Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Climate Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oxnard Council backs "Polluters Pay" climate superfund resolution, 5-1
Summary
After more than two hours of public comment, Oxnard City Council voted 5-1 to adopt a resolution supporting state bills that would create a climate "superfund" charging the largest fossil-fuel producers to pay for climate damages; one council member called the measure legally uncertain.
Oxnard — The Oxnard City Council on Tuesday adopted a resolution supporting the California Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act (SB 684 / AB 1243), voting 5-1 to send a local endorsement to state legislators.
Councilmember Michaela Perez, who authored the measure but was unable to attend in person, asked the council to back state legislation that would require the top-emitting companies to pay into a new climate remediation fund. “At least 40% will go to disadvantaged communities, including 9 neighborhoods in Oxnard most impacted by pollution,” Perez wrote in the statement read into the record.
The nut graf: The council’s vote is symbolic — it does not create local taxes or change city policy — but advocates said local resolutions can influence Sacramento lawmakers weighing bills that would identify the 75 largest historic emitters, cap annual collections at $10 billion for 10 years, and direct funds to mitigation, resilience and community programs.
Supporters filled the council chamber and the public-comment queue, telling the council the bill would generate funds for sea-level-rise protection, wildfire mitigation, workforce development and services in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Alex Metanona, an Oxnard native and environmental scientist, called the bill “a resiliency and jobs bill” that would fund local preparedness work. “This bill is going to help address … sea level rise, flooding resilience and adapting to extreme heat,” he said.
Other speakers cited legal and economic arguments. Speakers noted the measure targets multinational firms that have earned large profits since 1990 and that the bill includes statutory protections intended to limit consumer price effects. “The price of oil is set by global markets, not by local oil companies,” said Evelyn Singh, a virtual caller and youth leader. Several speakers added that at least 40% of fund dollars are earmarked for disadvantaged communities.
Deputy City Attorney Mara Soleil summarized the bills’ mechanics for the council: if enacted the California Environmental Protection Agency would identify the largest historical emitters and assess fees prorated to their contributions; the program is limited by the bills’ caps and a 10-year payment window.
Council debate split along legal and pragmatic lines. Councilmember Gabe Starr voted against the resolution, saying he had constitutional and practical concerns about imposing retroactive liability and about whether the state could collect fees from companies with limited nexus to California. “I believe that this bill, at the very least, is constitutionally dubious,” Starr said during debate. Other council members said the resolution was an appropriate municipal statement that could help disadvantaged neighborhoods and bolster state action.
The formal vote: Mayor Pro Tem Turan, Mayor MacArthur, Councilmembers Perallo, Rodriguez and Basuah voted yes; Starr voted no. The council did not adopt an ordinance or change city spending at the meeting.
Ending: The bills referenced remain under consideration at the state level; staff told the council SB 684 had been amended and was awaiting further committee action over the legislative session. Councilmembers and local advocates said they hope the local resolution will add pressure on Sacramento lawmakers during the next hearing cycle.
