SR-506-003-08 (179)
- . .. . . . .
-
JP6 ~OO3'~o 8'
Santa Monica, California October 2, 1979
/ Ie
TO: Mayor and City Council
FRat.' : Ci ty Staff OCT 9 '979
SUBJECT: A Recommendation and Report Regarding the Sidewalk Repair
Assessment Program
Introduction
This report provides a progress report and makes recommendations regarding the
sidewalk repair assessment program.
Background
During the budget hearings, the staff, including the City Attorneyls staff,
presented the Council with information that indicated that a large increase in
the amount of sidewalk repairs would be needed to reduce the number and amount
of sldewalk lnjury liabllity claims. The staff recommended and the Councll
aoproved a program WhlCh provided funds so that a much greater sidewalk repair
program could be undertaken. The recommendation provided for property owner
participation by assessment for a portion of the repairs. The staff recommended
that this participation be 50% of the cost of the repairs with the City to pay
the remaining 50% of the cost of the repair without regard to the reason for
the damage.
Previous sidewalk repair policy has been to try to differentiate the reasons
for thiS damaged sldewalk and to assess property owners if the damage was due
to normal deterioration, and for the City to pay for the repai~s if the damage
was due to street trees. This pOllCy became very difficult to administer, and
ultimately, in 1977, the City Councll ordered an end to the policy. From that
lIe
OCT 9 1979
.
. -
. ~ ," e e
.
TO: Mayor and City Council -2- ~ October 2, 1979
time until July 1 of th1S year the City did not assess any property owners
for sidewalk repairs.
The program which was approved by Council dur1ng the budget hearings is
currently being adm1nistered, under provision of Chapter 22 of the Improvement
Act of 1911 (a State Law) and 51 property owners have been glven notices
to repalr thelr sidewalks. Under this Act a formal Public Hearing is held
after the work is done. Three res1dents have requested to speak to this
issue before the work 1S done. Of the 51 properties noticed, 13 have requested
that the City proceed wlth the work and have requested that they be billed
for their 50% port1on. Several of these sidewalks have already been repaired
as requested. Three property owners have protested and have been given
notice of thlS agenda item. In general, their protest centers on the following:
1. That the property owner had requested repairs to be done many
months ago, before the POllCY was changed; therefore, they expect
that those repairs should be included ln the old policy rather
than being assessed. Staff's response is that all of the repairs
for which we are sendlng notices have been needed for many months,
and all of the repairs would theoretically fall under the previous
policy if this reason1ng were used.
2. C1 tizens are complalning that the City has made temporary repairs
dur1ng the past several months and that the permanent repairs should
now be made at no cost to them, uSlng similar reasoning to Item 1,
above.
3. Property owners are complaining that the damage 1S due to C1ty trees,
of which they had no particlpation 1n the selection, and, therefore,
they should not be requ1red to pay for this damage. Our response lS
that property owners do have some choice in the selection of street
. ~ .
- . .
e .
TO: Mayor and C1ty Council -3- October 2, 1979
trees and that street trees provide a great deal of benefit to the
to the adjoining propert1es, and although they do cause some
damage occasionally, they are benefic1al to both the properties and
to the C1ty. Therefore, the polley of joint participation 1n the
costs of repair has been recommended. If the Council decldes to
change the policy of assessment, staff recommends that staff be
authorized to refund the payments already received and requests
direction regardlng the sidewalk repair program; i.e. should the
program be reduced in scope or shall additional funds be requested
to replace the assessments.
Recommendation
It 15 recommended that the City Council authorize staff to continue with
the sidewalk repair assessment program and to assess the property owners
for 50% of the cost of the sidewalk repairs wlthout regard to what has
caused the damage.
Prepared by: Stan Scholl
~
J
.
e Santa Monica C 1 of .~
, a 1 ornl ~ September 4, 1979
TO: Mayor and City Council Jfl6---fJtJ3,tJff ' r
FROM: City Staff SEP 1 1 1979
SUBJECT: ~~~mi~~nij~f~Y Resurfacing -- Appropmtion of
lntroauction
- --
I~j~ rt~~rt r~~~~~~ t~at tng tltl tounci1 a~~ro~riate ~~I~~~ from ~enera1 fun~
. I ~ s~rfac:~ ·
!
I
!
. ..
--
-- --
-
~
- ~
~~
_ . .""t.o-..~"'- ~ "-1[: -t.~
,~
...
__ -.1-
-
~
.. ,...::-
-1~ ... ~ ., ,~~__'""'"_~
~T~~ - ......=-,,;. .:..,,- n"
.." "....:......~"'1J .:.-....,"":::-~.._ \t; ~--~,.~
I.......~...... _'I- ...~ J ......."""-
\. "I" '" ..... _ ~~ 'L ~.... ~ ~
..... ..~ ..~.. .......
.... "~11-~"'''' -..:1:.- ~"":;..."....." .....,...:
-. .. ",:-" y,.......~ "'-. -3" .
'u""" '-...:'to~
. ..~ ih- ~11.,. ~~ -~ ~ ... -\
.....1...= ...);... -4!.~-;;;:.. ''11: iI. ..:....: "......~~~~
...:'l'~ a.. ...._ . ('\- - .... ,'...... ~ lI'!"\:.P..... . ...
.. ....0:... -..,. ..:..~ - .f~-i'.......
.... ~ ,!ti~.~ -
.. ~. }
. #0 ,
_ _:f:. ~__ "_ ~'- ...
- .-
.
-
~~
--