Tag Archives: Benicia elections

KQED: In Benicia’s City Council Race, the Valero Refinery is on People’s Minds

Now, Benicia doesn’t get a ton of media attention…

Smokestacks and machinery are visible at Valero’s Benicia Refinery, in February 2022. The Bay area plant processes crude oil. (Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images)

KQED News, by Alan Montecillo and Maria Esquinca, Oct 19, 2022

The politics of fossil fuels in Benicia’s City Council race

Benicia is home to an oil refinery operated by Valero, which employs hundreds of people and contributes tax revenue totaling an estimated 20% of the city’s general budget.

The company has also played a very active role in local elections. Valero’s political action committee spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in 2018 and 2020.

Now, with this year’s city council race underway — and residents frustrated over recent controversies at the refinery — Valero’s role in Benicia looms large once again.

GuestScott Morris, reporter for the Vallejo Sun

 

Valero Refinery looms over Benicia City Council candidates forum

The five candidates seethed over revelations of undisclosed emissions and fretted about the oil giant’s influence in the city’s politics.

Benicia City Council candidates Christina Strawbridge, Lionel Largaespada, William Innes, Terry Scott and Kari Birdseye appeared at a candidates forum at the Benicia Senior Center on Wednesday. Photo: Scott Morris.

The Vallejo Sun, by Scott Morris, October 14, 2022

BENICIA – Like its place in the center of Benicia overlooking its downtown, the Valero Benicia Refinery cast a shadow over a forum for Benicia City Council candidates Wednesday night, where the five candidates seethed over revelations of undisclosed emissions and fretted about the oil giant’s influence in the city’s politics.

The candidates took on other issues as well, in particular disagreeing on a proposed sales tax increase and whether to welcome more cannabis retailers to the city.

The prepared questions from the League of Women Voters of Solano County – which hosted the forum – did not address the refinery’s emissions or influence, but it dominated the questions solicited from the audience. A packed audience at the Benicia Senior Center listened intently to the candidates’ responses for nearly two hours.

Valero’s influence has been felt heavily in the last two election cycles in Benicia. In 2018, a Political Action Committee receiving funding from the company spent heavily on ads attacking planning commissioner Kari Birdseye, who had helped block a Valero proposal to ship crude oil by rail.

Birdseye ultimately lost her first council bid to incumbent Christina Strawbridge and Lionel Largaespada, who are both now running for reelection. Strawbridge then ran for mayor two years later, and once again Valero attacked her opponent, then-Councilmember Steve Young. Young ultimately prevailed in that race, 53%-31%.

This year, Valero has dumped $230,000 into its PAC but had not reported any expenditures for November’s election as of early October, leading to anxiety for some candidates over how and when Valero will spend that money. The candidates’ campaigns have a $34,000 cap on spending, but the PAC does not have that restriction.

Retired executive Terry Scott, who is running for the council a second time after narrowly losing in 2020, credited Young with keeping Valero at bay in this year’s election, saying that if Valero tried to buy Benicia’s elections “that the people in this community are going to rise up, they are no longer going to take this becoming a refinery town.”

But despite the lack of Valero spending so far, Strawbridge said that the current campaign is “as bad as 2020.”

“There has been attack after attack,” Strawbridge said, pointing to posts on social media and saying that she has made two ethics complaints about other candidates to the city. “So I just feel like there’s a lot of desire to say we are running clean campaigns. And I’m afraid we aren’t.”

Another change in the dynamic with Valero was revelations earlier this year that Valero had been spewing thousands of tons of excess pollution from a hydrogen vent for decades. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District first became aware of the issue in 2019, but did not alert the city government or residents until this year, when it sought an abatement order against Valero to correct the violations. Penalties for Valero have yet to be determined.

Largaespada pointed out that determining punishment for Valero is not in the city’s jurisdiction, though it will provide input. “Valero like any business and every business in the community is expected to follow laws, whether they come at a local level, the county or the state,” he said. “With respect to punishment of sorts, that is the jurisdiction of the air board.”

Strawbridge said that Valero had “betrayed” the city, but also chided regulators for not alerting the city to the toxic release.

“It’s not only Valero but the Air District,” she said. “They did not report what they have found as far as the emissions, we still don’t know what the impact that’s going to have on our health and we need more information on that.”

Birdseye and Scott both stressed the need for more monitoring, both in the community and in people’s homes, and said that they want financial penalties from Valero to go to the city to help pay for the cost of such monitoring.

“The fine that they are going to impose which hopefully will run into the millions of dollars to tens of millions of dollars, should come back to our community that should then be used for funding that can be used by every single person in this room to get air filtration systems and monitoring systems in your house,” Scott said.

Birdseye said that the community air monitoring currently in place was limited in terms of the emissions that Valero was found to have been releasing, so the city needed to find a way to have more robust air monitoring. “Right now, we rely on citizens’ Purple Air monitoring stations at our school sites and throughout our community,” she said. “And they pick up just the particulate matter, not the toxic gases, not the toxic compounds that are in our air.”

William “Billy” Innes, a retired educator who joined the race late, had a brief answer for how he would address Valero’s emissions that drew a rebuke from the forum moderator for addressing the other candidates. “Am I planning on doing anything about this? Oh, heck yes, I am. I’m planning on voting for Kari Birdseye and Terry Scott,” he said.

The candidates disagreed most sharply on Measure R, a proposed three-quarter-cent sales tax increase that will also be on the ballot in November, with their responses varying from enthusiastic endorsement to staunch opposition. The measure’s language says the estimated $5 million in annual proceeds would go to road repair, though the tax is a general tax and could be spent on any purpose.

Largaespada said that there are “5 million reasons to vote against Measure R” and argued that between a  statewide gas tax, franchise fees for trash collection and expected revenue growth in the city, it could already allocate $5 million toward roads. “It’s in the budget right now,” he said. “I’m a reasonable person. If staff had said we’re out of money, then yes on R.”

But Largaespada’s current counterpart on the council, Strawbridge, said that Measure R was necessary to maintain Benicia’s streets. “We must pass Measure R,” she said. “Our roads are pathetic and dangerous. It’s going to be less than a penny on the dollar. This is a small investment for maintaining your property values and keeping kids on bikes safe.”

Birdseye agreed with Strawbridge. “If we want better roads, not only for our home values, but for our businesses, for our industrial parks where trucks are banging around and getting broken axles. If we want safe roads, this is the way to do it right now,” she said.

Scott was more measured in his support. “While no one likes new taxes, I support Measure R,” he said. “It is the only way we will be able to finally address the steep cost of road repair maintenance and specific infrastructure.”

Innes bristled at the argument that Measure R would protect homeowners’ property values, pointing out that the tax would have a disproportionate impact on the city’s poorest residents. “The argument I hear on behalf of Measure R is that it will help maintain property values for homeowners,” he said. “I understand that. But is it right to have those who make the least amount of money, minimum wage, have to sustain homeowners’ property rights?”

The candidates also differed on whether to allow new cannabis dispensaries in the city. The only dispensary in the city, STIIIZY, opened a year ago and Young recently said in a Facebook post that it has become the second largest tax producer in the city. But in 2020, a ballot measure found that a majority of Benicia voters did not want more cannabis dispensaries by a vote of 47-53%.

Strawbridge and Largaespada were apprehensive about allowing more dispensaries. Strawbridge said that the city needed more time to understand the impacts of the current dispensary. “We’re hearing a lot of numbers being passed out,” she said. “So far the council has not gotten nor received any information about what the retail cannabis is developing as far as financial support. So I have concerns, because we have been told through our finance director that it’s lower than what they expected.”

Scott said that he would also like to see more information, but touted the tax benefits and said that the current dispensary has not caused any law enforcement issues. Birdseye said that industrial cannabis production has been going well in the city and she would support more retail. Innes said that he thought cannabis businesses were safer to have downtown than bars.

Valero PAC no longer exists, ‘General Purpose Committee’ now operating in its place

By Roger Straw, October 11, 2022

Roger Straw, The Benicia Independent

We learned yesterday that in 2019, the Valero-Benicia-based Political Action Committee (PAC) known locally as “Working Families…” submitted a form to the California Secretary of State reorganizing itself with a new name. It would no longer be a PAC; rather it would operate as a “General Purpose Committee” under different rules and financial reporting requirements.

Background

In 2018 the PAC spent $192,347 to fund dirty campaign literature and nasty push polls to smear City Council candidate Kari Birdseye and to promote candidates Christina Strawbridge and Lionel Largaespada. All 59 of its 2018 campaign finance reports identified the group as a “Primarily Formed Candidate/Officeholder Committee” (PAC) and using the incredibly long but perfectly clear name, “Working Families for a Strong Benicia, a Coalition of Labor, Industrial Services Companies, Public Safety and Local Leaders Supporting Christina Strawbridge and Lionel Largaespada and Opposing Kari Birdseye for Benicia City Council 2018.” [emphasis added]

The next year was a non-election year, but still required financial reporting. And on July 31, 2019, the PAC submitted its financial form to the City of Benicia for the first time identifying itself as a General Purpose Committee rather than a Primarily Formed Candidate/Officeholder Committee (PAC), and using a shorter name, “Working Families for a Strong Benicia, a Coalition of Labor and Industrial Services Companies.”

I know this is complicated stuff, but bear with me – it’s important here in 2022.

In 2020, even though the Valero group submitted its two semi-annual reports (January and July) dropping the “supporting” and “opposing” terminology from its name and continuing to identify as a General Purpose Committee, it nonetheless submitted supplemental financial reports beginning in September as a Primarily Formed Candidate/Officeholder Committee (PAC) and used most of its old name, explicitly indicating support for Strawbridge. Under this identity, the PAC again engaged in smear campaigns and big money expenditures of $253,878 for Strawbridge and against candidate Steve Young for Benicia mayor.

Although the Valero group represented itself to the City of Benicia as a General Purpose Committee from July 2019 to July 2020, and submitted its reorganization paper to the California Secretary of State in November of 2019, it was somehow able to switch its operating identity and tactics for the September-November leadup to the 2020 election. And reported properly and timely.

Question: In 2020, did the Valero group again submit an amendment, this time returning to a PAC identity?

Question: Can a Committee operate as a General Purpose Committee and ONLY spend money on electoral campaigns, i.e., function as a PAC only under General Purpose rules and reporting requirements?

Important to note that in all of these financial reports, 2018-2020, regardless whether they checked the “Primarily Formed” (PAC) or the “General Purpose” box, the Valero group used the same I.D. number, 1412992.

2022 – Only now coming to light…

Benicia leaders and candidate campaign advocates have been watching and waiting recently for disclosure of the Valero group’s 2022 financial reports. Given the dirty tactics and open advocacy by the PAC in recent years, there has been good cause for concern.

On September 30, 2022, the City posted on its website campaign finance reports properly submitted on deadline by the candidates for Benicia City Council. It seemed to me that the PAC had missed the deadline, and I wrote to City Clerk Lisa Wolfe asking for information. Wolfe replied that the City had not heard from any PAC as of closing, and would have no more information until Monday October 3 at the earliest.

In another brief email exchange on October 5, Wolfe stated that she had heard nothing from them. On October 6, I wrote to Wolfe again, this time with copies to City Attorney Ben Stock, thanking her, and asking, “Is the PAC not required by ordinance or State law to report? What, if anything, will be done to solicit or require timely reporting?”

Over the next few days, hearing nothing from the City, I corresponded with a few local leaders with more authority than me asking for their help in getting the City to shed light on the delinquent reports. Not until one or more of them were in touch with the City did I hear back in an email from Wolfe:

“Working Families for a strong Benicia amended their committee to be a General Purpose Committee rather than a Primarily Formed Committee to support or oppose a candidate. They only have to report semi-annually, and when their donations/expenditures trigger a required filing.”

The Clerk attached a Form 410 that the Valero group had submitted to the Secretary of State in November, 2019.

So today’s news is that under General Committee reporting rules, unless and until the Valero group turns itself into a PAC again and is required to report donations/expenditures for a candidate of $1,000 or more and thus trigger a required Form 497 24-hr. Contribution Report, we are not likely to get any transparency until their January 31, 2023 Semi-annual Form 460 Report.

Oh, and here’s an interesting question: would a General Purpose Committee be in a good position to make an unreported generous contribution to something reflecting well on a particular candidate, something like a soccer field, and thus escape oversight as a campaign contribution?

Well, we will have to just wait to find out what, if anything, the Valero group is going to do to promote or oppose any of our 2022 candidates for City Council. No one reports having received a mailer as yet. Many residents reported receiving a telephone poll in late August, early September. It was described as a political poll, but with relatively neutral or unbiased language when compared to the 2018 and 2020 “push polls.” (The poll was conducted by a reputable polling company, American Directions Research Group of Lakeland, FL. I have detailed notes if anyone is interested.)

What to expect from here?

A few local leaders have said privately that they believe Valero has, by its shift to a General Purpose Committee and its lack of visible campaign efforts so far, signaled that they will stay out of our 2022 election.

I doubt that.

The Big Oil influence from Texas is real, and I think Texan and local oil and labor execs will come up with a late and financially unreportable barrage of clear support for Strawbridge and Largaespada. I wouldn’t be too surprised if Valero learned via Mayor Steve Young’s big win in 2020 that smear tactics don’t always work. But their methods and tactics are likely still in place, and in power, locally as well as from afar.  Stay tuned…

Benicia’s Mayor and former Mayor endorse Birdseye and Scott for Council

Benicia Mayor Steve Young and Former Benicia Mayor Elizabeth Patterson agree on endorsing our next City Council members, Kari Birdseye and Terry Scott.
Mayor Steve Young

…for Kari Birdseye:  “She is, in my opinion, the single most qualified candidate for Council we have seen in the last dozen years.” [continued]

…for Terry Scott: “He’s a proven change agent with extensive business leadership experience…” [continued]

Elizabeth Patterson

…for Kari Birdseye: “I cannot think of anyone more suited to the job.” [continued]

…for Terry Scott: “He is an authentic and visionary person bringing transparency and honesty at a time that it is most needed.” [continued]

More about Kari and Terry:

KariBirdseyeForBenicia.com

TerryScottForBenicia2022.org