Laserfiche WebLink
• D RAFT <br />Minutes, JuIJ Z~-24, 1992 Subject To Board Approval ~~ <br />At this point, Board Member Danielson suggested that the current civil <br />penalty policy remain intact, in respect to active operations and, <br />because there is no funding source for reclamation of illegal sites, <br />civic penalties collected for mining without a permit be used to fund <br />reclamation of illegal operations. Various means for funding the <br />State's reclamation work were discussed. A suggestion was made that <br />the Division attempt to get the Legislature to apply, on a yearly <br />basis, the first $50,000 of collected civil penalties toward the <br />establishment of an AML reclamation fund. Mr. Bucknam noted that if <br />these funds are received, it would be possible to obtain matching funds <br />through the federal government. _ <br />The issue of landowners safeguarding mine openings was discussed, <br />including options for enforcing current statutes. Currently, county <br />district attorneys have the authority to enforce statutes 'elating to <br />closing and/or safeguarding openings. A violation of the statute <br />currently carries a 5300 fine. However, the statute is not being <br />enforced in most counties. A suggestion was made that tie fine be <br />raised, and that landowners be charged an additional tax on a yearly <br />basis for maintaining hazardous openings on their land. Pir. Bucknam <br />stated that current DOM statutes allow the Division tc> fence or <br />safeguard closures and charge the landowner for the work. The <br />possibility of changing the statute and giving the Division the <br />authority to write and bring these violations to the Board for <br />disposition was also discussed. Board Member Stewart suggested that if <br />landowners' taxes could be raised for maintaining a hazard~ws opening <br />on their property, the county could collect and retain a portion of the <br />tax. <br />Mr. Long clarified that the issues being addressed are safeguarding <br />open sites and whether a means of developing funds for ervironmental <br />problems at non-Coal sites should be pursued. He said Bureau of <br />Reclamation has offered funds to the AML Program for reclamation work, <br />however, since the Division cannot produce matching funds from the <br />State, those funds cannot be accepted at this time. The issue of <br />landowner cost-sharing was briefly discussed as a means of adding funds <br />for AML reclamation, It was pointed out that the statutes also have <br />provisions for the acceptance of donations for specific projects. <br />Board Member Stewart discussed the counties raising their taxes. She <br />said she could meet with Gilpin County Commissioners anc discuss a <br />proposal for a tax increase for landowners with mine openings on their <br />property, as well as the county's retention of part of teat tax for <br />their collection efforts. It was suggested that this process be <br />conducted on a county-by-county basis, including cour~ties where <br />problems have been noted. <br />Board Member Danielson said that although a decision was nct made on a <br />mechanism for funding future AML project work, it is noted that it is <br />desirable for development of some type of fund and fundinc source(s). <br />Mr. Cattany suggested that the Division consider requesting a grant <br />through the Gaming Impact Fund, specifically in areas whe~~e abandoned <br />sites are located, as a possible source of AML funding. <br />