Paget v. Logan

• Decision Date: 10 September 1970
• Docket Number: No. 41539,41539
• Citation: 474 P.2d 247,78 Wn.2d 349
• Parties: Peter PAGET, Respondent, v. Edward J. LOGAN, as Acting Director, Department of Records and Elections, King County, Washington, John D. Spellman, as County Executive, King County, Washington, M. J. R. Williams, as Director, Department of Finance, King County, Washington, John N. Porter, as County Administrative Officer, King County, Washington, Charles E. Emby, as Director, Office of Budgets and Accounts, King County, Washington, County Council of King County, Washington, and the members thereof in their official capacity, John T. O'Brien, Ed Munro, Bob Dunn, Edward Heavey, Dave Mooney, Tracy J. Owen, Bernice Stern, Thomas M. Forsythe and Bill Reams, Respondents, and Tony F. Ferrucci, Frank Ruano and Dick Young, Petitioners (and Intervenors).
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

Page 349

78 Wn.2d 349

474 P.2d 247

Peter PAGET, Respondent, v. Edward J. LOGAN, as Acting Director, Department of Records and Elections, King County, Washington, John D. Spellman, as County Executive, King County, Washington, M. J. R Williams, as Director, Department of Finance, King County Washington, John N. Porter, as County Administrative Officer, King County, Washington, Charles E. Emby, as Director, Office of Budgets and Accounts, King County Washington, County Council of King County, Washington, and the members thereof in their official capacity, John T O'Brien, Ed Munro, Bob Dunn, Edward Heavey, Dave Mooney, Tracy J. Owen, Bernice Stern, Thomas M. Forsythe and Bill Reams, Respondents, and Tony F. Ferrucci, Frank Ruano and Dick Young, Petitioners (and Intervenors).

No. 41539.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Sept. 10, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 10, 1970.

Trethewey, Brink & Wilson, Daniel Brink, Seattle, for petitioners.

Schweppe, Doolittle, Krug & Tausend, Alfred J. Schweppe, Peter H. Leach, Charles O. Carroll, Pros. Atty., Stephen Paul Moen, Deputy Pros. Atty., Seattle, for respondents.

HAMILTON, Associate Justice.

Plaintiff, a taxpayer in King County, Washington, instituted this suit seeking to enjoin the officials of King County from placing an initiative measure on the ballot of a special election scheduled to be held on May 19, 1970. The purport of the initiative was to prohibit the location of a multipurpose domed stadium at the Seattle Civic Center. Following a hearing before the superior court, at which counsel for the parties agreed upon pertinent facts, the trial court, on March 27, 1970, entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and a permanent injunction prohibiting placement of the initiative on the ballot at any county-wide election.

Intervenors, the sponsors of the initiative, then petitioned for review in this court by way of certiorari. On March 31, 1970, we granted the petition and stayed operation of the injunction pending a hearing scheduled on May 6, 1970. The record of the proceedings in the superior court was certified and filed with this court, briefs by the parties were submitted, and following oral argument on the scheduled date, we issued an order, prefatory to this opinion, quashing the injunction thereby permitting the measure to appear on the May 19, 1970, election ballot. The initiative passed.

The background circumstances giving rise to this action are these: One of the state statutes ¹ authorizing counties or cities to acquire, construct and operate a multipurpose stadium is Laws of 1967, ch. 236, p. 1203, now codified as RCW 67.28. Pursuant to the provisions of this statute a stadium commission was formed. Two members of the commission were appointed by the governor, two by the Board of County Commissioners of King County, and two by the mayor of the City of Seattle. Thereafter, the board of county commissioners by Resolution No. 34567 submitted to the voters of King County, on February 18, 1968, the following proposition:

Shall King County, for the purpose of acquiring, constructing and equipping a multi-purpose public stadium within the county, issue its general obligation bonds in the principal amount of not to exceed $40,000,000, to be issued in such amounts and at such time or times as the Board of County Commissioners shall deem advisable, and only when and as the incurring of such indebtedness shall not exceed any applicable constitutional or statutory limitation, to bear interest at a rate not to exceed the maximum rate permitted by law, to mature serially in from two to forty years from date of issue of each series if issued in series, and to be paid both principal and interest out of the special excise tax levied by Resolutions No. 34261 and No. 34390, out of otherwise unpledged net stadium revenues and out of annual tax levies to be made upon all the taxable property in King County without limitation as to rate or amount all as more specifically provided in Resolution No. _ _ (34567)?

Section 2 of Resolution No. 34567 provided that the county would construct the proposed stadium on a site to be recommended by the stadium commission. The proposition, as submitted to the voters, was approved.

On November 15, 1968, after appropriate study, the stadium commission recommended a site at the Seattle Civic Center. This recommendation was made pursuant to RCW 67.28.100, which provides:

The commission is charged with and shall have the duty of making a complete study and investigation into the acquisition of a site for public stadium facilities, including feasibility studies in connection therewith, and shall report its findings and recommendations to the governing body of the county whose request is accepted as provided in RCW 67.28.090.

(Italics ours.)

The board of county commissioners accepted the recommendation. Ten million dollars of the authorized general obligation bonds were issued and sold. Substantial portions of the bond moneys realized were expended or encumbered in furtherance of the project; however, it is not clear from the record whether such funds were irretrievably or irrevocably committed to construction of the stadium on a particular site. And, negotiations for the purchase of the Seattle Civic Center site were commenced and at the time of trial had proceeded to the point that a contract was in some form of escrow.

During this period of time, King County was in the process of preparing and proposing a home rule charter as authorized by Const. art. 11, § 4. The proposed home rule charter was submitted to the electorate of King County on November 5, 1968, and adopted, effective May 1, 1969. The drafters of this home rule charter expressly reserved unto the votes of King County, through initiative and referendum provisions, the fundamental right of a governed people to exercise their inherent and constitutional political power over governmental affairs. Section 230.50 of that charter, dealing with the initiative powers retained for the electorate, grants liberal and comprehensive legislative authority to the voters, excluding only initiative ordinances providing 'for the compensation or working conditions of county employees.' It provides:

Ordinances except ordinances providing for the compensation or working conditions of county employees may be proposed by filing with the county council petitions bearing signatures of registered voters of the county equal in number to not less than ten percent of the votes cast in the county for the office of county executive at the last preceding election for county executive. Each petition shall contain the full text of the proposed ordinance.

The county council shall consider the proposed ordinance.

If the proposed ordinance is not enacted within ninety days after the petitions are presented, it shall be placed on the ballot at the next regular or special election occurring more than one hundred thirty-five days after the petitions are filed or at an earlier election designated by the county council. However, if the proposed ordinance is enacted at any time prior to the election, it shall not be placed on the ballot or be voted on unless it is subjected to referendum.

If the county council rejects the proposed ordinance and adopts a substitute ordinance concerning the same subject matter, the substitute ordinance shall be placed on the same ballot with the proposed ordinance; and the voters shall first be given the choice of accepting either or rejecting both and shall then be given the choice of accepting one and rejecting the other. If a majority of the voters voting on the first issue is for either, then the ordinance receiving the majority of the votes cast on the second issue shall be deemed approved. If a majority of those voting on the first issue is for rejecting both, then neither ordinance shall be approved regardless of the vote on the second issue.

(Italics ours.)

On September 18, 1969, intervenors, acting under the provision of Section 230.50, Supra, submitted the initiative petition in question. The petition contained the requisite number of signatures and was accordingly certified and ordered placed on the ballot at the next county-wide election by the council. The proposed initiative measure was entitled 'AMENDED INITIATIVE No. 1: AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE LOCATION OF THE MULTIPURPOSE STADIUM AT THE SEATTLE CENTER,' and read:

BE IT HEREBY ENACTED:

Section 1. King County, and any of its officers or agents are hereby prohibited from locating or expending any funds for the location of the multipurpose stadium, provided for by Resolution No. 34567 dated December 18, 1967, at the Civic Center site location, said location being more particularly described as follows:

That certain property and property rights in the area bounded by Fifth Avenue North, Mercer Street, Aurora Avenue North and Harrison Street, in the City of Seattle, more commonly referred to as the Seattle Transit Site, Contiguous to the Seattle Civic Center.

Section 2. Any other prior ordinance or resolution or parts thereof in conflict with Section 1 hereof, and specifically Resolution No. 37199, dated April 28, 1969, by the prior King County Commissioners be, and they are hereby repealed.

In granting the permanent injunction prohibiting the submission of the proposed initiative ordinance to the electorate, the trial court concluded that RCW 67.28, providing for a stadium commission and authorizing counties and cities to acquire, construct and operate multipurpose stadiums, was superior to any King County ordinance or charter provision and any action taken under the statute could not be superseded or suspended by the initiative process afforded under the charter. In support of this position, plaintiff points to our decision in State ex rel. Bowen v. Kruegel, 67 Wash.2d 673, 409 P.2d 458 (1965), and cases cited therein.

We cannot agree with the conclusion of the trial court or with plaintiff's...