Tree, Sidewalk and Fence Update
Council Study Session November 25, 2025
1 Todays Discussion
2 • Background
• Tree and Sidewalk Task Force-Commissioned 2018
• Issues Framed
• Staffing
• Fallen tree pictures
• Current Litigation
• Fences
• Ordinances
3 Background - February 10, 2018, Council
Workshop
Presentation from:
• Greg Fox, Attorney
• David Clovis, California Joint Powers Risk Management Authority (CJPRMA)
• Chris Carmona, Claims
• City Council allocated $500,000 one-time funds to PW to address trees
4 City of Fairfield Tree & Sidewalk Task Force Members
• Mike Giles, Chairperson
• Scott Tepley, Co-chair
• Rochelle Cooks
• Carol Chervinko
• Many meetings were conducted that involved legal presentations, reviewing other jurisdictions, and homework watching subject matter presentations.
Task Force Findings
• The Task Force Created a Mission Statement
• The Task Force created a report and presented it to the council on July 21, 2020
• Council directed staff to engage the public by conducting public outreach meetings and forums.
• The City retained a public relations vendor
• COVID halted the work
5 Issues Framed
• 2008 Recession City Tree Crews 3 to 2.
• 2017 2 to 1 due to budget cuts.
• 2024 1 to 0 due to budget cuts-now relies on contractors. • Aging Trees
• Aging Sidewalks
• City of Fairfield’s Insurance Program’s Self-Insured Retention (“SIR”) is $750,000 (City pays the first $750,000 of “every” claim) • 2025 Neighboring City Jury Trial Verdict Tree Fatality $24.2 Million • 2025 Neighboring City Settlement Sidewalk Trip and Fall Brain Trauma $18.3 Million
6 Current Staffing
SIDEWALKS
• Streets, Curb, Gutters and Sidewalks has 13 employees covering 600 miles.
• Contractor budget of $70,000 to shave uplifts.
TREES
• With budget cuts, the City eliminated all City tree crews. The current program has a budget of $430,000/year for contractors. The City has approximately 60,000 trees.
7 Examples
• The following are examples of “some” of the damage the trees have caused over the years in the City of Fairfield.
• Since 2015, the City has been successful in defending tree liability on approximately 10 occasions in small claims court.
8 2374 WOOLNER AVE
9 2374 WOOLNER AVE
10 2374 WOOLNER AVE
11 924 SECOND ST
12 924 SECOND ST
13 924 SECOND ST
14 FALLEN TREE
15 TREE ROOTS
16 FALLEN TREE
17 FALLEN TREE
18 FALLEN TREE
19 20
Current Litigation Sidewalks
• Pollanco (CVS Water) vs. City of Fairfield
• Ragsdale (Rust Water) vs. City of Fairfield
• Rodriguez (Eisenhower Street) vs. City of Fairfield
• Valenzuela (Tennessee Street) vs. City of Fairfield
• Wade (Marigold Drive) vs. City of Fairfield
• Brown (Memorial Park) vs. City of Fairfield
• Lacher (Courthouse) vs. City of Fairfield- MSJ Granted Cost of Defense: $85,553.67
*The City has been fortunate not having any litigation resulting from trees.
21 Current Sidewalk Ordinances
Muni Code 16.14 Duty of Property Owner as to Maintenance of Sidewalk
It shall be unlawful for any person owning any building, lot or premises in the city, fronting on any portion of an improved street or way, where a sidewalk is laid, to allow any portion of such sidewalk in front of such building, lot or premises to be out of repair, or to become, be or remain dangerous to the users thereof for any reason. Such person must at all times keep each such sidewalk in such condition that it will not endanger persons or property passing thereon, will not interfere with public convenience in the use thereof, or be or remain an obstruction or impediment to normal, customary and usual pedestrian or vehicular traffic. (Ord. No. 61-5, § 2.) 22 Current Tree Ordinance
Muni Code 21.1 Ownership of trees on city easements
All trees planted on easements of the city are owned by and are under the control of the city. (Ord. No. 12 (1953), § 1
Muni Code 21.2 Pruning, destroying, etc. trees
No person not the owner thereof shall injure, prune, disfigure, destroy or cause or direct the injury, pruning, disfigurement of destruction of any tree within the city, whether situated on private ground or on any street, sidewalk, public easement or public park or place; provided, that a tree may be pruned or removed if the person so pruning or removing such tree or causing or directing its pruning or removal first obtains written consent to such pruning or removal from the owner of such tree. (Ord. No. 12 (1953), § 2.) 23 Ordinance Goals
Sidewalks
A true sidewalk ordinance not only places the maintenance responsibility upon the adjacent landowner, but the liability as well.
This is how a homeowner’s policy would be triggered to participate in the defense or settlement of a claim or lawsuit. The owner is best positioned to monitor and repair any defects, thereby protecting the public.
Trees
Fully shifts the responsibility of maintenance and liability to the adjacent property owner and reverses the City’s maintenance of trees on private property.
24 Tree and Sidewalk Task Force Recommendations
• Update the Municipal Code with clear definitions and responsibilities • Create a tree and sidewalk ordinance that shifts the maintenance responsibility to the adjacent property owner with a financial plan that would sunset in 5–10 years.
• Terminate maintenance on private trees
25 Fences
• Currently, the City of Fairfield provides fencing materials to a property owner where the property abuts City property or thoroughfare. • The current budgets:
$145,000/year wood
$50,000/year masonry
Council Considerations
• Status Quo
• Create New Ordinances
• Enforce current sidewalk ordinance
• Public outreach to explore ordinances
• More funding for trees and sidewalks
• Explore other options
26 27
Q&A City Staff
• Sanjay Mishra, PW Director
• Ryan Panganiban, PW Assistant Director
• Jason Riley, PW Assistant City Engineer
• Daniel Camara, PW Streets
• Gary Sponsler, PW Arborist
• Ken Radford, PW Fence
• Chris Carmona, Risk Manager
• Erika Milton, Risk Analyst
Questions and Answers
28