City Hall
Council Resolution Could Forestall Tunnel Vote; Tunnel Proponents File Final Arguments Tomorrow
The city council just voted to hold a special full-council meeting tomorrow to "clarify its intent" on a portion of the tunnel legislation that remains in dispute in King County Court. The impact of the resolution could be that tunnel opponents will have to start from scratch---gathering signatures to get an entirely different referendum on the ballot to repeal a separate ordinance that the council has not yet adopted.
Last Friday, King County Superior Court judge Laura Gene Middaugh ruled that the majority of city legislation adopting three agreements between the city and the state on the deep-bore tunnel is not subject to referendum. Just one section, Section 6, may be eligible for the ballot, Middaugh said.
That section addresses the process the city council is supposed to go through after the state adopts its final environmental impact statement, and reads, in its entirety, “The City Council is authorized to decide whether to issue the notice [to proceed with the tunnel] referenced in Section 2.3 of each Agreement. That decision shall be made at an open public meeting held after issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement.”
The resolution introduced today, which the council will vote on tomorrow, would clariy that the council intends to issue its notice to proceed with the tunnel via a future ordinance. Effectively, that could force tunnel opponents to propose a referendum on that ordinance, instead of the one the council has already adopted. If the council fails to adopt its notice to proceed by the September deadline for placing measures on the November ballot, that could push any tunnel referendum back until next year.
Council president Richard Conlin, a tunnel supporter, says the council's only intention is "to answer the judge's question" about how they intend to adopt the notice to proceed. However, he says that forestalling a tunnel referendum "would be one interpretation" of the impact of the resolution the council will vote on tomorrow.
During today's meeting, council member Mike O'Brien, a tunnel opponent, said, "It’s really clear to me that the public in Seattle would like a vote on this issue. … I would love to understand that better. It feels a little bit like this hasty meeting, with little notice, on a resolution when the public and the judge have said it’s time to move forward on a vote. [It feels like] we’re not being as transparent as we ought to be." Conlin responded that his intent was for the council "to be as transparent as we can" in the short time frame that the judge has given them.
O'Brien also asked why the council couldn't just vote on the resolution today, instead of having a special meeting.
The obvious answer, as Conlin himself acknowledged today: With only five council members present today, and O'Brien opposed to the resolution, Conlin didn't have the majority he needed to move it forward. Tom Rasmussen, a tunnel supporter, will be back in town from Chicago in time for tomorrow's vote, giving Conlin the majority he needs.
Tomorrow, meanwhile, tunnel proponents will file their final arguments in the case. They're expected to argue that because the city hasn't officially adopted the deep-bore tunnel---city officials can't do that until after an environmental impact statement has been issued---no portion of the tunnel agreements can go on the ballot. Responses from the anti-tunnel side are due Wednesday.
Middaugh will issue a final ruling on whether Section 6 can be referred to the ballot on Friday.
Last Friday, King County Superior Court judge Laura Gene Middaugh ruled that the majority of city legislation adopting three agreements between the city and the state on the deep-bore tunnel is not subject to referendum. Just one section, Section 6, may be eligible for the ballot, Middaugh said.
That section addresses the process the city council is supposed to go through after the state adopts its final environmental impact statement, and reads, in its entirety, “The City Council is authorized to decide whether to issue the notice [to proceed with the tunnel] referenced in Section 2.3 of each Agreement. That decision shall be made at an open public meeting held after issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement.”
The resolution introduced today, which the council will vote on tomorrow, would clariy that the council intends to issue its notice to proceed with the tunnel via a future ordinance. Effectively, that could force tunnel opponents to propose a referendum on that ordinance, instead of the one the council has already adopted. If the council fails to adopt its notice to proceed by the September deadline for placing measures on the November ballot, that could push any tunnel referendum back until next year.
Council president Richard Conlin, a tunnel supporter, says the council's only intention is "to answer the judge's question" about how they intend to adopt the notice to proceed. However, he says that forestalling a tunnel referendum "would be one interpretation" of the impact of the resolution the council will vote on tomorrow.
During today's meeting, council member Mike O'Brien, a tunnel opponent, said, "It’s really clear to me that the public in Seattle would like a vote on this issue. … I would love to understand that better. It feels a little bit like this hasty meeting, with little notice, on a resolution when the public and the judge have said it’s time to move forward on a vote. [It feels like] we’re not being as transparent as we ought to be." Conlin responded that his intent was for the council "to be as transparent as we can" in the short time frame that the judge has given them.
O'Brien also asked why the council couldn't just vote on the resolution today, instead of having a special meeting.
The obvious answer, as Conlin himself acknowledged today: With only five council members present today, and O'Brien opposed to the resolution, Conlin didn't have the majority he needed to move it forward. Tom Rasmussen, a tunnel supporter, will be back in town from Chicago in time for tomorrow's vote, giving Conlin the majority he needs.
Tomorrow, meanwhile, tunnel proponents will file their final arguments in the case. They're expected to argue that because the city hasn't officially adopted the deep-bore tunnel---city officials can't do that until after an environmental impact statement has been issued---no portion of the tunnel agreements can go on the ballot. Responses from the anti-tunnel side are due Wednesday.
Middaugh will issue a final ruling on whether Section 6 can be referred to the ballot on Friday.
