A feisty conversation broke out well after midnight on Wednesday at this week’s Richmond City Council meeting over the way to get community input into how to spend the $550 million Chevron is giving the city over the next 10 years as part of a settlement agreed to in August.
At the heart of the discussion was disagreement over what a transparent process for community input on using the funds should look like.
The council did agree on a general strategy for the settlement funds. It approved a resolution 6-1, with District 4 Councilmember Soheila Bana dissenting, outlining broad spending categories and prohibiting city employees from making “alternative” plans or committing the funds without the council’s approval.
Separately, Bana has introduced her own proposal that would direct city staff to explore the possibility of spending $100,000 on consultants to assess community needs for public safety, infrastructure, and quality-of-life services that the settlement money could help address, while also creating a reserve fund.
“I’m hoping that we will have a resident advisory committee to oversee and advise the city council on how to spend the money,” she said. “What I’m proposing has nothing to do with making a decision (about spending) at this point.”
But environmental advocates with Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN) have opposed Bana’s consultant idea, describing it as too vague and wasteful.
In response, Bana at the council meeting Tuesday night, referred to APEN and Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) — who crafted the initial refinery tax ballot measure that was eventually abandoned due to the settlement — as “special interest groups.” She said they had asked her to remove the proposal she introduced but had not told her why.
Bana said she appreciated the work done by the local environmental groups, but she did not believe they should lead the process.
“I do mind the sense of political guardianship that has already been assumed,” she said. “I strongly believe APEN or CBE do not have any special rights to make a decision for the people of Richmond just because they made so much effort.”
Bana also disagreed with APEN’s assessment that her idea to explore hiring a consultancy was in contradiction with her colleagues’ plan.
“It doesn’t seem like that to me at all,” she said. “They seem to be working in tandem.”
Sandy Saeteurn, political director of APEN’s Contra Costa County chapter, said that the group looked at the language of Bana’s resolution and was concerned about the amount of funding for consultants and the proposed six-month timeline — which they believe wouldn’t be enough time to adequately do a thorough community outreach.
“$100,000 is not a lot of money compared to the $550 million, but it is a lot of money to the city of Richmond and to our residents,” she said. “You are saying you want transparency and community engagement but it’s not going to take six months.”
Saeturn said APEN is not opposed to working with Bana, but took exception to her characterization of APEN and CBE as “special interest groups.”
Councilmember Claudia Jimenez also took issue with Bana’s characterization of the environmental groups and said doing so undermined the work that the organizations did to make the settlement happen.
“If the special interests are there they are particularly advocating for the interests of Richmond and the community,” Jimenez said prior to the vote.
Still, said Saeturn, it wasn’t her group’s role to dictate how the city should spend its money.
“We don’t want that. We think that it is a conversation between city, community residents and that’s what we are here to do and ensure happens.”
Councilmember Gayle McLaughlin said the council’s adopted resolution was the first and best step toward a robust, community-led process that would help to determine how the settlement money should be spent, with direct oversight from City Council.
“We want to do this right,” she said. “We don’t think that [Bana’s item] is the way to go because we don’t think it should be put in the hands of staff. We want staff to cooperate with us but we want the council to remain the center so we can work with the community to make sure this is a community-based process.”
McLaughlin added that because the council worked directly with environmental groups, like APEN and CBE who have engaged the community, to bring forth the ballot measure language, she believes the council must “do right” by them.
“This whole struggle with Chevron did not come from staff, it came from various council members and the community,” she said, noting that the environmental efforts have predated her time on the council. “This battle is something that has been fought for years by the community and by the council and we want to make sure we do right by the community and they want to make sure we do right by them.”
Jimenez questioned Bana’s plan to set aside money for outside consultants and warned about “pitting communities against each other” when it comes to spending the settlement money.
“The intent of this resolution is to put community first and do meaningful outreach,” she said.
Councilmember Doria Robinson, who also opposed Bana’s assessment proposal, suggested that the city already knows what residents want.
“[The community has] been surveyed and asked but what we haven’t done is follow through on the things that people have said they need and want,” she said. “We actually know what needs to be done and what we haven’t had is the resources to do it.”
For example, said Robinson, a portion of the settlement should be used to address the city’s economic dependency on the fossil fuel industry, especially in light of California’s recent mandate to stop selling combustible cars by 2035.
“Let us not be Detroit when the auto industry crashed. It became a ghost town because they had no plan,” she said. “We need to really invest in this community.”
Before the vote, Mayor Eduardo Martinez said solidifying now what the city intends to do with the money was crucial because whatever is decided could very well change with a new council in the upcoming year.
“We also need to make sure that the council in the future has the same values,” he said. “We could make great decisions now but if the next council decides they want to go in another direction that’s what will happen and this conversation would be for naught.”
Richmond to rename Spring Street after Pedie Perez
Also on Tuesday, the council confirmed Richmond will move forward with naming a portion of Spring Street south of Cutting Boulevard to honor the life of Pedie Perez, who was killed by former Richmond police officer Wallace Jensen in 2014.
Richmond’s citizen police review commission determined in 2018 that Perez’s killing was preventable, but Jensen never faced charges.
“It’s been a long ten years,” said Patricia Perez, Pedie’s grandmother, during public comment.
Perez commended the city for the recognition and for implementing changes within the police department, such as cultural competency training for officers.
“No matter what any one of us does, we can not bring Pedie back again. But with the many changes made in Richmond, the city has become a leader in implementing cultural competency training,” she said. “Pedie’s death was not for nothing.”
Rick Perez, Pedie’s father, said that although his son was never one to seek the spotlight, he would be proud to see the street renaming. He added that the work of reforming Richmond’s police department should continue.
“We cannot let the police department keep running our city the way they are,” he said. “We are thankful that they do a lot of good things… but they are human and make mistakes as well.”
Bana, who introduced the street-renaming item, said the city was preserving Pedie’s legacy.
“We are restoring dignity to Pedie’s memory,” Bana said. “I would like to thank the Perez family for their perseverance and advocacy in the past decade.”
Martinez said Pedie’s death catalyzed the city to look more favorably upon victims of police violence.
“Putting his name on a street sign is the least that we could do,” he said. “But I’m happy that we can do that.”
I have read APEN’s talking points opposing Bana’s proposal to “DIRECT staff to issue a request for proposals, IDENTIFY a funding source and ALLOCATE up to $100,000 to hire consultants to facilitate community outreach efforts and conduct assessments, and to DIRECT the city manager and appropriate staff to design and implement comprehensive community outreach to gather input on enhancing public safety and quality-of-life services, support and assist with the assessment of the City’s unmet infrastructure needs, and assess the City’s unfunded obligations and develop a strategy to reduce these within 10 years and to create a reserve fund to relieve future generations of debt burdens “. In all of their talking points, they discuss their plan to transition and close the Chevron refinery. However, they do not present a plan to replace the 17% of tax revenue provided by Chevron to the Richmond City Budget, nor do they discuss a plan to replace the 1200+ jobs that Chevron provides. Without a plan, we will become the next Detroit. As a Richmond resident, I would like to see community input and a plan developed to diversify Richmond tax revenue and attract big and small business to Richmond. Richmond’s economy has languished for years as a result of the Richmond Progressive Alliance’s leadership. Rather than work to attract business, they instead implemented a gross receipts tax that is a deterrent to new business relocating to Richmond.
I’m curious to know what the broad spending categories were that the council approved, and what the general strategy is that the council has agreed upon for spending the $550 million settlement. I didn’t see any mention of what these were or a link to the relevant documents, if there are any. Perhaps a follow up article on this important aspect of the topic would be warranted?
Let’s look at the “deal” with Chevron. It’s $550M over 10 years, or $55M/year. The ballot measure would have passed. Based on the analysis of the measure, it would have raised +/- $80M/year for 50 years or roughly $4B. Prorating the “deal” to 50 years comes to $2.75B. So the “deal” left over a billion dollars on the table. It’s amazing that the RPA cult members on the City Council fell for this “deal”.
Once the $550M is disbursed, who will track the disbursements? Who will follow up with the receivers of the disbursements to ensure the money is spent and that it’s being spent properly and legally?
Richmond has a long and tangled history of money spent on “consultants”. Where has all that considerable money gone? By and large, up in smoke, egos, power plays and preservation of the Chevron status quo.
Richmond deserves better. Everyone in city government must commit to getting it as right as is possible this time. Yes, it’s easy to say and hard to achieve. But let us not dissolve into quagmire, pettiness, loss of focus, cutting off our noses to spite our faces.