Laserfiche WebLink
it to the City Council. The City <br />Council then has the option of <br />either referring it to the ballot, <br />or sending it and saying we're not <br />adopting it, we're just placing it <br />on the ballot. Or, they have the <br />alternative of adopting the <br />ordinance itself. Because the <br />ordinance is a tax increase, the <br />Council would directly refer the <br />ordinance that it adopted to the <br />ballot for approval by the voters. <br />In other words, you would either <br />have an initiated measure going on <br />to the ballot, or you would have <br />Council adopted measure going on to <br />the ballot. In the latter instance, <br />I think it would be difficult to <br />argue that there was any risk <br />involved in the ballot title having <br />been set at this meeting. <br /> <br />Mayer stated that the petitioners couldn't even think about an <br />issue until the General Assembly had finished their work on all of <br />the initiative bills that were in the Legislature. The petitions <br />have to be finished by August 4. He explained that if Council met <br />July 6, this would give the petitioners less than a 30 days to <br />collect their signatures. He felt that by adopting it at this <br />meeting, it would give them about six weeks, which is a more <br />reasonable amount of time for them to get their signatures. <br /> <br />Davidson: <br /> <br />Since the City Clerk did not accept <br />the petition until after the statute <br />was passed, was the City Clerk in <br />fact authorized not to accept the <br />petition until after the statute is <br />passed, or while a statute is under <br />consideration in the State <br />Legislature? Should the City Clerk <br />have accepted the petition under the <br />old statute, when it was still in <br />force? <br /> <br />Griffiths stated that one of the provisions of Senate Bill 135 <br />states, "This act applies to any measure pending on the effective <br />date of the act that was proposed on or after the 1992 General <br />Election." She explained that if there was a measure pending on <br />the effective date, which was May 4, 1993, that was proposed after <br />the 1992 General Election, S.B. 135 would have applied to it. <br /> <br />Davidson: <br /> <br />When did the Bill pass and become <br />effective? <br /> <br /> <br />