Gilroy
– City Council has reversed its position on a controversial new
fee on automobiles, endorsing legislation that will impose a $5
surcharge on all vehicles registered in the county.
Gilroy – City Council has reversed its position on a controversial new fee on automobiles, endorsing legislation that will impose a $5 surcharge on all vehicles registered in the county.
Councilman Charles Morales provided the crucial swing vote during a special meeting Monday night just one week after he and three other council members voted against endorsing Senate Bill 680, which authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles to impose the surcharge and direct the money to the Valley Transportation Authority.
Morales placed the item back on the council’s agenda at the request of Santa Clara County Supervisor Don Gage, who has thrown his support behind the fee.
Gage has stressed that State Senator Joe Simitian, a former Santa Clara County supervisor, would not support the bill unless all 15 cities in the county endorse it.
Gilroy was the first city to deny support for the bill. Nine other city councils have signed off on SB 680, with 61 out of 63 councilmembers voting in favor, according to Gage.
Morales told fellow councilmen Monday night that he received numerous calls from leaders in other cities urging him to support the bill.
“It is a trend of regional cooperation,” he said, adding that he did not understand the consequences of the city’s failure to endorse the bill. “Last week I didn’t realize it would jeopardize SB 680.”
The fee will raise $56 million for the county, with two-thirds of the money earmarked for improvements to county highways and expressways and for local road improvements, as well as for improvements to the Caltrain system.
The bill supposedly will provide Gilroy with $800,000 over eight years, although opponents of the measure argue that the legislation leaves the VTA too much authority over the money. They worry the transportation agency could redirect the funds, leaving cities with little to show while adding new burdens on car owners.
Pointing to a picture of a ship perched on the lip of a flat ocean, local attorney Joe Thompson said “the typical small-business owner is teetering like this ship here. …One more small tax and it will go over. I don’t think Gilroy should follow other cities in making a mistake.”
Anti-tax crusader Mark Zappa hoped to neutralize Morales’ vote by demanding that Councilman Roland Velasco, who voted for approval the first time, recuse himself from the vote based on an alleged conflict of interest.
Velasco, who works as a senior policy aide for Gage, begrudgingly endorsed the bill again, but not without responding to Zappa’s charges.
“Individuals may think there’s a financial conflict of interest, it doesn’t make it so,” he said. “It could be a perceived conflict of interest, it doesn’t make it so.”
City Attorney Linda Callon said “there’s certainly no financial conflict of interest. We do not feel that it even rises to a point of impropriety.”
The 4-3 vote in favor of endorsement included “no” votes from Councilmen Bob Dillon, Craig Gartman, and Russ Valiquette. The “yes” votes once again included Councilman Paul Correa and Mayor Al Pinheiro.
Speaking about the existing burdens on taxpayers, Pinheiro said “I too don’t like to add (to it), whether it’s a fee or a tax. But some times we have no choice.”
