SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_2004-2019

Home Browse Search

of$107,244.87 for monitoring and testing until invoices were billed to your agency under the EAR account (please see attachment herein). Further, Mr. Guinta paid for consultants during the course and scope of this plan and delivered bottled water to the well owners for a long time; until the filters were placed on the wells insuring their water safety. Consequently, running out of money should not be considered lack of cooperation by your agency. Please understand that Mr. Guinta is not cavalier about this matter, he just cannot participate any longer financially. Of course, anything that Mr. Guinta can do besides adding current financial support he will continue to do and all your agency has to do is ask. The submissions are as follows as to current CAO and request for modification thereof The Board should deny the proposed Remediation Plan: C) Mr. Guinta,as stated above, is financially insolvent at the present time. Mr. Guinta has expressed his financial conditions in many letters to your agency, at telephone conversations with your agencies agents, at more than one hearing on the matter as well. All of which are of record in your file on this matter and the testimony, letters, notes of field agents, and otherwise, are hereby submitted by Mr. Guinta as additional submissions; although in proxies since you have those records in your file and Mr. Guinta does not. Mr. Guinta feels that your agency has simply disregarded his financial situation as either not relevant and or that your agency and its agents believe they have no merit. As to both, the former and the latter, it could not be further from the truth. Mr. Guinta has only one principle asset, the site of this cleanup, the gas station and lot known as Franks One Stop. In that regard, and, as you know,Mr. Guinta contracted to sell that property some time ago to Mr. Kim,that amount was negotiated and cannot now be changed. The only stipulation for transfer is that the site be cleaned up wherein there is a clearance given by your agency so that financing could be obtained by Mr. Kim and the transaction thereby completed. In that further regard,the contract calls for lease payments until the time of clearance and subsequent escrow completion with a large part of the lease payment going towards the actual contract price of the premises. Therefore, each and every month that continues until this matter is resolved, equity is being lost by Mr. Guinta. However, even in this depressed state of real property values, where equity values are declining, Mr. Guinta still maintains a cushion of about$300,000.00 to $400, 000.00 in possible equities if there was a clearance given to him and the transaction could be completed with Mr. Kim shortly. As stated, each and every month that the matter is still under the "so-called"clean up and abatement the above referenced equity positions change to the down side for Mr. Guinta. Also, as stated, this is the only real asset of Mr. Guinta with any equity of any genuine value and that is why Mr. Guinta has on so many occasions asked your agency to use the monies of the state carefully; he has asked your agency to use the EAR account, finalize the matter, and when the property sells to Mr. Kim(once a clearance is obtained), any and all EAR account liens will be paid back and paid back in full. Surely, placing a civil penalty, as has been proposed on several occasions, would just result in such penalty being partially paid back if at all. After the exhausting of several years of additional"plume"drilling and monitoring as suggested in your latest request,just as likely if not more conceivable,the EAR account would be deficient at the end of this matter as well. Doubtless, it can be seen as a no win situation, where everyone loses, 4