HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/16/2000 - SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 44, 2000, AMENDING AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 8
DATE: May 16, 2000
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
Wanda Krajicek
SUBJECT:
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 44, 2000, Amending the General Form for Petitions for
Initiative, Referendum, and Recall.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and the Governance Committee recommend adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Charter requires Council to prescribe by ordinance the general form of petition for
initiative, referendum, and recall. Ordinance No. 44, 2000, which was unanimously adopted on
First Reading on May 2, 2000, amends the general form by splitting the combined form into
three (3) individual forms, reformatting the signature lines to provide more adequate space to
provide all required information, clearly indicating required attachments, and eliminating from
the Affidavit of Circulator the statement that the circulator is a registered elector. (The U.S.
Supreme Court has held that it is impermissible to require that petition circulators be registered
electors.)
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 11
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL DATE: May 2, 2000
STAFF: Wanda Krajicek
SUBJECT:
First Reading of Ordinance No. 44, 2000, Amending the General Form for Petitions for
Initiative, Referendum, and Recall.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and the Governance Committee recommend adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds are available in the City Clerk's budget to reprint the forms.
J tt Iy)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Charter requires Council to prescribe by ordinance the general form of petition for
initiative, referendum, and recall. This Ordinance amends the general form by splitting the
combined form into three (3) r nature lines to provide more
adequate space to provide all quire " orm cl ' ly' ating required attachments, and
eliminating from the Affida '`, of Cir , lator e E tateme at the circulator is a registered
elector. (The U.S. Supreme IT
heltt th ' ' is impermissible to require that petition
circulators be registered electors.)
BACKGROUND:
The current form being used for petitions was approved by the Council in 1988. Actual use of
the form over the years has brought to light some design issues which are cumbersome for both
the petition circulators and staff. The current form is designed to be used for initiative,
referendum, or recall, and requires the petition representatives to "black out" two of the three
terms so that only the appropriate type of petition is reflected. The original intent of the design
was to save printing costs. However, advances in printing technology have diminished the value
of an "all-in-one" design. The second design flaw in the current form is the lack of adequate
space available for an individual signing a petition to record all required information (signature,
DATE: May 2, 2000 2 ITEM NUMBER: 11
printed name, address, date of signing). Language has been added to each form to clearly
indicate to the voter what documents are required to be attached to each petition section.
The Affidavit of Circulator attached to the current form includes a statement that the circulator is
a registered elector of the City. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that it is impermissible to
require that petition circulators be registered electors. Although a proposed Charter amendment
to eliminate that statement from the affidavit for the circulators of local petitions was defeated by
the voters in November 1999, the registered elector requirement should not be enforced and that
representation is being deleted from the sworn,affidavit.
The proposed amended forms; if approved, will 'provide ;petition forms to citizens that are
customized for their specific purpose (initiative, referendum, or recall), provide adequate space
for citizens to sign the petition,which will make it easier for staff to verify signatures, clearly
identify required attachments, and will remove the language relating to circulators being
registered electors.
� f