The Undocumented Rate Doubling

Case 23-009185 | Card 14 | 4880 T Street, Sacramento CA 95819

The City doubled the fine and changed nothing else. For twenty-two cycles the administrative penalty on this case was $1,000: the 1st-cycle order of 06/29/2023 [M146] and the 22nd-cycle directive of 07/24/2025 [M009] both say so. On 10/17/2025 the 23rd-cycle order [M585] says $2,000.00. The two orders recite the same sentence of code as the ground, word for word — the Level C definition on the first [M146] and on the twenty-third [M585] — and the section that supplies it sets a range of "one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) to two thousand four hundred ninety-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($2,499.99)", hands the amount to "the department head or his or her designee", and says the official "shall consider factors including, but not limited to, the seriousness of the violation", efforts to correct, injury, prior violations, staff time, and penalties imposed in similar situations.

What the owner received was the $2,000 order and nothing with it that said why. The inspector's entry sending it gives the reason it gave the first one: "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." [M036] The only name on the order's page is Paul Lovato, Building Inspector 4 [M585] — printed in the order's header line and beneath the empty signature line of a blank posting form for the monitoring-fee order. The file the City produced in May 2026 under Request 26-1965 and closed on 05/22/2026 [R.26-1965.1] holds no page applying any listed factor, no delegation of the department head's authority, no approval, no Council action, and no fee-schedule change. And the one time the doubled figure was put to the City's own hearing examiner — the 11/18/2025 penalty, appealed by the owner on 12/22/2025 [M038] — the examiner "moved to uphold the Monitoring Fee in the amount of $380 issued on 11/18/2025 and waive the Admin Penalty in the amount of $2000 to $0" [M039].

Why did the same recited ground cost $1,000 for twenty-two cycles and $2,000 on the twenty-third — when the first [M146] and twenty-third [M585] orders recite the same sentence, the code hands the amount to the department head or a designee weighing listed factors, the only name printed on the doubled order is a Building Inspector 4 [M585], the file the City produced in May 2026 under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1] holds no page applying a factor and no delegation, and the one $2,000 penalty the City's own hearing examiner reviewed was waived to $0 [M039]?

IN PLAIN TERMS

For twenty-two rounds the City billed this recurring fine at $1,000 [M146]. On the 23rd round, in October 2025, it became $2,000 [M585]. The two orders give the same sentence of city code as the reason, word for word. The code puts the figure inside a range, tells the official to weigh listed things in choosing it, and hands the choice to the department head or a designee. The file the City produced in May 2026 has no page weighing anything, no delegation, and no approval; the only name printed on the doubled order is a building inspector's, beneath a blank, unsigned posting form. When the owner appealed one of the $2,000 penalties, the City's own hearing examiner waived it to $0 [M039]. The question for the City: why did the same reason cost $1,000 for two years and $2,000 after that?

RECORD CHAIN

  1. June 29, 2023 – July 24, 2025 — $1,000, from the first order to the twenty-second directive. The produced anchor records show the 1st-cycle order at $1,000.00 [M146] and the 22nd-cycle activity-log directive at $1,000 on 07/24/2025 [M009].
  2. October 16 – 17, 2025 — $2,000, the twenty-third. Paul Lovato's 10/16/2025 case-history entry directs a 23rd Level C administrative penalty of $2,000 [M036], stating it and the monitoring fee went out "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." [M036] the 10/17/2025 activity-log directive [M010] and the order issued that day [M585] both state $2,000.
  3. June 29, 2023 and October 17, 2025 — the same recited ground on both orders. The Level C recital printed on the 06/29/2023 order [M146] and the Level C recital printed on the 10/17/2025 order [M585] are the same sentence, taken from SCC.1.28.010(D)(3)(c). The recited ground did not move; the amount did.
  4. December 22, 2025 – February 23, 2026 — the doubled penalty, appealed once, waived to $0. The log records on 12/22/2025: "Received an appeal from Jackie Baritell" [M038] for the $2,000 administrative penalty and the $380 monitoring fee issued on 11/18/2025, scheduled for the Hearing Examiner. On 02/23/2026 it records the result: "After hearing testimony and reviewing all written documents, Hearing Examiner Tammy O'Brien moved to uphold the Monitoring Fee in the amount of $380 issued on 11/18/2025 and waive the Admin Penalty in the amount of $2000 to $0." [M039] A $100 refund voucher [M039] for the appeal fee followed. The $2,000 figure on the 10/17/2025 order was never put to a hearing.
  5. May 22, 2026 — the file produced under Request 26-1965 closed: no factor applied, no delegation, no approval. The file the City produced under Request 26-1965, closed on 05/22/2026, [R.26-1965.1] contains no page weighing seriousness, efforts to correct, injury or damage, prior violations, staff time, or penalties imposed in similar situations, and no separate hearing decision, supervisor sign-off, fee-schedule amendment, or Council action; the order itself [M585] cites no instrument for moving the per-cycle amount from $1,000 to $2,000. SCC.1.28.010 places that selection with the department head or designee and lists the factors the official is to weigh.

FULL CIRCLE

The City's first available answer is that twenty-two more cycles of noncompliance and two more years of staff time are the factors, that the category is the same and the figure is inside the range, and that the section requires the official to consider the factors, not to write them down.

The section says the official "shall consider factors" and hands the amount to "the department head or his or her designee". Considering is an act of a named official; the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 and closed on 05/22/2026 [R.26-1965.1] records no such act and names no such official for this figure — the entry that sent the $2,000 gives the same sentence that sent the $1,000 [M036], and the only name printed on the order's page is a Building Inspector 4 [M585] — in the header line and beneath the blank signature line of an unsigned posting form for the monitoring-fee order — with no delegation in the file (Card 5: the same pattern on the order itself; Card 15: the same two-prong recital on every penalty order, with no prong selected). And when the City's own hearing examiner did consider a $2,000 penalty on this case, on the same recited ground, she waived it to $0 [M039].

The City's second available answer is that the escalation is automatic under a duration-of-noncompliance schedule, so no case-specific selection was needed.

Section 1.28.010 sets the Level C range and commits the amount within it to the department head or designee applying the listed factors; it defines no automatic, duration-based escalation or doubling trigger, and the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 and closed on 05/22/2026 [R.26-1965.1] carries no resolution, ordinance, or fee-schedule entry that does.

What would defeat this card is one page in the file the City produced under Request 26-1965: a record of the department head or a delegated designee selecting $2,000 for the 23rd cycle and the factors weighed, or a Council resolution or ordinance setting a separate penalty for this violation. The file, closed with "All responsive records have been provided." [R.26-1965.1], holds neither. Card 4 is the completeness baseline (what the file the City produced means, and does not mean); Card 11 carries the ledger the doubled cycles sit in.

APPLICABLE LAW

SOURCE CITATIONS USED BY THIS CARD

CARD REFERENCES