Assembly should inform the public of plans

A Spectrum, by Kevin Sorensen

On Aug. 17, 2001, [Palmer] Superior Court Judge [Eric] Smith ruled that the borough assembly violated the law by conducting a closed-door meeting and withholding an appraisal from the public relative to purchasing a ski resort development company.

However, the applicable law does not make the purchase automatically void. Judge Smith elected to allow the borough to complete the purchase despite the illegal actions.

Now that the borough has finally made public the appraisal for the ski resort development company and the borough is apparently in the ski resort development business, there are two questions the borough residents should ask.

First, why was the assembly so anxious to pay up to 11 times its value for the ski resort development company? Second, what does the assembly intend to do with the borough's newly acquired ski resort development company?

During all the public hearings regarding the purchase, as Judge Smith noted, the public did not know that the assembly was offering up to 11 times the asset's value. For the assembly to pay so much more than the asset's value there are two possible explanations.

The first possibility is to question the assembly's competence. Assuming that the assembly is competent, I will move on to the second possibility.

The second possibility is that there is a compelling reason to pay so much. The assembly could have offered the appraised value of $25,000, but to jump all the way to $277,000 (this does not even consider the property taxes that will be lost).

Such a difference in price and value requires a compelling reason. What is that reason?

Judge Smith noted that there have been several developers attempt the project and all finally concluded that it would not be profitable. Judge Smith also noted the borough was the only known potential buyer. Judge Smith even noted there were assembly members that expressed great enthusiasm over the prospects of the borough buying the ski resort development company.

Why was the assembly so enthusiastic about paying so much for a ski resort development company that does not have evidence of economic viability and no competing purchasers? There is a reason. The taxpayers should know what that reason is.

The second question is what is the borough going to do with its newly acquired ski resort development company? There are several reasons why the answer is not apparent. The private sector has repeatedly found this project not to be economically viable.

Rarely does the government construct and maintain facilities at a lower cost than the private sector, especially in something as risky as ski resort development.

It stands to reason that the assembly had a plan in mind. The taxpayers will pay the costs to develop the ski resort. The taxpayers should be informed on the plan and the expected cost.

If the assembly had a plan, why did the assembly withhold the appraisal from the public? Would the public support the assembly's plan if the public had known that the borough was offering up to 11 times the appraised value and there was no competing bidder?

The assembly should step forward and inform the public concerning their plans to develop the ski resort. The borough residents should not be expected to blindly trust that the mayor and assembly will be good ski resort developers.

Kevin Sorensen is a Palmer real estate agent. He is currently running for the District 2 seat on the Mat-Su Borough Assembly.