rehabilitation. There have been seven Legislative Hearings conducted since June 9th,
As of June 2021, the building has not been rehabilitated. There have been two permits
pulled for work: Plumbing and Electrical permits. However, the Building permit has not
been pulled and the owner has indicated that the building contractor with whom she
signed a contract are no longer working together, therefore, there has not been a work
plan submitted. Further, the financing that the owner indicates is problematic at this
time, however, at the time that the Council adopted a grant of time for 180 days, the
owner signed an affidavit and provided evidence that she had $50,000 in financing
dedicated to the purpose of rehabilitating the building until the project was complete.
Because the Council is making a finding about whether the nuisance condition is
abated, and those are the circumstances, the Legislative Hearing Officers
recommendation to the Council is to find that the nuisance condition has not been
Secondly, the question in front of the Council is whether the project has reached a
50% completion mark. This is relevant because if it has reached the 50% completion
mark, then the Council could continue the $5,000 performance deposit. That
determination would be made by having a Building inspector go in review all of the work
that's been done and make a judgment call the owner and received a letter far in
advance to advise her that this inspection needed to occur. And she did not call for
that inspection to happen, it is extremely unlikely that the 50% mark would have been
met. Because only those two smaller permits have been pulled and by far the largest
permit, the Building permit was not pulled. So just by virtue of that it would be far
underneath the 50% mark.
Therefore, the Legislative Hearing Officer is recommending that the Council allow the
Department of Safety and Inspections to remove the building and forfeit the $5,000
performance deposit. Thus, allowing the forfeited $5,000 performance deposit to be
applied towards the cost of the city as a part of the demolition of the building.
CM Dai Thao asked how long the owner has had the opportunity to repair the building.
As he wanted to confirm the gap between the time the building was registered as
vacant, and the notice of nuisance or abatement.
The building has been registered vacant since 2017. In March 2020 the city made a
finding that the property was a nuisance or abate. There have been seven Legislative
Hearings conducted since June 9th, 2020.
Mr. Blaker, the owner’s lawyer representing her on this issue, has requested that. Ms.
Tea be given a 90-day extension to find another contractor and proper financing for the
repairs. He states that Ms. Tea has made significant steps in getting the necessary
repairs completed. He further states that the property has been inspected by both
Electrical and Plumbing inspectors, only listing minor issues as most of the issues
had been fixed. However, the owner has had an issue with the Hvac inspection due to
unavailability of the Hvac inspector. Ms. Tea has also had an issue reaching Mr.
Nathan Bruner and therefore has not had the entirety of the building inspected.
Furthermore, Ms. Tea has run into permitting issues where the permits were issued to
651 Sherburne instead of the proper address, 657 Sherburne.
The Legislative Hearing Officer has verified that permits for Plumbing permit was
inspected June 22 and there are corrections required. The Electrical permit was
inspected on June 21 and corrections are required. There are no other permits. Ms.
Moermond also informed that the owner has had some bureaucratic difficulties
following instructions in the letters and forms that were sent to her, and also that
provided lockboxes and drop boxes were stolen, which has led to complications in
connecting with inspectors and so forth. However, at the time of the legislative hearing,
Ms. Tea had made no attempt in connecting with the building inspector, Mr. Bruner.