Laserfiche WebLink
• pursuant to the previous court ruling. Mr. Anderson stated that it is Basin's position [hat [his <br />amount was to cover the repairs to the building and for diminished fair market value. Therefore, <br />Mr. Anderson believes that the NOV has been abated. <br />Mr. Jim Tatum indicated that the courts only were able [o consider damage that existed at the <br />time. Mr. Tatum slated that the current situation is for new damage. Mr. Walton Moms pointed <br />out [he unpredictable characteristic in time and occurrence for mine subsidence and that a l point <br />and 1 event view for subsidence damage was inadequate. Mr. Moms stated that the home has <br />been twice damaged and there is additional diminished value. <br />After hearing this testimony and considering the evidence presented, I have come to the <br />following conclusions: <br />History <br />A $0.00 penalty is appropriate for history. <br />Seriousness <br />Given the nature of the problem, the history and each parties testimony, I do not feel comfortable <br />in making any adjustment to the proposed civil penalty. I concur that $1250.00 is reasonable and <br />appropriate. <br />• Fault <br />I concur with the Assessment Officer that the level of fault was that of negligence and that <br />$750.00 is reasonable and appropriate. <br />Number of Days Penalty Assessed <br />I concur with I day. <br />Good Faith. <br />I concur with the Assessment Officer. <br />Settlement Agreement Penalty <br />History $0.00 <br />Seriousness $1250.00 <br />Fault $750.00 <br />Number of Days Penalty Assessed 1 <br />Good Faith $0.00 <br />Tota] Penalty for NOV CV-2000-009 $2000.00 <br />r~ <br />U <br />