concluded, that the city’s conduct was operational because it failed to implement its plan to reconstruct the water main once it received adequate funding from a grant. But as we have previously discussed, because no development plan for Main Street was in place at the time of the January 2015 leak, there was no definite reconstruction plan that the city failed to implement. And even if there had been a definite plan, the city’s conduct was constrained by economic considerations. Holmquist, 425 N.W.2d at 234 (“Sometimes the implementation of a policy itself requires policymaking.”). Magnolia next asserts that the city’s conduct was operational because the city delayed infrastructure repairs of a known hazard. See Marlow v. City of Columbia Heights, 284 N.W.2d 389, 391-92 (Minn. 1979) (<HOLDING>). In Marlow, the supreme court held that
holding that in order to maintain a derivative cause of action a shareholder must maintain a continuous ownership interest in the corporation holding that a business owner has a duty to use reasonable care to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition for patrons holding that the failure to maintain the facility in a safe condition or to warn of hazards was an  operational failure following the planning decision to operate and maintain the public landing holding that a failure to warn was not a policy judgment holding that passenger cannot maintain action for breach of implied warranty to provide safe passage