08/24/2010: "Will Council Accept Land Bank Easement?"

(UPDATED 8-24-10; 9:10am) The County Council will hold a discussion today (Tuesday 8-24-10:Agenda) on a resolution to accept a "Deed of Historic Preservation and Conservation Easement" for the Erickson Property in Friday Harbor, but Councilmember Lovel Pratt may be forced to step away from the discussion due to a conflict of interest.

The question before the Council -with or without Pratt joining in- is a conservation easement, that has only recently been hammered out by the Land Bank, the same as what was proposed when the Land Bank budget was approved; and is the purchase of the property and the County role in it the same as approved in the Land Bank budget?

It is clear the proposal is no longer the same, not the least of which is the Town is no longer a part of the transaction, and the obligations of the easement has not been known until a few days ago, so the question is, how important is that? Depends on who you ask, and emotions are running high. Councilmember Rich Peterson questioned if the expenditure of Land Bank funds for historic preservation makes sense if the Ag group will be required to follow Town historic requirements for a reduction of the parking requirements; which may in fact be needed in order to obtain permits to proceed with the project.

What is not in question is the reason for the purchase. The property has been proposed to be used as a home for the Farmers Market, and has been heavily pushed by Councilmember Lovel Pratt, both as a member of the council and, until recently, as a paid executive director of a local ag group that has been the driving force behind the purchase of the building.

Questions have been raised for sometime ( Related Letter To Council ) about Pratt’s wearing of too many hats, and the questions have resulted in an opinion by the SJC prosecutor that Pratt does, in fact, have a conflict of interest.

Adding to the controversies is Pratt’s role with Sen. Ranker in obtaining a large grant from the state to offset the costs of the purchase. The question has been raised (see Manning letter) regarding her obligation to first inform the full council that money may be available for County use, prior to her applying for the funds for the purchase of the property for the use of the ag group.

Prosecutor Gaylord noted in his memo that RCW 43.23.050 states, in part: "In addition to all other penalties, civil or criminal, the violation by any officer of the provisions of this chapter may be grounds for forfeiture of his or her office."

It is expected that Councilmember Pratt will step down from any future involvement in the purchase of the Erickson property.