The fate of the proposed Gold Rush Ranch Project could be decided at a special election June 8.

At a meeting of the Sutter Creek City Council Feb. 23, councilmembers voted 5-0 to approve a referendum petition submitted by opponents of the project.

Under state law, the petition required the council to either repeal their earlier resolution approving Gold Rush or "place the resolution before the voters for final action."

The council had previously refused to repeal the original resolution and directed City Attorney Dennis Crabb to "take all necessary steps to have the measure appear on the June 8 ballot."

At the Feb. 23 meeting, Crabb told councilmembers their first order of business was to determine whether the petition met the legal standards for placement on the ballot. Crabb said due to the "extremely tight time lines involved ... if the council does not take action on the measure this evening a special election will need to be called for a different date."

Councilmember Tim Murphy, who was the lone dissenting vote on the original Gold Rush approval resolution, took issue with some of the verbiage and language proposed for the ballot measure.

"I think it's biased," he said. "It looks like advertising in the middle of the ballot. It's supposed to be an unbiased ballot, not a sales pitch."

Councilmember Sandy Anderson disagreed with Murphy's assertions that the language was biased.

"It's our right and our obligation to put down what this is," she said.

As originally written, voters would see a box to check either yes or no with the question: "Should Resolution Number 09-10-16 of the Sutter Creek City Council approving the Gold Rush Ranch Specific Plan, General Plan Amendments, and Phased Vesting Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map be enacted?"

The council directed Crabb to add additional language and change the phrasing after the word "map" to include: "be Adopted to Authorize Development of a Public Golf Course, A Hotel, Timeshares, Residential Units and Various Commercial Uses and Requiring Provision at Developer Expense of Community Park, Open Space, Trails, Sewer Plant and Donation of Land and Funds for Community Use."

The council appointed a subcommittee to prepare a ballot argument in favor of the measure.

Crabb was directed to write an impartial analysis of the measure for inclusion in the ballot materials. He told councilmembers the impartial analysis essentially summarizes the measure and the consequences of voting for or against it in objective terms.

An impartial analysis is required for initiatives, but is not required in a referendum process.

The exact language and verbiage of the entire ballot must still be approved by the Amador County Clerk, who is authorized to make any necessary technical or procedural revisions. If additional problems are found, the measure might have to be sent for judicial review, which would take more time and could delay the election.

Arguments for and against the ballot measure have to be submitted within 14 days following the formal approval by the county clerk of the special election, and only the council and the group that generated the petition can submit them.

Each side will also be given a chance to rebut the arguments for and against, and registered voters within Sutter Creek will receive a mailer containing the arguments along with a sample ballot before June 8.

Gold Rush proponents will pay for the cost of holding the election, which is estimated to be between $3,000 and $5,000.

Gold Rush opponents collected more than 400 signatures, although only 158 were needed for the referendum.

The next regular meeting of the Sutter Creek City Council is scheduled for March 1 at 7 p.m.