Mayor discusses borough's actions

A Spectrum by Tim Anderson

In light of the recent threats of recall and allegations against the borough I feel I must speak out. While I do not believe in getting into the long, drawn-out shouting matches we see happen on so many issues where one letter begets another, the whole story surrounding this threat of recall needs to be told, and not just a few selective pieces that portray a convenient slant.

Two individuals came to a recent assembly meeting representing two different groups. They each stated they disagreed with the assembly and the borough manager over the handling of the Hatcher Pass lease and threatened recall drives. They issued a press release to that effect.

The next day as I ran into people I was asked, "Who are these guys?" One group is Friends of Hatcher Pass (FOHP). The principals of this group are Jim Turner, Darcie Salmon, and Mike Scott. We all know them as a former assembly member, our former mayor, and our former borough manager, respectively.

The other group is called Citizens to Restore Open Honest Government (CROHG). Bill Moll, former planning commissioner, and Jim Turner head this group up.

These individuals are upset that the borough chose to purchase the lease from the private developer for the land at Hatcher Pass. This land has been considered for development into a ski area. One group, FOHP, filed a lawsuit to stop this transaction. There are three issues surrounding this case that the organizations mentioned earlier are focused upon. Following are the facts surrounding these issues:

1. The assembly violated the state Open Meetings Act: Fact. The assembly held an executive session in March 2000 to discuss entering into negotiations to purchase the lease. The executive session was allowable under the 1992 code that stated executive sessions may be used to discuss purchase of land. This ordinance was, in fact, relied upon by the previous assembly, of which Mr. Turner was a member, in similar discussions of the Hatcher Pass development.

However, the court ruled this 1992 law was out of compliance with the Open Meeting Act because it was too broad of an interpretation of the Open Meeting Act. Thus the meeting itself was a violation. The court also ruled that the Open Meetings Act allows the assembly to fix the violation as long as another public meeting is held before any action is taken. The court ruled the assembly had, in fact, fixed the violation when a public hearing was held in June 2000 before approving the purchase.

2. The borough violated the Public Records Act: Fact. The borough hired a third-party appraiser to prepare an appraisal of the value of the lease and the improvements the private developer had done. This appraisal contained private tax records of the private developer and that developer requested those records remain confidential. Jim Turner made a public records request for a copy of the appraisal and the borough clerk denied his request due to the confidential tax concern.

Borough code requires an automatic appeal to the manager of any records request that is denied. The administration overlooked this appeal. Mr. Duffy admitted prior to the case being heard that this was an oversight and should have been addressed. The court noted the lack of appeal. The court also stated that the appraisal could have been released by removing the private developer's tax records. The court also noted that the borough administration did release the appraisal after the purchase was approved and before the court ruled.

3. The borough paid too much to purchase the lease: Fact. The purchase price of $277,000 was negotiated with the private developer who owned the lease.

The original asking price was $400,000, as documented by both the borough and by statements on the record by Mr. Turner. This was an 11,000-acre land purchase and included road improvements and geotechnical work completed by the developer.

It is my opinion that the borough acted in good faith. Other assemblies used the 1992 law that was ruled out of compliance, including the assembly with which these former officials served. It is important to note the court ruled that, although errors had clearly been made, stopping the lease transaction was not warranted. As to the second issue, an appeal of the decision to deny release of the appraisal was not handled correctly.

This was an error that the borough manager has accepted responsibility for. And, as to the purchase price, I am comfortable with the results of the negotiations that Mr. Duffy made with the developer. It is a fair price for the lease and the other assets.

As mayor, I take the responsibilities of open and honest government very seriously. I stand by my statement that this administration has acted in good faith.

We will accept responsibility for errors when made and more importantly, will take steps to eliminate future errors. I pledged during my campaign to return the Mat-Su to a responsible and responsive government and we will continue to make improvements toward that end throughout my tenure.

Don't be swayed by angry rhetoric from individuals with personal motives. Seek out the facts.

Tim Anderson is mayor of the Mat-Su Borough.