Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout100914wspZ:\Council Packets\2010\WS9-14-10\100914WSA.doc Page 1 of 1 NOTICE OF THE WORK STUDY SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL TIME: 5:30 P.M. WHEN: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 WHERE: FOUNTAIN HILLS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 16705 E. AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS, FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ ALL WORK-STUDY ITEMS LISTED ARE FOR DISCUSSION ONLY. NO ACTION CAN OR WILL BE TAKEN. The primary purpose of work session meetings is to provide the Town Council with the opportunity for in-depth discussion and study of specific subjects. Public comment is not provided for on the Agenda and may be made only as approved by consensus of the Council. In appropriate circumstances, a brief presentation may be permitted by a member of the public or another interested party on an Agenda item if invited by the Mayor or the Town Manager to do so. The Presiding Officer may limit or end the time for such presentations. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL – Mayor Schlum 2. DISCUSSION of PROPOSED AMENDMENTS to the Fountain Hills Town Code, Chapter 8, Section 8-3, SPECIAL EVENTS, and related fee schedule with a review of the revised Special Event application. 3. DISCUSSION OF INCREASED MARICOPA COUNTY ELECTION SERVICE FEES, the option of changing to the FALL ELECTIONS CYCLE with information provided on the cost of ALL MAIL BALLOT ELECTIONS. 4. DISCUSSION regarding the option of changing the MAYOR TERM to 4 years. 5. ADJOURNMENT. DATED this 9th day of September, 2010. Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk The Town of Fountain Hills endeavors to make all public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities. Please call 480-816-5100 (voice) or 1-800-367-8939 (TDD) 48 hours prior to the meeting to request a reasonable accommodation to attend this meeting or to obtain agenda information in large print format. Supporting documentation and staff reports furnished the council with this agenda are available for review in the Clerk’s office. Mayor Jay T. Schlum Vice Mayor Dennis Brown Councilmember Cassie Hansen Councilmember Dennis Contino Councilmember Henry Leger Councilmember Ginny Dickey Councilmember Tait D. Elkie Z:\Council Packets\2010\WS9-14-10\100914WSA.doc Page 1 of 1 NOTICE OF THE WORK STUDY SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL TIME: 5:30 P.M. WHEN: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 WHERE: FOUNTAIN HILLS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 16705 E. AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS, FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ ALL WORK-STUDY ITEMS LISTED ARE FOR DISCUSSION ONLY. NO ACTION CAN OR WILL BE TAKEN. The primary purpose of work session meetings is to provide the Town Council with the opportunity for in-depth discussion and study of specific subjects. Public comment is not provided for on the Agenda and may be made only as approved by consensus of the Council. In appropriate circumstances, a brief presentation may be permitted by a member of the public or another interested party on an Agenda item if invited by the Mayor or the Town Manager to do so. The Presiding Officer may limit or end the time for such presentations. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL – Mayor Schlum 2. DISCUSSION of PROPOSED AMENDMENTS to the Fountain Hills Town Code, Chapter 8, Section 8-3, SPECIAL EVENTS, and related fee schedule with a review of the revised Special Event application. 3. DISCUSSION OF INCREASED MARICOPA COUNTY ELECTION SERVICE FEES, the option of changing to the FALL ELECTIONS CYCLE with information provided on the cost of ALL MAIL BALLOT ELECTIONS. 4. DISCUSSION regarding the option of changing the MAYOR TERM to 4 years. 5. ADJOURNMENT. DATED this 9th day of September, 2010. Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk The Town of Fountain Hills endeavors to make all public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities. Please call 480-816-5100 (voice) or 1-800-367-8939 (TDD) 48 hours prior to the meeting to request a reasonable accommodation to attend this meeting or to obtain agenda information in large print format. Supporting documentation and staff reports furnished the council with this agenda are available for review in the Clerk’s office. Mayor Jay T. Schlum Vice Mayor Dennis Brown Councilmember Cassie Hansen Councilmember Dennis Contino Councilmember Henry Leger Councilmember Ginny Dickey Councilmember Tait D. Elkie Town of Fountain Hills Objectives Simplify the process Establish a recognized committee Recommend updates to the Town Code Simplify the application Review fees Town Code Remove reference to major and minor events Event is anything that impacts Town services Define “Special Event Committee” Reviews applications for compliance with Town Code Administrative approval (i.e. event with park boundaries) Council consideration (street restrictions, closures, public safety) Reduce lead time required for application from 90 days to 45 days Committee meeting twice a month Application Simplify the application Used the City of Avondale’s app as a template More check boxes than written responses Clear for both the applicant and staff Recommending using Google Maps for exhibits, both detail and overall Working to make it a pdf doc that applicants can complete, save and return Instructions and application available on website Fee Schedule Current Proposed Non-Profit -$100 Commercial -$500 Few applicants fall into the Commercial category Most partner with non-profit anyway Application Base Fee -$75 Additional Street Review (barricading or closures) - $50 Additional Law Enforcement Review (traffic control or event security) -$50 Parks Review -$0 w/ park rental Fire Marshal -$0 w/ tent or fireworks permit Moving Forward Work with Town Attorney to ensure changes to Town Code are inclusive of our ideas and recommendations Continue to evaluate and revise application Research and evaluate fee schedule for implementation with the next fiscal year Questions? Page 1 of 9 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA ACTION FORM Meeting Date: 9/14/2010 Meeting Type: Work Study Session Agenda Type: Regular Submitting Department: Administration Staff Contact Information: Bev Bender, Town Clerk,bbender@fh.az.gov; 480-816-5115 Strategic Values: Civic Responsibility Council Goal: Provide Citizens Opportunities to Improve Lives REQUEST TO COUNCIL (Agenda Language): DISCUSSION OF INCREASED MARICOPA COUNTY ELECTION SERVICE FEES, information provided relating to a possible change to the FALL ELECTIONS CYCLE, and information provided on the cost of ALL MAIL BALLOT ELECTIONS. Applicant: NA Applicant Contact Information: NA Property Location: NA Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle: A.R.S. §9-231, §16-204, §38-295; Fountain Hills Town Code 2-1-3; ARIZ. CONST. ART. 22 & 13; McCall v. Cull, 51 ARIZ. 237, 242 75 P. 2d 696, 698 (1938); Lockwood v. Jordan 72 ARIZ. 77, 86, 231 P. 2d 428, 434 (1951); Sweeney v. State, 23 ARIZ. 435, 204 P. 1025 (1922); Op.Atty.Gen. No. I85-073 Staff Summary (background): The subject of changing to the Fall Election Cycle has been debated by Councils over the years for various reasons and each time the Council has reviewed and weighed the pros and cons and in-direct impacts of such a change. However, effective July 1, 2010, Maricopa County Election Division increased the fees they charge jurisdictions for their election services, and based on the County’s new fee structure, staff felt the Council might want to again review this matter to see if there is support to move forward with a change at this time in order to defray the increased cost of election services. The Town contracts with Maricopa County to provide their direct support for our jurisdictional elections as provided for under our existing intergovernmental agreement. The County’s services include the printing of the ballots, translation of the ballot text, mailing of sample ballots, the recruitment and training of poll worker personnel, completion of contracts with available local polling locations, providing early voting at their recorder facilities, supplying Election Day supplies and equipment; maintaining and printing voter registers and signature rosters, testing of the election equipment, printing of mail labels for publicity pamphlets, processing public record requests for voter information on behalf of the Town, providing ballot tabulation and reports of the unofficial and official election results. Please note that the County pointed out that they have not had an increase in fees for ten years and that by calculating the cost of the various services they provide their analysis had shown that they had been subsidizing local elections, which resulted in the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors increasing election service fees as follows: The per Active Registered Voter cost increases from $.73 to $1.37 (88% increase). The per Early Mail Ballot cost increases from $1.72 to $2.12 (23% increase). Page 2 of 9 The cost of being included on the County-wide ballot increases from $.31 to $.50 per Active Registered Voter (61% increase). The cost of a consolidated ballot between jurisdictions would be split among the specific entities (i.e. the Fountain Hills Unified School District, the Town , and the Fountain Hills Sanitary District), if measures were placed on the same ballot. If the Town were to change to the County-wide Consolidated Election Ballot, the Town’s Mayor and Council election cycle would need to change from the current spring election cycle [March (Primary Election)/May (General Election)] to the fall election cycle [August (Primary Election)/November (General Election)]. The Town Attorney’s memorandum, dated October 23, 2008, has been attached and provides information on the effect such a change would have on the terms of Councilmembers (see copy attached). An alternative cost saving option for consideration is the all Mail Ballot Election, whereby every active registered voter within the Town would receive an early mail ballot; the cost would be slightly less the same as the Stand Alone Jurisdictional Election due to the County’s fee increase. ELECTION FACTS 1. Maricopa County, State, and Federal elections are held during the fall election cycle – in the even years. (August/Primary and November/General). 2. Maricopa County currently is unable to conduct an all mail election. If that were a future consideration, the Town would be unable to conduct an all mail election if part of the consolidated ballot election. 3. Cities’ and towns’ original incorporation date played a major role in determining their initial city or town election cycle. The table below recaps surrounding cities’ and towns’ election cycles. Paradise Valley Spring/Even years Carefree Spring/Odd years Cave Creek Spring/Odd years Gilbert Spring/Odd years Chandler Fall/Even years Mesa Fall/Even years Scottsdale Fall/Even years The recap below shows when Arizona’s ninety (90) cities and towns in Arizona hold their municipal elections:  Eleven utilize the fall election cycle, in even years (when county/state/federal election are held).  Six utilize the fall election cycle, in odd years (elections conducted in off-county/state/federal regular election years).  Forty utilize the spring cycle, in even years (Fountain Hills’ current cycle)  Thirty-three utilize the spring cycle, in odd years 4. The Town of Fountain Hills currently holds Town elections during the spring election cycle – in the even years (March/Primary and May/General). 5. The Fountain Hills Sanitary District (fall election cycle – odd years) and the Fountain Hills Unified School District (fall election cycle – even years) are two other entities that regularly hold elections. 6. Bond Elections are required by State Law to be on the November ballot and Property Tax Elections are required to be on the May ballot. 7. The Town’s current spring election cycle (March/May) has newly elected officials taking office at the first Council Meeting in June after the public budget discussions are held. Newly elected councilmembers are asked to approve a budget at their first Council Meeting, which was prepared by staff under the direction of previously seated Councilmembers. Page 3 of 9 The budget process for the seated Council begins in with the Council Retreat the fall of each year. The draft budget is provided to Council Candidates during an election year; however, it is the currently seated Councilmembers who review, discuss, and revise the budget during the public process until the final budget is approved. However, in the past, mayoral and council candidates have met with staff regarding questions they have on the budget and those candidates have offered suggestions and opinions during the public meetings held throughout the budget process. If the election cycle were changed to the fall election cycle (August/November), newly elected officials would take office in January, which would allow them to be a part of the decision making body that provides direction for the new fiscal year budget that would be adopted in June. 8. An election cycle comparison chart has been provided below and indicates the various deadlines associated with the spring and fall election cycles that affect the public. Comparison of the Various Election Deadlines Based on the elections held: (Spring Cycle) March/May 2010 vs. (Fall Cycle) August/November 2010 Staff is seeking Council input as to if there is a desire for additional information, if documentation should be prepared for a subsequent meeting regarding moving forward with a change relating to how the Town conducts its elections, or if Town elections should remain status quo. Risk Analysis (options or alternatives with implications): The Town will pay more for the County’s election services without a change to the Town’s election cycle. Below is a table showing the election service cost comparisons (i.e. a stand-alone Town election, a consolidated County election, and an all mail Town election). All Mail Ballot Elections are discussed later on in the report. However, please keep in mind additional costs are incurred for but not limited for such items as publicity pamphlets, Spanish translations, signature verification, and publication of required election notices. Election requirements are determined by State Statute depending on the type of election held (i.e. bond, proposition, council candidates, initiative, referendum, recall, etc). 2010 Town Election Services Cost: March 9, 2010, Primary Election, jurisdiction election services - $23,236.39, [16,075 active registered voters @$0.73 per voter + 6,687 early voting requests @$1.72 per request]. May 18, 2010, Special Election, $4,808.41, the cost for election services on the County’s consolidated ballot, [15,511 active registered voters @ $0.31 per voter]. A.R.S. Reference ELECTION DATES March 9, 2010 May 18, 2010 August 24, 2010 November 2, 2010 Candidate Packets made available to candidates October 1, 2009 March 1, 2010 §16-311(B) Earliest date to file Nomination Papers November 9, 2009 April 26, 2010 §16-311(B) Deadline to file Nomination Papers December 9, 2009 May 26, 2010 §16-312(B) Write-In Candidates filing deadline January 28, 2010 April 8, 2010 July, 15, 2010 September 23, 2010 §16-542(A) First Day to request a mail ballot December 6, 2009 February 14, 2010 May 23, 2010 August 1, 2010 §16-120 Last Day to Register to Vote February 8, 2010 April 19, 2010 July 26, 2010 October 4, 2010 §16-545(B) First day to Vote Early in Person February 11, 2010 April 22, 2010 July 29, 2010 October 7, 2010 §16-542(E) Last day to request a mail ballot February 26, 2010 May 7, 2010 August 13, 2010 October 22, 2010 §16-542(D) Last day to Vote Early in Person March 5, 2010 May 14, 2010 August 20, 2010 October 29, 2010 Page 4 of 9 MARICOPA COUNTY ELECTION ESTIMATED SERVICE COST COMPARISONS NUMBERS AS OF AUGUST 25, 2010: Active Registered Voters [15,748]. Permanent Early Voters List (PEVL) [7,514] *If totals increase so do the costs TOWN STAND-ALONE ELECTION (Spring - Even Years) Total Active Registered Voter fee plus PEVL fee CONSOLIDATED ELECTION-County Ballot [Fall - Even Years] Total Active Registered Voter @ $0.50 ALL MAIL BALLOT ELECTION Total Active Registered Voters @ PEVL Fee Per Active Registered Voters fee [15,748] @ $1.37 ea. $21,574.76 At reduced rate - see below $33,385.76 Early Mail Ballot Requests for 1 Election @$2.12 ea unknown NA NA Per PEVL Requests [7,514] @ $2.12 ea. $15,929.68 NA NA Maricopa County-wide Consolidated Ballot cost per active registered voter [15,748] @ $.50 ea NA $7,874.00 NA Total estimated cost for Maricopa County Election Services $ 37,504.44 $ 7,874.00 $ 33,385.76 PROJECTED SAVINGS $ 29,630.44 $ 4,118.68 Pros of Changing the Election Cycle to the Fall (August/November) The Council that begins the budget process would complete the process from beginning to end. There would be no loss of councilmember continuity and participation during the public budget adoption process. Only two Town elections would be held every two years unless special elections were held. Arizona Revised State Statute mandates elections are to be held on only four consolidated dates annually to reduce the number of elections. Reduced election service costs would be realized. Fountain Hills’ voters would be able to utilize all Maricopa County-wide early voting satellite locations. Anticipated increased voter turnout. Campaigning for countywide, statewide, and federal elections is significant; Elections are issue driven and impacted by the public’s interest on ballot issues and candidates. Recap of the Town’s and the County’s more recent election returns provided below: The Town’s highest % of voter turnout was in May 2010 at 50% [The Town’s General Plan and 1% State Sales Tax increase were on the ballot]. The County’s highest % for voter turnout was during the most recent Presidential Election at 79.76%. * Early ballots cast at Town Hall but included in total Early Vote count; **1st year for the permanent early voting list (PEVL) Fountain Hills’ Elections [Spring Cycle] % of Voter Turnout Number of Fountain Hills Registered Voters Total Ballots Cast Ballots Cast on Election Day at the Polls Number of Early Ballots Cast Total/@ Town* 2002 Council Primary Election 37% 12,394 4,472 1,127/300* 2002 Council General Election (Proposition and 400-Exp. Limitation and Property Tax) 30% 12,482 3,793 1,696/416* 2002 September Special Election (General Plan) 20% 12,712 2,561 NA 2003 May Special Election (Recall & Property Tax) 43% 12,594 5,411 1,860/926* 2004 Council Primary Election 22% 13,073 2,902 572/304* 2004 Council General Election 23% 13,349 3,025 972/628* 2006 Council Primary Election 21% 13,669 2,822 955/410* 2006 Council General Election - none held (Councilmembers elected during the Primary) N/A N/A NA N/A 2008 Council Primary Election 40% 14,125 **5,586 3,839/372* 2008 Council General Election (Run-off & Property Tax) 39% 14,335 5,638 4382/552* 2010 Council Primary Election 28% 16,075 4,540 857 3,683 2010 May Special Election (General Plan & State 1% Sales Tax) 50% 15,511 7,686 2,259 5,427 Page 5 of 9 Data per the “Official” canvass found on the Secretary of State’s website: Maricopa County Elections [Fall Election Cycle] % of Voter Turnout 2002 Primary Election 22.01% 2002 General Election 55.06% 2004 Primary Election 22.85% 2004 General Election-Presidential 78.07% 2006 Primary Election 19.68% 2006 General Election 60.59% 2008 Primary Election 21.44% 2008 General Election-Presidential 79.76% 2010 Primary Election (now August – change in the date) TBD 2010 General Election TBD Cons of Changing the Election Cycle to the Fall (August/November) Opens Town politics to possible partisanship influences as Town elections would occur simultaneously with the partisan primary and general elections. The Town would be precluded from holding an all mail election should the Council favor that as an option in the future as Legislation does not provide the option of conducting an all mail ballot for County or State elections. Poll worker recruitment is always a challenge but as winter residents will probably not have returned by midsummer it would create a smaller pool of workers to draw from for fall election poll workers. Less layout flexibility on the consolidated ballot. Town candidates and issues may get lost in ballot placement on a consolidated election ballot (during an even year election) as local issues are placed at the end of the ballot. Ballot space restrictions would allow for only taglines on Town issues rather than full ballot text depending on the volume of offices and issues being voted on. [Note: if Fountain Hills’ elections were held during the fall cycle in the odd election year (opposite year from the County) ballot text limitation would not be an issue, but the benefit of a reduction in election costs for a consolidated ballot would be lost.] The length of a consolidated ballot may dissuade voters from completing the ballot for all eligible candidates or ballot questions, especially in a countywide, statewide or federal election year (governor or presidential elections). Town issues would compete for the attention of the voter and for placement on the consolidated ballot with other county, state, school, and federal candidates and issues. Additional Voter outreach would need to occur so the voters were aware that Town’s candidates and propositions were on the Maricopa County’s Primary Election or General Election ballot. A provision in State Law requires the county election official to do a manual hand count of at least two percent (2%) of the precincts or two (2) precincts, whichever is greater. This manual hand count would indirectly impact city and town elections by possibly delaying the “official” election results of city and town candidates and issues when consolidated on countywide or statewide ballots if any of the Fountain Hills’ precincts were selected for the hand count. At this time the requirement does not apply to city and town elections. The Maricopa County Election Division may take longer to provide the “unofficial” election results to the Town in consolidated countywide, statewide, or federal elections as multiple jurisdictional election results are processed. Therefore, results may not be made available as quickly as provided during a stand-alone “Town” election. During a consolidated election, it is possible that the receipt of municipalities’ election results may be delayed up to twenty (20) days after the election depending upon the volume of ballots to be processed. The Council would not be able to canvass election results until final election tabulations were provided by Maricopa County Election. A.R.S §16-642(A) states, “The governing body holding an election shall meet and canvass the election not less than six days nor more than twenty days following the election.” Page 6 of 9 There is less flexibility with the breakdown of election result reports received from the Maricopa County in consolidated elections. Early voting satellite locations and Election Day voting locations are determined by Maricopa County Elections in consolidated elections. Fountain Hills’ citizens would continue to have travel outside of Town to cast an early ballot; however, casting an early mail ballot would remain an option for voters and a ballot box drop point could be provided at Town Hall as was done during the Town’s March/May 2010 elections. Additional political signage is possible (i.e. local, county, state & federal candidate races and committees in support of or opposition to ballot measures). Potential conflict with other taxing districts wishing to enact taxes at the same time as the Town. Voter confusion. If the Town’s candidates or issues were on the consolidated ballot, voters who did not designate a party or who registered as an independent would not automatically get an early mail ballot even if they were on the permanent early voting list and would have to request a specific party’s ballot or request only the municipal ballot. In-Direct Impacts to consider regarding the Fall Election Cycle: The Council would need to determine how Councilmembers’ terms were altered for the transition year. The change in the Town’s election cycle would affect the Vice Mayor rotation. Per Town Code Section 2-2-2, each member of the council is to serve an eight-month term as vice mayor. The Council would need to determine how councilmembers’ service as vice mayor would be affected during the transition period. A change in the election cycle would require the Council to amend the Town Code, Sections 2-1-1 (Elected Officers) and 2-1-3 (Assumption of Duties); adding a new Section 2-3-5 regarding election dates. Local candidates and political committees supporting or opposing propositions or candidates would incur increased costs for campaigning due to the fact of trying to complete for voters’ attention with other county, state, and federal candidates or issues on the ballot. An increase in voter turnout would increase the number of signatures required on petitions to place an initiative, referendum, and recall on the ballot. An increase in voter turnout would increase the number of signatures required on the nomination petition to become a mayor or council candidate. Once the 2010 Census data is available there may additional cities mandated to make an election cycle change due to their population increase (175,000), which again would increase the length of the consolidated ballot. All Mail Ballot Elections The Arizona Legislature first adopted legislation to allow cities and towns to conduct mail elections in the mid 1990’s. Increasingly, Arizona cities and towns are opting for all-mail ballot elections and for the most part have seen an increase in voter participation. Recap of information received from city/town clerks who conduct mail ballot elections: City/Town First Mail Ballot Election % turnout before all Mail Ballot Election % turnout with all Mail Ballot Election Elections held: Spring/Fall [Even/Odd years] City of Peoria 2005 *November ’05 only 5 - 6% 21% Fall/Even years City of Prescott 2001 29 - 35% 52 – 68% Fall/Odd years City of Sedona 2006 30% 50% Spring/Even years Town of Paradise Valley 2000 12% 35-38% Spring/Even years Town of Florence 2010 – Council to decide if all mail ballot permanent method for 2012 election 8 – 40% depending upon what was on the ballot 34% Spring/Even years Town of Show Low 2002 14 - 15% 25-48% Spring/Even years Page 7 of 9 City/Town First Mail Ballot Election % turnout before all Mail Ballot Election % turnout with all Mail Ballot Election Elections held: Spring/Fall [Even/Odd years] City of Litchfield Park 2000 5.5% 49% Spring/Even years City of Winslow 2005 28% 52% Spring/Even years City of Globe 2006 9% 59% Spring/Even years Town of Payson 2003 8% 62% Spring/Even years Town of Dewey- Humboldt 2005 All Mail Ballot since incorporation 43% Spring/Odd years Town of Cave Creek 2011 – will be conducting its first all mail ballot election 36 - 38% TBD Spring/Odd years Town of Sahuarita 2003 37% 42% Spring/Odd years Town of Prescott Valley 2000 17% 60% Spring/Odd years City of Surprise 2005 14.5% 40% Spring/Odd years Town of Carefree – *The first town to conduct an all Mail Ballot Election 1995 22.9% 57.1% Spring/Odd years Town of Camp Verde 2001 28.4 – 34.7 % 44% Spring/Odd years City of Goodyear 2009 14% 28% Spring/Odd years Town of Chino Valley 2001 20% 40% Spring/Odd years Town of Pinetop- Lakeside 2007 15% 33.5% Spring/Odd years Mail Ballot Election Process: Please refer to the information provided by Maricopa County Elections. Mail Ballot Elections are conducted via the same process as Early Voting with regards to getting the ballot to the voter; however, with a Mail Ballot Election, ballots would be mailed to all active registered voters between 26 and 15 days prior to the election vs. a ground election, which could have ballots available at early voting sites 33 days prior to the election. Those cities and towns that have opted to conduct all mail elections have reported that voter education is key when moving to an all mail election and although their voters were apprehensive at first, their voters reported a change of heart and favorable preference for voting by mail. Arguments in favor of a Mail Ballot Election: Increased voter participation. Municipalities who have gone to an all mail ballot election have seen an increase in their voters’ participation. Increased accessibility and no more lines to stand in on Election Day. Common complaints on Election Day are voters’ difficulty in finding the correct polling place, parking issues, long walks from the parking lot to the actual polling place, etc. In a Mail Ballot Election, voters may vote from the comfort of their homes at whatever time is convenient for them. Better prepared voters. Voters are more likely to carefully study their choices and become better informed voters. Clean-up/update of voter registration records. Ballots are mailed by nonforwardable mail in an envelope with a printed statement requesting address correction and notification. No ID is required to be presented as ALL signatures are verified against the voter registration records when the signed ballot affidavit envelope and ballot are returned to Maricopa County Elections for processing. Unofficial Election results are released at 8 p.m. Page 8 of 9 Cost savings. An all Mail Ballot Election is no longer more expensive than a ground election due to the Maricopa County Election fee increase as of July 1, 2010. Reminder: For the Town’s March 9, 2010 Primary Election, the cost for election services was $23,236.39 [16,075 active registered voters @$0.73 per voter + 6,687 early voting requests @$1.72 per request]; For the Town’s May 18, 2010 Special Election, the cost for election services on the County’s consolidated ballot was $4,808.41 [15,511 active registered voters @ $0.31 per voter]. See estimated costs below: NUMBERS AS OF AUGUST 25, 2010: Active Registered Voters [15,748]. Permanent Early Voters List (PEVL) [7,514] *If totals increase so do the costs TOWN STAND-ALONE ELECTION (Spring Cycle - Even Years) Total Active Registered Voters @$1.37 plus PEVL fee @ $2.12 ALL MAIL BALLOT ELECTION Total Active Registered Voters @ PEVL Fee $2.12 Per Active Registered Voters fee 15,748 @ $1.37 ea. $21,574.76 $33,385.76 Early Mail Ballot Request for 1 Election @$2.12 ea unknown NA Per PEVL Requests 7,514 @ $2.12 ea. $15,929.68 NA Total estimated cost for Maricopa County Election Services $ 37,504.44 $ 33,385.76 PROJECTED SAVINGS $ 4,118.68 Arguments against a mail ballot election: Loss of a long-standing election tradition of going to the polls on Election Day. Voters may vote and choose to return their mail ballot well ahead of the deadline; voters may receive information about the measures or the candidates after they cast their ballot that could have potentially made a difference for them in how they cast their vote. Misconception that votes will have to incur the cost of mailing the ballot. Ballots are mailed with a postage prepaid envelope, so the voter simply has to drop the ballot in the mail box. Possible Voter confusion. If the Town held an election on the County’s consolidated ballot (fall election cycle), the Town would lose the ability to conduct an all mail ballot election and voters would again be faced with the question of where to go to vote and accessibility issues. Municipalities can only hold all mail ballot elections when there is not a county regular or special election. However, voters would continue to have the ability to request an early mail ballot for the election. In-Direct Impacts of an all Mail Ballot to consider: An increase in voter turnout would increase the number of signatures required on petitions to place an initiative, referendum, and recall on the ballot. An increase in voter turnout would increase the number of signatures required on the nomination petition to become a mayor or council candidate. Summary: A change to the fall election cycle is a policy decision made by Council based upon a collaborative ideal for future Town elections. A change would require adoption by ordinance and amending the Town Code. A change to an all mail ballot election process would require adoption of the process by ordinance and amending the Town Code. The information provided in this report covers election facts, pros and cons on the options, along with the possible in- direct impacts of changing to the fall election cycle (August/November) as well as all Mail Ballot Elections. Also provided are newspaper articles collected over time that provide additional insight into how an election cycle change has impacted other municipalities and electors’ viewpoints. Staff respectfully requests that the Council carefully assess the information and provide feedback as to if there is interest in moving forward with any changes for future Town elections. All Mail Balloting How secure is it? It is the most secure form of voting because we check each signature against the registration form. We will send out a mailing prior to sending the ballots to ensure that the voter is still at the same location. We also have new equipment that allows for us to track the packet all the way to the postman’s delivery truck so we can account for all pieces mailed for any given election. How does it affect Prop 200? It strengthens it. Prop 200 requires that every voter prove citizenship to register and for the early voting process, we check every signature on every earl voting affidavit to ensure that it matches against the signature on the voter’s registration form. How does it affect the voter? The voter has more time to review the ballot at a time convenient to them. The All Mail ballots are postage paid so voters would not incur any cost to return their ballot, not even the cost of gas to drive to the polls on Election Day. Voters also have the added benefit of not having to rework their schedules to make it to the polls on Election Day - just vote, seal, sign affidavit and drop in the mail, at their convenience. No lines to stand in on Election Day. If you opt to hand deliver your voted All Mail ballot on Election Day or any day prior to the Election Day, then simply enter any re-issue site in Maricopa County and drop off your ballot in its signed and sealed affidavit envelope and you’re done. The voter does not have to initiate a request to have their ballot mailed to them. Instead, the active voter registration, for a particular election, is rolled into the system so to allow for a mailer packet to be generated. This enables ALL eligible voters to receive and subsequently participate in the election process. The All Mail Election process eliminates the issue of potential inaccessibility experienced by some voters. Statistically, the All Mail process increases voter participation amongst voters such as the handicapped, elderly, homebound and student voters. It is statistically proven that voter turnout is increased through the All Mail Election process. This increase in turnout reflects a true showing of the demographics of a community and therefore is a more accurate representation of the people and the community as a whole. How are the Candidates affected? Although elections are primarily designed to service the constituents, it is not without notice that candidates and campaigns have a need to convey to the voters their platform or issues within any given election. Unlike the polling place election, which has voters voting from 33 days out (early voting) all the way through until the day of the election (polling place voting), the All Mail Election has a specific predetermined date as to when a voter will be seeing the ballot and consequently be able to cast their vote. This allows for candidates and campaigns to better focus their resources and provides them with a specific date to do this by rather that than an unknown and variable date. What about those voters who want to vote in-person? There will be replacement ballot stations that the voter can go to so that they can vote their ballot in-person, if they so choose. The added benefit is that they do not have to wait until Election Day to do this, it can be done as far out as 33 days in advance, all the way up to and on Election Day. Moreover, these replacement ballot sites (Clerk’s office and out 3 valley wide locations) will be able to handle any voter from any precinct so the voter can go to a site close to home, close to work or any one that happens to be in their immediate vicinity throughout this 33 day voting period. What if the voter spoils the ballot? There will be replacement ballot stations that they can go to for ballot replacement. If it occurs early enough in the cycle we can mail them a replacement ballot. What happens if they mail them both in? Only the first one is counted. Our returning process and equipment only allows for one ballot per voter to be returned. Once a ballot is returned, it systematically locks out any other ballots sent to that voter from being returned. Savings For a countywide election in Maricopa County, there is potentially a One Million dollar savings. Think of the enormity of what has to be accomplished. *7,000 board workers are hired by 15 recruiters Then they are trained in 40 different classes held throughout the valley *23 trucks deliver the material to the polling locations *1,142 polling places must be secured Maricopa County’s current statistics show that most polling place elections see 50% of their elections already being conducted via the mail-out (Early Voting) process. That means we are already expending the cost for 50% of the ballots to be mailed in addition to paying for 100% of the polling places to be setup. For jurisdictional elections, the savings depends on the current cost of their on-the-ground elections (up to $1.00 per voter) plus the cost for every early ballot that is sent ($1.72). If early voting is high in a given election, then the jurisdiction is paying $1.00 plus the $1.72 for that given voter. In an All Mail election, the only cost is the $1.72 per voter, there is not additional per voter cost since there is not on-the-ground or polling place supplies that need to be provided. Will the results be faster? Yes, there are no provisional or conditional ballots to be processed. Unofficial results are released on Election Day exactly at 8pm, no waiting for the polls to close to provide these results. Those ballots dropped off on Election Day will still need to be processed and we will still have the hand count audit in a countywide election. Therefore, Official results will not be provided until this is completed but even with this, All Mail Election results are still released as soon as the final ballots from the polls have been tabulated. Page 1 ALL-MAIL ELECTION INFORMATION Maricopa County currently conducts All-Mail Elections consistently for five jurisdictions; those jurisdictions being the Town of Paradise Valley, City of Litchfield Park, Town of Carefree, City of Peoria and the City of Surprise. Attached (see page 2) you will find statistical data comparing the elections held for two of these jurisdictions that have had an extensive history of conducting all-mail elections. The last attachment (see page 3) shows participation for a current All-Mail Election just recently conducted last year. Both of these attachments provide information with regards to the turnout for past on-the-ground elections and current All-Mail elections. All-Mail elections are conducted via the same process as Early Voting with regards to the method of getting a ballot to the voter. The major difference is that the voter does not have to initiate a request to have their ballot mailed to them. Instead, the active voter registration for a particular election is rolled into the system so to allow for a mailer packet to be generated. This enables all eligible voters to receive and subsequently participate in the election process. All elections require Early Voting which in its course is similar to the All-mail election process. Early Voting has become a major part of all elections currently being conducted. Maricopa County’s current statistics show that most on-the-ground elections see 50% of their elections being conducted via the mail-out method. Being that Early Voting continues to grow in popularity it is apparent that potentially all elections will be better served and more efficiently and effectively conducted via the All-Mail election process. The major benefits of all-mail elections are as follows: 1) Effectiveness: The fact that all voters eligible to participate are provided with an opportunity to do so is the definition of an effective method of conducting an election. Moreover, the majority of the results of the election are acquired by the last mail drop on Election Day. The only outstanding results would be from those packets dropped off at the replacement ballot site or at any other polling place location within Maricopa County on Election Day. 2) Security: All-Mail Elections are conducted with the utmost security in mind. All ballots going out are logged and returned ballots coming in are tracked so to ensure that only one ballot was received and cast by any given voter. Moreover, each ballot that is returned is required to be enclosed within a signed affidavit before it is considered to be valid and subsequently counted. Each and every signature on this affidavit is reviewed and compared to an image of the actual voters registration form. This security measure ensures that the individual that signed for the ballot cast was indeed the individual on file. 3) Cost: Currently, the cost of conducting an on-the-ground election in conjunction with Early Voting appears to be similar to the cost of conducting an All-Mail election. However, the cost per ballots cast (see page 2) is greatly reduced being that in an All-Mail election tends to facilitate a greater turnout amongst voters. The elimination of the need for board workers, polling place rentals, polling place supplies, etc also contributes to the cost savings realized in the All-Mail election process. 4) Campaigning: Although elections are primarily designed to service the constituents it is not without notice that candidates and campaigns have a need to convey to the voters their platform or issues within any given election. Unlike the on-the-ground election which has voters voting from 33 days out (early voting) all the way through till the day of the election (polling place voting) - the All-Mail election has a specific predetermined date as to when a voter will be seeing the ballot and consequently be able to cast their vote (jurisdiction decides on date to mail from 33 to 15 days prior to Election Day). This allows for candidates and campaigns to better focus their resources and provides them with a specific date rather than an unknown variable. 5) Accessibility: The All-Mail Election process has eliminated the issues of potential inaccessibility experienced by some voters. Statistically, the All-Mail process increases voter participation amongst voters such as the handicapped, elderly, homebound and student voters. 6) Accountability: All-Mail Elections are conducted systematically. This enables us to better track and account for all ballots going out and being returned at any given moment. The electronic record keeping of such data also allows us to better communicate with the jurisdiction so to provide them with up to the minute data in regards to any aspect of the election being conducted. 7) Participation: The increase in voter turnout reflects a true showing of the demographics of a community and therefore is a more accurate representation of the people and the community as a whole. 8) Ease: The All-Mail Election process not only provides voter’s with a convenient way of participating in the electoral process but it also ensures that an eligible voter is not disenfranchised in any way. A specific issue of concern in a polling place election is the new statutory “ID at the Polls” requirement which will require voters, who do not bring proper identification as defined by the Secretary of State, to vote a “conditional provisional ballot”. Upon voting such a ballot the voter will have five (5) days after a Federal General election and three (3) days after any other election to provide in-person sufficient ID to the County Recorder in order for their “conditional provisional ballot” to count (see page 4). Page 2 STATISTICAL INFORMATION (STANDARD “ON-THE-GROUND” ELECTIONS) MARCH 10, 1998 ELECTIONS JURISDICTIONS BALLOTS CAST REGISTERED VOTER TOTALS TURNOUT PERCENTAGE LITCHFIELD PARK 1108 2494 44% PARADISE VALLEY 1568 9656 16% (STANDARD “ON-THE-GROUND” ELECTIONS) MAY 19, 1998 ELECTIONS JURISDICTIONS BALLOTS CAST REGISTERED VOTER TOTALS TURNOUT PERCENTAGE LITCHFIELD PARK 869 2508 35% PARADISE VALLEY 665 9681 7% (ALL MAIL ELECTIONS) MARCH 14, 2000 ELECTIONS JURISDICTIONS BALLOTS CAST REGISTERED VOTER TOTALS TURNOUT PERCENTAGE LITCHFIELD PARK 1377 2214 62% PARADISE VALLEY 2585 8686 30% (ALL MAIL ELECTIONS) MARCH 13, 2003 ELECTIONS JURISDICTION BALLOTS CAST REGISTERED VOTER TOTALS TURNOUT PERCENTAGE PARADISE VALLEY 2642 8799 30% Page 3 (STANDARD “ON-THE-GROUND” ELECTIONS) MAY 20, 2003 ELECTIONS JURISDICTIONS BALLOTS CAST REGISTERED VOTER TOTALS TURNOUT PERCENTAGE SURPRISE 4982 34201 14.5% (ALL MAIL ELECTIONS) MARCH 8, 2005 ELECTIONS JURISDICTION BALLOTS CAST REGISTERED VOTER TOTALS TURNOUT PERCENTAGE SURPRISE 11093 34506 32% (ALL MAIL ELECTIONS) MAY 17, 2005 ELECTIONS JURISDICTION BALLOTS CAST REGISTERED VOTER TOTALS TURNOUT PERCENTAGE SURPRISE 1280 3186 40% (ALL MAIL ELECTIONS) SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ELECTIONS JURISDICTION BALLOTS CAST REGISTERED VOTER TOTALS TURNOUT PERCENTAGE SURPRISE 13759 44794 31% Page 4 IDENTIFICATION AT THE POLLS INFORMATION Every qualified elector is required to show proof of identity at the polling place before receiving a ballot. The elector shall announce his/her name and place of residence to the election official and present one form of identification from List #1 that bears the name, address, and photograph of the elector or two different forms of identification from List #2 that bear the name and address of the elector. [A.R.S. § 16-579(A)] An elector who does not provide one form of identification from List #1 that bears the name, address, and photograph of the elector or two different forms of identification from List #2 that bear the name and address of the elector shall not be issued a regular ballot, but shall receive a provisional ballot and will have five (5) days after a Federal General election and three (3) days after any other election to provide sufficient ID to the County Recorder in order for their provisional ballot to count. LIST# 1 - Sufficient Photo ID (including name and address): • Valid Arizona driver license or non-operating identification • Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification • Valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification LIST# 2 - Sufficient ID without photograph bearing the name and address (two required): • Utility bill of the elector that is dated within ninety days of the date of the election. A utility bill may be for electric, gas, water, solid waste, sewer, telephone, cellular phone, or cable television • Bank or credit union statement that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election • Valid Arizona Vehicle Registration • Indian census card • Property tax statement of the elector’s residence • Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification • Vehicle insurance card • Valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification • Voter Registration Card / Recorder’s Certification • Any “Official Election Material” Mailing bearing your name and address Town of Fountain Hills Election Service Costs The Fall Election Cycle All Mail Ballot Elections Pros Cons In-direct Impacts Election Costs Increase The per Active Registered Voter cost increased from $.73 to $1.37 (88% increase). The per Early Mail Ballot cost increased from $1.72 to $2.12 (23% increase). The cost of being included on the County-wide ballot increased from $.31 to $.50 per Active Registered Voter (61% increase). Election Facts Maricopa County, State, and Federal elections are held during the fall election cycle –in the even years. (August/Primary and November/General). Maricopa County currently is unable to conduct an all mail election.If that were a future consideration, the Town would be unable to conduct an all mail election if Town issues were on the consolidated election ballot. The Fountain Hills Sanitary District (Fall Election Cycle –Odd Years) and the Fountain Hills Unified School District (Fall Election Cycle –Even Years) are two other entities that regularly hold elections. Bond Elections are held in November; Property Tax Elections are held in May Election Facts Cities’and towns’original incorporation date played a major role in determining their initial city or town election cycle. The recap below shows when the ninety (90) cities and towns in Arizona hold their municipal elections: Eleven utilize the fall election cycle, in even years (when county/state/federal election are held). Six utilize the fall election cycle, in odd years (elections conducted in off-county/state/federal regular election years). Forty utilize the spring cycle, in even years (Fountain Hills’ current cycle) Thirty-three utilize the spring cycle, in odd years AZ Cities & Towns Election Cycles Recap of 90 Cities/Towns: 11 –Fall/Even years 7 –Fall/Odd years 40 –Spring/Even years 32 –Spring/Odd years Highlighted municipalities surround Fountain Hills Star Valley selected Spring/Even years Election Deadlines Compared Election Service Costs Town and Maricopa County Voter Turnout 29.04% All Mail Ballot Election –Voter Turnout Information provided by clerks who conduct Mail Ballot Elections:%% Questions? Z:\Council Packets\2010\WS9-14-10\AAF Elections.docx Page 9 of 11 Article from the Scottsdale Tribune from 8/24/06 Z:\Council Packets\2010\WS9-14-10\AAF Elections.docx Page 10 of 11 Z:\Council Packets\2010\WS9-14-10\AAF Elections.docx Page 11 of 11