My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-10-09-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
08-10-09-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/5/2024 12:13:49 AM
Creation date
11/10/2009 8:51:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Document
Minutes
General - Type
Minutes
Date
8/10/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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).
View images
View plain text
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—August 10, 2009 7 <br /> Councilmember Holden asked for clarification on why the City was settling and if <br /> it was because the warranty on the driveway had been voided. <br /> City Attorney Filla stated that if it costs the city $1,200 to do the work and turning <br /> it over to the League of Cities would cost the City more. The idea was to have the <br /> residents assume the risk of having their contractor do the work and the City was no <br /> longer involved. <br /> Councilmember Holden clarified that the next time the city does a PMP project <br /> and there is a similar situation then what does the City do. She asked if this would <br /> be setting a precedent for the future. She stated that if the settlement was for <br /> voiding the resident's warranty then that would be understandable in this situation. <br /> City Attorney Filla stated that the City was not setting a precedent because the <br /> unusual circumstances in this situation were that the residents had just finished <br /> putting in a new driveway. <br /> Councilmember Holmes asked if this went to the League of Minnesota Cities what <br /> would be their cause of action. <br /> City Attorney Filla stated that their cause of action would be that the City did <br /> damage to the residents driveway by the City repair project. <br /> Councilmember Holmes asked if the City did do any damage and if so what <br /> specific damage was done. - <br /> Mayor Harpstead stated that the summary indicated that the residents had lost <br /> their warranty on the new driveway that they had installed. <br /> Councilmember Grant clarified that the warranty for the entire driveway was <br /> voided because of the work the City had done in their right-of-way. He stated that <br /> the warranty was a two year warranty and they were into the second year already. <br /> Public Works Director Hoag stated that this was correct. <br /> Councilmember Grant stated that if the residents did not collect on the warranty <br /> they did not loose anything and the warranty is mute. He stated that the Council <br /> should have been provided with pictures of the driveway in order to better <br /> understand the situation. <br /> Councilmember Holmes asked if using asphalt would be cheaper than the special <br /> blacktop. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.