Laserfiche WebLink
<br />C®~~~~~~~~~~~~AL <br />2. The Division did notify in writing via certified mail all owners <br />of record (as shown on the Permit Application Maps) of the areas <br />to be reclaimed prior to the commencement of any reclamation work. <br />Also, the Division was not notified of the change in property <br />ownership of the East Mine Area parcel until late fall of 1990 or <br />early 1991, well after demolition work had started on the East <br />Mine Area. <br />3. It would appear that a case could be made that there was no net <br />improvement value remaining on the East Mine Area at the time <br />Reclamation work commenced, and that there was instead a net <br />liability or cost in getting the property successfuly reclaimed. <br />Although there may have been some value in the improvements re- <br />maining on the property, the was still a net cost to the Division <br />for getting the work done even when the contractor was given <br />salvage rights to anything left on the property. The only <br />reason the State granted salvage rights to the contractor was to <br />offset or reduce the total cost of reclamation. If there was a <br />net value to the improvements after factoring in the cost of <br />reclamation, it would seem that the open competitive bidding <br />process used by the state would have produced a negative bid or <br />net income on the construction contract. Instead, the reclamation <br />work cost the State $114,140.00 which does not include the cost <br />of hazardous materials disposal, possible topsoil importation, <br />site revegetation, future site maintenance over the bond lia- <br />bility period, and possible other remedial work required by the <br />Office of Surface Mining due to program oversite requirements. <br />4. It should be noted that the State never "seized" the property or <br />"sold off" any of the assets. The Division was simply following <br />a board order to reclaim the site as required by law. There was <br />ample time afforded to Mr. Brown after his purchase of the tax <br />lien to sell off anything of value on the property before any <br />reclamation work began. Approximately 1 year and 9 months passed <br />between the time Mr. Brown purchased the property and reclamation <br />work began. Although the Division was contacted in late 1990 or <br />early 1991 that an individual had purchased the tax lien on the <br />property, the date of the lien purchase was not mentioned and <br />the only request for information was for the date the permit was <br />revoked and the bond forfeited. Mr. Brown indicated last week <br />that the County had sent the State a letter informing us of <br />the purchase, but I have no knowledge of receiving such a letter <br />and am unable to find a copy of such a letter in our files. <br />Because the date the Division was informed over the phone that <br />the property had been purchased by Mr. Brown was after the date <br />reclamation work had commenced, the Division did not feel that <br />the new owner had any right to stop reclamation work from <br />continuing. <br />