The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutD-4 March 7, 2017 City ElectionSCHEDULED 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. APPROVED COUNCIL MEETING 10/17/2016 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