My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2008_0721_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2008
>
2008_0721_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2012 1:34:49 PM
Creation date
12/28/2011 11:04:59 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
147
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
Mr. Bill Malinen <br />July 16, 2008 <br />Page 2 <br />One issue that presents itself in our review of the JPA is the 'issue of liability. In this <br />10 <br />regard the JPA states that <br />Each party will be responsible for its own acts and/or omissions and <br />those of its officials, employees, representatives and agents in <br />carrying out the terms of this Agreement. <br />See JPA, § 14.1 0 <br />The above provision presents two concerns. First, the JPA in essence would give St. <br />Paul the authority to direct and control the actions of Roseville officers. We have concerns <br />about the potential liability exposure of the City where a delegation of control is coupled with <br />the retention of liability for the acts of an officer. Second, St. Paul intends to enter separate <br />JPA s with each assisting city. If each agency its responsible for 'Its own acts, any litigation <br />could be quite complicated and quite expensive) if the events giving rise to as lawsuit involve <br />officers from multiplej uric dfictions. <br />Tempering our concern to some degree s the practical reality that Roseville has a <br />mutual aid agreement in place with St. Paul and surrounding communities. If Roseville <br />declines to participate 'in the JPA, and a mutual aid request is made, Roseville would, in <br />responding to the call for assistance, be responsible for its own acts under the mutual aid <br />agreement. The principal difference in such a context would be that, under the mutual aid <br />scenario, Roseville officers would remain under the direction and control of Roseville, <br />The Council should also be cognizant that there is a limited amount of insurance being <br />*ded for the convention. We understand that the <br />provi 1 host RNC Committee has secured $ 10 <br />million in primary coverage for the convention. Each city that executes the JPA will be a <br />named insured on the policy. Given the potential for civil rights type claims if negative events <br />arise, the Council must be comfortable that the $ 10 million aggregate coverage is enough. <br />It does appear to be the case that LMCIT coverage might also apply to provide a <br />"secondary" layer of protection to the City. However, Roseville's deductible i's quite high, and <br />0 , 0 <br />any losses, would, of course, affect the City's experience rating, <br />On the other hand, under a mutual aid scenario, there would be no RNC 'insurance <br />policy to provide primary coverage to the City. In such a context, the City's own coverage with <br />LMCIT would be primary. <br />A second key area of focus is the provision dealing with reimbursement of the City for <br />its costs of per vidi g assistance. Specifically, St. Paul's obligation to reimburse an assisting <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.