||| FROM SAN JUAN COUNTY LAND BANK |||
The San Juan County Conservation Land Bank Commission will hold a special meeting on July 28, 2022 from 8:30 a.m. – 10:45 a.m. via Microsoft Teams to discuss the North Shore (Glenwood Inn) property. The meeting will also be available for in person public attendance at the San Juan County Fairgrounds Office Conference Room located at 849 Argyle Avenue.
The public is invited to attend. Click HERE to download the agenda (includes TEAMS link) and meeting materials. the Conservation Land Bank
The San Juan County Conservation Land Bank is a local land conservation program, created by voters in 1990, and funded by a 1% real estate excise tax paid by purchasers of property in San Juan County. Through conservation easements or outright purchases, the Conservation Land Bank protects special places in the Islands including coastlines, farmland, forests and wetlands. For more information, contact the Land Bank at 360-378-4402 or visit sjclandbank.org.
I’m posting this background information as Chair of the SJC Conservation Land Bank Commission. Here’s my synopsis of the situation:
More than a year ago – while exploring funding options to purchase the Glenwood Inn parcel – the San Juan Preservation Trust (SJPT) and Land Bank met with Lisa Byers of OPAL on site to see if OPAL had any interest in partnering on the project by purchasing a portion of the property for affordable housing. She conveyed that OPAL did not; preferring instead to focus its efforts within the UGA where water supply was assured and infrastructure development is more cost effective. With this idea set aside early on, the Land Bank Commission did not include the potential for future subdivision/resale in its Glenwood project plan, and the Preservation Trust began a fundraising campaign to purchase a conservation easement to protect the entire 58-acre property. In addition, SJPT and the Land Bank have submitted a joint application for a grant which, if approved, could cover a significant chunk of the purchase cost of this pricey acquisition. The grant application states the entire property will be protected by a conservation easement and 10 of 11 development rights extinguished.
On June 14 2022, one week prior to the scheduled closing of the Glenwood (aka McPeake) property, the County Council held its hearing to formally accept the deed and publicly expressed for the first time their intent to retain additional development rights for the purposes of retaining the potential to create County worker housing (a non-conservation use which would require subdividing the property). This was a surprise to both the Land Bank Commission and the San Juan Preservation Trust. Apparently the worker housing concept had been discussed in Council’s executive session(s) with Land Bank staff regarding the purchase price but the idea never made its way back to the Land Bank Commission via staff or via the Land Bank’s Council Liaison.
Prior to the June 14 hearing, the Council was not provided with copies of the grant application or signed agreements between the Land Bank/SJPT and was not aware that the idea of a housing development was now at odds with the conservation and funding plans for the property. During the June 14 hearing, Land Bank staff did not verbally object to, and in fact agreed with, language added in the deed acceptance Resolution indicating the County’s intent to reserve additional development rights (called “developable areas” in the resolution) as well as limit the extent of the future easement to cover only the shoreline area.
The resolution, while not binding, was a red flag to SJPT and at the Land Bank Commission’s June 17 meeting, SJPT’s Executive Director Angela Anderson indicated to the Commission, the Council and the public that all parties are not on the same page.
How did this happen? Put simply, by the Captain in the movie Cool Hand Luke: “What we have here is a failure to communicate”.
And clear communication is the only way we’ll solve it.
The Land Bank Commission addressed the issue in detail in its July 15 meeting and subsequently sent a letter to Council recommending that Council amend the language in the Resolution 13-2022 to align with the grant application, prior signed agreements between the Land Bank/SJPT, the project proposal approved by the Commission in public meetings, and the state law and county ordinance guiding the use of conservation REET funds. At the July 19 Council meeting, the County Prosecuting Attorney’s office gave a presentation of the timeline of the transaction and its opinion regarding the legality of the County retaining additional building rights and selling off a portion of the property for another use. The Councilmembers then discussed the question of whether retention of additional development rights would indeed jeopardize the current grant application and whether signed agreements with SJPT to date precluded retention of development rights. Ultimately the Council decided to have the PA’s office and County Manager meet directly with representatives of SJPT to discuss further prior to amending the resolution. That meeting likely won’t take place until early August.
I called Thursday’s Special Meeting of the Land Bank Commission for the purpose of bringing Commissioners and the public up to speed, with full transparency, of events and communications that have transpired after our July 15 meeting, to review the language in the ordinances to be clear what the Land Bank Commission’s responsibilities are with respect to property acquisition and disposal (resale), review the required processes for property approval and also to determine where the breakdown was and what needs to be modified going forward to ensure this doesn’t happen again. We are allowing for public comments beginning at 10am after the Commission’s discussion. Hope to see you there. But if you miss it, the meeting will be recorded.
Put simply, the question is: Should the Land Bank sell land bought, according to its ordinance, for conservation and public access, for housing development?
Thank you for the explanation. Could you please report what was the belated prosecuting attorney’s legal opinion to the council? The laws, as you describe them, would seem to leave little room for this last-minute land grab by the council. But laws seldom seem to concern the incumbent prosecutor.
Is it legal for the county to use public funds for housing county workers? What happens when a housed worker stops working for the county?
Why are county employees more deserving of housing than non-county employees?
Alex, included in the agenda packet is a transcript of the PA’s office presentation to Council and the subsequent discussion by the Council.
Thank you Sandi, as always – clear and to the point!
Sandi, Thank you for taking the time to compile this timeline for such an important issue. Hopefully the public will pay heed to your concerns.
From the transcript excerpt, pg. 27 of 34, attributed to Amy Vera (words omitted)
“…our RCW authorizes the county to collect the taxes that support the land bank…the proceeds of the tax shall be used exclusively for the acquisition and maintenance of conservation areas…And I think we all know that has been talked about as making the resolution you passed on the 14th somehow illegal and that is not the case.”
“It is certainly possible for the land bank to buy a larger parcel and then sell off part to support the conservation on the remaining part…you can buy 58 acres if your conservation efforts are for 24 of those acres. You could then subdivide it, sell off the top part to support conservation on the 24…”
Sandi,
I appreciate the work you are doing to bring all points of this discussion out and into the open for the public.
I would also like to thank you for structuring this important meeting in the manner that you have. Allowing the commission to discuss the topic and hopefully lay out the issues will hopefully focus public comment away from rumors and on to productive conversation and input for the commission to use going forward.
The latest word, and I hope it is a rumor, is that the County Administrator and County Council plan to fire the Land Bank Director, Lincoln Bormann at a closed door disciplinary hearing to be held the afternoon of August 2nd. I hope it is a rumor but the communications coming from the council suggest otherwise. I cannot express enough how deeply angry and frustrated that makes me. I went through the interview process that occurred prior to Lincoln’s hiring and I am aware from that experience and through my conservation connections of the caliber of people in that line of work. I understand Lincoln can rankle some people but those that appreciate his creativity, strategic thinking and what he has accomplished on behalf of the San Juan County community look past their irritations to appreciate the genius and foresight of someone like him. I would hope our council and administrator are the kind of people that can acknowledge what he has accomplished for our community and accept him for his faults even if he irritates them at times.
By firing him the council will likely endanger the success of the Glennwood Inn project and damage future conservation efforts in the county with an emphasis on the federal, state, local and private partnerships that have been built and strengthened over many years. His institutional knowledge and strategic capacity can not be easily matched let alone replaced. Council persons Wolf, Minney and Stephens will be setting the will of San Juan County citizens backwards for reasons that seem more to do with egos than substantive wrongs on Lincoln’s part.
The next Council meeting is scheduled for August 2nd in the morning. I believe it starts at 9am with public comment. An agenda should be available after 3pm today July 29th. Comments can be made remotely. Be there if you care.
That would be a tremendously bad think, Amanda, and I hope they come to their senses.
I also think we need to really engage in upcoming Council elections…
What disturbs me about Amanda Azoul’s comment is how much it reminds me of comments I read in defense of Steve Smith, when he, a dedicated volunteer serving on the Planning Commission, was also “about to be fired” due to something or other, never clearly delineated, that had once again offended Councilwoman Cindy Wolf. The Land Bank Commissioners have been completely transparent about their decisions and processes. I went back and researched the Steve Smith issue and found he also, responded to the issues raised against him openly and in great detail. Our Councilwoman, on the other hand, has refused to answer questions or volunteer her version of events to a perplexed electorate, remains silent and pushes for closed door meetings. I tried harder than most people expect to need to try, to get answers regarding these problems Cindy Wolf is having with key county personnel. I found reasonable explanations and fierce defenses of both Borman’s and Smith’s conduct; and yet nothing forthright, no comprehensible explanations have been offered by Wolf. What am I to conclude?
Pegeen and others, I’m not sure that Councilmembers are allowed to publicly discuss a matter regarding an employee. I don’t know where/if that’s codified; it has just been my conclusion based on inquiries in the past.
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.
Sandi,
Your diplomacy is admirable but Lincoln’s wife has publicly confirmed that Cindy Wolf has it out for Lincoln, so I think it’s more than a rumor.
I voted for her because she ran on a platform of innovation and fresh ideas, but I didn’t realize that meant getting rid of those who disagree with her.
I want my elected officials to work with the world they’ve got, not try to reshape it in their image. This would not be the first time Cindy has already attempted to do so.
Needless to say I’m disappointed at the prospect of losing such a valuable member of the conservation effort, and if he gets axed my vote will surely change in the future.