Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Referendum Timing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City attorney warns changing referendum window to 60 days could create legal and reliance problems
Summary
City Attorney Ramsey told the committee that moving referendum filing from 15 days to 60 days risks ordinances taking effect before a later referendum could suspend them, potentially creating litigation and uncertainty; councilmembers proposed filing-notice alternatives and staff will revisit the language.
City Attorney Ramsey told the Charter Review Committee that the committee’s recommendation to change referendum timing from the current practice (signatures due before an ordinance takes effect, effectively 15 days) to 60 days after passage poses practical and legal risks.
"You want to once if if they gather enough signatures, it puts the law on hold until you have the election. And so, you want to do it before the law goes into effect because if you if you using 60 days, what could happen is a law could go into effect at 15 days, people could start to gain reliance on that law, and then 45 days later at the 60-day point, then it all sudden could be put on hold," Ramsey said, warning the change "could create a mess and ... probably lots of litigation." (paraphrase of Ramsey's remarks during the meeting.)
Ramsey recommended keeping the existing language that requires referendum action prior to the ordinance taking effect. Councilmember Bader asked whether a short filing or notice within 15 days could put the council "on notice" and then allow petitioners 60 days to gather signatures; Ramsey said that approach could lessen the concern but would require careful drafting to avoid creating opportunities for mischief. Bader framed the idea: "Could there be like a filing of a referendum petition within those 15 days ... and then they have 60 days to get the signatures so at least there's notice?" Staff said they would consider alternative formulations and remove the 60-day sentence from the proposed change to 11.3 for further review.
No ordinance or charter change was adopted at the meeting; staff indicated they will remove or redraft the 60-day change and present revised language at the next readings if the council decides to proceed.
