Union City, California, Public Safety Parcel Tax Extension, Measure QQ (November 2016)

* Text of measure
* Ballot question
* Impartial analysis
* Support
* Official argument
* Opposition
* Official argument
* Path to the ballot
* See also
* External links
* Footnotes
* More
* Local ballot measures
* State ballot measures
* Local politics

Measure QQ: Union City Public Safety Parcel Tax Extension

The basics
Election date:
November 8, 2016
Status:
a Approved
Majority required:
66.67%
Topic:
California parcel tax
Amount: Average $123 per residential parcel[1]
Expires in: Never
Related articles
California parcel tax on the ballot

* * *

November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California

* * *

Alameda County, California ballot measures

* * *

City tax on the ballot
See also
Union City, California

A measure to extend the city's existing parcel tax of $123 per residential parcel was on the ballot for Union City voters in Alameda County, California, on November 8, 2016. It was approved.

| A yes vote was a vote in favor of extending the city's existing parcel tax—a kind of property tax based on units of property rather than assessed value—of $123 per residential parcel.

|

| A no vote was a vote against extending the city's existing parcel tax—a kind of property tax based on units of property rather than assessed value—of $123 per residential parcel.

|

A two-thirds (66.67%) vote was required for the approval of this measure.

## Contents

* 1 Election results
* 2 Text of measure
* 2.1 Ballot question
* 2.2 Impartial analysis
* 2.3 Full text
* 3 Support
* 3.1 Supporters
* 3.2 Arguments in favor
* 3.2.1 Official argument
* 4 Opposition
* 4.1 Opponents
* 4.2 Arguments against
* 4.2.1 Official argument
* 5 Path to the ballot
* 6 Recent news
* 7 See also
* 8 External links
* 9 Footnotes

## Election results[edit]

Measure QQ

Result| Votes| Percentage
a Yes|  18,741|  78.16%
No| 5,236| 21.84%

Election results from Alameda County Registrar of Voters

## Text of measure[edit]

### Ballot question[edit]

The following question appeared on the ballot:[2]

“  |

To maintain essential police/ fire services, including maintaining 911 emergency response times, paramedic services /neighborhood police patrols; keeping fire stations open /maintaining fire prevention services; enhancing public school safety; and maintaining youth violence prevention/ gang intervention programs; shall Union City extend its existing voter approved public safety services measure, with an average rate of $123 per residential parcel, providing $4,100,000 annually for 4 years, without increasing taxes, requiring citizen's oversight, and no funds for Sacramento?[3]

| ”

|
|

### Impartial analysis[edit]

The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Union City Attorney:

“  |

The City Council of the City of Union City is submitting to the voters the question of whether to approve an ordinance that would temporarily extend an existing special tax for “public-safety services” within the City. If approved, Measure __ would continue an existing tax approved by the voters in 2004 and extended and enhanced by the voters in 2009.

The City operates a police department that serves the City and contracts with the Alameda County Fire District to provide fire response and emergency services for the City. Both departments employ a significant number of full-time employees. The City provides equipment and stations for both departments. The City also operates other departments that provide youth violence prevention and intervention services that contribute to the maintenance of public safety in the community. The proceeds from the Measure will be used to purchase, operate and maintain equipment for public-safety services, to pay salaries of police and fire personnel, and to provide funding for youth violence prevention and intervention services and other public-safety services expenses.

The Measure will automatically expire after four (4) years unless extended by the voters. Measure __ will be imposed on the occupants of residential and non-residential property within the City. For fiscal year 2016-17, the most common rate for single-family parcels is for parcels between 5,000 - 9,999 square feet and is $143.02 annually and the most common rate for non-residential parcels is for parcels between 100,000 - 249,999 square feet and is $4,869.02 annually with varying rates for other property types and sizes. The amount of the tax will be based on the use of the property and parcel size and will be adjusted annually in accordance with the Consumer Price Index. Any annual adjustment is limited to two percent (2%).

As with the previously approved public-safety services taxes, the Measure will not be imposed on unimproved parcels, a partial refund will be available for unoccupied improved non-residential parcels, and a low income exemption from the tax will apply for the duration of the tax. If approved, one hundred percent (100%) of the proceeds of this local tax would be placed into a special account and designated for public safety services within the City.

A “Yes” vote is a vote to approve the extension of the voter-approved public-safety services excise tax for four (4) years. A “No” vote is a vote to not extend the existing tax and the existing tax would no longer be collected. If Measure __ does not receive at least two-thirds (2/3) approval of those voting, the measure will fail and the 2008-approved public-safety tax will expire in June, 2017, resulting in the loss of approximately $4.1 million annually to the police, fire and youth violence and prevention budgets. [3]

| ”

|
|

—Union City Attorney[4]

### Full text[edit]

The full text of the measure is available here.

## Support[edit]

### Supporters[edit]

The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[4]

* Mayor Carol Dutra-Vernaci
* Stan Rodrigues, Union City Police Officer’s Association, Vice President
* Jaime Jaramillo, Executive Director, Centro De Servicios
* Jeanelle Singh, Old Alvarado Merchants Association, Treasurer
* Gertrude Gregorio, Former New Haven Unified School, District Trustee

### Arguments in favor[edit]

#### Official argument[edit]

The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[4]

“  |

Keep our youth and neighborhoods safe – without raising tax rates – Vote YES on X! YES on X extends existing Union City Public Safety Funding that you – our voters—first approved in 2004\. Thanks to your ongoing support, YES on X will continue to address your public safety priorities for the next four years:

* Maintain 911 dispatch/paramedic services
* Ensure rapid emergency/fire response times
* Maintain youth violence prevention/gang intervention programs
* Keep all Union City fire stations open full time
* Maintain fire protection services

Incidents of youth violence have decreased by 30% over the past several years. YES on X keeps the momentum up by maintaining youth prevention/safety programs.

Union City prides itself on its strong fiscal stewardship and quality of life. Many people don’t know that Sacramento continues to take $5,000,000 from Union City annually. These state money grabs reduce the funding we have available for our local public safety services. That’s why we need Measure X to continue to maintain and prevent cuts to the safety services you expect and deserve.

Again, Measure X does not increase tax rates –it extends funding Union City voters have already approved for another four years. Measure X continues to require strict fiscal accountability and requires independent financial audits. Union City prides itself on its regular budget reports to the community to ensure that all public/taxpayer funds are spent as promised. Low-income property owners are still exempt from Measure X.

Active involvement in public safety is the duty of everyone in Union City. YES on X is the right decision for you, your neighborhood, and Union City. Union City is a great place to live and your support will continue to keep our city safe. Please join a unanimous Mayor and City Council, Police Officers, Firefighters, Business, Community Leaders, and Neighbors—Vote YES on X. VOTE LOCAL![3]

| ”

|
|

## Opposition[edit]

### Opponents[edit]

The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[4]

* Cathy Keesee, Union City Cert Member
* Elizabeth Ames, Former Union City Planning Commissioner
* Katherine Lesher, Neighborhood Watch Captain
* Sarabjit K. Cheema, Former Union City Human Relations Commissioner

### Arguments against[edit]

#### Official argument[edit]

The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[4]

“  |

City Hall wrote this tax to “sunset” in four years so they can claim it’s “temporary”, but it doesn’t provide any spending reforms for now or later. This tax does not do anything to correct the fact that Union City is 75 acres short in providing parkland for residents. The City has a structural fiscal deficit in a booming economy, meaning our City leaders are spending more than they are taking in.

Vote No. Imposing a Union City property tax rate results in a higher rate than all our neighboring cities. The City is failing to fund a desperately needed teen center requested 20 years ago. It fails to fund 75 acres of parkland and it fails to fund separate bike lanes for our youth, adults and the elderly. Our quality of life is not improving, and the status quo of relying on taxpayers to make up structural deficits without reform continues. This tax will continue to make our City less competitive, less business friendly, less consumer friendly, and we still don’t have recreational and transportation improvements to improve our quality of life. Union City will continue to have one of the highest property tax rates in California. Union City is not attracting new business investment because our tax rate is much higher than neighboring cities.

We can have a better Union City, but this tax measure is a “blank check” that lets politicians make promises now without delivering later. We can’t afford more wasteful spending without reforms and overdue changes to ensure our City is better run. We shouldn’t reward City Hall for poor financial decisions by handing them more taxpayer money without funding improvements to provide a higher quality of life for our community. Vote NO to tell City Hall we need positive change![3]

| ”

|
|

## Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

This measure was put on the ballot through a vote of the governing officials of Union City, California.

## Recent news[edit]

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Union City California parcel tax. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Union City, California, Public Safety Parcel Tax Extension, Measure QQ (November 2016) - Google News

## See also[edit]

Local measures

* Local measures in 2016
* California parcel tax on the ballot
* City tax on the ballot
* Alameda County measures
* Parcel tax

California

* November 8, 2016 measures in California
* Local ballot measures, California
* Union City, California
* Parcel tax elections in California

News and analysis

* State and local preemption conflicts
* Measures advancing national agendas

|
|

## External links[edit]

| Suggest a link

|

* Alameda County Elections Office website

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ Note: Rates vary based on other parcel types and sizes
2. ↑ Alameda County, "November 8, 2016 General Election Local Measures," accessed October 12, 2016
3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Alameda County, "Measure QQ," accessed October 28, 2016

v • e

Local ballot measures in California

Counties|

Alameda • Alpine • Amador • Butte • Calaveras • Colusa • Contra Costa • Del Norte • El Dorado • Fresno • Glenn • Humboldt • Imperial • Inyo • Kern • Kings • Lake • Lassen • Los Angeles • Madera • Marin • Mariposa • Mendocino • Merced • Modoc • Mono • Monterey • Napa • Nevada • Orange • Placer • Plumas • Riverside • Sacramento • San Benito • San Bernardino • San Diego • San Francisco • San Joaquin • San Luis Obispo • San Mateo • Santa Barbara • Santa Clara • Santa Cruz • Shasta • Sierra • Siskiyou • Solano • Sonoma • Stanislaus • Sutter • Tehama • Trinity • Tulare • Tuolumne • Ventura • Yolo • Yuba

* * *

Analysis|

Laws governing local ballot measures in California • Ballot measure information on California county websites • Costs of administering local elections • Required approval rates for local California ballot measures

* * *

Political topics|

Advisory votes • Binding arbitration • Business taxes • City charters • Election and voting laws • Gambling • Gann overrides • Hotel taxes • Incorporations • Immigration • Jurisdictional boundaries • Labor • Marijuana • Marijuana taxes • Mottos • Municipal bonds • Parcel taxes • Pensions • Project-Labor Agreements • Recall • Red light cameras • Rent control • Salaries of local officials • Sales taxes • School bonds • Term limits • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes • Zoning and land use

* * *

Tax measures|

Business taxes • Hotel taxes • Marijuana taxes • Oil and gas • Parcel taxes • Real estate transfer taxes • Sales taxes • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes

v • e

Local taxes on the ballot in California

Business taxes • Hotel taxes • Marijuana taxes • Oil and gas • Parcel taxes • Real estate transfer taxes • Sales taxes • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes