Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05201997 - D11 ` .. Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR County Y t T'4 CpUy'� County Administrator DATE: May 8, 1997 SUBJECT: ELECTION COST EQUALIZATION AND 5 YEAR FACILITY AND CAPITAL NEEDS Specific Request(s) or Recommendations(s) & Background & Justification RECOMMENDATION: CONSIDER preliminary report from the Clerk-Recorder on the status of elections fees and a 5-year Master Plan for facilities and capital. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND: On March 18, 1997, the Board denied the request of eight school, municipal, and special districts to consolidate with the even year election cycle. Though these agencies would save money by consolidating, those that remained in the odd year cycle would cover the costs with increased fees. In addition, overall election costs would have gone up. The Board acknowledged 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. The Board requested the Assistant Registrar to pursue a plan to equalize costs between even and odd year elections that did not penalize those agencies which choose to hold elections in odd years (non-general/primary years). The Elections Division of the clerk-Recorder's Office has worked with other County agencies and met with local agencies toward this end. This preliminary report includes the status of these efforts and findings to date; the Clerk-Recorder will return with a final recommendation based on results of issues being analyzed. CONTINUED ONATA MENT: YES Signature: Recommendation of County Administrator _ Recommendation of Board Committee Approve _ Other Signature(s)- Action of Board on: May 20, 1997 Approved as Recommended X Other X Please see Addendum (Attached) for further Board Action. Vote of Supervisors: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN x Unanimous (Absent ---- ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE Ayes:_ Noes:_ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN. Absent:_Abstain:_ Attested: May 20, 1997 cc: CAO-)ustice System Programs Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board County Clerk-Recorder of S v' sand Co ty Ad 'nistrat Contact: Steve Weir 646-2955 B . D.11 ADDENDUM Item D.11 May 20, 1997 The Board members considered the preliminary report from the Clerk-Recorder on the status of election fees and a 5-year Master Plan for facilities and capital. The Board members discussed the issues and took the following action: 1. APPROVED the staff recommendation, as set forth in the attached Board Order; and 2. DIRECTED that the Clerk-Recorder be included in discussions of permanent facility replacement. cc: CAO-Justice System Programs County Clerk-Recorder Preliminary Report: Election Cost Equalization and 5 Year Facility and Capital Needs May 20, 1997 Submitted to: Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Mark DeSaulnier, Chair, District 5 Jim Rogers, District 1 Gayle B Uilkema, District 2 Donna Gerber, District 3 Joe Canciamilla, District 4 Submitted by: Steve Weir, County Clerk-Recorder Contra Costa Elections Division Election Cost Equalization Summary - On March 18, 1997, the Board denied the request of eight school; municipal, and special districts to consolidate with the even year election cycle. Though these agencies would save money by consolidating, those that remained in the odd year cycle would cover the costs with increased fees. In addition, overall election costs would have gone up. The Board acknowledged 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. The Board requested the Assistant Registrar to pursue a plan to equalize costs between even and odd year elections that did not penalize those agencies which choose to hold elections in odd years (non-general/primary years). The Elections Division of the Clerk-Recorder's Office has worked with other County agencies and met with local agencies toward this end. This preliminary report includes the status of our efforts and our findings to date; we will return with a final recommendation based on results of issues we are analyzing at this time. Actions Taken A. The County Registrar has surveyed other California Counties on their billing procedures, consolidation issues, and equalization practices. Twenty-two counties responded to the survey. Nearly every county does their billing in a unique way, though we have identified some general practices. All.California counties are facing the consolidation issue at different levels and are responding in different ways. B. The County Elections Office staff has held a series of meetings with County Administrator's Office analysts, discussing the department fee structure and billing options. This group has identified several issues that need closer analysis before formulating a final recommendation. 1. The County Registrar has requested an opinion from County Counsel on how Contra Costa should compute consolidated election costs. Should we treat Federal/State/County as one agency or three separate agencies for billing purposes? Contra Costa is required to provide for the Federal and State election issues or candidates and cover the cost of any county-sponsored issues or candidates as well. 2. The County Registrar has requested County Counsel guidance on how the Elections Office can recover capital costs. Can we charge capital costs in one year and not the other? During consolidated years, the capital requirements are greater. During the off year election cycle, agencies do not put a burden on the county's capital equipment. 2 3. The County Registrar has requested the County Auditor's Office to work with the CAO Budget Analysts and Elections Office staff to develop billing procedures that meet acceptable accounting practices. C. The County Registrar has discussed consolidation issues with agencies and continues to meet with them as needed. Some opposition exists and the County Registrar is considering the possibility of requesting legislation at a state-wide level to address the consolidation and cost equalization issues. Options - The County Registrar is exploring the following options to determine the best method for allocating election costs. The per precinct fee structure expires in December 1997. At that time the Elections Office plans to develop and have a cost allocation fee structure in place by joint effort of CAO, Auditor, and Elections Office staff. Since.the fees will not become effective until January 1998, the County Registrar will perform a complete and detailed analysis prior to approval and implementation of a fee structure to insure we have explored all avenues and prevent unnecessary challenges or opposition in the future. A. Issues to analyze include; how Contra Costa treats Federal/State/County for billing purposes, how we recoup capital costs, the possibility of doing SB90 claims in both election cycles (currently we only do them in even years), and how detailed the fee structure should be (at per voter level or per ballot space level). B. If we cannot bring the costs between even and odd years into equalization, the Board can decide to have Contra Costa fund a "discount" in odd years to equalize costs. Other California counties fund their Elections Office net county cost to differing amounts. Recommendations A. Upon expiration of the per precinct fee structure in December 1997, institute a cost allocation fee structure to recover those costs associated with providing election services in a way that is fair to all agencies. 3 Five Year Facilities and Capital Needs Plan Summary - On March 18, 1997 the Board of Supervisors directed the Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder's office to pursue a master plan and urged that it be implemented within five years. A master plan has been the goal of the Elections Office and the Clerk- Recorder Department for several years. Several short range capital investments may commit the County to certain choices without looking at the long term "big" picture. The Clerk-Recorder master plan consists of several issues under analysis at varying levels. Our initial report shows information gathered to date. After responses from other agencies that are assisting us, we will make a final recommendation. Our goal is to make educated decisions that will be the best for Contra Costa County and its agencies over the long term, rather than "quick fixes." Issues: 1. Facilities - The Clerk-Recorder's Department is housed in four different locations with leases that we have renewed to expire simultaneously, in anticipation of the consolidation of the Clerk-Recorder and Elections Offices. The Clerk-Recorder Department spends more than $275,000 per year in rental fees for the four locations currently under leases. Actions Taken A. A Needs Assessment Study was done for a Clerk-Recorder-Elections facility in April 1993 by George Meiers and Associates (BOS, CAO, County Architectural Services, Clerk-Recorder and Elections received copies of the study). This study identified requirements of a combined facility. - status unresolved B. In July 1996 we issued an RFP (Request for Proposal) for Clerk-Recorder- Elections combined office space with a proposal deadline of September 10, 1996 - Clerk- Recorder met with the team in September 1996. County Lease Management was to respond with additional information on three of the locations. - status unresolved C. The Clerk-Recorder requested a joint RFP for combined Clerk-Recorder- Elections and Assessor Office space in June 1996 - status unresolved D. In March 1997 we requested an update on facilities and the RFP's from the CAO and County Lease Management. We asked for a status report by April 15, in order to include the status with our BOS report deadline of May 8. We received a call from Lease Management to set up meeting to discuss needs and requirements on May 6, 1997. Due to a time factor, we were unable to meet with Lease Management before our report 4 deadline. E. We are currently reviewing several Clerk-Recorder-Elections building issues for renovation or replacement. These include the seismic retrofit project and related issue of the computer room move, and our phone systems upgrades. We should include these issues in the space planning, particularly for the savings to the County that would result if a new location could be found in a timely manner. We would save the costs of doing these projects twice and incorporate the savings into a new facility. Options . A. Build a new facility to consolidate at one location - most expensive and would take the longest time. B. `Build-out" an existing building to consolidate at one location. If we could identify a site in a timely manner, we could be consolidated in a new facility by the year 2000. C. Lease an existing building to consolidate at one location. So far we have identified no acceptable site. The Clerk-Recorder and Elections Divisions have specialized needs that make a "ready-made" location difficult to find. D. Renew existing leases in four separate locations - having the department separated into separate locations is inefficient and more expensive in the end (four leases vs. one). 2. Capital Equipment Upgrade or Replacement Program - The Elections Division of the Clerk-Recorder Department is identifying capital issues to incorporate into a 5-Year Master Plan. The Board has asked us to pursue this direction with the ultimate goal of being able to consolidate all 73 districts with the even year election cycle after the year 2000, if we choose to allow consolidation then. We note our initial findings below. Inserting Machines A. We reached capacity of this equipment at the November 1996 election. Increase in inserts due to consolidation requirements will create the necessity to upgrade at minimum, or totally replace equipment, to provide for a completely consolidated election after the year 2000. B. Repairs and maintenance are becoming more difficult. Equipment is becoming obsolete. For one machine, replacement parts are no longer manufactured and we have to 5 "cannibalize" existing equipment for parts. Vote Counting Systems (Tally Machines) - The system in place currently was designed at a time that Contra Costa had less than 400,000 registered voters and virtually no election consolidations. In order to provide for a fully consolidated election after the year 2000, the system will need to be altered drastically. A. Several members of the Elections Office management staff, with the Clerk- Recorder, attended the March 1997 Vote Counting System Vendor Demonstrations in Oakland. This group saw vendor demonstrations of eight vote counting systems and collected information to analyze the alternatives. The systems fell into three main categories: 1. Central Count Ballot Card System (Have central counting location) 2. Precinct Count Ballot System (Count at the precinct or remote locations) 3. Direct Recording Electronic Vote System (Touch Screen) B. Costs and Benefits or Detrimental factors 1. Central Count Optical Scan Ballot Cards (used in several counties) +Technology currently in use by several California Counties, including Contra Costa +Accurate and dependable - Slowest alternative - Need to transport voted ballots to a central counting center 2. Precinct Count Optical Scan Ballots (San Mateo* and Amador Counties) +Fast(ballots counted as they enter ballot boxes)then totals uploaded to central location (modems could do this) +Savings in staff time for ballot preparation - Additional staff time for setup and testing(more equipment at remote sites). This would outweigh staff time savings for ballot preparation - Additional equipment cost and Drayage expenses - All devices and remote locations need testing before and after election - Expensive ballots, usually large custom size/heavy paper - Absentees handled slowly(slower than present system) - Expensive alternative -costs would range from $3.5 to 4+million for a County the size of Contra Costa *Note - San Mateo was faced with a time factor,they had 40 year old machines and did not have the time to do an RFI or RFP process. San Mateo County formed a citizens' committee of representatives from County agencies, districts, League of Women Voters, and City Clerks, who sat in on the vendor presentations and selected a vendor. 6 3. Direct Recording Electronic Vote Systems (Touch Screen) +Very fast-tabulates at precinct level +Newest technology-state of the art - Newest technology- none in use right now in California - Not approved by Secretary of State - Most expensive alternative -costs would be more than $7 million for a County the size of Contra Costa Options A. The Board could decide to take no action, to continue with our current system and wait for better technology and lower prices. This would be the least expensive alternative, but may put the Elections Office in the position of not being able to conduct elections properly due to equipment inadequacies. B. Contra Costa can decide to upgrade existing system with additional or upgraded equipment. This is a "band aid" fix and the Elections Office will still outgrow the equipment in the future. C. Contra Costa could choose to lease or purchase a new system. The RFI and RFP process would take several months at best. Anticipated costs of the alternatives vary greatly. The capital costs and an amortization program to fund the expenses will need to be a joint effort of several county departments. D. Purchase or lease a Precinct Count Optical Scan system for local small elections to test equipment and public acceptance before conversion. Recommendations A. Request approval to establish an Elections Division capital committee to survey needs, options and costs with representatives from Elections management and administration, County Administrator's Office (Budget Analyst), Department of Information Technology and Auditor's Office (we may include representatives from cities, school districts, special districts, special interest groups, i.e., League of Women Voters, also). This group's objective is to analyze voting equipment alternatives and present a recommendation to the department and Board of Supervisors. B. Determine capital outlays and associated expenses and develop an amortization program to fund capital outlays. Request assistance from CAO and Auditor's Office for this project. 7 C. Initiate RFI (Request for Information) process for voting systems, inserting equipment or booklet options to begin replacement or upgrade process. The capital committee can use this information (above) to make an educated recommendation. 8