[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