WSP05529 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3432october 29,1982 Page 9 Concerning the Board's power to impose a security deposit, the Cities assure the Board that no security deposit per Section 1-308 is necess- ary. Section 1-308 of Resolution 80-25 provides that the Board may, in its discretion, require the Applicant to file a guarantee of financial security to assure that the Applicant faithfully performs all require~ ments of the permit or applicable regulations. Both Cities have the financial and technical capability to properly construct and complete the project. The larger number of mitigation conditions will be imposed and enforced by the USFS. There will be no need to duplicate either the mitigation conditions nor the enforcement of those conditions by the County. Mitigation requirements for conditions off the Forest Service lands are expected to be very few and should not require security guar- antees to implement. For example, the Cities expect to provide bus service from Leadville (and perhaps Red Cliff) to the project in order to reduce traffic-related impacts through Homestake Valley to the job site, and in order to encourage employees to be residents of Leadville (and Red Cliff, within limits), and thus to minimize socia-economic impacts upon Eagle County. This condition is in the Cities' own inter- ests to implement in order to avoid other costs at the job site and to avoid other socia-economic mitigation costs in Eagle County. REcogniz- ing then that the Cities will seek to comply with County-imposed conditions reasonably related to avoiding or mitigating impacts off the USFS lands, no security is necessary. If the Board deems such a security is necessary, the amount should be no greater than reasonably necessary for the County to implement the specific conditions not performed. A flat percentage of project cost bears no such reasonable relationship. Finally, any security must be deposited in a mutually satisfactory escrow account where interest earned accrues to the Cities. The Cities also request that special use review, provided for in 2.09.04 of the zoning resolutions, be waived by the Board of County Commission- ers as allowed by 2.09.04(3)(c). This waiver is appropriated because Chapter 4 and 5 applications are submitted herein, and because of the obvious duplication of criteria and information necessary for both special use review and Chapter 4 and 5 approvals. Resp ~ S~ij;4 ROLD E. MISKEL, hairman, Homestake Steering Committee HEN/TSF/he