Lights out
By Linh Tat
Thursday, August 7th, 2008 at 11:38 am in Union City.
Last night’s Union City council meeting was interesting for two reasons: First, heading into the meeting, there appeared to be minority support for increasing the rate on the existing Measure K public-safety parcel tax, which raises $2.7 million annually (additional revenue would fund youth services). But by the end of the evening, the council passed an ordinance (4-1) to place a measure on the November ballot to extend the tax for eight years while raising it by another $500,000 annually.
Councilwoman Carol Dutra-Vernaci, who cast the dissenting vote, raised questions about whether the city could get the necessary two-thirds vote on Election Day if it raised the tax. But she vowed to fight “tooth and nail” to get the measure passed.
The second notable moment of the evening occurred when the power went out for a few seconds in the middle of discussions about the city’s budget.
The city is appealing an appellate court decision that residents have been taxed a 9-1-1 fee illegally. If the state Supreme Court decides not to hear the case, the city would lose $2.7 million in annual revenue, plus it may have to refund up to $2.7 million to residents, city officials said.
Earlier in the evening, council members mentioned that without the revenue, the city would have to look at cutting services, and Dutra-Vernaci was in the middle of suggesting that city staff try to identify existing funds that could be reallocated for youth services when the lights (and microphones) went out momentarily.
Coincidence, or a sign from the budget god?
image from shadphotos' site at flickr.com
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]



August 7th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
I applaud Carol Dutra-Vernaci for opposing the tax which is seems so ardently supported by Linh Tat. If you want to continue undermining the economic vitality of citizens and businesses in Union City, keep taxes high and raise them higher. If you want reduced gang activity, reduced crime, and increased prosperity, reduce city spending and the associated taxation. Increased city spending does not improve the plight of local citizens. It places a burden on local families that undermines their ability to raise their children, save money for their families and independence, and to invest in their community.