Borough moves ahead with CBM ordinance

MAT-SU -- After lively debate over their timing, Mat-Su Borough Assembly members agreed Tuesday night to set a Sept. 21 public hearing on the borough's proposed ordinance addressing coal-bed methane development.

The public hearing, scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. as part of the assembly's regular meeting, will be followed by another public hearing set for 6 p.m. Sept. 23. The public hearings will come just two weeks before the Oct. 5 municipal election.

Adding another facet to the discussion was a letter faxed to the borough at 3:20 p.m., 10 minutes before the assembly gathered for a special meeting prior to its 6 p.m. assembly meeting. The letter was from Alaska Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Tom Irwin, who asked the assembly to postpone consideration of the ordinance for 60 days.

Assembly members jousted over the matter, with some assembly members accusing Mat-Su Borough Mayor Tim Anderson of suggesting the Sept. 21 date specifically to give the issue weight in the upcoming borough assembly election.

Others claimed Assembly Member Bruce Bush was trying to duck the issue before the election when he moved to postpone the public hearing until Nov. 23.

Both Anderson and Bush denied that politics played any part in their decision about timing.

"In my area, there is going to be no coal [bed] methane -- this year or next year, probably never," Bush said. "Really, we should be taking the time to do it right … I don't know why postponing it and doing it the right way would harm anyone who wants to speak on this."

The right way, Bush said, would be to wait and see what DNR recommends for new standards pertaining to coal-bed methane development on state lands in the Mat-Su. Pat Galvin, with DNR's Division of Oil and Gas, said Thursday that DNR staff is nearing completion of changes to the proposed standards, and will likely forward the final draft to Irwin in a few weeks.

Once Irwin signs the documents, Galvin said, the standards will be enforceable.

Assembly Member Betty Vehrs said she didn't want to wait for the state to put forward its standards, and added that there were no guarantees that the state's standards would be useful to borough residents.

"We have waited for the state, a long time. We've gone to their hearings, we've danced to their tune. Are we going to defer to their standards?" Vehrs asked. "My constituents are telling me, 'Get with it, we're sick and tired of waiting.' The state didn't elect me, my constituents did."

Assembly Member Jody Simpson said she would like to have time to evaluate the state standards to see if there are areas that could be addressed through the borough's standards.

"I don't know if I can do that until they're all done," Simpson said.

Assembly Member Mary Kvalheim said she believed people were waiting to testify on the issue, and found it unlikely the assembly would be able to incorporate public testimony into the borough's proposed ordinance and have an enforceable document after two public hearings.

"I don't think we're going to get through them in one public hearing or two public hearings," Kvalheim said. "We have a long way to go to where we can get regulations that we can enforce for our constituency."

Anderson said there could be time to incorporate DNR's standards into the borough's document.

"Both sides are missing the point here -- we're scheduling a public hearing, not acting on this," Anderson said. "I don't see any reason to hold this up, just because of the state. This is going through the normal channels things generally go through in this borough."

Galvin said he's had informal discussions with borough officials who have indicated changes could be made after the borough ordinance passes.

"It's more a matter of the borough ordinance, as it's proposed, is designed to pertain to all lands, so, in our view, they do need to be compatible," Galvin said. "In general, you want to get it right the first time. That's part of the reason ours is taking that time -- we want to make sure we get it right."

He said he has not yet seen the proposed borough ordinance, which is available online at www.matsugov.us/Assembly/documents/04-175or.pdf. He said DNR has not been asked specifically by borough staff to review and comment on the ordinance, and state staff are currently working on their own ordinance.

"We got an e-mail from one of the planning staff about [public hearing] schedules, but nothing that would indicate they're planning on holding it or not acting on it," Galvin said. "We're not at a point now to be evaluating theirs, because we have not finished ours yet."

Contact Rindi White at rindi.white@frontiersman.com.