Historic building’s use as Farmers Market, performance space and pedestrian area impacted by Council Vote
By Stan Matthews
County Communications Program Manager
Four votes are required for the San Juan County Council to take any action, and on Tuesday, August 24, the fate of the Land Bank’s purchase of a historical easement on the Erickson Building in Friday Harbor was sealed when – on the County Prosecutor’s recommendation – Council Member Lovel Pratt recused herself from the discussion and vote because of an apparent conflict of interest.
The project promised to preserve the historical building for use as a farmer’s market, meeting and performance space and create a green space and pedestrian destination in downtown Friday Harbor. The project had attracted $100,000 in federal money, plus $375,000 in state funds. The Council had previously approved the Land Bank’s budget allocating $400,000 to purchase the historic easement to guarantee the preservation of the building and the creation and preservation of the green space. The non-profit Agricultural Guild would have actually purchased the building, held the title and been responsible for the renovation and development of the project.
More than 150 supporters of the project appeared for the hearing yesterday afternoon and speakers argued that the project would produce jobs, enhance tourism, provide a meeting space and revitalize a decaying section of Friday Harbor.
Several speakers, including Ruth Mahan, the first Land Bank director, expressed concern that the Council was setting a precedent by intervening after authorized negotiations had been completed and injecting politics in a Land Bank action, in apparent conflict with the legislation that established the Land Bank.
Normally, Land Bank deeds and easements are approved routinely by the Council without debate.
State Senator, and former San Juan County Council Member, Kevin Ranker added to the heat by warning that the state’s grant of $375,000 – which he had been instrumental in obtaining – was not transferable to a different project and was in serious jeopardy of being lost altogether if the Council did not allow the project to move forward. He also warned that legislators who had fought to win the funds for the County in difficult financial times would be less enthusiastic about doing so in the future, if the money was not used.
Only one person spoke in opposition to the project – Bill Wright – a frequent critic of the Council’s policies and actions, who questioned whether this was a legal use of taxpayers dollars.
However, in opposing the resolution accepting the deed, Council Member Rich Peterson repeatedly stated he felt the project had changed from the one approved and said that he did not feel the Council had adequately reviewed and debated the project. At one point he held up several sheets of papers and said that he had more than “20 questions or problems with the easement” as presented, but there was no time to debate them.
The most significant change in the project was that the Town of Friday Harbor’s plan to invest $375,000 in Lodging Tax funds, hold title to the property and lease it to the Agricultural Guild was withdrawn after the town was not able to get an Attorney General’s opinion saying the use of the those funds for that purpose was legal. The Town’s funds were subsequently replaced by the state grant and the Agricultural Guild would have held title to the property.
Council Chair Fralick did not detail his reasons for opposing the project, beyond saying that there had not been enough council discussion of the issue, that the process had been flawed and that he felt the overall project was different than the one approved with the Land Bank’s budget.
Council Member Howie Rosenfeld, whose district is Friday Harbor, made a final plea with the two opponents saying, “This is a tremendous opportunity to revitalize this section of the town, provide jobs, a green space, additional tax revenue . . . construction, it goes on and on and you’re taking a knife and stabbing it in the heart of Friday Harbor and I am really sad.”
Peterson responded that he felt that the Friday Harbor Town Council had not sent a message to the County Council and “they think this hot potato rests very comfortably here and they didn’t want to take it back.”
In the end, Council Members Bob Myhr, Gene Knapp and Howie Rosenfeld voted in favor of accepting the Land Bank Easement. Council Chair Richard Fralick and Rich Peterson opposed. With Council Member Lovel Pratt not participating, due to her previous involvement with the Agricultural Guild, the resolution accepting the Land Bank Easement failed to win the necessary four votes.
**If it wouldn’t cause you financial distress to take out a modestly-priced, voluntary subscription (HERE), you’d be doing a real service. If it would, then no worries, we’re happy to share with you.**
Modified Aug. 25 at 7:20 p.m.
Wow. I would have expected something written by a paid County employee in his official capacity to be subject to some standards of accuracy and objectivity. It was NOT a “minority vote.” The whole Council–with the exception of the councilperson found to have an incurable conflict of interest–voted. The Charter requires four votes to pass. And that’s only the beginning of the problems with this piece! The Council had never approved the project as proposed; any action taken in 2009 or 2010 was void due to Councilperson Pratt’s participation. Mr. Wright is a citizen and taxpayer. Mr. Matthews didn’t characterize any one else in the crowd–why start with Mr. Wright? And I do believe that other speakers spoke against the project–one Mr. Green comes to mind. And Friday Harbor councilmembers had expressed very recently, IIRC, concerns with the “feasibility” of the project.
I am not sure there is anything “wrong” with this piece – it seems to lay out the facts rather well. Certainly, the entire discussion is not voided by Council Member Pratt’s involvement in the discussion. The functional issue being debated by the council was not one of funding. The council had already approved this project with their approval of the land bank budget. The issue at hand had simply to do with easements needed to allow the project to move forward and a change in funding sources.
The issues raised by Fralick and Peterson that this is not the same project that they approved had to do with the change presented by Friday Harbor – which was not a material change to the plan, given that alternate funding of equal value was identified at the state level to fill the gap. Other than this issue, the project remained largely unchanged.
The sad part here is that our Council has now taken action that will esentially torpedo the project that would have added a positive fixture to our local county economy, while leveraging outside funding through a public/private partnership.
I hope that Mr’s Peterson and Fralick are thinking long term – our local economy needs help, and turning away outside, non-county dollars for projects that will inject longterm sustainable sales tax revenue as well as income for local residents does not help to bolster the county coffers. I assume they would rather simply propose yet another stop-gap tax increase than encourage localized, sustainable revenue sources?
The withdrawal of the Town of Friday Harbor was clearly a material change in the plan. Its decision not to participate–due not only to the LTAC issue but also due to location, feasibility and business plan questions–left only the Agricultural Guild responsible.
“Turning away outside, non-county dollars for projects” I’m not sure why these are “non-County dollars.” County taxpayers paid the federal and state taxes that make up USDA and Washington State Capital Project funds. They were all taxpayer dollars. And they would require a lot more government spending in the future.