Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Professional Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council member questions $2M professional‑liability requirement for engineers; staff asked to research
Summary
Council member Tori said the city's $2M/$3M professional liability requirement may block smaller local engineering firms from bidding; staff said the requirement is tied to the Oregon tort claims cap and the council requested a city‑attorney briefing memo and comparator research.
A council member identified in the record as Tori raised concerns during the work session that Springfield’s insurance requirements for engineers could effectively exclude small local firms from bidding on public‑improvement permits. "What we're doing is we're excluding smaller engineers, and it's costing our constituents more money," Tori said, citing a requirement of $2,000,000 per occurrence and $3,000,000 aggregate professional liability.
Jamie Eboa, the city’s risk manager, explained the distinction between general commercial liability and professional liability coverage and said general liability would not cover design errors that become city infrastructure liabilities. Eboa referenced the statutory cap on public liability exposure and said the professional‑liability amounts were set to ensure a responsible limit in the event of a design‑related claim: "The issue isn't how much was the contract. The issue is what could potentially happen if there were a design flaw and public entities are protected by the tort claims statute, the cap," she said.
Council members pressed for follow up. Nancy (speaker identified in the record by first name) said staff should research the root of the requirement, confirm any contractual obligation with the city's insurer (CIS), and return with legal guidance. Councilor Joe asked staff to provide comparator jurisdiction examples and, where possible, to reach out to another local entity that does not require the same coverage levels to learn how they manage risk and keep smaller firms competitive.
No formal change to procurement policy was made during the session. Council members agreed to a staff follow‑up and requested a council briefing memo from the city attorney's office to clarify current requirements and whether any adjustment is feasible.
Next steps: staff will research the legal and insurer‑related basis for the professional‑liability amounts, gather comparator jurisdiction information and produce a briefing memo for council review. The session adjourned before any formal action on procurement policy.
