Meeting on Woods Bay yields little progress

By ALEX STRICKLAND/Bigfork Eagle

A three-hour meeting in Bigfork last week to discuss the fate of 440 acres of state-owned land in Woods Bay ended without establishing a clear next step.

Area residents peppered representatives from the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation with questions and lobbed a few accusations their way, but Kalispell Unit Manager Greg Poncin said another community meeting in the coming weeks is likely.

The parcel in question was up for consideration for the DNRC's land banking program. That program allows the agency to sell state land and put the money in a special fund that can only be spent to acquire more property. It was designed to allow isolated or under-performing parcels to be sold and more easily and effectively managed land to be purchased, Poncin said.

"I was encouraged by the discussion we had," he said. "People are starting to grasp what we're trying to do out there."

Multiple people in the crowd asked the agency for hard numbers concerning costs for the land and what the cost to the community would be to preserve it. One Woods Bay resident pointed to the average return on DNRC's 5.2 million acres in 2006, which worked out to around $5 per acre. Over 440 acres, he figured, that was a few thousand dollars. More than one resident offered to cut a check on the spot for the amount.

But Poncin said it's not so simple, as the agency is mandated to get market value for its holdings.

Besides that, Poncin said that different methods of preservation cost different amounts. Officials likened the property to a bunch of sticks, and depending on how many sticks the community wants, the cost fluctuates.

Bigfork resident and former state senator George Darrow called the attempt to land bank the parcel "a perversion of the idea," citing instances that the program — established in 2003 — is more appropriate for Eastern Montana land.

"This is a Montana treasure," he said.

Darrow also cited Montana Code 76-12-102, the Montana Natural Areas Act of 1974, that lays out the qualifications for establishing a Natural Area in a landscape "possessing significant scenic, educational, biological, and/or geological values."

Moments later, however, Northwest Land Office Area Manager Bob Sandman read a statute passed by the legislature in 2001 that prevents the DNRC from making such designations without arranging to receive full market value for the property.

That statute also applies to a suggestion from the audience to turn the property into an outdoor classroom or research station, even if it were for Montana Tech — the institution this land is earmarked for.

Elna Darrow argued for the classroom or other education opportunities approach when she told the DNRC that the "value" they seek from property shouldn't be measured only in dollars.

But, according to Poncin, it has to be.

A prime example of that stance on trust land took place a few years ago in Kalispell when School District 5 wanted to put Glacier High School on a piece of state land. Because that parcel — State section 36 North — was earmarked for the common school fund, that which funds K-12 schools, the thinking went that the state should give the land to the district because it would be benefiting the type of school it was designed to help.

"The trustee-beneficiary relationship is and arm's length one," Poncin said.

The district had to pay full market value for that parcel because it was designed to benefit all Montana K-12 schools, not just this one, Poncin said.

Ray Thompson of Semitool sued the DNRC over that decision, but the courts upheld the agency's interpretation that their responsibility to the public education system was fiduciary.

"The DNRC has the responsibility to manage the property for the beneficiary and their return in financial," Poncin said.

He pointed out that even the Montana Highway Department has to pay full market price if they wish to acquire an easement through state land.

The general consensus at last week's meeting was that a smaller representative committee or group needs to be formed to work with the agency on behalf of the community, though the particulars of how to select such a group were not ironed out.

Diane Conradi, a Whitefish attorney, spoke to a thinned crowd toward the end of the meeting about a situation in Whitefish involving 13,000 acres that the community wanted control over rather than letting the DNRC sell the land.

Conradi said there was a direct correlation between how much money is spent and the level of predictability that can be guaranteed for a parcel, noting that the least expensive option, licensing, is short term, while the opposite end of the spectrum — outright purchasing — insures complete control over the parcel's fate.

Other options presented by the DNRC, and echoed by Conradi, were leases, conservation easements and the Natural Area designation.