Dear Councilmembers Perez, Alberson, O’Halloran, Prince, Rivera, and Văn, 1 and City Attorney Moloney:

I represent For A Better Renton, a Washington nonprofit corporation run by a diverse group of Renton residents actively committed to promoting government transparency, advocating for fiscal responsibility, and encouraging active community participation to create meaningful, resident-led change that is responsive to community voices. The purpose of this letter is to request clarification of the Council’s vote on May 4, 2026, to approve the street vacation of S. Tobin Street, S. Tillicum Street, and the alley that connects S. Tillicum Street to Logan Avenue South. Clarification is needed because, on its face, the Council’s vote on May 4, 2026, appears to violate Washington law. On May 8, 2026, my client sent an email to Mr. Moloney raising this concern, copying all councilmembers. To date, my client has received no response.

As the Council is likely aware, the vacation of city-owned streets is governed by Chapter 35.79 RCW, titled “Streets—vacation.” Relevant to this letter, RCW 35.79.030 requires the Council to hold a public hearing on any proposed street vacation, after which the Council is empowered to approve the proposed vacation specifically “by ordinance.” No other form of approval is allowed, be it by resolution, motion, order, or other type of Council vote. Under Washington law, the approval must be—and may only be— “by ordinance.” Last, street vacation is entirely discretionary. A vacation petition can be denied for any reason whatsoever.

As applied to Renton, the requirement at RCW 35.79.030 that street vacations be approved “by ordinance” implicates the ordinance-passage requirements at Chapters 35A.12 and 35.23 RCW, governing, respectively, Cities that follow the “Mayor-Council” form of government and so-called “second-class cities,” both of which apply to Renton. Relevant here, Chapter 35A.12 RCW provides that “[t]he 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.” RCW 35A.12.100. This provision clearly precludes the Mayor of Renton from breaking a tie in the passage of any ordinance. Similarly, RCW 35.23.211 provides that “[n]o ordinance and no resolution or order shall have any validity or effect unless passed by the votes of at least four councilmembers.” This provision clearly requires the vote of three councilmembers (not the mayor) in the passage of any ordinance, resolution, or order.

Combining these RCWs, it is clear that for second-class, mayor-council cities like Renton, (a) street vacations may only be approved by ordinance (see RCW 35.79.030), (b) in the passage of such an ordinance, the mayor may not cast a tie-breaking vote (see RCW 35A.12.100), and (c) to approve a street vacation by ordinance, at least four councilmembers must cast a supporting vote (see RCW 35.23.211). By implication, a street vacation cannot be approved with only three councilmembers voting in support. Nor can a tie be broken by the mayor.

On May 4, 2026, the Renton City Council held a public hearing on a petition by the Renton School District No. 403 to vacate a portion of S. Tobin Street, S. Tillicum Street, and the alley that connects S. Tillicum Street to Logan Avenue South. At the beginning of that hearing, City staff gave a Power Point presentation informing the Council that its vote would be to either “approve or deny” the vacation petition. According to staff, if the Council approved, then staff would review the School District’s appraisal and the matter would come back to the Council only for the limited purpose of determining the level of monetary compensation owed to the City pursuant to RCW 35.79.030 (providing that if a street vacation is approved by ordinance, then the owners of abutting property “shall compensate such city or town in an amount which does not exceed one-half the appraised value of the area so vacated”). Consistent with staff’s presentation, at the close of the hearing, Councilmember Prince moved to “approve the street vacation.”

In the discussion that followed, however, there was significant confusion as to the exact nature of the Council’s vote, specifically whether it would be an approval, or merely a “recommendation. ”Viewing the vote as approving or denying the petition, Councilmember Rivera raised concerns about traffic impacts and moved to delay the Council’s approval to align better with the City’s 2nd Street two-way conversion project. In response, City Attorney Moloney stated “I think tonight it’s not actually an approval but it’s a recommendation to proceed with an appraisal,” and described the vote as merely “procedural” and “preliminary.” Councilmember Prince echoed that description, describing the vote as “purely procedural” and stating to Councilmember Rivera: “I have similar questions, if this wasn’t procedural, then I’d be right where you’re at.” In contrast, City staff explained “this is the part where we do approve the petition to move forward, so it’s approval of the petition or denial of the petition.” Consistent with staff’s characterization, Mayor Pavone describe the vote as “up or down,” suggesting that at least he believed the vote would be to approve or deny the petition, not to make a recommendation.

At the end of the discussion, the Council voted 3-3 on Councilmember Prince’s motion to “approve the street vacation.” Mayor Pavone then broke the tie, voting in favor of that motion. Unfortunately, little (if any) clarity was provided as to the exact nature of the vote, leaving it entirely unresolved whether the Council was (a) truly voting to approve the vacation petition subject only to the setting of just compensation under RCW 35.79.030; or (b) whether the Council was merely voting to “recommend” approval, leaving the Council free to deny the vacation petition in the future for any reason, notwithstanding the payment of just compensation. Nor does the Renton Municipal Code clarify that issue, as it describes the Council’s vote at this stage as both an “approval” (see RMC 19-14-3.D, -5) and as a “recommendation” (see RMC 9-14-5.C). Yet it cannot be both—either the Council voted to “approve” the recommendation subject only to the setting of just compensation, or it voted to “recommend” approval, leaving a future Council vote entirely free to approve or deny or any reason whatsoever.

In light of this confusion, For A Better Renton respectfully requests that the Council clarify the nature of its vote on May 4, 2026. If the vote was to “approve” the vacation petition subject only to the setting of just compensation—as suggested by the plain language of Councilmember Prince’s motion and the comments of Mayor Pavone and City staff—then the City is in clear violation of RCW 35.79.030 (which provides that a street vacation may be approved only by ordinance), RCW 35A.12.100 (which provides that the mayor may not break a tie in the passage of an ordinance), and RCW 35.23.211 (which requires at least four votes from councilmembers in the passage of any ordinance, resolution, or order). If this was the nature of the vote, then we request that the City take immediate action to repudiate and rescind the vote as it conflicts directly with the requirements of Washington State law.

Alternatively, if the vote on May 4, 2026, was only to “recommend” approval in a future Council vote, then the City would be in compliance with the laws cited above and the vote may lawfully stand “as-is.” In that case, a future Council could still vote to disapprove the vacation petition for any reason whatsoever, unbound by the vote on May 4th. This clarification is needed so that the Council understands the scope of its authority to approve or deny when the matter returns for a future vote, following staff’s evaluation of the appraisal.

For the reasons above, For A Better Renton respectfully requests that the Council clarify the nature of its vote on May 4, 2026. We look forward to your prompt response.