HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12142004 - C.125 fX Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa
FROM: Board of Supervisors Ad Hoc Committee on Open Space Funding County
Supervisor John Gioia 019570
Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier
DATE: December 14,2004
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT NO.0502,ENTITLED"IS B.A.D.GOOD? OPEN
,
SPACE BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BALLOTING PROCESS"
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE response to Grand Jury Report No. 0502, entitled"Is B.A.D. Good? Open Space Benefit
Assessment District Balloting Process", and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to forward the response to the
Superior Court no later than December 22,2004.
BACKGROUND:
The 2004/2005 Grand Jury filed the above-referenced report on September 23, 2004,which was reviewed
by the Board of Supervisors and subsequently referred tm the Ad Hoc Committee on Open Space,the
County Administrator, and the Community Development Director,who jointly prepared the attached
response.
A. Whether the finding or recommendation is accepted or will be implemented;
B. If a recommendation is accepted,a statement as to who will be responsible for implementation and
a definite target date;
C. A delineation of the constraints if a recommendation is accepted but cannot be implemented within a
six-month period; and
D. The reason for not accepting or adopting a finding or recommendation.
The Open Space Ad Hoc Committee reviewed and approved this response on December 6, 2004,
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD
COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHERS
SIGNATURE(S): SUPERVISOR(MARK DeSAULNiE R SUPERVISOR.JOHN GIOIA
ACTION OF BOARD ON DECEMBER 14,21<}04APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X_OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT v ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION
AYES: NOES: TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON
THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Julie Enea(925-335-1077) ATTESTED DECEMBER 14.2004
CC. Board of Supervisors Members JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF
Presiding Judge of the Grand Jury THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Grand Jury Foreman AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
County Administrator
Community Development Director
Open Space JPA Members VIA John Kopchik BY "' PUTY
G:\Conservation\open spaoe%oard_orders\12-14-04\Response to Grand Jury 12-14-04.doo
Is B.A.D. Good? Open Space Benefit Assessment Balloting Process December 14, 2004
Board of Supervisors Response to Grand Jury Report No. 0502 Page 1
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE
TO GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 0502:
IS B.A.D. GOOD? OPEN SPACE BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
BALLOTING PROCESS
FINDINGS
1. Overall Balloting Process:
a. An assessment ballet proceeding is not an election.
Response: This finding is not applicable to Respondent.
b. This assessment ballot proceeding was conducted according to the Authority's
application of the requirements established by Proposition 218.
Response: This finding is not applicable to Respondent.
C. Use of a benefit assessment district process on a countywide basis is new to the
County. Comments by the public indicated that some did not fully understand the
differences between a benefit assessment district balloting process and a general
or special election.
Response: This finding is not applicable to Respondent.
d. This Benefit Assessment District balloting process differed from a general or
special election balloting process (that a general obligation bond or parcel tax
election would follow) in a number of important ways, as shown below:
Benefit Assessment General Obligation
District Bond or Parcel Tax
Who votes Property owners Registered voters
Voting margin 50% weighted majority 2/3 majority
required for (votes are weighted
approval according to the
assessment the owner
would pay)
Ballot secrecy Ballot is public record Secret ballot
How votes are Primarily by mail Primarily in person at
cast voting precincts
Is B.A.D. Good? Open Space Benefit Assessment Balloting Process December 14, 2004
Board of Supervisors Response to Grand Jury Report No. 0502 Page 2
Benefit Assessment General Obligation
District Bond or Parcel Tax
Signature Signature is required, Signature is required and
requirement but not verified verified
Contents of Background information Usually contains
ballot only arguments and rebuttals
Information supporting and opposing
guide the measure
Ballot Outside contractors, Public officials
preparation and with County staff
distribution approval
Ballot Outside contractors Public officials
tabulation
Response: This finding is not applicable to Respondent.
e. There was considerable concern about the appropriateness of the process as
evidenced by: letters to the editor, editorials, newspaper articles, and public
entities that abstained from voting.
Response: This finding is not applicable to Respondent,
f. At the July 27, 20104 open hearing, a number of speakers expressed the view
that, although they supported countywide open space, a benefit assessment
district is an inappropriate way to fund it.
Response: This finding is not applicable to Respondent.
g. At the end of the July 27, 2004 open hearing, balloting was closed before the
Authority responded to the issues raised.
Response: This finding is not applicable to Respondent.
2. Ballot Preparation and Distribution:
a. The County retained an engineering firm to;
• determine the assessment-weight of each parcel, subject to approval by the
Authority
Is B.A.D. Good" Open Space Benefit Assessment Balloting Process December 14, 2004
Board of Supervisors Response to Grand Jury Report No. 0502 Page 3
draft the Official Notice and Ballot Information Guide
• prepare the ballots
develop and test the software for tabulating the ballots
provide information on tabulating the ballots to the independent public
accounting firm.
Response; Respondent disagrees partially with the finding as to the
second and third bulleted items. The engineering firm retained by the
County assisted staff in preparing the Official Notice and Ballot
Znformation Guide and the ballots. As a point of clarification, the
independent accounting firm hired to perform the tabulation also tested
the tabulation software.
b. The County contracted with the same engineering firm for the next four years to
maintain the assessment amounts for each parcel if the measure had been
approved.
Response; Respondent agrees with the finding.
C. Ballots were prepared based on information contained in the latest secured
property tax rolls. Of 286,390 ballots prepared, 32 were reissued because of
errors.
Response; This finding is not applicable to Respondent.
d. There were 5,533 (1.9%)ballots returned as"undeliverable". Of the returned
ballots, 1,893 were resent to a current address.
Response; This finding is not applicable to Respondent.
3. Ballot Tabulation.
a. An independent public accounting firm was retained to tabulate the assessment
ballots.
Response; This finding is not applicable to Respondent.
b. Written procedures for the tabulation of the ballots were substantially completed
by the independent public accounting firm before the tabulation started.
Response. This finding is not applicable to Respondent.
Is B.A.D. Good? Open Space Benefit Assessment Balloting Process December 14, 2004
Board of Supervisors Response to Grand Jury Report No. 0502 Page 4
C. During our periodic observations of the tabulation, which was open to the public,
only minor deviations from these procedures were noted.
Response: This finding is not applicable to Respondent.
d. During our periodic observations of the tabulation, which was open to the public,
the individual responsible for supervision of the tabulation process was, on
occasion, performing tabulation duties.
Response: This finding is not applicable to Respondent.
e. Since computer screens were not visible to the public, the tabulation process
could not be fully observed by the public.
Response: This finding is not applicable to Respondent.
f. There was no way to confirm, without individually checking each return envelope,
that all ballots had been removed from the return envelopes.
Response: This finding is not applicable to Respondent.
g. The final result, as tabulated by the accounting firm, is shown below:
VALID OFFICIAL ASSESSMENT BALLOTS
Total Yes No
Number of Ballots 96,635 48,431 48,204
%of Ballots 100.0% 50.1% 49.9
Assessment Amount of
Ballots $2,847,223 $1,315,557 $1,531,666
%of Weighted Ballots 100.0% 46.2% 53.8%
Response: This finding is not applicable to Respondent.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 2404-2005 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends:
Is B.A.D. Good? Open Space Benefit Assessment Balloting Process December 14, 2004
Board of Supervisors Response to Grand Jury Report No. 0502 Page 5
1. Do not use another benefit assessment mechanism to raise funds by a measure that
encompasses the entire county, or substantial portions thereof,without first completing a
survey of property owners who submitted ballets for this measure to determine the
degree to which the benefit assessment mechanism affected the outcome.
Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The East Bay
Regional Park District has completed such a survey.
2. If the decision is made to have other similar benefit assessment district measures in the
future, revise the process to improve the public's understanding and perceptions of
fairness by including the following features that are present in a general or special
election process (and are not prohibited in a benefit assessment district process)as
follows:
a. Permit both supporting and opposing arguments in the Official Notice and Ballot
Information Guide.
Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is
not reasonable. Californian law provides no authority for including
supporting and opposing arguments in the public notice for proposed
assessments; accordingly, there are no applicable legal standards for
soliciting or selecting such arguments.
b. Have the existing office responsible for handling balloting, i.e., the Registrar of
Voters, be responsible for preparing and mailing the ballot and Official Notice and
Ballot Information Guide and tabulating the vote, using subcontractors where
appropriate.
Response: This recommendation rewires further analysis. The
analysis will involve ascertaining whether the Clerk/Recorder has the
capability to perform these services, whether the Clerk/Recorder is
willing to perform these services and the cost implications. This matter
will be prepared for discussion by the Board by March 22, 2005.
3. If the decision is made to have other similar benefit assessment district measures in the
future, adept the following recommendations to improve internal control and segregation
of responsibilities:
a. Separate the responsibility for program development from testing for the ballet
tabulation program.
Response: This recommendation has been implemented. In addition to
any internal testing performed by the developers of the ballot
tabulation software, the County will conduct independent testing of the
software as well.
b. Have an individual dedicated solely to supervision on-site at all times during the
ballot tabulation.
Is B.A.D. Good? Open Space Benefit Assessment Balloting Process December 14, 2004
Board of Supervisors Response to Granit Jury Report No. 0502 Page 6
Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is
not reasonable. While it is important to have a tabulation supervisor
present at alt times, it is neither efficient nor necessary to require that
person to only supervise a two-week tabulation process. ,Assisting with
ballot tabulation does not hinder supervision.
C. Have the future assessment amounts for each parcel maintained by the County
or by a contractor not previously involved in the balloting process.
Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is
not reasonable. An engineer's report and detailed assessment roll must
be completed each year the assessments are to be collected, and the
engineer that completed these reports in the first year may be best
qualified to complete them in subsequent years. However, if a similar
assessment district is proposed in the future, the County will conduct
separate competitive bid processes for formation and implementation of
the assessment district.
4. If the decision is made to have other similar benefit assessment district measures in the
future, adopt the following recommendations to improve the process:
a. include in the Official Notice and Ballot Information Guide a comparison of the
benefit assessment district process to a general or special election process
(similar to that in finding 1d).
Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is
not reasonable. Zn addition to other required elements required by law,
the public notice must specify how the assessment ballot proceeding
will be conducted. A point-by-point comparison would be tangential to
and could obscure the purpose of the notice. Such a comparison could
also be misleading in the absence of substantial explanation as to why
assessment ballot proceedings are not elections, how and why
assessment ballot proceedings came to be used, and why the rules are
different from those of an election.
b. Provide sufficient time in the balloting process to respond to issues raised at the
open hearing(s) before the balloting is closed.
Response. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is
not reasonable. ,By law, the ballot proceeding must be closed upon
conclusion of the public testimony portion of the public hearing. The
purpose of the public hearing is to provide the public with an additional
opportunity to provide input on the proposed assessment. The agency
proposing an assessment is legally required to consider all objections or
protests to the proposed assessment. To answer questions that arose
during the ballot proceeding, the Authority established a call center, a
website, and directed staff to respond to written inquiries.
Is B.A.D. Goad? Open Space Benefit Assessment Balloting Process December 14, 2004
Board of Supervisors Response to Grand Jury Report No. 0502 Page 7
C. Put a hole in the return envelope to facilitate sight checking by tabulators that all
ballots have been removed.
Response. This recommendation has ,not yet been implemented, but
will be implemented in the future should a similar assessment be
proposed again.
5. Terminate the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement by and Between The County of
Contra Costa and The East Bay Regional Park District Relating to The Contra Costa
Open Space Funding Authority and dissolve the Authority since it is not currently
authorized to levy the assessment.
Response: This recommendation has not yet beer►implemented, but will be
implemented in the future. The ,Board of Supervisors will terminate the Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement that created the Authority at the earliest
opportunity and not later than January 31, 2005. However, the Board of
Supervisors will also seek to form a four member Ad Hoc Committee with the
East Bay Regional Park District to continue to discuss the open space funding
issue.
REQUIRED RESPONSES
Findings:
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: 2a and 2b
Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority: 1a-1g, 2c, 2d, 3a-3g
Recommendations:
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: 1, 2a and 2b, 3a-3c, 4a-4c, 5
Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority: 5