Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 1 CONSOL ELECTIONS 11-02-81AGE? gl DATE: THRU: ?0: FROH: October 23, 1980 William Huston, City Manager NEW B~I~SS Inter- Corn Honorable Mayor and City Council Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk SUB,JECT: SB230 - GENERAL LAW CITIES NOW ABLE TO CONSOLIDATE MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS WITH COUNTY AND STATE ELECTIONS RECOMMENDATION: Confirm the Council's action of 1-19-81 not to consolidate City elections with County elections. BACKGROUND: Attached are the following regarding this subject: 1. Memo from Bob Haskell, Executive Director of the Orange County Division, League of Cities; 2. Council Minutes of 1-19-81; and 3. Memos from Dan Blankenship and Mary E. Wynn from the Council packet of 1-19-81. SB230 (General Law Cities able to consolidate Municipal Elections with County and State Elections) was recently signed by Governor Brown and the bill contained an urgency clause that makes it effective ~mmediately. At the January 19, 1981 Council meeting, it was moved and duly carried that the City of Tustin go on record that we do not desire to consolidate City elections with the County if the opportunity were available. DISCUSSION: If the Council should wish to reverse their decision of 1-19-81, approval of the County Board of Supervisors would need to be obtained and an ordinance consolidating the April, 1982 election with the June, 1982 County election introduced at the next Council meeting. MEMBER CITIES ANAHEIM 8REA 8UENA PARK COSTA MESA CYPRE~ FOUNTAIN VALLEY FUL; EFITON GARDEN GROVE HUNTINGTON 8EACH IR VINE I..AGUNA 8EACH LA PAl. MA {.05 NEWPORT SEACH ORANGE PLACENTIA SAN CLEMENTE SAN JUAN CAPISTRAND SANTA ANA SEAL 8EACH STANTON TUSTIN VILLA PARK WESTMINETER YORBA L/NOA FROM: Orange County Division LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 118 WEST FIFTH STREET, SUITE 5, SANTA ANAo CAI. IFORN IA 92701 (714) 972-0077 Octobe= 13, 1981 PLEASE DUPIJCAI~ AND ~ MAYOP~, COUNCIL MEMBERS, CITY MANAGERS AND CITY CLERKS (in General Law Cities) BOB HASKELL, EXECUTIVE DIrECtOR GEN-ERA~ LAW CITIES NOW ABLE TO CONSOLIDATE MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS WITH COUNTY AND STATE ELECTIONS! Last year many O.C. cities expressed an interest in having the option to schedule municipal elections in June or November of even numbered years to coincide with county and state 91ections. At the request of the Orange County Division, League of California Cities, Senator John Schmitz introduced SB 230 which was approved by the legislature and recently signed by Governor Brown. The bill contains an urgency clause which means it is effective immediately. If a city so chooses,.you may reschedule your April 1982 city elect, ion to any other state election date, i.e., June 1982, November 1982, or ~ovember 1983. In order to reschedule the April 1982 election to one of the other permissible dates, the City Council must enact an ordinance formally declaring a new election date. The Council must also obtain approval from the Board of Supervisors to consolidate the election with their election. To accomplish this before the beginning of the April 1982 election process, the ordinance should be adopted early in November. Check with your City Attorney and City Clerk for the exact time deadline. Some charter cities, such as Irvine, Newport Beach, and Anaheim, have voted recently to consolidate their city elections with county elections. Advantages include lower election costs and higher voter turnout. The Orange County Division, League of California Cities does not support or oppose the idea of consolidating elections. However, we strongly supported the notion that each individual city should have the oPtipn to make this decision. Our Orange County Division office does have information available on the pro's and con's of consolidating. (over) Consolidation of Elections ca~ only occur wi~h t_he approval of the Coun=y Board of Superviso=s~ If you are interested, .you should make immediate contac= wi~h A10lsen, County Registrar of Voters (834'-22'44) and your Supervisor. If .you hav~ any additional questions or problems please feel free to call CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3, 1-19-81 Due to requests from area residents, the Mayor stated Resolution No. 81-5 would be con'sidered at the evening session. IX. NEW BUSINESS 1.. PROPE~Y OWNER'S REQUEST TO REMOVE CITY TREE (14631 Hyannis Port Road) AS recommended in the memo dated January 7, 198'1, prepared by the Maintenance Superintendent, it was moved by Kennedy, sec- onded by Edgar, to remove ~he Brazilian Pepper tree at 14631 Hyannis Port Road as requested and replace with a more suitable City-approved tree at City cost. Carried 5:0. 2. P~Qu~-ST FOR BOYS' CLUB OF TUSTIN SIGNS Following consideration of the memo dated January 12, 1981, pre- pared by the City Engineer, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Sharp, to authorize installation of four identification and directional signs for the Boys' Club of Tus~in at the following locations: /' a) Two (2) signs at the intersection of Sixth Street and E1 Camino Real; and b) Two (2) signs' at the intersection of Main and Pacific Streets. In response to Councilwoman Kennedy, the Community Development Director responded that under the classification of public pur- pose signs, the directional signs would not be subject to sign code regulations. I M~tion carried 5:0. - 3. TI~.~RDAYS REPORT The community Services Director reported that Cherrill Webb, Street Faire Chairman, would attend the evening session to pre- sent the report. With Council consensus, the Mayor indicated the matter would be taken up at that time. CONSOLIDATION OF MUNICIPAL RT.F~TIONS' ~ Following consideration and discussion of the memos dated January 9 and 13, 1981, prepared by the City Clerk and City Administrator, respectively, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, that the City of Tustin go on record that we do not desire to consolidate City elections with the County if the opportunity were available. Motion carried 5:0. In response to the City Administrator's inquiry, it was moved by Edgar to support the consept of allowing individual cities to consolidate if they so desire. After discussion, the motion by Edgar was withdrawn. The Mayor emphasized Council's position to maintain local control with no direction given to other general law cities on whether to consolidate their municipal elections, ~_~although charter cities seem to be going toward consolidation. 1 OATE: TO: FROM: S UBJ ECT: January 13, 1981 " NAJ~ BUSIlqESS NO. 4 l'19-Sl Inter-Corn A hI2~OR~RLE MAYOR Ah~ CITY C(YJNCIL DAN ~SHIP, CITY ADMINI~R CC~SOLIDATIC~ OF ~JNICIPAL ~,~CTICtqS Attached is material from the Orange County Division of the League and from the City Clerk, Mary Wynn. I sm inclined to support the idea of giving Cities t3~ option to consolidate their city election with primary or general elections of the County in order to give latitude to those Cities. There is always a risk that it might lead to a mandatory r~quirement,.however. I support the City Clerk's view that it ~ould .ngt be in the best interest of the City to utilize that option, if available. The electorate is focusing on County, State and Federal issues at the primary and general elections which may make peoples' votes on City officials profunctory, without study'or information. Also, tt~ election results ~uld not be available until the early morning hours. Although a consolidated election should cost less, the County has been inclined to charge on a full pro-rata division of costs rather than only cn the incremental cost of the expanded service. Consolidation my be m excellent idea for Cities under 10,000 population who may lack expertise or staff to handle a separate election. ACTIC~S BEFORE COUNCIL: Determine .response to Orange County Division. a. Would Council welcome the opportunity to consolidate its Municipal elelction? b. Does Council support the concept of allowing consolidation? Respectfully submitted, DAN BLANK~q~IP, City Administrator DB:dmt DATE: FROM: SUBJECT: January 9,.1981 Inter- Corn Dan Blankenship, City Administrator Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk CONSOLIDATION OF MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS As you requested, I have reviewed the memo from Norma Hertzog, dated December 19, 1980, regarding Consolidation of Municipal Elections. She would like to know how many General Law cities in Orange County would seriously consider or desire consolidating their elections with the County if the opportunity were available. My opinion is that consolidation would not be to the City's advantage for the =~llowing reasons: 1. '["ne City would have no knowledge of or control of nominations. 2. Candidates would have to go to Santa Ana to file thei~ papers. 3. The County may charge a fee for filing papers while the does not. 4. A higher fee may be charged the candidates for process- ing campaign statements. During the campaign, the City might lose its identity by being overshadowed by County, State and Federal can- didates or issues. This would create a loss of local feeling and personal attention. Results of the election would not be available as soon if consolidated and the County is not required to cer- tify the election until 28 days after the election. It is doubtful that there would be a money savings to run the elections if 26 Orange County cities consoli- date their elections with the County. This would neces- sitate a substantial increase in ~personnel for the County. The City has had one experience with the County increasing fees regarding the consolidation of the Fire Department. Memo to City Adm. Page 2, 1-9-81 It is true that 'there is a larger turn out of voters for the June pr/mary and the November elections. How- ever, the voters who only turn out for those elections are evidently not interested in the City government and would probably not check the qualifications of City candidates but just routinely vote for the first 2 or 3 on the ballot. The 1980 Municipal election was my first experience in running an election, but I found it to be very interesting and challenging, even though much work was involved. I would be disappointed if the elections were consolidated. The attached Orange County Division Resolution that was turned down this year by the League's Administrative Services Committee urged the California Legislature to allow General Law cities the option to consolidate their elections with that of the State Primary or General elections. My opinion of the substance of this resolution is that this would just ba the ~irst step and the next step would be to make it mandatory. My recommendatio~ would be to continue City control of the elections rather than become a par~ of the larger, more bureaucratic forms of government. Mary E. Wynn City Clerk Attachments