The representative asked in writing whether the re-issued Notice and Order voided the prior order and its fees; the official forwarded the question internally and the produced record contains no answer.
A property representative asked the City in writing whether a newly issued notice canceled out a previous order and its associated fees, but the City's produced records show no answer to this question. Principal Building Inspector Bo Cosley forwarded the inquiry internally to ask who the representative was rather than addressing the compliance question. The only response provided to the representative directed him to contact the property owner and did not clarify if the old fines or enforcement actions were still active. Even though the representative offered to provide formal authorization from the owner if required, the City did not request it or resolve the underlying issue. While the question remained unanswered, the City continued to process hearing packets and apply special assessments against the property.
The property representative emailed Principal Building Inspector Bo Cosley a specific compliance question: did the new Notice and Order void the prior one, "along with any fines or fees attached to it, with all future enforcement based only on the new notice?" E.3. The same text is recorded verbatim in the City's own note log M036. Cosley did not answer it. He forwarded the email to inspector Paul Lovato and Supervising Building Inspector Douglas Pierson with the line, "Paul, who is this person? How is he involved?" E.3. Lovato then sent the only produced reply, which told the representative that the City "deals directly with the owner of the property, or the owners representative" and to "reach out to the owner of the property" E.3 M036. It did not state whether the re-issued order voided the prior order or its fees.
Stated simply, a person helping the property owner sent the City a yes-or-no compliance question: now that the City had issued a new official notice, did that cancel the old order and old fines so that only the new notice counted going forward? The senior inspector who received it did not answer. He forwarded it internally with "who is this person?", and the reply that came back told the helper to talk to the owner. It never answered whether the old order and fees were still alive. Meanwhile, hearing packets, certified mail, and special-assessment activity on the same case continued in the same weeks M035 M036.
At 10:40 a.m., the representative emailed Cosley asking whether the new Notice and Order voided the prior one, "along with any fines or fees attached to it," so future enforcement would be based only on the new notice. He added that if the owner's consent had to come first, the City should confirm that and "we'll bring it immediately" E.3. The email is in the City's production and quoted in the City's own note M036.
At 2:29 p.m., Cosley forwarded the email to Lovato and Pierson with the line, "Paul, who is this person? How is he involved?" E.3. That is a routing and status question, not an answer to the merits.
At 2:43 p.m., Lovato sent the only produced reply. It directed the representative to the owner and did not say whether the new order voided the old order or its fees E.3 M036. The reply's salutation named the owner and "owner's representative" without acknowledging the questioner's standing — consistent with Cosley's "who is this person?" routing note — and did not resolve whether he was authorized to receive a compliance answer E.3.
The attachment to the same email, "Final Statement on Jackie's Case," identified the representative, corrected the premise that draft letters to the Mayor and City Council were never sent, and asked the City to coordinate through Karin S.14.
The produced file contains no later City message answering the void-prior-order / old-fees question. Hearing-packet and special-assessment entries continued on the same case in the same weeks, including a 10/08/2025 HCAAB hearing packet, a 10/15/2025 DLHO hearing packet sent certified, and special assessments placed on the property M035 M036.
The representative asked the City a single, answerable compliance question: does the re-issued Notice and Order void the prior order and its fees, so enforcement runs only on the new notice? The official who received the question forwarded it internally with "who is this person?", and the only produced reply directed the representative to the owner without answering the question E.3 M036. The representative even offered to bring written authorization if that was the holdup E.3 M036. The City neither requested it nor answered the question in the produced file.
The strongest City response is that staff had no obligation to answer every inquiry from a non-owner, Cosley reasonably routed a case question to the assigned inspector, and Lovato correctly directed the representative to the owner or owner's representative. That may explain routing. It does not answer whether the re-issued order voided the old order and fees. The narrow documentary point remains: the compliance question that governed the owner's path was asked in writing, preserved in the City's own production, forwarded internally, and left unanswered while hearings and fees continued E.3 M035 M036.
---