A parcel of documents posted on the city council's website a few minutes ago will serve as the long-awaited legal contracts between the City of Seattle and the state to construct the deep-bore tunnel. A council committee will take them up on Monday, likely referring them to the full council to be approved by Mid-February and ratified in summer. But the proposed ordinance that would enact those contracts leaves several questions unanswered.

Asked if the legislation—with the header "Ordinance"—was subject to a referendum like any other ordinance, council spokeswoman Laura Lockard (a former tunnel backer in the governor's office) said in an email, "This is an administrative act." Asked to clarify why it was different than other ordinances, she did not immediately reply [her reply now appears as an update at the bottom of the post].

However, a campaign behind anti-tunnel city Initiative 102, Move Seattle Smarter, said it would consider a longshot referendum to put the entire deal up to a public vote this fall. Drew Paxton, the group's spokesman, says filing a referendum would provide "another way to give people what they have been lacking—a vote on this project."

A poll conducted last year found that 58 percent of Seattleites supported a referendum on the tunnel. The project would cost $4.2 billion (with $930 million from Seattle). A state law says Seattle must pay all cost overruns and leaders of the state legislature insist Seattle is responsible for paying unanticipated expenses.

"Through means that are both deceptive and undemocratic, the Council appears determined work back room deals in order to cut the public out of the process," Move Seattle Smarter wrote in a statement a couple minutes ago.

The package of documents also reveals other complications, which I've outlined before, that are now visible in more detail. Specifically, the memorandum of agreements for right of way and utility relocation—essentially contracts that let the state start digging, while striking specific legal protections—are enacted by an ordinance. That ordinance says the contracts will be approved in two stages: first to codify the deal with the state this winter, and second to make them take effect (as required by the State Environmental Protection Act) after the state has completed its Final Environmental Impact Statement in summer.

The second step must be made, the bill says, after an "open public meeting" and followed by a "notice" sent to the state.

But what is that "notice"? An ordinance, a resolution, a phone call?

The council's Lockard had no answer today, nor did the office of City Attorney Pete Holmes (a quiet supporter expediter of the tunnel project who crafted this legislation).

Holmes's office instead issued a statement: "When our clients [the mayor and council] disagree among themselves on an important policy matter, it is particularly important that our legal advice be professional, policy neutral and confidential. For those reasons, our office will not disclose, discuss or debate the content of our legal advice."

UPDATE: Lockard responds by email on why the ordinance isn't subject to a public vote: "The state policy decision to move forward with the tunnel option was made in 2009 via ES Senate Bill 5768, signed into law," she says. "The City Council initiated policy moving forward with the tunnel option into City law via Ordinance 123133 that same year. Any action following the adopted policy is considered an administrative act, not subject to referendum." As for what constitutes notice, Locakrd says it could be anything, saying, "Council retains flexibility and could utilize any of those options depending on circumstances at the time."