Laserfiche WebLink
Board's ability to go after security which is posted for very specific items, and (4) he did not see <br />where "security" was defined. <br />Pursuant to Chairman Davis's query, Director Boling supplied details on the types <br />of security which would be accepted. <br />Attorney Ferguson suggested that the Ordinance not mix up the security for the <br />specific action required for the permit, with the penalties. <br />Attorney Collins saw Attorney Ferguson's point. He remarked that if a mine was <br />out of compliance, or in non-conformance with the road maintenance, forfeiture of the <br />compliance and road maintenance securities, respectively, might be appropriate, but it would not <br />be appropriate to take all three types of security, particularly the restoration security which <br />would not be implicated in a violation during site development. <br />Attorney Ferguson had further issues with Item (1)(d), under Section #7, Traffic <br />Law Enforcement. He felt that the Board could not hold mine operators responsible for the <br />actions of an independent third party, the truck driver. <br />Commissioners, staff, and Attorney Ferguson continued to discuss what the <br />responsibility of the mine owners would be for the actions of the truck drivers. Attorney <br />Ferguson requested that staff do additional work on the enforcement provisions. <br />Returning to the proposed requirement regarding forfeiture of all security, <br />Attorney Collins suggested amending Section #7(c)(4), page 47, as follows: "...the Board of <br />County Commissioners is authorized to impose forfeiture of all posted security (related to <br />29 <br />December 19, 2008 <br />Special Call Mining Regulations <br />