Laserfiche WebLink
:~. <br />May 30, 2007 <br />ANN TAT11M <br />129 NORTH COMMETtCIAL STREET <br />TRINIDAD, COLORADO 81082 <br />Phone: 719 846-0149 Fax: 719 846-0159 <br />Mr. Tyson Powell <br />Office of the Attnmey General <br />1525 Sherman Street, Sm Floor <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />RE: Basin NOV DRAFT ORDER <br />Mr. Powell: <br />~E~E~v~° <br />Mpy 3 ~ 2p0iion. <br />piv\Mini~9 a d Sa etY <br />Facsimile (303) 866-5395 <br />Thank you for sending us the three Drafts of the Board's Proposed Orders <br />rPSnlting from the May 16, X007 hearing. <br />As I remember the Board's ruling there was absolutely no mention or reference <br />made by the Board to the amount required to abate the NUV. 'l'he NUV and additional <br />performance bond are two separate and distinct performance issues. <br />It was the position of the State that the Bond should include pre judgment <br />interest. The $oard did not order Basin to pay the pre judgment interest nn the bond <br />amount. <br />Neither Basin, nor the State inquired of the Board as to the amount necessary to <br />abate thel NOV and as such we oppose the $622,000.00 amount. The NOV correctly <br />requires Basin to abate same pursuant to the Judgment, $622,000.00 plus pre and post <br />judgment interest. The language in the February 12, 2007 NOV states: Portion of the <br />Opcmtiun to WLich This Notice Applies; "Mine-related damage to the Tatum residence <br />as determined by the Las Animas District Court Case, Number O1CV26, and as upheld by <br />the Colorado Court of Appeals Case No. 03CA075." The listrict Court awarded interest <br />at 8%, compounded annually, as a part of the mine-related damage. The State argued that <br />post judgment interest could not be included in the bond. No argument was made by any <br />party as to what amount would be considered to abate the NUV. Certainty, considering <br />the State's position with regard to the bond, that same should include the pre judgment <br />interest, it is unreasonable to believe that abatement oP the NOV should be Icss than that <br />amount. <br />I believe it would be appropriate to include the opinion from the Colorado Court <br />o£ Appea]s that dealt with the operator not having the right to decide the course of action <br />that must be taken once subsidence has been confirmed. The opinion states it is the right <br />of the property owner to choose whether they want the property repaired or they want to <br />be compensated, Please refer to Ms. Linden with regard to this. <br />Z0 39Cd Wf71Cl WIP 65509786LL 65~7i L001/0£/50 <br />