Laserfiche WebLink
11/09/2006 16:04 FAX 612 373 0929 GREENE ESPEL PLLP ��a4�:1p�1 <br />A"l'TDRN£YS Oe COUNSELORS <br />,71y11�1 �j. ��,tl{I:1! <br />��IkF�-f�i.;i,\p �dl?=3-.�1i}la <br />�nr Kre fdy���rF i�•i�•a <br />�il�'CfT7:}�f �_ }��� <br />VIA FACSIMILEAND U.S. MAIL <br />C��ristoplier K. Miller, Interim City Manager <br />City of Roseville <br />2660 Civic Center Drive <br />Roseville, �'1T� 55113 <br />Re: I�eguest,fo�� PYapc�sal {���rr;-rf�rr{ ����,r�r�cr r��'�'�����+�� cf Twin Lakes ��. .Rasevi!!'c• <br />R(3ttlur��t �'ofnes SUIt <br />Dear Mr. Miller: <br />T��e purpose of this letter is to respond �� ::�ry-� October ? 7, 200Ca letter. The law Ii i� n u l` <br />Greene Espel P.L.�„S'. remains interested m providing assistance to the City of Roseville in <br />evaluating the impact of the Court of Appeals' decision in Fric>>�d.s• of' �� r�� :ic�nt�:� ��. r'�i; :•� <br />Roseville, ��+�'fa�;�t� Hpmc=s, et al. <br />�'o«�eve�, before any attorney-client relationship is established between our firm and the <br />City, 4�� will decline to provide the �it�� with an opinion regarding the t}��� of ea�viro�����nta� <br />study that should now be conducted at Twin Lakes. We take such questions very seriously, and <br />do not endeavor to answer them without the kind of due diligence that is i�est performed c���ly <br />afte�- retention. The risks of error also persuade us not to provide such an opinion at this point. if <br />� were to recommend loo little additional ���viz•or�i��entaJ review (and the � i: �.� was to act on that <br />recommendation) it could cause the City to lose a� uttEre ro�«3ci of litigation over its adequacy. If <br />we �.�a� to r�coa��m�nd too much additional enviro���n��ta[ review (and the City did not follow <br />tl�at recn��a�n�ndation) we fear that our opinion letter would become an exhibit that is used <br />against the City in any future litigation by those who assert that the City should have done n�care. <br />With regard to the other areas mentioned in your most recent lette�� (regarding bow we <br />would approach the problem, and our rates) I believe that i�e information provided ��� our <br />original proposal z•e�naa�as cr��re��t. However, ��e believe it would be premature to provide a more <br />specific prediction of the likely cost to the City of our work. ��'� look forward to your response. <br />Very truly yours, <br />� r <br />, , � �� . <br />,.. <br />1c71 n �'I E�a -cr <br />c: Pamela Va��derWi�l. Esq. <br />R.IQ $¢IfT�I IILR3IL IIT11 FRT� i �^.TG IYJ4 N� 1r1r�nR�i ie, KIV� �JiAI}t• W1! <br />■��•irs-oesa Te� au 3�e•oers f�.x tirwtixakrr�arsatt�aw� <br />�lS�R3EIdH� LIA'1�7�p LIb611J� ��rtTH[R*HIk <br />