06/23/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

noted legal aspects of that terminology. Staff intent earlier was, to allow the owner or occupant of a property to work on it. Outside help or outside paid em- ployes of a property owner would depend upon whether they were contractors or - paid maintenance people employed by the owner. Mrs. Shirey moved to add the words "owner or occupant" to Section 4.084(4). There was no second. Mr. Hamel moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to schedule public hearing Comm at the July 14 Council meeting (rather than June 23 as suggested by 6/18/75 staff) to give opportunity for review of the proposed ordinance by Approve the General Contractors. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye, except Mrs. Shirey voting no. Mrs. Beal moved to restrict the hour beyond which general construc- tion could not occur to 7:00 p.m. rather than 8:00 p.m. There was no second. Councilman Bradley commented that the reason most of the Council members did not second the motion was because they thought it would be more appropriate to consider that type of amendment at the public hearing. Councilman Hamel took exception to that statement. At the conclusion of other business, note was taken of distribution to Council members with agenda the letter from Crest Drive Citizens Association in support of restrictions on construction noise to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. G. Personal Liability of Council Members - Copies of memo with regard to personal liability insurance for Council members for actions during their terms of office e were previously distributed to them. The city was quoted a premium cost of $14,500 for a three-year prepaid policy which would provide coverage of $250,000 per person, $1 million per occurrence, with $5,000 deductible. with such high deductible, staff recommended the Council take advantage of State law which allows it as a normal course of business to adopt a resolution agreeing to in- demnify and hold harmless themselves should they be charged with personal liability. Such a resolution would automatically appear on the Council's agenda for adoption should such a suit be filed. Councilman Bradley asked whether insurance could be obtained from a private carrier to cover malfeasance and wanton neglect of duty on the part of Council members while in office. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, knew of no company that would issue such coverage. . Councilman Williams asked whether a resolution adopted by the Council in that event would be a legal resolution in terms of indemnifying the members. Assistant Manager said it woUld, the staff as an automatic process when papers were served in personal litigation would present a resolution for Council adoption under Oregon law. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to adopt as Council policy Comm that any time an action is filed against Council members alleging 6/18/75 personal liability, a resolution would be presented for adoption by Approve the Council that would indemnify its members. Councilman Bradley said it was his understanding then that Councilmen Williams and Hamel would rather have the indemnification than private insurance because of the . costs involved. He wondered how costs of having the city attorney's office defend e Council members - that type of service not being a part of the retainer - would compare with insurance costs when the private carrier's counsel would defend the case. Assistant Manager explained that city attorney hours spent on city business beyond the agreed-upon billable hours were billed at the same rate as the billable 3S3 6/23/75 - 23