Cloverdale staff begin drafting sidewalk-liability ordinance after spike in claims

Cloverdale public works staff on Monday introduced a proposed sidewalk ordinance intended to shift some liability for sidewalk injuries from the city to adjacent property owners and asked the Public Works subcommittee for guidance on next steps. "This is a project that we are considering. We wanted to get kind of a measure of, you know, what council would be willing to do," said Susie, Public Works staff. The subcommittee directed staff to gather additional local claims data, review sample ordinances, and bring the proposal to the finance subcommittee before formal consideration by the full council.

The ordinance concept and rationale were explained by Eric Young, a risk-pool representative from Sierra, who said California’s streets-and-highways code (section cited during the briefing) has long placed maintenance responsibility on adjacent owners but that cities often end up paying claims. "Even if the property owner is required to maintain their sidewalk, ultimately, if someone trips and falls or there's an injury to the person, the city is the one that's held liable for the payment, of those claims," Young said. He told the subcommittee that roughly "about 70% of [Sierra] members have already adopted" some form of liability-transfer ordinance and that a growing number of sidewalk claims and larger payouts after the COVID era are driving interest in the approach.

Why it matters: the subcommittee received local and regional claim data showing an increase in claims. According to the materials discussed, Cloverdale had 18 liability claims of any type in the last 10 years, including three sidewalk claims with a combined incurred cost of about $100,000; Sierra-wide data showed roughly 415 sidewalk claims and about $8 million in incurred costs across members over the last decade. Young said claim counts across members have roughly doubled since the pandemic, from about 400–450 per year to more than 800.

Committee members raised equity and practical concerns. "There's gonna be automatic pushback right there," Brian Miller said, noting many homeowners who might be unable to afford repairs. Staff and Young outlined potential mitigation options, including a city-run interest-free loan or payment plan, a small grant fund to help low-income property owners, multi-year compliance windows and design standards, and targeted cost-sharing to ease the transition. Young noted some cities exclude commercial/business districts from such ordinances and that options vary by jurisdiction.

Legal and process context discussed during the briefing included a San Jose court test case (described by Young) and guidance from the League of California Cities. Young advised that ordinances must be carefully written to meet local legal tests; where properly drafted, he said, liability can be transferred to adjacent owners and claims can be tendered to homeowners’ insurance. He described scenarios where cost-sharing might remain if a city tree or other municipal factor contributed to the injury.

Next steps and formal direction: the subcommittee asked staff to prepare a packet with local claim history, sample ordinances from neighboring jurisdictions (including Willits, Windsor and Sacramento), and proposed program options (grants, payment plans, multi-year timelines). The subcommittee agreed to refer the item to the finance subcommittee for further review and to return with specific draft ordinance language and funding options. No ordinance was voted on or adopted at the meeting.

The topic drew extended discussion about policy trade-offs, neighborhood impacts and implementation details such as standards for repairs and encroachment/permit coordination. Staff cautioned that some aspects—such as whether encroachment permits or Caltrans-owned stretches of sidewalk are covered—require separate handling and coordination with other agencies. Susie told the committee staff would compile more information and sample language before the item proceeds to full council.