Rich County commissioners table decision on 674‑acre mineral parcel after public owner dispute
Loading...
Summary
Paul Hales told the commission he negotiated to acquire mineral rights to a patented mining parcel but county records show it went to tax sale with no bidders; commissioners agreed to table the issue and involve the county attorney to determine whether the county should assume title or sell it.
A resident, Paul Hales, told the Rich County Commission he negotiated to receive ownership of a patented mineral parcel on Crawford Mountain but discovered county records show the parcel was listed for tax sale; the commission tabled the matter for further legal review.
Hales told the commission he contacted the recorded owner, Crawford Mountain Properties Inc., learned the company had not paid taxes and the parcel had been offered at tax sale with no bidders. He said a quitclaim deed had been prepared but that the Utah corporation named in the original deed no longer exists. Hales said he wants to pursue either a purchase from the current owner or a clean transfer if the county assumes title.
County staff said the auditor may “strike off” delinquent parcels to the county under Utah Code (noted in county discussion as 59‑2‑1351.3). County attorney staff told the commission they would prepare the deed needed to vest title in the county if the statutory process is followed. The attorney advised the auditor could “execute the deed for the property sold under the subsection in the name of the county and attest by seal vesting in the purchaser.”
Hales described reclamation and safety issues on the parcel — abandoned mine tunnels, subsidence, and previous reclamation efforts tied to the original patent — and told commissioners the parcel is about “674” acres. He asked whether the county would accept an offer of purchase or proceed with the statutory tax‑sale/strike‑off process. County officials said the parcel was advertised in the 2023 tax sale with no buyers and the county has not yet finalized striking it to county title.
Commission discussion addressed options: strike the parcel to county title under the tax‑sale statute and then advertise for sale, accept Hales’ negotiated quitclaim if that can be completed, or advertise the parcel as a standard tax sale. Commissioners agreed not to decide immediately; Commissioner motioned to table the matter and seek more information from the county attorney and to involve Hales in further discussions. A motion to table and return next month passed unanimously.
Why it matters: The parcel includes patented mineral rights and historic mine workings; ownership affects reclamation liability, public‑safety concerns such as subsidence, and future uses including potential mining, grazing, or sale. Legal status is affected by the tax‑sale process and by questions about whether the patent covered surface, minerals, or both.
Clarifying details recorded at the meeting: Hales said back taxes had ranged from about $8,800 to $10,200 during the period he pursued the property; he said the parcel had been set for tax sale with no bidders in February 2023. County staff cited Utah Code 59‑2‑1351.3 as the statutory pathway for striking delinquent parcels to county title. Commissioners directed staff to research whether the tax parcel covered mineral rights only or surface and to return with recommendations and legal options.
