Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutD-2 Consolidation of March 7, 2017 City Election with Los Angeles CountySCHEDULED ITEM D-2 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL VIA: TROY L. BUTZLAFF, ICMA-CM, CITY MANAGER FROM: MARCO MARTINEZ, CITY ATTORNEY ADRIAN GARCIA, CHIEF DEPUTY CITY CLERK DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2016 SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION 2016-C74 REQUESTING CONSOLIDATION OF THE UPCOMING CITY OF AZUSA MUNICIPAL ELECTION SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 7, 2017 WITH A COUNTY SPECIAL ELECTION OF THE SAME DATE, IF THE COUNTY PLACES A MEASURE ON THE MARCH 7, 2017 BALLOT SUMMARY: At its last meeting, the City Council considered Los Angeles County’s request to consolidate the City’s March 7 , 2017 General Municipal Election with a possible Countywide 1/2% special sales tax measure for the same date. However, because it is unknown at this time whether the County Board of Supervisors will actually place the sale tax measure on the March ballot, the Council discussed the City’s various options under both scenarios – if the County does or does not place the tax measure on the ballot. After much discussion, the Council ultimately decided that, if the tax measure is placed on the ballot, the City would consolidate with the County, thereby authorizing the County to conduct the election for both City and County issues in one ballot. If the County does not place the tax measure on the ballot, the City would conduct its March 7, 2017 General Municipal Election as a “standalone” election, as originally scheduled. The proposed action, adopts Resolution 2016-C (Attachment 2) requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles to consolidate the City of Azusa’s General Municipal Election to be held on March 7, 2017 with any Countywide special election that may be held on March 7, 2017 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council take the following action: 1) Adopt Resolution 2016-C73, requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles to consolidate the City of Azusa’s General Municipal Election to be held on March 7, 2017 with any Countywide special election that may be held on March 7, 2017, pursuant to Section 10403 of the California Elections Code. DISCUSSION: At its last meeting, the City Council considered a recent request by Los Angeles County to consolidate the City’s March 7, 2017 General Municipal Election with a possible Countywide 1/2% special sales tax measure that would be scheduled for the same date. For more details about the County’s request, please see the October 17th staff report included herein as Attachment 1. APPROVED COUNCIL MEETING 11/7/2016 Consolidation of March 7, 2017 Municipal Election with Los Angeles County November 7, 2016 Page 2 of 2 However, it is unknown at this time whether the County Board of Supervisors will actually place the sale tax measure on the March ballot. Under State Elections Code, the Board has until December 9, 2016 to decide. Therefore, the Council discussed the City’s various options for both scenarios – if the County does or does not place the tax measure on the ballot. As noted in the October 17th staff report, there are pro’s and con’s to each approach. After much discussion, the Council ultimately decided the following:  If the County places the tax measure on the ballot, the City would consolidate its March 7, 2017 General Municipal Election with the County’s tax measure election, thereby authorizing the County to conduct the election for both the City and County issues in a single ballot.  If the County does not place the tax measure on the ballot, the City would conduct its March 7, 2017 General Municipal Election as a “standalone” election – the City would conduct the election itself and only City issues would be on the ballot. Staff has prepared a resolution (Attachment 2) which incorporates the Council’s direction. Staff notes that while the Council suggested two separate resolutions, all required terms are included in a single resolution for clarity. Section 1 of the Resolution authorizes consolidation if the County places the tax measure on the March ballot. Section 2 authorizes the City to continue with the already-scheduled “standalone” election if the County does not place the tax measure on the March ballot. If the County places the tax measure on the March ballot, so that the City’s Election is consolidated with the County’s, the City will have to consider terminating its contract with Martin & Chapman which it approved on September 19th to assist with the City’s “standalone” election. While Martin & Chapman regularly provide excellent service to the City, their services would not be needed for this Election because the County would be performing them – there would be no “standalone” election. Depending upon what the County decides, Staff may bring back to you a recommendation to this effect. FISCAL IMPACT: If Los Angeles County decides to hold a countywide special election, there will be a projected net savings of $29,000 to the General Fund. If Los Angeles County chooses to opt out of the countywide special election, there will be no fiscal impact since the election cost will be $68,000 which is already included in the FY2016-17 budget under 1015210000-7060. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved: Marco Martinez Talika M. Johnson City Attorney Director of Finance Reviewed and Approved: Reviewed and Approved: Louie F. Lacasella Troy L. Butzlaff, ICMA-CM Management Analyst City Manager Attachments: 1) October 17, 2016 Staff Report to City Council 2) Resolution 2016-C74. SCHEDULED ITEM D-4 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL VIA: TROY L. BUTZLAFF, ICMA-CM, CITY MANAGER FROM: MARCO MARTINEZ, CITY ATTORNEY ADRIAN GARCIA, CHIEF DEPUTY CITY CLERK DATE: OCTOBER 17, 2016 SUBJECT: DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ABOUT REQUEST BY LOS ANGELES COUNTY TO CONSOLIDATE THE UPCOMING CITY OF AZUSA MUNICIPAL ELECTION SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 7, 2017. SUMMARY: At its September 19, 2016 meeting, the City Council officially called the City of Azusa General Municipal Election for March 7, 2017. The offices of Mayor, two City Councilmembers, the City Clerk and the City Treasurer will be on this ballot. Azusa’s General Municipal elections have historically been conducted as a “standalone” election. This means that the City Clerk’s office locally conducts the election and Azusa voters receive an entirely local ballot (Azusa issues only). As is standard practice, the City Clerk’s Office retained Martin & Chapman to provide election-related support services and equipment. The City Council awarded the contract last month for a not to exceed amount of $68,000. The opposite of a “standalone” election is a “consolidated” one where the County conducts the election process on the City’s behalf and bills it for the County’s costs. While Statewide elections are always consolidated, March 7, 2017 is not one of those dates. Consolidated elections are rare that time of year. Historically, standalone municipal elections have served Azusa residents well. However, the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters has asked Azusa and similarly-situated cities to consolidate their municipal elections with a possible Countywide 1/2% sales tax increase slated for the March 7, 2017 ballot to fund programs to combat homelessness. While Azusa and the County could each have their own standalone elections on March 7, the County Board is concerned that this would create a cumbersome and confusing process (two separate ballots per voter) and thereby diminish overall voter turnout. Therefore, the Board has suggested that all City standalone elections scheduled for March 7, be consolidated with the County’s sales tax measure, so all issues would be on a single ballot. Request to Consolidate March 7, 2017 Municipal Election with Los Angeles County October 17, 2016 Page 2 To avoid logistical hassles, if the County Board decides not to put the sales tax measure on the March 7 ballot, the County has offered to still conduct the election on the City’s behalf, like a consolidated election. Based upon County estimates, there would be an estimated $29,000 savings over a standalone election and it would free up City Clerk’s Office staff time for other duties. However, the City would lose a measure of local control, the most likely effect being that final results will take longer to be officially confirmed. Staff is requesting direction from the Council as to which options to pursue. For each scenario, Staff has outlined the various pro’s and con’s within this report. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council take the following action: 1) Provide Direction with Regard to Los Angeles County’s request to consolidate/conduct the upcoming City of Azusa Municipal Election scheduled for March 7, 2017. DISCUSSION: At its September 19, 2016 meeting, the City Council adopted a set of resolutions officially scheduling the City of Azusa General Municipal Election for March 7, 2017. The offices of Mayor, two City Councilmembers, the City Clerk and the City Treasurer will be on this ballot. The City conducts its General Municipal Election as a “standalone” meaning the City Clerk’s Office locally conducts the election (preparation, distribution, collection and counting of ballots). Azusa voters receive an entirely local ballot that lists only (i) candidates for Azusa elective offices and (ii) any local Azusa measures that have qualified. Standalone ballots have no Federal, State or County issues. With standalone elections, the City Clerk’s office typically retains an election consultant, such as Martin & Chapman, to provide support services and equipment that assist in this process. The City Council awarded such a contract to Martin & Chapman on September 19 for a not to exceed amount of $68,000. The opposite of a “standalone” election is a “consolidated” election where the County conducts the election process on the City’s behalf and bills it for the County’s costs. By law, all Statewide elections are consolidated (June and November of even-numbered years). This is to ensure that all applicable Federal, State, County and City issues appear on a single ballot. However, March 7, 2017 is not a Statewide election date. Because Federal, State or County issues rarely go to the voters this time of year, it is exceedingly rare to have a consolidated election in March of odd-numbered years. Historically, standalone municipal elections have provided Azusa residents with a fair and effective voting process for their local elected officials and ballot measures. Staff cannot recall there ever being a need to consolidate the City’s March General Election with the County ballot. Analysis – County Proposal to Consolidate or Conduct March 7 Election: On September 13, 2016, the County Board of Supervisors began discussing placement of a Countywide 1/2% sales tax increase on the March 7, 2017 ballot to fund programs to combat homelessness. The Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters is now requesting cities like Azusa to consolidate their upcoming March 7th General Election with the County. Under State Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors has until December 9, 2016 to decide whether they will place a tax measure on the ballot. Request to Consolidate March 7, 2017 Municipal Election with Los Angeles County October 17, 2016 Page 3 If the County places the tax measure on the March 7 ballot, the law allows the City of Azusa and the County to conduct their own standalone elections. However, Azusa voters would receive two separate ballots - one for City issues and one for the County sales tax. The County Board expressed concern that this would create a cumbersome and confusing process, which could diminish overall voter turnout. Therefore, the Board has suggested that all City standalone elections currently scheduled for March 7th be consolidated with the County’s sales tax measure, should the County place the measure on the ballot. By consolidating, all City and County issues would be on a single ballot and the County would conduct this specific election. Of course, this assumes the County Board actually places the sales tax measure on the ballot. Recall that the Board has until December 9th to decide. If there is no County measure, there would be nothing to consolidate with, and the City would normally resume preparing for a “standalone” election. Some cities have expressed concern about the logistical problems of resuming a “standalone” election at that late date. Therefore, the County has proposed a third/hybrid option. The County would “conduct” the March 7 local election even if the sales tax measure is not placed on the ballot. In essence, the County would treat it like a consolidated election - it just wouldn’t officially be called a “consolidated” election. Under this scenario, there would be a single ballot which would look like a standalone election since only City candidates and issues would appear on it. State law allows the City and County to agree to such an arrangement. As noted above, the City has already contracted with Martin & Chapman for a not to exceed amount of $68,000 to assist the City in conducting its standalone election. There will also be significant City staff time involved in conducting the election. On the other hand, the County has estimated that processing Azusa’s election, either as a consolidated or “conducted” election, will cost $38,778.47, but not to exceed $68,000. This option will also free up City Clerk staff to perform their other duties. However, allowing the County to consolidate or conduct the City’s election will give up a measure of local control. The most likely effect will be a longer wait for results to be officially confirmed. Under State law, the City Clerk’s Office must have results officially confirmed 24 days after the election (3/31/17) and results could come earlier than that since the City Clerk’s Office will be focusing their efforts on only a single election. On the other hand, the County has up to 30 days (4/6/17) after the election to confirm results and may take all of this time since it will likely be conducting multiple elections. Staff is requesting direction from the Council as to which options to pursue. There are two scenarios each with two options: If the County Places the Sales Tax Measure on the Ballot: Standalone Election County-Consolidated Election Pro’s: Pro’s: ▪ Local control of Election ▪ Staff time and consultant cost savings vs County ▪ Faster Council Election results ▪ One ballot (reduced voter confusion) (but not faster sales tax measure results) Con’s: Con’s ▪ Two ballots (potential voter confusion) ▪ Less local control of Election ▪ Staff time and consultant costs (NTE $68K) ▪ Slower Council Election results Request to Consolidate March 7, 2017 Municipal Election with Los Angeles County October 17, 2016 Page 4 If the County Does Not Place the Sales Tax Measure on the Ballot: Standalone Election County-Conducted Election Pro’s: Pro’s: ▪ Local control of Election ▪ Staff time and consultant cost savings vs County ▪ Faster Council Election results Con’s: Con’s ▪ Logistics of Resuming Standalone Election ▪ Less local control of Election ▪ Staff time and consultant costs (NTE $68K) ▪ Slower Election results Depending upon the City Council’s direction this evening, Staff will bring back the appropriate resolution for the Council’s consideration at its November 7 meeting. Termination of Martin & Chapman Contract: If the Council agrees to either consolidate with the County election or to allow the County to conduct the City’s March 7 election, the City will have to consider terminating its contract with Martin & Chapman which was approved on September 19. While Martin & Chapman regularly provide excellent service to the City, their services would not be needed for this Election, because the County would be performing them. Depending upon the Council’s direction, Staff may bring back a recommendation to this effect. FISCAL IMPACT: It is estimated that the County’s proposal and termination of the Martin & Chapman agreement will result in a savings of approximately $29,000 to the General Fund. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved: Marco Martinez Talika M. Johnson City Attorney Director of Finance Reviewed and Approved: Reviewed and Approved: Louie F. Lacasella Troy L. Butzlaff, ICMA-CM Management Analyst City Manager Attachments: 1) County Election Cost Estimate RESOLUTION NO. 2016-C74 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO CONSOLIDATE THE CITY OF AZUSA’S GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2017 WITH ANY COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION THAT MAY BE HELD ON MARCH 7, 2017, PURSUANT TO SECTION 10403 OF THE CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE. WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Azusa, California, on March 7, 2017 and is currently set to be conducted as a standalone election; and WHEREAS, there may also be a Countywide Special Election held on March 7, 2017 and the City of Azusa has decided that it will consolidate with the County of Los Angeles rather than conduct a standalone election if there is such a Special Election. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. If there is a Countywide Special Election held on March 7, 2017, City will consolidate its General Municipal Election with the County’s Special Election. (1) That pursuant to the requirements of §10403 of the California Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a General Municipal Election with the Countywide Special Election on Tuesday, March 7, 2017, for the purpose of the election of a Mayor, two Members of the City Council, a City Clerk, a City Treasurer. (2) That the City Council requests the Board of Supervisors to issue instructions to the Registrar- Recorder/County Clerk to administer, manage and oversee all facets of the City of Azusa’s March 7, 2017 General Municipal Election and further direct the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk to perform all necessary functions, services and tasks related to: the complete and successful conduct of the consolidated election; the provision of all election materials and equipment; the hiring, training and supervision of poll workers and other election personnel; the printing and distribution of ballot m aterials; the translation of ballot materials; the collection of submitted ballots; the tallying of votes; canvassing and the certification of election results. (3) That the City shall reimburse the County for services performed when the work is completed and upon presentation to the City of a properly approved bill. The City Council understands that, should a Countywide Special Election be held on March 7, 2017, the Board of Supervisors will direct the Registrar- Recorder/County Clerk to administer the General Municipal Election for the City of Azusa for the same cost estimate provided by the County to the City of Azusa on September 23, 2016. This provision is pursuant to action taken by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles on September 13, 2016. (4) That the County Election Department is authorized to canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election. The election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used. The election will be held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of law regulating the Special Election. (5) That Azusa City Resolution No. 2016-C61 (establishing procedures for a standalone Municipal election) is hereby superseded by this Section 1. SECTION 2. If there is not a Countywide Special Election held on March 7, 2017, City will conduct its own standalone election as originally scheduled, pursuant to §1301 of the California Elections Code. The City will not consolidate its General Municipal Election with the County, and the General Municipal Election shall continue to be conducted as a standalone election, pursuant to City Resolution No. 2016-C61, adopted by the City Council on September 19, 2016. SECTION 3. That the City Clerk is directed to forward without delay to the Board of Supervisors and to the County Election Department, each a certified copy of this resolution. SECTION 4. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON __________, 2__________. ________________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________________ City Clerk (SEAL)