Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 4 MUNICIPAL ELEC'S 01-19-81DATE: January 13, 1981 N~ BUS/NESS Inter-Corn TO: FROH: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DAN BLANKENSHIP, CITY ADMINISTRATOR CONSOLIDATION OF ~JNICIPAL ELECTIONS Attached is material from the Orange County Division of the League and from the City Clerk, Mary Wynn. I am inclined to support the idea of giving Cities the option to consolidate their city election with primary or general elections of t_he County in order to give latitude to those Cities. There is always a risk that it might lead to a mandatory requirement, however. I support the City Clerk's view that it ~uld not 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, the election results wDuld 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 Qf costs rather than only on the increll~ntal cost of the expanded service. Consolidatio~ may be an excellent idea for Cities under 10,000 population who may lack expertise or staff to handle a separate election. ACTIONS BES~RE ODUNCIL: Determine response to Orange County Division. a. Would Council welcom~ the opportunity to consolidate its Municipal elelction? b. Does Council support the concept of allowing consolidation? Respectfully submitted, DAN BLANq~SHIP, City Administrator DB:dmt DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: January 9, 1981 Dan Blankenship, City Administrator Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk CONSOLIDATION OF ~JNICIPAL ELECTIONS As you requested, I have reviewed the memo from Norms 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 CoLmty if the opportunity were available. My opinion is that consolidation would not be to the City's advantage for the following reasons: 1. The City would have no knowledge of or control of nominations.' 2.Candidates would have to go to Santa Aha to file their papers. 3.The County may charge a fee for filing papers while the does not. A higher fee may he 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 primary 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 be the first step and the next step would be to make it mandatory. -- - My recommendation would be to continue City control of the elections rather than become a part of the larger, more bureaucratic forms of government. Mary E. Wynn City Clerk Attachments MEMBER CITIES ~NAHEIM BREA BUENA PARK COSTA MESA CYPRESS FOUNTAIN VALLEY FULL ER TON GARDEN GROVE HUNTING FON BEACH IR VINE LAGUNA BEAC, H LA HABRA LA PALMA LOSALAMITOS NEWPORT BEACH ORANGE PLACENTIA SAN CL EM EN TE SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO SANTA ANA SEAL 8EACH STANTON TUSTIN VILLA PARK WESTMINSTER YORRA L INDA ( (' Orange County Division LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 118 WEST FIFTH STREET. SUITE 5, SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92701 [714~J74~-0077 December 30, 1980 FROM: RE: CITY MANAGERS BOB HASKELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MEMO TO CITY MANAGERS DATED DECEMBER 19, 1980 ATTACI{MENT ENCLOSED By mistake a memo dated December 19, 1980 was mailed to all City Managers without the attachment that was intended to go with it. The memo, from President Hertzog, requested general law cities to study the issue of consolidating City elections with county elections. Our Division went on record last year as favoring legislation that would allow general law cities to make such a change. The Steering Committee of the Division would like to get an idea of how mem. y cities would seriously consider consolidation if it were legally perm/ssable. The enclosed study paper has been prepared to assist in your review. It is certainly not comprehensive, but should be helpful in determining whether the issue is one your city would like to pursue further. We w~uld very much welcome some respons~ on this issue by January 20, 1981. Thank you. MEMBER CITIES ANAHEIM BREA BUENA PARK COSTA MESA CYPRESS FOUNTAIN VALLEY FULLERTON GARDEN GROVE NUN TING TON BEA CH IR VINE I,..AGUNA BEACH LA PAL,',fA LOS ALAMITOS NEWPORT BEACH ORANGE PLA CEN TIA SAN CL EMENTE SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO SANTA ANA SEAL BEACH STANTON TUS TIN VILLA PARK WESTMINSTER YORBA LINDA ( Orange County ( Division LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 118 WEST FIFTH STREET, SUITE 5, SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92701 ~714] 972~077 December 19, 1980 FROM: RE: City Managers (for distribution to the Mayor and City Council) Norma ~ertzog, President CONSOLIDATION OP MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS Earlier this year the City of Fountain Valley proposed a resolution to the Orange County Division that advocated state legislation to allow general law cities to consolidate their municipal elections with county primary (June) or general (November) elections in even numberad years. Charter cities already have authority to set t~eir own election dates. The Orange County Division %u%animously approved this resolution and attempted to seek approval of the concept by the League of California Cities. The resolution was considered by the League's Administrative Services Policy Co~.~ittee and failed to gain approval. The League's Resolutions Committee at the Annual Conference in Los Angeles voted to re-refer this resolution back to .the Administrative Services Committee for more study~ At the League Annual Conference we modified our resolution to gain the support of other Divisions, especially the Redwood Empire Division. The compromise resolution called for state legislation that would allow a general law city tO hold their election on any of the.currently state-authorized election. dates: June, even years; November, even years; November, odd years; or April, even years. This resolution was opposed by City Clerks who generally foresee a loss of election control if consolidation takes place. City Clerks fear a loss of control to County Clerks who would be handling most of the aspects of amy consolidated election. The Steering Committee of the Orange County Division firmly believes that individual city councils should be allowed to weigh the pros and cons of consolidation and make the decision themselves. The City Clerks by their opposition to this resolution would prefer not to give a city council the option of choosing to consolidate. (over) Consolidation of Municipal Elections Page 2 December 19, 1980 The issue appears to be a clear case of local control. We should have more flexibility in choosing election dates that better suit the desires of our cities. Recently the trend among O.C. charter cities appears to be toward consolidation. Before our Steering Committee makes an all-out effort to secure approval of our resolution next year and/or seek a legislative solution, we want to know how many general ~? cities in Orange county would seriously consider or desire consolidating their elections with t~e county .if the opportunity were available. I strongly urge each city to write me by January 20, 1981 indicating whether or not you would welcome the opportunity to consolidate (or seriously debate consolidation} of your municipal election. Enclosed is a brief paper highlighting some of the pros and cons of consolidation that should assist you in making your decision. MEMBER CITIES ANAHEIM BREA BUENA PARK COS TA MESA CYPRESS FOUNTAIN VALLEY FULLERTON GARDEN GROVE HUNTING TON BEACH IRVlNE LAGUNA 8EACH LA HABRA LA PALMA LOS ALAMITOS NEWPORT BEACH ORANGE PLACENTIA SAN CLEMENTE SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO SANTA ANA SEAL BEACFI STANTON TUSTIN VILLA PARK WES TM INS TER ¥ORBA LINDA Orange Co nty Division LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 118 WEST FIFTH STREET, SUITE 5, SANTA ANAo CALII~ORNIA 92701 1714) 972..0077 ADVANTAGES ~AND DISADVANTAGES OF ALLOWING GENERAL LAW CITIES TO cONSOLIDATE THEIR ELECTIONS WITH COUNTY AND STATE ELECTIONS Presently, there are four charter cities within Orange and Los Angeles Counties which have consolidated their elections with their respective county. In Orange..County, the City of Irvine conducted its last city-run municipaI election in March 1978 at a cost of $15,492 to the city. This approximates a cost of 75¢ per registered voter. The charter amendment to move the election date to June was approved by 68% of the voters. The June 1980 election, which was consolidated with the county and state primary election, cost the city only $6,772, or 20¢ per registered voter. The city of Newport Beach held'~ts last city-run municipal election in April 1980 at a cost of $33,628. An overwhelming majority voted to move the municipal election dare'to where it will be consolidated with'the county and state election at an approximated cost of $14,000 to the city in 1982 -- a 58% reduction in cost. ; In Los Angeles County, Alhambra conducted its last city-rrm election in June 1971 at a cost of $20,833. A 79% majority voted to move the election date to e~en numbered years, where it would be consolidated with the county and state general election. The next municipal election, in November 1974, cost the city $9,531 -- a 54% reduction in cost. In November.of 1980, the voters in the City of Anaheim voted overwhelmingly to move their city elections from April ko June of even numbered years. Detailed cost reports are still being prepared that would analyze any potential cost savings. The consolidation of municipal election dates with County and state elections provided a substantial cost savings for the cities involved and received considerable support from the local electorate, as evidenced in these four examples. Similar benefits might accrue to other cities utilizing this approach, including general law cities, if permitted. ~ z2/30/80 Attachment #l shows the differences in voter turnout for elections held in April 1980, June 1980 and November 1980. All of the cities in Orange County, except Irvine, held municipal electlons separate from the state primary and national election. The average voter turnout for the April 1980 municipal · election yes only 21%..The average voter turnout for the June 1980 election was 58%, a 37% increase over April. Similarly, the average voter turnout for the November 1980 election Was 75%, 54% higher than in April 1980. These figures reflect the traditionally higher turnout for primary and national elections. Irvine, having consolidated their municipal election date with the County of Orange, benefits from the higher June turnout. The 63% turnout for the June 1980 election in Irvine is almost 20~ better than the highest voter turnout for a separately held municipal election in the county. Without.exception, voter turnout improved for the June and November eleotions over the separate April election. This increased participation is an additional benefit, along with reduced costs, which are available through consolidation of elections with that of the state primary or General Election. While changing the election dates of municipal elections may be advantageous in some cities,"it may clearly be unwanted or unnecessary in other cities. Our Division Resolution merely calls on the Legislature to "allow" general law cities to make such a change. This makes the option a local one. Charter cities currently have the authority to set. their own election dates. There are nine charter c~ties in Orange County. Four of those cities, Cypress, Los Alamitos, Huntington Beach, and Placentia, choose to hold their elections in April of even years alo~gwith the general law cities. Santa And has their city election in April of odd numbered years (except in 1981 when it will be held in March to consolidate with a school district special election). Anaheim and Irvine will be consolidated with the County election in June of even years. New~ort Beach will consolidate with the County in November of even years. And Seal Beach holds their elections in March.of even years. % The following is a list of some of the advantages and disadvantages of consolidation: ADVANTAGES l) cities can realize $ savings through consolidation with an election that is already taking place in their city. 2) City elections can generate hi~her voter turnouts through consolidation. 3) City issues may gain the attention of people focusing on other government issues and problems. 4) Residents may make a better connection between local issues and the involvement (or over-involvement) of higher elected officials in those issues to a city's benefit (or detriment). The result may be ~re locally responsive county, state, and federal representatives. · Although researching each issue is time consuming, consolidation allows voters to concentrate on all the issues at once, requiring only a single time period to familiarize themselves with the issues instead of having to do this on two separate occasions, increasing the likelihood that they will make the effort. DISADVANTAGES 1) Consolidation may make fund raising more difficult for local office seekers. 2) Consolidation may mean tha~ local elections might take a back seat in media coverage compared to the other elections going on concurrently. Conzolidation may over-involve candidates for local office in state or national issues in order to attract a popular constituency. Ballots would be longer in a consolidated election. (However, a consolidated election on the November, even year, ballot would still be s~orter than the normal June ballot). 5) Some counties could not technically accomodate the desire of many cities to consolidate, especially in the June election. Many city clerks view as a disadvantage the fact that some of their administrative jurisdiction of a local election would be lost to a county clerk if consolidation occurs. If general law cities are permitted to consolidate their elections with counties then other jurisdictions, such as, school districts, an~ some special distr~cts will also want to have the same option and further complicate the election process. s) If consolidation is allowed and many cities have different election dates, organizations such as the League of California Cities, may have difficulty scheduling new council members seminars, annual conferences, and elections of officers (to serve consistent terms). Attached for your reviewis the original Orange County Division Resolution turned down th~s year by the League's Administrative Services Committee. CITY Anaheim Brea Buena Park Costa Mesa Cypress Fountain Valley Fullerton Garden Grove Huntington Beach Laguna Beach La Habra La Palma Los Alamitos Newport Beach Orange Placentia San Clemente San Juan Capistrano Santa Aha Seal Beach Stanton Tustln Villa Park Westminster Yorba Linda. APRIL 1980 42 16 16 15 14 22 12 15 44 20 26 28 37 17 25 34 22 13 23 24 21 17 16 AVERAGE VOTER TU~NOUT INCREASE OVER APRIL 21% * Consolidated with June primary election. ** Election held 1979 JUNE 1980 54% 61 54 54 60 6O 59 55 54 63 55 59 63 6O 58 59 62 56 6O 52 63 51 56 68 56 61 58% 37% NOV. 1980 73% 78 73 71 77 77 76 72 77 68 76 79 75 74 76 77 74 77 7O 77 71 73 80 74 8O 75% 54% ATTACH~E N"~ I RESOLUTION NO. 80-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COb~TY DIVISION, LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES URGING STATE LEGISLATORS TO ENACT LEGISLATION TO ALLOW TH~ CITIES TH~ OPTION TO CONSOLIDATE THEIR ELECTIONS WITH TRE PRIMARY OR GENERAL ELECTIONS W~EREAS, currently Oovernment Code Section 36503 provides that general law cities must hold their general ~unicipal election on the second Tuesday in April ia each even-numbered year; and WHEREAS, said provision has resulted in Iow voter turnout; and W~IEREAS, the consolidation of'elections would result in greater governmental efficiency as well as greater citizen involvement; and WH]~REAS, the Orange County Division desires that general law cities should be given the option to hold their elections on the presently-required day or to hold their elections on the day of the Primary or General Elections, as thos~ terms are defined in Election~ Code Sections 20 and 21 respectively. , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Division, League of California Cities does hereby urge the California Legislature to enact a statute allowing general law cities the option to consolidate their elections with that of the State Primary or General Elections. ADOPTED THIS 19th day of June, 1980. ATTEST: President ltayor Pro Tem Don lt~l.t., ..Ir. Chalr~an~ Resolutions Committee ~ ~ ~" op.. o ~,,., %,. EX~TRIT "A"~ Page 2