Item 3: Ratification of IGR Actions

Home Browse Search

I agree with the position taken by Officer Schulz to oppose but neutral if Section 3 is eliminated because injury crashes already are required to be reported. I would add that additional crash reports will also be required to be filed by pedestrians and bicylists for very minor crashes with little or no damage. SB 0302 Relating Clause: Relating to Oregon Tort Claims Act. Title: Provides that if state agency contracts with another public body for performance of functions that would otherwise be performed by state agency, other public body is agent of state agency for purposes of Oregon Tort Claims Act. Provides that contract may provide that other public body waives right to indemnification under Oregon Tort Claims Act if contract also requires that other public body have insurance coverage equal to limitations imposed on recoveries for state agency under Oregon Tort Claims Act. Sponsored by: Senate Interim Committee on Judiciary for Oregon Tort Claims Task Force URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/sb0300.dir/sb0302.intro.pdf RespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Contact Myrnie Daut Myrnie Daut CS-HRRS 1/27/2009 Pri 2 No No Oppose Comments: This is problematic because under SB 311 the state and local govts would have different tort claim limits and the City would be required to have insurance to cover the higher state limits proposed in SB311. In addition, this could present problems for entities that do not purchase insurance or have large self-insured retentions. For example, the City of Eugene is moving $1 million self-insured retention July 1, 2009. ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Jeff Perry CS-FIN 1/28/2009 Pri 2 Oppose Comments: Agree with Myrnie's comments... ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Jerome Lidz ATTNY 1/27/2009 Pri 2 No No Oppose Comments: I agree with Myrnie's comments. The bill clarifies that the City would be an agent of the State if the City contracts with a state agency to perform a function that would otherwise be performed by the State. That much is fine. Although in theory it also makes sense for the City to assume the liability for its actions under the contract if the State is paying the City for the work, this bill isn't limited to contracts where the City receives payments. And, as Myrnie comments, requiring the City to carry insurance to the state's liability limits, which will be three times higher than the City's if SB 311 passes, is a big burden for the City. ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Paul Klope PWE 1/16/2009 Comments: I defer to the City Attorney and Risk Services for their opinion regarding priority and recommendation. ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Jenifer Willer Jenifer Willer PWE 1/20/2009 Comments: I defer to the City Attorney on this one. 14