Commissioners approve final Camp Bay trail agreement with conditions

By Soncirey Mitchell
Reader Staff

After more than two years of work and litigation, the Bonner County board of commissioners voted Nov. 5 to approve the easement at Camp Bay, taking the final step toward opening the long-awaited public trail to Lake Pend Oreille. The approval is conditional, requiring several revisions and must be agreed to by Arizona-based developers M3 ID Camp Bay, LLC, then officially filed before the trail opens to the public.

In April 2021, the previous board — made up of Dan McDonald, Jeff Connolly and Steve Bradshaw — agreed to vacate the last 2,550 feet of Camp Bay Road in Sagle to M3. Neighbors Fred and Jennifer Arn, who had frequently used the public road to access the water, challenged the decision. After legal review, the district court remanded the issue to the commissioners.

The BOCC subsequently voted against vacating the road in February 2022, sending the matter back to the court, which recommended approval and sent the decision back to the board. The BOCC approved the vacation in December 2022, providing that M3 create and maintain a public trail on a “permanent, perpetual, non-exclusive pedestrian easement,” which guarantees access to a 50-foot-wide section of shoreline.

M3 completed the trail, as well as nearby construction work, and brought the final easement agreement to the board for approval Oct. 15. At that time, Chair Asia Williams and Commissioner Ron Korn tabled the agreement, requesting that staff work with the developers to address concerns voiced by the commissioners, including removal of a paragraph detailing how rules would be enforced on the easement.

Commissioner Steve Bradshaw was absent from both the Oct. 15 and Nov. 5 meetings.

Meanwhile, following a visit from Williams and Korn to the trail, M3 widened the natural path by approximately two feet and lined it with small logs.

Williams brought forward additional concerns during the Nov. 5 meeting, requesting further alterations to the newly revised agreement.

“I don’t understand why the board is being asked to agree to things that aren’t just something as simple as, ‘The road is done,’” said Williams.

“We don’t have an obligation for any additional terms. We just need a 10-foot-wide trail that leads to 50 feet [of waterfront],” she later added.

The agreement specifies a 10-foot-wide easement, not a trail.

Some minor changes proposed by Williams included striking the word “pedestrian” from “non-motorized pedestrian travel” — making it clear that bikes were permitted on the trail — and adding the phrase “including but not limited to” to the list outlining expected maintenance of the trail.

She further requested to add language clarifying that the statement, “Grantor hereby declares, grants and conveys to Bonner County … a permanent, perpetual, non-exclusive pedestrian easement … subject to the terms and conditions further set forth herein,” does not remand the property back to the county should the public violate the conditions of the agreement.

Deputy Prosecutor Bill Wilson testified that the statement was not a “right of reversion” and only meant that the easement, not the road vacation, was subject to the conditions. Still, he agreed to add language explicitly stating that the property would not return to the county.

Williams further requested to strike Paragraph 9 from the agreement, which stated that the “prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs” due to any potential litigation.

“This has nothing to do with the county,” she said.

The lion’s share of the discussion pertained to Paragraph 5 of the agreement, which affirms that the owners are not liable for any injuries the public might sustain while on the trail.

“That is something that you would typically see in an easement where the public is coming onto private property,” said Wilson.

By signing a document stating that, “Any use by the public is at that individual’s sole risk,” Williams felt that the county was using its authority to guarantee the landowners’ protection from liability.

“I personally don’t see a problem with No. 5. I don’t think I’d grant public access across my private property without not being held liable for something that they did,” said Korn.

Williams proposed simplifying the language to state that the use of the trail is governed by Idaho Code 36-1604, which the paragraph already referenced. That piece of code limits landowners’ liability, making it easier to open their property to the public for recreational purposes.

Wilson supported the change, as he didn’t believe it altered the meaning of the paragraph, but said that M3’s legal advisers would still need to review it.

The board unanimously approved the easement agreement, pending revisions.