Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/20/1992 B A K E R S F I E'L D Patri¢ia M. Smith, Chair Patri¢ia J. DeMond ~ Lynn Edwards ~ Staff: Tmdy Slater Larry Lunardini AGENDA LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Thursday, February 20, 1992 12:00 Noon City Manager's Conference Room 1. Council Elections 2. Set Next Meeting Legislative and Litigation Committee February 20, 1992 Page 2 3. Loss of non-partisan politics; greater tendency to vote "party" rather than candidate. 4. One-time consideration: per Government Code Section 36503.5(e), the City Clerk will have to notify each registered voter (approximately 81,000) of change in election day (81,000 x $0.25 = $20,250). If elections were changed to November of even-numbered years, elected officials will have an extended term. Government Code Section 36503.5(b) prohibits ordinances increasing or decreasing terms of office' more than 12 months). Of concern to candidates is the possible increase in costs of local campaigns due to competition with state and national levels, possibly decreasing the number of candidates financially able to compaign. Additionally, contributions at the local level may be harder to obtain due to competition with other elections. There may be greater need for political consultants to maximize candidates' exposure/qualifications. Staff consulted with Mitchell Templeton of Price Research, the company which completed the City's 1990 bond issues survey, to obtain an approximate cost for a sample survey designed to determine citizenry feelings about changing election dates to consolidate with other elections. Based on 81,000 registered voters, a 400-interview telephone random sample survey could be conducted for approximately $7,500. It was suggested that a number of questions on City government could be asked in the survey, including how citizens feel the City is doing, how effective are its leaders, what citizens feel the City could do better, etc. Adding other items to the survey would provide a broader input from citizens as well as help justify the cost of the survey itself. As a point of information, the number of qualified signatures required to place a recall on the ballot for a city is determined by Section 27211 of the Elections Code which states, among others, that the number shall be equal to not less than 25% if the registration is less than 10,000 but at least 1,000 or 20% if the registration is less than 50,000 but at least 10,000. The number of reg~istered voters shall be calculated as of the time of the last report of registration by the county clerk to the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 607. (Such reports are done periodically.) Thus, levels of effort to put a recall on the ballot depend on registered voters, not those who voted at the last election. (m0219922) Attachments cc: J. Dale Hawley, City Manager L. Lunardini, City Attorney C. Williams, City Clerk BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM February 20, 1992 TO: LEGISLATIVE ANDLITIGATION COMMITTEE FROM: TRUDY SLATER, ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST ~ ~ SUBJECT: ELECTIONS INFORMATION Costs involved in holding elections are many and varied. Cost variables include number of registered voters, number of ballots and sample ballots, printing and mailing, election officers payroll, polling place rental, areas covered, absentee ballot processing, and delivery and pick up of precinct supplies. According to Hugh Denton, printing costs are most expensive, and costs of elections continue to rise due primarily to inflation-related factors such as labor and materials costs. If costs of an election are shared among several entities, each agency's cost of an election goes down proportionately. Regular elections (federal, state, and local officials, school and special districts) occur on a routine basis. Special elections (i.e., bonds, recalls, initiatives, referenda) are more irregular in nature and cannot be projected to occur for any extended length of time. From the data on the attached chart, the City's two most expensive elections per registered voter occurred in November of 1987 and November of 1991 (Wards 2, 5, and 6), when it appears costs were not shared with others. In the November 1989 election (Wards 1, 3, 4 and 7), the City was able to prorate election costs among several agencies. The City will still be able to share costs with the Fairfax School District and the East Niles Co~.,anity Services, although the Bakersfield City, Kern High, Greenfield, Norris and Rio Bravo Greely school districts have now switched to even-numbered years in November for elections. Arguments for and against switching to City Council elections in November of even-numbered years include: Arguments for:, 1. Larger voter turnout if consolidated with statewide elections; not necessarily true for school elections. 2. Voter convenience--less trips to the polls. 3. Cost savings through prorated sharing of costs (to depend on number of ballot issues, ballot groups, number of agencies participating, areas covered, etc.). Arguments against: 1. Ballot issues: longer length; loss of visibility/interest in local issues (uninformed voters); City issues at end of ballot; incumbent advantage. 2. Loss of media coverage on local election candidates/issues. · Election Costs for the City of Bakersfield Year No. of Registered Total Cost Cost Per Costs' Wards / Voters of Election Registered Shared/ Mayor Voter Alone November 1987- 3 31,891 $47,200 $1.48~ June 1988.* Mayor + 74,530 $68,761 $0.92 Shared Msl A-G (Additional cost of $11,000 for verification of signatures for Charter amendment placed on ballot by citizens group.) November 1988,* Mayor + 82,570 $73,038 $0.88 Ms. I-O November 1989- 4 45,161 $42,000 $0.93 Shared November 1990' Citywide 84,663 $14,000 $0.16+ Shared Measure November 1991-* 3 33,507 $78,172 $2.33 Alone (2/20/92) Note: Information taken from City Clerk's memo (5/30/91)* and Election Comparisons (1/17/92)** (m0219921) General Information State partisan (governor, U.S. senators and representatives, state senators and assemblymen, secretary of state, attorney general, controller, treasurer, insurance commission, board of equalization) races are held in June, with runoff elections held in November of even-numbered years. Non-partisan positions which are elected in June include the State Superintendent of Public Instruction; the County Assessor, Auditor- Controller, Coroner, County Clerk-Recorder, District Attorney, Sheriff, Superintendent of Schools, Treasurer/Tax Collector, Kern County Board of Supervisors, superior and municipal court judges; and the Mayor of Bakersfield. Ten of Kern County's 11 incorporated cities hold elections in even-numbered years, with four elections held in April and six held in November. Four cities run their own elections; six cities consolidate with County elections. Bakersfield, the only charter city, is the one city which holds elections in November of odd-numbered years. Kern County has 51 school districts (per the County Elections Department). Of those, four hold elections in odd-numbered years in November while 47 hold elections on even-numbered years in November. Of 67 special districts in Kern County (airport, community services, hospital, irrigation, levee, municipal utility, public utility, recreation and park, resource conservation, utility, sanitary, water districts-county and state), 45 are elected in odd- numbered years (as are City Council elections) and 22 in even-numbered years. All regular elections are held in the month of November. More school districts in Kern County hold their elections in November in even- numbered years. More special districts hold their elections in November of odd- numbered years. All agencies which appear on the same ballot can prorate their costs. If ballots are separate, then costs' are not prorated. Those agencies which might be combined with Bakersfield's November election in odd-numbered years might include: Fairfax . School District, East Niles Community Services District, Kern River Levee District, Enos Lane Public Utility District, North of the River, No. 1 Sanitary District, Greenfield Water District, Kern County Water Agency, Mettler Water District, North of the River Municipal Water District, Berrenda Mesa Water District, Kern Delta Water District, Olcese Water District, etc. (2/20/92) (m0218922) TO: All Counciim~m~ers - ,":, , · '.;;ZF,'~Y:Z".2 ~ ~';' ~'.-" FROM: Clarence Medders ~ SUI~I=CT: . Council ril~ons on riven Numbered Years DATE: November 18, 1991 I believe the November 5, 1991 skimpy ~oter turnout indicates an absolute need for changing councilmanic elections to even years. If you don't think voters are concerned that we still hold odd-year elections at high cost and without apprecial~ie turnout - you are not tuned in. Just think how disturbed they would be if they knew we could change it so easily - and wouldn't. The idea of wanting supervisors and school boards to change to odd years is not a viable alternative. First, supervisor elections are set by State law. Then, people want less elections, economically feasible elections, and a lot less politics. To ask other entities to change to odd years would make every year election year over much of the county at greater expense. We are the ones that are out of step. I'rn going to make the suggestion again that the ordinance for councilmanic election dates be changed, to the June primaries (even years, of course) and that the elected persons take office the first meeting in July. This would extend all current terms for 6 months plus and would not require a vote of the people. The alternative would be a referendum, which certainly can be done. The referendum process would be a ballot measure with expenses involved and that's what people object to now. This is a money-saving, voter-pleaSing, image-improving means to make a positive contribution to our city. I urge you to make this change. Light voter turnout has some inherent dangers including the ease of recall.