AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL/ HOUSING AUTHORITY/ SUCCESSOR AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY MARCH 11, 2025 @ 5:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBERS & VIA ZOOM
21000 HACIENDA BLVD., CALIFORNIA CITY, CA 93505
If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, contact the City Clerk at (760) 373-7140 or via email at [email protected]. We request a 24- hour notification prior to the meeting in order for the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 American Disabilities Act Title II)
Zoom instructions and notes:
Web Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87081614171
Meeting ID: 870 8161 4171
1. Public can dial into the Zoom line:
a.One tap mobile: +16694449171,87254527178# US
b.Dial the following number: +1 564 217 2000 US
2. Comments
a. Public must join Zoom meeting to comment
b. Keep your mic on Mute until you are requested to speak c. Use the “Raise your Hand” button to request to speak or, d. Send a chat request to City Clerk for request to speak e. When requested to speak state your name for the record f. Re-mute when your time to speak has ended
Marquette Hawkins
MAYOR
Michael Kulikoff
MAYOR PRO TEM
Jesse Hightower
Michael Hurles
Ronald Smith
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Christopher Lopez
CITY MANAGER
MARCH 11, 20251
Public is urged to listen to the meeting in a quiet place, to avoid background noise.
We also request public to MUTE your audio device when not commenting to avoid disruption during meeting.
**Please take this time to turn off your cell phones ** REGULAR MEETING 5:00PM
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE / INNVOCATION
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers: Hightower, Hurles, Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Kulikoff, Mayor Hawkins
ADOPT THE AGENDA
DEPARTMENT REPORTS
PARKS
OHV
HOUSING
CITY CLERK REPORTS/RECEIVED COMMUNICATIONS
Correspondence received from JM POWERS dated: MARCH 1, 2025; MARCH 2, 2025; MARCH 3, 2025
CIVIC/COMMUNITY/ORGANIZATION ANNOUNCEMENTS
PRESENTATIONS
PUBLIC HEARING
PH 1. TDA Unmet Transit Needs Public Hearing
1. Open Public Hearing
2. Staff Report: Christopher Lopez, City Manager Joe Barragan, Public Works Director
3. Public Comment
4. Close Public Hearing
5. Discussion
Recommended Action: Conduct the Unmet Transit Needs Public Hearing. The City Council adopts “RESOLUTION NO 25-3113. DETERMINING THAT CALIFORNIA CITY HAS NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT CAN NOT REASONABLY BE MET BY THE EXISTING SYSTEM”
MARCH 11, 20252
PH 2. TO START AT A TIME CERTAIN OF 6:00 P.M. - SECOND PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE INPUT
ON TRANSITION TO DISTRICTS, INCLUDING COMPOSITION OF DISTRICTS, FOR DISTRICT
BASED COUNCIL ELECTIONS
1. Open Public Hearing
2. Staff Report: Christopher Lopez, City Manager
3. Public Comment
4. Close Public Hearing
5. Discussion
PUBLIC COMMENT
This portion of the meeting is reserved for the public to address the City Council on any matter NOT on this agenda and over which the City Council has jurisdiction. Please state your name for the record and limit your comments to (3) three minutes. The City Council will receive the comments but cannot engage in back-and- forth discussion with the public or make any decision. The City Council can direct staff to bring the item back to a future agenda for discussion.
CONSENT CALENDAR
WAIVER OF FULL READING OF RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Consideration to waive full-text reading of all Resolutions and Ordinances by single motion made at the start of each meeting, subject to the ability of the City Council / Agency to read the full text of selected resolutions and ordinances when the item is addressed by subsequent motion. All items on the consent calendar are considered routine, and non-controversial and will be approved by (1) one motion if no member of the council, staff, or public wishes to comment or ask questions. Public comments are to be limited to (3) three minutes. Roll call vote required.
CC 1. Approve City Check Register dated 02/21/2025-03/06/2025 CC 2. Adopt Resolution No. 25-3114, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of California City approving the applicant to apply for and receive grant funds for the California State Parks Grants Cooperative Agreement Program, Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation grant funds
CITY MANAGER REPORT
NEW BUSINESS
NB 1. Staff Report- Christopher Lopez
Subject- Discussion and Direction Regarding IT Services Recommendation- Staff recommends the City Council discuss provide formal direction on this item NB 2. Staff Report- Christopher Lopez
Subject- Discussion and Direction Regarding Establishing Priorities for the City of California City Recommendation- Staff recommends the City Council discuss and provide direction on whether it would like to begin strategic planning discussions to be used for planning of the FY 25/26 Budget MARCH 11, 20253
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS, AGENDA REQUESTS, AND AB1234 REPORTS This portion of the meeting is reserved for council members to present information, announcements, and items that have come to their attention. The Brown Act precludes Council, staff, or public discussion. Short staff responses are appropriate. The Council will take no formal action. A Council member may request the City Clerk to calendar an item for consideration at a future meeting or refer an item to staff.
ADJOURNMENT
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I, Leanndrea Weible, Acting City Clerk for the City of California City, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing notice was posted on all official City bulletin boards and the City’s website at least 72 hours prior to the meeting in compliance with the provisions of the Brown Act.
MARCH 11, 20254
DR-Parks
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
March 11, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Christopher Lopez, City Manager
Leanndrea Weible, Recreation Coordinator
SUBJECT: Departmental Report: Recreation
OPERATIONS:
The Parks and Recreation Department is continuing to operate with very limited staff and as such have needed to reduce the gyms hours of operation. As of now, the Strata Center Hours vary, however, have been more consistent with being open TUESDAY 2-5PM, WEDNESDAY 12-5PM and SATURDAY 11AM-5PM (Staff will always do their best to make sure the hours are posted to keep the public updated)
CURRENTLY:
EVERY SUNDAY Holy Scriptures Church Service is held in the Arts and Community Building.
Applications are currently being accepted to fill 2 vacancies on the Parks and Recreation Commission. Anyone interested is encouraged to pick-up an appointment application at City Hall anytime between 9AM-5PM
PROJECT and EVENT UPDATES
1. The Event that was held on February 22, 2025, The Black History Month Parade and Extravaganza in the Park had a great turnout! There were approximately 200-250 people that showed up throughout the day from the beginning of the opening Ceremony to the clean up at the end of the event.
2. The Skate Park and Splash Pad are moving along as scheduled. As of now, there have been no changes for the date of completion.
3. The Tortoise Days 2025 Event hosted by the Chamber of Commerce will be held at the park
***REMINDER***
The Parks and Recreation Department is always looking for volunteers! Anyone interested can pick up a Volunteer application at City Hall
If you have a talent or know someone who does and want to teach it to others, please contact the Park Coordinator to arrange a meeting. (760) 373-3530.
MARCH 11, 20255
DR-OHV
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
March 11, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Christopher Lopez, City Manager
Inge Elmes, OHV Manager
SUBJECT: OHV MONTHLY DEPARTMENT REPORT
Events
President’s Day Holiday weekend brought out approximately 180 visible RV groups. The next major holiday staff will be preparing for is Easter Holiday weekend.
Operations
Staff continues to maintain roads and trails, park amenities, and assist OHV visitors at the Borax Bill Park Visitor Center. Borax Bill Park buildings received fresh coat of paint through grant funding. Additional cameras were installed, and grant equipment purchased and delivered in January.
Manager Updates
The G25 grant application process has begun. Preliminary applications were submitted, and public review period is between March 4, 2025 – May 5, 2025, with final applications due on June 2. 2025 by 5pm. The public is allowed to comment by emailing the OHMVR Division directly at [email protected] or to the OHV Manager at [email protected].
Finance Report
For the month of February, OHV sales totaled $9,612.00 . These numbers are actuals and reflect only amounts received within each month. Please refer to Monthly Permit Sales report for FY totals.
*Not all proceeds are deposited in the same month.
**OHV sales are deposited to specific OHV Permit Program GL revenue codes #29-3992 through #29-3998. Please refer to the financial statement for details. ***Some merchandise was purchased by staff at a discounted rate. All sales for merchandise are allocated to GL revenue code 29-3691.
MARCH 11, 20256
Feb MONTHLY OHV PROGRAM SALES FY 24/25
SALES 2025 Totals QTY CASH CHECK CREDIT CARD PAYPAL TOTALS YTDTOTALS Single Permits (Prorated) $10 0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Single Permits $15 255 $1,365 $885 $1,500 $90 $3,840 28,440.00 Small Family {Prorated) $40 0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Small Family $60 29 $240 $480 $960 $60 $1,740 32,860.00 Large Family {Prorated) $80 0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Large Family $100 2 $100 $0 $100 $200 8,600.00
OHV 4 Pack (Prorated) $35 0 $0 $0 $0 $0
OHV 4 Pack $50 26 $350 $300 $650 $1,300 14,900
RV Pass (Prorated) $15 0 $0 $0 $0 $0
RV Pass $30 15 $120 $60 $270 $450 6,900.00
Single Dump Pass $5 37 $135 $0 $50 $185 1235
Single Water Pass $5 34 $110 $10 $50 $170 890
Additional Permits (Prorated) $5 0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Additional Permits $10 3 $0 $0 $30 $30 1,370.00
Free Free 14 $0 $0 $0 $0
Residents Permits Free 6 $0 $0 $0 $0
Paypal Fees - $4 $4 6 $0 $0 $0 $24 $24 $412
Holiday Week Day - Power $25 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 150
Holiday Week Day - Water $15 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 45
Non-Holiday Weekday-Power $15 19 $225 $30 $30 $285 1,275.00 Non-Holiday Weekday-Water $10 6 $60 $0 $0 $60 270.00
Holiday Weekend - Power $40 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 80
Holiday Weekend - Water $20 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 40
Non-Holiday Weekend-Power $25 8 $175 $25 $0 $200 1,400.00 Non-Holiay Weekend-Water $15 2 $30 $0 $0 $30 330
Shower Tokens $0.50 406 $173 $0 $30 $203 2,127.00
Transient Lodging $150 0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Vendor Fees $1 1 $0 $200 $0 $200 1,660.00
Special Event Fees $5 0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Map Sales $3 4 $9 $0 ' $0 $9 144
Donations $1 2 $15 $0 $0 $15 690
Hoodies $40 7 $110 $0 $140 $250 5,155.00
Short Sleeve Shirts $20 7 $20 $0 $55 $75 1,019.00
Long Sleeve Shirts $30 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 435.00
Caps $20 8 $80 $0 $80 $160 1,140.00
Bucket Hats $20 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 70.00
Visors $15 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 30.00
Beenies $15 5 $15 $0 $60 $75 740.00
Tumblers $25 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 185.00
Magnets $5 5 $25 $0 $0 $25 100.00
Ornaments $10 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 45.00
Stickers $3 7 $18 $0 $3 $21 119.00
Coffee Mugs $15 1 $0 $0 $15 $15 205.00
Shot Glasses $10 5 $30 $0 $20 $50 230.00
Wine Glasses $15 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 105.00
Pint Glasses $20 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 90.00
Coasters Cork $5 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 50.00
Coasters Slate $10 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20.00
Keychain $10 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 45.00
Postcards $1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 19.00
MONTHLY TOTALS $3,405 $1,990 $4,043 $174 $9,612 $113,620.00 OHV
MARCH 11, 2025
Attachment
7 DR- Housing
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
March 11, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Christopher Lopez, City Manager
Nicole Jarmon-Simmons/ Housing Manager
SUBJECT: Desert Jade & Legends Housing
BACKGROUND/ DISCUSSION:
Desert Jade
Currently 96 apartments are being filled.
Desert Jade will have an upcoming vacant unit on March 15th that will undergo repairs.
The waitlist currently has 66 applicants.
Inspections have been scheduled to start March 24,, 2025 Legends
Currently has 6 apartments and 6 houses filled.
Waitlist is combined with Desert Jade.
MARCH 11, 20258
Deputy City Clerk Weible
California City Hall, 21000 Hacienda Blvd
California City, CA 93505-2259
Deputy City Clerk Weible,
March 1, 2025
Re: Reemergence of an Old Idea by City Staff - Another City Parcel Tax C\-e�S
Ct:n,rY1UY\ \(X<7"\ Cr\
Include this letter into the record for the upcoming city council meeting and distribute to city council members, city manager, and finance director; place this topic on the agenda to discuss at the next city council meeting.
The Feb 25, 2025 Council Meeting, NB-1, revealed a city staff suggestion for a new, large parcel tax. The City has collected over $120M in parcel tax revenue in 23 years and yet has accumulated ($17M) in debt. Cal City's previous two parcel taxes Measures A & C were among the largest in revenue collection compared to all other parcel taxes in State.
At the Feb 25, 2025 Council Meeting, New Business 1 (NB-1) reemerged the old idea from certain city staff to pursue another city parcel tax. Public comment was clearly adverse to the approach for good reasons based on the broken promises from Measure C (2018-2024).
The City's parcel tax experience began in 2001. Over the next 23 years, the city received voter approval for five sequential different "special" parcel taxes of increasing charges. These were Measures: 1) C (old) for 3 years, 2) L for 3 years, 3) A (old) for 5 years, 4) A for 6 years, and 5) C for 6 years. Measures C (old) and L both contained eight city department revenue recipients, some into the General Fund; subsequently Measure A (old) had four city department revenue recipients. Finally, Measure A and C had only two recipients. In each of the five parcel taxes, Police and Fire departments received large portions of the collected revenue. Notable, Streets also was a dominate revenue recipient (the largest) in the first three parcel taxes.
All of the city's parcel taxes were considered a "special tax'' because they specified the proportional distribution of collected revenue rather than pouring all the revenue directly into General Fund 10, which is considered unrestricted funds. All of the city's parcel taxes were charged by-the-parcel; whereas, other types of parcel taxes charge by linear frontage distance, by acreage, or by some other metric.
Cal City's Measures A (2012-2018) and C (2018-2024) were peculiarly large compared to size of other parcel taxes in the State. Among 459 incorporated cities, 945 school districts, and 1,286 water districts in CA eligible to seek parcel tax revenue, Cal City's Measure A ranked in the top 6%-ile and Measure C ranked in the top 5%-ile largest in revenue collection -- despite Cal City's population ranking 419th among cities in California. A $200+ per parcel amount floated at the Feb 25, 2025 meeting could place Cal City in the top 2%-ile largest parcel tax.
Despite Cal City collecting well over $120M in parcel taxes plus residual revenue from expired parcel taxes, the city has still racked up more than ($17M) in debt; an indebted amount larger than the city's total revenue collected from the first two parcel taxes combined.
Refer to letter on record dated Jan 16, 2021 Executive Summary of California City 20- year Parcel Tax Saga and companion letters dated Marc 2 & 3 025.
Cc: Each Council Member, City Manager Lopez,
MARCH 11, 20259
Deputy City Clerk Weible
California City Hall, 21000 Hacienda Blvd
California City, CA 93505-2259
Deputy City Clerk Weible,
March 2, 2025
Re: Reasons the City's Financial Predicament Continues Unresolved and Worsens Include this letter into the record for the upcoming city council meeting and distribute to city council members, city manager, and finance director; place this topic on the agenda to discuss at the next city council meeting.
There has been a long-term public appeal for a citywide forensic audit. Former councils and city managers have failed to define essential services and levels of service for funding prioritization. Recommended quarterly Town Hall meetings have not occurred. Spending controls & discipline appears weak to non-existent. A full accounting of ARPA & AES Solar expenditures to-date has not yet been directed by Council, financial reporting is conflicted.
Certain city staff apparently urged new City Manager Lopez to float an idea of another parcel tax. The different options presented to Council by Mr. Lopez had a reasonable span but were incomplete, most likely due to newness into the city manager position. There have been long-term appeals by the public to the Council for a forensic audit of the city. Further, there has not been a clear definition of essential services by city staff or council. CA State-Audited local high-risk cities were advised to establish level of service options that correlate to available revenue. This approach should be incorporated in a "live within means" annual city budget.
A first leap by city staff to favor renewal of a parcel tax in lieu cutting non-essential services and/or pursuing frequently recommended fiscal solutions is a concern. Existing city staff, particularly department heads, are choosing to ignore public sentiment and even disregarding city council funding priorities and policies. The 2022 Kern County Grand Jury report findings & recommendations, especially F2 & R2, identified a communication divide that needed to be addressed. For the goal of improved communications, the City Manager & Council should schedule quarterly open town hall meetings. Almost three years later, this recommended communication forum between the city and public have NOT been implemented.
With budget and funding as central concerns of the public and council, the lack of an approved budget has allowed staff to spend without citywide prioritization or constraints. The Fire Dept (Fund 19) has spent $5.4M as of end of Jan 2025, $1.2M more than earned revenue for the same period. The Nov 2024 proposed budget had capped annual Fire Dept spending at $3.5M.
The Fire Dept was first in line to use $2. 7M in AES Solar concession funds, which ballooned Fire revenue and spending. The General Fund (10) actual expenditures at the end of Jan 2025 stood at $5.86M, but the Nov 2024 proposed budget had capped annual General Fund spending at $4.85M. Despite staff reductions, General Fund spending by end of Jan 2025 has blown through annual budget caps in spite of Council-directed citywide monthly spending restrictions.
The demonstrated lack of spending discipline and prioritization by department heads cannot be ameliorated by squeezing the public for more revenue. During the "fully funded" era of Measure C (2018-2024), the city also accumulated ($16M) in indebtedness, which has since risen to ($17.2M) and will grow further as the fiscal year progresses. The City Council has not yet asked for a full accountin of ARPA ex enditures to-date an ES Solar ex enditures to-date.
Cc: Each Council Member, City Manager Lopez, M
MARCH 11, 202510
Deputy City Clerk Weible
California City Hall, 21000 Hacienda Blvd
California City, CA 93505-2259
Deputy City Clerk Weible,
March 3, 2025
Re: Navigating the Maze: Safety vs. Services; and General vs. Special vs. Parcel Taxes Include this letter into the record for the upcoming city council meeting and distribute to city council members, city manager, and finance director; place this topic on the agenda to discuss at the next city council meeting.
As the city's budget situation grows more acute, proposals may circulate that contradict CA Constitution, statues, and codes. The content below provides a very concise explanation of the types of taxes (General, Special, & Parcel) with their associated purposes & limitations.
A dominant and recurring council discussion has been the pros & cons of Public Services vs. Public Safety parcel taxes. Referencing from letter dated March 1, 2025, among the city's five sequential parcel taxes, the first two, Measures C Cold) and b, were for public services because the parcel tax revenue purpose supplied 8 different city funds. The last two parcel taxes, Measures A & C, were for public safety. Thus, the city has used public services parcel taxes in the past.
The next distinction is a General tax vs. Special tax; which are categorized based on their intended use. Simply--General taxes are for unrestricted use and Special taxes are for specific purposes. Complications arise in applying how these taxes go from origin to voter approval to revenue collection. The basis of a Parcel tax is sourced from the property tax roll and tax rate is determined from a variety of options such as per-parcel, parcel frontage distance, acreage, etc.
Propositions 13 & 218 codified in the CA Constitution Article 13 and Neilson v. City of California City (2006) 133 Cal. App 4th, 1296 applies. Under Article 13A, "a parcel tax can be imposed only as a special tax" (Prop 26 & 218 Implementation Guide, page 12). Furthermore, under Article 13C Section 2(d) "Special taxes .... include those imposed for specific purposes and placed into a general fund." (Ibid, page 16).
Except for subsequent CA judicial decisions that may redefine the above excerpts of Article 13, the city is legally bound to limit pursuit of any future tax revenue sourced from the property tax roll under Special tax rules with the purpose of revenue collected clearly defined; a Parcel tax.
Special taxes (e.g. a parcel tax) require a supermajority for voter approval. Special taxes can be placed on a ballot for both general elections and special elections. A majority of Cal City's parcel taxes were passed as a Special tax under a special election after prior failures to pass.
Attempting to achieve additional city revenue via a General tax from the property tax roll appears to be a non-starter. While General taxes only require a simple majority for voter approval, hence a lower voter approval threshold than for a Special tax, there are additional hurdles.
General taxes are only eligible for a ballot during the same election as a member of City Council; that will not occur until Nov 2026. An exception occurs if the City Council unanimously declares a city "Emergency." Under that condition, the Council may legitimately hold a special election for voter approval of a General tax, but not as a Parcel tax.
CA statutes and codes on taxes, assessments, and fees are complex and nuance exceptions exist. Recommend reading is Pro osition 26 181 lementation Guide 2019. 1 • �rs
Cc: Each Council Member, City Manager Lopez,
MARCH 11, 202511
PH.1
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
March 11, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Christopher Lopez, City Manager
Joe Barragan, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: TDA Unmet Transit Needs Public Hearing
BACKGROUND/ DISCUSSION:
The Transportation Development Act (TDA) of 1971 provides two funding sources:
1. Local Transportation Fund (LTF) which is derived from a ¼ cent of the general sales tax collected statewide.
2. State Transit Assistance fund (STA), which is derived from the statewide sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel.
The TDA funds a wide variety of transportation programs, including planning and program activities, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, community transit services, public transportation, and bus and rail projects.
Public participation is a key component of TDA. Public meetings are held in eligible counties to discuss transportation needs and hear concerns.
In order to qualify for funding under TDA, a transit claimant must maintain a ratio of fare revenues to operating cost at least equal to the ratio it had during 1978/79, or 10 percent, if the claimant is in a non-urbanized area, whichever is greater.
A governing body’s resolution which makes the following finding:
“There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet.” FISCAL IMPACT:
The current TDA/LTF fund balance for California City is being verified and will be provided as soon as it is available.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the Unmet Transit Needs Public Hearing. That the City Council adopts “RESOLUTION NO 25-3113. DETERMINING THAT CALIFORNIA
CITY HAS NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT CAN NOT REASONABLY BE MET BY THE EXISTING SYSTEM”
MARCH 11, 202512
Environmental Action: None
MARCH 11, 202513
RESOLUTION NO. 25-3113
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALIFORNIA
CITY DETERMINING THAT CALIFORNIA CITY HAS NO UNMET TRANSIT
NEEDS THAT CAN NOT REASONABLY BE MET BY THE EXISTING SYSTEM WHEREAS, Title 21 of the California Administrative Code Section 6658 implementing the Transportation Development Act requires the Kern Council of Governments (KCOG) to find the City has no unmet transit needs that cannot reasonably be met prior to approving the City's use of Transportation Development Act monies for street and road projects; and
WHEREAS, in addition to annually holding its own public hearing (asrequired by Transportation Development Act regulations), Kern COG requires all agencies intending to file claims to use Transportation Development Act funds forstreet and road projects to hold a public hearing to identify transit needs within their respective jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing at which all persons desiring to comment on transit needs were given the opportunity to address, and were heard by the Council; and WHEREAS, the Council has responded to comments, received at the public hearing, and concluded there are no unmet transit needs that cannot reasonably be met within the City of California City; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City of California City resolves the following:
1. The facts recited herein above are true and this Council has jurisdiction to consider and make determinations in the matters herein mentioned.
2. Based on comments received from the public, this Councilhereby determines there are no unmet transit needs that cannot reasonably be met within the City.
3. . The City Clerk shall forward a copy of the Resolution to the Kern Council of Governments.
MARCH 11, 202514
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Christopher Lopez, City Manager
SUBJECT: TO START AT A TIME CERTAIN OF 6:00 P.M. - SECOND PUBLIC
HEARING TO RECEIVE INPUT ON TRANSITION TO DISTRICTS,
INCLUDING COMPOSITION OF DISTRICTS, FOR DISTRICT BASED
COUNCIL ELECTIONS
BACKGROUND
The City received a letter from a potential plaintiffs’ (Southwest Voter Registration Education Project) attorney, Shenkman & Hughes PC (“Shenkman”), alleging a violation of the California Voting Rights Act (the “CVRA”) and threatening litigation if the City declines to voluntarily change to a district-based election system for electing Councilmembers. The Council considered this threat of litigation at its January 28, 2025 closed session meeting and Council gave direction to staff to proceed with agendizing the resolution of intent in order to have the option of taking advantage of the safe harbor provisions of Elections Code Section 10010, cap the City’s potential attorneys’ fees to Shenkman, and avoid costly litigation.
At the February 11, 2025, Council meeting, Council adopted a Resolution of Intent to transition to district-based elections to allow the City to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions of Elections Code Section 10010.
On February 25, 2025 the Mayor and City Council held its first public hearing related to this item.
DISCUSSION
I. California Voting Rights Act and Racially Polarized Voting The City of California City currently elects four Councilmembers at-large, which means that each councilmember is elected by the registered voters of the entire City. The Mayor is directly elected, which means that the Mayor is directly elected at-large to the office of the Mayor.
The CVRA was enacted in 2001, in part, to provide minority groups in California with tools to prevent dilution of votes in “at-large” election systems and is more expansive than the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“FVRA”). Under the CVRA, an at-large method of election may not be imposed or applied in a manner that impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election, as a result of the dilution or the abridgement of the rights of voters who are members of a protected class.1 A violation of the
1 Cal. Elec. Code §§ 14026 and 14027.
MARCH 11, 202515
PH 2.
CVRA is established if it is shown that racially polarized voting occurs in elections for members of the governing body or in elections incorporating other electoral choices by the voters of the political subdivision.2 Any voter who is a member of a protected class and who resides in a political subdivision where a violation of the CVRA is alleged may file an action in the superior court in which the political subdivision is located.3
The CVRA defines “protected class” as a class of voters who are members of a race, color, or language minority group, as referenced and defined in the FVRA4 and “racially polarized voting”
as voting in which there is a difference, as defined in case law under the FVRA, in the choice of candidates or other electoral choices preferred by voters in a protected class, as compared to the rest of the electorate (i.e., the protected class members vote as a politically cohesive unit, while the majority votes sufficiently as a bloc usually to defeat the protected class’s preferred candidate).5
II. Safe Harbor and Transitioning
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 “district-based” system in which each councilmember is elected only by the voters in the district in which the candidate resides.
Pursuant to Elections Code Section 10010, a city may rely on the “safe harbor” provisions that allows a city to adopt a resolution outlining its intention to transition from at-large to districtbased elections within forty-five (45) days of receiving a demand letter from a potential plaintiffs’ attorney.6 These “safe harbor” provisions allow a city to transition in accordance with a statutory timeline and, if followed, insulate a city from litigation arising from alleged CVRA violations and caps attorneys’ fee liability to a maximum of $30,000.7 Under those “safe harbor” provisions, a prospective plaintiff is required to send a written notice to the clerk of a city asserting that the city’s method of conducting elections may violate the CVRA.8 A forty-five (45) day pause is then imposed on a prospective plaintiff’s ability to bring an action.9 That forty-five (45) day pause allows a city to adopt a resolution outlining its intention to transition from at-large to district-based elections.10 If a resolution of intention is adopted by a city council to move to district-based elections, a prospective plaintiff may not commence an action within ninety (90) days of the resolution of intention’s passage.11 After the City has completed the transition to district-based elections following these procedures, a prospective plaintiff would be able to submit a letter demanding that the City pay up to $30,000 in their attorneys’ fees as mentioned above.
III. Transition to District Based Elections
2 Cal. Elec. Code §14028(a); see also § 14027.
3 Cal. Elec. Code §14032.
4 Cal. Elec. Code §14026(d) citing 52 U.S.C. Sec. 10301 et seq. 5 Cal. Elec. Code §14026(e) citing 52 U.S.C. Sec. 10301 et seq; Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) 478 U.S. 30, 56.
6 Cal. Elec. Code § 10010(e)(2).
7 Cal. Elec. Code § 10010(f)(1)-(3).
8 Cal. Elec. Code § 10010(e)(1).
9 Cal. Elec. Code § 10010(e)(2).
10 Cal. Elec. Code § 10010(e)(1)-(3).
11 Cal. Elec. Code § 10010(e)(1)-(3).
MARCH 11, 202516
Since the Council adopted the Resolution of Intent to transition to district based elections on February 11, 2025, a prospective plaintiff may not commence an action within ninety (90) days of the resolution of intention’s passage. The deadline is May 12, 2025, to transition to districts within the timeline of the safe harbor Election Code Section 10010.
As a part of the transition process, the City needs to hold at least two public hearings over a period of no more than 30 days, at which the public is invited to provide input regarding the composition of the districts.12 No official maps can be drawn before completion of these two public meetings.
Once the initial two meetings are complete, the demographer and public can begin to officially draw maps that will be considered in the districting process. The City would then hold at least two additional hearings over a period of no more than 45 days, at which the public is invited to provide input regarding the content of the draft maps and the proposed sequence of elections.13 Once a map is selected, it would need to be published at least seven days before consideration at a hearing for introduction of an ordinance to adopt the district map.14 The City will also need to comply with the Fair and Inclusive Redistricting for Municipalities and Political Subdivisions (Fair Maps) Act in adopting the districts,15 which provides criteria that the City must utilize when establishing election district boundaries or when undertaking the redistricting process (which must occur every ten years after each population census). The criteria are summarized below.
(a) The election districts must be substantially equal in population based on the most recent census.
(b) The districting body shall adopt election district boundaries that comply with the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, and the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. Sec. 10301 et seq.) and consistent with the federal Voting Rights Act, the districting body shall determine whether it is possible to create an election district or districts in which a minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district, as set forth in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986).
(c) The districting body shall adopt election district boundaries using the following criteria as generally set forth in the following order of priority:
(1) To the maximum extent practicable, election districts shall be geographically contiguous. Areas that meet only at the points of adjoining corners are not contiguous. Areas that are separated by water and not connected by a bridge, tunnel, or regular ferry service are not contiguous.
(2) To the maximum extent practicable, the geographic integrity of any local neighborhood or local “community of interest” shall be respected in a manner that minimizes its division (see discussion below on the definition of a “community of interest” under the Fair Maps Act).
(3) To the maximum extent practicable, the geographic integrity of a city or census 12 Cal. Elec. Code § 10010(a)(1).
13 Cal. Elec. Code § 10010(a)(2).
14 Ibid.
15 Cal. Elec. Code § 21100 et seq.
MARCH 11, 202517
designated place shall be respected in a manner that minimizes its division. This paragraph does not apply to a city.
(4) To the maximum extent practicable, election districts shall be bounded by natural and artificial barriers, by streets, or by the boundaries of the local jurisdiction. Election district boundaries should be easily identifiable and understandable by residents.
(5) To the maximum extent practicable, election districts shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness in a manner that nearby areas of population are not bypassed in favor of more distant populations.
(d) The districting body shall not adopt election district boundaries for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against an incumbent, political candidate, or political party.16 Within 21 days of adopting final election district boundaries, the City Council will be required to issue a report that explains the basis on which it made its decisions in achieving compliance with the requirements and criteria of the Fair Maps Act, including, as to each neighborhood, community of interest, city, or census designated place that was split into two or more districts, the reason for that split.17
Staff has prepared an updated tentative timeline, which identifies the preliminary schedule for the required public hearings and public outreach, which complies with Elections Code 10010, with a final deadline date of May 12, 2025, to complete the transition to districts. (See Attachment 1).
This timeline may change depending on the level of community involvement and the complexity of the map drawing process. If the timeline needs to adjust beyond the 90 days, then the City may enter into a written agreement with potential plaintiff Shenkman to extend the 90-day period up to an additional 90 days in order to provide additional time to conduct public outreach, encourage public participation, and receive public input, provided that the potential plaintiffs that submitted the initial letter agree.
18 IV Analysis
At the first public hearing on February 25, 2025, the community was encouraged to participate during the public hearing by providing input on the composition of the districts by sharing specific thoughts on communities of interest and any other factors under the Fair Maps Act that the public identifies with in California City.
The Fair Maps Act defines a “community of interest” as a population that shares common social or economic interests that should be included within a single election district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Characteristics of communities of interest may include, but are not limited to, shared public policy concerns such as education, public safety, public health, environment, housing, transportation, and access to social services. Characteristics of communities of interest may also include, but are not limited to, cultural districts, shared socioeconomic characteristics, similar voter registration rates and participation rates, and shared histories.
Communities of interest do not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.
16 Cal. Elec. Code § 21130 (a)-(d).
17 Cal. Elec. Code § 21130(f).
18 Cal. Elec. Code § 10010(e)(3)(C)(i).
MARCH 11, 202518
Some examples of communities of interest in California City may include the existing neighborhoods identified by the City, school districts, parks, etc.
Members of the public can return the testimonials to the City Clerk or if desired, provide testimony during the public hearing.
V. Outreach Efforts
City staff has taken initial steps to begin outreach to advise its residents of this meeting including placing this information on the City website.
To grant ample opportunities for residents and community members to have their voice heard, City staff and consultants will be hosting a variety of outreach events over the coming weeks and months. The City launched a website dedicated to this district transition process and it went live within a couple days of the first public hearing.
Information on the site provides the public with background information about the districting process, upcoming hearing dates, and supporting documents. This webpage will be continuously updated with dates and locations where community members can share their feedback on this issue.
VI. Demographer
Based upon Council direction on February 11, 2025, the City Manager retained the services of Redistricting Partners, which will assist in this process and provide Council with analysis and recommendations of the maps that will be prepared during the transition process.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1) Conduct the second public hearing to receive community input and provide input to staff regarding the transition to districts, including the composition of voting districts. 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
TYPE OF ACTION (LEGISLATIVE; QUASI-JUDICIAL; OR ADVISORY) Legislative Action: The recommended action is to take community input and provide input to staff regarding the transition to districts, including the composition of voting districts. The City Council therefore acts in its discretionary legislative capacity.
CEQA STATUS
This item does not constitute a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq.) (CEQA) as the adoption of the resolution does not have the potential to result in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15378.).
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this action. By transitioning to district based elections by May 12, 2025, the costs that potential plaintiff’s attorney will receive is capped at $30,000. The City will pay demographer services in an amount up to $80,000, as Council MARCH 11, 202519
authorized at the February 11, 2025, meeting. The City would also incur its own costs as well, including staff time and attorneys’ fees and costs.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Updated Tentative Timeline
MARCH 11, 202520
CC 1
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
March 11, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Christopher Lopez, City Manager
Kenny Cooper, Finance Manager
SUBJECT: Approve City Check Register dated 02/21/2025—03/06/2025 BACKGROUND/ DISCUSSION:
The following checks have been prepared by the Finance Department. The items are provided to the Mayor and City Council for review and approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council discuss approve the attached check register.
MARCH 11, 202522
MARCH 11, 202523
MARCH 11, 202524
MARCH 11, 202525
MARCH 11, 202526
MARCH 11, 202527
MARCH 11, 202528
MARCH 11, 202529
MARCH 11, 202530
MARCH 11, 202531
MARCH 11, 202532
MARCH 11, 202533
MARCH 11, 202534
MARCH 11, 202535
MARCH 11, 202536
MARCH 11, 202537
CC2
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
March 11, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Christopher Lopez, City Manager
Inge Elmes, OHV Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution No. 25-3114, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of California City approving the applicant to apply for and receive grant funds for the California State Parks Grants Cooperative Agreement Program, OffHighway Motor Vehicle Recreation grant funds.
BACKGROUND/ DISCUSSION:
The city of California City applies annually for funding through the Off Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program. The state OHMVR Division requires an annual resolution from the city council that approves the applicant to apply for and receive grant funding from the California State Parks Grants Cooperative Agreement Program.
Staff will be requesting funding congruent with previous year’s applications. Exact amounts will be calculated after application is submitted.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that city council adopt Resolution No. 25-3114 which allows applicant to apply for and receive grant funding for the upcoming 2025/2026 grant cycle from the OHMVR Division Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution 25-3114
MARCH 11, 202538
RESOLUTION NO. 25-3114
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY APPROVING THE
APPLICANT TO APPLY FOR, AND RECEIVE GRANT FUNDS FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION, OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE RECREATION GRANT FUNDS
WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Act of 2003, which provides funds to the State of California and its political subdivisions for various activities including Operation and Maintenance, Restoration, Law Enforcement, Development Planning, and Education and Safety for off-highway vehicle recreation; and WHEREAS, the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division with the California Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility to administer the program; and WHEREAS, procedures established by the California Department of Parks and Recreation require an applicant’s governing body to certify by resolution the approval to receive grant funding from the OffHighway Motor Vehicle Grant (“Grant”); and WHEREAS, the City of California City (“Applicant”) wishes to apply for and receive grant funding from the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Grant Fund; and
WHEREAS, Applicant desires to undertake various projects related to the use of off-highway motor vehicles to be funded in part by the Grant; and
WHEREAS, these proposed projects appear to be or are in conformance with this jurisdiction’s adopted general or master plan and is compatible with the land use plans of those jurisdictions immediately surrounding the proposed projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of California City hereby:
1. Approves the receiving of grant funding from the Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Grant or Cooperative Agreement Program; and
2. Certifies that this agency understands its legal obligations to the State upon approval of the Grant; and
3. Certifies that this agency understands the California Public Resources Code requirement that Acquisition, and Development Projects be maintained to specific conservation standards; and
4. Certifies that the proposed projects will be well-maintained during their useful lives; and
5. Certifies that this agency will implement the proposed projects with diligence once funds are available and the Applicant has reviewed, understands, and agrees with any proposed project agreements related to proposed projects; and
6. Certifies that this agency will provide the required matching funds; and
7. Certifies that the public and adjacent property owners have been notified of the proposed projects (as applicable);and
8. Appoints the City’s Off Highway Vehicle Manager or her designee as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to Applications, agreements, amendments, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for completion of the proposed projects.
MARCH 11, 202539
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on this 11th day of March 2025 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
__________________________
Marquette Hawkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Leanndrea Weible,
Acting City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
______________________________
Victor Ponto, City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF KERN } SS
CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY }
I, Leanndrea Weible, Interim City Clerk of the City of California City, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of California City at a regular meeting thereof held on the 11th day of March 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_______________________
Leanndrea Weible, Interim City Clerk
MARCH 11, 202540
NB 1
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
March 11, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Christopher Lopez, City Manager
SUBJECT: Discussion and Direction Regarding IT Services BACKGROUND/ DISCUSSION:
At the February 25, 2025 meeting of the Mayor and City Council, the City Council directed the City Manager to review the agreement with Diamond IT. This item is included to receive formal direction from the City Council on potential direction regarding this agreement.
Options for the Council may include the following:
1. Direct the development of an RFP (Request for Proposals)
2. Develop a longer-term agreement with the current vendor
3. Other alternatives
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council discuss provide formal direction on this item.
MARCH 11, 202541
MARCH 11, 202542
MARCH 11, 202543
MARCH 11, 202544
MARCH 11, 202545
MARCH 11, 202546
MARCH 11, 202547
MARCH 11, 202548
MARCH 11, 202549
MARCH 11, 202550
MARCH 11, 202551
MARCH 11, 202552
MARCH 11, 202553
MARCH 11, 202554
MARCH 11, 202555
MARCH 11, 202556
MARCH 11, 202557
MARCH 11, 202558
MARCH 11, 202559
MARCH 11, 202560
MARCH 11, 202561
MARCH 11, 202562
MARCH 11, 202563
MARCH 11, 202564
MARCH 11, 202565
MARCH 11, 202566
MARCH 11, 202567
MARCH 11, 202568
MARCH 11, 202569
MARCH 11, 202570
MARCH 11, 202571
NB 2
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
March 11, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Christopher Lopez, City Manager
SUBJECT: Discussion and Direction Regarding Establishing Priorities for the City of California City
BACKGROUND/ DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this item is to seek feedback from the Mayor and City Council on whether it would like to coordinate policy priorities for the community of California City. Strategic planning helps set the foundation and direction for the community and helps ensure that budgets align with the priorities identified by the Mayor and Council.
If Council wishes to provide direction to the City Manager, staff would bring back a proposed outline for the Mayor and City Council to review, which may include the following:
• Initial overarching conversations with the Council to identify council priorities. • Refinement of policy priorities.
• Feedback and input from the community.
• Development of Strategic Plan.
• Adoption of Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council discuss and provide direction on whether it would like to begin strategic planning discussions to be used for planning of the FY 25/26 Budget.
MARCH 11, 202572