My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes - 2005/12/12
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
Minutes - 2005/12/12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/5/2025 4:22:09 PM
Creation date
3/5/2025 4:22:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Minutes
MEETINGDATE
12/12/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 19 <br />1 Thus, it is less of a "red flag" and more of a wonderful opportunity to share with these two <br />2 individuals. <br />3 <br />4 Building Off cial Osmonson pointed out that they do not have staff or an office to support and <br />5 have full time jobs so they will be doing it as consultants. She stated they have 44 years of <br />6 related experience and she sees it as "four more eyes" to help her do the plan review. She stated <br />7 Medtronic is a wonderful company and she wants to make sure they get their permit value dollar <br />8 and the best service possible. <br />9 <br />10 Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated this is talking about two individuals and asked if <br />11 they have errors and omissions insurance and liability insurance. He also asked if they are <br />12 insured should they make a bad mistake that falls back onto the City. <br />13 <br />14 Building Official Osmonson stated the bottom line is that she will be doing the plan review and <br />15 signing the plan, and these two are consultant to see if there is something she may have missed. <br />16 <br />17 Mr. McCarty asked if the City is "on the hook" for staff mistakes. Director Ericson stated the <br />18 City is always "on the hook" whether it is .reviewed by staff, consultants, or the State of <br />19 Minnesota. <br />20 <br />21 Mr. McCarty stated if the consultant has errors and omissions insurance, then the City can collect <br />22 from them even if "on the hook." <br />• 23 <br />24 City Administrator Ulrich stated Mr. McCarty brings up a good point that should be discussed <br />25 with the League of Minnesota Cities. <br />26 <br />27 City Attorney Riggs advised of the City's immunity with building inspections. He stated the City <br />28 will not sign a contract unless the League is comfortable with that agreement. <br />29 <br />3o Mr. McGarry stated when consultants make a recommendation that the plans are acceptable then <br />31 it leaves the City in the "cat bird seat" in terms of responsibility regardless of what the architect <br />32 has done. He stated his opinion that when the City certifies the plans are good, they are "on the <br />33 hook." <br />34 <br />35 City Attorney Riggs stated that is not entirely correct and the Legislature has said that inspection <br />36 .services are not individual applied to that development but applied to the public as a whole. <br />37 <br />38 Mr. McCarthy stated he understands that and went through it with the golf course, but it can <br />39 depend on the interpretation of the judge who hears the case. <br />40 <br />41 Councilmember Thomas stated she wants to assure it is an apples-to-apples comparison and a <br />42 service that compares to the other bids. She stated she is not sure she has that information. <br />43 <br />44 Director Ericson stated it is not an apples-to-apples comparison and reflects the fact that Building <br />• 45 Official Osmonson will be doing the plan review as well. With the other options they would take <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.