The $36,020.40 Placeholder Ledger

Case 23-009185 | Card 11 | 4880 T Street, Sacramento CA 95819

The City billed $36,020.40 on this case, and $31,230 of it — the first invoice plus every cycle dated before its own file records anyone entering the backyard. The charges run from the order and title invoice of May 2023 [M025] through the last billed cycle [M039]: 23 monitoring cycles and 22 administrative-penalty cycles [M025-035] dated before August 21, 2025, then two more of each [M010]. Every one of them was billed against the same two entries the Violations Index [M012] carried from 03/20/2023 — B31, "This is not a complete Violation List of building code violations. Neither interior nor exterior has been completely inspected." [M012] and B59, "Work has been done without the benefit of a PERMIT." [M012] The section the monitoring fee is imposed under ties each charge to an additional inspection of the property (SCC.8.100.720(B)(1)(b)), and the City's own letter printed it that way: a monitoring fee "for each subsequent inspection related to this case" [M123].

What the owner received for each cycle was an order to pay [M133]. What the City's own log says each one was for is on the page. The entry that opens a cycle reads "Any contact from owner? Permits acquired? Send 22nd admin penalty / Monitoring fee." [M009]; the entry that sends the first one reads "I arrived at SFR to take photos, update case files, and send the 1st Level C HSG HDB Monitoring fee for the willful disregard of orders or notices of violation issued by a City agency or commission authorized to issue such orders or notices. Failure to comply with the Notice and Order. 1.28.010 D3 (c2ii) SCC." [M025] — a visit to take photographs, and a fee sent under the administrative-penalty section rather than the section that ties it to an inspection. Twelve cycles were billed at $305 and eleven at $380 before a notice printing $380 was served on 09/02/2025 [M541]. The first backyard inspection the file records is 08/21/2025 [M035], inside an 85-day gap between the 07/24/2025 cycle [M009] and the 10/17/2025 cycle [M010]; billing resumed with the penalty at $2,000 [M585] (Card 14: the doubling from $1,000, and the absence of any record selecting it) and a $30.40 Code Technology Fee [M039] added. The 23 monitoring cycles and their photograph declarations are Card 10; the fee warning and the appeal machinery are Card 3.

What did each of the 23 monitoring charges imposed on 4880 T Street for monitoring dates before August 21, 2025 pay for — when the section they are imposed under ties the fee to an additional inspection of the property (SCC.8.100.720(B)(1)(b)), the list they were billed against said neither interior nor exterior had been completely inspected [M012], the City's own entry for each cycle records a visit to take photos and a fee sent under the penalty section [M025], and the first backyard inspection the City recorded came after all 23 monitoring dates [M035] (the last invoice, CDDCHC22795, was generated five days after it [M035])?

IN PLAIN TERMS

The City's invoices [M025-035] and billing notes [M009] add up to $36,020.40. Of that, $31,230 [Card 10] was charged for the first invoice and for cycles dated before the first backyard inspection the City's own file records [M035], on August 21, 2025. The whole time, the case's violation list carried two generic entries — "Other" and "Permits Required" [M012] — and said itself that neither the inside nor the outside had been completely inspected. The City's fee rule ties each monitoring charge to an additional inspection (SCC.8.100.720(B)(1)(b)). The City's own note for each cycle says the inspector came by to take photos and sent the fee [M025]. The question for the City: what did each of those 23 charges pay for — which inspection, and what did it find?

RECORD CHAIN

  1. March 20, 2023 — the two entries every charge ran against. The Violations Index [M012] carries B31 and B59 as the baseline entries. B31 reads "This is not a complete Violation List of building code violations. Neither interior nor exterior has been completely inspected." [M012] B59 cites SCC.8.100.190 and reads "Work has been done without the benefit of a PERMIT [M012]." — without identifying the work, location, structure, or condition requiring a permit [M012].
  2. May 15, 2023 — the first invoice. The first enforcement-related invoice is CDDCHC17445 for $1,390, generated 05/15/2023 [M025], combining $150 termination, $165 title, and $1,075 Notice and Order charges — the three fees printed in the 04/12/2023 cover letter [M123].
  3. May 22, 2023 – July 24, 2025 — 23 monitoring cycles and 22 penalty cycles, $31,230. From 05/22/2023 [M025] through 07/24/2025 [M009], the City billed 23 monitoring cycles — 1 [M025], 2 [M025], 3 [M025], 4 [M026], 5 [M026], 6 [M026], 7 [M027], 8 [M027], 9 [M028], 10 [M028], 11 [M029], 12 [M029], 13 [M030], 14 [M031], 15 [M031], 16 [M032], 17 [M032], 18 [M032], 19 [M033], 20 [M033], 21 [M034], 22 [M034], 23 [M035] — and 22 administrative-penalty cycles — 1 [M025], 2 [M025], 3 [M026], 4 [M026], 5 [M026], 6 [M027], 7 [M027], 8 [M028], 9 [M028], 10 [M029], 11 [M029], 12 [M030], 13 [M031], 14 [M031], 15 [M031], 16 [M032], 17 [M032], 18 [M033], 19 [M033], 20 [M034], 21 [M034], 22 [M035] — on top of the initial $1,390 order/title invoice [M025]. The 22 penalty cycles are numbered here by invoice generation, not by the City's own directive numbering — the 22nd Level C Administrative Penalty directive is logged on 07/21/2025 [M034]. The monitoring cycles ran at two rates: CDDCHC17598 [M025] through CDDCHC19824 [M029] are twelve $305 HDB Monitoring invoices [M025-035], and CDDCHC20346 [M030] through CDDCHC22795 [M035] are eleven $380 HDB Monitoring invoices [M025-035], all for monitoring dates before the 08/21/2025 backyard inspection the file records [M035]; the last of them, CDDCHC22795, was generated on 08/26/2025 [M035], five days after that inspection. Card 10 carries the monitoring predicate and the pre-access slice; this card carries the master ledger total.
  4. August 21, 2025 — the first recorded backyard inspection, inside an 85-day gap in billing. No new generated penalty or monitoring invoice appears in the produced log between the 07/24/2025 cycle [M009] and the 10/17/2025 cycle [M010]. Within that gap, the inspection occurred on 08/21/2025 [M035]; the 08/25/2025 entry reads "Any contact from owner? Permits acquired? Send 23rd admin penalty / Monitoring fee." [M009]; and the 07/24 cycle's invoices were generated on 08/26/2025 [M035]. Billing resumed on 10/17/2025 [M010] at a doubled administrative-penalty rate [M585].
  5. October 17 – November 18, 2025 — the penalty doubles and a new fee appears. Paul Lovato's 10/16/2025 case-history entry [M036] and the 10/17/2025 billing directive [M010] set the 23rd Level C penalty at $2,000 [M585], with no separate approval or amount-selection record in the production the City closed as complete [R.26-1965.1]; Card 14 carries the rate change. The 11/18/2025 monitoring invoice, CDDCHC24459, is $410.40: $380 HDB Monitoring plus a new $30.40 Code Technology Fee [M039]; the hearing notice recites the same $410.40 [M627].
  6. May 2026 — appeal fees and late fees. The owner paid $150 in appeal fees [M038] and received a $100 refund [M039], a net $50 payment. The City's 05/12/2026 payment note [M040] states $4,252.48 due, including $1,462.08 in late fees; the itemized entries on the same page [M040] total $1,256, and the page carries a $492.48 overpayment/credit line [M040] — figures the produced record [R.26-1965] does not reconcile on that page. The City's "Fee Summary as of May 1, 2026" [R.26-3404.2], produced August 28, 2026 under Request 26-3404 [R.26-3404.1], lists fifty-five invoices with their Council resolution numbers and does: "TOTAL OUTSTANDING FEES: $2,760.00" [R.26-3404.2], "LATE FEES: $1,462.08" [R.26-3404.2], "CODE TECH FEES: $30.40" [R.26-3404.2], "TOTAL FEES DUE: $4,252.48" [R.26-3404.2]; its 11/18/2025 administrative-penalty line reads "WAIVED" [R.26-3404.2], and the cash receipt of 5/12/2026 carries the $492.48 as a line "for 299 Overpayment" [R.26-3404.2]. The $36,020.40 total includes the 11/18/2025 administrative-penalty cycle later shown as waived to $0 [M039].

FULL CIRCLE

The City's first available answer is that the re-inspection entry logged for each cycle is the additional inspection the fee section names.

The entries say what the visits were. The one that sends the first fee reads "I arrived at SFR to take photos, update case files, and send the 1st Level C HSG HDB Monitoring fee" [M025], and the 08/05/2024 [M029], 09/09/2024 [M030] and 11/17/2025 [M037] entries send it in the same words, each "for the willful disregard of orders or notices of violation issued by a City agency or commission authorized to issue such orders or notices. Failure to comply with the Notice and Order. 1.28.010 D3 (c2ii) SCC." [M025] That sentence cites the administrative-penalty section. The section the monitoring fee is imposed under is SCC.8.100.720(B)(1)(b), which ties it to an additional inspection; the list every cycle was billed against says "Neither interior nor exterior has been completely inspected" [M012]; and twenty-eight months into the run the same inspector's note of 08/21/2025 records him at the front door telling the caretaker that "an inspection is required" [M035] — the first backyard inspection the file records, after all 23 monitoring dates.

The City's second available answer is that the violation codes opened on 08/29/2025 show what was being monitored.

They were opened on 08/29/2025 [M012], after the last of the 23 cycles was billed, on top of the B31 and B59 entries rather than in place of them, and the B31 and B59 entries carry no close date [M012]. Nothing billed before that date was billed against them.

The arithmetic has its own loose ends, stated and left: the 05/12/2026 payment-processing entry [M040] lists the $2,000 penalty dated 11/18 as "Inv #CDDCH07477" where the 11/21/2025 generation note [M037] assigned CDDCHA07477 to the 10/17/2025 cycle; the $1,462.08 late-fee figure, its itemized subset, and the $492.48 overpayment/credit line [M040] do not reconcile on the page; the Fee Summary as of May 1, 2026 [R.26-3404.2] the City produced on August 28, 2026 carries the same $4,252.48 as three figures that sum — $2,760.00 outstanding, $1,462.08 late fees, $30.40 code-technology fee — with the 11/18/2025 penalty "WAIVED" [R.26-3404.2] and the $492.48 as an overpayment line. None of them moves the total.

What would defeat this card is one page for any one of the 23 cycles: the monitoring worksheet, inspection report, or written result of the additional inspection the fee was charged for, naming the condition inspected and what was found. The May 2026 case file, closed with "All responsive records have been provided." [R.26-1965.1], carries the invoices, the directives, and the photograph declarations, and no such page. Card 4 is the completeness baseline (what the file the City produced means, and does not mean).

On 08/25/2026, Request 26-3522 [R.26-3522.1] asked, for each of the twenty-three monitoring dates from 05/19/2023 to 07/21/2025, for "the inspection report, worksheet, checklist, field notes, or written result, and any record identifying what condition or violation was inspected and what was found" [R.26-3522.1], for any record of what the twenty-three inspections were monitoring, and for the City's written definition of a monitoring inspection.

APPLICABLE LAW

SOURCE CITATIONS USED BY THIS CARD

CARD REFERENCES