We are good to go. Thank you very much. Welcome everybody to the Tuesday, May 26th regular City Council meeting of the Ojai City Council. Roll call please.

Mayor, staff would like to request Council consider removing item number 10 from the discussion section. Removal

of the City of Long Beach modular connect shelter units. Yes please. Any conversation? I favor that okay removal

likewise. Okay,

and it will be removed any other changes to the agenda Second any objections? Okay All right So our first item tonight is we have a proclamation And it is honoring our historic preservation month and I'll read two very three very short lines on The City Council of the City of Ojai hereby proclaims the month of May, 2026 as Historic Preservation Month in the city and that City Council encourages all residents businesses and community organizations to recognize and celebrate Ojai's rich history.

To participate in preservation activities and to support efforts to protect and enhance the city's historic resources for future generations and that the City of Ojai reaffirms its commitment to thoughtful stewardship of its historic and cultural resources As an essential part of the community's future. And that is done in such a large part by the Historic Preservation Commission, so I would invite them all to come up and receive something very small from us, and maybe we could take a staff photograph. But this is a proclamation saying this and more, so please do come up. Shall we go to the front and get a little shot?

Thank you.

Okay. Just stand with me for a second. Hi, I just want to thank the City Council and to Mayor Gilman who was so helpful in getting this forward so timely. Nationally May is Historic Preservation Month and so this acknowledgement will allow us to have a better focus when planning upcoming years for community events and educational opportunities to make sure that May is included as a good time to share the knowledge and history of Ojai. Thank you.

Thank you so much! Your work is greatly appreciated. Mr. Montgomery, any other commission reports?

No Mayor, none received.

Thank you and we'll move to the City Manager's

report please. Hi Mayor just really briefly a couple finance department related items one we're very pleased that today we had our new accountant start work for the city his name is Matt Hutchins he has CPA we will bring him down to introduce you all to him in person we didn't feel that was fair on his first day to do Also along the lines of finance department, we are going to be having another Finance and Budget Committee meeting on Tuesday June 2nd. It is at two p.m., it is in the historic council chambers. This is picking up from where we left off from our last meeting. This is in advance of the budget coming to you at the first and second meetings in June. So I just wanna make you and the community aware that as well. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay,

Hello, my name is Annette Reed and I am a volunteer with Cycling Without Age Ventura. And I'm here just to give you a real brief description of what Cycling Without Age is all about. To begin, Cycling Without Age is the worldwide organization, non-profit that aims to provide joy, vitality to elderly people and people who are mobility challenged through the magic of a bicycle.

I will begin by telling you one of my favorite stories. I had the privilege of taking my mother who I recently moved down to the Gables from the Bay Area And in February, it was her 93rd birthday. So I got to take her out for a tri-travel. We went up Daly Street and then up North Montgomery. It was just a beautiful day and we noticed the elderly woman with this walker walking.

And when she looked up at us, we got the biggest smile and we had to pull over and talk to her And she was just so pleasant. She was just out for her walk, and after a while I asked her if she would like to go for a ride with me sometime? And she said oh, I would really like that. So I gave her a card with my name and phone number. Nine o'clock the following morning I get a call from her I couldn't wait. I'm really looking forward to going on a bicycle ride with you. I hope I didn't call too early.

So we arranged the ride two days later, and I got to take her all around the community that she had been part of for 30 years. Her name is Shirley, and she worked in the Sheriff's Department. But our first stop was Woodland Park And we stopped and listened to an opera singer. And then we hear a woman call, Shirley, Shirley! And it was Susa. So they got to interact and talk. And then I got to take her through her house that she used to live at. Afterward when I dropped her off, she said that was one of the nicest experiences that she's had in a very long time.

So for me, it was just as rewarding for me the pilot as it is for the person who's experienced the ride. And I've had the privilege to be riding passengers in your community for five months and I realized that the joy and vitality is not just for the riders.

I hope we can get a larger presentation at some point to get all the details. Thank you so much. Mr. Stengel, I forgot to mention one quick thing which is this dais that's right here. Wow! You might remember when we looked at options and I want to thank Mr. Hahn and the whole staff for bringing this to pass it's really incredible and hopefully it'll work out really well. Yeah, Mr. Stengel thank you

I'm also a driver for cycling without ages. So we're looking for rider Well, both I haven't taken anybody yet except for people to get trained A couple things. Thankfully, this is Historic Preservation Month. Maybe we can solve the problem with the walk-in freezer and make it look like it's part of the arcade and make the other parts of it so that it will become historic also versus a massive lawsuit.

I would like to see if you would propose on the next agenda or coming discussions regarding video enclosed meetings and having weekly other bi-weekly meetings for conversations between residents and the City Council instead of a back and forth or something because that was proposed or discussed during the election campaign of two years ago. And it would be nice if at least you would put it on the agenda to at least have the conversation and vote on it yes or no, and all the reasons. Also for videoing closed meetings.

Other than that keep up the good work.

Can I ask a quick question? Yeah. Video or audio

recording? Both. Any and all. Discuss each one separately or together.

Okay thank

you. Thank You Mr. Stengel. Randy Haney please and then Chelsea Sutula

Of all these. Things are beautiful. This place still reminds me of a cafeteria. I don't know why you left City Hall, but that's for another day. I'm here with my Chamber of Commerce hat on. June 28th is the Sunday between 12 o'clock and 5 o'clock we're going to be having an event called Boots in Bluegrass and it's a live band event. It's barbecue chicken and fry tip and all the trimmings Later on in the year, in October we are going to be putting on as a fundraiser Ojai's Got Talent.

Now we're not sure if it's gonna look like the one you see on television or there was an old one a long time ago remember that one guy they got up and it was just going crazy I forget the name of that one but we know and we recognize there's a lot of talent in Ojai. Look at this room And in the last thing, I'm not sure if you're aware of it but two of your esteemed employees Vicki Hollinsworth and Stacey Pergston have been nominated for the Ojai Living Treasure of Ojai.

And they'll be receiving that award this Thursday at 530 at the Ojai Valley Museum So let's give them a shout out. And if any of you can make it there, I think it'd be wonderful to share in that moment. Those two women are... If someone says they bleed something what color? Ojai gold, Ojai blue whatever but those two women exemplify what a city employee looks like and they're just two outstanding members of our community thank you. Thank you very much

What what time is the event? Thank you, okay Hello,

hello mayor council. Thank you Chelsea Sotula Sespe Creek Collective I just wanted to give a little quick update about cannabis Things have been moving at the federal level You might be aware that it was rescheduled in April And we're still waiting to hear some guidelines from the IRS on what that actually means for us and what a path forward might be. In the meantime, I think it's fair to say that the shift in general at the state level is going back to reconsidering the importance of medical and not recreational.

We were medical only for the first year when we opened and that was stifling a lot of people. It's a chore to get a recommendation, it's extra steps, extra paperwork, extra expense. That cost has since come down. But one thing I'm asking the council is to revisit the 3% gross receipts tax Exemption for medical right now you have it so that only people that have gone the additional step and registered with the state As with a county card through the MMID program. It's another 50 bucks for them It's not it's just another bureaucratic step in my opinion it provides no value for either the patient or the state where the It was meant as a tool for law enforcement to quickly say, oh yeah I'm a patient.

I think that has really gone out the window and I would ask you to consider changing that 3% exemption to include all medical patients not just the card carrying state registered ones. Then separately I have talked to councilmember rule about my interest in Looking at Long. You guys said we could do it a couple years ago Everyone was excited people still ask me when and we're gonna get a lounge Financially that hasn't made sense up until now with the rescheduling so there's There's a reason for me to revisit that and what needs to happen is that city manager needs to just do a couple little regulations worksheet building. And I mean, I think that we set it up so that it's a separate license. It would have to apply for a lounge license.

So whatever that means hopefully it won't be too complicated. And that's it thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, anybody online? Yes mayor we have one raised hand from Stephen. Stephen you may unmute and you have the floor.

Sure thank you my name is Stephen Kolame a city resident this is a brief announcement the US Forest Service and the Trump administration is currently in the process of rescinding the roadless rule making 4.4 million acres of old growth forests Rivers and wildlife in California open to industrial logging, mining, oil drilling and road development. This will threaten 600,000 acres of our own Las Padres National Forest.

Rescinding the roadless rule would devastate our national forests ecosystems and wildlife. Everyone is invited to a town hall on the road roadless rule tomorrow May 27th at the Sane Living Center at 316 East Matilija Street in Ojai. The meeting starts at 630 and is sponsored by the Los Padres Forest Watch and the Sierra Club. Thank you.

Thank You Mr. Calvi, that's all Mayor. All right okay moving on to the consent calendar There's a few vacancies and an inaugural vacancy that I would love to highlight. Not necessarily take out, but anything that anybody wants to take out of the consent calendar? So you're polling the... Yeah just so we can acknowledge them. Yes wonderful. So it'll be item number four and five correct.

Anything else? Wonderful. Can I get a motion to accept 1, 2, 3 and 6? I'll

move to accept the rest.

Wonderful. Okay so let's do a roll call on 1,2,3 and 6.

the council? I just want to thank you for your service. You are so loyal and Chair McCattin, you have really stepped into the role beautifully. And so I'm thrilled that you've decided to take on another term. So thank you very much.

Ditto that 100%.

Yeah, I'll comment. Yeah, I Say this when I act as liaison for our commissions It is so important that we have these commissions and the sacrifice and the support that the city government gets from the Commission's and The level of thought that goes into the commission meetings that I've happened to attend is fantastic. And so, I really appreciate it and anybody who wants to get involved in our city government highly recommend that you seek out service on one of our commissions. Thank you.

All right, so a motion to approve the reappointments.

I'll move to approve.

Thank you.

Is there any public

comment? Oh! Any public comments on number four? Thank you. Wonderful. Okay roll call please.

I heard a motion by Council Member Ruhl. Who was the second please?

I seconded.

Thank you and is Jim McEachin here? Oh wait please come up so this is our second inaugural appointment to the Public Safety Commission So I wanted to give you a chance to say a few words.

Sure, thanks Mayor and hello to City Council. I don't know many of you but I do know a few. My name is Jim McEachin. I moved to Ojai with my wife 22 years ago and like all of you I've seen a lot of changes over those years Cast my fair share of aspersions at city governance. And and as we imagine when we get the opportunity to do something, we think that we're going to do better. Maybe that's an illusion, but that is my intention. And I hope to serve the city and the council on this commission, which I think is very important. So thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you very much. We appreciate your service very, very much. I would move to approve the appointment Any public comments on that

Yes

Thank you so much. And we are moving on with the rest of the vacancies and we hope to have a full commission by June, sometime during the month of June. Okay, we are now onto the discussion items. So we'll look at our first item consideration of the city's ability to shift to outlarge voting.

Yes, thank you. Thanks for the record Bethany Burgess City Attorney. Thanks So the purpose of this item is to present information to the City Council regarding the city's ability to shift from electing council members by district to at-large As part of this item, staff in the City Attorney's Office are ultimately looking for a direction from the Council as to whether or not you wish for us to return at a future meeting with an agenda item considering a change in the city's method of electing members of the City Council. So to be clear, this will not be—the direction you provide tonight will not be to change the voting system itself. It would be to bring back a future item or not.

As background, the City shifted from at-large elections to by-district elections in 2018 following receipt of a letter from Shenkman and Hughes alleging that the city's at-large voting system violated the California Voting Rights Act and threatening litigation on that basis. The city's first bi-district elections took place during the November 2020 general election and have continued with the 2022 and 2024 general elections. As you all know, the mayoral position is still currently elected at large which means today you have a hybrid system.

In November 2022, the Ojai voters approved Measure M by 55.84% of the voters which authorized council to take action to shift from bi-district voting to what is known as a rank choice method of selection of candidates that come from an at large segment of the community so the entire community but it It arguably required that that would need to be implemented starting with the November 2024 general election.

And so despite the support for Measure M, our office initially looked at that question and it's our conclusion that it would be unlikely that the city could make a shift from by district to rank choice method of selection based on a determination from the California Secretary of State's Office with respect to another city that general law cities may only elect candidates by what they call plurality voting.

And what that really means is that the candidate who receives the greatest number of votes wins the election, but under a ranked choice system, the way voters rank candidates, the winning candidate is the candidate who receives the majority of first-choice votes And there are scenarios where a candidate may receive the greatest number of votes overall, but still not receive the greatest number of first choice votes. So that voting system does not meet the California legal requirements for plurality voting for general law cities.

As an alternative to rank-choice voting and by district voting, the city may consider a return to at large voting. And at the April 28th Council meeting, council directed City Attorney to request completion of a demographic analysis that might be considered as part of a decision to move to at large voting. And I do have Doug Johnson with the National Demographics Corporation here tonight to present the results of that study.

The staff report mentions that he would be here to present this if we returned in the future with an ordinance, but after preparing the staff report, I was able to confirm with Mr. Johnson that he could be here tonight And thought that might be helpful information for the discussion tonight. A high level summary of his conclusions is included in the staff report, but I will let him talk through those in more detail after I conclude my remarks. The other thing I would mention is that there are a few other things, but I'm almost done Our office has evaluated the city's ability to return to at-large voting, and we believe that legally this could be accomplished either by adoption of an ordinance by City Council amending or repealing the ordinance that was adopted in 2018 that established your bi-district voting method.

Or you could also potentially send a question back to the voters for voter consideration which if approved it could also potentially modify the voting system. And so I want to note that while we believe that this is legally possible, it's really important to know that at this point in time no other general law city that made a shift from at-large voting to by district voting has shifted back.

And so this is important because our office did receive after the first meeting and discussion in April about this issue Our office was contacted by Kevin Shankman, and I did have a phone call with him. And he made it fairly clear that he believes that there are some procedural issues with moving back to an at-large system under either of those two methods. And I think based on my conversation with him that there's a high probability The city would face a legal challenge from Mr. Shankman or potentially from other voting rights activists if the city attempts to shift back to at-large voting.

in California that if one city makes a move to outlarge voting, the other cities will follow. So in addition to the procedural concerns that Mr. Shenkman mentioned, he did mention that from a voting rights standpoint his firm has been working in this arena for more than a decade and they have a strong interest in seeing that cities that shifted by district voting remain that way.

So, the other thing we don't know and this has become a bit more murky following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on April 29th one day after our previous discussion on this topic that so the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Louisiana v Calais which has been a long-awaited decision related to establishment of district lines and districts in Louisiana And as part of that, I've included some more information about that decision in the administrative report.

But the reality is that that decision likely calls into question, you know, the validity of the California Voting Rights Act and we don't really know sitting here today exactly where that stands. There is pending litigation involving the City of Huntington Beach that we expect to be decided at the trial court level within the next few months. Our firm is actually handling that litigation and that involved a challenge brought by Mr. Shenkman against the city based on its refusal to move to bi-district voting.

I'm going to go ahead and open it up for questions. While I think our firm, it is our opinion that this is legally permissible. I think in light of the fact that there are some unknowns we can't give you a certainty with which we would be able to pursue defensive illegal action if one is filed against the city. So with that being said, I will take any questions and then I'll hand it over to Mr. Johnson

Do you have other cities that you are working with right now that are asking the same questions we're asking?

We do. I don't want to disclose which cities those are in a public meeting, but there are a number of cities that have inquired regarding the impacts of the decision in Louisiana v. Calais and have also asked questions about whether a shift back to at-large voting is possible in light of that decision. And so I suspect there will be similar discussions taking place within other communities.

And then my other question is, even if this body were to decide they wanted to do at large voting in November 2026 hypothetically. If that were challenged, it seems to me it's not clear but this is a question. What would happen? Might we have to revert back to district voting if there were a legal challenge for November 2026?

So I failed to mention this in my opening remarks but we did include as an attachment to the staff report the county's elections calendar and so this is the calendar that they provide to all of the city clerks And if you look at that calendar, and that's on page 67 of your packet. Obviously once the council adopts its resolution calling for consolidated elections There are a number of timelines or there's a timeline that's triggered for things like nomination of candidates, argument and rebuttal filing periods, declarations of candidacy.

I'm going to start by saying that this is a very important issue for us. We don't know if perhaps Mr. Shenkman or others were to file suit, if they would include a request for injunctive relief that might affect how this plays out and so there are some potential concerns regarding impacts on this particular election if council were to move forward with adoption of an ordinance that took effect immediately for the November election.

Any other questions?

Yeah. So you called Mr. Shankman? No, he reached out to our office. He reached out to our office and he said I've heard that you are considering this and if you do, I'll sue you.

Those were not his exact words. I mean, he first sent an email. He reached out by email initially and just said he had some concerns and asked for a conversation. He didn't really articulate those by email but then I had a phone call with him And, you know, he without saying I will sue the City of Ojai, he said, you know, he left me with the impression that litigation would be likely. That we should at least expect a formal threat of litigation.

Okay, is it your Do you in other words how is shank been looking at every 8,000 population small town saying you know I mean in other words why did he reach out? I mean do you think I've you don't know but yeah, I mean

I don't know exactly. I mean, I know You know there was some public discussion following that initial Council agenda item on April 28 I think a lot of people are looking at this issue and so you know he, I know he and his team follow these issues very closely. And so I mean I expect that any community that has a serious discussion about shifting back will probably hear from him.

And so my final question is that what I understood you to say is that Mr. Shankman believes this to be a procedural issue as opposed to a content issue, that it's not racially polarized. He couldn't make that case because he could try. So we don't know exactly.

So my conversation with him took place a few days after the decision in Louisiana v Calais, so I suspect that there are two reasons he didn't mention racially polarized voting. One is I believe he hasn't seen our demographic results because those are being presented tonight But the second reason is likely because there is a legal question right now with that Supreme Court decision and what that means for the California Voting Rights Act. And so, you know, that won't be resolved for some time.

And one final question. If the Supreme Court, the National Supreme Court were to make a decision would the California Voting Rights Act have to agree with that decision? In other words do you foresee that legislation would change? I mean you won't know because you don't know what the decision is but

I think we would have to see how that plays out. Right now, the decision in Louisiana v. Calais is really focused on certain situations involving discrimination and voting and more egregious situations so it didn't conclude that All systems that try to address racial discrimination in voting are illegal. And so if it had, I mean perhaps we would have...

Wasn't it intent?

Yeah, and so I'm just looking back at my notes. What they basically concluded is that Let's see, the Voting Rights Act must be confined to using racially based districting only in cases of intentional discrimination. So that is the standard by which the Supreme Court evaluated that particular case so that may result in a narrowing of the CVRA we just don't know that yet.

Okay. And it did not deal with procedural issues at all, like definitional issues of what your particular law said? Yeah. All

right. Thank you.

Any other questions? Yes, go.

So if there is, if we were to move forward with at-large voting and a firm like Kevin Shenkman's were to come after us what would we be looking at in terms of our number one are the potential costs associated with it but number two what would our likelihood of succeeding in those legal cases be?

So if the city actually adopted some sort of ordinance or change to move to at-large voting and then we received the challenge, you know, we would arguably be able to fall within the same safe harbor provision that the city relied on previously when it moved to district voting in 2018. And I believe that includes a limitation on attorney's fees approximately $30,000 if the community agrees to shift to by district voting.

I know there's at least one example as I was researching or preparing for this item where a community recently settled with Shenkman and Hughes for around $800,000. to resolve pending litigation that he brought against the city. So I think it's my impression that these cases can be very expensive to litigate, but again, I think we would probably need to see...

It's just unclear exactly how that would play out from a timing standpoint and depending on what the status of the law is at that time, that might affect that evaluation

Do you think that because the first city is going to be in the spotlight for going back to at-large, do you think that would pose more of a challenge for us than if another city were to go first? I think

from a legal standpoint, the benefit of seeing how something like that might play out is that we would at least have another example of how it played out judicially for another community. While we believe that there are strong arguments for either adoption, that the City Council may adopt an ordinance or that you could refer a question to the voters. We don't have other examples where this has happened and so if another community does it and we see that the courts uphold that I think that obviously informs what we believe the likelihood of success in litigation might look

like.

Or the likelihood of even receiving litigation. So we don't, we just don't know that yet.

Any other questions?

Sorry to belabor this point but for the city that decided to spend $300,000 were they working, to the best of your knowledge, were they working on a procedural issue which is really definitional or were they working on a racially polarized

The allegation that I believe was brought in that situation was one where the city I believe it was Mr. Shankman that they were alleging that the voting system was racially polarized. However, I would note that that was the same argument that was made in the original letter to the city of Ojai. So again while we think there will be legal defenses to that based on the demographic analysis you know that may still be an argument that gets raised as part of that litigation.

Right, but now we have intent that is in the game. All right. I think we've I think I understand well.

Yeah. So correct me if I'm wrong prior to 2018 if you wanted to change a city wanted to change its method of voting it had to go to the votes

I don't recall exactly when the government code section was adopted, but prior to the California Voting Rights Act and this special safe harbor provision that was added to the government code. Yes, in 2018? Yeah, I don' remember. I don know exactly which year that was adopted.

The provision that said that you can move from at-large to district voting by resolution was adopted in 2018 and the City of Ojai chose to take that path. My understanding is that the language of that specific safe harbor provision states that you can move from at large to

Requiring by district elections without submission of the ordinance to the voters where the change is being made in furtherance of the purposes of the California Voting Rights Act. So as part of that decision, if council were to adopt an ordinance you would have to make findings. As part of that ordinance that a shift back conceivably is also in furtherance of the voting rights act. And I think to do that there would have to be some arguments based on the fact that it would increase voter representation We have to think through how that might work in terms of those findings.

There is a government code section in the same article of the Government Code, it's Section 34873 that allows for ordinances adopted pursuant to that article to be repealed or amended in the same manner. But as I mentioned before no city has used that section to amend or repeal an ordinance that was adopted pursuant to the other Government Code Section 34887.

So there's no guidance on how the two different ordinances will be interpreted. Excuse me, statutes will be interpreted together?

Correct.

So a ripe area for a lawyer to spend a lot of time making arguments?

And that is one of the procedural arguments that Mr. Shenkman made, is that section allows councils to adopt an ordinance that goes one way but it doesn't provide authority to go the other way.

Is that the only procedural argument that he had?

His other procedural argument was that by adopting this section of the government code, that the California legislature effectively eliminated the authority of the voters to approve such a shift by ballot measure. Now, going into the analysis of those arguments in detail will be a topic for a closed session. I'm not gonna provide an in-depth legal analysis of his arguments in an open session but those were the two arguments he raised.

Those are his two procedural arguments? Yes. Okay.

Any more questions? Mr. Johnson please. Thank you.

And as he's coming up to the podium, Mr. Johnson, as I previously mentioned when we first discussed whether council would like us to retain him to do the demographic analysis. Mr. Johnson was previously involved in supporting the city of Ojai on its move to districts and so he was familiar with the demographics of the city of Ojiai. I believe they have changed some but he can talk more about that He does expert demography work on behalf of communities who are litigating these cases. He's worked with the Rose Institute, which is a leading expert on demographics on these issues. So we are very fortunate to have him here before other communities started following the Louisiana v. Calais decision. Thank you very much for being

here. My phone, as the phones at Elsha Winder has been burning up lately with questions about this because this is a hot topic. And it is my pleasure to be here. I think you're myself lucky to be back in beautiful Ojai. Thanks. And yes, it was our pleasure to help the city through this process back in 2018 we've actually helped about between 80 and 85 percent of the cities that have made the shift to district elections. We've been their demographer But as was also mentioned, we're also the expert witness demographer for the cities that are fighting. So we're here to serve the cities whichever direction you wish to go.

It has been an interesting road. I will mention one thing to be aware of in terms of a potential lawsuit too. One of the challenges Mr. Shankman runs into is he has to find a local plaintiff to actually sue. Well, to actually file the lawsuit. And that might be tough in Ojai, but you should be aware and Alshon Winder has a notice about this. There's a bill pending that Mr. Chang helped write it would remove that requirement where he could sue on behalf of Southwest voter and not have to have a local plaintiff. And there's its huge rewrite of the law and everything. So something to be aware of.