Liberty Lake council orders advisory vote on proposed community center and library, appoints for-and-against committees

The Liberty Lake City Council voted 4-2 on Aug. 4 to place a nonbinding advisory proposition before voters asking whether the city should pursue funding and construction of a new community center and library.

The question will appear on the ballot with an explanatory statement prepared by the city attorney; the council also appointed three-member for and against committees to prepare 250-word statements and 75-word rebuttals for the voter pamphlet.

The advisory question asks, in full: "Should the city pursue the funding and construction of a new community center and library in the city of Liberty Lake?" City Attorney Sean explained the ballot materials and said the ballot title must remain neutral: "My job and my statutory obligation is to write it in a way that is neutral." He read the explanatory statement on the record: "The city council is considering the construction of a new community center and library near Townsquare Park, Signal and Mission, and the city of Liberty Lake and seeks citizen input concerning such funding and construction. Funding options may include grants, donations, a future property tax bond measure, and or other city general fund revenues. The proposition will advise the city council whether there is citizen support to pursue the various funding options and construction."

Council members debated whether the ballot materials should include dollar figures. Several council members and members of the public said the council has cost estimates and concept-level figures and cited a general ballpark range discussed in outreach materials — "12 to 15 and a half million dollars" — but the city attorney and other council members said no final cost or scope has been approved and that including a number could be misleading. Sean advised that the ballot title is limited and that an explanatory statement is intended to describe impacts without appearing to advocate one way or the other.

Council members also discussed the wording "pursue" versus "prioritize." Supporters of the term "pursue" said it asks whether the city should seek funding options; supporters of "prioritize" said the city has multiple capital needs and voters might wish to rank those needs. Council consensus favored the attorney's neutral language using "pursue."

At the meeting the council appointed the following committees to prepare voter-pamphlet statements: for committee — Kim Schmidt, Mary Helgason and Kim Gerard; against committee — Nathan Wehrman, Steve Anderson and Jared von Tobel. The council noted statutory limits and that the city clerk and the elections office will manage filing deadlines; Rochelle (city clerk) said initial statements are due Aug. 7 and rebuttals Aug. 11.

Public comment at the meeting focused largely on the proposed project and on ballot language. Residents urged clarity on whether the vote would raise taxes and asked that any tax references specify whether they meant property tax or other levies. Several residents said they support a combined library and community center; others urged delaying an advisory vote until more information is available. David Clay, a resident, said the city should ask voters explicitly whether they would accept higher property taxes: "If you're gonna ask the residents to pay more in taxes, you need to ask them specifically. Are you willing to pay more in property tax to have a new library?" Another resident, Shelley Smith, urged neutral, nonpartisan language and a delay until 2026 so residents could be better informed.

Council members and staff also reviewed work already done: council members cited roughly $167,459 spent on Townsquare concepts and about $53,000 for concepts related to the Legacy Church option (combined about $200,000), and staff noted the project options and costs have been presented at open houses. One council member referenced Trailhead project contract figures during the discussion to illustrate cost volatility; staff noted the Trailhead guaranteed maximum price (GMP) was $7,295,000 and that associated netting costs and other items were recorded separately in the project accounting.

By statute, the city attorney prepares a neutral ballot title and explanatory statement; the for- and against-committee statements will be filed with the county elections office and are viewed and published in the voter pamphlet. The council and staff emphasized the advisory measure would be nonbinding and that any specific funding measure (for example, a bond measure with a dollar amount) would be a separate, later ballot process if pursued.

Votes at a glance

- Excusal of Mayor Kaminskas and Council member Ball: motion by Council member Dunne, second by Council member Van Orman; approved 6-0 (council present voted in favor). Notes: mayor and council member Ball were excused from the meeting.

- Approval of meeting agenda: motion by Council member Spencer, second by Council member Kurtz; approved 6-0.

- Appointments to the "against" committee: motion to approve Nathan Wehrman, Steve Anderson and Jared von Tobel; second by Council member Dunne; approved 6-0.

- Appointments to the "for" committee: motion to approve Kim Schmidt, Mary Helgason and Kim Gerard; second by Council member Kennedy; approved 6-0.

- Resolution 25-277 (authorizing submission of nonbinding advisory proposition concerning funding and construction of a new community center and library): motion moved (mover not specified on record), second by Council member Van Orman; approved 4-2.

Next steps and deadlines

- The city clerk and elections office will publish the ballot title, explanatory statement and the committees' submitted statements. Initial committee statements for and against are due Aug. 7; rebuttals are due Aug. 11. The advisory measure is nonbinding; any subsequent binding funding measure would be subject to separate council action and applicable statute.

Background/context

The council has been discussing options including renovating the Legacy Church building, a Townsquare site near Signal and Mission, and combined library/community center concepts. The sessions included community outreach events and cost-concept work; city staff said that the designs and associated concept costs were shown at recent open houses and will continue to be part of public engagement before any binding funding decision.

Council members and staff repeatedly emphasized that the advisory measure does not itself appropriate money or create a binding obligation; it is intended to gauge voter interest in pursuing funding and construction.