Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Referendum Costs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears referendum cost estimates; votes to ask City Commission about timing and submission format
Summary
A city staff presentation estimated referendum costs across four timing options, and the board approved a motion to ask the City Commission whether it has a deadline and whether it prefers the board submit its work all at once or in increments.
City staff presented cost estimates for holding a referendum on charter changes and the Charter Review Board voted to ask the City Commission whether it has a timeline and whether it prefers the board’s work presented all at once or in increments.
Cassandra (staff) summarized four timing options and their estimated costs: adding referendum questions to a November general election held with a presidential contest (estimated at about $92,340 for the city with one additional ballot page; costs rise to about $112,000 with a second page and $131,000 with a third), holding a March municipal election in a year without a presidential contest (estimated about $315,980), using an August primary (not typically used for municipal referenda), or a standalone mail ballot (costs not specified in detail in the presentation). Cassandra explained the Supervisor of Elections’ per-ballot price assumptions: approximately $0.70 per ballot plus roughly $0.15 for each additional ballot page, multiplied by the number of registered voters.
Nut Graf: The cost estimates and timing options matter because they influence how the board coordinates its review schedule with the City Commission and with the Supervisor of Elections; different timings change both cost and likely turnout.
After the cost presentation the board voted on a motion directing staff to send a written communication to the City Commission asking two questions: (1) whether the commission is working toward a specific deadline for the board’s work, and (2) whether the commission prefers to receive the board’s work all at once or in increments as sections are completed. The motion passed on a recorded voice vote. Chair Stern, Mr. Weiss and Miss Kelli Quinn were recorded as voting “yes.”
Ending: Board members asked staff to include the question in the meeting minutes and to coordinate the board’s calendar with any timeline the commission provides. The board said it will expect a commission response at the commission’s next meeting and will revisit election-timing considerations at its next Charter Review Board session.
