HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03181997 - D6 SB L
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: STEPHEN L. WEIR, Clerk-Recorder `� , s• C Itra
O: rh�)pgal i. oz''CbslQ
DATE: March 18, 1997
" County
SUBJECT: REQUESTS BY AGENCIES TO CONSOLIDATE ELECTIONS s'A'codzi�
WITH EVEN-NUMBERED YEAR ELECTIONS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
Recommendations of Clerk-Recorder
1. FIND that granting the requests of the eight agencies requesting to permanently
consolidate their elections with the November, even-numbered year elections would result
in an unprecedented proliferation of ballot styles which will exceed the current staffs
capabilities to track and process ballot styles, and prepare sample ballots timely and
accurately.
2. FIND that the requested consolidations would cause the current capacity of the voting
equipment to be exceeded in the following ways:
a. The increased number of sample ballot inserts (voter information)will exceed the
number of bins on the County's inserting machines.
b. The increased number of ballot cards will require additional vote counter stations
that cannot be accommodated within the limited space of the tally room. The tally
room must be able to accommodate the vote counter stations, trained computer
operators to feed, queue and monitor the stations, and members of the public
wishing to observe the tally process.
C. The increased number of ballot cards and voter precincts will result in ballot supply
boxes that are too heavy to be lifted and carried by the average citizen precinct
worker or, alternatively, in a significant number of smaller ballot supply boxes which
would be logistically impractical to transport to a significantly higher number of
polling places.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT YES SIGNATURE:
_______ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD
COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON March 18• 1997 APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED
X_ OTHER X
See the attached Addendum
VOTE SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
UNAN US(ABSENT AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
AYES: ES: SHOWN.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
ATTESTED March 18, 1997
CONTACT: STEVE (5 646-2955 PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD
CC: COU ADMINIST R OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY
K RECORDER ADMINISTRATOR
BY W A DEPUTY
-2-
3. CONSIDER the following qualitative issues which are expected to result from the
requested consolidations, if approved:
a. Timeliness. Due to the limitations of the County's elections computer, the
requested consolidation of elections would add several hours to the already
lengthy tally time. Tallying for the 1996 General Election began at 8:45 p.m.
and finished at 3:27 a.m.
b. Accuracy. The laws which allowed consolidation have increased the
complexity of elections, but not the time frames in which to prepare for and
conduct elections. The additional use of overtime and temporary staff for
consolidated elections greatly increases the potential for error. Alternatively,
it would be impractical to significantly increase the number of trained
permanent staff under the circumstances of consolidated elections because
the additional staff would have to be maintained during the "off" or odd-
numbered years.
C. Voter Impact. While turnout at a general election is higher than the turnout
at an "off year" election, high voter turnout and long ballots result in long
lines at the polls and "voter drop-off" towards the end of the ballot and on
issues on the backs of some ballot cards. Many voters have chosen to vote
absentee as an attractive alternative to waiting in long lines at the polls.
Providing absentee ballots is a costly alternative as the County must process
the applications, mail the ballots, and process the returned ballots, including
checking the signature on every ballot returned. The inevitable increase in
absentee ballots will exacerbate the already lengthy time it takes to
determine the official results of an election. The tallying of absentee ballots
delays the official canvass and, in the case of a close race as the one that
occurred in the 1997 General Election, can leave the winner undetermined
for several weeks.
d. Long-Range Staff. Space and Capital Planning. A limited number of
consolidations may suggest short-range capital investments which will
commit the County to certain choices. For example, the consolidation of
some agencies' elections with even-numbered year elections would require
the County to purchase expanded inserting machines which may suffice for
a few years if no other consolidations occurred. It is myopic, however, for
the County to view the consolidation issue on a piecemeal basis. The
consolidation of one major agency's elections may precipitate an avalanche
of additional consolidations which, in the case of inserting equipment, may
dictate an entirely different solution than increasing inserter capacity. In light
of limited funding in all areas of local government, capital planning decisions
must be made only after careful analysis of long-range needs and available
options. Allowing consolidations on a piecemeal basis may require the
County to commit itself to short-range solutions that will not serve in the
longer term.
4. ACKNOWLEDGE that the issue of voter trust and confidence in the County's
elections system must carry an equal or heavier weight than purely economic
issues.
5. CONCUR with the Clerk-Recorders recommendations and find that, in light of the
capacity limitations and qualitative issues previously described, the requests of the
City of Concord, Contra Costa Water District, Acalanes Union High School District,
Canyon School District, Moraga School District, Mt. Diablo Unified School District,
Orinda Union School District and Walnut Creek School District to permanently
consolidate the elections of their governing officials and/or trustees with the even-
numbered year elections beginning in 1998 be denied.
i I
-3-
6. ENDORSE the Registrar of Voters's conceptual Non-Partisan Local Government
Cooperative Realignment Election Plan (Cooperative Realignment), which will
provide incentive for local agencies to hold their elections in the November, odd-
numbered years and REQUEST the County Registrar to continue to work with local
agencies to develop a fee structure that does not penalize agencies which choose
to hold elections in the odd-numbered years.
6. ACCEPT additional financial impact data as requested at the Board meeting on
March 4, 1997, attached.
BACKGROUND
On March 4, 1997, the Clerk-Recorder-Registrar of Voters presented a report to the Board
of Supervisors on the impact of consolidation of elections on the Elections Office. This
report was considered together with a report from the Clerk-Recorder and the County
Administrator outlining measures to be taken to correct management, communication and
operational deficiencies in the Elections Office, as identified by the Elections Task Force.
Eight agencies have requested to have their elections permanently consolidated with the
even-numbered year elections, beginning in November 1998, including one city, one water
district and six school districts. The Clerk-Recorder has recommended that these requests
be denied on the basis of capacity limitations and qualitative issues, and in recognition of
the expectation that the eight requested consolidations will precipitate an eventual total
consolidation of all 73 municipalities, schools and special districts.
Several individuals representing the requesting agencies and the general public were
heard on the advantages/disadvantages to consolidation of elections. The Board
requested additional information from the Clerk-Recorder (which is transmitted herewith)
and voted to continue discussion of this issue at its public meeting on March 18, 1997.
ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.6
March 18, 1997 Agenda
The Board considered the staff report presented by Steve Weir, County Clerk-
Recorder on the election consolidation requests from the City of Concord, the
Contra Costa Water District, and the Acalanes, Canyon, Moraga, Mt. Diablo,
Orinda and Walnut Creek School Districts.
The following people presented testimony:
Karl Kaste, 1556 Oakroyal Drive, Concord;
Elizabeth Rudnick, 884 Acalanes, Lafayette;
James Perino, Acalanes Union High School District, Lafayette;
Fred Weil, Acalanes Union High School District, 340 Calle La Montana,
Moraga;
Rick Doyle, City of Concord, 1950 Parkside Drive, Concord;
Karen Ustin, Contra Costa Water District, H - 200 Netherby Place,
Pleasant Hill;
Leslie Stewart, League of Women Voters, 3398 Wren Avenue,
Concord;
William McDonald, 3920 E. El Camino Court, Concord.
All persons desiring to speak having been heard, the Board discussed the issues.
Supervisor Canciamilla moved the staff s recommendations, and suggested that
immediate steps be taken to provide maximum savings to those identified
agencies already requesting consolidation.
Supervisor Rogers seconded the motion, and urged that the scope of the issues
be narrowed, and also requested that the motion be amended to include a
meeting of the identified parties to discuss financial parity between odd and
even numbered year elections, and report back to the Board.
Supervisor Canciamilla concurred with the amendment.
Supervisor Uilkema indicated that it was her preference to consider equalizing
all odd and even year elections, and she would not be supporting the motion.
Supervisor Gerber suggested Recommendation No. 6 (the first No. 6), be
considered apart from the other recommendations so that the entities now
requesting consolidation could be given a response. She also suggested that it
would enable cost issues relative to future consolidations to continue to be
addressed.
Supervisor Canciamilla agreed to withdraw Recommendation No. 6 (the first
No. 6) from his motion, and Supervisor Rogers concurred.
It was suggested by Supervisor Uilkema that Recommendation No. 5 also be
deleted from the motion.
Supervisor Canciamilla advised that his motion would stand with
Recommendation No. 6 (the first No. 6) being withdrawn.
Chairman DeSaulnier expressed his concern with regard to the legalities if the
election consolidations were denied at this time, but reiterated that he was aware
1
` of the need to equalize the election costs.
Victor Westman, County Counsel.; advised that possibly there would be
sufficient cause to deny the requests for consolidation due to the inadequate
capacity of the Clerk-Recorder's Office equipment and manpower at this time.
Chairman DeSaulnier suggested that the motion include a 5-year Master Plan
relative to the proposed Election Department upgrades.
Supervisor Canciamilla agreed to the amendment, and Supervisor Rogers
concurred.
The vote on the motion was:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Gerber, Canciamilla and DeSaulnier
NOES: Supervisor Uilkema
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
1. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that staffs recommendations 1, 2, 31
4, 5 and 6 (the second No. 6) as set forth above are APPROVED; and the
Clerk-Recorder's staff is DIRECTED to take steps to provide immediate
maximum savings to the requesting entities in Recommendation No. 5;
and also DIRECTED that the staff meet with interested entities and report
back to the Board; and further DIRECTED that the Clerk-Recorder's
Office develop a 5-year Master Plan relative to Election Department
upgrades.
Supervisor Gerber moved that Recommendation No.6 (the first No 6.) be
modified, so that the Registrar of Voters aggressively pursue a plan to equalize
or closely equalize the charges for elections in odd and even years, and report
back to the Board within 60 days, and subsequently.
Supervisor Canciamilla seconded the motion.
The vote on the motion unanimous.
2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Recommendation No. 6 (the first No. 6)
be APPROVED as amended, and the Elections Department staff is to
report back to the Board within 60 days, and subsequently, on
consolidation of election issues.
2
N T E R
MEMO
O F F I C E
To: Gayle B. Uilkema, Supervisor,
From: Steve Weir, Registrar (JI )
Subject: ACCOMMODATING CONS LIDATION
Date: March 17, 1997
You have asked me to outline how we can accommodate the proposed and future
consolidation.
Roughly speaking, it is a one million dollar capital cost to incrementally address
consolidation(see attachment`-A") However, space constraints prohibit this option.
A master plan approach will cost in the neighborhood of four million dollars.
We are reviewing various options in moving towards a master plan approach.
c:\wp\wpdocs\election\guilkema.wpd
RECEIVE®
MAK 1 8 1997
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA.`0':.`A CO
ATTACHMENT "A"
OPTIONS TO ACCOMMODATE
CONSOLIDATION OF ELECTIONS
Incremental Approach:
Mail Inserter' $ 226,000
Maintenance 15,000
Miscellaneous Capital' 48,225
Ballot Bin Costs' 150,035
Tally Machines' 228,000
P.C.s, controller, software (installed) 97,000
Additional Precincts 125,000
Miscellaneous 5,000
Total $ 894,260
Staff directly associated with capital 1998/2000 47,060
Personnel, additional (permanent)5 $300,000
'See Appendix "A" - February, 1997 Report
'See Appendix `B" - February, 1997 Report
3See Appendix "C" - February, 1997 Report
4See Appendix "D" - February, 1997 Report
'Does not include additional temporary or overtime salaries
ATTACHMENT "B"
Master plan Approach:
Optical Ballot Scanner' $4,000,000
Mail Inserter 226,000
Miscellaneous Capital 48.225
Total $4,274,225
StafVSupplies Savings -450.000
$3,824,225
Staff directly associated with Capital 1998/2000 $22,030
Personnel, additional (permanent)' 9
'Modeled after the San Mateo system
7Does not include additional temporary or overtime salaries
Attachment to March 18, 1997 Report to the Board of Supervisors
The Board of Supervisors has asked that 1 provide additional information on the capacity of the
Elections Office to handle additional consolidations. This report will focus on the eight entities
requesting consolidation with the November 1998 election.
The Board is permitted to reject requests if the Board finds that "...ballot style, voting
equipment, or computer capacity is such that additional elections or materials cannot be
handled."'
Our capacity to tally ballots, as evidence by the November, 1996 election, is at capacity. In
addition, our inserting machines that produce our sample ballot materials is currently at capacity
as well.
On the issue of our tallying equipment, we exceeded our 1:00 a.m. target to complete our count
by 2 hours and 27 minutes. We stretched the capacity of the tally center at our November, 1996
election. This unit operated at peak performance from 8:45 p.m. (with the arrival of our first
precinct ballots), until 3:27 a.m. with ourj last batch of ballots. The additional ballots caused by
past consolidations, added the 2 '/z hours to that count.
Due to operational changes in the delivery of precinct ballots,the tally center did not experience
down time due to ballot delivery. The tally unit operated at optimum capacity and conducted a
'Education Code 5000.5
1
virtually flawless count election night.
In addition, a highly trained expert was present all night to guarantee that all machines remained
in service. This was an extraordinary move for the Elections Office. Ballot counting went on for
almost seven hours.
Contra Costa, by a significant amount of time, was the last county in the Bay Area to report semi-
official election results to the Secretary of State. Press and public criticism was directed at our
late hour completion. In addition, our operators of the tally center found this long count to be
physically taxing.
Additional machines could potefntially reduce the time required to count the ballots. However,
this specially wired, secured, and alarmed room is at capacity.
My February 1997 report to you estimated that, with full consolidation, an additional 12 tally
machines would be required just to stay even with our 3:27 a.m. 1996 experience. However,
there is no more room for tally machines. In addition, the speed with which the MV 15000 could
handle additional tally machines has not been determined. We already have more tally machines
than any other DFM county in California.
The MV 15000 /Mark-A-Vote tally system was designed for an era when we had 400,000
registered voters, and virtually no election consolidations. Any additional pressures to add ballot
2
cards to our election night count will prompt a review of our tally system.
Estimates to move towards the San Mateo model requires a five year capital investment of over
$4,000,000. (This is the system identified by Concord in their public testimony as the model to
explore.)
Alameda is holding a vote tally demonstration with several vendors on March 21, 1997. We will
be reviewing the various systems available at that display.
Assuming approval of these eight agencies, the additional ballot cards generated by their
consolidation would add one and one half hours to our election night count. This is well beyond
our capacity to tally the vote. (See Attachment`B" for more detail.)
On the issue of our mail inserting machines, we reached capacity of our system at the November,
1996 election. Two-thirds of our inserts were caused by local races and measures. In many
ballot types, we reached the capacity of our larger machines. In addition, many ballot types had
to move from the smaller machines to the larger machines due to exceeding capacity as well.
A new state law which goes into effect 1/1/98 will allow state legislative candidates to add
inserts.into sample ballots for the first time. Had this law been in effect for the November 1996
election, we would have exceeded the capacity of the larger machine on one,third of its runs with
a similar result on the smaller machine. This is assuming no further consolidations.
3
With the eight proposed consolidations, all of the Acalanes School District area would exceed
our sample ballot material capacity, except in the city of Lafayette, in the November, 1998
election.
In the Concord portion of the Mt. Diablo Unified School District, if there is a contested
supervisorial race in November, all of Concord would exceed our sample ballot material
capacity. All of Pleasant Hill would exceed capacity as well.
If nothing else changed, these eight agencies would be responsible for taking 28 percent of the
votes of Contra Costa into ballot styles that exceed the capacity of our largest inserter machine.
Another issue involving the mailing of sample ballots is that of timing. Sample ballots in
General Primary Elections must be completed 21 days prior to the election. In effect, this gives a
twenty day window which to process and mail sample ballots. With each additional ballot
system change, an additional fifteen to forty-five minutes is added to the time it takes to change
over our machines. This adds idle time to the machine. The projected additional idle time
associated with the proposed eight consolidations add 58.5 hours to our production time. This
would mean adding 5 twelve hour shifts to our current 20 day, twelve hour shift schedule.
To meet the statutory mailing deadline, five days of 24 hour a day operation would be required.
Therefore, not only will consolidation result in excessive numbers of inserts, the additional ballot
4
types created by consolidation would exceed the practical capacity of that unit.'
We have preliminarily explored the "booklet" approach to sample ballots. The Sonoma model
represents a 57% increase in printing costs over Contra Costa and the loss of local control of our
product.
'Mailing under the full consolidation year 2000 model would be impossible to meet.
5
Attachment "B"
We have just completed our bi-annual purge and registration remains high at 541,593.
I assume that we have a registration base in November, 1998 of 555,000 (same as November,
1996).
With a 70%turn out and a 5 card base, we will have almost 2 million cards to count. This does
not assume any additional consolidations. Using the November, 1996 tally rate, we will take
nine hours to tally that election(8:45 p.m. to 5:45 a.m.).
The following chart shows the impact of adding the eight districts.
j r I
Additional Ballot Card Projection
{
um ber
I
=o car s di lona
_._ _
ad- e � � _C"ards____.
Wt. Diablo U.S.D. i 3in Concord ? 3X68,000X70% 142,800
s �--�- 'I— non-c o n c o�d-� o r ion 1 x 0 0 --��--3'530-0�`"'-""—
_._.....__.._._.._.__......�_i._. �___ p _i_ __
jAcalanes H.S.D. 1 entire jurisdiction 1 1X85,000X70% 59,500 ;
1C.C.W .D. 1 portion of district 1X50,000x7O% 35,000
((Total additional cards 275,800 1
.............................-.._.........._... _..........................................._..................._..........i.._.._.........._........._.........- - --- -.
- This equals 16 hours of m achine tally tim e. To m eet the 1 a.m . target to -
- have votes counted electon night, four additonal m achines and operators
would be required.
i
=Without these m achines, the consolidation of the eight agencies would add
F
1 1l2 hours to the election night count.
F F
� i F
€i i
'.........___....._.__......................._.___.._.____._..-. __._ ..-__..__-...__..___3_.____.____.__.__-.._..._....______....._.............
......._._�....___....._.__... __._._..._.__......_.._.__.......__...........__.........._ ..........
` 1
Attachment "C"
Concord has requested cost information on our projection of costs for various scenarios. Our
cost estimates assume constant 1997 dollars and voter registration.' We also assume that every
agency scheduled goes to election. (Some agencies do not go to election when insufficient
candidates file.)
Concord has asked four questions:
A. Estimated cost of a municipal election if held in November of 1997.
Answer: $40,272
B. Estimated cost of a municipal election if held in November 1998. This assumes
only consolidation of eight(8)jurisdictions which are seeking consolidation.
Answer: $30,932
C. Estimated cost of November 1999 municipal election. This assumes consolidation of
only eight(8)jurisdictions which are seeking consolidation.
Answer: $0
D. Estimated cost of November 2000 municipal election. This assumes consolidation of
'We are assuming, for discussion purposes only, that each agency pays its pro-rata share
of costs in even and in odd years. We also assume that fifteen local measures (those appearing
on the November, 1996 ballot are also included. Future cost according methods can alter these
figures
Attachment"C" continued:
only eight (8)jurisdiction which are seeking consolidation.
Answer: Same as 1998 costs which assumes constant 1997 dollars, registration, and all
agencies going to the ballot.
Concord did not ask what its pro-rata share of costs would be under the full consolidation
scenario (year 2000). In constant dollars, that cost would be $40,549.
All'
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFF/CE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA
Date: March 13, 1997
To: Board of Supervisors
From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel
Re: Pending Election Consolidation Requests From the City of Concord, the Contra
Costa County Water District and the Acalanes, Canyon, Moraga, Mt. Diablo,
Orinda and Walnut Creek School districts.
The Board of Supervisors has pending before it, the above-noted election consolidation
requests for approval or disapproval.
Concerning all the above-noted consolidation requests, the Board of Supervisors is
directed by various state statutes that these requests "shall be approved" unless the Board
finds or determines that "the ballot style, voting equipment, or computer capacity [or
capability) is such that additional elections or materials cannot be handled". Further the
Board is directed by these same state statutes, prior to either approving or disapproving any
election consolidation request, to obtain from the elections official (the County Clerk) "a
report on the cost - effectiveness of the proposed action". (Election Code, §§ 10403.5
[cities], 10404 [misc.-special districts] and § 10404.5 [school districts].)
Pursuant to the above-cited elections code sections, the Board of Supervisors, within
60 days of the date of each special or school district submission, is directed by those
sections to approve the consolidation request unless it disapproves them making the
required findings or determinations that the ballot style, voting equipment or computer
capacity is such that the additional elections or materials cannot be handled. In the case of
cities, the involved code section (§ 10403.5) does not direct the Board of Supervisors to
make its decision within 60 days. None of the above-cited election code sections expressly
provide that should the Board not make a decision within 60 days (or a reasonable time) that
the involved request is either deemed approved or denied.
School districts and miscellaneous special districts (e.g., the Contra Costa County
Water District) are required to submit their consolidation requests to the Board of Supervisors
no " later than 240 days prior to the date of any currently scheduled" district election.
Board of Supervisors 2 March 13, 1997
(Elec. Code, §10404.5(a); also see Elec. Code, § 10404(b)(2).) The County Clerk has not
indicated that any of the above-noted pending consolidation requests were not submitted in a
timely manner.
VJW:df
cc: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
Stephen L. Weir, County Clerk-Recorder
H:\DFOTI\MEMOS\VJW\EIECTION.WPD
Do /
CONSIDERWITK�._---
�, ED ;
1310
CLERK BOARD OF SUPEAy1SOR$
CONTRA COSTA CO.
RESPONSE
TO THE REPORT ON
CONSOLIDATION OF ELECTIONS
Submitted to: The Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors
From: The Acalanes Union
Nigh School District
Date: March 12, 1997
RESPONSE TO THE REPORT ON CONSOLIDATION OF ELECTIONS
INTRODUCTION
On October 16, 1996, Acalanes Union High School District ("District") requested that its
school board election be consolidated with the general election. The sole purpose of this request
was to save money for the District's educational program. Because Acalanes board elections
take place in odd rather than even-numbered years, the District is required to pay approximately
$50,000 more per election. The District needs that $50,000 to pay for teachers, computers,
books, and educational programs.
According to the County Clerk's February 1997 Report on Consolidation of Elections,
this inequitable disparity results from an order in 1993 to fix costs for even-year elections at
$170.00 per precinct, while agencies holding elections in odd-numbered years continue to be
charged the actual cost of the election plus a 15% capital cost recovery surcharge. Because the
cost of elections in even years is spread over national and state as well as local elections, the
even-year costs are further reduced for local agencies. While agencies holding elections in even-
numbered years have enjoyed a cost reduction, agencies holding elections in odd-numbered years
have been assessed additional charges, depriving them of equal protection under the laws.
The County Clerk recognizes this disparity and has proposed an equalization of election
costs by lifting the $170.00 per precinct cap, removing the 15% surcharge, and recovering
mandated costs under SB 90 for odd-numbered years. While the District acknowledges Mr.
Weir's efforts to equalize costs, his presentation is not convincing, and the District reaffirms its
request for consolidation.
ARGUMENT
I. CALIFORNIA LAW MANDATES THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS GRANT
THE DISTRICT'S REQUEST TO CONSOLIDATE ITS ELECTION
California law requires the County to grant Acalanes'request for consolidation unless it
finds "that the ballot style, voting equipment, or computer capacity is such that additional
elections or materials cannot be handled." (Elec. Code, § 10404.5, subd. (d)(1).) As discussed
below, the evidence establishes that such a finding cannot be made, and the Board of Supervisors
("Board") must grant the consolidation request.
A. The Ballot Style Can Accommodate Additional Elections
At the Board of Supervisor's meeting on March 4, the County Clerk discussed the
complexity of printing ballots for crowded elections. Despite that complexity, Mr. Weir
admitted that the ballots can accommodate the eight districts currently seeking consolidation and
will be able to accommodate additional districts as well. In section C of the Report on
Consolidations, Mr. Weir writes: "Because Contra Costa uses a tried and true `mark-a-vote'
system for counting votes, additional issues/races can be accommodated by adding ballot cards."
(Report § C, p. 2.) While Mr. Weir also expresses concern about election workers handling
additional cards, those concerns are not ones of ballot style and cannot, therefore, negate a
finding that the County's ballot style can accommodate additional elections. Mr. Weir affirmed
such a finding at the March 4 Board meeting when he stated that the only possible statutory
ground on which the Board could deny consolidation was the inadequacy of the County's
inserter, which has to be replaced regardless of consolidation. The inserter issue is discussed
below. Regardless of that issue, however, it is clear from Mr. Weir's report and comments to the
Board that the District's request cannot be denied on the basis of ballot style.
2
B. The County's Computer Has Adequate Capacity to Accommodate Consolidation
The second ground on which the statute will allow the Board to deny consolidation is
computer capacity. At the March 4 meeting, Mr. Weir expressed confidence in the County's
computer capacity to handle the growing demands of elections, including the consolidation of all
elections to even-numbered years, should that happen. His confidence is affirmed on page 4 of
section C of the Report. There, Mr. Weir writes:
On the issue of computer program capacity, our MV 15,000 houses both the
Recorder RIMS program and the Election EIMS program. (This computer has
been funded out of the Recorder's budget.) The Recorder has purchased a state-
of-the-art optical scanning system and will free up needed capacity for the
elections system. Currently,the two compete for capacity and speed requiring an
off hours operator to run reports. This will be resolved by separating much of the
Recorders [sic] system from the MV 15,000 over the next twelve months.
Because the County's computer capacity is adequate,the Board may not deny
consolidation on this basis.
C. The County's Voting Equipment Is Adequate to Accommodate Consolidation
Mr. Weir stated on March 4 that the County's inserter equipment is insufficient to handle
consolidation. However,his Report on Consolidation of Elections states that, "This [inserter]
unit operated admirably. However,with or without consolidation, we must now replace the 21
year old 12 station inserter. The manufacturer no longer carries replacement parts and we have
had to resort to locating surplus equipment to secure used parts." (Report, § C,page 5.
(Emphasis added.) (Spelling and punctuation quoted as written in original.))
On March 4, before the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Weir cited this issue as the sole basis
on which the Board could deny consolidation under the statute. However, it is obvious from the
Report that a consolidation of elections has no bearing on the need to replace the inserter. With
or without consolidation, a new inserter must be purchased. Therefore, the County cannot deny
3
Acalanes' consolidation request on the basis of deficient voting equipment.
Since the County has the capacity to handle a consolidated election as requested by
Acalanes, it must as a matter of law grant Acalanes' request. The Board has no discretion: absent
a finding on one of the three enumerated areas, the Board"shall approve the resolution."
(Elec. Code, § 10404.5, subd. (d)(1), (emphasis added).)
II. THE REPORT ON CONSOLIDATION DOES NOT PROVIDE A BASIS FOR
DENYING THE DISTRICT'S REQUEST
The County Clerk presents figures and arguments supporting a move for"cooperative
realignment" among districts. He posits that costs will be equalized between odd and even-
numbered election years by removing the $170 cap on charges for even-year elections, removing
the fifteen percent(15%) surcharge on the districts holding elections in odd years, and recovering
costs mandated under SB 90 for districts holding elections in odd years. Mr. Weir opines that
such action will result in a fifteen to twenty-seven percent(15%-27%) savings to districts
presently holding elections in odd years. Mr. Weir's figures and analysis, however, do not
support his conclusion.
Using figures from the most recent past elections, the Acalanes Union High School
District would have to experience a cost reduction of between seventy-five and eighty percent
(75%-80%)to achieve parity, not the fifteen to twenty-seven percent(15%-27%) Mr. Weir
suggests. The fact that the cap on costs for even-year elections will be removed will bring those
districts closer, but, by Mr. Weir's own admission at the March 4 Board of Supervisors
Meetings, it will not make the costs equal.
The Report on Consolidation contains troubling inconsistencies and incorrect
information. As such, the report cannot serve as a basis to support Mr. Weir's proposal for
4
"cooperative realignment," and it most certainly cannot serve as a basis for denying the
District's request to consolidate. Specific inconsistencies and inaccuracies are discussed below.
A. Issues Concernink Capacity: Section C
1. Capacity of Ballots and Equipment
Mr. Weir addresses in section C the three bases on which the Board of Supervisors is
allowed to deny the District's request to consolidate pursuant to Elections Code section 10404.5.
As discussed above, Mr. Weir concedes that the computer capacity and ballot capacity is
sufficient to accommodate consolidation. On page 5 he identifies that the 12-station inserter is
21 years old and must be replaced. Mr. Weir makes it clear in section C that the replacement of
this unit has nothing to do with consolidation. He states specifically, "However, with or
without consolidation, we must now replace the 21 year old 12 station inserter [sic]." Despite
his acknowledging that replacing the inserter is a separate issue from consolidation, Mr. Weir
lists the mail inserter in Appendix (1) as a"capital cost associated with consolidation."
Associating this cost with consolidation after admitting that it must be incurred with or without
consolidation is clearly an error. The Supervisors, therefore, must ignore the $225,000 inserter
as a consolidation cost.
2. Proposition 218
Also in section C, on page 6, Mr. Weir makes the erroneous assumption that Proposition
218 will require that bond elections be moved to whatever year the elections are held for
candidates in the same governing body. In fact, Proposition 218 states, in relevant part, "No
local government may impose, extend, or increase any general tax unless and until that tax is
submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote. A general tax shall not be deemed
to have been increased if it has been imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so
5
approved. The election required by this subdivision shall be consolidated with a regularly
scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government, except in
cases of emergency declared by unanimous vote of the governing body." (Cal. Const., art. XIII
C, § 2 subd. (b), (emphasis added).)
In section 1 of article XIII C, a general tax is defined as "any tax imposed for general
governmental purposes." A special tax, on the other hand, is defined as "any tax imposed for
specific purposes, including a tax imposed for specific purposes, which is placed into a general
fund." School districts are authorized by law to levy taxes, including the sale of general
obligation bonds, only for specific purposes, making them special taxes. (Ed. Code, § 15100, et
seq.) As such, Proposition 218 in this regard does not apply to them, and the bond measures do
not have to be scheduled for the same ballot as candidates for that governing body. The Board,
therefore, may not consider the future impact of any bond elections on the consolidation issues
before them.
B. Issues Concerning Section D: Cost Comparisons
In section D of the Report On Consolidation of Elections, Mr. Weir first sets forth the
cost to the County should it not allow any consolidation. (See "top" chart on Attachment D-1.)
He compares that cost with the cost of allowing 9 agencies to consolidate with the November
1998 general election and the remaining 31 agencies to consolidate with the November 2000
election. (See "second" chart on Attachment D-1 to Report.) Mr. Weir's figures, however, are
not consistent. The major inconsistencies are itemized below.
1. Mail Inserter
I'n the top chart of Attachment D-1, Mr. Weir includes a$229,000 item for fixed assets
under the year 1996-97. No additional fixed asset is recorded on that chart. From Mr. Weir's
6
earlier narrative, however, it is obvious that the cost of a new inserter should appear in one of
those columns as the inserter must be purchased "with or without consolidation."
The replacement of the inserter is listed as $225,000 in Appendix (1). While no entry in
the top chart of Attachment D-1 reflects such an expenditure, Mr. Weir's second chart reflects a
$250,000 fixed asset expenditure in 1998-1999, his analysis of costs if consolidations were
allowed. As the $250,000 expenditure is approximately the cost of the inserter, it appears that
Mr. Weir has attributed that cost to the County only if consolidation is allowed, the same
allocation he makes in Appendix (1). Surely the County Clerk has made a mistake and is not
intentionally trying to present this expenditure as one associated only with consolidation. Once
the mistake is corrected, the net cost to the County without agency consolidations is
approximately $258,000 more in 1998-1999 than if consolidation were allowed.
2. Personnel Costs
Mr. Weir uses 1996-1997 as his base year. Because that year has passed, the figures in
the top and second chart should be the same. However, the personnel costs itemized in the last
five lines of the second chart do not equal the salaries and benefits in the first line of either the
first or second chart. Specifically, the sum of the cost of permanent employees, additional
employees, temporary employees, and permanent overtime is listed at the bottom of the second
chart as $1,240,593. The cost of salaries and benefits, however, at the top of column 1 in both
the top and second charts is $1,159,699. The figure for salaries and benefits in all other columns
in chart 2 is exactly the same as the sum of the permanent, additional, and temporary employees
plus the permanent overtime. It would seem, therefore, that Mr. Weir should either add the
approximately $81,000 difference to the top chart or deduct it from the second chart. At any rate,
as represented on Attachment D-1, Mr. Weir's base-year figure for salaries and benefits is off by
7
approximately $81,000.
The personnel costs in column 2 are also suspect by approximately $80,000. Mr. Weir
assumes in his Attachment D-1 that 9 agencies consolidate with the November 1998 election; he
has not, however, subtracted those 9 agencies from the November 1997 election. The cost of
those 9 agency elections and the revenues to the County from the agencies are reflected in the
second column. Because Mr. Weir assumes no consolidations until 1998-1999, the figures in
column 2 (1997-1998) should be exactly the same in all charts on the attachment. Mr. Weir,
however, adds an additional $80,267 to salaries and benefits in chart 2. This figure is also
reflected as additional net County cost in 1997-1998 in the third chart on Attachment D-1. It
makes no sense that the County would incur an additional cost in a year Mr. Weir assumes
maintains the status quo.
It would seem that, to give a more accurate picture of the effect of consolidation, Mr.
Weir should have removed the 9 agencies seeking consolidation from the 1997-1998 election
year and added them to the 1998-1999 election year. While he added them to the 1998-1999
election year in chart 2, he failed to remove them from the 1997-1998 election year. Like the
personnel figures that cannot be reconciled, this discrepancy raises suspicion about Mr. Weir's
conclusions.
Inconsistent figures concerning personnel issues are also reflected in the year 2001-2002.
Mr. Weir identifies in chart 2 for that year a$300,000 increase in personnel costs over the
previous year and over the scenario if no consolidations occur, indicated in the top chart. The
year 2001-2002 is an odd year and, under Mr. Weir's assumptions, no elections will be held as
the remaining 31 agencies will have consolidated with the November 2000 election. If no
elections are held in the year 2001-2002, the County will not need to spend $300,000 for
8
additional employees over the previous year. Similarly, if no elections are held in the year 2001-
2002, the County will not have to spend $300,000 more in personnel costs over what it will
spend if consolidations are not allowed. (See, chart 1 on Attachment D-1.) These figures simply
cannot be reconciled, and they cannot serve as a basis for the Board to deny the District's request
to consolidate.
3. Fixed Assets
Mr. Weir includes as a fixed asset a$750,000 expenditure in the year 2000-2001. He has
not, however, explained what this fixed asset is and why the need for it exists only if elections
are consolidated. Also, as discussed above, Mr. Weir presents in a similar fashion what the
District assumes is the new mail inserter for the year 1998-1999. That item is listed, without
explanation, as $250,000 on Attachment D-1 and $225,000 on Appendix (1). It is simply
unreasonable for the Board to rely on these unexplained figures, and neither the figures nor the
analysis present any basis on which the Board is entitled to deny the District's request to
consolidate.
4. Budget Analysis
Mr. Weir offers a graphic depiction of his understanding of the Contra Costa County
Elections Office Budget on Attachment D-2. The figures on that graph are the sum of his
understanding of net expenditures and his understanding of revenues should consolidations occur
from the years 1996-2001.
A figure including both costs and revenues on a budget graph is meaningless. For
instance, Attachment D-2 suggests that the County's budget will grow by almost $2,000,000 in
one year from 1999 to 2000. In fact, however, the net County cost, according to Attachment D-
1, decreases by almost $1,000,000 in that same time period. Again, Mr. Weir's figures and
9
characterization of those figures are questionable, and the Board cannot reasonably use the
figures as a basis for its decision.
C. Issues Concerning Cooperative Realignment Proposal: Section E
While the Acalanes Union High School District may consider a proposal for voluntary
"cooperative realignment" in the future, Mr. Weir's figures and assumptions in his Report on
Consolidation cannot serve as a basis for that consideration.
In section E, Mr. Weir states that the purpose of encouraging all jurisdictions to join the
November, odd-numbered year elections is to "conserve taxpayer dollars and to allow for a more
efficient use of County election resources." As discussed above, his figures do not establish that
taxpayer dollars would be saved or that County election resources would be used more
efficiently. In fact, many of his figures indicate that money will be saved and resources will be
more readily used if consolidation is allowed.
Mr. Weir makes an argument that equalization in costs will occur by the County
removing the fifteen percent (15%) surcharge on agencies holding elections in odd-numbered
years and will collect possibly up to twelve percent(12%) of elections costs through SB 90.
While the fifteen percent (15%) reduction is a certainty, the twelve percent (12%) is not, and
even if both reductions occurred, it would still not restore parity. Mr. Weir's presentation in
section E establishes only that agencies that have been holding elections in odd-numbered years
have been deprived of equal protection under the laws as they have been subsidizing the costs of
elections held in even-numbered years.
Mr. Weir makes additional assumptions in section E concerning voter turnout,
voluminous ballots, media attention, and local issues. His assumptions, however, are not
supported by facts or data, and arguments can just as easily be made that voter turnout, media
10
attention, and other factors will improve if the elections are consolidated.
D. Issues Concerning Capital Costs: Appendix (11
In Appendix (1), Mr. Weir sets forth the capital costs associated with consolidation. As
discussed above with respect to the inserter, these figures are suspect. In addition to the mail
inserter, Mr. Weir attributes a$4,000,000 optical ballot scanner to a cost associated with
consolidation. It may be advisable for the County to purchase such a scanner because of the
general issues it has concerning elections, but no reason exists as to why that cost is associated
only with consolidation.
Another cost Mr. Weir associates only with consolidation is the purchase of plastic ballot
bins. It would seem that the number of ballots to be collected will grow with the growing
population in the County regardless of election year. While Mr. Weir's concern about the weight
of the boxes may be justified, the problem can be easily remedied by using more boxes with
fewer ballots in them rather than purchasing "high quality plastic bins" in which twenty-five
percent will wear out and have to be replaced after a single use. (See Appendix C, Ballot Bin
Cost: $77,000 estimate included to replace bins over a 5-year period.)
Regardless of additional costs associated with consolidation, those costs could easily be
absorbed by the County assessing a one-time charge on all districts using election office
facilities.
CONCLUSION
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has no legal authority to deny the
Acalanes Union High School District's request for consolidation. Pursuant to statute, the Board
of Supervisors must approve the request unless it finds that the "ballot style, voting equipment,
or computer capacity is such that additional elections or materials cannot be handled." Mr.
11
Weir's Report on Consolidation of Elections establishes that the County can accommodate the
eight consolidations presently before it. While it is not permissible for the County to consider
hypothetical requests for consolidation in the future, should those requests occur, the County's
machinery will be able to handle them as well.
Despite the fact that the Board of Supervisors has no legal ground on which to deny the
District's request, the District understands that the County Clerk would appreciate districts not
moving from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years. The figures and discussion in his
report, however, do not encourage such cooperation, as those figures are inaccurate and in
conflict with one another.
Mr. Weir's report makes clear that the Acalanes Union High School District, as well as
other agencies holding elections in odd-numbered years, has been deprived of equal protection
under the laws as it has been unfairly charged for the costs of those elections, and the fees it has
paid have subsidized elections in even-numbered years. This wrong cannot continue, and the
only way to ensure that it will stop is to consolidate the election of Acalanes Union High School
District Board of Education with the General Election in even-numbered years.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: March 11 1997
JAMES J. PE O, Ed.D.
SUPERINTENDENT
ON BEHALF
OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR THE
ACALANES UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
E:\WP\CLIENTS\1015\10017\RESP.1
12