Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10052004 - C51 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �; . .= CONTRA i -:r,, y�►„ COSTA FROM: Jahn Sweeten, County Administrator , COUNTY DATE: October 5, 2084 SUBJECT: CORRECTED RESPONSE TO FINDING 8 IN GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 0409 ENTITLED "BUDGET WOES AND LAYOFFS: THE CONTRIBUTION OF PENSION IMPROVEMENTS" SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION(5): APPROVE the corrected response to Finding 8 in Grand Jury Report No. 0409 entitled "Budget Woes and Layoffs: The Contribution of Pension Improvements" and DIRECT the County Administrator to transmit the correction to the Superior Court, in care of the Presiding Judge of the Grand Jury. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: In Finding 8 of the above-mentioned Grand Jury Report, the Grand Jury calculated total County retirement expenses in all funds as a percentage of the County General Fund. This created an apparently inadvertent "apples to oranges" comparison that overstated the relative size of the County's retirement expense. Unfortunately, staff did not recognize this problem in preparing the Board of Supervisors Response. It was not until after the Board had approved the Board of Supervisors Response that staff correctly identified this issue. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: —X—YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR_RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE _;�DROVE _ OTHER SIGNATURES ACTION OF BOA ,,RD N APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER r VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS{ABSENT • . "t``. �'?'1 ul-�- ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ON MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:Jason Crapo,335-1021 ATTESTED t `i JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR cc: Presiding Judge of the Grand Jury Grand Jury Foreman County Administrator Human Resources Director '? Retirement Administrator ' a' BY� _ DEPUTY The following table shows the "apples to apples" comparison of General Fund retirement expenses to the General Fund and all funds retirement expenses to the All Funds Budget. The corrected response shows that in each of the five years displayed, General Fund retirement expenses as a percentage of the General Fund are lower than these previously indicated. Corrected Response to Grand Jury Finding 8 Retirement General Fund Retirement All Funds Expense — Retirement Expense -- Retirement General Fund Expense as % of All Funds Expense as % of !Fiscal Year millions General Fund (millions) All Funds 1994-95 $ 29.4 4.5410 $ 37.4 4.23% 1998-99 41.6 5.61% 54.8 5.10% � 2001-02 53.8 5.20% 69.6 4.74010 2003-04 80.6 7.33% 102.6 6.34% 2004-05 103.9 9.13% 139.5 8.24% G ra' n' d Jury725 Court Street Contra a P.O. Box 911 Costa Martinez, CA 94553-0091 County t -1y n September 23, 2004 ,aa Contra Costa County - Open Space Funding Authority 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Open Space Funding Authority: 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 one of the following 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. Open Space Funding Authority 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 933.015 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 form described by the quoted Government Code, no later than December 22, 2004. Sincerely, ^"Vo v ANTONIO MEDRANO, 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 44IS B.A.D.GOOD"? OPEN SPACE BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT(B.A.D.)BALLOTING PROCESS APPROVED BY THE GRAND JURY: Date: 7hohlo4w ANTONIO MEDRANO GRAND JURY FOREPERSON ACCEPTED FOR FILING: Date: f4!x TER.ENCE L. BRUfNItRS JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Grand Jury Contra725 Court Street P.t3.Box 911 Martinez,CA 94553-0091 C o sl a County Contact: Antonia 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 Jury's report on the Contra Costa County Benefit Assessment District's(B.A.D.) ballot 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 as appropriate way to raise funds for countywide open space under Proposition 218. 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%. Lased on its investigation,the Grand,fury 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.cc-courts.org/grandjury. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 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 Cosh 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 Centra 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 raisefunds 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.bight to Vote on Taxes Act,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 FWDGS 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 band or parcel tax election would follow)in a number of important ways,as shown below: Benefit Assessment General Obligation District Bond or Marcel Tax Who votes Property owners Registered voters Voting 50%weighted 2/3 majority j 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 s guide and opposing the { measure 4 3. Ballot Tabulation: a. An.independent public accounting firm was retained to tabulate the assessment ballets. 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 ballets had been removed from the return envelopes. g. The final result, as tabulated by the accounting firm, is shown below: VALID OF'F'ICIAL ASSESSMENT BALLOTS Total Yes No Number of Ballots 96,635 48,431 48,204 %of Ballots 100.010/0 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% CONCLUSIONS I. 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 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. Nothing sigcant came to our attention during our limited review of the ballot tabulation that would Have changed the final result. 6 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 Id). 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 bole in the return envelope to facilitate sight checking by tabulators that all ballets have been.removed. 5. Terminate the Joint Exercise cz,f`.Powers Agreement by and.Between The County of Contra Costa and The East Bay.Regional Park District Relating to The Conira Costa Open Space.Funding Authority and dissolve the Authority since it is not currently authorized to levy the assessment. REQUIRED RESPONSES Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: 2a and 2 Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority: la-lg, 2c, 2d, 3a-3g Recommendations: Contra Costa County Beard of Supervisors: 1,2a and 2b,3a-3c,4a-4c, 5 Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority: 5 8