to a secondary concern after some other primary mission.

Just want to verify if I see that that can be added if you want.

Please go, sir.

So while we're on page 12 line lines 26 through 29, so adequate financial resources and experience in historic preservation to carry out a successful rehabilitation.

So is there gonna be a requirement?

Yeah, and again, I haven't I've read most of this, but um if the surplus goes first to like a sandwich of preservation or a spar wrap or whatever, is there gonna be strings attached that okay, we're gonna this is donate this ultimately for free?

I'm assuming, right?

They have to then carry out the rehab of it?

So they could they could enter into it's my understanding they could enter into a contract with one of the developers in the in the room to do that work.

Okay, could they sell the property?

Yes.

Okay.

Just making sure we're not like yeah, yeah, make sure that the property is.

No, this isn't gonna do all of that stuff.

Yeah, it's not okay, cool.

And then I assume that the I assume that Spar Rap or whomever would have the relationship with with certain developers to make sure that there was split.

Nope, go ahead, Michelle.

Let me just interject.

So if it is donated through either the first or second tier, right?

First tier being the neighborhood organization, second tier, any nonprofit, that those are donations to nonprofits.

They're the protective covenants section on page 13 requires that the deed transferring the title include a covenant requiring rehabilitation of the home within two years plus an additional year if if you so desire.

Either evidenced by a certificate of occupancy, although I spoke with the chief of bid and there was some issue on whether or not that was appropriate.

We can discuss how you want the evidence of a successful rehabilitation and how they can meet that requirement.

Um but that is in there, and that is a condition of donation.

So that attaches to the to the property.

As it's currently written.

Sorry.

So if it's donated, but it could still be that nonprofit could sell it, can they not after it's gotten to a place of they no, they need to rehabilitate within two years.

And then once it's rehabilitated.

Then they can sell, yes.

At that point, they have satisfied the condition, yes.

Okay.

And I from there, so to the point of spar and wrap, right?

Like, let's say you got first dibs and you entered into a contract with you know folks who can do the work.

It would be spar or wrap who's responsible for the rehabilitation, however, means they do that if they're they're working with developers in the area, then I assume you would pay them based on the sale of the property or something along those lines.

Does that is that kind of what people have been talking about and thinking?

Um I think the way that our committee has read the legislation is that we have the ability to do this, but not necessarily a mandate.

So the legislation really opens the door for a systemic problem throughout the neighborhood without requiring us to um become contractors and things like that.

Yeah, there's no requirements in here whatsoever.

I'm I'm just making sure that it it reads in such a way that you guys feel confident that you could have one of your, I mean, our our districts have several people who do rehabilitation and do the work and you know that they can do it, and then you know that they understand how to how to and but then you guys would be on the hook, right?

Spar and wrap would be the ones that you would make sure that the property gets gets done within two to three years.

As long as you guys are confident about that, then if not that, then it goes to the hands of uh uh folks in the bidding process.

That's a head nodding.

All right.

Um so to that end, uh line 29.

Um I thought the second tier of nonprofits should also be housing and as part of the primary mission.

Uh I'm I'm fine with that change uh for line 29.

Um page 13, also nine.

Two plus one year seems a little too little time.

Possible to extend the timeline or allow mothballing.

Well, so the term mothballing in here.

So does everyone have a copy of this?

So I'm just mumbling, I apologize.

So if a property is mothballed, does that not also get to a point where you have a certificate of occupancy?

No.

Okay.

So is does mothballing have a more technical term technical term.

Segment?

But like I I guess I just want to make sure that the if part of this goal is okay, it's fine, it's a it's a down market, things are tough, we're not gonna be able to fix this up in two to three years, but we want to make sure that the house remains standing and in a in a state where it can't be fixed in the next couple of years.

What is that?

What is that term?

Whether it be through code compliance or legally or structurally sound.

Um to the chair.

Uh councilman, I I believe the term is mothballing.

Um, and I believe that um Mr.

Wells um could speak to what uh what that entails.

Yeah, so uh essentially mothballing just is a term used to describe uh actions to weatherize a building, ventilate it, protect it from any exterior forces.

So typically that entails uh boarding up the windows, um again, securing the foundation from any intruders or whatnot, but it at the basic bare bone elements of it is just protecting the building from the exterior.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Ms.

Shaw?

There is a definition within the code, yeah.

And mothballing will, yes, secure the property, make sure there's no water intrusion, the thing doesn't fall over.

It doesn't get your house back to usable fashion, right?

Which uh the protective covenant would state it needs to be occupiable, right?

It needs to be rehabbed to such a condition that it could be used within two years with a one-year extension.

So it does not currently, as written, does not allow for uh mothballing and a further extension to until it gets to usable condition.

Okay, I'm gonna I want to sit on that, I want to chew on that for a little bit.

My my concern is I just don't want whether it be not I don't want anyone to just hoard these properties, whether it be the city of Jacksonville or any of these nonprofits or any of these for profits.

I just I just don't want that.

So that's why I have the two years and the one year.

Um the idea of mothballing, I I get it.

I I just I just we're trying to avoid the idea of of overcapacity and people just holding on to stuff for a very long time.

Are you gonna limit the number of properties a particular nonprofit can take for that very reason?

Not in the language in the bill, or that was not my intention for the language of the bill.

I I just I believe that this process is as it lays out, both with the HPC putting together the list in in tandem with OGC and the administration saying which ones they want to foreclose on.

One would imagine we're all going to look at okay, what's the past year or two been like?

Are we seeing real progress?

If not, we're not gonna put out more properties.

Um I mean, this is gonna be a a living breathing process, I believe.

So I don't want to mandate that in the bill, but I envision folks are gonna say, okay, this not the historic center has 25 properties and they've done nothing with them.

You know, I I assume that that conversation will be had internally with HPC and within the administration.

Yeah, you know what I mean?

So that's yeah, I just I'm just under that impression.

Um I want to hold off on that and kind of properly define sort of what that is.

So don't add that language yet.

Council?

Please can I ask a question on that?

Please, you may.

Um maybe planning or historic preservation specifically could speak to.

What is the general um right now time to if you kind of think about the permitting process that would be required for one of these homes?

How much time is going to be spent in permitting?

And that might be one of the ways to get to uh one of the concerns that SPAR had, which was that the time and permitting might prevent the two plus one being sufficient.

And and maybe we are misunderstanding the time it would take, so that's possible as well.

Uh it's hard to speculate because I mean the bid the building inspection division would have more of a exact determination on that, but just from what we've seen for single family homes, and I know it looks like we're gonna expand up to quadruplexes, so that will involve more complexity in terms of the permitting process, but for single family homes in itself, it can range from probably three to six months in terms of the permitting process.

So I think I think I'm getting the point.

Three to six months.

All right.

Oh Red is good.

Timeline wise, is um these uh rehabs will have to go to the historic commission.

So that adds additional time before they can start work on some of the exterior improvements.

So probably not in this bill, but I mean, like, are there ways to fast track some of that stuff for maybe some of these pieces or some of these properties?

Uh there are some exterior um improvements that can be done administratively.

The planning department can approve like re-roofing, um, you know, like for like shingles on a historic structure, so they can do some of those basic maintenance things.

Um approve those uh administratively.

Um exterior changes would need to go to commission, but it would really it really depends.

It's a case by case basis.

Do we make I mean do we make it so if it's one of these properties, then it doesn't have to go to the commission or something along those lines, or is that not about of an appetite for HPC?

There we go, yeah.

So it's not of an appetite for the HBC.

All right.

It's just it's just something for for us to consider then.

I mean, so do we say you have three years with an extension of a fourth year?

It's mix mixed reviews from the crowd.

Uh all right, let's let's keep it a two-one right now and we'll discuss.

Well, we'll discuss offline.

Um to uh councilman uh so um one option would be um as well that if it um um the that the works um not going to begin um until uh certain time then um um then you could uh require it to be uh mothballed um which would um address the more um immediate threatening ish issues um while the um process uh plays out.

So okay.

I mean I'm uh I I'm comfortable with that if we want to keep these properties in you know upright.

Do you have a do you have a comment on that, Consider?

I was just like the the two years of just going back to that, like I I would imagine a lot of this is going to be um like sort of lined up, right?

Like this isn't we're we're not just gonna all of a sudden have this property pop on the market, it's gonna be it I think a lot of the due diligence and everything is gonna be done prior to it even going to foreclosure, right?

It's like because we're gonna identify these homes, probably have a task force in it to whoever and be like, okay, is this even a viable house for the development community to identify and then they'll speak up and say, yeah, absolutely, we would love that.

So I think once it gets into that market, it's gonna start a little bit ahead of the game.

So I I don't want to get too much time because then like, yeah.

And and I think we'll know within a year.

Like if nothing's happening within a year, I'm like, okay, cool, let's we'll take it.

Okay.

Yeah.

So no, I that's then let's keep it as is right now.

It's still gonna go to the committee process and everything else.

If adjustments are amendments based on new information or or commentary from a broader audience, I'm happy to make changes.

All right.

Um language of property has an emergency demolition, then the property owner should be referred for foreclosure.

This is a big issue that had been brought up.

Um I'm very comfortable with this.

I uh miss shell, how do you feel about adding that to language to the bill?

I would like more information on what you mean by this.

Michael This came up in discussion um internally.

We have seen a number of properties that have been demolished um by emergency order by the city because they were a safety risk to passers by.

And the in it is hard to speak to the intention of owners, but but the demolition by neglect process allows property owners who through whatever what for whatever reason they they choose to do so, allow those properties to become so neglected that they are that they are demolished to then rebuild and to then make a profit off of the rebuilding at the expense of the historic structure that it previously stood on that on that location.

And so the the idea here is that if that happens, if there is an emergency demolition order, that that would kind of expedite or compel the city to review that for potential foreclosure, so that that property would then enter into the that now vacant property would then enter into this process rather than stay with the owner who allowed the historic structure to collapse specifically for vacant investor-owned properties, it excludes uh owner occupied and homesteaded properties in our uh internal discussion.

I guess my my hesitancy is that's already available to the city, and I don't know how that serves historic preservation at all.

When you have a vacant piece of property that used to have a historic structure, we're gonna say and yes, I'm sure attached is some kind of demolition lien, right?

Because the city under chapter 518, uh, you know, execute an emergency demolition at the cost of the city.

So a lien would attach, and the city could certainly enforce that.

Um so it's already an available remedy to the city, and I'm not I I guess I don't if we're trying to prevent demolition by neglect, it's already happened in those instances.

Um I would like to hear your thoughts, Consulman Ruffles.

Yeah, I think the concern is that you know these are these are the the property owners that are now gonna get uh a bacon piece of land, and they they waited out the system and they got something they got something out of it by waiting out the system.

We're trying to create a new system that prevents that.

And so I think for those that the demolition is happening or has happened, that the city does have the so long as we have the ability to foreclose that we should now we would have that property to have one of the developers or nonprofit fixed it and build a new historic property, Mark.

You know what I mean?

Can't build new historic, but yes, historic looking one that matches the character of the neighborhood.

Simply.

What do you think?

It's up to you.

It's legal, I can put it in there.

Um it's already an available remedy.

I'm comfortable.

I'm comfortable with that.

I can I'll try to find a place for it.

Um Brooks, do we only have the room for another three minutes?

I don't get any I wouldn't just because we've got a few public comments, and I do want to get to the very the the scribbers that we can just do on our own, right?

You're cool with those three.

Last one is add language clarifying this process will not be used for owner-occupied and/or homesteaded properties.

Well, the process is for city-owned properties.

So I'm a little confused by this.

Uh I I suppose in the initial in the chapter 76 amendment where the commission is making this list, you could maybe exclude it there, but everywhere else it deals with city-owned surplus property.

And I will say this the city cannot foreclose on like a municipal lien on a homesteaded property.

So it wouldn't, it wouldn't happen anyway.

Okay.

You're okay with that?

Okay.

That that works.

So add it to the chapter 76.

Please do.

All right, and that's all the edits that were that were provided.

Um we do have a few public comment cards, and I want to see if anyone else has something they want to say to this.

Um I have at least three minutes, and I'm fine with being interrupted.

Go ahead.

Bring it on up.

Uh Patty Peoples.

Come on up.

Oh, all right, cool.

Well, well, then never mind.

You could talk about your your fame if you wanted to.

You're famous now.

Uh Debbie Thompson?

I do not wish to speak.

All right.

If you want all right, excellent support.

Um Catherine uh Barrill?

Oh, did you want to speak as well?

Um I just would like my question and address that.

Sorry.

If these properties are offered to nonprofit first, then what happens when the orgs able to take over the properties are drug rehab facilities or spar?

So, like I think everybody's saying there, how would that change the fabric and diverse residential neighborhood like Springfield?

So I've go ahead.

I'm just a little concerned of the state.

Please go over to the mic.

Yeah, if you don't mind.

I'm just a little confused, I guess, and concerned about the kind of no dibs or no bid kind of first look in terms of spar or non-for-profits in a given area.

So what happens when SPAR takes a surplus of it?

That question about uh do they have to prove that they have financing before um they take over the property, you know.

The thing about how long does it take?

I mean, I have these concerns simply because like with the Drew, um the city took the property and gave it to SPAR.

That's fine.

Whatever did they have to prove that they had the funds to do it?

Because this legislation hasn't been put into effect yet.

So that do they have a timeline?

Did they have to prove they had the funds before taking over the property?

For for that particular project, we've been talking about the Drew for many years.

Yeah.

Uh and that was we felt comfortable that that SPAR did have a plan moving forward with it and they're moving forward with it now.

And I would encourage you to speak with Spark.

But I guess I guess my question is knowing that you know, like trusting the organization is one thing, but like public records, do they have the funds to actually do it?

And so my concern is if Spar gets to take over the properties, and you know, SPAR is a non-for-profit, but they also have developers on the board.

So what happens, like in the military, we say a self-licking ice cream cone, right?

What happens when the developers are taking the property and they're profiting off of renovating it, then they make money.

Spar sells it, they take the money and do what they're gonna do with it.

But how does that affect the residents of Springfield and um in the fabric of the neighborhood is just my question.

Well concern, I guess.

No, I mean, frankly, some some of that is less concerning to me because right now, if these properties are falling apart anyway, and if they've got absentee owners at this moment, right?

I would rather give it to uh I think a nonprofit whose mission is rehabilitation and revitalization.

Right.

We want it to be sold to to you know, a family or whatever else, like we're not gonna have it be a nonprofit like we've seen in the past.

And then the reverter allows for the city to take them back if we feel as though things are not moving in the right direction.

Right.

That's that's the purpose of the reverter, which has not been a tool that we've had in the past.

Yeah, and I agree.

I mean, we don't want to see these houses falling apart.

I've owned the property for 19 years in Springfield, so I I know.

Um I'm happy that this is being addressed and that these houses are just not rotting and falling apart.

My concern is that you know, we're allowing the organizations to take over the properties.

Why aren't why isn't there a program where residents who can reabout who can prove that they have the finances to rehab a house, take a course, go through the process themselves and be able to bid at the same time as an organization like SPAR.

Like, why isn't that an option?

Well, because we for one, we know that these these nonprofits have the capacity to do it right now, but that's the next step, right?

If if it doesn't go to them, then it does go through that bidding process.

And yeah, anyone who has the means.

Yeah, it just seems it to get actual families back in actual homes.

It seems like instead of this process that could take years through Spar with you know funding because we believe they have the funding to do it.

Why can't you just, you know, take over the city the properties that I think the city should have done this long ago, obviously.

We've been dealing with this forever.

Take back the properties, but then have a program where any individual or family could, if they can prove they have the funding, they take the course, they understand COA, they can take the property and have two to three years to do it.

I mean, I think the bill provides for that after one of the nonprofits can't handle it.

It's just a matter of let's see how this works.

After Spar and the developers on the board decide they don't want it, then it can go to somebody else.

That's my concern.

Yeah, and I get the angle you're getting at, and I I I appreciate it.

I think the matter is, you know, let's let's see how this works.

Let's see if we get these these properties back on the tax rolls and in the hands of families that that want to be a part of the community.

That's my main goal here.

It's not to enrich or support any one or two or three different groups.

It's to make sure that these properties actually get fixed by people that we know that can do it and and see how that goes.

After a year or two, we can change this process, maybe make the bid number one.

It just seems like we're we're putting a lot of faith in you know, the organizations and and not in individuals who would build the community.

We're just we're I will say I will say this.

We're profiting ourselves.

I will say this the reason we're even here is because of these incredible organizations that have that have been working hand in hand with this with this city and with this council member.

And so I'm I'm very confident in this process right now, and we're gonna see how this works, hopefully, if it gets through the committees.

But I appreciate your comments.

I just have a few more, and if we can talk offline after this if you don't mind.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Did you have something you want to say, Councilman Carly China?

No, I do, because I I think the goal should be to get the house rehabbed and into the hands of a family or somebody, whether it's by the private sector or individual or one of these organizations, who cares?

So I would encourage you, uh, Councilmember Peloso to hear those comments and maybe put something in the bill that reflects um the private sector getting involved.

Because the the goal, it it's the same goal, no matter who does it.

And and if there are people that can do it, know how to do it, uh, have the financial ability to do it, I think they should be able to do it.

Yes, sir.

Um Julie Epstein.

Come on up.

Hi, hi, uh Julia Epstein.

I'm an architect in Jacksonville, Florida here.

I serve on the Historic Commission.

I was the vice chair for the task force for demolition by neglect.

Um mostly wanted to come up here and thank you for putting this together.

I think you know, we spent a long time looking at how the city liens don't really have a consequence right now for these buildings that sit for decades without anybody doing anything with them.

So to me, that is the most important thing with this is this is another level that lets buildings that are in this demolition by neglect right now, it has that consequence of hey, we're gonna handle this, but then it sort of sets an example for people who might think, oh, you know what, I'm gonna let my house get in neglect, I'm gonna leave it and let it get abandoned, nothing's gonna happen to me.

So I like that there's actually repercussions and consequences for people to take care of their properties, not mostly from what we see the commission, it's not families, it's somebody who's sitting on a house thinking the property value will go up, or they don't know what they've really gotten themselves into.

So I appreciate that.

Um the discussions about the two plus one year.

I want to add some thoughts to that.

As being an architect, I work a great deal in historic rehabilitation, adaptive reuse.

Um, I worked on the Barnett Tower, I worked on the Union Terminal Warehouse.

So I know how much of a bag of worms these can be.

Obviously, those were huge projects, but there are times when you get a structure and you think, oh, I know everything about this, and you start ripping a wall apart, and the walls falling apart, the foundations falling apart.

I would just say maybe to think about adding something about unforeseen conditions, allowing the clock to be reevaluated.

Um, and additionally, I would ask the question of I read the legislation, and I don't think it specifically says when does that two-year timeline start?

Does it start when the property is taken hold of?

Does it start when someone gets a building permit?

Does it start when someone starts construction?

So I would refine that language a little bit so that and I don't know the I'm sorry, I don't know the answer, but I would refine that just so you don't run into an issue where somebody had they think, oh, I have two years once they start construction to get this done.

And no, it was two years when you took hold of the property.

So I would refine that a little bit.

Um we talked a little bit about COAs, the amount of time they take, the amount of time permits take.

A lot of these historic structures also are able to go in for tax credits.

Now, nonprofits cannot do the tax credits, but if we're talking about doing a collaborative with a nonprofit and a developer, there is the the uh ability there.

And tax credit, that whole process of a historic tax credit, air it is three uh review processes that takes a good bit of time, and typically you're not allowed to start any construction until you've gone through the first two reviews of that, which probably take four to six months.

So again, I'm just dumping out my mental load here so that you guys know.

And um, there's also grants that review process for that.

So just some things for you guys to think about when you're you're putting together that two plus one uh year.

Doc oh, please.

Do you want me to address that?

So I did not specify in the draft legislation when that two-year time clock starts, it needs to be specified, but that's at your discretion, Councilmember.

It can be at um uh the transfer of the title, it can be the first bowling permit when whenever you want that clock to start, but it needs to be in there.

I think my intention was with the transfer of the title, however, because I just don't know how long it would take to get a building permit.

I don't want somebody to just now sit on it and hold it for two years before they get that building permit.

Did you have a comment?

I agree, I agree.

It's got to start as soon as the they get the they get the property.

And it may take more than two years, but at the end of the day, like we're not just gonna walk away from uh a patient in surgery that's at like 80%, you know what I mean?

We're gonna say, okay, just finish it up.

But you know, we we've seen um some of these go a lot longer and you give too much time and it just it doesn't create any urgency.

And I think we're trying to create some urgency here.

And I think from the day one, it it puts the onus on hey, you should have had a lot of this stuff at least lined up in some form or fashion.

You know, no one's gonna spend thousands of dollars on plans, but you should at least have some things lined up because we gotta we gotta we have a timeline here.

But if it takes more than two years, then I don't I don't see the city swooping in saying, all right, give it back.

It's also why we have the extension up to three years, and and maybe we do, maybe we do allow for up to four years, but it's still at the discretion of the HBC and the administration.

So they could still say, nah, we're good with three.

We're not gonna give you that fourth.

Um Dr.

Wayne Wood, please come on up.

I'm Wayne Wood.

Um I just want to thank the task force as well as Councilman Peluso for bringing this to the forward.

This is uh such a long time uh over uh overdue.

And um I'm very grateful for it and I fully support it.

I would just leave a couple of comments.

One is um a previous speaker talked about putting um private sector into the mix.

I think I like the way it is set up now because there is a fixed uh pattern among the groups, and and you if you put private ownership into it, it becomes more of a wild card.

And so I think this this we ought to stick with the structure of the way the bill is written now and let the nonprofits have a first hack at it because that's the way the the structure it can easily work instead of having it vague, uh, who gets the shot at rehabbing these buildings.

And I'll just leave you with a couple of um images.

Uh the first case I can think of back in the 70s of uh benign neglect, destroying a neighborhood with a house on Oak Street, it was vacant for years.

And it wasn't an important house, it wasn't architecturally significant other than it contributed to the neighborhood.

And as that building deteriorated, the houses on either side of it became vacant.

And those people moved away, they didn't want to live next to a vacant house.

And so you gradually lose one house, even if it's not a landmark, if it's a contributing structure, and then you lose the block, and then you lose the neighborhood.

So I think that's an important thing to remember.

Uh a famous architect uh once said, if you want to demolish a house, just cut a hole in the roof about a foot square and be patient and come back and the work will be done for you.

So this is exactly what happened to the house on Riverside and James.

It had holes in the roof, and the owners never repaired it, and the house gradually became unlivable.

So by mothballing a house, it has to have a roof structure.

We have to make the house secure, but it's easy to see how the smallest little hole in a roof can begin the destruction of not just a whole block, but a whole neighborhood, and this is very important to stop that.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Dr.

Wood.

Uh David Shachter.

Yes, hi, David Shachter, 36 uh West 6th Street.

Uh, I think everybody here, everybody that's here would like to see these old houses saved.

Uh but I have two comments for you.

One is the time frame, so it could easily easily I'm first of all, I'm so don't know me, I'm a home builder.

Building Springfield.

It could easily take a year to get a permit.

Okay.

So you're two-year timeframes.

Easily take a year to get permit.

You'd have to have structural engineers out on these old houses.

You have to are you have to do the um you have to get approval by HBC, so they easily take a year.

I would suggest possibly requiring a permit, okay, a time frame for the permit.

You have to have a permit within 18 months, you have another 18 months to build it.

You know, something like that.

Um, and then my other comment is probably the more substantial problem that we have here, is that these houses are so far gone that it would take an enormous amount of money to bring them back.

Most of the homes in Springfield, I'm mostly familiar with Springfield, most of the homes in Springfield that were were able to be renovated or saved.

Most of those have been saved.

They've had been investors have bought them.

These other houses are so far gone that if we want to save them, it's not just gonna take you giving them the lot, it's gonna they're gonna have to have a grant because they're it they are so far upside down economically.

Um I would love to hear from some of the other if there's other builders that are here that have done renovations in Springfield, just to give you some statistics.

I don't know if this is useful to you or not, but we've built to date in Springfield.

I want to say I think we're at 106 homes.

One of those was a renovation.

And I tell people when I tell them about I love doing it, I was proud of that work, but I learned my lesson.

Okay.

And that house was not nearly in the condition of these houses that are nearly falling down.

That house was structurally sound.

And so if you go out and look at these houses, that you have environmental issues, the they have asbestos or they have lead.

I mean, there's there's these things we have to deal.

We want to save them.

It's gonna take a village to save these houses.

I don't think it's you know, so if there's uh an organization that's big enough, like I don't know, like Habitat for Humanity that can raise money to do a house, or if the city can put together a program for the neighborhood department or the or or the where where they help how people get in the houses do something.

And uh uh, but I that's I that's what I see as the challenge.

have asbestos or they have lead I mean there's there's these these things we have to deal we want to save them it's gonna take a village to save these houses I don't think is you know so if there's uh an organization that's big enough like I don't know like habitat for humanity that can raise money to do a house or if the city can put together program for the neighborhood department or the or or the where where they help how people get into houses do something and uh uh but I that's I that's what I see as the challenge the challenge is just how much money it's gonna cost to save these houses and uh that's my perspective I ought to be a doubt because I do want to see these houses saved there's there's there's one right next there's there's one right next to my my office and there's one right next to my model you know and uh we don't want to see them torn down so if there's a way to get a grant for the nonprofit or the profit or the public private sector whatever that would get them over the hump to be able to financially bring a house back and the question is how do you even identify that number so that's a challenge.

Please council I have a question I appreciate your perspective on this so just for my own like edification are you saying if someone you said there's a dilapidated house like right next to your model home or whatever as an example there's one next to my office and I have another model and it's I have another one next to my office my mom oh so are you're saying if someone gave you that for free you still wouldn't be able to do anything with it.

Other than demo it I wouldn't demo it because on the wrong side of Springfield but well no but I but I think I think look everyone here in this room like doesn't want to hear this but there is a point in which some of these homes can't be salvaged without significant dollars.

That's right.

And we can't just ignore that and and I'm all for historic preservation but I'm also for neighborhood preservation too right like we can't just let these homes sit there for 20 years because no one wants to tear a house down.

And I'm so and and you guys have done an amazing job like making it fit the fabric.

So the question is um if someone gave you the house for free your talent you're saying from your experience it's there's no way you can make the numbers work if you were to sell it to someone in innovation.

In the case of the dilap the houses that is near it's it's in danger of being demolished and that is the case.

Okay.

Okay.

If it's if it's just a house it's old it's been baking for a while it sure maybe it's savable but still you know that that's not having to redo everything redo the foundations redo the walls the insulation you know get rid of the lead all this stuff I think it is going to take an investment it's gonna take an investment with the city leading the way somehow to either get donations or private public private to raise money to save save save these houses.

I mean I okay I would like the other people's perspective that's just my perspective.

Okay.

The revolving loan would be great.

I I just wasn't sure if we could build that into this directly but I mean this these are concerns that I hear frequently um but I know would be helpful to Pont Foundation might be something we could talk about if they want to help out in this neighborhood restoration as a part of their mission.

Council Carlucci I believe you want to kind of I just want to say uh hello Dave Shakter how you doing this guy takes so I could tell you I've I've seen him like a hundred feet up on a ladder before while I was holding it anyway um he he's he's spot on and this is I mean we should pass this bill but that's why I want to come back and look at some type of public private partnership where maybe there's some uh credits historic credits that can be blended into that and I think there's a way to do it and um and so I'll start working on that and I'm happy to include every and anybody that wants to be a part of that.

Um and uh so uh it there's got to be some seed money that can be available and it's another reason why maybe uh the private sector might not be a bad idea to include even though it was Ron's idea council member Salem has some great ideas I'll tell you that go ahead Bill to the um do the chair so um there are um several um uh private um contractors that specialize in um renovating older homes um and um you know um they do um do it for a living um and they do um uh make a good living so um I I think it just just is gonna depend um on the specific property right um these these are all unique properties and they are gonna be um in different uh conditions so um that's gonna be a nuanced um issue so I I totally agree I think this this program this as we move forward things will evolve uh and how it gets done what hpc sees what our what our code compliance folks and historic preservation come up with I think a lot of these properties yeah we we look at them on paper and say yeah surely we could we could fix that up but but we'll see in the in how it actually works.

I'm very very grateful to everyone who's here today I'm gonna stick around for a little bit if you got more questions for me.

I'm gonna stick around for a little bit if you got more questions for me.

Uh you had four city council members sit through an hour and a half.

Um, and I am I'm I'm genuinely grateful to all of you for being here.

And you got some powerhouses who have all been in leadership.

Um I think it's because a lot of people know these neighborhoods, know the quality of the people who live in them and how much they care about these communities.

And and I think I think you're seeing that reflective of some of the some of the thoughts from from my colleagues and from members of the community.

Thank you all for being here.

Any other closing closing thoughts?

Vice President Carlucci or Councilmember Salem?

All right, thank you all so much.

Meetings adjourned.