The Fuzzy Math of Ludington Election Year Change Savings

[XLFD]

I know most of you probably don't like to go through a lot of math concepts so I will try to make this thread as user-friendly as possible in the realm of mathematics.  All you need to know is how to add and compare and follow along with this story problem.  

 

The City has planned to make the change from odd to even year elections, the city clerk claiming a month ago that the move will save them 'approximately $15,100 a year'.  When approximating to $100 increments (as the City does here with $15,100), you are estimating with fair confidence within a matter of hundred dollar increments, not thousands.  This is fairly precise for an estimation of such a large number.

 

This proposal has had two hearings and publication in the local newspaper with this approximated number without anyone contesting it from the council, the city treasurer or manager, or anyone else.  Until now.  The resolution has that estimation contained within it without any justification in the publicly released documents (p 20-27 here), here's the clause:

For illustration of context, let us take a look back at the budget made for 2011, which projected total budgets to the city for elections for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 all falling between $22,000 and $22,800.  The odd year elections for the city contests only showed that they actually were projected to cost more ($22,800 each odd year):

 

The actual expenses for those years were under-projected but not that far off, however, 2010 and 2012 were about $4000 more than the odd years.  The new projections found in the 2013 budget (shown below) created in late 2012 showed they expected to spend $27,600 and $22,100 in the years 2014 and 2015 respectively, as can be seen on the right section of the chart.  If you look at the results from the paired years 2010 and 2011, and the results from 2012 and 2013, that seems to be expected.

 

So let's conquer the math here. 

1)  If the City of Ludington continued with odd year elections over the next two years they are projected to spend $27,600 + $22,100 = $49,700.  Adjusted for inflation, the two years after that would presumably be the same, and so on.

2)  If the City of Ludington changes to even year elections, according to the Clerk's calculations they would save approximately $15,100 each year.  For 2014 and 2015 the City would save $15,100 + $15,100 = $30,200.  Again, adjusting for inflation, that would continue over the succeeding years.

3)  Therefore, if you would have spent $49,700 to retain the odd year elections over the next two year cycle, but save $30,200 that means the costs for this years election will be $49,000 - $30,200 = $19,500.

 

However, the costs for even year elections, neither involving city elections, for 2010 and 2012 have been $26,490 and over $25,191 respectively (the 2014 budget shows $39,530 was spent in 2012).  The average spent on elections for both years is $26,490 + $39,530 divided by 2 or $33,010.

 

So explain to me again how we will spend nearly half as much on this even year election (which has no city elections yet, not until 2016), than what we have in the past two even numbered elections?  When the added costs of local elections on the ballots kick in for 2016, that estimate will get even worse. 

This is simple math, with a simple array of numbers for the election budget, showing the city's estimate is greatly enhanced by their desire to pass this resolution.  The estimation is a lot closer to half of the clerk's guess of $15,100.   It would have been more precise if she said that total for every two years. 

If they bungle the numbers by so much on this issue, effectively show figures which are way off without justification, why would anyone have any confidence that the numbers are any better with any other aspect of the full city budget? 

                                       City Clerk of Ludington, Deb Luskin

[Willy]

I'm having a little trouble understanding this. Is the money that will be saved from years that do not have elections? Or is it money averaged out over every year, even those years with elections? From the charts posted it appears that every year has an election. If that's the case then why is there a need to change the election year for City offices?

[XLFD]

Unless a special election or school issues comes up, there is not likely to be much, if any, costs for the year 2015.  Even if we presume no money is spent on elections that year, the estimated savings rate of $15,100 cannot be realized unless the budget is less than $20,000 for even year elections, beginning this year.  Historically, that hasn't been the case. 

The year 2012 had the citizens spend nearly $40,000 on elections in large part due to the full primaries and the amount of ballot initiatives locally and throughout the state, and the large number of write-in votes requiring extra work by paid election workers (for the sheriff's race primarily). 

The year 2014 will have a hotly contested Circuit Judge primary in August and other county board primaries, not to mention a few state ones also, and then November's main election.  It's going to cost more than the 2010 election just on those grounds, add to that inflation since then and you're looking at around $30,000 on a best case scenario.  Even if we don't spend a cent for elections in 2015 the savings fall far short of $15,100.