Litigation seems to loom as Cedar Rapids’ $15-million I-JOBS grant for Convention Complex stuck in Limbo

CEDAR RAPIDS - A $15-million state I-JOBS grant remains securely in Limbo today even though Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller on Tuesday said City Hall here had “stronger legal arguments” than Gov. Terry Branstad in their ongoing dispute over a project labor agreement on the city's $75.6-million Convention Complex project.

As noteworthy as anything in Miller's comments was what he said was his inability to issue a formal legal opinion in the matter because of his long-standing policy not to issue such opinions when litigation is pending or imminent.

A lawsuit seemed the likely option on Tuesday after the Governor's Office dismissed Miller's analysis of the dispute and, in any event, said the governor was not bound by it.

Litigation also seemed likely Tuesday after Mayor Ron Corbett said a second option, in which the city would forego the $15-million I-JOBs grant on the Convention Complex project, was not an option at all.

At the heart of the matter is Branstand's Executive Order 69, which he enacted upon taking office in January and which prohibits the spending of state funds on public works projects with project labor agreements.

The city's project labor agreement is with the Cedar Rapids and Iowa City Building and Construction Trades Council, and Scott Smith, president of the group, on Tuesday stopped short of saying his organization would go to court to stop the governor from withholding state funds from the city's Convention Complex because of the project labor agreement.

Smith noted, though, that the city's Convention Complex project is just one of three in the state from which the Governor's Office has threatened to withhold state funds because of project labor agreements. The other two projects - University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics' outpatient clinic being build in Coralville and a project at the Iowa Veterans Home in Marshalltown - have now set aside their project labor agreements to comply with Branstad's order, Smith said.

“No governor has the right to nullify existing agreements,” Smith said, adding that Attorney General Miller's comments on Tuesday said as much. “Allowing a governor to throw out legally binding contracts would set a dangerous precedent for Iowans of all political persuasions.”

Miller's comments came in letters to three Democratic state lawmakers who had asked Miller to weigh in. The lawmakers - Sen. Rob Hogg, D-Cedar Rapids, Sen. Robert Dvorsky, D-Coralville, and Rep. Todd Taylor, D-Cedar Rapids - had been asked by Smith for help, Smith said.

In his comments, the attorney general noted that the Iowa Supreme Court has upheld project labor agreements that do not discriminate between union and non-union workers.

In addition, Miller pointed out that the Cedar Rapids Convention Complex project is receiving $35 million in federal help, adding that federal projects are subject to a presidential executive order that he said specifically authorizes the use of project labor agreements.

“Courts expect government to live up to its contractual obligations,” Miller stated. “The Governor should resolve the dispute with the City, or live up to the State's grant agreement and allow the city to live up to the project labor agreement.”

The comments come from a Democratic attorney general to three Democratic state lawmakers in a dispute involving a Republican governor.

Just in January, Miller and Branstad went their separate ways in filing legal briefs in the case of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, with Miller arguing that the health care reform law is constitutional and Branstad the reverse.

Tim Albrecht, the governor's spokesman, on Tuesday dismissed Miller's comments on the governor's executive order and sounded as pointed on the issue as Branstad had two weeks ago when he visited Cedar Rapids.

“The bottom line is, the attorney general has declined to issue any opinion on this matter,” Albrecht said. “The governor's office remains committed to ensuring the enforcement of Executive Order 69 moving forward and is confident it will withstand any legal challenges.”