Salem committee disposes of multiple citizen claims; several pothole and tree claims denied, a few held for further review

The Salem City Ordinances & Legal Affairs Committee met in person Thursday, April 17, 2025, in the City Council Chambers to consider claims filed against Salem City. Councilors present included Councilor Jurzlo, Councilor Marcelo and Councilor Cohen; Councilor Varela was absent. City Solicitor Beth Renard attended and presented the insurance investigator findings on individual claims.

The committee discharged a group of claims that had already been paid and then moved through roughly two dozen individual claims, taking votes to deny most where the city’s insurer found “no notice of defect” or where claimants had not followed required procedures. The committee kept a handful of claims for additional follow-up, including one complex meter claim and one construction-related driveway claim that staff were asked to pursue with the contractor’s insurer.

City Solicitor Beth Renard told the committee that the insurer’s investigations repeatedly found no prior city notice of defects — a legal threshold under Chapter 84 and related Massachusetts law that limits municipal liability when the city lacked notice and a reasonable time to repair. “Our investigation with the Department of Public Works has revealed that our member had no notice of this defect as defined in Chapter 84, with a reasonable time to repair,” Renard said, reading from the insurer’s findings on multiple claims.

Most motions were routine denials based on those findings. Examples included:

- Claims tied to pothole damage across multiple streets (examples: Loring Avenue, Broad Street, Bridge Street, and several locations in the north end) were denied after the insurer reported no notice that would have given the city time to repair. Several councilors questioned whether repeated repairs and citizen reports might show constructive notice, but the insurer’s record and statutory filing deadlines supported denials.

- A claim alleging rodent infestation at a private property seeking $460 for pest control (claim 539) was denied after the insurer concluded the city had not caused the infestation. Councilor Cohen noted that construction can displace rodents but that the insurer’s investigation did not find municipal liability.

- A claim for $2,000 to reimburse a private sidewalk repair (claim 597) was denied because the work was completed by the homeowner without an agreement or prior approval from city departments.

- A tree-branch claim (claim 25) in which a city tree fell and broke a condominium window drew extended discussion. Several councilors argued that residents should notify the city when a tree appears to be failing, while others said the city’s tree program resources are limited. Renard advised that the city is not liable for storm-related tree failure absent prior notice of a defective tree; the committee voted to deny that claim (the vote was recorded as three in favor, one opposed).

The committee left several items in committee for follow-up. Notably, a damaged driveway/contractor claim (referred to the contractor’s insurer, McKay Construction) was left in committee so staff could assist the claimant in filing with the contractor’s insurer. A complex condominium meter claim seeking about $10,000 was also held so the city engineer can be asked to review the circumstances.

Votes at a glance (selected items recorded on the transcript):

- Discharged (paid) and removed from committee: claim numbers listed by the committee as 450, 26, 504, 117, 1903 and 156 (motion to discharge moved by Councilor Marcelo, seconded by Councilor Cohen; outcome: discharged).

- Claim 595 (vehicle parked in playground area behind Lifebridge; ticket issued by Lt. Tucker): motion to deny (moved by Councilor Marcela, seconded by Councilor Cohen); outcome: denied.

- Claim 449 (vehicle drove over sewer cover on an unfinished road; referred to McKay Construction): left in committee for referral to contractor’s insurer (motion to keep in committee; outcome: left in committee).

- Claim 539 ($460 pest control for rats): motion to deny (moved by Councilor Musil; seconded by Councilor Cohen); outcome: denied.

- Multiple pothole/road-defect claims (examples: claims for tire damage near Valvoline/Vinen/Vinens Square; Bridge Street; Loring Avenue; Jefferson Avenue; others): motions to deny on insurer’s finding of no notice of defect or late filing; outcomes: denied (individual motions, majority carried).

- Claim 25 (city tree branch broke a condo window): motion to deny (Councilor Cohen moved; outcome: denied; recorded vote 3 in favor, 1 opposed).

- Claim 597 (homeowner repaired sidewalk and sought $2,000 reimbursement): motion to deny (Councilor Cohen moved; outcome: denied).

- Claim 116 (driveway damage allegedly from water-line work; referred to contractor Grenese/Grenice): motion to deny (outcome: denied), with councilor comment that the city may address aprons during future paving.

- Claim 119 (condominium meter; $10,000 requested): motion to leave in committee pending further investigation and possible city engineer input (outcome: held in committee).

- Numerous parking-ticket and towing appeals where the appellant had lost a separate administrative appeal (examples: claim 447 and claim 195): motions to deny after hearing officer decisions; outcomes: denied.

The committee’s discussions repeatedly turned on two issues: whether the city had received notice of a road or tree defect that would create municipal liability under state law, and whether claimants followed the required procedures and deadlines for filing. Renard and DPW staff explained that insurer investigations rely on department logs, see-click-fix records and whether a defect was on a municipal maintenance list; several councilors pressed staff to re-check records when multiple claims appeared to arise from the same location.

The meeting ended after the committee disposed of the listed claims and voted to adjourn.