District court unwinds Camp Bay Road decision

SANDPOINT – Bonner County commissioners will have to revisit a previous decision to vacate the final portion of Camp Bay Road.

The decision vacated the final 2,550 feet, or 2.93 acres, of the gravel road. Green Enterprises, Inc., which sought the vacation, said in documents submitted to the commission that vacating the road would be in the public interest because it would protect Lake Pend Oreille by moving the road further from the lakeshore, and that taxpayers would have less of a burden to maintain the road since it would pass into private ownership.

The portion of Camp Bay Road in dispute is within South Camp Bay Properties owned by Green Enterprises Inc and M3 ID Camp Bay LLC. In planning and zoning documents, the purpose of the road vacation was to “increase property tax revenue, and provide a gated entrance for residents which would increase security and reduce trespassing.”

The application to vacate the road was unanimously approved by the board on April 7.

During the April 7 meeting, three people spoke in favor of the road vacation, including two neighbors. Craig Gill, a property owner near Camp Bay Road, said he has not witnessed any public activity on the road.

“I’ve been coming to Camp Bay since 1970,” Gill said. “In that 50 years, I haven’t seen any public activity going on at the end of the bay, or if there was anybody there, I think old man Green would chase them off.”

Another neighbor said the change would increase property values in the area.

“Most of my neighbors are for the development,” said David Wilson. “It's going to pave the road and it’s going to increase property cost.”

During public comment dedicated to those opposed to the project, both those in favor of the and those against spoke. Three of those who spoke were attorneys for Green Enterprises, or their representatives. Two were Green family members speaking against the vacation who had to be cut off because the topics discussed were irrelevant, according to Commission Chairman Dan McDonald. However, the court's decision contradicted that conclusion.

A lawsuit was filed on May 4 against the county by Fred and Jennifer Arn alleging that county commissioners did not have the right to vacate the road based on an 11-point complaint.

Among the complaints was that the commissioners failed to evaluate if the road vacation was in the public interest, that there was a conflict of interest involving members of the Road and Bridge Department, and that vacating the road served the private interests of Green Enterprises and M3.

First District Judge Cynthia K.C. Meyer found in favor of the Arns on Nov. 15, ruling the decision to vacate the road was not supported with substantial evidence.

“Here, the April 7 resolution, standing alone, appears arbitrary, conclusive, and provides

negligible insight into the board's reasoning,” Meyer said in the ruling. “Generally, a written decision with these deficiencies would be vacated. The public-interest finding is a discretionary determination rather than a factual finding.”

The decision also addressed a possible conflict of interest involving Steve Klatt, who recently retired as the county’s road and bridge director. Klatt also sits on the board of directors for Green Enterprises.

“The board asked Mr. Klatt's department to comment on the application to vacate the road; and the board based its decision in part on the fact that Mr. Klatt's department did not object to the application,” Meyer said in the ruling. “Mr. Klatt owed the board a duty to provide unbiased service as the director of the County's Road and Bridge Department. Likewise, Mr. Klatt owed the applicant a fiduciary duty by virtue of his role on the developer's board of directors.”

“This is a conflict of interest potentially, if not actually. This conflict of interest was identified to the board through writing and during the public hearing, before the testifying member of the public was cut off.”

That member of the public was Gary Green, brother of Green Enterprises CEO Jim Green.

The decision cited the exclusion of Gary Green’s testimony as an “abuse of discretion,” and that it factored into the commissioners’ decision because none of the departments who were asked for comment provided any, including Road and Bridge.

“The board's decision to find that it was in the public interest to vacate the road because ‘no public agency or neighbors have objected to the proposed vacation’ appears arbitrary in light of the conflicted director. Further, this information was relevant under Idaho Code 40-203(h) and it was an abuse of discretion to suppress this information from consideration.”

The court then invited the commission to come up with a “more developed written decision for the county record.”

Commissioners are scheduled to rehear the vacation request.