HomeMy WebLinkAbout- - Running Special Municipal Election - 4/10/2012CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: APRIL 10, 2012
ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT: RUNNING A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION CONCURRENTLY WITH
THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
DATE: APRIL 9, 2012
FROM: OFFICE OF THE CITY CEO
PRESENTATION BY: THOMAS R. HATCH, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Thomas P. Duarte, City Attorney
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Thomas R. Hatch @ (714) 754-5328 or
CONTACT: Thomas P. Duarte @ (714) 446-1400
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide direction.
BACKGROUND:
On April 3, 2012, Mayor Bever requested that the CEO's office examine the viability of the City
running its own special municipal election concurrently with the Registrar of Voters, on June 5,
2012.
In the fall of 2011, the City Council directed staff to begin exploring the adoption of a city
charter. After research and reporting by staff, the City Council directed City staff to prepare a
proposed charter to be placed on the June 5, 2012 ballot. In compliance with the Government
Code, the City held two public hearings to consider the contents of the proposed charter. On
March 6, 2012, the City Council took the following actions:
➢ Submitted the proposal for the City of Costa Mesa to adopt a proposed charter to the
qualified voters of the City;
➢ Called and gave notice of a special municipal election;
➢ Set priorities for the filing of direct arguments (due March 9, 2012) and rebuttal
arguments (due March 19, 2012) regarding the proposed charter;
➢ Directed the City Clerk to take all actions required and necessary in carrying out the
special municipal election; and
➢ Requested permission to consolidate with the statewide primary election from the
Orange County Board of Supervisors.
The City missed the deadline to consolidate its election with the Orange County Registrar of
Voters. However, it is possible to run a local election along with a statewide primary. This is a
fairly common practice in Los Angeles County. In June, the City of Long Beach plans to run a
local election along with the statewide primary.
ANALYSIS:
If the City were to run its own special municipal election, it would be necessary for the City to
retain the services of Martin & Chapman. They have extensive experience in the running and
administration of elections for municipalities in the State of California, and are particularly active
in Southern California.
If the City were to proceed, the special municipal election would run concurrently with the
statewide primary election. This means the City, through Martin & Chapman, would work
closely with the Registrar of Voters in setting up and administering precincts, poll -workers, and
other election activities. In essence, the special municipal election would run parallel with the
statewide primary election. In order to run the special municipal election concurrently with the
Registrar of Voters, the City must seek permission and agreement from the Registrar to do so.
At this time, Martin & Chapman have been in communication with the Registrar, and the
Registrar has indicated that they are willing to allow the City to run its special municipal election
concurrently with the statewide primary election, should the City Council decide to proceed.
If the City Council were to decide to proceed with the special municipal election, there are at
least two potential scenarios. First, if the City uses the arguments submitted based upon the
City Council's original resolution calling for direct and rebuttal arguments, then the City Council
would not have to take any additional actions outside of the retention of Martin & Chapman for
the purpose of running the special municipal election and the authorization for funds to pay for
the costs associated thereof. In this scenario, Martin & Chapman would prepare all the
documents and mailers necessary in anticipation of the June 5, 2012 special municipal election.
A more detailed timeline for this scenario is attached with this report (Attachment 1).
On the other hand, the elections official could set a date calling for new arguments. In essence,
this would reset the argument submission process. If the City were to take this route, the last
day for submitting direct arguments would be April 16, 2012. The last day to submit rebuttal
arguments would be April 20, 2012. In this scenario, Martin & Chapman would also prepare all
the documents and mailers necessary in anticipation of the June 5, 2012 special municipal
election. A more detailed timeline for this 2nd scenario is also attached with this report
(Attachment 2).
As a final note, should the City Council decide to proceed with the special municipal election,
Martin & Chapman are ready and available to assist the City in running the contemplated
special municipal election under either scenario.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
City Council could decide to not proceed with a special municipal election on June 5, 2012.
FISCAL REVIEW
If the City were to proceed with the special municipal election, then the estimated costs from Martin
& Chapman would be $153,697.80 (Attachment 3). This figure includes costs related to postage,
but does not include any potential costs from the Registrar of Voters. At this time, it is unknown
how much the Registrar will charge the City.
If the City opted not to proceed with the special municipal election, then there would be no
additional costs.
E
LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney's office has reviewed all relevant documents.
CONCLUSION:
Council is requested to provide staff with direction on how to proceed.
THOMAS R. HATCH THOMAS P. DUARTE
Chief Executive Officer City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS: 1: Calendar of Events — City of Costa Mesa Special Municipal Election
Concurrent with the Statewide Primary Election — June 5, 2012
2: Calendar of Events — City of Costa Mesa Special Municipal Election
Concurrent with the Statewide Primary Election — June 5, 2012
(Alternate Argument Filing Dates)
3: Estimated Cost of Special Municipal Election
3