Every pre-access enforcement dollar - $31,230 over 26 months - was billed against two codes the City's own list called non-final.
The City charged a property owner $31,230 in monitoring fees and penalties over 26 months before any city official ever conducted a complete inspection of the property’s interior or yard. These 23 monitoring cycles and 22 penalty cycles were billed against two generic placeholder codes that remained unchanged for more than 800 days. One of these codes explicitly stated on the record that it was not a complete list of violations and that no full inspection of the building had occurred. The only documented activity during this period was an observation made from a neighbor’s backyard, which produced no specific findings about the property's condition. While City rules require an actual inspection of the property to justify a monitoring fee, the case file contains no records of such inspections or worksheets for the billed cycles until after the $31,230 ledger was closed.
From the violation-open date through the last billing cycle before access, Case 23-009185 ran for more than 800 days on two generic codes - B31 ("Other - BUILDING - Other") and B59 ("Permits Required," SCC § 8.100.190) - with no property-specific defect description in the City's own Violations Index M012. The B31 entry disclaims itself on its face: "This is not a complete Violation List ... Neither interior nor exterior has been completely inspected" M012. Against that unchanged predicate the City billed 23 HDB Monitoring Fee cycles and 22 administrative-penalty cycles — $31,230 in total C13 — before any completed interior or full-yard inspection occurred.
A city can charge a property owner a recurring monitoring fee only for actually going out and inspecting the property after a final order. Here the City's own list of violations carried just two generic placeholder codes - and one of them said in writing that nobody had finished inspecting the inside or the outside. For more than two years that list never changed, yet the City billed the owner 23 rounds of monitoring fees and 22 rounds of escalating penalties - $31,230 in all - before any City employee ever inspected the inside of the property or got past the locked gate into the yard. A city inspector did make an initial onsite visit on 03/20/2023 and posted notices on the front door more than once, but those were drive-by and door-posting visits that produced no findings about the property's actual condition. The only thing an inspector had actually done first was stand in a neighbor's backyard and photograph what he could see from there M024. The City's own fee rule ties the charge to an inspection "of the property" SCC § 8.100.720, but the produced file shows no interior or condition inspection of the property during the billed period and no per-cycle worksheet recording what each round of "monitoring" looked at. These facts only became visible after the owner's representative forced the full case file out through records requests and lined the invoices up against the inspection notes - that is how the gap between "monitoring fee" and any actual monitoring came to light.
The Violations Index M012 carries only B31 and B59, both opened 03/20/2023, and stayed unchanged across three productions R.25-3549 R.26-1549 R.26-1965. B31 disclaims being a complete or completed inspection; B59 cites SCC § 8.100.190 without identifying which work or condition required which permit. > "B31: Other - BUILDING - Other | Open | Open Date: 03/20/2023 | This is not a complete Violation List of building code violations. Neither interior nor exterior has been completely inspected." > "B59: 8.100.190 - BUILDING - Permits Required | Open | Open Date: 03/20/2023 | Work has been done without the benefit of a PERMIT."
The reinspection note M024 records "I took pictures of what I saw from where I was standing" on the complaining party's adjacent lot - not an interior or completed inspection, and no property-specific findings.
SCC § 8.100.720 defines the charge as "a housing and dangerous building monitoring fee imposed for each additional inspection of the property after the notice and order ... becomes final." The produced record shows no interior/condition inspection of the property during the billed period and no per-cycle monitoring worksheet - the event the fee recovers does not appear.
The City's own Violations Index carried only two codes - one of which disclaims being a complete or completed inspection M012; the produced record shows no interior/yard inspection of the property's condition and no monitoring worksheet across the billed period; yet the invoice trail ran 23 monitoring cycles and 22 penalty cycles to $31,230 C13 before the City first conducted a past-the-gate interior/yard inspection M35. On the City's own record, every pre-access dollar was billed against a violation list the City's own file called non-final M012, for monitoring it has not shown it performed SCC § 8.100.720.
Anticipated City defense: these were "starter" citations meant to be updated once the owner allowed a full interior inspection; that the owner's non-cooperation delayed factual specification; and that monitoring fees are authorized regardless of whether a physical inspection occurs each cycle.
Answer: the placeholder status held for more than 800 days, and the penalty and monitoring cycle ran against the unchanged entries M012 before the first documented access M35. The only pre-order activity the record discloses is the neighbor-yard observation - "what I saw from where I was standing" M024 - not an interior or completed inspection. And if the fee requires no interior/condition inspection of the property, then "monitoring" in "HDB Monitoring Fee" describes case management, not monitoring of the property's condition; the owner was billed 23 cycles on the contrary implication SCC § 8.100.720, against a predicate the B31 entry itself calls incomplete M012.
---