Salem committee reviews dozens of citizen claims; most petitions denied or left for further review

The Salem City Council Legal Affairs Committee on Thursday reviewed more than two dozen citizen claims and recommended discharge, denial or further investigation on items brought to the committee by the city—s insurer.

City Solicitor Beth Renard told the committee that claims the insurer (Maya) had settled and paid should be discharged from committee, and the body approved discharge of six paid claims. Renard also repeated the insurer—s finding that the city is liable only when it had prior notice of a defect; she cited the statutory notice requirement and Maya—s investigations when recommending denials.

The committee front-loaded actions on claims already closed by the insurer, then moved through petitions involving vehicle damage from potholes, towing and ticket appeals, storm-damaged trees, drainage and sidewalk repairs, and contractor-related damage. Many motions to deny followed Maya—s recommended findings that the city had —no notice of defect— or that the loss resulted from severe weather or a private line blockage.

Votes at a glance

- Claims 450, 26, 54, 117, 193 and 156: Motion to discharge from committee because Maya had paid these claims; motion moved and seconded and approved by the committee. - Claim 595 (parking in a playground/paved area behind Lifebridge): Motion to deny; committee approved the denial. - Claim 449 (vehicle hit a sewer cover on a construction site): Referred to McKay Construction; committee voted to keep this in committee pending claim with the contractor/insurer. - Claim 539 (rodent infestation; $460 pest control): Motion to deny based on insurance investigation; denial approved. - Claim 27 (tire damage from pothole near Valvoline, Vernon/Vinen Square): Committee voted to keep this matter in committee so staff could double-check notice and SeeClickFix reports. - Claim 25 (city tree branch broke a window): Motion to deny based on Maya—s finding that the damage resulted from severe weather and that the city lacked prior notice of a tree defect; the motion passed (committee recorded a 3-1 vote on this item). - Claim 56 (box in roadway then pothole on Broad Street): Motion to deny; approved. - Claim 174 (late Code Red notice): Motion to deny; approved. - Claim 597 (homeowner who repaired a sidewalk and sought $2,000 reimbursement): Motion to deny; approved. - Claim 116 (driveway damage during utility work; referred to contractor/grineese): Recommended denied and the committee approved denial. - Claim 119 (condominium meter dispute, ~ $10,000 claim): Committee voted to keep this item in committee and to request further investigation and a possible city engineer briefing. - Claim 29 (vehicle required replacement of 4 tires after hitting a pothole, Loring Ave at Vinen Street): Motion to deny; approved. - Claim 537 (flooding into a building; blockage inside private line): Motion to deny per investigation showing blockage inside the building; approved. - Claim 447 (towed vehicle during construction on Harbor Street; parking hearing officer denied appeal): Motion to deny reimbursement; approved. - Claim 28 (tire damage on Jefferson Ave during paving): Motion to deny; approved. - Claim 195 (ticket/tow on Lawrence Street for improper parking): Motion to deny; approved. - Claim 93 (broken fence allegedly damaged by sidewalk contractor): Motion to deny and refer claimant to the contractor—s insurance information; approved. - Claim 150 (flat tire on Bridge Street): Motion to deny; approved. - Claim 91 (pothole at 600 Loring Avenue; $217): Motion to deny; approved.

Committee discussion emphasized two recurring points: (1) Maya—s investigation often concluded the city had not had prior notice defined under the applicable statute or chapter referenced in the insurer—s letters, and (2) where damage was caused by private contractors or private lines the insurer—s finding was that the city was not liable and claimants were referred to contractor insurance or building owners.

City Solicitor Beth Renard told the committee that the insurer and DPW investigations look for recorded notice and whether the city had a reasonable opportunity to repair a defect. For claims involving trees, she said the city is not liable —not unless we had notice of the defect—; she explained that —notice— means a call or an internal arborist list documenting a tree as failing.

A few councilors pressed for more checks into SeeClickFix or department logs on several large potholes raised repeatedly by residents; the committee left several claims in committee so staff could re-check records and the timing of reports. For the more complicated meter dispute, the committee asked staff to request a briefing from the city engineer before acting further.

The committee completed its review and adjourned after roughly 40 minutes of consideration.