HomeMy WebLinkAbout14 CHANGE ELEC DATE 09-19-94 GENDA
NO. 14
9-19-94
Inter-Com
OAT, E:
SEPTEMBER 19, 1994
TO:
FROM:
SUBJEC~
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
OPTIONS FOR CHANGING 1996 MUNICIPAL ELECTION DATE
RECOMMENDATION:
Pleasure of the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact related to election date options is indicated
below.
BACKGROUND:
Councilmember Thomas has expressed a desire to change the date of
the next General Municipal Election from April 9, 1996 to March 26,
1996. This change in election date would coincide with the
statewide direct primary election and is authorized by AB 2196. At
the August 15, 1994 City Council meeting, staff was directed to
provide additional information and cost pertaining to the various
election date options available to the City Council.
Following is a list of election date options according to their
designation as a consolidated election or a "stand alone" City
election, the advantages and disadvantages of consolidated vs. City
election, and estimated costs to the City:
CONSOLIDATED ELECTION DATES
Date Options:
November 7, 1995
March 26, 1996
November 5, 1996
(would shorten terms by 5 months)
(would shorten terms by 2 weeks)
(would extend terms by 7 months)
Advantage:
Increased voter turnout; potential for reduced
City election costs
Disadvantage:
Loss of visibility for Tustin issues and
candidates; increased campaign costs for
candidates; slight delay in election results
Cost:
The County will charge the City between $.80 and
$1.00 per registered voter for the March 26 and
Municipal Election Da
Page 2, 9-19-94'
November 5, 1996 elections; they will charge
between $1.25 and $2.00 per registered voter for
the November~7, 1995 election (the cost is higher
for odd-year November elections because very few
cities, school districts, etc. hold elections at
that time). If the City Council desired a
separate sample ballot mailing, the estimated cost
would be $11,000. Using the higher costs
estimated by the County and a registered voter
count of 22,432 as of August 19, following is the
cost breakdown for each date:
11/7/95:
$44,864 without separate sample ballot
$55,864 with separate sample ballot
3/26/96:
and
11/5/96
$22,432 without separate sample ballot
$33,432 with separate sample ballot
CITY ELECTION DATES
Date Options: April 9, 1996 (no effect on terms)
March 4, 1997 (would extend terms by 11 months)
Advantage:
Tustin issues/candidate~ are focused during the
campaign and on the ballot; reduced campaign costs
for candidates; election results are tallied
immediately
Disadvantage: Reduced voter turnout; potential for increased
City election costs
Cost:
The total cost for conducting the 1994 election
was $33,990 (this amount was for all costs
incurred by the City to conduct the election, i.e.
sample ballot, precincts, workers, legal
advertising, ballots, ballot counter, etc.). It
should be noted that $8,440 of that amount will be
repaid to the City through State mandated costs
for absentee ballots. Mandated costs are only
refunded to the agency incurring the cost,
therefore, during a consolidated election, the
County would receive this refund.
The $33,990 total amount was an increase of
$10,310 from the 1992 election. The major
contributing factors for this increase are multi-
language voting material requirements, increase in
the number of absentee ballots, and normal
increases in consultant service costs.
Municipal Election Da
Page 3, 9-19-94
There are operational issues related to conducting an April 9, 1996
city election simultaneously with the County conducting their March
26, 1996 election that staff believes should be brought to the
attention of the City Council. These issues could result in
confusion and inconvenience to Tustin voters and lack of available
election resources/services to the City:
Polling Sites: The County will mail their sample ballot
indicating polling sites for the primary election. The City will
mail their sample ballot which will have different polling sites.
The City sample ballot will be mailed before the March election
possibly confusing voters as to which polling site they should go
to for each election. In addition, the County will need
substantially more polling sites than the City and will recruit
accordingly. Many polling sites that will consent to use of
their garage/facility for March may not desire to perform the
same service two weeks later which could impact the City's
ability to obtain suitable polling site locations.
Precinct Workers: The County will r~quire a substantial amount
of workers and will recruit accordingly, which could severely
limit the pool of precinct workers available for use by the City.
Again, the majority of workers that are willing to serve in March
may not desire to perform the same service two weeks later.
Workers could, after serving on election day in March, decide
that they did not want to work in the City's April election even
though they had previously committed to do so. This could result
in many workers giving the City two weeks notice that they would
not work.
Absentees: The City and County will be receiving applications
for absentee ballots and processing absentee ballots during a
common two week period. Voters may try to save money and put
both applications and/or ballots in one envelope to the County or
City; or become confused and put the wrong ballot in the wrong
envelope. If the County gets a City ballot, they may be able to
forward it to the City, but staff would question the legality of
counting those ballots. In addition, the City will not count
absentees until after the County election, which would invalidate
any County absentee ballots received by the City.
Signature Checking for Absentees: The County may be unable to
signature check the City's estimated 2,000 absentee ballots in a
timely manner due to their own extensive signature checking of
County absentees and certifying the results of their election.
Valerie Crabill
Chief Deputy City Clerk