appointed by the mayor with approval of the city council. Your board members are myself,

Brandon Fisher, who's serving tonight as the chair, as well as Mr. Antablon, who is not here,

Mr. Boyd, Mrs. O'Brien, and Mr. Amod. We also have Leah Billings, who serves as the secretary to

the board, Peter Lemos, cold and housing enforcement chief, Bo Cosley, principal building inspector,

our vendor car council to the board. I will now ask the secretary to call the roll.

Here. Boyd. Here. O'Brien. Here. Let us now stand for the land acknowledgement and pledge of allegiance.

Please rise for the opening acknowledgement in honor of the Sacramento's Indigenous people and

tribal lands to the original people of this land, the Nissanan people, the southern Maydu,

valley and plains, me walk, Patwin, Wintown peoples, and the people of the Wilton Ranchery,

a Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe. May we acknowledge and honor the native people

who came before us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing together

together today in the act of practice of acknowledgement and appreciation

for Sacramento's Indigenous peoples history, contributions, and lives. Thank you. Let's now

turn our attention to the flag for the pledge of allegiance.

Maybe seated.

As we begin,

I would like to explain the reason for this hearing. For item two, we are here to determine whether

the owners of the buildings and structures in the cases before us this evening have violated the

provisions of chapter 8.96, the dangerous buildings, cold or chapter 8.100, the housing cold of the

Sacramento City Code. The question here is, was the property in violation of the City Code

at the time the notice and order was issued, and was the notice and order properly issued?

If it is shown by preponderance of the evidence that an owner has violated the dangerous buildings

cold or the housing cold, then this board will issue a written decision ordering the owner to

correct the dangerous or substandard conditions or demolish the building within a reasonable time.

The board's decision will direct the time within which the work must be started and when the work

must be completed. If the owner decides to do the work required and the work is progressing in a

reasonable manner, the City Inspector may grant an extension of time not to exceed an additional 120

days. To complete the project, however, if the owner fails to comply with the terms of the decision,

then the City may repair, secure, or demolish the building or structure, and the cost incurred for

this work may be made a personal obligation of the property owner and either a nuisance,

abatement, lien, or a special assessment against the property. You will hear our decision today and

receive formal notification of our decision in the mail. For items 3 through 6, we are here to

consider the expenses incurred by the City in the notice and order and the repair, demolition,

or securing of any building or structure done in the housing and dangerous buildings cases before

us, together with any protests or objections. The question here is, are the fees, costs,

or other amounts claimed by the City reasonable and justified? This board may revise, correct,

or modify the proposed charges as we deem just. Once this board is satisfied with the correctness

of the charges, we shall then make a decision confirming or rejecting the charges. Any written

protests or related information received have been forward to us for consideration in our decision.

You will hear our decision today and receive formal notification of our decision in the mail.

Our decision will be forwarded to the City Council for a determination whether this hearing

was conducted in accordance with the City Code.

We will now begin with our agenda.

We will now move on to the minutes for December 11, 2024.

I can't where you folks are. I flunked Evelyn Wood speed reading class, but I'll be quicker.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of December 11, 2024.

Yes.

Yes.

Now moving to item number two.

Two.

Secretary was swearing in appellants and City staff prior to each case. All right, so this is

the same thing revocable living trust. Thank you. And Jason pool. Yes. Thank you.

David Abraham. Thank you.

All parties for item number two for the property at 1717 19th street. Please raise your right hand

and answer the following question. Follow me swear under penalty of perjury that the testimony

and evidence that you give at this hearing should be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the

truth.

The homes. Thank you.

You there.

8 to property owner.

The case was opened on October 28, 2024.

The case status is open.

Initial inspection was performed on 1028, 2024 by a building inspector, Bruce Holmes.

An cases must be passed before zoning.

The case was closed on October 29, School Turks did not receive a procedure access to

the school belief school orckin.

specific requirements or prohibition applicable to such building or specified it by regulatory

regulation specified in title eight and title 15 of this code or any law or ordinance relating

to the condition location or structure of building.

Case chronology, a temporary alfresco dining structure at this location that was allowed

to be constructed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic had been previously identified as

a structure that needed to be either moved or legalized following the city council action

that ended the pandemic urgency and provided a timeframe for removal or legalization of

all alfresco structures that had been constructed over the public right away.

protected and no active building permit application was found on the parcel for anything that was

allowed to be

protected and no active building permit application was found on the parcel for anything that was

allowed to be

protected and no active building permit application was found on the parcel for anything that was

allowed to be

protected and no active building permit application was found on the parcel for anything that was

allowed to be

protected and no active building permit application was found on the parcel for anything that was

allowed to be

protected and no active building permit application was found on the parcel for anything that was

allowed to be

protected and no active building permit application was found on the parcel

for separate

The application, the applicant received the information being presented.

The applicant received the information this evening by hand delivery at the site the day after the issuance of the notice in order on October 29.

The staff recommends the board adopt a decision.

property owner to complete the required permits,

delete the construction and legalization of the alfresco dining structure,

thus correcting the dangerous condition,

or demolishing the structure within.

Set.

Secure the structure.

Midtown spirit.

Thank you, Mr. Holmes.

Mr. Poole and Mr. Abramson, you may begin.

I would like to thank Mr. Holmes actually.

Mr. Poole, we have a question for you.

We've got him, David Gold, his chief of staff with Council Member Puckie bomb.

We are looking to start working together to try and have a better understanding of how this has been going.

We had a, well, we'll just call it extortion from our landlord

that basically took us a solid nine, ten months to get the alfresco permit.

When the alfresco permit originally went into play,

the landlord signature was not required to apply,

and then after we did so, they required it and he basically just...

Ten months later, we finally got through that.

We've done the litigation.

And now we're just looking to get to the next step.

So I did want to make a quick note that that's actually not our facility.

That picture is not us, but I am not denying the fact that we have been given the information just that is not accurate.

So we don't have copper on our bar, but just so you know.

But that being said, I appreciate what they've said,

and we are very excited to get this all permitted and moving forward,

and we were just asking for more time to do so, which it sounds like we have basically been told that that is what the city of...

Well, so we're going to really...

Time to make it right, and we're looking forward to operating as we have.

Thank you. Any questions from the board?

I'm just going to say that.

Make it easy.

Yes.

A couple of questions.

On the picture that you just held up, I'm trying to find out what page number is that?

Oh, I'm sorry. It's just the picture of where the packet's being handed off, the hand delivery, N and O.

Page... I'm sorry, one... Well, this says one of four, but I don't believe it was handed to you as one.

It looks like there's a copper bar top with some watermark stains, but we don't actually have a copper bar top,

so that wouldn't be our facility.

But again, I'm not negating that we were given the information.

I just wanted to make clear that this is not actually the photo of our facility.

You received the notice and order, and you needed to do.

We did. Yes, certainly.

And this is actually in the middle of when we were going through litigation,

so we weren't able to continue with our permitting process while we were in the litigation.

So that was a very long drawn out, long lawyer, drawn out thing.

But through that, we have all the approvals that we need, and we're fine. We're going to survive,

but we're just 60 days to get through the remainder of the process,

and we'll be happy to hopefully find a happy medium that doesn't revolve complete plastic surgery of a deck.

Let me ask you a question.

Let me come this way. Oh, sorry.

No problem.

As was just stated, they were contending with the actual owner of the building,

and during that process was as was stated, they could not move forward with the permitting because of,

because they were in litigation with the owner, which was outside of what they were being cited for.

So, go ahead.

Thank you.

I appreciate that, and I'm glad you walked it through.

So, I put a finer point on it so everybody's understanding with what was cited has absolutely nothing to do with the litigation that you were going through.

Fighting no, not at all. Just to the exception of not a time at all.

If I may finish, please. Oh, sorry.

So it has nothing to do with the litigation you were going through with the owner, and as was stated, your first and middle four permit was in fact not accepted and waiting for revisions too.

So, that was, as I'm understanding it, as well as following the permitting process and nothing to do with your litigation with your owner.

So, for clarification, so nobody is confused on this.

So, to that, again, everyone's looking to get through and make this happen.

I'll hold my next question and forward over here if anyone.

I have a question for our, so, one, there is a typo.

There is a typo in the report. I think you have 2025 instead of 2024. Does that need to be corrected on the record or is that just, I'm just curious about typos.

I'm talking to the, oh, what was I looking at? Oh, page three.

You were transitioning.

Totally understandable. Totally understandable. Obviously, we're not in October of 2025 yet.

The board would like to issue a correction as a part of their motion. I think they can do that. Yeah. Okay.

Other questions from the board?

Is there a most? Oh.

Didn't hit the green light.

There may be discussion with the chief down here.

I'll leave that up to you to see if further questions or a question may be warranted.

If not, I'm good.

I was just saying you two were in discussion. I didn't know if you two had any question or not.

And I was telling Brandon if you wanted to address you guys by all means.

I will make a motion.

I will make a motion.

To adopt a decision in line with the staff's recommendation that the property owner is in violation. The property is in violation of provisions of chapter 8.96.

We are ordering the property owner to complete and obtain the required permits. Complete the construction and legalization of the alfresco dining structure.

Thus correcting the dangerous conditions or demolishing the structure within 60 days of the date of this decision.

And also ordering that if the property owner fails, refuses or neglects to correct the dangerous conditions or demolish the structure.

Actually, I'm going to take that back. Within 60 days, is that reasonable? Do we need to?

I'm going to drop the 60 days.

They just need to go through the process.

That's what basically we're saying is do what they need to do to get their permit.

And if the owner fails, refuses or neglects to correct the dangerous condition by permitting and legalizing or demolishing the structure within the time set forth,

then the city of Sacramento may repair demolish or secure the structure or institute an action to compel compliance with the order.

Or the property known as 1717 19th Street doing business as Midtown Spirits.

Question for your motion.

As your warning for the time set forward.

So what you get asked to eliminate the 60 days that you didn't state a time set forward.

As I missed it.

What a reasonable time is.

Yes, you would need to come and be sworn in.

Raise your right hand and answer the following question. Do you solemnly swear under penalty of perjury that the testimony and evidence that you give at this hearing should be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Thank you, Mr. Go. You may speak.

Staff to Council Member Phil Puck, which Midtown Spirits is located in.

I've acted.

and Ironman and some of the other city departments.

This is probably a bigger project

than isolated to the Midtown Spirits.

What I'm asking for is that we allow time for our office.

We just took office in December,

so we're very new at this.

But we wanna help to guide and get these businesses

into compliance.

We're not trying to ask for any special treatment.

We wanna help get all of the businesses

that are going through the Al fresco permitting process,

get them the information they need,

answer questions and bring the departments

and the businesses together so that we can find a solution.

And I feel like we need more than 60.

Mr. Goh, any questions for Mr. Goh?

On the board.

Do you have an idea of,

can you give us a timeframe, 90 days, maybe Mr. Poole?

The one thing I did wanna add to that is,

first of all, the first time we submitted,

the reason I was rejected is I accidentally put

our information on the owner line,

as opposed to tenant line.

That was the only reason it was kicked back.

Once we made that correction, it was put right.

The corrections were supposed to be sent to us

by December 12th.

We have still not received corrections

from the forestry department,

so we are still waiting on one correction notice from that.

Again, I completely understand that 60 days

is a sufficient amount of time.

If we have all the information,

we will do our best to get to that point.

But obviously, as Mr. Bryant had stated,

if we were given the ability to work within the constraints

of the requirements of the resubmittal

and staying on track of that,

I guarantee you we're gonna be on top of that,

especially with the assistance of Mr. Pulking of his office.

Do you think,

anything else?

The most code-enhousing enforcement chief.

I wanna make sure the board understands

we're not here to discuss city policy

or overall policy of the alfresco permitting

within the city of Sacramento.

We're here to discuss the notice in order

for the specific date for the specific property.

60 days is a reasonable amount of time

for him to get through the completion of the process

to get his permits and respond back

to public works with that.

If there's an extension,

public works would notify them of an extension

because they're working diligently to move forward.

We're dealing with one structure that has violations.

Obviously, if there's corrections on the plans

that need to be done,

things like clearance of sidewalks,

clearance of corners, illegal electrical,

things like that.

So we wanna focus on the one property,

give him adequate time to finish his permitting process

to work with public works, to get it legalized.

And we don't want to try to bring something into our case

that has nothing, no relevance of it.

Any more?

I do understand that.

I will have to say this language is actually

a little different than I'm familiar with

in what we've done.

So putting those time frames on

and then saying that the city may come in to demolish it,

if they don't complete it,

that's a little what I was struggling with.

But if so, try a new motion.

If you would be open to a friendly amendment

to the motion, to your motion,

and included the 60 days and as the chief

has just stated, if additional time is needed,

additional time can be requested

for said work.

Would you be open to the friendly amendment?

Yes.

All right, thank you.

And so I will, you know what, I'll let you do it.

I'll second that motion with the friendly amendment.

Bringing back into the timeframe of the 60 days

of the date of the decision for work to be done

and if work isn't done, of course,

the process allows for additional time

after requesting from the individual.

Thank you.

Sir? Yes.

Lloyd? Hi.

O'Brien? Yes.

So Mr. Poole and Mr. Abramson,

the board did find in favor of the city

and you will receive formal notification

of our decision in the mail.

And we did add that we allowed for an extension

beyond the 60 days if needed.

But again, you'll receive all of that information

in the mail.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, now calling item number three,

3841 Clay Street.

Thank you.

Avir Sihar? All right, thank you.

Good evening. Richard Leiker, I'm supervising.

One second, the secretary needs to swear you in.

I just wanted to do a quick reminder

to speak close to the mic and clearly, please.

I can have all parties or item number three

for the property located at 3841 Clay Street.

Please raise your right hand and answer the following question.

Do you solemnly swear under penalty of perjury

that the testimony and evidence that you give at this hearing

shall be the truth, the whole truth,

and nothing but the truth?

Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Jensen, you may begin.

Director for Housing and Dangerous Buildings.

The matter of agenda item number three,

case number 23-0-1.

Property owner is Javier Seja, Maria Teresa Garcia-Ochoa.

Property address is 3841 Clay Street,

parcel number 251-0071-003.

0000.

Accounting of Expenses for a special assessment.

Case was opened March 27th of 2023.

Current status is still open.

March 27th, 2023.

Mr. Jensen went to the property

to do an initial inspection after the building violations

were found during an early code enforcement inspection warrant.

On arrival, he knocked on the door several times with no answer.

At that time, took some front elevation photographs

and some pictures of some building violations

that could be seen from the public right of way.

Left his business card at the front door,

requesting a callback.

On April 6th of 2023, he returned to the property

to see if he could contact the property owners

before sending a preliminary letter.

And he was unable to contact the property owners at that time.

Left another business card requesting a callback from the owner.

April 10th, the preliminary letter

was sent to the property owners.

And one of the property owners, Javier,

called him and agreed to meet on the property the following day

to do an inspection of the property.

April 11th, 2023.

Mr. Jensen met with the property owner, Javier,

at the property due to suggest the building violations

on his property.

On arrival, he informed the owner

that the 8-foot-high, 50-foot-long CMU wall

on the north side of the property

requires a permit with plans and drawings.

Also explained to him at that time

that the Sparrow circuit and the Branch Circuit running

to the back of the property needed

to be removed or a permit obtained

and all the documents so that it meets minimum code

requirements.

Also discussed the dry rot that was

present under the roof eaves and walls

and what needed to be repaired to meet minimum code compliance.

At that time, I told the property owner

I would be adding the violations as found today

in the violation list.

April 17th, property owner Javier

called to inform Mr. Jensen that he received the preliminary

letter with the violations list.

He requested I call him back to set up a.

April 18th, met the property owner at the property

to discuss the address and repair the violations

on the property.

Property owner informed that he wants to keep the CMU wall.

And will obtain plans and drawings

to get a design professional to pull the permits that

are required.

Jensen told him that he would follow up in a month or so

to check on progress.

June 5th of 23, Mr. Jensen checked on the permit progress

on the property.

Didn't find any results.

He called the property owner and left

a message requesting a call back.

On June 5th and October 25th, Mr. Jensen

made several attempts to contact the property owner

to see if there had been a counter-proof CMU wall

on the north side of the property had been removed

or any of the whole violations had been addressed and repaired.

He knocked on the front door, but nobody answered.

He also noticed that the CMU wall was still standing

and there had been no progress towards compliance

on any of the violations from the property.

October 25th, Mr. Jensen went to the property

to see if he could contact the property owner

if he removed the unapproved wall or made any of the repairs

since you had been there before.

He knocked on the front door, but again, nobody answered.

He also noticed that the wall is still standing

and there has been no progress towards compliance.

October 26th, Mr. Jensen went to the property owner

or sent the property owner and noticed an order

after repeated attempts to contact the CMU

on November 6th.

Mr. Jensen went to the property at the property

to discuss the inform Mr. Seja that he would be sending him

an email with a hyperlink for the permit services.

He explained the needed plans and drawings

if he wants to legalize a CMU wall.

On November 13th, Mr. Jensen emailed the property owner

to contact information for permits.

And see January 12th, 2024, Mr. Jensen went back

to the property to see if he could.

There had been no activity since his last reinspection.

He left his business card at the front door

and requested a callback.

On April 12th, 2024, he returned to the property

to see if the wall had been reduced to less than 3'6'

or removed completely, or if the property owner obtained

a building permit for the wall as it was built.

On arrival, he found no change in the wall

and there wasn't a permit or a permit for progress.

On April 16th of 24, he sent a monitoring feed

to the property owners.

On June 17th of 2024, he went to the property owner

wasn't returning any calls to see if he alleged

the CMU wall had been cut down or removed.

On arrival, he could see that there was no change in the wall

or listed violations in the front of the property.

He knocked on the front door and nobody again answered.

On April 16th of 2024, he sent the property owners

a housing dangerous buildings monitoring feed.

On July 25th, he went to the property again

to see if he could contact the CMU wall.

At that time, the CMU wall was still standing.

He took the same elevation.

On August 1st, 2024, he sent a housing dangerous buildings

monitoring feed to the property owners.

On August 2nd, the monitoring feed

was posted at the front of the property owners.

On December 18th, he returned to the property

to see if he could contact the property owner.

He had made numerous attempts to contact the PO property

owner with no response.

On December 23rd, after several attempts to contact the owner,

he sent a level C administrative penalty

was imposed on the property.

Staff recommends that the board adopt a decision confirming

the total charge of $380 for the work performed by the city

on the property known as 3841 Clay Street, parcel number

251-0071-003-0000.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Seagal, you may begin.

Let me begin by saying that I cannot believe what I'm hearing.

And how do we get to this point?

I have been a victim of racial harassment

by criminal corrupt criminals who work on this department.

I'm sorry.

Jose Mendez, Peter Lemon, Tom Pease, and Sean Lollily.

Why am I calling these people corrupt criminals?

They don't respect a decision that was made back in 2014,

where there was no violations at all.

I have the copy of this letter.

Peter Lemon is a corrupt criminal that is running a scheme.

He told me himself he would do anything.

He would put all kinds of charges

to get me out of my property, to take all my stuff, which

in fact, he already stole my work truck with all my tools,

knowing that he would bring down my business.

I have a small business, a housekeeping business.

He told him that we are a low-income family,

and he didn't care.

He affected my family, suffered now from health

is deteriorated, and sleep at night.

When there, I was the biggest criminal with a bunch of cops

to remove property, knowing that he was going

to hurt my business.

Only source of income.

Right now, I don't have a job.

I go to get any income.

This man sitting in front of me, he had a meeting.

I tried to have a dialogue.

They can at least respect the decision letter.

I understand the laws.

There's any corrections that had to be made?

Honor them.

Arrogant.

Mr. Sinha.

Racist.

We need to focus on the current violations.

That's exactly what he told me.

We need to focus on the current violations that have resulted.

These people, they need to be investigated.

Somebody, because I've been trying to reach any help.

I, in fact, I already talked to Dr. Dickinson.

I got a letter from him.

He told me he was going to take care of it.

So far, I haven't had any answers yet.

We are not.

Children at a risk, they broke my gas line, and they knew it.

They didn't report it to PG&E to get it fixed.

We were at risk.

My whole neighborhood were at risk.

Now, he doesn't respect the wrong decisions.

And he's making up, he's fabricating claims.

Now, about this wall, this is a neighbor's fence,

which means has to be handled by two property owners.

Why is not my neighbor here to share the cost of getting

the permits?

I would gladly do it if I know that these corrupt criminals are

not working in this department.

Because this is just one of several fabricated items

that they made.

They have all kinds of liens, all kinds of fees.

After it was all cleared out.

Why was it cleared out before?

Are you referring?

I complained that there was a racist person making up charges.

They did send somebody to check to see if there was any violations

at all.

They found zero.

Now, all of a sudden, when I started looking for help,

they're making claims, making lots of claims.

Like I said, this is just one of many.

Mr. Sejha, if I may, again, we are here to discuss whether or not

specifically the fees are, I want to read specifically,

the question here is, are the fees, costs, and other amounts

claimed by the city reasonable and justified?

You've kind of gave us a lot of rhetoric and name calling.

We don't consider that here.

You would need to take that up with the proper venue.

This is not the proper venue for that.

We're considering the $380.

Let me show them I got the terminology right.

Monitoring fee.

And so the question is, again, are the fees, costs,

or other amounts claimed by the city reasonable and justified?

We're not here to talk about racial harassment or any of that.

We're here to specifically talk about,

are the fees, costs, or other amounts claimed by the city

reasonable and justified?

There is a wall, and I have a question about that,

but there's a wall that is in violation to the city code,

all right, that in this case is still open?

Let me make sure I'm reading.

This case is still open.

This is going on two years.

It's been there forever.

I didn't build this wall.

It was there.

I understand that.

I understand that if it's out of code,

but this is a shared obligation for two property owners.

So I'm fine by getting the permit and whatever it takes.

This has to be a shared obligation for my neighbor and me.

Should I be the only one responsible?

And that was my question for the city.

Is this, in fact, a shared wall that both property owners need

to be aware of to fix this violation?

It is not commonly a shared wall.

The wall is placed on one of the two properties.

If I'm Mr. Sage's property, it's his wall.

They're typically called good neighbor fences.

Just to keep neighbors friendly out of sight,

but there is no requirement for a good neighbor fence.

This wall is not of standard construction like a fence.

This is considered a wall, which has some restrictions

as far as what needs to have a permit.

Anything, a CMU wall, concrete masonry unit over 3 foot 6

from the bottom of the foundation

needs to have a permit and inspections.

Bring a 6 foot high.

It's either got to be reduced to 3 foot 6 or removed.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

So initially there were other violations cited

in the notice and order.

Are those violations still in existence?

The notice and order is still in place, yes.

So the city has not been able to verify any corrections

to the items listed in the notice and order.

It's not just the wall.

There's additional.

There's a dry rot on the surfaces underneath the eaves

and the exterior wall surfaces.

There was some electrical run.

That is not up to code standards.

There were rear spa byline.

Right, and those were included in the packet

that we were provided.

And so it appeared that there were, in addition to the wall,

there are other violations still pending.

OK.

Any other questions from the board?

Excuse me.

One second.

Hold on.

Let me see if Mr. Boyd has a question or questions.

All right.

Yes, Mrs. Zeja.

Now, they've been doing a lot of data stuff.

Some of this was a little bit of, I would say, cosmetic stuff

that needed to be cosmetic because it wasn't

a danger to anybody.

Back in March 23 after they stole my property,

they went back to do this inspection.

Now, they said they were there many times

and they tried to reach me.

That is not true.

I have been the one calling, go back and check corrections

and they haven't been there.

I submitted pictures of those corrections.

I submitted to the lady that gave me the,

so they said they've been there so many times

and they never took pictures of this correction.

They said they called me.

Don't leave any messages.

But one time, I was lucky to get a hold of Mr. Allen.

He said that he was being pressured by three people

above him.

So, the scheme.

Does it say, are you saying that you have corrected

these violations?

I submitted the pictures.

You have corrected these violations.

Yes, they are corrected.

There are additional in the file.

Mr. Chair.

Yes.

There's a secondary case that's a code enforcement case

that has something, issues that have to do with other than

buildings or structures.

So, we have two cases right now.

The case that we're dealing with right now is the CMU wall.

It's the wall.

The electrical and the deteriorated paint and surfaces.

Yes.

The other code enforcement case revolved around junk and debris,

abandoned cars or, anyway.

Other violations that are other than building code.

All right.

Thank you.

Those appear to have been some corrections made to some

of the dry rod and other type of.

According to the photographs that I have,

I know you should have copies of them.

None of those have been taken care of.

OK.

But regardless, this inspection fee, this monitoring fee,

this action by the city that resulted in this fee occurred

back in October, correct?

That's what I saw.

I'll give you a second.

At the time of that inspection, the violations were still

in existence, and that was why the fee was charged.

Yes.

So you do understand that what was just stated.

So at the time of the violations, the time of the monitoring fee,

you were still in violation.

At that point, the reason why we are here is that violation.

And as what was already stated, there's

two different ongoing cases to that property.

We are here for the monitoring fee.

And it sounds I just heard two monitoring occurrences have

happened, but only one is being the fee amount is only being

asked for one at $380 total.

So you're not being asked for the second monitoring fee

at this time.

That's why we're here for the one monitoring fee.

All the ex-dniating circumstances that you had brought up

is information between you, the Sacramento Police Department,

and whoever else you involve there.

We are simply here in regards to the violation for the monitoring

fee of $380.

And with that, I'd like to make the motion for staff's recommendation

that the board adopt a decision confirming the total charge of $380

for the work performed by the city on the property known as APN 251007100300.

Take it.

Yes.

Yes.

Void.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Yes.

Mrs. Sahara, the board has found in favor of the city you will receive

formal notification of our decision in the mail.

So please work with these individuals on resolving this issue

as monitoring fees will can continue to accrue if I'm correct.

So please work with them so that you can get those rectified, those violations.

And you'll receive all this information in the mail.

Why am I only one responsible for this wall?

As was stated, the wall is on your property.

You are the owner.

And so I'm not listening to my property.

We've found in favor of the city.

So what you can do is you can work with these individuals

on resolving and rectifying these violations.

And they can answer any questions that you may have.

Because we're not employees of the city.

So we wouldn't have the information.

We're not on them.

I'm sure if you get the information, they will work with you to resolve these violations.

Well, I've been trying to get a hold of them and never answer the phone.

Every time I go out to talk to somebody, I get insulted.

With me, you know, with disrespect.

Sometimes they don't even talk to me.

Mr. Say, as the chair had stated, we've made our decision.

The decision is forthcoming in the mail.

If you do have any questions, one of the administrative people, sorry,

and assist you for anything outside of that, as it sounds like you've already started to speaking

to others to rectify and or look into those other allegations.

As far as this board in this session goes, we've concluded our business here.

No one is putting you down.

No one is shuddering you, shuttling you off to understand what we're limited to do.

The only thing we can do that this board does is hear what is about before us.

And we've made a decision on that violation.

So with that, we have concluded.

So how can you tell that this wall is in my property?

Mr. Say, again, we're not employees of the city.

We don't we don't do this on our regular lives.

And so you would need to speak with Mr. Lemos, Mr. Cosley or these gentlemen to my left.

They can you can get their information.

I'm sure they have business cards and they'll be happy to speak with you further.

We can't answer those questions.

We've made our decision and you'll receive formal notification of that in the mail.

But please, if they'll be happy to speak with you, we don't have those answers.

We're just here to discuss the fees.

So who can help me if they don't?

Repeat that.

Who's going to be able to help me if they don't want to listen?

We cannot give out legal advice to our attorney.

That's why she's staring at us.

We can't answer that question to give you guidance nor legal advice as anybody else

with someone that would have an issue.

One would think what do I need to do next and find that information out?

Yes.

Mr. Jensen.

It's not here, but again, these gentlemen to my left will be happy to give you the information

and you can speak with them further.

They have been abusing me and will continue to do so.

Please

Thank you, Mr. Sayah.

We're going to move to the next item.

But again, before you leave, I would

correct to get their information to work with them

on those violations.

We're now going to item number four, Ludwig Morada,

Joe Lawrence.

The secretary will square you in.

Thank you.

Parties for item number five for the property located

at 119 Danville Way, please raise your right hand

and answer the following question.

Do you solemnly swear under penalty of perjury

that the testimony and evidence that you give at this hearing

shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Thank you.

Mr. Morada, you may begin.

Oh.

Good evening.

I'd like our supervisor and building inspector

for the city of Sacramento.

I will be presenting item number four.

Item number four.

Item number five four zero.

Property owner is Joe Lawrence.

The case was opened on July 8.

By 19 of 20.

Property not compliant.

By all building inspectors.

They were not verified to be valid and there were no signs

of progress.

They building inspectors Zamora or that day,

inspectors Zamora issued a notice of order and a vacant

building monitoring.

Out of title report were also requested.

You have a copy of the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the, uh,

initial, uh, R H I P inspection checklist.

In your back.

October 6 of 2022.

The case was reassigned to Mr.

Rodda.

October 11th of 2022.

Mr. Morada arrived at the site and met with the property

owner, Joe Lawrence.

On arrival, he observed the property owner working on cleaning

out junk and debris left behind.

Minor repairs throughout were needed.

And at this time.

The advice that the violations from the rental housing

inspection.

Will also need to be verified that they are completed prior

to the home being.

Joe stated that he will have the property ready in about a month.

And that.

Contact him.

I'm not sure if he's going to be able to get it.

I don't know if he's going to be able to get it.

I don't know if he's going to be able to get it.

I don't know if he's going to be able to get it.

But he is.

The property owner.

The property owner.

The property owner.

He has been in the city for about a month.

And that.

Contact him.

Once complete.

The 11th of 2023.

Mr. Rodda received the first of five letters.

The.

The property owner stating that he is refused.

With the rip violation list.

Obvious of the letters received.

Depending.

The letter I left Joe.

Voice.

Back to further discuss his options.

Received no return.

May 31st of 2024.

Rod arrived on site at the property and met with the property owner.

Briefly discussed.

The violations with Joe who kept stating that he will not be able to

get it.

The property owner.

The property owner.

The property owner.

The property owner.

The property owner.

The property owner.

The property owner.

The property owner.

The property owner.

The property owner.

SECRETARY POMPEO

made on requesting property, administrative penalties and monitoring fees were approximately

every 30 days due to lack of compliance. HDB monitoring fee issued in 2020-2024 is being

appealed here today.

On 27-2024, as of this date, there has been no form to verify that all the violations

have been resolved. The property is now occupied.

The staff recommends that the Board adopt a decision confirming the total charge of

$308,000 in the property known as Sacramento, California, 5-838-263-0322-0322.

Mr. Laker, Mr. Lawrence, you may begin.

Yes, this all started in 2020 in the middle of the pandemic. I was in the middle of an

eviction. Everything got shut down. This inspection, the rental house inspection should

never have happened. It happened in the middle of the pandemic. You can't tell me I can't

rent my house and then conduct a rental house inspection.

The broader comes up. I never gave them a timeline when I was going to repair the house.

I was recovering from a number of COVID hangovers. I simply didn't have the time. I wasn't

interested in spending $20,000 or $30,000 a unit to make repairs. I simply had to do

it on my own time. As far as the monitoring fee, you're charging me for something that

didn't happen and has never happened. At least you finally figured out there was a person

living there. But even now, I have a bill saying I'm supposed to pay a monitoring fee for

January. I have no, I couldn't pay this bill if I wanted to. I have, see, every time I get a bill,

it changes. If I was to pay the bill, I would never know when it would resolve. I never got

anybody to make any sense out of this. When this house got shut down, people were able to live there for 2.5 years,

rent free. In it, they were gone. The city shows up and wants to rub salt in the wound. I feel like I've paid enough.

Leave me alone. Simple as that.

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence. Any questions from the board?

One more thing. In all that time, all the taxes, fees, water bill, everything was paid. Never once was it late.

There was no grass in the yard. It looked just like any other house in the neighborhood.

I always has. I don't feel I owe you nothing.

The HDB monitoring fee is authorized to be charged upon inspection? What activity by city staff earns or costs the monitoring fee?

We have a requirement and policy to visit all of our cases monthly.

In inspections, it requires a cost recovery and that monitoring fee costs the city and cures the cost of the city.

We have a requirement and policy to offset the time and energy spent.

Would that potentially be an attempted inspection that the inspector was not able to get inside?

A monitored progress or lack of progress.

This fee that we're speaking of today is for September of 2024.

Did the inspector actually visit the site on September 4th?

Yes.

That's not in the chronology that a visit was made.

Then the chronology indicates between January 20th of 2023 and December 12th of 2024, there was no contact or attempts.

Yet the paragraph above it says that the inspector was on site in May of 2024, speaking and meeting with the owner.

That's not an accurate statement.

That's what that paragraph says, that there were attempts made by the owner to contact Mr. Morata.

That's what that means, is that he didn't request a re-inspection in that timeframe.

He didn't provide any...

I didn't see that he had complied with the notice.

I apologize, I misread that.

Any other questions?

Yes, thank you.

Acting Chair.

Mr. Lawrence, opinion wants, I feels doesn't matter.

Actuality, what matters is the violations that were noted.

So understanding, rinse were not collected when the pandemic was going on.

This case did not start in 2020.

This case was opened up again July 8th of 2022.

At that point, I don't know if they had, I can't remember as well, if the pandemic was...

I need you to speak up, I can't understand.

My apologies, to me, I sound like I'm speaking loud, but I'm told I speak a little lower than what is.

So I'll just start again real quick.

It is not of one's opinion on when they'll do the applicant will do the work.

The applicant is guided by the policy that the city has in regards to when work should be done.

The duration that you have, opportunity for extending that amount of time if need be.

There isn't a column for, well, the owner doesn't feel like it or the owner will feel like it when we'll get the work done when the owner or the appellant wants.

My point being the violations that you have received, your responsibility being that you're the homeowner.

Understand no rinse was collected during the pandemic, we're not here for that.

What we are here for is just the one monitoring fee.

A few items, monitoring fee, in fact, I'm trying to pull up the page, my screen isn't moving fast enough.

Speaking of, I told Mr. Marrata he could inspect the property anytime he want.

I'm perfectly willing to fix anything wrong with the house, which there was minor damage throughout the house, even when the.

That's the only good thing that happened.

It's no different anytime, any tenant leave.

Like I was saying that rental house inspection should not have happened.

Up down the house.

Any violations you found don't count.

We're willing to fix anything you want me to fix all this.

I don't even know what the bill is.

I've gotten so many bills and they contradict one another.

Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Lawrence, you had your moment a moment ago, so let me step back in.

The supervisor.

Let me, well, the answer to this question first.

The.

Real inspections happen once a year and or in a rotation.

If you would just clarify when rental inspections happen in properties that are in the rental program.

I'd understand what I said. Excuse me. Excuse me. If you would hold your.

For a moment. Thank you.

They get.

They get out based on.

In the areas we're inspecting in.

Ideally every three to four years, but not no guarantee on that.

This particular inspection happened April 7th, 2021 that found the violations from rental housing and the rental housing inspection program tried to get these violations corrected with the gentleman.

Initially, and then that's why it was turned over to housing in dangerous buildings after a year and they couldn't get any.

Several life safety violations in according to the rental housing inspection report.

Missing or, you know, non operational smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detector and the door between the fire separation and the garage was missing.

Those in itself are fire life safety issues.

They're showing no heat.

Water leak. So there were several items and they couldn't get compliance to rental housing and.

Rental housing. It gets referred to housing in dangerous buildings.

Yeah, and my computer screen just went kind of screwing and took me back to the last case.

If you would help me until I get this thing to work right again.

Package of violations were mailed to Mr. Lawrence and you guys have that receipt return delivery receipt from the post office.

Right.

Since Mr. Lawrence said he doesn't know what we're speaking of in one form or one amount.

Is different every time he looks at different paperwork of just making sure that it was delivered and received by the app.

Appellant.

In confirmation of receipt of mail.

You have that.

I'm sorry, but would you say it again a little slower for me?

I have to receive a green card on that. It's valid notification.

Thank you for that.

Thank you for that. And then going.

One at that property.

Thank you for that.

Appreciate that. So as you just said, Mr. Lawrence.

You signed up for someone there at your property assigned up for the packets packets plural at least four that have hit your door.

At least four melons from the city in regards to this case have reached your property.

And the others from the city I couldn't tell you how many I got.

And right.

They don't predict themselves.

Mr. Lawrence if I let me finish.

They don't contradict themselves.

They're additional information.

So as time continues, the amount.

Of the amount owed.

Or the violations continue so that dollar amount will continue to grow until rectified.

And we are here solely on the.

Cities.

I didn't make money for some.

I thought I've been retired for 11 years.

I don't need anybody to monitor anything.

That you just figured out.

In September.

The mother was living there.

She was there before the end.

Mr. Lawrence, the monitoring means it was just stated or was stated earlier.

Monitoring means.

Someone from the city came out to your property.

To see if the work had been started and or completed.

That is the monitoring.

We're not speaking of someone with a video camera staring at your.

Property is one of the city.

My money.

In and out.

City staff.

Mr. Lawrence, it's been explained to you.

It's.

What the process is.

It was presented.

It was presented.

It was presented.

It was presented.

It was presented.

It was presented.

It was presented.

It was Written.

It was presented.

It was Written.

It's been presented.

It is presented.

.

It's been presented.

It's presented.

It's been presented.

It's been presented.

.

Either one of them is official violation.

It's the same case, so they have the same violation.

If there's a lack of service, you might notice a monitor on a major building because we have no idea where to send this document by city code that a vacant building is considered properly noticed and served by posting.

The order takes.

So that's under the vacant building ordinance.

That sufficient service is a posting.

And you're saying the vacant building ordinance also authorizes staff to list the actual building structural electrical deficiencies.

And were those listed on that notice and order?

So they would all be listed on both notice and orders that were issued in July.

Okay.

And posted.

Both were posted.

Multiple photos each time that an inspection out there.

Okay.

So Mr. Lawrence.

Your it sounds like your property was vacant in July of 2022.

And the building was posted with these notice and orders listing the violations that needed to be corrected.

You.

You agree with that.

Building.

That's not a property.

Anybody rent a house in town that is not vacant or a month or two.

It's not being charged.

George me just because my building is vacant.

It's not abandoned.

The grass is not overgrown.

There's no orders.

No bombs living in it.

I check them daily.

I'm tired.

I got all the time in the world.

I'm doing something.

I don't know for a fact that cities don't care about my properties.

I do.

I check them.

I own 16 properties.

There's nobody ever lived in my house and they were just wanting.

I make certain of that.

You to build me just because the building is empty.

You're not building all these big companies who got houses all over the country.

This will cause the empty.

Why are you picking on me?

I'm not saying I'm not going to make a mistake.

I'm not saying I'm not going to make a mistake.

I'm not saying I'm not going to make a mistake.

My understanding is this fee is because violations have not been verified.

Corrected.

Tell me this.

What would it take for you to pay you to go away?

This is just one bill.

You got another bill out there for over $20,000 for what I don't know.

Ripping people off and they don't even know what the hell is for.

Let's make a deal.

What would it take for you to go away?

That's not what's before us.

We're only looking at that monitoring fee.

If I pay this, you still got that other bill out there.

Why should I pay either one of them?

That might be a conversation you could have with staff in negotiating your penalties.

But this fee, same building, we're not city staff.

We're not going to be in an inspection in the middle of the pandemic, which was illegal.

All of it's illegal.

Yet you're still pushing it.

When's it going to end?

I wasn't secure.

I would have lost everything just because of what happened.

And you're sitting here rubbing salt in the wound.

By the hell would I have paid that bill and you got another one out there bigger than that?

Great.

Like I said, make a deal.

Just to go away and leave me the hell alone.

Mr. Lawrence, I will say that if you're unclear about the violations again.

I'm not unclear.

There's nothing wrong with my house.

I told Mr. Munevada he could come over and schedule an inspection anytime he want.

You think I'd rent a house if there was something wrong with it?

Go ask the tenant.

I've been renting houses since 1976.

I'd never rented a house.

It wasn't clean, painted, new, carpet, everything fresh.

And I'm not starting the day.

Well, please get their information and schedule an inspection.

Because the only way that you're going to, the only way that these fees will be stopped is when they come out and inspect the property to see that the violations have been corrected.

All right.

So again.

I said you give me something I can work with.

I'm willing to pay you to go away.

I'm asking me since 2020.

Let it go.

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence.

All right.

Any questions?

If not, we'll take a motion.

Testing, testing.

Yes, I'll make a motion confirming.

The staff's recommendation that the board adopt the decision confirming the total charge amount of $380 for the monitoring fee on the property known as 119 Danville Way Sacramento, California, 95838 APN number 263032210800.

Second.

Sure.

Yes.

Boyd.

Hi.

Oh, Brian.

Yes.

Mr. Lawrence.

Thank you, Brian.

If you don't mind, please say进 performs

so that there is more Cleanly signs,

which in these non Above and under

New York City Public Health black

та

I

Number six

Are we doing this?

Yes items five and six excuse me, right?

See city staff and dimple and win

Yes, all right the secretary was for you in

Have all parties for item five and six for the property located at five three zero nine

56th Street raised your right hand and answer the following question

You solemnly swear under penalty of perjury that the testimony and evidence that you give at this hearing

Shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the

Thank You miss a little you may begin

For case we're here for case number two four zero three eight eight one zero

Property address is five three

zero nine five six

our

Five three zero nine fifty six Street Sacramento, California nine five eight two zero

Case was opened up on October 6th 2024 case is currently closed

Summary abatement performed on October 6th 2024

October 6th at

Zero nine

54 a.m. I received a call from 311

requesting securement of a vacant building

I called the officer and they said no responsible was able to be reached. I called gray construction

to secure the window on

October 7th 2024

I arrived to confirm the securement and

Place and place the cloud on the property

Which is being peeled here today?

I found the phone number for the owner and I put it in the case file

I also found the property manager's number and called them both

to inform them of the securement and

Left a message on October 15th

I approved the K2 for the securement on October 6th

2024 for the 4x4 window and

Attach the invoice

DC 13489 to the case which is also being appealed here today

Close the case due to work is now complete

I

Recommends that the board adopt the decision confirming the charge of the securement of the $720

For the invoice CDD CHB

10251 work performed by the city on the property known as

5909 56th Street Sacramento, California

59820 APN number 023021

0800

0 0 staff also recommends

the board adopt the decision confirming the total charge of

$190 for the work performed on

invoice

CDD

CHC

20615 for the work performed by the city known as

5309 56th Street Sacramento, California

95820 APN number

2023021

0080

0000 thank you. I've also

attached the case photos and

Notice of less thank you

Thank you miss Lee you begin

And the subject property was broken in in

Early October 2024

I was given the case number by the police and contact information

to find out the cost of boarding up the property

Or boarding up the window a window

On contacting the number given to me. I was informed. I believe that was

Daniel

Here I

Was informed that the cost would be quote a couple hundred

Dollars so when the invoices came I saw that the total costs

Which included the cost of the actual putting up which was three hundred and forty dollars and the administration fee which was

$380 plus a late fee

Tolling up to about eight hundred and sixty four dollars

That was not what I was expecting and that was way more than a couple hundred

Which was told to me

There was also another invoice or termination fee quote-unquote termination fee which I found out

What that was for later on?

$190 plus late fee if I don't

Be that by December 12 totaling up to two hundred and twenty eight dollars

So

All the fees added basically

Were around eleven hundred dollars. This was of course on top of all the repairs that needed to be done

We repair the property after the broken

So I would like to request that

Weaver of the fees and and

Would like to pay for three hundred and forty dollars of actually boarding up the property

You miss Lynn all right any questions from the board

I would like to pay for the actual boarding up

The

Sorry, yes, I would like to pay for the actual boarding up the property of three hundred and forty dollars

Which is the cost of boarding up the window itself and

The rest of the fees I would like to request for waiver of those

Having problems, thank you for repeating yourself. Thank you

This one you said the police

Please contact to Jew about the break-in so they notified you about the break-in are you contacted them about the break-in and

They contacted me actually the property manager contacted me. They gave me the

The police information so I called the police what date was that I

Believe that was October 6th the day of the break-in or the next day

Believe that was the day of the break-in

Here's from your chronology that you received the information about the break-in

And you contacted the county's contractor to secure it you didn't visit the facility

You didn't visit the site until the next day

Correct it was after hours during a weekend at that point in time. I received the call from PD

pressing the secure meant I confirmed with PD whether or not they reached out to a responsible party

None was able to be reached so therefore PD is requesting the secure meant

Securement of the facility

I

Knowledged at the police are actually 311 it says 311 you received a call from 311

Says that 311 calls for the secure meant of the BB I called the officer

and they

stated no

Possible

And then I called great construction to secure and is that common practice? Yes on the after hours

And is to not just to have the property secured without city staff actually putting eyes on it correct

You have a question for you I'm looking through here

What did you come up with the dollar amount of three hundred and forty four dollars and that was listed

in one of the invoices that I received of the three hundred and forty now I see

Apprentice little crooked and small here. Thank you. I was just wondering I see it now three forty in addition to

Admin fee

Thank You chair

What is the termination fee ever

And you have to take off of the property

And did a did a little

Did we get a cloud

Did a cloud get did it do the do the list pendants get filed

Yes, the less penance is actually attached to the packet on October 7th. I

had stated in

Here that I arrived and confirmed the secure meant and placed the cloud on the property

Which is the less penance which is attached to the case it was recorded

On November 5th, 2020 or 2024

Apologize you are correct is right there

And thank you the other questions

Yes, thank you chair I

Do have a question now just so you walk this through and everybody's understanding

It's an automatic

Cloud be put on the property on a secured property only after

Responsibles cannot be reached

Anytime money is

Anytime a

Batement or any money is owed to the city a less penance is put on that property

Okay, thank you for your question. Yes, it would be it wouldn't be if we can contact a responsible party and

They could board up or take

Take charge of their property and be responsible

Then there will be no need for us to cloud therefore or board up the property if that's what you were asking

Yes, thank you. I just expounding a little bit on that

Is it always the next day or is there you know a day or two?

You know given as it was stated it was after hours. It was a weekend

So I don't know if it was a Saturday or a Sunday, but let's say at least one business day or two business days

Is there any duration to give the property owner?

Opportunity to reach out to you before cloud is put on that bar or is it in the policy? It's automatic next day

They're charging us fees at that point

Timeline has nothing to do with it. It's the moment

The fees are charged on the property

Thank you both dug in bogey, I can say to be more succinct and to that point is that as far as waiting

Business days particularly over a weekend

Sacramento police cannot leave private property and open and you know access so at some point if they try to contact the owner

And they're not successful then they call us and as he stated the moment we have to call for secure met

As we have an opportunity where we can contact the owner during business days and they can make it down there then of course we

Cure their property

You

For the motion attorney need to extend

A

State that the city was there to secure the property already

I

Contacting the police

Most of the

You

You

You

You

You

Wade Ryan yes

You

Sure yes Wade

Oh

Brian

When the boy

I was informed that was going to be a couple of hundred looking at about

1,100 out of thousand dollars

I stated the fees are set

Bees this secure me this is what

I

Should in the mail

Heard on

Fired about the cost

Look the next day, but there is no

You

You

You

You

You

Party

Direction is

You

You

You

Because it's already been invoiced

It does not say if it's if it were to be waived it would

It would be waved along with it

This already been delinquent

Will be of the

In the

Actually too late fees because there's two invoices

Change the motion

You

Leave the late people's not assessed to the board of

Assess to the termination

I did want to say one thing if I could directed to the board, but of course opening the public

The building at the time was vacant obviously when all this was going about

So my suggestion would be and if it's still currently vacant that you would have

poster

Clearly, you know four inch type things so that if it happened to occur again, you can be called directly at that moment

Okay

I heard you talk with Francis is she going to be charged late fees as well

I

Much as your late

Yes, I moved that we extend our board meeting one hour a second

Yes, I

Oh Brian

Yes

What I heard was that there will be a late fee assessed for the $38 on the termination fee invoice

But you see a late fee on the other invoice as well. Yes, and you're

That was saying that that was put on hold with finance. I don't see

Understood

So follow up question if we uphold the fee the charge does the late fee still apply

I got you so she has 30 days from the hearing date to pay that the 720

Right

To not have that late fee so you're given an extra 30 days on that one, but apparently the termination fee is automatic

I mean, it's not stayed by the appeal process. Well, had I known that I mean, you know, I I had called in to

just to find out and

The lady on the phone said you can appeal it. So that's why I didn't

Wait it

There is

their waiver of that fee because

Here we are

talking about it. So

As I understand what was just explained the

The cure

Securement portion

late fee is on

Hold for 30 days

So let's just you you pay the fee the total amount tomorrow. So if it hasn't

And when it just started we find a date. What was the case open?

Over six

We're beyond the 30 days

Yeah, the late fees are staying

if if a

Attorney car can we read do a motion as the question from the board?

So the board can make a motion to reconsider the decision vote on the motion to reconsider and then the matter will be open again

Their motion to reconsider

Their motion to reconsider I'd like to make a motion to reconsider the motion on numbers five items five and six. I'll second

Please

Most separate or oh

You can do it we consider and we can do it the same time

This is this vote is only on the motion to reconsider. Okay, okay

There was motion by Miss O'Brien seconded by mr. Boyd

In the motion to reconsider item number five and six this combination or is separate

It's gonna be one

one

both

All right

Fisher yes

Boyd O'Brien yes

Reconsideration I think we should at the very least reduce the admin fee

The termination fee by the $38 of a late fee that she's going to be charged because she was waiting for this process

In reducing the admin fee on the

argument

That is a fee charged by staff to process the contract for the secure meant

They charges the three

Just clarifying the admin fee being charged in this case is by gray constructions

That is their admin fee or is that the city of Sacramento's admin fee?

The of Sacramento for all of the effort that they have different

City council has figured out that it's about that much

Thank you, I misspoke earlier I thought the admin fee was that be built from great construction as was just needed

That has been corrected

To that just for clarification

So the late fee of $38 has been ongoing

Immediately starting in October November December and now January

So for late fees at $38 per month or just as singular at the month one

Just making sure okay

I

I'm sorry Tammy which research question I was asking

Reducing the admin fee on this item number five

It by

I

I'm fine by that

Ready to make a motion I'll try again

So on item number five

I

Like to make a motion to

confirm the charge for the securement of the property

Charge of

$620 rather than the board staffs recommendation of $720 so a hundred dollar reduction

For the property known as 5309

56th Street Sacramento, California 95820

APN 023

0213

008 000

Second

Sure yes void

All right, O'Brien

Yes

Rest of this win for item number five we found in favor of the city however, we did reduce the admin fee

By $100

Right, so that's a little bit of relief for you. We'll now take up item number six

And I'll make a motion to

Do

Do

I'll make a motion to confirm a total charge of

$150 for the termination fee

Related to the property known as 5309 56th Street Sacramento, California 95820

APN 023 021

3008

000

Sure yes void O'Brien

Yes

Alright, so miss when we found in favor of the city for item number six however again, we reduced

the amount

So that there is no longer a late fee so that amount that new amount is now $150 and you'll receive

For the notification of our decisions in the mail today. All right. Thank you

All right item number seven I'm gonna ask the secretary

Read in the cost recovery uncontested items

I

Following lines shall be heard as blanket items

City staff recommends that the board adopt a decision confirming the total charge noted by each agenda line

Or the expenses incurred by the city in the enforcement of the provisions of the housing code and or dangerous buildings code

Respects to the property known by the physical address and or parcel number

As noted within agenda line

or items number seven one through one

Second

Second

Sure yes void Brian

We need a motion

That was a question we do need a motion

Right well, I move that we defer the election of the chair and the vice chair for 2025 to the next board meeting

Yes void Brian yes

Be bored comments ideas and questions

You

Work comments

The comments also to adjourn