Rancho Cordova Utility Users Tax Unconstitutional

After reviewing the streaming video from the June 1st city council meeting (you should all view the public comment section), I found that some comments were made regarding the UUT after I departed the meeting. The comments that I made were correct. The people of the city of Rancho Cordova never voted separately on the UUT that is presently being used by the city. As you are aware, the Measure B UUT was just voted on and was defeated.

When the city was incorporated by the vote of the people in the election on November 5, 2002, the measure included various items that would be affirmed/adopted, including the county’s UUT, if it passed. In my mind, including a Proposition 218 measure within the city measure, does not meet the constitutional standard. To make matters worse, at the same time of the vote for cityhood, there was a Measure G regarding the County’s UUT. In essence, the voters for our city did not even know what they were approving regarding the UUT.

My point is that City of Rancho Cordova should have had a separate vote on the issue during the cityhood vote or soon thereafter July 2003 just to confirm the UUT in order to meet Proposition 218 standards. Since that never happened, plus with the defeat of Measure B, I believe that the people of Rancho Cordova have never voted for the UUT and thus, the present UUT is unconstitutional.

My concerns regarding the illegal use of public funds is based on my research of the following:

“The California Supreme Court recently revisited the legal standard used to evaluate whether publicly funded, election-related materials are permissible. In Vargas v. City of Salinas, 46 Cal.4th 1 (2009), the Court concluded Government Code § 54964, which prohibits spending public funds on “express advocacy” regarding a ballot measure, did not alter the rule of Stanson v. Mott, 17 Cal.3d 206 (1976) which requires a case-by-case analysis of the “style, tenor and timing” of a communication to determine if it is permissible informational material or prohibited campaign material.”

Government Code section 54964 not only prohibits spending public funds on “express advocacy” but also the information/educational material must be accurate, fair, and impartial. In my mind, the material that the city sent out did not meet those standards. That\’s why I said that if you really were not trying to scare/threaten the people with your material, then you should eliminate all the the positions that you said were endangered if Measure B fails.

Comments said by those after I left the meeting do not change the facts as I have stated them. If you would like me to give a more in depth presentation at one of the council meetings, I would be happy to do so. It is very difficult to express some of these matters in three minutes.

Sincerely,

David A. Ivazian
11117 Moose River Court
Rancho Cordova, Ca 95670