3timely pay the City for the repair work, the City would place alien on Bonito’s property.
On June 25, 2009, Bonito received a second notice fromthe City stating that Bonito was responsible for the cost ofrepairing the sidewalk. On June 29, 2009, Bonito responded tothe City’s second notice, stating: “Please proceed with therepairs. Do not wait for Bonito Partners, LLC to do the work.”
The City performed the work to repair the sidewalk.On July 23, 2009, the City sent Bonito a letter explaining thatit had performed the repairs and included an itemized statementof the repair costs. Bonito failed to pay the City for therepairs and the City recorded a lien on Bonito’s property.
On March 23, 2010, Bonito filed a complaint in thetrial court, arguing that the City’s ordinance requiring privateproperty owners to repair public sidewalks violates the federaland state constitutional prohibitions against the taking ofprivate property for public use without just compensation. In asubsequent amended complaint, Bonito also alleged that theordinance constitutes an unlawful tax and exceeds the authoritypermitted by Arizona statute and the City’s charter.
Bonito and the City filed cross-motions for summaryjudgment. After holding oral argument on the motions, the trialcourt granted summary judgment in favor of the City.