Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sidewalks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Leavenworth council weighs shifting sidewalk responsibilities as trip-and-fall settlements rise
Summary
A consultant told the Leavenworth City Council that while trip-and-fall suits against cities have not risen dramatically in number, the cost of settlements has ballooned, prompting a policy discussion about whether to keep sidewalk repair responsibility with abutting property owners or shift it to the city and fund repairs centrally.
A consultant who has worked with Washington cities told the Leavenworth City Council that sidewalk claim counts have been steady for decades, but the cost of individual settlements has risen sharply — including a recent visitor claim that settled for more than $300,000. The consultant said state court law (Ritter v. Tacoma) and jury instructions impose on cities an ordinary-care duty to inspect for and correct hazardous sidewalk conditions, which can leave cities liable even when an abutting property owner is nominally responsible.
The presentation noted that Leavenworth's municipal code currently places repair and maintenance responsibility on adjacent property owners (city code cited in the meeting as 12.16). But speakers told the council this legal assignment does not necessarily protect the city from liability: if the city knew or should have known of a defect, it can still be held responsible. The consultant said some Washington cities are exploring alternatives, including a sidewalk utility modeled on water or sewer utilities and proposed state law changes to permit assessments based on frontage or square footage; she said limits in current state law restrict what cities may levy without triggering an unlawful tax.
Council members and staff discussed two implementation paths: draft a clear enforcement policy and procedure to notify and pursue adjacent property owners in accordance with existing code, or pursue a code amendment to put maintenance responsibility on the city and then budget for systematic repairs. Several members urged separate treatment for downtown commercial areas, which staff said account for most of the trip-and-fall claims and are driven by visitor traffic.
Councilmember comments focused on equity, process and funding. One councilmember said the code dates from the 1920s and is no longer practical without an enforcement procedure; another urged the council not to be guided solely by litigation risk but to decide what type and quality of sidewalks the city wants. Members suggested short-term options to reduce immediate risk downtown'including targeting lodging-tax revenues, using bond financing for major redesigns, and prioritizing high-use corridors while exploring state-level pilots and Tacoma's planned study on sidewalk funding.
Staff said an ADA transition plan and a current contractor'led evaluation will produce a prioritized list of deficient sidewalks; Snohomish's ADA plan was cited as an example that would take decades to fully remediate at current funding levels. Several residents who spoke during the meeting emphasized accessibility concerns for people using walkers and wheelchairs and pressed staff to prioritize repairs near schools and parks.
No ordinance or code change was adopted at the meeting. Staff requested policy direction: whether to (1) develop and implement an enforcement policy under the existing adjacent-owner code and notify abutting owners, or (2) pursue a code amendment to shift maintenance responsibility to the city and develop a funding strategy. The council directed staff to continue work, develop options and return with proposed procedures and cost estimates.
