Issue
In Lindelli v. Town of San Anselmo, (2003 WL 22049610), the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, considered whether a municipality violates the Elections Code by passing an interim ordinance that is materially identical to an ordinance which is subject to a referendum election.
Facts
Shortly before the expiration of North Bay’s waste management franchise, the Town of San Anselmo passed a resolution awarding the new waste management franchise to Marin Sanitary Services. Enough signatures for a referendum petition were collected and the petition was certified as sufficient. Pending the referendum election, the Town then awarded an interim contract to Marin Sanitary under the identical terms and conditions as the original franchise agreement. North Bay and Appellant, Suzanne Lindelli, protested the interim contract, arguing it violated Elections Code § 9241. The trial court denied the protest and Lindelli and North Bay sought review by the Court of Appeal.
Appellate Court Decision
In order to give voters the opportunity to circulate a referendum petition to challenge an ordinance, municipal ordinances do not become effective until 30 days after they are enacted. (Elections Code § 9235). If voters are successful in getting enough signatures, the effective date of the ordinance is suspended and the municipality may either repeal the ordinance or submit it to public vote. (Elections Code §§ 9237, 9241) If the municipality takes the latter track (a public vote), the ordinance does not become effective until a majority of voters participating in the election vote for it. Moreover, if the voters do not vote in favor of the ordinance, the municipality cannot again enact the ordinance for a period of one year after its rejection. (Elections Code § 9241)
In determining whether Town violated the stay provisions of § 9241 by giving an interim contract to Marin Sanitary Services, the Court addressed the question of whether the interim contract was “essentially the same” as the original ordinance awarding the new franchise to Marin Sanitary Services. In answering this question, the Court compared the terms of the ordinance being challenged by referendum and the interim contract, “focusing on the features that gave rise to popular objection.” The Court noted that, other than the length of time covered, the terms of the interim contract and the new franchise were identical. Furthermore, the change in provider from North Bay to Marin Sanitary Services is what inspired the referendum petition. Therefore, the Court concluded that “the interim contract is ‘essentially the same’ as the challenged franchise ordinance and violates section 9241’s stay provision.” The Court thus sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.
Legal Alert Email Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.