My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL31888
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL31888
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:54:45 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 7:07:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982056
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Name
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS STATE OF COLO DOCKET # 27512
Permit Index Doc Type
GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />4. The parties are not in disagreement concerning the <br />valuation procedure. In opening, Mr. Bassett stated that there are <br />two points in contention: the remaining economic life of the <br />reserves and the tonnage of reserves to be reported. Both of these <br />affect only the valuation of the land of the mine. The personal <br />property and improvements are not being appealed. <br />5. Producing mines are required to annually report certain <br />information which the county aeaessor uses to value the producing <br />and non-producing interests in the land. In the 1994 declaration, <br />Petitioner reported the estimated recoverable reserves ae <br />84,830,112 tone and the estimated durability in years ae 15. <br />6. Petitioner contends that the 15 years represents the <br />economic life of the mine. Petitioner's witness, Jim Dodd, manager <br />of production for the subject, testified as to the definition of <br />the "life of mine" permitted boundary, mining practices, production <br />levels, and the current business plan which includes both long term <br />and short term contracts for the coal. <br />7. Toward the economic life issue, Mr: Dodd testified that <br />the company currently has no production contracts that exceed 5 <br />years. He explained that though the business plan showed <br />projections for the next 15 years, it was revised annually. <br />Evident risks, changing costs, capital investments, current demand <br />and the national economy contributed to the management decisions. <br />The state regulatory agency granted permits for active mining in 5 <br />year increments and required a 2.5 year review. Therefore, the <br />business plan concentrated on 2.5 to 5 years. <br />8. Toward the issue of the reserves, he testified that the <br />company controlled some interests in coal reserves that were <br />outside the current permitted boundary. However, a major revision <br />of the life of mine boundary must be approved by the regulatory <br />agency before any mining can commence. It is his position that <br />only the reserves within the life of mine boundary on the <br />assessment date should be assessed. <br />9. Petitioner's witness, Richard Mills, manager of surface <br />and environment, testified as to the permitting process, the maps <br />of the active and inactive mining areas, the major revision of the <br />life of mine boundary currently being processed, and regulations <br />concerning mining in the alluvial valley floors (stream beds) <br />within the boundary. <br />UA/A27512 <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.