Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-14-06 packetDocument in 11-14-06 packet.obd Page 1 of 1 NOTICE OF THE WORK STUDY SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL Mayor Wally Nichols Councilmember Mike Archambault Councilmember Keith McMahan Councilmember Ginny Dickey Councilmember Henry Leger Vice Mayor Ed Kehe Councilmember Jay Schlum TIME: 5:30 – 7:00 P.M. - WORK STUDY SESSION WHEN: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2006 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 Nichols 2.) DISCUSSION of changing the current ELECTION cycle from the March/May (Spring) to the September/November (Fall) election cycle. 3.) ADJOURNMENT. DATED this 9th day of November, 2006. By: Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk The Town of Fountain Hills endeavors to make all public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities. Please call 837-2003 (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. Town of Fountain Hills Town Council Agenda Action Form Meeting Type: Worksession Meeting Date: 11/14/06 Submitting Department: Administration Contact Person: Pickering Consent: Regular: Requesting Action: Report Only: Type of Document Needing Approval (Check all that apply): Public Hearing Resolution Ordinance Agreement Emergency Clause Special Event Permit Special Consideration Intergovernmental Agreement Acceptance Grant Submission Liquor/Bingo License Application Plat Special Event Permit Special/Temp Use Permit Other: Council Priority (Check Appropriate Areas): Education Public Fitness Library Services Public Safety Community Activities Economic Development Public Works Human Service Needs Parks & Recreation Town Elections Community Development Finance Regular Agenda Wording: .DISCUSSION of changing the current ELECTION cycle from the March/May (Spring) to the September/November (Fall) election cycle. Staff Recommendation: Approve Fiscal Impact: Yes $To be determined Purpose of Item and Background Information: The purpose of this work-study is to provide the pros and cons as well as the indirect impacts of changing the Town's election, which will facilitate the Council's discussion. Staff proposes that changing election cycles would be beneficial to the Town on two points: (i) it would provide for councilmember continuity through the fiscal year budget process and (ii) would provide for a reduction in election costs on a consolidated ballot with Maricopa County. However, there are other facts that the Council will want to consider during their discussion; those points have been provided under the headings of pros/cons/indirect impacts in the attached staff report. List All Attachments as Follows: staff report Type(s) of Presentation: verbal Signatures of Submitting Staff: ____________________________ _____________________________________ Name Budget Review (if item not budgeted or exceeds budget amount) Town Clerk ____________________________ Title ____________________________ Town Manager /Designee TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK INTER OFFICE MEMO TO: Town Manager Timothy G. Pickering DATE: November 8, 2006 FR: Town Clerk Bevelyn J. Bender RE: Changing the Election Cycle As requested, staff has researched and provided a comprehensive list of pros and cons of changing to the fall election cycle (September/November) and the indirect impacts of such a change for the Council’s review. Such a change would benefit the Town by (i) providing for councilmember continuity throughout the fiscal year budget process and (ii) providing for a reduction in election costs on a consolidated ballot. However, there are other considerations, which have been provided in the following pages of this report. Town Attorney McGuire has provided a memo to the Council regarding the legal aspects of such a change. FACTS 1. Maricopa County, State, and Federal elections are held during the fall election cycle – in the even years. (September/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 due to the consolidated ballot held in September and November elections. 3. The Town of Fountain Hills currently holds Town elections during the spring election cycle – in the even years (March/Primary and May/General). 4. Cities’ and towns’ original incorporation date played a major role in determining their initial city or town election cycle. 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. The budget process for the Council begins in January/February of each year with the Council Retreat. The extensive information provided to the Council Candidates also includes the proposed new fiscal year draft budget, which currently seated Councilmembers review, discuss, and revise during public process until the tentative and final budget is approved. Past mayoral and council candidates have offered suggestions and opinions during the public meetings held throughout the budget process. Z:\Council Packets\2006\WS11-14-06\Pros-Cons of the Sept-Nov Election Cycle 2006.doc Page 1 of 16 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 prepared by staff under the direction of previously seated councilmembers. If the election cycle were changed to the fall election cycle (September/November), newly elected officials would take office in January then they would take part in the Council Retreat, which provides direction for the new fiscal year budget adopted in June. 7. An election cycle comparison chart has been provided below and indicates the various election deadlines associated with each election cycle (Deadlines based on 2006 elections). Comparison of the Various Election Deadlines (Spring) March/May 2006 vs. (Fall) September/November 2006 A.R.S. Reference ELECTION DATES March 14, 2006 Primary May 16, 2006 General September 12, 2006 Primary November 7, 2006 General §16-225/226 Call the Election 11/3/05 Council Meeting 5/4/06 Council Meeting Candidate Packets Available 11/4/05 5/5/06 §16-311(B) Earliest date to file Nomination Papers 11/14/05 N/A 5/15/06 N/A §16-311(B) Deadline to file Nomination Papers 12/14/05 N/A 6/14/06 N/A §16-312(B) Write-In Candidates filing deadline 2/2/06 4/6/06 8/3/06 9/28/06 §16-120 Last Day to Register to Vote 2/13/06 4/17/06 8/14/06 10/9/06 §16-542(A) First Day to request a mail ballot 12/11/05 2/12/06 6/11/06 8/6/06 §16-542(E) Last day to request a mail ballot 3/3/06 5/5/06 9/1/06 10/27/06 §16-545(B) First day to cast an early ballot on site 2/9/06 4/13/06 8/10/06 10/5/06 §16-542(D) Last day to cast an early ballot on site 3/10/06 5/12/06 9/8/06 11/3/06 PROS OF CHANGING THE ELECTION CYCLE TO SEPTEMBER/NOVEMBER ¾ The Council that begins the budget process would follow the entire process through from beginning to end. There would be no loss of councilmember continuity and participation during the budget adoption process. ¾ 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 the candidates. The Town’s highest % of voter turnout was in May 2003 at 43% [recall election]. The 2002/2004 November General Elections % of voter turnout was 56% and 77% respectively. A chart of the more recent election returns has been provided. Z:\Council Packets\2006\WS11-14-06\Pros-Cons of the Sept-Nov Election Cycle 2006.doc Page 2 of 16 Fountain Hills’ Elections [March/May] % of Voter Turnout Number of Fountain Hills Registered Voters Number of Early Fountain Hills Voters 2002 Council Primary Election 37% 12,394 1127/300* 2002 Council General Election (Proposition and 400-Exp. Limitation and Property Tax) 30% 12,482 1696/416* 2002 September Special Election (General Plan) 20% 12,712 NA 2003 May Special Election (Recall & Property Tax) 43% 12,594 1860/926* 2004 Council Primary Election 22% 13,073 572/304* 2004 Council General Election 23% 13,349 972/628* 2006 Council Primary Election 21% 13,669 955/410* 2006 Council General Election - not required (Councilmembers elected during the Primary) N/A N/A N/A Maricopa County Elections [Sept./Nov.] % of Voter Turnout Number of Registered Voters 2002 Primary Election 22.0% 1,305,391 2002 General Election 56.3% 2,229,180 2004 Primary Election 22.9% 1,451,620 2004 General Election (Presidential) 77.1% 2,643,331 2006 Primary Election 19.8% 1,481,926 2006 General Election TBA TBA ¾ 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. ¾ Reduced election costs. The consolidated election cost [at this time] is $.15 per active registered voter for the Primary Election ballot and $.31 per active register voter for the General Election ballot. The cost of early ballots is included in the price per voter. The independent election cost is $.78 per active registered voter. In a consolidated election there is NO charge for mailing/processing of early ballots; there is a $1.47 per early ballot mailing/processing charge in an independent election. Maricopa County personnel may provide on-site early voting assistance to citizens (33-days prior to an election) if a location within Fountain Hills were named an early voting satellite location. Fountain Hills’ voters would be able to utilize all Maricopa County-wide early voting satellite locations. Below are charges for the Town’s independent March 2006 Primary Election vs. the projected cost of a consolidated General Election. Independent Est. Gen. Election Election Cost Consolidated Cost 13,669 Active Registered Voters @$.78/ $10,661.82 @ $.31/ $4,237.39 1,042 Early Voting Requests @ $1.47 1,531.74 On Site Early Voting Staff 4,044.01 Total $16,237.57 $4,237.39 Estimated projected savings based on the 2006 Primary costs: $ 12,000 Z:\Council Packets\2006\WS11-14-06\Pros-Cons of the Sept-Nov Election Cycle 2006.doc Page 3 of 16 CONS OF CHANGING THE ELECTION CYCLE TO SEPTEMBER/NOVEMBER ¾ Opens Town politics to possible partisanship influences, as Town elections would occur simultaneously with the partisan primary and general elections. ¾ Recruiting poll workers has always been a challenge. However, for the fall election cycle, as election officials need to have their polling staff assigned prior to the Labor Day holiday for the September/November elections, vacations become an issue, as most people have not yet returned. There is also the added caveat that polling staff must man the polling location from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. and then tear down the booths and pack up the equipment for removal thus making for a very long day. Not everyone is up to that challenge. ¾ Less flexibility in ballot layout – Town candidates and issues may get lost in ballot placement, especially in such consolidated elections as the governor’s and presidential elections, which are held during the even year election cycle. Town issues would compete with other county, state, school, and federal issues and candidates for placement on the consolidated ballot and for the attention of the voter. ¾ 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. [However, 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.] Placement of Town Candidates and Questions on the Consolidated Ballot – The County Election Officials anticipate that a minimum of two ballots will be needed for future General Elections as the English and Spanish ballot text must be combined on the same ballot. ƒ Town Primary Election candidates would be on the front of the ballot after the last county or school district office candidate; Town ballot issues would be placed on the back of the ballot. ƒ Town General Election run-off candidates and ballot issues (tag lines) could appear on the front of the ballot but the logistics will change depending upon the number of candidates and issues that must be placed on this ballot. ¾ The length of a consolidated ballot, especially in a countywide, statewide or federal (governor or presidential) election year, may dissuade voters from completing the ballot. House Bill 2576 (approved in the 2006 Arizona Legislature Session requires that all bond elections be held on the November consolidated election date. This requirement becomes effective June 30, 2007 and has the potential for adding to the length of the ballot. ¾ Voters would have to be advised where to look for Town candidates and propositions on Maricopa County’s Primary Election ballot and Town run-off candidate races and issues on Maricopa County’s General Election ballot. ¾ Senate Bill 1557 (approved in the 2006 Arizona Legislature Session) indirectly impacts city and town elections by possibly delaying results of city and town candidates and issues when consolidated on countywide or statewide ballots, as the county election official must do a manual hand count of at least two percent (2%) of the precincts or two (2) precincts whichever is greater. At this time the requirement does not apply to city and town elections. This added process may delay when the election results are provided to the Town if any of the Fountain Hills’ precincts are selected. This requirement does not apply to city or town elections at this time. Z:\Council Packets\2006\WS11-14-06\Pros-Cons of the Sept-Nov Election Cycle 2006.doc Page 4 of 16 ¾ The Maricopa County Election Division may take longer to provide the election results to the Town in consolidated countywide, statewide, or federal elections as multiple jurisdictional election results are processed. Therefore, results may not be available as quickly as in a stand- alone “Town” election. Final election results would be provided to municipalities upon completion of all ballot tabulations. During a consolidated General Election, it is possible that the receipt of municipalities’ “official” election results may be delayed up to twenty (20) days depending upon the volume of ballots to be processed. A.R.S §16-642(A): “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.” The Council would not be able to canvass election results until final election tabulations were provided by Maricopa County Election. ¾ There is less flexibility with the breakdown of election result reports received from the Maricopa County in consolidated elections. ¾ Early Voting satellite locations and Election Day voting locations are determined by Maricopa County Elections. Unless the Fountain Hills’ Town Hall were specifically named as an early voting satellite location, Fountain Hills’ citizens would have travel outside of Town to cast an early ballot. However, requesting an early mail ballot would remain an option for voters. ¾ Additional political signage possible - local, county, state & federal candidate races and those signs in support or opposition of ballot measures. ¾ Potential conflict with other taxing districts wishing to enact taxes at the same time as the Town. In-Direct Impacts to consider: ¾ The Council would have to determine how councilmembers’ terms should be altered (lengthened or shortened) for the transition year. ¾ This change in the 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 have to determine how councilmembers’ service as vice mayor would be affected during the transition period. ¾ A change in the election cycle would require an ordinance amending the Town Code: Sections 2-1-1 (Elected Officers), 2-1-3 (Assumption of Duties) and adding a new Section 2-3-5 regarding election dates. ¾ Candidates and political committees supporting or opposing propositions could incur increased costs for campaigning. ¾ An increase in voter turnout would increase the number of signatures required on petitions to place an initiative, referendum, and recall on the ballot. ¾ The number of signatures required to become a mayor or council candidate could increase if there is an increase in voter turnout. ¾ Senate Bill 1041 (approved in the 2006 Arizona Legislature Session) requires cities with a population of 175,000 or over (by the last decennial census) must hold their regular candidate election on the fall consolidated election dates. This bill became effective as of April 5, 2006. Chandler, Mesa, and Scottsdale are the three cities that were moved from the spring election cycle (even years) to the fall election cycle (even years) and are now consolidated on Maricopa County’s fall election cycle (even years). In the future as the various cities’ populations increase there may additional cities mandated to make an election cycle change. Z:\Council Packets\2006\WS11-14-06\Pros-Cons of the Sept-Nov Election Cycle 2006.doc Page 5 of 16 Spring Cycle – Odd years Spring Cycle – Even years Fall Cycle – Even years Fall cycle – Odd years Z:\Council Packets\2006\WS11-14-06\Pros-Cons of the Sept-Nov Election Cycle 2006.doc Page 6 of 16 Recap of the ninety (90) cities and towns in Arizona municipal elections: 9 Eleven utilize the fall election cycle, in even years (when county/state/federal election are held). 9 Seven utilize the fall election cycle, in odd years (elections conducted in off- county/state/federal regular election years). 9 Thirty-nine are spring cycle, in even years (Fountain Hills’ current cycle) 9 Thirty-two are spring cycle, in odd years 9 One (Star Valley) new town has yet to establish their election cycle Summary: This is a policy decision made by Council based upon a collaborative ideal for future Town elections. The information provided covers facts, multiple pros and cons, and the possible in-direct impacts of changing to the fall election cycle (September/November), which should be carefully weighed. An overview was also provided as to what procedure is currently in place and the steps taken by the Town Manager and staff to provide all potential council candidates with essential information needed in order for individuals running for office to become a knowledgeable and functioning councilmember if elected. Staff respectfully requests that the Council carefully assess the pros, the cons and contemplate the indirect impacts of changing from the current spring election cycle to a fall election cycle. If the Council is looking to: ¾ Provide for councilmember continuity through the fiscal year budget process and, ¾ Provide for the reduction in election costs through a consolidated ballot Staff recommends that the Council favorably consider changing to the September/November election cycle. Enclosure: Various newspaper articles from the Scottsdale Tribune and the Arizona Republic; 2005 Census Survey of Maricopa County, AZ Z:\Council Packets\2006\WS11-14-06\Pros-Cons of the Sept-Nov Election Cycle 2006.doc Page 7 of 16 691647.1 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q MEMORANDUM Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q To Mayor and Town Council Town Manager Date November 9, 2006 File No. 014414- 00024 From Andrew J. McGuire Subject Change of Election Date; Effect on Terms of Council Members Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Issue 1: Is a Town Council is permitted to change its regularly scheduled election dates? Answer: Probably yes. We were not able to find any direct statutory or constitutional provisions under Arizona law granting a general law town the power to change the dates of its regularly scheduled elections. However, the Arizona State Legislature recognizes that the method of conducting elections at a municipal level is both a local and statewide concern, as set forth in the text of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 16-204 (the statute requiring consolidated election dates). Therefore, while the State has clearly established the dates upon which a municipality must hold its elections, it has implicitly been left up to the local government to determine which of the consolidated dates it will use. In fact, one of the stated purposes for the consolidated election dates in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 16-204 is to increase voter participation, one of the possible outcomes of moving the Town’s primary and general elections to the Fall cycle. Issue 2: May Town Council Members remain in office past the expiration of their terms to accommodate moving the election cycle from the Spring to the Fall? Answer: Probably yes. The terms of the Mayor and Council Members are established in Section 2-1-1 of the Town Code (Mayor - two years; Council Member – four years). That Section provides that “[t]he mayor and councilmembers shall constitute the council and shall continue in office until assumption of duties of office by their duly elected successors as set forth in Section 2-1-3” (emphasis added). While the language of Section 2-1-3 ties the Council terms to the Spring election cycle, I think it is clear that the intent is to have the member in office continue until their successors are elected and qualified. This interpretation is supported by several sources of authority. First, the Arizona Constitution states that the term of office of every public officer elected in Arizona shall extend until his successor shall be elected and shall qualify, See ARIZ. CONST. ART. 22 § 13. Second, ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 38-295 (b) provides that “[e]very officer shall continue to discharge the duties of the office, although the term has expired, until a successor has qualified.” Third, a handful of Arizona cases have addressed the issue. See, e.g. McCall v. Cull, 51 Ariz. 237, 242, 75 P. 2d 696, 698 (1938)(an incumbent’s Mayor and Council Change of Election Dates November 9, 2006 Page 2 691647.1 tenure of office continues until his successor qualifies, although his term has expired); Lockwood v. Jordan 72 Ariz. 77, 86, 231 P. 2d 428, 434 (1951)(the continued obligation to the office is recognized as a duty of a public officer); Sweeney v. State, 23 Ariz. 435, 204 P. 1025 (1922)(a justice of the peace, appointed to fill a vacancy for the unexpired term, is as much entitled to hold over until the successor is elected and qualified as the original incumbent would have been). Finally, there is at least one Arizona Attorney General’s Opinion holding that outgoing local governing board members are to remain in office after their terms expire and until their newly elected successors have qualified for office by subscribing to the oath of office. See Op.Atty.Gen. No. I85-073. If the primary and general elections are moved to later dates, then successors will not be qualified before the expiration of the current term of the Mayor and three Council Members. Based upon the foregoing, I believe that, in the event of a change in election dates from the Spring cycle to the Fall cycle, the Mayor and the three out-going Council Members would essentially “hold-over” in their positions until their successors were elected at either the September primary election or the November general election and subsequently qualified to take office. Article from the Scottsdale Tribune from 8/24/06 Z:\Council Packets\2006\WS11-14-06\Pros-Cons of the Sept-Nov Election Cycle 2006.doc Page 8 of 16 Z:\Council Packets\2006\WS11-14-06\Pros-Cons of the Sept-Nov Election Cycle 2006.doc Page 9 of 16 Z:\Council Packets\2006\WS11-14-06\Pros-Cons of the Sept-Nov Election Cycle 2006.doc Page 9 of 16 Z:\Council Packets\2006\WS11-14-06\Pros-Cons of the Sept-Nov Election Cycle 2006.doc Page 10 of 16 Z:\Council Packets\2006\WS11-14-06\Pros-Cons of the Sept-Nov Election Cycle 2006.doc Page 11 of 16 Z:\Council Packets\2006\WS11-14-06\Pros-Cons of the Sept-Nov Election Cycle 2006.doc Page 12 of 16 Z:\Council Packets\2006\WS11-14-06\Pros-Cons of the Sept-Nov Election Cycle 2006.doc Page 13 of 16 Z:\Council Packets\2006\WS11-14-06\Pros-Cons of the Sept-Nov Election Cycle 2006.doc Page 14 of 16 Z:\Council Packets\2006\WS11-14-06\Pros-Cons of the Sept-Nov Election Cycle 2006.doc Page 15 of 16 Z:\Council Packets\2006\WS11-14-06\Pros-Cons of the Sept-Nov Election Cycle 2006.doc Page 16 of 16 Document in 11-14-06 packet.obd Page 19 of 17