Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Timothy K. Scherkenbach <br />March 20, 1990 <br />Page Six <br />1) Notify the project officer. <br />2) Explain/justify the cause for delay. <br />3) Propose a revised date. <br />4) Obtain written approval. <br />All of these items were to take place prior to the expiration of the project schedule <br />date. <br />After meeting with the City Council and at their direction, the City Engineer notified <br />the MPCA in a letter to Kathy Sather, dated January 23, 1989, of its need for a <br />budget period extension. Paragraph 9 of that letter was very specific in addressing <br />the first three requirements in the notification procedure itemized above. Those three <br />requirements are reiterated as follows using the exact words from the letter: <br />1) Notify the Project Officer <br />"The City will be requesting a budget period extension ... and a rebudget for <br />land, administrative and engineering costs...." <br />2) Explain/Justify the Cause for Delay <br />"because of pending court action relating to land acquisition. The owner of the <br />Gonnan Parcel (Old Village Remote D) has appealed the condemnation award <br />amount ...... <br />3) Propose a Revised Date <br />"The City will be requesting a budget period extension for one year ...... <br />The fourth requirement, "Obtain written approval" is a task to be performed by the <br />City, but yet it is not under the City's control to obtain it. The City's duty is to <br />notify, explain/justify, and propose a revised date. It is the MPCA's duty to respond <br />with the approval. It has been repeated many times by the MPCA that the City did <br />not "request" an extension; therefore, the Agency did not rule on the request. Yet <br />nowhere in the regulations can we fund the requirement to "request" an extension, <br />only to notify, explain/justify, and propose a proposed date. The Assistance <br />Agreement is a contract between the City and the Federal Government. The concept <br />of "giving notice" has been a part of contract law for years. The only other flaw that <br />has been pointed out to us is that the letter was signed by the City Engineer where it <br />should have been signed by the City Administrator. <br />