The Mount Vernon Real Estate Committee on June 4 agreed to have staff review offers on six tax-foreclosed parcels included in Phase 1, confirm which bidders meet the posted criteria and proof-of-funds requirements, and return with a recommendation at the committee’s next meeting on June 27 at 9:30 a.m.

The committee’s discussion centered on process questions and title concerns: several members said properties should be recommended “as-is” where title clearing is incomplete, bidders must meet the criteria published in the sale notice, and the city must follow the posted timelines for deposit and final payment after Board of Estimates action.

Why it matters: the six parcels are in an initial group the committee identified as priorities for sale because of potential occupancy, liability, or tax exposure. Selling tax-foreclosed properties can reduce the city’s maintenance and legal liabilities and recover taxes, but clouded titles and inadequate proof of funds can delay closing or derail individual sales.

Key facts and next steps
- Properties identified for Phase 1 review: 224 North Seventh Avenue; 529 East Third Street; 234 East Fifth Street; 106 Hillside; 52 Mesereau (Adam); and one additional parcel referenced in the committee packet. The committee said a compiled listing of bids and supporting documents has been provided to members.
- The committee asked staff to produce a summary (“grid”) that flags which offers meet the published criteria, shows submitted proof of funds or preapprovals, and lists upset prices/appraisals so members can judge whether proposals meet statutory limits or expectations.
- Staff were directed to contact eligible bidders to confirm they remain interested and that they can produce the required deposit and balance within the timeframe required after Board of Estimates approval (committee discussion referenced a 10–15 day window for deposit/full payment, described as subject to review of the applicable law and administrative practice).
- A committee member said they will have staff prepare the eligibility summary and return it to the committee for public review; the committee planned to vote on recommendations to send to the City Council and Board of Estimates at the June 27 meeting.

Bids and eligibility (as presented at the meeting)
- For one property: Bridal Wilder — $281,000 (no attachment of proof of funds in the packet).
- Andrea Bellano — $180,000 (preapproval or proof attached; described as eligible).
- Mustafa (last name recorded phonetically) — $201,000 (proof of funds attached; described as eligible).
- Omar Batha — $425,000 (no proof of funds attached).
- Patricia Hunt — $30,030 (proof of funds attached; described as eligible).
- Avis (last name recorded as Yizer/Yiser in the packet) — proof of funds attached and described as eligible.
- Carol Brown — $75,000 (online submission; proof of funds attached; described as eligible).
- Carol McDonald — $150,000 (proof attached; described as eligible).
- Several online offers showed either no dollar amount or a bank statement with no stated offer amount; committee staff said those entries will be clarified.

Legal and procedural limits discussed
- Committee members emphasized the sale notice criteria (as issued under the city’s procedures) govern eligibility: bidders must demonstrate funds or the ability to pay the required deposit and balance. The committee described the legal standard for sale pricing as tied to the foreclosure-related amounts plus expenditures and “as close to fair market value,” and said staff and the law department will confirm precise statutory requirements and the exact deposit/payment timing.
- The committee noted that when title cannot be cleared, the recommendation to City Council would need to describe the sale as “as-is” with the purchaser taking title-related risk.

Implementation risk and timeline
- Members identified title clearance as a primary implementation risk: properties with unresolved title issues could delay closing or require additional legal steps before transfer.
- Administrative work (staff review of documentation, follow-up with bidders, and confirming upset/appraised values) was scheduled to occur before the committee reconvenes on June 27, when members expected to consider formal recommendations to City Council and Board of Estimates.

The meeting closed after committee members agreed on the administrative steps and set the next meeting for 9:30 a.m. on Friday, June 27. The committee approved the March 27 minutes and adjourned by voice vote.