Loading...
01/16/2018 - Work Study - Packet Please turn off cell phones during meeting and hold your questions for staff until the meeting has been adjourned Meeting materials are available on the City’s website: www.cityofportorchard.us or by contacting the City Clerk’s Office, 360.876.4407 The City of Port Orchard does not discriminate on the basis of disability. Contact the City Clerk’s office should you need special accommodations. City of Port Orchard Council Work Study Session January 16, 2018 6:30 p.m. 1. Sedgwick-Bethel Corridor Study Presentation (Bond, SCJ Alliance) Estimated Time: 45 Minutes 2. Council Committee Assignments (Mayor) Estimated Time: 20 Minutes 3. 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Bond) Estimated Time: 20 Minutes 4. Legal Defense of Officials and Employees (Cates) Estimated Time: 15 Minutes 5. Downtown Holiday Decorations (Rinearson) Estimated Time: 20 Minutes Mayor: Rob Putaansuu Administrative Official Councilmembers: Bek Ashby Chair: Economic Development/Tourism Staff: Development Director Finance Committee KRCC/PSRC TransPol/PRTPO KRCC TransPol Shawn Cucciardi Finance Committee Land Use Committee Fred Chang Chair: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Staff: City Clerk Utilities & Sewer Advisory (SAC) Committee Economic Development/Tourism Jay Rosapepe Economic Development/Tourism Festival of Chimes and Lights KRCC-alt/KRCC TransPol-alt John Clauson Chair: Finance Committee Staff: City Treasurer Land Use Committee Kitsap Public Health District-alt Cindy Lucarelli Chair: Utilities Committee Staff: Public Works Director Chair: Chimes and Lights Staff: City Clerk Chair: Sewer Advisory Committee Staff: Public Works KEDA/KADA Scott Diener (Mayor Pro-Tempore) Chair: Land Use Committee Staff: Development Director Utilities & Sewer Advisory (SAC) Committee KEDA/KADA-alt PSRC EDD-alt Department Directors: Nicholas Bond, AICP Development Director Mark Dorsey, P.E. Public Works Director City Engineer Debbie Hunt Court Administrator Noah Crocker, M.B.A. Finance Director Geoffrey Marti Police Chief Brandy Rinearson, MMC, CPRO City Clerk Contact us: 216 Prospect Street Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 876-4407 This Page Intentionally Left Blank City of Port Orchard Work Study Session Executive Summary Issue Title: Sedgwick-Bethel Corridor Study Presentation Meeting Date: January 16, 2018 Time Required: 45 Minutes Attendees: Elisabeth Wooton, SCJ Alliance and Nick Bond, Community Development Director Issue: The City of Port Orchard is conducting a corridor study for Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road to develop a consolidated plan for these transportation corridors. The primary intention of the study is to develop a conceptual corridor design that improves vehicular mobility and supports future growth in this area. The study scope includes Bethel from Mile Hill to the City boundary and Sedgwick from Bethel to SR-16, as well as the surrounding side street network. The City’s consultant, SJC Alliance, began work on the study in August 2017, with estimated completion in June 2018. SJC gave a briefing to Council at the September 2017 work-study meeting, to present the proposed process for conducting public outreach as well as the overall project approach. Since that time, the project team has facilitated a public open house, completed volume forecasting, performed traffic analysis, coordinated with WSDOT, and begun developing conceptual corridor designs and identifying right-of-way needs. The consultant has prepared a briefing to update Council on the current status of the project, including the following topics: • County Property Acquisition Issue • Bethel Corridor Profile (3-lane vs. 5-lane) • Intersection Design (roundabouts vs. signals) • Access Management (median vs. two-way left turn lane) • Bike Facility Design on Sedgwick (bike lanes vs. shared use path) • Project Prioritization Next steps in the study process include conducting a community survey, finalizing the conceptual design, and preparing a draft report. SCJ and City staff will return to the Council at that time to present the findings and receive comments before finalizing the corridor study. Alternatives: N/A (informational only). Action Requested at this Meeting: Review information presented by the City’s consultant, and provide feedback for continued development of the Sedgwick-Bethel Corridor Study. Page 3 of 28 Recommendations: Staff recommends that Council provide feedback to staff and consultants on the current draft Sedgwick/Bethel corridor study information, as presented by the City’s consultant. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: N/A Attachments: N/A Follow-up Notes & Outcomes: Page 4 of 28 City of Port Orchard Work Study Session Executive Summary Issue Title: Council Committee Assignments Meeting Date: January 16, 2018 Time Required: 20 Minutes Attendees: Mayor Action Requested At This Meeting: Determine which Councilmembers will serve on which committee. Issue: Below are the established Council committees adopted by Resolution no. 016-16: • Finance provides oversight of city budgeting, financial planning, and financial reporting. Recommends long-range financial goals along with funding strategies for the operating and capital budgets; human resource issues requiring policy direction; serves as the advisory forum for transportation and street maintenance funding, and funding relating to the transportation benefit district. Committee members Ashby, Clauson, and Cucciardi • Land Use (formally Public Property) investigates and recommends policy regarding City property, including parks, streets, alleys and sidewalks. In addition, recommends policy on the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Committee members Clauson, Cucciardi, and Diener • Economic Development/Tourism investigates and recommends policy on increasing economic development and business retention. Committee members Ashby, Chang, Donlin Rosapepe • Utilities investigates and recommends policy on the subject and issues related to sewer, water, and stormwater. In addition, serve as City representatives to the Sewer Advisory Committee. Committee members Chang, Diener, and Lucarelli • Sewer Advisory serves as the City’s representatives in conjunction with West Sound Utility District Commissioners. Committee members Chang, Diener, and Lucarelli • Festival of Chimes and Lights recommends activities and advertisements for the event. Committee members Lucarelli and Donlin Rosapepe • Lodging Tax Advisory Chair the committee of hoteliers and non-profits to review lodging tax applications and provide a recommendation to the Council for distribution. Committee member Chang. Below are the established outside agency committees and are assigned as follows: • Health District: Clauson (alt) • KRCC: Ashby, Donlin Rosapepe (alt) • PSRC Exec. Board: Putaansuu (alt) • PSRC Growth Mgmt: Diener (alt) • PSRC EDD: Donlin Rosapepe (alt) Page 5 of 28 • KEDA/KADA: Lucarelli, Diener (alt) • PSRC Transpol: Ashby • KRCC Transpol: Ashby, Donlin Rosapepe (alt) • PRTPO Exec Board: Ashby, Putaansuu (alt) Background: Resolution No. 016-16, states at a regular Council meeting in January of each even numbered year, the City Council shall establish the responsibilities of each committee and the committee membership. Until such time the new committees are implemented, the current committees shall remain in effect and newly elected councilmembers shall serve on the committees to which their predecessors were appointed. Alternatives: N/A Recommendation: N/A Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: None. Attachments: Resolution No. 016-16 and KRCC Meeting Schedule Follow-up Notes & Outcomes: Adopt a Resolution confirming the committee assignments at the January 23, 2018, council meeting. Page 6 of 28 Page 7 of 28 Page 8 of 28 Page 9 of 28 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 10 of 28 City of Port Orchard Work Study Session Executive Summary Issue Title: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Meeting Date: January 16, 2018 Time Required: 20 Minutes Attendees: Nick Bond, Community Development Director Issue: With the adoption of Title 20 in June 2017, the deadline date for annual Comprehensive Plan amendment submittals was established as January 31, starting in 2018. Staff proposes that the City Council consider three potential changes to the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, as listed below. • Old Clifton Road Map Amendment. The area to the south of the City owned portions of the Old Clifton Industrial Park is currently zoned Employment Office/Industrial and is bisected by a stream located within a ravine (Anderson Creek). This area consists of twenty tax parcels, nine of which are located at least partially to the east of this stream and abutting Old Clifton Road. The owner of three of these nine properties along Old Clifton Rd (between SW Chawla Ct and Lieseke Ln NW) is interested in changing the Comprehensive Plan designation of these properties, from Urban Industrial to Residential High Density with R20 zoning. The residential designation and zoning would allow apartments, townhomes, and other uses of similar intensity. Direct access from Old Clifton to the remaining 12 properties on the west side of the stream is impeded by the stream. Staff is supportive of changing the designation of the properties located to the east of the stream to Residential High Density, however it would not make sense to limit this amendment to three of the nine properties that are partly on the east side of the stream. Redesignating all or portions of nine of these properties as Residential High Density would prevent “spot zoning”, would promote a cohesive development pattern with compatible adjacent uses, would protect critical areas (stream and steep slopes), and would provide a graduated transition of development intensities from the unincorporated rural land on the east side of Old Clifton to the Urban Industrial parcels located west of the subject properties. On the two largest properties, which are split by Anderson Creek, the Residential High Density designation would be applied to the areas east of the creek and the Urban Industrial designation would remain on the west side of the creek. (See attached Map 1 – Old Clifton Road Amendment.) • Crawford Road Map Amendment. SE Crawford Road is a short, private dead-end road off of the east side of Bethel Rd SE, just south of SE Salmonberry Road, which currently serves 14 small lots. Although these properties are designated Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan, they are all developed with single-family homes (10 occupied, 2 uninhabitable) or are vacant. This neighborhood has had long-standing issues with dilapidated buildings, vagrants and drug activity, and last year was the subject of a neighborhood-wide code Action Requested at this Meeting: Provide direction to staff on proposed City-initiated 2018 Comprehensive Plan amendments. Page 11 of 28 enforcement action involving multiple agencies. The City’s code enforcement officer prepared a report confirming that at least part of the problem stems from the existing Commercial designation. Because single-family homes are “nonconforming” to the Commercial designation and zoning, the owners of the uninhabitable homes cannot rebuild, the owners of vacant property can only build commercial uses, and the existing homes cannot be improved, expanded or rebuilt. Therefore, the houses and the neighborhood in general have deteriorated, and this situation has contributed to the law enforcement and public safety problems. Crawford Road, which is owned in divided shares by several of the property owners, is substandard in width, very difficult to enter and exit, and has no fire turn-around or pedestrian improvements. Any attempt to attract or build commercial development would be cost-prohibitive, if not impossible, due to the small size of individual lots, the general condition of the neighborhood, and the need to obtain consensus from many parties regarding any changes to the road. It is not anticipated that this area will have a demand for commercial development in the foreseeable future that could make lot aggregation and road improvements likely or feasible. Therefore, staff recommends that Council support a Comprehensive Plan redesignation and rezone to Residential Low Density/R4.5, to reflect the existing and likely future uses of this neighborhood, and to allow owners to rebuild and improve their properties. The proposed amendment was discussed in December 2017 with the Land Use committee, which requested staff to move it forward for full Council consideration. (See attached Map 2 – Crawford Road Amendment.) • Text Amendment to Appendix B of Comprehensive Plan. In order to facilitate ongoing and future road corridor planning efforts, staff has proposed that the new design standards under consideration include a requirement that development shall be set back from areas that have been identified for right-of-way acquisition needed to develop a road project in the City’s transportation improvement plan. This means that right of way setbacks would be measured from the proposed right of way and not the existing right of way. The right of way acquisition plan for Bethel and Sedgwick has been drafted and is proposed as an addition to Appendix B of the Comprehensive Plan, “Plans Adopted by Reference.” This amendment would simply add the Bethel and Sedgwick Right of Way Plan to Appendix B. It is possible that the current draft right of way plan will be revised further as the comprehensive plan amendments proceed. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments are supported by the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: Goal LU 1. Retain Port Orchard’s small town commercial and residential character while accommodating allocated growth citywide. Policy LU-1 Limit industrial development to locations accessible from arterials or freeways and discourage industrial access through residential areas. Policy LU-11 Provide a variety of housing types and employment opportunities that meet the needs of diverse socioeconomic interests. Policy LU-20 Ensure orderly development, concurrency of infrastructure provision, and protection of environmentally sensitive areas through an effective and predictable permitting process. Page 12 of 28 Goal LU 8. Connect new and existing neighborhoods to each other, to commercial and employment centers, and to public facilities. Policy LU-26 Require adequate transitions between different land uses to mitigate potential negative impacts of noise, light, and air pollution. Policy HS-1 Support the development of a variety of housing types, including apartments, townhomes, mixed-use (residential and other uses) and live-work development, small-lot and zero lot line single-family homes, and manufactured homes, as well as traditional single-family homes, through innovative planning, efficient and effective administration of land and building codes, and, where available, applicable financial assistance. Goal HS 5. Promote the efficient use of residential land in order to maximize development potential. Policy HS-2 Implement zoning and development regulations which encourage infill housing on empty and redevelopable parcels. Policy HS-18 Consider programs to preserve or rehabilitate neighborhoods and areas that are showing signs of deterioration due to lack of maintenance or abandonment. Goal HS 8. Provide on-going support to homeowners to preserve, maintain and improve their properties in order to enhance the quality and character of neighborhoods and the overall City. Goal NS 2. Protect the water quality, flows and ecological integrity of streams, wetlands, and Sinclair Inlet by appropriately regulating storm water and land use while allowing for compatible growth and development. Policy NS-1 Protect marine and fresh surface water resources by ensuring that development, including rights-of-way, in critical areas is consistent with the Critical Areas Ordinance, Shoreline Master Program, and other applicable local, state and federal regulations. Goal NS 3. Protect the public health, safety and welfare from geologic hazards. Policy NS-2 Ensure that development in geologically hazardous areas occurs in a manner that minimizes hazard to health or property and minimizes impacts to the natural environment, including stream and shoreline processes. Policy NS-3 Protect public safety and health, maintain water quality and habitat, minimize erosion of soils and bluffs, and diminish the public cost of repairing areas from damage due to landslides, erosion and seismic activities through appropriate regulation and development conditions. Goal TR 1. Encourage development of an efficient multi-modal transportation system based on local, municipal, tribes, countywide, and regional priorities in coordination with existing comprehensive and corridor development plans. Page 13 of 28 Policy TR-1 Implement the roadway design standards, including acquisition of right-of-way as needed, as defined in the City’s transportation Capital Facilities plans and Port Orchard Road Standards. Goal TR 17. To provide an adequate system of arterials and collector streets which connect the City and adjacent development areas to the State highway system and adjacent arterials. Policy TR-1 Plan, design, and implement roadway widening and intersection improvements needed to provide additional capacity, and resolve potential operations and safety issues. Ensure that designs address non-motorized travel within and to/from the City. Alternatives: 1. Approve staff to move forward with preparation of the proposed 2018 City-sponsored Comprehensive Plan amendments; or 2. Direct staff to revise the proposed 2018 City-sponsored Comprehensive Plan amendments; or 3. Advise staff that City Council does not wish to consider any or all of the proposed 2018 City- sponsored Comprehensive Plan amendments. Recommendations: Staff recommends that Council direct staff to move forward with preparation of the City-initiated 2018 Comprehensive Plan amendments, as proposed. Attachments: Map 1 – Old Clifton Road Amendment; Map 2 – Crawford Road Amendment Follow-up Notes & Outcomes: Page 14 of 28 SW OLD CLIFTON RDMCCOOL PL SWSW CHAWLA CT Old Clifton Road AmendmentProposed Area ± Parcels to be Amended Proposed Residential High Density Page 15 of 28 BETHEL RD SESE SALMONBERRY RD SE CRAWFORD RD SE SALMONBERRY RD Crawford Road AmendmentProposed Area ± Page 16 of 28 City of Port Orchard Work Study Session Executive Summary Issue Title: Legal Defense of Officials and Employees Meeting Date: January 16, 2018 Time Required: 20 Minutes Attendees: Sharon Cates, City Attorney Action Requested At This Meeting: Provide guidance to staff regarding the additional revisions to the proposed ordinance to update Chapter 2.38 POMC (“Legal Defense of Officials and Employees”) to include all of the provisions contemplated by RCW 4.96.041, which revisions were requested by the City Council at the October 2017 Work Study meeting. Issue: Whether it is in the best interests of the City to amend Chapter 2.38 POMC – with the revisions requested by the City Council – to set forth the additional requirements of RCW 4.96.041 not already included therein, and to adopt appropriate procedures relating thereto. Background: In 2011, the City Council adopted Ordinance 013-11 to establish the legal defense of officials and employees (under POMC 2.38) pursuant to RCW 4.96.041, which requires the City to establish a procedure to review a request for defense against an action or proceeding for damages brought against any past or present official or employee of the City, arising from acts or omissions while performing or in good faith purporting to perform his or her official duties. RCW 4.96.041 also provides that the necessary expenses to defend an official or employee, and any monetary judgment against the official or employee, will be paid by the City. The City Council considered certain updates to Chapter 2.38 POMC at its October 2017 Work Study meeting, and requested certain revisions to POMC 2.38.060. Those revisions, and an additional revision to POMC 2.38.110 are highlighted in the attached revised version of the Ordinance to update Chapter 2.38 POMC. The City Council is requested to consider whether updates to Chapter 2.38 POMC should be made, to include all of the proposed revisions, which are intended to incorporate all of the requirements of RCW 4.96.041. Alternatives: Discuss draft Ordinance and consider whether the proposed or alternative language is appropriate. Recommendation: Staff recommends updating Chapter 2.38 POMC as presented. Page 17 of 28 Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: None. Attachments: Revised Draft Ordinance; RCW 4.96.041. Follow-up Notes & Outcomes: Page 18 of 28 ORDINANCE NO. _______________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 2.38 (“LEGAL DEFENSE OF OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES”) OF THE PORT ORCHARD MUNICIPAL CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on August 9, 2011, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 013-11 to establish the legal defense of officials and employees pursuant to RCW 4.96.041, which required the city to establish a procedure to review a request for defense against an action or proceeding for damages brought against any past or present official or employee of the city, arising from acts or omissions while performing or in good faith purporting to perform his or her official duties; and WHEREAS, RCW 4.96.041 also requires that the necessary expenses to defend an official or employee, and any monetary judgment against the official or employee, shall be paid by the city; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the city to amend Chapter 2.38 POMC to set forth the additional requirements of RCW 4.96.041 and adopt appropriate procedures relating thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Port Orchard Municipal Code Chapter 2.38 is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.38.010 Purpose. This chapter is adopted pursuant to the provisions of RCW 4.96.041, which require the city to establish a procedure to review a request for defense against an action or proceeding for damages brought against any past or present official officer or employee of the city, arising from acts or omissions while performing or in good faith purporting to perform his or her official duties; and, if the request is granted, to pay the necessary expenses for such defense, and to pay any monetary judgment against the official or employee for nonpunitive damages entered by a court of competent jurisdiction on approval by the city council. 2.38.020 Procedure upon knowledge or receipt of a claim or potential claim – Conditions to Page 19 of 28 representation. The provisions of this chapter shall apply only when the conditions of this section have been met. All officials officers or employees of the city shall provide notice to the city of any claims for potential claims as follows: (1) In the event of any incident or course of conduct potentially giving rise to a claim for damage or the commencement of a suit, the official or employee involved shall, as soon as practicable, give the city clerk written notice thereof, identifying the official or employee involved, all information known to the official or employee with respect to the date, time, place, and circumstances surrounding the incident or conduct giving rise to the claim or lawsuit, as well as the names and addresses of all persons allegedly injured or otherwise damaged thereby, and the names and addresses of all witnesses. The city clerk with the assistance of the city attorney is authorized to develop a form to be used by the official or employee. Upon the development of said form, officials and employees requesting legal defense shall utilize the form, which shall be maintained in the files of the city attorney as a document prepared in anticipation of litigation; (2) Upon receipt thereof, the official or employee shall forthwith deliver any claim, demand, notice or summons or other process relating to any such incident or conduct to the city clerk, and shall cooperate with the city clerk, city attorney, or an attorney designated by the city, and, upon request, assist in making settlement of any suit or enforcing any claim for any right of subrogation against any persons or organizations that may be liable to the city because of any damage or claim of loss arising from said incident or course of conduct, including, but not limited to, rights of recovery for costs and attorneys’ fees arising out of state or federal statute upon a determination that the suit brought is frivolous in nature; (3) Such official or employee shall attend interviews, depositions, hearings and trials and shall assist in securing and giving evidence and obtaining attendance of witnesses all without any additional compensation to the official or employee and, in the event that an employee has left the employ of the city, no fee or compensation shall be provided; and (4) Such official or employee shall not accept nor voluntarily make any payment, assume any obligation, or incur any expense relating to said claim or suit; other than for first aid to others at the time of any incident or course of conduct giving rise to any such claim, loss, or damage. 2.38.030 Conflict with provisions of insurance policies. The provisions of this chapter do not constitute a policy of insurance, and nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to modify or amend any provisions of any policy of insurance where any city official or employee thereof is the named insured. In the event of any conflict between this chapter and the provisions of any such policy of insurance, the policy provisions shall be controlling; provided, however, that nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to limit or restrict any employee’s or official’s right to full coverage pursuant to this chapter, it being the intent of this chapter and section to provide the coverage detailed in this chapter outside and beyond insurance policies which may be in effect, while not compromising the Page 20 of 28 terms and conditions of such policies by any conflicting provision contained in this chapter. 2.38.040 Pending claims. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to any pending claim or lawsuit against an official or employee, or any such claim or lawsuit thereafter filed, without regard to the date of the events or circumstances which are the basis of such claim or lawsuit. 2.38.050 Definitions. Unless the context indicates otherwise, the words and phrases used in this chapter shall have the following meanings: (1) “Official” means any person who is serving or has served as an elected or appointed city official or officer, and any person who is serving or has served as an appointed member of any city board, commission, committee, or other appointed position with the city. The term “appointed” as used herein shall mean a person formally appointed by the city council or as authorized by state law or city ordinance. (2) “Employee” means any person who is or has been employed by the city. (3) The terms “official” and “employee” do not include independent contractors performing services on behalf of the city; provided, however, that the city and any independent contractor may negotiate for the provision of legal defense services and the scope of such legal defense shall be controlled by the terms of said written agreement. 2.38.060 Legal representation. (1) As a condition of service or employment, the city shall provide to an official or employee, subject to the conditions and requirements of this chapter, and notwithstanding the fact that such official or employee may have concluded service or employment with the city, such legal representation as may be reasonably necessary to defend a claim or lawsuit filed against such official or employee resulting from any conduct, act or omission of such official or employee performed or omitted on behalf of the city in their capacity as a city official or employee, which act or omission is within the scope of their service or employment with the city. This chapter is subject to repeal or modification at the sole discretion of the city council. (2) The legal services shall be provided by the office of the city attorney unless: (a) Any provision of an applicable policy of insurance provides otherwise; or (b) A conflict of interest or ethical bar exists with respect to said representation. (c) In the event that outside counsel is retained under subsections (2)(a) or (b) above, the city shall indemnify the employee from the reasonable costs of defense; provided, that in no event shall the official or employee be indemnified for attorneys’ fees in excess of the hourly rates of the primary city attorney as established by the city’s contract with its city attorney. The official or employee shall be liable for all hourly charges in excess of said rate. (d) In the event the city is awarded attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party in any lawsuit, such Page 21 of 28 award shall be retained by the city; provided, that once the city’s attorneys’ fees have been paid in full, if excess funds remain in the attorney fee award, such excess funds may be paid to the official or employee for the purpose of paying any attorney fee hourly charges in excess of the city attorney’s hourly rate as set forth in subsection (c) above. 2.38.070 Exclusions. (1) In no event shall protection be offered under this chapter by the city to: (a) Any dishonest, fraudulent, criminal, willful, intentional or malicious act or course of conduct of an official or employee; (b) Any act or course of conduct of an official or employee which is not performed on behalf of the city; (c) Any act or course of conduct which is outside the scope of an official’s or employee’s service or employment with the city; and/or (d) Any lawsuit brought against an official or employee by or on behalf of the city. Nothing herein shall be construed to waive or impair the right of the city council to institute suit or counterclaim against any official or employee nor to limit its ability to discipline or terminate an employee. (2) The provisions of this chapter shall have no force or effect with respect to any accident, occurrence or circumstance for which the city or the official or employee is insured against loss or damages under the terms of any valid insurance policy; provided, that this chapter shall provide protection, subject to its terms and limitations, above any loss limit of such policy. The provisions of this chapter are intended to be secondary to any contract or policy of insurance owned or applicable to any official or employee. The city shall have the right to require an employee to utilize any such policy protection prior to requesting the protection afforded by this chapter. 2.38.080 Determination of exclusion. The determination of whether an official or employee shall be afforded a defense by the city under the terms of this chapter shall be finally determined by the city council on the recommendation of the mayor. The decision of the city council shall be final as a legislative determination of the council. Nothing herein shall preclude the city from undertaking an official’s or employee’s defense under a reservation of rights. 2.38.090 Effect of compliance with conditions. If legal representation of an official or employee is undertaken by the city attorney, all of the conditions of representation are met, and a judgment is entered against the official or employee, or a settlement made, the city shall pay such judgment or settlement; provided, that the city may, at its discretion, appeal as necessary such judgment. Page 22 of 28 2.38.100 Failure to comply with conditions. In the event that any official or employee fails or refuses to comply with any of the conditions of POMC 2.38.020, or elects to provide his/her own representation with respect to any such claim or litigation, then all of the provisions of this chapter shall be inapplicable, and have no force or effect with respect to any such claim or litigation. 2.38.110 Reimbursement of incurred expenses. (1) If the city determines that an official or employee does not come within the provisions of this chapter, and a court of competent jurisdiction later determines that such claim does come within the provisions of this chapter, then the city shall pay any judgment rendered against the official or employee and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in defending against the claim. The city shall pay any attorneys’ fees incurred in obtaining the determination that such claim is covered by the provisions of this chapter. (2) If the city determines that a claim against a city official or employee does come within the provisions of this chapter, and a court of competent jurisdiction later finds that such claim does not come within the provisions of this chapter, then the city shall be reimbursed for costs or expenses incurred in obtaining the determination that such claim is not covered by the provisions of this chapter and any other costs and attorneys’ fees associated with defending against the claim. SECTION 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. SECTION 3. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published by an approved summary consisting of the title. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect five days after publication, as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, APPROVED by the Mayor and attested by the Clerk in authentication of such passage this _____ day of __________ 2018. Robert Putaansuu, Mayor ATTEST: SPONSOR: Page 23 of 28 Brandy Rinearson, MMC, City Clerk John Clauson, Councilmember APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sharon Cates, City Attorney PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: Page 24 of 28 4.96.041. Action or proceeding against officer, employee, or..., WA ST 4.96.041 © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 West’s Revised Code of Washington Annotated Title 4. Civil Procedure (Refs & Annos) Chapter 4.96. Actions Against Political Subdivisions, Municipal and Quasi-Municipal Corporations (Refs & Annos) West’s RCWA 4.96.041 4.96.041. Action or proceeding against officer, employee, or volunteer of local governmental entity--Payment of damages and expenses of defense Currentness (1) Whenever an action or proceeding for damages is brought against any past or present officer, employee, or volunteer of a local governmental entity of this state, arising from acts or omissions while performing or in good faith purporting to perform his or her official duties, such officer, employee, or volunteer may request the local governmental entity to authorize the defense of the action or proceeding at the expense of the local governmental entity. (2) If the legislative authority of the local governmental entity, or the local governmental entity using a procedure created by ordinance or resolution, finds that the acts or omissions of the officer, employee, or volunteer were, or in good faith purported to be, within the scope of his or her official duties, the request shall be granted. If the request is granted, the necessary expenses of defending the action or proceeding shall be paid by the local governmental entity. Any monetary judgment against the officer, employee, or volunteer shall be paid on approval of the legislative authority of the local governmental entity or by a procedure for approval created by ordinance or resolution. (3) The necessary expenses of defending an elective officer of the local governmental entity in a judicial hearing to determine the sufficiency of a recall charge as provided in *RCW 29.82.023 shall be paid by the local governmental entity if the officer requests such defense and approval is granted by both the legislative authority of the local governmental entity and the attorney representing the local governmental entity. The expenses paid by the local governmental entity may include costs associated with an appeal of the decision rendered by the superior court concerning the sufficiency of the recall charge. (4) When an officer, employee, or volunteer of the local governmental entity has been represented at the expense of the local governmental entity under subsection (1) of this section and the court hearing the action has found that the officer, employee, or volunteer was acting within the scope of his or her official duties, and a judgment has been entered against the officer, employee, or volunteer under chapter 4.96 RCW or 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 et seq., thereafter the judgment creditor shall seek satisfaction for nonpunitive damages only from the local governmental entity, and judgment for nonpunitive damages shall not become a lien upon any property of such officer, employee, or volunteer. The legislative authority of a local governmental entity may, pursuant to a procedure created by ordinance or resolution, agree to pay an award for punitive damages. Credits [1993 c 449 § 4; 1989 c 250 § 1; 1979 ex.s. c 72 § 1. Formerly RCW 36.16.134.] Notes of Decisions (10) West’s RCWA 4.96.041, WA ST 4.96.041 The statutes and Constitution are current with all laws from the 2016 Regular and Special Sessions and Laws 2017, chs. 1 to Page 25 of 28 4.96.041. Action or proceeding against officer, employee, or..., WA ST 4.96.041 © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 4 of the Washington legislature. End of Document © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Page 26 of 28 City of Port Orchard Work Study Session Executive Summary Issue Title: Downtown Holiday Decorations Meeting Date: January 16, 2018 Time Required: 20 Minutes Attendees: Brandy Rinearson, City Clerk Action Requested at This Meeting: Seeking direction from Council on purchasing garland for downtown holiday festival. Issue: Chair Lucarelli of the Festival of Chimes and Lights committee asked staff to research the cost of purchasing new garland. Based on a preliminary cost estimate, the current budget only allows for a portion of the garlands to be replaced. Staff is seeking direction whether to purchase half of the garland that needs replacing or will the Council seek other funding sources to replace of all the garland. Staff estimates the total cost for this project to be approximately $15,000. Background: The garland which is hung across Bay Street during the holiday season is very old and in danger of falling apart. Council approved $7,000 in the budget for new holiday decorations. Alternatives: Not purchase new decorations. Recommendation: N/A Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: None. Attachments: None. Follow-up Notes & Outcomes: Page 27 of 28 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 28 of 28