plan and financial information. I will also state for the record that this is not her
property, it is her son's property.
Council President Brendmoen: If it's not her property, why do we engage on this? How
do we draw distinctions with parties and ownership?
Moermond: I don't have an answer on that. All I can say is that she has been acting on
her son's behalf, such as providing information on her son's bank account. They do
seem to be operating in cooperation. I have never met the property owner. Aychoeun
Tea is his mom. On the overhead you can see the recommendation is highlighted. We
were clear about what was needed. At the hearing yesterday and up to that point, there
was no plan or evidence of financing. At 3pm this afternoon, Aychoeun Tea arrived at
our office with an affidavit of available funds. We ask for evidence of financing in
terms of needing a bank account with a name on it that has the necessary money or a
construction line of credit. This affidavit is a promise but still not evidence of money.
Ms. Tea then called her bank and then, with our staff helping her, had her bank fax in
a statement showing that she has money to complete the rehabilitation. She also
handed me a work plan at 3:45pm that I have not had a chance to review. She says
everything's been paid for, but I don't have evidence of that. What I have are trades
permits that aren't finaled. The building inspector says it is 55% completed. After 2
years, that is bad. That is also an unenviable position in terms of demolition, since
money has been put in. Commitments that have been made in the 4 times I have
looked at the property (and other properties Ms. Tea owns, we have gone through this
before) have not been followed through on. She has put forward plans and money and
the work has not been done. It is disrespectful to this process to knowingly and
continuously provide plans and evidence of financing that do not pan out to get the job
done. Plan after plan says they will, and then excuse after excuse gets old after 2
years. What's in front of you in the resolution is an ask to forfeit the $10,000 deposit
and order the building removed. An alternative, should you wish to consider it, would be
to forfeit $5,000 of the deposit and require an additional $5,000 deposit. It would
require a general contractor to be hired to develop a plan and manage construction
decisions, that responsibility for work be taken away from Ms. Tea and the property
owner and assigned to a 3rd party. The work place would require clear statements of
getting contractors paid and getting permits finaled. If you wanted to go this other
route, I would ask for a 2 week layover to give time to hire a general contractor. That
indicates a finding of no confidence in Ms. Tea and the owner, but does give one last
chance to get the work done. I'm looking at this plan at 3:45pm today and it was
written on our conference room table. This is not...
Brendmoen: The building has been vacant how long?
Moermond: It has been vacant since 2012. The last sales transaction was in 2013 for
$10,000.
Brendmoen: So it's been registered vacant for 11 years? I bring that up to highlight
those who live near the property.
Tea: I'm doing this for my son... I have tried to fix this house. I'm the one who took his
money to buy this house... I want to show you photos...
Brendmoen: Just to clarify, the owner lives in Minneapolis and not this property.
Tea: My son has problems and this is why I do everything for him, so he can have a
house to live in. He is not here because he has problems... Your paperwork took so
long and you approved me doing work in the winter. How am I supposed to do work
then? Every time you approve it is in the winter. 55% is not correct.