problems in the past. Right now, though, the issue is the retaining wall between the
sidewalk and the lower garden-level opening. What has happened is that the wall is
beginning to fail. Photos show some efflorescence and some opening. There is also
an opening between the private sidewalk and city sidewalk. There is also sidewalk
failure where the sidewalk next to the curb is beginning to come down. The sidewalk is
tilting towards the wall, causing water to infiltrate into the wall and making it worse. The
order is to fix the wall. The appeal agrees that the wall needs to be fixed, but how does
this relate to fixing the sidewalk? It also argues that they should not be responsible for
all of the wall repair cost, and that the City should own some responsibility. To figure
this out, I asked the head of Public Works' Sidewalk Division, the head of their Right
of Way division, and the city's bridge engineer. They all took a look at the situation
and could not make a determination whether the wall failed first causing the sidewalk
to fail, or if the sidewalk failed first causing the wall to fail. Both items need to be
fixed. The sidewalk is public, the wall is private. Public Works has put in a temporary
fix to prevent additional water infiltration. This includes asphalt repairs, putting in a
temporary curb, and eliminating the trip hazard. These are estimated to hold for a year.
The wall repair needs to come next, which will require engineering analysis, ripping up
the sidewalk and replacing it. Then finally will be the long-term repair of the sidewalk.
The agreement was for the wall to be fixed by the property owner by August 1, 2023,
and then after that the city will take care of the final sidewalk repair. Right now all
that's in front of you though is the correction order. The date I am recommending is
informed by the complicating factors of making this type of repair. What is not in front
of you though is a mechanism for determining financial responsibility, culpability, or
replacement plans. This is just "should this be corrected by this date?". This is just
square one, to affirm that this needs to be repaired. August 1 of next year is enough
time. We need to look at next year's construction cycle for this.
Councilmember Noecker: Thank you for the explanation. Can you speak to the
process required for figuring out the repair process and how this happened?
Moermond: In the hearing I said that the first step is to talk to Public Works to hear
their assessment and their belief of their public responsibility. If the property owner is
not satisfied, I indicated that the next step would be litigation via a claim against the
city. This would not come before Council.
Noecker: If we issue the correction order today, and a claim is filed against the city,
how does that interact with the August 1 deadline if the dispute gets drawn out?
Moermond: My recommendation is to not condition the August 1 deadline, but rather to
let the financial matters resolve themselves over time. Someone will need to pay for
this up front, but the first concern is getting this public safety concern resolved, and
the matter of cost is secondary.
Noecker: And the August 1 deadline is informed by how long the temporary repairs will
last and how long the fix will take?
Moermond: Yes, this also gives time for Public Works to fix the sidewalk afterwards
before the construction season ends.
Council President Brendmoen opened the public hearing.
Cummings: 25% of our residents are also here today as well. I have lived here for 4
years. Prior association boards have spent the last 7-8 years petitioning Pubic Works
to replace the sidewalks because they are failing. The asphalt patches in the 2019
photo were there when I moved in, so they have been there at least 4 years. We also
noticed that the failure of the sidewalks were causing them to tilt and funnel water into
the building. We are hoping for a more equitable solution, since we have been trying