are different legal options and we provide standard language for that. We've seen
cases that go through that process before, and are hoping this owner buckles down
and does that. I ask that this be referred to Legislative Hearing on Tuesday, November
12, to have that information, and hopefully have a development partner accompany him
at that hearing. This is our last ditch effort. I do not have confidence that the current
owner can execute the rehabilitation of the property.
Councilmember Yang: This is disappointing to hear. Has the owner contacted you
since we heard this last week?
Moermond: We have reached out to the owner on numerous occasions. We provided
feedback that the financial affidavit was not sufficient and what was still needed. There
has been ongoing communication, but it is clear that the owner does not have capacity
to do the work.
Councilmember Johnson: Is the owner receptive to finding a development partner? Has
that discussion happened?
Moermond: That conversation has not happened yet. I talked with Councilmember
Bowie about this, and I would not bring the proposal to the owner without your approval.
If you choose to go this route, we will send him a letter stating his options and
scheduling a Legislative Hearing.
Johnson: I share Yang's sentiments. It doesn't seem clear to me that there is a plan to
move forward, but that we're trying to buy some time. I'm amenable to that, but I'm
concerned we may be allowing time here that we do not allow to others. Why are we
waiting until November 12 to send this to Legislative Hearing?
Moermond: The next Tuesday that we hear Remove and Repair items in Legislative
Hearings, the 4th Tuesday of the month, is this coming Tuesday. I don't think this
could be accomplished by then, in just 5 business days. The other consideration is
that October has 5 Tuesdays and 5 Wednesdays, so the next available date is the
second Tuesday of the November, which is November 12. It's a long amount of time, I
am aware. I am hopeful but not confident that he will have something by then.
Councilmember Bowie: I share the same sentiments as my colleagues. This
continuation is not a courtesy to the owner, but rather a courtesy to the community.
We need to look at accountability that does not involve having a building demolished.
This alternative gives time to find a partner with experience and financing, so we can
move forward. This is not a new concept. The last communication the owner had with
Moermond involved sending a bank statement, which showed he did not have enough
money. This is an issue of affordability. I want to provide him the time he needs to find
support to get the job done.
Johnson: The finances he sent showed he did not have enough funding?
Moermond: He has not provided documentation that he has funding for this. We
received a bank statement in July where the checking account showed two large
deposits, but we don't have anything up to date. We would need that.
Johnson: My understanding of the affidavit is that it needs to show funding and to
dedicate that funding to rehab. Would he need a development partner and then also a
finance partner?
Moermond: That development partner would be the one who handles the financing and
the work plan, to take the matter out of the owner's hands. What is unique about this
is that we have not taken this route after just a first attempt to rehab the property.