A fellow landowner sent me an email with their comments and concerns and gave me permission to post them.  I added the documents to the text for clarification.

July 27, 2016 Minutes:  FOOD FOR THOUGHT

1.  (Page Two, mid page) What is the background on John Peebles, real estate appraiser, contacting the Administrator about the MOU between
KIP and UBID?  Was KIP preparing an appraisal for a specific reason such as perhaps to flip the KIP-owned lands to an investor?

More importantly, why would Peebles/D.r. Coell & Associates allegedly have a signed copy of the MOU (facilitated by provincially appointed
James Mattison) by Brian McMahon/KIP if McMahon never signed the MOU?

One wonders if there was some kind of fraud here if it’s true that Peebles did have a signed copy of the MOU.  In other words, is it possible that KIP was trying to send a message that KIP had a water agreement to a company that was going to do an appraisal of the KIP lands when in reality KIP was not planning on signing the MOU?

It would obviously be misleading to any company doing an appraisal if  it were to falsely believe the developer already had a water agreement
with the local water board.

2.  (Point #4 on Page One,  “Discussion re: Letter from KIP dated June  7, 2016”)

The first two paragraphs of the text of the discussion on July 27th imply that the June 7, 2016  letter written by McMahon/KIP was just  about Trustees Jacques and Loxam getting something in writing about the KIP offer of the 8-acre property for the water filtration system.

However, if one reads the June 7, 2016 letter,   the text of the letter clearly states that KIP wants the same contract terms of the lapsed 2010 Water Infrastructure Agreement i.e. giving the Developer 500 drinking water connections.  The discussion in the first two paragraphs of Point #4 on Page One speaks only about receiving a written correspondence from the developer “so that UBID had something on file”.

It seems that this is an example of political “pivoting” since Loxam and Jacques are presenting the discussion that they just wanted
something on paper to confirm McMahon’s verbalized offer of giving an 8-acre property to UBID.  However, in the last paragraph under Point #4, the Minutes seem to clear up the real reason behind Trustee Loxam and Jacques approaching the Developer on June 6 or June 7, 2016 as  follows:

“After some further brief discussion, Trustees Molstad, Alcock and Webb all reiterated that any reinstatement of the former Water Infrastructure Agreement, which expired on December 31st, 2014, as suggested in bullet 2 of the developer’s letter continues to be a non-starter.  Trustee Jacques stated however he still believes that agreement could be workable with some edits/amendments.”

It seems logical after reading this paragraph that indeed, Trustee Jacques, like the developer, also wanted to change the MOU that was  voted on and approved by the UBID Board on June 6, 2016 and go back to the terms of the old WIA which lapsed at the end of 2014 i.e. that the developer wanted to return to 500 water hookups instead of a much lower amount of 30-50 connections.

The bottom line question is as follows:  If Trustees Jacques and Loxam did not have the authority from the Board to meet with the developer
(as the then Chair Carol Molstad wrote to an email to Trustee Kaljur) and request the June 7, 2016 KIP letter about the new terms wanted by  the developer in a water agreement, is it legal for two Trustees to go behind the backs of the then UBID Board, meet with the developer, and  “un-do” the MOU that UBID had passed and signed?

This kind of behavior — of two Trustees being in direct contact with a developer the same day or the day UBID passed and signed the MOU
agreement — should be looked at very closely with a very discriminating eye.  Are these two Trustees working for the Developer or for the community?

More comments to come — stay tuned!