Gilroy
– A personal entreaty from County Supervisor Don Gage has led
the Gilroy City Council to reconsider its position on a
controversial new fee on car registrations, just one week after
officials voted against supporting the bill.
Gilroy – A personal entreaty from County Supervisor Don Gage has led the Gilroy City Council to reconsider its position on a controversial new fee on car registrations, just one week after officials voted against supporting the bill.
Councilmen on Monday night voted 4-3 against endorsing SB 680, a state senate bill that would add a $5 annual surcharge to vehicles registered in Santa Clara County. Just two days after the vote, the same item appeared on a City Council agenda for an April 11 special meeting. The addition came at the request of Councilman Charles Morales, who voted against endorsement.
“I called (Morales) and asked him to put that back on the agenda because I didn’t feel (the council) understood the significance of their vote,” Gage said. “(State Senator) Joe Simitian made it very clear to me that if he did not have the support of all the cities, he said he would not go forward with the bill. That means $56 million (lost) for the whole county.”
So far, the bill has received support from eight cities. Gilroy is the first to vote against it.
Simitian could not be reached for comment.
Meeting rules allow a council member on the “prevailing side” of a vote to request reconsideration of an item, according to City Attorney Linda Callon.
Morales said he placed SB 680 back on the agenda after voting against it because Gage failed to “articulate the ramifications” during a presentation before City Council on Monday night.
“I was thinking of it as an individual,” Morales said of his initial vote. “Sometimes you reach a point of saturation of being taxed. … That was my original stance on this, without realizing that a certain city not endorsing this would jeopardize SB 680.”
Morales, a councilman for 12 years, added that regional cooperation has emerged as a major political trend in recent years.
“I certainly will not hesitate to vote for (SB 680),” he said, “because I don’t want Gilroy to be the anchor of a progressive movement.”
In addition to Morales, councilmen Bob Dillon, Craig Gartman and Russ Valiquette voted against endorsement. Their concerns have centered on the amount of funds that would return to Gilroy, as well as the ability of the state to dip into the money.
The proposed legislation would filter $100,000 to Gilroy for road improvements each year for eight years, while the bulk of funds would go toward county-wide projects. The list of projects includes:
• $4-million to purchase new “bullet-train” cars and for other improvements to the Caltrain system
• $4-million to clean up and restore landscapes along county expressways and highways
• $16-million to improve county expressways
• $16-million for projects to relieve traffic congestion
• $16-million for road improvements in cities, towns, and around the county
Councilmen Gartman pointed out that the state has already dipped into transportation funds approved under Proposition 42, which imposed a statewide gasoline tax for traffic-reduction programs. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has announced plans to suspend the program for a third consecutive year so he can redirect the $1.3 billion in revenues to the state’s general fund.
“What’s to stop the state from saying here’s $56 million — I’m going to take it?” Gartman asked.
Gage responded that the legislation caps state take-aways for administrative and other fees at one percent.
“It specifically says that they can’t touch the money,” he said.
While it appears SB 680 will pass the second time around with Morales’ swing vote, opponents of the bill refuse to give up without a fight.
Mark Zappa, a local GOP campaign organizer and tax opponent, is demanding that Councilman Roland Velasco, who reluctantly voted for SB 680 earlier this week, should recuse himself from the Monday vote based on an alleged conflict of interest.
Velasco works as a senior policy aide for Gage.
“The problem I was having is that I felt this is one more fee we’re being asked to pay,” Velasco said. “That’s why I said at the meeting I was originally prepared to vote against it.”
Velasco changed his mind after hearing Carl Guardino, president of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, describe the organization’s efforts to prevent the state from dipping into local money.
“If that’s the case, and this money is for our county to fix our roadways, then I’m open to that,” Velasco said.
Responding to Zappa’s charge of a conflict of interest, Gage said he is ” extremely careful with (Velasco) because he works for me. His job’s not affected whether or not he votes for it. There’s no conflict of interest here – this is money for Gilroy and all the cities of Santa Clara County.”
Zappa remained unconvinced.
“What makes him think that (Velasco) will not be influenced anyway,” he said. “It’s human nature. If it was my boss who was out there pounding the pavement for something he strongly believes in, I would find it hard to believe that wouldn’t somehow influence his employee.”
City Attorney Linda Callon said Velasco could participate in the vote since it does not involve “a financial conflict of interest.”
If Velasco recuses himself and a tie results, the city’s position on SB 680 would remain unchanged.
Velasco, however, indicated that he does not plan to sit out the vote.
“Mr. Zappa, who I respect, is obviously opposed to any kind of taxes for any reason,” Velasco said. “He’s got his opinion, but I think right now he’s trying to throw anything at the wall to (see if) it sticks.”
City Council will reconsider SB 680 on April 11. The meeting begins at 6pm in City Hall, 7351 Rosanna St.
