Santa Clarita attorneys and two city residents who sued the city over an alleged California Voting Rights Act violation are set to meet next month to discuss lingering issues with a settlement agreement, city officials said Thursday.

Attorneys from both sides met in court Wednesday, when a judge created a timeline to enforce the settlement agreement.

The court set a May 4 deadline for further action if the CVRA lawsuit settlement is still not in effect, after court arguments this week.

“We explained to the court that the city of Santa Clarita has not complied with the settlement agreement in,” said Kevin Shenkman, an attorney for the plaintiffs. “In particular, they are required to present their April 22, 2014, ordinance to county supervisors. It’s been nine and a half months, and they haven’t done it.”

Joe Montes, Santa Clarita city attorney, said the city is planning to submit the resolution officials drafted last April — calling for the election changes in the settlement — but officials were first looking to address cost questions, among other concerns.

“We were trying to time (the resolution’s submission) in connection with some of the cumulative voting implementation steps,” Montes said, “but we will be submitting the request to the county very soon.”

The two plaintiffs sued Santa Clarita, as well as the Santa Clarita Community College District and the Sulphur Springs School District, in June 2013.

The lawsuits claim Hispanic voters’ rights are being violated by at-large elections, which result in racially polarized voting and deny Hispanic voters the opportunity to select their candidate of choice.

All three parties have settled the lawsuits to similar ends: The Sulphur Springs School District is moving to districts; the Santa Clarita Community College District will move to cumulative voting, move its election to November and adopt districts when a majority Hispanic district can be created, as well as other remedies; and the city of Santa Clarita agreed to move its election to November and adopt cumulative voting.

“The judge’s hope is that we’ll be able to work out any remaining issues between now and April 2,” Montes said, referring to a status conference the judge scheduled to hear updates on the city’s progress toward the agreement.

Shenkman labeled the city’s questioning of its own agreed-upon settlement terms — one issue the city brought up in court was whether Santa Clarita had the right as a general law city to adopt cumulative voting — as “bizarre,” and possibly an attempt to “continue diluting the Hispanic vote in Santa Clarita in violation of the California Voting Rights Act.”

The city, Montes said, needs county permission to change its election dates per the state’s Elections Code, adding school districts do not fall under the same requirement.

The settlement requires the city to use the least expensive method, and because a hand count doesn’t require state certification, then it would be the most cost effective option, Shenkman said, adding the move could save the city thousands of dollars.

“It’s a unique thing in California,” Montes said. “So it takes a little bit of time to make sure all the pieces fit.”

If the city fails to comply with its settlement terms, Shenkman speculated on the possibility of additional legal action.

“If (city officials) don’t officially change their election date consistent with the ordinance they adopted, then in this case we will be seeking to enforce the settlement agreement — and who knows then,”  Shenkman said. “Maybe someone would sue them for violating the CVRA and then the city of Santa Clarita might be forced to adopt district-based elections, which is truly what they don’t want to do.”