Council moves cautiously on timing of special elections

LAKEWOOD – City Council will take its time before deciding whether to ask voters to approve a City Charter amendment that could change the time-frame for ballot-box decisions on citizen-initiated ordinances as well as challenges of Council-approved ordinances.

Council late Monday agreed to move the issue forward, but with plenty of time to hear from citizens and address the issues raised at a future study session before taking up the idea for action min July.

And the plan moving forward includes a significant change in direction from the original plan, presented to Council in July as a cost-saving measure, but one that critics said would have eliminated virtually all special elections in Lakewood.

The plan also would give city staff an extra 90 days to prepare for special elections called by Council, 180 days instead of 90 days.

The idea moving forward, but subject to change, would make a distinction between initiatives – which are ordinances introduced by citizen petitions – and referendums – elections called to overturn Council action. It would place referendums on a 180-day track to the ballot, but hold initiatives until the next scheduled coordinated county election the next November.

The original proposal, from City Clerk Margy Greer, would have eliminated the current Charter requirement that all special elections be held within 90 days, instead requiring that all issues put to a vote by petition would be delayed until the next November election.

Only City Council would be allowed to employ special elections under the original proposal, which gave them the power to decide which issues would go to voters sooner than later.

Greer said the cost of the last single-issue special election – the 2007 “Switch for the Ditch” election that overturned a controversial Council-approved land swap – was $270,000. The cost of a November election coordinated through the county in the same year was about $30,000, she said.

The Jefferson County Clerk’s Office estimates the city’s tab for coordinated elections would be about half the cost of a special election.

The concern over a Council monopoly on determining the timing of special elections was addressed by Ward 4 Councilman Adam Paul, who said the citizens who initiate them should make the sooner-or-later choice.

“That’s an important option for them … that ‘direct democracy’,” Paul said.

But some Council members were concerned that would amount to virtually no change at all.

“It seems to me it defeats exactly what we are trying to do here,” said Ward 3 City Councilman Ed Peterson, referring to the original plan to impose a November date unless Council decides otherwise.

The concept of allowing Council discretion on election dates would accommodate developers who have money tied up in a property that is the subject of a citizen challenge.

Councilman Tom Quinn, who represents Ward 5, agreed with Peterson, saying “It seems like if we are allowing them (citizens) the option, then we are relying on their good will in wanting to save the taxpayers money.”

“That is correct,” Mayor Bob Murphy said.

“I think probably, most people would make that choice, but you may have somebody that wouldn’t,” Quinn said. “So I guess that’s the basis of my argument that we are defeating the purpose of what we are trying to achieve.”

Then Greer proposed an “option”, something, she said, that “I kind of had in the back of my mind.”

Greer’s option was to distinguish between initiatives and referendums, saying referendums were more “timely” because they are filed in response to recent Council action as opposed to the less-pressing nature of initiatives.

“It may make more sense … or some sense,” Greer said.