Laserfiche WebLink
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY <br />REGION 5 <br />77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD <br />CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590 <br />REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF: <br />WCT-15J <br />MAR 1 0 1993 <br />CERTIFIED MAIL P250 801 247 <br />RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED <br />Mary Kueffner, City Administrator <br />City of Lake Elmo <br />3800 Laverne Avenue North <br />Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 <br />Subject: Treatment Works Grant <br />Step 2+3, C271411-02 <br />Dear Ms. Kueffner: <br />This is in reference to your request that we review the June 13, <br />1990 determination rendered by the Minnesota Pollution Control <br />Agency (MPCA), that the budget period for the subject grant could <br />not be extended and that certain costs incurred by the City for <br />land acquisition are not allowable for Federal grant funding <br />under the provisions of the subject grant. <br />We have completed review of the information accompanying your <br />request, the official Federal grant project files, the Federal <br />laws including implementing regulations applicable to the issues, <br />as well as applicable policy and guidance in effect on <br />September 2, 1983, the date of grant award. Based on this <br />review, we find nothing precluding the extension of a grant <br />budget period after its expiration. Further, we find that all <br />the disputed cost of acquiring land, even though the magnitude of <br />that cost was not known until after the end of the budget period, <br />was effectively,.legally incurred when the City of Lake Elmo <br />exercised its right of eminent domain, which was well within the <br />existing approved budget period. Consequently, the matter of a <br />budget period extension is moot. <br />Correspondingly, based on an assessment of the facts against the <br />fundamental grant allowability criteria of necessity, reasonabil- <br />ity and allocability of costs to the grant project, it is my <br />Printed an Recycled Paper <br />