Township Meeting :
The 4 March 2009 meeting dealt mainly with new equipment purchase and rental options, COG services, and SALDO options.
The bids for a new backhoe/loader were opened in the presence of the bidders. A used Case 580M was selected as it was much lower in price and satisfied all requirements.
The advantages of renting a gravel crusher and rental options were discussed.
The town will now conduct it's own building code inspection services under a contract with Building Code Inspectors instead of COG. This action will reduce fees to residents. COG will continue to enforce Sewage codes for the town.
Copies of the county SALDO were obtained last month. A Supervisor met with Bob Templeton to discuss town-county cooperation on use of the county SALDO. The discussion of SALDO options concluded that the town would use the county SALDO rather than form a planning commission and adopt their own. The county planning commission is considering inviting town representatives to working sessions on a quarterly basis.
An engineering company provided their plans for examining potential gas well pad sites in the township along Route 706.
The February NTC meeting was briefly discussed. The NTC was informed of our decision to not zone and interest in withdrawing from the controlling Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement for Multi-Municipal Planning and Implementation (zoning). They indicated they would review the status of the agreement for the next meeting.
NTC Meeting ( at Choconut ) :
The 19 March 2009 NTC meeting was fairly brief. Bill Stewart noted that there was little current activity of interest to most members and suggested meeting bi-monthly instead of monthly. A majority of the township representatives showed a preference for quarterly meetings and that decision was made. The next meeting will be 18 June 2008 in Jessup.
Liberty Township announced that they had voted to not zone. Bruce Griffis confirmed that Jessup had voted to not zone; he also stated that no decision had been taken on SALDO.
The NTC 2008 Audit reports and the March 2009 Treasurer report were provided. The Treasurer report continues to show $59,639 balance in SALDO-Zoning Funds; this is unchanged since Carson Helfrich returned the funds in December 2008. Ms. Kublo asked whether the towns could use those funds for their own SALDO or other uses.
The answer was interesting. The residual funds are being reviewed to determine how much is DCED funding which must be returned to the State Treasury, and how much is from township matching funds. The matching funds would go back to the towns based on their initial contribution. The initial match contributions were set by a formula involving town revenue and size. The basic match was 70% DCED to 30% Town.
So, some funds may be due to Jessup and the NTC – DCED review should be followed.
I asked Bill Stewart what they had decided about changing the NTC Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement, since he had taken that action at the February meeting. He deferred to Bob Templeton who informed us that he had consulted Carson Helfrich. According to Carson, the Agreement had never been signed by all the townships.
In other words, the Agreement had never been properly executed in the first place. Bill Stewart suggested any town that had signed and was concerned should rescind the agreement in a town meeting and inform the NTC. This is good advice, and we should take it.
The revelation that the key intergovernmental agreement was never properly executed is amazing. It is equally amazing that the NTC could not answer the question without recourse to Mr. Helfrich through Mr. Templeton.
It also raises the question whether either the Comprehensive Plan or the Zoning Ordinance were ever legally valid since they were put together under the auspices of a Joint Planning Committee which was not properly formed under the unexecuted (and invalid) Intergovernmental Cooperation Agrreement.
This interpretation of invalidity is consistent with Carson's letter of 13 January 2009, in which he states: “This zoning ordinance as now designed can be adopted by any of the NTC municipalities independent of adoption by the others.” Implicit is the need, under the MPC, for a town to form its own planning commission which then reviews the proposed ordinance as a template and adopts it as their own town ordinance.
I suggest Jessup rescind the “Agreement” and inform the NTC by letter that we rescind it, are not interested in a joint SALDO, and want reimbursement of the funds due us from the residual Zoning – SALDO funds balance.
A citizen suggested the NTC hold a public meeting to discuss gas pipeline routes crossing town borders, safety, and minimal land disruption issues. The ensuing discussion covered pipelines along road right-of-ways and who should be in the approval process since there are safety and setback issues as well as landowner property rights involved.
Some supervisors thought they should have supervisor-only meetings before letting the public in on their thinking. Ironically, it escaped them that a citizen raised the issue and much thoughtful discussion came from the citizens. It seems a missed opportunity to improve citizen-supervisor relations, although a better place for these discussions may be the proposed county gas committee.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Gas Committee Tasks?
The Susquehanna County Commissioners have charged the Economic Development Board with making recommendations for a County Gas Committee. In an earlier post, Here , I offered suggestions and information sources to facilitate discussions about what a county gas committee might do.
This post discusses more specific action areas and tasks for a committee. They are presented in categories of actions, with questions, to stimulate discussions and decisions on priorities and tasks.
Public Data Access and Awareness - Some townships get advance notice from engineering companies about planned well pad sites and from gas companies about likely pipeline routes and road crossings. An engineering company provided their drill pad plans to my town prior to our last meeting. Do all towns get similar advance notice? Is it also the case for planned pipeline routes? Is this information and usage coordinated across towns and county offices? Could well site drilling and pipeline route planning information be aggregated by the County for sharing with towns and citizens, perhaps by a public website? This information could be used by citizens as well as town and county planning commissions.
Joint Contingency Planning and Reaction - DEP requires gas companies to place a plastic cylinder at each well site containing their contingency plan and data in the event of an emergency. Are these plans provided and coordinated with Town and County Fire and EMA offices? Is or should the County lead in joint contingency planning between towns and fire departments and adjoining districts? Should this be done also for pipeline routes since the Texas experience is that more fires and emergencies arise from the pipelines than from the wells?
Town Road Access Permissions - Who should give approval for thumper trucks to “thump” or gather seismic data along the public roads or for companies to lay pipelines along road right-of-ways? Who should be made aware of thumper or pipeline routes in advance of permission? Should landowner permission be a prerequisite to approval since they do own the land under the right-of- ways? Pipelines create extensive safety setbacks and restrictions impacting the landowner use of his property. Seismic exploration data can cover a thousand or more feet from the road and should not be gathered without landowner permission or contractual agreement. New county-wide policies or guidelines may be needed to protect property rights as well as public safety.
Paying for Exploitation Services - Gas companies make extensive use of town roads and require other services as indicated above. These new burdens should be paid for by the companies but there are no tax methods to do so at county/town level. Should the County participate in or form alliances with other counties for legislation to get a substantial portion of gas royalty income tax or severance tax allocated back to the counties and towns that produced the gas? If the gas producing counties and legislative districts combined on this issue, they would be a powerful voice if not a majority in both house.
Of course, it is up to the Commissioners to decide what they want a Gas Committee to do and to select the right mix of talent to accomplish the mission. However, some of the above ideas represent important areas of town and county coordination. If they are not being addressed already by existing offices, the committee may a good focal point for establishing coordination and actions among the towns and the county offices.
This post discusses more specific action areas and tasks for a committee. They are presented in categories of actions, with questions, to stimulate discussions and decisions on priorities and tasks.
Public Data Access and Awareness - Some townships get advance notice from engineering companies about planned well pad sites and from gas companies about likely pipeline routes and road crossings. An engineering company provided their drill pad plans to my town prior to our last meeting. Do all towns get similar advance notice? Is it also the case for planned pipeline routes? Is this information and usage coordinated across towns and county offices? Could well site drilling and pipeline route planning information be aggregated by the County for sharing with towns and citizens, perhaps by a public website? This information could be used by citizens as well as town and county planning commissions.
Joint Contingency Planning and Reaction - DEP requires gas companies to place a plastic cylinder at each well site containing their contingency plan and data in the event of an emergency. Are these plans provided and coordinated with Town and County Fire and EMA offices? Is or should the County lead in joint contingency planning between towns and fire departments and adjoining districts? Should this be done also for pipeline routes since the Texas experience is that more fires and emergencies arise from the pipelines than from the wells?
Town Road Access Permissions - Who should give approval for thumper trucks to “thump” or gather seismic data along the public roads or for companies to lay pipelines along road right-of-ways? Who should be made aware of thumper or pipeline routes in advance of permission? Should landowner permission be a prerequisite to approval since they do own the land under the right-of- ways? Pipelines create extensive safety setbacks and restrictions impacting the landowner use of his property. Seismic exploration data can cover a thousand or more feet from the road and should not be gathered without landowner permission or contractual agreement. New county-wide policies or guidelines may be needed to protect property rights as well as public safety.
Paying for Exploitation Services - Gas companies make extensive use of town roads and require other services as indicated above. These new burdens should be paid for by the companies but there are no tax methods to do so at county/town level. Should the County participate in or form alliances with other counties for legislation to get a substantial portion of gas royalty income tax or severance tax allocated back to the counties and towns that produced the gas? If the gas producing counties and legislative districts combined on this issue, they would be a powerful voice if not a majority in both house.
Of course, it is up to the Commissioners to decide what they want a Gas Committee to do and to select the right mix of talent to accomplish the mission. However, some of the above ideas represent important areas of town and county coordination. If they are not being addressed already by existing offices, the committee may a good focal point for establishing coordination and actions among the towns and the county offices.
Susquehanna County Population Update - Decline Really !
The Census Bureau has just released their latest County level population estimates through July 2008. In this post ( Jessup Jottings: Susquehanna County Population Explosion - Really ?? ), I discussed the incredibly high growth projections for Susquehanna County made by the Penn State Data Center(PSDC).
So let's see how those projections stack up to the US Census Bureau latest estimates, released on 19 March 2009. You can find them here ( Population Estimates ) for Pennsylvania and scroll down for Susquehanna County. Remember that PSDC was projecting a straight line growth from the then July 2007 Estimate of 41,115 ( already a 2.6% decline from 2000) to a 2010 projection of 48,523, reflecting an 18% increase in 3 years, to a projected population of 77,530 in 2030.
Unfortunately, the Census Bureau sees a different reality. It revised the 2007 estimate down to 41,024 and set the 2008 estimate at 40,831. This reflects an 8-year decline of 3.3% . The trend is down every year since 2000. To reach the PSDC projection for 2010 requires a 2-year growth of 7,692 people or about 19%.
We don't seem to be going in the right direction. According to this Wall Street Journal article ( U.S. Migration Falls Sharply), we should not expect to see much inbound migration due to the economy. Nor should we expect much from the "gas rush" since prices have dropped by 2/3rds and the uncertainty about land values seems to be slowing the land development process.
So, until the PSDC can can up with some serious fact-based reasoning, I'll stick with my bottom line about their projection : it's "Incredible" - as in literally unbelievable.
So let's see how those projections stack up to the US Census Bureau latest estimates, released on 19 March 2009. You can find them here ( Population Estimates ) for Pennsylvania and scroll down for Susquehanna County. Remember that PSDC was projecting a straight line growth from the then July 2007 Estimate of 41,115 ( already a 2.6% decline from 2000) to a 2010 projection of 48,523, reflecting an 18% increase in 3 years, to a projected population of 77,530 in 2030.
Unfortunately, the Census Bureau sees a different reality. It revised the 2007 estimate down to 41,024 and set the 2008 estimate at 40,831. This reflects an 8-year decline of 3.3% . The trend is down every year since 2000. To reach the PSDC projection for 2010 requires a 2-year growth of 7,692 people or about 19%.
We don't seem to be going in the right direction. According to this Wall Street Journal article ( U.S. Migration Falls Sharply), we should not expect to see much inbound migration due to the economy. Nor should we expect much from the "gas rush" since prices have dropped by 2/3rds and the uncertainty about land values seems to be slowing the land development process.
So, until the PSDC can can up with some serious fact-based reasoning, I'll stick with my bottom line about their projection : it's "Incredible" - as in literally unbelievable.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
The Key NTC Intergovernmental Agreement
I have been asked about the key NTC agreement covering zoning and what should be done about it since several townships have voted to not zone. This subject was raised at the 19 February 2009 NTC meeting and should be discussed in future meetings. This post will adress that question directly and reference my earlier blog posts; in particular, the synopsis is useful for those who can't get a copy from their township.
The key NTC agreement is the "Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement For Multi-Municipal Planning and Implementation". The synopsis is here: Part 1 : NTC Intergovernmental Zoning Agreement- Summary Excerpts. My initial comments are here: Jessup Jottings: Part 2 : NTC Intergovernmental Zoning Agreement. They were written in early January '09 and more recent thoughts are in this post (Jessup News Post - February 2008) summarizing the February NTC meeting.
This key 12 page agreement was established for Joint Planning and Implementation (Zoning) and establishes a "Joint Planning Committee" of elected officials to oversee all actions related to the Comprehensive Plan and any implementing Zoning and land ordinances. In essence, the agreement ties each town to that NTC Planning Committee before they can make or change land ordinances.
Don't get confused by other intergovernmental agreements to create joint planning commissions ( e.g., betwen Rush and Jessup) to follow up on zoning. There's a big legal difference in the MPC between “Committee” and “Commission”. That mistake was made by some at the NTC meeting and caused some confusion. Those "Commission" agreements were not signed and are not at issue.
This agreement was signed by all 12 participating Municipalities and was essential, under the state Municipal Planning Code, to the legality of the NTC Comprehensive Plan which all 12 towns did adopt and sign. It would be essential for Joint Zoning if we were to do that. Being in the agreement is not the same as being in the NTC - Montrose is not participating in the agreement or the Joint Planning Committee, but is in the NTC.
The agreement's status is less clear if some towns decide to zone independently in a coordinated way following the same Joint Comprehensive Plan, while others opt to not zone.
The agreement specifically covers "Implementation " of the joint Comprehensive Plan with the Joint Planning Committee (NOT a "Commission" ) acting to assure towns keep their "implementation" ordinances “Consistent" with the Plan. That could be interpreted to mean any land ordinances, triggering Committee reviews of ordinances by the non-zoning towns.
For towns that are not zoning, it makes no sense to be in the agreement and be required to have their land ordinances reviewed by that joint Committee. It also seems undesirable for the zoning towns to have to go to a committee of non-zoners for approval of changes to their zoning ordinances. So, I think both sides need to reconsider the agreement; terminate it and redo it for those who want to be tied together in joint or coordinated zoning.
The agreement states that a 100% vote is required to change the agreement and 75% vote to terminate it. If a town wants to withdraw on their own, they need to pass a resolution after which there is 1 year waiting period during which the towns stays bound to the agreement ( and I think still a "voting member"). This made sense for Joint Zoning; but not now. The agreement is overtaken by events and should be changed to fit the new facts. The easiest way is to terminate and rewrite it for the willing zoners.
Members of that “Joint Planning Committee" ( elected officials) seem defensive about keeping the agreement in force and their status on it. These options may get discussed at the next NTC meeting. There may be reasons why the agreement should continue; but it seems dangerous for towns to remain in an agreement which seriously limits their freedom of action to make their own land ordinance decisions.
If any forms of joint ordinances or zoning actions are desired in the future, those action should be taken anew and openly.The current zoning debacle has revealed a serious disconnect between the desires of many citizens and their township supervisors. One side feels they are acting in the best interests of their towns; the other side feels their interests have been betrayed to the interests of an unelected regional bureaucracy. Regardless of the merits or justifications on either side, citizens and leaders need a high level of mutual understanding and trust.
Changing this current key intergovernmental agreement will be an important step in that direction. The next step is to reconsider the objectives of the NTC. I doubt that anyone would object to it being an informational forum and a cooperative purchasing group. But, I also doubt that many citizens would endorse it becoming a regional bureaucracy or additional governmental layer. And, unfortunately, that is how many perceive the NTC's role because of the joint zoning effort.
The key NTC agreement is the "Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement For Multi-Municipal Planning and Implementation". The synopsis is here: Part 1 : NTC Intergovernmental Zoning Agreement- Summary Excerpts. My initial comments are here: Jessup Jottings: Part 2 : NTC Intergovernmental Zoning Agreement. They were written in early January '09 and more recent thoughts are in this post (Jessup News Post - February 2008) summarizing the February NTC meeting.
This key 12 page agreement was established for Joint Planning and Implementation (Zoning) and establishes a "Joint Planning Committee" of elected officials to oversee all actions related to the Comprehensive Plan and any implementing Zoning and land ordinances. In essence, the agreement ties each town to that NTC Planning Committee before they can make or change land ordinances.
Don't get confused by other intergovernmental agreements to create joint planning commissions ( e.g., betwen Rush and Jessup) to follow up on zoning. There's a big legal difference in the MPC between “Committee” and “Commission”. That mistake was made by some at the NTC meeting and caused some confusion. Those "Commission" agreements were not signed and are not at issue.
This agreement was signed by all 12 participating Municipalities and was essential, under the state Municipal Planning Code, to the legality of the NTC Comprehensive Plan which all 12 towns did adopt and sign. It would be essential for Joint Zoning if we were to do that. Being in the agreement is not the same as being in the NTC - Montrose is not participating in the agreement or the Joint Planning Committee, but is in the NTC.
The agreement's status is less clear if some towns decide to zone independently in a coordinated way following the same Joint Comprehensive Plan, while others opt to not zone.
The agreement specifically covers "Implementation " of the joint Comprehensive Plan with the Joint Planning Committee (NOT a "Commission" ) acting to assure towns keep their "implementation" ordinances “Consistent" with the Plan. That could be interpreted to mean any land ordinances, triggering Committee reviews of ordinances by the non-zoning towns.
For towns that are not zoning, it makes no sense to be in the agreement and be required to have their land ordinances reviewed by that joint Committee. It also seems undesirable for the zoning towns to have to go to a committee of non-zoners for approval of changes to their zoning ordinances. So, I think both sides need to reconsider the agreement; terminate it and redo it for those who want to be tied together in joint or coordinated zoning.
The agreement states that a 100% vote is required to change the agreement and 75% vote to terminate it. If a town wants to withdraw on their own, they need to pass a resolution after which there is 1 year waiting period during which the towns stays bound to the agreement ( and I think still a "voting member"). This made sense for Joint Zoning; but not now. The agreement is overtaken by events and should be changed to fit the new facts. The easiest way is to terminate and rewrite it for the willing zoners.
Members of that “Joint Planning Committee" ( elected officials) seem defensive about keeping the agreement in force and their status on it. These options may get discussed at the next NTC meeting. There may be reasons why the agreement should continue; but it seems dangerous for towns to remain in an agreement which seriously limits their freedom of action to make their own land ordinance decisions.
If any forms of joint ordinances or zoning actions are desired in the future, those action should be taken anew and openly.The current zoning debacle has revealed a serious disconnect between the desires of many citizens and their township supervisors. One side feels they are acting in the best interests of their towns; the other side feels their interests have been betrayed to the interests of an unelected regional bureaucracy. Regardless of the merits or justifications on either side, citizens and leaders need a high level of mutual understanding and trust.
Changing this current key intergovernmental agreement will be an important step in that direction. The next step is to reconsider the objectives of the NTC. I doubt that anyone would object to it being an informational forum and a cooperative purchasing group. But, I also doubt that many citizens would endorse it becoming a regional bureaucracy or additional governmental layer. And, unfortunately, that is how many perceive the NTC's role because of the joint zoning effort.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
A County Gas Committee ?
Should Susquehanna County establish a County Gas Committee and, if so, what should it do ?
The County Commissioners have discussed creating a "Gas Committee" at recent meetings and have asked the Economic Development Board to address the issue. I attended the 26 February meeting of the Board to learn what was being considered.
The county is rich in Marcellus Shale and the extraction of natural gas is very likely to become a major driver of the county's economy with impacts on public services, infrastructure, and the environment. The Board is an understandable place to start even though the issues may go beyond their normal purview.
While I lack the context of prior discussions, my main impression was that the Commissioners were not going to set the committee's mission and goals. Instead, they wanted the Board to come up with mission, goals, objectives, structure and personnel recommendations - basically from scratch. It is very hard for an advisory board to do this without specific guidance from the executive leadership. The Board accepted the task.
In an attempt to get or clarify some executive guidelines, I commented that the "Committee" might try to do three things : Educate the public ( in conjunction with Penn State's efforts - Don't be redundant); Establish a forum for county offices to discuss and coordinate their actions on gas extraction issues ( safety, roads, etc.); and Identify key legislative or regulatory issues for the County to pursue.
I did not ask whether the committee should be "inward"focused per the first two items above or "outward" focused per the legislative item, which might entail suggesting alliances of legislators or counties for coordinated action (e.g. lobbying). It became clear that the Board would have to define these guidelines for themselves. The main resource for them was their contract staff, the Planning Authority (PA), which had obtained information about two other county committees. Reviewing those documents can be useful if one focuses on committee effectiveness rather than just structure and process.
OK; that's what was. Now what should be done?
Simple answer - I really don't know. But I'll offer a few more suggestions that might help the Board develop recommendations for a county gas committee; or at least stimulate some discussion about what a committee should and could do. The overall guideline should be to prioritize effort - don't do what others are doing; do things that get actions and results.
First - I still like the above 3 objectives : Educate Public ( and Listen); Coordinate Internal Resources; Influence Legislation. These are reasonably distinct areas of endeavor which could be pursued separately. They are not in priority order. The Board should refine and prioritize.
Second - Recognize our strengths and resources : we have a Planning Commission, an EMA office, a Conservation office, a Penn State Extension Office, and other resources ( including knowledgeable citizens) that can be tapped or coordinated.
Third - Accept our limitations : we are a small 41,000 person county with limited volunteer and financial resources. Prioritize on the doable (e.g. if the commissioners won't lobby or permit it, downplay legislative initiatives).
Fourth - Face the inevitable : Expect the commissioners to deflect public concerns onto the committee. Be prepared to listen and do triage ( executive action, staff referral, noted for consideration).
Fifth - Consider organization flexibility - e.g., short term task forces, formed from people who present issues strongly and knowledgeably, to report out with actionable recommendations.
Sixth - Review some pertinent literature but don't get carried away by academic breadth and comprehensiveness - remember item (3) above.
Penn State has a good website on Natural Gas Impacts ( http://naturalgas.extension.psu.ed ) with a lot of information as well as many links to documents and presentations. They link several publications on local government issues and on organizing a local task force.
Of course, there are also some good earlier posts on this blog, Jessup Jottings (http://jessupjottings.blogspot.com) ; and I'll be adding more in the future. This is an important issue and I wish the Board success.
The County Commissioners have discussed creating a "Gas Committee" at recent meetings and have asked the Economic Development Board to address the issue. I attended the 26 February meeting of the Board to learn what was being considered.
The county is rich in Marcellus Shale and the extraction of natural gas is very likely to become a major driver of the county's economy with impacts on public services, infrastructure, and the environment. The Board is an understandable place to start even though the issues may go beyond their normal purview.
While I lack the context of prior discussions, my main impression was that the Commissioners were not going to set the committee's mission and goals. Instead, they wanted the Board to come up with mission, goals, objectives, structure and personnel recommendations - basically from scratch. It is very hard for an advisory board to do this without specific guidance from the executive leadership. The Board accepted the task.
In an attempt to get or clarify some executive guidelines, I commented that the "Committee" might try to do three things : Educate the public ( in conjunction with Penn State's efforts - Don't be redundant); Establish a forum for county offices to discuss and coordinate their actions on gas extraction issues ( safety, roads, etc.); and Identify key legislative or regulatory issues for the County to pursue.
I did not ask whether the committee should be "inward"focused per the first two items above or "outward" focused per the legislative item, which might entail suggesting alliances of legislators or counties for coordinated action (e.g. lobbying). It became clear that the Board would have to define these guidelines for themselves. The main resource for them was their contract staff, the Planning Authority (PA), which had obtained information about two other county committees. Reviewing those documents can be useful if one focuses on committee effectiveness rather than just structure and process.
OK; that's what was. Now what should be done?
Simple answer - I really don't know. But I'll offer a few more suggestions that might help the Board develop recommendations for a county gas committee; or at least stimulate some discussion about what a committee should and could do. The overall guideline should be to prioritize effort - don't do what others are doing; do things that get actions and results.
First - I still like the above 3 objectives : Educate Public ( and Listen); Coordinate Internal Resources; Influence Legislation. These are reasonably distinct areas of endeavor which could be pursued separately. They are not in priority order. The Board should refine and prioritize.
Second - Recognize our strengths and resources : we have a Planning Commission, an EMA office, a Conservation office, a Penn State Extension Office, and other resources ( including knowledgeable citizens) that can be tapped or coordinated.
Third - Accept our limitations : we are a small 41,000 person county with limited volunteer and financial resources. Prioritize on the doable (e.g. if the commissioners won't lobby or permit it, downplay legislative initiatives).
Fourth - Face the inevitable : Expect the commissioners to deflect public concerns onto the committee. Be prepared to listen and do triage ( executive action, staff referral, noted for consideration).
Fifth - Consider organization flexibility - e.g., short term task forces, formed from people who present issues strongly and knowledgeably, to report out with actionable recommendations.
Sixth - Review some pertinent literature but don't get carried away by academic breadth and comprehensiveness - remember item (3) above.
Penn State has a good website on Natural Gas Impacts ( http://naturalgas.extension.psu.ed ) with a lot of information as well as many links to documents and presentations. They link several publications on local government issues and on organizing a local task force.
Of course, there are also some good earlier posts on this blog, Jessup Jottings (http://jessupjottings.blogspot.com) ; and I'll be adding more in the future. This is an important issue and I wish the Board success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)