Laserfiche WebLink
co�� <br /> der 9,0 <br /> � O <br /> 1876 * <br /> KEN SALAZAR STATE OF COLORADO STATE SERVICES BUILDING <br /> Attorney General 1525 Sherman Street-5th Floor <br /> BARBARA MCDONNELL DEPARTMENT OF LAW Denver,Colorado 80203 <br /> PhonChief Deputy Attorney General FAX 803�866-56901 <br /> OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL <br /> MICHAEL E.MCLACHLAN <br /> Solicitor General <br /> May 21, 1999 <br /> Geoffrey Anderson <br /> Burns, Figa& Will, P.C. <br /> Plaza Tower, Suite 1030 <br /> 6400 South Fiddlers Green Circle <br /> Englewood, CO 80111 <br /> RE: Comments on draft settlement agreement; BOCC of Pitkin County et al v. MCR and <br /> Creditors' Trustee v. DMG (97CV131-1) <br /> Dear Geoffrey: <br /> I have reviewed the latest draft of the settlement agreement, faxed to me on May 19, <br /> 1999. The following are my initial comments and suggested changes to the draft agreement. <br /> As I mentioned in my prior letter, a final draft of the agreement must be reviewed by the <br /> Deputy of my section as well as the Mined Land Reclamation Board prior to approval of the <br /> agreement. <br /> Page 3 under AGREEMENT <br /> As stated in my May 12 letter, the language of paragraph 1 needs to be changed to reflect that <br /> DMG will use the funds provided to complete reclamation in Coal Basin. Although the <br /> Division hopes to be able to complete all reclamation with the money, the Division cannot <br /> guarantee that it will be able to do so given the uncertainty of the costs of the work. Until the <br /> bidding has been done and bids accepted, the true costs of completing reclamation will not be <br /> known. Accordingly, the first line should be changed to "DMG agrees that it will use the <br /> funds provided herein to perform reclamation in Coal Basin as generally set forth in <br /> paragraph 11 below..." <br /> I need to do some more thinking on how the language of"subject to paragraph 8, <br /> below, in this paragraph works - whether it unacceptably broadens the scope of <br /> paragraph 8 or this paragraph to allow MCR, the trustee or MidCon to object to <br /> DMG's reclamation when it would otherwise not be allowed to do so. Any thoughts? <br />