Laserfiche WebLink
11/09/2006 16:04 FAX 612 373 0929 GRF.ENE ESPEL PLLP j��p�f��� <br />RYTORN�YS & COUNSELORS <br />�171iK hl. 6h]CF0. <br />771lFIT QIiL �O. Sfil�� J73 '�4� <br />J��iw3��'raCN i9PF:Irr4M <br />November 9.2006 <br />1'1"�t FACSIMILE�11'D U.S. MAIL <br />Christopher K. Miller, Interim City Manager <br />Cii:y of Roseville <br />2660 Civic Center Drive <br />Roseville, M�i 55113 <br />Re: Request for P�oposc�l Re�a��c�i�g ��� �; �� �:.r o f Friends of T�virz �,«k�s s. RoseviZZe <br />R�ttluyzd �"o,aies .�a� � r <br />Dear Mr. Miller: <br />The }�ur�ose of this letter is to �-LS��az�cl ��� your October 27. 2006 Ie�tc.��_ The I��v li�-�a7 c�l' <br />Greene �s�el P.L.L.P. remains interested ��� providing assistance to the City of Rosevillc in <br />evaluating the impact of the Court of Appeals' decisio�� in Fric�nc�s of Tw�i�7 I.ukc.>s ►�_ i r�.�- r:,� <br />RoseviZZe, l�r�t�tlar�7c� I�o�n�sr et cxI <br />However, before any attorney-client relationship is established between our firm and the <br />City, we will decline to provide the City with an opinion regarding the t��ae of environmental <br />study that sE�oulc� now be eoa�du�et�ed at Twin Lalces. We talce such questions very seriously, and <br />do not endeavor to a�ts«rer them ���it��o�.�t the lcind of due diligence that is best performed ��ii]ti- <br />after retention. The risks of error also persuade us not to provide such an opinion at this point. t�' <br />we were to recommend too little additional e�ivironn��n�at review (and the C'�t�y was to act on that <br />recommendation) it could cause the City to los� <� 1�tiiture ro�.ia�d of litigation o��:�- its adequacy. 1P <br />we were to reco���nz�nd too much additional e�vi�-on���ntal review (and the City did not follow <br />that recommendation) we fear that our opinion letter would bec€�n�� �t� exhibit that is used <br />against the City in any future litigation by those who assert that the City should have done more. <br />With regard to the other areas mentioned in your most recent letter (regarding how �'� <br />would approach the problem, and our rates) I believe that the information provided in our <br />original proposal remai��s current. H�owevcr, we believe it would be premature to provide a more <br />specific prediction of the lilcely cod to the City of our worlc. We loolc forward to your response. <br />Very truly your r <br />�� � . <br />r �� � ,.� <br />� � <br />.�ti��i7 �'.. ]� a ��r <br />Pamela V�z�dexWiel. Esq. <br />i4} S-: •�Ti i fI�STi I�� 1CCT. G��ri� :a{c, �r�n y rx�y. iQ, n w 3�.isvi•• �:s <br />6�3'?7a•4474T1L f��#7�4�4� P�X www.��caanllY3/ft,LNi <br />TiYO/iLLaO1�F,L �MrTCD LIJ4E•LITY *fRTM{116K�F <br />