Fall election bills cause sticker shock
February 29, 2008
By Michelle Durand
City clerks in San Mateo County received sticker shock last week when bills for the November election — a unique ballot without any state or county issues — proved double and triple than the average contest.
“I was totally surprised this happened,” said San Mateo City Clerk Norma Gomez. “I don’t fault the county but I would have appreciated a heads-up.”
Gomez echoed what contacted city officials said: The bottom line is far more than what they budgeted but it might not have hurt as much if there was forewarning.
“I think everybody around here is coming a bit unglued,” said San Carlos City Manager Christine Boland.
Both Boland and Gomez said their budgets will be able to absorb the extra costs but only by shifting around funds for other items.
“It is what it is. What else are we going to do?” Boland said.
November elections in odd numbered years are consolidated to save money and have averaged between $1 to $1.50 per voter when the cost is split between the cities, the county and the state based on the number of voters. In November, with only some cities sharing the burden, the cost was about $3 per voter.
Without the “big hitters” picking up the majority of the costs, cities shoulder a higher proportion, said Elections Manager David Tom.
The budgets and invoices of every affected city in San Mateo County were not available as of press time but three in the mid-Peninsula offer a peek into the difference.
San Mateo averages from $38,000 to the very low $50,000s, with the primary figures hovering in the $40,000s, Gomez said.
On Feb. 21, Gomez received an invoice for almost $140,000 due within 30 days of receipt.
Boland said San Carlos usually pays between $20,000 and $25,000 but is now looking at a $56,000 bill.
The Belmont City Clerk’s Office budgeted just more than $28,000 but must pay $47,270.95, said Deputy City Clerk Pam Aguilar.
Aguilar didn’t know how that increase will hit the office’s coffers. Gomez said next year she will add more money to the elections budget with funds from other things and request more money from the city’s general fund.
Boland will pay the difference with money for other items that she planned to give back to the city.
The clerks hope to meet with Tom or Chief Elections Officer Warren Slocum about the hefty bills. While none of those interviewed dispute the amounts, they want answers on why there was no warning.
Tom concedes he may not have thought about the impact of the unusual ballot but said it is a tough lesson for the cities and himself. Boland said one lesson is always to get an estimate in writing.
The Council of Mayors also wants to meet with Slocum and agreed last Friday to send him a letter, said Chair Sepi Richardson, mayor pro tem of Brisbane.
Members want to know how far in advance the Elections Office knew of the financial difference and if it provided incorrect information to cities, said Burlingame Mayor Terry Nagel.
“Right now we’re in limbo while we figure out what recourse we may have,” Nagel said.
Some officials like Boland don’t expect there is much recourse because the invoice is correct even if cities didn’t know it was coming.
San Carlos, however, was once able to lower its bill after the 2005 special election to fund SCOOT, its free shuttle service. The election costs more than $100,000 because the Election’s Office did not use seasonal workers, Boland said.
The two entities cut a deal, lowering the bill, after the city argued the invoice far exceeded the original estimate.
Michelle Durand can be reached by e-mail: michelle@smdailyjournal.com or by phone: (650) 344-5200 ext. 102.
Printer friendly version. 
|
