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.
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.
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