The representative asked in writing whether the re-issued Notice and Order voided the prior order and its fees; the official forwarded the question and the City’s own file carries no answer.
A person helping the property owner sent the city a plain yes-or-no question in writing: now that you’ve handed us a new official notice, does it cancel the old one and wipe out the old fines, so that only the new notice counts going forward? E.3 The senior inspector who received it did not answer. He forwarded it to another inspector with the note “who is this person?” E.3 The reply that came back simply told the helper to talk to the owner — it never said whether the old order and its fees were still alive. E.3 M036 Meanwhile the city kept running the penalty track: it scheduled hearings and placed special assessments on the property in the very same weeks. M035 M036 The helper even offered to bring a signed authorization letter if that was the holdup; the city neither asked for it nor answered. M036 Only after records were pulled from the city’s own files did the full email thread surface, showing the question and the city’s non-answer side by side. R.25-4711
Bottom line: the owner’s side asked one clear question — does the new notice cancel the old order and its fees? — and the city’s own complete file shows the question was forwarded around but never answered, even as the fines and hearings kept moving.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 over 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.
The question that governed the owner’s compliance path was routed to the inspector whose enforcement track it asked about, and the produced record carries no answer to it. E.3 M036 Card 47 Card 48
At 10:40 a.m. the representative emailed Cosley: “does this 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?” 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 did not resolve whether the representative was authorized to receive a compliance answer, and the City did not request the authorization the representative had offered to bring. M036
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. E.3 The packet named the speaker and asked the question on its face.
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 — 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 Card 13 Card 8
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?,” E.3 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; the City neither requested it nor answered the question in the produced file. M036
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 Card 47 Card 48