Langley’s lawsuit against Island County over a piece of the fairgrounds property may hinge on just one word.

On Nov. 13, a judge reviewed the Island County code — the set of county regulations that cover everything from animal licenses to zoning — to see if the rules covering the county fairgrounds prohibit transferring a piece of the property to the city of Langley without the fair board’s approval or a public vote.

City officials hope a ruling will help clear up a key issue in the legal fight over a piece of the fairgrounds the city wants to use for a new road.

Langley’s attorney Michael Charneski filed a motion in court Nov. 1 for a ruling on the meaning of a section of the code that covers the fairgrounds.

City officials say the code is clear, and that the commissioners don’t need the approval of the fair board, or a public vote, because the code says those steps only need to be taken if the fairgrounds property is sold to a private interest.

According to the code, “to the extent allowed by state law, the fairgrounds property may not be declared surplus, sold, or conveyed for private ownership and use without the affirmative consent via an advisory ballot of the voters within the South Whidbey School District.”

The little word “private” could make all the difference.

Island County commissioners have claimed in the past they can’t give away any fair land without the approval of the fair board or the vote by the people. City officials say the county can make a decision concerning the fairgrounds because the city’s proposal is for a public, and not private, use.

Langley wants the piece of property to build a new road between Al Anderson and Langley roads. Langley tried to negotiate an easement, but negotiations failed and the city filed a condemnation suit Oct. 13.

Charneski, argues in the motion filed in Island County Court that the “excessive caution on part of the county commissioners may be laudable, but it is unnecessary.”

Fair supporters have asked the city to look at other places to build the road.

But Charneski, in court documents, said that the city believes that condemning private property to accommodate the new road when public land is already available in the ideal location would be a poor choice.

Once the actual condemnation suit begins, the first question that must be decided by the judge is whether the city has the right to take property already used by the public. The judge must then decide if one public use takes priority over the other.

Next, the judge will review the issue of compensation. The appraiser hired by the city estimated that the land needed for the road is worth about $12,000.

Negotiations still possible

Island County Judge Vickie Churchill is expected to interpret the code at the hearing in two weeks.

If Churchill agrees with the city’s interpretation of the county code, it could mean that the county can negotiate with Langley officials without the consent of the fair board. Commissioners have repeatedly said they prefer an out-of-court settlement, but were bound by the code.

Even so, some still haven’t given up hope for a negotiated settlement. Charneski said it’s not out of the question.

Charneski said he had talked with Elaine Spencer, the attorney for the fair association, about getting city officials and fair board members to negotiate and work through the issues.

“I think we can get the appropriate people together,” he said.

Charneski said he has discussed holding negotiations with Spencer, and she was not opposed.

Even though the fair board repeatedly voted to hold firm to its “no road” position, the board itself has been split on the decision not to negotiate.

According to the fair board minutes, board member Bill Carruthers said on Sept. 11 that he believes the board should negotiate. Board member Tarey Kay said she was worried that they may wake up and read in the newspaper that the condemnation has taken place. The board also disagreed at that meeting on the decision to hire an attorney, according to the minutes.

Fair concerns

Charneski gave the city council an update at the council’s meeting Wednesday.

He addressed a number of concerns that have been made by the fair board. Charneski said virtually all the fair’s concerns could be solved.

Engineering work by the city engineer would take care of concerns about storm-water drainage, for example, as well as the turn radius that’s needed for big rigs that enter the fairgrounds.

The city is also willing to pay for new fencing and gates.

The city council also voted to close off the fair portion of the proposed road during fair week, and make the unused road available for parking of trailers or other vehicles.

“Just as we close off streets for Choochokam, we can close the street for the fair,” said Council Chairman Robert Gilman.

The council approved the motion unanimously.

Intervener

Another hearing scheduled for Nov. 13 has been taken off the court schedule.

The hearing for a motion by the fair board’s lawyer to intervene during the case was canceled because both county and city officials had no objections.

Spencer will now officially representing the fair board during the court proceedings.

Fair board chairman Dan Ollis had argued in the motion that the fair association should be represented during the lawsuit because the people who have worked at the fair know the fair best. In a statement filed with the court case, Ollis also expressed doubts on whether the county would put up a big enough fight to save the fairgrounds.

“The association’s interests are unique from those of the county, and the association is concerned that the county may not adequately defend its interests,” Ollis said.

Deadline

The fight over the fairgrounds property has lasted longer than the city expected. Langley had hoped to have the issue resolved by Dec. 1.

Langley planning officials are requiring the developer of the Highlands housing project to build the public connector road as part of the project.

If the city does not have the right-of-way for the road, the developer must still pay for the road, but the city must construct it — which likely means additional costs for Langley.

Mayor Neil Colburn said meeting the goal of starting construction before Dec. 1 is starting to look unrealistic.

“I’ve given that date to God,” he said.

“It will be in all likelihood beyond that,” Colburn added.

But the city is still pressing to meet the deadline, he said.