The City’s own production bills $36,020.40 in enforcement-related charges, every dollar tethered to two placeholder codes it never amended.
A city can keep charging a property owner monthly fees and penalties while a code case is open, but each charge is supposed to rest on a specific, written-down problem at the property. Here the city ran two parallel monthly meters — a “monitoring” fee and an administrative penalty — and billed them again and again for more than two years. Added up across the city’s own invoices, the charges come to $36,020.40. M012 R.26-1965 The catch is that every one of those charges points back to the same two catch-all codes the city itself describes as “not a complete violation list” and “work done without a permit” — placeholders, never replaced with an actual list of what was wrong. M012 The meters kept running even though the city did not set foot on the property until the day after the running total had already reached $31,230 M010 Card 9; then, right after that first visit, there was an 85-day stretch with no new bill, M010 after which the penalty resumed at double the old rate, M585 Card 10 and the very next bill carried a brand-new “Code Technology Fee” that no produced document explains. M039 Some of this only became legible after the owner’s representative forced the city’s billing records out through public-records requests and lined every invoice up on one page — including a later demand letter showing an extra $1,462.08 in late fees stacked on top. M040
Bottom line: the city’s own production shows $36,020.40 M012 in fees and penalties billed against this property, every dollar tied to two placeholder codes it never amended, with the rate doubling and a new fee appearing right after the first on-site visit — and the full picture only emerged once the records were forced out and totaled. R.25-3549 R.26-1549This card is the master fee ledger for Case 23-009185. It is accounting only: what was billed, by what invoice number, on what date, in what category, against the best produced source. The City’s production carries $36,020.40 in enforcement-related charges from the Notice and Order through the last billed cycle, and the Violations Index ties every dollar to the same two placeholder codes: B31, which says it is “not a complete Violation List,” and B59, which cites SCC §8.100.190 without identifying the work, location, structure, or condition requiring a permit. M012 Neither code was amended into a property-specific finding across the billing run. Card 9 carries the pre-access theory; Card 10 addresses the rate doubling; Card 12 addresses supervisor-branded orders; Card 8 carries the doctrine synthesis.
A city can keep charging monthly fees and penalties while a code case is open, but each charge should rest on a specific, written problem at the property. Here the City ran two parallel meters — a monitoring fee and an administrative penalty — for more than two years. The running total reached $31,230 before the first documented on-property access, then an 85-day billing gap followed, after which the penalty resumed at double the prior rate and the next monitoring bill carried a new $30.40 Code Technology Fee. M010 M039 M585 The ledger became legible only when the invoices, billing directives, hearing notes, refund entries, and late-fee records are aligned on one page.
| Date | Invoice(s) | Amount | Description | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/11–04/12/2023 | CDDCHC17445 | $1,390.00 | N&O / title search / termination charges | M025 |
| 05/22/2023 | CDDCHC17598 | $305.00 | 1st HDB monitoring fee | M012 |
| 06/29/2023 | CDDCHA04244 + CDDCHC17740 | $1,305.00 | 1st administrative penalty ($1,000) + monitoring ($305) | M146 |
| 07/2023–07/2025 | [recurring monthly CDDCHA + CDDCHC] | $1,305/mo. | Monthly penalty ($1,000) + monitoring ($305) pattern | M010 |
| 07/24/2025 | CDDCHA07250 + CDDCHC22795 | $1,380.00 | Last pre-access invoice — running total: $31,230 | M010 |
| ▶ 85-day billing gap — first on-property access occurs during this interval | ||||
| 10/17/2025 | CDDCHA07477 + CDDCHC23341 | $2,380.00 | 23rd penalty at doubled rate ($2,000) + monitoring ($380) | M585 |
| 11/17–18/2025 | CDDCHA [24th] + CDDCHC24459 | $2,410.40 | 24th penalty ($2,000) + HDB monitoring ($380) + Code Technology Fee ($30.40) | M039 |
| TOTAL — enforcement-related charges | $36,020.40 | Per City’s own production M012 R.26-1965 | ||
The Violations Index carries B31 and B59 as the baseline entries. B31 says the list is not complete and that neither interior nor exterior had been completely inspected; B59 cites SCC §8.100.190 without identifying the work, location, structure, or condition requiring a permit. M012 Neither code was amended into a property-specific finding across the billing run. Every charge in the $36,020.40 ledger traces back to these two placeholder codes.
The first enforcement-related invoice is CDDCHC17445 for $1,390, generated 05/15/2023, combining $150 termination, $165 title, and $1,075 Notice-and-Order charges. M025 This is the predicate charge against which all subsequent monitoring fees and administrative penalties are layered.
No new invoice was generated between 07/24/2025 and 10/17/2025. M010 The first on-property access occurred during that gap, and billing resumed afterward at a doubled administrative-penalty rate. The gap itself is an anomaly in an otherwise unbroken monthly billing pattern running for over two years.
On 10/17/2025 the directive says “Please send 23rd HSG Admin penalty of $2,000,” and the produced order imposes a $2,000 Category C penalty without a separate trigger record. M010 M585 The rate-change authority question is Card 10. The next monitoring invoice, CDDCHC24459, is $410.40, split as $380 HDB Monitoring plus a new $30.40 Code Technology Fee. M039 No produced document identifies the authority or trigger for the $30.40 line item. M627
The owner paid $150 in appeal fees and received a $100 refund, leaving a net $50 appeal-fee payment. M038 M039 The City’s demand letter states $4,252.48 due, including $1,462.08 in late fees, while the itemized subset totals $1,256 and also shows a $492.48 overpayment/credit line. M040 A $20 collection fee added to a delinquent invoice also appears in the production. M002 These figures are tracked separately from the $36,020.40 enforcement-charge total.
The City’s production runs as a continuous ledger: 24 monitoring cycles and 24 administrative-penalty cycles, plus the original order/title invoice, total $36,020.40, with the pre-access slice closing at $31,230. M010 M012 M025 Card 9 Every row is tethered to B31 and B59, the same placeholder codes the City never amended into property-specific findings. M012
The strongest City answer is that each invoice is independently authorized, the $2,000 rate is a normal Category C escalation under SCC §1.28.010, the Code Technology Fee is routine, and the later 08/29/2025 violation expansion answered the placeholder problem. The produced record does not bridge those points. A rate increase still needs a trigger record M585, a routine line item should have an identified authority M039, and the later codes were added on top of the B31/B59 placeholders rather than replacing them. M012 Card 23 The arithmetic does not change unless the City produces records outside the closed-as-complete baseline. R.25-3549 R.26-1549 Card 47