The Unanswered Void-and-Fee Question

RECORD CHAIN

1. Christopher Foley asked the compliance question in writing. At 10:40 a.m. on September 2, 2025, Foley emailed Cosley asking whether the new Notice and Order voided the prior one, "along with any fines or fees attached to it," so that future enforcement would rest 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" E3 E12. The email is in the City's production and quoted in the City's own note M036.
2. Cosley forwarded the question internally. At 2:29 p.m. the same day, Cosley forwarded the email to Paul and Pierson with the line, "Paul, who is this person? How is he involved?" E3. The forward contains no response to the voiding or fee question.
3. The only produced reply to Foley did not answer the question. At 2:43 p.m., Paul sent the one reply that appears in the produced thread and the May 2026 Case File. The reply addressed "Chris," referred him to the owner and the owner's representative, and did not say whether the new order voided the old order or its fees E3 M036. Nor did it resolve whether Foley was authorized to receive a compliance answer, the subject of Cosley's "who is this person?" forward E3.
4. The re-issued order stated the fee-status answer. Its cover letter stated that outstanding fees assessed under the previous Notice and Order remained payable, a statement examined at Card 26 M541 Card 26. Paul's reply to Foley did not include it.
5. The attachment identified Foley and requested coordination. The attachment to the same email, "Final Statement on Jackie's Case," identified Foley, stated for the record that draft letters to the Mayor and City Council were never sent, and asked the City to coordinate through Karin S7 E12.1.
6. No later produced answer to Foley appears in the record. The produced Case File contains no later direct City message to Foley answering the void-prior-order and old-fees question. In the same weeks, case activity continued: 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.
7. Two produced records preserve the same exchange. The produced email thread E3 and the City's note log M036 each record the question and Paul's reply in the same terms; the fee-status statement in the re-issued order appears in neither M541 Card 26. The production-completeness baseline for these records is established at Card 4 and Card 46.

FULL CIRCLE

Foley's September 2, 2025 email asked whether the re-issued Notice and Order voided the prior order and its fees, and offered the owner's written consent immediately if authorization had to come first E3 M036. Cosley forwarded the question internally with "who is this person?" The one reply in the produced thread and May 2026 Case File directed Foley to the owner E3 M036. The fee-status answer stood in the re-issued order itself but was not transmitted in the reply M541 Card 26.

The expected City response is that staff had no obligation to answer every inquiry from a non-owner, that Cosley reasonably routed a case question to the assigned inspector, and that Paul properly directed Foley to the owner or the owner's representative. That account explains the routing. It does not change what the produced record shows: the reply did not answer the voiding or future-enforcement question, and no produced direct response gave Foley the fee-status answer already stated in the order. Hearing-packet and special-assessment entries continued on the case in the same period E3 M035 M036 M541.

This finding does not assert that staff owed a general legal duty to answer every non-owner inquiry. It rests on the produced documents: the written question, the internal forward, and a reply that left the question unanswered.