08/29/2005: "BOCC Slows Down PW Yard Development"

As questions continue to be asked about the purchase agreement and development plans for land purchased by the County, the BOCC has now decided that citizen involvement in at least some Essential Public Facilities decisions should be actively pursued. The BOCC has had a large group of citizens showing up during Public Access Time on Tuesday mornings to ask questions about all aspects of the recent 27 acre purchase of land on San Juan island slated for Public Works development, and in particular why the County gave away development rights to the seller, while at the same time paying three times the assessed value for the property.

To this point the BOCC has not clearly responded to the citizen's questions, but has strongly suggested that Public Works involve a citizens committee in the long-range planning for some, but not all, Essential Public Facilities, but pointedly excluding such facilities as barge landing sites the County wishes to develop on many of the islands that, according to who you talk to -and when- may or may not be open to all comers, or may only be for County and limited emergency use.

Piet Visser is one of those citizens who continues to ask questions, and last week sent a letter to the BOCC formally asking a number of questions that the neighbors have been raising since becoming aware of a pending land purchase for a Public Works yard and transfer station. When The Island Guardian broke the story a few weeks ago the neighbors organized, and have been attempting to find out what was gong on in executive sessions that may have an effect on their properties, and questioning why all aspects of the purchase and planning were not open to the public.

Mr. Visser's letter to the BOCC follows:

Dear Sirs:

As a voter, a resident, and a taxpayer of this County, I have a few questions that I would like answered.

The Resolution to purchase the Kellsey South property had a clear statement of intended use. It said the property will be used for a transfer station, and a public works yard. Yet Jon Shannon states publicly in Sanjuanjournal.com on August 16th, the day after closing: "The property was purchased because it's the last of its size on San Juan Island zoned for industrial use, the owner had intended to sell it and the department needed to ensure it had enough land to meet future needs". These are very different uses of public funds, and one of them is not mandated in the Resolution. Someone is not telling the truth.

If we take a step further, another question comes up. If the Board moved forward with an intended use, then they acted improperly and set the county up for potential litigation by ignoring SEPA laws. On the other hand, if the reason stated on the Resolution was untrue, then there is the issue of perjury. In either event, since the decision to acquire was made (illegally) in executive session we have no minutes to refer to on this matter and must rely on the resolution. Why did the Board wait until after the closing before they changed their minds about the need for this property and its intended use? A week after the closing date, the Board decided to "go slow." Could this sensible approach not have happened before spending the money?

This leads to another question: Was the Board given legal advise on this by the prosecuting attorney? And if so, did they elect to ignore it? In conversations with our attorney regarding the purchase, the prosecuting attorney stated that he was aware of the fact that the County was closing without being in compliance of SEPA requirements prior to closing. No one acted on this information, and the closing went ahead anyway.

Mr. Shannon went on to say on August 16th, "There's no downside. If it ends we can't use it, then the county sells the property and the taxpayers make a profit." The Resolution was not one for speculation in real property, another conflict. What experience does Mr. Shannon have in real estate speculation? Was the speculative aspect of this transaction discussed by the Board? Did Mr. Shannon act without the consent of the board? Did Mr. Shannon NOT have an intended use for the site, but told the board that he did?

Why was there no dialogue (even internally) about the price paid for the property? The appraisal came in at $1.5 million, yet it was bought for $1.8 million. Was that decision made by Mr. Shannon alone, or was the Board consulted? Was the Board aware that the property was being bought for 20% over the appraised value? Was this discussed? If it was discussed, why is there no public record of such discussion?

Where does the money for all this come from? We are aware of bonds sold a while ago, but that only accounts $500,000. $800,000 came from "Solid Waste Project Fund" Is it not an improper use of money from that fund for this? That still leaves $500,000 unaccounted for. Where did it come from? How is it that there is an extra $500,000 that can be used for another purpose apparently without effecting the day to day operations of the County?

This purchase was full of improper and illegal acts. There are many troubling questions that have been, and continue to be ignored. This frivolous use of taxpayers money is the act of unqualified people making choices in secret without information or consensus. We the taxpayers are left to pay the bills. This could cost a great deal more money than the $1.8 million that has been spent already. Laws have been broken, disclosure has been circumvented. I would like to know who is responsible, and what actions will be taken to prevent this from happening again.

Sincerely
Piet Visser