By KLAS STOLPE
Sentinel Staff Writer
The Sitka Assembly Monday upheld the appeal filed by the Gary Paxton Industrial Park Board of Directors against the City’s Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate the old utility wharf at the industrial park.
The city building official’s Jan. 21 notice of condemnation came abut a week prior to Jan. 29 when the GPIP board accepted the offer of Lee Hanson of Hanson Marine Inc. to purchase the dock in response to the board’s request for proposals. The board filed an appeal of the condemnation notice on the same day.
Monday’s special meeting concluded with the 7-0 Assembly approval of Aaron Bean’s motion “to grant the appeal to Hanson Marine and remove the condemnation order and direct the municipal attorney to include a stipulation of a sales document which will include Hanson Marine to have a certified engineer’s report of its choosing with recommended repairs, if any, and report back to the City on a quarterly basis until needed work, if any, is completed.”
The Gary Paxton Industrial Park utility dock. (Sentinel Photo by James Poulson)
There was general agreement among the Assembly and city officials by the end of the meeting they were in favor of economic development, and that no use would be made of the dock until the purchaser made repairs in accordance with recommendations of a structural engineer and in compliance with the city building code.
“It’s exciting,” Lee Hanson said after the session adjourned. “I have been focused on just the condemnation and how to reverse that for so long that I’m a little bit behind on what to do next.
“I have a lot of questions still as far as how to move forward. The milestones that we have to meet, that’s something that needs to be addressed. I think there are a lot of things that need to be hashed out but what this does is it shows commitment from the city. It shows that they are behind us in what we’re doing. It gives me the energy to keep going and I’m more comfortable about spending money now for the next step.”
City Attorney Brian Hanson (no relation to Lee Hanson) had recommended that the Assembly deny the appeal, citing a series of engineers’ inspections of the dock going back to the time the city accepted ownership of the Alaska Pulp Co. old pulp mill site in 1999 and documenting the deteriorated condition of the pile-mounted facility.
Prior to deliberations, the city attorney suggested the Assembly go into session as a board of appeal. The Assembly agreed on a 7-0 vote.
Attorney Hanson described a procedure in which the GPIP Board would present its argument followed by the City of Sitka. Each side would be allowed a response.
Problems arose when the city attorney began to question GPIP chairman Scott Wagner and Lee Hanson.
Wagner complained that the GPIP board had been left out of the condemnation process, which started only after the board had issued a request for proposals on the dock.
“It just seemed like another issue that was not necessary,” he said.
Wagner said as an enterprise fund of the city, the board should have been aware of the condemnation proceedings.
“We’re all in this together,” he said.
Wagner argued that a true structural assessment had not been completed on the utility dock; that the condemnation notice was issued without a full understanding of future use; that the uniform code of abatement of dangerous building was more appropriate for upland structures rather than marine; that the city has set precedent by allowing similar sales of GPIP property that was not condemned; similar dock structures in Southeast had not been condemned; and the city has structures in similar condition not condemned.
Brian Hanson said he didn’t want the discussion to be highly adversarial, but it had turned uncomfortable.
“Ultimately, what we would like to see here, is to uphold the condemnation,” he said.
He listed the 1977, 1999, and 2000 reports by engineers that showed serious problems with the utility dock. He said it’s not relevant what it would be used for: it is not appropriate for use. As for the failure of the city to declare the dock condemned when its deficiencies were first documented, he said that because something wasn’t done correctly in the past doesn’t mean it should be continued in the future. Structures need to be assessed on their own merit and not compared, he said.
Building official and fire marshal Patrick Swedeen also referenced the 1977, 1999, and 2000 inspections showing serious problems with the dock.
He said his interest in making an inspection came when he first heard of the planned sale in January, and his inspection revealed pilings that were severally corroded.
“It didn’t look great,” he said. “A week later I was provided with pages from a report done in 1999.” He noted that the report was not a structural assessment, but commented that it would be potentially dangerous. He also cited a more recent report by PND, an engineering firm, finding the midline and submerged zone pilings were in need of immediate repair.
Swedeen said he reported to City Administrator Keith Brady, who informed the GPIP board.
After a brief recess Brian Hanson said: “Listening to that last round I really think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about what the condemnation and the notice and order to vacate is all about.”
“It is not a code, there are not any provisions to how to repair the utility wharf by code that is being imposed. It is all about the building official determining that there is an unsafe condition that needs to be assessed by a qualified structural engineer and then repairs made.”
He asked Lee Hanson if he was willing to make the necessary repairs to make the dock safe, and the response was “yes.”
“With that assessment then you can decide what repairs are made,” the city attorney said. “I don’t think we are very far apart. We are still left with getting the contract that says that. What the condemnation does, it leaves in place that requirement... which is what Mr. Swedeen has asked all along, get it assessed and get it repaired and then we will take off the condemnation.”
Before it wound up, the discussion wandered into the differences between this sale, the planned sale of the old administration building, and the 2008 sale of the pulp dock, which was not condemned in advance, but was made with conditions the purchaser would have to follow to make it safe.
“There is so much more about this story than we have time…” Brian Hanson began.
“So please, I await your written narrative,” Richard Wein chimed in.
In his final remarks, Swedeen said the structure fell under building code and repairs would require a building permit.
Aaron Bean wanted to be assured the appeal wouldn’t be back in a few months. He was told an attorney will be hired to work on the contract.
Wein expressed sympathy with Lee Hanson.
“The thing I heard tonight is it is hard to make plans if you are uncertain about the future… I don’t want to see him get coded to death or things coming up. I think because of his unique expertise here in Sitka deserves the right to know he will be able to proceed in a reasonable fashion… without being blindsided.”
Kevin Knox agreed that he didn’t want to see the progress of economic development be hindered but also did not want a precedent set.
“But also understand that our building inspector and fire marshal are here for a purpose,” he said. “And it is not just about fire, it is life and safety… It is a tricky balance pushing forward economic development on a very worthy project and then also standing behind the fact that we have staff that are there for a very worthy purpose and have a specific direction in their jobs to help protect the health and safety of the public..”
Steve Eisenbeisz said he regretted that the conflict between the building department and the GPIP board had occurred, since it appeared that all were in favor of economic development.
“Let’s put a lot more effort in the future to working together, he said.
Brady commented that the condemnation came up because of the bidding process and the city wanted to make sure those who were bidding knew what they were bidding on.
“We want the sale to happen,” he said. “We want to be business friendly.”
