Laserfiche WebLink
Warren E. Peterson <br />Jerome P. Filla <br />Daniel Witt Fram <br />Clean A. Bergman <br />John Michael Miller <br />` chael T. Oberle <br />ven H. Bruns" <br />.dl \V. Fahning' <br />Cameron S. McLelland <br />Andrew P. Muller <br />PETERSON <br />FRAMCIBERGMAN <br />EIE <br />August 16, 2005 <br />Mr. Joel Hanson <br />City of Little Canada <br />515 Little Canada Road <br />Little Canada, Minnesota 55117 <br />RE: Stipulated Settiement Agreement <br />Guerin Family - City <br />Our File No.: 11779.98 -1 <br />Dear Mr. Hanson: <br />Suite 300 <br />50 Fifth St. E. <br />5t. Paul, MN 55101 -1197 <br />16511291 -8955 <br />'Cr) 6511 J28- 1753 facsimile <br />www.pfb-pa.com <br />17 2005 <br />OF LITTLE CANADA <br />Direct Dial #(651) 290 -6907 <br />On May 23, 2001, the City and the Guerin Family executed a Stipulated Settlement Agreement <br />which specifically provides that the proceeds in the restricted fund would only be used to pay <br />for the clean up of the property "to the extent other sources of funding for dean up or <br />redevelopment are not available ". When the City submitted its initial grant application, as <br />attached to the City- Guerin correspondence of May 1, 2003, it enclosed a copy of the <br />Stipulated Settlement Agreement and incorrectly represented that the restricted funds were <br />available as a first source of funding. Unfortunately, I believe this mischaracterization has <br />continued to haunt this project. The initial application was prepared by the developer. <br />On April 29, 2005, the second grant application was submitted by the City. This application <br />was also prepared by the developer. The second application refers to the funds in the <br />restricted account as if the funds belonged to "Ramsey County ERF/Guerin Limited <br />Partnership ". The application also indicates that other sources of funding should be used <br />before the funds in the restricted account. I believe the latter statement was inserted after our <br />meeting with the developer and the City. However, the wording in the application remained <br />confusing. <br />In response to the second grant application, the City received a Grant Agreement from the <br />Department of Employment and Economic Development by correspondence dated July 15, <br />2005. The Grant Agreement continues to misrepresent the clear meaning and intent of the <br />Stipulated Settlement Agreement by stating that it is "expected" that the funds in the restricted <br />account would be used as a first source of funding for clean up. Since both applications were <br />prepared by the developer, I can only assume that it is the developer who is creating the <br />"expectation ". <br />'ALSO AoMrtmo IN WISCONSIN <br />