Election History
| Date of Election: | November 6, 2018 |
| Type of Election: | Mayor,Council,Charter,Initiative,Bonds |
| City Population (at Time of the Election): | 950,714 |
| Number of Registered Voters: | 696,951 |
| Total Ballots Cast: | 424,045 |
| Percent of Registered Voters Who Voted: | 60.50% |
| Mayor | ||
| Adler, Steve | 178,980 | 59.05% |
| Morrison, Laura | 58,321 | 19.24% |
| Pena, Gustavo "Gus" | 34,082 | 11.25% |
| Phelps, Todd | 19,614 | 6.47% |
| Duncan, Travis | 6,999 | 2.31% |
| Strenger, Alexander | 3,033 | 1.00% |
| Pease, Alan | 2,052 | 0.68% |
| District 1 | ||
| Salazar, Mariana | 5,716 | 25.93% |
| Harper-Madison, Natasha | 5,520 | 25.04% |
| Harding, Vincent | 5,094 | 23.11% |
| Conway Jr., Lewis | 2,516 | 11.41% |
| Avini, Mitrah Elizabeth | 2,068 | 9.38% |
| Spigner III, Reedy Macque | 1,076 | 4.88% |
| Ramos, Misael | 54 | 0.24% |
| District 3 | ||
| Renteria, Sabino "Pio" | 10,467 | 47.66% |
| Almanza, Susana | 4,690 | 21.36% |
| Cohen, Jessica | 2,022 | 9.21% |
| Motwani, Amit | 1,789 | 8.15% |
| Valadez, James | 1,537 | 7.00% |
| Jacobson, Justin | 1,457 | 6.63% |
| District 5 | ||
| Kitchen, Ann | 29,413 | 100.00% |
| District 8 | ||
| Ellis, Paige | 9,703 | 30.50% |
| Ward, Frank | 7,841 | 24.65% |
| Levinski, Bobby | 7,297 | 22.94% |
| DePalma, Rich | 6,967 | 21.90% |
| District 9 | ||
| Tovo, Kathryne "Kathie" | 19,630 | 52.73% |
| Skidmore, Danielle | 11,701 | 31.43% |
| O'Neal | 3,600 | 9.67% |
| Jones, Isiah | 2,294 | 6.16% |
| Proposition A: Affordable Housing - Ordinance # | |||
| Yes | % Yes | No | % No |
| 243272 | 72.80% | 90899 | 27.20% |
| The issuance of $250,000,000 in tax supported general obligation bonds and notes for planning, constructing, renovating, improving, and equipping affordable housing facilities for low income and moderate income persons and families, and acquiring land and interests in land and property necessary to do so, funding loans and grants for affordable housing, and funding affordable housing programs, as may be permitted by law; and the levy of a tax sufficient to pay for the bonds and notes. | |||
| Proposition B: Libraries, Museums and Cultural Arts Facilities - Ordinance # | |||
| Yes | % Yes | No | % No |
| 244824 | 73.62% | 87731 | 26.38% |
| The issuance of $128,000,000 in tax supported general obligation bonds and notes for planning, acquiring, constructing, renovating, improving, and equipping community and cultural facilities, libraries, museums, and cultural and creative arts facilities, and acquiring land and interests in land and property necessary to do so; and the levy of a tax sufficient to pay for the bonds and notes. | |||
| Proposition C: Parks and Recreation - Ordinance # | |||
| Yes | % Yes | No | % No |
| 269215 | 80.73% | 64278 | 19.27% |
| The issuance of $149,000,000 in tax supported general obligation bonds and notes for planning, acquiring, constructing, renovating, improving and equipping public parks, recreation centers, natural areas, and other related facilities, including, without limitation, playgrounds, hike and bike trails, sports courts, and swimming pools, and acquiring land and interests in land and property necessary to do so; and the levy of a tax sufficient to pay for the bonds and notes. | |||
| Proposition D: Flood Mitigation, Open Space and Water Quality Protection - Ordinance # | |||
| Yes | % Yes | No | % No |
| 278447 | 83.77% | 53948 | 16.23% |
| The issuance of $184,000,000 in tax supported general obligation bonds and notes for flood mitigation, open space and water quality and quantity for planning, designing, acquiring, constructing, and installing improvements and facilities for flood control, erosion control, water quality, water quantity, and storm-water drainage, and acquiring land, open spaces, and interests in land and property necessary to do so; and the levy of a tax sufficient to pay for the bonds and notes. | |||
| Proposition E: Health and Human Services - Ordinance # | |||
| Yes | % Yes | No | % No |
| 227838 | 70.31% | 96205 | 29.69% |
| The issuance of $16,000,000 in tax supported general obligation bonds and notes for planning, constructing, reconstructing, improving, and equipping a neighborhood public health and human services facility in the Dove Springs area; and the levy of a tax sufficient to pay for the bonds and notes. | |||
| Proposition F: Public Safety - Ordinance # | |||
| Yes | % Yes | No | % No |
| 266130 | 81.22% | 61534 | 18.78% |
| The issuance of $38,000,000 in tax supported general obligation bonds and notes for planning, renovating, improving, and equipping existing public safety facilities, specifically fire and emergency medical services stations, buildings, and other related facilities; and the levy of a tax sufficient to pay for the bonds and notes. | |||
| Proposition G: Transportation Infrastructure - Ordinance # | |||
| Yes | % Yes | No | % No |
| 267839 | 81.11% | 62396 | 18.89% |
| The issuance of $160,000,000 in tax supported general obligation bonds and notes for planning, constructing, reconstructing, and improving roads, streets, intersections, sidewalks, bridges, urban trails and related utility and drainage infrastructure for the roads and streets; improving traffic signal synchronization and control systems; acquiring and installing traffic signals; and acquiring land and interests in land and property necessary to do so; and the levy of a tax sufficient to pay for the bonds and notes. | |||
| Proposition H: Planning Commission - Ordinance # | |||
| Yes | % Yes | No | % No |
| 192263 | 66.76% | 95745 | 33.24% |
| Shall the City Charter be amended to provide that the term of service and process for removal of the Planning Commission members be determined by ordinance? | |||
| Proposition I: Non-substantive corrections to Charter - Ordinance # | |||
| Yes | % Yes | No | % No |
| 223631 | 73.21% | 81844 | 26.79% |
| Shall the City Charter be amended to make non-substantive corrections to grammar, typographical errors, capitalization, punctuation, and sentence structure; and to change or remove charter language that is obsolete? | |||
| Proposition J: Land Development Code - Ordinance # | |||
| Yes | % Yes | No | % No |
| 166647 | 48.12% | 179690 | 51.88% |
| Shall a City ordinance be adopted to require both a waiting period and subsequent voter approval period, a total of up to three years, before future comprehensive revisions of the City’s land development code become effective? | |||
| Proposition K: Citizen-initiated ordinance regarding an efficiency study - Ordinance # | |||
| Yes | % Yes | No | % No |
| 129355 | 42.37% | 175920 | 57.63% |
| Without using the existing internal City Auditor or existing independent external auditor, shall the City Code be amended to require an efficiency study of the City’s operational and fiscal performance performed by a third-party audit consultant, at an estimated cost of $1 million - $5 million? | |||
Back to Election History Search