CCR2002146AMENDED
COMMON COUNCIL - CITY OF MUSKEG0
RESOLUTION #146-2002
DIRECT LEGISLATION PETITION
REGARDING CONTRACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF PUBLIC WORKS IN EXCESS OF $3,000,000.00
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2002 and June 12, 2002, there were filed in the office of Clerk-
Treasurer certain petitions requesting the adoption of an ordinance relating to the City
not entering any contract for the construction of any public works, the estimated cost of
which exceeds $3,000.000.00, without first holding a binding referendum; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk-Treasurer certified on June 25,2002 that she had made a careful
examination of the petitions to determine their sufficiency and had determined that the
number of qualifying petitioners meets the requirements of $9.20, Wisconsin Statutes, in
that they equal or exceed 15 percent of the votes cast for governor at the last general
election in the City. The Clerk-Treasurer had determined that more than the required
11 75 valid signatures have been verified; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk-Treasurer further certified on June 25,2002 that she had
reviewed the form of the proposed ordinance and determined that s9.20, Wisconsin
Statutes, does not authorize such a form. Under the statute, the proposed legislation
must be in the form of either a resolution or an ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk-Treasurer further certified in her June 25, 2002 certification the
particulars of the insufficiency of the documents submitted to her and notified the person
designated; and
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2002, the attached Ordinance to create Chapter - of the
Municipal Code of the City of Muskego (limit on construction of public works projects
whose estimated costs exceed $3,000,000.00) was submitted to the Clerk-Treasurer
without any new petitions; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk-Treasurer has a copy of the original petitions; and
WHEREAS, on July 5, 2002, the Clerk-Treasurer certified by the attached certificate
that the documents submitted are sufficient and in substantial compliance with s8.40,
Wisconsin Statutes, as to proper form; and
I WHEREAS, the City Attorney has submitted a legal opinion dated the 18th day of July,
2002.
Resolution #146-2002 Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF MUSKEG0 HEREBY DOES AS FOLLOWS:
1. Does not adopt the document referred to as an ordinance to require a binding
referendum prior to the City entering any contract for the construction of any
public works, the estimated cost of which exceeds $3,000,000.00, without
alteration nor refer it to a vote of the electors for the following reasons:
A.
B.
C.
D.
The ordinance, as proposed, is in direct conflict with prior ordinances and
constitutes an implied repealer of that legislation in the City of Muskego
ordinances including, but not limited to, Ordinances #I 105 and #I 106.
The ordinance proposed is not the proper subject matter for direct
legislation.
No new petitions were submitted with the ordinance when the form of the
ordinance was corrected. Although the City has the original petitions, it is
unclear as to whether or not those original petitions were submitted in
support of the new proposed ordinance.
There are many traditional arguments that can be made that the petitions
now before the Council are not the proper subject matter for direct
legislation, but in light of Mt Horeb Community Alert v. Village Board of Mt.
Horeb, Decided on February 28, 2002, at least until the Supreme Court
acts, these arguments appear to have been either discarded or ignored.
In brief, some of those arguments are:
The ordinance is administrative in nature in that such project
involves a long and complex administrative process.
The direct legislation ordinance attempts to exercise power not
conferred on the governing body in that it attempts to bind future
governing bodies to binding referendums.
The laws of the state provide many procedures and requirements
for the municipal governing body to deal with such issues and the
direct legislation proposed is not within the parameters of said
procedure.
Depending on the type of public works project, the Common
Council may not be able to act within the time limits imposed on the
Council if the direct legislation proposed is adopted.
Resolution #146-2002 Page 3
0 DATED this &day of JULY ,2002.
CITY OF MUSKEG0
This is to certify that this is a true and accurate copy of Resolution #146-2002 which
was adopted by the Common Council of the City of Muskego.
0 7'02
CITY CLERK-TREASURER'S OFFICE
CITY OF MUSKEG0
CERTIFICATE RELATING TO PETITIONS FOR
DIRECT LEGISLATION AS TO AMENDED ORDINANCE
On June 25, 2002, I, Jean K. Marenda. City Clerk-Treasurer of the City of
Muskego. certified that on June 11,2002 and June 12,2002, there were filed in my
office petitions requesting under Section 9.20, Wisconsin Statutes, the enactment of an
ordinance proposed to state: "Prior to entering any contract for the construction of any
public works, the estimated cost of which exceeds $3 million, the Common Council shall
submit to the electorate a binding referendum for approval of the public works project.
Failure by the binding referendum shall preclude the City from proceeding with the
public works project. The wording of any referendum shall provide the specific purpose,
location, and cost of the public works project. Nothing in this provision shall be
construed to preclude the City from exercising its role in the planning or design of any
such public works project."
On June 25,2002, I further certified that I made a careful examination of the
petitions to determine their sufficiency and determined that the number of qualifying
petitioners meets the requirements of Section 9.20(1), Wisconsin Statutes in that they
equal or exceed 15 percent of the votes cast for governor at the last general election in
the City. I determined that more than the required 1175 valid signatures have been
verified.
In my certificate of June 25, 2002, I further stated the particulars of the
insufficiency of the documents submitted to me and notified the person designated of
the insufficiencies.
On July 1, 2002, a document entitled, "An Ordinance Creating Chapter 3.17 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Muskego (Limit on Construction of Public Works
Projects Whose Estimated Costs Exceed $3 Million) was presented to me in person by
Atty. Kathryn Sawyer Gutenkunst. I talked to Atty. Gutenkunst on July 2, 2002 and
advised her I did not think it was appropriate to refer to Chapter 3.17 in her ordinance.
On July 2, 2002, Atty. Gutenkunst faxed an amended document entitled, "An Ordinance
Creating Chapter - of the Municipal Code of the City of Muskego (Limit on
Construction of Public Works Projects Whose Estimated Costs Exceed $3 Million), copy
attached. No new petition was submitted. My office has the original petitions on file. I
hereby certify that the documents are sufficient and in substantial compliance with
Section 8.40, Wisconsin Statutes, as to proper form, and I am submitting the same to
the Common Council. Certification is not provided as to the legality or appropriateness
of the petition and other documents submitted.
Dated in Muskego. Wisconsin this 5th day of July, 2002.
CITY OF MUSKEG0
CMC
ity Clerk-Treasurer
C-1:Petitions-CerlFinalCornmCenlerdoc
DALE W. ARENZ
JOHN P. MACY.
DONALD S. MOLTER, JR.
~~
H. SThNLEV RIFFLE,
COURT COMMISSIONER
COURT COMMI55IONER
RICK D. TRINOL
~ ERIC 1. LARSON
JUUE A. AQUAVIA
DVAN E. BARBEAU
GRETCHEN U. STEVEN5
ARENZ, MOLTER, MACY &. RIFFLE, S.C.
LAW OFFICES OF
720 N. EAST AVENUE
P.O. BOX 1348
WAUKESHA, WISCONSIN 53187-1348
TELEPHONE 548-1340
FACSIMILE 548-9211
AREA CODE 262
July 18, 2002
Via Fax & E-Mail
Fax #679-5630
Total Pages: 8
Mayor Mark A. Slocomb
CITY OF MUSKEG0
Post Office Box 903
Muskego, Wisconsin 531 50
Re: Direct LegislationlLimit on any Contract
for Construction of Public Works Exceeding $3,000,000.00
Dear Mayor Slocomb:
You have requested an opinion on the question of what actions the Common
Council may take regarding the above-mentioned Direct Legislation petition which
has been submitted to the City and certified to the Common Council by the City
Clerk on the 5th day of July, 2002.
Section 9.20(1) of the Wisconsin Statutes provides that:
"A number of electors equal to at least fifteen percent of the votes
cast for Governor at the last general election in their City or Village
may sign and file a petition with the City or Village Clerk requesting
that an attached proposed ordinance or resolution, without alteration,
either be adopted by the Common Council or Village Board or be
referred to a vote of the electors."
Section 9.20(4) provides that:
The Common Council or Village Board shall, without alteration, either
pass the ordinance or resolution within 30 days following the date of
the Clerk's final certificate, or submit it to the electors at the next
Spring or general election, if the election is more than six weeks after
COMMON COUNCIL - CITY OF MUSKEGO
ORDINANCE #
AN ORDINANCE CREATING CHAPTER
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF EKEGO
(Limit on Construction of Public Works Projects Whose Estimated
Costs Excccd $3 Million)
THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MUSKEGO,
WISCONSlN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1 ; Chapter __ Scction of the Municipal Code of the City of
Muskego is hereby created to read as follows:
- LIMIT ON CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS
WHOSE ESTIMATED COSTS EXCEED $3 MILLION
Prior to entering any contract for the construction of any public works. the
estimated cost of which exceeds $3 million, the Common Council shall submit to
the electorate a binding referendum for approval of the public works project.
Failure by the binding referendum shall preclude the City from proceeding with
the public works praject. The wording of any referendum shall provide thc
specific purpose, location, and cost of the public works project. Nothing in this
provision shall be construed to preclude the City from exercising its role in the
planning or dcsign of any such public works project.
SECTION 2: The sevcral sections of this Ordinance are declared to be severable.
If any section or portion thereof shall be declared by a decision of a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, unlawful, or unenforceable, such decision
shall apply only to the specific section or portion theroof directly specified in thc
decision and not affect the validity of all other provisions, sections, or portion
thereof of the Ordinance which shall remaln in full force and effect. Any olher
Ordinances whose terms are in conflict with thc provisions of this Ordinancc are
hereby repealed as to those terms that conflict.
SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passagc and publication.
PASSED AND APPROVED this - day of ,2002.
CITY OF MUSKEGO
@ ATTEST
Clerk-Treasurer
By:
Mark A. Slocornb, Mayor
First reading:
Published this __ day of ,2002.
COMMON COUNCIL - CITY OF MUSKEG0
RESOLUTION #146-2002
DIRECT LEGISLATION PETITION
REGARDING CONTRACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF PUBLIC WORKS IN EXCESS OF $3,000,000.00
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2002 and June 12, 2002, there were filed in the office of Clerk-
Treasurer certain petitions requesting the adoptionpf an ordinance relating to the City
not entering any contract for the construction of any public works, the estimated cost of
which exceeds $3,000,000.00, without first holding a\binding referendum; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk-Treasurer certified on dune 25, 2002 that she had made a careful
examination of the petitions to determine thkr sqfficiency and had determined that the
number of qualifying petitioners meets th,$equirements of 99.20, Wisconsin Statutes, in
r
71
that they equal or exceed 15 percent he votes cast for governor at the last general
election in the City. The had determined that more than the required
1175 valid signatures have been
WHEREAS, the Clerk-Treasurer on June 25,2002 that she had
reviewed the form of the and determined that 99.20, Wisconsin
Statutes, does not the statute, the proposed legislation
must be in the
2002 certification the
and notified the person
designated; and
of the
WHEREAS, the Clerk-Treasurer has a copy of the original petitions; and
WHEREAS, on July 5, 2002, the Clerk-Treasurer certified by the attached certificate
that the documents submitted are sufficient and in substantial compliance with 58.40,
Wisconsin Statutes, as to proper form; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney has submitted a legal opinion dated the 18th day of July,
2002.
Resolution #146-2002 Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE 0 CITY OF MUSKEG0 HEREBY DOES AS FOLLOWS:
1 Adopts the ordinance as submitted by direct legislation petition; or
2. Submits the ordinance to the electors at the election to be held on the 5Ih day of
November, 2002; or
3. Does not adopt the document referred to as an ordinance to require a binding
referendum prior to the City entering any contract for the construction of any
public works, the estimated cost of which exceeds $3,000,000.00, without
alteration nor refer it to a vote of the electors for the following reasons:
A. The ordinance, as proposed, is in direct conflict with prior ordinances and
constitutes an implied repealer of that legislation in the City of Muskego
ordinances including, but not limited to, Ordinances #I 105 and #I 106.
B. The ordinance proposed is not the proper subject matter for direct
legislation.
C. No new petitions were submitted with the ordinance when the form of the
ordinance was corrected. Although the City has the original petitions, it is
unclear as to whether or not those original petitions were submitted in
support of the new proposed ordinance. 0
D. There are many traditional arguments that can be made that the petitions
now before the Council are not the proper subject matter for direct
legislation, but in light of Mt Horeb Community Alert v. Village Board of Mt.
Horeb, Decided on February 28, 2002, at least until the Supreme Court
acts, these arguments appear to have been either discarded or ignored.
In brief, some of those arguments are:
(0
(ii)
(iii)
The ordinance is administrative in nature in that such project
involves a long and complex administrative process.
The direct legislation ordinance attempts to exercise power not
conferred on the governing body in that it attempts to bind future
governing bodies to binding referendums.
The laws of the state provide many procedures and requirements
for the municipal governing body to deal with such issues and the
direct legislation proposed is not within the parameters of said
procedure.
-
Resolution #146-2002 Page 3
(iv) Depending on the type of public works project, the Common
Council may not be able to act within the time limits imposed on the
Council if the direct legislation proposed is adopted.
DATED this day of ,2002
CITY OF MUSKEG0
Mark A. Slocomb, Mayor
This is to certify that this is a true and accurate copy of Resolution #146-2002 which
was adopted by the Common Council of the City of Muskego.
Clerk-Treasurer
7/02
CITY CLERK-TREASURER'S OFFICE
CITY OF MUSKEG0
CERTIFICATE RELATING TO PETITIONS FOR
DIRECT LEGISLATION AS TO AMENDED ORDINANCE
On June 25, 2002, I, Jean K. Marenda, City Clerk-Treasurer of the City of
Muskego. certified that on June 11. 2002 and June 12, 2002, there were filed in my
office petitions requesting under Section 9.20, Wisconsin Statutes, the enactment of an
ordinance proposed to state: "Prior to entering any contract for the construction of any
public works, the estimated cost of which exceeds $3 million, the Common Council shall
submit to the electorate a binding referendum for approval of the public works project.
Failure by the binding referendum shall preclude the City from proceeding with the
public works project. The wording of any referendum shall provide the specific purpose,
location, and cost of the public works project. Nothing in this provision shall be
construed to preclude the City from exercising its role in the planning or design of any
such public works project."
On June 25, 2002, I further certified that I made a careful examination of the
petitions to determine their sufficiency and determined that the number of qualifying
petitioners meets the requirements of Section 9.20(1), Wisconsin Statutes in that they
equal or exceed 15 percent of the votes cast for governor at the last general election in
the City. I determined that more than the required 1175 valid signatures have been
In my certificate of June 25, 2002, I further stated the particulars of the
insufficiency of the documents submitted to me and notified the person designated of
the insufficiencies.
On July 1, 2002, a document entitled, "An Ordinance Creating Chapter 3.17 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Muskego (Limit on Construction of Public Works
Projects Whose Estimated Costs Exceed $3 Million) was presented to me in person by
Atty. Kathryn Sawyer Gutenkunst. I talked to Atty. Gutenkunst on July 2, 2002 and
advised her I did not think it was appropriate to refer to Chapter 3.17 in her ordinance.
On July 2, 2002, Atty. Gutenkunst faxed an amended document entitled, "An Ordinance
Creating Chapter - of the Municipal Code of the City of Muskego (Limit on
Construction of Public Works Projects Whose Estimated Costs Exceed $3 Million), copy
attached. No new petition was submitted. My office has the original petitions on file. I
hereby certify that the documents are sufficient and in substantial compliance with
Section 8.40, Wisconsin Statutes, as to proper form, and I am submitting the same to
the Common Council. Certification is not provided as to the legality or appropriateness
of the petition and other documents submitted.
Dated in Muskego, Wisconsin this 5th day of July, 2002
C-T.Petilions-CedFinalCornrnCenlerdoc
CITY OF MUSKEG0
K WL CMC
ity Clerk-Treasurer
0 Mayor Mark A. Slocomb -2- July 18, 2002
the date of the Council's or Board's action on the petition, or the
expiration of the 30 day period, whichever first occurs. If there are
six weeks or less before the election, the ordinance or resolution shall
be voted on at the next election thereafter The Council or Board by a
three-fourths vote of the members-elect may order a special election
for the purpose of voting on the ordinance or resolution at any time
prior to the next election, but not more than one special election for
direct legislation in any six month period."
This statute requires that the Common Council either:
(1 ) Pass the ordinance without alteration within 30 days after the Clerk's
certification, or,
(2) Submit it to the electors at the next election.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court, however, "has carved out certain exceptions which
indicate that, under some circumstances, the Council may properly refuse to accept
either of the statutory choices and may instead reject both of them." Srare ex re/.
Ahhouse v. Madison, 79 Wis. 2d 97, 107 (1 976), The exceptions carved out by 0 the Supreme Court are:
The ordinance or resolution is administrative rather than legislative in
character;
The ordinance or resolution is in direct conflict with a prior resolution
or ordinance and constitutes an implied repealer of that legislation;
The ordinance or resolution attempts to exercise powers not conferred
on a municipal governing body by statute or constitution;
The proposed legislation is within the governing body's powers, but
could not be exercised within the time limits binding on the body;
State laws prescribe different procedures from what is proposed
- Id at 108.
It is my understanding that the direct legislation as certified by the City Clerk 0 proposes a general ordinance that would require prior to the City entering any
contract for the construction of any public works, the estimated cost of which
exceeds $3,000,000.00, to hold a binding referendum which would approve the
same. The Common Council can either adopt the proposed ordinance without
alteration, refer the ordinance, without alteration, to a vote of the electors as
specified in Wisconsin Statute 59.02(4), or reject the ordinance altogether based on
one or more of the exceptions carved out by the Wisconsin Supreme Court listed
above.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals recently discussed the five exceptions as applied
to a proposed direct legislation ordinance which is nearly identical to the one
proposed here, although the dollar limit was one million dollars. Mt. Horeb
Community Alert v. Village Board of Mt. Horeb, Decided on February 28, 2002. We
believe that there are several bases on which the Common Council could reject the
proposed ordinance and by which the ordinance could be challenged in Court if it
were to either be adopted by the Common Council or approved by the voters at a
referendum
The trial court in Mt. Horeb held that the Village Board properly took no action on
the direct legislation petition filed by petitioners. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals
reversed that decision ruling, in effect, that the question presented by the petition 0 was the proper subject matter for direct legislation and was not subject to the
exception set forth in State ex rel. Althouse v. Madison, 79 Wis. 2d 97, 107
(1 976). The decision of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals has been appealed to the
Wisconsin Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court may or may not uphold the Court of Appeals
decision, but until it is overturned, if, in fact, it is, it is the law in Wisconsin.
In light of the Mr. Horeb case and the present state of the law, the Muskego
Common Council, on June 25, 2002, after filing of the direct legislation petitions,
adopted Ordinance #1105 and #I 106 (Published July 3, 2002) in an attempt to
qualify for an exception under Althouse, even in light of Mt. Horeb, to the 9.20
direct legislation requirements. If the direct legislation ordinance is in direct conflict
with a prior ordinance and constitutes an implied repealer of that ordinance, it is
not a proper subject matter for direct legislation. In this case, at least partially in
response to the direct legislation petition, the Common Council chose to legislate in
this area.
In my opinion, the Council legislating in an area in an attempt to avoid direct
legislation could be held by a court to be a valid legal response. The City must
follow certain statutory procedures to adopt valid ordinances and so must direct
legislation petitioners. The statutory requirements for each process are different,
and in my opinion, the City has a good argument that if it finishes its procedure
first, its ordinances are valid and can preempt the area for direct legislation. Direct
e Mayor Mark A. Slocomb -4- July 18, 2002
legislation petitions, unless adopted by the Common Council, must follow a long
procedure to potentially be adopted - involving a referendum election several
months in the future with a majority vote in favor of the proposed direct legislation.
I do not believe that the direct legislation law in any way prohibits the Council from
legislating in those areas in the interim. Wisconsin Statute E2.1 115). and many
other statutes, confer on the Common Council the power to govern the City, and I
know of no law which prohibits the Council from acting after a direct legislation
petition is filed.
Therefore, in my opinion, the Council, by enacting Ordinance #1 105 and #1 106,
has given itself at least a good legal argument in this case if it determines that this
direct legislation petition is not a proper subject for direct legislation.
There are many other traditional arguments that can be made that the petitions
now before the Council are not the proper subject matter for direct legislation, but
in light of Mt Horeb, at least until the Supreme Court acts, these arguments appear
to have been either discarded or ignored by the Appeals Court in Mr. Horeb. In
brief, some of those arguments are:
The ordinance is administrative in nature in that such project involves
a long and complex administrative process.
The direct legislation ordinance attempts to exercise power not
conferred on the governing body in that it attempts to bind future
governing bodies to binding referendums.
The laws of the state provide many procedures and requirements for
the municipal governing body to deal with such issues and the direct
legislation proposed is not within the parameters of said procedure.
Depending on the type of public works project, the Common Council
may not be able to act within the time limits imposed on the Council if
the direct legislation proposed is adopted,
We believe, for the reason stated above, that the Council could reject the proposed
ordinance and believe we have good argument to support its position if the matter
is brought before a Court. We also believe that if this proposed ordinance should
be adopted by the Common Council or by the electors in a referendum, the validity
of the ordinance could be challenged on these same grounds.
It is our understanding that the petitioners in this matter did not submit new @ original petitions and signatures with the proposed ordinance that was certified by
the Clerk on July 5, 2002. While 59.20(3), Wisconsin Statutes, is not clear as to
whether it is necessary for the petitioners to submit new original signatures, it is
possible that this issue could be raised, along with those discussed above, as to
the validity of this ordinance, if adopted. Because the wording of the proposed
ordinance certified by the Clerk on July 5, 2002, is substantially the same as that
submitted on the original petitions, we do not believe that this, in and of itself,
would be grounds for the Council to reject the proposed ordinance. Section
5.01 (1) provides that "Except as otherwise provided, Chapters 5-1 2 shall be
construed to give effect to the will of the electors, if that can be ascertained from
the proceedings, notwithstanding informality or failure to fully comply with some of
their provisions." It is our opinion that since the City Clerk had previously certified
the signatures and petitions as being adequate and that the ordinance as
resubmitted and certified by the Clerk on July 5, 2002 was different only in that it
was put in general ordinance form, the petition is probably adequate as to form.
In summary, it is our opinion, for the reasons stated above, that the proposed
ordinance may be invalid if adopted. The Common Council can, however, choose
to adopt this ordinance or to refer it to the electors. If the measure is defeated by
the electors, the issue of the ordinances validity would be moot. If the ordinance is
approved by the electors, the City would be subject to a legal challenge in the
ordinance. The Council may also choose to reject the ordinance based upon the
issues discussed above. This action could also be challenged by legal action
brought by the petitioners.
event that any individual, or group of individuals would choose to challenge the
Attached please find the proposed Resolution. There are documents referred to in
the Resolution which are not attached. They must be attached.
Sincerely,
ARENZ, MOLTER, MACY & RIFFLE, S.C,
Donald S. Molter, Jr.
Donald S. Molter, Jr
DSMlpw
Attachment
cc: Ms. Jean Marenda, Clerk (Via E-Mail & Fax #679-4106, 8 pages)
COMMON COUNCIL - CITY OF MUSKEGO
ORDINANCE #
AN ORDINANCE CREATING CHAPTER
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF EKEGO
(Limit on Construction of Public Works Projects Whose Estimated
Costs Excccd $3 Million)
THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MUSKEGO,
WISCONSIN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1 : Chapter - Scction of the Municipal Code of the City of
Muskego is hereby created to read as follows:
- LIMIT ON CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS
WHOSE ESTIMATED COSTS EXCEED $3 MILLION
Prior to entering any contract for the construction of any public works, the
estimated cost of which exceeds $3 million, the Common Council shall submit to
the electorate a binding referendum for approval of the public works project.
Failure by the binding referendum shall preclude the City from proceeding with
the public works project. The wording of any referendum shall provide thc
specific purpose, location, and cost of the public works project. Nothine in this
provision shall be construed to preclude the City from exercising its role in the
planning or design ofany such public works project.
SECTION 2: The sevcral sections Of rhis Ordinance are declared to be severable.
If any section or portion thereof shall be declared by a decision of a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, unlawful, or unenforceable, such decision
shall apply only to the specific section or portion theroof directly specified in thc
decision and not affect the validity of all other provisions, sections, or portion
thereof of the Ordinance which shall rematn in full force and effect. Any other
Ordinances whose terms are in conflict with thc provisions of this Ordinance are
hereby repealed as to those terms that conflict.
SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
pessagc and publication.
PASSED AND APPROVED this - day of ,2002.
CITY OF MUSKEGO
By:
Mark A. Slocomb, Mayor
e ATTEST. First reading:
Published this __ day of ,2002.
Clerk-Treasurer