The re-issued order’s own cover letter states that the prior fees survive the re-issuance — yet when the property representative asked that exact question in writing the same day, the City’s produced reply sent him to “the owner” and gave him none of the answer the City had already written into its own order.
More than two years into the case, the city reissued and re-posted the original order that the whole case and all its fees run on. M009 M022 The reissued order’s own cover letter answers the obvious question about money: it adds no new fees, it just restates what the owner has to do, and the old fees stay owed until everything is fixed and paid. M541 The same day, the property’s representative emailed the city to ask exactly that — does the new order wipe out the old one and its fees, or are they still owed? The reply he got back did not tell him; it told him to take any concerns to the owner. R.25-4711 So the city had the plain answer written in its own reissued order, but did not give it to the person who asked the question. The full picture only came together after the representative pushed the city for records: a later records request produced the city’s own printout of that email exchange, which shows both his question and the reply that did not answer it — and shows the reply’s To-line went to the inspector’s supervisors plus the owner (baritelljm@gmail.com) and the owner’s representative (kowensfoley@gmail.com), not to his own address (christophertf@gmail.com). R.26-1965 SCC §8.100.720
Bottom line: the city’s own reissued order says the old fees survive, yet when the representative asked that question in writing the city sent him to “the owner” instead of giving him the answer it already had — and that only became visible once the records were forced out.Twenty-nine months into the case, the City re-issued and re-posted its foundational Notice and Order. M009 M022 The re-issued order’s cover letter answered, on its face, the question the re-issuance raised: it “does not assess any additional fees,” its purpose is to “restate” the compliance requirements, and 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 M542 So the re-issuance carried the prior penalties forward; the cover letter says so in plain terms. SCC §8.100.720 SCC §8.96.130
That same day, the property representative asked the City that exact question 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.” R.25-4711 The City’s produced reply redirected him to “the owner of the property” and addressed neither the voiding question nor the status of the prior penalties. The produced copy of that reply’s To-line listed the inspector’s supervisors plus the owner (baritelljm@gmail.com) and the owner’s representative (kowensfoley@gmail.com), but not the exact address — christophertf@gmail.com — that had written the City that morning. R.25-4711 Card 25 The City held the answer in its own re-issued order and did not put it in front of the person who asked. Govt Code §7920.000
The April 12, 2023 Notice and Order is the instrument the entire case — and every penalty cycle — runs on. M541 SCC §8.100.720
The activity log records “HSG - RE-ISSUE N AND O” (Monica Atkins, 09/02/2025) and a same-day posting by Arrion Gildersleeve. M009 The documents index shows the merge document “HSG - Re-Issue N&O.htm” (08/29/2025) and the produced order “rn23-009185.pdf” (09/02/2025); green card returned 09/10/2025. M022 The re-issued order itself is produced. M542
The cover letter recites: the current order “does not assess any additional fees”; its purpose is to “restate what is required to bring the property into compliance”; the recorded Declaration “will be cleared when permits are finalized and all outstanding fees assessed under the previous Notice and Order have been paid”; charges imposed “pursuant to Chapters 8.96 and/or 8.100 of the Sacramento City Code.” M541 SCC §8.100.720 SCC §8.96.130
His 09/02/2025 email 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.” R.25-4711 The question was directed to Bo Cosley with a statement PDF attached, which Cosley forwarded to Lovato and Douglas Pierson over the line “Paul, who is this person? How is he involved?” Card 25
The reply redirected him to “the owner of the property” and addressed neither the voiding question nor the penalty status. R.25-4711 The produced copy of that reply’s To-line lists the inspector’s supervisors plus the owner (baritelljm@gmail.com) and the owner’s representative (kowensfoley@gmail.com), but not christophertf@gmail.com — the address that had written the City that morning. Card 25
The City re-issued its 29-month-old foundational order and posted it anew. The re-issued order itself answers the question the re-issuance raises: it adds no new fees, it restates the existing requirements, and the prior penalties remain payable until cleared. M541 The representative asked that exact question in writing the same day. R.25-4711 The produced reply sent him to “the owner” and stated none of it, and the produced copy shows its To-line listed the inspector’s supervisors plus the owner (baritelljm@gmail.com) and the owner’s representative (kowensfoley@gmail.com), but not christophertf@gmail.com. R.25-4711 Card 25
The City’s strongest response is that the re-issued order’s cover letter already states the effect — no additional fees, prior fees carried forward — so the City did record the answer and merely routed the representative to “the owner” as a standing-and-authority reply. The cover letter does state the effect, and that is the point. The City possessed the one-sentence answer in its own re-issued order, M541 yet when the representative asked that exact question in writing the same day, the produced reply gave him none of it. The irregularity is not that the effect is unrecorded; it is that the City held the recorded answer and did not provide it in response to the standing written request. R.26-1965 Card 13 Card 14 Card 47 Card 48