Measure B (2024) May Have Violated Multiple State Laws
The City of Grass Valley may have misled its citizens by planning to fund specific purposes using a general tax: Measure B.
What Purposes? Hire additional firefighters and conduct land management to combat wildfires and extreme weather conditions (their words).
Why Mislead? Because a general tax initiative requires only a majority (50% plus 1) vote, whereas a special tax initiative requires a two-thirds vote.
Mislead How? By using legitimate government processes in misleading ways to convince the electorate to vote to fund specific purposes with a general tax.
When? During the leadup to the March 5 Primary Election and ongoing.
Results? Measure B passed by 20 votes over the majority, a 0.5% margin. You will pay an additional 3/8-cent sales tax beginning July 1 – bringing the sales tax in the city of Grass Valley up to 8.875%, higher than Roseville, Auburn, and Yuba City.
Identifying specific purposes while calling for a general tax violates state law
In 1986, Californians passed Proposition 62. This was a mandate for municipalities to refrain from using a majority vote to enact taxes for specific (special) purposes. This resulted in changes to state law. In part:
53721. All taxes are either special taxes or general taxes. General taxes are taxes imposed for general governmental purposes. Special taxes are taxes imposed for specific purposes.
53722. No local government or district may impose any special tax unless and until such special tax is submitted to the electorate of the local government, or district and approved by a two-thirds vote of the voters voting in an election on the issue.
Section 53721 of the California Government Code is brief and succinctly worded given the stark differences between the concepts of “general” and “special”. In spite of this mandate, the City Council did not determine that the City could not support existing general City services, rather they took the following actions:
Approved Resolution 2023-54 on October 16, 2023, titled in part: “ . . . DECLARING A FISCAL EMERGENCY DUE TO THE LACK OF FUNDS FOR FIRE PERSONNEL AND LAND MANAGEMENT REQUIRED TO COMBAT WILDFIRES AND EXTREME WEATHER CONDITIONS”.
The Resolution further states that the City Council desires to submit a general transaction and use tax ordinance for voter approval, that the fiscal emergency was necessary for the City Council to call a special election for the proposed general sales tax, and resolved that urgent action is required so the Grass Valley Fire Department will not lack funding for fire personnel and land management required to combat wildfires and extreme weather conditions. Identifying specific purposes while calling for a general tax as the funding source violates Section 53721.
Approved Resolution 2023-62 on October 24, 2023 titled in part: “ . . . CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION ON MARCH 5, 2024 TO CONSIDER A TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX”. The Resolution states the City Council desires a general transaction and use tax ordinance, that the revenues “can fund firefighting personnel, wildfire risk and land management, other fire safety measures, or any other lawful purpose of the City”, and resolved that the description of the nature of the proposed ordinance shall include: “ . . . reducing the risk associated with catastrophic wildfire and extreme weather by funding additional firefighters, vegetation management, and emergency evacuation planning . . .”.
Identifying specific purposes while calling for a general tax as the funding source seems to violate Section 53721.
The ballot question language may have misled voters
Background: Ordinance No. 826 is the City’s operational framework resulting from Measure B. The words “fire” and “vegetation” do not appear once on this document. There is nothing in this ordinance that requires the City to use these general funds for any special purpose.
However, the “reducing the risk of wildfire” verbiage quoted above from Resolution 2023-62 became part of the BALLOT QUESTION appearing above the Ordinance in the Voter Information Guide and represented the purpose of Measure B on the official ballot. The “reducing the risk of wildfire” verbiage is not contained in the Ordinance.
Had it been part of the Ordinance, it would have been a special tax initiative requiring a two-thirds vote.
The California Elections Code dictates the information a voter must receive. In part, the ballot must “state the nature” of the measure and disclose the “amount of money to be raised", the language must provide “a true and impartial synopsis of the purpose of the measure”, and the ballot language may not likely create prejudice for or against the measure.
The BALLOT QUESTION misrepresented Measure B by naming specific purposes for the tax: “reducing the risk associated with catastrophic wildfire and extreme weather” and reinforced those purposes by adding additional specificity: “by funding additional firefighters, vegetation management, and emergency evacuation planning”. This information was preceded by “such as”. The BALLOT QUESTION also stated: “raising about $3.4 million yearly”. This seems to have resulted in the following violations:
The “reducing the risk of wildfire” clause that appears in the BALLOT QUESTION is not contained in the Ordinance. It is not “stating the nature” of the measure and therefore may violate Section 13119 (a) of the Elections Code.
City staff represented to the City Council that Measure B would raise about $2.55 million yearly. The BALLOT QUESTION erroneously states about $3.4 million. This misrepresentation of the revenue adds to a prejudice in favor of the measure and therefore violates Section 13119 (b).
The “reducing the risk of wildfire” clause is not contained in the Ordinance, does not represent a “true and impartial synopsis” of the measure, and therefore violates Section 13119 (c).
Moreover, the “reducing the risk of wildfire” clause creates a prejudice in favor of the measure and therefore violates Section 13119 (c).
The motion to adopt the ordinance may have violated the Brown Act
Background: On April 2, 2024, the City Council introduced Ordinance No.826. This accomplished the required first reading of the Ordinance. On April 9, 2023, the City Council Agenda Item No. 11 read verbatim: “Second Reading of Ordinance No. 826 Imposing a 3/8-cent (0.375%) Transaction and Use Tax for Fire Resiliency and Vegetation Management”. The Council unanimously waived the full reading. Incorporated into the same motion, the Council adopted the Ordinance.
The Brown Act (contained in Section 54954.2 of the California Government Code),, which governs meeting of public agencies in California, requires:
(1) . . . the legislative body of the local agency, or its designee, shall post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session. A brief general description of an item generally need not exceed 20 words.
(2) No action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda, except that members of a legislative body or its staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights under Section 54954.3.
Statutory Violation? The agenda item did not indicate the separate and discrete action to adopt. The term “adopt” appeared two paragraphs below the agenda item as information for the Council in the form of a staff recommendation. Interested members of the public were not properly informed of an action to be considered by the Council, therefore the motion to adopt looks to have violated Section 54954.2.
The effective date of Measure B violates Ordinance No.826
On April 9, 2024, the City Council approved Resolution 2020-13 authorizing the City Manager to execute agreements with the State Tax and Fee Administration. One is titled “AGREEMENT FOR STATE ADMINISTRATION OF CITY TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAXES. Article 5, paragraph B. “Term” states in part:
The agreement shall take effect on July 1st, 2024.
The Council motioned to adopt Ordinance No. 826 later in the April 9, 2024, meeting. Ordinance No. 826, Section 2 “Operative Date” states:
“Operative date” means the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 110 days after the adoption of this ordinance.
The Ordinance operative date is no sooner than October 1, 2024. The State had announced it would begin administering and collecting the Measure B 3/8-cent sales tax beginning July 1. Very recently, the State recanted its original July 1 date in favor of the correct October 1 start date.
Procedural Violation? The City Council authorized the City Manager to sign agreements with the State pertaining to an ordinance that had not yet been finalized (adopted).
Statutory Violation? The City inserted an incorrect effective date into their agreement with the State Tax and Fee Administration in violation of Ordinance No. 826. The State has now corrected that error.
Measure B should have been presented as a special tax
Conclusions: City staff, City Attorney, and City Council members all agreed from the beginning to expand City services with additional firefighters and land management activities for the specific purposes of reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire combined with extreme weather, and they all expected to fund these special purposes with additional sales tax revenue.
Section 14 of Ordinance No. 826 goes so far as to create an Independent Citizens’ Advisory Committee evidently to ensure the Council’s guarantee that the revenue will fund specific purposes set forth in the City Council’s plan. At this point, the City was obligated to put forth a special tax initiative. By not doing so, the City ignored the mandate of the people of California in their approval of the 1986 Proposition 62 which clearly defined the requirements for a general or a special tax initiative.
City staff, City Attorney, and City Council members succeeded in grossly misleading voters by injecting the specifics of their planned expansion of City services into the BALLOT QUESTION, the Impartial Analysis, and the Council’s Argument in Favor of Measure B.
If it is the City’s desire to increase taxes in order to fund efforts to reduce the risk of wildfire, they must do so through a special tax initiative.
Findings:
The argument for a new ballot measure has merit.
Taxes will soon be collected under false pretense causing irreparable harm if the City does not halt the current process and begin anew.
Voters in the City of Grass Valley must be given the opportunity to consider a tax measure process free of statutory violations, and procedural and clerical errors.
The City would be serving the public interest by starting over.