Thank you all for coming today. It's 10 o'clock. We're going to call this meeting to order. I believe we'll have a few other council members kind of come in, but I feel like we're going to take up the full hour with some good discussion, I believe, on this particular topic. Thank you all for coming. This is a really important piece of legislation, I believe, and something that's been discussed in some of our neighborhoods for a very long time. So very grateful for those who have showed up today. We're going to go around the room and just kind of do a quick introduction. Shannon DeMine starting us off.
I was looking for green. Shannon Blankenship with Riverside Avonale Preservation.
I'm Helena Parola with the director of the planning department.
You can borrow.
Yeah. Don't touch it.
Good morning. Okay. Sorry about that. Eramis Wells with the planning department.
Carla Schell, Office of General Counsel.
Matt Carlucci at large, group four. Jameen Peluso, city council, district seven. Ron Salem, group two at large. Joe Carlucci, district five.
Renee Hunter, public works, real estate division.
William Hoff, vice chair of the HBC and chair of the demolition by neglect task force.
Mike Haskins, Springfield Preservation and revitalization.
Thank you all so much for being here. We also have a few other folks from our auditor's office and from the planning department. If you do want to introduce yourselves as well while you're here, in case we drag you in.
Heather Reber, council auditor's office. Susan Kelly, planning department.
Excellent. Point being is we got all the right people in the room, I believe. So this is a very important issue throughout a lot of our older neighborhoods. Yes, Ernest, I see you too. Also, Dr. Wayne Wood, 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. We've got a great group of folks in here. So over the past several years, we've seen a number of issues throughout many of our neighborhoods, but in particular, our historic neighborhoods. A lot of properties are falling apart. It's known as demolition by neglect. The Historic Preservation Commission did a great job a couple years ago putting together a task force to address this issue, seeing lessons learned from other cities. How do we ensure that these historic properties, which have a lot of value, and you can't build more historic properties, how we help preserve them and ensure that they can remain in circulation. And also, as we have the housing issue that we do, enable ourselves to build more housing for more young families to come to these communities. I asked Michelle to draft this piece of legislation based on some of the recommendations from the task force. We have a number of folks here who are on the task force and folks in the historic preservation world that are going to 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. I'm seeing Tara Wise, and I'm seeing 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. Michelle, do you mind kind of giving us a quick high-level overview of the bill?
Sure. Thank you. So Council Member Peluso asked me to draft this bill to address a number of things the task force had recommended. This bill touches on a number of places in our ordinance code. 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. Having them annually create a list of homes that are in danger of demolition by neglect. And with that, the administration can take actions as they see fit to address that. And then later on in the bill, we touch on different parts of the ordinance code that deal with surplus property. So once the city owns a property, how we dispose of it. And it creates a separate category for these historic properties to ensure that they are rehabilitated and get back into use instead of being, obviously, demolition is the thing we really want to avoid. So that's what it does at a real high level. I'm happy to answer any questions about specifics.
Thank you, Michelle. Well, so point being is a number of these properties 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. You know, magistrate judges, you know, place some of these fines on there as well. Point being is we know that these are properties that have property owners that are just sitting on them. In some cases, the expectation is the property falls into disarray and gets demolished, that they now have a blank slate to build a property that they can make some dollars on. And, you know, it's blighted. It's harmful 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 their perspective on things, it 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 kind of a discussion about what the task force was going to do and where their heads are at?
Sure. So the task force came about because we were receiving numerous requests for demolition. And many of these properties had been in a notably poor state for a very long time. So we took about a year to do research, not only incorporating information from northeast Florida, but around the U.S. We came up with, you know, how many, about a dozen-ish recommendations, but five priority recommendations, which are mostly addressed within this legislation. So we were lucky enough to have many people with expertise that were willing to contribute to the task force and the final report. And so I think the HPC sees this as a helpful tool. It's not a silver bullet that will solve all of the issues, but it will be helpful to address certain situations. And I think that there is wide support in our older neighborhoods for this type of oversight and opportunity to resolve these issues that have been, again, in some cases, going on for a very, very, very, very long time.
Thank you. I believe Matt Carlucci has a question, then Ron Salen.
Councilman Salen. 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 some idea of the universe?
I think that code compliance could prepare an official list, but we would estimate it's between about 70 and 100 in Springfield.
In Springfield specifically, Riverside, Avondale, how many do we have in that area?
During the demolition by neglect 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 don't have a number on properties in the neighborhood with code enforcement violations that might reach a particular level.
Can you guesstimate for me?
I would say in the last five years that I've been with RAP, we've had one property actually be demolished due to neglect. So I think this would be a small number of properties that we're really looking to target. And, of course, the ultimate goal would be to never reach the potential for neglect or for demolition and to approach properties earlier on before we get to that question.
And how many do we have that are city-owned? And I assume we're focusing on Springfield and Riverside, Avondale. Do we have a feel for that? Does anybody know?
That are city-owned, these historic properties? Yes. So one of the problems in the past, 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 have normally been maybe stolen city control were given to nonprofits, a couple of different CDCs, groups that did not have any real funding or means to repair them, and especially because they weren't historic, because they are historic properties, 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, a magistrate. In doing so, that would be tens of thousands of dollars, which is not worth the value of the properties. So now 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-
Is that neighbors? Is it the city?
Some of the properties are condemned by the city because of code compliance. So, yeah, it's neighbors that are 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. 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. And 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. But, I mean, we just had to fall apart in Springfield this year, and the city had to show up and demolish them 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. Thank you, Chair. You're very welcome. And to that end, I mean, 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 board that we have appointments on. This board is made up of professionals. It's properly staffed. And so the idea was, well, okay, let's have them create this list of properties that feasibly could be 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, and over the next 20, 50, 30, you know, 100 years, that mayor 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 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 can 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 got upset because of the windows, because of the trusses, because of everything else. So 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 could just bid on it. They would actually have to take the wherewithal to take the class. I think it's going to be a two-hour class that historic preservation is going to do. And then if they bid on the property and they get it, they get it for relatively cheap. That way they're not going to spend a ton on that property. If they have to spend $200,000 to get a property that's falling apart and then put another, I mean, we've got developers here that could probably tell us $300,000 to $400,000 to $500,000 into it, they're never going to make their money back. We want the private sector to be able to do this. So that's kind of the logic, is they'll get it, 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. A 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. If HPC sees them doing actual work, maybe the economy's had a downturn, whatever else. So they 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.
Question for Ms. Shell, if I may. Please. Could you clarify if this would also apply to 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 property within a historic district.
Okay, thank you. To that end, how much more does that broaden it? Does that also include parts of San Marco? I think Durkeeville or Durkee Gardens has a historic district. So there's a smaller group there. Just want to make sure.
That's correct. So we have around 200 landmarks interspersed throughout the cities and the national districts. Great.
And Councilmember Carlos, should you have a comment?
I have some questions if this is a good time. Please. 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 Jim Ears, Councilman Peluso. So these properties could be owned by the city. They could be owned by individuals, correct? And we're talking about homes, residential homes.
For the purpose of this program, 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. Schell?
Could I clarify that? Please. Okay. So the first part that talks about 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 city could potentially initiate foreclosure action. And also we could offer, you know, grants or other things, I suppose. But identifying 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. 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 dilapidated residential historic structure, this creates a path for how to get it to entities that can properly rehabilitate it.
Can those entities be a person, a family, or does it have to be a not-for-profit?
So how we have structured it is that it's offered to not-for-profit organizations who have at their mission rehabilitation of a home. If there are none that qualify and want the property, I've structured it so that it could open up to be a competitive bidding process, which is required under Florida law.
Competitive bidding amongst the?
Amongst anyone 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, educational course that the planning department will offer.
And I'm just looking for some retail. Not a lot of detail, just some retail.
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 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 property, historic residential structure.
So we're only talking about city-owned property? Correct. Oh, okay. Okay. I thought we were talking about any property out there. But we're just talking about city-owned property. Okay. 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 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 exactly a revenue generator. And so what this would, in essence, do is make these properties available to organizations that have the ability to restore them 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. And is there any city funding available like for a private, public-private partnership, Aramis, for something like this? Like rehab?
Besides rehab program, that's the only grant program that we have. We have a tax exemption program, at least that we offer through the planning department. But the rehab program, 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.
Okay. So I like this bill a lot. And I'd like my name to be listed. If it isn't already, it isn't. And I would support this. And just a little side note that, and I don't want to tag it onto this because I'd like this to go on through. But 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 to help with this. And perhaps when the property sells, 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 some permanence. So I'm going to have, I'm going to put together some meetings on that. I've been looking at that for about the last three weeks. And we'd love to have your help. But that's a side note. I'm not even sure it's possible, but 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, Councilman Carlucci. And that was my initial design, too. It was 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, we had this meeting several months ago. They had come up and said, look, we can fix these properties. We just can't buy them for $150,000 because we'll never make our money back. So this is meant to ensure that we 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, this is where the private sector could be of massive value add to us. If we could do more grants later on down the road, I would love to.
A revolving fund, so it would refund itself. But anyway.
I'm with you, sir. I'm all about it.
That is if we're all surviving after November the 4th. That's right.
Council Vice President Carlucci, do you have something you want to add?
Yeah. Thanks, Council Member Peluso. So just to make sure I'm understanding the whole process here. And I heard something earlier, like these are not city-owned properties. Just to clear the deck there, I heard that. This is not what we're talking about. So here's kind of the timeline, the process 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 step, the city forecloses on that property. 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.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. We're not saying it's going to be a blank slate. All these, we're going to foreclose on all these. 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 non-profits 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. And I want... I'll probably make a slight amendment when it comes up to at 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 Ms. Hunter's shop. If none of them take it, then it goes to auction. Correct? Yes. Okay. And then it's kind of off to the races. They actually get to get the property at a lower value, renovate it, renovate or rehab it, and then it's back on the property tax rolls. Yes. That's the whole kind of thing. Yes. Cool. And to what Council Member Macrolucci was saying, and 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 sort of your solution for the resolving or the revolving funding of that program because I know in our district, in my district, the rehab program is super popular and it's very beneficial and it only makes the communities better. And, you know, doing any type of work on these historic buildings, whether it's commercial or residential, it's very expensive. It's very expensive. So, yeah, that's kind of my thoughts. I just wanted to make sure I was running through it correctly. 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 expanded 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. This is meant to be a first step. 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 curious about the commercial aspect of it, but obviously don't want to overburden the bill because this has taken a long time. This is a big piece of legislation. I can identify that. But, okay, cool. I don't have any other questions.
And just to verify, I believe the question was asked about, so the dollars in the auction could go to a potential revolving fund is a recommendation you're making, sir?
Well, I think it would be considered 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 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 fund. Councilor Colossi.
I think we're 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 think we're getting close. I think what Councilman Joe Carlucci is talking about has some merits, so I'd like to open up that and see. The bottom line is, before I leave this illustrious institution, I'd like to see something that would be permanent left. Rehab is a good bill. That's commercial. And we took some $500,000. I say we, the Council, at my urging, took $500,000 from somewhere, maybe reserves, God forbid. I don't want to get Ron upset. But we took $500,000 from somewhere. I'm trying to keep this meeting on the rails. Please don't get Ron upset. I know. I don't want to do that. But anyway, and so that money was sitting there until it gets drawn down. I don't know how many people have used that so far. But that money doesn't replenish itself. That's been the one thing on rehab that's always been somewhat of a concern. Something like this, I would like to see there be a mechanism where the money from a sale or from the auction or whatever goes back into the fund so that it continually replenishes itself and it's not a drain on the budget henceforth. That's what I would like to talk to our Council auditors and the historic folks about and my colleagues about.
No, 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 reap the benefits of doing the good work. Council Member 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 bill beyond Riverside, Avondale, and Springfield?
Council Member Salem, the only thing that I would ask is, 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.
This is a district, right? Arlington actually has a district as well? No. So this would include 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, this is just kind of putting it in their plate and in their camp.
Mr. Chair, to Ron's point, though, also, I don't know if they have a district over there, but 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. But it is a contributing structure, and I think it would qualify if it somehow fell into disrepair and so on and so forth. Is that correct, somebody, Ms. Schill?
No. So San Marco is not a locally designated historic district. So it would need to be a contributing property within a locally designated historic district.
Okay. Okay. Or a landmark.
Or a locally designated landmark.
Contributing structure, not so much.
So those are in San Marco, yes.
But if it's a contributing structure in a designated historic area, then it doesn't need to be a landmark. It can be a contributing structure.
Which is primarily Riverside Avondale and Springfield in this case.
But yes, it's broader than just having to be a landmark.
Pretty much whatever HPC has purview over now, 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 that's the other thing is we want to make sure that we're seeing the private sector or these nonprofits that are going to 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. 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. I just kind of want to go through some of those recommendations and kind of get folks' thoughts. I do also want to go back real quick to the point of the auction. And if there is an auction and, let's say, something sells for $30,000 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 didn't make the money back on that. I mean, that's another consideration that I was thinking of. But I would love for it to go to this revolving loan instead, frankly. Okay, if you look at the back of your agendas, there's a few recommendations. Some of them are relatively kind of Scrivener's errors. But one of my first thoughts when doing this, because HPC doesn't meet super frequently, but I figured that there would be an annual list that they provide the administration. They were requesting, can we make that more than just annual? Is that a quick fix, Ms. Schell?
If that's what you want, that's a quick fix. Yes.
Yeah, I think so. Just say, is there a recommended language that you'd prefer?
SPAR had considered quarterly, but we're also cognizant of the workload of the historic preservation section, so we would defer to their recommendation.
Yeah, I think mandating quarterly does seem a little, 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 you get to a point where there's more capacity, we can kind of go forward.
Sir?
That's code compliance. Our good friends in code compliance. They're the reason these liens exist, and the property owners. The next addition was on page 12, line 5, 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. 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 probably a heavy lift, 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 of interest to folks in the back? Say again? No, no, no. But once, so nonprofits are the first ones to get a look at it. It's my expectation, you know, that don't allow the legislation itself to make you think that there's a certain process. Because 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 going to be able to handle a bunch of them, which then brings it up to you guys at auction. You just need to take a two-hour class and have a time working on historic properties, which I imagine you guys have done a lot of historic properties. You know what you're doing. So then it would go out to auction where you guys can bid on them at a much lower price than maybe you would in a different 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 to really anyone at that point, selling this to another person or entity, and that they are going to put the work into it. That could be a great benefit of this as well. So that's something that I believe just, I think the market will get us there. Rather than have it get foreclosed upon and you make nothing, you could at least sell it for a certain 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 Parts. Please, go ahead. Okay. Mr. Carleton. I think, I don't know if you're asking to, just go up to quadplexes. Just include all of it. And then we can identify it as it comes up. And yeah, I think that's fine. Quadraplexes it is.
Thank you, sir. Next edition, add language that surplus property will be offered to the Nonprofit Association with Locally Designated Historic District, Spar Springfield, Rap Riverside, Just Will History Center, and then San Marco Preservation.
Yeah. Michelle, do I need to send you an email on this to get those entities added in here? Would you prefer that?
I can add San Marco Preservation. My question to you, though, Council Member 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 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 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 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. Sure.
I think that's fair. All right, next. So if we can make that change, that'd be, is that okay? Page 12, item, or I'm sorry, line 29. Add language that the second tier of nonprofit 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. I just want to verify if I see that.
That can be added if you want.
Right here, one second. Add the financials.
Please, go, sir. Okay, so while we're on page 12, lines 26 through 29, so adequate financial resources and experience in historic preservation to carry out a successful rehabilitation. So is there going to be a requirement? And again, I haven't, I've read most of this, but if the surplus goes first to like a sand marker preservation or a spar or a wrap or whatever, is there going to be strings attached that, okay, we're going to, it says 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 room to do that work. Okay, could they sell the property? Yes. Okay. Yeah. No, this, this, yeah. And then I assume that the, I assume that spar wrap or whomever would have the relationship with certain developers to make sure that there was split. No, 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. There, 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 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. 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, so if it's donated, it could still be, that nonprofit can sell it, can they not, after it's gotten to a place of?
No, they need to rehabilitate within two years.
And then what's rehabilitated?
Then they can sell it. 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 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 become contractors. and things like that.
Yeah, there's no requirements in here whatsoever. I'm just making sure that it reads in such a way that you guys feel confident that you could have one of your, I mean, 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, 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 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 folks in a bidding process. I'll say head nodding. All right. So to that end, line 29, I'm at the second tier of non-profit should also be housing as part of the primary mission. I'm fine with that change for line 29. Page 13, also nine, two plus one here, seems a little too little time. Possible to extend the timeline or allow mothballing. Well, so the term mothballing in here, does everyone have a copy of this? 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 does mothballing have a more technical term? I'm saying, man? But like, I guess I just want to make sure that if part of this goal is, okay, it's fine, it's a down market, things are tough, we're not going to 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 state where it can't be fixed in the next couple of years, what is that term? Whether it be through code compliance or legally or structurally sound?
To the chair, Councilman, I believe the term is mothballing. And I believe that Hester Wells could speak to what that entails.
Yeah, so essentially mothballing just is a term used to describe actions to weatherize the building, ventilate it, protect it from any exterior forces. So typically that entails boarding up the windows, again, securing the foundation for many intruders or whatnot, but at the basic bare bone elements of it is just protecting the building from the exterior.
Michelle?
There is a definition within the code, yeah. Yeah, and mothballing will, yes, secure the property, make sure there's no water intrusion and the thing doesn't fall over. It doesn't get your house back to usable fashion, right? Which 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 mothballing and a further extension until it gets to usable condition.
Okay, I want to sit on that, I want to chew on that for a little bit. 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 don't want that. So that's why I have the two years and the one year. The idea of mothballing, I get it. I just, we're trying to avoid the idea of overcapacity and people just holding on to stuff for a very long time.
Are you going to 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 just, I believe that this process as it lays out, both with the HPC putting together the list 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? Have we seen real progress? If not, we're not going to put out more properties. You know what I mean? This is going to be a living, breathing process, I believe. So I don't want to mandate that in the bill, but I envision folks are going to say, okay, the historic center has 25 properties and they've done nothing with them. I assume that that conversation will be had internally with HPC and within the administration. Yeah, you know what I mean? So I'm just under that impression. All right, so 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 Member, can I ask a question on that? Please, you may. Maybe planning or historic preservation specifically could speak to, what is the general 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 one of the concerns that SPAR had, which was that the time in permitting might prevent the two plus one being sufficient. And maybe we're misunderstanding the time it would take, so that's possible as well.
It's hard to speculate, because I mean, the building inspection division would have more of an exact determination on that. But just from what we've seen for single family homes, and I know it looks like we're going to 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'm getting the point. Three to six months. All right. Red is good.
Timeline-wise is these 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?
There are some exterior improvements that can be done administratively. The planning department can approve, like, re-roofing, you know, like for, like, shingles on a historic structure. So they can do some of those basic maintenance things, approve those administratively. More... Yeah. Some exterior changes would need to go to commission, but it really depends. It's a case-by-case basis.
Do we make it so if it's one of these properties that doesn't have to go to the commission or something along those lines, or is that not of an appetite for HPC? There we go, yeah. So it's not of an appetite for the HPC. All right. It's just something for us to consider then. I mean, so do we say you have three years with an extension of a fourth year? It's mixed reviews from the crowd. All right, let's keep it at 2-1 right now, and we'll discuss. Well, we'll discuss offline.
To Councilman Peluso, one option would be as well that if it... that the work's not going to begin until a certain time, then you could require it to be mothballed, which would address the more immediate threatening-ish issues while the process plays out.
Okay. I mean, I'm comfortable with that if we want to keep these properties upright. Do you have a comment on that, Councilor?
I was just... Like, the two years of just going back to that, like, I would imagine a lot of this is going to be, like, sort of lined up, right? Like, this isn't... We're not just going to all of a sudden have this property pop on the market. It's going to be... I think a lot of the due diligence and everything is going to be done prior to even going to foreclosure, right? It's like, because we're going to 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, it's going to start a little bit ahead of the game. So I don't want to get too much time because then, like, yeah. 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. You know, so...
No, that's... Then let's keep it as is right now. It's still going to go through the committee process and everything else. If adjustments or amendments based on new information or commentary from a broader audience, I'm happy to make changes. All right. At 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. I'm very comfortable with this. Michelle, how do you feel about adding that to language of the bill?
I would like more information on what you mean by this.
Michael. This came up in discussion internally. We have seen a number of properties that have been demolished by emergency order by the city because they were a safety risk to passersby. And the... It's hard to speak to the intention of owners, but the demolition by neglect process allows property owners who, through whatever... For whatever reason they choose to do so, allow those properties to become so neglected 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 had previously stood on that location. And so 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... 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 owner-occupied and homesteaded properties in our internal discussion.
I guess 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 going to say... And yes, I'm sure attached is some kind of demolition lien, right? Because the city under Chapter 518 executed an emergency demolition at the cost of the city. So a lien would attach and the city could certainly enforce that. So it's already an available remedy to the city. And I guess I don't... If we're trying to prevent demolition by neglect, it's already happened in those instances. I would like to hear your thoughts, Councilman Riffle.
Yeah, I think the concern is that these are the property owners that are now going to get a vacant piece of land. And they waited out the system. And 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 and now we have that property to have one of the developers or a non-profit fix it and build a new historic property. Or you know what I mean. Can't build a new historic, but yes, historic looking. One that matches the character of the neighborhood. What do you think?
It's up to you. It's legal. I can put it in there. It's already an available remedy. I'm comfortable with that.
I'm comfortable with that.
I'll try to find a place for it.
Brooks, do we only have the room for another three minutes? Just because we've got a few public comment and I do want to get to the very... The Scrivener's Divers, 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. 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 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 happen anyway.
Okay. You're okay with that? That works.
So add it to the Chapter 76.
Please do.
Okay.
All right. And that's all the edits that were provided. We do have a few public comment cards and I want to see if anyone else has something they want to say to this. You'll have at least three minutes and I'm fine with being interrupted. Go ahead. Bring it on up. Patty Peoples, come on up. Oh, all right. Cool. Well, then never mind. You could talk about your fame if you wanted to. You're famous now. Debbie Thompson? I do not wish to speak. All right. If you want. All right. Excellent in support. Catherine Barill? Oh, did you want to speak as well? Sorry. If these properties are offered to non-profit first, then what happens when the orgs able to take over the properties are drug rehab facilities or SPAR? So like, I think I get what you're saying there. How would that change the fabric of a diverse residential neighborhood like Springfield? So go ahead. Please. 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, do they have to prove that they have financing before 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, the city took the property and gave it to SPAR. That's fine. Did they have to prove that they had the funds to do it? Because this legislation hasn't been put into effect yet. So do they have a timeline? Did they have to prove they had the funds before taking over the property?
For that particular project, we've been talking about the Drew for many years.
Yeah.
And that was, we felt comfortable 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 SPAR.
But 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 going to do with it, but how does that affect the residents of Springfield and the fabric of the neighborhood is just my question and concern, I guess.
No, I mean, frankly, 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, I would rather give it to, I think, a non-profit whose mission is rehabilitation and revitalization. We want it to be sold to a family or whatever else. We're not going to have it be a non-profit 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. 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 a property for 19 years in Springfield, so I know. 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 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 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 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, 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 non-profits 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 appreciate it, I think the matter is, you know, let's see how this works, let's see if we get these properties back on the tax rolls and in the hands of families 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. Yeah. It's to make sure that these properties actually get fixed by people that we know that can do it and see how that goes. After a year or two, we can change this process, maybe make the bid system number one thing.
It just seems like we're putting a lot of faith in, you know, the organizations and not in individuals who would build the community. We're just, we're profiting ourselves.
I will say this, the reason we're even here is because of these incredible organizations that have been working hand in hand with this city and with this council member and so I'm very confident in this process right now and we're going to see how this works, hopefully if it gets through the committees. But I appreciate your comments. I just have a few more and 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? No, I do because 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, Councilmember Peluso, to hear those comments and maybe put something in the bill that reflects the private sector getting involved because the goal, it's the same goal no matter who does it and if there are people that can do it, know how to do it, have the financial ability to do it, I think they should be able to do it.
Yes, sir. Julia Epstein. Come on up.
Hi, 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. 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 going to handle this but then it sort of sets an example for people who might think, oh, you know what, I'm going to let my house get in neglect. I'm going to leave it and let it get abandoned. Nothing's going to happen to me. So I like that there's actually repercussions and consequences for people to take care of their properties. Mostly from what we say to 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. One thing I just want to say, 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. 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 wall's falling apart, the foundation's falling apart. I would just say maybe to think about adding something about unforeseen conditions, allowing the clock to be re-evaluated. 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 I 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. 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, non-profits cannot do the tax credits, but if we're talking about doing a collaborative with a non-profit and a developer, there is the ability there. And tax credit, that whole process of a historic tax credit, it is three 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 there's also grants that review process for that. So just some things for you guys to think about when you're putting together that two plus one year.
Please.
You want me to address that? Please. 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, Council Member. It can be at the transfer of the title. It can be the first building permit. 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 on that?
I agree. I agree. It's got to start as soon as they get the property. And it may take more than two years, but at the end of the day, we're not just going to walk away from a patient in surgery that's at like 80%. You know what I mean? We're going to say, okay, just finish it up. But we've seen some of these go a lot longer. And you give too much time and 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 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 going to spend thousands of dollars on plans, but you should at least have some things lined up because we have a timeline here. But if it takes more than two years, then 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 maybe we do. Maybe we do allow for up to four years, but it's still at the discretion of the HPC and the administration. So they could still say, nah, we're good with three. We're not going to give you that fourth. Dr. Wayne Wood, please come on up.
I'm Wayne Wood. I just want to thank the task force as well as Councilman Peluso for bringing this to the floor. This is such a long time overdue, and I'm very grateful for it, and I fully support it. I would just leave a couple of comments. One is a previous speaker talked about putting private sector into the mix. I think I like the way it is set up now because there is a fixed pattern among the groups, and if you put private ownership into it, it becomes more of a wild card. And so I think we ought to stick with the structure the way the bill is written now and let the nonprofits have a first hack at it because that's the way the structure can easily work instead of having it vague of who gets the shot at rehabbing these buildings. And I'll just leave you with a couple of images. The first case I can think of back in the 70s of a benign neglect destroying a neighborhood was 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. A famous architect 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. David Schachter.
Yes, hi, David Schachter, 36 West 6th Street. I think everybody here, everybody that's here would like to see these old houses saved. I have two comments for you. One is the time frame, so it could easily, easily, first of all, so don't know me, I'm a home builder, building in Springfield. It could easily take a year to get a permit, okay, so two-year time frames. Easily take a year to get a permit. You'd have to have structural engineers out on these old houses. You have to get approval by HPC, so it could 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. 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 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 going to take you giving them the lot. They're going to have to have a grant because they are so far upside down economically. I would love to hear from some of the other, if there's other builders out 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. I tell people when I tell them I love doing it, I was proud of that work, but I learned my lesson. That house was not nearly in the condition of these houses that are nearly falling down. That house was structurally sound. If you go out and look at these houses, you have environmental issues. They have asbestos or they have lead. There's these things we have to deal with. We want to save them. It's going to take a village to save these houses. If there's an organization that's big enough, 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 help people get into houses do something. That's what I see as the challenge. The challenge is just how much money it's going to cost to save these houses. That's my perspective. I want to be a downer because I do want to see these houses saved. There's one right next to my office and there's one right next to my model. We don't want to see them torn down. If there's a way to get a grant for the nonprofit or the proffer, the public private sector, whatever, that would get them over the hump to be able to financially bring a house back. The question is how do you identify that number? That's a challenge. I have a
question. I appreciate your perspective on this. Just for my own edification, you said
there's a dilapidated house right next to your model home or whatever? There's one next to my office and I have another one next to my office.
So 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 I'm on the wrong side of Springfield. But I think everyone here in this room doesn't want to hear this, but there is a point in which some of these homes can't be salvaged without significant dollars.
And we can't
just ignore that. And I'm all for historic preservation, but I'm also for neighborhood preservation too. We can't just let these homes sit there for 20 years because no one wants to tear a house down. And you guys have done an amazing job making it fit the fabric. So the question is if someone gave you that house for free, you're saying from your experience, there's no way you can make the numbers work if you were to sell
it to someone renovation
wise.
In the case of the houses that it's near, it's in danger of being demolished. And that is the case. If it's just a house that's old, it's been baking for a while, maybe it's saveable, but still, that's not having to redo everything, redo the foundations, redo the walls, the insulation, get rid of the lead, all this stuff.
I think
it is going to take an investment. It's going to take an investment with the city leading the way somehow to either get donations or public-private to raise money to save these houses. I would like to get other people's perspective. That's just my perspective.
Revolving loan would be great. I just wasn't sure if we could build that into this directly, but I mean, these are concerns that I hear frequently, but I know it would be helpful. DuPont Foundation might be something we could talk about if they want to help out in this. Neighborhood restoration is a part of their mission. Councilmember Carlucci, I believe you wanted to kind of...
I just want to say hello David Schachter. How are you doing? This guy takes risks though, I can tell you. I've seen him like 100 feet up on a ladder before while I was holding it. Anyway, he's spot on. 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 historic credits that can be blended into that, and I think there's a way to do it, and so I'll start working on that, and I'm happy to include anybody that wants to be a part of that. And so there's got to be some seed money that can be available, and it's another reason why maybe the private sector might not be a bad idea to include, even though it was Ron's idea.
Councilmember Salem has some great ideas, I'll tell you that. Go ahead, Bill.
To the chair, so there are several private contractors that specialize in renovating older homes, and they do do it for a living, and they do make a good living, so I think it just is going to depend on the specific property, right? These are all unique properties, and they are going to be in different conditions, so that's going to be a nuanced issue.
I totally agree. I think this program, as we move forward, things will evolve in how it gets done, what HPC sees, what our code compliance folks and historic preservation come up with. I think a lot of these properties, yeah, we look at them on paper and say, yeah, surely we could fix that up, but we'll see how it actually works. I'm very, very grateful to everyone who's here today. I'm going to stick around for a little bit if you got more questions for me. You had four city council members sit through an hour and a half, and I'm genuinely grateful to all of you for being here, and you've got some powerhouses who have all been in leadership. I think it's neighborhoods know the quality of the people who live in them and how much they care about these communities, and I think you're seeing that reflective of some of the thoughts from my colleagues and from members of the community. Thank you all for being here. Any other closing thoughts? Vice President Carlucci or Councilmember Salem? All right. Thank you all so much. Meeting's adjourned.