Laserfiche WebLink
the evidence presented. The Order should not be disturbed because Transit Mix <br /> would have applied the legal standard differently. <br /> Transit Mix also argues that the Board's Order failed to provide adequate <br /> findings of fact. See Opening Brief, p. 22. Agency findings may be express or <br /> implied from a reading of the entire record. Colorado Office of Consumer Counsel <br /> v. Publ. Utilities Comm'n, 786 P.2d at 1091. An agency's findings need not be <br /> specific as long as they "apprise the parties and the reviewing court of the basis for <br /> its decision." Moya, 870 P.2d at 624. <br /> The Board provided findings to explain the basis of its decision. The <br /> Board's Order contains multiple paragraphs addressing the proposed Quarry's <br /> impact on the area's hydrologic balance and the evidence presented. See Order, R. <br /> at 4405-06, 4410. <br /> Transit Mix relies on Lawless v. Bach, a case regarding the dismissal of a <br /> police officer. Lawless v. Bach, 489 P.2d 316, 317 (Colo. 1971). In Lawless, the <br /> Denver Civil Service Commission set aside the Chief of Police's dismissal of the <br /> policeman with "no reason whatsoever, without any findings, [and] without any <br /> conclusions." Lawless, 489 P.2d at 317. Here, the Board included multiple pages <br /> of findings of fact to support its decisions. See Order, R. at 4405-06. Specifically, <br /> the Board cited the testimony of Messrs. Mulliken, Moore, Kerr, and Norris <br /> addressed above and delineated in the Order's Findings of Fact section. Id. These <br /> 16 <br />