Resolution 6625 - Laserfiche WebLink

4. On November 8, 2012, ECE Officer Fagerstrom received an e-mail from the City of Everett Utility Billing Department that the water service to the structure on the property had been turned off in February 2012. The water had not been turned on since February 20, 2012. (Exhibit#8, Email from Marcy Stoats dated November 8, 2012) (Testimony of Code Enforcement Officer Fagerstrom) 5. On November 8, 2012, a violation citation was issued to the Respondent for a violation of International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) 504.1 as adopted by EMC 16.005.010 and IPMC 505.3 as adopted by EMC 16.005.010; IPMC 605.1 as adopted by EMC 16.005.010; and IPMC 108.1.1 as adopted by EMC 16.005.010. Copies were mailed to the Respondent via first class and certified mail and a copy of the citation was posted at the property. (Exhibit#4, Violation Citation dated November 8, 2012 with unclaimed mail receipts) (Exhibit#5, Declaration of Service dated November 8, 2012 with photo) (Testimony of Code Enforcement Officer Fagerstrom) 6. On November 14, 2012, Ted Budden, City of Everett Building Department conducted a site inspection of the property and observed that considerable work had been done inside the structure prior to the arson fire. The work included modifications to the electrical system. (Exhibit#2a-2e, Inspection Photos dated November 14, 2012) (Testimony of Inspector Budden) (Testimony of Code Enforcement Officer Fagerstrom) 7. On December 4, 2012, ECE Officer Fagerstrom conducted a follow-up inspection on the property and observed and photographed that the condemnation notice had been spray painted over and that conditions remained the same as observed on August 10, 2012. (Exhibit#9a, Pre-Hearing inspection Photo dated December 4, 2012) (Testimony of Code Enforcement Officer Fagerstrom) 8. That a hearing was held on December 6, 2012. That the Respondent was not present, but Roxanne Anderson appeared and identified herself as a prospective buyer of the property. At the hearing she stated that the Respondent was deceased and she was purchasing the property from the Respondents son, through her estate. Ms. Anderson said that she had contact information for the son and that she would call ECE Officer Fagerstrom and provide him with that information. Because the Respondent was deceased, the Violations Hearing Examiner continued the hearing to the January 10, 2013 calendar in order for the City to attempt to notify the current owner of the property. 9. Ms. Anderson did not call ECE Officer Fagerstrom. ECE Officer Fagerstrom attempted to call her at the number which she had provided, but the number was disconnected. He attempted to find alternate contact information for the Respondents son through the City's records, but found nothing other than this address. He visited the property several times in an attempt to contact the son, but to no avail. 3