My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/11/2013AP
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2013
>
06/11/2013AP
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/26/2018 2:07:22 PM
Creation date
3/23/2016 8:58:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Date
06/11/2013
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Book and Page
144
Supplemental fields
FilePath
H:\Indian River\Network Files\SL00000E\S0004ND.tif
SmeadsoftID
14218
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
144
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
The downside of that option is that the housing market is depressed, vacant property is not selling, and <br /> prices are down. So even if all of the lots sold,the yield from the sales will probably be low. <br /> ■ Option 2 <br /> In contrast to option 1, option 2 is difficult to implement. With option two, the county would need to <br /> coordinate with lot buyers to ensure that lots are developed with affordable housing units and to <br /> structure resale restrictions. Then a process would need to be established to monitor all subsequent <br /> transactions to ensure that the assisted units remain affordable and that new buyers are income eligible. <br /> ■ Option 3 <br /> With option 3, there would be monitoring and other issues similar to those referenced in option 2. <br /> Another challenge with option 3 is actually getting houses constructed on the lots. That is illustrated by <br /> the 2007 decision to surplus lots to non-profits. In that case, some of the donated lots have not been <br /> built on as of yet, while some of the other lots were returned to the county. Therefore, staff feels that <br /> option 3 is not a good alternative. <br /> Even though option 3 is not the preferred option, staff submitted the 2013 list of county owned surplus <br /> lots to Habitat for Humanity (HFH) and Every Dream Has A Price (EDHAP) to determine if they were <br /> interested in the lots. Both of those organizations indicated that they do not want those lots. Among <br /> the reasons cited by HFH and EDHAP for not wanting the lots were the following: <br /> 1. The Lincoln Street lot contains an encroachment by neighboring church to the west. <br /> 2. The 1016 Booker Street lot is only 0.10 acre, too small for a septic system (need 0.25 acre). <br /> 3. The 116 N. Hickory Street lot is only 0.14 acre, too small for a septic system (need 0.25 acre). <br /> 4. The 4256 25th Avenue lot contains a flow well that has been temporarily plugged and will cost <br /> $10,000 to seal. <br /> 5. The 4265 24th Court lot is being used by a neighboring property owner to access his house. <br /> Although some of the eight surplus lots have building constraints, the properties could still have value <br /> to potential buyers. In some cases, those buyers could be adjacent property owners or others who see <br /> value in the properties. For that reason, staff supports option 1. <br /> RECOMMENDATION <br /> Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners review the attached list, make any <br /> appropriate changes, and approve the attached resolution accepting the list of county owned surplus <br /> properties that are appropriate for the provision of affordable housing. <br /> Also, staff recommends that the Board direct purchasing department staff to sell those properties and <br /> contribute the sale proceeds to the county's affordable housing (SHIP) trust fund for the provision of <br /> affordable housing through the county's existing established affordable housing program. <br /> 4 <br /> 56 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.