Vancouver City Council

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

Date: December 8, 2002
Author/Local: S.Baxter/7266
RTS No. 3134
CC File No. 4209
Council: December 10, 2002

TO:	Vancouver City Council
FROM:	City Clerk
SUBJECT:	Opinion of the Electors, 2010 Winter Olympic Games

CONSIDERATION

A. If City Council wishes to conduct a formal vote asking a question of the voters respecting Vancouver's Bid for the 2010 Winter Olympic Games and Paralympic Winter Games, Option A1 "At Large Vote, Voter Registration at the Poll" is recommended. Funds will be included in the 2003 Operating Budget estimates.

B. If City Council wishes to conduct a community consultation process, instead of a formal vote, respecting Vancouver's Bid for the 2010 Winter Olympic Games and Paralympic Winter Games, Option B1 "Survey -Unaddressed Mail" is recommended at a cost of $155,000. Council may consider if any of the additional Options should be added. Funding will be included in the 2003 Operating Budget estimates.

CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The City Manager submits the choice of A or B for Council's CONSIDERATION.

COUNCIL POLICY

There is no applicable Council policy. The Vancouver Charter (s. 184) authorizes Council to submit questions to the electors for its own information.

PURPOSE

This report outlines various options that might be used to gauge public opinion in Vancouver regarding the bid for the 2010 Olympic Winter Games and Paralympic Winter Games ("the Bid").

BACKGROUND

The authority for City Council to act in this matter is in the Vancouver Charter. However, the Charter does not refer to "referendum" or "plebiscite". Rather it authorizes City Council as follows:

"184. The Council, for its own information, may submit for the opinion of the electors any question with which the Council has or desires to have the power to deal."

Over the past decade, City Council has used various processes to determine public opinion on issues affecting the citizens of Vancouver. Some issues, such as capital borrowing authority, trigger Vancouver Charter mandatory requirements for the assent of the electors. In other cases, a variety of different types of methods have been employed, with the results used by Council for its information and consideration on a particular issue.

This report addresses formal and informal options available to City Council to obtain the views of people in Vancouver. Before considering any options, City Council must first consider what are its objectives. Depending on the answer to that question, many of these options will automatically be inadequate. Does City Council wish to enable eligible voters in the City of Vancouver to vote "yes" or "no" to a clear question? Or, is the objective to obtain an understanding of what residents feel about hosting the 2010 Winter Olympics?

Where a formal process is to be used to ascertain the opinion of the electors under the Vancouver Charter, various mandatory conditions apply. Most of these require the vote to be very similar to that of a general local election, in substance if not in form.

Informal methods may be of City Council's choosing. Informal methods may not be used as a substitute for the processes required by the Vancouver Charter. If only eligible electors are being asked for a "yes" or "no" response to a question or questions, City Council must conduct that process under the requirements of the Vancouver Charter. If City Council is surveying or consulting with residents of Vancouver in a variety of ways and using that input to assist its decision making, then informal methods, outside of the Vancouver Charter requirements are acceptable.

If City Council proceeds with a process as discussed in this report, to be useful, the result or output must be known by the latter half of February. In the case of either a formal or informal process, the results are not binding on City Council.

This report presents a number of options. Some may not be deliverable in an acceptable time-frame, or may require considerable modification, which may in turn have an impact on the validity of the result.

A. FORMAL OPTIONS UNDER THE VANCOUVER CHARTER

Two formal options are available to City Council under the Vancouver Charter:

(a) an at large vote with voter registration at the poll; or
(b) a vote using sub-division locations and a new Voters List.

Both are legal voting opportunities. However, the date by which each may be delivered will be an important factor in the decision. In either option, voting must be conducted on one day and may not be spread over multiple days. Other options such as mail-in ballots are not permitted for general voting.

The cost estimates and time-lines of these options are driven by three key factors:

(i) voter turnout;
(ii) whether a Voters List is used; and
(iii) acquiring voting facilities.

(i) Voter Turnout

For planning and estimating purposes, voter turnout is projected in the 30% range. This is lower than the low end of the range of actual turnout in general elections. Staffing, voting materials, supplies, and facilities preparation are critical on voting day so that even if actual turnout is lower than this estimate, capacity must be available to cope with any eventuality.

(ii) Voters List

Under the Vancouver Charter City Council may choose to conduct an election or a vote with or without a Voters List. Elections BC will provide a new Voters List upon request. However, the preparation of a Voters List once received is a large time and resource consuming task, even if it were decided not to amend it by permitting electors not on the List to register in advance of the voting day, as is done during the regular election.

The possibility of using the list from the recent local election is not an option under the legislation. To use that list, if that were desirable, would require the Province of British Columbia to pass amending legislation to the Vancouver Charter. Were the Province willing, this is not likely possible in the time available. The list used in the November election was produced in July and does not include the 25,000 electors added at the poll on election day. Neither would a new List, if we requested one.

Under a method where no Voters List is used, eligible voters would register at the poll by showing two pieces of identification, sign a Voters List declaration that they are eligible electors in the City of Vancouver, and then receive a ballot. Scrutineers for both the "yes" and "no" sides of the question may be appointed and would have the usual ability to challenge an elector, as in any election.

(iii) Acquiring voting locations

In local general elections, voting locations are secured a year in advance (136 in the last election). Finding appropriate facilities within sub-divisions that are accessible and adequate is a challenge for the regular election. It takes many weeks to resolve some locations. It will be very difficult to secure the same or equally suitable locations in the short time available for this voting opportunity. Many, if not most, facilities will be already programmed for other activities.

An alternative is to provide for 20-40 large locations, distributed across the city, each with the capacity to process many voters simultaneously. If 30 locations are assumed and a 30% turnout achieved, that would mean approximately 3,000 voters at each location (based on 300,000 eligible voters). While this will not reduce the staff required to conduct the election, it may help resolve the problem of finding suitable locations. The negative aspect of less locations is less convenience for voters.

If City Council decides that a formal vote is required then Option A1 below is the recommended choice.

Option A1: At Large Vote, Voter Registration at the Poll

Date: Saturday, February 22, 2003

Cost: $538,000

Method:
· At large voting across the city (no allocation to sub-divisions)
· 20-40 large capacity facilities
· Voter registration at the poll (no Voters List)
· Statutory advertising
· Distribution of voter information about voter eligibility, locations, and methods to all Vancouver households

Advantages:
· Achievable in the tight time-line
· Significant lesser cost than using a Voters List ($300,000 less)
· Finding fewer voting locations is easier

Disadvantages:
· Voters may object to having to register
· Less convenient locations for some voters

Option A2: Sub-division Locations, New Voters List

Date: April, 2003

Cost: $843,000

Method:
· 75 polling locations (136 used in recent election)
· New Voters List (corrected but not amended or updated)
· Voters allocated to sub-divisions
· Statutory advertising
· Where to vote cards

Advantages:
· Voters will recognize the process as similar to regular election
· More convenient for some voters
· Where to vote cards reduces confusion about voting locations

Disadvantages:
· Late delivery (April)
· Serious concern about obtaining adequate locations

· More expensive (+ $300,000)

· Re-organizing the city into combined or new voting sub-divisions (major work)

B. INFORMAL OPTIONS FOR OBTAINING PUBLIC INPUT

For issues not requiring referendums, Council has used a wide range of processes for gauging public opinion. Listed below is a summary of different processes that have been successful in informing Council. Council could choose to combine some of these options to increase the validity of the results.

Where costs are noted below they represent hard costs only for printing or distribution of a survey document. These costs do not include staff time for writing, graphic design, editing, proofreading, data entry, collection and analysis, which would be absorbed by City staff.

If City Council decides that an informal process should be used, then option B1 provides the opportunity for most residents to voice their opinion. Council could choose to add other Options in combination.

Option B1: Survey - Unaddressed Mail

Under this option a survey would be distributed to all Vancouver households. Respondents would send their responses back to the City using mail, fax or e-mail.

Canada Post offers various delivery services to households and businesses in Vancouver. "Unaddressed ad-mail" (bulk mail) is the least expensive method of delivering hard copy of a document to the doorstep of every household. We used this service to distribute the Election 2002 brochure. Special distribution could be included to specific areas of the City (e.g. DTES and homeless shelters). The document could be translated into languages other than English.

Date: February

Cost: Total $155,000

$20,000 for distribution to 240,000 Vancouver residences
$30,000 for printing 300,000 copies of a short document
$90,000 for prepaid return postage (assumes 90,000 responses)

Advantages:
· Inclusive (virtually every Vancouver resident has the chance to express their opinion)
· Flexible distribution (delivery to the doorstep within three days)

Disadvantages:
· Includes other than eligible electors
· Opportunity is high for multiple responses from individuals
· This kind of mail is often treated as "junk mail" by residents

Additional option:
· The survey document could be replicated on the City's web site, if desirable.

Option B2: Newspaper Insert

Create a two-page newspaper insert. This would contain background information and a questionnaire. The inserts could be distributed through a local weekly newspaper. They could also be translated, placed in multilingual newspapers, and circulated at City facilities such as libraries, community centres, community policing centres and neighbourhood houses. The survey could be a clip-out and may be mailed or faxed back, and could be made available on-line.

Date: February, 2003

Cost: $35,000
· For design, translation, printing and distribution

Advantages:
· Informative, establishes context, may point to other sources of information
· Wide audience

Disadvantages:
· Includes other than eligible electors
· Opportunity is high for multiple responses from individuals
· This kind of distribution is often treated as "junk flyer" by residents

Option B3: Stand-Alone Survey

Date: February, 2003

Cost: $20,000 (1,000 survey)

Conduct a professional stand-alone telephone survey. A sample size of 400-600 will produce a statistically valid result. However, a much larger sample size (1,000 people) may better accomplish the goal of a representative survey.

Advantages:
· Statistically valid results
· Cost-effective
· Flexible, fast

Disadvantages:
· Does not allow visible participation
· Does not include all who might wish to participate (including those without telephones)

Additional Option:

Focus groups may be added to the telephone survey as another way to gauge opinion at a cost of $3,000 per group.

Option B4: Omnibus Survey

Date: February, 2003

Cost: $2,500

Most pollsters do regular monthly phone surveys in the region. It is possible to add a single question to one of these "omnibus" surveys. Omnibus surveys typically sample 100-200 people.

Advantages:
· Cost-effective
· Flexible, fast

Disadvantages:
· Does not have strong statistical validity
· Does not allow visible participation
· Does not include all who might wish to participate

Option B5: Mayor's Forum / Public Hearings

Date: Late January-February, 2003

Cost: Minimal

Conduct a series of public forum meetings, organized and facilitated to enable public input. Could be combined with a survey methodology or any of the other options.

Advantages:
· Open for wide participation
· Direct feedback

Disadvantages:
· Not representative, may attract interest groups rather than general public
· May be time consuming (depending upon the number conducted) for Mayor/Council and staff

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Depending on the method selected, the cost will range up to $843,000, which would have to be provided from the Contingency Reserve.

CONCLUSION

City Council has many options for seeking public opinion or gauging public support for City initiatives. In the case of determining public support for Vancouver's bid for the 2010 Olympic Winter Games and Paralympic Winter Games, City Council has both formal and informal options available. If there is to be direct consultation with the public or electors, the selection of an appropriate approach will be guided by the initial determination of the objectives to be achieved in such a consultation or vote.

* * * * *

Comments or questions? Send us e-mail at info@city.vancouver.bc.ca
© 2002 City of Vancouver