New Search
CLARK Debbie D <br /> From: BONHAM John J <br /> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 10:52 AM <br /> p; CLARK Debbie D <br /> Subject: FW: FW: legacy jpa <br /> Here you go. I'm also ponying the check to you, Nancy returned it this morning. I think next week is <br /> OK, but not later. Does this work? <br /> JB <br /> -----Original Message----- <br /> From: Nancy Ilolzhauser [mailto:nholz~)envsol.net] <br /> Sent: Monday, August 1.4, 2006 9:1.0 PM <br /> To: BONI~IAM John J <br /> Subject: Re: FW: legacy jpa <br /> because the total fill/removal amount is aver 10000cy, the fee for public operators is $375 for the base fee <br /> + $225 additional for over 500 cy. And I had made the assumption that the fill/removal volume was Iess <br /> than 3000cy. The base fee is always $375, and then it goes: <br /> no additional fee for Iess than SOOcy, $T additional. for 500-2999cy, $150 for 3000-10000cy, and <br /> additional $225 for over 10000cy. My apologies for the inconvenience. If ,you want, I can bring the check <br /> <br /> ~.n when I come into town on Wed and ,you can go ahead and just issue a check. for the $600- we still have <br /> a few weeks, and if that makes it easier, that shouldn't be a problem. Let me know- ancy <br /> BONHAM John J wrote: <br /> >Nancy can you just note the reason for the additional fee for the <br /> >permit or clip the language that explaines the fees and reply to this email? <br /> >We can use the email as our documentation/invoice for this money. I'm <br /> >going to request the additional $1.50 check for the sake of speed. <br /> >Otherwise, we would have to return the check and then have another one <br /> >processed. <br /> >Thank You, <br /> >John <br /> >-----Original Message----- <br /> >From: CLARK. Debbie D <br /> >Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 6:29 AM <br /> >To: 130NIIAM John J <br /> >Subject: RE: legacy ,jpa <br /> >We could do it two ways. <br /> i <br /> <br />