DAVIS, Calif. — The Davis City Council on Tuesday moved forward with a proposed ordinance that would shift responsibility for sidewalk maintenance to adjacent property owners, while emphasizing that enforcement remains months—if not years—away as officials work through policy details and community concerns.
City staff explain that the ordinance aligned Davis with longstanding California law, explaining that “the sidewalk repair and maintenance ordinance that’s before you would place the responsibility for sidewalk maintenance on the adjacent property owner,” consistent with state code requiring sidewalks to be maintained “in such condition that the sidewalk will not endanger persons or property.”
The proposal follows the city’s recent launch of a sidewalk inspection program, developed in response to safety and liability concerns.
Staff described the program as a “five-year rotating schedule” in which “hazards are identified, marked, and prioritized,” with the goal of completing repairs within a year, though officials acknowledged current funding limitations.
City officials stressed that the ordinance itself does not immediately change conditions on the ground. “Tomorrow, nothing changes. In a month, nothing changes,” staff told the council, noting that enforcement would not begin until after additional policy decisions, outreach, and program development are completed.
Mayor Donna Neville reiterated that the action represents only the beginning of a longer process.
“This is just the beginning of a process. We know there are lots of details to work out and a lot of public education to be provided,” she said.
Neville added that Davis has historically diverged from most California cities by absorbing sidewalk repair costs.
“We’ve been a generous city for a really long time and we’ve been kind of handling that cost for homeowners,” she said, noting that “the majority of the cities in California don’t do what we’ve been doing.”
Public comment reflected skepticism about the shift.
One resident questioned the city’s track record, recounting a long-delayed repair: “They’re like, ‘Oh, we’ll be back within a year and take care of that.’ And that was like seven or eight years ago. They haven’t done anything.”
The speaker added, “So it’s like, okay, we can’t do this or we can’t afford to do it or we’ve been doing a terrible job, so the landlords have to do it.”
Councilmembers raised a wide range of implementation concerns, particularly around fairness, liability, and the transition from city-funded repairs to property owner responsibility.
Councilmember Linda Deos questioned how the policy would apply in cases where city-owned trees cause sidewalk damage.
In response, city attorney Inder Khalsa said that “the ordinance in front of you tonight does not accept our maintenance responsibility or repair responsibility even if the damage was related to city trees.”
However, the city attorney clarified that the ordinance does not shift legal liability for injuries.
“It also does not purport to shift any liability for that any damages for an injury over to homeowners,” she said, adding that “we are solely mirroring state law.”
She explained that the immediate goal is fiscal and operational: “The goal of this ordinance is simply to provide a potential in the future revenue stream for the city to help address the cost of repairing sidewalks and hopefully improve the overall condition of our sidewalks.”
Councilmember Gloria Partida expressed concern about uncertainty and potential financial burdens.
“It sounds like there’s a lot to be worked out, and it would be great if we could see some sort of a timeline or a flow chart,” she said. “I think when you put something out here that’s really vague, it makes people very nervous.”
Staff reiterated that inspections are structured to balance urgency with available resources.
“The way we structured the plan was basically one district per year, so roughly five years,” staff said, noting that the city must manage staffing constraints while expanding inspections.
Councilmember Josh Chapman raised a series of detailed policy questions along the lines of equity and consistency. He warned that without a clear baseline, residents could face uneven treatment.
“I think that there needs to be some sort of a process or something where we create a baseline across the city for all the property owners,” he said.
Chapman also highlighted concerns about cost burdens, tenant impacts, and vulnerable populations, including the need for “a relief plan” and consideration of “low income property owners” and seniors.
He questioned procedural details such as notice requirements, asking whether a 24-hour notice window for city-initiated repairs was sufficient, and raised issues about how costs might be allocated across multi-tenant or multi-parcel properties.
Additional concerns included compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, potential hidden infrastructure issues uncovered during repairs, and whether landlords could pass costs onto tenants.
City Attorney Inder Khalsa noted that the ordinance already includes certain exemptions, stating that “there is an exception in the ordinance…for damages caused by utility, and that includes city utilities.”
She said that Davis is unusual in not already having such a law in place.
“We are an outlier in not already having this in our municipal code,” she said, adding that most cities maintain similar ordinances, even if they are not consistently enforced.
The broader policy rationale centers on liability exposure.
Khalsa explained that the measure is partly driven by “liability for injuries caused by damaged sidewalks” and the need “to fund…a greater amount of repair, so as to reduce that overall liability.”
Still, officials acknowledged that enforcement presents administrative and political challenges.
“There’s a significant burden associated with trying to work through all of those individual issues,” Khalsa said, referring to cases involving financial hardship or other complications.
Councilmembers repeatedly stressed the importance of outreach and public engagement before any enforcement begins.
Chapman noted that “there’s going to be a huge type of outreach that happens,” suggesting community meetings and direct engagement to ensure residents understand the policy.
As the discussion turned to timing, the council clarified that, while the ordinance would technically take effect 30 days after a second reading, enforcement would not follow immediately.
“It’s not going to be implemented right at 30 days after second reading,” Neville said, cautioning against public alarm and reinforcing that substantial policy work remains.
Staff indicated they would return with a more detailed timeline outlining policy development, outreach, and eventual implementation phases.
The council ultimately voted unanimously to advance the ordinance, with members rationalizing that the action is a necessary first step toward addressing long-standing infrastructure issues while attempting to balance fiscal realities with equity concerns.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
If they do this, then for ideological consistency, they should also repeal the city’s tree ordinance… right?
I mean, how can we say “the tree on your property isnt yours and you arent allowed to even prune / trim it… WE will do that” and then fork over responsiblity for concrete maintenance… something I have no agency over and isnt even something I personally benefit from… A sidewalk is by definition a community good.
I have a storm drain on my own front curb. Am I now in charge of the racoons that live down there, and for un-clogging it when leaves blow in?
“A sidewalk is by definition a community good.”
Trees are a community resource. Their care should be managed, to the greatest extent possible, by the city and the costs should be shared.
There are many issues with this sidewalk ordinance to be worked out still.
“One resident questioned the city’s track record, recounting a long-delayed repair: “They’re like, ‘Oh, we’ll be back within a year and take care of that.’ And that was like seven or eight years ago. They haven’t done anything.””
“One resident” ??? Seriously??? Did that resident have a name? Like “Alan C. Miller” perhaps? Are you now omitting the names of speakers at Council meetings if they also comment in the Vanguard?
City is a fail on sidewalk repair, street repair and tree trimming. #1 and #3 have resulted in massive lawsuits that have made the problems worse, and when a bike wedges a tire into a linear crack at night and the bicyclist has massive injuries, that will be lawsuit for #2.
But endless funds proposed for affordable housing and homeless programs that make the problems worse so they will always be there requiring even more money, so there will never be money for roads, sidewalks and trees.
But at least Measure Q will bail us out :-|
Aces
I’ve been waiting 15 years for the City to fix my street. They finally budgeted it last fiscal year and its supposedly scheduled for this summer. I’ve always assumed they would fix the broken sidewalks too but now I’m less sure. Time will tell.
Homeowners are responsible, but liability doesn’t change?
How do the results differ in other communities that are not apparent outliers?
In principle – I see the verbatim – why aren’t property owners also responsible for repairing the area beyond the curb? Parking lane, any bike lane, travel lanes… on local streets?