March 30, 2004
SUBJECT: FEASIBILITY OF CONSOLIDATING MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS WITH STATE AND FEDERAL ELECTIONS IN NOVEMBER OF EVEN-NUMBERED YEARS
REPORT IN BRIEF
This Study Issue item was reviewed and ranked number 2 for the Office of the City Manager by the City Council at its workshop on December 18, 2003. The issue is to explore the feasibility of consolidating municipal elections with state and federal elections in even-numbered years.
Staff conducted a research on this topic, which is outlined in the report. Staff has also provided Council with alternatives for its consideration. Staff has no recommendation and requests direction from Council.
BACKGROUND
Mayor Howe sponsored this study issue in October 2003 for the purpose of achieving potential cost savings to the City.
Articles VI and XIV of the City Charter sets the General Municipal Election “in the odd-numbered years on the date established under General Law for the election of governing board members of elementary school districts.” The election of governing board members of elementary school districts is held in November of odd numbered years. Because the date for Municipal Elections is specified in the Charter, an amendment to the Charter is necessary to alter the election date. An amendment to the City Charter requires a vote of the electorate.
Election Code Section 10403.5 (b) states that any change in date upon which the General Municipal Election is held cannot increase or decrease the term of any sitting member of the Council by more than 12 months. Under the current Charter, Council seats 1, 2 and 3 will expire in November 2005 and seats 4, 5, 6 and 7 will expire in November 2007. For example, a change in election date approved prior to November 2005 could result in terms for seats 1, 2 & 3 extending to November 2006.
EXISTING POLICY
Legislative/Management Sub-Element Goal 7.3 Elections (1): In cooperation with County Registrar of Voters, contain costs of elections as long as the elections process is not adversely affected (i.e., purge voter rolls, limits costs for candidate statements, prevent abuse of absentee ballot process). Support continued state reimbursement of absentee ballot costs.
Legislative/Management Sub-Element Goal 7.3 Elections (2): In cooperation with County of Registrar of Voters, support practices that would increase voter turnout in local elections.
DISCUSSION
For this study, staff took the following approaches and the results are outlined below:
-
A survey was conducted with cities in California
-
Historical data was retrieved regarding the City’s last five elections
-
Current Council’s terms of office were reviewed
-
City and State election codes and regulations were researched and reviewed
-
Cost estimates were obtained from the County Registrar of Voters for a special election in November 2004 and for general elections in even and odd numbered years
SURVEY
The City received 33 responses (14 from Santa Clara County) as shown in Attachment A. The results show that many cities hold their regular municipal election in November of even-numbered years. These cities reported benefits in the form of cost savings and higher voter turnout. Conversely, other cities reported that holding their elections separate from the statewide elections allowed voters to focus on the local items/issues on the ballot.
HISTORICAL INFORMATION
The following data for the City of Sunnyvale was obtained from the County Voter Registrar’s office for purposes of this study.
| Election Date: |
General
11/00 |
General
11/01 |
General
11/02 |
Primary
3/02 |
General
11/03 |
| Campbell |
68.7% |
|
48.5% |
|
|
| Cupertino |
|
31.0% |
|
|
27.2% |
| Gilroy |
|
27.4% |
|
|
31.1% |
| Los Altos |
|
22.5% |
|
|
43.4% |
| Los Altos Hills |
|
|
69.9% |
|
|
| Los Gatos |
75.4% |
|
57.0% |
|
|
| Milpitas |
66.6% |
|
50.2% |
|
|
| Monte Sereno |
82.1% |
|
63.7% |
|
|
| Morgan Hill |
72.9% |
|
51.0% |
|
|
| Mountain View |
72.0% |
|
52.3% |
|
|
| Palo Alto |
|
5.9% |
|
|
40.8% |
| San Jose |
68.6% |
|
|
45.7% |
|
| Santa Clara |
70.3% |
|
51.0% |
|
|
| Saratoga |
79.5% |
|
59.9% |
|
|
| Sunnyvale |
|
19.3% |
|
|
26.7% |
Attached Attachment B is a schedule of local elections by election type for the various agencies and districts that participate in the General, Primary and Uniform District Election Law (UDEL) elections of the County. From this list, there are certainly more agencies/districts that participate in the General elections in even numbered years than in odd-numbered years.
COUNCIL TERMS OF OFFICE
ELECTION COST ESTIMATES
Election costs are based on a number of factors such as the number of registered voters, number of participating agencies/districts, number of measures/propositions on the ballot, printing costs due to federally mandated multiple languages, absentee voting, touch screen voting recoup costs, number of candidates and candidate statements, and number of ballot/proposition pages, etc.
If the Council approves placing a measure on the ballot this November, the cost for a special election is estimated at approximately $108,000 (see Attachment C). If the ballot measure passes, additional cost would be incurred estimated at approximately $4,500 for mailing and postage to notice all registered voters in the City about the change in election date and Council’s terms of office, as required by Election Code Section 10403.5(e). Other anticipated cost would include staff time for pre and post election related activities.
Per the Santa Clara County’s estimate, (Attachment D), costs in an even numbered election year could run from $2.00 to $3.00 per registered voter as compared to $5.00 to $7.00 per registered voter for elections held in odd numbered years, plus Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) costs. (DRE costs are recovery costs for touch screen voting technology, which could run from $0.10 to $0.75 per registered voter).
For an estimated 60,000 registered voters in year 2005, election costs could run anywhere between $300,000 to $420,000 plus DRE costs, as compared to election costs for the same number of registered voters in year 2006 of anywhere between $120,000 to $180,000. Actual costs could be significantly less in each case, subject to the contributing factors identified earlier. For example if the City shared the same pool of voters with a school or special district that also participates in the same election, cost per registered voter will be shared with that school or special district and therefore the City’s share could be substantially less.
For purposes of comparing election costs in the last five elections held in Sunnyvale, the following data was obtained:
| Year |
Registered Voters |
Actual Voter Turnout |
Actual Election Costs |
| 2003 |
57,838 |
15,455 (26.7%) |
$167,330 |
| 2001 |
55,217 |
10,671 (19.3%) |
$127,918 |
| 2000 (Special) |
60,189 |
43,403 (72.1%) |
$18,122 |
| 1999 |
54,307 |
12,861 (23.7%) |
$69,550 |
| 1998 (Special) |
57,420 |
35,515 (61.9%) |
$28,558 |
EFFECTS OF CHANGING THE ELECTION DATE
The effects of changing the City’s election date to November of even numbered years include the following:
-
Anticipated cost savings
-
Likely higher voter turnout
-
Possible reduction in service from the County in response times due to high volume of participants.
-
Probable longer ballot (potential drop off and voters losing sight/focus of City candidates and issues)
Due to a large number of agencies/districts participating in the general November even-numbered year elections, the ballots are larger and city issues appear at the end of the ballot. There is also the presence of local candidates/issues competing with county/state/federal campaigns. Hence, there could be a potential drop off of voters. (Voters who tend to not complete their ballots all the way to the end). In discussing this with the County, it was noted that overall the percentage of voter turnout is still higher than elections held in odd-numbered years.
-
A change in Council’s terms of office.
NEXT STEPS
If Council decides to pursue changing the City’s established election date from November of odd numbered years to November of even numbered years, it would be necessary to submit a change in the Charter to the voters. Following are the steps/timelines necessary for this process, assuming a special election in November 2004 to move the 2005 election to 2006:
1. Decide upon the specifics of the change and direct that appropriate language be drafted accordingly and returned to Council for consideration in advance of the August due dates.
2. Adopt a resolution calling for a special general election and setting forth the question (measure) to be presented to the voters and the actual change to the charter language; and to consolidate election services with the County of Santa Clara for this special election ( due to County by August 6, 2004)
3. Submit arguments/rebuttals, if any (due to County by August 11 and August 18, 2004).
4. Submit the measure to the voters at a special election (next regularly scheduled election is November 2004)
5. Certify the results of the election on the Charter change
6. If the measure passes, submit the revised Charter language to the Secretary of State for assignment of a Charter chapter number and publication in the state statutes before it officially becomes part of the Charter. Once the Charter language change is official, elections would be held consistent with the new language.
7. Appropriate a budget in fiscal year 2004-05 to cover estimated election costs and related notifications cost.
FISCAL IMPACT
Public contact was made through posting of the Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, posting of the agenda and report on the City’s web page, publication of the Council agenda in the San Jose Mercury News, and the availability of the report in the Library and the City Clerk’s Office. Additional public contact would occur at each stage of the process.
ALTERNATIVES
Continue the City’s current general municipal election to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November in each odd numbered year, with no changes.
Direct staff to return with proposed language reflecting any changes in election year that Council wishes to consider, in advance of the County’s August deadlines and to appropriate related election expenditures in fiscal year 2004-05 budget.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff has no recommendation and requests direction from Council.
Prepared by:
Susan A. Ramos
City Clerk
Approved by:
Amy Chan
City Manager
Attachments
1. Survey results (pdf format)
2. County’s Scheduled Local Elections by Election Type (pdf format)
3. County’s estimated cost for a special election in November 2004 (pdf format)
4. County’s estimated cost of elections through FY 2004-05 (pdf format)