HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02062001 - C.101 .To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
FROM:
Stephen L. Weir, County Clerk-Recorder
Registrar of Voters4 .
DATE: January 17, 2001
SUBJECT: CONSOLIDATION OF EAST CONTRA COSTA IRRIGATION
DISTRICT ELECTIONS WITH STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTIONS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)& BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
1. APPROVE request of the East Contra Costa Irrigation District to consolidate
elections with Statewide General Elections subject to item 6 (below), amortization
of mail inserter equipment costs.
2. FIND that the Clerk-Recorder has made progress 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, for 20% 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 that 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.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT X Yes SIGNATURE: f`
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD OMMITTEE
e APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BO ON February 6, 20011 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED XX OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
XX UNANIMOUS(ABSENT — — — — — ) ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
AYES: NOES: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
ATTESTED: February 6, 2001
cc: Elections Office PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY: DEPUTY
Board of Supervisors
s
'January 17, 2001
Page 2
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 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 that
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 November even-numbered years. This
funding proposal was approved by the Board of Supervisors on March 24, 1998.
BACKGROUND
After lengthy discussion in March 1997, the Board of Supervisors 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 Counsel 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 East Contra Costa Irrigation District formally filed a resolution with our office to
consolidate with the even-numbered year elections.
SW:ceb
r:elections/east contra costa irrigation district.bos