Group questions Baard property funding

LISBON - A consumer advocacy group is questioning the use of tax dollars to secure property for the Baard Energy project since some of it went to a man later convicted of operating a meth lab on his land.

Ohio Citizen Action's Catherine Turcer sent a letter this week to Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray asking him to "investigate several circumstance surrounding the proposed Baard Energy Ohio River Clean Fuels plant in Wellsville, Ohio."

The questions posed by the OCA focus in particular on money spent by the Columbiana County Port Authority to secure options to purchase 522 acres in Yellow Creek Township for the $6 billion Baard Energy plant, which will convert coal into liquid fuel.

The letter came several days following a story about Peter Barta II, who owns 146 of the 522 acres and was sentenced to prison last month for running a meth lab on his land. The port authority's option to purchase Barta's property for $1.45 million expired Dec. 31, 2009, and a month later Huntington National Bank obtained a foreclosure order against the 146 acres. The sheriff's sale is scheduled for April 6, but Baard Energy indicated it may no longer be interested in Barta's land as part of the project.

Turcer is concerned about grant money awarded the port authority by the state to fund the property acquisition, especially the $125,000 paid Barta in 2007 and 2008 by the port authority to secure and then extend all purchase options as the project became delayed due to lack of private investors.

Her letter, which referred extensively to a newspaper story, asked whether the state has "the right to recover any of the purchase option money that went to Mr. Barta for the period while was he was running his meth lab on the property."

Tracy Drake is the chief executive officer for the county port authority. He said they learned of Barta's alleged criminal activities like everyone else, when he was indicted in late January 2009 after his property was searched earlier in the month by the county drug task force.

Barta's last extension check from the port authority was issued Dec. 29, 2008, and Drake doesn't know how they can be held responsible for something they didn't know about.

"They're just trying to stir things up," he said of the OCA.

Turcer also asked the attorney general these other questions:

- "The Ohio EPA required Baard to expand its original surface area to meet environmental requirements. If Baard now decides not to use Mr. Barta's 145 acres, would they still be in compliance with the Ohio EPA's directives."

- "If the Barta property is sold, and the county receives any profit, should that money be returned to the State of Ohio? Should the state file a lien on the property behind Huntington Bank."

(The property was ordered forfeited to the county prosecutor's office and drug task force since it was used in committing the drug offense. The county would only receive money if the property sells for more than what the bank is owed.)

- If the project is scrapped, "will the port authority repay the state for the money it has spent for this project?"

Turcer also questioned the proposed purchase prices, which have yet to be disclosed, indicating they seemed excessive given what Barta was going to be paid, especially during a recession.

The port authority was at a disadvantage because property owners knew the port authority wanted their land after reading news accounts about Baard Energy's interest. Since state law prohibits the use of eminent domain unless the land is for a direct public purpose, such as building a highway or water treatment plant, Drake said they had no bargaining leverage.

The project had apparently caught the interest of the OCA prior to the newspaper story of this past week. On Feb. 17, OCA organizer Kate Russell wrote a number of coal companies, asking them if they had entered into any contract with Baard.

Drake said the OCA, rather than being a consumer advocacy group, is working in concert with environmental activists groups that are trying to derail the project because they are oppose the use of coal.

"They may try to couch their concerns like they are trying to be altruistic, but they're not," he said. "It's one thing to stand up for what you believe, but it's quite another to try and hurt people to serve your own interests."

Drake said the people who would be hurt if this project falls through would be the thousands of construction workers and the 300 people who Baard Energy plans to employ.

Drake dismissed the OCA letter to the attorney general as baseless.

"They're trying to create a tempest, and we'll have to see how it goes," he said.