09-12-2007 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Joel Hanson From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: /Scott & Others: Joel Hanson Thursday, August 23, 2007 11:49 AM 'Scott Stevens'; Dennis Unger Zamzow, Elizabeth; Gary Jones; Dan Price; 'Patrick Sweeney' RE: Oasis, Little Canada I think the point being missed is that the provision regarding tank removal states that In the event of any required remediation, seller shall obtain a letter from MPCA stating that it will require no further action with respect to the remediation therefore (the "Closure Letter "); provided, however, that such removal and remediation shall be completed to the MPCA's standards applicable and appropriate to the Property's continued used as a commercial /industrial property... " While a "closure letter" was received, it does not address the agreed upon standard. In reading the August 8th letter from MPCA, it clearly states that future development of the site should assume petroleum contamination is present! They must be involved in development plan review and must be notified when contamination is encountered - which will clearly be the case when redevelopment occurs. Therefore, remediation will be required when the site is redeveloped. There is no time limit delineated in our agreement relative to the timeline for which contamination is encountered - and it clearly was encountered during tank removal. Therefore, the full extent of remediation will not be known until a DRAP is prepared for the property and construction occurs. My contention gains further weight when viewed in conjunction with the mutual indemnification paragraph #13, part (b). The MPCA letter does not include any clause stating that "no further action or remediation with respect to Seller contamination ". Furthermore, I do not believe Oasis nor its consultants prepared the environmental reports to MPCA based on the standard set out in our purchase agreement, i.e. "continued use as a commercial /industrial property ". As stated earlier, I want a plan for the role Oasis will play in addressing the contamination that was known to exist on the site prior to the sale, and the additional contamination encountered during tank removal as related to the subsequent redevelopment of the parcel. Joel Original Message From: Scott Stevens [ mailto :sstevens @oasismarkets.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 8:06 PM To: Joel Hanson; Dennis Unger Cc: Zamzow, Elizabeth; Gary Jones; Dan Price Subject: RE: Oasis, Little Canada Good evening All: Oasis does take exception to some of the interpretation identified below. Specifically, the contract states that "Seller shall obtain a letter from the MPCA stating that it will require no further action with respect to the remediation therefor (the "Closure Letter) which has been obtained. Further, the language states "any balance of Funds shall be retained in escrow until the receipt of the Closure Letter. In the event the MPCA requires no remediation, the Escrowed Funds shall be released to Seller promptly upon presenting evidence that the tanks have been removed ". This too has been accomplished. I would argue that we got the Closure Letter and the state requires no further action which satisfies our performance obligations under the contract. Original Message From: Joel Hanson (mailto:joel .hanson @ci.little - canada.mn.us] Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 1:19 PM 19-