BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2231
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 9, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2231 (Fuentes) - As Amended: April 23, 2012
Policy Committee: Local
GovernmentVote:7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill shifts responsibility and liability for dangerous or
inoperable sidewalks from adjacent property owners to local
agencies in specified situations and prohibits local agencies
from imposing assessments on adjacent property owners for
sidewalk repairs. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires a city, county, or city and county to repair a
sidewalk, when any portion of any sidewalk is out of repair or
pending reconstruction and is in a condition that endangers
persons or property, or interferes with the public convenience
in the use of that sidewalk, provided the sidewalk is owned by
that entity or the repairs are required as a result of damage
caused by plants or trees.
2)Prohibits any city, county, or city and county from imposing
an assessment for sidewalk repair against the private owner of
the property fronting on any portion of a sidewalk.
3)Makes findings and declarations that these provisions
constitute a matter of statewide concern and shall apply to
charter cities and charter counties and supersede any
inconsistent provisions in a city or county charter.
FISCAL EFFECT
If the Commission on State Mandates determines this bill is a
reimbursable mandate, the estimated costs of sidewalk repair
could cost the state in the low billions of dollars, based on
projections from information supplied by the City of Los
Angeles. The estimated total could be lower if the sidewalks in
AB 2231
Page 2
the remainder of the state's urban areas are in better repair.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose. According to the author, AB 2231 was introduced
because recently the Los Angeles City Council angered
homeowners by considering a plan to repeal a 1974 ordinance
that made the city responsible for sidewalk repair. The
author states for the last 30 years, the City assumed
responsibility for most sidewalk repairs, but has not
maintained the sidewalks or the trees. According to the
author, almost half of L.A.'s sidewalks are in some state of
disrepair, mostly due to tree roots pushing through concrete
and causing cracks.
2)Support. The California Association of Realtors supports the
measure, contending that the state's older neighborhoods are
suffering from high levels of sidewalk disrepair due to trees
planted by local governments. They argue governments seeking
to cut costs are unfairly considering transferring the
responsibility of sidewalk repair and the liability for
trip-and-fall claims to private property owners fronting the
sidewalk. They support AB 2231 because it rightfully stops
local governments from shirking responsibility for these
sidewalks and protects property owners from huge repair and
legal costs for damages they did not produce.
3)Background. Under current law, the responsibility for
repairing sidewalks generally rests with the owner of the
adjoining property, unless the dangerous condition was created
by another party. The locality's superintendent of streets is
empowered to notice the adjoining property owner of the
damage, and if it remains unfixed after two weeks, the local
entity may commence repairs and impose the cost as a lien on
the property. Legal liability for injuries caused by a broken
sidewalk will depend on specific circumstances.
4)Opposition. The League of California Cities and the
California State Association of Counties argue mandating
cities and counties to incur sidewalk repairs would result in
significant financial losses and divert funds from projects
that benefit the entire travelling public. They also argue it
is difficult to justify repairing a sidewalk for a homeowner
in a residential neighborhood instead of filling potholes on a
thoroughfare that serves as a primary route for the movement
AB 2231
Page 3
of people and goods. Opponents argue the level of fiscal
commitment to the repair of sidewalks should be left with
cities and counties who are best equipped to assess available
resources and prioritize projects that benefit the community
as a whole and shifting sidewalk repair responsibilities will
likely result in the reduction of new sidewalks built and
cause additional strain on local General Fund monies normally
allocated to public safety and other vital programs and
services.
5)Previous legislation . AB 1985 (Stickland) of 2008, repealed
current laws regarding sidewalk repairs, and made the owner of
the property on which the sidewalk is located - usually a
local public entity - responsible for all repairs and
maintenance of the sidewalk. This bill failed passage in
Assembly Local Government Committee.
6)State mandate . This bill is keyed a state mandate and as such
requires that if the Commission on State Mandates deems this a
reimbursable mandate, then the state could be responsible for
all of the notice and other costs associated with this bill.
The commission makes this decision after a detailed
evidentiary process. Given the long history of this issue,
including the previous policy of the City of Los Angeles, it
is uncertain if the commission will determine if all or part
of the provisions of this bill are a reimbursable state
mandate.
Analysis Prepared by : Roger Dunstan / APPR. / (916) 319-2081