HomeMy WebLinkAbout_City Council Special Meeting Agenda PacketCity Council / Successor Agency
City of Lake Elsinore
Special Meeting Agenda
183 North Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Robert E. Magee, Mayor/Chair
Natasha Johnson, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice-Chair
Daryl Hickman, Council Member/Agency Member
Steve Manos, Council Member/Agency Member
Brian Tisdale, Council Member/Agency Member
Cultural Center5:15 PMTuesday, November 7, 2017
PUBLIC SESSION at 5:15 PM
The City of Lake Elsinore appreciates your attendance. Citizens’ interest provides the Council and
Agency with valuable information regarding issues of the community.
Meetings are held on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of every month. In addition, meetings are televised live
on Spectrum Cable Station Channel 29 and Frontier subscribers can view the meetings on Channel
31.
If you are attending this meeting, please park in the parking lot across the street from the Cultural
Center. This will assist us in limiting the impact of meetings on the Downtown Business District.
Thank you for your cooperation.
The agenda is posted 72 hours prior to each meeting outside of City Hall and is available at each
meeting. The agenda and related reports are also available at City Hall on the Friday prior to the
meeting and are available on the City’s website at www.Lake-Elsinore.org. Any writings distributed
within 72 hours of the meeting will be made available to the public at the time it is distributed to the City
Council.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person with a disability who requires a
modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the City Clerk’s
Department at (951) 674-3124 Ext. 269, at least 48 hours before the meeting to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility.
CITY VISION STATEMENT
The City of Lake Elsinore will be the ultimate lake destination where all can live, work and play, build
futures and fulfill dreams.
Page 1 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 11/6/2017
November 7, 2017City Council / Successor Agency Special Meeting Agenda
CALL TO ORDER 5:15 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION – MOMENT OF SILENT PRAYER
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENTS – NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS – 1 MINUTE
(Please read & complete a Request to Address the City Council/Successor Agency form
prior to the start of the meeting and turn it in to the City Clerk/Clerk. The Mayor/Chair or
City Clerk/Clerk will call on you to speak.)
BUSINESS ITEM(S)
Intent to Transition from At-Large to District City Council Election
Recommendation:adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENT TO TRANSITION FROM AT-LARGE TO
DISTRICT-BASED COUNCIL MEMBER ELECTIONS, OUTLINING SPECIFIC STEPS TO
BE UNDERTAKEN TO FACILITATE THE TRANSITION AND ESTIMATING A TIME
FRAME FOR ACTION PURSUANT TO ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 10010
Intent to Transition - SR
Intent to Transition - Exhibit A Resolution
Intent to Transition - Exhibit B Timeline
Intent to Transition - Exhibit C Shenkman Letter
Attachments:
ADJOURNMENT
The Lake Elsinore City Council will adjourn.
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I, Susan M. Domen, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, do hereby affirm that a copy of the
foregoing agenda was posted at City Hall at _________ p.m. on ______________ 2017.
__________________________
Susan M. Domen, MMC
City Clerk
Page 2 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 11/6/2017
Text File
City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
www.lake-elsinore.org
File Number: RES 2014-054
Agenda Date: 11/7/2017 Status: BusinessVersion: 1
File Type: ResolutionIn Control: Special City Council Meeting
Agenda Number: 1)
Page 1 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 11/6/2017
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Barbara Leibold, City Attorney
Susan M. Domen, City Clerk
Date: November 7, 2017
Subject: Intent to Transition from At-Large to District City Council Election
Recommendation
adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENT TO TRANSITION FROM AT-LARGE TO DISTRICT-
BASED COUNCIL MEMBER ELECTIONS, OUTLINING SPECIFIC STEPS TO BE
UNDERTAKEN TO FACILITATE THE TRANSITION AND ESTIMATING A TIME FRAME FOR
ACTION PURSUANT TO ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 10010
Background
The City Clerk received a certified letter on September 25, 2017, from Kevin Shenkman, an
attorney with the law firm of Shenkman & Hughes in Malibu, California (Exhibit “C”). The letter
asserts that the City’s at-large electoral system violates the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA)
by diluting the ability of Latinos (a protected class) to elect candidates of their choice or
otherwise influence the outcome of the City of Lake Elsinore’s council elections. Mr. Shenkman
claims “polarized voting” may be occurring and threatens litigation if the City declines to
voluntarily convert to district-based elections for Council Members.
The City of Lake Elsinore currently utilizes an at-large election system, which means that the
electors from the entire City choose each of the five Councilmembers. Proponents of the at
large electoral system believe it increases accountability by each Council Member to the
interests of the City as a whole. The existing Lake Elsinore City Council is geographically and
ethnically diverse.
A “by district” based election system is one in which the city is physically divided into separate
districts, each with one Council Member who resides in the district and is chosen by the electors
residing in that particular district. Opponents of this system believe it limits accountability of
each Council Member to the interests of his or her district rather to consideration of what is best
for the City as a whole.
In 2004, the City Council appointed an Electoral Reform Ad Hoc Advisory Committee comprised
of City residents to evaluate several election-related issues, including a review of the possibility
Intent to transition from a-large to district
Page 2
of electing Council Members “by districts”. The Committee made two recommendations on this
question:
That the City Council maintain the existing structure of Citywide elections of Council
members and revisit the possibility of districting after the 2010 US Census if the City’s
population is at least eighty thousand (80,000) and the City is at least eighty percent
(80%) built-out.
If the City Council considers districts in the future, the Committee recommends that the
Council be elected “from” district.
A “from district” electoral system divides the City into individual district, but is different than a “by
district” system in that all voters within the City are eligible to vote for Council Members from
each of the districts.
The Electoral Reform Committee’s recommendations were supported by several findings,
including:
The Committee finds that the election of City Council members by or from
districts is premature at this time because:
the current population of the City is approximately 30,000 and each
district would be comprised of fewer than 10,000 residents (and even
fewer voters);
the projected increase in the City’s population over the next several years
would necessarily require redistricting very soon;
the projected increase in the City’s population over the next several years
and the projected location of the population bursts would provide for
disproportionate numbers of voters in each district until appropriate
redistricting could occur, and
the City’s budget, including the capital improvement budget, is insufficient
at this time to support an equal distribution of projects among districts and
could result in political tug-of-war to the benefit of a few and the detriment
of the City as a whole (for example, funding for Lake projects could be
compromised).
The Committee further finds that the method of election of City Council members
from districts is better than election of Council members by districts because
such method ensures a representative City Council (i.e. one from each Council
district) while allowing the electorate to vote for each seat, as opposed to being
limited to voting only for the Council member from the voter’s actual district.
While the Committee’s recommended population and build-out thresholds have not been
reached, receipt of the Shenkman letter requires that the City Council reconsider the City’s
electoral system. It should be noted that the Committee’s “from district” recommendation will
not satisfy Mr. Shenkman’s California Voters Rights Act claims.
Intent to transition from a-large to district
Page 3
Discussion
The California Voters Rights Act (CVRA)
The CVRA was signed into law in 2002. The CVRA prohibits an at-large method of election that
impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence
the outcome of an election. The law’s intent is to expand protections against vote dilution over
those provided by the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (FVRA). The law was also motivated,
in part, by the lack of success by plaintiffs in California in lawsuits challenging at-large electoral
systems brought under the FVRA. The passage of the CVRA made it much easier for plaintiffs
to prevail in lawsuits against public entities that elected their governing body through “at-large”
elections. A plaintiff need only prove the existence of “racially polarized voting” to establish
liability under the CVRA. Other factors are also relevant in determining liability. Proof of intent
on the part of voters or elected officials to discriminate against a protected class is not required.
As a result, cities throughout the California have faced increased legal challenges to their “at-
large” systems of electing City Council Members. Before the law was passed there were only 27
California cities with by-district elections and now there are more than 65, including the cities of
Wildomar and Menifee. The cities of Temecula, Murrieta and Perris are in the process of
transitioning to by-district elections. Mr. Shenkman is known to have sent the same certified
letters to many of these cities and filed more than 10 lawsuits. Almost all cities have settled
claims out of court by voluntarily shifting to “by district” based elections. Cities that have
attempted to defend their existing “at-large” system of City Council under a CVRA challenge
have ultimately either voluntarily adopted, or have been forced to adopt, district-based elections.
The CVRA grants a prevailing plaintiff the right to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert
witness fees. This has resulted in payment of significant attorneys’ fees by cities that have
chosen to litigate the CVRA challenge. For example, the City of Palmdale incurred expenses in
excess of $4,500,000 in its unsuccessful attempt to defend against a lawsuit brought under the
CVRA. On the other hand, even if the City prevails, it cannot recover its attorneys’ fees or costs.
Also, the City would remain vulnerable to subsequent litigation brought under the CVRA by
different plaintiffs.
California Voter Rights Act Reform (AB 350), a “Safe Harbor”
In response to the onslaught of litigation under the CVRA, the California legislature adopted
Assembly Bill AB 350, codified as Elections Code section 10010 (effective on January 1, 2017).
The legislation attempts to provide a “safe harbor” from CVRA litigation for cities. If a city
receives a demand letter like the one received by the City of Lake Elsinore, the city is given 45
days of protection from litigation. If within that 45 days, the city adopts a Resolution declaring
the its intent to transition from At-Large to district-based elections, outlining specific steps to be
undertaken to facilitate the transition, and estimating a time frame for action, then a potential
plaintiff is prohibited from filing a CVRA lawsuit for an additional 90-day period. Thus, the
legislation provides time for the City to assess and implement a transition to a district based
election system before a lawsuit may be filed. Under AB 350, a city’s liability is capped at
$30,000 if it follows this process after receiving a threat, and the plaintiff must show financial
documentation that these costs were incurred.
Intent to transition from a-large to district
Page 4
Legal Implications
The City Council has considered the threatened CVRA litigation in closed session and after
weighing the legal implications and potential costs of such litigation, directed staff to move
forward with the resolution of intent to transition from at-large to “by district” based elections in
order to take advantage of the “safe harbor” allowances under AB 350. Under this “safe harbor”,
the City is required to hold five public hearings within the allotted 90-day framework. The public
hearings will give the community an opportunity to weigh in on the composition of the districts
and to provide input regarding the content of the draft maps and the proposed sequence of
elections. The final public hearing will be held when the City Council votes to consider an
Ordinance establishing district-based elections.
Most communities have taken a phased approach to implementing district-based elections. By
law, the terms of sitting Council Members cannot be cut short. The City Council will have an
opportunity to determine the number of districts to be formed and how their boundaries are
defined. This will be decided upon by the City Council based on information from the initial
public hearings to be held as required by California Elections Code section 10010, and other
appropriate considerations, should it adopt the proposed resolution.
The City Clerk, along with the legal assistance of the City Attorney and a professional
demographer will proceed with the preparation of district maps and other required documents in
the preparation of moving from the At-Large to a By-District election system at the direction of
the Council with the adoption of the Resolution of Intention, Exhibit A. The proposed timeline is
attached as Exhibit B.
Fiscal Impact
If the City Council concurs with Staff’s recommendation, there will be significant staff time
needed to transition to district-based elections and to administer the process including the need
for five public hearings. The City will also incur the costs for a demographer, and legal counsel.
Additionally, the City will be required to reimburse the plaintiff up to $30,000 for its documented
attorney’s fees and costs in preparing the certified letter. If the City Council chooses to maintain
at-large elections and defend a potential lawsuit, the costs and attorneys’ fees could be
significant and would be a General Fund liability.
Environmental Review
This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it is an organizational structure change
that will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment.
Exhibits
A - Resolution
B - Proposed Timeline
C - Demand Letter from Shenkman & Hughes
RESOLUTION NO. 2017- _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENT TO TRANSITION FROM AT-LARGE TO BY-
DISTRICT COUNCIL MEMBER ELECTIONS, OUTLINING SPECIFIC STEPS TO BE
UNDERTAKEN TO FACILITATE THE TRANSITION AND ESTIMATING A TIME
FRAME FOR ACTION PURSUANT TO ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 10010
Whereas, the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore (City) were elected under an “at-large”
election system, where Council Members were by the voters of the entire City; and,
Whereas, California Government Code Section 34886 in certain circumstances, authorizes the
legislative body of a city of any population to adopt an ordinance to change its method of election
from an “at-large” system to a “by-district” system in which each council member is elected only
by the voters in the district in which the candidate resides; and,
Whereas, the City Clerk received a certified letter on September 25, 2017, from Kevin Shenkman
of the law firm of Shenkman & Hughes asserting that the City's At-Large Council Member electoral
system violates the California Voting Rights Act (“CVRA”) and threatening litigation if the City
declines to voluntarily change to a district-based election system for electing Council Members;
and,
Whereas, a violation of the CVRA is established if it is shown that racially polarized voting occurs
in elections (Elections Code Section 14028(a)). “Racially polarized voting” means voting in which
there is a difference in the choice of candidates or other electoral choices that are preferred by
voters in a protected class, and in the choice of candidates and electoral choices that are preferred
by voters in the rest of the electorate (Elections Code Section 14026(e)); and,
Whereas, the California Legislature in amendments to Elections Code Section 10010, has
provided a method whereby a jurisdiction can expeditiously change to a by-district election system
and avoid the high cost of litigation under the CVRA; and,
Whereas, the public interest would be better served by council consideration of a proposal to
transition to a district-based electoral system because of: 1) the extraordinary cost to defend
against a CVRA lawsuit, 2) the risk of losing such a lawsuit which would require the City to pay
the prevailing plaintiffs’ attorneys' fees, and 3) the reimbursable costs and attorneys' fees would
be capped at a maximum of $30,000.00 by following the procedures set forth in Elections Code
Section 10010 as amended by AB 350; and,
Whereas, prior to the City Council's consideration of an Ordinance to establish district boundaries
for a district-based electoral system, California Elections Code Section 10010 requires all of the
following:
1.Prior to drawing a draft map or maps of the proposed boundaries of the districts,
the City shall hold at least two (2) public hearings over a period of no more than thirty (30) days,
at which the public will be invited to provide input regarding the composition of the districts;
2.After all draft maps are drawn, City shall publish and make available for release at
least one draft map and, if members of the City Council will be elected in their districts at different
times to provide for staggered terms of office, the potential sequence of the elections shall also
Resolution No. 2017-__
Page 2
be published. The City Council shall also hold at least two (2) additional hearings over a period
of no more than forty-five (45) days, at which the public shall be invited to provide input regarding
the content of the draft map or maps and the proposed sequence of elections, if applicable. The
first version of a draft map shall be published at least seven (7) days before consideration at a
hearing. If a draft map is revised at or following a hearing, it shall be published and made available
to the public for at least seven (7) days before being adopted; and
Whereas, the City has retained special legal counsel and an experienced demographer to assist
the City to develop a proposal for a district-based electoral system; and
Whereas, the adoption of a district-based elections system will not affect the terms of any sitting
Council Member, each of whom will serve out his or her current term.
Whereas, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2.The City Council hereby resolves to consider adoption of an Ordinance to transition
to a by-district election system as authorized by Government Code Section 34886 for use in the
City's General Municipal Election for City Council Members beginning in November 2018.
Section 3.The City Council directs the City Attorney (or special legal Counsel) and City Clerk
to work with a professionaldemographer, and other appropriate consultants as needed, to provide
a detailed analysis of the City’s current demographics and any other information or data
necessary to prepare a draft map that divides the City into voting districts in a manner consistent
with the intent and purpose of the California Voting Rights Act and the Federal Voting Rights Act.
Section 4.The City Council hereby approves the tentative timeline as set forth in Exhibit A,
attached to and made a part of this Resolution, for conducting a public process to solicit public
input and testimony on proposed district-based electoral maps before adopting any such map.
Section 5.The timeline contained in Exhibit A may be adjusted by the City Attorney and City
Clerk as deemed necessary, provided that such adjustments shall not prevent the City from
complying with the time frames specified by Elections Code Section 10010.
Section 6.The City Council directs the City Clerk to post information regarding the proposed
transition to a by-district election system, including maps, notices, agendas and other information
and to establish a means of communication to answer questions from the public.
Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it
into the book of original Resolutions.
Section 8. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and
adoption.
Resolution No. 2017-__
Page 3
Passed and Adopted on this 7th day of November 2017.
____________________________
Robert E. Magee
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________Susan M. Domen, MMC City
Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE )
I, Susan M. Domen, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify
that Resolution No. ___________ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore,
California, at a Special meeting on November 7, 2107, and that the same was adopted by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Susan M. Domen, MMC
City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
TENTATIVE TIMELINE: CONSIDERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
“DISTRICT-BASED” ELECTION METHOD
DATE EVENT COMMENT
November __,
2017
Day 1
Resolution of Intention:
City Council adopts Resolution
declaring its intention to
transition from at- large to
district-based elections.
CVRA Action cannot be commenced
for 90 days.
November --,
2017 –November
27, 2017
Public Outreach Re: Process &
Participation
NO MAPS YET DRAWN
November 28,
2017
1st Public Hearing Re: Composition of Districts
NO MAPS YET DRAWN
December 12,
2017
2nd Public Hearing Re: Composition of Districts
NO MAPS YET DRAWN
December 19,
2017
Post Draft Maps and Potential
Sequence of Elections
January 4, 2018 3rd Public Hearing Re: Draft Maps
January 8, 2018 Any Amended Maps Posted
January 9, 2017 4th Public Hearing Select Map
Council introduces ordinance
establishing district elections,
including District Boundaries
and Election Sequence
Re: Draft Maps
If selected map is amended,
ordinance cannot be introduced
until 7 days after amended map is
published.
January 23, 2018 5th Public Hearing
2nd reading of ordinance
establishing district elections:
approval or denial of ordinance
DATE EVENT COMMENT
Day 90
Effective date of ordinance
establishing district elections
Council adopts resolutions
calling for election,
requesting consolidation,
etc.Candidate nomination period
First election using new
district-based election
system
TIMELINE / CHECKLIST
Letter Received by City Clerk’s Office: September 25, 2017
45-Day Deadline [AB 350(e)(3)(A)]: November 9, 2017
90-Day Deadline [AB 350(e)(3)(B)]: February 4, 2018
No. Task Date / Timeline Notes
1 Closed Session
September 26, 2017
October 24, 2017
2 Council Meeting –Consideration of
Topic / Resolution of Intention
November 7, 2017
3 Council Meeting - Public Hearing #1 November 28, 2017 Before Map(s) Drawn – E.C. 10010(a)(1)
4 Council Meeting / Public Hearing #2
December 12, 2017 Before Map(s) Drawn – E.C. 10010(a)(1), within 30 days of Public
Hearing #1
5 Draft Map(s) Drawn
TBD
6 Publish Draft Map(s) / Sequencing
No later than January 2,
2018
E.C. 10010(a)(2), Published Once at Least 7 Days Prior to Public
Hearing #3
7 Council Meeting / Public Hearing #3 January 9, 2018 Map(s)/Sequencing Published E.C. 10010(a)(2), More than 7 Days
After Draft Map(s)/Sequencing Publication
8 Council Meeting / Public Hearing #4 –
Adoption of Ordinance – if no changes
to map
January 23 After Map(s)/Sequencing Published E.C. 10010(a)(2), within 45 days
of Public Hearing #3
Government Code 36937 (Election Ordinance Effective Immediately)
9 Council Seats Transition to
Representing Respective
Districts via Ordinance
November 2018
November 2020