The 38-Second Billed Visit

Case 23-009185 | Card 25 | 4880 T Street, Sacramento CA 95819

The City announced a fee against 4880 T Street for an appointment it had set itself, twelve minutes after the hour it set. On April 17, 2023 the inspector wrote the owner's representative "Yes, Lets set up a time to meet onsite. I am Monday - Friday. 8:00am - 2:00 pm" [E1.7]; on April 25 he set the hour: "Chris, Wednesday the 26th at 1:00 pm." [E1.9] At 1:12 p.m. on April 26 he emailed: "Chris, I arrived onsite that was arranged. I knocked at the door twice and there was no answer. I announced myself in the driveway twice incase you were in the backyard. A response fee will be assessed to the property." [E10] The owner's representative had asked, before the visit, what "work performed" the inspection concerned and had offered to meet at the property and let him into the backyard [E1.6] (Card 6: the three written requests for the basis, and what they drew). The property's two cameras recorded the visit: the inspector on the front porch at 12:58:22 [P12], phone in hand; off the steps at 12:58:29 [P13]; the porch empty by 12:58:55 [P15]; back on the steps just before 13:00:00 [P16] and leaving them at 13:00:00 [P17]; on the sidewalk at 13:00:31 [P18], at the gate at 13:00:47 [P20], and off the property at 13:01:04 [P21] — about 38 seconds at the door across the two approaches (the first, 12:58:22 to the empty porch at 12:58:55; the second, the last seconds before 13:00:00), under three minutes on the property, no phone call in any frame. The owner, who walks with a cane, reached the front door at 13:23:15 [P22] and was in the driveway at 13:32:01 [P26].

Nothing the City served or has produced says what a "response fee" is or what authorizes one. The case activity log goes from 04/24/2023 to 05/19/2023 [M002] with no entry for April 26. The fee section the City bills under imposes a monitoring fee "for each additional inspection of the property after the notice and order issued pursuant to this chapter becomes final" [SCC.8.100.720(A)(2)] — the inspector's own email records a knock and no answer, and the order was fourteen days old. The case file the City produced in May 2026 under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1] holds no code section, resolution, or fee-schedule page for a response fee, and no record of the visit at all; the only record of the charge is the inspector's email in the owner's own inbox (E10), which the City did not produce. The one page in that file that speaks of fees is a permit handout: "All fees are identified in the City of Sacramento Fee Schedule and are available for your review." [M119] It names no response fee, and no page of that Fee Schedule was served or produced (Card 11: the ledger of what the City did bill).

What is a "response fee", and under what authority was one assessed against 4880 T Street for April 26, 2023 — when the inspector set the hour himself, in writing [E1.9], spent about 38 seconds at the door [P12] and was off the property by 13:01:04 [P21], wrote at 1:12 p.m. that a fee would be assessed [E10], the City's own log carries no entry for that day [M002], and nothing the City served, and nothing in the file it produced in May 2026 under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1], names a code section, a resolution, or a page of the Fee Schedule that lists a response fee for a missed appointment?

IN PLAIN TERMS

The owner's side asked the inspector what he intended to inspect and offered to meet him at the property. He agreed, and set the hour himself [E1.9]: 1:00 p.m. on April 26, 2023. The cameras show him at the door for about 38 seconds in two tries [P12] and gone by 13:01. At 1:12 p.m. he emailed that he had knocked, that no one answered, and that a response fee would be assessed [E10]. The City's own log has no entry for that day. The file the City produced in 2026 does not hold his email; its one page on fees is a permit handout pointing to the City Fee Schedule, naming no response fee. The question for the City: what is a response fee, and which code section, resolution, or Fee Schedule page authorizes one for a missed appointment?

RECORD CHAIN

  1. April 14, 2023 — the scope question, and the offer of the backyard. The owner's representative emailed Paul Lovato that communicating the matter to a hospitalized owner "without specifics is extremely stressful on her health [E1.6]," asked him to identify what "work performed" [E1.6] the inspection concerned, and offered to meet at the property and let him into the backyard [E1.6]. The cited email chain shows the visit was scheduled [E1.7] and confirmed [E1.9] without an answer to that scope question.
  2. April 17 – 25, 2023 — the City sets the meeting and the hour. On April 17, 2023 Paul Lovato answered, "Yes, Lets set up a time to meet onsite. I am Monday - Friday. 8:00am - 2:00 pm" [E1.7]. On April 25, 2023 he set the hour: "Chris, Wednesday the 26th at 1:00 pm." [E1.9] Neither reply identifies the work performed that the inspection concerned.
  3. April 26, 2023, 12:58:22 – 13:32:01 — what the cameras recorded. Porch camera: 12:58:22 [P12], the inspector arrives, phone in hand; 12:58:29 [P13], off the steps; 12:58:49 [P14], half out of frame; 12:58:55 [P15], porch empty; just before 13:00:00 [P16], back on the steps; 13:00:00 [P17], leaving. Driveway camera: 13:00:31 [P18], sidewalk; 13:00:43 [P19] and 13:00:47 [P20], down the drive to the gate; 13:01:04 [P21], at the street. Then the owner: 13:23:15 [P22], at the front door with her cane; 13:23:20 [P23] seated; 13:27:36 [P24] on the steps; 13:29:50 [P25] and 13:32:01 [P26] in the driveway — twenty-two minutes after he had gone. The stills are photographs of the recorder's playback screen with the recorder's own burned-in date and time.
  4. April 26, 2023, 1:12 p.m. — "A response fee will be assessed to the property." Paul Lovato's email of April 26, 2023, sent at 1:12 pm [E10], calls the visit "arranged" [E10], states that he knocked at the door twice [E10] and announced himself in the driveway twice [E10], and states that "A response fee will be assessed to the property" [E10]; it does not answer the scope question.
  5. May 22, 2026 — the file the City produced under Request 26-1965: no log entry, no email, no authority. The case activity log [M002] jumps from 04/24/2023 to 05/19/2023 with no entry for April 26, 2023. The case file the City produced under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1] (closed May 22, 2026: "All responsive records have been provided." [R.26-1965.1]) holds no copy of the 1:12 p.m. email — the only copy is the owner's (E10) — and cites no code section or fee-schedule page as authority for the fee. Its permit handout says "All fees are identified in the City of Sacramento Fee Schedule and are available for your review." [M119] and names no response fee. SCC.8.100.720 imposes the monitoring fee "for each additional inspection of the property after the notice and order issued pursuant to this chapter becomes final" [SCC.8.100.720(A)(2)]; the produced file does not show that it authorizes this response fee.

FULL CIRCLE

The City's first available answer is that nothing was inspected: the visit was arranged, the inspector knocked and announced himself, no one answered, and a response fee for a missed appointment is a routine charge.

Routine charges have a source. The City's letters name the fees the order carries — the $1,075 order fee, the $305 monitoring fee, the $165 title fee [M123] — and say they are "imposed pursuant to Chapters 8.96 and/or 8.100 of the Sacramento City Code" [M123]; none of them is a response fee, and the monitoring fee the code provides is for an inspection after the order is final. The hour was the City's own, the account of the visit is a twelve-minute email, and the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1] records neither the visit nor the charge.

The City's second available answer is that the fee was announced and not billed.

Then the announcement stands as what the owner's side was told, in writing, by the inspector who had set the hour: that a charge would follow. The ledger (Card 11) is the City's own record of what it did bill; the question here is what the City told the owner it could bill, and on what authority.

The City's third available answer sits inside the produced file: its permit-information sheet says "All fees are identified in the City of Sacramento Fee Schedule and are available for your review." [M119] — so a response fee, if any, is a line in the Council-adopted Fee Schedule.

That sheet is a generic building-permit handout (Guide to Permits for Residential Projects and Additions [M119]); it names no response fee, no missed-appointment charge, and no section of the Fee Schedule, and the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1] holds no page of the Fee Schedule itself. A pointer to a schedule is not the schedule. The question is which page lists the charge the inspector announced.

What would defeat this card is one page: the code section, council resolution, or Fee Schedule page that lists a response fee for a missed appointment, served or produced. The file the City closed under Request 26-1965 with "All responsive records have been provided." [R.26-1965.1] holds none. Card 4 is the completeness baseline (what the file the City produced means, and does not mean).

APPLICABLE LAW

SOURCE CITATIONS USED BY THIS CARD

CARD REFERENCES