[0:00] >> Good afternoon, everyone.

[0:00] I apologize for being late.

[0:02] Time is 11, 10. That close mean

[0:05] order. I want to go to our left

[0:07] and introductions.

[0:12] Joe Carlucci District. 5 people

[0:14] is a district 7,

[0:16] Chris Billings Municipal Code

[0:18] compliance

[0:19] or the shelf us of general

[0:20] counsel. Thank you all for

[0:22] being here. This is meant to be

[0:23] relatively quick meeting.

[0:25] You know, councilmember color

[0:27] to your very kind and

[0:28] introducing this bill with me.

[0:30] And this is incredibly

[0:31] important to our historic

[0:32] neighborhoods.

[0:33] >> I believe the might have had

[0:35] a thought on.

[0:37] >> Some kind of change or

[0:38] alteration. I want to make sure

[0:39] that, you know, for the purpose

[0:41] of getting this bill quickly

[0:42] through committees because

[0:44] we've been working on it for

[0:44] the better part of the year.

[0:46] I want to make sure the maybe

[0:47] we had a friendly amendment

[0:49] added on their go. Yeah,

[0:50] no, I appreciate the question

[0:51] for that. You're recognized.

[0:55] >> And appreciate it.

[0:56] >> So yeah, and working with

[0:59] Michelle on, it's a friendly

[1:01] amendment. But what I've what I

[1:02] found as I kind of was diving

[1:03] through the bill was a lot of

[1:06] San Marco isn't historically

[1:08] designated surprisingly enough,

[1:11] but it's also kind of by

[1:12] design. It's been a whole

[1:13] thing. So if anything, it was

[1:16] just going to be to add an

[1:17] exhibit with a map that kind of

[1:19] draws in an area, San Marco and

[1:21] Saint Nicholas that says

[1:24] its all of these areas. Plus,

[1:26] what's an exhibit A, which is

[1:27] that they would just be a map

[1:29] highlighting certain areas in

[1:31] my district that that would

[1:34] potentially fall into having

[1:36] these benefits. Understood.

[1:38] I I personally would love to

[1:41] see that. I think the question

[1:42] was does HPC.

[1:44] >> As a body have purview over

[1:46] those areas because this is

[1:49] obviously going to HPC. I just

[1:51] yes.

[1:52] >> Do we want Michelle to kind

[1:53] of been on that verify or you

[1:55] mean, my my goal was it would

[1:57] fall in. They would have

[1:58] purview as it pertains to this

[2:01] process. They might not have

[2:02] preview. Unlike other senses,

[2:04] maybe they'd like they do add

[2:06] with certain other approvals

[2:08] that they give for demolition

[2:09] or improvements. But if if

[2:12] they're going through this

[2:13] process to acquire property,

[2:14] that the city's for closing on

[2:16] San Marco Preservation wants

[2:18] to, you know, partake in a

[2:21] revitalization program like

[2:22] that's outlined in the bill,

[2:24] then they would have to go

[2:25] through the same process which

[2:28] may be due to outline the

[2:29] process, the H BC what is it

[2:31] HPC Yasser Preservation,

[2:33] gas? Yeah. What what is that

[2:35] process that they have for it

[2:37] right now? Well, right now

[2:39] identified now there's nothing

[2:40] right. So that the demolition

[2:41] by neglect.

[2:42] >> The committee task Force

[2:44] went through, hey, we think

[2:46] that it be great to have these

[2:47] kind of opportunities to make

[2:49] sure we can get these

[2:50] properties out of the hands of

[2:52] bad landlords and landowners

[2:53] who have just kind of

[2:55] consistently said properties

[2:56] when it came to even Arlington

[2:59] as well. Right to talk about

[3:00] Arlington and San Marco.

[3:01] Little been some of our other

[3:02] notice meetings. I think our

[3:04] conversation was well, one of

[3:06] the things we can do is if

[3:07] there is a property that might

[3:09] be in danger and thus and

[3:11] there's a lot of code

[3:12] violations, Orleans, the city

[3:14] might be able to take it and

[3:14] put a once it's in the city's

[3:16] possession. You can put a

[3:18] historic landmark status on

[3:19] that. And now it's BC does have

[3:21] purview over something out.

[3:23] Some kind of discuss tonight.

[3:24] You know, Michelle and I don't

[3:25] want to,

[3:26] but I'm a lawyer and a 30 year

[3:28] if you want to

[3:29] lawyered up and tell us how you

[3:31] feel about that.

[3:32] >> I agree with that.

[3:36] That's that's the way it could

[3:37] work. Absolutely is. And

[3:40] designated structure.

[3:42] The city came to own. It would

[3:45] easily landmark their own

[3:46] structure. Yeah.

[3:49] >> Where they have to sorry

[3:50] through the chair requires have

[3:51] an open discussion later.

[3:52] They have to land market in

[3:54] order to qualify for this

[3:57] program or whatever.

[3:58] >> So at that point, the city

[3:59] would have options rightfully

[4:02] owned it.

[4:04] We could land market and go

[4:05] through kind of the new process

[4:07] that this bill creates for

[4:09] disposing it through the

[4:10] donation. Florist then like

[4:13] qualifying the bidders, you

[4:15] know, to get in the hands of

[4:16] someone who can rehabilitate

[4:17] it, the they would have to land

[4:19] market to do that. They didn't

[4:21] want to. They could've suppose

[4:22] of it in a different way.

[4:23] It would give the city options.

[4:28] >> And we have we have historic

[4:29] preservation here as well.

[4:31] And there's kind of a seedy as

[4:32] want to come on up here.

[4:34] Come on, come on up to that

[4:37] to the table.

[4:38] I'm just I do want to get your

[4:40] impression. You know, as we've

[4:41] talked about this process,

[4:43] my biggest concern was always

[4:45] are we putting too much on

[4:45] these PCs plate? Here's the

[4:47] plane department controlled all

[4:49] this. And I think we've gotten

[4:50] to a pretty good place as want

[4:52] to make sure that you how you

[4:53] guys what your assessment is of

[4:57] you can go on appearance.

[5:02] >> That was doctor sentence.

[5:04] >> While they sit down just to

[5:06] be clear, H PCs, only real

[5:08] involvement in this is the

[5:09] annual creation of an

[5:10] endangered homes list.

[5:14] Otherwise there are a lot of

[5:15] other players involved. City

[5:17] Department lies, but that's

[5:19] that's kind of limited to that.

[5:22] >> I mean, yeah, it is that

[5:23] something did.

[5:24] Do you believe this is under

[5:25] the mission of HPC that we

[5:26] should be able to look outside

[5:28] of what

[5:30] the traditional scope of your

[5:31] of your

[5:32] your body is able to do.

[5:34] I don't see why you want if

[5:35] he's a contributing structures

[5:36] that are historic value.

[5:41] The through the guy words were

[5:43] just on. You guys want it.

[5:45] So.

[5:46] >> One thing if

[5:48] it becomes a landmark than

[5:50] that, actually, does that

[5:52] a significant amount of money

[5:54] question staff because they're

[5:55] the ones that

[5:56] do those books in the research

[5:58] on making a project like land

[6:00] marking. But I have a question.

[6:03] I think this is a Karla perhaps

[6:06] on

[6:08] under the eligibility on the

[6:10] list of 76.1 of 3

[6:13] where we're identifying.

[6:15] >> Is it possible?

[6:17] >> And B,

[6:19] the for the eligibility to do

[6:21] like the residential building

[6:23] must be contributing structure

[6:24] within locally dozen historic

[6:25] district or individual limerick

[6:28] or and or whatever.

[6:30] >> On this exhibit A list and

[6:33] or what we're not in this land

[6:36] or it's on this exhibit A that

[6:39] concern her Lucci was

[6:40] referencing, be revised.

[6:42] >> So yes, in my conversations

[6:44] with Councilmember cuts,

[6:45] a vice-president Carlucci we

[6:47] would add at throughout so

[6:48] would be added here to this

[6:50] section. Also it and I would

[6:53] say the structures that are 50

[6:54] years old and older

[6:57] within those districts because

[6:59] we are trying to pit that's

[7:01] what it would need to qualify

[7:02] for a landmark or contributing

[7:04] structure in a district.

[7:05] So

[7:07] on the maps, you know, and

[7:10] we just limiting it to San

[7:11] Marco,

[7:13] Santa Claus and Saint Nicholas.

[7:15] That's

[7:18] so it would fit in that Section

[7:20] B.

[7:23] >> If I may. I mean, I like the

[7:25] idea of doing this. Marco and

[7:26] Saint Nicholas probably would

[7:29] even suggest doing durkeeville

[7:30] as well. I know the express

[7:32] interest in getting a part of

[7:33] this bill, but will the?

[7:35] >> The I personally am very,

[7:38] very okay with that. I think

[7:39] it's a great idea, especially

[7:41] if they're a lot of properties.

[7:42] Let's also be

[7:44] I think, I mean, you and I

[7:45] probably get this. I don't

[7:46] think in the first couple years

[7:48] of this program that we're

[7:49] going to be taking 185

[7:50] property. So I think it's going

[7:52] to be like 7, you know, and

[7:54] within 3 years or 8 within 3

[7:55] years. So it's really going to

[7:57] be, I think, right? I mean,

[7:59] because you got to go through

[8:00] the legal process, got to make

[8:01] sure that we have first

[8:02] position for all. We know maybe

[8:04] that maybe that owner

[8:05] recognizes like, oh, wow,

[8:07] summit happening. Let me let me

[8:09] starting care of it, right.

[8:10] All sorts of stuff can happen

[8:11] really can change how this

[8:14] really gets enacted. But I'm

[8:16] probably fine with adding both

[8:17] of those locations who's going

[8:19] to drop that map

[8:21] and who's going to draw it up

[8:23] with by Monday. Notice you look

[8:25] in this direction, what?

[8:29] >> And we have people.

[8:31] >> I'm getting a gun to

[8:34] planning. Can do it. You I

[8:35] don't think you need it by

[8:36] Monday for committee. I think

[8:37] articulating San Marco.

[8:42] Is there a meme is their map in

[8:44] the code for the over late?

[8:45] There's got yeah, we can just

[8:47] and during committee reference

[8:48] that and saying it would make

[8:50] us.

[8:51] >> Or if there's a specific

[8:53] area San Marco that you are

[8:54] particularly interested in.

[8:56] Honestly, if you just took the

[8:58] map and just take a pen,

[8:59] an outline what you're looking

[9:00] for, we can do not based on

[9:02] some streets. All draw the map.

[9:05] >> College, many people,

[9:07] the insurance and topography.

[9:10] Yeah. I mean it honestly,

[9:12] like even if the map was why

[9:14] are the need to be? I think

[9:15] those houses what you did fall,

[9:16] they would even qualify for all

[9:17] the rest of the safeguards in

[9:18] the bill. So I'm comfortable

[9:22] eyeballing the same market.

[9:23] And Saint Nicholas One will

[9:24] probably use the overlay for

[9:26] San Marcos. Saint Nicholas is a

[9:27] small enough area that, you

[9:29] know, it's it's easy to concert

[9:32] on the map. Listen, I'm very

[9:34] comfortable with that. I'm

[9:36] excited. I'm excited that you

[9:36] that you are more said about

[9:38] this bill, right? I mean,

[9:38] I guess this is meant to be

[9:40] it's meant to there's a lot of

[9:42] folks in the historic

[9:44] preservation space. And you

[9:45] know this who cares so much.

[9:46] And I feel like today they come

[9:47] to city hall and like, I mean,

[9:49] guys are doing these things.

[9:50] And I think that really kind of

[9:51] rewarding people who put a lot

[9:52] of time and energy.

[9:54] >> Yeah, well, I think to just

[9:55] to pay back on that, like it's

[9:57] a good bill for the historic

[9:58] preservationist out there.

[10:00] But it's also a good deal for

[10:01] lake just normal neighbors and

[10:03] community members that inspire

[10:04] and I are looking yeah, right

[10:06] in their neighborhoods. So,

[10:09] yeah, I'm gonna guess I kind of

[10:11] gave me this.

[10:12] >> Otherwise, though, I also I

[10:14] have you. I do want to make

[10:15] sure that we're both and I

[10:17] think the other

[10:19] coming to do says a comfortable

[10:20] with the process that exists

[10:22] right now. Right? So the

[10:25] the city takes of the property

[10:28] waves, everything and then

[10:29] officer it up to one of the

[10:31] historic preservation,

[10:32] nonprofits that have these

[10:33] different criteria. If they

[10:35] don't have the means to take

[10:36] it, it goes out to the private

[10:37] sector, right? The bid process

[10:39] with the minimum bid being

[10:40] $10,000.

[10:42] >> That way. It's not going to.

[10:43] Yeah. I think that's I'm

[10:45] comfortable with that. The one

[10:46] thing I wanted to

[10:48] the step before that, though,

[10:50] who identifies as the

[10:52] properties

[10:54] and they be are they only

[10:56] identified by HPC Orkin like

[10:59] it's a mark of preservation or

[11:00] myself or whoever. I got random

[11:02] neighbors say, hey, I know

[11:04] about this bill. This house

[11:05] next meets been dilapidated

[11:06] for, you know, 100 years.

[11:08] Can you guys look at this can

[11:09] and kind of be 8 proactive for

[11:11] the purpose of I think

[11:14] when we look at this logically,

[11:16] there's probably going to be a

[11:16] person to an HPC. That's a

[11:18] member of to start the you

[11:20] know, what's called summer

[11:22] Preservation, right? I mean,

[11:23] there's going to be a Lindsay

[11:24] type or one of those. I know

[11:26] that there's going I got Bill

[11:27] Hoffa's was lookign initiate

[11:29] the. I don't see why they as a

[11:31] body can say, hey, I know these

[11:32] 4 properties. Let me talk to to

[11:34] cut flights and see if there's

[11:35] a ton of liens on there.

[11:36] Okay. There are going to look

[11:37] at that. Body is pretty strong

[11:39] like they're going to those

[11:40] members. Hpc. Yeah, okay.

[11:43] But I guess it straight strong

[11:44] mean they did this task force.

[11:45] They did all this work. It's

[11:46] it's it's Shannon Blankenship

[11:48] with Brown, you know, was

[11:49] Michael Haskins. It was

[11:50] obviously our own staff and

[11:52] then a bunch of do voters.

[11:54] So what's the process to get

[11:57] them to review? It is what I'm

[11:59] asking like. Compliance is

[12:00] going to put up a list of all

[12:02] the houses in these areas that

[12:04] have wings. Okay. Cool. That's

[12:06] that. If they don't have

[12:08] haven't got it. Okay, perfect.

[12:10] That's what I'm looking for.

[12:11] And then it will be, you know,

[12:12] everyone, what kind of discuss

[12:13] it. And they'll say which of

[12:14] these we actually first

[12:15] position on not only beat us.

[12:18] >> So be clear. Hpc will not be

[12:20] doing any kind of review on

[12:22] whether or not it's

[12:23] >> legally or,

[12:26] >> you know, a sound decision

[12:29] to move forward with

[12:30] enforcement and many of those

[12:31] they are just going to kind of

[12:33] create this batch of this list

[12:36] of homes. They want people to

[12:38] focus on that we need. These

[12:39] are not we, but they would say

[12:42] we think these are really

[12:43] important in danger of being

[12:45] last here. Administration.

[12:49] Take a look at these. See if

[12:50] there's anything can do to

[12:51] enforce currently aims.

[12:55] Are there any financial

[12:56] resources we can focus towards

[12:59] these houses and those are

[13:01] programs that might be created

[13:02] in the future, maybe current

[13:05] programs. But

[13:07] it's just to highlight, you

[13:09] know, the most important

[13:11] structures in the city. But

[13:13] then it's in the purview of the

[13:14] ministration really to her,

[13:16] get the ball going into,

[13:18] you know, make the ask of the

[13:20] GC to do and analysis on

[13:22] whether

[13:23] what enforcement remedies are

[13:24] available, whether that's a

[13:26] good policy decision or not.

[13:28] >> So could a PC that say,

[13:30] like, you know, here's 25

[13:32] properties, but it's these 7

[13:33] that were pretty sure, really,

[13:35] right for the for the second

[13:37] here. Administration. Please

[13:38] go.

[13:39] >> You know, I mean, yeah,

[13:40] we left. Don't mind open.

[13:41] I didn't put a number. Donna.

[13:42] I know we had come to talk to

[13:44] like should they do 5? Should

[13:45] they do tend we kinda left it

[13:47] as well. Let's let them

[13:51] do that in in communication

[13:53] with the administration

[13:54] administration is like, hey,

[13:55] last year, we really didn't

[13:56] have any we could do anything

[13:58] with. Can you give us a

[13:58] peerless this year?

[14:00] >> Letter? And we also did say

[14:02] that it's think I think a

[14:03] minimum of once a year, but it

[14:04] could be 2 or 3 different

[14:06] times. They look at it.

[14:08] Its PC and staff have that kind

[14:10] of worth.

[14:15] >> At least one that we said at

[14:16] least one of each calendar

[14:18] year. So they could be in

[14:19] communication with the

[14:20] administration and they ask of,

[14:21] hey, could you guys do another

[14:22] list? We can really do much

[14:24] with them.

[14:25] >> With the intent of that was

[14:26] if we if reports,

[14:27] again, probably not your one,

[14:29] but as the years go on or they

[14:30] can say, let's do a second

[14:31] assessment and the same

[14:33] calendar year chair, they

[14:34] should be able to do that.

[14:35] I think.

[14:37] >> Any other college it just

[14:38] just ahead. The flow chart,

[14:39] right? So code compliance will

[14:41] identify. This is just random.

[14:43] Made up numbers. 100 properties

[14:45] with wings, right?

[14:48] Hugo Chavez of come up with all

[14:49] the houses. We have lanes in

[14:51] the area.

[14:53] >> We have a list of Henri of

[14:54] the ability to pull every

[14:55] property in Jacksonville,

[14:56] right in the fight them as

[14:58] historic landmark and then also

[15:00] shows the associated fines

[15:01] total cumulative and on the

[15:03] lungs as well. So then you can

[15:05] categorize those in the top

[15:06] 100.

[15:07] >> Cool. So you'll have like a

[15:09] list of all of the properties

[15:10] and then that list will get

[15:11] filtered out by HPC of like,

[15:14] okay, these are

[15:15] AG realistic ones that we want

[15:17] to pursue. That will be less

[15:20] than probably your list of 100

[15:21] and then HBC will have a list

[15:23] and then we'll kind of go to

[15:24] the mayor's office and they

[15:25] might would lay down even

[15:27] further. So I want to make sure

[15:28] when the list first comes out

[15:30] from the compliance, there's

[15:31] not like a sticker shock and

[15:32] everyone's like, oh, my gosh is

[15:33] going to be a 150. These they

[15:35] know that's going to get

[15:36] filtered down. Yes,

[15:38] tremendously by HPC. And then

[15:40] it could get filtered down even

[15:41] more by the mayor's office.

[15:42] The administration at any given

[15:44] time and say we're not doing

[15:45] any of us. Nothing yet. Yep,

[15:46] just want to make sure they're

[15:47] all right. And and part of it,

[15:49] part of the point about sticker

[15:50] shock might be that people say.

[15:53] >> Maybe that I I don't live

[15:54] there in Miami Beach and the

[15:55] like I I do on that property

[15:57] with that, I didn't know.

[15:58] And that may finally get rid of

[15:59] this. Like some of those folks

[16:00] may actively now sell their

[16:02] property, which might also be

[16:03] good because now it finally

[16:05] gets in the hands of hopefully

[16:05] some of that. So I mean,

[16:07] like now they still have the

[16:09] means and fines on there,

[16:10] but they may sell it to a maybe

[16:12] someone else in the

[16:13] neighborhood community or

[16:14] developer than actually can do

[16:15] it. So there's there's a part

[16:17] of me that thinks that may

[16:18] happen for a few of them.

[16:19] Yeah, I agree that.

[16:20] And so basically there's going

[16:21] to be a new exhibit to be

[16:23] attached to its going to add a

[16:24] thank you, Bill. And it's going

[16:25] to add. So we're considering

[16:28] today they can get what I just

[16:30] want to get it for the whole

[16:31] thing

[16:31] that will not say twice or

[16:34] ever.

[16:35] >> Durkee Villard Turkey Garden

[16:37] Durkee gardens and that is a

[16:38] federal to start

[16:40] just regret not mistaken.

[16:43] >> May need to talk about if

[16:44] there's a map. So I'm clear

[16:46] unlike committees and what a

[16:48] carrier it. I don't have it.

[16:50] >> We do have overlay for that

[16:51] one. Okay. They're dirty.

[16:53] Got these.

[16:54] >> So we had talked about,

[16:55] including that threw out so not

[16:57] only in the they can

[17:00] the home of homes over 5 years

[17:02] in those areas could be on the

[17:03] endangered

[17:05] historic homes list created

[17:06] body to see, but also then

[17:08] would also be

[17:13] subject to the disposition of

[17:17] property. Is 22 although

[17:19] sections.

[17:22] >> Is there a star as as as we

[17:24] talked about an overlay,

[17:25] is there is there not one for

[17:26] the site as well as there are

[17:27] no really friesen of the moment

[17:31] and that's minister districts

[17:33] of community.

[17:35] How big is that? Just for a

[17:36] look.

[17:37] There's like 900 properties and

[17:39] the district.

[17:42] >> Let me see my nanny, Diane.

[17:44] Make sure that communities okay

[17:45] with that. I think that they

[17:46] would be.

[17:49] >> I want to verify, okay.

[17:53] And may expect

[17:56] the minute.

[17:59] >> Also, it changed some of the

[18:01] headings and the code because

[18:02] are first nationally and

[18:04] locally designated historic

[18:05] properties. Recent changes to

[18:07] that to that will be.

[18:10] >> Well, if that already you're

[18:11] right. We did put that in there

[18:12] and win.

[18:13] So that would include the side

[18:14] and are you aren't already for

[18:16] the most part.

[18:17] >> In that one section yen are

[18:19] going to need to 4.61.

[18:23] We're seeing an ounce,

[18:25] but it will. It will expand the

[18:27] definition of a preservation

[18:28] priority property.

[18:32] That's like our base definition

[18:33] of. If the city owns these

[18:35] types of historic comes,

[18:37] how do we dispose of them in

[18:38] that current definition is just

[18:42] has to be a contributing

[18:43] structure or a local landmark.

[18:46] Okay. So it'll expand that to

[18:48] include also structures,

[18:50] 50 years old and older in these

[18:52] too graphic.

[18:55] There is some are go, Sir

[18:56] Nicholas

[18:57] Turkey.

[18:59] >> There are an ardent may the

[19:01] east side, maybe some Normani

[19:04] boulevard in the 1.02 EUR.

[19:06] >> So just to be clear, so then

[19:08] it would be

[19:10] that it's

[19:12] with that announcement of the

[19:13] picture. And it's with in the

[19:17] it's contributing structure.

[19:20] >> Or landmark or

[19:22] >> within this 50 years and

[19:24] older with in this area

[19:25] identified on the map,

[19:28] is that not correct? The second

[19:30] question? Yeah,

[19:32] and I don't I would imagine

[19:34] this can be fixed which is

[19:35] playing some language. So in

[19:38] for landmarks and the local

[19:40] dozen historic districts,

[19:42] there is a regulatory devised,

[19:44] the seaways which ensure that

[19:46] those properties are

[19:50] we have, according to

[19:52] preservation standards,

[19:54] however,

[19:58] San Marcos cetera, there's not

[20:00] that same unless it's a

[20:01] landmark. Well, I think that's

[20:02] the point is I think if the if

[20:03] the city does take them,

[20:04] they would mark them.

[20:07] >> And I mean, I don't know

[20:09] that they're going to

[20:11] demolished. I wouldn't mind.

[20:12] >> No, we're not. We're not a

[20:13] monster. Yeah. And take cover.

[20:17] >> Yeah. Says

[20:21] so. I was been just it is a

[20:23] matter of okay.

[20:24] >> But when Mark is,

[20:27] >> are people going to

[20:31] see that as a deterrent to

[20:33] taking the property?

[20:34] >> It's no more determined than

[20:35] in the areas with his current

[20:36] overly. But that let me tell

[20:38] you the same market market

[20:40] people will be able to whether

[20:41] or not they have to go to see

[20:42] in the process. They will see

[20:43] the value of those homes.

[20:45] I think San Marco Riverside

[20:46] Avenue in Springfield will be

[20:48] it'll be a very robust like

[20:51] market for developers,

[20:55] especially in summer prices

[20:56] will see, right? I mean,

[20:58] like I becomes a problem and

[20:59] we'll deal with that. But I

[21:01] think what most people are

[21:01] buying a House and Senate work

[21:04] that that kind of already think

[21:05] it's historically important.

[21:07] Yeah, so I don't think there's

[21:10] going to be like a.

[21:11] >> A major, major deterrent.

[21:13] And again, we're talking about

[21:14] like maybe one home years

[21:16] thing.

[21:17] >> So I mean, the the

[21:19] expectation is that would get

[21:20] him or it wants the city to go

[21:21] to a process, which yes,

[21:22] I guess that would mean you

[21:24] guys,

[21:24] however, you ever

[21:26] work with some of the same

[21:27] market preservation to go

[21:28] through that process.

[21:30] >> And when I got to say

[21:31] >> in the late part of it,

[21:33] because he's just

[21:37] >> we can take it as it comes.

[21:40] And I think.

[21:41] >> You know, let's just run

[21:42] through the mental exercise of

[21:43] what one of the city doesn't

[21:45] landmark in Marco property.

[21:47] Right? And we're talking about

[21:48] structures that are neglected,

[21:50] right? Not to the plan like a

[21:53] demolition is imminent because

[21:54] that, you know, be on saving

[21:55] but can still be saved

[21:58] and we get it to someone okay.

[21:59] They don't have to get to see

[22:00] you if they can rip out all the

[22:02] windows and put new windows.

[22:03] And but also they can do that

[22:04] anywhere in San Marco. So I

[22:06] think the purpose of

[22:07] preserving, you know, some of

[22:10] the historic structures still

[22:11] there, right? Even if you don't

[22:12] have to follow Department of

[22:14] Interior standards in and file

[22:17] us, you know, get a seal of

[22:19] approval for a breath and

[22:20] Syria. I think I think the

[22:21] purpose is still filled.

[22:23] >> Also, let's be clear the

[22:24] city could do that right now.

[22:26] If there was a property in San

[22:27] Marco at this very moment that

[22:28] had a ton of lines and feet let

[22:30] cleans and fines. The city has

[22:32] the power at this very moment

[22:34] to foreclose on the property

[22:35] there in first position.

[22:36] Yeah, like that does exist is

[22:37] all meant to create a very

[22:39] transparent process that for

[22:40] the purpose of

[22:43] helping out historically store

[22:45] properties is now like if

[22:48] yeah, if they get at the city

[22:50] takes that property and it's

[22:52] not as stark

[22:54] does Mr. Just nation the it

[22:56] would go back out. They would

[22:57] go out to bid under the other

[23:00] program.

[23:01] >> Yeah. Competitive bidding.

[23:03] The adjacent landowner. What

[23:04] isn't?

[23:06] >> All that's all that would be

[23:07] different. So it's in the best

[23:08] interest of this bill and up

[23:09] preservation that we take the

[23:10] property. So we take because

[23:12] the process is proposing on the

[23:13] property properties foreclosed

[23:15] upon. The city adds a historic

[23:17] marker that that we can now go

[23:19] through the process where they

[23:20] can go out to a bidding for

[23:22] system where it's the not that

[23:25] expensive debate on an sorry.

[23:26] And I were just got the memo.

[23:27] >> Then that makes sense,

[23:28] right? I mean, there's got to

[23:30] be there's got to be a a give

[23:32] and a take, so to speak of like

[23:33] if you're going to do this new

[23:35] outline process, then it then

[23:37] we wanted to be a historic does

[23:39] a good structure and that is

[23:40] the intent of this legislation.

[23:42] Otherwise, to the point,

[23:43] why would he why would we even

[23:44] be is that you could just do

[23:45] this automatically grant.

[23:47] >> Okay. Alright. Feel

[23:48] comfortable. Yeah. You gotta do

[23:50] you guys feel pretty calm?

[23:51] Will be a more questions about

[23:52] this week.

[23:56] >> Yeah, I think it started

[23:58] with certainty. What did we

[23:59] were just?

[24:00] >> In terms of promise for

[24:02] good, a love this bill. We love

[24:04] it and we live in tents and for

[24:05] sure. I think it's a tension.

[24:07] I love it in contention the

[24:10] dice.

[24:11] >> And when flu is going to be

[24:11] on the about and I really do

[24:15] hope you mean that, like I

[24:16] think we all really.

[24:18] >> You go to other cities.

[24:19] You see what they do when it

[24:20] comes to preservation. Carla,

[24:22] to her credit has done an

[24:23] incredible amount of work on

[24:24] this. This poor woman has to do

[24:26] with me for a year.

[24:27] >> Since my baby, I got a I I

[24:31] feel like it kind of is that

[24:31] the U.S. for for everyone to

[24:34] know. I messed with Carlo and I

[24:36] just called Argo AI were

[24:37] tossing that bill to the side

[24:39] to start of the trash. I we

[24:40] don't need to deal with it

[24:42] anymore and it was just silence

[24:43] on the phone.

[24:45] >> You should have heard the

[24:46] sounds when I called her and

[24:47] said I have a large amendment

[24:48] that I would like. Yeah.

[24:49] >> Like this.

[24:53] >> Okay. I do have a clear and

[24:55] does it question because what

[24:56] you are all were just talking

[24:57] about was then land marking it

[25:00] before sending it through a

[25:01] donation that would mean not

[25:03] changing the definition of

[25:05] preservation priority property

[25:07] requiring it to be a landmark

[25:08] before it can go through the

[25:09] donation channel or the like

[25:12] Big qualification. Getting it

[25:13] to someone who qualifies

[25:15] channel for disposition.

[25:19] Are we good with that? That

[25:20] means then all.

[25:22] Let me just read that. Yeah.

[25:25] So really smart.

[25:29] So we you know, and

[25:31] Councilmember Carlucci, you had

[25:33] said throughout adding San

[25:35] Marcos, a Nicholas up and

[25:37] several other places. Now

[25:38] you're out and you're just

[25:41] saying now you want it to be

[25:43] landmark before it can be

[25:44] disposed of before can be sold

[25:47] for donation. I thought as

[25:48] saying he don't wanna change it

[25:50] throughout. We don't. Then we

[25:51] wouldn't change preservation

[25:52] priority property because that

[25:53] definition is has a residential

[25:56] structure is a contributing

[25:58] structure, a local landmark.

[26:02] >> So all I just interject or

[26:03] there, I don't want it to be,

[26:06] but I I thought we were saying

[26:07] it had to be to be kind of

[26:09] uniform in the rest of this

[26:10] bill. And I heard them say

[26:12] light, look at this more work

[26:13] for them to do that. And but if

[26:17] that's the process that all the

[26:19] other properties are going

[26:20] through, then I think it's the

[26:21] keep it consistent.

[26:23] >> Okay. I mean, you know,

[26:24] I don't

[26:25] I don't want.

[26:26] >> San Marcos and includes to

[26:27] get all freaked out over

[26:28] whatever. But if that's the

[26:31] process in order to, you know,

[26:33] go through the

[26:35] preservation, kind of angle of

[26:37] the foreclosure process them

[26:38] have it.

[26:40] >> All right, then we'll just

[26:42] add it to chapter 76, where the

[26:43] historic Preservation

[26:44] Commission can add those types

[26:46] of homes in San Marcos. Even

[26:47] cluster give bill to the

[26:48] endangered historic homes list

[26:51] and then the administration act

[26:53] and one of those and eventually

[26:55] come to an end. The city come

[26:56] to own it. They would land

[26:58] market before being using the

[27:00] channels of donation to San

[27:02] Marco preservation or the bid

[27:04] qualifications. And

[27:07] >> that said, Councilman think

[27:09] that's okay. I mean, because

[27:10] we're, you know, having side

[27:11] conversation. But I think that

[27:12] that's OK, because I think that

[27:14] there's not going to be that

[27:15] many of these. And for some

[27:16] reason that becomes

[27:18] an issue or something funky

[27:19] down the road. I just, you

[27:21] know, we could cement.

[27:23] >> Legislation that, yeah,

[27:24] I think they could still do

[27:26] need it

[27:27] under Florida law. I don't know

[27:28] that that we could, but yeah,

[27:30] we can cross that bridge if

[27:31] that ever come to pass

[27:32] something and we need to do a

[27:33] little coating meant he could

[27:35] do that.

[27:38] >> I mean, the city owns a 2

[27:39] like they can obviously just

[27:40] remove that designation,

[27:42] right? Well, let's get to go

[27:43] back through to go through the

[27:44] same interest and some say,

[27:46] no, I want to amend the bill

[27:48] like if that became like the

[27:49] main snag for whatever reason,

[27:52] Lake City and at that point,

[27:53] yeah, I know you hate that,

[27:54] but.

[27:56] >> And it was during that he's

[27:57] likely another. And that is we

[27:59] don't like Chris and Liam.

[28:00] >> Of the year. So I guess I'll

[28:02] be the one to us.

[28:05] >> As a matter of amendment

[28:06] 3,000, it of these departments.

[28:08] >> And thanks to an existing to

[28:12] be done by random citizens of

[28:15] all right. It's Chris. We've

[28:17] been pretty silent on menthols.

[28:19] I'm going on life.

[28:20] >> And I really don't have much

[28:23] to add. Like I said, you know,

[28:26] we're just gonna put that

[28:27] together for you guys to help

[28:29] identify these properties and

[28:31] put a review next month.

[28:33] >> We do have one public

[28:35] comment. We will dive right in

[28:36] Mr. Many come on up. You have

[28:39] there

[28:40] 2 minutes.

[28:47] Do you want the whole half hour

[28:52] if your goals?

[28:55] >> The station has to do is.

[29:04] >> They were to what I hear is

[29:07] the structures of years old.

[29:11] It was just to make that the

[29:12] city was.

[29:22] It's great to see you this list

[29:28] and we see the first patients

[29:44] in part this positions for

[29:49] it's also the state to do

[30:07] readings

[30:24] instead. It's a.

[30:53] >> That is 2 minutes, sir.

[30:54] We appreciate it. Looking

[30:56] forward to seeing you tonight

[30:57] and this collection.

[30:59] Let's make it 70 years. Thanks.

[31:02] 7 years honestly does get that

[31:05] uses thing. I did kind of thing

[31:07] that Mike, that really is from

[31:08] a wide swathe. That's why when

[31:09] most of the homes were donors,

[31:11] yes, 60's point is that would

[31:14] yes, I mean, I could I could

[31:16] probably make an argument for

[31:17] 80, but let's listen to 70.

[31:18] I really want to sign with the

[31:19] 2, but I think it makes more

[31:21] sense

[31:23] and doesn't

[31:25] if I just want to overburden

[31:27] rather that, yeah, we're going

[31:29] to desert you. Yes, out the

[31:30] season.

[31:32] >> It's due to the Senate.

[31:33] This is for historic in its

[31:34] historic area. Should be easily

[31:35] reverse that. Yes, yes. I also

[31:37] think that it could be in for a

[31:38] number. Yeah. And it could

[31:39] spooked normal. Property owners

[31:41] just don't know.

[31:43] Those don't need these. You

[31:44] know, 70's. Yeah, OK? All

[31:48] right. I'm okay. With 80 under

[31:50] any

[31:53] just let's just sort of so

[31:54] many. Is that okay with you?

[31:56] Call it scary, right?

[31:59] It was not.

[32:04] >> Is a 5 o'clock and at least

[32:07] into being at least within 2

[32:08] weeks that have been probably

[32:11] next week. So.

[32:14] >> It goes to committee Monday

[32:15] morning, but

[32:18] I would leave that up to you.

[32:20] You know, in committee, we

[32:21] don't need to offer an

[32:22] amendment, doesn't need to be

[32:23] in writing. But if you think a

[32:25] map would be helpful and

[32:28] >> it's up to him, OK for the

[32:30] next we'll have done needs to

[32:32] be done for the enrolled them

[32:35] when it's when it goes to

[32:36] counsel them.

[32:40] >> What committees is go to

[32:41] Lou, I think 3 of the 4 rules,

[32:44] neighborhoods and roads and

[32:45] finance ago city you go to fund

[32:47] the only wanted to go to

[32:50] say I'm sorry, but

[32:53] I was never heads finding you

[32:54] come to the podium place.

[32:57] >> Not just for the record.

[32:59] No of community. Heather.

[33:00] Yeah.

[33:03] First timer.

[33:07] >> The neighborhood is to you

[33:12] for different. Okay. To little

[33:14] surprise action on to you.

[33:15] But I mean, all been because

[33:17] finance else. We'll see how

[33:18] effective is consistently.

[33:20] This is not a good bill and I

[33:22] think we've done such good work

[33:23] event.

[33:25] The announcement on else

[33:28] manager

Notice Meeting CM's Peluso J. Carlucci RE Historic Housing Preservation

Agenda

Transcript