HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence PLANNER 7/29/2009
..
.
.
HOPKINS Steve
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
MCEACHERN Clayton
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 5:01 PM
HOPKINS Steve
RE: Mill Race project
I probably should have asked this question during review but I kinda assumed the corp was going to maintain it, but I
now realize we are going to take possession after construction. So the probably isn't a need for a maintenance
agreement.
From: HOPKINS Steve
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:40 PM
To: GOODWIN Len; BINGHAM Tim S; PERRY Richard; MCEACHERN Clayton
Cc: BARNETT Brian
Subject: RE: Mill Race project
Len,
Conditions 3 and 4 were requested by Clayton. He will take a look at this and get back to me.
For this application, the Development Agreement will be used to document the final site plan has been approved and
the project complies with the SDC. The applicant is PW. This what we did for the Fire Station 16 site plan. A draft of the
agreement is attached.
Steve
From: GOODWIN Len
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:49 PM
To: HOPKINS Steve; BINGHAM Tim S; PERRY Richard; MCEACHERN Clayton
Cc: BARNETT Brian
Subject: RE: Mill Race project
Steve:
With respect to conditions 3 and 4, the Project Cooperation Agreement with the Corps provides as follows:
ARTICLE VIII - OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, REPLACEMENT,
AND REHABILIT AnON (OMRR&R)
A. Upon notification in accordance with Article I1.c. of this Agreement and for so long as the Project
remains authorized, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall operate, maintain, repair, replace, and rehabilitate the entire
Project or the functional portion of the Project, at no cost to the Government, in a manner compatible with the
Project's authorized purposes and in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws as provided in Article
XI of this Agreement and specific directions prescribed by the Government in the OMRR&R Manual and any
subsequent amendments thereto.
B. The Non-Federal Sponsor hereby gives the Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a
reasonable manner, upon property that the Non-Federal Sponsor owns or controls for access to the Project for
the purpose of inspection and, if necessary, for the purpose of completing, operating, maintaining, repairing,
replacing, or rehabilitating the Project. If an inspection shows that the Non-Federal Sponsor for any reason is
failing to perform its obligations under this Agreement, the Government shall send a written notice describing
Date Received: 1- Zq -01
Planner: SH
1
the non-performance to the Non-~ral Sponsor. If, after 30 calendar day!m receipt of the notice, the Non-
Federal Sponsor continues to fail to perform, then the Goverrunent shall have the right to enter, at reasonable
times and in a reasonable manner, upon property the Non-Federal Sponsor owns or controls for access to the
Project for the purpose of completing, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, or rehabilitating the Project.
No completion, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or rehabilitation by the Goverrunent shall operate
to relieve the Non-Federal Sponsor's obligations as set forth in this Agreement, or to preclude the Government
from pursuing any other remedy at law or equity to ensure faithful performance pursuant to this Agreement.
It would seem that this obligation addresses the same concerns as the conditions of approval. Unfortunately, however,
the Corps will not provide us with the OMRR&R Manual until the project is completed. We cannot, therefore, provide it
to the City until sometime after site plan approval. Is there some way those conditions can be modified to incorporate
the federal obligation?
In addition, the proposed decision requires the City of Springfield to enter into a Development Agreement with the City
of Springfield. I'm not being facetious when I say that I am not sure I know how to do that. Does Gino or Bill sign for City
as regulator and Susie or I for City as applicant? While for purposes of this exercise I suppose Mr. Leahy could represent
City of Springfield qua City, and I could represent City of Springfield as applicant, I'm not sure that works very well, since
in reality we would both be conflicted out. I don't think retaining two separate counsels to represents our two aspects
works very well either. Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Len
From: HOPKINS Steve
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 11:48 AM
To: BINGHAM Tim S; PERRY Richard; MCEACHERN Clayton
Cc: GOODWIN Len; BARNETT Brian
Subject: Mill Race project
Everyone,
As requested, the draft decision for the Millrace site plan and tree felling is attached. Review the conditions to insure
they meet the intent of your comments.
Condition #1 requires a deed restriction to address the bikeway issue. This is the best way to insure the requirement
doesn't get overlooked if the property is transferred. The findings in support of that are in section A of the report.
I would like to send this out on July 30, so let me know before then if you have any questions or concerns.
Steve
2
7- Zcy-J~
_ _ '-'ecei'IIed:-
~. :rat" ." H
Planner: 5