Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 01/20/2004 - SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 002, 2004 AMENDING ITEM NUMBER: 10 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: January20, 2004 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Mike Herzig SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 002, 2004, Amending Chapter 17 of the City Code by the Addition of a New Section 17-45 to Make it Unlawful for Any Person to Damage or Destroy Public Improvements in Public Rights-of-Way Unless Authorized or Permitted to Do So in Accordance with Law. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ordinance No. 002, 2004, which was adopted 6-0 (Councilmember Bertschy was absent) on First Reading on January 6, 2004, amends Chapter 17 of the City Code adding language to state that no person shall do any act in the public right-of-way that will deface or cause damage to public street improvements unless they are permitted to do so in accordance with law. Along with this change the City Engineer's authority would be expanded to prevent damage to public street improvements that are caused by non-permitted contractors, suppliers and other parties causing damage to streets and related facilities by their activities. This authority would be exercised through the Engineering Construction Inspectors, who are currently sworn officials, similar to Building Inspectors. Engineering Construction Inspectors, as well as Police Officers, would then be able to enforce City Code provisions that make it unlawful to damage public improvements in the public rights-of-way. ORDINANCE NO. 002, 2004 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 17-45 TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO DAMAGE OR DESTROY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY UNLESS AUTHORIZED OR PERMITTED TO DO SO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WHEREAS, the City has experienced situations where various activities performed by contractors,suppliers and otherpersons forprivate construction projects causes damage to pavement, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, traffic control signs and signals and/or other improvements within the public rights of way; and WHEREAS, on those occasions where such damage is caused by parties who are not governed by any permit or development agreement,it is difficult for the City to prevent such damage or to receive compensation for damages already incurred; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that Chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins should be amended by the addition of a new Section 17-45 to assist the staff of the City in preventing persons from causing such damage, and if such damage is caused, to assist the City in recovering the costs of repairing such damage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that Chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins be amended by the addition of a new Section 17-45 to read as follows: Sec. 17-45. Damage to Public Property No person shall damage, deface or destroy any street, sidewalk, curb, gutter, traffic control sign or signal,or any other public property or equipment located within a public right-of-way, unless authorized or permitted by law. Any person convicted of violating this Section shall be responsible to the city for all costs incurred by the city in repairing such damage.The terms"public property' and"public right-of-way" as used in this Section shall have the meanings ascribed to them in § 17-42 of the Code. Introduced and considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this 6th day of January, A.D. 2004, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th of January, A.D. 2004. Ivfyor .�,TTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 20th day of January, A.D. 2004. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ITEM NUMBER: 10 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: January 6, 2004 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Mike Herzig SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 002, 2004,Amending Chapter 17 of the City Code by the Addition of a New Section 17-45 to Make it Unlawful for Any Person to Damage or Destroy Public Improvements in Public Rights- v les Au e r-Pe itted to Do So in Accordance with Law. ., dad,, RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial imp t. i%z er, e en 'tu fo amage to public improvements may be reduced over time witthe reco ry of s tho ho cause damages. *t M' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY It is proposed that Chapter 17 of the City Code be modified to add language to state that no person shall do any act in the public right-of-way that will deface or cause damage to public street improvements unless they are permitted to do so in accordance with law. Along with this change the City Engineer's authority would be expanded to prevent damage to public street improvements that are caused by non-permitted contractors, suppliers and other parties causing damage to streets y ws s• � 7 and related facilities by their ac vitiesi This aufhonty ll e a rcised through the Engineering Construction Inspectors, whP; are cu "ntly o official&;= similar to Building Inspectors. Engineering Construction Inspectors,4s ell a of e Officer ould then be able to enforce City Code provisions that make it unlawful to damage public improvements in the public rights-of-way. BACKGROUND Frequently,the City Engineer's office is faced with situations where certain work and activities done by contractors and suppliers for private construction projects damages pavement, curb, gutters, sidewalks, traffic control signs and signals, or other improvements within the public rights-of-way of the City. When the damage is caused by a developer or its contractors or suppliers, the City Engineer has recourse through the development agreement to require the developer to make repairs, cease the activities that are causing damage, or issue instructions to prevent further damage to the public street improvements. January 6, 2004 -2- Item No. 10 A problem arises when other parties cause damages while doing construction or other work that is not under permit from the City Engineer's office. There is a provision in the City's Traffic Code (Sec.512)which says that no person shall drive,operate or move upon or over any street any vehicle object or contrivance in such a manner as to cause damage, and the provision makes the violator liable for any such damage. However, there are two problems with using that Code section to address the problem that the City Engineer's Office is experiencing. First the scope of the provision is too narrow, since it covers only damage to streets, and not damage to sidewalks, stormwater facilities or other public property. Second, a violation of the Traffic Code provision is a zero-point traffic infraction, so it does not serve as a strong disincentive to those who damage property in the course of construction activity .Conseq entI h olas ow reached a point that certain individuals knowingly cause mages'because e , eli, e ?% o one will do anything about it. e.l sy, Staff estimates conservatively,t a&the damages'amount to$300`,000 or more per year. Engineering Construction Inspectors estimate that they encounter this situation a couple of times per month, on the average. General examples of the causes of damages are the following: (1) Tracked equipment turning on a paved street surface cause scuffing and gouges that lead to premature failure of the pavement. (2) Teeth on buckets of loaders and backhoes cause gouges in the asphalt and concrete. (3) Skid Steers t ing sh .fly on h p alt aFce cause damage to the surface. The damages become the burden of the public to pay for repairing, through taxes. It is proposed that the City Code be modified to add language that states that no person shall do any act in the public rights-of-way that will deface or cause damage to public improvements, unless permitted to do so in accordance with law. As with other violations of the City Code, a violation of this Section would be a misdemeanor criminal offense. As Right-Of-Way Manager for.1he ity' 6, + leg,Yof"CFity stets, it is logical that the City Engineer's office be empowerp along th Po ' e erv" es',, ep orce this provision. It is further proposed that enforcement perfo d by g ng sttuation Inspectors. Similar to Building Inspectors, the Const ioq.Ins ct ar (ready s officials that are in a position to enforce compliance on development projects and other permitted work in the public rights-of-way. If Council approves this new Code provision, the enforcement authority of the Construction Inspectors will be expanded to include this provision. Enforcement of the proposed requirements generally consists of informing violators what is acceptable and not acceptable. Most contractors comply with instructions from City inspectors. However, the authority to issue citations needs to be there to use when necessary for situations where the damage has already occurred,or for those individuals that may refuse to comply. It is not expected that these situations will occur with great frequency. For example, sworn authority was delegated to the Engineering Construction Inspectors in 2002 to deal with development and other permitted activities. Since that time, a summons has only been issued for two cases out of several thousand situations. The fact that the inspectors have the authority to issue citations is generally enough to deter damages or to insure prompt repairs, without having to resort to judicial action.