Council splits 3-3 on vacating S. Tobin Street; ordinance won’t pass without a fourth council member’s vote

In the back row Councilmember O’Halloran looks on as Councilmember Rivera questions Renton Public Works Director Martin Pastucha about traffic issues that would be raised by closing Tobin. The City Clerk and City Attorney are in the front row.

Tonight’s Public Hearing on whether Renton should give up South Tobin Street raised numerous questions and appears to not have resolved whether South Tobin Street will in fact be vacated. (See background on this issue here).

The hearing began with Councilmember Ryan McIrvin recusing himself because he is married to a school board member, which seemed to me and many others in attendance an appropriate choice.

Of the remaining six councilmembers, three Council members voted against advancing the vacation request, and three voted for advancing it.

The Mayor then stepped in to break the tie, voting to advance the vacation request to the next step:  appraisal and preparation of an ordinance.

But left unspoken was that Washington law requires FOUR COUNCIL MEMBER VOTES TO PASS AN ORDINANCE, including a VACATION ORDINANCE.  The Mayor can’t break a 3-3 tie to pass an ordinance.  The Mayor is now preparing an ordinance that he does not have the votes to pass.  RCW 35.23.11 says “No ordinance and no resolution or order shall have any validity or effect unless passed by the votes of at least four councilmembers.” Additionally, RCW 35.12.100 makes it clear the Mayor can’t vote on a tie to pass an ordinance:  “The mayor shall preside over all meetings of the city council, when present, but shall have a vote only in the case of a tie in the votes of the councilmembers with respect to matters other than the passage of any ordinance, grant, or revocation of franchise or license, or any resolution for the payment of money. “

So the School District is now on notice that they only have three Renton Councilmembers supporting their vacation request, and they should be careful about spending taxpayer money to further the design based on the closure of South Tobin Street.

The District and perhaps the Mayor might start approaching Council Members to change their positions, but this should be done in the light of day using a fair, open public process.  Many, many people will want to know why any Council votes gets changed at this stage, following a very public meeting and a very memorable vote.

Procedural errors tonight:

There were a few procedural errors tonight that kept the Public Hearing from going as smoothly as it should have, and might have denied some legitimate public comment.

The first error was not as significant but it got things off to an awkward start.  The Mayor first called on a speaker for  a public hearing that was scheduled later on the agenda, and that speaker gave his full testimony.  After this, the Mayor began calling names from the correct public hearing.

Then many speakers were surprised that the public comment was limited to three minutes, when it is typically five for a public hearing.  This surprise caused some speakers to rush their testimony.

I’ve been told by one resident that he had signed up to speak, and he was never called on.  There may have been others in this group as well.  It’s possible that the two signup sheets for the two hearings got mixed up during the sign-in stage. Such a mixup is unfair to the public and should have been corrected at the hearing.  The Mayor could have said “Is there anyone who signed up that did not get a chance to speak?,”  which is commonly done at public hearings.

Lastly, at the end of the hearing, there was a three-to-three voice-vote regarding advancing the vacation request, and the Mayor erroneously called it a win for advancing the vacation.  It took Councilmember Carmen Rivera firmly insisting on an accounting of each vote (essentially a roll call) before the Mayor agreed it was a tie.  That’s when he said he voted to advance it.

Strong testimony by public with many good ideas suggested:

There was strong testimony delivered by many residents tonight, and some of it deserves further discussion in a follow-on blog entry.  The full meeting with the public testimony can be viewed here.

Councilmember Carmen Rivera properly questioned the Mayor’s calling of a three-three split a win for advancing the vacation request. Councilmembers Rivera, Van, and O’Halloran had voted no. The Mayor then voted yes to break the tie to advance it. It advances the issue to writing an ordinance, but the ordinance requires four votes to pass.

Author’s note: I’m confident that both City and School District attorneys will be reading this blog entry, and I encourage them to correct me if I’m mistaken in my understanding of Washington State Law on these issues.  You can leave a comment here on this blog entry, or contact me at my first and last name at gmail dot com, or phone me at 425-271-6913 and leave a message.