Hatcher Pass deal postponed

Public hearing set to discuss proposed development of ski resort

September 23, 2005

DARRELL L. BREESE/Frontiersman reporter

PALMER - The Mat-Su Borough Assembly voted 5-2, after a heated debate, to postpone authorizing Borough Manager John Duffy to begin negotiations with JL Properties for the development of a Hatcher Pass Ski Area.

Assembly member Talis Colberg called for postponement of the decision until the Oct. 18 meeting, at which time public testimony could be heard on the proposed development plan.

"The manager wants direction to move forward. But to go forward with what is unclear," Colberg said. "That is why we need public input at this stage, to determine what it is the people of the borough want. I fail to see how it will hurt to have public input on the plan before moving into the negotiations. We should listen to the people and then develop a position on the main points of the plan before entering negotiations."

Assembly member Jim Colver disagreed, claiming the delay was an attempt to derail the planned development.

"If you want to create a circus out of this and create a public spectacle, then let's drag it out in public meetings," Colver said. "Postpone-ment is simply trying to kill it. We've invested a lot of time, invested a lot of land and asked JL Properties to join a partnership with us and now we have people trying to kill it by bogging it down with more public hearings. If you want to kill it now, then kill it.

"The question is, do we want to dance with JL Properties," Colver continued. "That is what we are trying to authorize Mr. Duffy to do. There will be time for public input later in the process. There is no reason to string JL Properties along, that's not a good way to do business."

Michael Miller, who lives near the proposed development, urged the body to postpone because entering into negotiations is a big step in the process and there has been no opportunity for public input on the issue.

"I don't even know what the plan is and would like sometime to review it," Miller said. "Why are you moving ahead without letting the people review the plan and offer input? You're not following the public process."

Speaking via teleconference, assembly member Bill Allen compared the push to enter contract negotiations to another failed assembly-approved joint venture.

"We rushed into asking people into exploring for methane gas without public input," Allen said. "And then we had to change the rules and run them out of town. This is such a large transaction, a $41-million project. The public must be involved with the process, but I don't see any reason why that can't happen after Mr. Duffy negotiates with the developer."

Ralph Baldwin summed up the feelings of most of the people speaking during the audience-participation portion of the meeting, calling for public input. "With all due respect for the body, this action is moving forward way too fast," Baldwin said.

The majority of the assembly agreed with Baldwin and Colberg, voting 5-2 to postpone the action.

"We just heard about the proposed plan from JL Properties seven days ago," assembly member Betty Vehrs said. "It's like our hand is being forced on the issue. Why are we being rushed and why aren't we having any public hearings?"

Assembly member Lynne Woods, one of the two members voting against postponing, said she received several phone calls and e-mail communications from constituents asking questions about the project and wanting more information.

"I don't want to approve any deal that the public doesn't know all the details of and has had time to give their input," Woods said. "Tonight I heard that the people want to be involved and know what is happening."

Following the vote, Vehrs spoke to Colver's strong language regarding the motivation of other members.

"I don't believe that postponing this will kill the project, as Mr. Colver has put it," Vehrs said. "By taking the time to have a public hearing before moving forward we will know the direction the people want us to go and we can move forward with something that is in the best interest of the people of the borough."

Colver understood the desire to include the public in the process, although he favored moving forward.

"A lot of the conversation got off track and away from the question," Colver said. "We were discussing giving Mr. Duffy the authority to begin the negotiating process, basically telling JL Properties that we want to be in a private-public partnership with them. We'll get there, it's obvious that this ski area is possible. It's just going to take some time."

Despite his confidence in the development happening, Colver still believed there were some members of the assembly who are out to kill the whole deal.

"For some people, this is simply a way of killing this," Colver said. "There are some people who don't want to see things happen. Some of my colleagues have never been supportive of this project, like Mr. Colberg."

Colberg was troubled about Colver singling him out as being opposed to the ski area.

"First off, I have no problem with developing the Hatcher Pass ski area," Colberg said. "I just don't want to complete the project and then have the borough operating the ski area. We have several other pressing demands for borough money that lead me to believe that we can't afford to operate the ski area."

Following the vote postponing action, Mayor Tim Anderson, at Allen's request, scheduled a work session for 6 p.m., Oct. 13. There will be no time for public comment during the meeting, but assembly members will discuss areas of concern they have with the plan.

Contact Darrell Breese at

352-2267 or darrell.breese@

frontiersman.com.