Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Catalytic Converters topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fresno County board opens first hearing on ordinance targeting catalytic converter possession
Summary
The Board of Supervisors held a first hearing May 20 on an ordinance that would make possession of detached catalytic converters unlawful in unincorporated Fresno County and set a June 10 second hearing; supporters cited rising thefts and impacts on residents, businesses and farmers.
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors on May 20 conducted the first hearing on a proposed amendment to the county code (Title 10, Chapter 10.48) that would make unlawful the possession of detached catalytic converters in unincorporated areas and set a second hearing for June 10, 2025.
Supporters told the board the change is intended to close what they described as a loophole in state law (referenced in public comment as AB 641) that allows people to possess multiple stolen catalytic converters without criminal consequences. The board waived reading of the ordinance in full at the first hearing and directed staff to publish the required summary under government code section 25124(b)(1).
Why it matters: Public commenters and law enforcement described a sharp rise in catalytic converter thefts across the Central Valley and statewide, citing financial loss to vehicle owners, revenue impacts on businesses that operate vehicle fleets and damage to agricultural equipment. Deputies and community advocates said stolen converters are sold to recyclers for a cash payment, creating a quick profit motive for thieves.
In public comment, Daryl Terrell, who said he has advocated for similar ordinances in multiple California counties, urged the board to adopt a “one-and-done” approach that would make possession of a single detached catalytic converter an offense. Isaac Torres, a deputy sheriff with more than 30 years’ experience investigating metal theft, described patterns the sheriff’s office has seen: thieves targeting parked vehicles, business fleets and agricultural wind machines hidden from public view; he cited National Insurance Crime Bureau figures for statewide thefts and noted repair costs can range from about $1,000 to $3,500 per victim.
Board discussion and next steps: Supervisors said the ordinance is intended to give law enforcement an additional tool in cases where state law leaves gaps. After public comment and board discussion, a motion to advance the ordinance passed with all present supervisors voting in favor. The board set the second hearing for June 10, 2025, during which supervisors may consider final adoption, amendments and any additional evidence or reports.
Remaining questions: The draft ordinance and associated enforcement resources were discussed at a policy level but the transcript did not include a full enforcement rubric, fines, or exact penalty language; those details are expected to be discussed and publicly posted before or at the June hearing.
Ending note: The board’s action moves the county one step closer to matching similar municipal ordinances supporters said have reduced thefts where they were adopted.
