08/24/2010: "Council Rejects Easement On Erickson Building"

(Part of 100+/- showing up for Land Bank discussion W/Council)

(UPDATED 08-25-10) In a split vote after Councilmember Pratt stepped away due to a conflict of interest, the County Council voted Tuesday to not accept an easement the Land Bank had recently re-written as part of the Ag Guild’s proposal to purchase the Erickson property in downtown Friday Harbor.

Councilman Rich Peterson opened his comments by noting “there are obviously a number of things the community is in disagreement about.. I would like to get to what things we may agree to..” and said the first area he needed clarification on was the notion of fiduciary responsibility. Prosecutor Randy Gaylord said it is the County Council that has the responsibility.

The second concern for Peterson was the change in the proposal from the time it was approved as a budget item, to what they were now being asked to approve. Peterson said the Council has a “Three Touch” rule, and the discussion they were now having was the first time the Council had had the opportunity to discuss the new conservation easement and the change in who would be a partner in the project.

Councilman Myhr said the role of the Land bank in the purchase had not changed, but Peterson said that while he “had no problem with approving what had been presented in the Land Bank budget in 2009, however the fact the Town of Friday Harbor was now not involved in the purchase -would not be contributing any money- changed what had originally been presented in 2009.

When put on the spot by Peterson, Prosecutor Gaylord said the council had “the discretion to vote for or against the resolution” that would accept the conservation easement.

Councilman Gene Knapp, a former SJC Prosecutor, asked Gaylord if the Council had the legal right to remove a line item in the Land Bank budget. Gaylord said at the time of a review of the budget they could only accept, reject, or remand the budget back to the Land Bank, but that the Council retains their discretion to accept or reject a resolution that is part of a proposal in the Land Bank Budget; such as the resolution before the council to accept or reject the conservation easement.

The prosecutor’s office had sent a memo to the council pointing out that since 1970 the County has had the right to reject a deed, be it a conservation easement, or, for example. a deed for a property that required “toxic clean-up.” Gaylord said “you [the council] have the discretion to do that.”

The Council had expected a large crowd, and they were not disappointed with the turn out. But for whatever reason the speakers were, with one major exception, and a couple of comments of concern with parking problems, and a statement critical of how the Land Bank had handled the proposal, all were in favor of the of the County moving forward with the signing of the easement.

After public testimony on the project and additional discussion by the Council, Councilman Bob Myhr moved to approve the easement -an act proving the right to approve or reject- and received a second from Knapp.

Councilman Howard Rosenfeld became obviously agitated and in acid tones questioned and made emotional comments to the motives of both Councilmember’s Fralick and Peterson for their opposition to the current easement, accusing Peterson of “having made up your mind before the testimony” and looking for “slivers of evidence” to support his opposition.

Peterson reviewed his objections, Myhr argued in support of approval, and Council Chair Richard Fralick said he would have been “extremely happy if we were in a position where we had a full siting council, and each would be able to vote how we felt with respect to the project;” which may or may not have been an observation that if the motion failed to pass, it would in part be due to the self-inflicted removal of Council member Pratt, as a result of her conflict of interest actions.

Fralick said had the proposal come forward in the same form as approved in 2008, it would be appropriate to approve it, but that he did not believe it was the same.

As for the assertions that there has been over a year of discussion of the project and the easement, Fralick said that was part of his frustration with the process: “there has not been a year of discussion.”

Council rules require four votes to take action, so when it became increasingly clear the votes were not there, most of the audience rose dramatically and in a rush -and one might think rudely- and left the room in the middle of Councilman’s Fralick’s statement of why he would not be voting for the easement.

While the nay votes of Councilmember’s Peterson and Fralick may or may not effectively kill the involvement of the Land Bank in the purchase, Ag Guild Co-Chair Mark Madsen told the Island Guardian the Ag board will hold a meeting to discuss their options to move forward without Land Bank money; as for that state money, He said they have a year to qualify for it, and as a not-for-profit organization they are eligible to apply for it to restore the building.