Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Settlements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews three sinking-fund payments tied to auto and stormwater cases
Summary
The committee reviewed resolutions authorizing payments from the sinking fund for three judgment awards: $100,000 to Ruben Garrett, $75,000 to Christie Shepherd, and $25,000 to Maria Morales Conoy. City attorneys described the incidents and staff confirmed sinking-fund capacity.
The Urban and Economic Development Committee on March 12 reviewed three resolutions authorizing payments from the city's sinking fund to resolve judgments in three separate personal-injury cases.
Chad Becker of the Treasury confirmed available funds, saying the current sinking-fund balance is $68,800,000. "Current sinking fund balance, $68,800,000," Becker told the committee.
Hayes Martin, an assistant city attorney, described the $100,000 recommended payment in case CJ-2021-2930 (Ruben Garrett v. City of Tulsa). Martin said the collision occurred Oct. 11, 2021, when a fire engine pulling out of a station at 36th and Lewis collided with Garrett's vehicle; Garrett's car was totaled and he sought treatment for injuries. Martin said the judgment and fee award were approved in court and the recommended payment would satisfy the City's obligation.
The second case, Christie Shepherd v. City of Tulsa (CJ-2021-2030), arose from a March 2021 incident during which a stormwater manhole cover lifted during a rain event and Shepherd's vehicle struck the hole. Martin said Shepherd suffered significant dental injuries; the recommended payment of $75,000 would cover her personal-injury award after property damage already was settled.
The third matter, Maria Morales Conoy v. City of Tulsa (CK-2025-663), stems from a June 2023 rear-end collision involving a city crew and a backhoe being towed by a city vehicle. Martin said the plaintiff incurred substantial medical bills — described in committee as about $1,819,000 for medical expenses — and the proposed $25,000 personal-injury settlement is recommended for pain and suffering.
Committee members asked about internal review and whether repeated vehicle-involved claims suggest a training or oversight problem. Councilor Chelsea Gilbert asked whether city employees receive additional training after accidents; staff said a collision review board examines accidents and can assign disciplinary points, and departments are responsible for trend analyses and training. Sarah Davis, who noted prior service on a collision review board, said the board reviews incidents case by case and that departments and HR would carry out broader trend analyses and training.
What happens next: The resolutions carry emergency clauses in committee paperwork and — per staff — will be paid from sinking funds if and when the council approves the resolutions. Staff said the settlements are final for those cases and will not require additional payments if approved.
Committee notes: Committee members requested more detailed backup documentation in future packets so councilors and members of the public can review case dockets or summaries before votes.
