HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03041997 - D1 D. 1
THE BOARD OR SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on _March 4, 1997 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
(See below for vote on motions)
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SUBJECT: Report on the Consolidations of Elections
The Board considered and commented on the report of Steve
Weir, County Clerk-Recorder on the impact of consolidation of
elections on the Elections Division of his Department. Board
members expressed an interest in reviewing the Consolidation
Report of Mr. Weir with the report of the Contra Costa County
Elections Task Force entitled "Review of the County Elections
Office" that was scheduled for Board consideration on March 11,
1997 .
In order to also consider the Task Force Report at this
time, the Board found that the completed Task Force Report was
brought to the attention of the Board after the Agenda was
posted, and by unanimous vote (noted below) agreed to consider it
also today:
Ayes: Supervisors Rogers, Uilkema, Gerber, Canciamilla,
DeSaulnier
Noes: None
Abstain: None
George Roemer, Senior Deputy County Administrator and
Chair of the Elections Task Force, summarized the work of the
Task Force, its findings and recommendations to correct
deficiencies through the development of an action plan to improve
the operation and management of the Elections Office.
The following persons spoke on issues pertinent to the
advantages/disadvantages of consolidating municipal, schools, and
special districts with even-/odd-numbered election years;
economic factors associated with elections in even-/odd-numbered
years; and the potential for increased voter turn-out when
elections coincide with general elections in even-numbered years:
Bill Manigan, City of Concord, 1848 Willow Pass Road,
Concord;
Karl Kaste, 1556 Oakroyal Drive, Concord;
Rick Doyle, City of Concord, 1950 Parkside Drive, Concord;
Deborah Levine, Moraga School Board, 707 Crossbrook Drive,
Moraga;
Roy Butler, 422 Fensalir Avenue, Pleasant Hill;
William McDonald, 3920 E. E1 Campo Court, Concord;
Karen Ustin, P. O. Box H2O, Concord;
James Perino, Superintendent, Acalanes Union High School
District, 1212 Pleasant Hill Road, Lafayette;
Ernie Scherer, 4056 Greenwich Drive, San Ramon; and
Elizabeth L. Rudnick, Acalanes School Board, 884 Acalanes
Road, Lafayette.
Election Consolidation
March 4, 1997
Page 2
All persons desiring to speak were heard. Board Members
discussed the reports presented both by the County Clerk and the
Elections Task Force, and were in agreement that they would like
further time to review the reports prior to making a decision.
There was also consensus that the Board wanted to have the Task
Force Report listed on the March 11, 1997, Agenda as scheduled.
The Board concurred on the need to act on the requests for
election consolidation of the Canyon Elementary and the Contra
Costa Water District but to defer action at this time on the
request of the City of Concord.
The Board then took the following actions:
1. ACCEPTED the report from the Clerk-Recorder on the
cost/benefits of consolidating municipal, schools,
and/or special district elections with General
Elections held in even-numbered years, and CONTINUED
consideration of this report to March 18, 1997, at a
time to be determined by staff;
2 . DENIED the requests of Canyon Elementary School
District and the Contra Costa Water District to
consolidate all elections for governing board members
or trustees with the statewide General Elections in
even-numbered years with the understanding that all
requests for consolidation that have been received will
be reconsidered by the Board on March 18, 1997;
3. CONTINUED consideration of the request of the City of
Concord to March 18, 1997;
4 . REQUESTED the County Clerk to report to the Board on
March 18, 1997 on issues presented this day including
costs to the special districts for the consolidation of
elections in even-/odd-numbers years, issues associated
with ballot inserts, statutory responsibility, etc.
The vote on these actions was as follows:
Ayes: Supervisors Rogers, Uilkema, Gerber, DeSaulnier
Noes: Supervisor Canciamilla
Abstain: None
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN .
ATTESTED March 4, 1997
Phi_l Batoheior,Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and County Administrator
By Deputy
cc: County Clerk-Recorder
County Administrator
Canyon Elementary School
Contra Costa Water District
City of Concord
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: STEVE WEIR, County Clerk-Recorder
DATE: February 17, 1997 e'er
SUBJECT: Consolidations of Elections
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Consider report from Clerk- Recorder on the impact of consolidation on the elections
office.
2. Endorse Registrar of Voters' conceptual Non-Partisan Local Government Cooperative
Realignment Election Plan (Cooperative Realignment) which will encourage all local
agencies to consolidate their elections with the November, odd numbered year election.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR_RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
_APPROVE _OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED_OTHER_
i
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS UE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ON TAKEN
_UNANIMOUS(ABSENT_) AND ENTERED ON THE TES OF THE BOARD
AYES: NOES: OF SUPERVISORS O E DATE SHOWN.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
ATTESTED
Phil Bat or,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator
BY DEPUTY
/ 1
j
Summary Discussion:
On 2/2/93, the Board of Supervisors passed a Board Order which added a capital
surcharge on all elections from 1/1/93 to 12/31/97. In even numbered years, we froze our
costs for local agencies at $170.00 per precinct. Even though costs have gone up, this
number has remained constant for five years. The county has bom the costs of any
shortfall due to this pricing strategy.
The Elections Office has billed out actual direct costs to all local agencies on the ballot
in odd numbered years plus the 15% capital costs recovery. In 1992, these two numbers
(odd and even year pricing) were as close as we could calculate.
The reason we fixed costs in November even numbered years was due to the complicated
bookkeeping requirements associated with so many overlapping jurisdictions when
consolidated with federal, state and county mandated general elections.
As elections have become much more complicated requiring more training, more staff
and more supervision, costs have gone up.' We have prepared a section showing that
actual costs go down for odd year agencies while going up for even year agencies. We
have also demonstrated that cost savings are maximized for School Districts, Special
Districts and Municipalities if all consolidate with odd numbered year general elections!
Agencies who have been billed actual costs for the November odd year election have
compared their costs with the consolidated even numbered year elections ($170.00 per
precinct) and they find great economic incentives to move to the November even number
year election. The attached report gives more details of the issues facing the Elections
Office with these requested consolidations.
Over the past several years, 33 of our 73 cities, school districts, and special districts have
consolidated their election with our November, even numbered year election (state and
federal general election). The remaining 40 have consolidated their election with the
November, odd numbered year election (local general election).
Due to concerns about voter tum out and more importantly, due to the cost disparity
between the two cycles, several local agencies have petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to allow them to move their election date from odd to even numbered years.
'We have lowered postage costs, storage, and distribution of our polling materials.
2
This preliminary report is organized into the following seven sections:
"Background"
"A" Legislative History
"B" Problems with Consolidation
"C" Cost Effectiveness Report
"D" Cost Analysis
"E" Cooperative Realignment Plan
'T' Status, Other Jurisdictions
Appendix
(1) Capital Costs
(2) Labor Costs
3
Background Report:
School districts and special districts are required to seek the Board of Supervisors approval to
consolidate elections 240 days prior to their scheduled election. (Municipalities must also seek
Board approval. However, that deadline is not defined in the Election nor the Government
Code.) That deadline for petitioning the Board to change this years' scheduled election is March
9, 1997. If you approve any or all consolidations, those districts must then notify each voter in
their district by mail of the change. The cost of that notification is bom by each district.
This report is coming to you at this time because six (6) school districts, one (1) city and one (1)
water district have requested consolidation. If the Board of Supervisors approves additional
consolidations, pressure will mount for still more consolidations in the future. This analysis
assumes that if you allow these nine consolidations for 1998, the remaining 31 will request
consolidation with the general election in 2000.
There are two points the Board should keep in mind when considering consolidation requests.
First, I do not believe that our Elections Office can accommodate the additional consolidations
with our November, even numbered year elections without costly changes to the way we conduct
elections in Contra Costa. Second, elections are increasing in complexity without increases in
time to prepare for elections. Additional overlapping agencies dramatically add to the
complexity of our already crowded November, even numbered year elections. I have discussed
these two issues with various representatives of city, school, and special districts. Some do not
1
acknowledge the problem of complexity or capacity as being a legitimate limiting factor. They
see elections as strictly a county problem. More moderate local officials have given me three
general comments concerning consolidation.
First, some districts do not necessarily want to change from odd to even numbered year
elections. However, if a"partner"agency(one that currently shares elections costs with that
agency) goes off the odd and onto the even year election, the remaining agency(ies)will have to
pick up a greater share of the costs of their election.
As an example, if the Acalanes Unified School District goes off this November election, the
school districts who share this election including Orinda, Canyon, Moraga, and Walnut Creek
argue that they cannot afford to remain on the November odd year cycle even if they wanted to
remain.
Another example involves the Mt. Diablo Unified School District. This district shares part of the
November, 1997 election with the City of Concord and Contra Costa Water. If one goes from
odd to even numbered years,they all want to go from odd to even numbered year elections.
Second, under our current cost allocation resolution, it is just plain cheaper to consolidate with
November, even numbered year elections. This is because mandated federal, state, and county
issues appear on the November, even numbered year ballot. This will always drive down the
costs for each agency who piggy-back on this election.
2
Note: Federal and State governments contribute ZERO to offset the cost of their elections. The
only exception to this is the SB90 reimbursements for some costs associated with mandated
absentee voting. The county picks up the federal and state election costs.
Third, some will argue that the benefit of consolidation to November even numbered years is
greater voter tum out. While this is generally true, voter drop off(skipping issues) does occur
with longer ballots. With the ease in absentee voting, those seeking higher voter tum-out only
have to encourage people to vote absentee.
Proposal:
I am proposing that we abandon the principle in the Election Fee Board Order adopted 2/2/93. (It
will sunset 12/31/97.) This Board Order froze even numbered year costs at $170.00 per precinct.
I will propose the same pro-rate share cost system for even and odd year elections.
Our goal is to equalize election costs between even and odd year elections. I am proposing an
actual minimum costs reduction for odd year elections of between 20 and 27%.
The attached costs analysis in Section "D" demonstrates that,when calculating costs in even
numbered years, on a pro-rated shared basis, costs go up.
If one assumes 9 consolidations in 1998 and 31 consolidations in 2000, due to cost sharing,
actual agency savings is close to $700,000 over a 5 year period. However, county costs go up
3
close to $1,940,000. The net increase to the general taxpayer is close to $1,240,000. (See
Attachment"D".)
In addition, I am proposing the establishment of the Non-Partisan Local Government
Cooperative Realignment Election Plan(Cooperative Realignments Section"E" outlines this
issue in more detail.
4
Section A
Legislative, History-
Six
istorySix election days are set by code for each two year cycle. Basically, all elections, except those
for charter city, charter counties and special elections must fall on one of those dates.
Those election dates are, as of 1994,November and June of even and odd years, March of odd
and April of even numbered years. However, over the past ten years, various legislative acts
have changed and changed again the options for election consolidations. The chart seen as
Attachment A-I & 2 show this legislative history. In Contra Costa, we only use three of the six
dates set as all agencies have already consolidated their elections.
Legislative intent often speaks of cost sharing and voter turn-out as reasons to consolidate.
However, legislative intent also specifies that issues of capacity and cost consequences must be
considered.
In Contra Costa, there are various consolidations that have taken place over the years.' Currently,
in Contra Costa, we have 21 school districts, 18 municipalities and 34 special districts for a total
of 73 local, non-partisan agencies.
'In 1983, I voted to move Concord off of the April, even numbered year cycle and onto
November, odd numbered year cycle. This allowed Concord to consolidate with school and most
special district elections. The philosophy at that time was shared costs and better tum out. The
consequences for the council was a 19 month extension on our terms, lower costs for the city and
somewhat better tum out.
1
As of I996, 33 of these districts had consolidated with November, even numbered year elections.
The remaining 40 had consolidated with November, odd numbered year elections. (See
attachment A-3).
2
Attachment A-I
General Law
Cities:
1978 & before, March, even number
1979 April, even number
1981 Consolidate, June/November, even number
1994 Consolidate,April,even or March, odd number
Schools:
1977-78,March, odd number
1979,November, odd number
I987, April, June,November,even number
1994,November, odd number,April/June/November, even number,March, odd number
Special Districts:
1978,November, odd number
1987,November, even number
State:
June/November, even number, except March `96 or any special election
Charter Cities:
Any date specified in Charter
Community College:
1978, March,odd number
1980, November, odd number
1986,November, even number
1997,(school)
3
Attachment 6_
/ )
§ ( » �
. ; 0 M z )
! | £ , »
) } ! ( ¥ , af ! } ! t ( 2
/
L)
k\ } k ! ; ; | ! !
\ ( � � 0 � � \ \
} } ! ; ) ( f } $ \ !
; 0 { § ( !
\ ) \ { i| } ) § 0 } } }
, )
} } ! & ! k } £ ! !
&
> ( £ / ! !
§ ■ ! ! ) ( �
$ ( ; ■ , ; ! ! £ § ! !
! &
_ ! &
\ } $ } ! £ £ ! !
aE }
# 7 $ ƒ { \ ■ � » :
\ \ , \ / k \ }
!
) ) ) ! ( ! ) Z = ) k ! ! f
2 f -
!
) E — ) !
! ! 0C5 0
� ! K ) \ : k / \ k ` = M0 J {
: \ j ( \ § ( ` � �
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 7/17/96 TENTATIVE
NOVEMBER 5,1996
SCHEDULE OF ELECTIONS
Nomination period--July 15, 1996 through August 9, 1996 Attachment A-3
FEDERAL OFFICES Page 1
President/Vice President
U S Representatives-7th and 10th District
STATE OFFICES
State Senator-7th and 9th District
State Assembly- I I th, 14th and I Sth District
NON PARTISAN OFFICES
JUDICIAL
Superior Court Judge-Office 2,Dept.7
COUNTY OFFICES
Supervisor-District 2
Supervisor-District 3
SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Contra Costa Board of Education-Area 1,II(short term),III,&IV(short term)
Contra Costa Community College District-Wards 2&5
John Swett Unified School District (3)
Livermore Valley It.Unified School District(2)
San Ramon Valley Unified School District(2)
SPECIAL DISTRICTS
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District-At-large&Ward 1
Bay Area Rapid Transit District-Districts 1,3,5&7
East Bay Municipal Utility District-Ward 1
East Bay Regional Park District-Wards 1 &2
Contra Costa Resource Conservation District(3)
Dublin San Ramon Service District(3)
Kensington Community Services District (2)
Kensington Fire Protection District(2 full tern)(1 short term)
Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District (2)
Los Medanos Community Health Care District (2)
Mt Diablo Health Care District (3)
West Contra Costa Health Care District (2)
Ambrose Recreation&Park District (2)
Pleasant Hill Recreation&Park District (2)
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (3)
Crockett-Valona Sanitary District (3)
Rodeo Sanitary District (3)
Stege Sanitary District (2)
Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council(3)
Diablo Municipal Advisory Council(5)
Discovery Bay Municipal Advisory Council (3 Full Term)(1 Short Term)
CITY ELECTIONS
City of Antioch Councilmembers (2),Mayor,Clerk,Treasurer
City of Brentwood Councilmembers(2),Mayor
City of Clayton Councilmembers(3
City of Hercules Councilmembers 3)
Town ofMoragaCouncilmembers 3)
City of Martinez Councilmembers (2),Clerk,Treasurer
City of Onnda Councilmembers (2)
City of Pinole Councilmembers (2).Clerk,Treasurer
City of San Pablo Councilmembers (3)
City of Walnut Creek Councilmembers (3)
E\96nv sch
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Attachment A-3
SCHEDULE OF ELECTIONS Page 2
NOVEMBER 4, 1997
Nomination period -- July 14, 1997 through August 8, 1997
SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Acalanes Union High School District(3)
Antioch Unified School District(2)
Liberty Union High School District(3)
Brentwood Union School District(3)
Byron Union School District(3)
Canyon School District(2)
Knightsen School District(2)
Lafayette School District(3)
Martinez Unified School District(2)
Moraga School District(3)
Mt Diablo Unified School District(3)
Oakley Union School District(3)
Orinda Union School District(3)
Pittsburg Unified School District(3)
Walnut Creek School District(3)
West Contra Costa Unified School District(3)
SPECIAL DISTRICTS
Diablo Community Services District(3)
El Sobrante MAC (3)
North Richmond MAC (4)
Castle Rock Water District(2)
Contra Costa Water District,Div. 1 and 2
Diablo Water District(3)
San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District(2)
Byron-Bethany Irrigation District, Div. 1,2 and 3
East Contra Costa Imgation District, Div. I and 4
Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District(2)
Green Valley Recreation and Park District(3)
Rollingwood-Wilart Park Recreation and Park District(2)
Byron Sanitary District(2)
Mt.View Sanitary District2)
West County Waste Water istrict(3)
Ironhouse Sanitary District(2)
CITY ELECTIONS
City of Concord, Member City Council(3),City Clerk, Treasurer
Town of Danville,Member Town Council(2)
City of El Cerrito, Member City Council (3)
City of Lafayette, Member City Council (2)
City of Pittsburg, Member City Council(3), City Clerk, Treasurer
City of Pleasant Hill, Member City Council (2)
City of Richmond, Mayor, Member City Council(4)
City of San Ramon, Member City Council(2)
f..\97elsch
Section B
Problems with Consolidation:
Registrars throughout California are questioning our ability to conduct accurate and fraud free
elections with larger and more complicated balloting in California. The Secretary of State will
hold an Election Summit in Sacramento this March to review:
1. Absentee voting and third party delivery of such ballots
2. Polling place procedures including "fail - safe" voting
3. Canvass procedures, challenges and timeliness of process
These three topics have surfaced based on our statewide experiences coming out of problems
with the November, 1996 election.
Because of a new reappointment approach, more and more state and federal legislative districts
are competitive. This means races are going to be closer. With more competative legislative
districts comes more aggressive "get-out-the-vote" activity. This results in more attempts by
voters to vote both by absentee ballots (we had a record 102,000 absentee ballots issued in last
Novembers' election) and by provisional ballot (sometimes voting by both)!
The issue of voter trust in our election system must carry an equal or heavier weight than the
issues of pure dollars and cents. An overly burdensome election and one so complicated that it
cannot be logically and methodically conducted will result if all elections are consolidated.
Our office has prepared two sets of graphs to demonstrate the long term potential impact of
1
consolidation. One way to graphically display the complexity of an election is to show ballot
styles. Each jurisdictional combination requires the printing of more unique ballot combinations,
or styles, for that election.
Attachment B-1 shows our actual history through 1996 and projected history through 2000 of
ballot styles. It assumes that those seeking consolidation will succeed. Thus ballot styles are
reduced in 1997 and added to 1998. Please note that the number of ballot styles for 1998
increases significantly. If we assume the remaining agencies consolidate off of the 1999 election
onto the 2000 election, the number of possible combinations more than doubles any experience
we have had since 1988.'
Note: Not all style combinations have voters in them. In November, 1996, we had 169 styles but
only 135 actual styles with votes. This will always be true because we have precincts in Contra
Costa with zero (0) voters. Also, every election has some special districts that doop t go to
election due to insufficient candidates.
If our year 2000 model were to be our planning parameter, the number of styles and the number
of inserts would overwhelm our current election staff and equipment.
Attachment B-2 demonstrates how complex our elections become as more and more overlapping
'The November, 1988 Election had approximately 250 ballot styles due in part, to 24
local measures appearing on that ballot.
2
jurisdictions consolidate.
Attachment B-3 shows what happens in a typical Danville Blvd. Alamo precinct when you
combine a local issue(the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District)with a presidential election.
You will see that we double our ballot types and turn several odd configurations into small stand-
alone precincts. When faced with this dilemma, we turn remnant sections into mail only
precincts to avoid very costly precinct changes. Voters bitterly complained of this move during
the 1996 presidential election
3
Attaebient B-1
N �
� O
r ,
1 \
1 ,
I 1 1 1 v , cnr
to
j r t t I i 1 t R
\ 1 \ 1 1A I r
to Ul),
CD '✓ �p t I I 1 1 1 ,
to
1
co
•�, r 1 \ 1 r I *n 1
1 1 1 r 1 I 1
'� • 1 I 1 4 1 1 O 1
i , 1 r , r �• L+
I
I
l 1 i 1 1 1 i i
f
i
ce) O �
I r
���
1 1 ,
1 t� � r
to N
q N
4
Ajtacbnient B-2
I
.AQP• ; ��� �-________ �
". .:pad•: �, �`�-----" ",
r
� t
i •
t
• 1
`qJn.
� •• I�„Go.st.RE�
. . . . . _ ..SiA•T�` AS
.�� Attachment B-2
Page 2
/
1
AAAA' 4
. 2 •
! v
► A
3
it
`1 WAO !
e •
I • � � +s ••t I
I ••• t
,
/ � t
/
1 •
r
,
r
s
•�
$TAT'E A5'
• •• 5�OFS2�
. page3
;� • • 1 pN 3
CON Rt . tpt2 \
-+
•• f
� Y e
• • • ` i t1uNtN motif.
... 1J u•,At
C, 0
' ' • •A's�•* .� �' •• ' SOS,
! A�ae�entB-2
Page A
"'`� � . �..?. , tits • f
kY�'1 1'S �. ' r i i r ' ��. . 't �t •
c
e45 � Ll��r� -�•AJ� 1 1 CN ��:h
✓i � t
UK 11
> 'op
L\ `. Attachment B-3
t \ L
03
492
401
l `
F. '` � + • '} \\\� `tom.` _
ft
, � r
- J `
C I \
yY
AL
y
.._" Lq� �. . e'``s a fb • ,`"�.
r
/ r
I � n
L �, �
Section C
Cost Effectiveness Report:
Because requests for consolidation can have an impact, not only on the ability of the Elections
Department to conduct elections, but on other jurisdictions as well, the Board of Supervisors is
required by statute to notify the County Board of Education and all school districts as well about
requests to consolidate.
Per statue, a consolidation request from a school district or a special district can be denied if the
Board finds that the ballot style, voting equipment, or computer capacity prevents the handling of
additional elections or elections materials. Technically, we reached the capacity of our sample
ballot mailing inserts at the November, 1996 General Election.
Any approval for consolidation will put pressure on remaining jurisdictions to request
consolidation in future years. Therefore, l am assuming that if any future consolidations are
permitted, I must plan for all agencies to consolidate.
Because we budget on a one-year cycle,total consolidation would result in higher cost recovery
for the Elections Office in even numbered year elections. However,higher election costs
and additional yearly fixed costs would overwhelm that increased cost recovery amount.
With almost total consolidation, cost recovery in odd years would go down significantly. Also, a
larger capital plant would be idle. In addition, a larger staff needed for even numbered years
1
elections would either have less to do or would follow a seasonal employment pattern.
The following discussion on capacity will be organized into four parts: "A - Capacity of Ballot
Cards", "B - Capacity of Tallying Equipment", "C - Capacity of Computer Equipment", and "D -
Capacity of Sample Ballot Mailing Equipment'.
A - Capacity of Ballot Cards:
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. However, the ability to physically
handle more and more cards of our election workers and of our tallying machines must be
considered.
The November, 1996 election required up to three cards to accommodate all federal and state
mandated offices and issues. Locally, consolidated issues required the addition of two cards.
This 65+% increase in cards added several hours to our count election night. We operated twelve
machines, with a highly trained technician on site as standby. (All machines were running full
time).
The additional cards added two and on-half hours to our semi-official election night tally. We
finished at 3:27 a.m. where as without the additional cards required by consolidation, we would
have finished closer to 1:00 a.m.
2
Also, of concern is the impact of large/heavy ballots upon our precinct inspectors. This citizen
based group (796 in November 1996) vary widely in age and physical stature. Our inspectors
receive delivery of their supply boxes prior to election day. They are responsible for transporting
these boxes to and from the polls.
Absent the ballots, the basic supply box weighs 14 pounds and is contained in a box 25.5" by
14.5" by 13.5". The following is a chart of weight by number of ballot cards:
Supply Box Weight by Number of Ballot Cards*:
3 card ballot 24lbs. + 14 lbs. = 38 lbs.
5 card ballot 40 lbs. + 14 lbs= 54 lbs.
8 card ballot 63 lbs. + 14 lbs. = 77 lbs.
10 card ballot 80 lbs. + 14 lbs. = 94 lbs.
* Assumes 1,000 ballot sets per precincts.
Riverside, using a similar system to Contra Costa, reached the 10 cards (20 face) situation in
1990 with supply boxes weighing 100 lbs., prompting Riverside County to deny consolidation
after 1993. Ballot capacity, our physical ability to transport and to count cards, is close to
capacity. I had to personally help inspectors load 54 pound boxes into their trunks. A 77 or 94
pound box would be absolutely prohibitive for many of our workers. (A multiple bin ballot card
option is considered under Appendix, (1)).
B - Caj?acjjy of Tallying Equipment:
'While there is a 12 card (24 face) limit on our present system, practically speaking, we will
3
exceed the capacity of this system with additional consolidations. We do not have any additional
space for machines nor trained operators if we had the additional machines. Our operation
election day last November began at 5:45 a.m.,November 5 and ended at 3:45 a.m.,November 6.
C - Capacity of Computer Equipment:
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 system from the MV 15,000 over the next twelve months.
D - Capacity of Sample Ballot Mailing Equipment:
Contra Costa has chosen to assemble it's own sample ballot packets. This has resulted in more
local quality control, easier and cheaper"printing-error" solutions, and an overall cheaper sample
ballot mailing cost.
Prior to 1992, we had an 8 station inserter which was 21 years old and well past its useful life.
We also had a 12 station Bell and Howell inserter which was 17 years old and nearing the end of
its useful life.
4
During the 1988 November General Election, demand on our sample ballot mailing unit was so
high that we had to double up on inserts (matching up different inserters into small books
because we exceeded the capacity of the individual inserts).
To accommodate the volume of excessive styles and excessive types of inserts per style, the
Elections Mailing unit operated at 12 hour shifts, seven days a week. During a critical period,
that unit operated two back-to-back 12 hour shifts for 96 hours. The supervisor literally lived at
the warehouse for four days.
This is not a good way to operate a unit. With the expected consolidations based on our 1988
experience, we sought a capital override to replace the 8 station unit with a 14 station unit. This
unit went on line for the 1994 election cycle.
In November, 1996, we experienced inserting for some ballot types that taxed our 14 station unit.
We also worked seven days a week, 12 hour shifts to process our mail.
This 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 surplused equipment to secure used parts.
In addition, the state will now allow partisan legislative candidates, as of 1/1/98, to provide a
candidate statement for sample ballot mailing by local Registrar of Voters. This will negatively
5
impact the capacity of our mail inserter.
The cost consequences of solving this issue is discussed in Section"D".
Another pressure consolidation places on our capacity is newly enacted Prop. 218. Under Prop.
218, bond t tax issues must now be scheduled for the same ballot as the candidates for that
governing body. Therefore, if most/all agencies consolidate with even numbered year elections,
their tax measure will also have to be accommodated on that election.
6
Attachment D-1
Ln Co M
A M'- C07_ o
°
f 0) N
r r
Lo
IT Co
i
00000000 N f` 00 1- O I O 1` t-- O O O r` N
00 00000 O t0 O t0 O (O O Co Co O O 9
N 00 O O O O O N O N O N O N N O N
O 00 010 t00 N 0 t ) O t0 6000 t00 O G
00 00 C) r-r` N to N (O') N tCD O0 CO M CO CO 0 O M (D N 0
O (� O N
O " N ' N 1- V.: r 17 N N N r h
(y O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r` O O O r (O N � O O O -
O O O O O O O 4 00 00 CD O M M (0000 0 4
O O p p 0 0 0 O N O C N O N O h N O 00 N O N
C O O O CO 0 0 r O 0 (00 t00 C) CUD K tLO Ch to 00 O to O O w
0 NO CO (D tO0 N (0O n V � N COM OMNr (�O NtOo
0 17 N N 7 N R ' V N 7 r V (b
N 10 M
OOOOOOOO O Ih001- Ol- O h r000t� o
00 00000 4 (DO ro0 (D0w w00o (D o
O
00 00000 O N O N O N O N 9
N O O O N
0) O O T t0 V O R 6 N N V7 C (D
Oa 000 a) � f` NN M )N U' Cl) N ONN MX0Ct
MN ' N � V- N N N 1 0CD
r f`
N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) r` O O r` O n N O r` 0 0 0 n N
00 00000 0) woow0000 (00000 m
C W 0- 0- 0 0 0 0 0 OD N O C N O N N O N O O O N ap
O M OO CD-
to 0 W) M too a LO O0Mr to0OO 0 � t0h
O O O CO O r O) N O t0 r w 0 w O t0 M (D 0) N
H (0 W � (O (00 r � (pNN � 000 0 �M t0 N CO
NQ)
N N r r r '- M C7 N V r C> f`
CL
U oo000CCD rn0Otnorl. Mw r- OOpr ccO OO O O O a u> atoo (D O to c ' tD o o O 0 m
C
OO000M0 N O N O N M OO O O N O0 t
T O O O (O o 0) N tOOto
N O M r• U
(/J n ' M mor 00 0)iA 0 , Go C14
O0 CO00i W O ^ M O SON C)
Q) N
V 0) r '- N ' N r r M N 1- r - CD 00
T Y! 0 N
v+ v
C p) 000AF� W 000) 0 (M t� N t, OMMM A O >
C 0) t00 V O V r` I, � M 0) t0O V O C nA (D Co 00) w O
R A (D n O C O C M O G tD tD r` O -�r O v M O N Co M M (p z
O M T W 0) 0) Co (o M Co to W M 0) of Cr; m L M C h U') O R O N M t
U O O v N M CO ttoo W) O w v N m CO 0 , n O v M N N
M 1 N 'Q O O m 3
♦+ r T r' N N �- r C 7 N ' N r �
Z O O
C a m m z C
C a
U
4) a Z 10 3 rn
°� 3 w >< m d
CL H m L)
Q F C
U) °C 0 c N v a m o IM
I
fa :2 3 0 c o0 � �
N U
0 Co
(i C t� 0 N um tM
N 0 ._ y N J. N T E C r 0
Z CU C 7 w 0 N � C 4) .r`d. 0 N O _O 0 C l0 O
(C C) d
0 0 m a 'v c M (Dj c Co a a c �j E a E > Co V U c OU ((D E
C � � cm �- o nam = w5 c O rn
ayi o) � � N a F`- C N c V (Co � u�i CL r c W Z O c N ? � z° rn �
A ¢ O y Q W C a > (n y � W C a > > C C (�° C N C d '
N L M U a y M W C) V Q1 0 C V 'a N ` W N U E O E E C C A C T Q) O
O N C) x O` N Cl d K 0 M 0 .x N o d d ''O C) C) 0 010
V d (� Q) O N
z 3 (n (n (iC� � zzz w :) (n (n (i0 szwz a ¢ Ha ¢ ¢ ¢ z ,
Attachment D-2
0
0
Co N
N
LO N N
M M
r rn
ro `l
N ry
C
m
O
M 0)
r
L O r
b N
N
LO
N � r
m
Co
� � r
w r
(O f0
� P
N
O
to .Q
CD o
y F LO
v r r N rn
O N 0)
U)
H N
0 N
N m
N
O
Co t
M
0 C CD
U F
y v
C F N N
CDCD
ci E
[ r
( M
P r
Co
(G M CF)
N �
r
a
O
E N W
[ C�
{ W
t Co
4 �
6 N Cono
pp O O oO �
O O O O O S
0 0 0 0 0 g
LQ o o LO
d -It M M N N
Attachment D-3
LID
rn
M
no
rn
O �
I r
co
G N r
i
W
mcn
of �
E m
1- 0 U') a
G 4 o
c
m � �
w
C o c
W ui
d 1t- °
v su 3
R c7 y
+lid �u $ d
Nf [V �- °
4 t m °
U a E r
N N7 IN
m m m E CI m n
> c °
C ¢ Zod
o
W Ey 0 ° a
d
d
j W
- U.U- c
N
co n
N O r r
p O �
O t N
O � �
Section E
Proposed Contra Cgsta Coup1y Cooperative Realignment of Local Election (Cooperative
Realignment)'
The purpose of encouraging all local jurisdictions onto the November, odd numbered year
elections "Local General Elections" is to conserve taxpayers dollars and to allow for a more
efficient use of county election resources.
Cost savings for the agencies under this plan are greater than under any other combination. This
proposal will also benefit local agencies by maximizing shared costs and by minimizing the need
for expensive capital expenditures.
Benefits include:
For Agencies
• Cheaper costs if all consolidate with "Local General Elections"versus consolidation with
statewide general elections.
• Starting this year, no capital cost recovery surcharge will be assessed on odd numbered
year elections because such elections do not tax the capacity of the Election's Office
equipment(this will reduce their costs by 15%).
• Starting this year, the Elections Office will prepare SB90 billings for odd numbered year
elections. In the past, we have only submitted SB90 billings for state elections. This can
further reduce odd year districts costs by 12% or more.
• School, city, and special district elections' centered on local candidates and measures and
are not lost on a voluminous ballot.
For Voters
'Modeled after the Riverside, 1993 proposal.
1
Benefits include: (continued)
• Voters have a clear separation of partisan and non-partisan elections.
• Voter turn out will improve over single issue elections.
• Voters will see local issues over an entire spectrum of issues and candidates with a
sizable but not overwhelming volume of materials to consider.
0 Media attention will be focused on local issues. Local issues will not be eclipsed by
major state and national issues.
• Encouraging motivated and concerned candidates for various offices since local issues
will be put back into the elections vocabulary.
For Election's Office
• Election department resources can be more economically managed because work load and
training will be more evenly distributed over a two year election cycle.
• Odd year elections are less expensive to conduct than State and Federal elections.
(Registrar prints fewer ballots 75%versus 125%, Registrar consolidates precincts which
reduces precinct costs by 54%.)
• Future cost increases would be lessened and more controllable.
Advantages with trend towards even year consolidation include:
• Greater voter turn out.
• Individual agency perceived cost savings.
Disadvantages with trend towards even year consolidation include:
• Excessively long ballots.
• Excessively heavy ballot boxes(up to 94 lbs.).
• Increased complexity of elections. (Increased potential for errors.)
2
Disadvantages include: (continued)
• Need for more precincts (over$800.00 per precinct).
• Need for more expensive capital expenditures.
• Need for more trained staff.
• Need to double number of seasonal clerks. (Less incentive for seasonal clerks to work for
Elections.)
• Less opportunity to train and perform critical functions.
• Less cost recovery for Elections Office in odd numbered years.
• Jurisdictions won't have elections centered around their candidates and issues.
• Extensive ballot programming and equipment certification testing is required.
• Taxes ballot counting equipment.
• Increases mail only ballot precincts due to pockets of voters created by overlapping
jurisdictions.
• Voters are given larger volumes of election materials. More decision making is required
of the voter.
3
Section F
Other Jurisdictions:
Calaveras: Allowed I college district and some schools. Now says "No" to all requests.
Regret allowing any consolidations.
Alameda: Board overrode Registrars request to deny consolidation. Alameda has a punch
card voting system. Limits number of items that can appear on ballot.
Monterey: Split between even/odd. Now are denying all requests due to overly large ballots.
Marin: Most districts remain on odd years. No interest in consolidating at this time.
Sonoma: Most have consolidated, ballots are too large, this is of great concern to Elections
Department. Wants to revise consolidation back to odd years.
Solano: Has not faced issue recently. (New Registrar of Voters as of 2/1/97).
Santa Clara: Do not deny requests,punch card system can handle.
San Mateo: Split between odd/even. No requests denied, they use a single page ballot, which
is scanned and counted at the polls.
San Francisco:Very few special districts. One combined city/county. Consolidation is not an
issue.
Los Angeles: Denied all consolidation requests since 1988. Los Angeles cities, schools and
special districts.
Riverside: Denied all consolidations since 1993, moving to encourage consolidations back
with November, odd numbered years.
1
APPENDIX (1)
Capital Costs
Costs Associated With Consolidation
Summary 5 Year Capital Costs:
Slaff' Supplies Capital 5 Year Total
Low: $47,060 0 $435,000 $462,060
Medium: $47,060 0 $959,000 $1,006,000
High: <$350,000> <$100,000> $4,225,000 $3,775,000
'Additional costs associated directly to capital project.
Capital Costs Associated With Consolidation (estimates)
Low:
Mail inserter(see A) $225,000
Miscellaneous (see B) $ 50,000
Ballot Bins (see C) $150,000
Financing $ 10,000
$435,000
Medium:
Mail inserter $225,000
Miscellaneous $ 50,000
Ballot Bins $150,000
Tally Machines (see D) $236,000
9 P.C. $ 27,000
28 controllers $ 42,000
80 additional precincts $125,000
Miscellaneous $ 5,000
$860,000
tax $ 71,000
software $ 20,000
installation (controller, p.c.'s) $ 8,000
$959,000
High:
Mail inserter $225,000
Optical ballot scanner' $4,000,000
$4,225,000
Savings, 5 years on
ballots and personnel — $450,000
$3,775,000
Modeled off of San Mateo system.
Mail Inserter
Appendix "A"
1. 20 station Kodak $170,000
2. 6 station add-on $ 35,000
$205,000
tax 8.25% $ 17,000
$222,000
Installation $ 4,000
$226,000
Maintenance:
3,000/year X 5 = $ 15,000
Operator
Warehouseman
1 month
12 hour shifts, 6 days/week
@ $15.00 an hour
160 hours @$15.00 =$2,400
128 hours @ $22.50=$2,880
$5,280/general election
Miscellaneous Capital
Appendix `B"
Additional absentee ballot storage $ 5,200
Mail Scale $ 3,050
Additional Signature Retrieval units $19,500
Work stations: $15,000
Chairs: $ 1,800
$44,550
tax $ 3,675
$48,225
Staffing For Signature Retrieval Stations'
1 month @ $13.00 an hour X 21 days X 8 hours X 6 stations= $13,100
Overtime 6 X $19.00 X 32 hours = $ 3,650
$16,750 /"
general
election
Ballot Bin Costs
Appendix "C"
Initial Costs:
'Contract Help
°Partially recoverable under S1390.
Ballot Bin Costs
Appendix "C„
Initial Costs:
800 precincts
80+ 10%
880
880 x 2 per precinct
1760
1760 @ $35 each
$ 61,600
+77,000 (25% replacement/year(x 5 years))
$138,600
$ 11,434 Tax
$150,035
These bins are high quality plastic bins that can transport 30 pounds of ballots. They have hinged
lids and can be sealed.
We currently transport ballots in cardboard boxes.
Tally Machines
Appendix "D"
Cost @ $19,000
12 X $19,000 = $228,000
We currently have 12 machines. They are rated at 2,000 cards per minute. However, the
effective rate is 300 cards per minute. We had 4.3 cards per voter in November, 1997 or
1,500,000 ballots casts.
These cards took from 8:45 p.m. to 3:27 a.m. to count. With 550,000 registered voters in 2000, a
70% turn-out, and 8 ballot cards, we will generate 3,100,000 ballot cards.
Twenty four machines would still take until 3:27 a.m. to count the cards.
(Under total consolidation,currently 12 machines would take from 8:45 p.m. until 11:00 a.m.
(over 14 hours).)
Note: Space allocation for these machines would be problematic. Also, finding and training an
additional 12 operators would be a challenge.
APPENDIX (2)
Personnel
Costs Associated With Consolidation
Summary 5 Year Personnel Costs
Assumes staffing need of an additional six permanent employees.
With additional demand for mail inserting, one additional warehouseman will be required.
Also, two Senior Clerks will be required prior to the November, 1998 election. The assumption
is that these staff members are brought on board mid year (fiscal 1997 - 98) so that they can be
trained.
Prior to complete consolidation, an additional three staff members, one supervisor and two
journey level clerks are added. They,too, are added mid year (fiscal year 1999 - 00) so that they
can be trained.
The assumption is that each set of 3 employees cost $150,000 annually in salaries, benefits, and
services and supplies.
It is also assumed that only 3 months out of every two years can be billed for each employee
under full consolidation.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
ADVISEMENT FORM
AGENDA DATE: � 9 1TElVI NO.:
D l
9?"" ADDITIONAL MATERIALS AVAILABLE IN THE MMJTES
❑ ITEM CONTINUED TO:
❑ ITEM DELETED
❑ PUBLIC COMMENT - NONE
❑ CONSIDERED CONSENT ITEMS PREVIOUSLY REMOVED -
SEE SUMMARY FOR CHANGES; OTHERWISE APPROVED AS
LISTED ON THE AGENDA
'IIS SECTION FOR PL4NNING T'TEMS ONLY
❑ ADDITIONAL MATERIAL AVAILABLE IN FILE (NAME):