BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
AB 2231 (Fuentes) - Sidewalk repair ordinances: voter approval
for repeal.
Amended: June 28, 2012 Policy Vote: G&F 5-1
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: August 6, 2012
Consultant: Mark McKenzie
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: AB 2231 would require voter approval to repeal an
existing city or county ordinance that requires the local entity
to repair sidewalks. The bill would also prohibit a city or
county that has such an ordinance in place from charging
property owners for sidewalk repairs unless the owner consents
to the charge.
Fiscal Impact:
Unknown reimbursable state mandated costs related to the
requirement to place an item on the ballot to repeal an existing
ordinance, and to potentially pay for any necessary sidewalk
repairs prior to an election. Affected local entities would be
entitled to reimbursement of costs associated with an election
and may also claim reimbursement for any necessary sidewalk
repairs between the decision to seek the election and the actual
election date (see staff comments).
Background: Existing law generally requires property owners of
lots that face public streets to maintain the sidewalks, unless
a dangerous condition is caused by persons other than the
property owner. If a sidewalk is out of repair or pending
reconstruction, local officials are required to provide a
specified notice to the property owner to repair the sidewalk.
If the repair is not commenced within two weeks of the notice,
the superintendent of streets must make the repair and impose
the cost as a lien on the property, as specified.
Existing law also authorizes the imposition of benefit
assessments on property owners to pay for sidewalk repairs,
subject to the notice, protest, and hearing requirements of
Proposition 218. If a majority protest is not received from
AB 2231 (Fuentes)
Page 1
property owners, the legislative body may adopt a resolution to
establish an assessment district and levy the assessment to pay
for public improvements. As an alternative to benefit
assessments, and only with the free and willing consent of
affected property owners, public agencies can use "voluntary
contractual assessments" to finance public improvements to
developed parcels.
Some cities have enacted local ordinances or policies that make
the city responsible for paying costs of sidewalk repairs. The
City of Los Angeles, for example, enacted an ordinance in 1974
that requires the city to repair curbs, driveways, and sidewalks
damaged as a result of tree root growth at no cost to the
adjoining property owner. Faced with total sidewalk repair
costs that may exceed $1 billion in conjunction with ongoing
budget deficits, the Los Angeles City Council has considered a
number of options for financing the costs of sidewalk repair,
including a proposal last year to shift responsibility for
repairs to property owners. More recent proposals under
consideration to pay for sidewalk repairs are a citywide bond,
formation of an assessment district, requiring a property owner
to make necessary repairs when utility service is requested, and
requiring a property owner to make repairs when a permit is
sought for other repairs.
This bill is intended to prevent the unilateral shift of
responsibility for sidewalk repairs from a city or county to
property owners if the city or county has a current ordinance
that makes the local entity responsible for the costs of those
repairs.
Proposed Law: AB 2231 would require approval of a majority of
voters in a consolidated or general election in order to repeal
an ordinance that requires a city, county, or city and county
that requires that entity to repair sidewalks. The bill would
also prohibit a city or county that has such an ordinance in
place from imposing a fee, charge, or assessment against a
property owner for sidewalk repairs, unless a repeal of the
ordinance is approved by a majority of voters. This prohibition
would not apply to voluntary contractual assessments.
Staff Comments: The actual number of cities and counties that
have enacted an ordinance requiring that local entity to repair
sidewalks is unknown. The author's office notes that the Cities
AB 2231 (Fuentes)
Page 2
of Los Angeles, Oakland, Half Moon Bay, Placentia, Berkeley,
Burlingame, and Redlands have enacted such ordinances. Los
Angeles and Placentia have publicly contemplated placing
responsibility on property owners, and Half Moon Bay unanimously
approved an ordinance to place the liability of sidewalk and
tree maintenance on property owners on February 15, 2011.
This bill would place restrictions and barriers on a city or
county's ability to require property owners to pay for sidewalk
repairs if that local entity has a current ordinance requiring
that local entity to repair sidewalks. Specifically, this bill
would require voter approval to repeal an existing ordinance
that was enacted by a simple majority vote of the governing
body, and would prohibit cities and counties that are currently
responsible for sidewalk repairs from imposing charges on
property owners to pay for those repairs.
AB 2231 would impose a state-mandate local program on those
cities and counties that may wish to repeal a current ordinance
by requiring that matter to be placed on the ballot in a
consolidated or general election. In this instance, the bill
would impose new duties on cities and counties to comply with
all requirements necessary to place the item before the voters.
In addition, the Commission on State Mandates may determine that
reimbursement is warranted for any continued sidewalk repair and
maintenance costs incurred by the local entity between the time
in which the entity affirms the decision to place the matter on
the ballot and the election date. Actual costs are unknown and
would depend upon the Commission's determinations of
reimbursable activities and costs, and the number of local
entities that seek to repeal an ordinance.
AB 2231 would also limit the options available to cities and
counties to pay for sidewalk repairs by specifically prohibiting
the imposition of any fees, charges, or assessments on property
owners. By limiting revenue generating options, this bill could
result in a reduction in local services associated with another
area of a local entity's budget.