Laserfiche WebLink
LAW OFFICE <br />OF <br />SCHNITICER & ASSOCIATES <br />PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION <br />1330 8IST AVE NE <br />SPRING LAICE PARK, MN 55432 <br />KIRK A. SCHNITKER <br />JON W. MORPHEW <br />ATTORNEYS <br />Mr. Joel Hanson <br />City Administrator <br />City of Little Canada <br />515 Little Canada Road East <br />Little Canada, MN 55117 <br />March 18.2011 <br />Re: Hostess Bakery Relocation Claim <br />Dear Mr. Hanson: <br />is <br />TELEPHONE: (763) 252 -0114 <br />FACSIMILE: (763) 252 -7598 <br />This letter is a follow -up to my request to Barb Ross for additional information regarding <br />her client's business reestablishment expenses. <br />1. Status of Hostess' Relocation Claim <br />As you may recall, iius(ess is seeking reimbursement for the increased mileage expenses <br />they are going to incur as a result of being displaced from their site in Little Canada. <br />When Ms. Ross first submitted this claim she sought to have these expenses reimbursed <br />as temporary storage expenses. <br />We informed Ms. Ross t that claim was denied because pursuant to 49 C.F.R. <br />24.301(h)(11), costs liar the "storage of personal property on real property already owned <br />or (eased by the displaced person' is not an eligible moving expense. However, we also <br />informed her that those expenses could possibly be claimed under 49 C.F.R. 24.304(a)(6) <br />as reestablishment expenses for the estimated increased costs of operation during the first <br />2 years at the replacement site. We went on to inform her that we could not approve <br />those as reestablishment expenses at that time because the decision to use the Burnsville <br />and New Hope locations as temporary sites was a business decision dictated by the <br />restructuring of Hostess' corporate operations, not because the City displaced their <br />business. <br />In a subsequent letter to Ms. Ross we inforined.her that:even though these mileage <br />expenses were not a traditional reestablishment expense, we could consider them as <br />reestablishment expenses if her client would agree that the Burnsville and. New Hope <br />sites would be their permanent replacement sites and that this would be their final claim. <br />Nis. Ross agreed that for the purposes of client's relocation claim, they would <br />consider the Burnsville and New Hope sites as their pen:l anent replacement sites and this <br />would he their final claim.. <br />8 <br />