Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HERMAN, and DON YINGLING, Petitioners, vs. CITY OF VANCOUVER, Defendant. No. 13-2-01866-1
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
In view of the time restraints the court will attempt to present a concise and hopefully distinct rational for the attached ruling. The parties have acknowledged that all prior
expenditures, contracts and/or obligations incurred under the category of Light Rail are administrative in nature and beyond the scope of the proposed referendum. Consequently
Section 5 of the proposal would be invalid excepting potentially the first sentence stating: Effective date. Analysis of Section 2 is more troublesome. Extensive research and argument has been devoted to whether this section is legislative or administrative. The simplistic distinction
relevant to referendums is that if the proposal is to prevent the enforcement or implementation of an existing ordinance then it is administrative and thus not subject to a referendum. However if the subject of the initiative is to prevent an undertaking prior to enactment, then it is legislative and is within the realm the initiative. In this regard Section 2 would appear to be legislative in as
much as it would prevent the City from taking action in the future towards promoting any Light Rail expansion. As noted by counsel this prohibition would not be binding on future
legislators or any present budgetary obligations. However the inquiry on validity does not end with this determination. The proposed referendum must also comport with the limited scope of the local initiative process as defined by the State Constitution, statutes and City Charter. As summarized in Priorities first v. City of Spokane, 93 Wn.App. 406, 411 (1998): Stated another way, the people cannot deprive the city legislative authority of the power to do what the constitution and/or a state statute specifically permit it to do. King County v. Taxpayers, 133 Wn.2d 584, 608 (1997). Virtually all of the authorities cited to the court and the courts own research pertain to projects already approved or well into the planning stage however, certain theories may be gleamed from the Courts discussions. This is particularly true of those cases in which a State project is being burdened upon a city to the consternation of a certain segment of the population. In these situations reference has been made to the authority of the State to compel compliance. Article 2 section 1 (b) of the constitution exempts from the power of referendum: such laws as may be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, [or] support of the state government and its existing public institutions, ... The term support has been interpreted to include not only existing obligations but also future facilities: The intent and purpose of the people, as gathered from the words of the Constitution and the circumstances attending the adoption of the seventh amendment, impels the holding that the people intended to use the word support in its fullest sense. When so considered, support includes appropriations for current expenses, maintenance, up-keep, continuation of existing functions, as 2
well as appropriations for such new buildings and conveniences as may be necessary to meet the needs and requirements of the state in relation to its existing institutions. State v. Clausen, 85 Wash. 260, 270 (1915). This duty of support was addressed in Seattle Bldg. and Constr. Trades council v. City of Seattle, 94 Wn.2d 740,748-9 (1980); concerning the construction of an interstate highway within the city limits. . As between state and local governments, the State has plenary control over its limited access facilities, and local governments have only those rights and powers which the legislature has seen fit to accord them. Those rights and powers are administrative in nature, rather than legislative. *** It is true that the initiative purports to establish a policy and prescribe rules for future actions of city officials. But the difficulty is that these relate to matters upon which the City has no authority to legislate-namely, the location and construction of state limited access facilities. The City cannot ban the construction of such facilities, nor can it rightly refuse to cooperate with the State in such construction, once a plan has been adopted. In substance, the proposal is an attempt to reverse administrative decisions of city officials and dictate the future course of such decisions. As such it is invalid. While a resolution or ordinance establishing a rigid policy in one community is not expressly forbidden under the relevant state laws, it hampers the exercise of administrative discretion conferred by such statutes; and the resulting conflict with state law places it beyond the initiative power.
The import of these decisions is that where State projects impact cities and the cities are compelled to support and cooperate with these endeavors. The focus of Section 2 of the proposed referendum is to restrict the City of Vancouver from taking any action or enacting any legislation that would comport with the mandates of a State project. This would be beyond the initiative power.
By the same rational Section 3 would again restrict any funding for a Light Rail project. Again this would be contrary to the Constitutional exemptions and is further restricted by the fact that certain Light Rail expenditures have already been budgeted and obligated. In view of the above rulings I have signed the attached Order denying the petitioners motion and request for mandate.
DATED this 31st day of July, 2013. ____________________________ The Honorable John F. Nichols Superior Court Judge