PERMFILE65042 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t., .. • ,• .~ '.' ~ ~,` increase be made. SJh11e the MLRB appeared sympathetic to my financial plight, they. ~ '~ in no way alloyed this to affect my bonding responsi6llity, especially after ~ -' „ learning the bulk of $800 increase was for mobilization costs out of Denver!'"With the poor economic conditions of the rural areas of this state, one would hope a state organization such as the MLRD would attempt to use local vendors wherever ,~, possible--if for no other reason than to save the taxpayer's dollaral It Se , ~ ~,_~-~' SntereaCing to note that cny current bond of $200 Sa once again about. 4Z of the y maximum bond allowed, which is consistent with the potential size of the opetation.~ The second issue dealing frith the Gilpin county mine operator was also a procedural issue. The operator lost his bond due to a bank failure and had been unable to reaecure bonding. Mr. Shelton and his staff recommended the maximum penalty for y ,•~'•_- thie violation-a fine of $1,000 per day retroactive to time of violation, a period ' of 5 months. The HIRB entertained a motion for this which died for lack of a , second. Another motion for a $100 per day fine also retroactive received a `~. negative vote. The fiml action vas a fine of $100 per day beginning that date and ~y ~..,~ continuing until bonding vas restored. It is not surprising that even with this ~.,+ "leniency" that an opera[oc Cshut down by the poor condition. of the mining '~~ ~,~• industry) who cannot reaecure a bond also cannot "find" three months north of penalty (about $9,000). _.~~.I~ i ,<< Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to clarify some of the facto surrounding this issue. Respectfully youre,C,~r~ "/ / ~ Alvin Mosch cc. Mr. David Shelton Ma. Diane Rees Mr. Dave Cole Mr. Greg Romberg Mr. Clyde Martz Mr. Joe Nugent Cov. Roy Romer