Hollister
– Marvin Jones hates mosquitoes as much as anyone – he just
doesn’t want to pay more taxes to fight them.
Hollister – Marvin Jones hates mosquitoes as much as anyone – he just doesn’t want to pay more taxes to fight them.
Jones, of Hollister, was one of several landowners who attended a public hearing Tuesday to criticize the county’s proposed mosquito abatement fee. Opponents emphasized that they’re not against mosquito abatement, just the fee and the election process.
“The way it’s been marketed is, you’re either for mosquitoes or against mosquitoes,” Jones said. “It’s kind of hard to be for mosquitoes.”
Funding from such a fee would be used to combat the outbreak of diseases such as West Nile virus, encephalitis and malaria, County Agricultural Commissioner Paul Matulich said.
The public hearing marked the end of the mail-in election on the proposed fee. On May 8, the county sent out 13,344 ballots to county landowners asking them to weigh-in on the abatement fee proposal. The county received an estimated 3,600 votes, Matulich said. That amounted to around 27 percent of the ballots sent out.
Not everyone at the hearing Tuesday, however, spoke against the program. Aromas resident Robert Scoles argued that the county isn’t asking for a lot of money.
“I’ve got $10 in my pocket right now,” Scoles said.
The County Board of Supervisors will receive the final election results July 24, Matulich said. If the votes favor the proposal, local landowners would be taxed up to $9.80 per year for a single-family home, with lower costs for apartments and higher costs for commercial properties. Ballots will be weighted based on the amount a landowner would pay.
Jones’ biggest complaint, though, was the Board of Supervisors’ casting of more than 400 votes in favor of the fee for county-owned property. Although county staffers say those votes were legal – because the government will have to pay fees for its land – Jones called the vote a conflict of interest.
Jones wasn’t the only one complaining about the election process. Hollister resident Ruth Erickson said it was a bad idea to require landowners to sign names on the ballots. The requirement probably scared off some voters, she said.
“My ballot is my business,” Erickson said. “It’s not anybody else’s business.”
Aromas resident V.G. “Sleepy” Avant said the proposed fees are just another way San Benito County burdens landowners.
“The part that really bugs me: Why did you pick on landowners?” he said. “We’re being penalized for being rich or whatever.”
SCI Consulting President Gerard van Steyn, hired by the county to manage the election, said officials followed procedures outlined in Proposition 218, the ballot measure approved by California voters in 1996. The election gives the board authority to levy the fee, he said, but it does not require them to approve it.
Van Steyn added that supervisors would have to reauthorize the program every year and they can reduce the fee or eliminate it completely.
Like van Steyn, Supervisor Don Marcus emphasized the board has final approval.
“I can still vote no on the program,” he said.
