Laserfiche WebLink
Griffiths: <br /> <br />Sisk: <br /> <br />Griffiths: <br /> <br />Sisk: <br /> <br />ice breaker on this initiative <br />process. <br /> <br />The downside of waiting until July 6 <br />is not a downside necessarily for <br />the city. It is for those who are <br />circulating the petitions and they <br />have a shorter period of time in <br />which to acquire signatures. Under <br />Senate Bill 93-135, the wording of <br />the bill requires that the signed <br />petitions be filed with the city at <br />least 90 days prior to the election. <br />So, the later the date goes for <br />setting the title .... they cannot <br />circulate petitions until the title <br />is set. That's the risk of the <br />petitioners, not necessarily of the <br />city. The risk of proceeding <br />tonight is that if someone wishes to <br />challenge the title, as set at an <br />improper date, there is some basis <br />for them to do so. The risk of that <br />falls mainly upon those who support <br />the petition, who have asked that <br />the date be moved up. They <br />understand that there is a risk <br />involved in that and they prefer to <br />accept that risk. <br /> <br />By accepting that risk, would it be <br />safe to say that the city would be <br />the ones that would be employing <br />services, or would the initiators be <br />the one to employ services, or could <br />a challenge be made after the <br />initiative went to the ballot in <br />November, and then be defeated by <br />virtue of an improper meeting? <br /> <br />It would be the decision of the City <br />Council whether they wish to defend <br />any such litigation. Presumably, <br />the petitioners might intervene in <br />that litigation and might wish to <br />defend the action of the city. <br /> <br />When would that appeal have to be <br />brought? Could it be brought after <br />the General Election? <br /> <br /> <br />