City’s case is weak, lawyer claims. Attorney advises county fair board.

Published 8:00 pm Wednesday, October 4, 2006

A lawyer for the Island County Fair Association Board believes Langley’s basis for condemnation of fair property isn’t as solid as the city claims.

The city wants to condemn a small portion of the county fairgrounds to build a new street, and has begun to take legal steps to acquire the property.

But Elaine Spencer, a Seattle-based lawyer who has been advising the fair board, claims that local governments do not automatically have the power to condemn state, school or county property such as the fairgrounds.

Last week, the fair board asked Island County commissioners to help the association defend its “no road” position. Spencer’s five-page legal memo on the dispute, dated Sept. 22, was obtained by The Record on Monday.

In the memo, Spencer said Michael Charneski, the city’s lawyer, had it wrong when he said the city had statutory authority to condemn the fairgrounds property. The fairgrounds property is owned by the county but managed by the fair board.

Charneski, in an earlier letter to the commissioners, said that in his many year’s of dealing with condemnation issues, he had never seen a successful challenge to a condemnation lawsuit that focused on the public use issue. Charneski called the fair board’s opposition against a sale of a piece of fairgrounds property to the city “a fruitless act” that would only end up costing the county money.

Spencer, however, sees it differently.

“Mr. Charniski ignores the fact that, as a threshold matter to the issue of public use and necessity, the city must also demonstrate that it has statutory authority to condemn property of another public body which has already been devoted to a public use,” Spencer wrote.

In other words, a court would have to decide which use — a street for the city or as part of the traditional fairgrounds — serves the greater good.

Spencer pointed to two court cases to buttress her argument, and said the fairgrounds fight is one of these rare cases where the court should deny an order of public use.

The fight over the sliver of fairgrounds property stretches back to last year. Langley said it needs to build a connector road between Al Anderson and Langley roads to lessen potential traffic problems caused by new housing developments on the city’s southern end.

About 400 feet of the new connector road would cross fairgrounds property. The road would be 18 to 22 feet wide, and the city had asked the fair board for 60-foot-wide easement across the fairgrounds.

Langley officials have repeatedly tried to convince fair officials to grant the city an easement across the southern tip of the fairgrounds so a new road can be built.

After the fair board twice rejected the city’s request for an easement, Langley started taking legal steps to acquire the stretch of the fairgrounds property needed for the new road. Earlier this month, Langley offered the county $12,075 for the land needed for the new road.

Last week, though, the fair board again asked Island County to help it fight the city.

Along with the memo from the fair association’s lawyer, the fair board also presented county commissioners with petitions signed by roughly 600 signatures.

The petition says the road easement will cut the fairgrounds camping area by one third, and states: “No amount of reimbursement will justify losing this much property on our already-small county fairgrounds.”

In her letter, Spencer said the fairgrounds is just half the size it needs to be for the proper operation of the fair, and said the road would make 2 1/2 acres of the fairgrounds unusable.

Fair supporters have said a portion of the fair campgrounds would be cut off from the rest of the fairgrounds if the new road is built and would become unusable. While Spencer said in her memo that issue might be debatable, it was clear that the land used for the road itself would not be usable by the fair.

City officials have previously claimed the new road would actually benefit the fair by improving access to the fair at its south entrance.

County commissioners have said in the past that they don’t want to spend tax money to defend the fair board’s position in its dispute with the city.

But Spencer noted that while the county has equipped the fair board with management powers and responsibilities, the fair board is not the proper party to defend the county against a property condemnation effort.

In her memo to the fair board, Spencer said the association should ask for more money for the fairgrounds property if the city is successful in its legal battle to get the property.

The proper price tag for the property includes not only the fair market value of the land, but also the value of the damage to the rest of the fairgrounds that stems from the loss of the land needed for the new road, Spencer said.

The city has offered $12,075 for roughly 20,000 square feet of property.

“The association should ask the county, through its commissioners and prosecuting attorney, to vigorously pursue full just compensation for the taking if it is to have any hope of mitigating the impact of the taking on the viability of the fair,” Spencer wrote.

The city’s latest offer is considerably less than what Langley offered for the land before talks broke off with the fair board.

Before the city turned to condemnation, Langley offered the fair board $138,000 in site improvements, including changes to stormwater drainage in the area, a sewer line extension along Langley Road, and the installation of a dump station for recreational vehicles. The city also agreed to address a number of concerns such as fencing and safety.

The city has not yet said if they will continue in the condemnation proceedings. The deadline for the county to respond to the city’s $12,075 offer expired on Friday.

Langley will not comment on the dispute until city officials review the case with city council Wednesday, said city administrator Walt Blackford.

The fair board’s next meeting is on Oct. 23 in Coupeville.