Port Orchard City Council on Tuesday authorized the city to file litigation against the owners of 1114 Garrison Avenue to address what staff described as persistent code violations and associated penalties.

City staff recommended the legal action after several years of administrative enforcement produced no compliance. The staff report said code enforcement had issued multiple notices and that the city must seek a judicial order to compel remedies.

Staff summarized why litigation was necessary, saying five notices of violation had been issued over roughly six years. The violations cited in the staff presentation included “installation of additional impervious surfaces” such as driveways installed without permits, construction of a garage without permits, illicit discharge, and occupancy of a property that lacks a certificate of occupancy and water and sewer service. “These are all code violations that are of a significant and serious nature for which we would seek judicial involvement,” the staff presenter said.

Councilmember Diener moved to authorize the filing of litigation; Councilmember Morrissey seconded the motion. After asking clarifying questions about the kinds of violations, the council voted to add the item to the agenda and then, during the business meeting, to approve authorization for litigation. The council chair called for the vote and, with no recorded opposition, announced the motion passed.

The council’s action authorizes the city to pursue a judicial remedy; the motion and the staff report did not specify the precise legal claims or the exact relief the city will seek. Nor did the agenda item provide a schedule for filing. The staff presentation said administrative remedies had been used but were insufficient and that the city must “seek a judicial order.”

The council’s authorization does not itself obligate the city to a particular court filing or settlement; it authorizes staff to commence litigation at their discretion consistent with council direction. The council did not amend or rescind prior administrative notices during the discussion.

Councilmembers and staff indicated the item resulted from a sustained enforcement effort; members asked questions about specifics and were told the violations spanned several years and included public-safety-related issues such as illicit discharge. The council did not discuss financial exposure, a litigation timeline, or potential remedies in detail at the meeting.

Members of the public or the property owners did not address the council during the item, and no appeal or administrative hearing outcome was announced on the record. The city attorney’s office and code enforcement staff will handle next steps consistent with the council’s authorization.