||| FROM BRIAN WIESE |||
On next Tuesday’s County Council agenda, the Council has planned an executive session disciplinary hearing at which they may consider firing Land Bank Director Lincoln Bormann. Ironically, this action comes as we celebrate the Land Bank’s successful acquisition of the 58-acre former Glenwood Inn property, giving us 2/3 mile of long-desired shoreline access on
Orcas.
Why is Council taking this action? The answer is that the Land Bank and our conservation partner, the San Juan Preservation Trust did not accommodate a request by Councilmember Cindy Wolf to reserve a “development right” on the property for potential County worker housing. To be clear, this request was never made by Council, just by one councilmember in comments to Lincoln, and it came late in the game, after negotiations were well underway. The Land Bank Commission was never even aware of the request.
Acquiring land for development or for any purpose other than conservation is contrary to the Land Bank’s statutory mandate and, I believe, contrary to the reason San Juan County citizens have supported it in three elections. Although the Land Bank could work in partnership with another entity to acquire land for housing if that entity had a plan for partnership and funding from the beginning, the Land Bank’s mission is to preserve natural land for conservation and public access, and cannot use its REET funding for any other purpose.
Lincoln has pursued that mission with outstanding success, acquiring more than 5,000 acres of public open space, with recent successes such as Mt. Grant, the Beaverton Marsh and Zylstra preserves on San Juan Island, Lopez Hill and the Higgins addition to the Watmough Bay Preserve on Lopez, and the Coho Preserve and Glenwood property on Orcas. There is no reason to punish him for his success in carrying out the Land Bank mandate. We in the Commission are looking forward to his continued leadership in new initiatives for forest preserve management and climate resilience and his continuing coordination of the inter-agency Terrestrial Managers Group.
Please consider speaking up for Lincoln during the public comment period at Tuesday’s council meeting (to comment:
https://apps2.sanjuanco.com/Council/CouncilMeetingCommunitySignUp/signup.php) or write to the Council at council@sanjuanco.com before noon on Monday with positive comments only.
And thank you for your support of the Land Bank.
If this is true, it is a waste of everyone’s time and a shame. The Land Bank and Preservation Trust have done remarkable work for our county preserving land for generations to come. It is a very slippery slope to start adding development rights and while I understand we have a housing shortage I am opposed to using the Land Bank for this purpose. If I am missing something, I would encourage Councilmember Cindy Wolf to offer her position in reply to this article, but otherwise, with all the problems we have in the world, this seems to be a waste of time. We should be celebrating the Glenwood Inn property addition and it should be preserved land as per the mandate. Orcas Island has far too little public beach access.
Sometimes there’s a disconnect … reach out to the players, usually there’s a meeting ground of intent
It takes vigilant effort to keep communication open.
Thank you for posting this Brian Wiese. I agree… we should be celebrating what Lincoln accomplished, not tearing him down.
I personally believe this fall out between my husband and Cindy Wolf is part of a larger effort to restructure the Land Bank. Watching this unfold over the past year, I saw my husband work tirelessly to orchestrate the many complicated steps necessary to make the Glenwood acquisition a success. It was the most complicated project he has put together in his 17 year career working as San Juan County Land Bank director (with 35 successful acquisitions, including Turtleback). This transaction was an estate sale in a competitive real estate market. Orcas residents were very excited about having public beach access. We were thrilled when the project was a success. Sadly, It is coming at high personal cost. Cindy’s “vision” to have county worker housing in the middle of a Nature Preserve has created a nightmare situation for my husband, the Land Bank Commission, and in reality, our community at large. Buying land for creating a housing development is not what the Land Bank is about. We already have an affordable housing REET for the county and highly qualified individuals (Lisa Byers of Opal is one) who are very experienced, dedicated, and working on solutions for addressing fair affordable housing for all residents, not just county workers. I guess Cindy is set on becoming the county worker housing building czar. Early in the acquisition process, Opal (Lisa Byers) viewed the property and had already deemed it unsuitable for any sort of housing development due to inadequate water. Building a cluster of 8 homes for families on a 5 acre parcel with no municipal water access (or other services) and dependent on finding groundwater (a well) to serve the homes makes these kinds of rural clusters very difficult – if not impossible. Affordable housing is definitely needed, but more practical within the urban growth areas where municipal water, sewer, etc. can be hooked up – and walkable to town center. Living in a rural cluster necessitates having reliable transportation, and then there’s costs of having a car, including gas, maintenance & repairs, and insurance – something to consider. So, when Cindy didn’t get her impracticable “wish,” she’s resorted to punitive action, targeting my husband. While we personally will face a crisis if/when she succeeds in terminating my husband’s employment (and we’ve been told this will happen on Tuesday at county council), the impact on the community at large will be huge. A worst case, but potential scenario that should be a concern for residents : If the county removes/fires Lincoln and an interim director is appointed by the county manager and current council, then the land bank is at risk of being restructured. The preserves that could be sold off (to justify “stewardship” of the others) include the following. On Orcas: Coffellt Farm, Fowler’s Pond, and Deer Harbor Preserve. On San Juan: Lester property, Buck property, Cady mountain (top portion), Beaverton Marsh (along Roche Harbor Road), some of the Westside properties, Frazier Homestead, Anderson, and King Sisters. On Lopez : Higgens property at Watmough Bay, Hummel Lake, and Upright Head. Also, in order to justify staying in a new budget , they (council) could enact closures on retained parcels to keep the public from accessing them so they don’t have to pay for maintaining them.
That list is from properties that aren’t protected under certain deeds of right or conservation easements. The county could decide to sell them off. It is also my understanding that council can change the property management ordinance that says the land bank commission has to make a recommendation for resale of land bank property. This would allow them (county council) to re-sell land bank property for other use – ie, sold for development without approval of the land bank commission. I would urge anyone concerned to reach out to Land Bank commissioners for more information and to fact-check me on this. I’m truly saddened at the level of hostility around something that should have been celebrated. I’m also sad that we will have to leave our home and community if Cindy is successful in her endeavor. If you feel inclined to write support letters on behalf of my husband and his work as Land Bank director, we appreciate it. Thank you.
If I recall correctly from kayaking past the property, and that was a few years ago, there are several cabins close to the shoreline. Perhaps these could be removed and moved to upland areas of the property. After all, 52 acres is a lot of land area.
Question, how do you know that is the purpose of the executive session? The reason for holding one is usually and purposefully ambiguous.
Brian Wiese’s letter says it all.
I am heartsick and disappointed in this unwise and autocratic move by our Councilor. (again!) I feel frustration, because this accomplishes nothing except alienating more people in your base, Cindy. Congratulations for again reaching the exact opposite aim of what you intended.
To read that the Land Bank Commission never heard of such proposal or agreement for development rights along with acquisition is distressing. Steamrollering or punishing anyone, in order to push an agenda – even well intentioned, such as badly needed housing – is no way to go about reaching solutions to the housing problems we face; it just makes enemies on both sides of the issues instead of bringing us together, and it gives more Legal ammunition to development hawks and people wanting to sue the County for trying to protect the environment.
John Starke said it well concerning adding development rights to Land Bank purchases – which goes against their mandate for preservation and Public Access for generations to come. I’m against it too; it seems unethical to add development rights to land bank purchases.
Also, why would you promote that only County workers get housing on the Glenwood Inn property – unless you mean caretakers, maintenance workers and the like? Isn’t that discriminatory? What about the rest of the islanders who have no affordable housing? Are we inconsequential?
Let’s tell the truth: we got here due to putting unlimited growth ahead of preservation of high-functioning forested wetland and shoreline environments, and quality of life – which the acquisition of the Glenwood Inn property by the Land Bank addresses; as do the many other Land Bank purchases under Lincoln’s direction.
I hope people will comment – not just here in the Orcasonian, but to Council. A short email, even one paragraph or sentence, would let Council know we’re not for firing or disciplining Lincoln. Please also emphasize that we need to revise our land use densities and codes: those are the real culprit of the short-sighted self-serving decisions that have been made in these islands concerning over-the top growth densities on finite island land masses with fragile ecosystems. They contribute directly to the housing crisis. We need a carrying capacity analysis, once and for all. We’ve asked for this for decades.
The Land Bank has been trying to do something about preservation AND Public beach access. Instead of lauding Lincoln and the hardworking team at the Land Bank, our councilor wants to fire its director? Yikes! Yes, we need housing, but not this way. Diplomacy over autocracy would be a good start.
I would ask everyone not to further inflame the situation by aiming public comments at any particular Councilmember. Just review the facts available to you and state your concerns respectfully via a letter addressed to the entire Council. Everyone needs to be given space and time in order to think clearly and act appropriately. Putting someone on the defensive does not allow that space and time, and keeps them in a perpetual state of battle. Not only is that emotionally distressing for everyone, it doesn’t make for clear-headed decision-making. When emotions are heated, people say and do things they later regret. This is never a good thing, and even less so in a tiny community like ours.
I hope all concerned will comment at the meeting, or post constructive comments to the Council by the deadline.
To Michael Riordan’s point – from the listing for Glenwood Inn it appears these cabins are too dilapidated to be salvaged in their current spot, let alone moved. There are other feasibility issues, like water availability and infrastructure. But the larger concern is whether we want to see land purchased for conservation, salmon recovery and public access used for development. Once we go down that road, we may risk the future of both past and future conservation acquisitions.
Sadie Bailey’s comment included the following observation:
“Let’s tell the truth: we got here due to putting unlimited growth ahead of preservation of high-functioning forested wetland and shoreline environments, and quality of life – which the acquisition of the Glenwood Inn property by the Land Bank addresses; as do the many other Land Bank purchases under Lincoln’s direction.
I hope people will comment – not just here in the Orcasonian, but to Council… Please … emphasize that we need to revise our land use densities and codes: those are the real culprit of the short-sighted self-serving decisions that have been made in these islands concerning over-the top growth densities on finite island land masses with fragile ecosystems. They contribute directly to the housing crisis. We need a carrying capacity analysis, once and for all. We’ve asked for this for decades.”
SJC has repeatedly refused to discuss the buildout population currently baked in to the county’s comprehensive plan, a plan that was supposed to have been completed by 2016. SJC has not challenged, or even commented on, my calculations of the buildout population, the data for which is available to anyone on the GIS component of the SJC web site. NOT COUNTING the impact of visitors, the buildout population based on the legal rights of property owners is north of 130,000 people. Don’t believe me? 1) ask your council members why they refused to calculate this (via a docket request that has been consistently rejected for over 20 years) or 2) ask DCD to show you where in the comp plan that such calculations have been done and what they mean. You aren’t likely to get far from 1) or 2), so try 3): go to http://doebay.net/bigpicture.pdf and take some time to actually learn about your future, presuming you care about housing, taxes, ferries, water, and, golly, the whole reason you are here, which is right there as the first order of business in the comp plan: The Vision Statement. The vision statement is the cinderella of this story long before the fairy godmother shows up. Without your direct and persistent engagement, there won’t be a fairy godmother, a castle, prince or glass slipper, much less any “happily ever after”. Check this out. You’re not going to hear it from the people you elected to preserve this place. Show up or give up. Your choice.
Thank you, Sandi for ever being a reasoned voice. Appreciate you.
Joe Symons – 34 years ago you picked me up hitchhiking, with a pair of giant backpack and took Kate and I back to your place (next to our destination). You told us of your life, showed us your beautiful home and, in the ways that only the truth knows, told me what Orcas Island is really about…. After moving here 32 years ago, I have come to know you in both public and private settings and I tell you now, with no reservation, that your statement – “Show up or give up. Your choice.” is the best political advice I have ever heard . Bravo, old friend! May we all heed Joe’s advice!
I support Lincoln Bormann and the Land Bank. Let’s not “pave Paradise” anymore than it has been.
Every acre of conservation lands set aside by the Land Bank and SJ Preservation Trust is rightful mitigation for the relentless pace of development in San Juan County. Sadie and Joe are right, we cannot afford to un-mitigate our mitigation with yet more development. The quest for affordable housing, like the push for land-based solar arrays, may run up against priority open space decisions. But we cannot allow any individual situations to whipsaw the underlying mission. Thanks to Sandi, Brian, Lincoln, and the whole Land Bank staff for fulfilling the mandate the county has given them.
That stretch of public beach is a long-awaited dream for us Islanders. I stand with the Land Bank.
I urge our Island’s council member to post a response, so we can learn what else we should know about this..
Doug, I’m not sure that it’s appropriate or allowable for a Councilmember to comment publicly on an employee matter.
Indeed, “show up or give up” is what the Earth is requiring of us now. I am grateful to see all the public support for Lincoln Borman and The Land Bank and I am grateful for the attention on our county government as well. We are in a time when we need to be watching closely what is being done on our islands. If this controversy brings greater respect to conservation efforts and to those who lead this effort, we will all be better off. I hope the council will not disappoint us tomorrow and will congratulate Lincoln Borman for his 17 years effort’ for the San Juans and allow him to continue his work well into the future.
County Code section 2.120.040 governs hiring and termination of the Land Bank Director. The powers to hire or fire clearly belong to the County Administrator, subject only to the qualification that the County Council must “confirm” an appointment or termination. Has the County Administrator initiated a termination process, or not? IF so, that fact should be made public, and should be part of this conversation. And IF so, it would have been improper IF the Administrator did so because of pressure from a Council Member. Either way, we need to know “the rest of the story”.
Mr. Marshall very troubling indeed:
– Steve Smith
– Jason Hensel – terminated
– Lincoln Bormann
Jason Hensel was/is eminently qualified to be the Building Official described on the county website. The only reason he was given by the new DCD director, was because a “new direction” was to be undertaken. Principal duties are to apply the building, mechanical and plumbing codes, all produced by third parties. How can there be a “new direction”? Was undue pressure applied there too?
Perhaps it’s time for Mr. Thomas to address these issues directly. “We can’t discuss personnel issues” doesn’t cut it when the personnel involved have already spoken to the issues. Every resident of this county is effected if we have to replace experienced personnel who have homes here, with new people who won’t be able to afford the rent if they can even find a place. Not so – see the ad for a full time physician.
Unfortunately, we no longer have a County Administrator who has any oversight over Council. We used to. The history of people in that position was also kind of sketchy; some were fired. That position was done away with by a previous Council. We now have a County Manager, who is under Council oversight. There is no oversight over Council and more and more, I think there needs to be someone over county council – especially after what I have learned just a half hour ago about Council failing to do as requested by the charter review committee – and turn in 4 charter amendments to Elections by the 5 pm deadline today. They have had since November of 2021. Council is still in executive session as of 4:30 – I just phoned their secretary and Elections – nothing yet and they are extending the deadline from 4:30 til 5, which is the State deadline.
What this means, if Council does not meet today’s deadline, is that all 4 amendments, including ranked choice voting, must wait an entire year before they can be put to NEXT year’s November ballot. So we wait… to see what the citizenry’s next steps are concerning THAT.
Correction: I learned from Elections that the Charter of 2010 is what did away with the position of County Administrator. Not sure what can be done about that now. Since Council decided not to go forward with the proposed charter amendments, it’s up to the citizens to find State oversight and hold them accountable. I just hope Lincoln Bormann’s hearing went better! Please, someone, update us with an article ASAP.
Sadie–No manager, administrator or even mayor is ever “over” an elected council. The only ones who have authority over council are the voters.
Regarding the Land Bank Director’s executive session, for those who may not yet know, the County Council, in its wisdom, voted to retain Lincoln Bormann.
What I’d like to see is an Org Chart for the county. What I imagine is the County Manager is a buffer between the Council, Department Directors and staff. Bur I could be wrong
Phil, imput “organizational chart” in the county website search bar and the second result is the 2019 Organizational Chart.
Sadie –
I think clarification is important. The Council has one, solitary employee. The County Manager. Under him is the organization of departments and managers that report to him. The County Manager only lacks authority over the other, elected officials in our county government structure (Judges, Sherriff, PA, Auditor…)
The supervision of Council falls to you, me, and anyone else paying attention. The only way to hold elected officials accountable is through recall by initiative or recall at the ballot box.
San Juan County used to be “managed” by Council. that proved to be a failed way to operate, as it made the staff subjects of the, often opposing, whims of the various Council members. Believe it or not… the system is working. It, is not the problem.
Thanks Sandi and Mr. Paulsen.
The organizational structure is as I anticipated, so why did a Councilperson call for a disciplinary hearing and why did the Council schedule it? Procedurally any complaint should be referred through the Manager to the responsible department head and HR, the staff member should be interviewed with internal action, if required, initiated and a disposition returned to he Council through the Manager.
Our resources are limited, many of our staff must balance myriad responsiblities, serving more than one master is detrimental to effective teamwork, crushes morale and frankly is unworkable.Three very public recent cases have blindsided a volunteer commissioner, a manager, and a director and undoubtedly the County Manager too. This does not speak well of our council, they can do better. The citizens of this county expect fairness and County Employees deserve it – so let this serve as “Lessons Learned”, not to be repeated,