Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Invoice # 1067 July 24 Voucher #43 139328 <br />Billed $ 14,847.16 Paid $ 11,252.69 <br />Short $ 3,594.47 <br />*s <br />Invoice # 1068 July 26 Voucher #43 174548 <br />Billed $ 52,302.13 Paid $ 16,996.50 <br /> x5 <br />Invoice # 1076 September 24 Voucher #43 277008 <br />Billed $ 36.00 Paid $32.40 <br />Invoice # 1085 November 1 Voucher #43 360096 <br />Billed $ 90.00 Paid $ 81.00 <br />We bille d for release of retains on July 26th and rebilled <br />November 23. <br />Invoice # 1090 November 23 Voucher #43 400194 <br />Billed $ 35,314.23 Paid $ 6,705.67 <br /> Short $ 28,608.56 <br />Sandra B r owns decision on Claim Voucher #43 412061 <br />December 13 $ 2,850.00 12-15-95 Paid $ 2850.05 <br />On December 15th, I received a letter from Micheal Long of <br />Division of Minerals and Geology about release of retainage <br />and $4,069.60 not yet paid for north end backfill and <br />grading and $375.00 for additional dozer work. This work <br />was invoice for # 1060 March 21 and # 1065 on June 26 <br />contrary to what they said. I called Dave Bucknam about <br />this he said he could pay from a faxed invoice so I <br />resubmitted them by fax. They paid $4,069.60 but still <br />refuse to pay the $375.00. <br />The payment of the $4,069.60 plus the unpaid $375.00 <br />happened after Sandra Browns decision, they should have been <br />included. I am sure that DMG represented to Sandra Brown <br />that these items have already been paid. <br />Along with interest, the $2,850.00 Sandra Brown found in CWL <br />favor should have included interest. It did not. Also they <br />made a math error in their lies which Sandra Brown stated in <br />a letter dated December 20, 1994. That increased the amount <br />due CWL by $4,747.50.- Pursuant to C.R.S. CWL should gave <br />been paid this amount immediately. <br />CWL still has not been paid for all the work that DMG agreed <br />to pay for and had ordered be done. CWL brought to DMGs <br />attention the additional topsoil stockpiles on the site. <br />Jim McArdle's initial response was that it was just to our <br />benefit because it was closer to where we needed it. I <br />pointed out that "We" didn't need any topsoil DMG did. I <br />also discussed this issue on May 4th with Jim McArdle. He <br />2 <br />