|
<br />.~._- _. --.,.--.-.....-.;..-.. -~---. ----- ~ -" .'-" ~ - ..-..-.- "-.- ---- .--. .~.,-_. -"- '.-,----- ....- -,,- ~-'._.r__..__'_,_,,___
<br />
<br />,Mayor Anderson asked if there was much interaction within the blocks, among the
<br />,people themselves. He noted a Portland program where people in neighborhoods
<br />:were organized~o watch out for one another. Mr. 'Helquist answered that they,
<br />:had found so~e ~nstances of that type interaction, that efforts were made in con~ I
<br />,tacts.to get people to become acquainted with their neighbors. Usually those i.a
<br />:people who were able to get out and about were encouraged to visit, he said, and ~
<br />~ far staff'l3.,;d been fortunate in having volunteers.
<br />~ --
<br />
<br />u___ .___ __......,._.... __'-_~_.. .~___,,~..._,___. .._~...-." .". .. . ", .
<br />,Mayor Anderson expressed-appreciation f9r the report on tIie':'pi:ogr~m. Manager sq.id
<br />:a tour of Kaufman Center could be arranged if the Council desired. , Comm
<br />-rJ/3l/74
<br />__ __'.' ,'._ '_,'.. ' .. _.,,___. File
<br />V. Public Officers Liabili ty Insurance - Manager explained tb.afa" "Policy had been
<br />found which would provlde protection for Council members from judgments resulting
<br />from their acts contrary to legal authority, referring to the judgment against
<br />EWEB members for wrongful expenditure of EWEB funds. The policy would provide
<br />protection up to $250,000 ,per individual, $1,000,000 per occurrence,,~t'an annual
<br />. . ' ..___'_ w
<br />premium of $6,090 with $5,000 deductible for each loss. A portion-.of city Attorney's
<br />opinion was read indicating that even though the exposure was not felt significant
<br />it was difficuit not to recommend obtaining such coverage because if a claim were
<br />reduced to judgment it probably would involve a large amount of money. Yet, there
<br />might be some reassurance in a psychological sense in having that kind of protection.
<br />Manager noted that the EWEB case was unusual, one of a kind, yet there was the chance
<br />of being more involved in litigation.
<br />
<br />Councilman Hershner asked whether the $5,000 deductible would apply for each Council .~
<br />i member on each loss; that is, would it amount to $40,000 in the event of a loss.
<br />Manager replied that the $5,000 deductible would apply to each occurrence only.
<br />
<br />! Councilman Murray wondered what types of action Council members could conceivably
<br />: be liable for, 'saying it seemed they were almost constantly under threat. Upon
<br />questioning from Mr. Hershner, he explained that it seemed to him that Council was
<br />, constantly being advised that it was acting beyond the realm of its authority.
<br />\ Stan Long, assistant city attorney, said there were an infinite number of possibili-
<br />, ties for liability. He said any action by the Council not authorized by the Charter
<br />'lor State statutes could result in a member's being held personally liable for that
<br />action. Discussion continued in explanation of the types of liability that could
<br />be incurred, and Mrs. Beal suggested that authorization of construction of an
<br />arterial or freeway might make Council members personally liable in view of the
<br />Charter amendment requiring a vote first. Manager suggested that Council action
<br />taken contrary to administrative or legal advice might create a greater hazard
<br />of exposure.
<br />.
<br />Consensus was that because of the minimal exposure, costly premium, and confidence
<br />i that proper advice was,forthcoming from administrative and legal counsel no- action Comrn
<br />~uld be taken with regard to purchase of the public officers liability insurance'7/3l/74 ~
<br />. File ~
<br />
<br />W .;"'Memo"re; 'F.'ederal- Al'a"-urban" System--Funding--::....copi~;;'-;.,e;.~-'di.;t:;.lb;t"~d to coun;ilm ,
<br />'members w~th agenda. Councilwoman Campbell noted that LCOG' . "t .....'. .'"." -.
<br />. ' ,.' pr~or:L. Y:.3:.~cQrr.rmenda:-
<br />;-, t~ons ~~d not ~nclude an appropriation for mass transit. She wo~<ier-ed .why ,.. j
<br />I some~of th~t rr:oney couldn't be used for shelters at transit district"bu; stops. I
<br />An.appropr~at~on to Lane Transit District for terminal and rolling stock ~a~' !
<br />IPo~hted out. Manager explained that it was decided in talks betwee~ the Re- !
<br />II newa~ ~gency and,LTD that LTD would pay for those portions df the terminal !
<br />spec~f~cally,des~gned to serve needs of the Transit District. Other areas of I
<br />1 gene~al publ~c use ~ould be covered by the Renewal Agency through ta;,i~crement !
<br />j fund~ng. It was po~nted out also that questions with regard to expenditure of I
<br />I LTD funds were for the Transit District Board to answer. Planning Director' !
<br />I added that money allocated for terminal construction would probably apply to;' C
<br />Jmore than ju~t,t~e downtown site since LTD was looking at other sites for 7/31/~
<br />! transfer fac~l~ t~es /
<br />!. I File
<br />
<br />X. Nli: Congress of Cities.scheduled for December 1-5, 1974 in Houston, Texas! Comm
<br />was brought to the Council's attention. /.. "7/31/74
<br />
<br />i File '
<br />
<br />Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to approve, affirm, and file as not~~ Items ~
<br />A through X, except that acti~n on Item I (Appeal on denial of Safley zone change request)
<br />would be ~o postpone to the flrst Council meeting in February 1975. Rollcall vote.
<br />All Councll members present voting aye (Hershner not present), motion carried.
<br />
<br />
<br />8/12/74 - 18
<br />
<br />29\
<br />
|