City supports Greenprint report

SANDPOINT — Nearly 200 people packed City Hall Wednesday after a controversial Greenprint report resurfaced on the City Council's agenda.

With about 130 people in Council Chambers and many more lined up out the door, it was a stark contrast to the last meeting on Jan. 18, which garnered no public attendance whatsoever. Of those who were able to get in the door, about half were in agreement and half were against the report as indicated by the applause, or utterings of disapproval, depending on who was speaking.

In the end, after about 50 public comments and nearly four hours, council members voted in support of the report with the exception of Councilman Bob Camp, who believes it is overreaching. When Camp voted for the Greenprint process in 2014, he did not realize it was going to encompass areas beyond Sandpoint.

"If it just included the city of Sandpoint and what our area of impact would be, I would probably be for it," Camp said.

Finalized in 2016, the Greenprint report was initiated in 2014 by the Idaho Conservation League, Kaniksu Land Trust, the Trust for Public Land and the planning departments for the cities of Sandpoint and Ponderay. It focuses on 94,500 acres prioritized for land conservation with four main goals: maintain water quality, provide recreation, protect wildlife habitat and preserve working lands.

The Greenprint area includes Sandpoint, Ponderay, Kootenai, Dover, Hope, East Hope, and spanning even further into Bonner County to include much of the Idaho Panhandle National Forest and Selkirk recreation areas.

The 30-page report sparked controversy over what the intent of the Greenprint is in regards to private land — outside Sandpoint city limits in particular — questions about the environmental groups involved in the process, concerns over the public survey process, and also whether it is a "report" or a "plan." One of the most common questions was in correlation with Camp's concern of, why is it called the Greater Sandpoint Area Greenprint when it encompasses land reaching far beyond city boundaries, and why does Sandpoint need a resolution of support?

At the beginning of the meeting, Aaron Qualls, city planning and economic development director, said the greater Sandpoint name has "raised some eyebrows," giving the assumption that Sandpoint is trying to "imprint greenness" outside of its jurisdiction.

"I just wanted to clarify this is not a regulatory document, it's not even a plan," Qualls said. "The report does say, and I think this also raised a few eyebrows, that it identifies almost 100,000 acres that are a priority for conservation, but no one is advocating to protect 100,000 acres in the county ... It's merely a report to help guide decision-making."

Since it is not a regulatory document, Qualls said the reason he brought it before council for support is to raise awareness about the report as a "tool" for landowners. Also, council support of the report could help win funding for possible future projects within the city and the watershed area.

"If this resolution passes it will lead to the consolidation and regionalization of all local jurisdictions," said a woman from Kootenai. "I do not want my community routed by a small group of well-connected individuals using my tax dollars against me. I believe that the voters in the city of Sandpoint have a right to conduct their own affairs; however, they need to confine themselves to their own city limits. Sandpoint has no business supervising the affairs of the rest of the county."

Many of those against the Greenprint said city officials and environmental groups have an agenda, and while the report states "voluntary" land conservation, they are concerned it will lead to involuntary land conservation down the road.

The first speaker of the evening for the public comment portion was Bonner County Commissioner Dan McDonald, who said while a former county planning director was involved in the process, only commissioners are allowed to offer positions or speak for the county. He was concerned because the city's Jan. 4 minutes indicated the report process had been supported by Bonner County as well as the cities and organizations involved.

After reviewing the record, McDonald said, there was nothing signed, passed or ratified by the Bonner County commissioners regarding support of any type for the Greater Sandpoint Greenprint. He also reviewed Idaho Code and could not find where Sandpoint has any authority outside of city limits and said it "appears there are some extraterritorial activities on the part of the city."

McDonald said he was "privileged" Wednesday to get a parcel report under the Greenprint program on his own property, outlining all of the details of his property, including areas available to create hiking trails and recreational access.

"It was a little disturbing that my property has been not necessarily targeted, but it certainly, according to all the 'yeses' on here, could certainly be a target," he said. "This is still private property and I hope you'll respect private property rights. I'm also a little disturbed that the parcel reports are not available to the public — I'm sure these reports have been done on every piece of property in the areas outlined."

Comments in support of the Greenprint had commonality in pointing out that the goals outlined in the report are goals that everyone should support, like clean water. At one point, Rognstad stopped the public comment to ask how many people in the audience support those goals and while some raised their hands, those against the Greenprint answered with comments like, "that's not a fair question." But those in support said it would be a good tool to use to identify those areas and promote growth in the area.

"I see the Greenprint as an informational document to help guide the inevitable growth that will occur in this region," said one community member who added that she and her husband have a conservation easement on their Dover property. "It identifies places in the county for water quality, wildlife habitat, recreation and working lands — an understanding of where these lands are will help guide more thoughtful growth ... The values identified in the Greenprint are values that we all, as a community, have identified as important."

Rognstad said the report has value and appreciates the goals outlined in the document. He said the study area was a fair compromise because what happens in areas surrounding Sandpoint have an affect on the city, just as what happens in Sandpoint has an affect on areas surrounding it.

"We all impact one another," Rognstad said. "... This plan recognizes that ... Even though this is a study that's for the city of Sandpoint with regards to this body right here — our concern is our constituents — we recognize that we have an impact on the county."

Councilman Thomas Eddy agreed that any decision council made would possibly affect those outside the city and vise versa, and said those who coordinated the report should have done a better job reaching out. A 2014 community survey reached 560 people and 321 of those were Sandpoint residents.

"My responsibility is to the residents of the city of Sandpoint, and I really appreciate everybody that comes out, I listen to everything that you say," Eddy said. "I have pages of notes this evening from comments and overwhelmingly, city residents are in favor of this and I need to take that into account."

The other council members, except for Camp, agreed with the values in the report and that with the support of their own constituents, they should pass the resolution.

The Greenprint contained an "action plan" section, so before the final resolution, it was amended to remove the "action plan" as well as the last "whereas" on the resolution document that mentioned the planning team reaching out to the community through a survey over the course of two years.