The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9.19.22 Board Correspondence - FW_ Letter re Proposed Tuscan Water District formation and tax election.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening attachments, clicking on links, or replying.. From:Clerk of the Board To:Bennett, Robin; Clerk of the Board; Connelly, Bill; Cook, Holly; Cook, Robin; Hironimus, Patrizia; Kimmelshue, Tod; Lucero, Debra; Paulsen, Shaina; Pickett, Andy; Reaster, Kayla; Ritter, Tami; Stephens, Brad J.; Sweeney, Kathleen; Teeter, Doug; Valencia, Shyanne Cc:Grubbs, Candace; Nuzum, Danielle; Hatcher, Casey; Loeser, Kamie Subject:Board Correspondence - FW: Letter re Proposed Tuscan Water District formation and tax election Date:Monday, September 19, 2022 9:05:46 AM Attachments:AquAllianceLetterTWDElectionGrubbs091922.pdf Importance:High Please see Board Correspondence. Shaina Paulsen Associate Clerk of The Board Butte County Administration 25 County Center Drive, Suite 200, Oroville, CA 95965 T: 530.552.3304 | F: 530.538.7120 From: Barbara Vlamis <barbarav@aqualliance.net> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 8:58 AM To: Elections <elections@buttecounty.net> Cc: Lucas, Steve <SLucas@buttecounty.net>; Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net>; Jim Brobeck <jimb@aqualliance.net>; Michael Jackson <mjatty@sbcglobal.net> Subject: Letter re Proposed Tuscan Water District formation and tax election Importance: High Ms. Grubbs, Attached you will find AquAlliance's letter regarding our concerns about the proposed Tuscan Water District formation and tax election. We look forward to your response. Barbara -- Barbara VlamisExecutive Director PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICEThis message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law as confidential communications. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication or other use of a transmission received in error is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, immediately notify us at (530) 895-9420. September 19, 2022 Candace J. Grubbs Butte County Clerk-Recorder 155 Nelson Drive Oroville CA 95965 Sent via e-mail to elections@buttecounty.net Re: Proposed Tuscan Water District formation and tax election Dear Clerk-Recorder Grubbs: AquAlliance and its members have been and remain deeply concerned about the formation of the proposed Tuscan Water District (“TWD” or “District”) and communicated this to LAFCO, the Board of Supervisors, and the Butte County Water Commission. Some examples include: 1. In August and September 2021 Jim Brobeck, AquAlliance’s Water Policy Analyst, provided the Butte County Water Commission and the Board of Supervisors with comments on the proposed formation of TWD. His comments highlighted how TWD would cause legal, financial, and hydrologic perils to all groundwater dependent users in and near the Vina Subbasin since it would specifically create the infrastructure to recharge groundwater in the Vina Subbasin. 2. On February 2, 2022 Mr. Brobeck submitted written comments to LAFCO demonstrating the dangers of forming the proposed TWD based on the long and tortured history between Butte County and the California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”) and DWR’s efforts to extract ever more water from the NorthState (Agenda Item 3.1 - 21-06 - Formation of Tuscan Water District, February 3, 2022). Additionally, AquAlliance informed the public regarding hazards of the proposed TWD through a League of Women Voters online forum (November 2021) and in a Chico News and Review commentary (2021). In February 2022, AquAlliance filed litigation against the Vina Subbasin’s Groundwater Sustainability Plan, challenging its serious vulnerabilities - many that would be implemented by the proposed TWD. After participating in public opportunities to inform government officials, TWD proponents, and the public of the dangers inherent in the TWD goals and weighted landowner control, all in the midst of the COVID pandemic, it came to our attention that the formation and tax ballot is currently circulating with serious deficiencies that must be corrected . Page 2 of 3 AquAlliance re Proposed TWD formation and tax election A. Notice of opportunities to participate in the formation and ballot were improperly noticed Government Code § 57130 requires that “The elections official shall cause notice of each change or organization or reorganization election to be given by publication, posting and mailing as provided in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 57025) of Part 4.” The referenced Chapter requires mailing to all landowners in any affected territory (Gov’t Code § 57025(b)), and “if the affected territory is inhabited”, to all registered voters residing within any affected territory. The statute is mandatory. However, your office made no such mailing to the persons who had a statutory right to mailed notice of the TWD formation election. There is nothing in the Government Code that permits your office to rely on website notices or on prior mailings by other agencies about the TWD formation process to discharge the obligation imposed on you by Government Code § 57130. Notice of the pendency of an application is not a notice of the election. Posting information on your website is not “mailing.” As a consequence of the failure by your office to perform the statutorily mandated mailing task, the only people who knew about the election and the supposed deadlines (imposed without adequate notice to voters) were candidates hand-picked by the Agricultural Groundwater Users of Butte County, to whom they passed out nomination packets. In addition, without proper notice, none of the roughly 6,500 people who reside in the proposed district were advised of the possibility of submitting a ballot argument in opposition to the formation of the district or the imposition of the parcel tax. B. The TWD formation ballot improperly combines the question of formation with the approval of a new parcel tax. The question of whether the TWD should be formed is properly submitted to landowners within the proposed district, with votes weighted by acreage. However, the parcel tax is of a different character. Proposition 13, passed in 1978, added Section XIIIA to the California Constitution. Section 4 thereof provides: “Cities, Counties and special districts, by a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors of such district, may impose special taxes on such district, except ad valorem taxes on real property or a transaction tax or sales tax on the sale of real property within such City, County or special district” (emphasis added). The enabling legislation spells this out: “Except as provided in Section 7282 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the legislative body of any city, county, or district may, following notice and public hearing, propose by ordinance or resolution the adoption of a special tax. The ordinance or resolution shall include the type of tax and rate of tax to be levied, the method of collection, and the date upon which an election shall be held to approve the levy of the tax. The proposition shall be submitted to the voters of the city, county, or district, or a portion thereof, and, upon the approval of two-thirds of the votes cast by voters voting upon the proposition, the city, county, or district may levy the t ax” (emphasis added). Cal. Gov’t Code §50077(a). C. The ballot improperly labels the tax an assessment. The “assessment” referred to in the ballot question is not an “assessment” as it is not apportioned according to either the value of the land or the benefits the assessment would confer. It has also not been supported by analysis required by Proposition 218, particularly the engineer’s report. As disclosed by the LAFCO application, it is a non-ad valorem tax designed to raise general Page 3 of 3 AquAlliance re Proposed TWD formation and tax election revenue for the operation of the new government entity. As such, it requires a separate ballot distributed to registered voters within the proposed district, and such parcel tax may not be imposed unless it is authorized by 2/3 or more of the registered voter ballots cast. D. Corporations and non-resident landowners may not vote on a parcel tax. In an election under Cal. Gov’t Code §50077(a), corporate owners cannot vote, landowners not resident in the proposed district cannot vote. It is our understanding that the current ballot has been distributed to some landowners not entitled to vote at all on a parcel tax (e.g., Farmland Reserve, Inc., Rancho Esquon), and hasn’t been distributed to what is likely several hundred non-landowner registered voters who do live within the proposed district who are entitled to vote. In conclusion, AquAlliance believes the TWD process leading to the formation and tax election was, and the ballot itself is, legally invalid. If you believe that your actions are justified, we seek a response with citations to the statutory and constitutional authorities that validate your office’s actions regarding notice to participate and the handling of the parcel tax as discussed above. Sincerely, Barbara Vlamis AquAlliance Executive Director Chico, CA 95927 Cc: Steve Lucas, Butte LAFCO by e-mail slucas@buttecounty.net Butte County Board of Supervisors via the Clerk of the Board by e-mail clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net Jim Brobeck, AquAlliance Water Policy Analyst Michael Jackson, Attorney at Law