I asked Seattle city council member Tim Burgess if he supported council president Richard Conlin's decision to sign the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the deep bore tunnel project.

Conlin’s move, which Mayor Mike McGinn says voilated the city charter because only the mayor has the authority for that kind of action, evidently (according to Conlin) allows the city to move forward with the viaduct replacement project. Without the city’s signature, the state could have dropped the city as co-lead on the project, giving the city no say in how the tunnel moves forward. Additionally, the state reportedly threatened to pull $5 million in funding for 16 Seattle Department of Transportation employees if the city didn’t sign the document.

Burgess gave me an unequivocal answer: "Yes" he supported Conlin.

And here's what else he told me (in an email):

Conlin's action was not insignificant nor was it the massive brouhaha it's being made out to be.  I viewed his action as a simple administrative step to keep us at the table.  Both WSDOT and the Feds were consulted and stated very clearly that his signature would be sufficient and acceptable to maintain Seattle's position as a co-lead partner.  That's all Conlin was doing.  And that's important for several reasons, not the least of which is the staff funding we receive from the state because of that position as co-lead.

What's been lost in all the noise is the close working relationship between the parties that has existed all along.  WSDOT and SDOT, and the Fed highway people, have worked for months on this draft EIS document.  The city has responded both orally and in writing to various iterations of the documents, sought changes, added content, corrected content, shared opinions, provided arguments, etc.  The Mayor's representatives, through the director of SDOT and the technical staff, have been deeply engaged all through the summer working together with WSDOT to finalize the documents.  The week of September 13 a final meeting was held with all of the players and there was final agreement that the draft documents were completed and ready for signature.  The City agreed that Peter Hahn would sign the documents on Thursday, that the signature deadline set back in early July would be met and that printing of the documents could proceed as scheduled so the public release date could also be met.  In the final weeks of this process none of the parties raised any final objections or concerns.  The work was completed.

Remember, too, that these documents are highly technical.  Rarely would a Mayor or other elected official do any of the staff work herself or himself; this work is a perfect example of why technical staff are entrusted with the task.  For the Mayor to oversee all of the work done on his behalf over the past several months and then at the last moment raise objections and seek a delay is what alarmed Conlin.  With all of the good work that had been completed there just didn't seem to be any reason to delay or change the agreed upon course of action.

Finally, it's important to note that this is not the final step in the EIS process.  We will enter the public comment period in October.  We are still a very long way from having a final EIS presentation and findings.  So, Conlin's action preserved the status quo and that's a very good thing for the people of Seattle.  We will remain a co-lead, we will continue to receive the state funding for our technical staff who are working on this project, and we will continue to guide and influence the final outcome.  And we will make all of this clear on Monday.