The Placeholder Fee and Appeal Predicate

Case 23-009185 | Card 3 | 4880 T Street, Sacramento CA 95819

The City put a price on disagreeing with its order while the order's own list said the inspection was not complete. The letter mailed with the April 12, 2023 order [M131] said a fee had already been charged against the property, that failure to comply "may result in the assessment of an additional Housing and Dangerous Buildings Monitoring fee of $305.00 for each subsequent inspection related to this case" [M123], and that anyone who disagreed with its requirements [M123] had thirty days to appeal at a $400 processing fee. The order said that "failure to appeal will constitute a waiver of all rights to an administrative hearing and determination of the matter" [M124]. The form asked for the material facts that would reverse the City's action [M130], and for the $400 prior to the City scheduling a date for the Appeal Hearing [M130]. What all of it ran against was a two-entry list — "Other" [M125] and a permit entry — that said of itself neither interior nor exterior had been completely inspected [M125] (Card 1: the order carried no description of the conditions found; the list names no structure, no work, and no location).

The thirty days ended on 05/12/2023. The first monitoring fee order was posted on the front door on 05/22/2023 [M025]; it carried its own appeal — twenty calendar days, a $50 fee, and "If you fail to appeal, this order shall be final" [M133]. On 08/23/2023 the owner's representative filed an appeal and pictures [M025]; the City's log recorded it as an appeal of the May monitoring fee whose time had already passed, with no appeal fee received [M025], and on 09/07/2023 the City refused it because no appeal fee had been paid [M014]. What was filed is not in the file the City produced in May 2026 (Card 30: the representative's three contacts, and the records behind them that the file does not hold). On 09/13/2023 the Board found that the fee be placed on the property as a special assessment, to go to Council for approval on 11/14/2023 [M025], at the hearing the City's own appeal packet describes as one where "The violations will not be discussed" [M142]. That packet names three appealable actions — "Notice & Order, Administrative Penalty, and Cost Recovery" [M142] — and says of the first that the fees are not considered there [M142] and of the third that the violations are not. The owner's side appealed once more, two and a half years later. On 12/11/2025 the City logged an appeal "for the Admin Penalty in the amount of $2,000 and the Mon Fee in the amount of $380 both issued on 11/18/25" [M038] and "returned to requestor with a denial for lack of fees due" [M038]; on 12/22/2025 it received the appeal again and set it for the Hearing Examiner [M038], and on 12/23/2025 it receipted "CK #2285 for $50 Monitoring Appeal Fee 11/18/25 and $100 Admin Penalty Appeal Fee 11/18/25" [M038]. The owner's attorney appeared at the 02/11/2026 hearing; the log entry of 02/23/2026 reads: "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], and on 02/24/2026 a refund voucher for the penalty appeal fee [M039] followed. What that hearing decided was a fee and a penalty dated 11/18/2025; the entry names no structure, no work, and no location, and the two "Hearing Decision" [M024] documents the index dates 02/25/2026 are not among the 631 pages the City produced. Every charge that followed is Card 11 (the ledger, every charge run against the same two entries); the cycles billed before anyone entered the yard are Card 10.

Where in the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1] is the page on which any City body decided what the two entries on the list served with the April 12, 2023 order [M125] referred to — when the one appeal the City's packet says tests whether there were no violations when the order was issued [M142] cost a $400 fee [M130] within thirty days [M124] against a list that named no structure, no work, and no location, the packet says violations are not discussed at the cost-recovery hearing [M142], and the two appeals the owner's side did file were refused for no fee [M014] in 2023 and, in 2026, decided by a Hearing Examiner on a fee and a penalty dated 11/18/2025 [M039]?

IN PLAIN TERMS

The City set the price of disagreeing before it had finished looking. The April 12, 2023 packet [M131] held an order, an appeal form, and a two-entry list that called itself incomplete. The letter warned of a $305 fee for each further inspection [M123] and gave thirty days, and $400, to appeal. The first fee order went on the door ten days after the thirty ran out [M025]. The appeal filed in August 2023 was refused for no fee [M014]; the fee went to a hearing the City's packet says does not discuss violations [M142]. A paid appeal in 2026 was decided by a Hearing Examiner on a fee and a penalty dated 11/18/2025 [M039], with no word on the 2023 list. The question for the City: where in the file it produced in May 2026 did anyone decide what the two entries on the 2023 list referred to?

RECORD CHAIN

April 12, 2023 — the two mechanisms, and the page they ran against.
The proof of service lists what was mailed that day: "Notice and Order Packet which includes Letter, Notice and Order to Repair or Demolish Sub-Standard Building, Attachment A (legal property description), Warning Statement, Notice of Change of Owner(s) Address or Sale of Property, Three Day Notice of Cal. Health and Safety Code 17980.7 Receivership, Appeal Request Form, Correction List and Proof of Service by Certified Mail" [M131].
The order tied the fee to the work. If the required repair or demolition work was not commenced and/or completed within the specified time, its paragraph 6 said, the Chief Building Official "may assess a Housing and Dangerous Buildings Monitoring Fee in the amount of $305.00 for each subsequent inspection related to this Notice and Order" [M124]. Its paragraph 7 gave the appeal: "any person having any record title or legal interest in the building(s) may appeal this Notice and Order or any action of the Chief Building Official to the Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board; the appeal must be filed with the Community Development Department within 30 days from the date of this Notice and Order" [M124].
The City's Notice-and-Order section requires "a brief and concise description of the conditions found" [SCC.8.100.720(A)(2)]. The description the code places in the order itself, and what this order carried instead, is Card 1.
The attached list set two entries against those two paragraphs. B59: code "8.100.190" [SCC.8.100.190], description "Permits Required" [M125], comment "Work has been done without the benefit of a PERMIT. This work must be removed or properly Permitted and Approved by the City of Sacramento." [M125] — and the B31 entry, whose Full Violation field reads "Other" [M125]. Who inspected the property before the order issued, and from where, is Card 2.
The City's appeal packet describes what that appeal was for: it "allows the property owner and/or interested parties to show that when the N&O was issued there were no violations on the property, making the N&O null and void" [M142]. The same paragraph says the fees associated with a Notice and Order are not considered there [M142] — it is the track where the packet puts the question of what the cited entries referred to. The form for it appeals "the Notice and Order relative to Case #: 23-009185" [M130] and requires the $400 fee "prior to the City scheduling a date for the Appeal Hearing" [M130], under the sections it cites, 8.96.170 (D) [SCC.8.96.170(D)] and 8.100.760 (D) [SCC.8.100.760(D)].
May 22, 2023 — the first monitoring fee, ten days after the window.
The thirty days the order allowed ran from 04/12/2023 and ended on 05/12/2023. On 05/19/2023 Paul Lovato's entry records that he "arrived at SFR to take photos, update case files, and send the 1st Level C HSG HDB Monitoring fee" [M025]. A re-inspection activity note for 05/22/2023 records: "On 5-22-2023 at 8:51 am I posted Order Imposing Building monitoring Fee on the front door." [M025] The order posted carried its own appeal: "You may appeal this imposed fee within 20 calendar days after the date this order is served by filing with the Office of the City Clerk a written notice of appeal and paying a non-refundable appeal fee in the amount of $50.00. If you fail to appeal, this order shall be final." [M133]
That was forty days after the order and ten days after the thirtieth. On 06/23/2023 the file records "Ecap generated invoice # CDDCHC17598 in the amount of $305.00 for HDB Monitoring 5/22/23" [M025].
The first charge the order's fee warning produced was ordered after the appeal the order offered had closed.
August 23 – September 7, 2023 — the appeal the owner's side filed, and what the City called it.
The document index dates the appeal document, "Appeal and Pictures" [M014], to 08/23/2023 — 133 days after the order. The activity entry records it as an appeal and pictures received from the owner's representative [M025]. The packet itself, 6 MB in the index, is not reproduced in the file the City produced in May 2026 (Card 30: the three contacts from the representative, and the records behind them that the file does not hold).
The activity entry for that day states: "The appeal is for the May Monitoring Fee and that deadline has already passed. There was also no payment for the appeal fee received." [M025]
The index's next appeal entry is the refusal: "Appeal Refusal - Monitoring Fee - No Appeal Fee" [M014], dated 09/07/2023.
On 09/27/2023 the log records the representative's call about the refusal and his offer to pay the $50; the City's answer, in its own words, was that "at this point he is past timely" [M025].
September 13, 2023 — where the fee was decided.
On 07/27/2023 the file records that "Due to the delinquency of invoice CDDCHC17598 ($305) + a $20 collection fee for a total of $325, the property owner has been scheduled for the 9/13/23 HCAAB HEARING" [M025]. On 09/15/2023 it records the result: "At the 09/13/2023 HCAAB hearing it was found that a special assessment in the amount of $325 for invoice CDDCHC17598 be placed against the property." [M025] That is six days after the refusal.
The City's appeal packet describes the hearing that does that: "A Cost Recovery hearing is to determine whether delinquent fees and penalties incurred by the Community Development Department, and/or administrative penalties imposed by the City are to be placed upon the property as a Special Assessment." [M142] It then lists the circumstances under which appeals may be filed, the last of them: "The violations will not be discussed during the appeal or hearing process unless you are being charged for a summary (emergency) abatement." [M142]
That sentence sits under the Cost Recovery heading, not over the whole packet. Under the Administrative Penalty heading the same page says that appeal "provides the responsible party an opportunity to show that the violations did not exist or occur at the time the penalty was issued" [M142]; under the Notice and Order heading it is the null-and-void showing above.
December 11, 2025 – February 24, 2026 — the paid appeal, and what it decided.
On 12/11/2025 the log records an appeal received "for the Admin Penalty in the amount of $2,000 and the Mon Fee in the amount of $380 both issued on 11/18/25" [M038] and "returned to requestor with a denial for lack of fees due" [M038]. On 12/22/2025 it records the appeal received again and scheduled for the Hearing Examiner hearing [M038]; on 12/23/2025 it records "CK #2285 for $50 Monitoring Appeal Fee 11/18/25 and $100 Admin Penalty Appeal Fee 11/18/25" [M038].
The entry of 02/23/2026 records the hearing of 02/11/2026: the owner's attorney appeared, the inspector appeared for the City, and "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]. On 02/24/2026 the log records a "Refund voucher #01697341 in the amount of $100 for Appeal fees" [M039].
The document index lists two "Hearing Decision" [M024] documents dated 02/25/2026. They are not among the 631 pages the City produced under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1]; the log entry is the only record of what was decided, and it names the fee and the penalty of 11/18/2025 — not either entry on the April 12, 2023 list. The penalty orders themselves are Card 15.

FULL CIRCLE

The City's first available answer is that the order could be appealed within thirty days of April 12, 2023 [M124], and was not.

What that appeal could examine is on the City's own pages. The form asks for the material facts that would reverse the City's action [M130] — against an order whose list named no structure, no work, and no location (Card 1: the description the code required in the order itself [SCC.8.100.720(A)(2)], and what the order carried instead). The packet confines that appeal to the entries as the inspector cited them, with the fees left out of it [M142]; the entries were "Other" [M125] and a permit placeholder. And no fee yet existed to be examined against them: the first was ordered ten days after the window closed [M025].

The City's second available answer is that the fee had its own appeal — twenty days, $50 [M133] — and that the appeal filed in August was late and unpaid [M025].

That is the City's label for what was filed; the filed packet is not in the file the City produced in May 2026 (Card 30). On the City's own terms that appeal is of "this imposed fee" [M133], and the refusal the index records [M014] is of a monitoring-fee appeal, for no appeal fee — a fee question, answered on a fee ground.

The City's third available answer is that a delinquent fee has its own hearing, and this one had it — the 09/13/2023 hearing that found the $325 be placed on the property, subject to Council approval [M025]. The packet sets what may be raised there: that the City did not follow correct and accurate procedures [M142], and that the amount(s) being charged are incorrect [M142]. The two entries the amount was charged on are the one thing that same list puts outside the hearing. The Administrative Penalty appeal the packet also describes tests the violations "at the time the penalty was issued" [M142] — each penalty's date, not the order's (Card 15: the penalty orders recite the same two-prong language, cycle after cycle, without selecting a prong or stating facts).

The City's fourth available answer is that the owner was heard: on 02/11/2026 the owner's attorney appeared on a paid appeal before a Hearing Examiner, who "After hearing testimony and reviewing all written documents" [M039] upheld the fee and waived the penalty.

What that entry decides is "the Monitoring Fee in the amount of $380 issued on 11/18/2025" [M039] and "the Admin Penalty in the amount of $2000" [M039] — a fee and a penalty of 11/18/2025, thirty-one months after the order. The entry states no finding on either entry of the April 12, 2023 list, and the two "Hearing Decision" [M024] documents the index dates 02/25/2026 are not among the 631 pages of the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1]. The Administrative Penalty appeal, on the packet's own terms, tests the violations "at the time the penalty was issued" [M142] — the penalty's date, not the order's.

What would defeat this card is a record of a proceeding in which the two entries on the attached Correction List were examined against the monitoring fee charged on them: a decision, a determination, or a hearing record of the Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board, of a delinquency lien hearing officer, or of any other body, in this case. The 631-page May 2026 production, closed as complete [R.26-1965.1] under Request 26-1965, carries the appeal packet, the document index, and the activity entries set out above, and contains no such record: the 02/23/2026 entry [M039] records a fee upheld and a penalty waived, not a finding on the two entries, and the decision documents the index lists [M024] are not in it. Card 4 is the completeness baseline (what the file the City produced means, and does not mean).

On 08/25/2026, Request 26-3538 [R.26-3538.1] asked, among the records behind the April 12, 2023 order, for the appeal form received in August 2023 with its date stamps; the refusal letter of 09/07/2023 and its proof of service; any record of the City's consideration of a fee waiver; any record identifying which appeal track — Notice and Order, Administrative Penalty, or Cost Recovery — the refused appeal was treated as; and any record of a hearing, review, or determination in this case at which the two entries were considered.

APPLICABLE LAW

SCC.8.100.190: Permits Required — requires a building permit before erection, alteration, repair, demolition, or related work; the "must be removed or properly Permitted" remedy is the Correction List's wording
SCC.8.100.720(A)(2): Notice-and-Order content requirement — the order itself must contain a brief and concise description of the conditions found to render the building substandard. Subsection (B)(1)(b) of the same section is the monitoring-fee provision the cover letter and the order recite.
SCC.8.96.170(D): Dangerous Buildings Code appeal / appeal-fee provision; cited as section 8.96.170 (D) on the Appeal Request Form; the cover letter cites Chapters 8.96 and/or 8.100 generally
SCC.8.100.760(D): Appeal-processing-fee provision authorizing a fee set by city council resolution; the $400 amount appears on the Appeal Request Form

SOURCE CITATIONS USED BY THIS CARD

M014 — May 2026 p.14 — document index: "Appeal and Pictures" 08/23/2023; "Appeal Refusal - Monitoring Fee - No Appeal Fee" 09/07/2023.
M024 — May 2026 p.24 — document index: two "Hearing Decision" entries, hd23-009185.pdf and hd23-009185_1.pdf, dated 02/25/2026 "Document added through batch scanning process"; the green cards for the 02/11/2026 Hearing Examiner notice and decision.
M025 — May 2026 p.25 — activity entries: the 05/19/2023 and 05/22/2023 monitoring-fee steps; the 06/23/2023 invoice CDDCHC17598 for $305.00; the 07/27/2023 scheduling of the 9/13/23 HCAAB hearing on that invoice's delinquency; the 08/23/2023 appeal entry; the 09/15/2023 entry that the 09/13/2023 HCAAB hearing found the $325 special assessment "be placed against the property", to go to Council for approval November 14, 2023.
M038 — May 2026 p.38 — activity entries: 12/11/2025 appeal received "for the Admin Penalty in the amount of $2,000 and the Mon Fee in the amount of $380 both issued on 11/18/25", "returned to requestor with a denial for lack of fees due"; 12/22/2025 appeal received again and scheduled for the Hearing Examiner hearing; 12/23/2025 "CK #2285 for $50 Monitoring Appeal Fee 11/18/25 and $100 Admin Penalty Appeal Fee 11/18/25".
M039 — May 2026 p.39 — activity entries: 02/23/2026 record of the 02/11/2026 Hearing Examiner hearing, "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"; 02/24/2026 "Refund voucher #01697341 in the amount of $100 for Appeal fees".
M123 — May 2026 p.123 — 04/12/2023 Notice and Order cover letter: failure to comply "may result in the assessment" of a $305 monitoring fee "for each subsequent inspection related to this case"; charges "pursuant to Chapters 8.96 and/or 8.100"; 30-day right to appeal; $400 appeal-processing fee.
M124 — May 2026 p.124 — Notice and Order to Repair or Demolish: structure "in sub-standard and/or dangerous condition under the provisions of Chapter 8.96 and/or Chapter 8.100," the paragraph 6 monitoring-fee recital and the paragraph 7 appeal and waiver recital; "Dated: 04/12/2023 Bo Cosley, Principal Building Inspector."
M125 — May 2026 p.125 — Correction List: B31 "Other" and B59 "8.100.190" — "Permits Required"; "This is not a complete Violation List… Neither interior nor exterior has been completely inspected… may be identified upon further inspection." B59 comment: "Work has been done without the benefit of a PERMIT. This work must be removed or properly Permitted and Approved by the City of Sacramento. This Violation List may be partial and does not exclude any code violations which may become apparent during further inspections."
M131 — May 2026 p.131 — Proof of Service by Certified Mail, 04/12/2023: the packet mailed to the owner, itemised — letter, Notice and Order, Attachment A, Warning Statement, change-of-address notice, three-day receivership notice, Appeal Request Form, Correction List, proof of service.
M133 — May 2026 p.133 — Order Imposing Housing and Dangerous Buildings Monitoring Fee dated 05/22/2023 ($305.00, monitoring date 05/19/2023): "You may appeal this imposed fee within 20 calendar days … paying a non-refundable appeal fee in the amount of $50.00. If you fail to appeal, this order shall be final."
M130 — May 2026 p.130 — Appeal Request Form: appeals "the Notice and Order relative to Case #: 23-009185"; $400 processing fee payable "prior to the City scheduling a date for the Appeal Hearing," under SCC.8.96.170 and SCC.8.100.760.
M142 — May 2026 p.142 — the City's appeal packet: the three actions it names as appealable, "Notice & Order, Administrative Penalty, and Cost Recovery"; the Notice and Order appeal, at which a showing that there were no violations when the order issued makes it "null and void" and at which the fees associated with a Notice and Order are not considered; the Administrative Penalty appeal, at which the responsible party may show "the violations did not exist or occur at the time the penalty was issued"; and the Cost Recovery hearing, which places delinquent fees "upon the property as a Special Assessment" and under which the packet prints "The violations will not be discussed during the appeal or hearing process unless you are being charged for a summary (emergency) abatement."
R.26-1965 — NextRequest 26-1965; provenance for M; City released 631-page case file May 22, 2026
R.26-1965.1 — NextRequest 26-1965 portal capture — closure May 22, 2026: "All responsive records have been provided."
R.26-3538.1 — local rendering of Request 26-3538 as filed 08/25/2026: the August 2023 appeal form and its date stamps, the 09/07/2023 refusal and its proof of service, any fee-waiver consideration, which appeal track the refused appeal was treated as, and any hearing, review, or determination at which the two Correction List entries were considered.

CARD REFERENCES

Card 1 — The Missing Required Property-Specific Description: the description the code places in the order itself, and what this order carried instead.
Card 2 — The Missing Determination: who inspected the property before the order issued, and from where.
Card 4 — Fourteen Written CPRA Completeness Determinations: the production-completeness baseline for the closed-as-complete May 2026 case file.
Card 10 — the monitoring cycles billed before anyone entered the yard.
Card 11 — the ledger of every charge billed against the April 12, 2023 order.
Card 15 — The Ground the Order Left Out: the administrative-penalty orders recite the same two-prong language, cycle after cycle, without selecting a prong or stating facts.
Card 30 — The Missing Representative Records: the three contacts from the owner's representative in the City's log, and the records behind them that the closed-as-complete file does not hold.