09-12-2007 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

final one was arrived at.) Oasis used that phrase to limit remediation to that necessary for commercial property versus a high standard that could be encountered for another use or by demands for total clean-up by a subsequent owner. Oasis is now changing its position and claiming they have completed all required remediation. They have asked for a release of the escrow funds to make payments to the tank removal contractor and their environmental consultant. (Those costs total almost $27,000.) It should also be understood that I have raised my concerns as soon as I became aware that they encountered contamination and then replaced that material in the excavation. No responses to my e -mails were received until they were looking for payment to the contractor. (I have attached copies of these e- mails.) Oasis did not provide the required documentation to request payment. They are in the process of doing that at this time. Once the proper documentation is received, we have seven (7) days to object to the release of the escrow for making the payment or else the escrow agent (Land Title) is obligated to do so. To date, I have informed Oasis that I'm recommending our objection based on the fact they have not remediated the site to the standard agreed upon. Further, the specific nature of the remediation will not be known until a development plan is prepared for the site and a Development Response Action Plan is submitted to MPCA for approval. I believe Oasis bears the responsibility for preparing the DRAP and funding the remediation required based on the terms of our purchase agreement. Oasis does not share that opinion and their attorney will be putting a letter together that states their position on the matter. I am to receive that early next week. I will then review it with the City Attorney to formulate a final recommendation on this issue for your consideration at Wednesday's meeting. 2