My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 3: Ratification of Unanimous and Non-Uanimous IGR Actions
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2011
>
CC Agenda - 02/14/11 Meeting
>
Item 3: Ratification of Unanimous and Non-Uanimous IGR Actions
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/11/2011 11:04:53 AM
Creation date
2/11/2011 10:05:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
2/14/2011
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
212
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
building for instance, it is much too small due to the potential liability the City could be <br />exposed to if the structure failed, so staff will require a higher insurance amount. The <br />City shouldn't be in a position to have to face legal challenges to liability insurance <br />amounts staff sets in order to protect the City. <br /> <br />In addition, this bill is unnecessary if it's purpose is to protect consultants from <br />unexpected expenses. When the City (and any other public agency) requests proposals for <br />services, it includes information regarding insurance requirements in the request for <br />proposals, so the consultant knows up front what their costs for insurance are going to be. <br />The consultant will include those costs in any proposal they make to the City. <br /> <br />Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation <br />Jamie Iboa Cathy Joseph CS-RS 1/13/2011 Pri 3 Oppose <br /> <br />Comments: Passage of this bill would require the City of Eugene to pay for additional premium if <br />insurance coverage over $1,000,000 was required on particular types of contracts. <br /> <br />Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation <br />Mike Penwell CS-FAC 1/13/2011 Pri 3 Oppose <br /> <br />Comments: While this matches our current requirement for combined single limit, it would affect our <br />ability to raise those limits in the future if we so desired. In reality, we would probably <br />pay higher professional fees if we raised our insurance limits; but market forces can <br />regulate this cost rather than the State. <br /> <br />Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation <br />Eric Jones PW-ADM 1/31/2011 Pri 3 Oppose <br /> <br />Comments: Defer to other reviewers for analysis. <br /> <br /> <br />SJR 0007 <br /> <br />Relating Clause: Proposes amendment to Oregon Constitution changing exception valuation of property to <br />75 percent of real market value. Adds to classes of property subject to exception <br />valuation property sold or transferred to new owner. <br /> <br />Title: Proposes amendment to Oregon Constitution changing exception valuation of property to <br />75 percent of real market value. Adds to classes of property subject to exception aluation <br />property sold or transferred to new owner. Applies to tax years beginning on after July 1, <br />2010. Refers proposed amendment to people for their approval or rejection at next regular <br />general election. <br /> <br />Sponsored by: Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by order of the President of the Senate in <br />conformance with presession filing rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on <br />the part of the President (at the request of Senate Interim Committee on Finance and <br />Revenue) <br /> <br />URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measpdf/sjr1.dir/sjr0007.intro.pdf <br /> <br />Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation <br />23 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.