Agenda Packets - 2006/01/09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 19 Thus, it is less of a “red flag” and more of a wonderful opportunity to share with these two 1 individuals. 2 3 Building Official Osmonson pointed out that they do not have staff or an office to support and 4 have full time jobs so they will be doing it as consultants. She stated they have 44 years of 5 related experience and she sees it as “four more eyes” to help her do the plan review. She stated 6 Medtronic is a wonderful company and she wants to make sure they get their permit value dollar 7 and the best service possible. 8 9 Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated this is talking about two individuals and asked if 10 they have errors and omissions insurance and liability insurance. He also asked if they are 11 insured should they make a bad mistake that falls back onto the City. 12 13 Building Official Osmonson stated the bottom line is that she will be doing the plan review and 14 signing the plan, and these two are consultant to see if there is something she may have missed. 15 16 Mr. McCarty asked if the City is “on the hook” for staff mistakes. Director Ericson stated the 17 City is always “on the hook” whether it is reviewed by staff, consultants, or the State of 18 Minnesota. 19 20 Mr. McCarty stated if the consultant has errors and omissions insurance, then the City can collect 21 from them even if “on the hook.” 22 23 City Administrator Ulrich stated Mr. McCarty brings up a good point that should be discussed 24 with the League of Minnesota Cities. 25 26 City Attorney Riggs advised of the City’s immunity with building inspections. He stated the City 27 will not sign a contract unless the League is comfortable with that agreement. 28 29 Mr. McCarty stated when consultants make a recommendation that the plans are acceptable then 30 it leaves the City in the “cat bird seat” in terms of responsibility regardless of what the architect 31 has done. He stated his opinion that when the City certifies the plans are good, they are “on the 32 hook.” 33 34 City Attorney Riggs stated that is not entirely correct and the Legislature has said that inspection 35 services are not individual applied to that development but applied to the public as a whole. 36 37 Mr. McCarthy stated he understands that and went through it with the golf course, but it can 38 depend on the interpretation of the judge who hears the case. 39 40 Councilmember Thomas stated she wants to assure it is an apples-to-apples comparison and a 41 service that compares to the other bids. She stated she is not sure she has that information. 42 43 Director Ericson stated it is not an apples-to-apples comparison and reflects the fact that Building 44 Official Osmonson will be doing the plan review as well. With the other options they would take 45