Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Referendum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City attorney says ambulance‑service referendum likely outside general law; council to consider rescinding prior motion
Summary
The city attorney advised that a motion to hold a referendum on ambulance service does not fit the 13 statutory reasons for a referendum under general law and that, absent special legislation or a private act, the council should rescind the prior motion and pursue alternate steps if it wants a binding referendum.
At the work session the city attorney told council members that a previously passed motion to hold a referendum on the city ambulance service likely does not comply with the state’s general‑law list of permissible referendum topics.
“The only way that you could have a referendum is to approach our state representative and have a private act pass that would authorize a referendum scenario,” the city attorney said, telling the council that he had checked with the attorney general’s office and with municipal counsel on the point.
Council members said the clarification was new information to many members and discussed options: rescind the earlier motion, notify the election commission that the council will not proceed under general law, or pursue a private act through the state legislature and secure a two‑thirds council vote to move forward where required. The attorney also noted aspects of Crossville’s city charter that create special referendum requirements when city‑owned water rights or certain contiguous parkland are sold or leased.
There was no formal vote recorded during the work session to rescind the previous motion; council agreed to place a related agenda item on a future meeting (other business) to pursue whether to seek a private act and to clarify the charter‑based steps required for any referendum.
