08-24-2005 Additions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Aug 23 DS 12:16p Sweeney Mr. Jerome P. Filla August 23, 2005 Page Two 6512235288 p.3 application has the following question: Is there a possibility that the site will be cleaned up without government money? Explain," The application response reads: "Yes. Funds escrowed from the Guerin Limited Partnership would be available for clean -up costs." This response provided by the City on the grant application was and remains 100% accurate. The next portion of the application, paragraph 29A reads: "Tf yes, what are the sources of funding and dollar commitment from each ?" The City's response: "Source - Guerin Family Limited Partnership $200,000.00." Again the City's response is accurate. 3. We disagree with your characterization that the second grant application is confusing. The second grant application states: "The city and its developer have agreed to pursue all sources of funding for clean up costs. To the extent such sources of funding are not available, the principle amount of a restricted fund established by the Guerin Limited Partnership and the City of Little Canada may be used to fund the clean up of the property." The reference in the grant application to "Ramsey County ERF" merely refers to a separate loan /grant application made by Sherman Associates to Ramsey County for additional funding which Sherman hoped could be used instead of the restricted fund. 4. The City did receive a Contamination Cleanup Program Grant Agreement from the State of Minnesota which states: "it is expected that the Guerin Family Settlement or other sources, in the amount of $200,000.00, be exhausted prior to accessing any State contamination clean up program funds." This language in the Grant Agreement comes solely from the State of Minnesota. The State of Minnesota presumably has been acting upon the two grant applications and the Settlement Agreement, all of which speak for themselves. Your "assumption" that the developer has created an "expectation" that the restricted fund be used first is unsupported by any facts. Finally, as we have discussed previously, if the State is willing to revise its grant agreement to indicate the grant funds may be used prior to the restricted fund, the City of Little Canada would he more than willing to agree with such an amended provision. To this end, the City will consider a resolution at its next meeting consistent with your request. Nonetheless, be advised that the EDA of Little Canada has fully complied with the Settlement Agreement and intends to move forward with the development of the property. Very truly yours, SWEENEY, BORER & SWEENEY Patrick J. Sweeney PJS:jnm cc: Joel R. Hanson Sue Fauvcr