10/27/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilwoman Beal noted much had been said about Springfield's part, but no one from Springfield had ever appeared to give any reason to sign the agreement. Patriotlc citizens had spoken, she said, but no official of the city of Spring- e field. She thought it unwise to go against the advice of the city's attorney when the extent of liability the city might incur was not known. Councilman Murray agreed, saying the basic question was whether the Council wanted to sign a contract which staff advised was beyond a reasonable risk. He didn't think the position adopted earlier, limiting liability to $2000, would characterize the city as being uncooperative in regional efforts. Councilman Bradley asked if staff would have had any reservations about signing the agreement with the Freedom Train Foundation if Eugene had the necessary trackage and the train was located here. Manager answered that in that case Eugene would have been the prime contractor and would have taken care of the situation, but that was not the case. Assistant Manager pointed out that there would have been an attempt to change the language of the contract and other supporting information would have been re- quested. Also, under those circumstances, Eugene would have had the ability to per- form the 'contract itself. He said he thought really that Springfield would try its best to perform the contract. Hypothetically, he said, if Springfield should de- fault, Eugene has no authority to control traffic, set up crowd control, etc., within Springfield limits. If the train were to stop in Eugene, there would not be those kind of concerns. Mrs. Beal didn't feel that standing by the $2000 liability limit would be going back on any agreement. In fact, she said, people involved were assuring a large surplus of revenues - Springfield might actually make money on the event. In that case, she added, Springfield might even be able to budget money for the social services program and they should be given that opportunity. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Bradley that the city attorney look at e the contract with the idea of sharing liability equally with Springfield and Lane County and report back to the Council at the Wednesday committee session (October 29). For clarification in response to Councilman Murray, Mr. Keller said he was trying to find out what would happen should there be default. In response to Councilman Haws' request for staff comment, Mr. Long said it was his impression from speaking with the Springfield city manager that they believe their liability would amount to no more than $2000. He (Long) said he substantially agreed with that judgment. Manager added that Springfieldmanager.!s position was because he felt net cost of the project would be less than $6000. Councilman Bradley said he ~ould be interested in having an opinion from the Spring- field city attorney, Ed Harms, about Springfield's potential liability, suggesting that could be included in a report if it is brought bsck to the Council on Wednesday. Mayor Anderson said his understanding of the city attorney's advice was that the Freedom Train contract was not a good document. If there was no way to change it, he said, then "that may be the answer." Councilman Murray withdrew his support of the motion, saying he felt nothing would be accomplished. Councilman Hamel agreed. He said authorizing liability to $5000 would seem unwise if Springfield was of the opinion their liability was only to $2000. Councilman Williams thought voting for the motion would give the opportunity for e Springfield review of discussion at this meeting, and that might prove beneficial if they decided to take another look at thierposition. Councilwoman Beal said further review of the contract would take time and money. She thought that if the Council wanted to keep the obligation at $2000, then the I 10/27/75 - 6 556