Author Topic: Pre-Hearing Memorandum  (Read 787 times)

editor

  • Chief
  • ****
  • Posts: 68
  • Registered User
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-Hearing Memorandum
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2016, 09:55:48 am »
By the way, the agreement has been signed.  I, for one, thank everyone for taking the time to understand the issue and provide input.
Thanks,

-ed

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 33
  • Forum Administrator
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-Hearing Memorandum
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2016, 08:32:30 am »
The mine owner/operator is responsible for any damage he causes. Proving cause may not be easy or quick. And unfortunately that is after it occurs. The purpose of the bond is to protect us should the mine owner 'walk away' from his responsibility, and in the case of large-scale impacts, until the multi-billion $$ federal super-fund can kick in. Again, this is all reactive; after the damage has occurred.

Our intent in the settlement was not to just 'get money', it was to allow us to be proactive rather than reactive.  We don't want something big to occur; in fact we hope nothing occurs.  We don't want the mining company to go out of business.  We hope the mining company doesn't walk away; they are local folks and neighbors.  The settlement nets us $0.55 per ton that we can mindfully apply towards treatment, or towards getting the Que water here sooner and getting out of the water-well business altogether.

As to assigning values, yes.  We can readily assign values to the extremes...  Now, and what it would look like if the Lake went away. (Go to South Fork where the lake was before the Johnstown Flood for a good visual...).  There is a near-infinite spectrum in between, however.  If you could clarify the scenario a bit that might help.
Bob H.,
-ADMIN

bgroft

  • Newbie [Gatherer]
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Registered User
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-Hearing Memorandum
« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2016, 10:49:53 am »
Thank you for posting the Pre-Hearing Memorandum.

To support your arguments that the bond should be significantly raised is there any validity or legal arguments that could be made that if the Borough must access the Quemahoning Water System in the future that there would be significant expense including any upgrades, potential fees, and then I would assume a higher monthly bill. Non- resident homeowners would be paying minimum water bills even when their residences would be "winterized".

Like most, we are so very happy and in love with Indian Lake and Indian Lake life. I wish I could retire here/there tomorrow. But, putting the sentiment aside...

Is there any method that could assign value to lake front, lake access property versus the value of our properties should we lose the recreation and ambiance of the lake? Properties devalue..school district and borough revenue impacted also.

I thank you for the opportunity for input...Bill

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 33
  • Forum Administrator
    • View Profile
Pre-Hearing Memorandum
« Reply #1 on: May 26, 2016, 01:10:26 am »
At the Council meeting on May 25th I was asked to publish our Pre-Hearing Memorandum.

Here is the link: 
http://ilborough.com/FILES/BooneMine/Pre-Hearing%20Memorandum%20(1-21-16).pdf
« Last Edit: May 26, 2016, 01:12:51 am by Admin »
Bob H.,
-ADMIN