My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1989 07 05
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1989 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1989 07 05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:30 PM
Creation date
3/6/2008 3:41:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
7/5/1989
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E2
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1989 07 05
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
process is to let this issue go to a vote of the <br />people. Sackett stated that he is disappointed <br />that people have taken a technicality (which has <br />never been tested in Colorado before) and worked <br />it to the detriment of the people by delaying <br />their opportunity to decide on this issue. "I'm <br />disappointed its not going to be on the 11th, and <br />I think a lot of the voters are counting on it <br />being on the 11th and going to be confused by the <br />change; but I think we are forced into doing that. <br />It is still important to have the election and <br />have it on the (August) 1st." <br />James Adams, co-initiator of the referendum <br />petition, stated that he would like to speak as a <br />citizen of Louisville. Adams stated that he did <br />not feel Resolution #15 was legally binding and <br />therefore initiated court action. Adams stated <br />that the people's rights to petition is guaranteed <br />by the Colorado constitution and when Council held <br />a special meeting on May 19 to set a special <br />election, there were in Mr. Adam's opinion, two <br />errors made: 1) Council interfered with the <br />citizens right to petition, and 2) Resolution #15 <br />did not provide the City with protection from <br />claims from the property owners and the landfill <br />company. "Our intention was not to harass or <br />delay. Our intention was to compel the City <br />to hold a legally binding election which <br />recognized citizen's rights and provide <br />Louisville with protection from vested rights <br />claims." "We are pleased an agreement has <br />been reached and we are satisfied with the <br />terms that Mr. Williamson has discussed." <br />Sackett stated that he is still in opposition to <br />the landfill, but his perspective on what Council <br />did in setting the election was that it was <br />perfectly legal and whether or not Council <br />followed the petitions or not, Council felt that <br />this issue was important enough to set an election <br />and City Council can do that "at will" -- <br />regardless of whether people circulate petitions <br />or not. The law is not clear on whether you can <br />rescind an action that you have already taken, and <br />disagrees with Mr. Adams' implication that the law <br />is clear. Sackett stated that in his opinion, "we <br />are delaying the democratic process of letting <br />people decide." "When the Council was responsive <br />to citizens by letting people decide, they are the <br />very people who were wanting that action asking <br />the City to spend money in court over a <br />technicality that has never been tested and <br />probably would not have been tested this time, but <br />for a few people who want to gain notoriety in the <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.