10/27/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

II - Freedom Train Manager referred to previous action of the Council (September 22 Council minutes) e with regard to city involvement in the Freedom Train stop in Springfield. He said staff had been unable to work out through written agreements with Springfield and Lane County an arrangement whereby Eugene would not be obligated beyond the $2000 authorized without also signing the Freedom Train agreement. He explained that it appears there is no limit to the liability which could be incurred by the city if it signs the Freedom Train agreement. Hence, no agreement had been signed to participate. Mayor Anderson said that the Mayor of Springfield had indicated in conversation with him that he wished Eugene would consider establishing unlimited liability. He (Ander- son) commended staff for not exceeding their authority in this regard. He added that Springfield's Mayor did say that should Eugene decide not to sign the Freedom Train agreement, undoubtedly the Springfield Jaycees would cover. Councilman Murray said he had the same information. Councilman Bradley asked if it was a case of unlimited liability, or sharing the liability with Springfield. He thought it encumbent upon Eugene to share the liability with other agencies because of the public concern and interest in the Bicentennial year. He didn't believe Eugene would have to absorb any liability by itself and asked whether Eugene would expect to share any profits without sharing the liability. Manager said that all profits, as agreed upon, would go to the Bicentennial Commission. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, said his understanding was that the Council de- clined to sign the agreement with the Freedom Train Foundation jointly with other agencies as requested. Instead, the Council agreed to underwrite expenses up to $2000, or sign the Freedom Train agreement if Eugene was held harmless. The Founda- tion declined on that basis, saying they wanted Eugene to participate on the same basis as other agencies. He added that he was not sure other agencies had the same e view he had of the effect of documents already signed. They may be operating on the assumption that their liability was limited to $2000, he said, but he thought it would be substantially beyond that amount. I-B-l Councilman Keller said he had the strange feeling that for a small amount of money Eugene was reacting to a Springfield request as Springfield had reacted so many times in the past. He asked for an extremely good reason why Eugene should not sign with the other agencies if in fact there would be more people from Eugene benefited than from any other jurisdiction involved. Mr. Long replied that the problem from staff's point of view was not with the $2000, but with the potential of a greater sum. If documents could be signed limiting the liability to $2000, he said, there would be no problem. But Eugene was being asked to sign documents that would make the city liable for some unknown amount. Councilman Murray thought it would be more appropriate to ask why the city should be asked to sign for an unlimited liability. Mr. Bradley wondered why Springfield should sign for unlimited liability and not Eugene if it was for the benefit of the entire metropolitan area. Manager said one reason was because the Train would be stationed within Springfield's jurisdiction and they would be responsible for it. \ He added that in all fairness Eugene might join with the others and take its chances, but the Council should be aware that it would be taking chances. Councilman Keller asked how much money would be involved if the "blackest" happened. Manager said he knew of instances where liability ran to $6000 or $7000. Ticket sales would have to run about $50,000 to $80,000 to finance that amount. e Councilman Haws asked what unlimited liability would involve - personal injury or what. Mr. Long said that would be an issue itself to a degree. There is no detail about expected expenses, he said. Contractual liability and possibility of unin- sured claims plus assessing the strength of a hold harmless clause would also be an 5$5 10/27/7S - 3