OPPONENTS OF BROOMFIELD MED-POT SHOP BAN WORKING AGAINST THE CLOCK

Today Is Deadline For Signatures

Local activists seeking to overturn Broomfield's ban on medical
marijuana businesses are taking their effort down to the wire. They
have to collect the signatures of 1,282 registered Broomfield voters
and submit them to the Clerk and Recorder's Office by 5 p.m. today.

If they are successful, Broomfield City Council would be forced to
suspend Ordinance 1928, which passed July 27. The measure outlaws the
operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and commercial growing
operations in Broomfield.

City Council would then have the option of repealing the ordinance or
placing on the ballot a question about whether medical marijuana
businesses should be allowed to operate in Broomfield.

Pam Gianola, leader of the repeal effort, said she hopes to turn in
about 2,000 signatures, but admits it will be tight.

"We're trying to get everybody out there, and we think we're going to
make it," Gianola said. "We might be down to the wire ... but we're
not giving up."

About 10 people are gathering signatures at "high-volume places," such
as shopping centers, trying to get supporters to sign on, Gianola said.

While other communities have had trouble regulating medical marijuana
dispensaries, Gianola thinks Broomfield could create a regulatory
system that would serve as a model for other communities, she told
City Council during last month's public hearing on the ordinance.

Allowing dispensaries in Broomfield would be a sign of compassion for
local medical marijuana users, and the city would be able to capture
tax dollars, Gianola said.

"It will bring income and revenues to Broomfield that (otherwise) will
go next door," she said.

If petitioners are successful, the ordinance would be suspended
according to the rules of the city charter, City and County Attorney
Bill Tuthill said. City Council would have the option of repealing the
measure or asking voters to approve it as a ballot measure.

That could require a special election, but city officials think they
could get the ballot question to voters in the Nov. 2 election "if
things fall into place," Clerk and Recorder Russ Ragsdale said. City
Council would have to decide to kill the measure or put in on the
ballot by Sept. 3.

"If City Council met in an emergency session, they would be able to do
it," Ragsdale said.

City Council might do just that. A proposal to hold a special meeting
next Tuesday was on the agenda for Tuesday's City Council meeting.
Council's decision was made after the Enterprise's deadline.

The special meeting would be a proactive step, assuming the petition
effort succeeds. If it does not, the meeting can be cancelled, Tuthill
said.

"Our expectation is we will know Thursday whether the proponents have
come anywhere close," he said.

There is one scenario where time is not on anyone's
side.

If the clerk's office rules petition gatherers have not collected
enough valid signatures, activists will be able to collect more during
a 10-day "cure" period, Ragsdale said.

If they gather enough signatures on their second try, the ordinance
will be suspended. If City Council would then have to put it before
voters in a special election or suspend it until the next municipal
election in November 2011.