Waldport Council Looks At Sidewalk Rules

Waldport city leaders are reworking a proposed sidewalk ordinance that could have significant implications for local property owners, public safety, and even state park access along Highway 101. During a March 12th Waldport council meeting and workshop prior to the meeting, City manager Dann Cutter and council spent considerable time on draft changes to the city’s sidewalk code, acknowledging both legal uncertainty and practical questions about how much responsibility should fall on homeowners versus the city.

City staff emphasized that, as in “almost every city in Oregon,” if a property has a sidewalk in front of it, the property owner is responsible for maintaining it and can be held liable if someone is injured due to poor conditions. Cutter noted that Waldport’s existing code already places liability and cost of repair on adjacent property owners. The proposed ordinance doesn’t create that responsibility; it mainly:

• Clarifies and updates language around maintenance and repair

• Aligns the code with insurance and legal requirements

• Attempts to set clearer triggers for when construction or reconstruction of sidewalks is required

However, one key section is under review after a recent court decision raised doubts about how far cities can go in enforcing sidewalk construction in certain situations. The city’s attorney flagged a problem with language that could allow Waldport to require new sidewalk construction under specific “triggering” conditions—such as changes to driveways, new access, or areas without existing sidewalks. The concern is whether the city can:

• Require a sidewalk where none currently exists, or

• Require sidewalks in a way that goes beyond what the recent case law allows

Because of that, staff said they are researching the ruling and will revise the draft accordingly before asking the council to move forward. Cutter indicated he is looking to borrow simplified, court-tested language from Portland’s one‑page sidewalk policy to replace Waldport’s current, more cumbersome draft.

One provision drawing attention is an existing rule that gives owners 10 days after notice to complete certain work. Cutter acknowledged that the 10‑day window is already in the current city code, and is not something new. Also this is not a standard practice, 30-days is more typical and a more realistic expectation. He signaled support for more “realistic” implementation, particularly for concrete work during rainy seasons.

City officials repeatedly underscored the liability angle, noting if a homeowner has a crumbling sidewalk and ignores a notice, they are effectively accepting legal risk if someone falls. The city intends to improve documentation, including annual inspections and photo records, especially once a new code enforcement position is filled. One example was mentioned that involved a pipe from a nearby facility sending water across a sidewalk, illustrating how drainage and private improvements can create hazards the city will expect owners to resolve.

For now, the sidewalk ordinance remains in draft form. The next steps outlined at the meeting will be for the City attorney to review the problematic language in light of the new court ruling. The City manager will redraft the ordinance into a shorter, clearer version, likely modeled on Portland’s policy, and then return to the council at a future meeting for further discussion and possible adoption. Council members signaled they want a balance between protecting the city from lawsuits and meeting insurance standards, making streets safer for pedestrians, and not overburdening homeowners—especially when weather, contractor availability, and costs make rapid repairs difficult.