Category Archives: Benicia City Council

Benicia’s mayor calls out Valero’s big war chest ahead of election

The Vallejo Sun, By John Glidden, Feb 15, 2022

The Valero Benicia refinery

BENICIA – Mayor Steve Young says he’s displeased that Valero Benicia Refinery is poised once again to spend a large sum of money during the upcoming city council election.

The refinery dumped $200,000 into its Working Families for a Strong Benicia PAC last December, giving the PAC more than $232,000 ahead of the November 2022 election, according to campaign forms submitted to the Benicia City Clerk’s Office.

Benicia Mayor Steve Young.
Benicia Mayor Steve Young

Typically, a Benicia council candidate can expect to receive more than $20,000 in contributions over the span of an election or about 10% of what Valero has available.

The move has revitalized conversation in town between environmentalists seeking more regulations, the company, and local unions that are concerned that city officials want to shut down the plant.

Valero couldn’t be immediately reached for comment.

Young — who said he issued his statement over the weekend only as a Benicia resident and not as mayor — admitted that what Valero was doing was legal but argued “it is wrong-and extremely harmful to our community.”

“There is only one purpose in making such a huge expenditure nine months before the election: to scare off any potential City Council candidate who would consider running without first getting Valero’s stamp of approval,” Young’s statement read. “What candidate is willing to go up against that kind of war chest?”

Valero opened its PAC ahead of the 2018 city council elections, ultimately backing Lionel Largaespada and Christina Strawbridge. Both were elected. The PAC publicly opposed Benicia Planning Commissioner Kari Birdseye. Two years later, the PAC once again backed Strawbridge, this time as she made a mayoral bid, while opposing Young. Despite the PAC spending $250,000 during that election, Young was elected.

Young and Birdseye served on the planning commission together when the body rejected the company’s crude-by-rail proposal in early 2016. The Benicia City Council went on to reject the project later that year.

Young wrote that Valero should have a say in the election but “they should also play by the same rules that apply to everyone else under our campaign finance regulations.”

Young said the city’s campaign laws allow a candidate to spend no more than $35,000 on a campaign. He argued Valero should be held to the same rule.

“But Valero’s size and wealth gives them the belief that they can pick and choose who should be our elected representatives,” Young added.

Young said that to stop Valero every council candidate should reject support it receives from the company.

“In addition, voters should demand that any candidate take a public and ongoing stand that Valero should not support their campaign in any way,” Young added. “I call on all prospective candidates in the November election to make this pledge. If no candidate is willing to be supported by this PAC, where will they spend all of their money?”

Young’s statement comes as the Valero refinery has been receiving some negative attention.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District announced in January that it was seeking a legally binding order against the refinery to correct “significant excess emissions violations.” The district alleges that Valero didn’t report that more than 8,000 tons of excess emissions came from the plant over a 16-year period.

Last November, a contractor was found dead hanging from a scaffolding ladder by his safety harness over a piece of refinery equipment.

Valero is the largest employer in Benicia, employing more than 400 people. The plant processed 165,000 barrels of oil each day, according to its website.

Campaign records show that from July 1 through Dec. 31, 2021, the PAC spent more than $5,000 with Sacramento-based Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leonli LLP for campaign services.

Young, who has opened a 2024 re-election campaign, reported raising no contributions and only spending $29 during the second half of 2021. The campaign reported having about $900.

Meanwhile, both Largaespada and Strawbridge, who are up for re-election this November, reported no activity during the same period.

Solano reports 177 new COVID hospitalizations and 4 deaths – Benicia sees 107 new cases in last 7 days

NOTE: The information below is not the latest.  TAP HERE for today’s latest information.

By Roger Straw, Monday, February 14, 2022

Solano County offices were expected to be closed again today, Feb. 15 for Washington’s birthday.  Surprisingly – and fortunately – Solano Public Health was able to post an update on its COVID dashboard this evening – its first since last Wed, Feb. 9.  – R.S.

Solano County reporting 1,095 new COVID infections, 177 hospitalizations and 4 deaths.  Solano County and Benicia continue to experience an extremely high transmission rate!

Solano Public Health COVID dashboard, Monday, February 14, 2022:

DEATHS:  Solano reported 4 new deaths in today’s report, all over 65 years of age.  Trending: Eleven new deaths reported so far in February, all over 65 years of age.  The County has seen increasing COVID-related deaths each month since last November, rising to 30 in January.  (Compare with last winter: 24 deaths in January 2021, 42 in February and 33 in March.)  A total of 392 Solano residents have now died of COVID or COVID-related causes over the course of the pandemic.

CASES BY AGE GROUP: My color-coded chart (below) shows a record over time.  It shows an alarming steady increase among youth and children in Solano County.  The chart displays quarterly and recent snapshots in time by age group, each as a percentage of total cases since the outbreak began.  Increases are in red and decreases are in green as reported by Solano County.  Note the continuing increase among children & youth of Solano County.  The population of those age 0-17 in Solano County is roughly 22%.COMPARE – U.S. cases among children and youth aged 0-17 as percentage of total cases is 17.5% as of today.  (From the CDC covid-data-tracker.)

COMMUNITY TRANSMISSION RATE: Solano is experiencing an EXTREMELY HIGH transmission rate, with a total of 3,889 new cases over the last 7 days, down from 4,010 at last report, but still way up from around 500 at Christmastime.  CDC FORMULA: Based on Solano County’s population, 450 or more cases in 7 days places Solano in the CDC’s population-based definition of a HIGH transmission rate.  We would need to drop below 225 cases in 7 days to rate as having only MODERATE community transmission.

ACTIVE CASES: Solano’s 1,523 ACTIVE cases today is down from 2,517 at last report, our lowest since January 10, but still way up from the County’s 329 active cases on last December 1.

CASES BY CITY – Monday, February 14, 2022 (5 days since Solano’s last report):

  • BENICIA added 49 new cases today, a total of 2,971 cases since the outbreak began.  TRANSMISSION RATE: Benicia has seen 107 new infections in the last 7 days, far above the CDC’s HIGH rate of community transmission. For a city with Benicia’s population, anything over 27 cases in 7 days is considered HIGH TRANSMISSION. (See chart below.)  MASKS: >> At tomorrow’s Benicia City Council meeting, (Tues., Feb. 15), Council will consider whether and how to continue the citywide face mask mandate, in light of the State of California’s announcement that it will lift the statewide mandate on Feb. 16. >>Note that the Benicia City Council is considering adding multiple metrics rather than the single metric of the CDC’s 7-day case count to determine when it is safe to lift certain COVID restrictions (see Benicia Chooses to Continue Mask Mandate, 1/19/22)Note above that Solano County is currently also experiencing EXTREMELY HIGH transmission.

  • Dixon added 50 new cases today, total of 4,070 cases.
  • Fairfield added 314 new cases today, total of 20,663 cases.
  • Rio Vista added 9 new cases today, total of 1,049 cases.
  • Suisun City added 77 new cases today, total of 5,456 cases.
  • Vacaville added 303 new cases today, a total of 19,009 cases.
  • Vallejo added 293 new cases today, a total of 24,344 cases.
  • Unincorporated added 0 new cases today, a total of 188 cases.

TEST RATE:  Solano County’s 7-Day Percent Positive Test Rate shot up after Christmas and has continued through today’s very high 15%, (although today’s report shows a drop from 19% at last report and has fallen steadily from a high of 36% on Jan. 19.)  Even so, SOLANO DOES NOT COMPARE FAVORABLY: The California 7-day % positive rate fell from 6.7% to 6.0% today.  [Source: Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Tracking CenterAND the U.S. 7-day % positive rate also fell today from 13.63% to 10.59%. [Source: CDC COVID Data Tracker.] 

HOSPITALIZATIONS:

CURRENT hospitalizations fell today from 80 to 72 persons.  Currently hospitalized persons in Solano peaked higher than ever before on Jan 22, at 207 persons in hospital. (The County’s previous high was 176 on Jan 7, 2021.)

TOTAL hospitalizations – Solano Public Health played catch-up today, dramatically updating its age and race hospitalizations charts today, adding 177 persons.  Of the 177, 4 were under age 18, 50 were age 18-49, 34 were age 50-64, and 89 were age 65+.  (Hospitalization by race data is often not reported.) Our total since the beginning of the outbreak is now 3,689 Solano residents hospitalized.

ICU Bed Availability in Solano County dropped slightly today from 21% to 20% available, in the Yellow danger zone.

Ventilator Availability  rose slightly today from 51% to 52% available


HOW DOES TODAY’S REPORT COMPARE?  See recent reports and others going back to April 20, 2020 in my ARCHIVE of daily Solano COVID updates (an excel spreadsheet).


>The data on this page is from the Solano County COVID-19 Dashboard.  The Dashboard is full of much more information and updated Monday, Wednesday and Friday around 4 or 5pm.  On the County’s dashboard, you can hover a mouse or click on an item for more information.  Note the tabs at top for “Summary, Demographics” and “Vaccines.”  Click here to go to today’s Solano County Dashboard.

See also my BENINDY ARCHIVE of daily Solano COVID updates (an excel spreadsheet).  I have also archived the hundreds of full CORONAVIRUS REPORTS posted here almost daily on the Benicia Independent since April 2020.

RETURN TO TOP

Convergence of Solano County office closures and need for current COVID information

NOTE: The information below is not the latest.  TAP HERE for an update on Solano County’s February holiday closure.

By Roger Straw, February 13, 2022

Solano County offices were closed last Friday and will be closed again tomorrow, Monday – for Lincoln’s and Washington’s birthdays. So there was no COVID dashboard update on Friday, and surely will be none on Monday.  (It’s weird, but the County will NOT be closed on the national holiday, Feb. 19.)

Missing data…

The convergence of the office closures on the Friday and Monday before Benicia City Council’s Tues Feb 15 consideration of mask mandate is highly problematic. We will have to find other sources for current information on various COVID metrics. Not sure how/where to get good info, but I’ll be looking!

I have asked Benicia City Council members and Staff to be in touch with Dr. Matyas with a special request for current information. No idea if they will be successful.  Current data is so important for the public if we are to make informed comments at Council on Tues. Feb 15.

Tuesday’s Council meeting starts at 7pm, and here’s the Agenda.  See item 21B. on page 9.

Roger Straw
The Benicia Independent

Here We Go Again – Benicia candidates and voters must reject Valero’s big money

Here We Go Again

On social media, by Steve Young, Benicia

Steve Young, Benicia resident (and Mayor)

I want to emphasize that I am writing today not as the Mayor, but rather an interested Benicia resident and voter. I also want to state that I understand the importance of Valero to our local economy as a major employer and taxpayer and an important contributor to local causes. Since the last election, I have initiated meetings with the Valero General Manager on a monthly basis, and feel that we have developed a respectful relationship. I have also told him directly that I will be writing this article.

Last week, it was revealed [here on the Benicia Independent] that Valero, through the oddly named Working Families for a Strong Benicia Political Action Committee (PAC), had deposited another $200,000 in anticipation of this year’s City Council elections. They are currently sitting on $235,000.

There is only one purpose in making such a huge expenditure nine months before the election: to scare off any potential City Council candidate who would consider running without first getting Valero’s stamp of approval. What candidate is willing to go up against that kind of war chest?

In 2018, Valero and their construction trade union allies, ran a big-dollar, negative campaign against Planning Commission Chair Kari Birdseye (“Birdseye Bad for Benicia”) and in favor of Christina Strawbridge and Lionel Largaespada. The PAC attack was successful, and Strawbridge and Largaespada were elected. The presumed reason for opposing Ms. Birdseye is that she (and I) had led the Planning Commission denial of Valero’s Crude by Rail proposal (a denial that ultimately was upheld by the City Council).

In 2020, the same Valero-funded PAC decided to run the same type of negative campaign against me in my race for Mayor. Over $250,000 was spent attacking me, and in favor of Ms. Strawbridge. Unlike in 2018, however, Benicia voters saw through this effort and I was elected by a 20 point margin.

The argument has been made that, as Benicia’s largest employer and a significant taxpayer, Valero should have a say in the selection of Council candidates and the Mayor. And I agree. They should have the same right as any other company or individual to support the candidate(s) of their choice.

But they should also play by the same rules that apply to everyone else under Benicia’s campaign finance regulations. They, and any of their employees, are able to donate $540 to the candidate of their choice. But, in Benicia, candidates are limited by our campaign finance ordinance to spending no more than $35,000 on a campaign (assuming they can raise that much). By contrast, the PAC spending more than $250,000 on our local campaigns shows how uneven (and undemocratic) their influence buying campaign has become.

[Editor – see Benicia Municipal Code…
Chapter 1.36: Voluntary Code of Fair Campaign Practices
Chapter 1.40:  Disclosure Of Contributions and Expenditures
Chapter 1.42: Contribution and Voluntary Spending Limits]

The disastrous “Citizens United” Supreme Court decision opened the door for this by declaring that “money is speech”, and allowing for unlimited spending by corporations and unions. Usually, this level of over the top spending is confined to national and statewide elections, not in small towns like Benicia. But Valero’s size and wealth gives them the belief that they can pick and choose who should be our elected representatives.

What they are doing is legal, but it is wrong-and extremely harmful to our community. This is what is truly “Bad for Benicia”.

The only way to stop it is if EVERY candidate for City Council publicly, vociferously, and repeatedly rejects support from the Valero PAC, and denounces this type of negative campaigning and excessive spending. In addition, voters should demand that any candidate take a public and ongoing stand that Valero should not support their campaign in any way. I call on all prospective candidates in the November election to make this pledge. If no candidate is willing to be supported by this PAC, where will they spend all of their money?

Leave Benicia elections to Benicia voters.