Item 3: Ratification of Unanimous and Non-Uanimous IGR Actions

Home Browse Search

Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation Tony Jobanek PWM 1/31/2011 Pri 3 Oppose Comments: City staff do use cellular devices on occasion in city vehicles while performing aspects of their operational responsibilities. e.g. building inspectors calling supervisors, or customers with updates of their scheduling and work flow. Although Public Works field staff primarily use a two way radio system for emergency communications , there are times when their work flows require the use of cell phones to communicate while driving. If the use of a cell phone was not permitted these operations would be required to pull over to the side of the road to complete their communications or use a dedicated hands free device. Currently there is a City cell phone use policy that addresses most operational questions within the organization. Elimination of the proposed cell phone use language in this bill could potentially have a negative effect on certain City staff operations. The impact should be mitigated by the use of vehicle based blue tooth devices. SB 0422 Relating Clause: Relating to insurance requirements in public contracts for professional services; and declaring an emergency. Title: Prohibits contracting agency from requiring contractor in contract for architectural, engineering and land surveying services or related services to obtain and maintain in force liability insurance with combined single limit that exceeds $1 million unless contracting agency makes determination after considering certain factors or unless contracting agency pays portion of premium cost that is attributable to increased combined single limit. Becomes operative January 1, 2012. Declares emergency, effective on passage. Sponsored by: Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by order of the President of the Senate in conformance with presession filing rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the part of the President (at the request of Senate Interim Committee on Judiciary) URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measpdf/sb0400.dir/sb0422.intro.pdf Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation Paul Klope PWE 1/26/2011 Pri 3 Oppose Comments: Although it may add a small amount of staff cost to formalize the determination required by the bill to exceed $1 million, the consideration of appropriate liability insurance limits is an action already performed by staff. A concern I have about this bill is that it would take something that has been a discretionary action on the part of the public agency and instead set limits and controls on that action and by doing so makes it easier for consultants to make a legal challenge which would add cost to the public agency and delay to completion of important public infrastructure projects. Another concern I have is that there is nothing "magic" about this $1 million limit, even though it is a commonly used amount and the amount that is in the City's contract (probably because it is an insurance industry standard). In most cases this amount is a very safe and possibly excessive amount. In some cases, however, such as designing a bridge or a multi-story 22