Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04182000 - C102 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Stephen L. Weir, County Clerk-Recorder Registrar of Voters DATE: April 18, 2000 SUBJECT: Consolidation of City of Oakley Elections with Statewide Primary Elections SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: 1. APPROVE request of the City of Oakley to consolidate elections with Statewide Primary Elections subject to item 6 (below), amortization of mail inserter equipment costs. 2. FIND thatthe Clerk-Recorder has made progress overthe past year that will accommodate consolidations in the following ways: a. The increased number of ballot cards requires additional vote counter stations. Due to space limitations and the capacity of the current Data General computer, the Clerk secured six(6)additional machines from Multnomah County, Oregon,for20% of new cost. In addition, the Clerk has acquired a P.C. based tally system (B.C, WIN) that will allow for these machines to be used. 3. CONSIDER the following qualitative issues which are expected to result from the requested consolidation(s): a. Timeliness.With the B.C.Win system and a new streamlined ballot delivery system, ballots will arrive and be counted faster than in the past. It should be noted that with consolidation, a slower vote count will take place than without consolidation. b. Accuracy. Additional extra staffing help will be needed to conduct consolidated elections. However, the demand for the staff will go down in odd number years. There are concerns about having trained temporary staff; however, we believe that we can bring on temporary staff early enough to train them for each election. ,eL.r_� CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT X Yes SIGNATURE: Irl Ll_ R-ECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE v'APPROVE _OTHER SIGNATURES : ACTION OF BOA ON A"il 1$, 2OW APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED XX OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND MLUNANIMOUS(ABSENT — -- — — — - ) ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD AYES: NOES: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED: cc: Elections Office PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY Board Order Page 2 Election Consolidation Request C. Voter Impact. While turnout at a primary 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 ballots and issues on the backs of some ballot cards. 4. ACKNOWLEDGE that the Clerk-Recorder attempted to find a way 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." While this issue was a directive of a 1997 Board Order, County Counsel has determined that the Clerk cannot structure a pricing mechanism that would favor one election year over another. 5. ACKNOWLEDGE that with consolidations off of odd numbered years onto even numbered years, revenues will go down significantly for odd year elections and will go up slightly for even numbered year elections. (The first impact will be noticed in budget year 1999-2000. It is not possible to determine the impact at this time until the full impact of consolidation is considered. However, it is safe to assume that when a major district moves its election off of the November, odd numbered year, any district that remains on that ballot will have to pay a higher election charge.) 6. ACKNOWLEDGE amortization of the cost of equipment identified in item 1 (above) over a five year period (Elections in November, 2000, 2002 and 2004) and the spread of those costs among those agencies seeking consolidation off of November, odd numbered years onto even numbered years. This funding proposal was approved by the Board of Supervisors on March 24, 1996. BACKGROUND: After lengthy discussions in March, 1997,the Board denied eight requests for consolidation upon the recommendation of the Clerk-Recorder. The Board directed the Clerk to work with the districts to see if a way could be found to equalize costs between even and odd years. Based upon a November, 1997 County Council Opinion, the Clerk and the County are restricted in the manner in which election billings can be formulated. The Board also asked the Clerk-Recorder to review capital and space requirements. The Clerk has determined that with the exception of expanding the inserting capacity of the Elections Office, all other concerns have been, or will be addressed. The City of Oakley formally filed a resolution with our office to consolidate with the even number year elections.