Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sidewalk Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CIRA presenter outlines sidewalk-ordinance options as Cloverdale wrestles with homeowner liability
Summary
A CIRA representative briefed Cloverdale’s administrative subcommittee on a model ordinance that can shift sidewalk maintenance responsibility to adjacent homeowners; staff and residents debated equity, insurance impacts and assistance programs. No ordinance vote was taken.
A risk-pool representative told Cloverdale’s administrative subcommittee that state Streets and Highways Code historically places sidewalk maintenance on adjacent property owners and that some cities adopt local ordinances to make that transfer explicit.
E. Wright, identified in the meeting materials as the presenter from the California inter-municipal risk authority, said many member cities have adopted model language after test litigation and that a review of the pool’s data showed claims have increased since COVID. Wright said the packet included local data showing three recent Cloverdale claims with roughly $100,000 in incurred costs so far and cited a broader set of member claims totaling more than $8 million over the last decade.
"Adjacent property owners are responsible for maintaining their sidewalk in a safe condition," Wright said, describing the legal background and model ordinance templates cities use. He added that when a sidewalk injury claim is filed the city typically rejects the claim and "that claim would be tendered to the homeowner, and the homeowner would submit it to their insurance." Wright also warned that repeated claims raise a city's experience modification factor — or x-mod — which can increase premiums for several years.
Susan Holmes, the city’s finance director, and other staff outlined options cities use to soften the homeowner burden, including a small grant fund, a zero‑interest loan program repaid to the city, or geographic carve-outs that preserve city responsibility for high‑visibility corridors such as a downtown main street. Wright said the programs and the ordinance language are flexible and that outreach and clear public explanation often improve acceptance.
Resident Robert (Brock) questioned whether transferring responsibility would disproportionately affect low‑income homeowners and increase insurance costs. "If I'm wrong, E. Wright, please tell me," Brock said, adding that residents might remove street trees or otherwise react to avoid added responsibilities or costs. Staff acknowledged the equity concerns and said options such as phased programs, city assistance for initial repairs, or targeted grant support are commonly used.
No formal motion or vote on an ordinance was taken at the subcommittee. Committee members asked staff to prepare additional information and implementation options for possible presentation to full council, with public outreach recommended before any first reading.
The committee did not adopt the model ordinance at this meeting; staff will return with options and next steps for council consideration.
