The Fee-Status Answer Missing from the Same-Day Reply

Case 23-009185 | Card 26 | 4880 T Street, Sacramento CA 95819

On the day the City posted a letter saying the old fees still had to be paid, its inspector answered a written question about those fees without a word about them. The re-issued Notice and Order of September 2, 2025 [M541] says on its cover letter that it "does not assess any additional fees" [M541], that its purpose is to "restate what is required to bring the property into compliance" [M541], and that the recorded Declaration "will be cleared when permits are finalized and all outstanding fees assessed under the previous Notice and Order have been paid" [M541]; its signature page says "If you need clarification of the Notice and Order, or any information provided herein, you may contact the building inspector shown below" [M542] — Paul Lovato, Building Inspector 4.

That morning the owner's representative had asked, in writing, whether the new order voided the prior one "along with any fines or fees attached to it, with all future enforcement based only on the new notice" [E3]. The City's strongest page is that same email: its writer offered to bring a signed letter from the owner "authorizing you to communicate with me directly regarding this case" [E3], and the City's own log entry of 09/11/2025 calls him the "property owners handyman" [M036] — the City's words, quoted as the City's. The inspector shown below replied at 2:43 p.m. — to the Principal Building Inspector, his supervisor, the owner's helper, and the owner, and not to the address that asked (Card 28: the recipient list) — that "The City of Sacramento deals directly with the owner of the property, or the owners representative" [E3] and to "reach out to the owner of the property" [E3]. The reply says nothing about the fees, the voiding, or the Declaration, and the City's log records that reply as the whole of what the inspector "replied back to the email stating" [M036] (Card 27: the void question itself, with no answer in the produced thread).

Where, in the case file the City produced under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1] or the email file it closed under Request 25-4711 [R.25-4711.3] on December 29, 2025, is a reply from the City to the owner, or to the person the City's own reply calls "the owners representative" [E3], that states what the September 2, 2025 letter [M541] states about the fees?

IN PLAIN TERMS

On September 2, 2025 the City re-issued its Notice and Order. The cover letter [M541] answered the fee question: no new fees, and the old fees still had to be paid before the Declaration on the title would be cleared. That morning the owner's side asked the City in writing whether the new order voided the old one and its fines and fees. The inspector the letter names for clarification replied the same afternoon [E3], to the owner and her helper, and did not answer — he wrote that the City deals with the owner. The question for the City: where, in the case file it produced under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1] or the email file it closed under Request 25-4711 [R.25-4711.3], is a City reply to the owner or her representative that says what the letter says about the fees?

RECORD CHAIN

  1. April 12, 2023 — the order the fees run under. The re-issuance restates the Notice and Order first issued April 12, 2023 [M123]; the re-issued order's cover letter [M541] leaves outstanding fees assessed under that previous order payable.
  2. September 2, 2025 — the City re-issues and posts the order. The activity log records "HSG - RE-ISSUE N AND O" [M009] (Monica Atkins, 09/02/2025) and a same-day posting by Arrion Gildersleeve ("I posted the property with Notice and Order. The Declaration of Posting is in the case file. Photos taken." [M009]); the 09/10/2025 green-card return entry, typed "GREEN CARD RECVD" [M009] and carrying the entry text "Re-Issue Notice & Order" [M009] (Paul Lovato), appears on the same page [M009]. The documents index shows the merge document "HSG - Re-Issue N&O.htm" [M022] (08/29/2025), the produced order "rn23-009185.pdf" [M022] (09/02/2025) with the label "Re-Issue Notice & Order [M022]," and two same-date green-card entries [M022]. The produced record includes a cover-letter continuation and signature page [M542] and the re-issued Notice and Order body [M543].
  3. September 2, 2025 — the letter answers the fee question. The cover letter recites that the current order "does not assess any additional fees [M541]," that its purpose is to "restate what is required to bring the property into compliance [M541]," and that the recorded Declaration "will be cleared when permits are finalized and all outstanding fees assessed under the previous Notice and Order have been paid" [M541], and that charges are imposed "pursuant to Chapters 8.96 and/or 8.100 of the Sacramento City Code [M541]." The signature page of that same cover letter [M542] states where clarification of the order is to be obtained: "If you need clarification of the Notice and Order, or any information provided herein, you may contact the building inspector shown below." [M542] The building inspector shown below that sentence [M542] is Paul Lovato, Building Inspector 4.
  4. September 2, 2025, 10:40 a.m. — the question, in writing. A 10:40 a.m. email from the owner's representative [E3], sent to the Principal Building Inspector, asked whether the new order voided the prior one "along with any fines or fees attached to it, with all future enforcement based only on the new notice [E3]."
  5. September 2, 2025, 2:43 p.m. — the reply, without the answer. The reply directed the writer to "the owner of the property" [E3] and addressed neither the voiding question nor the status of prior fees. The produced copy's recipient list [E3] is the subject of Card 28.
  6. September 11, 2025 — the City logs the question and the reply. The inspector's log entry records "I received an email from property owners handyman along with a document" [M036], copies the question, and records the reply in full after "I replied back to the email stating" [M036] — with no word about the fees.

FULL CIRCLE

The City's first available answer is printed on its own pages: the email came from someone who offered to bring a signed letter "authorizing you to communicate with me directly regarding this case" [E3], whom the City's log calls the "property owners handyman" [M036]; the City "deals directly with the owner of the property, or the owners representative" [E3]; and the owner had the letter — posted at the property on 09/02/2025 ("I posted the property with Notice and Order" [M009]) and returned by green card on 09/10/2025 ("GREEN CARD RECVD" [M009]) — so no reply had to restate it.

The reply went to the owner. Its recipients are the Principal Building Inspector, the supervisor, the owner's helper and the owner's own address (E3) — the people the City says it deals with — and to them it said nothing about the fees. The letter says clarification comes from "the building inspector shown below" [M542]; the inspector shown below wrote the reply and logged it on 09/11/2025 as what he "replied back to the email stating" [M036], without a word about the fees. The green card shows the letter was delivered; it does not show that the question the letter prompted was answered.

The City's second available answer is that the writer was unauthorized and the City owed him no answer at all.

The card does not ask what the City owed the writer. It asks what the City told the owner, whose address is on the reply (E3), and the representative the City's own reply says it deals with (Card 46: the three inconsistent closures the City later gave on this same email).

What would defeat this card is a reply from the City, to the owner or the owner's representative, stating what the re-issued order's letter stated about the fees. The email file the City closed on December 29, 2025 with "All responsive records associated with this public records request have been released and this public records request is now closed." [R.25-4711.3] holds the question and the reply above and no such page; the case file the City closed on May 22, 2026 with "All responsive records have been provided." [R.26-1965.1] holds the letter [M541], the 09/11/2025 log entry [M036] carrying the question and the reply, and no such page. 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