Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />fears the state may hold an election May 17 and prohibit any <br />other proposals to be on that ballot. He recommends the matter <br />be on the June 28 ballot with the City and School District budget <br />measures. Since the School District budget will be on the June 28 <br />ballot, the cost to the City would range about $5,500. Manager <br />said he understands from the Attorney's office that all that <br />is irrelevant because of the law governing initiative elections. <br /> <br />Joyce Benjamin, City Attorney's office, explained the City Council <br />choices. She said the matter cannot come before the City Council <br />until the petition signatures have been verified and filed with <br />the City. The matter will then go to the City Council, who has <br />30 days to take action. Council can enact whatever the petition <br />seeks or reject it, in which case it will be submitted to the <br />voters by the clerk not less than 90 days after it was first <br />presented to the City Council. The City Council also may call a <br />special election or, if there is no action, the City Clerk will <br />then have to refer the matter to the voters at the next election <br />not less than 90 days thereafter. On top of that, Ms. -Benjamin <br />said that the Attorney General opinion says "next election" means <br />the next regular statewide election which, in this case, means a <br />May primary. Mr. Hamel felt that, if the matter were on the June <br />28 ballot, it might encourage more people to come out and vote <br />whereas they might not be so inclined if the ballot contains <br />only the City and School District budget measures. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />It was understood that the City Attorney's office <br />would prepare a memo summarizing the Council's <br />choices once the petition signatures have been <br />verified and filed and the matter is brought be- <br />fore the Council. <br /> <br />Manager noted that on the fluoride issue, the petition had not yet been <br />received, but that the attorney's opinion had been received for Council <br />consideration of possible Council actions. He noted that the five <br />choices were: 1) The Council may enact the petition by ordinance. The <br />ordinance would be subject to possible referendum by the proponents of <br /> <br />fluoridation; 2) the Council may enact the proposed ordinance and refer <br />it to the voters at a special or general election; 3) the Council may <br />reject the proposed ordinance; 4) the Council may take no action on <br />the measure; 5) the Council, if it rejects the proposed ordinance or <br />takes no action on it, may enact a competing ordinance to be submitted <br />to the voters at the same election. He noted that if Council rejects <br />the proposed ordinance or takes no action on it, the recorder must submit <br />it to the voters of the city at the next election held not less than 90 <br />days after it was first presented to the City Council. The phrase means <br />that at least 90 days must elapse before the election. He noted that the <br />City Attorney's office had advised the Council had 30 days to either <br />ordain or reject the petition after receiving it. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />~7( <br /> <br />3/28/77 - 21 <br />