City Attorney: Library Petition Is Illegal

The City of Renton has issued an opinion on the Library initiative, and it doesn’t look good for the .

However, the City’s legal opinion is that is already water under the bridge.

“This is a decision that has already been made by the Council,” said City Communication Director Preeti Shridhar of a March 5 memo sent by City Attorney Larry Warren to Mayor Denis Law and members of the City Council.

Renton Patch learned of the memo on March 14, two days after the Citizens for the preservation of Renton's Cedar River Library submitted an additional 2,108 signatures gathered during its to collect enough signatures for its petition.

; however, following an audit, King County Elections reported that only 4,933 were valid. The group needed 6,375.

The “Super Saturday” signatures are currently being audited said King County Elections Spokesperson Kim Van Ekstrom, who estimated that the audit will be complete by the end of the month.

However, the audit may not matter now in light of the City’s legal opinion on the issue.

If the City were to change course, there’d be significant impact to its agreement with the King County Library System (KCLS).

“There are some significant impacts with the contract,” Shridhar said, adding that the document includes “very specific deliverables” including two new libraries funded by Renton taxpayers.

Shridhar maintains that, “From the beginning, the City has been very clear,” about its intentions in its contract negotiations with KCLS, the fate of the current downtown library and construction of two new libraries in the City of Renton.

In addition to the reasons provided in Warren’s memo, the City believes the public has been exposed to a lot of misinformation and inaccuracies, she said.

For example, a steering committee is working with the public on what will become of the iconic library building over the Cedar River. The group will give it’s recommendation to the Council at it’s April 16 meeting.

Below is a synopsis of City Attorney Larry Warren’s memo. The full document is available by clicking on the pdf image to the right.

“My conclusion is that (the initiative) is illegal for a number of reasons,” City Attorney Larry Warren wrote in a memo Dates March 5:

1.     Impairment of contract: The initiative proposes to require he downtown library improvements to be at the Cedar River site. The City has signed two contracts with KCLS to build the downtown library at a separate site, specifically at the Big 5 site. It is unconstitutional to pass a law which impairs an existing contract and this initiative, if passed, would do so.

2.     Infringement of the Council’s budget authority: The Council has passed two budgets and authorized a bond issue which furthered the Big 5 site. Money has been expended to buy the Big 5 site and to do certain architectural work. Also there is work to do to seismically retrofit the current library. While that work ultimately needs to be done to make the building safe, that expense may be accelerated if the building is to be converted to the new library. Also there will be the need to find temporary space for the current library while the work on the library is done. Finally, there may not be enough funds in the bond issue to construct the two libraries, one over the river, and still pay for the Big 5 site and the associated architectural costs. This would force Council to change budget decisions that have already been made and/or budget additional funds. Budgeting may not be done by initiative.

3.     The initiative improperly tries to direct administrative actions: The Council has acted and authorized contracts with KCLS, approve acquisition of the Big 5 site and authorized contracts with an architect. The onus now switches to the administration to execute the work authorized by the Council. In an analogues situation the court has held that an initiative may not be used to direct administrative action contrary to the decisions made by the council. In that case the Bellevue Council established essential framework to implement plans to construct a convention center. An initiative was filed to require voter approval before selling bonds. In the current situation the plans are much further along, the bonds have been sold and the site for the downtown library purchased . . . the initiative is too late.

4.     The initiative, if a legitimate topic for legislation, is really a referendum and is not timely: Along the same lines, because the initiaitive seeks to reverse prior Council action, including signing contracts with KCLS, it is really a referendum and not an initiaitive. New law is not being proposed but old actions reversed. A referendum must be filed within 30 days.

5.     The initiaitive challenges elements of the election to join KCLS: Before submitting the topic of annexation to KCLS to the voters, the City negotiated an agreement with KCLS to build two new libraries at the new locations in the city. KCLS had to agree to the annexation and this agreement was part of its agreement to submit the matter to the voters. By challenging that agreement and seeking to compel the City to keep the library at its current location and not provide a new library at a new site, the initiative collaterally attacks the original election, long after the process is over. The challenge is illegal and untimely.

6.     As proposed, the initiative is an improper attempt to set policy and not initiate and ordinance: A policy statement may not be the subject of an initiative. Rather, and initiative must seek to enact a law (an ordinance). This initiative seeks to impose a procedural requirement on the City Council (a vote of the people is using other than then current library site) which is not a law and at best a policy statement. In fact, the initiative may not even be proposing a resolution but and administrative action similar to that rejected. In any event an ordinance has not been proposed.

7.     Even if the proper subject of an initiative, the language of the initiative is fatally flawed and isn’t in a appropriate form: Ignoring all the previous arguments, an initiative must propose an ordinance and include a copy thereof. The language of the initiative petitions for “the City of Renton to adopt an ordinance…that said improvements occur only at the existing downtown library location…” In other words it is not an ordinance but and ordinance to require the adoption of an ordinance. It really isn’t an initiative, which if adopted, established an ordinance. And it doesn’t give any time limitations on the Council to adopt the ordinance and so is vague.

In addition to the eight reasons noted in the memo, Warren wrote there are additional issues if Council decided to move forward with the initiative.

“The Council, if it entertains the initiative, must decide to adopt it as proposed with its limitations and ambiguities,” he wrote in closing. “If not adopted by the Council, as proposed, the language must go to the voters. The Council could prepare a counter measure, but both would have to be on the ballot.”

If the proposed measure succeeds, the City must renegotiate its contract with KCLS — assuming KCLS is open to negotiations. The City of Renton would also have to find additional funds to account for extra costs related to the bond proceeds, election costs, renegotiations, and other associated costs.

“There are other problems presented that are beyond the scope of this memo. As the situation develops more legal questions will likely arise,” Warren wrote.