Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-11-10; City Council; 6802; Discussion of city election dateCITY O CARLSBAD — AGENDA ILL AR* £s>?QSL MTfi. 11-10-81 DFPT. CA TITLE: DISCUSSION OF CITY ELECTION DATE PPPT HD. CITY ATTY\/£& CITY MC3B. ^&- OUJ Oo:o_a. Oz=3OO RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council determine whether or not to exercise the option under Senate Bill 230 to delay the date for the general municipal election so it may be consolidated with the statewide election. ITEM EXPLANATION: The City Attorney, in a memorandum dated October 16, 1981, has informed the Council regarding Senate Bill 230, which authorizes the City Council to hold its general municipal election on the same day as the statewide direct primary election, the same day as the statewide general election, or the day of the school district elections. This memorandum, explaining the matter, is attached. If the Council wishes to change the date, they should select an alternative date, make the corresponding change in the attached draft ordinance, and upon adoption of the ordinance direct staff to proceed with the necessary steps to implement the new election dates including securing the approval of the Board of Supervisors and sending out the required notice to all registered voters. EXHIBITS: Memorandum from City Attorney to Mayor and City Council, dated October 16, 1981 Ordinance No. J j? V ,2 . FISCAL IMPACT: Changing the election date would allow for consolidation and •reduce the cost to the City for holding municipal elections. MEMORANDUM DATE: October 16, 1981 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: NEW LAW RE ELECTION DATES This memorandum is to report to you on Senate Bill No. 230 which authorizes the City to hold its general and municipal election on the same day as the statewide direct primary election, the same day as the statewide general election, or the day of school district elections. The bill was adopted as an urgency statute and takes effect immediately. That makes it possible for the City Council, if they wish to exercise the option provided by the new law, to change the date for the upcoming April election. Elections Code Section 2601 and Government Code Section 36503, with two exceptions not relevant to our discussion (incorporation elections and elections for a city in Colusa County), provide that the general municipal election shall be held on the second Tuesday in April of even-numbered years." .Senate Bill No. 230 by the addition of Govern- ment Code Section 36503.5 adds a third exception. Section 36503.5 provides that the City Council may enact an ordinance that will change the previously required April election date. The Council may choose one of three alternative dates: 1. The day of the statewide direct primary election. Section 2551 of the Elections Code sets that date on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June of even-numbered years (June 8, 1982). 2. The day of the statewide general election. Section 2550 of the Elections Code sets that date on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November of even-numbered years (November 2, 1982). 3. The day of the school district elections. Section 2602 of the Elections Code sets that date on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of odd- numbered years (November 8, 1983). An ordinance choosing one of these alternative days for the general municipal election becomes operative on approval by the Board of Supervisors. One of the problems with the new law is that it is silent as to how that approval is to be given and as to what standards the governing Board of Supervisors use in making their judgement. o? Mayor and City Council -2- . October 16, 1981 As in the case with any municipal election, an election held on one of the alternative dates may be consolidated with the elections administered by the County, or the Council and the City Clerk may remain responsible for conducting their own election. Section 36503.5 provides that if the Council chooses to consolidate, that that will occur in the usual manner which has previously applied in cases where the City has chosen to consolidate with the County election. Government Code Section 36503 provides that members of the City Council are elected for a four-year term. Sub-section (c) of Section 36503.5 provides that if the Council chooses one of the alternative dates, the current terms being served by the Mayor and Councilman Anear, which otherwise would expire the week after the April election day, would be extended and they would continue in office until no later than the fourth Tuesday after the new election date. Option 1, the statewide direct primary election day, would extend the terms two months. Option 2, the statewide general election day, would extend the terms seven months. Option 3, the school district election day, would extend the terms for nineteen months. Ordinances relating to an election take effect immediately (Government Code Section 36937). There is no thirty-day referendum period. How- ever, as previously mentioned, an SB230 ordinance is not operative until it is approved by the Board of Supervisors. Sub-section (d) of Section 36503.5 adds an additional requirement. That is that the City Clerk must mail a notice to all registered voters in the City of Carlsbad informing them of the change in the election date, that the terms of certain elected City office-holders will be extended, and that no terms of office will be decreased. Once adopted, an SB230 ordinance remains effective for all future elections, which must continue on a normal four-year cycle with each to be conducted on the date specified by the City Council in the ordinance. (36503.5 (e). Another of the problems with this new legis- lation is that while it provides for repeal of the ordinance, it is silent as to what happens then. This presents some particular problems since the only way to get back on the old April date for a general municipal election would be to shorten the terms of the elected offi- cials, which would conflict with other provisions of the Elections and Government Codes. Whether or not to exercise the local option provided by SB230 and change the date of the general municipal election is a political and policy question for the City Council. The City Clerk, in a memorandum dated October 9, 1981 regarding this matter, indicates that the cost for the notice which the new law would require is approximately $2,000. On the other hand, she estimates that changing the election date, to one of the three alternative discussed above, would allow the City to consolidate the election with the County instead of being responsible for conducting our own, as would otherwise be required. She estimates that consolidation would result in a potential savings to the City in the $10,000 range. There is precedent in San Diego County for this type of action. I am informed that the cities of Chula Vista 3 Mayor and City Council -3- ' October 16, 1981 and San Diego, pursuant to their Charter power, have previously changed the dates for the elections of their mayors to coincide with the statewide election. During the Charter elections which accomplished that change, arguements in favor included the savings to the City plus a general assumption that having the election in conjunction with the statewide election would result in better citizen participation, increase media coverage and a larger voter turnout. Arguements in opposition pointed to the loss of local focus and control and the potential for the introduction of parti- sanship into what is constitutionally required to be a non-partisan election. Because of the political nature of this matter, it did not seem to us to be appropriate for our office to place it on the City Council agenda. However, in the event that any individual member of the Council might wish to bring the matter before the Council for consideration, we have taken the liberty of preparing a draft agenda bill and ordinance, which is attached to this memor- andum. Prior to any Council discussion, you may wish to consult further with the City Clerk, who has cautioned that the County officials have some concern about cities joining the June statewide primary election. As I understand it, due to the technicalities of the election process, the anticipated cost savings might not occur if the June option is utilized. That problem apparently does not exist for the November election. We have not included the third option, which would delay the election until November of 1983. If the Council wishes to choose that option, the ordinance can easily be revised. As the law stands now, the general municipal election must be held on April 13, 1982. The City Council must act to call that election sometime between January 14, 1982 and January 28, 1982. If the City Council wishes to elect one of the alternative dates for that election, it is my opinion that the entire-process, in order to do that, must be complete prior to January 14, 1982. If our under- standing is correct, the Board of Supervisors is on an eight-day docket cycle. It would theoretically be possible for the City Council to introduce the necessary ordinance as late as December 15, 1981, with adoption on December 22, 1981. That schedule would not allow for any delays which might result from the holidays or from difficulties with the City Council or Board of Supervisors schedules. In our view, it would be advisable if the Council wishes to pursue the options afforded by SB230 to consider the matter early in November. An early decision by the City Council may be of interest and help to citizens interested in the council election who otherwise might be acting to prepare for and in reli- ance on the traditional April date, and it would eliminate the problems arising from any unanticipated delays. VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR., City Attorneyx/ VFB/df Attachments cc: City Clerk 7 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 16, 1981 TO: City Attorney FROM: City Clerkfvfx RE: SB 230 - ELECTION DATES I have just returned from my meeting with the Registrar of Voters in San Diego regarding future election dates. He has done a complete reversal from his previous position (almost complete). The Registrar's Office is still not recommending that Cities combine with the June Primary Election, but the primary reason at this time is due to the fact that it would be an administra- tive headache for them. He now says there would be no problem about enough ballot spaces, and has even now given all cities an estimate with regard to whether they combine with the June Primary or the November General Election. If Carlsbad would choose to combine with the June or November, even numbered years elections, the estimated cost is in the neighborhood of $3,100. - a tremendous savings to the City. The County would assume all costs associated with the polling places and would pass none of that along to cities. In addition, they would provide each city with a CRT in the Council Chambers so the city's results would be transmitted back directly via the terminal. The County would provide all services and supplies to the cities and would handle all absentee ballots. Cities would still handle nomination papers, statements, and legal publications. This new information was surprising, and I'm sure will be useful and interesting to the Council. If you have any additional questions, let me know. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 1242 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1.12 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION OF SECTION 1.12.020 TO REQUIRE THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE SAME DAY AS THE STATEWIDE DIRECT PRIMARY ELECTION. The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows: t SECTION 1: That Title 1, Chapter 1.12 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 1.12.020 to read as follows: "1.12.020 DATE FOR GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION Pursuant to Section 36503.5 of the California Government Code, the general municipal election for the City of Carlsbad shall be held on the same day as the day of the statewide direct primary election." SECTION 2: This ordinance shall become operative upon the approval of the Board of Supervisors. EFFECTIVE DATE: Pursuant to Section 36937 of the Government Code, this ordinance which relates to an election shall take effect immediately. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published once in the Carlsbad Journal within fifteen days after its adoption. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a meeting of the Carlsbad City Council held on the 10th day of November , 1981 and thereafter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a meeting of said City Council held on the 17th day of November , 1981 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Packard, Casler, Kulchin NOES : Council Menbers Lewis and Anear ABSENT: None RONALD C. PACKARD, Mayor ATTEST: ALETHA L" RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerl (SEAL)