Laserfiche WebLink
Denver, CO 80203 <br />www.mining.state.co.us <br />ph. 303-866-4179 <br />fax 303-832-8106 <br />-----Original Message----- <br />From: Jodi Villa [mailto:JVi11a~Meurer <br />Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 8:23 AM <br />To: Deb Gonima (E-mail) <br />Cc: Tyler Packard (E-mail); Brad Davis <br />Subject: 2nd Adequacy Review Question <br />Deb, <br />com] <br />(E-mail); Fred Tafoya (E-mail) <br />(3811-DMG) <br />In your second Adequacy Review Letter, item 26c requires second notarized letters from <br />utility companies. In your list of companies, you include CDDT and ditch companies, which <br />were not required originally. You told us before that the letters only needed to be from <br />utilities. CDOT has been sent notification regarding the berm/rip-rap and they have the <br />opportunity to comment; and there are no ditches within 200' of the berm. Shouldn't we <br />just be getting letters from companies that we originally were required to obtain? <br />Attached is a draft of the new letter for your review. Please let me know if this is <br />acceptable. <br />Thanks <br />Jodi villa <br />Project Manager <br />P.S. Any luck scheduling a meeting with Mr. Berry? <br />«utility letter 2.doc » <br />Meurer & Associates, Inc. <br />Engineers Designers ~ Consultants <br />143 Union Boulevard, Suite 600 <br />Lakewood, CO 80228 <br />TEL: 303-985-3636 <br />FAX: 303-985-3800 <br />TOLL FREE: 1-866-535-5285 <br />EMAIL: jvillaQmeurer.com <br />WEB: www.meurer.com <br />CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended <br />recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the <br />intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the <br />original message. The sender and Meurer & Associates will not accept any responsibility <br />for viruses (if any) associated with this email or its possible attachments. <br />EMAIL FROM May 18th: <br />Hi Jodi, <br />First I would say that you should include the exact language verbatim in the letter from <br />regulation 34-32.5-116(4)(e). I don't see any problem with sending the letter with the <br />public notification, but as it pertains to landownership - Carma owns the land, but <br />Siegrist (with Meurer as the <br />contractor) is the operator (and OUR permitee). So, the potentially liable entity is <br />actually Siegrist/Meurer, that is until you guys do a succession of operators and move <br />operator status to Carma. Until that time, Siegrist is still the potentially responsible <br />party financially in case of damage and should be listed as such in any documentation. <br />Let me know if you need any further clarification. <br />