Jan 5 Resolution IRV costs and primary issues

rOKFIGE-Of^TH^-'GiT.Y-eiE-p-:OAKLAND

CITY OF OAKLANDOFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNlff^^^

^^ ^"

^^^^

TO:President Brunner and Members of the City CouncilFROM: John A. Russo, City AttorneyDATE: Januarys, 2010RE:Report and Resolution Authorizing the City Administrator to Negotiate and Execute aMemorandum of Understanding Between the County of Alameda and the Cities ofOakland, Berkeley and San Leandro Regarding Ranked Choice Voting, in an AmountNot to Exceed One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000), withOakland's Share Being Nine Hundred Forty-Six Thousand Nine Hundred FiftyDollars ($946,950)SUMMARYWe recommend that the City Council authorize the City Administrator to negotiate and execute aMemorandum of Understanding Between the County of Alameda and the Cities of Oakland,Berkeley and San Leandro Regarding Ranked Choice Voting ("MOU") substantially similar tothe draft agreement attached as Exhibit A hereto.The County Registrar of Voters has requested that Oakland, Berkeley and San Leandro executethe MOU to ensure that the County will be reimbursed for those costs associated with theupgrades that are required to implement a new Ranked Choice Voting ("RCV") (also known asInstant Runoff Voting) system in the three cities for the November 2010 election.Each of

the

three cities will pay their proportionate share of the total not-to-exceed amount of$1.5 million based on the number of registered voters in each city; if other jurisdictions inAlameda County adopt an RCV system, Oakland, Berkeley and San Leandro will be reimbursedtheir proportionate share of their payment.FISCAL IMPACTThe proposed MOU sets a not-to-exceed amount of

$1.5

milhon, to be allocated among the threecities as depicted in Table

1

below.Table 1: Allocation of Proportionate Shares

CityBerkeleySan LeandroOaklandRegistered Voters86,02041,297219,102Percentage Share24.79%

12.08%63.13%

Share of $1.5 million$371,850$181,200$946,950

President Brunner and Members of the City CouncilMOU Regarding Ranked Choice Voting Page 2This amount represents the County's high end estimate of the cost of the necessary hardware,firmware, software upgrades, special mailings to voters regarding RCV, voter education, voteroutreach by the County, and poll worker training attributable to RCV only. These costs do notinclude the usual costs of conducting an election on each city's behalf Oakland will remainresponsible for regular election costs, such as the tallying of the votes, post-election processing, andstaffing of polling places. Oakland also will remain responsible for the cost of any RCV outreach tovoters that it conducts, separately from the County's outreach. The City Clerk's Office willcoordinate this additional outreach.The County has stated that: $1.5 million is a high estimate that anticipates any possiblecontingency, the actual amount likely will be less, and the County will bill the cities only for theactual costs of implementing RCV.Oakland's FY 2009-10 budget does not include Oakland's share of $946,950. hi the FY 2009-10budget, the City Council allocated funds for a June election, and it did not allocate funds for theupgrades and outreach that would be required for an RCV election in November. At the time thebudget was approved it was not clear whether the County would be able to conduct an RCVelection in November.BACKGROUNDIn November 2006, the voters of the City of Oakland approved Measure 0, which amended theCity Charter to provide that elections for all city offices will be conducted using ranked choicevoting (RCV), known sometimes as "instant runoff voting." The Charter defines RCV as "anelection system in which voters rank the candidates for office in order of preference, and theballots are counted in rounds that, in the case of

a

single-winner election, simulate a series ofrunoffs until one candidate receives a majority of votes." The Charter requires that the City useRCV to conduct Oakland elections "once the Alameda County Registrar of Voters is able toconduct the [RCV] election."As with the Charter provision that mandates that Oakland use RCV, the MOU only becomeseffective when Mr. Dave Macdonald, Alameda County Registrar of Voters, notifies the citiesthat he is capable of implementing RCV in the November 2010 election. On December 4,Secretary of State Debra Bowen approved the County's RCV voting system. On December 22,2009,Mr. Macdonald notified the cities as follows: "Key staff have received the trainingrequired to conduct an RCV election. The only thing we are waiting for is a signed MOU fromOakland, Berkeley and San Leandro. We are definitely ready to conduct a successful RCVelection."KEY ISSUES AND IMPACTSReimbursement by Other JurisdictionsThe MOU provides that if any other district or city within Alameda County, or the County

itself,

adopts an RCV system for its elections, it will be required to join the MOU as a party, and theItem:

^_„^_^____

Oakland City CouncilJanuary 5,2010

President Brunner and Members of the City CouncilMOU Regarding Ranked Choice VotingPage 3new city or district will reimburse Oakland, San Leandro and Berkeley for its proportionate shareof the RCV setup costs. As of now, the reimbursement formula is unknown. The formuladetermining the reimbursement shares will not be decided until after that jurisdiction joins theagreement because the size and scope of such entity is unknown, as well as the timing of

its

entryinto the MOU.Participation of San LeandroIn Oakland, voters have approved a charter amendment requiring RCV as soon as the County isable to implement it. In San Leandro, however, the City Council makes the decision whether touse RCV. While San Leandro staff has been actively involved in the long discussions with theCounty and the other cities regarding the implementation of RCV, its City Council has not yetmade the final decision to authorize its use for the November 2010 election.At its December 7 meeting, the San Leandro City Council voted to delay any decisions onwhether to use RCV until its meeting on January 19, 2010, after the City of Oakland considersthis MOU. At the December meeting, the San Leandro City Council voted down a motion toprevent RCV from being implemented in November 2010, by a 4-3 vote.If San Leandro decides against using RCV in the November election, the costs of implementingRCV in Alameda County will be split between Berkeley and Oakland. As set forth in Table 2below, without San Leandro's participation, Oakland's share of the not-to-exceed amount wouldincrease by S130,050, to a total maximum of

$

1,077,000.

Table 2: Allocation of Proportionate Shares Without San Leandro

CityBerkeleyOaklandRegisteredVoters86,020219,102PercentageShare

28.2%71.8%

Share of$1.5 million$423,000$1,077,000Cost Increase$51,150$130,050

Participation of BerkeleyOakland's charter provides that the City will implement an RCV election as soon as the Countyis "able" to conduct the election. As the City Attorney's Office stated in a public legal opiniondated December 16, 2009, RCV implementation in Oakland only depends upon the ability of theRegistrar of Voters to conduct the election on behalf of

the

City.Before Berkeley conducts an RCV election, however, its City Council must make thedetermination that RCV will not result in "additional City election costs."' Using RCV willpermit Berkeley to forego its runoff elections, and so whether an RCV election will lead to"additional City election costs" depends on whether Berkeley's share of

the

RCV setup costsexceed the amount that Berkeley would be saving from not holding its runoff elections.Charter of the City of Berkeley §5(12) (Rev. 11/2006)Item:Oakland City CouncilJanuary 5, 2010