After the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District voted on Sept. 2, 2014 to halt its benefit Assessment ballot after ballots were mailed to the public, the cost was a concern to many voters.
The District is asking the public to approve a Benefit Assessment (ranging from $100-$200 per property) in order to ensure a 5-station service model instead of closing fire stations. The District has already closed Station 54 in Brentwood due to staffing and Knightsen is expected to close in early 2015 if funds are not available.
According to the ECCFPD agenda for Monday’s Board Meeting, the cost of the Benefit Assessment thus far is $104,248.76
- Analysis and preparation of Engineers Report ($13,800)
- Printing and postage of ballot packages ($60,062.76)
- Legal review and support ($17,886)
- Printing and postage of postcard (regarding discontinue of process ($12,500)
The decision to cancel the Benefit Assessment came after it was discovered that 10,000 ballots were sent to parcel owners with incorrect data due to a data error provided by the Costa County Global Information System and fire hydrant mapping provided by Contra Costa County Fire Protection District.
Due to bad data, it resulted in nearly 10,000 ballots (25%) being sent out with Benefit Assessment values lower than anticipated—some as low as $37 instead of $103. The result, it increased the Benefit Assessment values in 32,000 ballots.
The Board is anticipating spending another $78,000 to update the Engineer Report and balloting process
- Update data and preparation of Engineers Report ($6,750)
- Conduct GIS mapping coding and parcel review ($7,750)
- Printing and postage of ballot packages ($63,500
Updated Timeline for Benefit Assessment
- February 2, 2015 – Board Adoption of Engineers Report, Issuance of Ballots
- March 13, 2015 – Ballots Mailed
- April 27, 2015 – Public Hearing and Tabulation
Consultant Set to Get Increased Contract
Another agenda item highlights the Board will vote to authorize an amendment to the professional services agreement with NBS for services related to potential enactment of a fire suppression assessment.
According to the staff report, the Board will determine whether to proceed with the development of a new Engineer’s Report and reissuance of ballots related to a proposed fire suppression assessment, in accordance with a timeline proposed by Staff. If the Board opts to move forward with potentially implementing a fire suppression assessment, the District will need to contract for additional services from its assessment engineer
Accordingly, Staff solicited and NBS provided a proposed scope of services and budget for NBS to:
- Work with Staff to complete the data updates;
- Work with Staff to check all of the data;
- Update the Engineer’s Report based on the updated data and new District budget; and
- Re-print and mail new ballots and the requisite legal notice for compliance with Proposition 218.
As shown in the exhibits to the attached proposed contract amendment, the proposed budget represents an increase of $78,000 over the District’s previous $115,000 contract with NBS.
Under the NBS proposal, True Ballot, Inc. would again produce the ballots, ballot inserts and envelopes; and handle all mailing and collection of ballots. True Ballot’s services, including printing, postage and all other costs, account for $63,000 of the proposed $78,000 amendment. The remaining $14,500 would cover NBS’s fees for the additional work. This proposal reflects an NBS Professional Services Courtesy Discount of an additional $14,500.
The final steps of the process for the Board’s consideration, and potential enactment of, a fire suppression assessment (registering and tabulating votes cast, certifying results, etc.) are covered under the current District-NBS contract approved by this Board in May.
If you go:
Monday, November 3, 2014
6:30pm
3231 Main Street
Oakley, CA 94561
How Benefit Assessment Voting Works
Unless a majority of votes (50% + 1), weighted based on assessment amount, protests enactment of an assessment, the governing body may move forward.
But here is how the process works:
Local officials must mail to all affected property owners, a ballot to vote for or against the proposed assessment, and a notice containing the date, time, and place of the public hearing at which ballots will be counted, as well as specific information about the proposed benefit assessment. This information must include the purpose of the benefit assessment, the amount that would be charged to the owner’s parcel, how that amount was calculated, and the duration of the payments.
The ballot must carry the agency’s address or include a self-addressed envelope so that property owners can return their ballots by mail.
Ballots are weighted by the amount each property owner is to pay, with those paying more getting a larger share of the vote. In other words, the ballots are weighted in proportion to the amount of benefit each property receives from the benefit assessment. This means that a property owner that receives twice the benefit of another property owner would pay twice the assessment. ‘
The property owner paying twice as much would also have their vote count twice as much.
If the votes cast determine that the weighted majority of the voting property owners are against the assessment, then local officials must abandon the assessment.
If the assessment passes, local officials can still modify the plan in response to public comment. However, if substantial modifications are made to the assessment plan upon which landowners cast their vote, a new election may be required. The local agency cannot increase an assessment after the property owners approve it except as provided in the original assessment proposal.
