Ripon residents ask council to reconsider ordinance that shifts sidewalk repairs to homeowners

Several Ripon homeowners told the City Council on Feb. 11 that they received certified notices requiring them to repair sidewalks adjacent to their properties or face city-performed repairs billed to the homeowner.

The complaints centered on City of Ripon Municipal Code chapter 12.16, which residents said transfers sidewalk repair responsibility and related costs to property owners for sidewalks next to their lots. Eric Davis, who identified himself as a veteran and retired engineer, told the council, “This was an offending notice that demanded that the work would be completed within 14 days or else be billed for the repairs.”

The residents said the sidewalks and trees were installed by the original developer and that tree roots from trees the city approved as part of the subdivision are causing lifting. John Upshaw, a neighbor, asked the council to “cease and desist” issuing the notices and to refund recent bills, saying the city’s 2019 ordinance change was not properly noticed to affected homeowners.

Why it matters: council members and staff said sidewalk trip hazards are a public safety issue that the city receives frequently. Kevin (city staff) told the council the repair program “has been around, since the late sixties, early seventies,” and that state law permits cities to assign maintenance responsibility in this way. Staff described recent amendments and options added in 2019, including revised notification timelines and a six-month, interest-free loan program for homeowners.

Details and staff response: staff explained the repair notice gives a 14-day baseline timeline but allows a property owner to request written extensions of up to 90 days to schedule repairs. The city said the municipal code permits grinding as a repair method for offsets less than 2 inches; larger displacements may require patching or replacement. City staff also reported that when their long-time outside contractor retired, the city budgeted to have Public Works staff perform the repairs and pass only the city’s direct costs on to homeowners rather than add administrative markups.

Residents who submitted online comments said the notices feel “predatory” and argued the sidewalks and trees are part of the public right-of-way installed by developers. Written comments read at the meeting included Joseph Simile (Augusta Point), Ryan Sweet (California/Idaho Street), and Oscar and Rocchio Villanueva (Callaway Circle), each urging repeal or revision of chapter 12.16 and asking the city to pay for repairs tied to developer-planted trees.

What the council said: the mayor invited residents to meet with staff for case-by-case review. Kevin told the council staff is willing to meet with homeowners, reassess properties and scheduling, and work to “be creative and solve the issues.” No ordinance repeal or formal council action on the code change was taken at the meeting.

Next steps: staff encouraged homeowners to request extensions or meet with Public Works to discuss scheduling and financing. Several residents requested a policy change to exempt homeowners where the city-approved developer planted trees outside private parcel boundaries; staff did not commit to a specific code amendment at the meeting.