Pinole City Council
May 17, 2022

PINOLE CITY COUNCIL

MEETING AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL
Vincent Salimi, Mayor
Devin Murphy, Mayor Pro Tem
Anthony Tave, Council Member
Maureen Toms, Council Member
Norma Martínez-Rubin, Council Member

TUESDAY
May 17, 2022
5:00 P.M
Please note: ZOOM ONLY FORMAT & EARLY START TIME

OPEN SESSION WILL RECONVENE FOLLOWING THE

CONCLUSION OF THE CLOSED SESSION
Attend VIA ZOOM TELECONFERENCE – Details provided below Please note: Updated COVID-19 safety protocols will be posted outside the City Council Chambers. Please review this information before entering the Council Chambers.

How to Submit Public Comments:

Via Zoom:

Members of the public may submit a live remote public comment via Zoom video conferencing. Download the Zoom mobile app from the Apple Appstore or Google Play. If you are using a desktop computer, you can test your connection to Zoom by clicking here. Zoom also allows you to join the meeting by phone.

From a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89335000272
Webinar ID: 893 3500 0272
By phone: +1 (669) 900-6833 or +1 (253) 215-8782 or +1 (346) 248-7799 • Speakers will be asked to provide their name and city of residence, although providing this is not required for participation.
• Each speaker will be afforded up to 3 minutes to speak (subject to modification by the Mayor)
• Speakers will be muted until their opportunity to provide public comment.

When the Mayor opens the comment period for the item you wish to speak on, please use the “raise hand” feature (or press *9 if connecting via telephone) which will alert staff that you have a comment to provide and press *6 to unmute. To comment with your video enabled, please let the City Clerk know you would like to turn your camera on once you are called to speak.

CORONAVIRUS ADVISORY
INFORMATION:

CLICK HERE for City Updates
CLICK HERE for County Updates
1 of 285
City Council
Agenda – May 17, 2022

Written Comments: All comments received before 3:00 pm the day of the meeting will be posted on the City’s website on the agenda page (Agenda Page Link) and provided to the City Council prior to the meeting. Written comments will not be read aloud during the meeting.

Email comments to [email protected] Please indicate which item on the agenda you are commenting on in the subject line of your email.

Please note: Updated COVID-19 safety protocols will be posted outside the City Council Chambers. Please review this information before entering the Council Chambers.

OTHER WAYS TO WATCH THE MEETING
LIVE ON CHANNEL 26. They are retelecast the following Thursday at 6:00 p.m. The Community TV Channel 26 schedule is published on the city’s website at www.ci.pinole.ca.us.

VIDEO-STREAMED LIVE ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE, www.ci.pinole.ca.us. and remain archived on the site for five (5) years.

If none of these options are available to you, or you need assistance with public comment, please contact the City Clerk, Heather Bell at (510) 724-8928 or [email protected] .

Americans With Disabilities Act: In compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, if you need special assistance to participate in a City Meeting or you need a copy of the agenda, or the agenda packet in an appropriate alternative format, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (510) 724-8928. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.

Note: Staff reports are available for inspection on the City Website at www.ci.pinole.ca.us. You may also contact the City Clerk via e-mail at [email protected] .

Ralph M. Brown Act. Gov. Code § 54950. In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies, which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
2 of 285
Pinole City Council
Agenda –May 17, 2022

1. CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN HONOR OF THE US MILITARY TROOPS

2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Before we begin, we would like to acknowledge the Ohlone people, who are the traditional custodians of this land. We pay our respects to the Ohlone elders, past, present, and future, who call this place, Ohlone Land, the land that Pinole sits upon, their home. We are proud to continue their tradition of coming together and growing as a community. We thank the Ohlone community for their stewardship and support, and we look forward to strengthening our ties as we continue our relationship of mutual respect and understanding.

3. ROLL CALL, CITY CLERK’S REPORT & STATEMENT OF CONFLICT An official who has a conflict must, prior to consideration of the decision: (1) publicly identify in detail the financial interest that causes the conflict; (2) recuse himself /herself from discussing and voting on the matter; and (3) leave the room until after the decision has been made, Cal. Gov't Code § 87105.

4. CONVENE TO A CLOSED SESSION
Citizens may address the Council regarding a Closed Session item prior to the Council adjourning into the Closed Session, by first providing a speaker card to the City Clerk.

A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Gov. Code § 54956.8
Property: 612 Tennent Avenue
Agency negotiator: City Manager Andrew Murray, City Attorney Eric Casher, Legal Counsel Stephanie Downs, Community Development Director Lilly Whalen, Suzy Kim (RSG) Negotiating parties: Exquisitely Designed (Angel), Feben Haile, Jessica Yap, Leonard Williams - LDW Investment Group, Michael and Cygridh Rooney, Suranga Edirisooriya, Yat Hung Ning and Oi Ha Leung
Under negotiation: Price and Terms

5. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION TO ANNOUNCE RESULTS OF CLOSED SESSION

6. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD (Public Comments)
Citizens may speak under any item not listed on the Agenda. The time limit is 3 minutes and is subject to modification by the Mayor. Individuals may not share or offer time to another speaker. Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The City Council may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future Council meeting. PLEASE SEE THE

COVERSHEET OF THE AGENDA FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS

7. REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Mayor Report

1. Announcements
B. Mayoral & Council Appointments
C. City Council Committee Reports & Communications

1. Community Services Commission [Action: Make Appointments by Minute Order per Recommendation of the Interview Subcommittee (Bell)] 3 of 285
City Council
Agenda – May 17, 2022

D. Council Requests for Future Agenda Items
E. City Manager Report / Department Staff
F. City Attorney Report

8. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Proclamations

1. National Police Week
B. Presentations
None

9. CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine or noncontroversial. These items will be enacted by one motion and without discussion. If, however, any interested party or Council member(s) wishes to comment on an item, they may do so before action is taken on the Consent Calendar. Following comments, if a Council member wishes to discuss an item, it will be removed from the Consent Calendar and taken up in order after adoption of the Consent Calendar.

A. Approve the Minutes of the April 26, 2022 Special Meeting and May 3, 2022 Regular Meeting.

B. Receive the April 30, 2022 -May 13, 2022 List of Warrants in the Amount of $947,081.15, and the May 13, 2022 Payroll in the Amount of $492,173.90.

C. Resolution Condemning The 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine and Expressing Support Of Ukraine And The Ukrainian People [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Murray)]
D. Resolution Authorizing the City of Pinole and Contra Costa County to Enforce Single-Use Foodware Accessories Limitations Contained in AB 1276 [Action:

Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Casher)]
E. Resolution in Support of the League of California Cities’ Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Guillory)]
F. Approving an Application to Memorialize Dean Allison Per the Recommendation of the City Council Committee on Memorials [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Murray)]
G. Receive The Fiscal Year (FY) 2021/22 Third Quarter Financial Report [Action:

Receive and File Report (Guillory)]
H. Receive The Quarterly Investment Report for The Third Quarter (Ending March 31, 2022) [Action: Receive and File Report (Guillory)]
4 of 285
City Council
Agenda – May 17, 2022

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Citizens wishing to speak regarding a Public Hearing item should fill out a speaker card prior to the completion of the presentation, by first providing a speaker card to the City Clerk. An official who engaged in an ex parte communication that is the subject of a Public Hearing must disclose the communication on the record prior to the start of the Public Hearing.

None

11. OLD BUSINESS
A. Revised Proposed Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 - FY 2026/27 [Action: Review and Provide Direction (Guillory)]

12. NEW BUSINESS
A. Resolution Approving an Updated Agreement with Contra Costa County Animal Services Department [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Murray)]
B. Preliminary Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 Through 2026/27 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan [Action: Review and Provide Direction (Mishra)]

13. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD (Continued from Item 6) (Public Comments) Open only to members of the public who did not speak under the first Citizens to Be Heard, Agenda Item 6
Citizens may speak under any item not listed on the Agenda. The time limit is 3 minutes for City Council items and is subject to modification by the Mayor. Individuals may not share or offer time to another speaker. Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The City Council may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future meeting.

14. ADJOURNMENT to the Regular City Council Meeting of June 7, 2022 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

I hereby certify under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing Agenda was posted on the bulletin board at the main entrance of Pinole City Hall, 2131 Pear Street Pinole, CA, on the City’s website, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date set forth on this agenda.

POSTED: May 12, 2022 at 4:00 P.M.
_________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
5 of 285

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 7C1
APRIL 16, 2019
TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
FROM: HEATHER BELL, CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the recommendation of the Community Services Commission Interview Subcommittee to make appointments to the Community Services Commission.

BACKGROUND
The Community Services Commission is comprised of seven members who must be Pinole residents. The Commission serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council in matters pertaining to public recreation, parks, arts and cultural activities, historical activities, public access television activities, senior and youth activities, and community services. The Commission reviews and recommends policies and procedures governing recreation, park and community services for approval by the City Council; maintains relationships with schools, community and civic organizations; advocates for recreation and community services for the community; and collaborates with civic clubs, nonprofit organizations and citizen groups to provide funds, property and or volunteerism for the development and operation of parks and recreation facilities. The Community Services Commission meets monthly on the 4th Wednesday at 5pm. Commissioners service two-year terms.

There are currently two vacant seats and four seats with incumbents serving with expired terms. Several announcements were made to the public that recruitment was open and applications would be accepted by the office of the City Clerk.

One new application was received by Christy Lam-Julian. All of the incumbent commission members confirmed their continued interest in serving on the Commission.

The Interview Subcommittee which consists of Council Member Tave and Mayor Pro Tem Murphy convened on May 2, 2022, conducted interviews, considered all of the applications, and are recommending appointment of all five applicants for a term of two years:
6 of 285
City Council Report
May 17, 2022 2
S:\AGENDA PACKETS\Council Packets\2022\2022-05-17\7C1 Commission Appointments\7C1.doc Christy Lam-Julian (New applicant)
Laurelle Martin (Incumbent, term expired)
Debbie Ojeda (Incumbent, term expired)
Bob Kopp (Incumbent, term expires 6/30/2022)
Darin Clarke (Incumbent, term expired)
Nikolas Teller (Incumbent, term expired)
One vacancy will remain and the City Clerk will continue to keep recruitment open, accepting new applications for future consideration by the City Council.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

ATTACHMENT
None
7 of 285
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 26, 2022

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
April 26, 2022

1. CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN HONOR OF THE US MILITARY TROOPS
The City Council Meeting was held in a hybrid format (in-person and via Zoom videoconference and broadcast) from the Pinole Council Chambers, 2131 Pear Street, Pinole, California. Mayor Salimi called the Special Meeting of the City Council to order at 6:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Before we begin, we would like to acknowledge the Ohlone people, who are the traditional custodians of this land. We pay our respects to the Ohlone elders, past, present and future, who call this place, Ohlone Land, the land that Pinole sits upon, their home. We are proud to continue their tradition of coming together and growing as a community. We thank the Ohlone community for their stewardship and support, and we look forward to strengthening our ties as we continue our relationship of mutual respect and understanding.

3. ROLL CALL, CITY CLERK’S REPORT & STATEMENT OF CONFLICT An official who has a conflict must, prior to consideration of the decision; (1) publicly identify in detail the financial interest that causes the conflict; (2) recuse himself/herself from discussing and voting on the matter; and (3) leave the room until after the decision has been made, Cal. Gov. Code § 87105.

A. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT
Vincent Salimi, Mayor
Norma Martinez-Rubin, Council Member
Anthony Tave, Council Member (Zoom teleconference)
Maureen Toms, Council Member

COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT
Devin Murphy, Mayor Pro Tem
B. STAFF PRESENT
Andrew Murray, City Manager
Heather Bell, City Clerk
Eric Casher, City Attorney
Markisha Guillory, Finance Director
Lilly Whalen, Community Development Director
Sanjay Mishra, Public Works Director
Chris Wynkoop, Fire Chief
Maria Picazo, Recreation Manager
Stacy Shell, Human Resources Director
Roxane Stone, Deputy City Clerk
9A
8 of 285
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 26, 2022

City Clerk Heather Bell announced the agenda had been posted on Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 5:00 p.m. with all legally required written notices. No written comments had been received in advance of the meeting.

Following an inquiry, the Council reported there were no conflicts with any items on the agenda.

4. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD (Public Comments)
Citizens may speak under any item not listed on the Agenda. The time limit is 3 minutes and is subject to modification by the Mayor. Individuals may not share or offer time to another speaker.

Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The City Council may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future Council meeting
Deputy City Clerk Roxane Stone reported there were no comments from the public.

5. WORKSHOP ITEMS
A. Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 General Fund Baseline Budget [Action: Receive Report and Provide Direction (Guillory)]
Finance Director Markisha Guillory provided a PowerPoint presentation of the City of Pinole Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 General Fund Baseline Budget, which included an overview of the budget and Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP) and development of key dates for City Council actions. She reported the City’s baseline budget position was favorable, excluded non-recurring items, and was the starting point for the FY 2022/23 budget projection and LTFP forecast. She highlighted the structurally balanced budget policy, recurring budget items in revenues and expenditures, FY 2022/23 budget assumptions-revenues and expenditures. A comparison of the FY 2022/23 General Fund Baseline Budget had shown the overall baseline budget as structurally balanced, with a deficit identified at $164,324, to be addressed through the annual budget process to ensure the budget was balanced.

At this time the PowerPoint presentation moved into presentations from each City Department Head highlighting each Department’s operations and functions, key accomplishments and upcoming projects. Presentations were provided from City Manager Andrew Murray, City Manager and Police Departments; City Attorney Eric Casher, City Attorney’s Department; City Clerk Bell, City Clerk’s Department; Community Development Director Lilly Whalen, Community Development Department; Recreation Manager Maria Picazo, Community Services Department (Recreation); Finance Director Guillory, Finance Department; Fire Chief Chris Wynkoop, Fire Department; Stacy Shell, Human Resources Director, Human Resources Department; and Public Works Director Sanjay Mishra, Public Works Department.

Finance Director Guillory recommended the City Council receive the report on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 General Fund baseline budget and direct staff to evaluate Council member requests for potential budget additions/deletions. Staff would return to the City Council on May 3, 2022 to present its analysis of the costs, benefits, and feasibility of Council members’ ideas on additions and deletions to the baseline budget and present the Preliminary Proposed FY 2022/23 Operating and Capital Budget, and the FY 2022/23 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). 9 of 285
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 26, 2022

City Treasurer Roy Swearingen referenced the playground area at Pinole Valley Park and asked the status of re-turfing the soccer fields given the main fields were frequently used but in very poor condition with poor drainage and there could be liability issues.

Public Works Director Mishra reported some repair work was being done on a trial basis at Fernandez Park. There were no plans for improvements at Pinole Valley Park but there were plans for rehabilitation of the soccer fields in Fiscal Year 2023/24.

Mr. Swearingen asked that improvements planned for Pinole Valley Park for Fiscal Year 2023/24 be identified as a priority. He also asked that the funds budgeted for Soccer Field 2 be used for Soccer Field 1 given the need for a new irrigation system, and that the City Council consider another funding source for Soccer Field 2.

Council member Tave thanked staff for all of their hard work, particularly for the completed projects.

Council member Toms also thanked each Department for their accomplishments and asked the Public Works Director the status of the caretaker’s home at Pinole Valley Park.

Public Works Director Mishra reiterated the Pinole Valley Park Rehabilitation Project had been scheduled for FY 2023/24, in the amount of $200,000. The caretaker’s home had not been scheduled for any work but the City Council may add funds in this budget process.

City Manager Murray added there had been some site visits to the caretaker’s home; there were some restrictions on the use of the home and it must be used for recreational purposes pursuant to state funding. A service model question remained to be resolved in terms of who resided in the home along with other criteria that must be met. There were also enforcement issues at Pinole Valley Park and he hoped to have a determination in the next few months.

Council member Toms inquired of the status of the City’s contract with Contra Costa County for Animal Services, to which City Manager Murray explained that the City of Pinole, as with other cities in the County, had a long-standing agreement with Animal Services which was very high level. Animal Services had proposed a limited term (pilot) agreement and had been scheduled to make a presentation on the agreement to the City Council at its May 17, 2022 meeting.

Council member Toms also inquired of the status of the Beautification Committee, and City Manager Murray advised the Beautification Committee was an ad hoc committee that had completed its work. The recommendations the committee had proposed to be presented to the City Council as part of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) would to be discussed as part of agenda item 5C.

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked whether the playground surface areas scheduled for improvement excluded the baseball fields at Fernandez Park and similarly any improvements, if needed, at the dog parks. She reported she had received comments from the public that improvements were needed at the dog park.

Public Works Director Mishra explained that upgrades to the playground surfaces were for the children’s playground surfaces pursuant to a grant. For Fernandez Park, the operations and maintenance staff were trying to do patch work but there was no capital budget planned for the 10 of 285
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 26, 2022

baseball park, which improvement would likely be in the range of $250,000 or $300,000. As to the dog park, he acknowledged that emails had been received from the public with concerns with the fence height and requests to repair the leaking foundation, which work had been completed.

He was unaware of any requests for improvements to the dog park. As to the condition of the tennis courts across from the library nearest Pinole Valley Road, he was unaware of any concerns nor had received any comments via email but would review whether any complaints had been forwarded to the Public Works Department prior to his employment with the City.

Council member Martinez-Rubin inquired of the number of applications received for employment with the City of Pinole and which Department was the most attractive to applicants.

Human Resources Director Shell explained that the City of Pinole had become more attractive as an employer. She found the increase in applications relative to expanded recruitment efforts, but she would have to get back to the City Council on the specifics of each application.

Council member Martinez-Rubin recalled in the past year there had been some acknowledgement that the Fire Department’s data collection had not meshed with other City Departments related to gauging the types of service calls received based on types of services. She asked the Fire Chief to clarify the Information System for Incident Response and Incident Report Management.

Fire Chief Wynkoop acknowledged there had been some slight delays in getting the Administrative Fire Captain position filled. One of the issues with the report management systems with the neighboring agencies not talking to each other was a related Information Technology (IT) issue and improvements to the IT Department would help to improve those kinks. Also, with the integration of the Contra Costa Fire Protection District (Con Fire) they would be housed under the exact same system and by definition they could extrapolate information more readily. If for some reason the Pinole Fire Department were to remain standalone, he had identified that issue as a “cross the bridge when they need to,” but he was confident that would not be necessary.

Council member Martinez-Rubin referenced the state housing mandates and asked that information be used to update the narrative for the PowerPoint presentation information on the forecast of changes in the population, and City Manager Murray commented that the City of Pinole had steady and modest long-term growth. He expected some of the pending applications for development, once built, would not have an overall impact that would translate into an expected increase in need for services at this time. Staff did not want to try to forecast the outcome of pending housing review processes and even if approved those additional units would not result in changes to the long-term forecast service demands.

City Manager Murray explained that the City of Pinole’s population growth had increased slowly but even with that population growth in development applications it was not a substantial enough increase to go back to the Department budgets to add one more person for “x” level of increase.

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked of the status of the police dispatch services contract, to which City Manager Murray stated the police dispatch services contract was a limited-term contract approved by the City Council and would expire this calendar year; however, the contract allowed the parties to extend the agreement by mutual consent of both parties. It was staff’s opinion the contract be extended for at least another year at which point a new software system would be in place and would be a better time to discuss the future of the contract and the cost sharing relationship between Pinole and the cities of Hercules and San Pablo. 11 of 285
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 26, 2022

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked for clarification of the debt financing for capital improvement projects, and Finance Director Guillory advised that more information would be provided as part of Item 5B.

Responding to the Mayor, Human Resources Director Shell again commented on the increase in employment applications, a result of an expansion of the recruiting efforts through the use of social media, lifting some of the restrictions due to the pandemic and staff participation in recent job fairs.

City Manager Murray also commented on the changes in the job market and changes in transitions to careers which may have also led to an increase in applications.

Council member Toms referenced a parcel of land off of Silvercrest Street, which the Mayor had identified as a potential site for housing development but which was not a real high density area that could be developed and which General Plan designation would have to be researched by planning staff. From a planning perspective and in response to the Mayor, she suggested it did not make sense to increase the density on that parcel since it was located in an area with hillsides and given polices of preserving views and not increasing density in areas with steep hillsides.

Mayor Salimi asked the City Manager how the City of Pinole could better compare to its neighboring cities in terms of salaries.

City Manager Murray commented that since the recession, the total compensation the City of Pinole paid to employees had been below that of some of its peer agencies, but the City Council had made significant investment over the years to try and help salaries catch up to be competitive.

There had also been total benchmarking studies done although they varied across the different classifications. He expected in the next year another total compensation benchmarking study would be needed to see where the classifications and salary ranges fell. He suggested one of the reasons the City may be more attractive to potential employees was that they were providing better compensation. If the City Council wanted to change the City’s standing relative to the market, a costing exercise and labor negotiations would be required.

Mayor Salimi asked staff to provide information on what salary classifications the City of Pinole was below in comparison to its peers, but City Manager Murray explained that adjustments were typically made during the labor negotiations process and there was only one employee unit that would be effected and that information could be provided as part of labor negotiations. If the City Council approved the budget and labor negotiations ended up more than what had been approved in the budget, the City Council always had the option to consider other operating funds to increase labor costs.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Tony Vossbrink, Pinole, asked the City Council to consider repainting and restriping City streets and roads, particularly along Appian Way, San Pablo Avenue and Pinole Valley Road including parking stalls, sidewalks, crossings, speed bumps, and curbs and that the work be considered a high priority. He asked the status of pending projects along Pinole Valley Road and the Pinole High School build-out, and expressed concern with inoperable streetlights and too many stop lights along the corridor down to the library. He added that the lights were currently not synchronized, which caused backups. He also expressed concern with carbon emission impacts. 12 of 285
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 26, 2022

Mayor Salimi advised the comments were more related to Item 5C than Item 5A, with staff to provide a response to the speaker via email.

In response to the concerns with the faded striping of lane lines, Public Works Director Mishra reported the speaker had raised the same concerns during a recent Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Committee (TAPS) meeting. He stated once the San Pablo Avenue project was completed all striping would be done and intersection striping at Appian Way had been completed recently to address concerns with multiple lanes. Re-striping would be done in a phased approach as part of operations and maintenance and would not be done as part of a massive task.

Rafael Menis, Pinole asked the status of the Pinole Community Gift Card Program; whether the City Clerk’s Department managed the agenda packets for other City Commissions/Committees; whether a list could be provided to the public of the affirmative lawsuits in which the City of Pinole was involved; reported technical issues with the use of the website as part of the Pinole Community Survey and use of The Balancing Act tool; and while he understood a Management Compensation Study had been completed, asked whether a Class and Compensation Study had been done for other Departments, and if so the time period of the study.

Mayor Salimi commented that the issues with the screen for The Balancing Act Tool may have to do with the individual settings of the individual’s cell phones since he had pulled up the link and had no issues.

City Manager Murray clarified that Pinole Perks was in the final design phase with a few more local merchants to be enrolled as participants before the City opened the Pinole Community Gift Card Program where the funding for that program was from the American Recue Plan Act (ARPA).

He too had no issues accessing The Balancing Act Tool on his cell phone but would speak with the vendor to determine whether there were any compatibility issues. He added the City had completed a total benchmarking study for all classifications.

City Clerk Bell clarified the City had staff that supported other City Commissions/Committees and identified who prepared the agenda packets. The City Clerk’s Department prepared the agenda packets for the City Council and Finance Subcommittee agendas and others when needed.

Mayor Salimi added the City Clerk’s Department had also been providing assistance to the West Mayors’ Supervisors Association for the past six months.

City Attorney Casher also clarified the City of Pinole had a claim in the United States Bankruptcy Court against PG&E seeking to recover delayed damages associated with the construction of the Pinole-Hercules Wastewater Treatment Plant, which was a public case, and was also involved in two national cases. One national case involved opiates and the other was a Settlement Agreement with Monsanto. If settlements were approved, they would be approved at an open City Council meeting. Also, the City often had to go to the Contra Costa County Superior Court to obtain abatement warrants related to code enforcement activities.

James Tillman, Pinole a former member of many City Committees, the Planning Commission and Pinole-Hercules Wastewater Treatment Plant advocate, expressed concern with the increase in crime in the community. He requested a presentation from the Chief of Police on new officers and what state and federal funding could be provided to provide protection to the community. He asked that a future agenda item be considered to address those issues. 13 of 285
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 26, 2022

Mayor Salimi reported he had received data from the Police Chief that had shown crime had decreased in the City of Pinole and who had provided the statistics for violent and property crimes.

City Manager Murray concurred and stated the Police Department had assembled some data that identified the fact that property crimes and crimes in the commercial corridor had actually decreased as part of a multi-year trend and that information could be provided to the speaker. He understood there may be some recommendations for increased staffing at the Police Department as part of the budget, which may address some of the concerns.

City Manager Murray added that the Police Chief had provided a PowerPoint presentation at a prior City Council meeting on Police Department activities. The public was encouraged to watch the video of the meeting or contact the Police Chief.

Mr. Tillman commented that many crimes had not been reported, many residents felt unsafe in the community, crime had increased in the local shopping centers, and some type of enforcement was needed to ensure the public felt safe. He again asked for consideration of a future agenda item or a community workshop with the Police Chief.

Council member Toms reported the Pinole Police Department held regular meetings with the community. Another meeting was scheduled for April 27, 2022 from 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. at PSB Café (Old Bank Building).

Council member Martinez-Rubin found the community meetings held by the Pinole Police Department to be extremely beneficial and she encouraged the public to participate.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Council member Tave congratulated staff on the work, agreed public safety was important, urged residents to report any criminal activity to the Police Department and urged engagement and reaching out to City services and the City Council with any concerns.

Mayor Salimi suggested it would be helpful to know the baseline of the budget for the next fiscal year to show what had been accomplished. He thanked staff for exceeding expectations this fiscal year.

City Manager Murray explained that a new method had been instituted into the current fiscal year budget where each Department had provided an overview of projects in anticipation of the current fiscal year and they could report back on what had been planned and what had been accomplished, with that information to be assembled for the next fiscal year.

At this time, Director Guillory provided a preview of the Pinole Community Priorities Survey which had been launched on April 21, 2022 using The Balancing Act Tool, with 101 responses received so far in excess of the response rate of prior surveys. She provided an overview of the unweighted survey results with the top five priorities shown as parks and facilities maintenance, pavement maintenance and rehabilitation, public safety services, climate and environmental sustainability and community services. The responses weighted by rank had shown the top five priorities as the same but with public safety services the top priority. The survey remained open for another two weeks but could be extended if desired.
14 of 285
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 26, 2022

City Manager Murray welcomed input from the City Council on any budget additions or whether any items should be removed from the baseline.

Finance Director Guillory and City Manager Murray provided a status report on the Council Directed Initiatives for FY 2021/22 as outlined in the April 26, 2022 staff report.

Council member Tave asked that the Community Garden project be added to the list of Council Directed Initiatives.

Council member Toms asked about the timing for the Parks Master Plan, Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) and Master Sewer Study since the implementation of those plans should be part of the budget.

City Manager Murray reported a Request for Proposal (RFP) would be issued for the Parks Master Plan before the end of the fiscal year. Staff planned to hold off on renovations to the playing field at Pinole Valley Park as earlier discussed until the Parks Master Plan had been completed. Staff was also nearing completion on two different sewer system master plans, a Master Plan, and a Management Plan, to be completed this fiscal year to be funded by the Sewer Fund. The LRSP was near completion. Comments on the LRSP had been provided to the consultant and the LRSP would be presented to the City Council by the end of this fiscal year.

Council member Toms recalled the Weatherization Energy Efficiency Program had been added to the Council Directed Initiatives at the last minute of a very long City Council meeting and had not been flushed out. She asked staff to review whether or not there would be a duplication of services since she was aware of a County-led program that already existed for Pinole residents, which was income restricted. She also asked staff to take a look at whether some of the Council Directed Initiatives could be moved up in implementation if ARPA funds were used.

Council member Tave recalled the discussion around the Weatherization Energy Efficiency Program had been intended to enhance the County’s program.

City Manager Murray stated staff would be happy to come back at the next City Council meeting to discuss the three Council Directed Initiatives Council Member Toms had identified.

Director Guillory clarified that staff would be recommending the City’s ARPA funds be moved into the General Fund to backfill revenue loss which allowed more leeway on the use of the funds.

Council member Martinez-Rubin spoke to one-time funding and asked that the renovation of the Faria House be added as a one-time expense and that staff research the costs associated with that independent of past discussions and what made sense given the life of the building. Since the City had shown a commitment to the renovation of the structure, she suggested there could be opportunities to augment that effort.

City Manager Murray advised that staff would assemble some information. Regardless of the future use of the Faria House, staff had the professional obligation to ensure the building did not further deteriorate due to neglect and there had been some discussions about what would be required to stabilize the building and put it to productive use.

15 of 285
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 26, 2022

Council member Martinez-Rubin also asked the status of the bocce ball courts and was informed by City Manager Murray that it was not feasible for the bocce courts to be considered for the original sites that had been identified but could be discussed further as part of the CIP.

Mayor Salimi clarified with the City Manager the Communications Plan would be completed before the end of the fiscal year and that one of the duties of the Assistant to the City Manager would be Communications and Engagement, with funds allocated for community engagement in the City Manager’s Office budget in addition to what some City Departments were already doing on their own.

Mayor Salimi also clarified the Council Directed Initiative for Brandt Court street improvements were related to improvements for the existing street and not related to the acquisition of any new property. He also clarified with staff the budget for the Car Show and for Community Events would be reclassified as recurring costs.

City Manager Murray further clarified the City Council had allocated $80,000 for this fiscal year which was ongoing for economic development support, but which was not sufficient to fund a fulltime staff person. Staff was waiting for the completion of the Economic Development Strategy to provide recommendations for consideration.

Finance Director Guillory further clarified the possibility of a ballot measure for 2022 had not been budgeted.

City Manager Murray noted the budget included the forecast of revenues expected to be received and had not included a potential ballot measure but could be part of the LTFP to be discussed as part of Item 5B.

Council member Toms commented the idea of a bond measure had been raised with the consultants who would do surveys to address concerns expressed by many people on the nexus and the relationship between a Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT) and those who would pay that tax versus capital needs and whether the City could float a bond. She had asked whether the survey could inquire whether there was community support for such an arrangement. She added the City Council received quarterly reports on the budget from the Finance Director and if the timing was right, and they had the information from the Communications Plan and the Economic Development Strategy, during the first quarter would be the time to modify the budget and not project and guess on expenditures. Funds could be left unallocated and then allocated once the information was available on how to implement the various plans.

Mayor Salimi re-opened public comment at this time.

Cordell Hindler, Richmond, explained that he had repeatedly requested a Class and Compensation Study since he had spoken with neighboring cities that had worked with a consultant who suggested other positions should be added to key leadership such as the Assistant to the City Manager position.

City Manager Murray reiterated a total benchmarking study had been done with the use of a consultant. The City had worked with a number of firms on a Class and Compensation Study, and different cities had different staffing structures in their City Manager’s Offices. Pursuant to a recommendation from an organizational consultant, an Assistant to the City Manager and 16 of 285
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 26, 2022

Administrative Assistant positions would be implemented. He added that staff was in the midst of recruiting for the Assistant to the City Manager position.

Tony Gutierrez, Pinole, referenced the Pinole Community Priorities Survey, of which he had participated, but had learned about it from Pinole Patch. He asked how the City was getting the word about the surveys out to the community, and suggested there was a disconnect between what residents had said to him as compared to what he personally had seen occurring in the City with respect to crime. While violent crime had decreased, the number of nuisance crimes had increased and it was evident to long-time residents that Pinole was no longer a safe and quiet town.

Director Guillory reported that residents had been informed of the survey via mailers to residential and commercial addresses in the City, posting on the City Facebook page, City website and had been included in the Administrative Report.

City Manager Murray acknowledged the speaker’s comments and while he recognized not all crimes were reported, Part 1 crimes (violent and property crimes) had decreased in Pinole. He encouraged members of the public to watch the video of the City Council meeting when the Police Chief had provided the presentation on Police Department activities and reach out to the Police Department with any concerns.

B. Preliminary Proposed Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23-FY 2026/27 [Action: Receive Report and Provide Direction (Guillory)] Finance Director Guillory provided a PowerPoint presentation which included an overview of the Preliminary Proposed Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/23-FY 2026/27.

She recommended maintaining the current staffing and service levels and start to address unfunded liabilities, primarily capital asset renewal/replacement and Other-Post Employment Benefits (OPEB), pursue revenue generating opportunities and evaluate debt financing options.

She asked that the City Council review the LTFP and provide direction to staff for changes to be incorporated into the next draft of the LTFP, the Revised Proposed Version to be presented to the City Council on May 17, 2022.

PUBLIC COMMENT OPENED
Cordell Hindler, Richmond, looked forward to the direction the City Council may take.

Tony Gutierrez, Pinole, questioned the City Manager’s comments there had been no demographic changes in the City of Pinole which he found to be inconsistent with what had been happening on the ground. He asked how the demographics had been considered in the development of the LTFP. Referencing The Balancing Act Tool, he commented he had not been informed of the tool by mailer but had learned of it from Pinole Patch. He suggested whoever distributed the City’s mailers had used an old mailing list and urged the City to improve its efforts to educate the public on its surveys.

City Manager Murray explained that the mailing list would be checked and if there was an inaccuracy the speaker would be sent a separate mailer. He added the sources of information for the trend analysis for demographics was the U.S. Census and the American Community Survey. For the purposes of the LTFP, demographic changes would include a significant increase 17 of 285
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 26, 2022

in the population or change in the size of a particular demographic group. The data from the sources used had not led the City to warrant a change in the staffing levels or in the level of service over the course of the five years of the LTFP.

Roy Swearingen, Pinole, commented the LTFP included no information on potential revenue sources that included applying for grants but should be included for the future, and the Finance Director confirmed that information could be considered in the LTFP.

Rafael Menis, Pinole, referred to the Community Block Grant Funds (CDBG) Program and the median household income for Contra Costa County as of January 1, 2022, whereas based on information he had the Median income for the City of Pinole was below the Low-Income household definition. He found the General Fund Reserves were generating substantially more revenue from interest in Year 2022/23 ongoing than previously and asked staff to provide clarification.

Also, increased deficits had been forecast for 2025/26 onwards to the point the budget would be structurally unbalanced and asked for more detail as to the projected imbalance and what steps could be taken to correct that imbalance. He added it also appeared that roughly $400,000 per year in unfunded funds could be used for capital outlays. He asked for clarification of the Gas Tax Fund, identified a structural deficit in the Public Safety Augmentation Fund, and a structural deficit in the fund balance for the Storm Water Fund and asked staff to provide clarification on those points.

Director Guillory clarified the information in the LTFP that had shown a structural deficit for FY 2025/26 and 2026/27, and advised that the LTFP would, in fact, be structurally balanced when the amount of the deficit was compared to the overall budget, to be addressed through the annual budget process. Pursuant to the trends across the five years, the forecast would be structurally balanced. As to the interest income for the General Reserve, it had been projected to increase over the five-year period given that as more funds were added to the General Reserve they would be additional idle funds that would generate income. Funds would be transferred to the General Reserve each year to meet the City’s reserve policy and more cash would generate more income.

City Manager Murray explained the Gas Tax Fund had a growing balance since they had not accounted for one-time capital projects that would use those funds.

Director Guillory added the Gas Tax Fund aligned with the CIP.

As to the Public Safety Augmentation and Storm Water Funds, City Manager Murray and Finance Director Guillory explained that there was a large fund balance which would intentionally be spent down.

Council member Toms again clarified the Median income for Contra Costa County for a household of four and expressed the willingness to further clarify that point with Mr. Menis offline. She also clarified with the City Manager the numbers used for Median incomes household was for any family regardless of the size of the family and staff could not conclude that the average household in Pinole was below the poverty line based on the data provided.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Council member Toms thanked staff for the succinct LTFP. She looked forward to any changes and the use of any potential revenue from a transfer tax for the long term which may be necessary 18 of 285
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 26, 2022

when making a decision whether to place an item on the ballot, which may not need to be in the LTFP.

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked who would provide the information about potential revenue coming in from a transfer tax, whether a consultant or a forecast from staff.

City Manager Murray explained that forecasting had already been done as part of a potential RPTT, which had forecast $2 million in revenue if an RPTT was approved. He outlined the prior years’ LTFP process which had not recommended any specific changes to service levels or revenues, but which had laid out the landscape. The current LTFP would be more traditional, and the City Council may include specific recommendations for changes to service levels or revenues.

Staff had included its recommendations for consideration as had previously been outlined. The LTFP could include the possibility of placing a ballot measure on the 2022 ballot and ask for an increase in the RPTT or place a ballot measure for a future obligation bond or explore multiple opportunities, with staff to return with recommendations. If the City Council determined it did not have enough information at this time, the LTFP could be left general, and staff could come back after more research such as considering other revenue options in-house.

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked staff to do some general research on general approaches to increase revenues. She did not want to bypass the Council’s perspective on the type of revenue source such as a RPTT or General Obligation Bond, but wanted more information on the different forecasts, which she foresaw as an Excel exercise.

City Manager Murray confirmed that could be incorporated into the next version of the LTFP.

City Clerk Bell reported that Council member Tave was having technical difficulties and was no longer present via Zoom.

Council member Martinez-Rubin also referenced the $42 million needed for streets and City Manager Murray clarified that capital needs included streets with the $42 million reflected of a certain type of standard. Additional information could be included on capital assessments on that topic.

Mayor Salimi wanted the City Council to have a long-term budget that incorporated the capital needs of the City including streets and sewers. He noted the Public Works Director had previously advocated $80 million worth of CIP funds for the next eight years. He wanted to see a budget for the next five years incorporate the capital improvements for the next eight years at $80 million.

Council member Martinez-Rubin clarified that had not been her request. She requested research by staff to allow a sense of what the City needed, and the types of revenues needed to address the needs, different from a policy for revenue that wasn’t available.

Mayor Salimi restated his request and Council member Martinez-Rubin again asked that staff be able to have the time to address information they had now with some forecast and then take it from there.

City Manager Murray commented on the importance of raising funds for capital needs given the need to have the cash on hand to spend on those projects, different from the ongoing revenue stream. He noted the $80 million for the next eight years was not a figure he had vetted and was 19 of 285
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 26, 2022

a planning level estimate. The City was still in the midst of many capital level assessments that had been discussed on numerous occasions. He detailed the various components involved which involved different costs for the various levels of improvements to the sewer collection system and streets, as examples. Given the lack of all information needed on the City’s capital assessments at this time, the inability of staff to identify the funds needed each year for a repayment stream to address that need, and no local revenue stream that would generate upwards of $8 million per year for the next eight years, there was a lot that needed to be worked out.

City Manager Murray explained that the City’s capital needs could be worked into the next version of the LTFP and he would ask the Public Works and Finance Directors to work together to identify the funding needed and the timing for the capital improvements and then identify a funding stream to support those improvements. Again, all available information would be incorporated into this draft of the LTFP.

Mayor Salimi asked the Finance Director to provide a report on the options to increase the revenue for the CIP, such as an RPTT and General Obligation Bond and other sources of revenue that may be available, which may require a consultant to come back and provide information. He asked the City Manager whether that information could be provided.

City Manager Murray suggested a consultant was not needed on the revenue side in that City staff could provide additional information on the mechanism and estimate what the revenue would be, but a consultant would need to provide assistance on the funds needed to bring the infrastructure up to an appropriate level. The City Council had already appropriated funding for those studies that were already underway, and staff again could provide additional information as part of the LTFP.

Council member Toms referred to an unallocated sewer reserve fund intended to get the City started on some repairs to its laterals which may get the City to a point of filling some of the needs that may be identified in the Sewer Master Plan. There were different revenue tools to pay for sewers and the ability to bond against fees, whereas for roads if a General Obligation Bond was considered she understood it may require a General or Special Election.

Mayor Salimi summarized the direction to staff to come back with a list of what was required for the CIP, what it would cost, the sources of revenue the City may have such as a ballot measure, General Obligation Bond, and any alternatives including what type of election was required.

City Manager Murray again stated that such information would be brought back as part of the next version of the LTFP to be addressed as additional content. He added the City did not have a Reserve Sewer Fund but had a large fund balance.

C. Overview of the Proposed Projects for FY 2022/23 Through 2026/27 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan [Action: Receive Report and Provide Direction (Mishra)]
Public Works Director Mishra provided a PowerPoint presentation which included a draft overview of the Proposed Projects for FY 2022/23 through 2026/27, Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan and highlighted the Unfunded Project List. He advised that the next steps included the drafts of the LRSP, Sanitary Sewer Collection System Master Plan and Pavement Technical Assistance Program, request for additional positions for the upcoming year to assist with capital projects, 20 of 285
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 26, 2022

conduct a survey via The Balancing Act Tool, return to the Finance Subcommittee with the CIP document and project sheets, present the Draft CIP to the Planning Commission and thereafter to the City Council for review and adoption.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, referenced the additional positions requested for the upcoming year and asked whether the requests had been included in the FY 2022/23 Baseline Budget or whether they would be added to the budget and future costs would be further extrapolated in the FiveYear Plan.

Finance Director Guillory advised the positions had not been included in the Baseline Budget and would be in addition to what had been budgeted for positions.

Roy Swearingen, Pinole, referenced the Unfunded Project List and costs for PG&E for the PinoleHercules Wastewater Treatment Plant, which were very high. He asked that the Unfunded Project List include solar for City facilities including the Plant. He suggested that the City could save money if able to fund solar photovoltaic operations for the Plant and he also liked the idea of recycled water from the Plant given the scarcity of water.

Public Works Director Mishra explained that a recycled water project had been funded and would be addressed in Fiscal Year 2022/23. Solar had been discussed and an energy audit had been planned for City facilities which would provide more information, but the Wastewater Treatment Plant was small, with inadequate space for solar although the facility would be reviewed as part of the Energy Audit.

City Manager Murray clarified that both projects were part of planning assessment projects.

Again, an energy audit was planned for City facilities for the next fiscal year and a feasibility assessment for recycled water at the Wastewater Treatment Plant had been planned for next fiscal year with a presentation from another jurisdiction that had implemented a pilot program for recycled water to be presented this fiscal year.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Council member Toms understood the bocce courts had fallen off of the CIP list, which had not been reported to the City Council. She suggested at the very least the project should have been identified on the Unfunded Project List.

City Manager Murray clarified the City applied for a state parks grant to fund the development of the bocce courts with the Fowler House Committee having recommended some future locations, but which had proven to be infeasible to accommodate a bocce court. Given the City did not have a shovel-ready project to meet the state grant criteria, the City Council had approved the use of the grant funds for the renovation of the playgrounds at Fernandez and Pinole Valley Parks. If the City Council so directed a feasibility study for bocce courts could be included in the CIP.

Council member Toms suggested that while bocce courts were not feasible in the locations identified the project should be reviewed by the Community Services Commission to identify alternative locations, such as in the outfield of the baseball field near the railroad right-of-way 21 of 285
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 26, 2022

(ROW), which area had been considered for a Skate Park in the past. Also, a Community Garden should be included in the Parks Master Plan.

City Manager Murray commented the Community Garden could be included in the Parks Master Plan, although there was a question whether the project was significant enough to be included in the CIP and whether it could be implemented faster. He recommended City staff return with information on what a Community Garden may look like along with a potential cost and the City Council could then consider whether to appropriate funding in this fiscal year or consider inclusion in the Parks Master Plan.

City Manager Murray further clarified after review of prior City Council discussions of the bocce courts, staff had recommended further discussion of the bocce courts after the completion of the Parks Master Plan. He noted it was possible the bocce courts project had fallen off the CIP list since it had been agreed it would be discussed as part of the Parks Master Plan but could be added back to the list and identified in more than one location.

Council member Tave returned to the City Council meeting at 9:40 p.m. but continued to have technical difficulties.

Council member Tave was satisfied with the Community Garden being part of future discussions but would like staff to still take a look and see what could be done to fund the project and possibly approach community organizations that may be interested.

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked for clarification of the installation of the High-intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) and was informed by Public Works Director Mishra the intent to have signals installed at various locations in the City, and once the intersections were identified to allow this improvement it could be addressed and moved to the CIP list.

City Manager Murray added the improvements anticipated for Appian Way and Marlesta Road were anticipated to be a HAWK but staff had additional funding for a fully signalized pedestrian safety project and he would work with staff to confirm whether or not the unfunded item was more than just that intersection and if so would be removed from the Unfunded Project List.

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked that the Faria House Renovations remain on the Unfunded Project List, to which City Manager Murray stated the project would only be removed if the project was funded and more information could be presented to the City Council as part of the budget.

Council member Martinez-Rubin also commented that some of the other items on the Unfunded Project List involved staff efforts to obtain funding. She commented it was tempting to align timelines related to different transportation plans and opportunities that may exist with the County and the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) counterparts and getting the projects ready for funding. She asked the Public Works Director if a project had to be actively identified on the list to ensure City staff time was being spent to seek funding. She did not want to lose the opportunities outside of Pinole.

Public Works Director Mishra explained that although staff resources were tight, staff always looked for funding opportunities. Many of the projects involved competitive grants and some projects involved smaller grants with short notice. The Unfunded Project List showed the projects 22 of 285
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 26, 2022

the City could do but staff would not actively pursue unless there was a grant opportunity presented.

City Manager Murray advised the Unfunded Project List was a carryover from the CIP from 2021 and he recommended a continuation of the discussion of the Unfunded Project List until staff could identify which of the projects would be informed by recommendations from Master Plans already underway, and Public Works Director Mishra agreed.

Mayor Salimi thanked staff for the presentation. He suggested anything was doable with the appropriate financing. He thanked everyone for their participation in the meeting.

6. ADJOURNMENT to the Regular City Council Meeting of May 3, 2022 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

At 10:03 p.m., Mayor Salimi adjourned the meeting to the Regular City Council Meeting of May 3, 2022 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

Submitted by:
_________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
Approved by City Council:
23 of 285
Pinole City Council
Minutes – May 3, 2022

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
May 3, 2022

1. CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN HONOR OF THE US MILITARY TROOPS
The City Council Meeting was held via Zoom videoconference and broadcast from the Pinole Council Chambers, 2131 Pear Street, Pinole, California. Mayor Pro Tem Murphy called the Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at 5:01 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Before we begin, we would like to acknowledge the Ohlone people, who are the traditional custodians of this land. We pay our respects to the Ohlone elders, past, present and future, who call this place, Ohlone Land, the land that Pinole sits upon, their home. We are proud to continue their tradition of coming together and growing as a community. We thank the Ohlone community for their stewardship and support, and we look forward to strengthening our ties as we continue our relationship of mutual respect and understanding.

3. ROLL CALL, CITY CLERK’S REPORT & STATEMENT OF CONFLICT An official who has a conflict must, prior to consideration of the decision; (1) publicly identify in detail the financial interest that causes the conflict; (2) recuse himself/herself from discussing and voting on the matter; and (3) leave the room until after the decision has been made, Cal. Gov. Code § 87105.

A. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT
Devin Murphy, Mayor Pro Tem
Norma Martinez-Rubin, Council Member
Anthony Tave, Council Member
Maureen Toms, Council Member

COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT
Vincent Salimi, Mayor
B. STAFF PRESENT
Andrew Murray, City Manager
Heather Bell, City Clerk
Eric Casher, City Attorney
Markisha Guillory, Finance Director
Sanjay Mishra, Public Works Director
Roxane Stone, Deputy City Clerk
City Clerk Heather Bell announced the agenda had been posted on Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 4:00 p.m. with all legally required written notices. The agenda packet had been amended and reposted after the initial publishing to include the staff report for Item 12A and to reflect the Zoomonly meeting format. No written comments had been received in advance of the meeting.

Following an inquiry, the Council reported there were no conflicts with any items on the agenda. 9A-1
24 of 285
Pinole City Council
Minutes – May 3, 2022

4. CONVENE TO A CLOSED SESSION
Citizens may address the Council regarding a Closed Session item prior to the Council adjourning into the Closed Session, by first providing a speaker card to the City Clerk.

A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Gov. Code § 54957.6
Agency designated representatives: City Manager Murray, City Attorney Casher, and Human Services Director Shell
Employee Organization: All groups
Unrepresented employee: All employees

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Roxane Stone, Deputy City Clerk reported there were no public comments.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

5. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION TO ANNOUNCE RESULTS OF CLOSED SESSION At 6:01 p.m., Mayor Pro Tem Murphy reconvened the meeting into open session and announced there was no reportable action from the Closed Session.

6. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD (Public Comments)
Citizens may speak under any item not listed on the Agenda. The time limit is 3 minutes and is subject to modification by the Mayor. Individuals may not share or offer time to another speaker.

Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The City Council may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future Council meeting
Rafael Menis, Pinole, reported the rate of COVID-19 was increasing in the City of Pinole. He encouraged residents to take precautions and resume masking until the current spike passed.

He also referenced the leak of a draft opinion from the United States Supreme Court on a case which may overturn Roe v. Wade, and while the case may not affect the City of Pinole which was regulated by separate state regulations, he asked the public to be aware of some of the content in the draft opinion which he read into the record along with additional information related to the draft opinion. In his opinion, if the draft opinion were to be adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court, it would make a mockery of the 9th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution. He urged residents of Pinole and all individuals to express their distress over the possible dismantling of current pregnancy rights and he questioned some of the information and cases cited in the draft opinion to support overturning Roe v. Wade.

Debbie Long, Pinole, reported that Carol Sherman, a Pinole resident, had asked her to share with the City Council the following information. In 1985, Ms. Sherman’s grandmother had been raped and murdered in the City of Richmond with the suspect having eventually been found, tried, and sentenced to San Quentin Prison’s Death Row. In 2019, the current District Attorney for Contra Costa County Diana Becton negotiated a plea deal for his release without notifying the family with the exception of an uncle suffering from dementia who did not understand the call. 25 of 285
Pinole City Council
Minutes – May 3, 2022

Ms. Long emphasized that the suspect was now walking amongst the community, and it was unknown how many others with a history of crime joined him. She commented on the increase in crime in the community and the fact that many crimes were not reported, the Police Department did not always take a report, and she suggested it was because the current District Attorney did not follow policies. She emphasized the need to send a strong message that residents wanted a safe environment to live and raise families.

Irma Ruport, Pinole, asked the City Council to consider current conditions including inflation and increasing costs for all goods and services and the fact that three Councilmembers would be up for re-election with Councilmembers’ legacies based on what was left behind. She expressed concern for a number of issues including the poor condition of the Pinole Senior Center and the upcoming County Animal Services contract which should be identified as priorities in the budget.

She urged the City Council not to waste taxpayer money on projects that benefitted Council members and that the Council should not waste staff time with special interest projects that had been tabled.

7. REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Mayor Report

1. Announcements
None
B. Mayoral & Council Appointments
None
C. City Council Committee Reports & Communications
Mayor Pro Tem Murphy reported he had joined the Marin Clean Energy (MCE) Legal and Policy Team to lobby in Washington D.C. to support a number of initiatives and programs in Contra Costa County and the City of Pinole. He briefed the City Council on those efforts and encouraged anyone from the City Council or the public to email him with any questions. He also reported that an MCE Technical Committee meeting had been scheduled for May 5, 2022 at 8:00 a.m. with information on the MCE website; and invited everyone to his monthly coffee and conversation scheduled for Sunday, May 16 at 9:00 a.m. at East Bay Coffee.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy thanked those members of the community who had raised concerns about what had been perceived as a national decision. He reassured everyone that he would continue to work relentlessly to safeguard the right to safe and legal abortions in the State of California and that the City of Pinole would continue to be a place where women could exercise their reproductive freedom in a safe environment.

Council member Toms reported she had attended the League of California Cities Housing Community and Economic Development Policy Committee with a discussion of Assembly Bill (AB) 2053, The Social Housing Act and AB 2295, Local educational agencies housing development projects, and the Industrial Association of Contra Costa County Forum on workforce development.

She briefed the City Council on all discussions.
26 of 285
Pinole City Council
Minutes – May 3, 2022

Council member Martinez-Rubin reported she had attended a West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) meeting and briefed the City Council on the discussions and actions taken; the Industrial Association of Contra Costa County Forum on workforce development; and had chaired the League of California Cities Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee and briefed the City Council on the presentation of informational items. She too encouraged everyone to continue to wear masks given the current increase in COVID-19 cases.

Council member Tave reported he had attended the Governance, Transparency and Liberal Relations Committee meeting and briefed the City Council on the discussions of Senate Bill (SB) 1328, prohibited investments and contracts with Russia and Belarus, and SB 73 and would forward information to the City Clerk given impacts to employee pensions. He too had been troubled by the draft opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court and encouraged all citizens to do their homework given the direct impacts to all citizens and to advocate appropriately. He also urged residents to mask up and be mindful of COVID-19 symptoms and quarantine when necessary.

D. Council Requests for Future Agenda Items
There were no Council requests for future agenda items.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Cordell Hindler, Richmond, requested a future agenda item for the City Council to invite Sabrina Landreth, General Manager, East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) to provide an update on how COVID-19 had impacted park services; and Lavonna Martin, Contra Costa County Health Services Director Health, Housing & Homeless Services to provide an update on homelessness.

Irma Ruport, Pinole, inquired of the status of a prior future agenda item request for a presentation of the contract from Contra Costa County Animal Services. She asked that Administrator Beth Ward and Supervisor John Gioia be invited to participate in any presentation given concerns with the contract.

City Manager Andrew Murray reported the County Animal Services contract had been scheduled for the May 17, 2022 City Council meeting.

Rafael Menis, Pinole, inquired of the status of a proclamation for Ukraine and City Manager Murray reported the proclamation had also been scheduled for the May 17 City Council meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
E. City Manager Report / Department Staff
City Manager Murray provided a preview of potential agenda items for the May 17, 2022 City Council meeting.

F. City Attorney Report
City Attorney Casher reported the Municipal Code Update Subcommittee would meet on May 9, 2022 to discuss updates to the Pinole Municipal Code (PMC) related to code enforcement matters and an update to the City’s Code of Ethics.
27 of 285
Pinole City Council
Minutes – May 3, 2022

City Attorney Casher also reported he would be attending the upcoming California Cities City Attorneys Conference with Assistant City Attorney Alex Mog to co-present on new housing laws while he would lead a Town Hall discussion on diversity, equity and inclusion. .

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy declared a recess at 6:39 p.m. The City Council meeting reconvened at 6:41 p.m. with all Councilmembers and staff present with the exception of Mayor Salimi who was absent.

8. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMNUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Proclamations

1. Public Service Employee Recognition Week
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing Public Service Employee Recognition Week.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Cordell Hindler, Richmond, acknowledged the hard work of the City’s Public Services employees, particularly police and fire services personnel.

Rafael Menis, Pinole, echoed the comments from the language in the proclamation and particularly commended Council member Toms as a member of municipal staff for Contra Costa County. He also thanked and recognized police, fire and all other City Departments/staff for all of the important work and services provided to the community.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

2. Municipal Clerks Week
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing Municipal Clerks Week and in particular the work of City Clerk Bell, Deputy City Clerk Stone and the City Clerk’s Department.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Cordell Hindler, Richmond, appreciated all the work of the City Clerk and the Deputy City Clerk.

Rafael Menis, Pinole, also thanked City Clerk Bell and Deputy City Clerk Stone for accommodating all of his comments in-person and in the hybrid format, and echoed the City Council’s praise for their work for both virtual and hybrid meeting formats and all activities associated with the Clerk Clerk’s Department. He emphasized the importance of having a clear line of communication between residents and City government and having a record of the past to maintain institutional knowledge.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
B. Presentations / Recognitions
28 of 285
Pinole City Council
Minutes – May 3, 2022

1. Presentation by Greenbelt Alliance on Resilience Playbook Public Works Director Sanjay Mishra introduced and described the background of the Greenbelt Alliance team who would be providing a presentation on the Greenbelt Alliance Resilience Playbook, a comprehensive guide to accelerating equitable adaptation to the climate crisis in the Bay Area which had brought together curated strategies, recommendations and tools to support local decision makers and community leaders. The Greenbelt Alliance was a 60-year old nonprofit that sought to educate, advocate and collaborate with the Bay Area’s lands and communities to make it resilient to the changing climate.

Berna Idriz, Climate & Equity Associate and Karen Rosenberg Resilient Associate, Greenbelt Alliance, provided a PowerPoint presentation of the Greenbelt Alliance Resilience Playbook as earlier described, which included an overview of the Greenbelt Alliance Approach; use of natural and working lands through equitable nature-based solutions; incorporation of climate justice principles and prioritization of vulnerable communities; advocacy for climate SMART (sustainable, mixed, affordable, resilient, transit-oriented housing as equitable climate strategy). Examples were offered of protected open spaces and the challenges due to the climate and housing crises, poor land use decision making, governance issues and funding needs. The intent was to create a tool to bring public policymakers, planners and other stakeholders together to establish a common understanding of the climate challenges and opportunities as outlined in the Greenbelt Alliance Resilience Playbook.

The Resilience Playbook could be used by anyone involved in the planning process to incorporate climate policies into local planning processes such as the General Plan, Climate Action Plan (CAP) or Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). The five chapters of the Playbook and example policies that could be used for future planning and General Plan Updates were highlighted. More information on how to navigate the Playbook, provide input and other information on policies and strategies was available on the Greenbelt Alliance website. The Greenbelt Alliance looked forward to collaborating with the City of Pinole on the potential use of its Resilience Playbook.

Responding to the City Council, Ms. Idriz also provided an overview of the Hidden Heroes Program, an annual fundraising gala that sought to give recognition to those who worked in local government. More information was available on the Greenbelt Alliance website where nominations of any hard working City staff could be presented.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Deputy City Clerk Stone reported there were no public comments for this item.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Mayor Pro Tem Murphy thanked the Greenbelt Alliance for the presentation and asked that they see the City of Pinole as a partner in future endeavors to address the climate crisis.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and noncontroversial. These items will be enacted by one motion and without discussion.

If, however, any interested party or Council member(s) wishes to comment on an item, they may do so before action is taken on the Consent Calendar. Following comments, if a Council member 29 of 285
Pinole City Council
Minutes – May 3, 2022

wishes to discuss an item, it will be removed from the Consent Calendar and taken up in order after adoption of the Consent Calendar.

A. Approve the Minutes of the April 19, 2022 Meeting.

B. Receive the April 16, 2022 – April 29, 2022 List of Warrants in the Amount of $1,357,245.53, the April 22, 2022 Payroll in the Amount of $212,426.75 (Special PD Settlements) and the April 29, 2022 Payroll in the Amount of $457,906.98.

C. Resolution Continuing Authorized Remote Teleconference Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Casher)] D. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Agreements for Sustainability Initiatives with Rincon Consultants and Strategic Energy Innovations (SEI) and Appropriating Funding [Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Whalen)]
E. Third Quarter CIP Update [Action: Receive and File Report (Mishra)] F. Receive the Quarterly Report in Implementation of the Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Climate Action Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021/22 Third Quarter [Action:

Receive and File Report (Whalen)]
G. Receive the Quarterly Report on Implementation of the Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021/22 Third Quarter [Action: Receive and File Report (Murray)] H. Ordinance Adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy and Adding Chapter 2.60 to the Pinole Municipal Code in Compliance with AB 481 [Action: Waive Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance per Staff Recommendation (Casher)] Mayor Pro Tem Murphy asked that Item 9H be pulled from the Consent Calendar and voted on separately from the remaining Consent Calendar items.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, referenced Item 9D, Page 51 of the unrevised meeting agenda and asked whether the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) inventory had been completed or was ongoing; with respect to Page 56 for the same item and the reference to CAPDash, a tool that provided options for integration of visual depiction of progress made towards the CAP and reduction of GHG as a means of reporting and monitoring success of the Plan over time was a great idea for the public; and Page 57 referenced the project budget costs but he asked for more information on the anticipated translation costs as shown.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
City Manager Murray explained that the GHG inventory had been completed and included the community and City operations inventory which information would be incorporated into the CAP.

City Manager Murray agreed that the CAPDash tool would be a great tool to illustrate progress on the CAP projects. In terms of the budget recommended for miscellaneous engagement 30 of 285
Pinole City Council
Minutes – May 3, 2022

translation, staff had not entirely determined all of the details of the community engagement and communication process and was working with a dedicated translator able to translate City communications in different languages. The intent was to have a pool of money available to be nimble in doing more translation and engagement as the need arose. More information could be provided to the City Council, as needed, when the Community Development Director returned to the office.

ACTION: Motion by Council members Toms/Martinez-Rubin to Approve Consent Calendar Items 9A through 9G, as shown.

Vote: Passed 4-0-1
Ayes: Murphy, Martinez-Rubin, Tave, Toms
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: Salimi
H. Ordinance Adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy and Adding Chapter 2.60 to the Pinole Municipal Code in Compliance with AB 481 [Action: Waive Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance per Staff Recommendation (Casher)] ACTION: Motion by Council members Toms/Martinez-Rubin to waive the Second Reading and Adopt an Ordinance Adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy and Adding Chapter

2.60 to the Pinole Municipal Code in Compliance with AB 481.

Vote: Passed 3-1-1
Ayes: Martinez-Rubin, Tave, Toms
Noes: Murphy
Abstain: None

Absent: Salimi

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Citizens wishing to speak regarding a Public Hearing item should fill out a speaker card prior to the completion of the presentation, by first providing a speaker card to the City Clerk. An official who engaged in an ex parté communication that is the subject of a Public Hearing must disclose the communication on the record prior to the start of the Public Hearing.

None

11. OLD BUSINESS
None

12. NEW BUSINESS
A. Preliminary Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 Operating and Capital Budget [Discuss and Provide Direction (Guillory)]
Finance Director Guillory provided a PowerPoint presentation of the City of Pinole Preliminary Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 Operating and Capital Budget, which included an overview 31 of 285
Pinole City Council
Minutes – May 3, 2022

of key dates for action for the Operating and Capital Budget, Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP) and Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP); preliminary proposed budget key points related to revenues and expenditures and included the use of fund balances in several funds primarily for capital project carry forwards and one-time initiatives.

The City Council was asked to consider vacancy savings, with staff recommending 5 percent of salary/wages as a savings factor equating to approximately $100,000. The City of Pinole averaged approximately 6 percent in salary savings annually over the last three fiscal years, with 5 percent a common practice amongst public agencies and which aligned with U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics that had shown an average of 5.5 percent vacancy rate for the period of March 2021 to March 2022. Staff also recommended the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds be used to backfill loss of revenue for general purpose activities, an acceptable use of ARPA funds.

If ARPA funds were used for revenue loss, there would still be a reporting requirement with an accounting mechanism in place to identify how the City spent its ARPA funds.

The FY 2022/23 Budget Assumptions – Revenues and Expenditures; Revised Baseline Budget; FY 2022/23 General Fund Preliminary Proposed Budget; and All Funds Budget Summary were all highlighted. As part of the next steps, staff would refine the budget and prepare the next version, with the Revised Proposed LTFP for FY 2022/23 to FY 2026/27 to be presented to the City Council at its May 17 meeting. The revised Proposed FY 2022/23 Operating and Capital Budget and Five-Year CIP would be presented to the City Council on June 7, 2022.

Finance Director Guillory recommended the City Council review this version of the Preliminary Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 Operating and Capital Budget and provide direction to staff on any changes to incorporate into the next draft of the document, the Revised Proposed version to be presented to the City Council on June 7, 2022.

Responding to the Council, Finance Director Guillory clarified that Page 33 of the budget document included a detailed financial summary and the table shown had included the FY 2021/22 Projected Year-end for June 30, 2022, with the fund balance shown at $9.7 million and with the projected reserves to reflect the increase in ongoing costs. An in-depth analysis had been done for the revenues and expenditures for the end of the fiscal year and revenues had increased in 2021 while expenditures had decreased at the same point. The expenditure amounts proposed for 2022/23 were again highlighted.

City Manager Murray explained in an attempt to provide more clarity why for this fiscal year the City was ending up with more fund balance than originally anticipated since more of the one-time projects were expected to get done. If the projects were not done, the money remained unspent and produced a higher fund balance. He noted the City Council had requested at its last meeting that staff provide some analysis of costs and benefits of some new ideas. He added that the General Reserve Policy stated that anytime ongoing expenditures increased a contribution must be made to the General Reserve such that it had an amount equivalent to 50 percent of ongoing General Fund expenditures.

As to whether the City could afford what had been proposed in the presented Preliminary Budget, Finance Director Guillory again referred to the figures contained in the table on Page 33 of the budget document.

City Manager Murray added that the City did not have a policy on appropriations limits. Every year the City Council adopted a resolution certifying that the City’s budget was below the State 32 of 285
Pinole City Council
Minutes – May 3, 2022

Constitutional Appropriations (Gann Limit), with the City’s expenditures well below that limit. In addition, the remaining fund balance that would remain at the end of the next fiscal year for the General Fund including Measure S funds, did not include staff’s recommendation that the City Council deposit the remaining ARPA funds into the General Fund. If that was done, it would increase the year-end General Fund balance for the next fiscal year.

As to the City policy for appropriations to the Pension Fund and the amount of debt, Finance Director Guillory explained that the only debt paid from the General Fund was the 2006 Pension Obligation Bonds. The City of Pinole was significantly below the debt capacity limit.

City Manager Murray detailed the legal debt limit for the City which reported on its financial statements. The City did not have a policy on the use of the Pension Trust but had a practice that followed City Council direction when the Trust had first been established, to use the assets from the Trust to keep the City’s contribution towards employee retirement costs at the same level they were when the Trust had first been established. The proposed budget and the LTFP had shown the draw down on those assets.

Finance Director Guillory explained that the LTFP would be revised in the next version, acknowledged there was a significant increase in property tax revenue for FY 2023/24 which would cover a portion of the additional staffing proposed, and along with the appropriation savings would cover the increase in the Baseline Budget for increased positions. She clarified the budget was not balanced and was off by $972,000.

City Manager Murray clarified that amounts were expected that would allow the City to balance out next year, there was still dust to settle in the next fiscal year and pending results of a Master Fee Schedule that could result in recommendations to increase some City fees and generate some revenue offsetting expenses. While there was uncertainty in the financial picture, the magnitude use of fund balance would not significantly change the financial future.

Finance Director Guillory further clarified that the Administrative Assistant as shown at $69,000 in the table for FY 2022/23 General Fund Preliminary Proposed Budget was fully burdened and was the difference between a part- to full-time position.

The costs shown for fire increased allocation for weed abatement and fire fuel mitigation at $50,000, and code enforcement weed abatement during fire season at $27,000, line items in the same table, were clarified and City Manager Murray explained that code enforcement was for private property and the weed abatement was for public property. If there was a code enforcement violation, the City would receive a return but a lot of the work involved noticing and working with property owners to resolve code enforcement issues that were not fully recovered.

Also, abasement of property at $24,000 was another line item that required additional staff time to process but could produce some City recovered costs.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, asked for clarification in the staff report for Item 12A as compared to 12A Supplemental, specifically the calculations for the net surplus deficit for the Baseline Budget since the figures were different in each report.

Mr. Menis also spoke to the vacancy savings as new revenue ongoing, which had not been reflected in 12A Supplemental, and asked how if factored into past budgets for comparison 33 of 285
Pinole City Council
Minutes – May 3, 2022

purposes. He found many of the budget projections had assumed there would not be a recession and he asked how a future recession would impact the City’s ability to sustain new ongoing expenditures.

Cordell Hindler, Richmond, also requested clarification on the position vacancies and expressed concern the Assistant City Manager position remained unfilled. As to economic development retention, he referenced the number of vacancies in the City and while adding additional positions may sound good he was concerned and emphasized the need to retain existing employees.

Jeff Rubin, Pinole, President Pinole History Museum and Pinole Historical Society, spoke to the CIP and stated in 2019 the City Council had decided to subsidize the Pinole Library, which was part of the County Library system, at approximately $150,000 annually. As part of that ongoing contract with payments made since 2019, with the exception of 2021 when the library had been closed, the City would pay the county $750,000 by 2025 and more in ensuing years. Adding to that, the City spent $356,000 in 2015 to build the Skate Park. He emphasized the total for those two projects was close to the architect’s estimate to renovate the Faria House.

Mr. Rubin commented that some Council members had expressed concern with the Pinole History Museum’s sustainability were it to be the leaseholder for the Faria House. He reported on the donor efforts as part of the Museum’s Winter 2022 appeal along with unsolicited gifts in December 2021 and appeals in 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2022, where the Museum Board had raised enough funds to clearly establish the museum’s ability to raise money and allay Council member’s concerns about sustainability. The funds had been donated on a hope, a dream and a belief that the City Council would honor the intentions and commitments of previous City Councils dating back decades to renovate the Faria House for use as a community history museum.

Mr. Rubin suggested the City could take a big step by revitalizing the Old Town Business District by renovating a historic treasure and lease it to the Pinole History Museum. He hoped the City Council would take advantage of the opportunity.

Irma Ruport, Pinole, agreed that the Faria House was a promise that past City Council members and City administration had made to the Faria family and to the Pinole Historical Society, although decisions had been made in Closed Session and the public had not been included. She suggested the City was in trouble with inflation, high prices, and suggested a Go Fund Me program should be considered for the Faria House since the City could not fund the renovation of the building.

Ms. Ruport pointed out the Senior Center was in trouble, a fire station remained to be reopened and Animal Services had closed in Pinole. She questioned funding for one special group based on a past promise while Pinole taxpayers had not been included. She asked that the Faria House be placed on a future ballot. She had previously requested the financial records of the Pinole Historical Society from the City and had received no response. She suggested Pinole taxpayers should not bear the burden of the renovation of the Faria House and again asked that it be placed on a future ballot and that the City focus on public safety and necessities.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Finance Director Guillory responded to the public comment and clarified the Preliminary Baseline Budget as compared to the staff report had shown a deficit of $1.7 million versus $1.5 million in 34 of 285
Pinole City Council
Minutes – May 3, 2022

the PowerPoint presentation. The difference between the two was that two positions would be allocated between the General Fund and several non-General Funds, including the Public Works Specialist and Associate Civil Engineer. The staff report had shown both positions at 100 percent in the General Fund. Also $510,000 in vacancy savings was again clarified and would be a credit to expenditures based on an assessment of year-end analysis of budget versus actuals and what remained from salary costs. Considering the 5 percent savings factor, as earlier described, the savings equated to about $510,000.

City Manager Murray added the City had those expenditure savings due to vacancies and the intent was to make the budget more precise by recognizing that fact.

Finance Director Guillory also clarified that the LTFP had not considered the potential for a recession but had included a status quo forecast. Staff could work with the City’s advisors if the City Council so directed to incorporate a different scenario that considered a possible recession.

City Manager Murray explained that the General Reserve was intended to address the possibility of a recession.

Council member Martinez-Rubin thanked staff for all of the information and looked forward to the next phase of the budget and the next meeting of the City Council.

City Manager Murray asked whether there were any items on the staff recommended additions to the budget the City Council was of the opinion should be removed, as outlined in the staff report and PowerPoint presentation.

Council member Toms cited the recommendations for Public Works Specialist and Associate Civil Engineer and expressed concern with ongoing recurring expenses. If there was an uncertainty that those costs could be afforded ongoing, she wanted staff to review consulting contracts. She understood the request for two additional Police Officers would also be an ongoing expense but recognized the need and the fact the City had difficulties with retention and she was therefore not opposed to keeping that on the list. As to the code enforcement items and abatements, she suggested there should be some return from the property owners for the City to bill for expenses so that taxpayers were not paying to clean a homeowner’s property. She otherwise did not propose anything new to the budget pending the results of the numerous studies underway.

Council member Tave was uncomfortable spending one-time funds on recurring costs rather than one-time projects. He recognized that many projects had been rolled over and new staff was needed to complete some projects. He would be more comfortable with a balanced budget moving forward and commented that the City Council had discussed preparing a matrix to prioritize projects, which had not yet occurred. He asked when that discussion would occur.

City Manager Murray clarified this budget development process was that process but many projects were CIP projects running on a parallel process between the budget and the development of the CIP. As an example, the two Public Works Department positions recommended to be added were intended to facilitate CIP projects that were being carried forward/underway.

City Manager Murray did not see that the City Council needed to have a discussion to prioritize CIP projects since the intent was to get them all done. There were really no other special projects but one-time expenses.
35 of 285
Pinole City Council
Minutes – May 3, 2022

Council member Tave expressed concern once studies had been completed that projects may be compounded which may take away from other projects planned from previous years, and City Manager Murray acknowledged that once the assessments and master plans had been completed new ideas could come forward with a potential reprioritization of CIP projects. General Fund and ongoing expenditures were responsive to the priorities of the community and the City Council and it was staff’s aspiration to have a structurally balanced budget each year, but there was a need to be mindful of the unusual times due to the pandemic, code recovery, and the City trying to right size to meet community demands after being lean for so long.

City Manager Murray suggested it was prudent to have a budget where ongoing expenditures exceeded ongoing revenues for a one-year period, particularly if there was a high degree of confidence for increased revenue for the next year.

Council member Tave commented that the dip in revenue was anticipated but the City was still in a good place for increased services. He remained concerned moving forward with an unbalanced budget and the City Council may have to have discussions in the next fiscal year as to what the City may not be able to afford. He asked staff to go through the exercise of presenting a balanced budget as a comparison to what had been presented.

In response to the Mayor Pro Tem, City Attorney Casher confirmed that direction to staff should be reflected in a motion.

Council member Tave offered a motion and a subsequent clarified motion to direct staff to return with the current proposed budget and a balanced budget.

Council member Toms commented that if there was a balanced budget, the proposed additional expenditures that had been identified by staff would all go away, and City Manager Murray confirmed that was true but the information could be packaged in such a way that would make it clear what exactly would be in a balanced budget and in the Revised Proposed Budget.

ACTION: Motion by Council member Tave/Mayor Pro Tem Murphy to direct staff to return with the current proposed budget and a balanced budget.

Vote: Passed 3-1-1
Ayes: Murphy, Tave, Toms
Noes: Martinez-Rubin
Abstain: None

Absent: Salimi

13. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD (Continued from Item 6) (Public Comments) Only open to members of the public who did not speak under the first Citizens to be Heard, Agenda Item 6.

Citizens may speak under any item not listed on the Agenda. The time limit is 3 minutes and is subject to modification by the Mayor. Individuals may not share or offer time to another speaker.

Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The City Council may 36 of 285
Pinole City Council
Minutes – May 3, 2022

direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future Council meeting.

Cordell Hindler, Richmond, invited the City Council to the musical CROWNS at the Contra Costa Civic Theatre on May 6 and 7, 2022 at 7:30 p.m. Tickets were $20 per person with proof of vaccination. He reported the Richmond City Council procedures allowed each Council member five minutes to speak and he suggested the Pinole City Council consider the same policy.

14. ADJOURNMENT to the Regular City Council Meeting of May 17, 2022 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

At 8:57 p.m., Mayor Pro Tem Murphy adjourned the meeting to the Regular City Council Meeting of May 7, 2022 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

Submitted by:
_________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
Approved by City Council:
37 of 285
38 of 285
39 of 285
40 of 285
41 of 285
42 of 285
43 of 285
44 of 285
45 of 285
46 of 285
47 of 285
48 of 285
49 of 285
9DD CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9C
DATE: MAY 17, 2022
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ANDREW MURRAY, CITY MANAGER

HEATHER BELL, CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION CONDEMNING THE 2022 RUSSIAN INVASION OF

UKRAINE AND EXPRESSING SUPPORT OF UKRAINE AND

THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the resolution.

BACKGROUND
At the April 5, 2022 City Council meeting, Council Member Maureen Toms requested a future agenda item for a resolution in support of Ukraine, following the unprovoked military invasion of Ukraine by Russia on February 24, 2022. The City Council gave its consensus.

Staff has prepared a resolution (attached) for the City Council’s consideration.

REVIEW & ANALYSIS
None.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

ATTACHMENT(S):

A. Resolution
50 of 285

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE CONDEMNING THE 2022 RUSSIAN INVASION OF UKRAINE AND EXPRESSING SUPPORT OF

UKRAINE AND THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE
WHEREAS, Ukraine proclaimed independence from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on August 24, 1991, adopted its constitution in 1996, and has been a fully independent country and home to 44 million citizens led by a president elected by overwhelming popular vote; and
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2022, Russian military forces conducted an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, resulting in the destruction of cities and towns and with numerous tragic civilian casualties; and
WHEREAS, the invasion of Ukraine and attacks against its people have been broadly condemned by the United Nations, United States President, leadership of the European Union, Great Britain and other countries around the world; and WHEREAS, the horrors of this invasion are apparent to all Americans, the courage, steadfastness and endurance displayed by the Ukrainian people in defending their homeland is an inspiration to the entire world; and
WHEREAS, the people of Ukraine have been caught in the middle of this invasion, creating 4.8 million external refugees and over 7 million internal displacements, and millions in need of urgent humanitarian assistance; and
WHEREAS, it is estimated that the United States will welcome up to 100,000 Ukrainian refugees and others fleeing Russia’s aggression through the full range of legal pathways, including the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pinole continues to welcome all Ukrainian and Russian people during this unfortunate time of international tragedy; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pinole does hereby ask the residents of Pinole, to join us in expressing support and solidarity for the people of Ukraine who are inspiring the world with their incredible heroism, bravery and resilience as they defend their homeland, and encourages its residents to seek out reputable organizations to donate and assist the Ukrainian people.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pinole held on the 17th day of May, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
51 of 285

ATTACHMENT A
I, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was regularly introduced, passed, and adopted on the 17th day of May, 2022
____________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
52 of 285

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9D
DATE: MAY 17, 2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ERIC CASHER, CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF PINOLE AND CONTRA

COSTA COUNTY TO ENFORCE SINGLE-USE FOODWARE
ACCESSORIES LIMITATIONS CONTAINED IN AB 1276

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City of Pinole to enforce single-use foodware accessories limitations contained in AB 1276.

BACKGROUND
AB 1276, which went into effect on January 1, 2022, prohibits a food facility from providing any single-use foodware accessory or standard condiment to a consumer unless requested by the consumer. AB 1276, which is codified in Public Resource Code section 42270 et seq., requires cities to authorize an enforcement agency to enforce these requirements. The City is required to take that action by June 1, 2022.

DISCUSSION
On October 5, 2021, Governor Newson signed Assembly Bill (“AB”) 1276 into law to prohibit a food facility from providing any single-use foodware accessory (such as utensils and straws) or standard condiments (such as ketchup packets) to a consumer unless requested by the consumer. AB 1276, which is codified in Public Resource Code section 42270 et seq., requires cities to authorize an enforcement agency to enforce these requirements. Either the City or County can enforce AB 1276 locally. Contra Costa County has indicated that it will not enforce AB 1276 within the City. Thus the City will need to serve as the enforcement agency.

AB 1276 is designed to reduce excess packaging and undesired condiments from being given to a customer when eating on premises or taking food to go. The law excludes from these requirements correctional institutions, health care facilities, residential care facilities, and public and private school cafeterias.

The main provisions of AB 1276 are summarized below:

1. Food facilities may only provide single-use accessories to consumers upon request;
53 of 285
City Council Report, 9D
May 17, 2022

2. Food facilities may only provide single-use accessories required to eat the ready-to-eat food;

3. Single-use accessories or condiments may not be bundled or packaged in a way that prohibits the customer from taking only the item desired;

4. Food facilities may ask a drive-through customer if the customer wants a single-use foodware accessory, if the single-use foodware accessory is necessary for the consumer to consume ready-to-eat food, or to prevent spills of or safely transport ready-to-eat food;

5. Third-party retail food delivery platforms must provide consumers with the option to request single-use accessories;

6. Food facilities that use a third-party platform shall customize their menu with a list of available single-use accessories or condiments and may only provide those items requested; and

7. Unwrapped single-use foodware accessories that are self-serve, standard condiments that are self-serve, and/or bulk dispensed condiments may still be offered by food facilities.

In order to comply with AB 1276, the City must authorize an enforcement agency to enforce these restrictions. The proposed resolution authorizes the City of Pinole to enforce all the restrictions set forth by AB 1276. Although Contra Costa County has indicated it will not enforce the provisions of AB 1276 within Pinole at this time, the resolution also authorizes the County to take such enforcement action if circumstances change in the future. Under the law, the first two violations of AB 1276 restrictions are subject to a notice of violation, and any subsequent violation is an infraction punishable by a fine of $25 for each day in violation, subject to an annual maximum $300.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact from the adoption of the resolution. The City may incur additional staff costs to enforce the foodware accessories limitations, but those costs are uncertain at this time. The City’s code enforcement program is complaint-based, and it is unknown how much staff time if any, will be required to enforce the restrictions in AB 1276.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution Authorizing the City of Pinole to Enforce Single-Use Foodware Accessories Limitations Contained in AB 1276
54 of 285

ATTACHMENT A
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE

AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF PINOLE AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO

ENFORCE SINGLE-USE FOODWARE ACCESSORIES LIMITATIONS CONTAINED IN ASSEMBLY BILL 1276
WHEREAS, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (“AB”) 1276 into law on October 5, 2021, which prohibits a food facility or a third-party food delivery platform from providing single-use food accessories, such as cutlery, straws, and condiment packets to a customer unless requested by the customer; and
WHEREAS, AB 1276 is codified in Public Resource Code section 42270 et seq.; and WHEREAS, AB 1276 is designed to reduce excess packaging and undesired condiments and implements from being given to a customer when eating on premises or taking food to go and prohibits single-use foodware accessories from being bundled or packaged in a way that prohibits the customer from taking only the item desired; and WHEREAS, a city, county, or city and county, on or before June 1, 2022, is required to authorize an enforcement agency to enforce the requirements established under AB 1276; and WHEREAS, in order to comply with the enforcement requirements of AB 1276, the City Council of the City of Pinole desires to adopt a resolution authorizing the City to enforce the requirements of AB 1276;
WHEREAS, the Resolution also authorizes Contra Costa County to enforce the requirements of AB 1276 within Pinole if the County elects to take such action.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Pinole hereby declares as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct, and incorporated into this Resolution.

2. The City of Pinole and the Contra Costa County are authorized to enforce Chapter

5.2 (commencing with Section 42270) of Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code, as amended from time to time, and to issue penalties for violations of such requirements.

3. The City Manager is authorized and directed to take such actions as necessary to carry out the purpose and intent of this Resolution.

4. This Resolution does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines section 15060(c) and 15378 and requires no further environmental review.

5. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 55 of 285

ATTACHMENT A
2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pinole City Council held on the 17th day of May, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced, passed, and adopted on the 17th day of May, 2022.
____________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
5105020.2
56 of 285

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
REPORT 9E
DATE: MAY 17, 2022
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: MARKISHA GUILLORY, FINANCE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES’ OPPOSITION TO THE TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution (attached) in support of the League of California Cities’ opposition to the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (Initiative 21-0042, attached). The attached resolution is based on a template used by other jurisdictions that are supporting the League in opposing the measure.

BACKGROUND
At its meeting of April 5, 2022, the City Council approved a future agenda item of a resolution in support of the League of California’s opposition to the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (Initiative 21-0042), joining a coalition of other organizations throughout the State that opposes the measure.

On January 4, 2022, the California Business Roundtable filed the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, aimed for the November 2022 statewide ballot.

The proposed measure would amend the California Constitution with provisions limiting local control on raising revenues for government services.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The League of California Cities and a broad group of California local governments and associations, labor and public safety leaders, and infrastructure advocates have formed an alliance opposing the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act. The opponents of the measure cite the following concerns. 1 1 Public safety, labor, local government, and infrastructure advocates announce strong opposition to California Business Roundtable ballot measure that would benefit wealthy corporations while decimating vital local and state services | Cal Cities
57 of 285
City Council Report, 9E
May 17, 2022 2
Undermines voter rights, transparency, and accountability • The measure would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures, where voters provide direction to politicians on how they want their local tax dollars spent.
• It changes our constitution to make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and local infrastructure. • It also includes a hidden provision that would retroactively cancel measures that were passed by local voters — effectively undermining the rights of voters to decide for themselves what their communities need.

Gives wealthy corporations a major loophole to avoid paying their fair share — forcing residents and taxpayers to pay more.
• The measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including local infrastructure, our environment, water quality, air quality, and natural resources — shifting the burden and making individual taxpayers pay more.

Allows corporations to dodge enforcement when they violate environmental, health, public safety, and other laws.
• The deceptive scheme also creates new loopholes that makes it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods.

Jeopardizes vital local and state services.
• This far-reaching measure puts at risk billions of dollars currently dedicated to critical state and local services.
• It could force cuts to public schools, fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more. • It would also reduce funding for critical infrastructure like streets and roads, public transportation, drinking water, new schools, sanitation, utilities, and more.

Opens the door for frivolous lawsuits, bureaucracy, and red tape that will cost taxpayers and hurt our communities.
• The measure will encourage frivolous lawsuits, bureaucracy, and red tape that will cost local taxpayers millions — while significantly delaying and stopping investments in infrastructure and vital services. 58 of 285
City Council Report, 9E
May 17, 2022 3
The League of California Cities has also published a factsheet (attached) with additional information on its concerns regarding the measure.

FISCAL IMPACT
The City Council’s adoption of this resolution does not itself have any fiscal impact on the City.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
B. Initiative 21-0042A1
C. Cal Cities Opposition Fact Sheet
59 of 285
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-xx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

OPPOSING THE TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
WHEREAS, the Taxpayer Protection Accountability Act (Initiative 21-0042), aimed for the November 22 statewide ballot, would to amend the California Constitution with provisions limiting the local control on raising revenues; and WHEREAS, the measure includes undemocratic provisions that would make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and infrastructure, and would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures where voters provide direction on how they want their local tax dollars spent; and WHEREAS, the measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including local infrastructure, our environment, water quality, air quality, and natural resources; and
WHEREAS, the measure makes it more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the measure puts billions of dollars currently dedicated to state and local services at risk, and could force cuts to public schools, fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more; and WHEREAS, the measure would also reduce funding for critical infrastructure like streets and roads, public transportation, drinking water, new schools, sanitation, and utilities; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pinole opposes the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (Initiative 21-0042).

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of March 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ATTACHMENT A
60 of 285
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced, passed, and adopted on this 17th day of March, 2022.

______________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
61 of 285
BELL, McANDREWS & HILTACHK, LLP
Anabel Renteria
Initiative Coordinator
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSEL-ORS AT I.AW
455 C APITO L MALL, S UITE 600
SACRAMENTO, CALIFOE=INIA 95014
(916) 44;a-7757
FAX [916) 44-;a-77 59
www.bmhlaw.com
January 4, 2022
2 1 - 0 0 4 2

RECEIVED
JAN O 4 2022
Office of the Attorney General
State of California

INITIATIVE COORDINATOR

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
PO Box 994255
Sacramento, CA 94244-25550
Re: Initiative 21-0042 - Amendment Number One
Dear Initiative Coordinator:

Pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 9002 of the Elections Code, enclosed please find Amendment #1 to Initiative No. 21-0042 "The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act." The amendments are reasonably germane to the theme, purpose or subject of the initiative measure as originally proposed.

I am the proponent of the measure and request that the Attorney General prepare a circulating title and summary of the measure as provided by law, using the amended language.

Thank you for your time and attention processing my request.

Sincerely,
Thomas W.
~ Hiltachk

ATTACHMENT B
62 of 285
2 1 - 0 0 4 2 Arndt. # /
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act [Deleted codified text is denoted in strikeout. Added codified text is denoted by italics and underline.] Section 1. Title
This Act shall be known, and may be cited as, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act.

Section 2. Findings and Declarations
(a) Californians are overtaxed. We pay the nation's highest state income tax, sales tax, and gasoline tax. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, California's combined state and local tax burden is the highest in the nation. Despite this, and despite two consecutive years of obscene revenue surpluses, state politicians in 2021 alone introduced legislation to raise more than $234 billion in new and higher taxes and fees.
(b) Taxes are only part of the reason for California's rising cost-of-living crisis. Californians pay billions more in hidden "fees" passed through to consumers in the price they pay for products, services, food, fuel, utilities and housing. Since 2010, government revenue from state and local "fees" has more than doubled.
(c) California's high cost of living not only contributes to the state's skyrocketing rates of poverty and homelessness, they are the pushing working families and job-providing businesses out of the state. The most recent Census showed that California's population dropped for the first time in history, costing us a seat in Congress. In the past four years, nearly 300 major corporations relocated to other states, not counting thousands more small businesses that were forced to move, sell or close. (d) California voters have tried repeatedly, at great expense, to assert control over whether and how taxes and fees are raised. We have enacted a series of measures to make taxes more predictable, to limit what passes as a "fee," to require voter approval, and to guarantee transparency and accountability. These measures include Proposition 13 (1978), Proposition 62 (1986), Proposition 218 (1996), and Proposition 26 (2010).
(e) Contrary to the voters' intent, these measures that were designed to control taxes, spending and accountability, have been weakened and hamstrung by the Legislature, government lawyers, and the courts, making it necessary to pass yet another initiative to close loopholes and reverse hostile court decisions.

Section 3. Statement of Purpose
(a) In enacting this measure, the voters reassert their right to a voice and a vote on new and higher taxes by requiring any new or higher tax to be put before voters for approval. Voters also intend that all fees and other charges are passed or rejected by the voters themselves or a governing body elected by voters and not unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.
(b) Furthermore, the purpose and intent of the voters in enacting this measure is to increase transparency and accountability over higher taxes and charges by requiring any tax measure placed on the ballot1 63 of 285
either at the state or local level-to clearly state the type and rate of any tax, how long it will be in effect, and the use of the revenue generated by the tax.
(c) Furthermore, the purpose and intent of the voters in enacting this measure is to clarify that any new or increased form of state government revenue, by any name or manner of extraction paid directly or indirectly by Californians, shall be authorized only by a vote of the Legislature and signature of the Governor to ensure that the purposes for such charges are broadly supported and transparently debated. (d) Furthermore, the purpose and intent of the voters in enacting this measure is also to ensure that taxpayers have the right and ability to effectively balance new or increased taxes and other charges with the rapidly increasing costs Californians are already paying for housing, food, childcare, gasoline, energy, healthcare, education, and other basic costs of living, and to further protect the existing constitutional limit on property taxes and ensure that the revenue from such taxes remains local, without changing or superseding existing constitutional provisions contained in Section 1{c) of Article XIII A. (e) In enacting this measure, the voters also additionally intend to reverse loopholes in the legislative twothirds vote and voter approval requirements for government revenue increases created by the courts including, but not limited to, Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, Chamber of Commerce v. Air Resources Board, Schmeer v. Los Angeles County, Johnson v. County of Mendocino, Citizens Assn. of Sunset Beach v.

Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission, and Wilde v. City of Dunsmuir.

Section 4. Section 3 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution is amended to read:

Sec. 3(a} Every levy, charge. or exaction of any kind imposed by state law is either a tax or an exempt charge.
illlJ1l ~ Any change in state statute Jaw which results in any taxpayer paying a new or higher tax must be imposed by an act passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature, and submitted to the electorate and approved by a maiority vote, except that no new ad valorem taxes on real property, or sales or transaction taxes on the sales of real property, may be imposed. Each Act shall include:
(A) A specific duration of time that the tax will be imposed and an estimate of the annual amount expected to be derived from the tax.
(BJ A specific and legally binding and enforceable limitation on how the revenue from the tax can be spent.

If the revenue from the tax can be spent for unrestricted general revenue purposes. then a statement that the tax revenue can be spent for "unrestricted general revenue purposes" shall be included in a separate, stand-alone section. Any proposed change to the use of the revenue from the tax shall be adopted by a separate act that is passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature and submitted to the electorate and approved by a maiority vote. (2) The title and summary and ballot label or question required for a measure pursuant to the Elections Code shall. for each measure providing for the imposition of a tax, including a measure proposed by an elector pursuant to Article II, include:
{A) The type and amount or rate of the tax;
(BJ The duration of the tax: and
2 64 of 285
(CJ The use of the revenue derived from the tax.
(c} Any change in state law which results in any taxpayer paying a new or higher exempt charge must be imposed by an act passed by each of the two houses of the Legislature. Each act shall specify the type of exempt charge as provided in subdivision (e ), and the amount or rate of the exempt charge to be imposed.

Ml._fbt As used in this section and in Section 9 of Article II, "tax" means every aA1f levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by the State state law that is not an exempt charge. e1<eept the follo•Ning:
(e) As used in this section. "exempt charge" means only the following:
(1) a el:iarge imposes fer a s1=1eeifie eenefit eonferreEl or pri'+'ilege granteEl aireetly to tl:ie 13ayor tl:iat is not 1=1ro>viaeEl to tl:iose not et:iargeEI, anEI whiel:i aoes not e1<ceeEl tl:ie reasonal3Ie costs to tl:ie State of eonferring the benefit or granting the pri¥ilege to the 1=1a¥OF.
ill {-2+ A reasonable charge irnposeEl for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the rnasonable actual costs to the State of providing the service or product to the payor. f.11 ~ A charge in,poseEl for the reasonable regulatory costs to the State incident to issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof. (3) A levy, charge. or exaction collected from local units of government. health care providers or health care service plans that is primarily used by the State of California for the purposes of increasing reimbursement rates or payments under the Medi-Cal program, and the revenues of which are primarily used to finance the non-federal portion of Medi-Cal medical assistance expenditures. (4) A reasonable charge iR'l13oseEl for entrance to or use of state property, or the purchase. rental, or lease of state property, except charges governed by Section 15 of Article XI. (5} A fine, or penalty, or other monetary el:large including any applicable interest for nonpayment thereot imposed by the judicial branch of government or the State, as a result of a state administrative enforcement agency pursuant to adiudicatorv due process, to punish a violation of law. (6} A levy, charge, assessment, or exaction collected for the promotion of California tourism pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 13995) of Part 4.7 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. flL~Any tax or exempt charge adopted after January 1, 2022 ~, but prior to the effective date of this act, that was not adopted in compliance with the requirements of this section is void 12 months after the effective date of this act unless the tax or exempt charge is reenacted B'l the begislatuFe anel signea into law ey tl:ie <iio¥ernoF in compliance with the requirements of this section. [gl[.JlJG:} The State bears the burden of proving by a preponEleranee oftl:le clear and convincing evidence that a levy, charge, or other exaction is an exempt charge and not a tax. The State bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the amount of the exempt charge is reasonable and that the amount charged does not exceed the actual cost of providing the service or product to the payor. ,tR-a-t tl:ie amouRt is RO n,ore tl:ian neeessary to cover the reasonable costs of the go•.•emn,ental actii,•i:t>,• ane 3 65 of 285
that the manner in •Nhiel.:i these cests are allecated ts a pa·1er bear a fair er reasenable relatienshi13 ts the 13a·1or's b1:1relens on, or benefits reeei11eel from, the go•.ieFRmental actit.iit'( (2) The retention ofrevenue by, or the payment to. a non-governmental entity ofa levv. charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by state law, shall not be a factor in determining whether the levy. charge, or exaction is a tax or exempt charge.
(3) The characterization of a levy, charge, or exaction of any kind as being voluntary, or paid in exchange for a benefit, privilege, allowance, authorization, or asset, shall not be a factor in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or an exempt charge. /4} The use of revenue derived from the levy, charge or exaction shall be a factor in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or exempt charge. (h) As used in this section:
(1) "Actual cost" of providing a service or product means: (i) the minimum amount necessary to reimburse the government for the cost of providing the service or product to the payor, and {ii) where the amount charged is not used by the government for any purpose other than reimbursing that cost. In computing "actual cost" the maximum amount that may be imposed is the actual cost less all other sources of revenue including, but not limited to taxes, other exempt charges, grants, and state or federal funds received to provide such service or product.
(2) "Extend" includes, but is not limited to, doing any of the following with respect to a tax or exempt charge: lengthening its duration. delaying or eliminating its expiration, expanding its application to a new territory or class ofpayor, or expanding the base to which its rate is applied. (3) "Impose" means adopt, enact, reenact, create, establish, collect, increase or extend. (4) "State law" includes, but is not limited to. any state statute, state regulation, state executive order. state resolution, state ruling, state opinion Jetter, or other legal authority or interpretation adopted, enacted. enforced, issued, or implemented by the legislative or executive branches of state government. "State law" does not include actions taken by the Regents of the University of California, Trustees of the California State University, or the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges.

Section 5. Section 1 of Article XIII C of the California Constitution is amended, to read:

Sec. 1. Definitions. As used in this article:
{a) "Actual cost" of providing a service or product means: (i) the minimum amount necessary to reimburse the government for the cost of providing the service or product to the payor. and {ii) where the amount charged is not used by the government for any purpose other than reimbursing that cost. In computing "actual cost" the maximum amount that may be imposed is the actual cost less all other sources of revenue including, but not limited to taxes. other exempt charges, grants, and state or federal funds received to provide such service or product.
(b) "Extend" includes, but is not limited to. doing any of the following with respect to a tax. exempt charge, or Article XIII D assessment. fee, or charge: lengthening its duration, delaying or eliminating its expiration. expanding its application to a new territory or class of payor, or expanding the base to which its rate is applied.
4 66 of 285
.lfl..W 11General tax" means any tax imposed for general governmental purposes. (d} "Impose" means adopt, enact, reenact, create, establish, collect, increase, or extend. {clJb} "Local government" means any county, city, city and county, including a charter city or county, any special district, or any other local or regional governmental entity, or an elector pursuant to Article fl or the initiative power provided by a charter or statute.
(f) "Local law" includes. but is not limited to, any ordinance, resolution, regulation. ruling, opinion letter, or other legal authority or interpretation adopted, enacted, enforced, issued, or implemented by a local government.
{gl_{t} "Special district" means an agency of the State, formed pursuant to general law or a special act, for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions with limited geographic boundaries including, but not limited to, school districts and redevelopment agencies. f11L{d} "Special tax" means any tax imposed for specific purposes, including a tax imposed for specific purposes, which is placed into a general fund.
111 i@} As used in this article, and in Section 9 of Article II, "tax" means every aRV-levy, charge, or exaction of any kind, imposed by a local go,;ernmeRt law that is not an exempt charge., exeept tl=le fellowiRg:
(i) As used in this section, "exempt charge" means only the following:
(1) A cl=large imposeel fer a speeifie beAefit eoAferreel or pri,;ilege graAteel eliFeetl')' to tl=le pa1,ior tl=lat is Rot pre1,•ieleel to these Rot ehargea, aA£l which £lees Rot exeeeel tl=le reaseAable costs to tl=le loeal gm,·ernFAeAt of conferriAg the beAefit or graAting tl:1e pri¥ilege.
ill R} A reasonable charge imposes for a specific local government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasoAable actual costs to the local government of providing the service or product. fl1 WA charge im13ose£l for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof.

W {4t A reasonable charge imposeel for entrance to or use of local government property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property.

Ml. fSt A fine, or penalty, or other FAOA@tar,· eharge including any applicable interest for nonpayment thereat imposed by the judicial branch of government or a local government administrative enforcement agency pursuant to adiudicatorv due process, as a res1,1lt of to punish a violation of law. ill -f6t A charge imposed as a condition of property development. No levv, charge, or exaction regulating or related to vehicle miles traveled may be imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy. f.i1 f7t An AssessFAeRts a Rel property relate el fees assessment. fee. or charge imJ;1oseel iA aeeoraanee witl=l the pro¥isio A5 of subject to Article XI 11 D, or an assessment imposed upon a business in a tourism marketing district, a parking and business improvement area, or a property and business improvement district. 5 67 of 285
(7) A charge imposed for a specific health care service provided directly to the payor and that is not provided to those not charged. and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the health care service. As used in this paragraph, a "health care service" means a service licensed or exempt from licensure by the state pursuant to Chapters 1. 1.3, or 2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code.

The local government bears the b1:1rden of proving by a preponderance of the e .. ·ielence that a lew, charge, or other exaction is not a ta1<, that the amo1:1nt is no more than necessaPJ' to cover the reasonable costs of the go•,ernfflental acti•.«ity anel that tJ:ie manner in which those costs are allocateel to a pa•ror bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the pa•ror's blslrdens on, or bene:fits receiveel from, the go1a1ernmental acfa•ity.

Section 6. Section 2 of Article XIII C of the California Constitution is amended to read:

Sec. 2. Local Government Tax Limitation. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution:
(a) Every levy. charge. or exaction of any kind imposed by local law is either a tax or an exempt charge. All taxes imposed by any local government shall be deemed to be either general taxes or special taxes. Special purpose districts or agencies, including school districts, shall have no power to levy general taxes. (b) No local Jaw go,.·ernment whether proposed by the governing body or by an elector, may impose, extend, or increase any general tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote. A general tax shall not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved. The election required by this subdivision shall be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the governing body. (c) An•r general tax imposed, el<tended, or increaseel, •.-.iitho1:1t •.·oter approval, lay any local go,.·ernment on or after Janlslary 1, 1995, ana prior ta the effecti,.·e date of this article, shall contin1:1e to be imposed only if appro,.·ea b1• a majority vote of the voters voting in an election OR the issye of the in:iposition, whicl::i election sl::iall be l::ield witl::iin t•Ne 1•ears ef the effectii.ie date of this article and in com13liance with slslbdi\·isien (b}. {El) No local law government. whether proposed by the governing body or by an elector. may impose, eMteRd, er increase any special tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote. A special tax shall not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved. {d) The title and summary and ballot label or question required for a measure pursuant to the Elections Code shall. for each measure providing for the imposition of a tax, include:
(1) The type and amount or rate of the tax;
(2) the duration of the tax; and
(3) The use of the revenue derived from the tax. If the proposed tax is a general tax. the phrase "for general government use" shall be required, and no advisory measure may appear on the same ballot that would indicate that the revenue from the general tax will. could. or should be used for a specific purpose. (e) Only the governing body of a local government. other than an elector pursuant to Article II or the initiative power provided by a charter or statute. shall have the authority to impose any exempt charge.

The governing body shall impose an exempt charge by an ordinance specifying the type of exempt charge 6 68 of 285
as provided in Section l(i) and the amount or rate of the exempt charge to be imposed. and passed by the governing body. This subdivision shall not apply to charges specified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (i) of Section 1.
ff) No amendment to a Charter which provides for the imposition, extension, or increase of a tax or exempt charge shall be submitted to or approved by the electors. nor shall any such amendment to a Charter hereafter submitted to or approved by the electors become effective for any purpose. (q) Any tax or exempt charge adopted after January 1, 2022, but prior to the effective date of this act, that was not adopted in compliance with the requirements of this section is void 12 months after the effective date of this act unless the tax or exempt charge is reenacted in compliance with the requirements of this section.
{h)(1) The focal government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that a levy, charge or exaction is an exempt charge and not a tax. The local government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the amount of the exempt charge is reasonable and that the amount charged does not exceed the actual cost of providing the service or product to the payor. (2} The retention of revenue by, or the payment to, a non-governmental entity of a levy. charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by a local law, shall not be a factor in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or exempt charge.
(3) The characterization of a levy. charge. or exaction of any kind imposed by a local law as being paid in exchange for a benefit. privilege, allowance, authorization, or asset, shall not be factors in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or an exempt charge. (4) The use of revenue derived from the levy, charge or exaction shall be a factor in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or exempt charge.

Section 7. Section 3 of Article XIII D of the California Constitution is amended, to read:

Sec. 3. Property Taxes, Assessments, Fees and Charges Limited (a) No tax, assessment, fee, 6f charge, or surcharge, including a surcharge based on the value ofpropertv, shall be assessed 13y a Ry ageRC'f upon any parcel of property or upon any person as an incident of property ownership except:
(1) The ad valorem property tax impeseEI p1::1rsYaRt te described in Section 1(a) of Article XIII and Section 1/a) of Article XIII A, and described and enacted pursuant to the voter approval requirement in Section 1/b) Q[Article XII I A.
(2) Any special non-ad valorem tax receiving a two-thirds vote of qualified electors pursuant to Section 4 of Article XIII A, or after receiving a two-thirds vote of those authorized to vote in a community facilities district by the Legislature pursuant to statute as it existed on December 31, 2021. (3) Assessments as provided by this article.
(4) Fees or charges for property related services as provided by this article. 7 69 of 285
(b) For purposes of this article, fees for the provision of electrical or gas service shall not be deemed charges or fees imposed as an incident of property ownership.

Section 8. Sections 1 and 14 of Article XIII are amended to read:

Sec. 1 Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or the laws of the United States:
(a) All property is taxable and shall be assessed at the same percentage of fair market value. When a value standard other than fair market value is prescribed by this Constitution or by statute authorized by this Constitution, the same percentage shall be applied to determine the assessed value. The value to which the percentage is applied, whether it be the fair market value or not, shall be known for property tax purposes as the full value.
(b) All property so assessed shall be taxed in proportion to its full value. (c) All proceeds from the taxation of property shall be apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.

Sec. 14. All property taxed by state or local government shall be assessed in the county, city, and district in which it is situated. Notwithstanding any other provision of/aw, such state or local property taxes shall be apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.

Section 9. General Provisions
A. This Act shall be liberally construed in order to effectuate its purposes.

B. (1) In the event that this initiative measure and another initiative measure or measures relating to state or local requirements for the imposition, adoption, creation, or establishment of taxes, charges, and other revenue measures shall appear on the same statewide election ballot, the other initiative measure or measures shall be deemed to be in conflict with this measure. In the event that this initiative measure receives a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this measure shall prevail in their entirety, and the provisions ofthe other initiative measure or measures shall be null and void. (2) In furtherance of this provision, the voters hereby declare that this measure conflicts with the provisions of the "Housing Affordability and Tax Cut Act of 2022" and "The Tax Cut and Housing Affordability Act," both of which would impose a new state property tax (called a "surcharge") on certain real property, and where the revenue derived from the tax is provided to the State, rather than retained in the county in which the property is situated and for the use of the county and cities and districts within the county, in direct violation of the provisions of this initiative. (3) If this initiative measure is approved by the voters, but superseded in whole or in part by any other conflicting initiative measure approved by the voters at the same election, and such conflicting initiative is later held invalid, this measure shall be self-executing and given full force and effect.

C. The provisions of this Act are severable. If any portion, section, subdivision, paragraph, clause, sentence, phrase, word, or application of this Act is for any reason held to be invalid by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Act. The People of the State of California hereby declare that they would have adopted this Act and each and every portion, section, subdivision, paragraph, clause, sentence, phrase, word, and application not 8 70 of 285
declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of this Act or application thereof would be subsequently declared invalid.

D. If this Act is approved by the voters of the State of California and thereafter subjected to a legal challenge alleging a violation of state or federal law, and both the Governor and Attorney General refuse to defend this Act, then the following actions shall be taken:
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Chapter 6 of Part 2 of Division 3 ofTitle 2 of the Government Code or any other law, the Attorney General shall appoint independent counsel to faithfully and vigorously defend this Act on behalf of the State of California. (2) Before appointing or thereafter substituting independent counsel, the Attorney General shall exercise due diligence in determining the qualifications of independent counsel and shall obtain written affirmation from independent counsel that independent counsel will faithfully and vigorously defend this Act. The written affirmation shall be made publicly available upon request. (3) A continuous appropriation is hereby made from the General Fund to the Controller, without regard to fiscal years, in an amount necessary to cover the costs of retaining independent counsel to faithfully and vigorously defend this Act on behalf of the State of California. (4) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the proponents of this Act, or a bona fide taxpayers association, from intervening to defend this Act.
9 71 of 285
CaliforniaCityFinance.Com
Fiscal and Program Effects of
Initiative 21-0042A1 on Local Governments
If Initiative 21-0042A1 is placed on the ballot and passed by voters, it will result in:
 Billions of local government fee and charge revenues placed at heightened legal peril. Related public service reductions across virtually every aspect of city, county, special district, and school services especially for transportation, and public facility use.  Hundreds of millions of dollars of annual revenues from dozens of tax and bond measures approved by voters between January 1, 2022 and November 9, 2022 subject to additional voter approval if not in compliance with the initiative.
 Indeterminable legal and administrative burdens and costs on local government from new and more empowered legal challenges, and bureaucratic cost tracking requirements.  The delay and deterrence of municipal annexations and associated impacts on housing and commercial development.
 Service and infrastructure impacts including in fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, drinking water, sewer sanitation, parks, libraries, public schools, affordable housing, homelessness prevention and mental health services.

1. Local Government Taxes and Services Threatened
With regard to taxes, Initiative 21-0042A1:
 Prohibits advisory, non-binding measures as to use of tax proceeds on the same ballot. o Voters may be less informed and more likely to vote against measures.  Eliminates the ability of special tax measures proposed by citizen initiative to be enacted by majority voter approval (Upland).
o Because the case law regarding citizen initiative special taxes approved by majority vote (Upland) is so recent, it is unknown how common these sorts of measures might be in the future. This initiative would prohibit such measures after the effective date of the initiative. Any such measures adopted after January 1, 2022 through November 8, 2022 would be void after November 9, 2023.
 Requires that tax measures include a specific duration of time that the tax will be imposed. This seems to require that all tax increases or extensions contain a sunset (end date). o This would require additional tax measures to extend previously approved taxes at additional cost to taxpayers.
 Requires that a tax or bond measure adopted after January 1, 2022 and before the effective date of the initiative (November 9, 2022) that was not adopted in accordance with the measure be readopted in compliance with the measure or will be void twelve months after the effective date of the initiative (November 9, 2023).
o If past election patterns are an indication, dozens of tax and bond measures approving hundreds of millions of annual revenues may not be in compliance and would be subject to reenactment.

Most will be taxes without a specific end date. Because there is no regularly scheduled election within the 12 months following the effective date of the initiative, measures not in compliance would need to be placed on a special election ballot for approval before November 9, 2023 or the tax will be void after that date. General tax measures would require declaration of emergency and unanimous vote of the governing board.
2217 Isle Royale Lane • Davis, CA • 95616-6616
Phone: 530.758.3952 • Fax: 530.758.3952
Rev. January 7, 2022

ATTACHMENT C
72 of 285
– 2 – rev January 7, 2022
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
 Requires voter approval to expand an existing tax to new territory (annexations). This would require additional tax measures and would deter annexations and land development in cities. o If a tax is "extended" to an annexed area without a vote after January 1, 2022, it will be void 12 months later until brought into compliance. Because there is no regularly scheduled election within the 12 months following the effective date of the initiative, such extensions for general taxes would, under current law, each require unanimous vote of the agency board to be placed on a special election ballot or would be void after November 9, 2023.

1.a. Number of Measures and Value of Local Taxes at Risk1 In 2020, voters in California approved 293 local tax and bond measures for cities, counties, special districts and schools (95 in March and 198 in November). The approved measures enacted $3.85 billion in new annual taxes including $1.3 billion for cities, $302 million for counties, $208 million for special districts (fire, wastewater, open space and transit districts), and $2.037 billion for schools (including for school bonds).

Most tax measures go to the ballot during a presidential or gubernatorial primary or general election in an even year. However, some tax measures are decided at other times. During 2019, there were 45 approved tax and bond measures (24 city, 14 special district, 7 school) adopting $154.0 million in new annual taxes ($124.0 million city, $10.5 million special district and $19.2 million school).

Most tax and bond measures comply with the new rules in Initiative 21-0042Amdt#1 except:
 Dozens of taxes would require end dates. This would require additional measures in future years to extend the taxes further. Very few extensions of existing local taxes fail.  Majority vote general tax measures could not be accompanied on the same ballot with an advisory, non-binding measure as to use of tax proceeds.  Special taxes placed on the ballot via citizen initiative would require two-thirds voter approval.

Bond measures have fixed terms. Historically, about 20 percent of other tax measures have included specific durations (i.e. sunsets). Advisory measures as to use of revenues are uncommon. I do not expect the provisions of 21-0042A1 to have any substantial effect on passage rates. However, some 2022 approved measures would likely have to put back on the ballot.

Based on history, a reasonable estimate of the annualized tax revenues estimated to be approved by 1 Source: Compilation and summary of data from County elections offices. 73 of 285
– 3 – rev January 7, 2022
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
voters in 2022 and placed at risk by this initiative is at least $1.5 billion, including $1.0 billion from cities and $500 million from counties and special districts. 2 1.b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Tax Provisions In addition to service delays and disruption due to new tax revenues placed at greater legal risk, there will be substantial additional costs for legal defense. The deterrence of taxes for annexations will delay and deter municipal annexations.

2. “Exempt Charges” (fees and charges that are not taxes) and Services Threatened With regard to fees and charges adopted after January 1, 2022, Initiative 21-0042A1:
 Subjects new fees and charges for a product or service to a new "actual cost” test defined as “(i) the minimum amount necessary to reimburse the government for the cost of providing the service to the payor, and (ii) where the amount charged is not used by the government for any purpose other than reimbursing that cost. In addition, subjects these same charges to a new, undefined, “reasonable” standard.
 Subjects fees and charges for entrance to local government property; and rental and sale of local government property to a new, undefined, “reasonable” test.  Subjects a challenged fee or charge to new, higher burdens of proof if legally challenged.  Prohibits a levy, charge or exaction regulating or related to vehicle miles traveled, imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy.

2.a. Value on New Local Government Fees and Charges at Risk3 Virtually every city, county, and special district must regularly (e.g., annually) adopt increases to fee rates and charges and revise rate schedules to accommodate new users and activities. Most of these would be subject to new standards and limitations under threat of legal challenge. Based on the current volume of fees and charges imposed by local agencies and increases in those fees simply to accommodate inflation, the amount of local government fee and charge revenue placed at risk is about $1 billion per year including those adopted since January 1, 2022. Of this $1 billion, about $570 million is for special districts, $450 million is cities, and $260 million is counties.4
Major examples of affected fees and charges are:

1. Nuisance abatement charges - such as for weed, rubbish and general nuisance abatement to fund community safety, code enforcement, and neighborhood cleanup programs.

2. Commercial franchise fees.

3. Emergency response fees - such as in connection with DUI.

4. Advanced Life Support (ALS) transport charges.

5. Document processing and duplication fees.

6. Transit fees, tolls, parking fees, public airport and harbor use fees.

7. Facility use charges, fees for parks and recreation services, garbage disposal tipping fees.

In addition to fees and charges, the measure puts fines and penalties assessed for the violation of state and 2 This does not include citizen initiative special tax approved by majority but not two-thirds. Because this approach is new, the number of these measures and amount of revenue involved cannot be estimated. 3 Source: California State Controller Annual Reports of Financial Transactions concerning cities, counties and special districts, summarized with an assumed growth due to fee rate increases (not population) of 2 percent annually. 4 School fees are also affected but the amount is negligible by comparison. 74 of 285
– 4 – rev January 7, 2022
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
local law at risk, making them taxes subject to voter approval under certain circumstances.

2.b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Fee/Charge Provisions In addition to service delays and disruptions due to fee and charge revenues placed at greater legal risk, there would be substantial additional costs for legal defense. The risk to fees and charges will make infrastructure financing more difficult and will deter new residential and commercial development. ***********
mc
75 of 285

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9F
DATE MAY 17, 2022
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ANDREW MURRAY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: APPROVING AN APPLICATION TO MEMORIALIZE DEAN ALLISON

PER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE

ON MEMORIALS

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve an application to memorialize Dean Allison per the recommendation of the City Council Committee on Memorials and the City’s Memorial Policy.

BACKGROUND
In July 2020, the City Council adopted the updated Memorial Policy (attached). The Memorial Policy establishes a process and criteria for the consideration by the City of requests by Council Members and members of the public to memorialize individuals, groups, or organizations that have had a significant, positive impact on the community by naming a portion of existing City property or a new enhancement to City property after the individual, group, or organization.

The City received an application in March 2022 (attached) to memorialize former resident and City employee Dean Allison by placing a rock with a plaque near a tree that had previously been planted in Mr. Allison’s honor in Amber Swartz Park.

Per the process outlined in the Memorial Policy, City staff reviewed the application and determined that it was complete and consistent with the Memorial Policy, that there would be no notable cost to the City to install and maintain the proposed physical memorial, and that the physical memorial would comply with all applicable City and other policies, rules, and regulations. The Committee on Memorials met on April 15, 2022 to consider the application and voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council that the Council approve the application.

REVIEW & ANALYSIS
The Committee on Memorials is unanimously recommending that the City Council approve the application to memorialize Dean Allison. City staff has determined that there would be no notable cost to the City to install and maintain the proposed physical memorial.
76 of 285
City Council Report, 9F
May 17, 2022 2
In addition to the information contained in the application itself, the City received the following additional information about Mr. Allison’s contributions to the community.

Dean Allison was a true civil servant in every sense of the word and a valued member of the Pinole community. He was the Director of Public Works for the City of Pinole from 2005 – 2015, where he spearheaded many important projects, including the planning of improvements to the Wastewater Treatment Plant, road maintenance projects, and acceptance of the improved, volunteer-built Amber Swartz Park, by the City of Pinole. Wearing his Public Works Director hat, Dean reviewed improvements proposed by community organizations, such as the Community Corner (San Pablo Avenue and Tennent Avenue), then donned a hat as a volunteer to help in a project. He was a member of the Pinole Rotary, Exchange Club, parishioner of St. Patrick's Catholic Church, and involved with Habitat for Humanity. Dean was an avid baseball fan who never lost faith in his beloved New York Mets.

Dean was born in Dobbs Ferry, New York to Virginia (Coffey) Allison and Ben Allison. Dean graduated from Dobbs Ferry High School, State University of New York (SUNY) Oneonta ('78) with a Bachelor’s in Physics, SUNY Buffalo ('80) with a Bachelor’s in Civil Engineering and earned an MBA from the University of California ('89). Most recently, Dean was the Director of Public Works for the City of San Rafael, when he passed away on March 4, 2016. Previous to his work in Pinole, Dean was the Director of Public Works for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Dean also was responsible for rebuilding Pinole Valley road from the Sprouts store to the Pinole Valley shopping area. He designed the center-berms and light standards to give the area a bright attractive look. He also created the business tax district to pay for the maintenance of the lights and center-berm plant areas.

He was also solely responsible for obtaining a $800,000.00 grant from ConocoPhillips that built the solar systems on the Youth Center and Swimming pool.

If the City Council approves the application to memorialize Dean Allison, the City intends to install the physical memorial (rock) in time to be dedicated at the upcoming Community Service Day on June 18, 2022. The City is already in possession of the rock, and the applicant will furnish and install the plaque upon the rock.

The City Council can approve the application by adopting the associated resolution (attached).

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no notable cost to install and maintain the physical memorial at the proposed location.
77 of 285
City Council Report, 9F
May 17, 2022 3

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
B. City of Pinole Memorial Policy, Adopted July 21, 2020 C. Application Requesting that an Individual, Group, or Organization be Memorialized 78 of 285

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE, COUNTY OF

CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN APPLICATION TO

MEMORIALIZE DEAN ALLISON
WHEREAS, in July 2020, the City Council adopted the updated Memorial Policy; and
WHEREAS, the Memorial Policy establishes a process and criteria for the consideration by the City of requests by Council Members and members of the public to memorialize individuals, groups, or organizations that have had a significant, positive impact on the community by naming a portion of existing City property or a new enhancement to City property after the individual, group, or organization; and WHEREAS, the City received an application, on March 9, 2022, to memorialize Dean Allison; and
WHEREAS, per the process outlined in the Memorial Policy, City staff reviewed the application and determined that it was complete and consistent with the Memorial Policy, that there would be no notable cost to the City to install and maintain the proposed physical memorial, and that the physical memorial would comply with all applicable City and other policies, rules, and regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Committee on Memorials met on April 15, 2022 to consider the application; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on April 15, 2022, the Committee on Memorials voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council that the Council approve the application to memorialize Dean Allison;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Pinole does hereby approve the application to memorialize Dean Allison and direct City staff to install the proposed physical memorial.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pinole City Council held on the 17th day of May 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
79 of 285

MEMORIAL POLICY
Adopted July 21, 2020

ATTACHMENT B
80 of 285
2 CITY OF PINOLE

MEMORIAL POLICY

POLICY PURPOSE
This policy establishes a process and criteria for the consideration by the City of requests by Council Members and members of the public to memorialize individuals, groups, or organizations that have had a significant, positive impact on the community by naming a portion of existing City property or a new enhancement to City property after the individual, group, or organization.

I. Definitions
• City Property
• Building: City Hall, police station, fire station, senior center, youth center, swim center, Tiny Tots building, wastewater treatment plant, corporation yard, and any other current or future buildings.
• Portion of City-owned building: Interior and exterior spaces and locations, such as entryway, wall, and room.
• Land and natural features: Open space, creeks and channels, trails, parks, groves, trees, and any new or future land for public use. • Equipment: Benches, tables, gazebos, fountains, playgrounds, playground equipment, courts, murals, barbecue pits and picnic areas, and any equipment which is used/offered for the public’s benefit. Street signs are expressly excluded.
• New enhancement to City property: The addition of or an enhancement to City property, such as a new natural feature or piece of equipment. • Other Definitions
• Plaque: A flat tablet of metal, stone, or other appropriate material that includes text and/or images.
• Monument - A structure created to recognize something of significance.

II. Portions of Existing City Property or New Enhancements to City property that Can be Named
Any item of City property, as defined above, can be named to memorialize an individual, group, or organization. An entire building cannot, however, be named. Portions of Cityowned buildings, as defined above, may be named. 81 of 285
3 The City Council desires to recognize individuals but reserves the right to limit the number of pieces of City property that are named.

Any piece of City property that has been approved to be named to memorialize an individual, group, or organization through the process outlined below will be identified through the placing of a plaque, inscription, or some other text indicating the name on or adjacent to the property.

III. Process for Requesting that an Individual, Group, or Organization be Memorialized by Naming Existing City Property or a New Enhancement to City Property after the Individual, Group, or Organization

1. Application. A request to name existing City property or a new enhancement to City property after an individual, group, or organization may be initiated by one or more Council Members or City residents, business owners, property owners, or City staff members using an Application. The Application shall be submitted to the City Manager’s office.

2. Contents of Application. The Application shall state the individual, group, or organization proposed to be memorialized, the existing City property or new enhancement to City property proposed to be named, the proposed name, and the reasons for the proposed naming. The Application shall evince the significant, positive impact on the community created by the individual, group, or organization and broad-based community support for the naming.

3. Review of Application. The City Manager and City staff shall review the Application and determine if it is consistent with this Policy.

4. Incomplete or Inconsistent Applications. Applications that are determined by the City Manager to be incomplete, lacking sufficient support, or otherwise inconsistent with this Policy will be returned to the applicant together with a written explanation of the reason for the return. The applicant may resubmit the Application at any time with new or additional information to correct the insufficiencies identified by the City Manager.

5. Consideration by Ad-Hoc Committee on Memorials. If consistent with the Policy, the Application will be forwarded to a City Council Ad-Hoc Committee on Memorials for review and consideration. The Committee shall consist of two City Council Members appointed by vote of the Council. The Committee shall provide a recommendation to the City Council to approve or deny an Application.

6. Review by City Council. The City Council shall review Applications at a regular meeting. All decisions with respect to approving or not approving Applications will be at the sole discretion of the City Council.

IV. Renaming
In general, once a piece of property has been named, it cannot be renamed, except under exceptional circumstances as determined by 4/5th of the City Council. 82 of 285
4 V. Factors for Determining that an Individual, Group, or Organization has had a Significant, Positive Impact on the Community
In determining whether to approve an Application, the Ad-Hoc Committee on Memorials shall consider whether the individual, group, or organization on whose behalf an Application has been submitted has met one of the following standards:
• Was of local, regional, or national significance, with special consideration given to Pinole’s own history
• Enhanced the quality of life and well-being of City residents • Contributed to the preservation of the City’s history or culture • Made exemplary or meritorious contributions to the City or its residents • Contributed to the acquisition, development, donation, or conveyance of land, buildings, structures, or other amenities to the City or community The Ad-Hoc Committee will generally not consider an Application on behalf of an individual within two years of that individual’s death. Such a waiting period is to ensure that an individual’s accomplishments or contributions will stand the test of time. The AdHoc Committee may consider and recommend an Application to memorialize an individual within two years of the individual’s death when the Ad-Hoc Committee determines that special circumstances make it appropriate to do so.

VI. Naming Criteria
The following names shall be avoided:
• Cumbersome, profane, discriminatory, derogatory names, offensive or in poor taste. • Names that cause confusion due to duplication or that sound too similar to existing named locations within the City or surrounding areas.
• Names of companies and/or businesses.
• Names of appointed or elected local officials currently in office or current City employees.
• Names that would result in the overt commercialization of City owned buildings. • Names should not be overly recognized, either within the City or the region.

VII. Donations and Dedications
It is the policy of the City to consider accepting monetary donations to fund enhancements to City property, such as equipment, trees, murals, and monuments.

Anyone wishing to donate funding for a new enhancement to City property and further wishing to have said new enhancement memorialize an individual, group, or organization shall submit an Application per the process outlined above. The Ad-Hoc Committee on Memorials will give special consideration to Applications in which the applicant is offering to donate a new enhancement to City property.
83 of 285
5 Prior to submitting an Application involving the donation for the enhancement to City property, the prospective applicant shall contact the City Manager’s office to provide a description of the enhancement to City property, such as a tree or bench, that the applicant is envisioning for memorialization. The City Manager’s office will forward the description of the enhancement to the Public Works Department to determine the cost for the City to install the enhancement and maintain it throughout its lifecycle as well as to confirm that the enhancement would comply with all applicable City and other policies, rules, and regulations. The Public Works Department shall determine a suitable location and specifications for the enhancement. The City will provide the applicant with the amount that the applicant shall donate such that the City can install and maintain the enhancement pending approval of the Application by the City Council. The City reserves the right to reject any offer of donation if, upon review, acceptance of the donation is determined not to be in the best interest of the City.

VIII. Specifications for Plaque, Inscription, or Other Text The plaque, inscription, or other text shall be rectangular or similar shape with only words and numbers allowed. Symbols, images, and artwork will not be accepted.

Size of Plaque (in) Font Font size
Indoor Max. 12” x 10” New Times Roman/Arial Min. 24
Outdoor Max. 18” x 18” New Times Roman/Arial Min. 24
Examples include:

In Memory of In Recognition of
Jane Doe Jane Doe Boy Scout Troop
1940 - 2010 1940 - 2010 2017
Any requests outside the provisions of this Policy would require a 4/5th vote of the City Council.
84 of 285

CITY OF PINOLE
Application Requesting that an Individual, Group, or
Organization be Memorialized by Naming Existing City
Property or a New Enhancement to City Property after
the Individual, Group, or Organization
Introduction
The City of Pinole adopted an updated Memorial Policy in July 2020. The policy laid out the process and criteria by which requests to memorialize individuals, groups, or organizations by naming a portion of existing City property or a new enhancement to City property after the individual, group, or organization would be considered.

A request to name existing City property or a new enhancement to City property after an individual, group, or organization may be initiated by one or more Council Members or City residents, business owners, property owners, or City staff members using an application. The application shall be submitted to the City Manager’s office.

The application shall state the individual, group, or organization proposed to be memorialized, the existing City property or new enhancement to City property proposed to be named, the proposed name, and the reasons for the proposed naming. The application shall evince the significant, positive impact on the community created by the individual, group, or organization and broad-based community support for the naming.

Application Information
The individual, group, or organization proposed to be memorialized:

Dean Allison
The existing City property or new enhancement to City property proposed to be named:

Existing tree planted in Amber Swartz Park and to-be-placed rock, on which a plaque will be attached.

The proposed name, and the reasons for the proposed naming:

Dean Allison Memorial Tree
Revised March 8, 2022 1

ATTACHMENT C
85 of 285
Description of the significant, positive impact on the community created by the individual, group, or organization:

Oftentimes working with city government and staff can be frustrating and challenging. It is especially so when one is not familiar with processes and procedures. But Dean Allison was the exception, he patiently guided me through the process of creating what we know as The Community Corner, and he did so with a smile and laughter. He resided in Pinole, frequented our businesses and was a part of our community. It is appropriate that we honor him.

Pinole Rotary brought us together, the love and commitment to our community made us friends. Well….also our love of baseball, but that’s another story.

Dean Allison was a not only a dedicated employee of the City of Pinole. Dean was a community person, a community person that lived, loved and was active in his community. Besides being involved in many Rotary Club sponsored community projects, Dean showed Pinole Rotary the way to completion of Amber Park.

Amber Park is a community park, built by volunteers to honor fallen Pinole Police Officer, Bernie Swartz and his missing daughter, Amber.

With the help of the city, the Rotary Club of Pinole planted a tree at Amber Park to honor Dean Allison. We look forward to completing this recognition with a rock and engraved metal plate in remembrance of Dean’s many community contributions.

On behalf of the Rotary Club of Pinole, I would like to extend our support for the memorial plaque and rock honoring Dean Allison. Dean was not only an outstanding member of the community and city employee, but a distinguished Rotarian who was instrumental in the establishment of Amber Park. I hope the city council will join us in honoring Dean by placing a plaque in his honor in the park he loved so much.

Description of broad-based community support for the naming:

Support from City Council Members as well as prominent members of the community, including members of the Rotary Club.

Submitter
Name, title (if applicable), and contact information of individual submitting application:

Jill Alderfer, Pinole Rotary President
Revised March 8, 2022 2
86 of 285
Phone number: (910) 431-0251
Email : [email protected]
Signature of individual submitting application:

Date submitted:

March 9th, 2022
Submit to:

City of Pinole
City Manager Department
2131 Pear Street
Pinole, CA 94564
Phone: (510) 724-9837
Email: [email protected]
Revised March 8, 2022 3
87 of 285

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9G
DATE: MAY 17, 2022
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: MARKISHA GUILLORY, FINANCE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: RECEIVE THE FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2021/22 THIRD QUARTER

FINANCIAL REPORT

RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends that the City Council receive the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021/22 Third Quarter Financial Report.

BACKGROUND
The City operates on an annual budget cycle. Through the budget, the City Council approves revenue estimates and authorizes City staff to expend the City’s limited financial resources. The City Council adopts an original budget prior to the start of each fiscal year, then makes adjustments to the budget throughout the year to reflect changes in expected revenues and to increase or decrease expenditures to address changes in policy or operational priorities. Budget adjustments are typically done at the mid-point and the end of the fiscal year.

Staff has reviewed the City’s budget results through the end of the third quarter (July 2021 through March 2022). The FY 2021/22 revised budget includes adjustments that the City Council approved in November 2021 and at mid-year in March 2022. City revenues and expenditures are generally on track to match budgeted amounts. Staff does not recommend any budget adjustments at this point.

It is important to note that Pinole, like other communities, has been and continues to be impacted by the fiscal and health effects of COVID-19 and its subsequent variants.

Fiscal impacts have been identified and noted in this third quarter report where applicable.

REVIEW & ANALYSIS
General Fund Analysis
The City remains in a stable financial position. The revised General Fund budget for FY 2021/22, most recently updated at mid-year, included total revenues of $17.5 million, total expenditures of $21.7 million, and the use of $4.1 million of fund balance, primarily for several one-time, Council-directed initiatives. As of the end of the third 88 of 285
City Council Report 9G
May 17, 2022 2
quarter, staff projects that the General Fund will end FY 2021/22 with total revenues of $17.6 million, total expenditures of $19.7 million, and the use of $2.1 million of fund balance. The General Fund unassigned fund balance is projected to be $3.8 million at FY 2021/22 year-end. (Note that Measure S 2006 and 2014 are reported separately.) Additionally, the City maintains a separate General Reserve Fund, which is required by the City’s Cash Reserve Policy to maintain a balance equal to 50% of total on-going General Fund expenditures. The fund currently has a balance of $8.3 million and complies with the Policy. Table 1 below summarizes the General Fund budget.

Table 1. General Fund FY 2021/22 Financial Summary
General Fund Revenue
General Fund revenue through the third quarter was $10.9 million, or 62% of the revised budget. General Fund revenues are not received evenly throughout the year, so revenue received through the third quarter is not expected to be 75% of the total revised budget. Staff projects that General Fund revenue will total $17.6 million this fiscal year, approximately $38,000 greater than currently budgeted due to higher receipts in business license tax revenue.

Table 2. General Fund FY 2021/22 Revenue Summary
Property Tax
Property tax is received in December, April, and June of each year. The projected revenue for FY 2021/22 is $4.2 million. Property tax revenue includes the City’s General Fund FY 2021/22
Original
Budget
FY 2021/22
Revised
Budget
FY 2021/22
YTD Actuals
FY 2021/22
YTD Actuals
w/ Encumb.

Projected
Year-End
Revenues $ 17,290,542 $ 17,549,729 $ 10,914,540 $ 10,914,540 $ 17,587,729 Expenditures 19,694,153 21,680,671 14,302,952 14,376,944 19,701,253 Net surplus/deficit (2,403,611) (4,130,942) $ (3,388,411) $ (3,462,403) (2,113,524) Beginning Fund Balance 5,937,352 5,937,352 5,937,352
Ending Fund Balance $ 3,533,741 $ 1,806,410 $ 3,823,828 Category FY 2021/22
Original
Budget
FY 2021/22
Revised
Budget
FY 2021/22
YTD Actuals
% of Budget Projected
Year-End
Property Taxes $ 4,230,122 $ 4,230,122 $ 2,814,337 67% 4,230,122 $ Sales and Use Taxes 4,224,661 4,483,848 3,031,530 68% 4,483,848 Utility Users Tax 1,915,000 1,915,000 1,588,601 83% 1,915,000 Franchise Taxes 779,000 779,000 393,427 51% 779,000
Other Taxes: TOT 418,000 418,000 348,935 83% 418,000
Other Taxes: Business License 382,000 382,000 402,927 105% 420,000 Intergovernmental Taxes 2,082,883 2,082,883 1,051,058 50% 2,082,883 Public Safety Charges 1,339,796 1,339,796 1,097,475 82% 1,339,796 Total Other Revenue 1,065,394 1,065,394 186,249 17% 1,065,394 Revenue Total: 16,436,856 16,696,043 10,914,540 65% 16,734,043 Transfer In from Section 115 Trust 853,686 853,686 - 0% 853,686 Revenue/Sources Total: $ 17,290,542 $ 17,549,729 $ 10,914,540 62% 17,587,729 $ 89 of 285
City Council Report 9G
May 17, 2022 3

18.84% share of the basic 1% property tax rate, $2.8 million. It also includes the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) revenue, $1.2 million, which is revenue that has resulted from the dissolution of the former Pinole Redevelopment Agency and represents the shift from the Agency receiving tax increment revenue to the various taxing entities receiving the tax revenue. The RPTTF revenue will convert to “normal” property tax revenue when all of the former Agency’s outstanding debt is paid off and the Successor Agency is formally dissolved. Dissolution is currently expected to occur sometime after the final debt service payment in FY 2023/24.

This category also includes unsecured property tax, supplemental property tax, and real property transfer tax. Total property tax receipts are at 67% of the revised budget, consistent with expectations and in line last year’s actuals for the same time period.

Sales Tax
Sales tax for the General Fund was budgeted at $4.5 million ($9.3 million including the Measure S Funds) for FY 2021/22. Revenue received through the third quarter equaled $3.0 million, or 68% of the revised budget for receipts through February 2022.

Revenue continues to trend upward. Sales tax revenues in a few of the major categories have returned to or exceeded pre-pandemic levels, notably casual dining and the general consumer good categories. Actual revenue is trending with the most recent projections provided by the City’s sales tax consultant, HdL.

It is important to note that the sales tax budget is set at 100% of HdL’s projections.

HdL builds in a certain amount of conservatism in their projections, actual receipts in prior years have aligned with HdL’s projections.

Utility Users’ Tax
Utility users’ tax (UUT) is an 8% tax levied on public utilities consumed within City limits for electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications. Revenue is at 83% of the revised budget. Based on the normal timing of receipts of this revenue, staff expects this revenue to meet budget.

Franchise Tax
Franchise tax is levied on public utilities and other corporations who furnish gas, electric, cable television, and refuse services to citizens living within City limits.

Revenue is at 51% of the revised budget. Based on the normal timing of receipt of these revenues, staff expects this revenue to meet budget.

Transient Occupancy Tax
Transient occupancy tax (TOT) is a 10/% tax levied for the privilege of occupying quarters on a short-term basis, a period of 30 days or less. Revenue is at 83% of the revised budget. Compared to the same period last year, TOT is trending higher, which 90 of 285
City Council Report 9G
May 17, 2022 4
is primarily attributable to the rebound of travel and lodging. Staff expects this revenue to meet budget.

Business License Tax
Business license tax is assessed on all businesses doing business within City limits.

Revenue has exceeded budget at 105% of the revised budget. Staff projects that actual revenue will total $38,000 more than the revised budget. The bulk of this revenue is primarily received in December and January in line with the annual renewal process.

Intergovernmental Taxes
Intergovernmental taxes include the Property Tax In-Lieu of Motor Vehicle License Fee (VLF) of $2.1 million and homeowner property tax relief of $30,000. These funds are primarily received in January and April of each year. These revenues are trending at 50% of the revised budget and projected to meet budget.

Public Safety Charges
Public safety charges, including police dispatch services provided to Hercules and San Pablo, are billed on a quarterly basis. Public safety revenue is at 82% of the revised budget due to the fourth quarter payment for FY 2020/21 being received in FY 2021/22. Otherwise, the revenue is on target with the revised budget.

Other Revenues
Other revenues include licenses and permits, fees, fines and forfeitures, charges for services, investment income, rental income, and other miscellaneous revenues. Total other revenue is at 17% of the revised budget due to the timing of receipts in the various categories.

A transfer from the City’s Section 115 Pension Trust to the General Fund is budgeted for FY 2021/22 in the amount of $853,686. The transfer amount will be determined, and possibly adjusted, at the end of the fiscal year based on the actual pension costs incurred for the year.

General Fund Expenditures
The City Council authorized expenditures in the amount $19.7 million in the original FY 2021/22 General Fund budget. The City Council revised the budget in November 2021 and during the mid-year budget review in March 2022, thereby creating a revised expenditure budget of $21.7 million. General Fund actual expenditures through the third quarter of FY 2021/22 totaled $14.4 million, which is 66% of the revised budget.

Staff projects expenditures to total $19.7 million at year-end. The difference in the revised budget and the year-end projection is primarily due to salary and benefits 91 of 285
City Council Report 9G
May 17, 2022 5
savings from position vacancies, and several City Council-directed initiatives and capital projects that will not be completed in FY 2021/22 and will be carried forward to the FY 2022/23 budget. This includes the following:
• Active Transportation Plan (75,000);
• Brandt Street improvements ($170,000);
• Economic development support ($80,000);
• Emergency power for critical failures ($200,000);
• Improvements to the planting/landscaping at City Hall (20,000); • Non-capital recommendations of the Beautification Ad Hoc Subcommittee (education and awareness campaign, art program, and community clean up events) ($60,000);
• Recycled water master planning ($200,000);
• Weatherization/energy efficiency program ($250,000).

Table 3. General Fund FY 2021/22 Expenditures by Department Summary As shown in the expenditures in Table 3 above, the actual expenditures in most departments are at or below 75% of the revised budget for the third quarter. Items of note are as follows:
• City Attorney expenditures, net of credits for legal services provided to nonGeneral Funds, have exceeded the revised budget, thereby increasing the year-end projection.
• Non-Departmental (General Government) is at 84% of the revised budget due to most transfers to other funds being processed in the third quarter.

Measure S 2006 Fund (Fund 105)
Measure S 2006 is a voter-approved general purpose use tax levied at 0.5% on all retail sales. Revenue from Measure S 2006 has historically been allocated by the City Council to fund public safety programs. Measure S 2006 revenues are budgeted at $2.4 million in FY 2021/22. Revenues through the third quarter are at 68% of the Department FY 2021/22
Original
Budget
FY 2021/22
Current
Budget
FY 2021/22
YTD Actuals
FY 2021/22
YTD Actuals
w/ Encumb.
% of Budget Projected
Year-End
City Council $ 176,609 $ 176,609 $ 129,699 $ 129,699 73% 176, $ 609 City Manager 562,708 586,538 323,511 323,511 55% 586,538 City Clerk 450,393 450,393 221,997 223,144 50% 450,393
City Treasurer 8,693 8,693 6,306 6,306 73% 8,693
City Attorney 310,200 310,200 359,537 359,537 116% 479,383 Finance Department 554,891 566,846 374,234 374,234 66% 566,846 Human Resources 493,626 523,446 229,796 229,796 44% 523,446 Non-Departmental 2,676,149 4,418,711 3,691,534 3,691,534 84% 1,397,087 Police Department 7,609,879 7,715,951 5,322,172 5,385,253 70% 7,491,643 Fire Department 3,925,759 3,965,759 2,654,675 2,654,675 67% 3,560,756 Public Works 2,128,337 2,160,616 715,334 725,097 34% 934,261 Community Development 369,885 369,885 138,798 138,798 38% 183,974 Community Services 427,025 427,025 135,359 135,359 32% 320,000 Expenditure Total: $ 19,694,153 $ 21,680,671 $ 14,302,952 $ 14,376,944 66% 19,701,253 $ 92 of 285
City Council Report 9G
May 17, 2022 6
revised budget for receipts through February 2022. Expenditures are at 65% of the revised budget.

Table 4. Measure S 2006 FY 2021/22 Financial Summary
Measure S 2014 Fund (Fund 106)
Measure S 2014 is also a voter-approved general purpose use tax levied at 0.5% on all retail sales. Revenue from Measure S 2014 has historically been allocated by the City Council to address some of the City’s operational and deferred capital improvement needs. Measure S 2014 revenues are budgeted at $2.4 million in FY 2021/22. Revenues through the third quarter are at 65% of the revised budget for receipts through February 2022. Expenditures are trending lower due to the timing of spending for capital projects. The following projects, totaling $1,006,271, will be carried forward to the FY 2022/23 budget: safety improvements at Appian Way & Marlesta; painting at City Hall; energy upgrades; Citywide roof repairs and replacement; Hazel Street gap closure; and the park master plan.

Table 5. Measure S 2014 FY 2021/22 Financial Summary
The unassigned fund balance of the General Fund, Measure S 2006 and Measure S 2014 combined is projected to be $9.3 million at FY 2021/22 year-end.

Other Funds Analysis
Special Revenue Funds
Gas Tax Fund (Fund 200)
The Gas Tax Fund accounts for revenue from State excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel sales (referred to as the Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA)) as well as revenue from the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB1) (referred to as Measure S 2006 FY 2021/22
Original
Budget
FY 2021/22
Revised
Budget
FY 2021/22
YTD Actuals
% of Budget Projected
Year-End
Revenues $ 2,163,746 $ 2,441,746 $ 1,650,437 68% $ 2,399,446 Expenditures 2,528,352 2,559,352 1,658,439 65% 2,559,352 Net surplus/deficit (364,606) (117,606) $ (8,001) (159,906) Beginning Fund Balance 2,385,431 2,385,431 2,385,431
Ending Fund Balance $ 2,020,825 $ 2,267,825 $ 2,225,525 Measure S 2014 FY 2021/22
Original
Budget
FY 2021/22
Revised
Budget
FY 2021/22
YTD Actuals
% of Budget Projected
Year-End
Revenues $ 2,173,000 $ 2,451,000 $ 1,603,391 65% $ 2,359,769 Expenditures 3,979,877 4,655,038 2,144,821 46% 3,573,837 Net surplus/deficit (1,806,877) (2,204,038) $ (541,430) (1,214,068) Beginning Fund Balance 4,480,908 4,480,908 4,480,908
Ending Fund Balance $ 2,674,031 $ 2,276,870 $ 3,266,841 93 of 285
City Council Report 9G
May 17, 2022 7
the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA)). Gas Tax Fund resources are restricted for use in the construction and maintenance of public streets. These funds support both annual operating and capital projects. As of the third quarter, revenues are at 66% of the revised budget and trending in line with the timing of receipt of funds from the State. Expenditures are at 29% of the revised budget and trending as expected due to the timing of spending for road maintenance projects.

Public Safety Augmentation Fund (Fund 203)
The Public Safety Augmentation Fund (PSAF) accounts for monies allocated to the City by the County Auditor-Controller under Proposition 172 from the statewide 0.5% sales tax. These funds are used exclusively for public safety, mainly personnel costs.

The receipt of these funds is conditioned on Maintenance of Effort that is updated annually. As of the third quarter, revenues are 94% and expenditures are at 68% of the revised budget.

Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (Fund 206)
The Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) holds funds received from the County under the AB 3229 which enacted the Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program. The funds are used to offset the personnel cost of several police officer positions. As of the third quarter, revenues are at 100% of the revised budget and projected to exceed budget. Expenditures are at 73% of the revised budget.

NPDES Storm Water Fund (Fund 207)
The NPDES Storm Water Fund accounts for assessments collected by the County via property tax bills pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, a federally mandated program. Assessments are levied at $35 per Equivalent Runoff Unit (ERU). Revenue estimates are based on the number of ERU's multiplied by the adopted rate. As of the third quarter, revenues are at 51% of the revised budget and expenditures are at 52% of the revised budget.

Recreation Department Fund (Fund 209)
The recreation programs of the Community Services Department have been and continue to be significantly impacted by the pandemic. These programs have not been able fully re-open and can only operate on a limited basis to comply with health and safety guidelines. The original budget was based on fully re-opening programs in fall 2021, but due to the ongoing impacts of COVID-19, the programs that are offered have limited capacity. As of the third quarter, revenues are at 58% of the revised budget; this includes the transfer in from the General Fund. Expenditures are 61% of the revised budget.
94 of 285
City Council Report 9G
May 17, 2022 8
Building & Planning Fund (Fund 212)
The Building & Planning Fund collects fees for building permits and plan checks. Fees collected are used to cover the cost involved in inspections and plan checks performed. The FY 2021/22 revised budget projects a net deficit of $561,366, which is expected to decrease following implementation of the updated building and planning fees; it will be re-assessed at year-end. As of the third quarter, revenues at 69% of the revised budget and expenditures are at 45% of the revised budget; the savings are mostly due to salary and benefits savings from position vacancies and other operating expenditures.

Solid Waste Fund (Fund 214)
The Solid Waste Fund accounts for funds received from Republic Services, Inc. from a surcharge it assesses on customer rates for solid waste services. These funds are set aside for future solid waste capital projects and for a rate stabilization fund. As of the third quarter, revenues are at 72% of the revised budget and expenditures are at 33% of the revised budget. The installation of high-capacity trash bins ($425,000) will be carried forward to the FY 2022/23 budget.

Measure J Fund (Fund 215)
The Measure J Fund accounts for special sales tax revenues collected by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) and reapportioned to the cities for local street projects. The City must submit a checklist each year to confirm compliance with a Growth Management Program in order to receive these funds. Estimates of annual funding are provided by the CCTA, and jurisdiction allocations are based on a formula that considers both population and road mileage. Revenues are received in June of each year. Spending of these funds is dependent on the timing of spending for capital projects. As of the third quarter, revenues are at 97% of the revised budget and expenditures are at 15% of the revised budget. The safety improvements at Appian Way & Marlesta ($120,000) will be carried forward to the FY 2022/23 budget.

American Rescue Plan Act Fund (Fund 217)
The American Rescue Plan Act Fund accounts for the $4.6 million allocated to the City from the federal government from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) of 2021.

The City received its first tranche of $2.3 million in July 2021 and will receive the second tranche one year later. The funds are restricted for specific uses and will be appropriated by Council. To address some immediate needs of the community, the City Council approved an appropriation of $300,000 to provide direct financial assistance to small businesses; and $100,000 to support the community gift card program. The City Council will obligate the remaining unallocated funds in the FY 2022/23 budget.
95 of 285
City Council Report 9G
May 17, 2022 9
Parkland Dedication Fund (275)
The Parkland Dedication Fund provides for the acquisition and development of parks as specified in the City’s Parkland Dedication Ordinance (PDO) (Municipal Code Sec.

16.28) which requires as a condition of approval for the subdivision of land, the dedication of park land or payment of a fee in-lieu of dedication, pursuant to California Government Code 66477 (the “Quimby Act”). As of the third quarter, revenue collected was $1.1 million for 600 Roble Ave, a multi-unit development. There are no budgeted expenditures.

Growth Impact Fund (276)
The Growth Impact Fund accounts for development fees collected to mitigate the impact of new development. Specifically, it provides for the expansion, design, construction, or upgrade to facilities, roadways, and equipment. The City collects impact fees for police, fire protection, municipal, community, wastewater, roadways, and drainage. As of the third quarter, revenue far exceeded budget due to the collection of $1.1 million in impact fees for 600 Roble Ave, a multi-unit development.

The Fund is not projected to have any expenditures in this fiscal year as the Hazel Street gap closure project ($243,070) will be carried forward to the FY 2022/23 budget.

Housing and Land Held for Resale Fund (Fund 285)
The Housing and Land Held for Resale Fund accounts for activities associated with administering housing programs of the former Pinole Redevelopment Agency, using Housing Set Aside funds, and providing affordable housing within the community. The Successor Agency to the Pinole Redevelopment Agency has a three-year agreement to repay the loan that the Pinole Redevelopment Agency’s affordable housing fund had made to the Agency’s general fund under the Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (SERAF). The payment is programmed in the budget and the loan will be paid off in FY 2022/23.

Capital Project Funds
City Street Improvements (Fund 325)
The City Street Improvements Fund accounts for an annual $250,000 transfer from Measure S 2014 for street improvement projects. As of the third quarter, revenues are at 106% of the revised budget due to grant revenues. Expenditures plus encumbrances are at 60% of the revised budget, mostly due to the timing of spending for capital projects. The following projects, totaling $281,383, will be carried forward to the FY 2022/23 budget: Appian Way Complete Streets Project; pedestrian improvements at Tennent Ave.; and safety improvements at Appian Way & Marlesta. 96 of 285
City Council Report 9G
May 17, 2022 10
Arterial Streets Rehabilitation (Fund 377)
The Arterial Streets Rehabilitation Fund accounts for an annual $250,000 transfer from Measure S 2014 for street rehabilitation projects. As of the third quarter, all budgeted revenue has been received. Expenditures plus encumbrances are at 49% of the revised budget, mostly due to the timing of spending for capital projects.

Enterprise Funds
Sewer Enterprise Fund (Fund 500)
The Sewer Enterprise Fund accounts for fees charged to residents and businesses for sewer utilities. Fees are used to operate the Pinole-Hercules Wastewater Treatment Plant, which serves the Pinole and Hercules areas. Revenues are received with the property tax payments in December, April, and June. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund program provided funding for the City’s 50% share of the upgrades to the treatment plant. As of the third quarter, revenues are at 57% of the revised budget.

Expenditures are at 50% of the revised budget, mostly attributable to the timing of spending for capital projects. The following projects, totaling $500,000, will be carried forward to the FY 2022/23 budget: second clarifier; air release valve replacement; and WPCP lab remodel.

Cable Access TV Fund (Fund 505)
The Cable Access TV Fund accounts for revenue received from cable franchise fees (Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) access fees), video production and broadcast charges. PEG access fees are designated for equipment purchases.

Transfers from the General Fund also help support the operating costs. As of the third quarter, revenue is at 53% of the revised budget mostly due to the timing of receipts; and expenditures are at 64% of the revised budget.

Information Systems Fund (Fund 525)
The Information Systems Fund is an internal service fund used to account for activities that provide technology goods or services to other City funds and departments on a cost-reimbursement basis. As of the third quarter, revenue and expenditures are both at 42% of the revised budget. Staff will recommend an adjustment at year-end to clear the historical negative fund balance.

Fiduciary Funds
Recognized Obligation Retirement Fund (Fund 750)
The Recognized Obligation Retirement Fund accounts for the close-out activities of the Successor Agency to the Pinole Redevelopment Agency. Pledged property tax revenues will continue to be provided to the City for timely payment of outstanding redevelopment bond debt obligations, to reimburse the City for administrative staff 97 of 285
City Council Report 9G
May 17, 2022 11
time up to $250,000 per year, and other enforceable obligations in accordance with the Recognized Obligations Payment Schedule (ROPS).

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact as staff does not recommend any adjustments to the revised FY 2021/22 in this Third Quarter Financial Report.

ATTACHMENTS
A. FY 2021/22 Third Quarter Financial Summary by Fund

98 of 285
Projected
Year-End
4,230,122 4,230,122 4,230,122 2,814,337 2,814,337 (1,415,785) 67% 4,230,122 4,224,661 4,483,848 4,483,848 3,031,530 3,031,530 (1,452,318) 68% 4,483,848 1,915,000 1,915,000 1,915,000 1,588,601 1,588,601 (326,399) 83% 1,915,000 779,000 779,000 779,000 393,427 393,427 (385,573) 51% 779,000 418,000 418,000 418,000 348,935 348,935 (69,065) 83% 418,000 382,000 382,000 382,000 402,927 402,927 20,927 105% 420,000 2,082,883 2,082,883 2,082,883 1,051,058 1,051,058 (1,031,825) 50% 2,082,883 1,339,796 1,339,796 1,339,796 1,097,475 1,097,475 (242,321) 82% 1,339,796 1,065,394 1,065,394 1,065,394 186,249 186,249 (879,145) 17% 1,065,394 16,436,856 16,696,043 - 16,696,043 10,914,540 - 10,914,540 (5,781,503) 65% 16,734,043 853,686 853,686 853,686 - - (853,686) 0% 853,686
17,290,542 17,549,729 - 17,549,729 10,914,540 - 10,914,540 (6,635,189) 62% 17,587,729 176,609 176,609 176,609 129,699 129,699 46,910 73% 176,609 562,708 586,538 586,538 323,511 323,511 263,027 55% 586,538 450,393 450,393 450,393 221,997 1,148 223,144 227,249 50% 450,393 8,693 8,693 8,693 6,306 6,306 2,387 73% 8,693
310,200 310,200 310,200 359,537 359,537 (49,337) 116% 479,383 554,891 566,846 566,846 374,234 374,234 192,612 66% 566,846 493,626 523,446 523,446 229,796 229,796 293,650 44% 523,446 1,397,087 1,397,087 1,397,087 966,087 966,087 431,000 69% 1,397,087 3,954,207 4,019,812 - 4,019,812 2,611,167 1,148 2,612,314 1,407,497 65% 4,188,995 7,609,879 7,715,951 7,715,951 5,322,172 63,081 5,385,253 2,330,698 70% 7,491,643 3,925,759 3,965,759 3,965,759 2,654,675 2,654,675 1,311,084 67% 3,560,756 11,535,638 11,681,710 - 11,681,710 7,976,847 63,081 8,039,928 3,641,781 69% 11,052,399 2,128,337 2,160,616 2,160,616 715,334 9,763 725,097 1,435,519 34% 934,261 369,885 369,885 369,885 138,798 138,798 231,086 38% 183,974 427,025 427,025 427,025 135,359 135,359 291,666 32% 320,000 576,107 576,107 576,107 576,091 576,091 16 100% 576,107 702,955 2,445,517 2,445,517 2,149,357 2,149,357 296,160 88% 2,445,517 19,694,153 21,680,671 - 21,680,671 14,302,952 73,992 14,376,944 (7,303,727) 66% 19,701,253 (2,403,611) (4,130,942) - (4,130,942) (3,388,412) (73,992) (3,462,404) 668,538 84% (2,113,524) Fund Balance July 1, 2021 5,937,352 5,937,352 5,937,352 5,937,352 5,937,352 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 3,533,741 1,806,410 1,806,410 2,548,940 3,823,828 2,142,000 2,420,000 2,420,000 1,650,437 1,650,437 (769,563) 68% 2,420,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 (16,725) (16,725) (36,725) -84% (22,300) 1,746 1,746 1,746 - - (1,746) 0% 1,746
2,163,746 2,441,746 - 2,441,746 1,633,712 1,633,712 (808,034) 67% 2,399,446 - - - - - - 0% -
2,163,746 2,441,746 - 2,441,746 1,633,712 - 1,633,712 (808,034) 67% 2,399,446 2,450 2,450 2,450 - - 2,450 0% 2,450
1,844,668 1,875,668 1,875,668 1,175,022 58 1,175,081 700,587 63% 1,875,668 681,234 681,234 681,234 483,359 483,359 197,875 71% 681,234 2,528,352 2,559,352 - 2,559,352 1,658,381 58 1,658,439 900,913 65% 2,559,352 (364,606) (117,606) - (117,606) (24,669) (58) (24,727) 92,879 21% (159,906) Fund Balance July 1, 2021 2,385,431 2,385,431 2,385,431 2,385,431 2,385,431 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 2,020,825 2,267,825 2,267,825 2,360,763 2,225,525 Percent
Used
Fund: 100 - General Fund
City of Pinole, CA For FY2021/22 Period Ending: 3/31/22 Variance
Favorable
(Unfavorable)
Original
Budget Revised Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
Amended
Budget
Revenue
Property Taxes
Sales and Use Taxes
Utility Users Tax
Franchise Taxes
Other Taxes: TOT
YTD Actual Encumbrances Total
Sources Total
Expenditures
City Council Total:

City Manager Total:

City Clerk Total:

Other Taxes: Business License
Intergovernmental Taxes
Public Safety Charges
Total Other Revenue
Revenue Total:

Penison Trust 115 Transfer
Police Department Total:

Fire Department Total:

Total Public Safety:

Public Works Total:

Community Development Total:

Community Services Total:

City Treasurer Total:

City Attorney Total:

Finance Department Total:

Human Resources Total:

Non-Departmental Total:

Total Administrative:

Revenue
Sales and Use Taxes
Interest and Investment Income
Total Other Revenue
Revenue Total:

Penison Trust 115 Transfer
Debt Service:

Operating Transfer Out:

General Fund Total:

General Fund Net Results
Fund: 105 - Measure S -2006
Measure S -2006 Net Results:

Sources Total
Expenditures
Finance Department Total:

Police Department Total:

Fire Department Total:

Expenditures Total:

ATTACHMENT A
99 of 285
Projected
Year-End
Percent
Used
City of Pinole, CA For FY2021/22 Period Ending: 3/31/22 Variance
Favorable
(Unfavorable)
Original
Budget Revised Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
Amended
Budget YTD Actual Encumbrances Total
2,142,000 2,420,000 2,420,000 1,649,314 1,649,314 (770,686) 68% 2,420,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 (45,923) (45,923) (75,923) -153% (61,231) 1,000 1,000 1,000 - - (1,000) 0% 1,000
2,173,000 2,451,000 - 2,451,000 1,603,391 1,603,391 (847,609) 65% 2,359,769 - - - - - - 0% -
2,173,000 2,451,000 - 2,451,000 1,603,391 - 1,603,391 (847,609) 65% 2,359,769 5,900 5,900 5,900 - - 5,900 0% 5,900
2,450 2,450 2,450 - - 2,450 0% 2,450
102,600 102,600 102,600 - - 102,600 0% 42,600
305,807 305,807 305,807 72,351 37,769 110,119 195,688 36% 305,807 445,249 445,249 445,249 315,130 315,130 130,119 71% 445,249 2,318,421 2,986,375 2,986,375 612,341 454,655 1,066,996 1,919,379 36% 1,965,174 20,000 20,000 20,000 - - 20,000 0% 20,000
63,950 71,157 71,157 - - 71,157 0% 71,157
3,264,377 3,939,538 - 3,939,538 999,821 492,424 1,492,245 2,447,293 38% 2,858,337 715,500 715,500 715,500 652,576 652,576 62,924 91% 715,500 (1,806,877) (2,204,038) - (2,204,038) (49,007) (492,424) (541,430) 1,662,608 25% (1,214,068) Fund Balance July 1, 2021 4,480,908 4,480,908 4,480,908 4,480,908 4,480,908 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 2,674,031 2,276,870 2,276,870 4,431,902 3,266,841 - - - (187,461) (187,461) (187,461) 0% (249,948)
- 949,715 949,715 949,715 949,715 - 0% 949,715
- 949,715 - 949,715 762,254 762,254 (187,461) 0% 699,767 Fund Balance July 1, 2021 7,492,770 7,492,770 7,492,770 7,492,770 7,492,770 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 7,492,770 8,442,485 8,442,485 8,255,024 8,192,537 - - - - - 0% -
80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 - 100% 80,000
5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 (5,000) 100% 5,000
85,000 85,000 - 85,000 85,000 85,000 - 100% 85,000
274,000 274,000 274,000 104,242 39,434 143,676 130,324 52% 274,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 - - 5,000 0% 5,000
279,000 279,000 279,000 104,242 39,434 143,676 135,324 51% 279,000 (194,000) (194,000) (194,000) (19,242) (39,434) (58,676) 135,324 30% (194,000) Fund Balance July 1, 2021 243,408 243,408 243,408 243,408 243,408 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 49,408 49,408 49,408 224,166 49,408 919,303 919,303 919,303 608,304 608,304 310,999 66% 919,303 1,074,728 1,074,728 1,074,728 306,558 306,558 768,170 29% 1,074,728 (155,425) (155,425) (155,425) 301,747 - 301,747 457,172 -194% (155,425) Fund Balance July 1, 2021 356,517 356,517 356,517 356,517 356,517 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 201,092 201,092 201,092 658,264 201,092 39,991 39,991 39,991 475 475 39,516 1% 39,991
26,000 26,000 26,000 12,883 12,883 13,117 50% 26,000
13,991 13,991 13,991 (12,407) (12,407) (26,399) -89% 13,991 Fund Balance July 1, 2021 181,183 181,183 181,183 181,183 181,183 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 195,175 195,175 195,175 168,776 195,175 172,766 172,766 172,766 161,995 161,995 (10,771) 94% 172,766 204,574 204,574 204,574 138,454 138,454 66,120 68% 204,574 (31,808) (31,808) (31,808) 23,541 23,541 55,349 -74% (31,808) Fund Balance July 1, 2021 410,914 410,914 410,914 410,914 410,914 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 379,106 379,106 379,106 434,456 379,106 Fund: 106 - Measure S-2014
Revenue
Sales and Use Taxes
Interest and Investment Income
Reimbursements
Information Systems Total:

Police Department Total:

Fire Department Total:

Public Works Total:

Community Development Total:

Community Services Total:

Revenue Total:

Penison Trust 115 Transfer
Sources Total
Expenditures
City Council Department Total:

Finance Department Total:

General Reserve Net Results:

Fund: 160 - Equipment Reserve
Revenue
Fire Department Total:

Public Works Total:

Community Development Total:

Expenditures Total:

Operating Transfer Out:

Measure S-2014 Net Results:

Fund: 150 - General Reserve
Revenue Total:

Transfer In Total:

Fund: 200 - Gas Tax Fund
Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

Gas Tax Fund Net Results:

Fund: 201 - Restricted Real Estate Maintenance Fund
Revenue Total:

Revenue Total:

Expenditures
Public Works Total:

Community Development Total:

Expenditures Total:

Equipment Reserve Net Results:

Expenditures Total:

Restricted Real Estate Maint Fund Net Results:

Fund: 203 - Public Safety Augmentation Fund
Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

Public Safety Augmentation Fund Net Results:
100 of 285
Projected
Year-End
Percent
Used
City of Pinole, CA For FY2021/22 Period Ending: 3/31/22 Variance
Favorable
(Unfavorable)
Original
Budget Revised Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
Amended
Budget YTD Actual Encumbrances Total
46,500 46,500 46,500 19,424 19,424 (27,076) 42% 46,500
20,261 20,261 20,261 6,458 6,458 13,803 32% 20,261
26,239 26,239 26,239 12,966 12,966 (13,273) 49% 26,239
Fund Balance July 1, 2021 234,979 234,979 234,979 234,979 234,979 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 261,218 261,218 261,218 247,945 261,218 158,327 158,327 158,327 157,591 157,591 (736) 100% 171,428 104,188 104,188 104,188 76,000 76,000 28,188 73% 104,188 54,139 54,139 54,139 81,591 81,591 27,452 151% 67,240
Fund Balance July 1, 2021 328,953 328,953 328,953 328,953 328,953 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 383,092 383,092 383,092 410,544 396,193 324,128 324,128 324,128 164,703 164,703 (159,425) 51% 324,128 420,685 437,685 437,685 226,198 226,198 211,487 52% 437,685 (96,557) (113,557) (113,557) (61,495) (61,495) 52,062 54% (113,557) Fund Balance July 1, 2021 1,853 1,853 1,853 1,853 1,853 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 (94,704) (111,704) (111,704) (59,642) (111,704) 519,922 519,922 519,922 207,545 207,545 (312,376) 40% 519,922 673,331 1,091,962 1,091,962 732,878 732,878 (359,084) 67% 1,091,962 1,193,253 1,611,884 - 1,611,884 940,423 - 940,423 (671,460) 58% 1,611,884 1,542,048 1,542,048 1,542,048 940,423 940,423 601,624 61% 1,542,048 (348,795) 69,836 69,836 - - (69,836) 0% 69,836
Fund Balance July 1, 2021 29,162 29,162 29,162 29,162 29,162 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 (319,634) 98,997 98,997 29,162 98,997 1,605,700 1,605,700 1,605,700 986,806 986,806 (618,894) 61% 1,605,700 - 374,216 374,216 374,216 374,216 0 0% 374,216
1,605,700 1,979,916 1,979,916 1,361,022 - 1,361,022 (618,894) 69% 1,979,916 1,727,753 2,406,969 2,406,969 1,085,876 1,085,876 1,321,093 45% 2,406,969 (122,053) (427,053) (427,053) 275,146 275,146 702,199 -64% (427,053) Fund Balance July 1, 2021 (134,313) (134,313) (134,313) (134,313) (134,313) Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 (256,366) (561,366) (561,366) 140,833 (561,366) 66,060 66,060 66,060 44,740 44,740 (21,320) 68% 66,060
140,858 140,858 140,858 81,014 81,014 59,844 58% 140,858 (74,798) (74,798) (74,798) (36,274) (36,274) 38,524 48% (74,798) Fund Balance July 1, 2021 192,376 192,376 192,376 192,376 192,376 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 117,578 117,578 117,578 156,102 117,578 368,000 368,000 368,000 265,630 265,630 (102,370) 72% 368,000 761,445 761,445 761,445 161,149 88,417 249,566 511,879 33% 336,445 (393,445) (393,445) (393,445) 104,480 (88,417) 16,064 409,509 -4% 31,555 Fund Balance July 1, 2021 1,863,362 1,863,362 1,863,362 1,863,362 1,863,362 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 1,469,917 1,469,917 1,469,917 1,967,843 1,894,917 398,147 472,095 472,095 456,007 456,007 (16,088) 97% 472,095 937,189 937,189 937,189 140,688 140,688 796,501 15% 817,189 (539,042) (465,094) - (465,094) 315,319 315,319 780,413 -68% (345,094) Fund Balance July 1, 2021 2,057,182 2,057,182 2,057,182 2,057,182 2,057,182 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 1,518,140 1,592,088 1,592,088 2,372,501 1,712,088 - - - 15,677 15,677 15,677 0% 31,353
- - - - - - 0% -
- - - 15,677 15,677 15,677 0% 31,353
Fund Balance July 1, 2021 184,676 184,676 184,676 184,676 184,676 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 184,676 184,676 184,676 200,353 216,029 Expenditures Total:

Sup Law Enforce Svc Fund Net Results:

Fund: 207 - NPDES Storm Water Fund
Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

NPDES Storm Water Fund Net Results:

Fund: 205 - Traffic Safety Fund
Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

Traffic Safety Fund Net Results:

Fund: 206 - Supplemental Law Enforcement Svc Fund
Revenue Total:

Fund: 212 - Building & Planning
Revenue Total:

Operating Transfers In:

Sources Total
Expenditures Total:

Building & Planning Net Results:

Fund: 209 - Recreation Fund
Revenue Total:

Operating Transfers in:

Sources Total
Expenditures Total:

Recreation Fund Net Results:

Expenditures Total:

Solid Waste Fund Net Results:

Fund: 215 - Measure C and J Fund
Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

Measure C and J Fund Net Results:

Fund: 213 - Refuse Management Fund
Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

Refuse Management Fund Net Results:

Fund: 214 - Solid Waste Fund
Revenue Total:

Fund: 216 - Rate Stabilization Fund
Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

Rate Stabilization Fund Net Results:
101 of 285
Projected
Year-End
Percent
Used
City of Pinole, CA For FY2021/22 Period Ending: 3/31/22 Variance
Favorable
(Unfavorable)
Original
Budget Revised Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
Amended
Budget YTD Actual Encumbrances Total
- 2,302,505 2,302,505 2,302,505 2,302,505 - 100% 2,302,505 - 300,000 300,000 356,800 356,800 (56,800) 119% 402,800 - 2,002,505 2,002,505 1,945,705 1,945,705 (56,800) 97% 1,899,705 Fund Balance July 1, 2021 - - - - -
Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 - 2,002,505 2,002,505 1,945,705 1,899,705 - - - 643 643 643 0% 857
86,562 86,562 86,562 23,000 23,000 63,562 27% 86,562
(86,562) (86,562) (86,562) (22,357) (22,357) 64,205 0% (85,705) Fund Balance July 1, 2021 87,341 87,341 87,341 87,341 87,341 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 779 779 779 64,984 1,637 - - 7,742 7,742 7,742 0% 10,323
- - - - - 0% -
- - 7,742 7,742 7,742 0% 10,323
Fund Balance July 1, 2021 27,417 27,417 27,417 27,417 27,417 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 27,417 27,417 27,417 35,160 37,741 - - - 1,080,467 1,080,467 1,080,467 0% 1,080,467
- - - - - - 0% -
- - - 1,080,467 1,080,467 1,080,467 0% 1,080,467
Fund Balance July 1, 2021 104,448 104,448 104,448 104,448 104,448 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 104,448 104,448 104,448 1,184,915 1,184,915 229,834 229,834 229,834 1,343,916 1,343,916 1,114,082 585% 1,343,916 258,000 243,070 243,070 - - 243,070 0% -
(28,166) (13,236) (13,236) 1,343,916 1,343,916 1,357,152 -10153% 1,343,916 Fund Balance July 1, 2021 141,492 141,492 141,492 141,492 141,492 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 113,326 128,256 128,256 1,485,407 1,485,407 1,733,692 1,733,692 1,733,692 (37,109) (37,109) (1,770,801) -2% 1,733,692 228,798 228,798 228,798 84,384 84,384 144,414 37% 228,798 1,504,894 1,504,894 1,504,894 (121,493) (121,493) (1,626,387) -8% 1,504,894 Fund Balance July 1, 2021 7,835,513 7,835,513 7,835,513 7,835,513 7,835,513 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 9,340,407 9,340,407 9,340,407 7,714,020 9,340,407 62,268 62,268 62,268 27,372 27,372 (34,896) 44% 62,268
62,125 62,125 62,125 30,552 30,552 31,573 49% 62,125
143 143 143 (3,180) (3,180) (3,323) -2225% 143
Fund Balance July 1, 2021 35,953 35,953 35,953 35,953 35,953 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 36,095 36,095 36,095 32,773 36,095 15,000 15,000 15,000 - - (15,000) 0% -
14,755 14,755 14,755 1,830 1,830 12,925 12% -
245 245 245 (1,830) (1,830) (2,075) -747% -
Fund Balance July 1, 2021 (327) (327) (327) (327) (327) Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 (82) (82) (82) (2,156) (327) 70,000 70,000 70,000 - - 70,000 0% 70,000
(70,000) (70,000) (70,000) - - 70,000 0% (70,000)
Fund Balance July 1, 2021 541,649 541,649 541,649 541,649 541,649 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 471,649 471,649 471,649 541,649 471,649 Expenditures Total:

American Rescue Plan Act Fund Net Results:

Fund: 225 - Asset Seizure-Adjudicated Fund
Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

Asset Seizure-Adjudicated Fund Net Results:

Fund: 217 - American Rescue Plan Act Fund
Revenue Total:

Fund: 275 - Parkland Dedication Fund
Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

Parkland Dedication Fund Net Results:

Fund: 226 - CASp Certification and Training Fund
Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

CASp Certification and Training Fund Net Results:

Fund: 285 - Housing Land Held for Resale
Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

Housing Land Held for Resale Net Results:

Fund: 276 - Growth Impact Fund
Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

Growth Impact Fund Net Results:

Fund: 317 - Pinole Valley Caretaker Fund
Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

Pinole Valley Caretaker Fund Net Results:

Fund: 310 - Lighting & Landscape Districts
Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

Lighting & Landscape Districts Net Results:

Fund: 324 - Public Facilities Fund
Expenditures Total:

Public Facilities Fund Net Results:
102 of 285
Projected
Year-End
Percent
Used
City of Pinole, CA For FY2021/22 Period Ending: 3/31/22 Variance
Favorable
(Unfavorable)
Original
Budget Revised Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
Amended
Budget YTD Actual Encumbrances Total
- 289,594 289,594 306,527 306,527 16,933 106% 306,527
250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 - 100% 250,000
250,000 539,594 - 539,594 556,527 556,527 16,933 103% 1,096,121 1,281,102 1,528,102 1,528,102 309,893 606,196 916,089 612,013 60% 1,246,719 (1,031,102) (988,508) - (988,508) 246,634 (606,196) (359,562) 628,946 36% (150,598) Fund Balance July 1, 2021 1,246,864 1,246,864 1,246,864 1,246,864 1,246,864 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 215,762 258,356 258,356 1,493,498 1,096,266 - - - (235) (235) (235) 0% (313)
189,758 189,758 189,758 - - 189,758 0% 189,758
(189,758) (189,758) (189,758) (235) (235) 189,523 0% (190,071) Fund Balance July 1, 2021 25,521 25,521 25,521 25,521 25,521 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 (164,237) (164,237) (164,237) 25,286 (164,550) 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 - 100% 250,000
819,689 819,689 819,689 364,103 40,318 404,421 415,268 49% 819,689 (569,689) (569,689) (569,689) (114,103) (40,318) (154,421) 415,268 27% (569,689) Fund Balance July 1, 2021 788,574 788,574 788,574 788,574 788,574 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 218,885 218,885 218,885 674,471 218,885 7,897,500 7,897,500 7,897,500 4,537,557 4,537,557 (3,359,943) 57% 7,897,500 - - - - - - 0% -
7,897,500 7,897,500 7,897,500 4,537,557 - 4,537,557 (3,359,943) 57% 7,897,500 9,126,579 9,196,579 9,196,579 4,157,625 454,395 4,612,020 4,584,558 50% 8,696,579 (1,229,079) (1,299,079) - (1,299,079) 379,932 (454,395) (74,463) 1,224,616 6% (799,079) Fund Balance July 1, 2021 21,399,210 21,399,210 21,399,210 21,399,210 21,399,210 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 20,170,132 20,100,132 20,100,132 21,779,143 20,600,132 - - - 2,498 2,498 2,498 0% 3,331
- - 290,659 290,659 (290,659) 0% 387,546
- - - (288,161) (288,161) (288,161) 0% (384,215)
Fund Balance July 1, 2021 2,365,557 2,365,557 2,365,557 2,365,557 2,365,557 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 2,365,557 2,365,557 2,365,557 2,077,396 1,981,342 374,928 374,928 374,928 121,879 121,879 (253,049) 33% 374,928 160,124 160,124 160,124 160,124 160,124 - 100% 160,124
535,052 535,052 535,052 282,003 - 282,003 (253,049) 53% 535,052 570,765 570,765 570,765 336,793 27,974 364,768 205,998 64% 570,765 (35,713) (35,713) (35,713) (54,791) (27,974) (82,765) (47,052) 232% (35,713) Fund Balance July 1, 2021 (3,132) (3,132) (3,132) (3,132) (3,132) Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 (38,845) (38,845) (38,845) (57,922) (38,845) 1,011,526 1,237,526 1,237,526 521,223 7,805 529,028 (708,498) 43% 1,237,526 (1,011,526) (1,237,526) (1,237,526) (516,232) (516,232) 721,294 42% (1,237,526) 0 0 4,991 7,805 12,796 0 0% -
Fund Balance July 1, 2021 (196,169) (196,169) (196,169) (196,169) (196,169) Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 (196,169) (196,169) (196,169) (191,177) (196,169) - - - (658,526) (658,526) (658,526) 0% (878,035)
- - 66,308 66,308 (66,308) 0% 88,411
- - - (724,835) (724,835) (724,835) 0% (966,446)
Fund Balance July 1, 2021 19,442,495 19,442,495 19,442,495 19,442,495 19,442,495 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 19,442,495 19,442,495 19,442,495 18,717,661 18,476,049 250,000 250,000 250,000 203,699 203,699 (46,301) 81% 250,000 194,899 194,899 194,899 160,613 160,613 34,286 82% 194,899 55,101 55,101 55,101 43,086 43,086 (12,015) 78% 55,101
Fund Balance July 1, 2021 5,245,258 5,245,258 5,245,258 5,245,258 5,245,258 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2022 5,300,359 5,300,359 5,300,359 5,288,345 5,300,359 Sources Total:

Expenditures Total:

City Street Improvements Net Results:

Fund: 327 - Park Grants (Measure WW)
Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

Fund: 325 - City Street Improvements
Revenue Total:

Operating transfers in Total:

Revenue Total:

Penison Trust 115 Transfer
Sources Total
Expenditures Total:

Sewer Enterprise Fund Net Results:

Fund: 503 - Plant Expansion Fund
Park Grants (Measure WW) Net Results:

Fund: 377 - Arterial Streets Rehabilitation Fund
Operating transfers in Total:

Expenditures Total:

Arterial Streets Rehabilitation Fund Net Results:

Fund: 500 - Sewer Enterprise Fund
Sources Total
Expenditures Total:

Cable Access TV Net Results:

Fund: 525 - Information Systems
Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

Plant Expansion Fund Net Results:

Fund: 505 - Cable Access TV
Revenue Total:

Operating transfers in Total:

Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

Pension Fund Net Results:

Expenditures Total:

Indirect cost allocations Total:

Information Systems Net Results:

Fund: 700 - Pension Fund
Recognized Obligation Retirement Fund Net Results:

Fund: 750 - Recognized Obligation Retirement Fund
Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:
103 of 285

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
9H
DATE: MAY 17, 2022
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: MARKISHA GUILLORY, FINANCE DIRECTOR

ROY SWEARINGEN, CITY TREASURER
SUBJECT: RECEIVE THE QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE THIRD QUARTER (ENDING MARCH 31, 2022)

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the Quarterly Investment Report for the third quarter (ending March 31, 2022).

BACKGROUND
The City of Pinole Investment Policy requires that a Quarterly Investment Report be submitted to the City Council. The City’s investments, as shown in the attached Investment Report for the quarter ending March 31, 2022, conforms to the City’s Investment Policy as well as all applicable State and federal requirements, particularly California Government Code Section 53646.

The funds that the City invests, and which are reported in the Quarterly Investment Report, are comprised of cash and investment balances across City funds. The cash and investment balances across all City funds are “pooled” for investment purposes, with the exception of the General Reserve, which is discussed further below. Interest earned on investments is allocated to the various funds based on the cash and investments balances of those funds.

The City also maintains a Pension Section 115 Trust that was established for the purpose of setting aside resources to offset anticipated significant increases in future City pension costs. The cash and investments in the Trust are designated as restricted fund balance in the City’s General Fund. These funds are invested according to the policy objectives and guidelines of the City’s Pension Investment Policy, which is separate from the City’s general Investment Policy under which pooled cash is invested.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Investment Policy
All investments held at March 31, 2022 conform to the City’s Investment Policy and all applicable State and federal requirements. The City’s investment objectives, in order of 104 of 285
City Council Report 9H
May 17, 2022 2
priority, are safety, which is investing in the highest quality securities, liquidity, which is the ability to convert the investment to cash as necessary to meet cash flow requirements, and yield, which is earning a higher return.

Third Quarter Investment Summary
As of March 31, 2022, total cash and investments increased by $1,699,571 from the previous quarter, from $51,785,156 to $53,484,727. Typically, the City experiences swings in cash inflow and outflow due to the seasonality of large receipts, such as property taxes, and large disbursements, like debt service payments that are due at the beginning of the fiscal year. The City will have sufficient cash flow to meet the next six months of estimated expenditures.

Investment Instruments
The Finance Director, in consultation with the City Treasurer, selects the instruments in which to invest the City’s funds, in order to best meet the objectives laid out in the City’s Investment Policy. The balances held in different investment instruments at March 31, 2022 are noted in Attachment A. The bulk of the City’s investment funds are invested in the State of California’s Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), because of the safety and liquidity of the investment pool.

Funds in the City’s General Reserve are maintained in an account that is separate from the rest of the pooled funds. This enables the Finance Director to implement a directed investment plan for the General Reserve funds. The City’s practice has been to invest these funds in instruments with longer duration, thereby yielding greater investment earnings.

Investment Yield and Duration
The aggregate yield of the City’s investment portfolio for the quarter ended March 31, 2022 is summarized in Attachment A. The total investment portfolio yielded 1.062% for the third quarter, up from the 0.933% yielded in the previous quarter.

For the third quarter (January through March 2022), LAIF earned an average annual yield of 0.365%, up from an average yield of 0.203% for the second quarter (October through December 2021). LAIF yields have decreased over the past two years and are lower than long-term investment yields in most cases. However, LAIF is starting to show an uptick in yield over the last four months.

The General Reserve, which holds the longer-term investments, earned an average yield of 1.332%, down from the 1.446% average yield in the second quarter. No new investment instruments were purchased during the third quarter. Additionally, one of the medium-term corporate notes, Microsoft Corporation, matured and was redeemed for cash.
105 of 285
City Council Report 9H
May 17, 2022 3
Investment Strategy
The City utilizes a passive investment management approach by buying and holding securities until maturity. Earnings on investments held until maturity typically fluctuate with market conditions and are considered “unrealized” prior to maturity. The City expects to yield a gain on all investments at maturity. A “laddered maturity” investment strategy is applied to the long-term portion of our investment portfolio. A laddered portfolio is structured with securities that have different maturity dates. As securities are called or mature, proceeds are reinvested in a new security with another long term at the end of the ladder. Laddering helps to minimize interest-rate risk, increase liquidity, and diversify credit risk.

Staff continues to monitor rates of return on City funds invested and make modifications to best achieve the objectives laid out in the Investment Policy.

Pension Section 115 Trust
The Pension Section 115 Trust comprises a diversified portfolio of investments consistent with the Trust’s objectives and liquidity requirements. The funds are invested on behalf of the City by Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS). The portfolio summary for the quarter ending March 31, 2022 is included in Attachment B to this report.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact as a result of receiving the Quarterly Investment Report.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Investment Report - Quarter Ending March 31, 2022
B. Pension Section 115 Trust Investment Report – Quarter Ending March 31, 2022 106 of 285

CITY OF PINOLE
INVESTMENT REPORT MARCH 2022

PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
Weighted
Days to Average
Investments Par Value Market Value Book Value % of Portfolio Maturity Yield Maturity Investment Pool - LAIF 31,499,383 31,145,126 31,145,126 61.68% 1 0.365 1 Investment Pool - CalTrust 3,268,244 3,268,244 3,268,244 6.47% 1 1.350 0 Money Market Savings 7,834,029 7,834,029 7,834,029 15.51% 1 0.025 0 Mutual Funds 2,631,686 2,631,686 2,631,686 5.21% 1 0.995 0 Certificates of Deposit 3,470,000 3,420,640 3,420,640 6.77% 605 1.538 3 Medium-Term Corporate Notes 1,750,000 1,723,220 1,723,220 3.41% 980 2.075 18 Federal Agency Securities 500,000 471,380 471,380 0.93% 1,167 0.720 11 Subtotal Investments $ 50,953,342 $ 50,494,325 50,494,325 100.00% 459 1.062 5 Average Years: 1.3
Cash
Mechanics Bank - Vendor Checking * 1,738,360 1,738,360 1,738,360 1 Bank of the West - Payroll Checking * 770,033 770,033 770,033 1 Bank of the West - Checking (Credit Card Clearing) * 482,009 482,009 482,009 1 Subtotal Cash 2,990,402 2,990,402 2,990,402 1
Total Cash and Investments $ 53,943,744 $ 53,484,727 $ 53,484,727 *Not included in yield calculations
The above investments are consistent with the City's Investment Policy and allowable under current legislation of the State of California. Investments were selected using safety, liquidity and yield as the criteria. The source of the market values for the investments are provided by US Bank in accordance with the California Government Code requirement.

The City has sufficient cash flow to cover anticipated expenditures through the next six months.

Investment Pool
68%
Money Market
Savings
16%
Certificates of Deposit
7%
Mutual Funds
5%
Medium-Term
Corporate Notes
3%
Federal Agency
Securities
1%

CITY OF PINOLE - INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO
JANUARY 2022
$-
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
$50
0-3 mo 4-6 mo 7-12 mo 1-2 yr 2-3 yr 3-4 yr 5 yr +
Millions
Maturity Distribution
68%
16%
7%
5%
3%
1%
$0 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000
Investment Pool
Money Market Savings
Certificates of Deposit
Mutual Funds
Medium-Term Corporate Notes
Federal Agency Securities

CITY OF PINOLE - INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO
MARCH 2022

ATTACHMENT A
107 of 285

CITY OF PINOLE
INVESTMENT REPORT MARCH 2022

PORTFOLIO DETAILS
Type /
Account
Number CUSIP Issuer Investment Description Manager GL Acct # Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Yield Days to
Maturity
S&P
Rating
Maturity
Date
Weighted
Average
Maturity
Investment Pool
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Pooled Treasury - State of California LAIF 999-10201 31,499,383 31,145,126 31,145,126 0.365 0.365 1 N/A 1 CalTrust - Short Term Fund (City) Pooled Treasury - Joint Power Financing Authority CalTrust 999-10202 24,398 24,398 24,398 0.900 0.900 1 N/A 0 CalTrust - Medium Term Fund (City) Pooled Treasury - Joint Power Financing Authority CalTrust 999-10203 3,243,846 3,243,846 3,243,846 1.800 1.800 1 N/A 0 Subtotal and Average 34,767,627 34,413,370 34,413,370 1.022 1.022 1 0 Money Market Savings
Mechanics Bank Money Market Savings (City) City 999-10102 7,726,255 7,726,255 7,726,255 0.040 0.040 1 N/A 0 Bank of the West Money Market Savings - Police Evidence Trust City 999-10104 107,774 107,774 107,774 0.010 0.010 1 N/A 0 Subtotal and Average 7,834,029 7,834,029 7,834,029 0.025 0.025 1 0 Mutual Funds
19-516680 U.S. Bank Accrued Income - City Reserve US Bank 150-10110 12,236 12,236 12,236 1.980 1.980 1 N/A 0 19-516680 31846V203 1st American Government Obligation Fund Mutual Fund Shares - Class "D" - City Reserve US Bank 150-10110 2,619,450 2,619,450 2,619,450 0.010 0.010 1 N/A 0 Subtotal and Average 2,631,686 2,631,686 2,631,686 0.995 0.995 1 0 Certificates of Deposit
19-516680 02007GLR2 Ally Bank Certificates of Deposit - City Reserves US Bank 150-10110 247,000 248,136 248,136 1.800 1.790 165 N/A 9/12/2022 1 19-516680 064520BG3 Bank of Princeton Certificates of Deposit - City Reserves US Bank 150-10110 250,000 237,093 237,093 0.500 0.530 1,005 N/A 12/30/2024 5 19-516680 05580ATL8 Bmw Bank North America Certificates of Deposit - City Reserves US Bank 150-10110 247,000 248,494 248,494 1.800 1.790 257 N/A 12/13/2022 1 19-516680 38149MAY9 Goldman Sachs BK USA New York Certificates of Deposit - City Reserves US Bank 150-10110 246,000 249,306 249,306 2.600 2.570 431 N/A 6/5/2023 2 19-516680 58404DFE6 Medallion Bk Salt Lake City Certificates of Deposit - City Reserves US Bank 150-10110 249,000 250,023 250,023 1.700 1.690 172 N/A 9/19/2022 1 19-516680 59013KCZ7 Merrick Bank Certificates of Deposit - City Reserves US Bank 150-10110 249,000 248,773 248,773 1.650 1.650 547 N/A 9/29/2023 3 19-516680 61690UGW4 Morgan Stanley Bank Na Certificates of Deposit - City Reserves US Bank 150-10110 246,000 249,309 249,309 2.600 2.560 432 N/A 6/6/2023 2 19-516680 61760AF46 Morgan Stanley Private Bk Natlassn Certificates of Deposit - City Reserves US Bank 150-10110 246,000 249,309 249,309 2.600 2.560 432 N/A 6/6/2023 2 19-516680 70212VAB4 Partners Bk helena Ark Certificates of Deposit - City Reserves US Bank 150-10110 247,000 231,901 231,901 0.600 0.640 1,187 N/A 6/30/2025 5 19-516680 84223QAN7 Southern Bankcorp Bank Certificates of Deposit - City Reserves US Bank 150-10110 250,000 238,378 238,378 0.500 0.520 939 N/A 10/25/2024 4 19-516680 856283N51 State Bk Indiana Chicago III Certificates of Deposit - City Reserves US Bank 150-10110 250,000 235,595 235,595 1.000 1.060 1,183 N/A 6/26/2025 6 19-516680 85916VDN2 Sterling Bank of Poplar Bluff Certificates of Deposit - City Reserves US Bank 150-10110 247,000 246,869 246,869 1.650 1.650 536 N/A 9/18/2023 3 19-516680 87164WC71 Synchrony Bank Certificates of Deposit - City Reserves US Bank 150-10110 249,000 238,821 238,821 0.650 0.680 914 N/A 9/30/2024 4 19-516680 949495AF2 Wells Fargo Bank Natl Bk West Certificates of Deposit - City Reserves US Bank 150-10110 247,000 248,633 248,633 1.850 1.840 274 N/A 12/30/2022 1 Subtotal and Average 3,470,000 3,420,640 3,420,640 1.536 1.538 605 3 Medium-Term Corporate Notes
19-516679 037833DN7 Apple Inc. 2.05% Corporate MTN 9/11/26 - City Reserves US Bank 150-10110 1,000,000 970,640 970,640 2.050 2.110 1,625 AA+ 9/11/2026 31 19-516680 478160BT0 Johnson Johnson 2.05% Corporate MTN 3/1/23 - City Reserves US Bank 150-10110 750,000 752,580 752,580 2.050 2.040 335 AAA 3/1/2023 5 Subtotal and Average 1,750,000 1,723,220 1,723,220 2.050 2.075 980 18 Federal Agency Securities
19-516680 3133ELH80 Federal Farm Credit Bks .680% Agency Bond 6/10/25 US Bank 150-10110 500,000 471,380 471,380 0.680 0.720 1,167 AA+ 6/10/2025 11 Subtotal and Average 500,000 471,380 471,380 0.680 0.720 1,167 11 Investment Portfolio Total and Average $ 50,953,342 $ 50,494,325 $ 50,494,325 1.051 1.062 459 5 Average Years : 1.3
108 of 285
Investments Market Value Book Value % of Market Yield
Cash and Equivalents 714,287 714,287 3.82% 0.170
U.S. Government Issues 5,307,659 5,579,307 28.36% 1.930 Corporate Issues 5,936,182 6,249,830 31.71% 3.480
Foreign Issues 96,524 98,625 0.52% 5.100
Municipal Issues 65,944 66,037 0.35% 4.290
Mutual Funds-Equity 6,540,098 5,536,246 34.94% 1.180
Total Assets 18,660,694 18,244,333 99.70% 2.120
Accrued Income 56,945 56,945 0.30%
Grand Total $ 18,717,639 $ 18,301,278 100%

CITY OF PINOLE
INVESTMENT REPORT MARCH 2022
PENSION TRUST SECTION 115 PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
Cash and
Equivalents
4%
U.S. Government
Issues
28%
Corporate Issues
32%
Foreign Issues
1%
Municipal Issues
0%
Mutual FundsEquity
35%
Accrued Income
0%

ATTACHMENT B
109 of 285

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 11A
DATE: MAY 17, 2022
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: MARKISHA GUILLORY, FINANCE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: REVISED PROPOSED LONG-TERM FINANCIAL PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2022/23 - FY 2026/27

RECOMMENDATION
Review the Revised Proposed Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 - FY 2026/27 and provide direction to staff for changes to incorporate into the next draft of the document, the Final Proposed version.

BACKGROUND
In February 2020, the City Council adopted the City of Pinole Strategic Plan 2020 – 2025. The Strategic Plan identified four goals for the City (safe and resilient, financially stable, vibrant and beautiful, and high performance), and 22 individual strategies (special projects) to complete over a five-year timeframe.

One of the strategies under the goal of a financially stable Pinole is to “develop a longterm financial plan (LTFP) and use it to guide budget and financial decisions (including policies regarding reserves and management of liabilities).” The City developed its first Long-Term Financial Plan, for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021/22 - FY 2025/26, in spring 2021 to address this Strategic Plan strategy. As an ongoing practice, staff will update the LTFP periodically.

Staff has created the attached Preliminary Proposed Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 - FY 2026/27. One important element of a LTFP is a longterm financial forecast. City staff presented the Status Quo Financial Forecast for FY 2022/23 - FY 2026/27 to the Finance Subcommittee on April 14, 2022. The Finance Subcommittee discussed the forecast and asked questions of staff. Staff has incorporated the Status Quo Financial Forecast for FY 2022/23 - FY 2026/27 into the Preliminary Proposed Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 - FY 2026/27, which was presented to the City Council on April 26, 2022. Input from the City Council was incorporated into this Revised Proposed Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 - FY 2026/27.
110 of 285
City Council Report, 11A
May 17, 2022 2

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The LTFP identifies any major economic or demographic trends that might impact future requests for City services or City revenues. As noted above, it includes a fiveyear forecast of all City funds, including the General Fund and Non-General Funds, based on the City’s current services and revenue sources and assumptions about the future. The forecast anticipates that the General Fund will be essentially balanced throughout the five-year timeframe. The Revised Proposed Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 - FY 2026/27 recommends that the City maintain current service and staffing levels, and look for new funding sources to address deferred capital needs and unfunded liabilities.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 - FY 2026/27 adopted by the City Council will be a valuable resource for City leaders when they make future financial and operational decisions. The LTFP does not itself require or authorize any expenditure of City funds, and therefore does not itself have any fiscal impact to the City.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Revised Proposed Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 - FY 2026/27
111 of 285
City of Pinole
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2022/23 - FY 2026/27
Revised Proposed Version

ATTACHMENT A
112 of 285
Page intentionally blank
113 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… i Elected Officials and Department Heads………………………………………………………………………………….iv Strategic Plan 2020 – 2025 Vision, Mission, and Goals…………………………………………………………….v Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 Background ................................................................................................................................. 2 Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Scope........................................................................................................................................... 2 Development Process................................................................................................................. 2 Long-Term Financial Forecast 4
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4 Forecast Methodology................................................................................................................ 4 Major Economic and Demographic Trends ................................................................................ 4 Demographic and Cultural Changes ....................................................................................... 4 Economic Changes.................................................................................................................. 5 Status Quo Forecast.................................................................................................................... 6 Revenues................................................................................................................................. 8 Expenditures......................................................................................................................... 10 Fund Balance......................................................................................................................... 11 Non-General Funds................................................................................................................... 12 Gas Tax Fund......................................................................................................................... 12 Restricted Real Estate Maintenance Fund............................................................................ 13 Public Safety Augmentation Fund ........................................................................................ 13 Traffic Safety Fund ................................................................................................................ 14 Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund.................................................................... 14 Storm Water Fund ................................................................................................................ 14 Recreation Fund.................................................................................................................... 15 Building and Planning Fund .................................................................................................. 15 114 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Table of Contents ii
Refuse Management Fund.................................................................................................... 16 Solid Waste Fund .................................................................................................................. 16 Measure C/J Fund ................................................................................................................. 17 Rate Stabilization Fund ......................................................................................................... 17 American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Fund ............................................................................... 18 Parkland Dedication Fund..................................................................................................... 18 Growth Impact Fund............................................................................................................. 19 Housing Assets Fund ............................................................................................................. 19 Landscape & Lighting District Fund....................................................................................... 19 City Street Improvements Fund............................................................................................ 20 Arterial Streets Rehabilitation Fund ..................................................................................... 20 Sewer Enterprise Fund.......................................................................................................... 20 Pinole Community Television Fund ...................................................................................... 21 Information Systems Fund.................................................................................................... 22 Major Challenges and Opportunities Over the Next Five Years………………………………………………23 Major Challenges ...................................................................................................................... 23 Major Opportunities................................................................................................................. 24 Policy Alternatives - Additional Discretionary Expenditures…………………………………………………..26 Unfunded/Deferred Liabilities.................................................................................................. 26 Unfunded Liabilities.............................................................................................................. 27 Deferred Maintenance and Renewal.................................................................................... 28 Service and Program Expansion................................................................................................ 29 Expansion of Existing Services .............................................................................................. 29 New Services......................................................................................................................... 31 Capital Expansion.................................................................................................................. 31 Additional Reserves .............................................................................................................. 32 Policy Alternatives – Additional Revenue and Expenditure Reduction Options……………………..33 Additional Revenue................................................................................................................... 33 New Local Revenue............................................................................................................... 33 New Federal Funding ............................................................................................................ 37 115 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Table of Contents iii
Grants.................................................................................................................................... 38 Additional Cash from Debt.................................................................................................... 38 Expenditure Reductions............................................................................................................ 39 Optimal Service Levels and Revenues……………………………………………………………………………………..40 Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..41 Summary and Next Steps………………………………………………………………………………………………………..42 116 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Elected Officials and Department Heads iv

ELECTED OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS

ELECTED OFFICIALS
Mayor Vincent Salimi
Mayor Pro Tem Devin Murphy
Council Member Norma Martinez-Rubin
Council Member Anthony Tave
Council Member Maureen Toms
Treasurer Roy Swearingen

DEPARTMENT HEADS
City Manager Andrew Murray
City Attorney (Contract) Eric Casher
City Clerk Heather Bell
Community Development Director Lilly Whalen
Community Services Director Vacant
Finance Director Markisha Guillory
Fire Chief Chris Wynkoop
Human Resources Director Stacy Shell
Police Chief Neil Gang
Public Works Director Sanjay Mishra
117 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Strategic Plan 2020 – 2025 Vision, Mission, and Goals v STRATEGIC PLAN 2020 – 2025 VISION, MISSION, AND GOALS
In February 2020, the City of Pinole adopted a Strategic Plan 2020 – 2025. The Strategic Plan established the following vision, mission, and goals for the City, as well as 22 specific “strategies” (special projects), to be completed over a five-year timeframe, that would help the City achieve the goals.

VISION
Pinole is a safe, vibrant, and innovative community with small town charm and a high quality of life.

MISSION
Pinole will be efficient, ethical, and effective in delivering quality services with community involvement and fiscal stewardship.

GOALS

1. Safe and Resilient Pinole: Develop and communicate resilience through quality public safety service delivery, property maintenance policies and practices, and disciplined investment in community assets.

2. Financially Stable Pinole: Ensure the financial health and long-term sustainability of the City.

3. Vibrant and Beautiful Pinole: Facilitate a thriving community through development policies and proactive relationship building.

4. High Performance Pinole: Build an organization culture that is efficient, ethical, and effective in delivering quality services with community involvement and fiscal stewardship.
118 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Executive Summary 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Pinole’s Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 - FY 2026/27 has been created to help implement the City’s Strategic Plan 2020 – 2025. It has been developed in conformance with public finance best practices.

The LTFP identifies the major economic and demographic trends that might impact future demands for City services and future City revenues. It includes a five-year forecast of all City funds, including the General Fund and Non-General Funds, based on the City’s current services and revenue sources and assumptions about the future. The forecast anticipates that the General Fund will be essentially balanced throughout the five-year timeframe.

The LTFP identifies the major challenges and opportunities that the City will likely face over the planning horizon, as well as the main discretionary service level/expenditure options and new revenue options that the City can consider and should bear in mind as it makes future financial and operational decisions.

The LTFP for FY 2022/23 - FY 2026/27 recommends that the City generally maintain its current service and staffing levels and begin to explore new revenue generation options to fund its unfunded liabilities, primarily capital asset renewal and replacement and Other PostEmployment Benefits (OPEB). 119 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Introduction 2

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND
In February 2020, the City Council adopted the City of Pinole Strategic Plan 2020 – 2025. The Strategic Plan identified four goals for the City (safe and resilient, financially stable, vibrant and beautiful, and high performance), and 22 individual strategies (special projects) to complete over a five-year timeframe.

One of the strategies under the goal of a financially stable Pinole is to “develop a long-term financial plan (LTFP) and use it to guide budget and financial decisions (including policies regarding reserves and management of liabilities).” The City of Pinole’s inaugural Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021/22 - FY 2025/26 was adopted in June 2021 to address this Strategic Plan strategy.

PURPOSE
The purpose of the LTFP is to inform the City’s financial and operational decision making. The LTFP can be used as a guide to many planning and decision-making processes, such as the development of future budgets and Capital Improvement Plans (CIP). The LTFP also marks the beginning of the FY 2022/23 annual budget development process.

SCOPE
The LTFP for FY 2022/23 - FY 2026/27 covers the revenues and expenditures of the City’s General Fund and Non-General Funds over a five-year period.

DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
City staff (the City Manager, Finance Director, Finance Department staff, and other department heads and staff) began developing the LTFP in winter 2021/2022. The LTFP was created using public finance best practices, which are well summarized in the key publication on municipal long-term financial planning, the Government Finance Officers Association’s (GFOA) Financing the Future: Long-Term Financial Planning for Local Government. GFOA, one of the leading professional associations in the public finance field, defines financial forecasting and long-term financial planning as follows:
● Financial forecasting is the process of projecting revenues and expenditures over a longterm period, using assumptions about economic conditions, future spending scenarios, and other salient variables.
120 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Introduction 3
● Long-term financial planning is the process of aligning financial capacity with long-term service objectives. Financial planning uses forecasts to provide insight into future financial capacity so that strategies can be developed to achieve long-term sustainability in light of the government’s service objectives and financial challenges.

The main tasks required to create the LTFP were the following:
● Forecast revenues and expenditures using key assumptions about the City’s operating environment;
● Identify the major challenges and opportunities that the City will face over the next five years;
● Identify policy alternatives, including changes to revenue sources and expenditures, that will result in a sustainable, long-term balance between desired service levels and City financial resources; and
● Gather feedback on a draft LTFP and gain Council approval of the final LTFP.

City staff has completed the necessary tasks using best practices. This has resulted in a LTFP that is consistent with GFOA’s Long-Term Financial Planning best practice, which requires that a longterm financial plan:
● Use a planning horizon of at least five years;
● Include an analysis of the financial environment, revenue and expenditure forecasts, debt position and affordability analysis, strategies for achieving and maintaining financial balance, and plan monitoring mechanisms; and
● Be visible.

The process of developing the inaugural Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021/22 - FY 2025/26 was structured to support participation from a variety of stakeholders.

Staff shared information and received input from Council Members and the public at multiple Finance Subcommittee and City Council meetings in spring 2021. Staff also gathered input from interested stakeholders through an online survey that specifically focused on identifying the most important challenges and opportunities that the City will face over the five-year planning period.

The participatory development process resulted in a LTFP that reflected the interests and priorities of the City Council and community. City staff used similar mechanisms to create the LTFP for FY 2022/23 - FY 2026/27.
121 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Long-Term Financial Forecast 4

LONG-TERM FINANCIAL FORECAST

INTRODUCTION
One of the key steps in creating a LTFP is to create a long-term financial forecast. A long-term financial forecast estimates future revenues and expenditures based on assumptions about the City’s future operating environment. Over the past few years, the City has included a long-term financial forecast covering the General Fund, including the Measure S funds, in the annual budget.

FORECAST METHODOLOGY
As noted above, City staff followed public finance best practices when creating the LTFP, including when designing the forecast methodology. Staff reviewed the City’s past forecasting work, the work of peer jurisdictions and other leading municipalities, and academic and professional materials on the topic. Staff used the FY 2021/22 revised mid-year budget as the base year of the five-year forecast and applied quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative methods involve using historic numerical data to forecast future numeric values. As an example, staff looked at average annual historic growth rates for various revenues and expenditures, then used those average growth rates to forecast future values for those revenues and expenditures.

Qualitative forecasting methods involve using information other than historic numerical data to conduct forecasting. This might involve factoring into a forecast the opinions of experts regarding issues such as future economic conditions and changes in the regulatory environment. Staff incorporated some qualitative forecasting into the LTFP.

MAJOR ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS
Forecasting future conditions requires identifying the major current trends that will shape the future. The primary determinants of a city’s financial sustainability are the demands for city services, the city’s revenues, and service delivery methods. These are primarily driven by demographic and cultural changes as well as economic changes.

Demographic and Cultural Changes
City staff is not anticipating any significant changes to the demographics or cultural characteristics of Pinole’s population over the five-year period covered by the LTFP. The City’s total population has remained very stable over the past decade, growing less than 1% annually on average. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects that Pinole’s population will increase by 1,775 residents between 2020 and 2040, to a total of 21,280, which represents an annual growth rate of 0.44%. According to the 2020 American Community Survey (latest 122 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Long-Term Financial Forecast 5
available), the City’s median age is 42.8 years. According to the 2020 Decennial Census, its race and ethnic composition are as follows: White alone (33%), Asian alone (26%), Black or African American alone (11%), American Indian and Alaska Native alone (1%), Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone (0.4%), Some Other Race alone (15%), and two or more races (14%).

According to the 2020 American Community Survey, the share of Pinole’s population that is Hispanic or Latino (may be of any race, so also included in applicable race categories) (24%). The percentage of the population that is female is 53%. There are approximately 6,792 households with an average of 2.83 persons per household. Pinole’s median household income is $104,904.

The City has received applications for some new housing projects at infill sites, but it is not possible at this point to forecast how many new housing units will be created as a result, nor to forecast how such projects, if constructed, might impact the City’s population and service demands.

The City’s demographics have also remained fairly stable, and staff is not anticipating any significant changes to demographics over the five-year planning horizon that would impact longterm financial planning.

Economic Changes
Prior to the onset of COVID-19 in early 2020, the City was experiencing a steady, modest economic expansion, similar to that experienced by many other cities in the aftermath of the Great Recession. COVID-19 created an unanticipated shock to the national economy. Many of Pinole’s businesses were significantly impacted by the shelter-in-place health orders, which disrupted many retail, restaurant, entertainment, and personal service activities. Due to public health interventions and the availability of vaccines, the local and national economies have largely recovered and are expected to resume the steady, modest growth of the pre-COVID period. Therefore, City staff is not anticipating any economic changes during the five-year planning horizon that would significantly influence the City’s finances.

City staff expects that City operations will generally experience modest productivity gains consistent with those realized in the economy generally over the next five years. The federal government has made a significant new investment in infrastructure. City staff does not have a precise sense of how that might impact the cost of City capital projects, and therefore has not included any related increased cost in the LTFP. Forthcoming CIPs will incorporate the City’s estimate of any increase in the cost of capital projects due to additional federal investment.

Inflation has significantly increased over the course of the last year. Since spring 2021, inflation has steadily grown from around 3% annually to around 8% annually. It is unclear how inflation will change over the five-year planning horizon of the LTFP. Staff has assumed a 3% rate of inflation in the LTFP.
123 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Long-Term Financial Forecast 6

STATUS QUO FORECAST
The following five-year forecast is a “status quo” forecast. A “status quo” forecast assumes that the City continues current (status quo) staffing levels, service levels, and programs in the future and that the City does not establish any new revenue-generating mechanisms.

City staff has created an updated status quo five-year forecast for the General Fund, including Measure S funds, for FY 2022/23 through FY 2026/27. This forecast will be used as the basis of the development of the FY 2022/23 budget. For the status quo forecast, staff assumed that future City service levels would remain at the levels of FY 2021/22. Staff then forecasted revenues and expenditures for the five succeeding years by applying assumptions about future changes in economic conditions that impact revenues and expenditures.

Based on specific assumptions, detailed below, the City forecasts that the General Fund and the Measure S funds will be essentially structurally balanced over the five-year planning horizon, with small surpluses or deficits. Although the City’s revenues are sufficient to cover normal operating costs, the revenues and reserves are not sufficient to cover the City’s two large unfunded liabilities, deferred maintenance of capital assets (streets, sidewalks, parks, City buildings, etc.) and other postemployment benefits (OPEB), primarily retired City employee medical insurance coverage.

It is important to note that the status quo forecast for FY 2022/23 through FY 2026/27 includes the organizational changes that were made in FY 2021/22 and the associated additional positions that were included in the FY 2021/22 budget. The new positions included a dedicated Human Resources Director, Community Services Director, Community Development Director, and Public Works Director as well as an Administrative Fire Captain, Fire Prevention Captain, Deputy City Clerk, Management Analyst in Public Works and other new maintenance positions in Public Works.

Below find a table illustrating the five-year forecast for the City’s General Fund (including Measure S 2006 and 2014).
124 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Long-Term Financial Forecast 7
Table 1 – General Fund Status Quo Financial Forecast

GENERAL FUND SUMMARY
INCLUDES MEASURE S 2006 & 2014
2018-19
Actual
2019-20
Actual
2020-21
Actual
2021-22
Revised Budget
2022-23
Forecast
2023-24
Forecast
2024-25
Forecast
2025-26
Forecast
2026-27
Forecast

REVENUE
PROPERTY TAX 3,837,167 4,514,755 4,091,345 4,230,122 4,776,626 5,649,469 5,801,568 5,959,970 6,138,769 SALES TAX 3,994,720 3,788,080 4,303,800 4,483,848 4,582,095 4,695,271 4,803,262 4,913,737 5,026,753 MEAS S 2006 & 2014 LOCAL SALES TAX 4,286,328 3,901,837 4,623,561 4,840,000 4,902,000 5,022,000 5,122,440 5,224,889 5,329,387 UTILITY USERS TAX 1,812,844 1,809,832 1,939,726 1,915,000 1,934,150 1,953,492 1,973,026 1,992,757 2,012,684 FRANCHISE TAX 735,311 750,001 751,598 779,000 786,790 794,658 802,604 810,631 818,737 INTERGOVERNMENTAL TAX 1,836,501 1,952,717 2,034,203 2,082,883 2,215,948 2,317,376 2,421,681 2,531,220 2,645,775 TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX 485,499 444,453 446,105 418,000 440,000 453,200 466,796 480,800 495,224 BUSINESS LICENSE TAX 399,258 382,051 349,733 382,000 400,000 412,000 424,360 437,091 450,204 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 967,318 1,260,013 1,345,588 1,339,796 1,405,108 1,498,155 1,571,813 1,649,154 1,731,612 OTHER REVENUE 2,367,313 1,116,846 833,313 518,140 549,640 555,136 560,688 566,295 571,958

ONE-TIME REVENUE -
Total Revenue 20,722,259 19,920,585 20,718,971 20,988,789 21,992,357 23,350,757 23,948,239 24,566,543 25,221,102 TRANSFERS IN 6,290,688
PENSION TRANSFER IN (FY 19/20 alloc) 667,859
PENSION TRANSFER IN 476,366 853,686 2,250,824 2,479,356 2,721,600 2,978,379 3,250,565 Total Sources 27,012,947 19,920,585 21,863,196 21,842,475 24,243,181 25,830,113 26,669,840 27,544,922 28,471,667

EXPENDITURES
SALARIES 8,593,887 9,184,283 9,683,813 10,553,426 11,492,312 11,837,081 12,192,194 12,557,960 12,934,698 BENEFITS - PERS RETIRE 1,792,051 2,451,619 2,771,676 3,447,080 3,808,871 4,037,403 4,279,647 4,536,426 4,808,612 BENEFITS - OTHER 3,079,527 2,864,038 2,720,468 3,374,993 3,687,664 3,872,047 4,065,650 4,268,932 4,439,689 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 2,056,418 3,460,467 2,685,146 3,082,147 3,387,962 3,455,721 3,524,836 3,630,581 3,739,498 DEBT SERVICE 590,433 606,553 558,607 576,107 596,107 611,150 677,150 677,150 677,150 CAPITAL OUTLAY 211,292 429,470 1,397,824 157,186 253,622 261,231 269,068 277,140 285,454 TRANSFERS OUT 21,732,833 1,255,058 1,588,652 1,418,455 1,418,455 1,461,009 1,504,839 1,549,984 1,596,484 Total Expenditures 38,056,441 20,251,487 21,406,186 22,609,394 24,644,993 25,535,642 26,513,383 27,498,172 28,481,585 Surplus/Deficit (11,043,494) (330,902) 457,010 (766,919) (401,812) 294,471 156,457 46,750 (9,918) Fund Balance, July 1 23,478,448 12,434,954 12,104,052 12,726,083 11,009,449 9,956,712 10,137,701 10,193,042 10,135,138 Preliminary Fund Balance, June 30 12,434,954 12,104,052 12,561,062 11,959,164 10,607,637 10,251,183 10,294,158 10,239,792 10,125,219 General Reserves Adjustment (949,715) - (650,925) (113,481) (101,116) (104,654) (108,825) Fund Balance, June 30 12,434,954 12,104,052 12,726,083 11,009,449 9,956,712 10,137,701 10,193,042 10,135,138 10,016,395 Pension Fund Balance, July 1 16,287,510 19,432,089 19,655,464 18,504,657 17,058,571 15,296,367 13,175,177 Revenues - Interest 924,669 1,010,988 2,566,660 1,127,061 1,140,017 1,073,270 989,397 887,189 764,160 Expenditure - Transfers Out 1,144,225 2,250,824 853,686 2,479,356 2,721,600 2,978,379 3,250,565 Expenditures 52,921 81,434 79,159 50,000 40,000 40,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 Pension Fund Balance, June 30 17,159,258 18,088,812 19,432,089 19,655,464 18,504,657 17,058,571 15,296,367 13,175,177 10,658,773 Fund Balance, July 1 7,457,116 7,492,770 8,517,413 9,395,369 9,771,183 10,162,031 10,568,512 Revenues - Interest 35,654 74,928 227,031 262,333 289,731 301,827 313,916 Revenues - Transfer In 949,715 650,925 113,481 101,116 104,654 108,825 General Reserve Balance, June 30 7,137,963 7,457,116 7,492,770 8,517,413 9,395,369 9,771,183 10,162,031 10,568,512 10,991,252 125 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Long-Term Financial Forecast 8
Revenues
As shown in Table 1 above, the status quo forecast anticipates that General Fund revenue, including the Measure S funds, will grow by 22% from $23.3 million in FY 2022/23 to $27.1 million in FY 2026/27, approximately 5% annually, primarily due to increases in the property tax and sales tax categories.

Property Tax
Property tax is an ad valorem tax levied on real property. The fixed statutory rate, set by Proposition 13, is 1% of assessed valuation. The City receives approximately 19% of the total property tax levied on property located within its boundaries.

Property tax is made up of four components—secured (basic and Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF)); unsecured; supplemental; and property transfer tax. The 22% growth in property tax forecasted for FY 2023/24 is primarily due to an increase in the residual property tax revenue resulting after outstanding Redevelopment bonds are retired in the prior year.

Sales Tax
The overall sales tax rate on purchases made in Pinole is 9.75%. Of that amount, the City receives the statewide standard 1% (referred to as the Bradley Burns sales tax) plus 0.5% due to Measure S 2006 and 0.5% due to Measure S 2014. The forecast assumes an average 2% growth rate in the City’s sales tax revenue, consistent with projections provided by HdL, the City’s sales tax consultant.

Utility Users Tax (UUT)
The City levies an 8% utility users’ tax (UUT) on the value of public utilities services consumed within the City limits for electricity, gas, and telecommunications. The UUT was originally established in 1998 and extended in 2004 and 2018. The forecasted growth rate averages 1% per year, which aligns with the City’s recent experience of very low to flat growth in UUT, notably in the telecommunications subcategory.

Franchise Fees
The City levies a franchise fee on organizations that use the public right of way to furnish gas (PG&E) (1%) and electricity (PG&E) (2%), refuse (Republic Services) (10%), and cable television (Comcast and AT&T) (5%) services to citizens living within the City’s boundaries. The fees are defined in the franchise agreements between the City and the organizations and are paid directly to the City by these franchisees. The forecasted growth rate averages 1% per year. While franchise fee revenue has grown collectively, one of the major services, cable, has had flat to low growth. One factor is the change in consumer preference from traditional cable to streaming services.
126 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Long-Term Financial Forecast 9
Intergovernmental Tax
The main General Fund revenue categorized as Intergovernmental Tax is the motor vehicle license fee (VLF), also known as the automobile in-lieu tax, which is imposed on the ownership of a motor vehicle in-lieu of taxing it as personal property. The VLF is paid annually to the State at the time vehicle registrations are renewed based on a vehicle’s current value. The forecast assumes an average 6% growth rate, consistent with projections provided by HdL, the City’s property tax consultant. The other General Fund revenue categorized as Intergovernmental Tax is the Homeowners Property Tax Relief.

Transient Occupancy Tax
The City’s transient occupancy tax (TOT) was established in 1986 and amended in 1991 to impose a 10% tax for the privilege of occupying quarters on a transient basis in accordance with Chapter

3.24 of Municipal Code. This tax is imposed upon persons staying 30 days or less in a motel or lodging facility. The forecast assumes a 5% growth rate based on industry trends.

Business License Tax
The City’s business license tax was established in 1975 and is assessed on all businesses operating within City limits in accordance with Municipal Code Title 5. The City charges business license tax in accordance with the provisions of Government Code 37101. Pinole’s tax is computed based on a flat tax (currently $152) per year combined with a variable tax component based on the number of employees engaged in each business. The forecast assumes a 5% growth rate based on trends.

Public Safety Charges
Public safety charges are the revenues received from the cities of Hercules and San Pablo for police dispatch services that Pinole provides to those jurisdictions under an Intergovernmental Service Sharing agreement. Under the current agreement, the City recovers approximately 67% of the total cost of performing dispatch services for the three jurisdictions. The forecast assumes a 7% increase based on the established formula.

Other Revenue
Other revenues is made up of all other revenue sources, such as fees, permits, interest income, grants, reimbursements, and other miscellaneous revenue. These revenues are projected primarily using historical trend analysis.

The City is currently conducting a comprehensive fee study to determine the City’s total cost of providing certain services. The study will likely recommend changes to the City’s fees, which could potentially increase revenue generated from fees in the future. The LTFP five-year forecast does not assume any increased revenues related to potential changes in City fees resulting from the comprehensive fee study.
127 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Long-Term Financial Forecast 10
Transfers In
The transfer in shown in the five-year forecast comes from the Pension Section 115 Trust to offset the increase in pension costs in the General Fund and Measure S Funds. The amount transferred is based on the difference between the City’s base year (FY 2018/19) contribution toward employee pensions and the forecasted required City contribution in future years.

Expenditures
As shown Table 1 above, the status quo forecast anticipates that General Fund expenditures, including the Measure S funds, will grow by 13%, approximately 3% annually, from $23.4 million in FY 2022/23 to $27.6 million in FY 2026/27, primarily due to increases in the salaries and benefits categories.

Salaries
The forecast for salaries and wages is based on the City’s current staffing level (123 FTEs), future salary increases for different classifications already agreed upon in the City’s current labor memorandums of understanding (MOUs), and an assumption about salary increases for classifications after current labor MOUs expire (3% annually). Starting in FY 2022/23, the forecast includes a savings factor equal to 5% of total annual salary expenditures to account for savings resulting from position vacancies.

Benefits - Retirement
The cost of benefits -retirement is the City’s annual required contribution for employees’ pension to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS). The City’s annual required contribution is determined by an annual actuarial valuation report, the most recent of which is from July 2020. The forecast reflects the net cost to the City (the required total contribution minus the employee contributions). As a result of recent negotiations between the City and most of the unions representing City employees, City employees’ contribution toward their pension benefit was reduced in FY 2021/22. This has increased the City’s pension cost, and is included in the forecast.

Benefits - Other
Benefits - other includes employee medical/dental/vision care, workers’ compensation, general liability, and others. The benefits cost in the forecast is based primarily on rate schedules provided by outside agencies, such as CalPERS. The forecast assumes an average 5% annual growth rate.

Operations and Maintenance
Operations and maintenance is primarily discretionary and non-personnel related expenditures, such as professional services, utilities, and materials and supplies. The forecast assumes an average 3% increase to account for anticipated inflation. 128 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Long-Term Financial Forecast 11
Capital Outlay
Capital outlay in the status quo forecast includes non-major asset acquisition and improvements, such as computer equipment and furniture. The forecast assumes an average 3% growth rate to account for anticipated increases in the price of products.

Major one-time capital improvements that were included in the FY 2021/22 budget and funded by the General Fund and Measure S are not reflected in the status quo forecast. Though they may span multiple fiscal years, capital projects are non-recurring in nature and are not accounted for in the forecast.

The City develops a separate Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to plan for and appropriate funds to capital improvement projects. Each year, capital needs are assessed and prioritized through the capital improvement planning process.

Debt Service
Debt service is solely composed of the payment of principal and interest on the 2006 pension obligation bonds (POBs) that were issued to pay down the City’s unfunded accrued actuarial liability with CalPERS. The future years are forecasted based on the long-term debt obligation schedule. This debt will be fully paid and retired in FY 2035/36.

Transfers Out
Transfers out includes the transfer of funds from the General Fund and Measure S to other funds to support Recreation and Pinole Community Television (PCTV) operations. The transfer helps to stabilize the budgets in those areas as the operating costs are not fully recoverable. The forecast assumes a flat dollar amount consistent with past practice.

Fund Balance
Fund balance is basically an accumulation of funds as a result of revenues minus expenditures.

When total revenue exceeds total expenditures at the end of a fiscal year, a surplus of funds results and increases fund balance (reserves). On the opposite end, when total expenditures exceed total revenue, a deficit results and reduces fund balance (reserves).

General Fund Balance and General Reserves
The Preliminary Fund Balance, June 30 shown in the table above and other City financial schedules is the estimated General Fund fund balance before any transfers are made out of the General Fund to the General Reserve per the Reserve Policy. The Reserve Policy requires that an amount equal to 50% of total General Fund ongoing expenditures be set aside in a separate fund, the General Reserve, to maintain adequate financial resources in the event of financial distress.

If the General Reserve balance falls short of the policy requirement, funds are transferred from the General Fund unassigned fund balance in an amount equal to the difference between the 129 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Long-Term Financial Forecast 12
General Reserve fund balance and the amount required as per the policy. As such, the Fund Balance, June 30 is the Preliminary Fund Balance, June 30 less the General Reserve Adjustment, if any.

The General Reserve fund balance is forecasted to increase from $8.5 million in FY 2021/22 to $11.0 million in FY 2026/27.

Pension Trust Fund Balance
In June 2018, the City established a Section 115 Trust to set aside resources to offset the City’s significant unfunded pension liability and anticipated significant increases in the City’s future annual required contributions to CalPERS. The City intended to withdraw resources from the trust to remit to CalPERS such that the General Fund’s contribution to CalPERS for any year would be held level at the City’s contribution in FY 2018/19, the baseline year.

The pension fund balance for each fiscal year is calculated by starting with the fund balance at July 1, adding estimated interest earnings, subtracting transfers out to offset increases in pension costs, and subtracting administrative costs. The pension fund balance will continue to decrease as funds are withdrawn each year because the trust was funded with one-time proceeds as its only source of funding.

NON-GENERAL FUNDS
City staff has also created status quo five-year forecasts for the City’s Non-General Funds. These forecasts will also be used as the basis of the development of the FY 2022/23 budget. Similar to the General Fund status quo forecast, staff assumed that future City service levels would remain at the levels of FY 2020/21. Staff then forecasted revenues and expenditures for the five succeeding years by applying assumptions about future changes in economic conditions that impact revenues and expenditures. The forecasts include projects programmed in the draft FY 2022/23 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan.

Gas Tax Fund
The Gas Tax Fund accounts for the Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) State imposed excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel sales within the City Limits. These taxes are distributed primarily on the basis of population pursuant to formulas specified in Streets and Highways Code Sections 2105, 2106, 2107, 2107.5, and Section 2103. As a result of the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB1 Beall), funds received as part of the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) Section 2106 are also accounted for in this fund. Gas Tax funds are restricted for use in the construction, improvement, and maintenance of public streets. These funds support both annual operating and capital projects related to streets. It is common for funds that support capital projects to accrue significant fund balances over multiple years while cities save resources over time to invest in large projects, which have greater economies of scale. 130 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Long-Term Financial Forecast 13
Restricted Real Estate Maintenance Fund
The Restricted Real Estate Maintenance Fund accounts for revenues resulting from the sale or rental of property owned by the former Redevelopment Agency. These resources are used to maintain properties owned by the Successor Agency within the boundaries of the former Redevelopment Agency project areas.

Public Safety Augmentation Fund
The Public Safety Augmentation Fund (PSAF) accounts for monies allocated by the County Auditor-Controller to the City under Prop 172 from the statewide one-half cent sales tax based.

These funds are used exclusively for public safety. The receipt of these funds is conditioned on maintenance of effort using base year 1992/93.
131 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Long-Term Financial Forecast 14
Traffic Safety Fund
The Traffic Safety Fund accounts for fines and forfeitures received by the City under Section 1463 of the Penal Code. These funds are used exclusively for official traffic control devices, the maintenance thereof, equipment and supplies for traffic law enforcement and traffic accident prevention, and for the maintenance, improvement, or construction of public streets, bridges, and culverts within the City. The fund may be used to pay the compensation of school crossing guards who are not regular full-time members of the Police Department of the City.

Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund
The Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) accounts for funds received from the State via the County under AB 3229, which enacted the Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program for local law enforcement activities. The minimum allocation for public agencies is $100,000, which is the amount Pinole has historically received.

Storm Water Fund
The Storm Water Fund accounts for assessments collected by the County via property tax bills and remitted to the City pursuant to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, a federally mandated program. Assessments are levied at $35 per Equivalent Runoff Unit (ERU). Revenue estimates are based on the number of ERU's multiplied by the adopted rate. 132 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Long-Term Financial Forecast 15
Recreation Fund
The Recreation Fund accounts for program fees, fundraising proceeds, and donations for Recreation programs. Resources are used towards staffing and maintenance costs to operate the programs. The fund receives a transfer in from the General Fund to offset a recurring operating loss.

Building and Planning Fund
The Building and Planning Fund accounts for fees collected for building permits and plan check fees. Fees collected are used to cover the cost involved in plan checks and inspections performed. The City is currently conducting a fee study to determine the City’s total cost of providing certain services that have a specific beneficiary. The study will likely recommend changes to the City’s building and planning fees, which is expected to result in increased revenue.

Several large developments projects are anticipated to be initiated in FY 2022/23, which explains the large increases in the forecasted permit and fee revenues for that year. 133 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Long-Term Financial Forecast 16
Refuse Management Fund
The Refuse Management Fund accounts for a surcharge collected by Republic Services and remitted to the City under AB 939 of $0.83 per can per month on all residential customers in Pinole. These revenues are restricted to programs and activities that encourage and promote recycling and source reduction of solid waste.

Solid Waste Fund
The Solid Waste Fund accounts for a surcharge collected by Republic Services and remitted to the City for solid waste services. These funds must be used for future solid waste capital projects.

Category
2018-19
Actual
2019-20
Actual
2020-21
Actual
2021-22
Revised
Budget
2022-23
Forecast
2023-24
Forecast
2024-25
Forecast
2025-26
Forecast
2026-27
Forecast

REVENUES
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES - - - 205,000 225,000
LICENSES AND PERMITS 386,019 310,704 264,128 2,427,800 487,000 501,610 516,658 532,158 548,123 FEES 315,732 417,735 239,196 2,162,649 900,700 927,721 955,553 1,013,746 984,219 OTHER REVENUE 12,568 19,176 (422) 13,000 13,130 13,261 13,394 13,528 13,663 TRANSFERS IN - - 192,000 374,216 - - - - -
TOTAL REVENUES 714,318 747,614 1,979,916 694,902 4,828,579 1,442,592 1,485,605 1,529,905 1,575,532

EXPENDITURES
SALARIES AND WAGES 217,029 163,594 240,134 614,251 830,874 855,800 881,474 907,918 935,156 BENEFITS 85,720 85,015 124,965 316,715 359,104 380,650 403,489 427,699 453,361 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 686,315 827,458 1,473,003 622,505 1,206,783 627,783 646,616 666,015 685,995 CAPITAL OUTLAY - - - 3,000 - - - - -
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 989,063 1,076,066 2,406,969 987,604 2,396,761 1,864,233 1,931,580 2,001,632 2,074,512 Surplus/(Deficit) (274,745) (328,452) (292,702) (427,053) 2,431,818 (421,641) (445,975) (471,727) (498,980) Fund Balance, July 1 761,594 486,849 158,397 (134,305) (561,358) 1,870,460 1,448,818 1,002,843 531,116 Fund Balance, June 30 486,849 158,397 (134,305) (561,358) 1,870,460 1,448,818 1,002,843 531,116 32,136 134 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Long-Term Financial Forecast 17
Measure C/J Fund
The Measure C/J Fund accounts for special override sales tax revenues collected by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) and reapportioned to the cities for local street projects.

The City must submit a checklist each year to confirm compliance with a Growth Management Program to maintain eligibility for the funds. Estimates of annual funding are provided by the CCTA, and jurisdiction allocations are based on a formula split (50/50) between population and road mileage. It is common for funds that support capital projects to accrue significant fund balances over multiple years while cities save resources over time to invest in large projects, which have greater economies of scale.

Rate Stabilization Fund
The Rate Stabilization Fund was created to account for the excess revenues from the solid waste post collection contract with Republic Services. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the surplus funds, generated from prior years’ rate increases, are set aside to offset year-over-year rate fluctuations; thereby, leveling the annual rates paid by consumers. Per Resolution 2013-91, the City was required to establish a rate stabilization fund, separate from the Solid Waste Fund, for the excess revenues collected.
135 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Long-Term Financial Forecast 18
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Fund
The American Rescue Plan Act Fund accounts for the $4.6 million allocated to the City from the federal government from the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. The City received its first tranche of $2.3 million in July 2021 and will receive the second tranche one year later. The City Council has appropriated $400,000 of the funding for small business assistance.

Parkland Dedication Fund
The Parkland Dedication Fund provides for the acquisition and development of parks as specified in the City’s Parkland Dedication Ordinance (PDO) (Municipal Code Sec. 16.28), which requires as a condition of approval for the subdivision of land the dedication of park land or payment of a fee in-lieu of dedication, pursuant to California Government Code 66477 (the “Quimby Act”).
136 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Long-Term Financial Forecast 19
Growth Impact Fund
The Growth Impact Fund accounts for development fees collected to mitigate the impact of new development. Specifically, it provides for the expansion, design, construction, or upgrade to facilities, roadways, and equipment. The City collects fees for police, fire protection, municipal facilities, wastewater, roadways, and drainage.

Housing Assets Fund
The Housing Assets Fund accounts for resources related to the affordable housing activities and portfolio of the former Redevelopment Agency. Funds must be expended for housing activities.

The fund balance has increased in recent years due to the repayment of a significant loan due to the fund.

Landscape & Lighting District Fund
The Landscape & Lighting District Fund accounts for assessments paid by property owners in the City’s Landscape and Lighting Assessment District (LLAD) to maintain median lighting and landscaping within the Pinole Valley Road North and South areas. 137 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Long-Term Financial Forecast 20
City Street Improvements Fund
The City Street Improvements Fund receives a transfer of $250,000 per year from Measure S 2014 to fund road maintenance projects.

Arterial Streets Rehabilitation Fund
The Arterial Streets Rehabilitation Fund receives a transfer of $250,000 per year from the Measure S 2014 to fund road rehabilitation projects.

Sewer Enterprise Fund
The Sewer Enterprise Fund accounts for fees charged to residents and businesses for sewer service provided by the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Sewer user fees are charged in the amount specified by City Council Resolution (Section 13.04.040 PMC). Fees are used to 138 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Long-Term Financial Forecast 21
operate, maintain, and renew the WWTP. The cost of operations is shared between the two cities using a cost sharing formula based on sewage inflows by each city. The City’s Sewer Enterprise Fund meets the criteria to be classified as a major fund.

Pinole Community Television Fund
The Pinole Community Television (PCTV) Fund accounts for revenues and expenditures related to the operation of PCTV. Revenue is received from video production charges to other cities, Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) access fees, and the General Fund. PEG fees are designated for equipment purchases.
139 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Long-Term Financial Forecast 22
Information Systems Fund
The Information Systems Fund is an internal service fund used to account for activities of the City’s Information Technology (IT) Division.
140 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Major Challenges and Opportunities Over the Next Five Years 23

MAJOR CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS One of the main objectives of a LTFP is to identify significant challenges and opportunities that an organization is likely to face in the future, so that the organization has adequate lead time to take action to overcome challenges and profit from opportunities.

The City has taken many steps to identify major challenges and opportunities that it is likely to face in the future. In 2019, the City engaged a public opinion research firm to identify the top concerns of likely voters. As part of the development of the Strategic Plan 2020 – 2025, the City conducted an environmental scan. Additionally, the City has deployed multiple online surveys to gather input from the community on the major challenges and opportunities that the City will face over the next five years. The findings of the public opinion research, environmental scan, and the community surveys are integrated into the content below.

MAJOR CHALLENGES
Changes in demographics and economic conditions can create significant challenges for cities. As noted above, City staff does not anticipate that demographic or economic changes over the next five years will create any significant challenges for the City. The City will nonetheless face a number of other challenges over the next five years.

In the public opinion research conducted in November 2019, a representative sample of likely voters was asked to identify their top concerns and prevailing opinions. Participants provided the following responses to the question “What do you think is the most important issue facing the City of Pinole today?”:
● Traffic/transportation (14%);
● Public services funding/spending (13%);
● Crime/policing (9%);
● City budget/policies (8%);
● Housing/overpopulation (7%);
● Infrastructure/roads/power issues (6%);
● Jobs/economy/development (6%);
● Schools/education (5%);
● Community improvements (4%);
● Wildfires/fire safety (4%);
● Homelessness (2%);
● Taxes (2%);
● None/nothing (7%);
● Other (3%); and
● Don’t know (11%).
141 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Major Challenges and Opportunities Over the Next Five Years 24 It is interesting to note that no single issue emerged as the most significant to a majority of respondents.

In addition to those listed above, City staff and the environmental scan identified the following additional items as major challenges that the City will face over the next five years:
● The City’s extensive infrastructure, which needs upgrade and replacement; ● Retaining and developing staff, and succession planning; ● Climate change; and
● The changing nature of retail and the related impact to the City’s sales and property tax revenues.

The City deployed a voluntary online survey specifically related to the LTFP from May 3, 2021 to May 17, 2021 using Survey Monkey. A total of 47 self-selected community members completed the survey and identified the following as the main challenges facing the City of Pinole over the next five years, some of which overlap with the major challenges identified in the environmental scan:
● Infrastructure maintenance and replacement, notably roads and parks; ● Climate change;
● Public safety, including policing and fire services; and ● Public transportation.

MAJOR OPPORTUNITIES
Changes in demographics and economic conditions can also create opportunities for cities. City staff does not anticipate that there will be any significant demographic or economic changes in the City over the next five years, therefore staff is not anticipating that demographic or economic changes will themselves present major opportunities. That said, the City currently faces and will continue to face a number of opportunities over the next five years.

Opportunities facing the City include the following:
● The opportunity to reimagine retail centers, potentially as mixed use or destination retail and entertainment developments, as the nature of retail changes and there is less need for large retail buildings and centers;
● The opportunity to redevelop other underdeveloped infill sites, such as vacant lots; ● The City’s central location in the Bay Area, adjacent to I-80 and San Francisco Bay; ● The City’s diverse population; and
● The City’s historic downtown.

Respondents to the LTFP survey of May 2021 identified the following as the main opportunities facing the City of Pinole over the next five years, some of which overlap with the major opportunities identified in the environmental scan:
142 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 25 ● Environmental initiatives, including the use of green and renewable energy; ● Economic development strategy to attract and support small businesses; ● Redevelopment of areas that can be used for new businesses and housing; and ● Revitalization of the historic downtown.

In April 2022, staff deployed an online survey designed to gauge community members’ priorities.

Staff used the results from the previous surveys, outlined above, to create the qualitative survey using the Balancing Act simulation tool. The survey included a menu of eleven potential City initiatives to be considered for funding, and asked respondents to select items that are of the highest priority to them, then rank them in order of importance. Following are the survey results from 149 submissions, ranked from highest priority (1) to lowest priority (11).

1. Public safety services (98%)

2. Climate and environmental sustainability (92%)

3. Parks and facilities maintenance (90%)

4. Pavement maintenance and rehabilitation (81%)

5. Community services (73%)

6. Economic development (69%)

7. Road safety (63%)

8. Active transportation (57%)

9. Community spaces and facilities (51%)

10. Financial reserves (41%)

11. Housing assistance (25%)
143 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Policy Alternatives - Additional Discretionary Expenditures 26

POLICY ALTERNATIVES - ADDITIONAL DISCRETIONARY EXPENDITURES One goal of a LTFP is to identify the City services, and service levels, that residents desire, and can be afforded on an ongoing basis by a structurally balanced City budget.

In the United States, there are many levels of government (federal, state, county, city, and special districts), with distinct responsibilities. Cities are primarily responsible for public safety, land use, and public works. They are also often responsible for parks and recreation and sometimes responsible for providing utility services, such as clean water, wastewater, and power.

Pinole is considered a “full service” city, which means that it provides all traditional municipal services. It also provides some services, particularly fire protection and wastewater, that are provided by special districts in many other cities. Pinole provides a very broad range of services for a city of its size.

The majority of City of Pinole staff and resources are dedicated to public safety (police and fire services), land use regulation, building safety, local transportation infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, signals, bike lanes, etc.), and wastewater services. The City also invests significant staff and resources in additional public-facing services, such as outdoor recreation space and facilities, recreational and educational programs, cable television programming, and childcare and senior services. Some City staff and resources are also needed to provide internal services, such as finance, human resources, legal, information technology, records management, and facilities and equipment, to support the public-facing operations. Since having made reductions in staffing during the Great Recession, the City has been leanly staffed compared to many other cities. The City has begun to add back staff in recent years to fortify services that the City Council and community prioritize.

Customer expectations for certain municipal services, such as wastewater, are fairly consistent across communities. Therefore, it is straightforward for a city to identify the optimal service level for that function. Customer expectations, and service levels, for other municipal services, vary significantly across communities, and are influenced by a number of factors. As noted above, the City of Pinole is leanly staffed, and provides a solid but basic level of service in most service areas.

UNFUNDED/DEFERRED LIABILITIES
The City has a number of unfunded liabilities and deferred maintenance needs that it could address, described below.
144 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Policy Alternatives - Additional Discretionary Expenditures 27 Unfunded Liabilities
The City has a number of unfunded liabilities, such as unfunded accrued compensated absences, unfunded liability for other post-employment benefits (OPEB), and unfunded retirement (pension) liabilities.

Unfunded Accrued Compensated Absences
City employees accrue paid vacation and sick leave. As of the end of FY 2020/21, the City had approximately $1.1 million in unfunded liability for vacation and sick leave that employees had earned but not yet taken. The City traditionally pays for paid leave out of its normal operating budget, referred to as “pay-as-you-go.” The City could choose to set aside funds to eliminate this unfunded liability. The funding source could be one-time funding, such as unassigned fund balance.

Unfunded Retirement (Pension) Liability
The City provides its employees with a defined benefit retirement program through CalPERS.

Depending on the demographic characteristics of the City’s employees, the amount of City and employee contributions to the retirement program, and the program’s return on its investments, the assets and liabilities in the City’s CalPERS account fluctuate over time. Per the most recent actuarial valuation available, as of June 30, 2020 the City had a total unfunded pension liability with CalPERS of approximately $39.4 million.

CalPERS has made several changes to its policies and procedures over the past decade that have been intended to increase the financial strength of the system, but have also resulted in significantly increased required contributions and unfunded liabilities for municipalities. CalPERS has changed key assumptions that increased unfunded liabilities, including increasing the life expectancy of beneficiaries and decreasing the expected rate of return on assets. CalPERS has also implemented new policies that require municipalities to accelerate contributions in order to achieve adequate funded status more quickly. So, despite the implementation of the less costly Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) in 2013, the City’s unfunded pension liability has grown substantially over the past few years. CalPERS is unlikely to implement a comparably broad set of additional changes in the coming years, but even more modest changes, in addition to other factors, could continue to significantly increase the City’s unfunded pension liability over the next few years.

The City created a special trust fund in FY 2017/18, referred to as a “Section 115 trust,” funded with one-time General Fund resources, to offset this significant unfunded pension liability. As of June 30, 2021, the market value of the assets in the trust fund was $19.4 million. The unfunded liability in CalPERS will fluctuate over time, as will the value of the assets in the Section 115 trust. 145 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Policy Alternatives - Additional Discretionary Expenditures 28 Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) for Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) A pension is the primary benefit that the City provides to retired City employees. The other main benefit that the City provides to retired City employees is a contribution toward retiree medical insurance premiums during retirement. This and other ancillary, non-pension retirement benefits, are referred to as other post-employment benefits (OPEB). Until recently, employers have not been required to report OPEB assets and liabilities in the same way that they have been required to report pension assets and liabilities. Further, employers have generally not been required to make regular payments to pre-fund OPEB liabilities. Employers have normally paid for OPEB benefits on a pay-as-you-go basis. This has resulted in significant unfunded OPEB liability for many employers, including the City. As of June 30, 2021, the City had an unfunded OPEB liability of $46.5 million.

The City could consider creating an OPEB trust, like the Section 115 Trust that was created for pension. The City would need to determine a funding source for the trust, or it could consider using the current Section 115 Trust for both pension and OPEB. If the trust were to be used for pension and OPEB, the funds would be exhausted faster unless additional funding was put into the trust.

Deferred Maintenance and Renewal
Like many cities, Pinole has deferred investment and expenditures on capital assets and other systems, particularly in response to and in the aftermath of the Great Recession and the dissolution of redevelopment. The City’s current budget allows the City to provide essential services, but defers some investment in capital assets. This deferral of investment will lead to the deterioration of some assets and systems in the long run.

Capital Asset Renewal and Replacement
Pinole has deferred expenditures on capital asset maintenance and renewal, and many of the City’s capital assets are reaching the natural end of their useful life. The City owns a significant portfolio of capital assets, which are well described in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).

These include buildings, roads, sidewalks, parking lots, trails, parks, open space, the WWTP, the sewer collection system, the stormwater collection system, vacant lots, streetlights, and traffic control devices. The City’s Strategic Plan includes a strategy to conduct a citywide asset condition assessment. That effort is currently underway, addressing different asset types in phases. The City is in the process of developing a sewer system master plan and will be developing a Park Master Plan. The City is also implementing a new capital asset management software system.

After these efforts are complete, the City will have a much clearer picture of its capital asset portfolio and the expenditures required for maintenance and renewal to achieve the lowest possible total cost of ownership of its assets.
146 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Policy Alternatives - Additional Discretionary Expenditures 29 Vehicle and Equipment Replacement
Vehicles and equipment are another significant asset that the City relies upon to provide services.

The City does not currently have an integrated, citywide vehicle and equipment management program. It acquires new vehicles and equipment when needed on a pay-as-you-go basis, and its vehicles and equipment are generally modern enough to meet current operating needs. Paying for equipment on a pay-as-you-go basis can lead to expenditure spikes when expensive equipment needs to be replaced. The City’s new capital asset management software system has a module for fleet and equipment. Once that module is implemented, the City will have a clearer sense of its vehicle and equipment replacement needs and the amount of funding that the City should set aside on an annual basis to address needs.

SERVICE AND PROGRAM EXPANSION
As noted above, the City provides a solid but basic level of service in most service areas. The City can spend any surplus discretionary financial resources it may have on expanding services and programs.

Expansion of Existing Services
Economic Development
The City has not had a formal economic development function since 2012, when the dissolution of redevelopment occurred, although the City has undertaken some limited economic development activities recently. One of the Strategic Plan strategies is to “develop a comprehensive economic development strategy,” and several other Strategic Plan strategies also relate to economic development. The City has hired a professional services firm to develop the economic development strategy, which will include a recommendation on the appropriate form and magnitude of a City economic development program.

Climate Resiliency and Environmental Programs
The City is required by the State and federal government to undertake a number of programs related to protecting the environment. For example, the City is required to comply with requirements related to effluent of the WWTP, stormwater protection, having low emission fleet vehicles, reducing solid waste disposal, complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), having a General Plan, and others. The City has also undertaken voluntary steps to protect the environment and to keep the City resilient to the threats of a climate crisis, such as joining a community choice energy program, Marin Clean Energy (MCE), authorizing a propertyassessed clean energy (PACE) program, and participating in a local transit joint powers authority (Western Contra Costa County Transit, “WestCAT”). There are additional programs and activities that the City could undertake to further promote environmental protection. The City Council recently reviewed the various programs and activities that the City is currently undertaking 147 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Policy Alternatives - Additional Discretionary Expenditures 30 related to climate change and directed staff to complete an Active Transportation Plan, a Climate Action Plan, and an energy conservation, generation, and storage assessment of all City facilities.

These plans and assessments will recommend new steps the City can take to address environmental issues.

Fire Service
Expanding fire service in Pinole, particularly through the reopening of Station 74, has been a priority of many residents over the past decade. The City is currently in discussion with Confire about expanding fire service in Pinole through a cooperative arrangement.

Housing Assistance
Redevelopment was a significant tool for affordable housing development. Since the dissolution of redevelopment, the City of Pinole, and other California cities, have fewer tools and financial resources to create affordable housing. Upon the dissolution of redevelopment, the City opted to become the housing successor to the former Pinole Redevelopment Agency. In that capacity, the City monitors affordable housing units that were funded by the former agency for ongoing compliance with affordability covenants. The City also has an inclusionary housing ordinance that requires that all housing development projects with four units or more must ensure that 15% of the units are affordable. The City can expend resources remaining from the former agency’s affordable housing assets to support the creation of a limited number of new affordable housing units or to provide services to the homeless population. However, these resources are significantly less than what would be needed to provide any substantial amount of new affordable housing units in the City. The State has recently adopted numerous pieces of legislation intended to spur the creation of additional new affordable and market rate housing.

Youth Development and Support
The City supports and engages youth ages six through 17 through the activities of the Community Services Department’s Youth Center, which provides afterschool and summer enrichment programs. The Youth Center could expand services to address youth health, engagement, community service, a youth commission, workforce development, or other activities.

Cultural, Historical, and Artistic Programs
The City provides a limited number of cultural, historic, and artistic programs. These include enrichment programs through the Community Services Department’s Senior Center and Youth Center, periodic community events such as music in Fernandez Park, broadcast of some community events on PCTV, rental of the Memorial Hall building to the Pinole Community Players theater company, and some public art. The City does not have a specific requirement that new development projects include public art or pay an in-lieu fee for public art elsewhere in the City.

The community does have a number of cultural, historic, and artistic organizations and resources that the City could support or leverage to provide more cultural, historic, and artistic offerings. 148 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Policy Alternatives - Additional Discretionary Expenditures 31 New Services
Although Pinole is a “full service” city, there are some services that other cities provide that Pinole does not. These include educational support programs.

Education Support
In California, public education is provided by school districts. School districts rely on a different source of revenue than do cities. Some cities support the education of their residents by offering educational support programs or by providing financial assistance to public schools. The City does offer after school enrichment programs to students for a fee, but does not currently provide educational support programs. In the past, West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) has provided the City with grant funding such that the City could assign two police officers to serve as school resource officers (SROs). WCCUSD eliminated that funding in FY 2020/21. The officers previously assigned as SROs have been reassigned to other public safety duties, although the Police Department still has a regular presence at schools.

Capital Expansion
The term “capital expansion” refers to creating new capital assets, such as parks or plazas, opposed to simply renewing or replacing existing capital assets.

New Parks and Park Upgrades
The Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) recently released a municipal service review (MSR) of parks and recreation services in the County. The final report found that Pinole has adequate park space based on 12.9 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents, but did not look in detail at the City’s specific park amenities. The City is preparing a Park Master Plan, which is a CIP project. The Park Master Plan will involve gathering community input on desired park amenities and will recommend whether any additional parks, or additional amenities within existing parks, are desirable, accessible, and feasible. Potential funding sources for consideration include grant opportunities, park development impact fees, fundraising from individuals or organizations, and new tax measures.

Other Capital Expansion Projects
New Public Spaces/Placemaking
The term “capital expansion” refers to building new capital assets, such as buildings, roads, parks, paths, bike lanes, etc., opposed to replacing existing capital assets. As noted above, the City has a substantial capital asset footprint already, and much of the City’s current capital assets have deferred maintenance that would require significant investment to eliminate. Nonetheless, it might be desirable to create some new, high-impact capital assets that would improve economic vitality or quality of life.
149 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Policy Alternatives - Additional Discretionary Expenditures 32 Additional Reserves
Pursuant to its Reserve Policy, the City is required to maintain a General Reserve equal to 50% of total ongoing annual General Fund expenditures. As of June 30, 2021, General Fund unassigned fund balance exceeded the minimum required at approximately 58% of total General Fund expenditures.

The City’s formal General Fund reserve and other uncommitted General Fund fund balance have fluctuated over the years. The larger these reserves and balances, the better the City is able to address unplanned revenue reductions or expenditure increases.

Staff performed an analysis of the City’s financial resiliency using the diagnostic tool offered by the GFOA. The tool determined that the City has a low level of financial risk based on several factors, including its revenue stability, low expenditure volatility, and high liquidity. GFOA suggests that cities with a low level of financial risk maintain a minimum general reserve of approximately 17% of total ongoing annual General Fund expenditures. (GFOA recommends that cities with moderate and high levels of financial risk maintain general reserves at a minimum of 26% and 36%, respectively.)
City staff believe that a high reserve is appropriate given the ongoing uncertainty regarding the impact of the pandemic. However, City staff may recommend, at some point in the future, reducing the required reserve to 35%, so that funds currently held in reserve greater than 35% can be invested in high-priority City needs.
150 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Policy Alternatives – Additional Revenue and Expenditure Reduction Options 33 POLICY ALTERNATIVES – ADDITIONAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE

REDUCTION OPTIONS
As noted above, one goal of a LTFP, and of a city’s annual budget, is to identify the City services that residents desire and to simultaneously identify an equivalent amount of funding, which results in a structurally balanced budget. The mechanisms through which cities receive revenue vary across states. In California, cities receive the bulk of their revenues for general operations through sales tax and property tax. In addition, to offset the loss of property tax revenue that cities experienced due to Proposition 13, many cities instituted other forms of taxes, such as business license tax, transient occupancy tax (TOT), utility users’ tax (UUT), and “local sales tax” (transactions and use tax). Cities have also instituted mechanisms to recoup funds that they spend to provide services that directly benefit a specific user or beneficiary through fees and assessments.

The section above identified some unfunded and deferred liabilities and service and program expansions in which the City could invest additional resources. Because the five-year forecast predicts that the City’s General Fund budget will be essentially balanced over the next five years, there are limited resources to invest in unfunded/deferred liabilities and expanded services/programs. Therefore, if the City would like to make any substantial new investments, it will need to identify additional revenue sources or reduce some other current expenditures. Both of these options are discussed below.

ADDITIONAL REVENUE
New Local Revenue
The mechanisms through which California cities can independently generate new revenue have been significantly restricted over the past few decades. There are nonetheless a few, limited mechanisms that cities can still use.

Increased Fee Revenue
Cities can establish fees for service that fully cover the cost of the service, but cannot set fees any higher than required for full cost recovery. Many cities have financial policies that state the specific intention to achieve full cost recovery for certain services. Many cities also routinely reevaluate the cost of providing services and adjust fees accordingly to achieve full cost recovery.

The City has hired a consulting firm to create a new cost allocation plan and recommend a new master fee schedule for all City fees. The City expects to receive the consultant’s recommendations in spring 2022, after which the City can consider modifying fees to achieve full cost recovery of certain services.
151 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Policy Alternatives – Additional Revenue and Expenditure Reduction Options 34 Franchise Fees
Franchise fees are fees that the City charges to private parties for the private parties’ use of City right of way. The most significant franchise fee that the City charges is to the City’s solid waste collection company, Republic Services, which entitles Republic Services to use the City’s streets and right of way to perform solid waste management activities, such as refuse, recycling, and organic material pick up. The fee varies as it is adjusted annually for inflation. Another franchise agreement that the City has is with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) for its use of City poles, wires, conduits, and appurtenances, to transmit electricity and gas to the public. The City levies a fee of 1% to 2% of gross receipts based on one of two formulas, whichever is greater. The City also has a franchise agreement with Comcast, as a State franchise holder, to provide video services to the City. The City levies a fee of 5% of gross revenues. Under the same agreement, the City levies a fee of 2.12% of gross revenues to go toward Public, Educational, and Government (PEG) access channel capacity. PEG fees are used to fund PCTV capital improvements. Franchise fees can be higher than what is required for full cost recovery. Most cities have a small number of franchises, with long term agreements, so the opportunity to increase franchise fees is infrequent.

Sale of Surplus Property
Cities can generate one-time revenue through the sale of surplus property, which might take the form of equipment, furniture, or real property. The sale of surplus equipment, furniture, or supplies rarely generates any significant amount of revenue, whereas the sale of surplus real property can result in significant proceeds, depending upon the characteristics of the property.

The proceeds are usually required to be returned to the fund or specific use that originally purchased the property. Many cities sold most or all of their remaining surplus real property following the onset of the Great Recession, to generate revenue to offset the loss of revenue resulting from the Great Recession.

The City did not divest of all of its real property at that time, and therefore still owns a number of real properties that could be considered surplus and sold. Real property owned by the City that is not currently being used for a core City function includes the building in which the United States Postal Service is housed on Pear Street, the vacant lot across the street, and others. As noted above, the Strategic Plan requires that the City conduct a citywide asset condition assessment. This will include cataloging all of the city’s capital assets, including real property, and assessing their condition and value. Once the City has this information, it can be reviewed in comparison to the City’s anticipated future public facility needs, and surplus properties can be identified and sold. The City is concluding the process of selling five former Pinole Redevelopment Agency properties.

New Local Tax Measures
The City has instituted a number of local taxes, such as a UUT, TOT, business license tax, and two local sales taxes, to support City services. The City can consider other new local taxes, or increase existing taxes, to generate additional revenue for critical City services. 152 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Policy Alternatives – Additional Revenue and Expenditure Reduction Options 35 Increased Parcel Tax and Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT) In 2019 and 2020, the City Council considered the desirability of placing two different local tax measures on the ballot, a special parcel tax and a real property transfer tax (RPTT).

In 2019, the City Council directed City staff to take the steps necessary to place a tax measure to fund fire service on the March 2020 ballot. Subsequently, in August 2019, the City Council directed staff to specifically take steps necessary to place a special parcel tax to fund fire service on the November 2020 ballot rather than March 2020. The City hired a public opinion research firm to assess voter support for a potential special parcel tax for fire service. The firm presented its findings to the City Council in November 2019.

In 2019, the City Council also directed City staff to analyze the steps necessary to place a measure on the ballot that would increase the RPTT. A RPTT is a tax imposed on the deed, instrument, or writing by which interests in real property are transferred. Under the California Revenue and Taxation Code, general law cities, like Pinole, may impose a RPTT of no more than $0.55 per $1,000 of value on the property transferred (the County may also impose a RPTT equal to this rate). Pinole currently has a RPTT of the maximum allowed for general law cities of $0.55 per $1,000 of value. Charter cities may impose RPTTs at a rate higher than the maximum statutory rate of $0.55 per $1,000 of value if approved by voters. The median RPTT rate for charter cities in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties is $12 per $1,000 of value. Staff calculated that were the City to implement a RPTT of $12 per $1,000 of value, it might create new City revenue averaging approximately $1.7 million annually. In February 2020, the Council directed staff to retain a polling consultant to gather information on public opinion regarding a charter city ballot measure limited to an increase in the RPTT and directed staff to retain a communications consultant. Due to the onset of COVID-19, in April 2020, the Council directed staff to suspend all of its activities in pursuit of a November 2020 charter city and RPTT ballot measure. In July 2020, the Council also directed staff not to move forward in preparing a November 2020 ballot measure for a special parcel tax for fire service.

In early 2022, the City Council revisited placing a charter city/RPTT measure on the November 2022 ballot. It directed staff to engage a polling and community engagement consultant to gauge community interest. The City expects to receive the polling results in spring 2022.

Increased Utility Users Tax (UUT)
As noted above, the City currently levies an 8% UUT on the value of public utility services consumed within the City limits for electricity, gas, and telecommunications, which includes phone landline and cellular phone. The UUT was originally approved by Pinole voters in November 1998, and extended by voters in 2004, 2012, and 2018. UUTs can also be applied to water and sewer utility service. The City could consider pursuing either an increase in the amount of the levy or broaden the types of utility services to which it applies. 153 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Policy Alternatives – Additional Revenue and Expenditure Reduction Options 36 General Obligation Bonds
General obligation (GO) bonds are bonds that must be approved by two-thirds of voters and are repaid through an additional assessment (“override”) on property taxes. They are issued by public entities to finance large projects that acquire or improve real property, and are usually repaid over a 20-to-30-year period. As an illustration, the City could issue and repay a GO bond of $35 million if two-thirds of voters approved an annual property assessment of $70 per $100,000 of assessed valuation (0.07%) for 20 years, which would generate approximately $2 million of revenue to repay the bond annually.

Other Potential Local Taxes
Two other taxes that some California cities have enacted are cannabis taxes and vacant parcel taxes. They are discussed in more detail below.

Cannabis Tax
The City does not currently allow cannabis businesses to operate in Pinole (the City cannot prohibit a cannabis delivery business based outside of Pinole from delivering in town). If the City permitted cannabis businesses to operate in Pinole, residents could vote to impose a tax on these cannabis businesses. It should be noted that the cannabis industry has started to claim that high taxes and the persistent illegal market make it hard for businesses to be viable. Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose have all reduced or suspended cannabis taxes in recent months to help their cannabis businesses stay competitive. Cities with mature cannabis industries are seeing declining cannabis tax receipts as more cities legalize cannabis and the market saturates.

Vacant Parcel Tax
A vacant parcel tax is a special tax on vacant real property based on either a flat per-parcel rate or a variable rate depending on the size, use, or number of units on the parcel. It requires twothirds voter approval and can be imposed for a variety of purposes, including police and fire services, parks, libraries, and open space protection. Parcel taxes provide less than one percent of city revenues statewide. There are both vacant property taxes and vacant property registration fees. A vacant property registration fee must not exceed the cost of the City managing a vacant property monitoring program.

Assessment Districts
Assessment Districts
Assessment districts are a mechanism through which property owners agree to pay an additional assessment on their property to fund specific services or improvements within a specific geographic area. The assessment’s purpose must be defined prior to the district’s creation and the amount that each property owner pays must be proportional to the benefit the property will receive. Assessment districts can be established by a simple majority vote of the property 154 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Policy Alternatives – Additional Revenue and Expenditure Reduction Options 37 owners. State law allows the creation of numerous specific types of assessment districts with varying authority to conduct different types of improvements and activities. The City currently has a landscape and lighting assessment district (LLAD), which generates funding for the maintenance of public spaces along portions of Pinole Valley Road. The Pinole Valley Road Landscape and Lighting Assessment District (LLAD) assesses property owners in the district approximately $500 annually per “assessment unit” (acre of developable land), which results in approximately $50,000 to invest in maintenance of traffic signals, streetlights, median landscaping, irrigation, graffiti removal, and electricity to the traffic signals and streetlights. The City could consider promoting the formation of assessment districts to fund specific improvements in different areas of the City.

Business Improvement District
A business improvement district (BID) is a special type of assessment district focused on commercial districts. BIDs can undertake infrastructure projects such as parking facilities and streetscape improvements, cleaning and maintenance of the district, and marketing and promotion of the district and its properties/businesses. The City could consider promoting the formation of a BID for downtown or other commercial areas. This is an issue that the forthcoming Economic Development Strategy will address.

Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District
Property tax increment was the primary revenue source that redevelopment agencies used to fund their projects. Cities lost access to this tool in its traditional form when redevelopment agencies were dissolved in California in 2012. In the aftermath of dissolution, the State did create some new tools intended to mimic some of those previously available under redevelopment. One such tool is an enhanced infrastructure financing district (EIFD), which uses tax increment in a more restricted way. Whereas previously, a redevelopment agency had a right to the property tax increment generated in a redevelopment project area, under an EIFD a taxing entity must volunteer to forego receipt of the tax increment it would otherwise receive so that the increment can be used for the redevelopment project. Use of the EIFD tool requires significant collaboration between separate governmental entities, and will only be advantageous for both parties under specific circumstances. As a result, EIFDs are not yet widely used, but are nonetheless a tool that the City should keep in mind for future capital projects.

New Federal Funding
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) is federal legislation passed in 2021 to provide COVID-19 relief. It builds upon the relief provided by two other significant pieces of federal legislation, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). ARPA includes $1.9 trillion in funding, program changes, and tax policies aimed at mitigating the effects of the pandemic. ARPA is the first piece of federal COVID-19 relief 155 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Policy Alternatives – Additional Revenue and Expenditure Reduction Options 38 legislation that includes direct financial assistance to cities. The City will receive approximately $4.6 million from ARPA of which it received the first installment in July 2021. City staff recommends that the City Council consider using the allocation to backfill the loss of revenue in the General Fund.

Grants
Grant funding allows the City to leverage public funds for extending and enhancing the services it offers to the community, introducing new initiatives and programs, and advancing capital projects. Grant opportunities are typically made available by federal, state, and county governments, and private organizations for a broad array of municipal services, including public safety, infrastructure and roads, transportation, environmental initiatives, housing services, community development, recreation programs, among many others. As a strategy in the Strategic Plan 2020-2025, the City will establish a program to evaluate and pursue grant opportunities, and to evaluate the City’s capacity to meet grant requirements.

Additional Cash from Debt
Under certain circumstances, it might be advantageous for a city to incur debt (borrow money) in order to finance a high-priority project. When a city incurs debt, it must have a means of repaying the debt, which can be a dedicated revenue source or a general purpose source.

Best practices in long-term financial planning require analyzing the City’s debt position and the affordability of additional borrowing. One financial strength of the City’s is having relatively little general debt. The City has capacity, per the legal debt limit, to issue debt for City expenses. Per the City’s FY 2020/21 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, the City’s legal bonded debt limit, which is equivalent to 3.75% of assessed property value, was $103,173,971, whereas the City only had $2,734,450 of such debt, which is the City’s pension obligation bonds. Debt financing is an option that the City could consider for significant future expenditures, such as capital projects.

One form of debt, GO bonds, were discussed above. Another debt financing option that the City could consider, lease revenue bonds, are discussed below.

Lease Revenue Bonds
Lease revenue bonds are issued to acquire, construct or expand public projects for which fees, charges, or admissions are charged. Because the debt service is paid from income generated by the facility or related service, such debt is considered self-liquidating and generally does not constitute debt of the issuer, subject to constitutional debt limits. These bonds do not require voter approval.
156 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Policy Alternatives – Additional Revenue and Expenditure Reduction Options 39

EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS
In addition to generating more revenue, the City can create additional resources to invest in unfunded/deferred liabilities and expanded services/programs by reducing other expenditures.

As noted above, however, the City currently provides a leanly staffed and resourced solid but basic level of service in most service areas, with the majority of the City’s resources expended on core services. As such, the City has fewer opportunities than perhaps some other cities to scale back some services in order to expand others. That said, there are two options that the City should consider or pursue to reduce expenditures, reducing retiree medical benefit costs and improving processes to achieve cost-saving efficiencies.

Retiree Medical Benefit
One of the City’s largest unfunded liabilities is the medical benefit that the City provides to retired City employees. The City pays for this benefit on a pay-as-you-go basis, which means that the City simply pays for retirees’ medical premiums when they are due, and does not set aside funding in advance on behalf of current employees commensurate with the normal cost of this benefit. This has created the City’s current unfunded OPEB liability. The City instituted some changes to its retiree medical benefit offering in 2010 when it adopted a standard CalPERS benefit vesting schedule. Under the current program, the City must pay 100% of the medical premium for a retired employee and their dependents if the employee has just five years of City service and 20 years of total CalPERS service. This is a more generous retiree medical benefit than is provided by many other cities. The City could consider exploring other CalPERS program options. There has also been more discussion over the past decade about the possibility of the federal government assuming greater responsibility for retiree medical care or enacting other federal healthcare reforms, which might reduce the City’s responsibility and cost for such.

Process Improvements/Efficiencies
All organizations, including cities, use procedures and tools to provide their goods and services.

New procedures and tools are constantly emerging, which can result in improved quality, efficiency, or both. As a result, workers become more productive over time. Labor productivity has grown only modestly in the United States over the past decade. For this reason, as noted in the economic changes section above, City staff did not assume any significant productivity increases in the five-year forecast. Nonetheless, the City will likely identify some opportunities to improve procedures or tools that will result in increased efficiency, and associated expanded service or reduced expenditures. The Strategic Plan includes a strategy to review citywide implementation of best practices and improve processes. This is an effort that City staff will be working on over the next few years, and which will likely result in at least a few improvements that will lead to greater quality, efficiency, or both. 157 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Optimal Service Levels and Revenues 40

OPTIMAL SERVICE LEVELS AND REVENUES
The City’s current service levels and program offerings have been established over time in response to factors such as community preferences and financial capacity. Preferences and financial capacity can vary considerably from community to community and can evolve over time, as do regulatory requirements and best practices. Public officials monitor these factors and adjust service levels and programs over time accordingly. The City’s current service and staffing levels are appropriate to the community’s priorities and the City’s financial capacity. 158 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Recommendations 41

RECOMMENDATIONS
The City should maintain its current service and staffing levels, as they are commensurate with the City’s current financial capacity and are responsive to community needs and priorities. The City should start to address its unfunded liabilities, particularly capital asset renewal and replacement and possibly Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB). The City should pursue opportunities to generate new revenue and evaluate debt financing (for capital projects) as possible funding options.
159 of 285
Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 Summary and Next Steps 42

SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS
The City is in a relatively strong financial position which is expected to continue through the life of the forecast. According to the status quo forecast, the City will be able to continue to fund its current service levels and has the capacity to address some of the operating and capital improvement needs beyond the baseline. The City will update the LTFP in spring 2023. 160 of 285

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 12A
DATE MAY 17, 2022
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ANDREW MURRAY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING AN UPDATED AGREEMENT WITH

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ANIMAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a resolution (attached) authorizing the City Manager to execute an updated agreement with the Contra Costa County Animal Services Department (“Animal Services”).

BACKGROUND
The California Food and Agricultural Code contains regulations regarding domestic animal safety and welfare. Contra Costa County has adopted local standards based on State requirements, and the City of Pinole has adopted the County’s standards by reference.

Since at least 2006, Animal Services has provided animal control services in Pinole through an agreement between the City and County. The current agreement, executed in 2006, is attached. Animal Services performs animal control on behalf of all cities in Contra Costa County except Antioch, which has its own program. In fiscal year (FY) 2021/22, the City will pay Animal Services $6.79 per capita, or approximately $132,000, for its services.

Over the course of the past few years, Animal Services has been undergoing a strategic planning process to identify a new service model through which it can meet its legal requirements and achieve financial sustainability. Animal Services described this process in a presentation that it provided to the Pinole City Council on April 6, 2021, a copy of which is attached.

Animal Services is proposing a new service agreement between itself and all of the cities for which it performs services, attached (Exhibit 1 to the resolution). The new agreement more clearly defines the services that Animal Services will provide and increases per capita fees to achieve a balanced budget.

REVIEW & ANALYSIS
The current agreement between the City and Animal Services, which automatically renews each year, does not contain a very specific description of services to be rendered nor performance standards. It is in the best interest of the City and Animal Services to 161 of 285
City Council Report, 12A
May 17, 2022 2
have an agreement in place that more clearly defines these things, and the new agreement proposed by Animal Services does contain clearer definitions. Attached is a summary of the services that Animal Services would provide under the new agreement, as well as a factsheet regarding the proposed new agreement.

Animal Services has conducted extensive analysis of its current services and fee levels and determined that its current fee levels are not adequate to financially sustain its services to cities. The new, higher fees that Animal Services is proposing in its new agreement are based on analysis of what is required to meet the specific proposed service levels. The City shares Animal Services’ interest in having a program that is financially sustainable, as it is less likely to lead to unexpected service changes in the future.

As noted above, the City currently pays Animal Services $6.79 per capita annually, or approximately $132,000. Animal Services is proposing that the City pay $7.97 per capita in FY 2022/23, or approximately $155,000, and $9.11 per capita in FY 2023/24, or approximately $177,000. The term of the proposed new agreement is two years, which Animal Services considers a pilot period during which it and the cities it serves can test the new agreement and discuss potential changes to a next version of a standard agreement to perhaps be implemented in FY 2024/25.

Note that the new agreement that Animal Services is proposing primarily includes services that are mandated by the State. It does not include certain services that some community advocates have requested. Animal Services has decided that it is sensible to execute new agreements with cities that focus on meeting basic requirements, and do not increase cities’ per capita costs too dramatically, rather than executing new agreements that include more expansive services and greater cost increases. Attached is a letter from Animal Services addressing citizen concerns that have been expressed.

Animal Services is not willing, at this point, to consider providing different services levels, at different fees, for different cities, although that option will be further discussed during the two-year term of the proposed agreement.

Although the City’s costs will increase under the proposed agreement, City staff believes that, on balance, it is beneficial to the City to execute the new agreement as it contains greater clarity and commitment from Animal Services on service levels and contributes to the financial sustainability of Animal Services’ programs.

The presentation that Animal Services staff will provide to the City Council at its meeting on May 17, 2022 addressing the proposed new agreement and services in Pinole is attached.

Note that the City’s Community Services Department is responsible for oversight of the City’s agreement with Animal Services. The Community Services Director position is currently vacant. When filled, that staff person will engage in more thorough evaluation of the City’s needs regarding animal services and provide recommendations regarding future agreements between the City and Animal Services. 162 of 285
City Council Report, 12A
May 17, 2022 3

FISCAL IMPACT
The City currently pays Animal Services approximately $132,000 annually. Under the proposed agreement, it will pay Animal Services approximately $155,000 in FY 2022/23 and $177,000 in FY 2023/24. The City pays Animal Services through the General Fund.

The City’s General Fund can absorb the future cost increases if the City executes the new agreement.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
Exhibit 1 - City – County Animal Services Agreement, Pinole, July 1, 2022 B. City – County Animal Services Agreement, Pinole, July 1, 2006 C. Contra Costa Animal Services Update to the Pinole City Council, April 6, 2021 D. Contra Costa Animal Services (CCAS) - Serving Our Community! – CCAS Serving Pinole
E. Contra Costa Animal Services Agreement Fact Sheet
F. Animal Services Letter of April 8, 2022 Regarding Recent Citizen Concerns G. Pinole Animal Services Agreement Presentation, May 17, 2022 163 of 285

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE, COUNTY OF

CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN UPDATED

AGREEMENT WITH CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ANIMAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, the Contra Costa County Animal Services Department (“Animal Services”) currently provides animal control services in Pinole through an agreement between the City and County; and
WHEREAS, over the course of the past few years, Animal Services has been undergoing a strategic planning process to identify a new service model through which it can meet its legal requirements and achieve financial sustainability; and WHEREAS, Animal Services is proposing a new service agreement between itself and all of the cities for which it performs services (attached as Exhibit 1); and WHEREAS, the current agreement between the City and Animal Services, which automatically renews each year, does not contain a very specific description of services to be rendered nor performance standards and it is in the best interest of the City and Animal Services to have an agreement in place that more clearly defines these things; and
WHEREAS, although the City’s costs will increase under the proposed agreement, City staff believes that, on balance, it is beneficial to the City to execute the new agreement as it contains greater clarity and commitment from Animal Services on service levels and contributes to the financial sustainability of Animal Services’ programs; and WHEREAS, the term of the proposed new agreement is two years, which Animal Services considers a pilot period during which it and the cities it serves can test the new agreement and discuss potential changes to a next version of a standard agreement to perhaps be implemented in FY 2024/25;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Pinole does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute the proposed new service agreement between the City and Animal Services.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pinole City Council held on the 17th day of May 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
164 of 285
Pinole City Council
Resolution No. 2022-__
Page ___
______________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
165 of 285
1 CITY-COUNTY ANIMAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
The County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California ("County"), and the City of Pinole, a municipal corporation in the County ("City"), enter into this City-County Animal Services Agreement (“Agreement”) effective as of July 1, 2022 (“Effective Date”).

1. Authority. The City has adopted by reference Division 416 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code (hereafter "Division 416") governing animals.

Division 416 establishes requirements and procedures for animal control by the County’s Animal Services Department. This Agreement is entered into to memorialize the County’s provision of Animal Services and enforcement of Division 416 within the City as provided in Section 416-4.208, and as authorized by California Government Code section 51301.

2. Enforcement Duties and Personnel. The County will enforce Division 416 within the City’s boundaries. The City hereby designates and appoints the County's Animal Services Director and his or her staff as public officers of the City for the purposes of this Agreement and enforcing and carrying out its provisions.

3. Scope of Services.
a. In addition to enforcing Division 416, the County will provide to the City the Field Services, Shelter Services, and Deceased Animal Services described in this Agreement (collectively, “Animal Services”) in the manner provided for in this Agreement. During periods of emergency (such as fire, earthquake, flooding, pandemic), it might not be possible to provide the Animal Services to the same extent and within the same time frames as during non-emergency times.
b. Calls made to the County for services that are not provided by the County pursuant to this Agreement will be referred back to the City in which the call was requested. In such a case, the City is responsible for determining the next appropriate action.
c. The County will provide Animal Services within the City’s boundaries in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, including the Ordinance Code.

4. Definitions.
a. “Critically Sick or Injured Animals” means those animals that have lifethreatening conditions. b. “Emergency Calls” means complaints of animal bites, potential rabies exposure, or attacks on humans or domestic animals that are in progress, or, when a bite or attack has occurred, where the animal remains an immediate threat to humans.
c. “Livestock” means a large domesticated agricultural animal, such as a EXHIBIT 1
166 of 285
2 cow, bull, steer, horse, sheep, or other large agricultural animal. d. “Regular Field Services hours” means between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm each day of the week, including Saturdays and Sundays.

5. Field Services. The County will provide the following services (collectively, “Field Services”) within the City upon a request from a City resident or person within the boundaries of the City.
a. Pick up and attempt to return to their owners domesticated animals that are found “at large,” to the extent possible without impoundment by relying on the animal’s identification, including dogs, trapped, injured, or sick cats, and other small, domesticated animals, including rabbits, chickens, turkey, geese, and ducks, but excluding wildlife, such as deer, mountain lions, opossums, wild turkeys, raccoons, skunks or squirrels unless a rabies exposure has occurred.
b. Investigate complaints of animal bites, rabies exposure and attacks to humans or domestic animals, including documenting the incident, interviewing witnesses, quarantining animals, preparing and transporting animals for rabies testing, and investigating any alleged violations of a quarantine order.
c. Enforce provisions governing potentially dangerous and dangerous animals, including but not limited to investigating complaints, designating animals, impounding animals, conducting hearings, and issuing permits for animals designated dangerous or potentially dangerous. d. Enforce provisions governing barking dogs and other noisy animals, including but not limited to conducting hearings.
e. Respond during regular business hours to police or fire department calls for assistance regarding animal-related issues. The County may provide after-hours warrant support to the City with advance notice, if County Animal Services personnel are available and willing to volunteer for the assignment, and provided the City pays additional fees sufficient to cover the County’s actual costs.
f. Investigate, cite, impound, and seek resolution of complaints regarding potential mistreatment of domestic animals by their owners.

6. Response Times for Field Services.
a. The County will attempt to respond to requests for Field Services during the hours and within the times specified in this section. The County shall maintain records of its response times to calls for Field Services. i. Priority 1 calls are Emergency Calls, which are calls for assistance from police or fire personnel and calls regarding rabies exposure, dangerous animals, and Critically Sick or Injured Animals.

1. The County will respond to Priority 1, 2, and 3 calls between 8:00 AM and 9:00 PM, seven (7) days per week, including 167 of 285
3 holidays.

2. For ninety-five percent (95%) of responses to Priority 1 calls, County personnel will attempt to arrive on the scene within two (2) hours from the time when the call for service is received by County staff.
ii. Priority 2 calls are calls to pick up animals that were at large but have since been confined at a location within the County, and calls regarding urgent, animal-related requests for assistance not involving Critically Sick or Injured Animals.

1. The County will respond to Priority 2 calls during regular Field Services hours.

2. For eighty percent (80%) of responses to Priority 2 calls received during regular Field Services hours, County personnel will attempt to arrive on the scene within 12 hours from the time the call for service is received by County staff.

3. The County will respond to Priority 2 calls received outside of regular Field Services hours no later than 7:00 pm on the next day.

4. The County may respond to Priority 2 calls by taking a report by phone or by contacting parties and witnesses at the scene. iii. Priority 3 calls are all other calls, such as calls regarding animals at large, animals causing a nuisance, and dead animals.

1. The County will respond to Priority 3 calls during regular Field Services hours.

2. For sixty-five percent (65%) of responses to Priority 3 calls received during regular Field Services hours, County personnel will attempt to arrive on the scene within 24 hours from the time the call for service is received by County staff.

3. The County will respond to calls received outside of regular Field Services hours on the next day.

4. The County will respond to Priority 3 calls only after the County has responded to all then-outstanding Priority 1 and Priority 2 calls.

5. The County may respond to Priority 3 calls by taking a report by phone or by contacting parties and witnesses at the scene.

7. Shelter Services.
a. The County will provide the following services to City residents (“Shelter Services”):
i. Impound and shelter lost or stray dogs, injured/sick, lost or endangered community cats, and other small, domesticated 168 of 285
4 animals that are brought to the shelter by County staff, residents of the County or cities that have contracts with the County for the provision of Animal Services. A community cat is considered endangered if it is in imminent risk of being killed, poisoned, or injured but not if, due to being at large, it is at risk of starvation, being attacked by another animal, or hit by an automobile. Orphaned kittens that cannot survive without human intervention are also considered endangered.
ii. Impound and quarantine biting animals.
iii. Provide rabies testing of animals suspected of infection. iv. Provide for reclamation of abandoned, lost or stray domestic animals.
v. Provide onsite services to the public at the County’s Martinez shelter for the following: search for lost animals, reclaim animals, adopt animals, answer inquiries regarding animals, accept complaints regarding animals, provide vaccines and spay/neuter services for a small fee, conduct humane education programs, and license animals onsite or online.
vi. Provide care for sheltered animals based on the California Veterinary Board Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters published by the Association of Shelter Veterinarians. vii. Provide services as required by the California Penal Code Section 597.1 and other laws governing shelters for animal care, treatment, holding periods, placements, and dispositions.
b. Medical Services. As part of the Shelter Services, the County will provide the following medical services (“Medical Services”):
i. The County will provide veterinarian services twenty-four (24) hours per day through partnerships with emergency vets to treat injured or sick impounded animals.
ii. If an animal’s condition requires immediate treatment outside of the County shelter’s regular business hours or when no veterinarian is on staff at the County’s shelter, then County Animal Services Department officers or Good Samaritans may take the animal to any emergency veterinarian clinic/hospital that is under contract with the County to provide emergency veterinary services (as posted on the County shelter’s doors and on the County’s Animal Services Department’s website).
iii. The County will monitor animals on a rabies virus quarantine. iv. The County will conduct a minimum of one vaccine clinic per month and maintain a spay and neuter clinic in Martinez, which for a fee paid by the animal’s owner will provide vaccine and spay/neuter services for County residents’ dogs and cats. The fee will be 169 of 285
5 approved by the County Board of Supervisors and published on the County Animal Services Department fee schedule.
v. Provide rabies control information free of charge to the public. vi. The County will provide emergency veterinary services in accordance with Section 597(f) of the California Penal Code. c. Shelter Services Hours
i. The Martinez shelter will be open to the public for a minimum of 30 hours per week, 5 days per week, 6 hours per day, including one weekend day each week except during weeks that are shortened by a County holiday.
ii. The Martinez Shelter will be closed on designated County holidays and one day per year dedicated to in-house staff training.

8. Deceased Animal Services. The County will provide the following services within the City in response to calls regarding deceased animals during regular Field Services hours:
a. Pick up deceased domestic animals, wildlife, and livestock from public property.
b. With property owners’ consent, pick up deceased domestic or wild animals from private property for a fee based on the Department’s fee schedule paid directly to the County Animal Services Department by the property owner or reporting party.
c. Identify and notify the owner of deceased animals, whenever possible. d. Dispose of the body of any deceased animal picked up by the County.

9. Excluded Services. The County will not provide the following services to the City under this Agreement:
a. Respond to requests for removal of live or deceased marine animals and disposal of deceased marine animals.
b. Pick up and transport wildlife, including baby birds. c. Pick up live animals for surrender. The County may, at its discretion, accept live animals belonging to County residents for surrender at the Martinez shelter and charge a fee to the animal owner or property owner as part of its regular operations.
d. Respond to pest control issues (i.e., infestations, perceived or real, of squirrels, rats, mice, insects, gophers, wasps, bees, spiders, or other pests).
e. Respond to calls regarding live, sick and injured racoons, opossum, deer, mountain lions, coyotes, wild turkeys, wild pigs, peacocks, or other wildlife unless a rabies exposure has occurred. The County will refer calls regarding live wildlife to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
170 of 285
6 10. Policies and Procedures. All policies and procedures shall be developed with the goal of ensuring animal welfare, enhancing cost efficiency and quality of services provided to the contracted cities and unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. They will be developed to reflect best practices in the industry for animal control and shelter animal care using the Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters published by the Association of Shelter Veterinarians, ASPCA, the Humane Society of the United States, National Animal Control Association (NACA) and/or other currently accepted best practices for animal control and animal sheltering.

11. Performance and Activity Reports. The County will deliver to the City within 14 days of the end of each quarter, an Animal Control and Results Report summarizing Animal Services provided by the County to the City during the previous quarter and including year-to-date data. This report will include the following information:
a. The total number of calls for service received by the County under this Agreement, identified by type of service and Priority level. b. A response time report identifying response times by Priority level. c. The outcomes for animals impounded, identified by City/County jurisdiction.
d. The number of calls for service received from City residents or persons within the City’s boundaries.
e. A listing of dogs registered to City residents identified as potentially dangerous or dangerous (PDA/DA) that have a valid County-issued PDA/DA permit.

12. Fees and Fines. Pursuant to Food and Agricultural Code Section 30652, all fees and fines collected by the County for providing Animal Services to the City shall be deposited into the County Treasury and shall be used to meet the County’s cost of providing Animal Services to the City.

13. Annual Fee.
a. In consideration for Services provided by the County to the City, and in addition to any fees and fines imposed on City residents, the City agrees to pay to the County the following amounts (“Annual Fee”):
i. For fiscal year 2022-2023, $7.97 for each person residing within the City limits as of January 2022. For example, if the City’s population is 50,000, the Annual Fee is $398,500.
ii. For fiscal year 2023-2024, $9.11 for each person residing within the City limits as of January 2023. For example, if the City’s population is 50,000, the Annual Fee is $455,500.
iii. For each fiscal year thereafter, the per capita rate for the Annual Fee shall be calculated using the following formula: (A) The County’s budgeted cost to provide Animal Services throughout the 171 of 285
7 County in that fiscal year, minus the sum of animal licensing fees and user fees projected to be received from all County residents in that fiscal year, minus the budgeted County general fund contribution for that fiscal year, divided by (B) the sum of the population of the unincorporated area plus the population of all cities for which the County provides Animal Services. For example, if the budgeted cost to provide Animal Services throughout the County is $12,640,000, the animal licensing and user fees projected to be received are $1,620,00, the budgeted general fund contribution is $4,112,000, and the population is 866,583, then the per capita Annual Fee would be $7.97
[($12,640,000 - $1,620,000 - $4,112,000) / 866,583]. For a City with a population of 100,000, the total Annual Fee would be $797,000.
b. The City shall pay the Annual Fee to the County in four equal quarterly installments. Each installment shall be due on the first day of each fiscal quarter (i.e., July 1, October 1, January 1, and April 1). The City shall make the payment to the County Treasurer-Tax Collector, 625 Court Street, Martinez, CA 94553.
c. The City shall pay the Annual Fee to the County regardless of the amount of any fees and fines collected by the County pursuant to Division 416.
d. Each year, the County will prepare a reconciliation report of actual costs incurred by the County to provide Animal Services during the immediately preceding year to ensure the Annual Fee paid by the City covers only actual costs incurred to provide Animal Services. The reconciliation report will be completed and sent to the City in the month of August for each fiscal year. Any cost savings for that fiscal year will be applied to the following fiscal year.
e. For purposes of calculating the Annual Fee, the County shall rely on the population figures reported by the California State Department of Finance E1 Population Estimates report as of January of each year. f. The County shall notify the City of the amount of the Annual Fee for the next fiscal year by March 1st of each year.

14. Term; Termination.
a. The term of this Agreement begins on the Effective Date and continues for two (2) years. This Agreement shall automatically renew for successive three-year periods until either party terminates this Agreement by giving the other party 90 days advance written notice of termination.
b. This Agreement shall automatically terminate if the County repeals Division 416 or if the City repeals its resolution incorporating and applying Division 416 within the City.
172 of 285
8 c. The County may terminate this Agreement if the City fails to pay the Annual Fee by its due date by giving the City 30-days advance written notice.
d. The County agrees to meet jointly with all contracting city agencies annually during Quarter 2 of each fiscal year (i.e., October) to discuss potential revisions or updates through the Public Managers Association.

15. Entire Agreement; Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties, and supersedes any prior agreement between the parties, with respect to the subject matter hereof. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and approved by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors.

16. Governing law; Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Any dispute arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be brought in Contra Costa County Superior Court.

17. Notices. Any notice to be given to either of the parties in connection with this Agreement shall be sent by U.S. mail to the following address:

If to County:

Director, Animal Services
4800 Imhoff Place
Martinez, California 94553-4300
If to City:
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
The parties are signing this Agreement as of the Effective Date set forth above.

COUNTY CITY
By: Beth Ward By:

Title: Animal Services Director Title:

Date: Date:
173 of 285

ATTACHMENT B
174 of 285
175 of 285

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ANIMAL

SERVICES

ANIMAL SERVICES UPDATE
APRIL 6, 2021
1 ATTACHMENT C
176 of 285
Our Department
 Field Services – Protecting public health & safety
through enforcement of the County’s Animal
Ordinance, rabies control and field patrols.
 Shelter Operations – Intake and daily care of
animals, maintenance of animals and kennels, owner
surrender support.
 Medical Services – Medical care and treatment of
animals, emergency care, low-cost spay/neuter surgeries, low-cost vaccination and microchip clinics, etc.
 Administration – In-house call center, licensing
programs, budget and human resources,
contract management, fleet management.
 Community Services – Adoptions program,
volunteer program, public events and humane
education.
177 of 285
Field Services – Top Activities
3 2020 Activity Report - Top
Activities for Pinole 2020 2019
Stray Activities 200 228
Deceased Activities 160 149
Investigation Activities 89 99
Assist Activities 32 33
Total Activities 513 603
178 of 285
Pinole Shelter Closure
4  In September of 2020, the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors voted to close the Pinole Animal Shelter due to financial impacts resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
 CCAS supported this decision since we have long lacked the necessary financial resources and staffing to adequately run the shelter.  The primary services utilized by West County residents at the Pinole Shelter included: adoptions, stray animal impounds and return to owner services.
 CCAS will continue to provide these services to West County residents through current practices, mobile events and strategic partnerships.  Field Services response times were not affected because our Animal Services Officers have always been dispatched from our Martinez facility.

CCAS veterinarian speaking with residents at 3/13/21 West County Microchip Clinic
179 of 285
Priority 1 Response Time Comparison
5 *Priority 1 Activities are calls which require an immediate response due to severe injury, imminent threat to public safety or to an animal involved. Examples of Priority 1 Activities include:
• Calls involving potential rabies exposure
• Severe dog bite to a person
• Aggressive Animal At Large
• Livestock on the Highway
Priority 1 Response Time Goal = 2 hours
• 2018 Pinole Priority 1 Response Time % = 82.24%
• 2020 Pinole Priority 1 Response Time % = 90.07%
• 2018-2020 Pinole Priority 1 Response Times Improved by Nearly 10%
180 of 285
City Agreement Fee Increases
6 Fiscal Year CPI Fees Per Capita
FY 17/18 3.5% $5.94
FY 18/19 2.9% $6.11
FY 19/20 4.5% $6.38
FY 20/21 2.5% $6.54
FY 21/22 2.0% $6.67
• 2020 Pinole Population = 19,505
• New Rate FY21/22 = $6.67
• FY 21/22 Cost = $130,098.35
Cost/Usage Comparison
• Most jurisdictions utilize a level of services similar to the percentage of costs they pay.
• In FY19/20, Pinole represented 1.25% of CCAS’s
total city fees and 3.58% of total activities.
181 of 285
What do your city fees pay for?
7 Contra Costa County Animal Services provides a full complement of services for our city residents.
• Field Service Officers – enforcement and community service (police/SO) • A 38,000 sq. ft facility to house animals while they are in our care (jail/hospital) • A medical and husbandry team to provide basic daily care to the animals as well as any necessary medical care. (medical staff)
• An administrative team to manage a call center, support dispatch services, assist the public in person, online, by phone. (dispatch)
• A team to support administrative hearings for dangerous animals and noise violations. (court system) 182 of 285
Mandated services covered by current fees
8  Special Enforcement
Mandatory spay or neuter prior to adoption and as
required per County Ordinance.
Major case investigations re: cruelty
Animal Housing
 Stray & Aggressive Animal Patrols (Inc. Livestock)
 Impoundment of stray dogs, sick/injured/in danger
& aggressive animals
 Sheltering/care of impounded animals (inc.
vaccination, food, humane and emergency veterinary
care, etc.)
 Housing for animals displaced by disasters
 Return animals home and Adoption or transfer of
available animals
 Rabies Control
 Licensing & Enforcement
 Bite Investigations
 Patrols
 Quarantine of Potential Rabies Suspects
 Rabies Testing
 Rabies vaccine clinics
 Dangerous/Potentially Dangerous Animals
 Investigations
 Impoundment & Sheltering
 Hearings
 Permits & Enforcement
 Other State & Local Laws
 Animal Noise Enforcement and hearings
 Fulfilling PRA requests
183 of 285
Non-mandated services provided by CCAS
9  Low-cost vaccine and S/N Clinic for residents of
Contra Costa County
 Humane Education & Enrichment Programs
 Deceased Animal Impoundment
 Deceased animals located on the public right of
way.
 Deceased domestic animals on private property.
 Local Agency Assists
 Police
 Fire
 Code Enforcement
 Administration
 Provide support for on-going operations –
budget and fiscal services, human
resources, contract management, fleet
management and information technology
 In house call center – five days a week, TSat. Phone, online, email and in person by appointment
 Dispatch services through SO contract
24/7
184 of 285
City Service Agreement History Overview
 The city service agreements were established in 1985. The agreements stipulate services for mandated programs and the enforcement of all animal related laws.

The original city fees were based on Department costs at that time and on a city’s population (per capita).
 In May of 2005, the Board of Supervisors granted approval, and the Cities agreed, that Animal Services Department would increase city fees for animal services each fiscal year based on the municipality’s population growth and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) percentage.
10 185 of 285
City Service Agreement Challenges
 Fees inadequate to support expenses for services
provided.
 Expenses to provide services grew faster than city
revenues.
 Population/needs for services increased.
 Response times increased while call volume backed up
and became overwhelming.
 City agreements only cover mandated services and lack performance metrics.
11 186 of 285
Service Impacts: Areas Of Concern
 Lack of appropriate staffing coverage for deceased animal pick ups  Currently 1 FTE, 40 hrs./week focused on deceased animal pick up. Services will be negatively impacted when that individual goes on vacation, becomes ill/injured or leaves the position.  Citizen complaints around the pick-up of sick or injured wildlife.  Incidents of public complaints. Example: sick raccoon, sick/injured skunks, rattlesnake in garage.  All concerns were coupled with worry for the animal's welfare and public safety (potential injury, exposure to zoonotic diseases) due to possibly having to handle a wild animal to pick it up and transport themselves to the Lindsey Wildlife Center.
 Beat coverage by Officers.
 Minimum is now 5 Officers per day. Covering entire County, 3 beats, between 8:00 am-9:00 pm.  Impact on local Police when ASO’s are not available or are delayed in response. 12 187 of 285
Service Changes
 Moved to Field Services hours between 8:00
AM and 9:00 PM with no “on-call”
coverage.
 Focus shifted to domestic animals. Wildlife
calls are now referred to California
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
 Priority One response times for all cities
improved from 88.99% compliance
10/1/19-12/31/19 to 90.49% of
compliance target 10/1/20-12/31/20.
 Call Volume for active calls dropped from
an all time high of 500+ to now averaging
between 40-60 active calls per day.
 Implemented an Online Registration Portal
for public spay/neuter and vaccination
appointments.
 Launched an online Deceased Animal
Reporting Portal to make it easier for
residents to report deceased animals.
 Developed a new Dog Foster Program that
proved vital in getting animals out of the
shelter during the early stages of COVID-19
and is ongoing as needed.
 Created a new online Lost & Found Portal to
assist County residents who have lost a pet.
13 188 of 285
Population & Revenue Comparison
14 866,784
174,257
Incorp.

Unincorp.
*Incorporated population excludes City
of Antioch
189 of 285
Animal Care Agency Comparisons
Municipal Shelter:

FY 20/21
Rate Per Capita
City of Antioch $15.44
City of Oakland $12.09
Sacramento County $13.10
Contra Costa County $6.54
Contra Costa Animal Services ranks low
on cost per capita in comparison to
other municipal shelters.
The City of Antioch increased their rates
for animal services by 19% in FY
2020/21, which brought them to $15.44
per capita.
15 190 of 285
CCAS 5 Year FY Forecast Projections
16 $0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
FY 2020/21 FY 2021/22 FY 2022/23 FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25
Personnel Operations City Revenue General Fund Lic. & User Fees Total Revenue 191 of 285
Next Steps
 Assess the service needs of the community and CCAS’s capacity for care.
 Consider amending the current Service Agreement to desired service levels while meeting State and Local mandates.
 Ex: injured/sick wildlife and deceased animal pick up.  Evaluate the current fee plan for the cities and create a sustainable plan.
17 192 of 285
Thank You & Questions
We
appreciate
our city
partners!
193 of 285
Contra Costa Animal Services (CCAS) - Serving Our Community!

AGENCY SNAPSHOT
Martinez Shelter
A 38,000 sq. ft. facility to provide public
services and house animals while they
are in our care
Law Enforcement Unit
Field Service Officers that enforce state laws and
local ordinances, investigate animal bites, attacks
and crimes, and serve as our “boots on the
ground” in your city
Animal Care Unit
A medical and husbandry team to
provide basic daily care to the animals
as well as any necessary medical care
Veterinary Team
A veterinary team to support our
low-cost spay/neuter and vaccination
clinics
Administrative Unit
An administrative team that manages our call
center, dispatch services, administrative hearing
processes, and assists the public in person, online,
and by phone
Volunteer Unit
A core of more than 150 committed
volunteers that perform vital tasks in and
out of the shelter, including animal enrichment, adoptions and lost/found support

ATTACHMENT D
194 of 285
Public Safety Services
• Stray & Aggressive Animal Patrols (inc. Livestock)
• Animal Bite Investigations
• Quarantine of Dangerous Animals & Potential
Rabies Suspects
• Animal Cruelty Investigations
• Impoundment & Sheltering of Stray/Sick/Injured Pets
• Pet Licensing & Enforcement
• Animal Noise Enforcement
• Deceased Animal Retrieval
• Enforcement of County Dangerous Animal Laws
• Enforcement of State & Local Animal Welfare Laws
• Assisting Local Agencies (Police, Fire, etc.)
with Activity Calls
• 24/7 Dispatch Services
For more information about our services, visit ccasd.org Community Services
• Shelter & Medical Support for Lost/Sick/Injured Pets
• Pet Adoptions (Martinez Shelter)
• Lost Pet Support & Return To Owner (RTO) Services
• Shelter & Care for Animals Displaced by Disaster
• Humane Education Programs
• Public Low-Cost Spay/Neuter Clinic
• Public Low-Cost Vaccination Clinic
• Community Clinics & Adoption Events
• Community Cat Trap-Neuter-Release (TNR) Program
• Customer Service Support
• Volunteer Program

COST FOR COMPASSION IN ACTION
ANIMAL

SERVICES
ANIMAL

SERVICES

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
4800 Imhoff Place
Martinez CA
Ph: 925-608-8400
www.ccasd.org
Just One Click Away!
Many of our services can be accessed via our website:
• View pets available for adoption
• Report lost or found pets
• Purchase a license for your pet
• Schedule a spay/neuter appointment
• Schedule a vaccination appointment
• Sign up to become a volunteer or foster
• Donate to the Animal Benefit Fund
• File an animal noise complaint
• Report deceased animals
All this and more at ccasd.org
See Our Animals
CCAS Serving Pinole
Contra Costa Animal
Services partners
with the City of
Pinole to provide
animal services.

The annual cost is
established by a per
capita rate the City
pays based on
current population.

The cost for Animal
Services in Pinole
for Fiscal Year
2021/2022 is
$6.79 per capita.
195 of 285
Contra Costa Animal Services Agreement Fact Sheet
Summary
Contra Costa Animal Services (CCAS) is proud to present for your consideration an updated services agreement to provide animal services for the City of Pinole. The updated agreement and fee structure are the result of numerous meetings and touch points with city officials (predominantly City Managers and Police Chiefs) from each of our contract cities over the last few years. The agreement reflects the feedback that was provided to us through that process by the City Managers and Police Chiefs during individual meetings, regional meetings that included the County Supervisor that represents Pinole, as well as multiple presentations and listening sessions at the Public Managers Association and Police Chiefs Association. The updated agreement and fee structure clearly describes the services CCAS will provide to Pinole and defines a funding structure to ensure the Department is able to cover the costs of providing those services.

Services Defined
The current agreement, which has been in place since 2006, is approximately one page in length and provides little detail with regards to what specific services will be provided. The updated agreement provides much greater detail regarding service levels, including:
• Detailing specific services provided under the agreement for all areas of operation, • Creating accountability by listing target response times for each activity type, • Defining what is covered under deceased animal services, • Describing which services are not included under the agreement, and • Codifying performance reporting within the agreement.

Cost
The updated agreement includes a defined fee structure for FY 22/23 and FY 23/24, which converts to a formula-based fee structure that will commence in FY 24/25. The fee structure is as follows:
• For fiscal year 2022-2023, $7.97 for each person residing within the City limits as of January 2022.

For example, Pinole’s population is 19,369. Therefore, Pinole’s Annual Fee for FY 22/23 is $154,371.

For fiscal year 2023-2024, $9.11 for each person residing within the City limits as of January 2023.

For example, if Pinole’s population remained the same (19,369), the Annual Fee will be $176,452. • For each fiscal year thereafter, the per capita rate for the Annual Fee shall be calculated using the following formula: (A) The County’s budgeted cost to provide Animal Services throughout the County in that fiscal year, minus the sum of animal licensing fees and user fees projected to be received from all County residents in that fiscal year, minus the budgeted County general fund contribution for that fiscal year, divided by (B) the sum of the population of the unincorporated area plus the population of all cities for which the County provides Animal Services. • Each year, the County will prepare a reconciliation report of actual costs incurred by the County to provide Animal Services during the preceding year.

ATTACHMENT E
196 of 285
Animal Services Department 4800 Imhoff Place
Martinez, California 94553-4300
(925) 608-8400
Beth Ward Contra Animal Services Director
Costa
County
Andrew Murray
City of Pinole
2131 Pear Street
Pinole, CA 94564
Re: Recent Citizen Concerns
Dear Andrew Murray,
An organized animal group in the County has been participating in public comment at local city council meetings. We would like formally to address some of these concerns and provide a better understanding of the issues raised.

1. Proposed New City Agreements - The proposed new agreement will allow for improved animal services countywide. The new agreement does not reduce services, it simply codifies current services in greater detail than the current agreement and provides a funding model that will allow for improved animal services. The draft agreement reflects the feedback provided during numerous meetings with contract cities (predominantly City Managers and Police Chiefs) over the last two years. The updated draft agreement details specific services provided under the agreement for all areas of operation, including detailing which services are not included. The updated agreement also improves accountability by stating target response times for each activity type, including requiring regular performance reporting.

2. Spay & Neuter Services - The County has resumed public Spay & Neuter services as of March 1 and plans to expand services in the upcoming fiscal year. The proposed changes are to increase the clinic hours from 32 to 50 hours per week. After being temporarily scaled back as a result of operational impacts related to the pandemic, the clinics are back open and fully operational.

Acknowledging the high demand for those services, Animal Services has taken action to increase the availability of these services by contracting with nonprofit organizations through support from the Animal Benefit Fund.

It is important to note Spay & Neuter and vaccination clinic services have never been included in the contract city agreements. The agreements focus exclusively on mandated services provided as the municipal animal control agency. Funding for these services have historically been from the County General Fund and revenue collected to provide these services.

ATTACHMENT F
197 of 285

3. Transporting Injured animals to non-profits – Contra Costa Animal Services (CCAS) responds to calls for sick and injured domestic animals and livestock. In these cases, transport is typically provided to the Martinez shelter or an emergency veterinarian depending on the circumstances. It is very rare animal transport would be needed to a nonprofit for medical treatment.

4. Wildlife calls for service - Animal Services will respond to deceased wildlife pick up calls, with limited exceptions. The new agreement includes the addition of this service. However, the agreement does not include medical services for injured wildlife as this is not a service the department is mandated to perform. The service of responding to live sick or injured wildlife falls under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Any past assistance from CCAS in regard to live, injured wildlife have been done so solely as a courtesy when the Department of Fish and Wildlife were unable to respond.

5. General Fund Support - The County is committed to partnering with cities and supporting animal services. The County’s contribution for FY 2022-23 is $4,382,000 an increase of $270,000 from 2021-22. However, the County does not have an obligation to subsidize city animal services under state law. The alternative to providing mandated animal services is for a city to take on these responsibilities themselves. Though contracting with the County to provide services generally ends up saving cities money.

I hope this communication provides a better understating of the issues being raised. I am happy to discuss any concerns, so please do not hesitate to reach out.

Sincerely,
Beth Ward
Beth Ward
Director
Contra Costa Animal Services
198 of 285
MAY 17, 2022
Contra Costa Animal Services
Pinole Animal Services Agreement

ATTACHMENT G
199 of 285
200 of 285
201 of 285
The top activities CCAS responded to in the City of Pinole in 2021 are as follows:
• Stray Animal Activities: 427 (513 in 2020)
o Includes aggressive stray animals, confined stray animals and stray animal patrols.
• Deceased Animal Activities: 136 (160 in 2020)
o Includes wild and domestic.
• Investigation Activities: 88 (89 in 2020)
o Includes bite investigations and inhumane investigations.

TOP ACTIVITIES IN PINOLE
202 of 285
CCAS Agreement
203 of 285
• The current Animal Services Agreement is outdated and has long required an update to define service levels and performance metrics.
• The current Animal Services agreement, which has been in place since 2006, is approximately one page in length and provides little detail with regards to what specific services will be provided. • The updated agreement and fee structure are the result of numerous meetings and touch points with city officials (predominantly City Managers and Police Chiefs) from each of our contract cities over the last two years.
• The agreement reflects the feedback that was provided to us through that process by the City Managers and Police Chiefs during individual meetings, regional meetings, and multiple presentations and listening sessions at the Public Managers Association and Police Chiefs Association. • The updated agreement and fee structure clearly describes the services CCAS will provide to your City and defines a funding structure to ensure the Department is able to cover the costs of providing those services.

AGREEMENT HISTORY
204 of 285
The updated agreement provides much greater detail regarding service levels, including:
• Detailing specific services provided under the agreement for all areas of operation.
• Creating accountability by listing target response times for each activity type. • Defining what is covered under deceased animal services. • Describing which services are not included under the agreement. • Codifying performance reporting within the agreement, including an annual review and needs assessment.

UPDATED AGREEMENT
205 of 285
The updated agreement includes a defined fee structure for FY 22/23 and FY 23/24, which converts to a formula-based fee structure that will commence in FY 24/25.

AGREEMENT FEE STRUCTURE
• For fiscal year 2022-2023, $7.97 for each person residing within the City limits as of January 2022. For example, Pinole’s population is 19,369. Therefore, Pinole’s Annual Fee for FY 22/23 is $154,371.
• For fiscal year 2023-2024, $9.11 for each person residing within the City limits as of January 2023. For example, if Pinole’s population remained the same (19,369), the Annual Fee for FY 23/24 will be $176,452. 206 of 285
• For each fiscal year thereafter, the per capita rate for the Annual Fee shall be calculated using the following formula:
o (A) The County’s budgeted cost to provide Animal Services throughout the County in that fiscal year, minus the sum of animal licensing fees and user fees projected to be received from all County residents in that fiscal year, minus the budgeted County general fund contribution for that fiscal year, divided by (B) the sum of the population of the unincorporated area plus the population of all cities for which the County provides Animal Services.
• Each year, the County will prepare a reconciliation report of actual costs incurred by the County to provide Animal Services during the preceding year. o This will ensure the Annual Fee paid by Pinole covers only actual costs incurred to provide Animal Services.
o The reconciliation report will be completed and sent to your City Manager in the month of August for each fiscal year. Any cost savings for that fiscal year will be applied to the following fiscal year.

AGREEMENT FEE STRUCTURE CONT’D
207 of 285
March 15
City Council
Meeting Comments
208 of 285
“The agreement is inadequate and does not include feedback from the cities.” FACT: The updated agreement provides much greater detail regarding service levels, includes performance metrics, and reflects the feedback provided to us by each city manager and police chief over a two year planning period.
“The agreement does not include services for injured wildlife.” FACT: The updated agreement focuses on the services CCAS is mandated to perform in your community as your animal services provider. Injured wildlife calls fall within the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish & Wildlife.
“Agreement does not include spay/neuter services, adoption program, pet retention, etc.” FACT: Those services have never been included in the city agreements, they are funded through the County’s contribution. If those services were included in the agreement, they would likely cost well more than what cities are able to fund.
209 of 285
“CCAS did not apply for Measure X funding.”
FACT: CCAS was advised by the County Administrator’s Office to not submit a request for Measure X funding. CCAS drafted a proposal for Measure X funding, but ultimately was not permitted to submit the proposal for consideration.
“The cities per capita rate increases while the County contribution remains stagnant” FACT: The County is committed to partnering with cities and supporting animal services. However, the County does not have an obligation to subsidize city animal services under state law. The alternative to providing mandated animal services is for a city to take on these responsibilities themselves. Though contracting with the County to provide services generally ends up saving cities money. 210 of 285
Pinole Shelter
Closure
211 of 285
• In September of 2020, the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors voted to close the Pinole Animal Shelter due to financial impacts resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
• CCAS supported this decision since we have long lacked the necessary financial resources and staffing to adequately run the shelter.
• The primary services utilized by West County residents at the Pinole Shelter included: adoptions, stray animal impounds and return to owner services.
• CCAS will continue to provide these services to West County residents through current practices, mobile events and strategic partnerships.
• Field Services response times were not affected because our Animal Services Officers have always been dispatched from our Martinez facility.

CCAS veterinarian speaking with residents at 3/13/21 West County Microchip Clinic
212 of 285
Thank You & Questions
We
appreciate
our city
partners!
213 of 285

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 12B
DATE: MAY 17, 2022
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SANJAY MISHRA, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR

MISHA KAUR, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL

PROGRAM MANAGER

SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2022/23 THROUGH 2026/27 FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council review the Preliminary Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 through 2026/27 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP, attached) and provide direction to staff for changes to incorporate into the next draft of the document, the Proposed Revised version.

BACKGROUND
The City of Pinole’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a five-year plan for maintenance and expansion of the City’s public facilities and infrastructure. The CIP lists the capital projects that the City intends to undertake over the upcoming five-year period and the cost and funding source for each project. The CIP is updated every year.

Projects in the CIP address the City’s major types of capital assets: facilities, parks, sanitary sewer collection and treatment infrastructure, stormwater infrastructure, and streets and roads. The City owns considerable capital assets in other classes as well, including streetlights, traffic control devices, sidewalks, street trees, trash capture devices, waste bins and enclosures, traffic/wayfinding signage, benches, bike racks, monument signs, fleet, and fiber optic conduit. The condition of current assets and the need for new capital assets is usually determined through the creation of a master plan for each major type of asset.

The Preliminary Proposed FY 2022/23 through 2026/27 Five-Year CIP is comprised of projects that fall into the following categories:
• Facilities
• Parks
• Sanitary Sewer
• Stormwater
• Streets and Roads
• Infrastructure Assessments
214 of 285
City Council Report, 12B
May 17, 2022 2
This year, the CIP includes a new project category, Infrastructure Assessments, to capture the asset condition assessments and management plans that the City is undertaking and that will identify needed future capital projects.

Staff presented a preliminary proposed list of projects for the FY 2022/23 through 2026/27 Five-Year CIP to the Finance Subcommittee on April 14, 2022 and to the City Council on April 26, 2022. The Finance Subcommittee and City Council did not direct any changes to the preliminary proposed list of projects. On May 9, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary proposed list of projects for conformity and consistency with the General Plan and determined that the list did conform with the General Plan.

City staff invites the feedback of the City Council and members of the public on the Preliminary Proposed FY 2022/23 through 2026/27 Five-Year CIP at the City Council’s May 17, 2022 meeting. Following the May 17, 2022 Council meeting, staff plans to incorporate the City Council’s feedback as well as additional staff-generated content into a Revised Proposed version of the CIP that will be presented to the City Council for review and feedback on June 7, 2022. Staff plans to present the resulting version of the CIP, the Final Proposed CIP, to the City Council on June 21, 2022.

REVIEW & ANALYSIS
The Preliminary Proposed CIP lists 43 planned citywide public improvement projects which includes 9 new projects for FY 2022/23 through 2026/27. For FY 2022/23, there are 35 projects programmed for funding, including 6 new projects and an infrastructure assessment. Staff has requested two additional positions in the FY 2022/23 Operating and Capital Budget to expedite delivery of capital projects. The Preliminary Proposed CIP scope assumes that the requested staff resources (one Associate Engineer, and one Public Works Specialist) will be approved by City Council. If the requested staff resources are not approved due to budgetary constraints or other reasons, some of the proposed CIP projects will be deferred to future years.

New Capital Projects and Infrastructure Assessment for FY 2022/23 NEW CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR FY 2022/23
PRJ # USES BY PROJECT Funds Source
FA2202 Senior Center Modernization $60,000 Measure S 2014 PA2203 Playground Rubberized Surface
Improvements
$237,198 Measure S 2014 & Park
Grants
PA2201 Pocket Park – Galbreth Ave. $65,000 Measure S 2014 SS2203 Effluent Outfall $150,000 Sewer Enterprise
SS2202 Replacement of Diesel Tank $150,000 Sewer Enterprise SS2201 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation $1,500,000 Sewer Enterprise NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT FOR FY 2022/23
PRJ # USES BY PROJECT Funds Source
IN2201 Energy Audit $50,000 Measure S 2014
215 of 285
City Council Report, 12B
May 17, 2022 3
New Capital Projects for FY 2023/24 – FY 2026/27
FA2201 – Public Safety Building Modernization
PA2202 – Skatepark Rehabilitation
Projects that were approved in the FY 2021/22 through 2025/26 Five-Year CIP but not completed in FY 2021/22 have been carried forward to the Preliminary Proposed FY 2022/23 through 2026/27 Five-Year CIP.

FISCAL IMPACT
The City Council’s review and direction on the Preliminary Proposed FY 2022/23 through 2026/27 Five-Year CIP does not itself have any fiscal impact on the City. The City Council officially approves funding for FY 2022/23 capital projects through the FY 2022/23 Operating and Capital Budget, which City staff and the City Council are currently developing.

ATTACHMENT(S)
A. Preliminary Proposed FY 2022/23 through 2026/27 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan
216 of 285

CITY OF PINOLE

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
FY 2022/23 – 2026/27
Preliminary Proposed
May 17, 2022

ATTACHMENT A
217 of 285

CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENT PLAN
FY 2022/23 – 2026/27

CITY COUNCIL
Vincent Salimi, Mayor
Devin T. Murphy, Mayor Pro Tem
Anthony L. Tave, Council Member
Maureen Toms, Council Member
Norma Martínez-Rubin, Council Member

CITY MANAGER
Andrew Murray

PUBLIC WORKS

DIRECTOR
Sanjay Mishra

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
& ENVIRONMENTAL

PROGRAM MANAGER
Misha Kaur
218 of 285
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN: FY 2022/23 THROUGH FY 2026/27

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction.................................................................................................................................1 Next Steps in Capital Planning ..................................................................................................2 Project Funding...........................................................................................................................2 Funding Sources.........................................................................................................................3 Grants ..........................................................................................................................................4 Overview of Recommended Capital Budget ............................................................................5 Funding Summary ......................................................................................................................6 Project Description Sheets – Facilities .............................................................................9-15 Project Description Sheets – Parks ...............................................................................16-20 Project Description Sheets – Sanitary Sewer.................................................................21-27 Project Description Sheets – Stormwater.......................................................................28-30 Project Description Sheets – Roads...............................................................................31-42 Project Description Sheets – Infrastructure Assessments..............................................43-51 Unfunded and Unprogrammed Project List ...........................................................................53 Project Description Sheets ............................................................................................54-66 219 of 285
Introduction
The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a multi-year planning tool used to identify and implement the City’s capital needs over the upcoming five-year period. The CIP aligns the needs with appropriate funding, scheduling, and implementation. This document is a working blueprint for building and sustaining publicly funded physical infrastructure. Capital improvements refer to physical assets and include the design, purchase, construction, maintenance, or improvement of public resources (i.e. parks public infrastructure, equipment, public spaces). These improvements influence Pinole’s built and natural environment and help guide the trajectory of future growth or change.

The projects in the CIP fall into the following broad categories: facility maintenance, parks, sewer collection and treatment, stormwater, streets and roads. These projects are developed in collaboration with department heads, and division managers under the direction of the City Manager to ensure all department needs are represented.

The CIP is reviewed and updated annually for capital projects and programs that support City goals and objectives including priorities identified in the 2020-2025 Strategic Plan of developing a disciplined approach to funding infrastructure maintenance and improvements. The City seeks to enhance its focus on the state of the infrastructure throughout the community by first inventorying all the assets, assessing their contributions to a safe and vibrant Pinole, assessing their current conditions, and creating a disciplined investment approach resulting in a strong and purpose driven Capital Investment Plan.

The preparation and adoption of the CIP is an important part of Pinole’s financial planning and budgeting process. Proposed projects are reviewed by the Planning Commission for consistency with the General Plan. The Finance Subcomittee also reviews and analyzes all aspects of the CIP and makes recommendations. Project priority and selection is based on specific criteria, such as:
• Consistency with community plans and policies;
• Regulatory compliance;
• Public and political support;
• Sustainability;
• Cost savings or revenue generation;
• Project demand, determined by inventory of existing land, equipment, and facility conditions;
• Economic, environmental, aesthetic or social impacts; and • Public health, safety or other legal concerns.

The process for developing the CIP involves the following steps:

Identify projects
for CIP budget
Prioritize projects
and identify
funding
Prepare budget
for CIP
CIP Review by
Finance
Subcommittee
and Planning
Commission
City Council
adoption
Implementation of
approved projects
in CIP