good afternoon everybody Welcome to the Palaca community redevelopment agency meeting on March 6 20124 um time is 5:30 I'm going to call this meeting to order and we're going to start with the invocation from Pastor mberry who we presume this on zoom and then the Pledge of Allegiance by commissioner MCO good evening everyone father we thank you again for this opportunity to come together we thank you for how good you've been all day long blessed us to come together this time for this CRA meeting we pray that you would guide give wisdom give instruction and understanding and what needs to be done done we give you praise for all that you're doing for the city te to bless us in Jesus name we pray thank God amen amen to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all could you to read the um special call meeting notice certainly certainly thank you so much the members Tammy mcal will Jones Justin Campbell senior Rufus boram Teresa Jackson Terry Turner you're hereby notified the special called meeting of the community redevelopment agencies hereby called for Wednesday March 6 2024 at 5:30 the purpose of the meeting is to make a recommendation concerning the acquisition of 512 emit Street signed by robertto MCA mayor on March 4th 2024 thank you roll call please commissioner Tam M CasCal here commissioner Justin Campbell Senor presid commissioner will Jones president commissioner Rufus boram pres mayor Robbie kah present commissioner Terry Turner here representative Teresa Jackson she did not say here but she is on the zoom where is it there she goes sorry spoke too soon I'm going to open the floor to public comments um public comments are limited to three minutes and no um this items may not be addressed at this point in time we have a um somebody who submitted um for public comment Pat Wilson could you please come up and give you your name and address for the record my name is Pat Wilson I live at 516 River Street however my property also goes back to imit Street and is almost directly across from the property in question that is being discussed today and I would just like to say that it has been an eyesore for several years and I very much would be in favor of it being uh torn down however I think it is very important before it is acquired and destructed by the city that we know what's going to happen with the property thank you thank you is there anybody else here for public comment yes ma'am please give your name and address so this is for items that are not on the agenda right but there is right but there is nothing else on the agenda yeah so anyway um do you want to wait Mr granto till we bring the whole case up it might be easier okay thank you move on to regular business discussion recommendation to purchase and demolish 512 EMT Street before we start I do want to um expart disclosure as a neighbor both Mr burn and Mr granto have talked to me about this house in the past and even more recently so just to put that out there um but that that's the extent of the conversation on to the discussion recommendation to purchase and demol demolish 512 Amit street so if you can disclose any conversation I want to disclose that I did speak with uh Mr GTO and his I guess the guy that's working on the property Mr burn Mr Burns as well so I just want to disclose that have conversation with them previously thank you anyone else I don't have I haven't had any conversation with anyone connected to that property okay thank you moving on to the business at hand um Mr Griff Mr Bell that's quite all right thank you madam mayor and so I'm sorry this item uh that is before you now is uh an effort to purchase the property to uh deal with the cost of um de uh the demolition necessary to Abate the uh issue at the property and to address uh potential contingencies costs and eventually um look to address the um leans that exist on the property um um with regard to what the expectation is I think the primary objective in our U blight to Bright program is to eliminate those items in the community that have created um considerable blight and I believe that this structure uh was um caught on fire did C catch on fire approximately seven years ago which is almost 3,000 days uh that that Community had to deal with this issue um I commend the City attorney for uh working with uh the gentleman that owns the property as well as uh Mr Griffith in order to come to a resolution um it has been cited by the code enforcement folks as um a blite and the issues associated with it uh I will allow Mr Griffith to provide any additional color on that but what we're asking to do and uh this e this item before you is purchase the property aate the existing issue that uh has been with us for almost seven years and then um potentially put that property on the market for sale and at a future date so is there anything that you would like to add to that Mr Grifford okay thank you I welcome any questions you might have questions Mr B yes ma'am go ahead commission attorney um what are the amount of the leans that are on the property now it's approximately 25,000 if I'm not mistaken do you have that exactly that's close enough excuse me Mr grto please don't yeah just for reference Ed cut R is is on the zoom if needed okay what is the appraised value of the property I don't believe we have a current appraised value with the the structure um that has burned down but do we have an i any okay have some images pull those up so you can see the current state yeah I went by and looked at it so the the usually the property appraiser will have a yes sir I'm looking that up a value of the land and the value of the structure on it value I have it on the screen Madame mayor just a is 21 okay just L there is no value to the structure at this point in time land liability that would have come off of it um what what is the contingency you felt like it's needed for I don't know which one of you to ask M Mr Griffith involved with the project yeah Mr Turner we're we're basing our estimate based upon two demolitions that we did well over a year ago with SCS um we believe it's going to be in the ballpark of 10 to1 15,000 but uh as you know when you uh embark on some of these projects there's unforeseen so we're just looking for that total of 30,000 um I will say that we have reached out to to Mark Spalding who the city is under continuing contract with for realtor services and we've asked for a comparable uh sales um because the intent is if you make this recommendation tonight goes to the city commission and we will be sitting on ready to have the property listed as soon as it is um raised okay um my last comment I guess it's more of a comment than it is a question would the money come back to the CRA if we make this deal I mean if the CRA pays the money out would the money come back to the CRA after the sale of the property I would presume so hope so Mr Griffith does anybody want to speak directly to that please that would be staff's recommendation good that's all I have for now Madam mayor thank you does anybody else have any questions I okay go go ahead M jackon Miss Jackson oh okay I see that it's going to be sold um through quick a quick need um is there not a title search uh needed to see that if if there's more than just the the leans from the city do a title search Miss West yes so Miss Jackson um I have looked at the chain of title that's uh available um the reason it's going to be in the form of a quick claim deed is because there are issues with the previous deeds in the chain in terms of consideration there was no consider ation it was love and affection which could pose a title problem and therefore it's being conveyed via Quick Claim Deed okay that title because of that the potential purchaser can um I don't see an issue as why the city would need to clean up that title no any further questions Miss Jackson um I do uh have we do we have kind of a ballpark figure on how much it's going to cost to um demolish the rest of the house tear the rest of the house that's down because it looks like it we're it's at like a total of 33,105 one, so kind of know that you're buying some property that's going to be upside down um just to put it out there but I'm definitely not against the city purchasing the property does anybody want to excuse me go ahead Community Affairs has chatted in u the fines are 23375 there you go wow and with regard to the cost of Demolition and the range that we are working with from previous experiences between 10 and 15 and so obviously we're working with uh something that's over almost a year old maybe older so we would hope that we'd be in that range but potentially it could be an excess of that you mind if I add something to Miss Jackson's comment so you're sitting in the capacity of the community redevelopment agency today and while it's helpful to look at these things in terms of a return on investment um we also need to remind ourselves that you're primarily charged with the removal of blight so there will be projects of which the return on investment is not easily calculated just on the sale of the property so there are impacts to the adjacent properties uh on to the quality of life and some of those things are not immeasurable or they're not measurable in a dollars and cents way so ideally we're going to get to all close to a net zero cost uh but this is one of those Pro projects per Florida statute 163 that is an eligible expens and that you see C undertake all the time thank you I I understand that John that's why I ended my you know my comment with um that I'm not in disagreement um with it being done but also we need to you know inform everyone um of the total cost that so somebody might object to it but I have no objection thank you commissioner Jones did ask commiss Jones go ahead oh two first I want to know why this was an emergency item um since it had been burnt for some years um me too and we just had a and we just had a c meeting that's number one uh secondly uh I went by and I visited with the two gentlemen in the back just to get the knowledge in the history uh before making any decision and uh it appears that they have already T down you put the pictures up half of the structure already and U I would like to know when did the lean start and what was the parameters that they were working around because they had a destru a demolition permit is what I was told and the second uh third thing was Mr GTO during our conversation sounded like to me that and I'm glad he's here so he uh clarify this said he sold the land to the city for $35,000 so I want to make certain that that he understand he's not getting $35,000 he's only we're g to tell him what he's going to get I guess you you got um city manager tell him what he is actually going to get it's not $35,000 I didn't want to be, okay so um but I wanted to make sure that was on the record as we were speaking on it uh and the last thing the house is actually adjacent to your mother his mother's property my grandma grandmother property and as as I was trying to do the research and maybe you guys could tell me here for clarification the setbacks and the the the perimeters for another house to be built there in this day and time is it can that lot be used for another structure to be uh put there in that amount of space so you have your chance at a minute Mr grto sorry um it is considered a buildable a lot I don't know if Mr Griffith would want to speak to that anymore anybody else for that matter but it is would be considered a buildable L yeah but he's not here line is he online he's on the line um but I'm not 100% sure he's ready for that question yet he's covering the the phones in the lobby for us we need but okay there are some other items while uh we're waiting for him to to come to the mic that I can address from the commission uh comments so um and I may may have missed some of the items with regard to the calling of the meeting the sense of urgency that was expressed by staff was around the um the opportunity to come to a resolution on a matter that has existed for quite some time there are many other matters that have existed for considerable amount of time that we were attempting to bring to resolution but not have not uh been able to do so in this particular cases staff expressed to me um we had a property owner who was willing and to uh sell the property to the city which would give us the opportunity to enter in and Abate the the blight that we're dealing with and that is the charge of the of the CRA as well as the the uh the city in general so that's why we requested the opportunity to have this meeting it is at the pleasure of the CRA as to whether or not uh they consider it an emergency item or if they want to defer to the next meeting um we wanted to make sure that we address this as quickly as possible not only to remove the blight from the community but also because wanted to ensure that the transaction could be completed as timely as possible uh I believe the the other matter uh that you mentioned was uh around the um Communications that had occurred around the pricing and so it is in fact $9,800 it's not $330,000 uh we're looking at this overall cost associated with trying to address it there are some opportunity costs associated with this that Mr Griffith mentioned um but I believe that when it comes to that point we're ready to put the uh the property on the market there are some stipulations that we can ask that would help us be able to recoup whatever uh negative cash flow might exist as a result of the demolition of the property and the purchase of the property but that's something that we would have to address when we get to that point and we're ready to uh put the property on the market the planning direct planning director has so yes um commissioner Jones did have a question Mr R good evening for the regular planning director so the question was the lot is adjacent it's right in the middle of two Uh current structures right can you pull it up son currently now so whenever that house was constructed it I'm quite sure they had uh codes that they were following at that time so I don't know what the current codes are that's why I'm asking you the professional subject matter expert will that lot be buildable uh with the setbacks that's currently in place that we have now or will it be grandfathered in or what what what's that status my estimation is that since the house was already built according to code is illegally was illegally built a single family home and it got destroyed by fire I think they would be grandfather in however you know we have to bring into conformance with with existing code if it is destroyed more than 50% and I don't know the situation on this particular parts that's something that we should have known or presented to us prior to us making these decisions um I wanted to ask it because I want us to be forthcoming and transar in this again like Miss Jackson I'm not for against it right now but I don't want to impede it from being sold however I would like to know what you know what we are doing secondly all cost I think they should be upfront to us we should know what the all cost we're going well we have done something like this in the past what it cost now because we get caught in this when it's bought back to us it'll be $50,000 U so that's not your question to you about cost it's going back to the and that's a a very good if I make commission just going back to your original question okay uh the B the lot is buildable and the setb that they need to meet is 5 feet on the side and 15 feet on the front and 50 feet on the back so five feet on the side five feet on the Sid and it's currently that's current code okay so it is buildable so than thank you thank you no madame mayor yes well uh commissioner you asked a a very valid uh question about um the actual cost of doing the Demolition and what we wanted to avoid is getting too far out in front of our skis on putting this uh uh out to bid for the demolition of it without uh authorization from the CRA and the commission to be able to uh purchase the property and then demolish it um so what we're working with what we have now is the cost of what it co cost us a year ago in order to do something similar obviously every property is different um base in size and issues um as well as the time time that has elapsed between uh when it was done before and now so we're working off of the best estimate that we have until we can actually have permission to uh put it out for RP RP do you have any further questions nope that's all I want to R commissioner Bor yes I'm I'm in agreement with um Miss Jackson and commissioner Jones as it relates to this and we should have had all the number before us before we even considered moving forward with with any of this but long story short the how do we um pay 9800 for purchase of a property that has uh lanss and other code violations as it relates to that so we got a individual who walk away with almost 10,000 in the city or the CRA is paying in excess ESS of like four times that or maybe more and so that's just my question and concern that we got we'll have somebody walking away free and clear and they got code violations don't understand so um I can comment on that and I was would also uh defer to Mr Griffith to add to that or um Miss West but what we're looking at is code violations close to 25 ,000 and so the question of us being able to recoup that money uh given the condition of the of the property it is not likely uh that we will be able to recruit that $25,000 given the current condition of the property and it's also not likely that the current owner of the property would be able to uh address the issues and bring it up to cod in such such a way that uh the property would be viable so we're kind of in this catch22 situation uh on what is the right thing to do but the overriding factor that we have to deal with is that the community has to contend with this blighted situation and we have the resources to to try to address it now does that mean that uh we're going to be able to recoup everything that it would cost us to do that in the moment we don't we don't have information to be able to say yes that we will but we do know that the property would have value based on where it is and the opportunity to put it back back on the market we would not probably be able to do that with its current situation so we have to figure out something to be able to do in order to get it to a state where we can put it back on the market there had to be some sort of solution also there's a big a safety concern um if a child wanted on to that property it's very dangerous and it's been that way for some time um so that's one of my primary concerns frankly it looks hideous it is a blood but it also is dangerous it's a big safety issue and I wouldn't want any child to get hurt because we were concerned about spending the money it is there and that is one of its intended uses um and hopefully we would get it back on the market sell it and would back on the tax rols um and bring in that Revenue in the future and I think it would be helpful to see the video right now and thank you for mentioning the safety concerns because I neglected to make reference to that the the cost of the effort to secure that property so that it would not be a safety concern would be another additional loss cost that we would have to sink into the property and you there's no telling whether or not we would actually be able to make it safe we truly make it safe so my property this I'll let you come up in a minute Mr G to watch the video and you'll come up next the best way to make it safe would be to raise the structure so not withstanding that you know there are things that we can do but there's no guarantee that that would uh give us an assurance of safety think it'll be a risk because of the close proximity of other piece of property there that something could happen and we'll find oursel in a little deeper uh hole think Could Happen uh why why can't we have we explored that maybe uh with the program of property owner helping the property owner by demolition which only right here estimated is $113,000 and so the CRA is only out of $133,000 versus we purchasing it is still his property and he can sell it well I it's asking that I don't then you have the fines that he's aced right so so so let me let this what it sounds like and tell me if I'm right or wrong so we do a lot of work to get these leans and put on then we come back and wash them out where nobody's going to pay that is that that's what we're saying that's the city not gonna pay the city so tell so tell me don't don't it's not making a lot of sense to me right now and I'm quite sure you no I don't believe that uh we're expecting to completely wash away the fin so that's one of the functions that the CRA has in an effort to be able to address the blighted issue um I will pause and let Mr Griffith but I do want to come back and answer the other aspect of your question about being close to another property yeah I was going to comment on that but I'll let you answer that one I was going to address your um question regarding could we not just uh partner and enter into a contract with the property owner uh that is a possibility uh the fines would still be in place and unless Mr gorto was able to apply for a fine reduction and then pay the fines ultimately the city would still foreclose on the property to try and recoup those fines commission attorney we need to keep in mind here Commissioners that we're talking about $9,800 it cost more than that to go in there and foreclose on the property so if it was $198,000 we'd be talking a different thing here but with just it being so small I think we need to go on and just do this um my question I guess would be with the fines being on the property currently um if the city purchases the property and has the structure on it Abad like the the current recommendation is would the city wave the fines before they sold the property and the money comes back to the CRA or does the CRA have to pay the fines on the property before they get the money returned to them um now I I know it doesn't make any difference here but we wave fines at every single meeting at at the county every single meeting has three or four or five code violations because we use we we are of the opinion that we use code violations to bring somebody into compliance not to Aid with our budget amounts exactly so the only way that I see bringing this into compliance would be to the cheapest way would be to just go ahead and purchase the property have it torn down and then have the money whatever the property brings have it brought back to the CRA to help pay back the Tiff funds in the CRA to go and do other good things maybe other code enforcement issues um that's at at the last meeting I joined with zoom and one of the things that that I tried to bring out in my comments is the CRA whenever it possibly can and it can't always but when it possibly can they need to try and do things that would help them raise additional funds in the future to do more good things with instead of just spending it for no reason at all so getting some of this money back I think would be a a the key to it and I do believe that the city needs to quiet the title I really do because it would make it so much more of a marketable piece of property and it won't take much time with us having a a lawyer on staff it just wouldn't take much time to quiet the title and probably going to make a lot of difference in how quick the property sells and for how much money so are you ready for a motion or do you want to continue or what do you want I still want to discuss because I don't think that I I appreciate your opinion and I I value that but when when you just said9 $9,800 that's not the total that we want to spend we're spending up $35,000 is what we what was just discussed so tell where where am I getting lost at uh well 9,800 to purchase the property then it's another 15,000 for Demolition and I'll bet you a cold drink when we get done with this mess that that's going to be plenty to tear this place down 15,000 the other 5,200 that they've asked for is a contingency so if the motion went that they could that they could not spend more than $30,000 I believe that it's going to be less than that when they get done and the uh the blight would be a way it's the easiest way to do it if it would cost that much just to foreclose if we took went through the codes violation with this and then foreclosed on it it would still cost that much money and you're still not going to get your money back because you're not going to sell it for enough money to offset the the amount of money that it's going to that the that the code leans are already on it so you're still going to spend money on it if you even if you go the codes enforcement route but it's going to take six months to do it instead of 30 days they can have this thing torn down and gone and on the market with the city realtor and in today's world I'd be shocked if it wasn't unless we pric it for too high I'd be shocked if it wasn't sold in another month after that so I just don't think we're spending a lot of money here a lot of time you know to try and get something done this is one of those rare instances where you can put a less money at it and make it happen quicker and easier than if you went the route that's built in through code enforcement and foreclosure and and the the normal route so you know I really think we ought to just go on and do this come yeah Mr G do you have would you like to come up and say anything in regards to this topic I did want to quickly respond to the uh commissioner's question about um properties that are close by and so that's why we would be using a licensed and an insured uh contractor who understands the parameters that associated with the Demolition of that property and if they should fail to meet those parameters then that's what their license and insurance is there for to be able to cover that potential liability go ahead else commission yeah I just like to make a quick comment I thank commissioner Turner for that um clarification because a lot I don't know a whole lot about you know real estate and also don't know about the how things proceed through the courts and the costs associated with doing things like that so I thank you for at least um giving me that uh Insight so those are the kind of things that we need in order to be able to help make decisions not everybody have that level of knowledge uh around different things as it relates to when we making decisions so I certainly appreciate that and that helps me uh a lot more thank you thank you anybody else yeah I want to again yeah yes Mr one minute Mr could you please come up to the microphone and give your name and address for the record my name is Daniel GTO Reese I live at 56 Li Street I want to know who gave permission to come on my property I'm not certain uh specifically can you tell me when that was and well obviously you guys made the estimate of my house but if you go through the front gate that means you're trespassing on my property and what are you referencing specifically when why that's right here okay anybody if I may mad referencing on there was the paperwork off the property appraiser site is where we got these numbers from it's down at the it's on the internet I don't think anybody went on your property that I'm aware of and also to take those drone photos you wouldn't go on your property either those could be taken no but that's my privacy right am I right or wrong I want to sell it okay when it comes to excuse me but when it comes to my privacy you're wrong okay when it comes to real estate um it is really hard to put some limits on that sort of thing um somebody can drive through and photograph your house it's really hard to prevent that I'm sure chief sure may be able to speak more to that but people do drive around in photograph houses and drone photos are from a distance um so nobody came on your property so okay so far nobody come on property but got pictures in my backyard how do you get the pictures of my backyard I I don't yeah I think at this point we just can't give you any more answers than we have thank you Mr ganto thank you you ready for a motion we are um I move that we take staff recommendation and spend not to exceed $30,000 9,800 for a purchase up to 15,000 Demolition and 5,200 in contingencies to make this property uh to buy this property demo it and the money come back to this to the CRA to pay them back when the when the deal's done second can I ask for a clarification go ahead can we make that up to 15,000 for demolition well you'd have still have your 52 contingency on top of that okay the 30 was the maximum of 30 maximum 30 okay so have a motion in a second all in favor I any opposition n okay Miss Jackson do we hear Miss Jackson I didn't hear her because I heard yours your was louder that not because and can I elaborate you can in a second as long as I did miss M Jackson did you vote in favor or in opposition uh in favor okay thank you go ahead J um the mental capacity is a is a somewhat cloudy here um and I know you do real estate contracts you can't make contracts when both parties are not confident enough to make them seems like a little bit of concern it is me so let it be thank you um do we have anything else to discuss please yes we just want a clarification as to which district in South thank is that the intent of your motion commissioner Turner I believe it was your motion sir I you can add that to the motion if the second will allow it to it has to be you legally can't spend funds from yeah it has to go back and so right thank you I just don't want to add something to the motion that wasn't intended thank you is there anything additionally to discuss if not a motion to adjourn so move okay thank you