Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10052004 - C50 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS , , , Contra FROM: JOHNSWEETEN, County Administratory Costa DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 County SUBJECT: GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 0502: IS B.A.D. GOOD'S OPEN' SPACE BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BALLOTING PROCESS SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDED ACTION: RECEIVE 2004/05 Grand Jury Report No. 0502 entitled, "Is B.A.D. Good? Open Space Benefit Assessment District Balloting Process", and REFER it to the Ad Hoc Committee on Open Space, the County Administrator, and the Community Development Department for review and comment. BACKGROUND: Government Code section 933 provides for final Grand Jury reports at any time during the Grand Jury's term and requires the governing body of any agency whose operations are the subject of a report to comment on the Grand Jury's findings and recommendations to the presiding judge of the superior court within 90 days. Grand Jury Report No. 0502 entitled, "is B.A.D. Good? Open Space Benefit Assessment District Balloting Process", attached, was filed on September 23, 2004, The Board of Supervisors will need to adopt its response no later than December 14, the last regular Board meeting in December, in order to comply with the December 22, 2004 deadline of the Grand Jury. It is recommended that a draft response be prepared by the County Administrator and referred to the Ad Hoc Committee on Open Space prior to Board of Supervisors consideration in December. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: [ `'YES SIGNATUR . RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ❑ RECOM ATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE aA PROVE Lz�� HER SIGNATURE(S): ,5e'�'�.,� ,e ACTION OF BO ON � , APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED ❑ OTHER ❑ VOTE OF SUPERVISORS: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF AYES: NOES: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED: OCTOBER 5,2004 Contact: JUNE ENEA(9251335-1077-1077 JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR cc: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT(KOPCHIK) By: ' � S`` ull 0_f.A= Deputy Grand JuryContra 725 Court Strut P.O.Box 911 Costa Martinez,CA 94553-0091 County ----------- September 23, 2004 Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Board of Supervisors: Attached is a copy of Grand Jury Report No. 0502, "Is B.A.D. Good"? Open Space Benefit Assessment District (B.A.D.) Balloting Process prepared by the 2004-2005 Contra Costa County Grand Jury. In accordance with California Penal Code Section 933.05, this report is being provided to you at least two working days before it is released publicly. Section 933.5(a) of the California Government Code requires that(the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions) in respect to each finding: (1) "The respondent agrees with the finding." (2) "The respondent disagrees with the finding." (3) "The respondent partially disagrees with the finding." In the cases of both (2) and(3) above, the respondent shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed, and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. In addition, Section 933.05(b) requires that the respondent reply to each recommendation by stating cnt- of the P., loNving actions. 1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary describing the implemented action. 2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. 3. The recommendation requires further analysis. This response should explain the scope and parameters of the analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Grand Jury Report. Board of Supervisors September 23, 2004 Page 2 4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable,with an explanation thereof. Please be reminded that Section 933.05 specifies that no officer, agency,department or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to its public release. Please insure that your response to the above noted Grand Jury report includes the mandated items. We will expect your,response,using the farm described by the quoted Government Code, no later than December 22, 2004. Sincerely, ANTONIO MEDRANO, Foreperson 2004-2005 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury cc: John Sweeten, County Administrator A REPORT BY THE 2003-04 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY 725 Court Street Martinez, California 94553 Report No. 0592 "IS B.A.D. GOOD"? OPEN SPACE BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT(B.A.D.)BALLOTING PROCESS APPROVED BY THE GRAND JURY: Date.-- ANTONIO ate: ANTONIO MEDRANO GRAND JURY FOREPERSON ACCEPTED FOR FILING: Date: 7 --- TERENCE L. BR IRS JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Grand Jury �����Gi '725 Court Street P.O.Box 911 •, ' Martine,CA 94553-oD91 Costa County Contact: Antonio Medrano Foreperson (925)646-2345 For Immediate Release Grand Jury Asks "Is B.A.D. Good"? Investigative Report on Contra Costa Open Space Assessment Ballot proceedings is Completed by the County Grand Jury The Grand.fury's report on the Contra Costa County Benefit Assessment District's(B.A.D.) ballet measure was in response to many people who did not understand the benefit assessment district balloting process and to others who questioned whether this process, new to the County, is an appropriate way to raise funds for countywide open space under Proposition 2.18. In 1999, the Board of Supervisors created an Ad Hoc Committee on Open Space Funding to make recommendations regarding new local funding for open space needs. The County Open Space Funding Authority was formed in May 2004 following a four year process of committee, staff, and public review. The county expended $450,000 and four years of staff time to support the benefit assessment district measure which was rejected by property owners 54%to 46%. Based on its investigation,the Grand Jury recommends that Contra Costa County not use the benefit assessment funding mechanism for countywide or substantial portions thereof until a survey of property owners is completed to understand the rationale for their vote. To improve the public's understanding and perceptions of fairness as well as to achieve other benefits,recommendations included several changes in the process if the County decides to use similar benefit assessment district measures in the future. The final recommendation is to dissolve the Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority, since it is not authorized to levy the assessment because the measure failed to get voter approval. The complete report,No. 0502, is available on the Grand Jury web site: www.ce-courts.org/grandjury. CONTRA COSTA COMITY GRAND JURY REPORT NO.0502 "Is B.A.D. Good"? Open Space Benefit Assessment District(B.A.D.) Balloting Process TO: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority INTRODUCTION The 2404-2005 Contra Costa County Grand Jury has completed its investigation of the assessment ballot proceedings for the Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority and Parrs,Open Space Protection and Preservation District("Benefit Assessment District"). This assessment ballot measure allowed property owners within Contra Costa County ("County")to decide if a benefit assessment district should be formed and assessments levied on property for park,recreation,and open space purposes throughout the County. Funds raised through the assessment would have been used for land acquisition.,restoration, enhancement, improvement, and maintenance of these areas. A countywide assessment ballot proceeding is new to the County. Many people didn't understand the benefit assessment district balloting process; others questioned whether this was an appropriate way to raise funds for countywide open space under Proposition 218, Since there may be future countywide benefit assessment measures, it is important that the public understands the process and has confidence in the ballot tabulation. BACKGROUND Proposition 13,the People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation, regulates local governments' ability to increase property taxes. Since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, marry local governments have relied increasingly upon other revenue tools to finance local services, most notably: assessments, property-related fees, and a variety of small general purpose takes. Proposition 218,the Right to Vote can Taxes pct,ensures that local taxes and most charges on property owners would henceforth be subject to voters' approval. Passed by California voters in 1996, it limits the methods by which local government obtains revenue from taxpayers without their consent. Subsequent assessment measures must comply with Proposition 218's election and assessment calculation requirements. Furthermore,the assessment levies must be strictly proportional to the amount of per-parcel "special benefit"which the property receives. In 1999,the Board of Supervisors created an Ad Hoc Committee on Open Space Funding to make recommendations regarding new local funding for open space,parks,recreation,natural resource, and farmland preservation needs throughout the County. The Ad Hoc Committee convened an open advisory committee of interested individuals and organizations to provide 2 specific advice and input. In September 2002,the Committee approved A Draft.Framework for an Open Space Protection and Enhancement Funding Measure for Contra Costa County for initial referral to the Board of Supervisors. On November 12, 2002,the Board of Supervisors approved the recommendations from the Ad Hoc Committee on Open Space Funding to(1)designate the Daugherty Valley Regional Enhancement Fund as a source of funds to cover the costs of taking the Proposed Open Space Funding Measure to a mahout ballot and(2)allocate and transfer$450,000 from the County Regional Enhancement Fund to the Community Development Department to pay for assessment engineering, outside bond counsel, direct costs of a mailout ballot and Community Development Staff costs for the effort. The County Regional Enhancement bund was established as part of the Development Agreement for Gale Ranch I in the Dougherty Valley and was intended to be used, at the Board's discretion, to support actions such as transportation improvements and economic development activities. In October 2003,the County contracted with an engineering firm to prepare a detailed engineer's report in accordance with Proposition 218. This report established the costs of the open space and parks' acquisitions, improvements, and maintenance services that would be funded by the assessments of the proposed benefit assessment district,determined the special and general benefits, and apportioned the proposed assessments to lots and parcels within the proposed benefit assessment district based upon the estimated special benefit each parcel would receive. In May 2004,the Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority("Authority")was farm by a joint powers agreement between the County and the East Bay Regional Park District. This followed a four year process of committee, staff; and public review of land,open space, and funding. On May 25, 2004,the Authority formed.the Benefit Assessment District. The Authority authored an assessment ballot proceeding and directed the mailing of a ballot and a written notice of the proposed assessment to the owner of each parcel in the County. The notice provided the amount to be assessed,the manner in which the assessment was determined, the notice of a public hearing, and the procedures for completing and returning the ballots. On July 27, 2004,the Authority held an open hearing to receive public testimony on the formation of the Benefit Assessment District. Facilities were provided in the lobby of the hearing room to receive ballots. Provisions were also available for property owners to obtain ballots or to change their vote if they had previously mailed in their ballot. At the end of the hearing,balloting was closed. The scope of this investigation was to review and comment on the balloting process including the ballot preparation, distribution, and tabulation. The scope of this investigation excluded evaluating the legality of this assessment ballot proceeding. 3 F"Il'►DLNGS 1. Overall Balloting Process: a. An assessment ballot proceeding is not an election. b. This assessment ballet proceeding was conducted according to the Authority's application of the requirements established by Proposition 218. 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. 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 fallow)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 50%weighted r 213 majority margin majority(votes are required for weighted according approval to the assessment the owner would pay) Ballot Ballot is public Secret ballot secrecy record. How votes Primarily by mail Primarily in person at are cast voting precincts Signature Signature is required, Signature is required requirement but not verified and verified Contents of Background Usually contains ballot information only arguments and information rebuttals supporting guide and opposing the measure 4 Benefit Assessment General Obligation District Bond or Parcel Tax Balint Outside contractors, Public officials i preparation with County staff and approval distribution i Ballot Outside contractors Public officials tabulation 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. f. At the July 27, 2004 open hearing, a number of speakers expressed the view that, although they supported countywide©pen space, a benefit assessment district is an inappropriate way to fund it. g. At the end of the July 27, 2404 open hearing,balloting was closed before the Authority responded to the issues raised. 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 • 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 ballets to the independent public accounting firm. 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. 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. d. There were 5,533 (1.9%)ballots returned.as"undeliverable". Ofthe returned ballots, 1.,893 were resent to a current address. 5 3. Ballot Tabulation: a. An independent public accounting firm was retained to tabulate the assessment ballots. b. Written procedures for the tabulation of the ballots were substantially completed by the independent public accounting firm before the tabulation started. c. During our periodic observations of the tabulation, which was open to the public, only minor deviations from these procedures were noted. 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. e. Since computer screens were not visible to the public,the tabulation process could not be fully observed by the public. f There was no way to confirm, without individually checking each return envelope,that all ballots had been removed from the return envelopes. g. The final result, as tabulated by the accounting firm,is shown below: VALID OFFICIAL ASSESSMENT BALLOTS Total Yves No Number of Ballets 96,635 48,431 48,204 %of Ballots 100.010 501% 49.9 Assessment Amount of Ballots $2,847,223 $1,315,557 $1,531,666 %of Weighted Ballots 100.0% 461% 53.8% CONCLUSIONS 1. Open space is an important issue which can be funded by time tested methods such as a general obligation bond,parcel tax, or a sales tax. 2. Although the legalityofthis particular assessment might have been challenged in the courts,this is a matter of law and an issue for the courts to resolve. 3. Nothing significant came to our attention during our limited review of the ballot tabulation that would have changed the final result. 6 4. There is evidence that a number of property owners who support open space voted against the.measure because it took the form of benefit assessment district. 5. Since the ballots are now a public record,the ballots provide a source for a survey of property owners to understand the rationale for their vote. RECOMMENDATIONS The 2004-2005 Contra Costa County(grand Jury recommends- 1. eco mnends:1. Do not use another benefit assessment mechanism to raise fiords by a measure that encompasses the entire county, or substantial portions thereof without first completing a survey of property owners who submitted ballots for this measure to determine the degree to which the benefit assessment mechanism affected the outcome. 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. b. Tuve the existing office responsible for handling balloting,ie.,the Registrar of Voters,be responsible for preparing and mailing the ballot and Official Notice and Ballot Information Guide and tabulating the vete,using subcontractors where appropriate. 3. If the decision is made to have other similar benefit assessment district measures in the %hire, adopt the following recommendations to improve internal control and segregation of responsibilities: a. Separate the responsibility for program development from testing for the ballot tabulation prognram. b. Have an individual dedicated solely to supervision on-site at all times during the ballet tabulation. c. Have the future assessment amounts for each parcel maintained by the County or by a contractor not previously involved in the balloting process. 7 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 I d). b. Provide sufficient time in the balloting process to respond to issues raised at the open hearing(s)before the balloting is closed. c. Put a hole in the return envelope to facilitate sight checking by tabulators that all ballots have been removed. 5. Terminate the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement by and Between The County of Contra Costa and The Bast Buy 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. REQ MED RESPONSES Findings: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: 2a and 2b Contra.Costa County Open Space Funding Authority: la-Ig, 2c, 2d, 3a-3g Recommendations: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: i,2a and 2b, 3a-3c, 4a-4c, 5 Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority: 5 8 46d Jury Contra 726 Court BO 1911 Costa Martinez,CA 94553-0091 County September 23, 2004 Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Board of Supervisors: Attached is a copy of Grand Jury Report leo. 0502, "Is B.A.D. Good"?Open Space Benefit Assessment District(B.A.D.) Balloting Process prepared by the 2004-2005 Contra Costa County Brand Jury. In accordance with California Penal Code Section 933.05, this report is being provided to you at least two working days before it is released publicly. Section 933.5(x) of the California Government Code requires that(the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions)in respect to each finding: (1) "The respondent agrees with the finding." (2) "The respondent disagrees with the finding." (3) "The respondent partially disagrees with the finding." In the cases of both(2) and.(3) above,the respondent shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed, and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. In addition, Section 933.05(b)requires that the respondent reply to each recommendation by staing one ofthe.following actions: l, The recommendation has been implemented,with a summary describing the implemented action. 2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented,but will be implemented in the fixture,with a time ftwme for implementation. 3. The recommendation requires father analysis. This response should explain the scope and parameters of the analysis or study,and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Grand Jury Report. Board of Supervisors September 23, 2004 Page 2 4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation thereof. Please be reminded that Section 933.05 specifies that no officer, agency, department or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to its public release. Please insure that your response to the above noted Grand Jury report includes the mandated items. We will expect your.response, using the farm described by the quoted Government Code,no later than December 22, 2004. Sincerely, 47 41tltl� ANTONIO ME:DIiAN4,Foreperson 2004-2005 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury cc: Jahn Sweeten, County Administrator A REPORT BY THE 2003-04 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY 725 Court Street Martinez, California 94553 Report No. 0502 "IS B.A.D. GOOD"? OPEN SPACE BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT(B.A.D.)BALLO'T'ING PROCESS APPROVED BY THE GRAND JURY: Date., � r 064 ?Wwv� ANTONIO)MEDRANO GRAND JURY FOREPERSON ACCEPTED FOR.FILING: TE ENCE L. BIt . RS JUDGE OF'THE SUPERIOR COURT Grand Jury . 725 Court Street P.o�Bax 911 O Martinez,CA 94553.0091 C�osta County ty Contact: Antonio lYMedrano Foreperson (925)646-2345 For Immediate Release Grand Jury Asks "Is B.A.D. Good"? Investigative Report on Centra Costa Open Space Assessment Ballot Proceedings is Completed by the County Grand Jury The Grand Jury's report on the Contra Costa.County Benefit Assessment District'''s(B.A.D.) ballot measure was in response to many people who died not understand the benefit assessment district balloting process and to others who questioned whether this process,new to the County, is an appropriate way to raise funds for countywide open space under.Proposition 218. In 1999, the Beard of Supervisors created an Ad Hoc Committee on Open Space Funding to make recommendations regarding new local funding for open space needs. The County Open Space Funding Authority was formed in May 2004 following a four year process of committee, staff, and public review. The county expended$450,000 and four years of staff time to,support the benefit assessment district measure which was rejected by property owners 54%to 46%. 'Based on its investigation,the Grand Jury recommends that Contra Costa County not use the benefit assessment funding mechanism for countywide or substantial portions thereof until a survey of property owners is completed to understand the rationale for their vote. To improve the public's understanding and perceptions of fairness as well as to achieve other benefits, recommendations included several changes in the process if the County decides to use similar benefit assessment district measures in the future. The final recommendation is to dissolve the Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,since it is not authorized to levy the assessment because the measure failed to get voter approval. The complete report,No, 0502,is available on the Grand Jury web site: www.m-courts.org/grandjury. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 0502 "Ts B.A.D. Good"? Open Space Benefit Assessment District(B.A.D.) Balloting Process TO: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority INTRODUCTION The 2004-2005 Contra Costa County Grand Jury has completed its investigation of the assessment ballot proceedings for the Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority and Parks, Open Space Protection and.Preservation District("Benefit Assessment District"). This assessment ballot measure allowed property owners within Contra Costa County ("County")to decide if a benefit assessment district should be formed and assessments levied on property for park.,recreation,and open space purposes throughout the County. Funds raised through the assessment would have been used for land acquisition,restoration,enhancement, improvement, and maintenance of these areas. A countywide assessment ballot proceeding is new to the County. Many people didn't understand the benefit assessment district balloting process; others questioned whether this was an appropriate way to raise funds for countywide open space under Proposition 218. Since there may be future countywide benefit assessment measures, it is important that the public understands the process and has confidence in the ballot tabulation. BACKGROUND Proposition 13,the People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation,regulates local governments' ability to increase property taxes. Since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978,many local governments have relied increasingly upon other revenue tools to finance local services,most notably: assessments,property-related fees, and a variety of small general purpose taxes. Proposition 218,the Right to Yvte on Taxes-Act,ensures that local taxies and most charges on property owners would henceforth be subject to voters' approval, Passed by California voters in 1995, it limits the methods by which local government obtains revenue from taxpayers without their consent. Subsequent assessment measures must comply with Proposition 218's election and assessment calculation requirements. Furthermore,the assessment levies must be strictly proportional to the amount of per-parcel"special benefit"which the property receives. In 1999, the Board of Supervisors created an Ad Hoc Committee on Open Space Funding to make recommendations regarding new local funding for open space,parks,recreation,natural resource,and farmland preservation needs ftoughout the County. The Ad Hoc Committee convened an open advisory committee of interested individuals and organizations to provide 2 specific advice and input. In September 2002,the Committee approved A Draft Framework for an Open,Space P,otectinn and enhancement Funding Measure for Contra Carta County for initial referral to the Board of Supervisors. On.November 12, 2002,the Board of Supervisors approved the recommendations from.the Ad Hoc Committee on Open Space Funding to(1)designate the Dougherty Valley Regional Enhancement Fund as a source offends to cover the costs oftaking the Proposed.. Open Space Funding Measure to a mailout ballot and(2)allocate and transfer$450,000 from the County Regional Enhancement Fund to the Community Development Department to pay for assessment engineering, outside bond counsel, direct costs of a mailout ballot and Community Development Staff costs for the effort. The County Regional Enhancement Fund was established as part of the Development Agreement for gale Ranch I in the Daugherty Valley and was intended to be used, at the Board's discretion,to support actions such as transportation improvements and economic development activities. In October 2003,the County contracted with an engineering firm to prepare a detailed engineer's report in accordance with Proposition 218. This report established the casts of the open space and parks' acquisitions,.improvements, and maintenance services that would be funded by the assessments of the proposed benefit assessment district, determined the special and general benefits, and apportioned the proposed assessments to lots and parcels within the proposed benefit assessment district based upon the estimated special benefit each parcel would receive. In May 2004,the Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority("Authority")was formed by a joint powers agreement between.the County and the East Bay Regional Park District. This followed a four year process of committee, staff, and public review of land, open space, and funding. On May 25,2004,the Authority formed the Benefit Assessment District. The Authority authorized an assessment ballot proceeding and directed the mailing of a ballot and a written notice of the proposed assessment to the owner of each parcel in the County. The notice provided the amount to be assessed,the manmer in which the assessment was determined, the notice of a public hearing, and the procedures for completing and returning the ballots. On July 27, 2004,the Authority held an open hearing to receive public testimony on the formation of the Benefit Assessment District. Facilities were provided in the lobby of the hearing room to receive ballots. Provisions were also available for property owners to obtain ballots or to change their vote if they had previously mailed in their ballot. At the end of the hearing,balloting was olosed. The scope of this investigation was to review and comment on the balloting process including the ballot preparation,distribution, and.tabulation. The scope of this m' ve ion exoluded evaluating the legality of this assessment ballot proceeding. 3 FINDINGS 1. Overall Balloting Process: a. An assessment ballot proceeding is not an election. b. This assessment ballot proceeding was conducted,according to the Authority's application of the requirements established by Proposition 218. 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. 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 wound 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 ` 50%weighted 2/3 majority margin majority(votes are required for weighted according approval to the assessment the owner would pay) Ballot Ballot is public Secret ballot secrecy record How votes Primarily by mail Primarily in person at are cast voting precincts Signature Signature is required, Signature is required requirement but not verified and verified Contents of Background Usually contains ballot information only arguments and iinfformation rebuttals supporting guide and opposing the measure 4 Benefit Assessment General Obligation District Bond or Parcel Tax Ballot Outside contractors, Public officials preparation with County staff and approval distribution Balint Outside contractors Public officials tabulation 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. C At the July 27, 2004 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 fiord it. g. At the end of the July 27,2004 open hearing, balloting was closed before the Authority responded to the issues raised. 2. Ballot Preparation and Distribution: a. The County retained an engineering firm to: • determine the asseament-weight of each parcel, subject to approval by the Authority • draft the Oficial Notice and Ballot hiformation 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. b. The County contracted with the same engineering inn for the next four years to maintain the assessment amounts for each parcel if the measure had been approved. c. Ballots were prepared based on h0brmation contained.in the latest secured property tax rolls. Of 286,390 ballots prepared, 32 were reissued because of errors. d. There were 5;533 (1.9 '0)ballots returned as"undeliverable". Of the returned ballots, 1,893 were resent to a current address. 5 3. Ballet Tabulation: a. An independent public accounting fiim was retained to tabulate the assessment ballots. b. Written procedures for the tabulation of the ballots were substantially completed by the independent public accounting firm before the tabulation started. c. During our periodic observations of the tabulation, which was open to the public, only minor deviations from these procedures were noted. 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. e. Since computer screens were not visible to the public,the tabulation process could not be fully observed by the public. £ There was no way to confirm, without individually checking each return envelope,that all ballots had been removed from the return envelopes. g. The final result, as tabulated by the accounting firm, is shown below: YAC OMCIAL ASSESSMMNT BALLOTS Total Yes No Number of Ballots 961635 481431 48,204 %of Ballots 104.0010 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% CONCLUSIONS 1. Open space is an important issue which.can be funded by time tested methods such as a general obligation bond,pard tax, or a sales tax. 2. Ahbough the legality of this particular assessment might have been challenged in the courts,this is a matter of law and an issue for the courts to resolve. 3. btu significant came to our attention during our limited review of the ballot tabulaticina that would have changed the finial result, 6 4. There is evidence that a number of property owners who support open space voted against the measure because it took the Form of a benefit assessment district. 5. Since the ballots are now a public record, the ballots provide a source for a survey of property owners to understand the rationale for their vote. RECON ENDATIONS The 2004-2005 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends: I. 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 ballots for this measure to determine the degree to which the benefit assessment mechanism affected the outcome. 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 pmeess)as follows: a. Permit both supporting and opposing arguments in the Official Notice and Ballot Information Guide. 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. 3. Ifthe decision is made to have other similar benefit assessment distract measures in the future, adopt the following recommendations to improve internal control and segregation of responsibilities: a. Separate the responsibility for program development from testing for the ballot tabulation program. b. Have an individual dedicated solely to supervision on-site at all times during the ballot tabulation. c. Have the future assessment amounts for each parcel maintained by the County or by a contractor not previously involved in the balloting.process. 7 4, If the decision is made to have other similar benefit assessment district measures in the future, adapt the following recommendations to improve the process. a. Include in the Oficial Notice and.Ballot Information Chide a comparison of the benefit assessment district process to a,general or special election process(similar to that in finding 1d). b. Provide sufficient time in the balloting process to respond to issues raised at the open hearing(s)before the balloting is closed. c. Put a hole in the return envelope to facilitate sight checking by tabulators that all ballots have been removed. S. Terminate the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement by and Between The County of Contra Costo and The est.Bary Regional Park District Relating to 77:e Contra Costa Open Space Funding Authority and dissolve the Authority since it is not currently authorized to levy the assessment. REQUMED RESPONSES FTadinp: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: 2a and 2b Contra Costa County Open Space building Authority: 1a-1g, 2c, 2d, 3a-3g Recommendations.- Contra ecommendations:Coontra Costa County Board.of Supervisors. 1,2a and 2b, 3a-3c, 4a-4c, S Contra Costa County Open Space Fa coding Authority: 5 8