Agenda packet — Pinole City Council, May 16, 2023 (part 1 of 3)

PINOLE CITY COUNCIL

MEETING AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL
Devin T. Murphy, Mayor
Maureen Toms, Mayor Pro Tem
Cameron Sasai, Council Member
Anthony Tave, Council Member
Norma Martínez-Rubin, Council Member

TUESDAY
May 16, 2023
5:00 P.M
Please note: HYBRID MEETING FORMAT
Attend in Person: PINOLE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 2131 PEAR STREET OR
Attend VIA ZOOM TELECONFERENCE – Details provided below How to Submit Public Comments:

In Person: Attend meeting at the Pinole City Council Chambers, fill out a yellow public comment card and submit it to the City Clerk.

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.

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.

CORONAVIRUS ADVISORY
INFORMATION:

CLICK HERE for City Updates
CLICK HERE for County Updates
1 of 704
City Council
Agenda – May 16, 2023

Page 2 ends

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 704
Pinole City Council
Agenda –May 16, 2023

Page 3 ends

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 LABOR NEGOTIATORS
GOV. CODE § 54957.6
Agency Designated Representative: City Manager Andrew Murray, Human Resources Director Stacy Shell, Greg Ramirez (IDEA)
Represented Employees: AFSCME, Locals 1 and 512 and PPEA

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

F. City Attorney Report
3 of 704
City Council
Agenda – May 16, 2023

Page 4 ends

8. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMUNITY EVENTS
A. Proclamations

1. Mental Health Awareness Month

2. Asian American and Pacific Islander Month

3. Emergency Medical Services Week

4. Jewish American Heritage Month

5. Affordable Housing Week

6. National Police Week
B. Presentations

1. AC Transit Presentation

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 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 25, 2023, April 29, 2023 Special Council meetings and the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting on May 2, 2023.

B. Receive the April 29, 2023 – May 12, 2023 – List of Warrants in the Amount of $1,225,226.29 and the May 12, 2023, Payroll in the Amount of $ 470,399.29.

C. Approve a Two-Year Contract with Planeteria for the New Website Content Management System in the Amount not to Exceed $58,620.00 [Action: Adopt resolution per staff recommendation (Epps)]
D. Resolution of the City of Pinole to Comply with State Housing Laws [Action:

Adopt resolution per staff recommendation (Kaur)]
E. Resolution Opposing State Initiative 21-004281 [Action: Adopt resolution per staff recommendation (Mishra)]
F. Adopt a Resolution Promoting and Supporting the Creation of Education Workforce Housing in Contra Costa County [Action: Adopt resolution per staff recommendation (Whalen)]
G. Letter of Support for United States Department of Transportation Funding for East Bay Regional Park District Trail Expansion Projects [Action: Approve Letter of Support per Staff Recommendation (Rogers)]
H. Options for a City-Sponsored Job Fair [Action: Approve Staff Recommendation (Whalen)]
I. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract with The Pun Group for Professional Auditing Services for Fiscal Years Ending June 30, 2023, through June 30, 2025, with the Option to Extend the Contract at OneYear Intervals, not to Exceed a Total of Two Additional Fiscal Years [Action:

Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Guillory)]
4 of 704
City Council
Agenda – May 16, 2023

Page 5 ends

J. Plan for High School Student Internships with City Council Members [Action:

Receive Report (Shell)]
K. Update on the Activity of the Project Labor Agreement (PLA) Ad Hoc Subcommittee [Action: Receive Report (Mishra)]
L. Adopt a Resolution Initiating Proceedings for the Annual Levy of Assessments and Ordering the Preparation of the Annual Engineer’s Report for the Pinole Valley Road Landscape and Lighting Assessment District (LLAD) for Fiscal Year 2023/2024 [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Mishra)]

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.

A. First Reading of Ordinance Adopting a Military Equipment Policy and Approving Renewal of Chapter 2.60 “Military Equipment Policy” of the Pinole Municipal Code; and Review of 2022-2023 Annual Report in Compliance with AB 481 [Action: Waive first reading and conduct public hearing (Crone)] B. Resolution Adopting Updated User and Regulatory Fees and The Master Fee Schedule [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Guillory)]

11. OLD BUSINESS
None

12. NEW BUSINESS
A. Ten-Year General Fund Status Quo Financial Forecast (Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24 through FY 2032/33) [Receive Report (Guillory)] B. Preliminary Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24 Operating and Capital Budget [Action: Receive Report and Provide Direction (Guillory)] C. Preliminary Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24 Through 2027/28 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) [Action: Receive Report and Provide Direction (Kaur)]

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.

5 of 704
City Council
Agenda – May 16, 2023

Page 6 ends

14. ADJOURNMENT to the Regular City Council Meeting of June 6, 2023 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, and on the City’s website, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting date set forth on this agenda.
________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
POSTED: May 11, 2023 at 4:30pm
6 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 25, 2023

Page 1 ends

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
April 25, 2023

1. CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN HONOR OF THE US MILITARY TROOPS
The Special 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 Murphy called the Special Meeting of the City Council to order at 6:03 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
Maureen Toms, Mayor Pro Tem
Norma Martinez-Rubin, Council Member
Cameron Sasai, Council Member
Anthony Tave, Council Member
B. STAFF PRESENT
Andrew Murray, City Manager
Eric Casher, City Attorney
Heather Bell, City Clerk
Markisha Guillory, Finance Director
Misha Kaur, Capital Improvement and Environmental Program Manager Neil Gang, Chief of Police
Sanjay Mishra, Public Works Director
City Clerk Heather Bell announced the agenda had been posted on Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 3:30 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. 9A
7 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 25, 2023

Page 2 ends

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.

City Clerk Bell reported there appeared to be technical difficulties with the audio for those members of the public wishing to speak via Zoom. A recess was taken at this time to allow staff to work with Pinole Community Television (PCTV) to address the situation. The City Council meeting reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with all Council members present and the City Council returned to Item 4.

Cordell Hindler, Richmond, stated after watching the April 18, 2023 City Council meeting, he had been appalled that resident Anthony Vossbrink had been cut-off when speaking to the City Council. He commented that the public should not have to wait until 10:00 or 10:30 p.m. to address the City Council, urged the City Council to condense staff reports, and requested the revisions to the City Council Norms and Procedures be agendized for the May 16, 2023 City Council meeting.

Maria Alegria, Pinole, stated that Pinole Valley Road had become a speeding raceway and should be designated a safe traffic and pedestrian corridor. She highlighted an incident she had witnessed on April 23, 2023 when a speeding vehicle had lost control while racing another vehicle on Pinole Valley Road. That vehicle had almost hit her vehicle head-on but had hit a City sign post and ended up in a neighbor’s yard. She emphasized that Pinole Valley Road from Castro Ranch to San Pablo Avenue had become a raceway with little to no consequences to laws. Other residents shared her concerns and she had shared them with the City Manager. She asked the City Council to help facilitate an easier process for residents to report such incidents to the City Manager and Police Chief and help public safety officers keep the community safe from such scofflaws. This incident had also been reported on the Nextdoor platform where the analytics had reported over 2.7 thousand views. She asked that community safety become a community priority.

5. NEW BUSINESS
A. Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24 General Fund Baseline Budget and Preliminary Council Requests for FY 2023/24 Budget Changes [Action: Discuss and provide direction (Guillory)]
Finance Director Markisha Guillory provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24 General Fund Baseline Budget, which included an overview of the budget and budget development process, budget policy and General Fund Baseline Budget. Budget figures for the City’s property taxes, sales and use tax for the two Measure S tax measures, Utility User’s Tax (UUT), Franchise Tax, Intergovernmental Taxes, Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), Business License Tax, Charges for Services (charges for services which included public safety charges received for dispatch services provided to the cities of Hercules and San Pablo through a costsharing agreement), other revenue sources and transfer-in from the Section 115 Pension Trust to offset the increase in pension costs were all highlighted. 8 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 25, 2023

Page 3 ends

Finance Director Guillory also provided an overview of expenditures that included salaries and wages, benefits, operations and maintenance, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) Fire Services Agreement, capital outlay, debt service and transfer out. A comparison of the Baseline Budget as compared to the Long-Term Financial Forecast for FY 2023/24 was also provided.

Finance Director Guillory further detailed the summary of fund balances and one-time consideration items the City Council had directed staff to include in the budget in the last two fiscal years, which had not been completed and which were to be covered by an unassigned fund balance, with all information contained in the April 5, 2023 staff report.

Finance Director Guillory identified the next steps in the process with staff to evaluate Council member additions to the budget, if any, to be incorporated into the Preliminary Proposed Budget and present that budget to the City Council during a meeting in May, date yet to be finalized.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms again clarified with Finance Director Guillory the fund balance summary with the General Reserve, who confirmed that the General Reserve ending balance as shown was within the City’s policy.

City Manager Andrew Murray clarified with respect to the dispatch services for the West Bay Communication Center with the cities of San Pablo and Hercules that the City of Pinole was in the midst of negotiations for an updated agreement. He highlighted how the expenses were shared by each entity.

Council member Sasai asked for clarification for the changes shown in the budget for the City Manager/City Clerk Offices and Finance Director Guillory explained there were some items that had been considered to be baseline items, which staff had fine-tuned and determined were onetime expenses. This had resulted in the budget decreasing since the type of item from baseline to one-time had shifted.

Council member Tave referred to the balance for sales taxes in 2018 as compared to the present and asked whether the additional sales taxes of $1 million, as shown, was a one-time increase or whether it could be relied upon in the future.

Finance Director Guillory clarified the delta between 2018/2019 and the present, which had shown an extra million would require some additional research to provide a clear explanation.

City Manager Murray explained that staff had consulted with HdL the City’s sales tax consultant, and the main factor for the increase in sales taxes had been an increase in on-line sales, a runup in consumption and the need to outfit home offices during the pandemic. Presently that runup had flattened out with a one percent year by year increase expected. HdL had provided the revenue forecasting and staff had done some in-house forecasting based on trend analyses, with the difference in the Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP) from 2022 and the baseline forecast a couple hundred thousand dollars.

City Manager Murray advised that staff was confident with the forecasts and a 10-Year Baseline Forecast would be presented to the City Council at the same time as the Preliminary Proposed Budget in May, which would build in more long-term projections on the revenue trends. He did not expect the City to lose money in sales taxes.
9 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 25, 2023

Page 4 ends

City Manager Murray further commented in response to Council member Tave that some vacant spaces had been re-tenanted by desirable retailers but no single retailer usually made that much of a difference in sales taxes. There was an action step in the Economic Development Strategy to continue to identify opportunities to attract retailers where the City had gaps which had not yet been implemented.

Council member Tave also clarified the funds related to the CCCFPD Fire Services Agreement were not pass-through funds, and City Manager Murray explained that the funds were netted-out of the expenditure shown for the CCCFPD Fire Services Agreement.

Council member Martinez-Rubin clarified with Finance Director Guillory the projected increase in Business License Taxes had been due to an increase in the license fee. The CCCFPD Fire Services Agreement amount was again clarified with the expenditure paying for staffing (those to be assigned to Station 74), operations and maintenance, utilities and dispatch services.

City Manager Murray again highlighted the FY 2022/23 and 2023/24 General Fund Baseline Budget expenditures as presented in the PowerPoint for the CCCFPD Fire Services Agreement, with the City’s salaries, wages and benefits expenditures decreasing due to the reduction of 17 Pinole Fire Department employees as part of the CCCFPD Services Agreement. A comparison of Pinole firefighters to CCCFPD firefighters had not been provided since staff was relying on an independent fiscal analysis and mid-term update on the status of the contract with the CCCFPD, to be presented to the City Council at a future meeting.

Council member Martinez-Rubin also clarified with Finance Director Guillory the one-time initiatives and capital improvement projects (operating initiatives) which would be presented as part of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and as part of agenda Item 5B, which would show how the various projects had been funded by the General Fund and the two Measure S funds.

City Manager Murray added there was a lot tied into those ideas, and he described the differences between the fund balance (one-time resources not being replenished to be used for one-time expenses) and capital projects funded by the General Fund and the two Measure S funds. He also clarified that capital projects were capital in nature, related to infrastructure, but there was also a gray area regarding the magnitude of a project. The one-time items would be included in the Preliminary Proposed Budget, most of which were underway, and were one-time not ongoing expenses which was the distinction in the baseline budget.

Finance Director Guillory also explained there was some overlap between the operating budget and the CIP in terms of how the projects had been classified, but all would be funded by the General Fund and Measure S funds, which was why the projects had been highlighted. In the event alternative sources of funding were found, it would come before the City Council as an amendment to the budget.

City Manager Murray clarified that alternative sources of funding had occurred in the past, and he referenced some one-time community development-related projects with respect to updating the Housing Element and other elements along with the creation of objective design standards. State grant funds had become available to assist in the funding for those projects. For the CIP, if something was funded by a local source or another funding opportunity that project may have to return to the City Council.
10 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 25, 2023

Page 5 ends

Council member Martinez-Rubin could not recall whether the City Council had discussed the Infrastructure and Investment Jobs Act and whether Pinole was eligible for any funding, to which Finance Director Guillory stated the City had not received any funding from the Infrastructure and Investment Jobs Act.

City Manager Murray reported there would be a future agenda item during a City Council meeting in May to discuss the funding opportunities as part of a City Council request for a future agenda item.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, asked for clarification of the Finance Director’s PowerPoint presentation and a statement that the City had fewer expenditures related to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) since CalPERS had recently provided a presentation to the City Council and had reported on a near term increase in demands due to losses. He understood the change in expenditure was due to workers’ compensation and liability premiums and he asked why the numbers had increased so significantly given that the covered pool of the City would be at a lesser risk with the removal of Pinole firefighters from the covered pool for both categories.

He asked whether the level of increase was typical year after year.

Mr. Menis also referenced the General Reserve offset interest losses and asked whether the General Reserve fell under the Investment Policy and whether the funds had been invested in the same manner as Pension Investment Funds, the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) or a money market account.

Mr. Menis also referenced Table 1, Page 5 of the April 25, 2023 staff report, and commented on the percentage of increases in expenditures for the Finance, Human Resources and Police Departments. He understood the increases in the Human Resources and Police Departments were due to new staffing but if not accurate requested clarification. He otherwise thanked the Finance Director for the information in the PowerPoint presentation and the slide for the Baseline Budget Compared to Long-Term Financial Forecast, which he found to be helpful.

Irma Ruport, Pinole, appreciated the report on the budget but suggested the inclusion of PCTV in the Community Development and Recreation Departments budget should be separated out as a separate budget item. She also opposed staff approving any changes in expenditures or in items in the budget without the discussion and approval of the City Council. As to the potential for grant funding, she noted that some grants had a deadline during the month of May and she urged staff not to miss the deadline for any potential grant opportunities.

Cordell Hindler, Richmond, asked for clarification of the one-time items, in particular an item in the amount of $10,000 for business development.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Finance Director Guillory responded to the public comments and explained as it related to CalPERS rates that the City would have to deal with the CalPERS losses in 2024. In the previous year the CalPERS valuation and five-year forecast was lower because at that time the system had experienced higher than expected returns on investments; however that had reversed and in FY 2024/25 the City would see the impacts.
11 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 25, 2023

Page 6 ends

In terms of the transition to the CCCFPD, Finance Director Guillory noted the City was still responsible for the payment for this budget year, which had been captured as a one-time item.

Moving forward the City would not be responsible for the fire staff who had transitioned.

Finance Director Guillory also responded to questions related to the General Reserve and clarified that fell under the City’s Investment Policy, which was different from the Section 115 Pension Trust Policy. The City had been investing in Certificates of Deposit (COD) United States Treasury bonds and some in LAIF. She further clarified the increases in the baseline budget related to the Finance Department had been due to an administrative staff person who had previously been allocated to other departments but who had picked up some tasks in the Finance Department and that salary had shifted to the Finance Department. For the Human Resources Department, other factors including non-personnel costs to support the City’s Human Resources operations had been added to the budget as ongoing expenses and were related to legal services in the Department.

Mayor Murphy clarified the Sales and Use Tax and asked whether it had been compared to other cities in Contra Costa County, and Finance Director Guillory stated that comparison had been done but she did not have that information at this time. The information could be forwarded to the City Council prior to its next meeting.

Mayor Murphy also clarified the budget development key dates and asked how the public could utilize the Balancing Act – Community Priorities Survey to assist the City Council in making decisions on the budget.

Finance Director Guillory explained that the Balancing Act had been set up using the Prioritization Module for a qualitative survey, with respondents asked to pick and rank their top five priorities to be reported back to the City Council to decide how to fund those initiatives. Staff would also work with the Public Works Department to use the survey in the same way for CIP projects with a report back to the City Council in the same way.

Mayor Murphy spoke to the 10-Year Forecast and asked whether CalPERS variables would be part of that conversation and Finance Director Guillory explained that the 10-Year Forecast was the baseline forecast and those factors would be considered and be presented along with the Preliminary Proposed Budget.

Council member Tave referenced the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and asked what impact that would have in terms of what projects were shovel ready, and City Manager Murray explained there was no future item to discuss the IRA but that could be added to the discussion of the Preliminary Proposed Budget or the Preliminary Proposed CIP.

Public Works Director Sanjay Mishra highlighted the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) that would make investments in the transportation sector, improve public safety and climate resilience, create jobs across the country and deliver a more equitable future.

Council member Tave sought more discussion on the IRA, the need to identify shovel ready projects and the need to discuss the possibilities. He asked staff to see how the IRA would weave into the budget in terms of what could realistically be done. 12 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 25, 2023

Page 7 ends

City Manager Murray recommended adding a discussion on CIP project funding from the IRA and the BIL as part of the Preliminary Proposed CIP.

Mayor Murphy noted that during the April 18, 2023 City Council meeting, the City Council had directed staff to prepare a resolution in support of partnering with Contra Costa County’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) Conference where more guidance would be helpful on the use of IRA funds and other funding sources. He understood that some members of City staff would be attending the IRA Conference on May 18, 2023.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms noted that some of the one-time initiatives would fall under the environmental parts of grant funding. The Recycled Water Feasibility and Municipal Broadband Feasibility one-time projects, as examples, may involve a planning grant and if the City were to partner with the City of Hercules that could be another opportunity, although the City of Pinole would not qualify for the Keller Mitigation Funds, which were only for East County (Pittsburg/Bay Point and a bit of Antioch).

Council member Sasai clarified with staff the staff recommendations that may include any City Council recommended changes to the baseline budget which staff would evaluate. Any recommended additions to the CIP would be part of Item 5B.

City Manager Murray reiterated the staff recommendation and clarified the City Council may take action to remove any of the one-time items that had been approved in the past, although many were partially underway. For any other recommendations, City staff would need to prepare cost estimates and determine the operational feasibility of those recommendations.

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked that staff come back with additional information on the baseline budget, amending the City’s agreements with franchisees to the extent possible. She wanted to know the range, whether the tax amount was regulated, and whether there was some “wiggle” room along with the timelines when new contracts were due.

Council member Tave asked for more clarification on the “needs” versus the “wants.” He wanted to know whether there was any room for adjustment given concerns with asking a lot in the CIP and asking a lot of staff, and he wanted assurance that what had been indicated to be done would be done without maxing everyone out and diminishing returns.

City Manager Murray explained that would be discussed in detail during the Special Meeting on April 29, 2023 as part of the discussion of the Strategic Plan. He added the City Council’s Balanced Budget Policy required City staff to propose an initial budget that was balanced. When staff returned at a future meeting, the Preliminary Proposed Budget would be balanced with staff to work to close the current gap in the budget. He also explained the solution to closing the gap would involve fine-tuning the baseline and a discussion with all Departments on what could be done in-house along with other fixes. He further clarified that anything learned about grant opportunities was still a few months down the road and the process would play out with the City Council’s adoption of the Operating and Capital Budget and CIP. Subsequent to that based on new information on funding sources, if City staff identified any shifting to another direction based on outside funding that would be brought back to the City Council during a mid-year adjustment to the CIP.
13 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 25, 2023

Page 8 ends

Finance Director Guillory again identified the next steps and confirmed at this time that the City Council had not proposed any changes to the budget. The next step would be to work to implement budget balancing measures to bring the gap in the budget to zero, with staff to return with a Preliminary Proposed Budget at a City Council meeting in May. Staff would also return with information in response to questions raised on sales taxes and guidance on the IRA and BIL.

City Manager Murray added that staff would also incorporate the information on federal funding and look into the issue of the franchise agreements, and a future agenda item would include a discussion on a successor for the City’s existing refuse franchise agreement.

Council member Martinez-Rubin clarified with Finance Director Guillory that public comment on the use of the Balancing Act tool would remain open for another three weeks with access on the City website and City Facebook page.

B. Overview of Draft Fiscal Year 2023/24 Through 2027/28 Capital Improvement Plan [Action: Discuss and provide direction (Kaur)] Capital Improvement and Environmental Program Manager Misha Kaur provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Draft Fiscal Year 2023/24 through 2027/28 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), which included an overview of the Draft Five-Year CIP containing 32 capital projects and seven infrastructure assessments, and for Fiscal Year 2023/24 there were 30 capital projects slated for work and seven infrastructure assessments in the categories of: facilities, parks, sewer, stormwater, streets and roads and infrastructure assessments.

Ms. Kaur also identified the complete or anticipated completion projects by June 30, 2023 in the Draft CIP and the budget summary of the Five-Year CIP and clarified that since the most recent meeting of the Finance Subcommittee, staff had met with Finance Department staff to evaluate some of the projects, discuss the possibility of moving funding and possibly use Growth Impact Fees. She also provided an overview of the FY 2023/24 budget summary which showed a reliance on the Growth Impact Fees.

Ms. Kaur reported the next steps would include the addition of a Tree Mitigation Project for $50,000 annually to address tree removal, projects the City Council wished to add or delete, and a ranking of projects via a Capital Projects Prioritization Matrix. Staff would return with a Preliminary Proposed CIP at a City Council meeting in May, which would thereafter be reviewed by the Planning Commission for consistency. The Final Proposed CIP would be considered by the City Council at a meeting in June.

Council member Sasai referenced CIP Project RO2303, Pinole Smart Signals, and asked when the project had been incorporated into the CIP.

Ms. Kaur explained that CIP RO2303, Pinole Smart Signals was a project in collaboration with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). When the City had applied for the One Bay Area Grant 3 (OBAG 3) funds for the Pinole Valley Road and Tennent Avenue improvements, CCTA proposed a countywide project with all of the jurisdictions in the County to upgrade some of the signals in the arterials of the city. The project would be sponsored by CCTA with a small match from the City of Pinole. The project had been programmed when the City had submitted its OBAG 3 application.
14 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 25, 2023

Page 9 ends

Council member Sasai questioned whether the Pinole Smart Signals project was counterproductive in terms of the need to reduce speeds of drivers on the City’s roadways. He reported a member of the public had contacted him raising a concern with how the project would impact green wave where traffic signals were synchronized in such a way where stops were not permitted. He requested clarification.

Public Works Director Sanjay Mishra explained that RO2303, Pinole Smart Signals would look mostly at the regionally significant routes and arterials including San Pablo Avenue, Appian Way and Pinole Valley Road. Smart Signals were adaptive and depending on the traffic volume or the speed of traffic, the signals would be synchronized or set with time intervals to allow traffic to go through. Once the project had been developed, the timing of the signals could be discussed further with the consultants. He added that during the commute hours, the traffic signals were synchronized to move the traffic and not to stop traffic along a major route.

Council member Tave asked why Growth Impact Fees were being used as opposed to funds in the Sewer Enterprise Fund for sewer projects, and Ms. Kaur explained there were a number of projects in the unfunded and funded program list that would come from the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, which had identified projects in a Five-, Ten- and 20-Year period that would exceed the amount of funds the City had in the Sewer Enterprise Fund. The intent was to leverage fees in the Growth Impact Fund dedicated just to sewer. She again clarified the figures in the FY 2023/24 Budget Summary as part of the PowerPoint presentation.

Council member Tave asked what mechanism or program was in place for residents to proactively review their sewer laterals to reduce Inflow and Infiltration (I&I), to which Public Works Director Mishra advised the City did not currently have a program to help residents financially but the Residential Sewer Lateral Ordinance adopted in 2012 required all homeowners to complete a sewer lateral video and correct any defects. The repair work must be completed when a home was to be sold and before the close of sale. He commented that in terms of I&I, a reduction would not be visible as yet since the City had not done any projects, although private sewer laterals were being pursued as they came and people were being educated on the requirements. The City was not yet going after those homeowners who had not completed the sewer lateral work.

Public Works Director Mishra also commented as to the Wastewater Treatment Plant facility that it did not have a separate stormwater facility and dispersed into the sewer at the plant. A calculation had been done during a normal day with one inch of rain, 350,000 gallons from the facility, and for a large subdivision where stormwater would be going into the sewer, which would be significant. He again explained what the sewer projects were trying to address.

Ms. Kaur added the entire sewer system collection would be videoed to allow the City to identify other sources of I&I.

Finance Director Guillory again clarified that the previous discussion on the baseline budget incorporated all General Funds including Measure S funds. Staff had initially had more CIP projects allocated to Measure S 2014 but staff had been able to leverage funds from the Growth Impact Fees, with a good portion having been moved away from Fund 106, Measure S 2014 to the Growth Impact Fees. The funds could not be moved to some of the other funds identified in the summary since there were restrictions attached. The only option was out of the three General Funds, as shown.
15 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 25, 2023

Page 10 ends

Mayor Murphy also clarified the Infrastructure Assessments with Ms. Kaur, who reiterated that when the Proposed Preliminary CIP came back to the City Council a number of projects that had come out of those planning efforts would be seen. As an example, the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) had identified some improvements, staff had applied for funding and it had now been programmed as a project. As projects were ready with a basis to apply for grants, staff could seek grants and then program those projects. Projects with funding would appear in the CIP and those that had identified needs through those projects would appear in the unfunded and unprogrammed list.

Mayor Murphy also spoke to the addition of the Tree Mitigation Project and commented that in 2019, the City’s Beautification Ad Hoc Committee had recommended a Tree Master Plan, which was an unfunded project in the CIP. Given the staff recommendation for the Tree Mitigation Project, he asked whether staff had considered those two projects together.

Ms. Kaur explained that the Tree Mitigation Project would be an immediate project to address impacts from the recent winter storms and staff hoped to obtain reimbursement from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). A Tree Master Plan was a much bigger effort and was on the unfunded list.

City Manager Murray stated the City Council may provide direction to fund a Tree Master Plan in the Preliminary Proposed CIP, which could include mitigation of trees on City property, types of street trees to be planted and partner with the Garden Club on tree planting and the like.

Mayor Murphy asked of the status of requests for funding from the state legislators’ district process and whether information could be provided at the next City Council meeting.

City Manager Murray reported the City had not received a response on the status of the funding requests for the rehabilitation of Fernandez Park and funding for various components of the Senior Center and parking lot upgrade, but a status report could be provided when the Preliminary Proposed Budget returned to the City Council. If funding was received from federal or state sources for the Senior Center that would supplant the local funding the City would otherwise use and if funding was available for Fernandez Park it would be added to the CIP.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, spoke to the differences between the net surplus deficit and the amounts shown in the Budget Summary of the PowerPoint presentation. He suggested the difference was that the presentation for Item 5B had shown one-time costs as opposed to the PowerPoint presentation for Item 5A, which involved ongoing costs. He asked whether it would be beneficial or possible to combine unfunded projects UF016 and UF017, the sidewalk improvements and retaining wall for the shale below the church between Oak Ridge and Tennent Avenue to create a San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Project, which may make grant opportunities easier. As to the Growth Impact fees, he asked that future presentations show the remaining fund balance for the Growth Impact Fund since the fees were a limited source of funding.

Mr. Menis also understood that most of the unfunded totals for FY 2024/25 were related to the San Pablo Avenue Bridge Project and delays in state funding. He asked whether there were other major projects contributing to that substantial unfunded total. 16 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 25, 2023

Page 11 ends

Anthony Vossbrink, Pinole, asked whether there was something in place where the City did not have to wait for major CIP projects to take effect. He wanted to see the City be more proactive if not preventative with certain projects and provide better measures to ensure the public health and safety standards in the City. As an example, painting and striping of speed bumps along Sarah Drive and all throughout the City, painting of the posted speed limits on all roads that were currently faded, painting and striping of demarcation lanes on roads and streets and sidewalks to be done immediately as well as addressing traffic signals that had been obstructed by trees and branches and stop lights that that were inoperable up and down Pinole Valley Road from Henry Avenue to the turnout at Adobe Road. He emphasized that those maintenance needs had been reported to the City on numerous occasions, the City Manager had stated work would be done, but that work had not occurred. He wanted to see the City be more proactive and preventative rather than reactive after the fact.

Irma Ruport, Pinole, urged the City Council to include PCTV in the CIP given that it was an important asset and was not being used to its fullest. She added that surveys did not work, there was few respondents and many were unable to navigate the City’s website. She expressed the willingness to volunteer to man a desk at City Hall for interested residents and possibly a table could be posted at the Senior Center to solicit comments from the public.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Council member Martinez-Rubin requested the following projects be included in the unfunded list of CIP projects:
- Demarcation and painting of roads, lanes and pedestrian pathways. - Assessment for repair and maintenance of the pedestrian walkways along Pinole Creek. - Handicap access to be provided at Pinole Creek Trail near Sarah Court which could be done at the same time or supplement recently approved paving. - Pedestrian bridge near Jamba Juice and the shopping center should have a more durable surface.
- Assessment of the pedestrian bridges at Plum Street and Pinole Valley Park. - Repaint pedestrian crosswalks west of the Appian 80 Shopping Center on Tara Hills Drive and an assessment throughout the City.
- Traffic signal at Appian Way and Canyon Drive had been impacted and the direction of the traffic signal had been moved by large trucks, a safety issue that needed to be addressed, with the added questions as to whether the traffic signal was the responsibility of the City or of Caltrans, and whether the bridges belonged to the City or some other entity.
- Signalization and traffic lights projects to also consider sensors for scooters and motor scooters.
- Promote and support alternative uses to vehicles.
17 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 25, 2023

Page 12 ends

Council member Tave offered the following comments:
- Separate fencing between small and large dogs at the dog park to be included in the CIP. - Trees had not been incorporated into the Parks Master Plan yet to be presented to the City Council and if included, the contract would have to come back to the City Council for modification. The Tree Master Plan would address trees as previously discussed and with the new Tree Mitigation Project to be added, as discussed. - With Request for Proposal (RFP) to be issued for all City facilities for energy conservation, generation and storage assessments with the use of wastewater gas from the Wastewater Treatment Plant there may be other options for the use of the sludge from the Plant.

Council member Sasai requested the following addition to the CIP:
- A Complete Streets Project for San Pablo Avenue.

City Manager Murray reiterated the process for staff to return with information on the requests made by the City Council after evaluation after which the City Council would decide whether or not the projects could be included in the CIP or be placed on the unfunded list. He clarified that a formal motion was not required for each request.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms offered the following comments:
- Preventative maintenance items such as street striping may not belong in the CIP, with staff to provide alternative language such as beefing up the budget for the Public Works Department.
- Staff to provide more information on the costs for upgrading PCTV. - Earmark for Fernandez Park improvements to be added as an unfunded project in the CIP.
- Staff to consider a San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Planning Grant.

Mayor Murphy offered the following comments:
- Clarified with staff a Master Plan for an RFP remained to be issued for PCTV, it was not an infrastructure project and had already been funded in the 2022/23 budget cycle between $30,000 and $50,000. Consideration of different revenue sources would be considered.
- Additional details for the budget for PCTV and routine street maintenance items would be provided to the City Council as part of the Preliminary Proposed Budget discussion. - Wanted to see the scope for the Master Plan for PCTV particularly for operations and infrastructure.
18 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 25, 2023

Page 13 ends

- Wanted the City to leverage its spending power to improve the Pinole Library facility holistically, work with the County to develop improvements, consider other options and new funding mechanisms, with staff to report on the County’s intention to transfer ownership to Pinole in 2024, and with staff to meet with County staff in the coming weeks. - Clarified staff had recommended the creation of a Facilities and Real Estate Master Plan, which would include the library, and whether that facility should be renovated would be included in that plan. The consultants for the Parks Master Plan had been asked to consider the area around the library in the Parks Master Plan and there could be some recommendations to improve that area as part of the Plan. - Clarified with staff road design CIP projects had gone through an RFP process and not on-call services which were intended for smaller projects. Staff would have to get back to the City Council at its next meeting with the amount spent for on-call services. - Clarified with staff the history and background of the existing dispatch services contract with Hercules and San Pablo as part of a Tri-City agreement for dispatch services initiated by the Police Chiefs at that time.
- Clarified with staff partnerships with other agencies for public works had not been explored in the past and fell under the arrangement of shared services within the scope of the consultants who would be preparing the LTFP to determine whether those opportunities existed for Pinole. Separately, the Public Works team could look into opportunities for shared services for some public works maintenance functions although that would not be accomplished this budget cycle and could be considered as part of the mid-year budget.

Staff clarified that none of the CIP projects could be considered for that option but regular operations maintenance items lent themselves to that opportunity. The first step would be to determine whether other organizations were interested in partnering with the City in that fashion with a report back from staff when the budget was next discussed.

Council member Tave referenced Urban Tilth, a non-profit located in North Richmond, which grew food for its community as part of a community garden and he asked that also be considered as a CIP project with a cost estimate for a community garden. He otherwise commented on the fact the City’s paving truck had been shared with the City of Hercules, Pinole shared Hercules’ bucket truck, and possibly further discussion was needed on what a shared agreement would look like.

City Manager Murray confirmed that would be a CIP project but would be considered as part of the Parks Master Plan. If the City Council wanted to act on the project more quickly before the completion of the Parks Master Plan, staff could review the costs and feasibility of a standalone community garden and could return at the next meeting with a scope, schedule and budget for a community garden. Staff would also provide additional information in the operating budget on shared resources with Hercules.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms stated the City was currently working on its Climate Action Plan (CAP) which may include things like an urban garden and tree planting plan. She added that the Urban Tilth project involved East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) Measure WW funds, Park Dedication Funds and the donation of land. She noted that County Public Works Directors and City Managers routinely met along with Sustainability staff. 19 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 25, 2023

Page 14 ends

Mayor Pro Tem Toms further commented that Pinole, Hercules and San Pablo had a Priority Development Zone along San Pablo Avenue and it made sense if there were projects along that stretch. There was already a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for a special designation for higher density along that roadway with a framework for those areas already in place.

Council member Martinez-Rubin also suggested a category specific to pedestrian trails be considered that could be highlighted for future attention whether for operations or for seeking funding sources.

City Manager Murray explained that staff would find a place for that in the CIP but the magnitude and costs for those projects would be smaller than some of the other projects and whether it should be a standalone category would be considered with a recommendation in the Preliminary Proposed CIP.

Ms. Kaur commented in terms of the trails that a while ago staff had applied for Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds to pave some of the multi-purpose trails along the creek but a portion of the trail was not owned by the City and there were some challenges the Parks Master Plan and Active Transportation Plans would have to address.

Council member Martinez-Rubin suggested it may be time to have a conversation with the Contra Costa County Flood Control District (CCCFCD) to learn what their priorities were for projects along the creek.

Ms. Kaur and Public Works Director Mishra summarized the comments from the City Council for staff to:
- Return with potential projects that could be funded through various grant opportunities available;
- Provide an update on requests for legislative funding for the Fernandez Park project and Senior Center Parking Lot Upgrade;
- Provide more information on the project requests made by the City Council during the meeting;
- Incorporate project requests from the various Master Plans into the unfunded project list, and for the projects defined provide a cost estimate for a community garden or cost estimate for preliminary engineering design for San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets, as part of the Preliminary Proposed CIP;
- Provide some information regarding some of the items for preventative operations maintenance in the CIP;
- Once staff had a discussion with the County about the status of the Pinole Library it may be included as part of the Facilities Master Plan;
- Provide information on the total costs the City had paid for On-Call Services in 2022; 20 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 25, 2023

Page 15 ends

- Give some thought on shared services with other cities which could be forwarded into an existing MOU; and
- Give some thought as to how to include the pedestrian trails as a separate category.

In response to Council member Tave, Ms. Kaur and City Manager Murray reiterated that staff would return with rough estimates for an urban garden; the costs for emergency power for critical failure were waiting for the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) to identify critical facilities with $30,000 initially programmed for an assessment, with the remaining funds of $170,000 in case a generator or some other mechanism was needed; and the Facilities and Real Estate Master Plan was a CIP project that had been proposed to come forward in the Preliminary Proposed CIP. The Parks Master Plan would be completed by the end of the calendar year and staff further clarified roofing, tiny tots, water and the like would be part of the Facilities and Real Estate Master Plan.

Ms. Kaur reiterated in response to the Mayor that the Tree Master Plan would be a separate project from the Tree Mitigation Project already discussed. Staff believed the annual amount for the Tree Mitigation Project would be $50,000 but staff was still assessing damages from the recent winter storms and hoped to have an amount defined at the next meeting. The City would seek reimbursement of those costs from FEMA. She again clarified the Facilities and Real Estate Master Plan had been estimated at $200,000 with a funding source yet to be identified.

City Manager Murray again clarified in response to the Mayor that the deficit in the budget and funding for the Facilities and Real Estate Master Plan would come from the fund balance, onetime resources for one-time funds.

Council member Tave hoped as grants became available it would accelerate some of the projects under discussion such as some of the preventative and maintenance items.

Mayor Murphy thanked staff, the City Council and members of the public for their input on the discussion of the budget and CIP.

6. ADJOURNMENT to the Special City Council Meeting of April 29, 2023, in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

At 9:38 p.m., Mayor Murphy adjourned the meeting to the Special City Council Meeting of April 29, 2023 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

Submitted by:
_________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
Approved by City Council:
21 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 29, 2023

Page 1 ends

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
April 29, 2023

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.

Following an inquiry, the Council reported there were no conflicts with any items on the agenda. 9A-1
22 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 29, 2023

Page 2 ends

Irma Ruport, Pinole, referenced letters of correspondence and emails sent to the City Council or City staff and asked that a response be provided through email or a letter. She had volunteered for over a year with the Food Bank and had notified the City via letters about issues and suggestions but had no response, and notices had been sent to other staff members with no comment. She again requested that anytime someone submitted a letter or an email to the City a response to that letter or email should be provided in writing.

Mayor Murphy asked the City Manager to contact Ms. Ruport to address the concerns.

5. WORKSHOP ITEM
A. Special City Council Meeting on Strategic Planning [Action: Discuss and Provide direction (Murray)]
City Manager Andrew Murray reported it had been the City Council’s practice to meet on a biennial basis to consider Long-Term Strategic Planning and receive training on best practices in governance. The Special City Council meeting was intended to focus on strategic planning with the bulk of the meeting to focus on training from Patrick Ibarra with The Mejorando Group who would facilitate the meeting. The City Council would then review the existing Strategic Plan with the consultants who had prepared the plan. The consultants had recommended as good practice that the City Council review the Plan at the mid-point of its life span to confirm it met the City’s needs and was updated as appropriate. The City Council would then discuss projects scheduled for City staff to work on over the coming year, incorporate them into the budget, and discuss a process for an additional project list City staff had been asked to provide.

Mayor Murphy clarified for the benefit of the public that public comment would be opened numerous times throughout the meeting to provide input on the different topics of discussion.

Patrick Ibarra, Principal, The Mejorando Group, explained that he would be discussing with the City Council its role individually and collectively as a governing body. The City Council had been provided materials that included an agenda for the training session. The intent was to commence the training session with a brief recess from 10:15 to 10:30 a.m., break for lunch from 11:30 to 12:00, with a hard stop at 1:30 p.m.

Mr. Ibarra commenced the training session which included an overview of the benefits of good government, team effectiveness and collaboration, roles of the Council-Manager form of operation, review and possible revisions to the 2020-2025 Strategic Plan and a review of staff’s baseline work activities, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects and other special projects the City Council assigned to staff beyond the Strategic Plan and CIP. 23 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 29, 2023

Page 3 ends

In terms of the benefits of good government the City Council identified and discussed with Mr.

Ibarra the following topics:
- Better services;
- Better facilities;
- Guiding growth;
- Some people were happier than others;
- Broad representation;
- Unbiased presentation;
- Increased awareness of individual Council members and how they worked or didn’t work; - Increase or decrease in home values;
- Connecting different communities;
- Workshopping and redefining the quality of life in terms of government services; and - Crafting an environment to amplify the community voice as well as increase community engagement in the most equitable way.

Mr. Ibarra highlighted and discussed how the City Council could enhance its credibility as a governing body on the topics of politics, ethics, citizens, services, finances, employees and the results achieved.

The City Council discussed how the community viewed its role as a policy maker and identified the following:
- Creditability was always a question;
- Council members were also residents wearing the hat of resident and representative; and - The re-imagination and resource gap was critical since it leaned into the un-comfortability of other questions around equity, who gets what, how resources were distributed in a public agency and what partners were responsible for deciding that and the solution that needed to be discussed further.

The strategies for creating a more collaborative and effective City Council were also highlighted and discussed including:
- Develop a sense of team – a partnership with the City Manager to govern and manage the City;
- Civility and Council Member behavior;
- Think and act strategically;
- Respect “shared constituency;”
- Understand and demonstrate the elements of teams and teamwork; - Have clearly defined roles and relationships;
- Honor the Council-staff partnership;
- Allocate governing body time and energy appropriately; - Clear rules and procedures for Council meetings;
- Practice continuous personal learning and development as a leader; - Communication and problem solving;
- Separate the people from the problem;
- Focus on interests;
- Invent options for mutual gain;
- Distinctions between values, interests and positions; 24 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 29, 2023

Page 4 ends

- Insist on using objective criteria;
- Be attentive;
- Ask clarifying questions;
- Let people know you are listening; and
- Effective public engagement.

The City Council identified and discussed additional topics or further defined the above, to help the City Council in its role as elected officials to be better individually or collectively, as follows:
- Distinction between values, interest and positions;
- Understanding backgrounds of individuals (i.e. geopolitical impacts) which help to define positions;
- Positons may evolve, interest may grow, but values were baseline; - Insisting on using objective criteria was in contrast which builds the tension unlike the objective criteria necessary for tangible things; and
- Need to rely on staff for its objective criteria which should also stem from the City Council and what staff brings as individuals.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Irma Ruport, Pinole, described the presentation as enlightening. In terms of enhancing creditability, she had attended City Council meetings on a routine basis and offered comments but had never held elected office. She suggested the City Council and staff needed trust that they were doing the right thing. During past election cycles, there had been division in the community due to conflicts such as the community not being informed, a lack of transparency and promises made but not kept. She suggested issues of bias should be addressed then and there not a year or four years later. Most of the current City staff had only been employed with the City of Pinole for a few years, there was a new Council and there had been some pushback from some long-time elected officials leading to some residents being wary about participating in local government. She urged everyone to learn and grow from each other and do better with civility, respect and knowledge of one’s job. She emphasized the community was speaking on Nextdoor and other platforms and there was a desire to bring the City to the level if should be at this time.

Maria Alegria, Pinole, had written comments related to the Strategic Plan but would hold off on those comments at this time given that the comments may exceed the three-minute time limit for public comment. She asked the City Council to be flexible when the discussion moved into the Strategic Plan.

Rafael Menis, Pinole, reported on the COVID-19 case rate in the City of Pinole, which had decreased to the point where he was now comfortable not wearing a mask indoors. He reported the audio from the Council was not clear and he asked that the Council members speak directly into the microphone to allow the public to hear all comments, particularly for those listening remotely. He suggested it was important to recognize that the role of the City Council was political and at the Council level it was not feasible not to be political. Politics was about making choices and allocation of resources in certain ways but done in a way that harmonized and balanced values when in conflict.
25 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 29, 2023

Page 5 ends

Mr. Menis suggested it was also important when discussing shared constituency to remember that most of the time there were only three open Council seats during an election cycle, but more than that number of people ran for office and not every Council member would have votes from all constituents. He emphasized that Council members were elected to represent everyone in the City as a whole.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Mayor Murphy declared a brief recess at 10:22 a.m. The Special City Council meeting reconvened at 10:33 a.m. with all Council members present.

Mr. Ibarra provided an overview of the City’s form of operations and the role of elected officials including the City Manager, Department Directors, City staff and community members, and the City Council identified and discussed the following topics:

Role of the City Council:
- Listen and ask questions;
- Research ideas;
- Bring ideas to life;
- Preparation for discussion informed by the research done by others and the City Council; - Collaboration with each other and outside of the group; - Communicate with staff, the public and each other;
- Fact checking;
- Explain to the public why votes are made; and
- Ensure fiscal and mental health and support each’s other’s behavioral health.

Role of the City Manager:
- The conduit between the City Council and staff;
- Distill and funnel multiple ideas from various perspectives and create those into something that was useful for informed decision making;
- Translate operational ideas into services and actions to ensure they were being accomplished; and
- Set expectations on what was doable and what was not.

Role of Department Directors:
- Carry out implementation of various plans;
- Answer questions;
- Advisors to the City Council;
- Advisors to the City Manager; and
- Facilitate and foster highly motivated teams and foster the mental and behavioral health of staff.

Role of City Staff:
- Work directly with the public;
26 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 29, 2023

Page 6 ends

- Keep the physical doors of City Hall open and the actual functioning task of City Hall moving as agreed upon; and
- Record what they do.

Role of Community Members:
- Vote;
- Pay taxes;
- Advocate;
- Participate;
- Seek information from a credible source; and
- Responsibility to hold the City Council accountable.

Mr. Ibarra provided a PowerPoint presentation which highlighted the strategies for the goals of the Strategic Plan including:
- Goal 1: Safe and Resilient Pinole
- Goal 2: Financially Stable Pinole
- Goal 3: Vibrant and Beautiful Pinole
- Goal 4: High Performance Pinole
City Manager Murray explained, when asked, that the Strategic Plan included a section on the development process. The Strategic Plan pre-dated his employ with the City as well as some of the current City Council. He was unaware of the definitive history why things may or may not be on the list of strategies but the City Council may consider things not reflected in the Strategic Plan, which were Council and community priorities including a request to consider pedestrian and street safety which had not been included as a strategy for Goal 1. Not all strategies were specific or measurable time-based goals.

City Manager Murray provided a status report on each of the strategies for Goal 1, including the City had around ten different infrastructure asset classes that were in different stages of development as reflected in the CIP; a draft updated Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) had been previously presented to the City Council but would have to be revised due to the recent agreement with the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD); the Police Department had a recommendation for the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) to be presented as part of the budget process; and Strategy 4 of Goal 1 had been completed as the City Council had reviewed different options for the fire study and had made a decision but it would continue to be monitored.

City Manager Murray confirmed the City Council may add or modify the strategies in the Strategic Plan.

As to the status of the strategies shown for Goal 2: Financially Stable Pinole, City Manager Murray reported the City would be issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to hire a consultant for grant research, prospecting and grant writing and the City Council explored a revenue measure in 2022 for a Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT) and an idea for a parcel tax, which was an ongoing item.

Some of the strategies were not discreet but broad and reflected revenue generation opportunities.
27 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 29, 2023

Page 7 ends

For Goal 3: Vibrant and Beautiful Pinole, staff had been working on a number of fronts including working with private non-housing organizations such as Vista Woods and Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (SAHA).

Mayor Murphy suggested Strategy 5 of Goal 3 be amended to read:

Partner regionally to improve and enhance transportation circulation, including public transit, cars, bikes, and pedestrians guided by the review, prioritization and implementation of the 2019 Old Town Pedestrian Study and the development of an Active Transportation Plan.

On the discussion, and with assistance from Mr. Ibarra, Mayor Pro Tem Toms suggested a further modification to Strategy 5 of Goal 3, as follows:

When available partner regionally to improve and enhance transportation circulation, including public transit, cars, bikes, and pedestrians guided by the review, prioritization and implementation of the 2019 Old Town Pedestrian Study and the development of an Active Transportation Plan
Mayor Murphy requested that Strategy 6 of Goal 3 be provided to the City Council in a more comprehensive fashion and that future code enforcement updates include the data to prove that there was a code enforcement problem and what education initiatives were needed to resolve the problem.

City Manager Murray suggested the City Council make a motion to reflect any changes to the strategies under discussion, which would be reflected in an updated version of the Strategic Plan.

As to Strategy 6 of Goal 3, he agreed there were two areas of City operation that could use more thorough review and a top to bottom assessment of current practices.

Council member Martinez-Rubin recommended Strategy 6 of Goal 3 be amended to read:

Conduct a review and update of the City’s code enforcement and property maintenance programs with a focus on increased beautification efforts and investment in community natural and cultural amenities, business districts, and nuisance abatement.

As to the status of Strategy 7 of Goal 4: High Performance Pinole, City Manager Murray reported staff would bring back to the City Council a proposal for some options for the City Council to establish a platform to develop an interagency legislative advocacy program.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Maria Alegria, Pinole, provided the City Council with copies of her written comments. She hoped the City Council would not wait another two years to consider the Strategic Plan, particularly given new Council members. As to Goal 1, she commented there were many opportunities for the City to repurpose parcels and she expressed concern with the status of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan and Fire Services Study. She emphasized the Pinole Valley was a high priority for fire prevention and defensible space and she would like the City to be proactive given the potential for wildfire.
28 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 29, 2023

Page 8 ends

Ms. Alegria referenced Goal 2 and asked that the spending priorities for all tax measures be reviewed given they were intended for essential services and the latest Measure S had been used as a slush fund by staff to fund pet projects. She was otherwise pleased the City would be exploring all grant opportunities but suggested the City also look at shared agreements such as with the City of Hercules on road maintenance.

Ms. Alegria spoke to Goal 3 and reported that 20 years ago the County took on a project which all cities had participated for an assessment of underutilized properties, which she suggested be revisited. She was pleased with the mention of prioritizing traffic safety corridor projects, particularly around schools and senior centers, and agreed that code enforcement should be a first priority with increased value when taking care of properties. For Goal 4, she suggested better constituent services were needed. The City was no longer under lockdown due to the pandemic and it needed an innovate approach to customer service, better responsiveness to community members and ways to be innovative and responsive through the Internet and online. She also would like to know how the City ensured its policy priorities were being implemented by the City Manager.

Rafael Menis, Pinole, referenced the form of operations and suggested it was important for community members when attending City Council meetings and providing comment to remember the City Council was in charge as the electorate with all power flowing from and belonging to the City Council, which was the core of the City’s system of government. As to Goal 2, he expressed concern with the budget being structurally imbalanced with revenues not matching expenditures, particularly given the likely increases in future California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) investments. That issue needed to be accounted for in Goal 2 and should be addressed before it got out of hand.

Mr. Menis also spoke to Goal 2 Strategy 4, and suggested that strategy had not been completed and there were revenue generating opportunities the City had not considered fully, including an expansion of the User Utility Tax (UUT) to cover water and wastewater. There had been a ballot measure attempt in 2010, which had failed but which offered a more equitable solution and the City should consider all potential revenue source increases and what was equitable in terms of seeking out revenue. For Goal 3 Strategy 5, he offered language changes and rather than use the term “partner regionally” suggested “reach out to the community more broadly including regional and local partners.” He added the strategies for each goal should be identified as either “in progress” or “completed.”
Irma Ruport, Pinole, referenced the form of operation and asked that the City Council revisit the roles, as shown. She commented on the importance of knowing the role of the City Manager and the City Attorney, which could be done as a report on meeting agendas. As to the goals under discussion, she noted the Strategic Plan had been prepared in 2020, and only one current Council member had been present at that time. The Strategic Plan should have been revisited before a consultant had been brought on board so that it could have been updated, revisited and the public better informed. In the future, she asked that the City Council not wait so long to update reports and agreed with the need to identify immediate and long-tern needs, but in the short term they could not wait another two to five years. She urged the City Council to be more proactive on the strategies. She further referenced Goal 4 and asked that Pinole Community Television (PCTV) be included as a strategy under this goal.
29 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 29, 2023

Page 9 ends

Anthony Vossbrink, Pinole, referenced Goal 1 and suggested the Police Department could do a better job presenting quarterly reports to the public at various meetings. He cited a number of communities that provided excellent presentations from their Police Departments and suggested all presentations should be visible and promoted to the public on PCTV, which he understood currently did not have the appropriate equipment with the information only available to the public in-person at City Hall. He sought quarterly and annual presentations of data from pre-, during and post-COVID on traffic citations and retail crime in the community. He would like the City Council to hold the Police Department and staff accountable, commenting on the increase in criminal activity on Fitzgerald Drive, which was the reason he would like the City to consider placing a temporary police sub-station on Fitzgerald Drive during the months of September through January. He understood that people shopped in other jurisdictions due to the increase in retail crime in the Fitzgerald Drive area.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Mayor Pro Tem Toms offered a motion, seconded by Council member Sasai to direct staff to modify Strategy 5 of Goal 3 to include a reference to “local and regional partners” and to include a reference to the “Safety and Accessible Transportation Plan.” City Manager Murray stated staff did not require direction to make the revision since the City Council may modify the strategy at this time.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms offered a motion to amend Strategy 5 of Goal 3 to read:

On the motion, Council member Tave preferred the language be modified to reference “adopted plans” so as not to limit those specific plans.

City Manager Murray suggested a further modification to Strategy 5 of Goal 3, as follows:

Partner locally/regionally to improve and enhance transportation circulation, including public transit, cars, bikes, and pedestrians, guided by the Downtown Pedestrian Safety Plan and the Accessible Transportation Plan and other Council-adopted plans.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Toms/Council member Sasai to modify Strategy 5 of Goal 3 to read:

Page 10 ends

Vote: Passed 5-0
Ayes: Murphy, Toms, Martinez-Rubin, Sasai, Tave
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None
ACTION: Motion by Council member Martinez-Rubin/Mayor Pro Tem Toms to modify Strategy 6 of Goal 3 to read:

Conduct a review and update of the City’s code enforcement and property maintenance programs with a focus on increased beautification efforts and investment in community ecological and cultural amenities, business districts, and nuisance abatement.

Vote: Passed 5-0
Ayes: Murphy, Toms, Martinez-Rubin, Sasai, Tave
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None
Council member Martinez-Rubin offered a motion, seconded by the Mayor to add an additional strategy to Goal 4 to read:

Explore use of Government Access Channels/PCTV to implement the Strategic Communication Plan.

On the motion, Mayor Pro Tem Toms asked whether the current Information Technology Strategic Plan included such implementation.

City Manager Murray explained that some of the Strategic Plan items were one and done while other items involved a plan and implementation with City staff in the process of implementing the Communication and Engagement Plan. Staff was also exploring the use of PCTV as a component of strategic communication and would complete a PCTV Master Plan and that new strategy could be added to highlight to the public.

ACTION: Motion by Council member Martinez-Rubin/Mayor Murphy to modify Goal 4 to add an additional strategy to read:

Explore use of Government Access Channels/PCTV to implement the Strategic Communication Plan.

Vote: Passed 5-0
Ayes: Murphy, Toms, Martinez-Rubin, Sasai, Tave
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None
Mayor Murphy declared a lunch recess at 12:15 p.m. The City Council meeting reconvened at 12:44 p.m., with all Councilmembers present.
31 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 29, 2023

Page 11 ends

City Manager Murray continued the PowerPoint presentation and provided an overview of the Staff Workplan, which included the staff baseline and routine work, core public facing services and internal support functions, and CIP and staff-initiated special projects that had been detailed in depth in the April 29, 2023 staff report.

In response to the Mayor Pro Tem on the direction staff was seeking, City Manager Murray explained that he was seeking ratification of the entire list of staff-initiated Special Projects and other Council-directed Special Projects, and for the City Council to determine what should be added or removed. As to the status of the implementation of the weatherization program, as part of the Other Council-Directed Special Projects, he reported City staff was nearly ready to bring a contract to the City Council to be formalized.

Community Development Director Lilly Whalen added for the weatherization program the City was working with the County and the Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN) and hoped to present a draft contract to the City Council at its second meeting in May.

Council member Tave sought a “waterfall” list/diagram of projects similar to what staff provided for the CIP to identify projects requested by the City Council, including the details for research and design, when the project had been put out for bid and out for contract, and whether it would be done in-house so that the City Council could see the capacity line for staff and also see which projects were underway.

City Manager Murray reiterated City staff could get through the current list of Staff-initiated Special Projects and Other Council-directed Special projects by the end of fiscal year 2023/24; however, staff did not have the capability to take on anything more. Most of the special projects did not have dependencies and did not qualify for outside funding. The grant component was significant in capital projects but not applicable, with most of the projects to be funded by the City’s General Fund.

City Manager Murray recognized the City Council was constantly coming up with new ideas and again, the projects identified in the PowerPoint presentation could be completed by the end of fiscal year 2023/24, and if the City Council wanted to prioritize the projects that would be acceptable to staff who would welcome that guidance. If the City Council wanted to add something new beyond what had been presented (All projects as shown on Slides 8, 9 and 10 of the PowerPoint presentation) something would have to be removed.

Council member Tave reiterated his request for a “waterfall” list/diagram, as described, which would be helpful to the City Council, had been prepared in the past and allowed flexibility when Council direction changed, and if the City was losing money the Council could step back and let staff work rather than constantly adding items absent the knowledge of the impacts to the budget.

City Manager Murray suggested staff could come back at the time the Preliminary Proposed Budget was presented to the City Council at its May 16, 2023 meeting, at which time staff could outline how much had been put into each of the efforts and identify how close they were to completion.
32 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 29, 2023

Page 12 ends

Council member Tave hoped through the budget process to have the information to provide staff with sufficient direction. He did not want to zigzag back and forth between projects other than studies being prepared but with no work accomplished, which had occurred over time. He looked forward to moving ahead with the Strategic Plan.

Council member Martinez-Rubin suggested a matrix would help for projects to be retained and those to be deferred. She asked whether any of the Council-directed Special Projects not yet underway would fit naturally, efficiently, sensibly and reasonably, with what had already been vetted in terms of the Strategic Plan. If not, those projects should be deferred. She also suggested the projects that were not yet underway should be identified as to whether they were essential and met the goals of the Strategic Plan. If not, they should be deferred. As an example, for other Council-Directed Special Projects under the bullet, Additional Items Discussed But Not Yet Assigned which read: Assessment of opportunities for Public Works maintenance function reconfiguration/shared services/equipment/MOU, was a way of operating and the City had not considered operating in that way given there had been other things to do, which was an example of a project that could be deferred to next year.

City Manager Murray described the projects as above and beyond what must be done and above and beyond the Strategic Plan strategies, the CIP or routine staff work. There was no single criteria to determine what projects were the most important. When staff returned for the budget discussion on May 16, there could be some assessment on how consistent the projects were with the goals of the Strategic Plan. Again, the items would be incorporated into the budget and completed by the end of the next fiscal year. He sought a set list so that staff knew what it should be doing with more certainty in the special types of projects.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms referenced the Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Station Feasibility Study that was not yet underway. She wanted assurance the City was not duplicating other efforts already completed, which covered the City of Pinole, and asked staff to look at what the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) had completed with the Contra Costa EV Readiness Blueprint.

Mayor Murphy also referenced the Other Council-Directed Special Projects not yet underway as shown, and asked how the projects had been added to the list.

City Manager Murray explained that the Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Station Feasibility Study had been added to Other Council-directed Special Projects as a result of a presentation from staff to the City Council on EV accessibility in Pinole. The City Council direction to staff was to scope and discuss a feasibility and gap analysis in the community. The other projects identified in Other Council-directed Special Projects came about as a result of direction from the City Council whether through a discussion of an item at a City Council meeting or a request for a future agenda item, which had morphed into a project. The Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Station Feasibility Study had not been included in the CIP but could be added at the direction of the City Council.

Mayor Murphy referenced the Economic Development Plan that had previously been adopted and clarified with the City Manager it was part of the Strategic Plan and its implementation was part of the Strategic Plan strategies.

Mayor Murphy also asked with respect to the Staff Baseline Work - Staff-Initiated Special Projects and Other Council-Directed Special Projects how much of staff time was being spent on current projects which argued for process improvements.
33 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 29, 2023

Page 13 ends

As an example, under the category of Other Council-Directed Special Projects and additional items discussed but not yet assigned, specifically: Assessment of opportunities for Public Works maintenance function reconfiguration/shared services/equipment/MOU, Mayor Murphy read that as a process for improvement and asked how staff monitored and measured process improvements.

City Manager Murray explained that Assessment of opportunities for Public Works maintenance function reconfiguration/shared services/equipment/MOU was not a staff-initiated project since staff had not done it yet. Staff was responsible for assessing all of the functions of its departments to ensure best practices but it was an ongoing project. The Staff-Initiated Special Projects were an ongoing reflection of where that was happening. If staff had started the project it would have been on another list. In addition, the reconfiguration of tracking, monitoring and permitting for Public Works was considered routine work and a new software program had already been purchased with a build out of the modules to be used over time.

In response to Council member Tave, City Manager Murray offered examples of projects where an assessment would allow the Council to decide what to do after it received that information.

For smaller projects such as celebrations for Earth Month, such effort was not needed.

Council member Tave explained his comments and stated he wanted to ensure the City Council did not exceed the staff capacity.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, asked for more detail from the Police Department on Project Hope, which would assist unhoused members of the community, drone policies the City wanted to implement and how the City allocated staff time on the projects it wanted to complete. He suggested a cap be considered for new projects so that staff had some predictability with respect to its work volume. He also requested a status report on the implementation of the Communication and Engagement Plan and for special projects not in the immediate completion stage, a quarterly update should be provided. In addition, he understood broadband considerations fell under the CIP and were considered Other Council-directed Special Projects but that should be clarified.

Irma Ruport, Pinole, appreciated the information contained in Attachment G, City of Pinole CIP Status of Scheduled Projects for FY 2022/23 through December 31, 2022 to the staff report, but recommended completed projects be removed from the list. She suggested there was plenty of staff and preferred that work be done in-house rather than hiring consultants unless needed. She wanted the City Council to monitor existing consultant contracts to ensure work was being done satisfactorily. She emphasized it was time to have the expertise on staff to get the work done.

Anthony Vossbrink, Pinole, echoed the comments from the previous speaker and emphasized there were routine items that should be addressed by the Public Works Department on a regular basis. He detailed numerous maintenance items that required attention including inoperable drinking stations/water fountains throughout the City and in front of the Bay Trail Park, and timers, locks and doors of restrooms in City parks in need of repair including the men’s restroom at the Adobe Road dog park. He suggested there was too many staffers, managers and directors and the City Council should hold different people accountable with checks and balances and followup on routine maintenance items. 34 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 29, 2023

Page 14 ends

Mr. Vossbrink added that trees had been knocked down with branches and stumps left behind at the caretakers’ home, the Pinole barbeque grove on Adobe Road and elsewhere throughout the City. He found that to be a visual eyesore and disregard for public health and safety. He added that maintenance was needed in the median strips and suggested the lack of routine maintenance affected property values and the ability to attract more businesses to Pinole.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Council member Martinez-Rubin clarified with the City Manager that all projects would be able to be completed in fiscal year 2023/24. As to the Other Council-Directed Special Projects, not yet underway, she suggested the process required to establish a Fire Prevention Maintenance District in Pinole would be a big project and given the new relationship with the CCCFPD, which would be providing some fire prevention maintenance activities, she suggested that project could be deferred for a year.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms was unsure whether a Fire Prevention Maintenance District was the same as the East Bay Fire Prevention effort already underway.

City Manager Murray clarified they were separate items but regardless of the organization providing the services the project, as listed, related to a new source of funding to do advanced additional work.

Mayor Murphy cited the Other Council-Directed Special Projects, specifically, research on a potential public bank, and clarified with the City Manager that effort would include the feasibility, legality and partnership of a public bank. He also commented the PCTV Master Plan had not been included in the CIP and clarified with the City Manager it would be considered under the category of Staff’s Baseline Work, Staff-Initiated Special Projects.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms commented that when the City Council discussed the CIP, she had raised the idea of whether tax allocation bonds may be appropriate. She asked whether that would be covered in any of the items already assigned.

City Manager Murray advised that concept would be under the umbrella of the Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP) the City Council would be asked to adopt in the summer, which would identify all funding needs, wants and sources.

Council member Sasai asked when the Old Town Wayfinding Signage had been proposed by the City Council as a possible project and City Manager Murray explained the project had been raised on a couple of occasions and in the context as part of the Strategic Plan and Economic Development Plan strategy. The idea had also surfaced as part of the presentation of the Old Town Parking and Pedestrian Study, which had concluded there was adequate parking in Old Town but people could use more wayfinding signage.

City Manager Murray commented as to the staff time involved in the project that there was a separate effort which involved branding work and the economic strategy included some economic development branding and they would want those efforts to tie together, which was one of the reasons the project had not yet moved forward. Staff could work with consultants on a wayfinding program but had not gotten to that project yet.
35 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 29, 2023

Page 15 ends

Council member Sasai agreed the branding should be consistent and noted that the City Seal Ad Hoc Subcommittee had set a deadline of spring 2024. He recommended Other Council-Directed Special Projects not yet underway, specifically the Options for Old Town Wayfinding Signage, be deferred to next year and staff time not be allocated for that project at this time. He again referenced the process required to establish a Fire Prevention Maintenance District in Pinole, as shown in the same category and asked whether there had been a recommendation from a prior or current County Fire Chief on that idea.

City Manager Murray explained that the process required to establish a Fire Prevention Maintenance District in Pinole had been a request of the City Council as a potential revenue source due to climate change.

Council member Tave reiterated his desire for a ‘waterfall” diagram to be created by staff to provide a better understanding of the projects collectively to include whether things were in concept, research and design, whether the project required a feasibility study, was in contract, whether the project design had been bid, was in construction, details on long-term maintenance and whether funds had already been spent.

Council member Tave offered a motion, seconded by Mayor Murphy to that effect with the “waterfall” diagram to return to the City Council in time for the budgeting and CIP process.

City Manager Murray stated most of the projects were not CIP projects and reiterated as part of the Preliminary Proposed Budget discussion that staff could lay out that information for the Council-Directed Special Projects and flag for consistency with the Strategic Plan goals. He commented it would be an effort to reformat the routine staff tasks that were already in the budget as well as the Staff-Initiated Baseline Projects. For the non-CIP programmatic efforts, staff could return with a presentation similar to the CIP to identify the status and the City Council could then decide whether to ratify that as the Special Programmatic Projects for the upcoming fiscal year.

ACTION: Motion by Council member Tave/Mayor Murphy to direct staff to create a “waterfall” diagram for the non-CIP programmatic efforts with staff to return with a presentation similar to the CIP to identify the status and the City Council could then decide whether to ratify that as the Special Programmatic Projects for the upcoming fiscal year.

Vote: Passed 5-0
Ayes: Murphy, Toms, Martinez-Rubin, Sasai, Tave
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None
Council member Martinez-Rubin offered a motion to defer the process required to establish a Fire Prevention Maintenance District in Pinole to Fiscal Year 2024/25.

On the motion, City Manager Murray explained that the intent was for a presentation on what would be required to establish the district not the implementation of a special district in 2023/24.

Council member Sasai seconded the motion.
36 of 704
Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – April 29, 2023

Page 16 ends

Speaking to the motion, Mayor Pro Tem Toms stated it was important to keep the project on the list at the same time as the discussion of region-wide fire mitigation. With a deferral to Fiscal Year 2024/25, the City would miss the opportunity to consider the item during an election year.

Mayor Murphy agreed and suggested this was an opportunity to incorporate the discussion into the LTFP as one of the many funding sources that could backfill some of the considerations about the budget. He suggested the item not be deferred.

Council member Sasai clarified the deferral was on the presentation not on the actual item and City Manager Murray confirmed it would be deferral of the presentation.

Council member Martinez-Rubin as the maker of the motion rescinded the motion and Council member Sasai rescinded his second to the motion.

Council member Sasai offered a motion to defer Other Council-Directed Special Projects, Not yet Underway, Options for Old Town Wayfinding Signage to Fiscal Year 2024/25. The motion failed due to the lack of a second.

Mayor Murphy was interested in seeing the waterfall diagram come back; the decision making around Staff-Initiated Projects and how the City Council played a role in that effort; what the Internal Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Welcoming (DEIW) Initiative entailed; and how the City Council played a role in the development of the initiative in terms of the budget and City policy.

City Manager Murray explained the City Council’s role in the DEIW Initiative had been the approval of funding, with the project having been kicked-off with City employees, with staff to work with a consultant to design next steps and interventions to address opportunity areas of growth.

He summarized the direction from the City Council to bring back the entire list of projects, those the City Council had already assigned, those underway and those not yet underway, and bring them back with the waterfall diagram to be discussed at the May 16, 2023 City Council meeting.

He clarified that no next steps needed to be discussed, the City Council had provided direction for modifications to the Strategic Plan, which would be modified and posted on the City website and for the FY 2023/24 Special Project Workplan.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms thanked Mr. Ibarra, City Manager Murray, Department Heads, City staff and members of the public who had participated in the discussion and Mayor Murphy also thanked everyone for their engagement.

6. ADJOURNMENT to the Regular City Council Meeting of May 2, 2023, in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

At 2:02 p.m., Mayor Murphy adjourned the meeting to the Regular City Council Meeting of May 2, 2023 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

Submitted by:
_________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
Approved by City Council:
37 of 704
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 2, 2023

Page 1 ends

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
May 2, 2023

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 Murphy called the Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at 5:04 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

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
Maureen Toms, Mayor Pro Tem
Norma Martinez-Rubin, Council Member
Cameron Sasai, Council Member
Anthony Tave, Council Member
B. STAFF PRESENT
Andrew Murray, City Manager
Eric Casher, City Attorney
Heather Bell, City Clerk
Sanjay Mishra, Public Works Director
Lilly Whalen, Community Development Director
Jeremy Rogers, Community Services Director
Markisha Guillory, Finance Director
Kapil Amin, Sustainability Fellow
Roxane Stone, Deputy City Clerk
City Clerk Heather Bell announced the agenda had been posted on Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 4:00 p.m. with all legally required written notices. Written comments had been received in advance of the meeting, posted to the agenda page of the City’s website, distributed to the City Council and copies made available in the Council Chambers. 9A-2
38 of 704
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 2, 2023

Page 2 ends

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

A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Gov. Code § 54957
Title: City Manager

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, commented that over the past year the City Manager had done a great job with the transition from the pandemic to a more endemic state, opening City Hall more fully, scheduling more public events and hiring new staff to support the overall departmental transition and counter some of the institutional knowledge lost over the past five years. He also suggested the City Manager had done a lot to institute the City Council’s desired directives and ensure they were carried out through the departmental functions and was willing to push back on the City Council, when appropriate, when asking staff to do too much. It was the correct thing for the City Manager to do in his role as the head of City staff and worthy of praise and note by the City Council.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

5. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION TO ANNOUNCE RESULTS OF CLOSED SESSION At 6:49 p.m., Mayor Murphy reconvened the meeting into open session. There was no reportable action from the Closed Session.

Teresa Teller, Pinole, detailed her personal life experiences after having been diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder and as a public speaker sharing her recovery story. She had appeared live on KCBS (San Francisco, CA) and KSDK (St. Louis, MO) and detailed her musical skills and musical degree from the University of Notre Dame and her partnership with the National Alliance of Mental Illness Affiliate where she had shared her experiences with mental illness. As a composer of music, she had created an original melody depicting the phases of her recovery, titled Tuning out Stigma, which she planned to perform at an event free and open to the public at Our Savior Lutheran Church on May 20, 2023 at 11:00 a.m. She also planned to attend the May 16, 2023 City Council meeting at which time a proclamation on mental health awareness would be presented.
39 of 704
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 2, 2023

Page 3 ends

Rafael Menis, Pinole, updated the City Council on the current COVID-19 case rate for the City of Pinole, which was now at a rate where wearing masks indoors would be recommended. He emphasized that COVID-19 was not completely gone, there was currently an endemic phase and he urged everyone to keep informed on the data for COVID-19 with more information available @coronavirus.cchealth.org.

Mayor Murphy moved onto Item 8 at this time.

8. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMUNITY EVENTS
A. Proclamations

1. Honoring Postman Chui
The City Council read into the record a proclamation honoring United States Postal Service (USPS) Postman Lawrence Chui on his retirement after 42-years with the USPS, with the proclamation to be presented to Mr. Chui.

2. Municipal Clerk’s Week
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing April 30 through May 6, 2023 as Professional Municipal Clerk’s Week.

3. Public Works Month
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing May 21 through May 27, 2023 as National Public Works Week and the month of May as Public Works Month.

Public Works Director Sanjay Mishra thanked the City Council for the proclamation and commented that while small the Public Works Department team provided awesome operations and maintenance.

4. Public Service Employee Recognition Week
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing May 7 through May 13, 2023 as Public Service Employee Recognition Week.

5. Local and Community History Month
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing the month of May as Local and Community History Month, which proclamation was presented to Council member Martinez-Rubin in recognition of her work to foster history in the City of Pinole.

Council member Martinez-Rubin stated she would share the proclamation with the Pinole Historical Society.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
City Clerk Bell reported there were no comments from the public. 40 of 704
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 2, 2023

Page 4 ends

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
B. Presentations

1. Earth Day Video
Community Services Director Jeremy Rogers reported the City of Pinole had held a number of activities during the month of April in recognition of Earth Month. He presented a brief video of the community participation in the three-mile Earth Walk in recognition of Earth Day on April 22, 2023. He thanked everyone involved including the public for participating in the event.

Mayor Murphy also thanked everyone involved in the Earth Day activities and thanked Pinole Community Television (PCTV) for the video. He looked forward to activities celebrating Earth Day in 2024.

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

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

2. Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)
Tim Haile, Executive Director, Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), detailed his professional background and career, experience in the private and public sectors and provided a PowerPoint presentation, Connecting Communities, which included an overview of his vision for the future and how CCTA was connecting and supporting local jurisdictions and connected better with the regional transportation systems. As part of Measure J, CCTA collected one half of one percent sales taxes in Contra Costa County, which had raised approximately $2.7 billion over the life of the measure. Measure J had been passed by the voters in 2004, collection started in 2008, and the Measure would expire in 2034.

Mr. Haile reported that CCTA delivered multiple programs, funded transit, accessible transportation and programs for walking and biking. The projects funded by Measure J were highlighted with CCTA having planned, funded and delivered a number of large capital projects in Contra Costa County throughout the last decade and had delivered around 95 percent of all capital projects in the voter-approved 2004 Expenditure Plan. Given the limited funds in Measure J, CCTA did all it could to leverage Measure J funds to attract additional funds including funds from the Infrastructure Jobs Act. CCTA contracted out about 90 percent of its work and had a great track record in terms of delivering projects on time and on budget in Contra Costa County.

Due to the pandemic and changes in travel patterns, transit, the environment and behavior and in order to address the new changes, during the pandemic CCTA had conducted a Travel Behavior Study that had surveyed 30,000 people in Contra Costa County to better understand behaviors, pre- during and post-pandemic. The survey results were highlighted.

Mr. Haile also highlighted the CCTA adopted Vision Zero Implementation Guide, a toolkit for cities to implement a Vision Zero policy and tools to safely and quickly build projects to address safety concerns.
41 of 704
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 2, 2023

Page 5 ends

Vision Zero was intended to provide more dedicated and safer spaces for walking and biking.

CCTA was also working to enhance the existing transit network and optimizing it to make it more efficient through an integrated transit plan with transit operators with “Transit First,” to be completed at the end of 2024, which would serve as a roadmap for CCTA in terms of how to provide more dedicated space for transit and which would focus on routes of regional significance.

CCTA was also working with all cities in Contra Costa County on a Countywide Safety Through Connected Signal System to ensure a coordinated regional system; Contra Costa Electric Vehicle (EV) Readiness Blueprint “Charge up Contra Costa,” which would be leveraged against available federal funding; and “Mobility for All,” an Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan that identified transportation needs and gaps.

As to how all of the CCTA work was being memorialized, Mr. Haile explained that the CCTA Countywide Transportation Plan was updated every four to five years and CCTA was in the process of doing an update at this time, which would include extensive public outreach. CCTA documented its goals, vision and strategies with Action Plans developed by the regional committees which included 10 and 20-year financially constrained project lists.

Mr. Haile also highlighted projects of interest in cooperation between CCTA and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which included the I-80 Corridor Assessment that would evaluate the range of options to address congestion, identify operational efficiency projects, and improve transit and carpool operations along the I-80 Corridor to encourage a mode shift and increase vehicle occupancy.

In addition, the San Pablo Dam Road/I-80 Interchange Improvement Project was highlighted with Phase 1 completed in 2017. Phase 2 of the project would replace the existing San Pablo Dam Road/I-80 Interchange and Overcrossing but the project had a shortfall and CCTA was partnering with Caltrans to obtain state funding to close the funding gap.

CCTA was also redefining mobility and owned and operated one of the largest secure autonomous vehicle test beds in the country at the former Concord Naval Weapons Station in the City of Concord and looking at the roadways in terms of dedicated space for other traffic modes and how to leverage technology to make traffic flow better. CCTA had recently launched a Level Four autonomous vehicle (Presto) which was available to the public at the San Ramon City Center and which was planned to be expanded throughout the entire County. CCTA was also working on Dynamic Personal Microtransit, a new mobility option being explored by GoMentum Station for East Contra Costa County, with plans to expand countywide. CCTA was also in the process of identifying an event in the City of Pinole to be held in the summer to discuss new technologies and CCTA planned to have a booth and an autonomous vehicle on-hand.

Responding to questions from the Council, Mr. Haile explained that CCTA had recently provided a presentation to the Iron Horse Trail Advisory Committee on how the mobility options could fit on the Iron Horse Trail, which was a large right-of-way (ROW). He understood the Advisory Committee was interested in a feasibility study to make that corridor a more multi-modal corridor.

The Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) was also interested in closing its canals and CCTA was looking into leveraging that ROW for autonomous vehicles. His goal was to move away from pilots and into deployment and getting the technologies out to public use. 42 of 704
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 2, 2023

Page 6 ends

Mr. Haile explained that all nine Bay Area Counties had a transportation agency with the exception of one that collected sales taxes for transportation programs. He also clarified that Contra Costa County had been split into four Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs). The RTPCs coordinated efforts to understand the priorities within each sub-region, identified the projects desired, and made determinations as to the allocation of funds for those projects in a regional approach. The CCTA Board of Directors focused on sub-region equity. He also described the membership makeup of the RTPCs and the CCTA Board of Directors.

Council member Martinez-Rubin announced on the last Sunday of the month of June, the City of Pinole would hold its Classic Car Show. She suggested it would be helpful to make people aware of autonomous vehicles and the work of the CCTA at that time. She recommended Mr. Haile work with the City Manager so that CCTA could have a presence at that event.

Mr. Haile further responded to questions from the Council and explained CCTA had focused on the I-80 Corridor while the local streets were left to the local jurisdictions. The Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) had identified routes of regional significance, which was where CCTA could help local jurisdictions such as with the San Pablo Avenue Corridor as an example. He emphasized CCTA was there to help the local jurisdictions with federal funding and grant programs and the City of Pinole had recently received a One Bay Area 3 Grant (OBAG). CCTA could take a bigger role in the future by providing more support on the regional arterials and taking on the larger corridors like San Pablo Avenue. If the City had a project that was too big or too complex for the local jurisdiction, CCTA could enter into an agreement with the local jurisdiction and become the city’s consultant and help deliver a project. He offered examples of that effort in other jurisdictions.

Mr. Haile reiterated that CCTA had delivered all of the Measure J projects in West Contra Costa County as determined by the region’s RTPC, the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC). He explained that with the right technology in place in terms of cameras, Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) and sensors, data could be provided on the locations and causes of near miss accidents to better understand how to make intersections safer and prioritize problems and funding. CCTA was focused on the future with performance driven methodologies and by having more data better decisions could be made with a more performance-based approach.

Mr. Haile also detailed how the four cities in East Contra Costa County (Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley and Pittsburg) had formed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and had individually split funding for a feasibility study to identify a 28-mile network for a Dynamic Personal Microtransit project in East County. CCTA had found the project to be a good candidate for a public/private partnership and had pursued that possibility. Proposals were due on June 7, 2023 and the project would bring in private equity to build transportation projects that would involve no CCTA funds.

The private equity funds would be leveraged to bring in state grants.

Mayor Murphy thanked Mr. Haile for his leadership in Contra Costa County and for fostering diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in CCTA. In terms of transit equity, he emphasized that dignity to ride and drive public transit was important and the dignity to sit at a bus stop with a cover was also important. He envisioned all residents having the opportunity and dignity to sit and be covered at a bus stop in Pinole. He looked forward to working with CCTA. 43 of 704
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 2, 2023

Page 7 ends

Mr. Haile reported CCTA was in the process of hiring a Program Manager who would be 100 percent focused on accessibility and equity in the CCTA. He also expressed his appreciation to the exceptional City staff who CCTA had worked with closely and he looked forward to building a better Pinole.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, commented on his understanding that a regional transportation project included the redevelopment of the eastbound on-ramp at Pinole Valley Road to two lanes since the linked lights in the metering system had caused backups off the ramp onto Pinole Valley Road northbound heading to that ramp. The project had been discussed in 2018 and 2020 and he asked the status of that project. He also spoke to the public/private partnerships for mobility projects that had been mentioned and how the private entities may claim the revenue, which was an equity red-flag. He cited a notorious public/private partnership in the City of Chicago where the City sold the rights to parking meters to a private entity over a 20-year period in return for $50 million up front. The private entity had increased the meter rates to generate enough revenue to pay the cost but the residents of Chicago had to pay more for parking with no recourse. He asked what safeguards were in place for the public/private partnerships to ensure the revenue gains of the private equity companies did not negatively impact those who were less able to afford increases.

Given the time limitations for the presentation and the fact there remained a number of other agenda items, Mayor Murphy asked Mr. Menis to reach out to Mr. Haile for a response to his questions.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

3. Mosquito & Vector Control District Services Overview Community Development Director Lilly Whalen introduced Andrew Pierce, Public Information and Technology Officer, Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District (CCMVCD) who provided a PowerPoint presentation that included an overview of the CCMVCD, a public health agency whose mission was to protect the community from mosquitoes and other vectors of disease.

While not part of County government, the CCMVCD provided services for the entire County.

Mr. Pierce highlighted the CCMVCD organization of staff and District Trustees along with the numerous public health services provided to County residents to address mosquitoes, yellow jackets, bees, ticks, rats and mice, skunks and the public education offered to disseminate and communicate public health messages. CCMVCD also addressed neglected swimming pools and accepted anonymous reports and would continue to monitor invasive mosquito species found for the first time in Contra Costa County in 2022, with residents relied upon to locate and report those issues. More information was available on the CCMVCD website and social media platforms including Facebook and Nextdoor.

In response to the Mayor, Mr. Pierce described the process of appointment as a CCMVCD District Trustees, with each Trustee appointed by a city council or by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to serve a two-year term.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
44 of 704
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 2, 2023

Page 8 ends

Deputy Clerk Stone reported there were no comments from the public.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Mayor Murphy thanked Mr. Pierce for the presentation.

7. REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Mayor Report

1. Announcements
Mayor Murphy recognized Older Americans Month and reported the City would be starting a new Centenarian Program. Anyone in the community celebrating a birthday of 100 years or older would be honored and celebrated through the City’s new Centenarian Program by emailing the City’s Recreation Department at [email protected] or making application at the Pinole Senior Center. He reported he had attended a birthday celebration for Pinole resident Sam Campbell who had reached 100 years of age.

Mayor Murphy also reported Marin Clean Energy (MCE) Executive and Technical Committee meetings would be held on May 4, 2023 with the meeting agendas available on the MCE website.

He planned to attend the May 4, 2023 Mayors’ Conference and he briefed the Council on the agenda items.

B. Mayoral & Council Appointments: None
C. City Council Committee Reports & Communications
Mayor Pro Tem Toms reported that WCCTAC had held its first in-person meeting since the pandemic and she thanked PCTV staff for assisting WestCAT during that meeting. She briefed the City Council on the approval of the Innovative Clean Transit Regulations that required each transit agency to submit zero emission bus roll-out plans, which plans were fluid and could be updated as technology advanced.

Council member Martinez-Rubin reported she and Council member Sasai along with the Assistant City Manager had met to start the discussions of the charge of the City Seal Ad Hoc Subcommittee; she met with the Sales Tax Working Group convened by the League of California Cities which addressed revenue and taxation, and briefed the Council on the discussions; attended and enjoyed the Earth Day/Walk activities; and announced the Pinole Historical Society would commemorate the 200th anniversary of the El Pinole Grant during its May 12, 2023 program at the Pinole Sportsman Club at 201 Pinon Avenue, and detailed the activities planned.

Council member Sasai had met with the Ellerhorst Parent Teacher Association (PTA) and the school principal to discuss safety concerns within the school and pedestrian safety issues on Pinole Valley Road. He reported he would provide a City Hall tour for the students during the month of June. He had also attended the first meeting of the City Seal Ad Hoc Subcommittee and briefed the Council on the discussion.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
45 of 704
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 2, 2023

Page 9 ends

Deputy City Clerk Stone reported there were no comments from the public.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
D. Council Requests for Future Agenda Items
ACTION: Motion by Council member Sasai/Mayor Murphy to direct staff to draft a resolution in support of Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA-4) which would allow incarcerated persons in the State of California to have the right to vote.

Vote: Passed 5-0
Ayes: Murphy, Toms, Martinez-Rubin, Sasai, Tave
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Cordell Hindler, Richmond, requested the following future agenda items: invite Kevin Sheridan, Executive Director Valley Link, to provide a presentation on the Valley Link connection to BART; bring back the revisions to the City Council procedures; and provide a presentation on plans for the Port of Oakland as it was recovering from the pandemic.

Rafael Menis, Pinole, requested a proclamation in future years recognizing National Library Week, which occurred April 22 through 27, 2023, and asked that the existing prohibition on eating food in the Council Chambers be repealed, as future agenda items.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
E. City Manager Report / Department Staff
City Manager Murray thanked the City Council for its participation and engagement in the April 25 and April 29 Special Meetings and stated the Preliminary Proposed Budget and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) would be presented to the City Council at the May 16, 2023 meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Deputy City Clerk Stone reported there were no comments from the public.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
F. City Attorney Report
City Attorney Casher reported the Municipal Code Update Subcommittee had recently met to discuss the City Council Meeting Procedures with the directive to review those procedures to ensure alignment with the applicable sections of the Pinole Municipal Code (PMC). The City Council Meeting Procedures would be brought back to the City Council at a meeting in August in the form of one, possibly two ordinances.
46 of 704
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 2, 2023

Page 10 ends

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Deputy City Clerk Stone reported there were no comments from the public.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

A. Approve the Minutes of the April 18, 2023 Council meeting.

B. Receive the April 15, 2023 – April 28 2023 – List of Warrants in the Amount of $332,880.43 and the April 28, 2023 Payroll in the Amount of $468,346.17.

C. Approve Funds to Award On-Call Contract to SKL Solutions to Meet Regulatory Compliance for the Sanitary Sewer Collection System [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Mishra)]
D. Letter of Support for Assembly Bill (AB) 1 Regarding Collective Bargaining [Action: Approve Letter of Support per Staff Recommendation (Murray)] E. Letter of Support for State Transit Funding [Action: Approve Letter of Support per Staff Recommendation (Mishra)]
F. Letter of Opposition for Senate Bill (SB) 423 Regarding Streamlined Housing Approvals [Action: Approve Letter of Support per Staff Recommendation (Murray)]
Council member Sasai requested Item 9F be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.

Council member Martinez-Rubin requested Item 9A be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, referenced Item 9C and expressed concern with the cost of the contract over four years for the proposed three task orders and he asked if that level of cost was typical.

As to Item 9E, he appreciated the letter in support of state transit funding but the letter included no points on WestCAT and he suggested it would be worthwhile to address the particular financial challenges WestCAT was facing. For Item 9D, he supported the item and urged the City Council to do likewise.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
47 of 704
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 2, 2023

Page 11 ends

Council member Martinez-Rubin requested the following revisions to Item 9A, the April 18, 2023 meeting minutes: Page 5, the fifth paragraph under the heading Mayoral & Council Appointment,

1. Planning Commission, revised to read:

Council member Martinez-Rubin added there had also been interest for an applicant who had the volunteer and professional experience that would complement the composition and role a Planning Commissioner would have representing the City.

Page 8 ends

The public may access the slide decks for the presentations which were available at the calcities.org website.

And Page 10, the first paragraph revised to read:

Council member Martinez-Rubin reported she had received texts about the men’s restroom at Pinole Valley Park being locked and asked staff to check into the matter with a report back.

Council member Sasai referenced Item 9F and asked that the item be voted on separately from the rest of the Consent Calendar given that he had received questions from members of the public expressing concern with objective planning standards and how developments built through the Builder’s Remedy may affect aesthetics in some parts of the City as well as where development may be built.

Council member Sasai also referenced Page 25 of the text of Senate Bill (SB) 423, as shown in Attachment A to the May 2, 2023 staff report, particularly Lines 8 through 14 that included language which had been stricken, and asked whether it was accurate that only the Builder’s Remedy would be able to forego the objective planning standards. He understood SB 423 was a continuation of SB 35 and asked how many units of housing had been built in Pinole since SB 35 had been passed into law.

Community Development Director Whalen explained that the objective standards were part of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) with cities required to have objective standards for multi-family housing, two or more units. She also clarified there had been no housing units built in Pinole since SB 35 had become law. She also commented that whether there would be any applications submitted as part of SB 35 and its continuance as SB 423 in the future was hard to predict given that a developer needed to pay union wages, which was a high bar for developers and unlikely unless the project was financially feasible.

Council member Sasai stated he planned to vote no on Item 9F. He suggested that opposition to SB 423 had less to do about local control than the housing crisis in the state. He was thankful for the leadership of the past City Council and current leadership who were dedicated to building housing in Pinole for all income levels but suggested SB 423 was not for jurisdictions like Pinole but aimed for jurisdictions in the state that had done all they could to avoid state housing laws and leaving compliance to those jurisdictions that complied with state housing laws. He encouraged his colleagues to also oppose Item 9F.
48 of 704
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 2, 2023

Page 12 ends

Mayor Pro Tem Toms stated she was a member of the Housing and Community Development Policy for the League of California Cities. She commented that state legislators had consistently come up with legislation to remove local control over housing, which was not the answer, and the City Council and Planning Commission had overcome some of the NIMBYism issues in the community. She suggested SB 423 was in response to the irresponsibility of certain jurisdictions that had constantly opposed housing, but it was also not the answer. The City of Pinole was possibly at risk of SB 35 projects since it had been late adopting its Housing Element and about 10 percent of all Bay Area cities had adopted their Housing Elements late because of the overabundance of housing legislation that had been tacked onto local jurisdictions where there had to be compliance in an accelerated amount of time.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms suggested the City Council should support the League of California Cities opposition to SB 423 in that while this legislation may be good for the City of San Francisco, as an example, it was not a solution statewide which was why she supported approval of Item 9F.

Council member Sasai referenced data from U.C. Berkeley which had stated in the first four years that SB 35 had been in effect over 18,000 units of housing had been either approved or were in the process of being approved, and three quarters of the units were below market rate. He suggested the housing crisis would take a lot of different approaches. He added that SB 423 was supported by numerous labor organizations in the state. He reiterated he would vote in opposition to Item 9F.

ACTION: Motion by Council member Sasai/Mayor Pro Tem Toms to approve Consent Calendar Item 9A (as amended by Council member Martinez-Rubin) and Items 9B through 9E, as shown.

Vote: Passed 5-0
Ayes: Murphy, Toms, Martinez-Rubin, Sasai, Tave
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, referenced Item 9F and explained he was speaking for himself and for the Contra Costa Young Democrats who had taken a position in support of SB 423, and stated some of its members had addressed concerns he had as a Planning Commissioner. He had concerns with the language that would remove public oversight but had been informed that on some level public oversight would still be available in the objective standards that applied to all projects and to a lesser extent to design review. SB 35 did not cover all projects but a certain subset of ministerial projects that only applied in cities that were not meeting their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) in a certain way pursuant to the State Housing website. He also noted only two categories of SB 35 would apply; one where the City was not meeting its Above Moderate RHNA housing goals, which Pinole would due to major projects in development. The other category was if the City was not meeting the Low and Very Low Income housing goals, where SB 35 may be triggered but only if a developer was willing to make the project 50 percent affordable units or greater. Most developers were unwilling to make that portion of their projects affordable and as such he suggested it would not affect Pinole.
49 of 704
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 2, 2023

Page 13 ends

Mr. Menis added that ministerial projects did not require public hearings and he understood some cities were using SB 35 to try to subvert the intent of the law by having public hearings to undermine the ministerial and objective standards already in place. He urged the City Council to oppose the letter in opposition to SB 423.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Toms/Council member Martinez-Rubin to approve a Letter of Opposition to Senate Bill (SB) 423 Regarding Streamlined Housing Approvals.

Vote: Failed 2-3
Ayes: Toms, Martinez-Rubin
Noes: Murphy, Sasai, Tave
Abstain: None

Absent: None

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
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.

11. OLD BUSINESS: None

12. NEW BUSINESS
A. City Road Condition and Pavement Management Program Update [Receive Report (Mishra)]
Public Works Director Mishra explained that the item had been continued from the April 18, 2023 City Council meeting at which time the City Council had been provided a PowerPoint presentation on the City Road and Pavement Management Program Update. He had no new information to provide at this time but welcomed any discussion on the presentation.

Mayor Murphy asked of the critical next steps staff would take now that the report had been presented, and Public Works Director Mishra advised that next steps would involve public engagement to better understand what residents wanted, with the input to be presented to the City Council at a future meeting and be part of the Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP).

Council member Tave recognized that staff was working to balance everything and asked whether staff had modeled the size of the City organization compared to what was needed to make things happen in that there was considerably less money being spent on routine maintenance. He would like to know how many people were needed to maintain the City’s roads.

City Manager Murray explained that the tool used to decide the type of treatment most appropriate to address the different road sections and conditions was the StreetSaver model, which ran different scenarios based on set parameters and which identified the types of treatments to the types of roads. There were only certain types of treatment that City staff was able to do versus those provided by construction companies.
50 of 704
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 2, 2023

Page 14 ends

The critical path at this time was to decide on the types of treatment to be done and on what roads and maintenance of roads already in good condition, where the City may hire vendors to do the work or do the work in-house. City staff was only able to do the lighter types of treatment inhouse.

Council member Tave wanted to understand the levels in Pinole and wanted to know the maximum to replace all City roads, and while he was aware that would not happen the Report had shown $5 million to move forward and the City was only spending a fraction of that amount.

He wanted residents to be aware of the challenges and he sought a different model of funding.

He appreciated greater community outreach to educate the public and he wanted to know what could and could not be done in-house.

Public Works Director Mishra advised that with existing staff and equipment the City would be able to do most of the patch work and pothole repair but it would not significantly increase the Pavement Condition Index (PCI). Public works staff for cities the size of Pinole did mostly patch work with major repairs rarely done by Public Works Department crews. The City did not have the resources to acquire enough personnel or equipment for the amount of work needed to repair the City’s roads.

Council member Tave commented that partnering contracts had worked and sometimes dollars attracted more dollars and he asked whether staff had discussed with its counterparts in other cities the possibility of partnering for road work repair.

Public Works Director Mishra reported he had explored that idea with the City of San Pablo’s Public Works Director, which discussion had also included the City of El Cerrito but the problem was the needs must arise at the same time and the type of treatment must be similar for a larger project for all three cities to partner. He had not explored that concept with the County Public Works Department and acknowledged a recommendation from the Mayor to seek out possible partnership possibilities and reach out to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms pointed out that with a possible partnership with other jurisdictions an MOU would have to be considered that would weigh the time management between a city and county or two cities whose proportion of the contract was here or there, and the City may have to spend money to save money.

Council member Tave asked the City Attorney whether there were existing MOUs for a possible partnership and one that protected the City of Pinole.

City Attorney Casher confirmed there were MOU examples that could be used as a template.

Oftentimes the costs negotiated with MOUs, if complicated or if both parties felt strongly about certain things, there could be several rounds of negotiation that involved the City Attorney or other staff. If straightforward, the MOU could be quick and streamlined.

Council member Sasai asked the nature of the community outreach and public education and whether the public would be asked what types of funding it would be comfortable pursuing and Public Works Director Mishra advised that would be part of the LTFP.

City Manager Murray stated he and other City staff had shared ideas on a community engagement process with the key part through an online and in-person mechanism. 51 of 704
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 2, 2023

Page 15 ends

City Manager Murray stated the City needed to show the public the different options so they could provide input on the desired service levels. Once there was input from the public, it would be presented to the City Council who would make a decision to incorporate a scenario into the LTFP, and the LTFP Consultant would advise on the funding mechanisms that would be appropriate to achieve the scenario. The LTFP may identify a number of needs and potential funding mechanisms and while the LTFP had not envisioned polling on those things, that was something the City Council could consider in the future when considering what to place on the ballot.

Council member Sasai referenced the April 18, 2023 staff report and noted that Scenarios 3 and 4 were the only scenarios that would provide an increase in the PCI. He asked whether the figures in the scenarios were arbitrary and whether there was a way to be in the middle of Scenarios 3 and 4.

City Manager Murray commented that the StreetSaver tool allowed consideration of specific scenarios and for the purposes of public engagement, City staff would work to develop attractive scenarios that may fall between the scenarios shown in the April 18 staff report. Scenarios that were not overly costly could also be developed.

Council member Sasai asked about the fix-it-first technique and how often road maintenance for streets with a 20 PCI or lower was provided, and Public Works Director Mishra detailed the fix-itfirst approach for roads that were already in good shape that did not fall below a PCI of 70. If a road reached a PCI of 70, a slurry seal would be pursued to provide more life. If a road was at a PCI of 20, not spending money and letting it fail until the City could afford to replace it was the fixit-first approach unless the road repair was a priority or the City Council decided otherwise.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, suggested that public engagement be properly foregrounded on the City website. He understood the City was using the Balancing Act Tool for the budget as a whole but it was not easily navigated on the website and he expressed concern if public outreach was done on the City website it may result in the same situation. He otherwise understood the purpose of the report was to show the cost of repairing the City’s roads, and the roads that were in terrible condition were so great was why there was a fix-it-first approach given the vast cost of repair. He also recognized Public Works staff was limited in the work they could do in-house given limits in staff, equipment and costs.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Council member Tave asked the number of roads that had zero remaining life, and Public Works Director Mishra commented that information had been included in the Pavement Technical Assistance Program (P-TAP), which had been included in the April 18 staff report.

Council member Tave wanted assurance as part of the message to the public that entire segments of the City’s roads needed repair. In addition, he commented that the fix-it-first approach inherently disregarded those roads as part of the system and residents had been discouraged that those roads were not being repaired or informed why repairs were not being done. He emphasized the importance of community engagement to be sensitive to the fact that many had been left on an island.
52 of 704
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 2, 2023

Page 16 ends

Council member Martinez-Rubin offered a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Toms for staff to proceed with the direction “you know what to do” at the top of the presentation.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms understood that Council member Tave sought to offer a substitute motion and she withdrew her second to the motion.

Council member Tave offered a motion for staff to review the information and come back with what the community engagement program would look like so that the City Council could then accept the report and a community engagement plan and then move forward.

Council member Martinez-Rubin suggested it was not a messaging issue about what roads would be done but the bigger question was about funding, and when reaching that step the matter Council member Tave had identified boiled down to how people would vote to begin with, if at all.

Having an additional step to address the community engagement plan would not address the problem of people not participating and it was up to the City Council to be aware of the public participation and weigh that and complement it with what staff had identified and by using the StreetSaver model.

Mayor Murphy seconded the motion.

Council member Tave understood and agreed with what Council member Martinez-Rubin had stated but as part of government in general he stated the City Council had to attempt to reach out to the public and that was necessary now more than ever. He wanted to ensure the City was offering people that platform for communication and it was important to go through that step and for the public to be aware the door was open for engagement. He re-stated his motion for staff to return with a public engagement plan coupled with the report upon acceptance of the report.

Council member Sasai asked the length of the public engagement process and when the data would be provided to the City Council, to which Public Works Director Mishra expected the public engagement process to take two to three months and before the LTFP, and by August everything should be wrapped up.

City Manager Murray advised the City Council may adopt the LTFP when it was ready. Staff was on schedule with the consultants to bring the Preliminary Draft LTFP forward in late August or early September. Staff would like the public engagement input for the City Council to consider the LTFP and he confirmed the motion, as stated, would delay the public engagement process if City staff needed to come back but it would not bump against a critical deadline. The goal was to have the LTFP in place sufficiently far enough in advance of a potential future revenue measure with enough runway for the public education. If the LTFP was adopted in September that would provide enough time for a potential ballot measure in 2024.

ACTION: Motion by Council member Tave/Mayor Murphy for staff to return with a public engagement plan coupled with the report upon acceptance of the report.

Vote: Passed 3-2
Ayes: Murphy, Sasai, Tave
Noes: Toms, Martinez-Rubin
Abstain: None

Absent: None
53 of 704
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 2, 2023

Page 17 ends

B. Update on Pinole Perks Community Gift Card Program [Action: Receive Report and Provide Direction (Whalen)]
Community Development Director Whalen provided a PowerPoint presentation on the results of the Pinole Perks Community Gift Card Program along with an overview of the program funded by the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), intended to provide assistance to businesses and households in need during the pandemic recovery. The Community Gift Card Program was intended to stimulate the local economy and provide community members with additional savings while shopping locally. She highlighted the program design, merchant eligibility, budget, program highlights, merchant mix, promotion and outreach, needs-study subsidy outreach and program costs to date and the staff comparison of how other communities had used the gift card platform to see how Pinole was handling its program as communities transitioned out of the pandemic.

Community Development Director Whalen stated as a whole the program had been relatively successful at encouraging the sale of community gift cards and using the funds in the local economy, with a small balance in bonus gift funds that may have benefited from more funds in the program and increasing the marketing mix. Almost all of the funds had been expended within the local economy which had mostly recovered from the pandemic.

Community Development Director Whalen advised the City Council must decide whether to continue subsidizing the program, allow it to operate absent a City subsidy or wind the program down. It was unclear whether people would purchase gift cards absent the subsidy. If the City Council decided not to subsidize the program and not sell any gift cards, the City may explore other long-term options for small business development and future Shop Local campaigns.

Another option would be to transition ownership of the program to the Bay Front Chamber of Commerce. Staff had initial conversations with the Bay Front Chamber of Commerce Director who was open to discussing a transfer of ownership if that was what the City Council desired.

Community Development Director Whalen recommended the City Council receive the update and provide direction to staff as appropriate.

Council member Tave asked for clarification on the total value of gift cards sold, and Community Development Director Whalen again clarified the figures in the program highlights and the figure shown for the number of gift cards sold and the amount redeemed in the community was the equivalent of about $168,000.

Council member Tave understood the City spent $100,000 in ARPA funds and generated $68,000 in additional funds in the community.

Community Development Director Whalen clarified the City provided $100,000 to the program, $15,000 had been used for marketing, and the remainder had been used to subsidize the program with the bonus gift cards and delivery fees. The City sold over $200,000 in gift cards, and of that total the City had provided about $85,000 including the marketing with a remainder of bonus money left to purchase as shown in the PowerPoint presentation. In terms of the benefits, there had been some anecdotal comments about repeat customers to businesses that those customers had never previously patronized resulting in new business as a result of the program.

Council member Sasai asked for the details involved in the transfer of ownership of the program to the Bay Front Chamber of Commerce.
54 of 704
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 2, 2023

Page 18 ends

Council member Sasai also asked of the reasons some jurisdictions had chosen to continue their gift card programs and whether the program was continuing to be funded by ARPA funds. In addition, he asked the balance of ARPA funds yet to be appropriated.

Community Development Director Whalen explained that she was uncertain what the transfer of ownership to the Bay Front Chamber of Commerce would look like contractually but she understood other communities had transferred ownership of the program. In this case, it would give the Chamber of Commerce access to the platform for the program and the Chamber would set the maximum limit on the number of gift cards that could be purchased, the value of the gift cards that could be purchased, letting merchants into the program, defining the rules and possibly subsidize the program to spur more purchasing in the City of Pinole. She had not received any indication the Bay Front Chamber of Commerce had funding to put into the program, but one of the benefits of transferring ownership could be the Bay Front Chamber of Commerce would have more capacity for marketing the program and could work with the vendors more closely to market the program themselves to make the program more robust.

Community Development Director Whalen was uncertain whether the other jurisdictions that had continued their gift card programs had continued to fund their program with ARPA funds and she understood that the programs had been continued because they had been successful in those communities and a good tool for the Shop Local program.

City Manager Murray explained the City Council had appropriated ARPA funds for a few specific programs including two rounds of the Small Business Grant Program in addition to Pinole Perks.

The City Council had placed the remaining ARPA funds into the City’s General Fund which was part of the General Fund balance. The funds were not restricted to COVID-19 related recovery expenses.

Finance Director Markisha Guillory clarified the City of Pinole had received $4,605,009 in ARPA funds and of that amount the City had expended $589,000 which included Pinole Perks, a $300,000 allocation for a Small Business Assistance Grant Program administered in 2022, and with the remainder for the mandated weekly COVID-19 testing for public and some non-public safety staff. The $4 million remaining ARPA funds had been placed into the General Fund.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms again clarified the expenditures for the Pinole Perks program, the funds remaining, and asked if the City ended the program whether it could be allocated to other business programs, and Community Development Director Whalen again clarified the remaining funds for bonus gifts was just about $8,000.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms was uncertain whether it made sense to transfer the program to the Bay Front Chamber of Commerce since it may want to pull administrative costs for managing the program or if the City should continue to run the Pinole Perks program for the remainder of the fiscal year and any carry over could be transferred to other economic development programs.

After the bonus funds were exhausted there was no incentive for anyone to purchase the gift cards and the program would end. She asked staff whether that was possible.

Community Development Director Whalen suggested if the program ran through the end of this fiscal year the bonus funds would be snapped up.
55 of 704
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 2, 2023

Page 19 ends

In response to Council member Martinez-Rubin, Community Development Director Whalen understood the City of Benicia had a successful program, had added money at multiple points of its program but had decided after the program ran its course to end the program. She acknowledged there had been little participation from the low income community in Pinole as had been hoped and the reasons could be advertising and reaching that community. Those who had purchased the gift cards had not been asked about income.

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked whether staff had considered the program costs to implement something that was “in plan” now, and Community Development Director Whalen stated staff had not done that as yet.

City Manager Murray stated staff had not considered how to specifically use funding that had formally been used for Pinole Perks but had a list of Year 1 activities in the Economic Development Strategy that could be done with some funding already appropriated on an ongoing basis for economic development activities.

City Manager Murray emphasized that Pinole had been one of the first jurisdictions to consider programs like Pinole Perks and the Small Business Assistance Grant Program and he was proud of the City’s efforts, but suggested it would be good for the City for the Pinole Perks program to gracefully wind down and for staff to be able to dedicate its attention to some of the economic development activities currently on the shelf. While Pinole Perks had invested in some of the City’s small businesses that otherwise would not have happened, it had been a big lift in terms of staff time to roll out the program and had consumed limited staff time that could be spent in the future on other economic development activities.

Community Development Director Whalen further clarified in response to the Mayor that the merchant eligibility criteria was the same criteria used for the Small Business Assistance Grant Program and staff had worked with the Bay Front Chamber of Commerce to address the small businesses most impacted by COVID-19. She confirmed there were some businesses that had applied and had been found to be ineligible, which included a number of chains and franchises.

Mayor Murphy wanted to know the number of businesses that had not met the eligibility criteria for the Pinole Perks program. He also clarified the merchant mix, which was important, since the Google Aerial Map image provided in the PowerPoint presentation had shown the program benefitted the small businesses along the San Pablo Avenue Corridor and had shown the linked fate and connectivity that had been created from the Pinole Perks program. While he recognized the Bay Front Chamber of Commerce fostered economic development, he did not want to erase the work of City staff to support its local businesses. He was interested in other data sets from the business owners involved in the program in terms of what had been learned from the program.

Community Development Director Whalen reported she had attempted to reach out to the businesses that had participated in the program but had received only two responses. Those two respondents had been positive about the program, indicated they had received new customers including walk-in and repeat customers who had indicated they were in the program due to the bonus funding for subsidizing, which was a 50 percent subsidy to the gift card. If the City Council desired to continue the program in some form, she would appreciate the opportunity to suggest some program changes.
56 of 704
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 2, 2023

Page 20 ends

Mayor Murphy did not want to ignore the fact the City had tried something new, it had been successful in a micro-way but there was the potential to expand, either through an extension of the program or to engage the businesses and take it to the next level in the economic development strategy. He described the Pinole Perks program as one of the most beautiful layouts of a program in the downtown that had visibility in the downtown with excitement and energy around it, with residents and Pinole business owners supportive of the program and with many people engaged in something that was Pinole centered. He suggested the program should be fostered and nurtured and he wanted to see staff dig deeper and determine whether some of the small businesses could actually provide more feedback.

Community Development Director Whalen clarified that feedback sought from the business owners had been via an email survey, and the Mayor recommended different tactics to obtain feedback in order to obtain different responses.

Mayor Murphy also clarified with the Community Development Director the types of businesses in the services category of the merchant mix. He again suggested the Pinole Perks program should be part of the Citywide Economic Development Program, it was something that would breed Pinole pride, and as developing new models with new marketing, it would strengthen the marketing, feedback and loop survey.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, was also curious whether there was any practical use for the gift cards if they were not subsidized and he appreciated the feedback from the two business owners that they would not be interested in continuing to take part if the gift cards were not subsidized If the City decided to continue with the program, it would involve an ongoing cost to the City at whatever level the City chose to set the subsidy and whether that cost and staff time would be enough to outweigh the staff time and resources to other items already identified in the Economic Development Plan. He understood the Mayor’s comments that the Pinole Perks program had created a sense of civic pride and engagement for the businesses and customers to a limited extent, and not without value the question was whether it was of sufficient value to be worth additional ongoing City funds and staff time. As to the lack of participation from the low income population, he suggested a lot of that was linked to the merchant mix and to the limitations placed on the program. A program targeted more to the low income population would need to expand to cover more grocer outlets and things like that.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
In response to the Mayor, Community Development Director Whalen again clarified the cost benefits of the program, stated the expenditures in staff time had not been tracked but the program was a substantial lift for staff in 2022. She clarified as of the writing of the staff report, the City had sold close to $200,000 in gift cards, with $165,000 redeemed and with those figures the City had spent about $85,000 on the program with $13,000 still held in bonus funds to give to people to spend. As to what had been the most time consuming part of the program for staff to develop the program, it had been trying to entice the business owners to participate, working with the business owners on the program and developing branding and promotional materials.

Mayor Murphy still wanted more details on the staff time involved in the administration of the program.
57 of 704
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 2, 2023

Page 21 ends

City Manager Murray reiterated the funds originally appropriated had been spent but there was no harm in maintaining the program. He was uncertain that additional gift cards would be sold since the subsidies were running out but there was no harm allowing it to continue to exist, it would involve no staff time and it could be integrated with some other economic development strategy. Staff would be happy to receive direction to continue to let the program proceed on its natural course and look for an opportunity in the future to pivot from it into some other Shop Local business support program.

Mayor Murphy asked of the cost estimates for the subsidies whether more funds should be allocated to the program and again commented on the public support for the project, which he did not want to lose. He asked staff to return with information on possible subsidy scenarios and who the City could partner with such as MCE and others.

City Manager Murray confirmed staff could report back with more information on an ongoing investment that would sustain the program and could do more to engage the businesses that had participated. He added the City Council had adopted the participating business criteria when the funding for the program had been appropriated in December 2021, and had been targeted towards those businesses the City Council believed were more impacted by COVID-19 restrictions. Staff could also return with information to expand the number of participating businesses that could help the program grow to a critical mass.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms asked whether there was a carrying cost for keeping a program going if a subsidy was not provided, to which City Manager Murray explained there would be a one-time per card purchasing setup cost and surcharge of the percentage of the value of the card, which were small amounts and staff could return with ideas on how to sustain the program.

Council member Martinez-Rubin offered a motion that the Pinole Perks Program wind down and prepare to involve the businesses that had taken part in future economic development activities.

There was no second to the motion and the motion failed.

In response to the Mayor Pro Tem as to whether a decision could be deferred until the budget discussion, City Manager Murray suggested if the City Council wanted another subsidy of around $10,000 that could last for a year it would be a one-time investment of funds that would not impact the structural balance of the budget. The City Council may address the matter at the adoption of the budget or soon after the budget had been adopted.

Mayor Murphy offered a motion to continue the Pinole Perks Community Gift Card Program and request staff provide information to the City Council given the conversation around merchant data.

On the motion, Mayor Pro Tem Toms pointed out if the City Council took no action, the program would continue until the funds ran out and no action would be needed.

Mayor Murphy restated his motion. Council member Tave seconded the motion.

Upon roll call on the motion, and when asked by Council member Martinez-Rubin to restate the motion, City Clerk Bell restated the motion to continue the Pinole Perks Community Gift Card Program, with an additional request for staff to come back to the City Council with more information regarding merchant data.
58 of 704
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 2, 2023

Page 22 ends

Council member Martinez-Rubin pointed out that continuation of a program required an allocation of funds
Community Development Director Whalen reiterated that as of this date, $8,000 remained in funds still available for the program. She added other communities had decided at various points to fund their programs, let the funding draw down and fund again during the holidays, let the funding draw down and then fund again.

Mayor Murphy sought the merchant data and surveying which would be helpful for the budget discussion and considering next steps, which was why he had stated the motion as he had.

Council member Martinez-Rubin saw no difference between the Mayor’s motion and the program winding down.

Mayor Murphy stated he had offered a motion, there was a second, and he asked staff to provide more merchant data which Council member Martinez-Rubin’s motion had not included.

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked that the two components of the Mayor’s motion be separated since staff could provide the data, and she clarified the continuation of the program had been based on the $8,000 in funds remaining as clarified by staff.

Mayor Murphy declined to separate the motion.

Council member Tave added there had been discussion about staff reviewing the different scales in percentages whether 10 or 25 percent in terms of the subsidy and he was uncertain how to add that component to the motion.

Mayor Murphy accepted that as a friendly amendment to his motion.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Murphy/Council member Tave to continue the Pinole Perks Community Gift Card Program, with an additional request for staff to come back to the City Council with more information regarding merchant data and provide clarity on the subsidy.

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

Absent: None
C. Policies Related to Environmentally Preferable Purchases and Practices [Action:

Receive Report and Provide Direction (Whalen)]
Sustainability Fellow Kapil Amin presented a PowerPoint presentation on the Policies related to Environmentally Preferable Purchases and Practices and stated he had been working with the City of Pinole on a Climate Corp program, sustainability for Pinole including the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, and Single Use Plastics production, and had conducted the research and prepared the staff report.
59 of 704
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 2, 2023

Page 23 ends

Mr. Amin’s presentation included an overview of the background of Environmental Preferable Purchasing (EPP), the procurement of green goods and services that had a reduced impact on human health and the environment over less sustainable alternatives, and highlighted what EPP provided. He also highlighted the City’s current Environmental Purchasing Policy; Best Practices from Sustainable Procurement Playbook for Cities; City of San Jose’s Environmental Procurement Policy; Other Cities Policies; Green Purchasing Guides and Bids and Price Comparison.

Mr. Amin identified the next steps to enhance the environmental purchasing policy to encompass a wider range of green products and services, to include more specific criteria that looked into fair labor practices, local businesses, minority-owned and women-owned businesses, natural resource consumption, toxicity, and the use of best practices to structure the policy with assigned roles and departmental responsibilities. Staff time would be required to enhance and hone the environmental purchasing section to include specific criteria to broaden the scope of green products and services, educate City Staff on green purchasing for their departments and support implementation, for example, to create a vendor questionnaire in the bid process to learn about the sustainability of goods or services.

Mr. Amin asked the City Council to consider the information regarding policies supporting the procurement of environmentally sustainable goods and services and provide direction as appropriate.

Community Development Director Whalen added the City Council may also defer this item to the Finance Subcommittee to discuss further after the completion of the budget process.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms referenced the Climate Action Plan (CAP) and asked whether staff envisioned the inclusion of an action that would require amending the City’s policy for purchasing, to which Community Development Director Whalen stated she could pose that question to the CAP team which had yet to raise that issue.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms had asked the question because as the CAP was developed it would include some actions and they were taking an action in advance of having the plan, which may or may not be consistent with the effort with respect to the CAP. She wanted to ensure the City Council was not jumping onto something that would be forthcoming and detailed later on.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Toms/Council member Sasai to extend the City Council meeting to 11:15 p.m.

Vote: Passed 5-0
Ayes: Murphy, Toms, Martinez-Rubin, Sasai, Tave
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, supported the overall aims of the policy which would be beneficial and tie into several goals in the General Plan, in particular the Sustainability Element and the sub goals attached.
60 of 704
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 2, 2023

Page 24 ends

Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the CAP, Mr. Menis stated that beginning to implement more sustainable purchasing and procurement practices and undertaking the world view change required to prioritize environmental goals to set up the life cycle reviews and various staff infrastructure cost associated with adopting environmentally sustainable goods and services procurement, would ultimately lead to the benefit of the CAP even if some reworking needed to be done.

Anthony Vossbrink, Pinole, suggested in terms of purchasing products and supplies for the City that the City consider not buying and inventorying plastics, such as the purchase of high-fiber micro plastic bags that negatively impacted the environment, and rather use burlap bags. He also suggested a reduction in the number of stop lights up and down Pinole Valley Road through to Granada Court and Shea Drive to eliminate deceleration that caused carbon emissions. Since the lights had not been queued properly, he suggested it added to carbon emissions. The lights could also be modified to blink yellow and red so that vehicles did not have to come to a complete stop at times when there was little traffic in the area. At the bottom of Pinole Valley Road, he suggested the City should partner with Caltrans to install an extra lane past the Jack in the Box to the I-80 eastbound on-ramp lane.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Mayor Murphy liked the next steps and would like staff to move forward with all of them. He also wanted staff to consider and provide a report back with the next steps, what the City could do to align with the Empower Procurement Program, a program funded by the California Energy Commission that offered cities opportunities to amplify sustainability outcomes through the increased adoption of clean energies with a focus on distributed energy resources. He asked that staff reach out to CivicWell about technical assistance and grant opportunity programs.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Murphy/Mayor Pro Tem Toms to direct staff to take all of the next steps as recommended in the PowerPoint presentation including an additional report on what the City could do to align with CalEnergies Empower Procurement Program, any CalRecycle Program around procurement, and reach out to CivicWell about technical assistance and grant opportunities programs.

Vote: Passed 5-0
Ayes: Murphy, Toms, Martinez-Rubin, Sasai, Tave
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None

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.

Page 25 ends

City Clerk Bell reported there were no comments from the public.

14. ADJOURNMENT to the Regular City Council Meeting of May 16, 2023, in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

At 11:07 p.m., Mayor Murphy adjourned the meeting to the Regular City Council Meeting of May 16, 2023 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

Submitted by:
_________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
Approved by City Council:
62 of 704
63 of 704
64 of 704
65 of 704
66 of 704
67 of 704
68 of 704
69 of 704
70 of 704
71 of 704
72 of 704
73 of 704
74 of 704
75 of 704
76 of 704
77 of 704
78 of 704

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
9C
DATE MAY 16, 2023
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: FIONA EPPS, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: APPROVE A TWO-YEAR CONTRACT WITH PLANETERIA FOR THE

NEW WEBSITE CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN THE AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $58,620.00

RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving a two-year contract with Planeteria for the new City website Content Management System (CMS) in an amount not to exceed $58,620.

BACKGROUND
Since 2017, the City of Pinole has been in contract with West Interactive Services Corporation for website hosting, CMS software upgrades and maintenance, and technical support for its Content Management System (CMS) product CivicLive. Since then, staff has experienced intermittent performance issues that prevent staff from using key features of the CMS. Staff finds that the platform is cumbersome to use and increases staff time spent on website edits. In addition to dissatisfaction with the overall functionality of CivicLive, the City’s CMS scope and technical support requirements have changed due to increasing community engagement efforts and the City’s desire to streamline processes. Staff wishes to move to a new CMS that will provide expanded functionality, public engagement tools, greater usability, better navigation, and responsive technical support.

A city’s website is often the highest profile, most utilized communication platform by residents, visitors, and stakeholders. The Communication and Engagement Plan that was adopted by City Council in October 2022 identified the City website as needing several improvements to ease navigability and convey up to date information. The Communication and Engagement Plan recommended that the City consider shifting from CivicLive to a more robust CMS.

City staff issued an RFP for CMS services and received seven proposals. A team of City staff members who are regular users/administrators of the City’s website evaluated the proposals, including extensive reference checks, as did the City’s information technology consultant, Client First Technologies, and determined that Planeteria’s proposal and services best meet the City’s needs. Planeteria is a local website design and development company with over 20 years of experience and has worked with cities, 79 of 704
City Council Report
May 16, 2023 2
counties and other municipalities all over the country. City staff ultimately chose Planeteria for its robust open-source CMS platform, and offering of extensive features/functionality, which include the following:
• Proprietary applications specific to public sector
• Built-in public engagement tools
• Advanced cloud-based hosting and automatic 24/7 monitoring • High level of integration capabilities and flexibility • Dedicated team of highly skilled creative, technical, content, and management teams
• Dedicated customer service and 24/7 support
• Ease of use with unlimited training and customized user resources • Meets section 508 compliance for digital accessibility and all security requirements

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
City staff is seeking Council’s approval of a two-year agreement with Planeteria. Under the agreement, Planeteria will design and develop a new website for the City using an in-depth discovery process, which will involve community input. Planeteria’s team will inventory the current content of the City’s existing website, develop a migration strategy, and analyze user data as part of the development and design process. Finally, Planeteria will create a new website with improved design, features, and functionality for both internal and external users. Additionally, as part of the proposed contract, Planeteria will provide ongoing maintenance, hosting, training, and support for the website.

A copy of the proposed contract between the City and Planeteria is attached (Attachment B), which includes the scope of services and cost proposal.

FISCAL IMPACT
Our current annual cost to the City for the current CMS, CivicLive, is $5,880. This agreement can be terminated by the City at any time with notice to CivicLive.

With Planeteria, there will be a one-time design and start-up cost of $54,060. Then, an annual cost of $4,560.

There are sufficient funds in the adopted FY 2022-23 budget and baseline FY 2023-24 budget for these costs.

Completion of Phase 1 and 2 of the 7 phases of website implementation plan is expected to occur by the end of FY 2022-23. Payments for the first year of the new Website CMS project will overlap within the FY 2022-23 and FY 2023-24 IT budget. 80 of 704
City Council Report
May 16, 2023 3
The total cost of the contract is $58,620.00. The design and development of a new website will be funded for City Departments, vendors, and the public utilizing the website.

ATTACHMENTS
A Resolution
B Contract with Planeteria
81 of 704
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PINOLE APPROVING A TWO-YEAR CONTRACT

WITH PLANETERIA FOR THE NEW WEBSITE CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $58,620.00.

WHEREAS, the City of Pinole recognizes that its website is the highest profile, most utilized communication platform by residents, visitors, and stakeholders; and WHEREAS, the City’s current website is outdated with limited functionality and experiences frequent performance issues which prevents City staff from utilizing the website for its desired scope and fullest potential; and WHEREAS, City staff evaluated 7 proposals submitted and found Planeteria to best suit our website redesign needs;
WHEREAS, City staff recommends that the City move to Planeteria’s website Content Management System (CMS) solution that will greatly improve the City’s web presence and expand online services, navigation and functionality for its residents; and WHEREAS, the annual cost of the contract for FY 2023-24 will not exceed the amount approved in the budget.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Pinole City Council does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute a two-year contract with Planeteria attached as Exhibit 1 to provide design and development services for the City’s new website CMS in an amount not to exceed $58,620.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pinole held on the 16th day of May 2023 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

I hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was regularly introduced, passed, and adopted on this May 16, 2023.
______________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk

ATTACHMENT A
82 of 704

CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PLANETARIA MEDIA FOR

WEBSITE CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
This Consulting Services Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this 4th day of May 2023, by and between the CITY OF PINOLE, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “CITY”), located at 2131 Pear Street, Pinole, CA 94564-1774, and PLANETARIA MEDIA, a corporation, located at 100 Stony Point Road, Ste 240, Santa Rosa, CA 94501 (hereinafter referred to as “CONSULTANT”).

1. SCOPE OF SERVICES
Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall perform the services described in the Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A at the time and place and in the manner specified therein. In the event of a conflict in or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and Exhibit A, the Agreement shall prevail.

2. RESPONSIBLE PERSONNEL AND DIRECTION
CONSULTANT will be charged with the completion of CONSULTANT’S responsibilities under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall report to and receive direction from the City Manager and/or her designee.

3. COMPENSATION
CONSULTANT agrees to perform the Scope of Services delineated herein, and CITY agrees to make payments for work completed under the following terms:

1. Fees and Invoices. CITY hereby agrees to pay CONSULTANT for the Scope of Services, pursuant to the fee schedule attached as Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein. Total compensation for work performed under this Agreement and all reimbursable expenses incurred in performing the work shall be paid by the CITY in an amount NOT TO EXCEED Fifty eight thousand six-hundred and twenty dollars ($58,620.00).

CONSULTANT shall submit invoices to CITY not more often than once per month during the term of this Agreement. Invoices shall contain: (i) the beginning and ending dates of the billing period; (ii) a description of the work performed during the billing period; and (iii) the total amount payable.

2. Reimbursable Costs. CITY agrees to pay only those reasonable reimbursable costs incurred in conjunction with this Agreement, without additional mark-up. The reimbursable costs are included in the total fee. CONSULTANT shall submit copies of receipts for

ATTACHMENT B
83 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
2 reimbursement. CITY has sole discretion to determine which costs are reimbursable.

3. Early Termination. If CITY terminates this Agreement pursuant to Section 18 of this Agreement, CITY shall compensate CONSULTANT for work satisfactorily completed as of the date of written notice of termination and within 30 days of CITY’S receipt of CONSULTANT invoices in a form satisfactory to CITY.

5. TERM OF AGREEMENT
Unless otherwise agreed to in writing, the two-year term of this Agreement shall be from May 17, 2023 through May 17, 2025. CONSULTANT shall complete the work described in Exhibit A by that date, unless the term of the Agreement is otherwise terminated or extended, as provided for in Section

18. The time provided to CONSULTANT to complete the services required by this Agreement shall not affect the CITY’s right to terminate the Agreement, as provided for in Section 8.

6. BUSINESS LICENSE
CONSULTANT, and any subcontractor, shall obtain a CITY of Pinole business license according to the terms of Title 5 of the CITY of Pinole Municipal Code and deliver to CITY proof of such business license prior to beginning work under this Agreement. Work under this Agreement cannot begin until CITY receives proof that CONSULTANT has obtained a CITY of Pinole business license. If the CONSULTANT does not show satisfactory proof of having obtained a business license from CITY, CITY may deduct the business license fee from CONSULTANT’S invoice and issue a business license to CONSULTANT.

7. AMENDMENT
This Agreement may be amended, modified or changed by the parties in writing, signed and approved by the authorized representatives of the parties.

8. OWNER OF DOCUMENT/PROPRIETARY INTEREST
It is agreed that CITY has a proprietary interest in all material(s) prepared by CONSULTANT under this Agreement, with the exception of promotional materials.The CITY may retain, alter or use as it sees fit all portions of the material prepared for the completion of the project. CITY shall defend and hold CONSULTANT harmless for all claims, losses and damages for patent, trademark or copyright infringement related to CITY’S use of the material on any other project, except such loss or damage which was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT.

9. SUBCONTRACTORS
84 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
3 CONSULTANT may utilize professional subcontractors only as approved in writing by CITY.

10. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
In the event CITY desires to retain CONSULTANT for the performance of additional services in connection with this Agreement, specification of such additional services and compensation therefore shall be made only by amendment to this Agreement pursuant to Section 7 and in accordance with compensation rates to be negotiated at that time.

11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
It is specifically understood and agreed that in the making and performance of this contract, CONSULTANT is an independent contractor and is not and shall not be an employee, agent, or servant of CITY. Notwithstanding any other city, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, CONSULTANT and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing services under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any and all claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by CITY, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) as an employee of CITY and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by CITY for employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits.

Except as CITY may specify in writing, CONSULTANT shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of CITY in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. The parties shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind the other party to any obligation whatsoever.

12. NONDISCRIMINATION
There shall be no discrimination against any employee who is employed in the work covered by this contract, or against any applicant for such employment because of age, race, religion, sex or national origin.

13. CONSULTANT CONFLICT OF INTEREST
CONSULTANT will comply with all conflict of interest laws and regulations including, without limitation, CITY’S Conflict of Interest Code (on file in the City Clerk’s Office). It is incumbent upon CONSULTANT or CONSULTANT’S firm to notify CITY of any staff changes relating to this Agreement.

A. In accomplishing the scope of services of this Agreement, all officers, employees and/or agents of CONSULTANT(S), unless as indicated in Subsection B., will be performing a very limited and closely supervised 85 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
4 function, and, therefore, are unlikely to have a conflict of interest arise.

No disclosures are required for any officers, employees, and/or agents of CONSULTANT, except as indicated in Subsection B.

Initialed by City Attorney’s Office
B. In accomplishing the scope of services of this Agreement, CONSULTANT(S) will be performing a specialized or general service for CITY, and there is substantial likelihood that CONSULTANT’S work product will be presented, either written or orally, for the purpose of influencing a governmental decision. As a result, the following CONSULTANT(S) shall be subject to the Disclosure Categories “1-5” of CITY’S Conflict of Interest Code:

14. ASSIGNMENT
CONSULTANT shall not assign any interest in this contract, and shall not transfer any interest in the same without the prior written consent of CITY.

15. AGREEMENT BINDING
This Agreement is binding on the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto.

16. APPLICABLE LAW AND ATTORNEY'S FEES
This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Should any legal action be brought by a party for breach of this Agreement or to enforce any provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, court costs or any other costs as may be fixed by the court. Any action arising out of this Agreement shall be venued in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Contra Costa.

17. SEVERABILITY
If any one of more of the covenants and agreements or portions thereof shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction in a final judicial action to be void, voidable or unenforceable, such covenant, or covenants, such agreement or agreements, or such portions thereof shall be null and void and shall be deemed severable from the remaining covenants and agreements or portions 86 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
5 thereof, and shall in no way affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of this Agreement.

18. TERMINATION
A. CITY may terminate this Agreement at any time, without cause, by giving CONSULTANT four (4) weeks’ (i.e., 30 days) written notice of discontinuance and termination of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to compensation for services satisfactorily rendered up to the written notice of termination of this Agreement. CITY may condition such payment upon CONSULTANT’S delivery of all material prepared by CONSULTANT under this Agreement.

B. CITY may, at any time, at its discretion, abandon or suspend any portion of the work being done under the terms of this Agreement. In the event of abandonment or suspension of work for which professional services have been performed under this Agreement by CONSULTANT or in the event of the termination of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall immediately stop work on the project required by this Agreement, or shall stop work at the stage directed by CITY.

19. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
A. Insurance Requirements. Before beginning any work under this Agreement, CONSULTANT, at its own cost and expense, unless otherwise specified below, shall procure the types and amounts of insurance listed below against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by CONSULTANT and its agents, representatives, employees, and subcontractors. CONSULTANT shall maintain the insurance policies required by this section throughout the term of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall furnish CITY with complete copies of all insurance policies prior to execution of this Agreement and upon CITY’S request.

B. Workers’ Compensation. CONSULTANT shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain Statutory Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance for any and all persons employed directly or indirectly by CONSULTANT. The Statutory Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance shall be provided with limits of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per accident. In the alternative, CONSULTANT may rely on a self-insurance program to meet those requirements, but only if the program of self-insurance complies fully with the provisions of the California Labor Code.

C. Commercial General and Automobile Liability Insurance. 87 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
6 1. General Requirements. CONSULTANT, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain commercial general and automobile liability insurance for the term of this Agreement in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per
occurrence, combined single limit coverage for risks associated with the work contemplated by this Agreement. Such coverage shall include but shall not be limited to, protection against claims arising from bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, and damage to property resulting from activities contemplated under this Agreement, including the use of owned and non-owned automobiles.

2. Minimum Scope of Coverage. Commercial general coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability occurrence form CG 0001 or GL 0002 (most recent editions) covering comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office form number GL 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability.

Automobile coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability form CA 0001 (most recent edition) Code 1. No endorsement shall be attached limiting the coverage.

D. Professional Liability Insurance (Required for all licensed consultants). CONSULTANT, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain for the period covered by this Agreement professional liability insurance for licensed professionals performing work pursuant to this Agreement in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) covering the licensed professionals’ errors and omissions. Any deductible or self-insured retention shall not exceed $250,000 per claim.

E. Additional Requirements. Each of the following shall be included in the insurance coverage or added as a certified endorsement to the policy:

1. Other than Professional Liability, the insurance shall cover on an occurrence or an accident basis, and not on a claims-made basis.

2. Any failure of CONSULTANT to comply with reporting
provisions of the policy shall not affect coverage provided to CITY and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers.

F. Notice of Reduction in or Cancellation of Coverage. Coverage shall not be canceled by either party except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice has been given to CITY; ten (10) days if cancellation is 88 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
7 due to non-payment of premium.

G. Additional Insured; Primary Insurance. A certified endorsement at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form number CG 20 10 (11/85 ed.) shall be attached to all policies stating that CITY and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds. A certified endorsement shall be attached to all policies stating that coverage is primary insurance with respect to CITY and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers, and that no insurance or self-insurance maintained by CITY shall be called upon to contribute to a loss under the coverage.

H. Variation. CITY, through its City Attorney. may approve a variation in the foregoing insurance requirements, upon a determination that the coverage, scope, limits, and forms of such insurance are either not commercially available, or that CITY’S interests are otherwise fully protected.

I. Indemnification.

CONSULTANT shall, to the fullest extent allowed by law, with respect to all services performed in connection with this Agreement, defend with counsel acceptable to CITY, indemnify, and hold CITY, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers (“Indemnitees”), harmless from and against any and all claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, (“Claims”). CONSULTANT will bear all losses, costs (including attorney’s fees), damages, expense and liability of every kind, nature and description that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to such Claims, whether directly or indirectly (“Liability”). Such obligations to defend, hold harmless and indemnify CITY shall not apply to the extent that such Liability is caused by the sole negligence, active negligence, or willful misconduct of CITY.

With respect to third party claims against CONSULTANT,
CONSULTANT waives any and all rights of any type of express or implied indemnity against the Indemnitees.

However, notwithstanding the foregoing, in accordance with California Civil Code Section 1668, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to exempt CITY from its own fraud, willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law. In addition, and notwithstanding the forgoing, to the extent this Agreement is a “construction contract” as defined by California Civil Code section 2783, as may be amended from time to time, such duties of CONSULTANT to indemnify shall not apply when to do so would be prohibited by California Civil Code Section 2782.
89 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
8 20. NOTICES
All correspondences shall be sent by first-class mail and directed to the party at the addresses specified below, or to a substitute address as a party may designate by written notice to the other party:

CONSULTANT:

Planetaria Media
100 Stony Point Road, Suite 240
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Attention: Tyler Coffin
CITY:

City of Pinole with a copy to: City Attorney
2131 Pear Street 2131 Pear Street
Pinole, CA 94564 Pinole, CA 94564
Attention: Andrew Murray

21. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. Neither party shall hold the other responsible for damages or delay in performance caused by acts of God, strikes, lockouts, accidents or other events or conditions beyond the party's control.

B. In the event any provisions of this agreement shall be held to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be valid and binding upon the parties. One or more waivers by either party of any provisions, term, condition, or covenant shall not be construed by the other party as a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same by the other party.

C. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and there are no conditions, agreements or representations between the parties except as expressed in said document. It is not the intent of the parties to this agreement to form a partnership or joint venture.

D. Where the terms and conditions of this Agreement and any attachments or exhibits hereto conflict, the parties expressly agree that the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall prevail and preside.

E. Preparation and negotiation of this Agreement has been a joint effort of the parties and neither the Agreement nor any of its provisions shall be construed against either of the parties as the drafting party or otherwise
90 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
9 F. CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable laws, statutes, City of Pinole ordinances, resolutions, policies and procedures in force and effect on the date this Agreement is executed by the City, including, but not limited to the California Environmental Quality Act and all relevant provisions of the Public Resources Code, the California Public Contract Code, the California Labor Code and the California Government Code.
91 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
10 22. ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A - SCOPE OF SERVICES
Exhibit B - FEE SCHEDULE
Certificates of Insurance
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY AND CONSULTANT have caused their authorized representatives to execute this Agreement.

CITY OF PINOLE
By:

Andrew Murray, City Manager
ATTEST:

By:

City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Eric Casher, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
By:

Tyler Coffin, Sales Director
Consultant’s City of Pinole Business
License #: __________________
92 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
11 EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES
93 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
12 94 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
13 95 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
14 96 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
15 97 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
16 98 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
17 99 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
18 100 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
19 101 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
20 102 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
21 103 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
22 104 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
23 105 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
24 106 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
25 107 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
26 108 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
27 109 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
28 110 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
29 111 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
30 112 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
31 113 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
32 114 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
33 115 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
34 116 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
35 117 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
36 118 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
37 119 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
38 120 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
39 121 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
40 122 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
41 123 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
42 124 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
43 125 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
44 126 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
45 127 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
46 128 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
47 129 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
48 130 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
49 131 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
50 132 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
51 133 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
52 134 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
53 135 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
54 136 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
55 137 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
56 138 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
57 139 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
58 140 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
59 141 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
60 142 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
61 143 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
62 EXHIBIT B

FEE SCHEDULE
Design
Phase
Description Hours Rate Line Total
1 Discovery 40 $110.00 $4,400.00
Questionnaire & Documents 5 110 550.00
Kickoff 10 110 1,100
Moodboard 5 110 550
2 Information Architecture 50 $110.00 $5,500.00
Sitemap & Page Types 10 110 1,100
Wireframes (All Page Types) 40 110 4,400
3 Visual Design 75 $110.00 $8,250.00
Website Style Guide: Colors &
Typography
20 110 2,200
All Page Design Mockups 55 110 6,050
4 Content Strategy & Migration 100 $110.00 $11,000.00
Mapping Content & Content
Sanctuary
35 110 3,850
Content Editing & Compiling 25 110 2,750
Content Migration 40 110 4,400
5 Development 165 $110.00 $18,150.00
Server, CMS Setup & Template
Development
55 110 6,050
E-Alerts (3,000 Text Messages &
40,000 Emails - $50 Per Month)
25 110 2,750
Work Ticket Request (Geo Location
Enabled)
50 110 5,500
Quality Assurance 20 110 2,200
Beta Site & Initial Training 15 110 1,650
6 Quality Assurance & Launch 25 $110.00 $2,750.00
User Feedback & Feedback
Implementation
10 110 1,100
Content Edits & Launch 15 110 1,650
7 Post Launch Monitoring & Training 15 $110.00 $1,650.00 Post Launch “Hyper-Care” Monitoring 5 110 550
Hands on Training & Video Training
Library
10 110 1,100
Design &
Development Total
$49,500.00
Year 1 Yearly Managed Maintenance 3,000
Yearly Hosting 1,560
144 of 704
Rev 2.2013
1477474v4
63 Managed
Maintenance &
Hosting (Year 1)
4,560.00
Year 2 Yearly Managed Maintenance 3,000
Yearly Hosting 1,560
Managed
Maintenance &
Hosting (Year 2)
4,560.00
Total Contract
Amount
$58,620
5314023.1
145 of 704

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
9D
DATE: MAY 16, 2023
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: MISHA KAUR, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL

PROGRAM MANAGER

LILLY WHALEN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PINOLE TO COMPY WITH STATE

HOUSING LAWS

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution (Attachment A) to comply with State Housing Laws.

BACKGROUND
The One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program is the policy and programming framework for investing federal Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ), and other fund programs throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) established the OBAG program in 2013 to strengthen the connection between transportation investments and regional goals for focused growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs), places near public transit that are planned for new homes, jobs, and community amenities.

The OBAG program is available to cities and counties through a competitive call for projects process, administered and selected by the MTC in coordination with the nine Bay Area County Transportation Agencies (CTAs). MTC is responsible for call for projects oversight and final project selection.

The third round of OBAG funding known as OBAG 3 was adopted by MTC in January 2022 and includes $750 million in federal funding for projects from 2023 to 2026. A total of 29 applications were submitted by various jurisdictions in Contra Costa County to Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) for scoring and project prioritization. CCTA prioritized 10 projects, one of which included Pinole’s Bay Trail Gap Closure at Tennent Avenue, also known as Pedestrian Improvements at Tennent Avenue (CIP Project – 146 of 704
City Council Report
May 16, 2023 2
RO1902, the “Project”). For the City to be eligible to receive OBAG 3 grant funds, several requirements must be met throughout the OBAG 3 program period:
• A general plan housing element should be adopted and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for the 2023-31 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) cycle by December 23, 2023, and certification must be maintained through the OBAG 3 program period; • The City must submit Housing Element Annual Reports annually to HCD by April 1st deadline;
• Adopt a resolution self-certifying compliance with state housing laws related to surplus lands, accessory dwelling units, and density bonuses by December 31, 2023;
• Maintain ongoing compliance with the Housing Accountability Act (as determined by MTC staff);
• Adopt a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) or equivalent safety plan, as defined by the California Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) guidelines, by December 31, 2023;
• Maintain a certified Pavement Management Program (StreetSaver® or equivalent), updated as prescribed by MTC staff;
• Fully participate in statewide local streets and road needs assessment surveys (including any assigned funding contribution); and
• Provide traffic count data to MTC to support FHWA’s Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) on an annual basis, or as directed by MTC staff.

REVIEW & ANALYSIS
On April 18, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution 2023-27 to authorize the filing of an application for $1,020,000 in OBAG 3 funds to MTC for the Project. The Project closes a 600-foot gap in the San Francisco Bay Trail in the City of Pinole where it crosses the Union Pacific tracks at Tennent Avenue near Bayfront Park. The Project will improve safety of the at-grade crossing of the Union Pacific tracks including conforming to accessibility guidelines.

The Resolution to comply with State Housing Law (Attachment A) indicates that the City agrees to comply with the terms of the Surplus Land Act, state laws pertaining to accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs), and state Density Bonus Law.

The City is on track to meet all the requirements noted above for the OBAG 3 grant program.
147 of 704
City Council Report
May 16, 2023 3

FISCAL IMPACT
One of the requirements to receive OBAG 3 grant funds includes adoption of the Resolution to comply with State Housing Law. The Project will not receive $1,020,000 in OBAG 3 grant funds if the Resolution is not adopted.

ATTACHMENT
A. Resolution
148 of 704
RESOLUTION NO. 2023 – XX

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

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO COMPLY WITH STATE

HOUSING LAWS
WHEREAS, the San Francisco region has the highest housing costs in the United States; and
WHEREAS, the Bay Area produced less than 30% of the need for low- and moderate-income housing units from 2007-2014, and is on track to similarly underproduce low-income units during the 2015-2023 time period; and
WHEREAS, there are limited funding sources available to secure land for the construction of low- and moderate-income housing; and
WHEREAS, public lands can play a critical role in increasing the supply of land for affordable housing;
WHEREAS, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) provide an important option to increase the availability and affordability of housing, especially in existing, lower density neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, density bonuses are an effective tool to increase the financial feasibility of housing and incentivize the creation of affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission adopted Resolution No. 4505, outlining the programming policy and project selection criteria for the One Bay Area Grant Program (OBAG 3), including certain requirements to access these funds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Pinole, State of California, as follows:

That the City of Pinole agrees to comply with the terms of Surplus Land Act (California Government Code § 54220 et seq.), as exists now or may be amended in the future, including, but not limited to, AB 1255 (Rivas, 2019), which requires jurisdictions to compile and report annually an inventory of surplus lands to the California Department of Housing and Community Development; and.

That the City of Pinole agrees to comply with state laws related to ADUs and JADUs, as it exists now or may be amended in the future, including, but not limited to California Government Code §§ 65852.150, 65852.2, 65852.22, et seq. and California Health & Safety Code §§ 17980.12; and
That the City of Pinole agrees to comply with state Density Bonus Law (California Government Code § 65915 et seq.), as exists now or may be amended in the future; and

ATTACHMENT A
149 of 704
That the City of Pinole warrants and represents that is in compliance with the aforementioned state housing laws and that there are no claims, actions, suits, or proceedings pending to the best of the City of Pinole’s knowledge, alleging violations of the state housing laws by the City of Pinole.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pinole City Council held on the 16th day of May 2023 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was regularly introduced, passed, and adopted on the 16th day of May 2023.
____________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
150 of 704

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
9E
DATE: MAY 16, 2023
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ANDREW MURRAY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OPPOSING STATE INITIATIVE 21-0042A1

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider adopting a resolution opposing State Initiative 21-0042A1.

BACKGROUND
At its meeting of April 4, 2023, the City Council approved as a future agenda item a resolution opposing State Initiative 21-0042A1.

State Initiative 21-0042A1, also referred to as The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, would put substantial local government fee and charge revenue in legal peril. The measure has qualified for the ballot for November 2024. City staff has drafted a resolution (attached) for City Council’s consideration based on a model provided by the League of California Cities (Cal Cities). Cal Cities has assessed the effects of the measure, if it were to be approved by voters, which are summarized in the attached Cal Cities publication “Fiscal and Program Effects of Initiative 21-0042A1 on Local Governments.” The proposed resolution expresses the City’s opposition to State Initiative 21- 0042A1 and commits the City to joining the no on Initiative 21-0042A1 coalition.

Joining that coalition means that opposition groups could list the City as an opponent of the measure. An opposition campaign committee has not yet been established.

The City Council previously adopted a resolution in May 2022 opposing this initiative (attached).

The City Council has requested, as a future Council agenda item, a presentation from a representative of Cal Cities on the measure, to further discuss the implications of the measure. That presentation is tentatively scheduled for the Council meeting of August 15, 2023.
151 of 704

FISCAL IMPACT
There would be no direct fiscal impact to the City created by adopting a resolution opposing State Initiative 21-0042A1.

ATTACHMENTS
A Resolution
B Fiscal and Program Effects of Initiative 21-0042A1 on Local Governments C May 2022 City Council staff report and attachments
152 of 704
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE OPPOSING STATE INITIATIVE 21-0042A1
WHEREAS, an association representing California’s wealthiest corporations and developers is spending millions to push a deceptive proposition aimed for the November 2024 statewide ballot; 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 and our environment; and WHEREAS, the measure may make 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; and WHEREAS, the measure puts billions of dollars currently dedicated to local services at risk and could force cuts to fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more; and
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Pinole opposes Initiative 21- 0042A1;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Pinole will join the No on Initiative 21-0042A1 coalition, a growing coalition of public safety, education, labor, local government, and infrastructure groups throughout the state, and the City approves being listed as an opponent of the initiative.

We direct staff to email a copy of this adopted resolution to the League of California Cities at [email protected].

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pinole held on the 16th day of May, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ATTACHMENT A
153 of 704
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was regularly introduced, passed, and adopted on the 16th day of May, 2023.
___________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
154 of 704
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:
 Over $20 billion of local government fee and charge revenues over 10 years placed at heightened legal peril. Related public service reductions across virtually every aspect of city, county, special district, and school services especially for drinking water, sewer sanitation, and public health and safety.  About $2 billion of revenues each year from fees and charges adopted after January 1, 2021 subject to legal peril.
1  Over $2 billion dollars of annual revenues from dozens of tax measures approved by voters between January 1, 2022 and the effective date of the act2 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.
 Substantially higher legal and administrative cost of public infrastructure financing which will delay and deter new residential and commercial development.
 Service and infrastructure declines 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).3
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 the effective date of the Act should it pass would be void a year after the effective date of the initiative.  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.  A city charter may not be amended to impose, extend, or increase a tax might interfere with the ability of cities that do not already have such authority in their charters to adopt Property Transfer Taxes. o There are no more than a few of these every few years, but it is a valuable tax for those that adopt it.
1 Assumes fee increases since January 1, 2022 would be subject to possible legal challenge if not adopted in compliance with the Initiative.
2 The effective date of the initiative would be sometime in December 2024, the date the California Secretary of State certifies the election results of the November 5, 2024 election.
3 Unlike the initiative 17-0050, this initiative does not eliminate that ability of cities and counties to adopt general taxes by majority voter approval.
2217 Isle Royale Lane • Davis, CA • 95616-6616
Phone: 530.758.3952 • Fax: 530.758.3952
Rev. January 14, 2023

ATTACHMENT B
155 of 704
– 2 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
 Requires that a tax measure adopted after January 1, 2022 and before the effective date of the initiative 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. o If past election patterns and elections in 2022 are an indication, over 200 tax measures approving more than $2 billion annual revenues to support local public services would not be in compliance and would be subject to reenactment. Most will be taxes without a specific end date and special taxes (including parcel taxes). Because there is no regularly scheduled election within the 12 months following the effective date of the initiative, the measures would each require declaration of emergency and unanimous vote of the governing board to be placed on a special election ballot within a year for approval or the tax will be void after that date. I would expect most to succeed, but some will not, in particular citizen initiative majority vote special taxes which would have to meet a higher voter approval threshold to continue.  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 would each require unanimous vote of the agency board to be placed on a special election ballot or would be void a year later.

1.a. Number of Measures and Value of Local Taxes at Risk4 Over a hundred local measures were approved in 2022 that likely do not comply with the provisions of Initiative 21-0042A1. Nearly $2 billion of annual revenues from these voter approved measures will cease a year after the effective date of the measure, reducing the local public services funded by these measures. We can expect a similar volume of measures in 2024 and a similar volume of non-compliance. So the combined total of annual local funding directly affected by Initiative 21-0042A1 due to its retroactivity provision is about $4 billion.

Citizen Initiative Special Taxes in 2022.

Special taxes placed on the ballot by citizen initiative and approved after January 1, 2022 by a majority but less than two-thirds of the voters are out of compliance with Initiative 21-0042A1.

On June 7, 2022, there were three local special tax measures placed on the ballot by citizen initiative. Two failed to get majority voter approval. A one percent transactions and use tax (sales tax) for the John C. Fremont Healthcare District in Mariposa County received 69.6 percent approval, over the two thirds needed for any special tax under California Constitution Article XIIIC. So this measure was passed in compliance with Initiative 21- 0042A1.

On November 8, 2022, there were 14 local special taxes placed on the ballot by citizen initiative. Seven of these 4 Source: Compilation and summary of data from County elections offices.

June 2022 Initiative Special Taxes - majority voter approval Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Estimated
Annual Revenue Use Sunset YES%
John C. Fremont
Healthcare District Mariposa Measure N Transactions & Use Tax 1 cent $ 150,000 hospital 40yrs 69.6% PASS County of Kings Kings Measure F Transactions
& Use Tax 1/2 cent $ 11,700,000 fire none 37.6% FAIL
Manhattan Beach
USD Los Angeles Measure A School Parcel Tax $1095/yr $ 12,000,000 schools 12yrs 31.2% FAIL 156 of 704
– 3 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
measures failed with less than majority voter approval. The other seven measures received majority, but less than two-thirds, voter approval. These measures passed under current law but are out of compliance with Initiative 21- 0042A1. Taken together these seven taxes will provide estimated annual revenues of from $900,000 to $1.4 billion in support of parks and recreation, zoo, library, affordable housing, transportation, homelessness prevention, and schools in these communities.

Non-Specific Tax Durations in 2022
Voters approved 106 measures in June 2022 (10) and November 2022 (96) that do not provide a specific duration of time that the tax will be imposed (end date). Typically, the ballot titles for these measures state that the tax would be imposed “until ended by voters.” Four of these measures also did not include any estimate of the annual revenues that the tax would generate, another violation of initiative 21-0042A1. Taken together, these approved local measures generate $561 million per year that will expire a year after the effective date of the initiative if Initiative 21-0042A1 passes.

November 2022 Initiative Special Taxes - majority voter approval Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Estimated
Annual Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Crockett Community
Services District Contra Costa Measure L Parcel Tax $50/parcel $ 60,000 parks/recr none 62.8% PASS Oakland Alameda Measure Y Parcel Tax $68/parcel $ 12,000,000 zoo 20yrs 62.5% PASS County of Mendocino Measure O Transactions
& Use Tax
1/8 cent then 1/4
cent in 2027 $ 4,000,000 library none 60.8% PASS
Los Angeles Los Angeles Measure ULA Property
Transfer Tax
4% if >$5m, 5.5%
if >$10m $600 m to $1.1 b affordable housing none 57.3% PASS County of Sacramento Measure A Transactions
& Use Tax same 1/2 cent $ 212,512,500 transportati
on
40yrs 55.3% PASS
San Francisco Proposition M Business
Operations Tax
$2500-$5000/
vacant resid unit $ 20,000,000 housing 30yrs 54.5% PASS Santa Monica Los Angeles Measure GS Property
Transfer Tax
$56/$1000 if
>$8m $ 50,000,000
schools,
homelessne
ss, afford.
housing
none 53.3% PASS
Total $900,000 to
$1.4 billion
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Estimated
Annual Revenue Use Sunset YES%
County of Calaveras Measure A Transactions
& Use Tax 1 cent $ 5,000,000 fire none 49.4% FAIL
South San Francisco
(for Schools) San Mateo Measure DD School Parcel Tax $2.50/sf $ 55,900,000 schools none 47.2% FAIL County of Fresno (for CSU ) Measure E Transactions
& Use Tax
1/5 ct,
1/40 ct (Reedley) $ 36,000,000 Calif State Univ 20yrs 46.9% FAIL Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Measure N Parcel Tax $6k/vacant SFU xxx vacant property
xxx 44.2% FAIL
County of Monterey Measure Q Parcel Tax $49/parcel $ 5,500,000 childcare 10yrs 41.1% FAIL San Francisco City
College
San
Francisco Measure O School Parcel Tax $150/sfu $ 37,000,000 schools 10yrs 36.7% FAIL Morro Bay San Luis
Obispo Measure B Parcel Tax $120+/parcel $ 680,000 harbor none 36.0% FAIL Inverness Public
Utility District Marin Measure O Parcel Tax $0.20/sf, $150/vacant $ 276,000 fire none 27.0% FAIL 157 of 704
– 4 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Oakland Alameda Measure T Business Tax
General various $ 20,900,000 none 71.4% PASS
Culver City Los Angeles Measure BL Business Tax
General various $ 10,000,000 none 60.5% PASS
El Segundo Los Angeles Measure BT Business Tax
General various $ 3,000,000 none 51.2% PASS
Pico Rivera Los Angeles Measure AB Business Tax
General various $ 5,800,000 none 75.5% PASS
Santa Ana Orange Measure W Business Tax
General various neutral none 64.8% PASS
Tracy San Joaquin Measure B Business Tax
General various $ 3,200,000 none 72.6% PASS
Burlingame San Mateo Measure X Business Tax
General various $ 2,500,000 none 75.1% PASS
Los Gatos Santa Clara Measure J Business Tax
General various $ 1,100,000 none 53.4% PASS
Santa Clara Santa Clara Measure H Business Tax
General
$45/employee,
$15/rental unit $ 6,000,000 none 59.5% PASS
Brisbane San Mateo Measure O Business Tax
lodging busn $2.50/rm/day $ 250,000 none 69.2% PASS
East Palo Alto San Mateo Measure L Business Tax
resid. rentals

2.5%
grossRcpts $ 1,480,000 none 69.9% PASS
County of Santa Cruz Unincorporated Measure C Busn Tax - disp cups 12.5cents/cup $ 700,000 none 68.2% PASS
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado Measure G Busn Tax
Cannabis
6% retail,
manufacturing $ 950,000 none 62.9% PASS
McFarland Kern Measure O Busn Tax
Cannabis
8% of gross
receipts retail, $ 1,800,000 none 63.5% PASS
Avenal Kings Measure C Busn Tax
Cannabis
$25+/sf or
15% gr rcpts $ 600,000 none 61.8% PASS
Baldwin Park Los Angeles Measure CB Busn Tax
Cannabis
4%
grossRcpts $ 300,000 none 51.3% PASS
Claremont Los Angeles Measure CT Busn Tax
Cannabis
4%-7% gr
rcpts, $1- $ 500,000 none 61.1% PASS
County of Los Angeles Unincorporated Measure C Busn Tax Cannabis
4% gross
receipts retail, $ 15,170,000 none 60.1% PASS
Cudahy Los Angeles Measure BA Busn Tax
Cannabis
15%
grossRcpts $ 3,600,000 none 54.0% PASS
El Segundo Los Angeles Measure Y Busn Tax
Cannabis
10%
GrossRcpt, $ 1,500,000 none 72.8% PASS
Hermosa Beach Los Angeles Measure T Busn Tax
Cannabis
10%
GrossRcpt, $ 1,500,000 none 67.6% PASS
Lynwood Los Angeles Measure TR Busn Tax
Cannabis 5%to10% $ 3,000,000 none 66.4% PASS
Santa Monica Los Angeles Measure HM Busn Tax
Cannabis
10% gross
Rcpts $ 5,000,000 none 66.4% PASS
South El Monte Los Angeles Measure CM Busn Tax
Cannabis
6% special
excise tax on $ 126,000 none 53.7% PASS
Monterey Monterey Measure J Busn Tax
Cannabis 6% grossRcpt $ 1,300,000 none 65.2% PASS
Pacific Grove Monterey Measure N Busn Tax
Cannabis 6% grossRcpt $ 300,000 none 70.8% PASS
Huntington Beach Orange Measure O Busn Tax
Cannabis
6% retail, 1%
other $ 600,000 none 54.7% PASS
158 of 704
– 5 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Notes
?= Ballot measure title did not include an estimate of annual revenues, also not in compliance with Initiative 21-0042A1. n/a*= Arcadia Measure SW passed but sports betting remains illegal after the failure of Propositions 26 and 27 on the November statewide ballot.

Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Laguna Woods Orange Measure T Busn Tax
Cannabis
4%-10% of
gross receipts $ 750,000 none 61.1% PASS
Corona Riverside Measure G Busn Tax
Cannabis
9% of gross
receipts for $ 5,000,000 none 61.6% PASS
Montclair San Bernardino Measure R Busn Tax
Cannabis
7%
grossRcpts $ 3,500,000 none 70.3% PASS
County of San Diego Unincorporated Measure A Busn Tax
Cannabis
6% retail, 3%
distribution, $ 5,600,000 none 57.4% PASS
Encinitas San Diego Measure L Busn Tax
Cannabis
4% to 7% of
gross receipts $ 1,400,000 none 65.1% PASS
Healdsburg Sonoma Measure M Busn Tax
Cannabis 8% grossRcpt $ 500,000 none 72.7% PASS
Exeter Tulare Measure B Busn Tax
Cannabis
10% retail and
other, $10/sf ? none 66.5% PASS
Tulare Tulare Measure Y Busn Tax
Cannabis
10% retail and
other, $10/sf ? none 65.2% PASS
Woodland Yolo Measure K Busn Tax
Cannabis
10%
grossRcpts
? none 66.2% PASS
Redlands San Bernardino Measure J Busn Tax
Distrib centers
from $0.047/sf
to $0.105/sf $ 530,000 none 53.5% PASS
Arcadia Los Angeles Measure SW Busn Tax
Sports Betting
5%
grossRcpts
n/a* none 63.9% PASS
Albany Alameda Measure K ParcelTax $0.074+/sf $ 1,950,000 fire/EMS none 76.0% PASS Cameron Park Airport
District El Dorado Measure J ParcelTax by $600 to $900/parcel $ 117,900 airport/ streets none 78.2% PASS Highlands Village
Lighting Benefit Zone El Dorado Measure L ParcelTax $140+/parcel $ 10,920 streets none 86.3% PASS Knolls Property
Owners CSD El Dorado Measure P ParcelTax by $300+ to $600+/parcel $ 8,400 streets none 75.5% PASS Sundance Trail Zone of
Benefit El Dorado Measure C ParcelTax $600+/yr $ 24,000 roads none 73.2% PASS South Pasadena Los Angeles Measure LL ParcelTax xxx ? library none 86.2% PASS River Delta Fire District Sacramento Measure H ParcelTax $90/yr $ 130,000 fire none 72.1% PASS Emeryville Alameda Measure O PropTransfTax $15/$1000 if $1m-$2m, $ 5,000,000 none 71.6% PASS
San Mateo San Mateo Measure CC PropTransfTax by 1% to 1.5% if >$10m $ 4,800,000 none 71.8% PASS
Alameda Alameda Measure F TOT by 4% to 14% $ 910,000 none 59.2% PASS Clovis Fresno Measure B TOT by 2% to 12% $ 500,000 none 69.7% PASS Kerman Fresno Measure G TOT 10% $ 40,000 none 62.3% PASS Trinidad Humboldt Measure P TOT by 4% to 12% $ 65,000 none 77.6% PASS Imperial Imperial Measure G TOT by 4% to 12% $ 600,000 none 56.2% PASS Arcadia Los Angeles Measure HT TOT by 2% to 12% $ 730,000 none 54.1% PASS Santa Monica Los Angeles Measure CS TOT by 1%, 3%
home shares $ 4,100,000 none 73.7% PASS
159 of 704
– 6 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Anaheim Orange Measure J TOT online travel
companies $ 3,000,000 none 59.2% PASS
La Palma Orange Measure P TOT by 4% to 12% $ 200,000 none 71.1% PASS Colfax Placer Measure B TOT by 2% to10% $ 29,000 none 73.5% PASS Rocklin Placer Measure F TOT by 2% to 10% $ 300,000 none 59.8% PASS Roseville Placer Measure C TOT by 4% to 10% $ 3,000,000 none 73.0% PASS Big Bear Lake San Bernardino Measure P TOT by 2% to 10% $ 1,300,000 none 54.4% PASS Grand Terrace San Bernardino Measure M TOT new 10% $ 250,000 none 51.9% PASS Yucca Valley San Bernardino Measure K TOT by 5% to 12% $ 1,300,000 none 71.9% PASS Imperial Beach San Diego Measure R TOT by 4% to 14% $ 400,000 none 67.4% PASS El Paso de Robles San Luis ObispoMeasure F TOT by 1% to 11% $ 750,000 none 61.2% PASS Belmont San Mateo Measure K TOT by 2% to 14% $ 600,000 none 79.3% PASS Millbrae San Mateo Measure N TOT by 2% to 14% $ 1,500,000 none 75.8% PASS County of Humboldt Unincorporated Measure J TOT by 2% to 12% $ 3,080,000 none 63.3% PASS County of Placer -
North Tahoe TOT Area Measure A TOT by 2% to 10% $ 4,000,000 none 90.0% PASS County of Santa Cruz Unincorporated Measure B TOT by 1% to 12% $ 2,300,000 none 69.2% PASS County of El Dorado -
East Slope Tahoe Measure S TOT 2/3 by 4% to 14% $ 2,500,000 none 81.8% PASS Chico Butte Measure H TrUT 1 cent $ 24,000,000 none 52.4% PASS Mendota Fresno Measure H TrUT 1.25 cent $ 493,498 none 57.2% PASS Blue Lake Humboldt Measure R TrUT 1 cent $ 30,000 none 55.4% PASS Rio Dell Humboldt Measure O TrUT 3/4cent $ 400,000 none 53.3% PASS County of Kern unincorporated areas Measure K TrUT 1 cent $ 54,000,000 none 50.8% PASS McFarland Kern Measure M TrUT 1 cent $ 579,662 none 62.2% PASS Tehachapi Kern Measure S TrUT 1 cent $ 4,000,000 none 57.2% PASS Avenal Kings Measure A TrUT 1 cent $ 500,000 none 72.5% PASS Susanville Lassen Measure P TrUT 1 cent $ 1,750,000 none 54.7% PASS Baldwin Park Los Angeles Measure BP TrUT 3/4 cent $ 6,000,000 none 58.1% PASS Malibu Los Angeles Measure MC TrUT 1/2 cent $ 3,000,000 none 52.6% PASS Monterey Park Los Angeles Measure MP TrUT 3/4 cent $ 6,000,000 none 58.5% PASS Torrance Los Angeles Measure SST TrUT 1/2 cent $ 18,000,000 none 55.0% PASS Larkspur Marin Measure G TrUT 1/4 cent $ 700,000 none 59.4% PASS Sand City Monterey Measure L TrUT by 1/2cent to

1.5cents $ 1,400,000 none 68.7% PASS
Hemet Riverside Measure H TrUT same 1 cent $ 15,000,000 none 58.0% PASS Elk Grove Sacramento Measure E TrUT 1 cent $ 21,000,000 none 54.1% PASS Galt Sacramento Measure Q TrUT 1 cent $ 3,600,000 none 52.4% PASS Colton San Bernardino Measure S TrUT 1 cent $ 9,500,000 none 66.8% PASS Ontario San Bernardino Measure Q TrUT 1 cent $ 95,000,000 none 53.2% PASS Solana Beach San Diego Measure S TrUT 1 cent $ 3,000,000 none 66.7% PASS Brisbane San Mateo Measure U TrUT 1/2 cent $ 2,000,000 none 63.9% PASS Goleta Santa Barbara Measure B TrUT 1 cent $ 10,600,000 none 64.7% PASS Solvang Santa Barbara Measure U TrUT 1 cent $ 1,600,000 none 63.1% PASS 160 of 704
– 7 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Co-temporal Advisory Measures in 2022
At the November 2022 election, there was just one local general tax measure that was accompanied by an advisory measure as to the use of funds. The City of Santa Monica’s Measure DT property transfer tax failed with just 34 percent approval as voters instead chose the citizen initiative Measure GS.

There was also just one such tax use advisory measure on the June 2022 election. Susanville’s voters passed Measure P, a 1 percent transactions and use (sales) tax that generates $1.75 million per year5 for general city services. The measure was accompanied by advisory Measure Q, accompanied the city’s It asked, “If Measure P passes, should the revenues be used to balance the budget to maintain and enhance existing public safety services (police and fire), and provide funding to support street infrastructure improvements and provide funding to support economic development efforts designed to increase businesses, jobs and visitors to Susanville?” Both measures passed. Under Initiative 21-0042A1, the tax will expire a year after the effective date of the initiative (i.e., in December 2025).

1.b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Tax Provisions Assuming a similar volume of local measures through 2024 as we saw in 2022, there will be over 200 local measures that will need to be redrafted to comply with the Initiative and placed back on the ballot for the taxes to continue after December 2025. The costs of re-drafting, re-placing and re-voting on these measures, previously legally approved by voters, will be in the tens of millions in total statewide.

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 and reasonable test."  Subjects fees and charges for entrance to local government property; and rental and sale of local government property to a new, undefined, “reasonable” test.  Allows legal challenge to any tax adopted before the effective date of the initiative and after January 1, 5 The Susanville measure also did not include a specific end date and so is included in the list and totals of those measures.

Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Watsonville Santa Cruz Measure R TrUT 1/2 cent $ 5,000,000 none 64.4% PASS Vallejo Solano Measure P TrUT 7/8 cent $ 18,000,000 none 54.7% PASS Modesto Stanislaus Measure H TrUT 1 cent $ 39,000,000 none 62.8% PASS County of Colusa Measure A TrUT 2/3 1/2 cent $ 2,400,000 EMS none 69.4% PASS Atwater Merced Measure B TrUT 2/3 same 1 cent $ 4,000,000 police/fire none 73.7% PASS Truckee Nevada Measure U TrUT 2/3 by 1/4 cent to
1/2 cent $ 3,000,000 open space / trails none 76.4% PASS Palo Alto Santa Clara Measure L UtilityTransfer 18% gas $ 7,000,000 none 77.7% PASS Santa Clara Santa Clara Measure G UtilityTransfer 5 % $ 30,000,000 none 84.2% PASS Hercules Contra Costa Measure N UUT 8% $ 3,600,000 none 69.3% PASS Carson Los Angeles Measure UU UUT 2% electr, gas $ 8,000,000 none 78.4% PASS Sebastopol Sonoma Measure N UUT 3.75% (same) $ 700,000 none 83.5% PASS 161 of 704
– 8 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
2022. Such a lawsuit could enjoin (stop) the enactment of the tax pending the outcome of the legal challenge.
 Subjects a challenged fee to new, higher burdens of proof if legally challenged.

2.a. Value on New Local Government Fees and Charges at Risk6 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 $2 billion per year including those adopted since January 1, 2022. Of $2 billion, about $900 million (45 percent) is for special districts, $800 million (40 percent) is cities, and $300 million (15 percent) is counties.7 Major examples of affected fees and charges are:

1. Certain water, sanitary sewer, wastewater, garbage, electric, gas service fees.

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

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

4. Advanced Life Support (ALS) transport charges.

5. Business improvement district charges.

6. Fees for processing of land use and development applications such as plan check fees, use permits, design review, environmental assessment, plan amendment, subdivision map changes.

7. Document processing and duplication fees.

8. Facility use charges, parking fees, tolls.

9. Fines, penalties.

10. Fees for parks and recreation services.

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
6 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. 7 School fees are also affected but the amount is negligible by comparison. 162 of 704

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

ATTACHMENT C
163 of 704
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. 164 58 of 285 of 704
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
165 59 of 285 of 704
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
166 60 of 285 of 704
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced, passed, and adopted on this 17th day of March, 2022.

______________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
167 61 of 285 of 704
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
168 62 of 285 of 704
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 169 63 of 285 of 704
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
2 170 64 of 285 of 704
(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 3 171 65 of 285 of 704
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.
4 172 66 of 285 of 704
.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. 5 173 67 of 285 of 704
(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 6 174 68 of 285 of 704
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. 7 175 69 of 285 of 704
(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 8 176 70 of 285 of 704
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.
9 177 71 of 285 of 704
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
178 72 of 285 of 704
– 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. 179 73 of 285 of 704
– 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. 180 74 of 285 of 704
– 4 – rev January 7, 2022
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
local law at risk, making them taxes subject to voter approval under certain circumstances.

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
9F
DATE: MAY 16, 2023
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: LILLY WHALEN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION PROMOTING AND SUPPORTING THE CREATION

OF EDUCATION WORKFORCE HOUSING IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider adopting a Resolution (Attachment A) to promote and support the creation of workforce housing for Contra Costa County teachers and education staff.

BACKGROUND
At its meeting of April 4, 2023, the City Council approved as a future agenda item consideration of a Resolution supporting education workforce housing in Contra Costa County.

On April 19, 2023, the County Board of Education (BOE) adopted a Resolution recognizing the need for education workforce housing in Contra Costa County and noting that the Office of Education, County, school districts, and cities in Contra Costa County may all promote and lead the way to workforce housing for teachers and education staff through partnerships and collaborations (Attachment B).

City staff has drafted a Resolution (Attachment A) for the City Council’s consideration and action. The draft Resolution supports BOE’s efforts to increase affordable housing options for the educational workforce living in the County through partnerships and collaborations.

REVIEW & ANALYSIS
In January 2022, cityLAB, the Center for Cities + Schools at UC Berkeley, the Terner Center for Housing Innovation, and the California School Boards Association (CSBA) released an in-depth research Study on education workforce housing — and the steps Local Education Agencies (LEAs) can take to produce more housing for the education workforce by leveraging underutilized school lands. The Study – Education Workforce Housing in California:

Development the 21st Century Campus1 - provides a comprehensive overview of the potential for land owned by school districts to be designed and developed for teachers and other employees. The Study’s Executive Summary indicates that among the many negative 1 Available online: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/blog/education-workforce-housing-report-release/ 182 of 704
City Council Report
May 16, 2023 2
consequences of California’s housing crisis is the toll it takes the hundreds of thousands of teachers and other employees working in the public school system, where many cannot afford to live in the communities they work, forcing them to commute long distances or pushing them out of the education system altogether. Importantly, the Study raises the fact that staffing challenges are even more acute in LEAs enrolling low-income and historically underserved students, where they have long suffered higher rates of both teacher turnover and teachers with substandard credentials.

On September 28, 2022, Governor Newson signed AB 2295 into law, adding Section 65914.7 to the Government Code. This new section considers housing development projects on property owned by a LEA to be an allowable use of the property, provided certain criteria are met. These housing development projects are aimed at providing much-needed housing for teachers and other employees of the LEA. Government Code Section 65914.7 becomes effective January 1, 2024 and expires January 1, 2033. To be considered an allowable use of property, an LEA housing development must meet a list of criteria, including that the project must rent 100% of units to LEA employees, contain a minimum of 10 units, be built at the highest density allowed and be deed-restricted for 55 years. If the project meets all required criteria, it will be deemed consistent, compliant and in conformity with local development standards, zoning codes or maps and the general plan.

During the update of the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element the Planning Commission and City Council discussed how to promote and incentivize affordable housing for teachers in Pinole. The updated Housing Element contains Policy 1.3, which directs the City to pursue partnerships to encourage affordable housing production and Program 11, which includes teachers as eligible tenants for a Home Sharing and Tenant Matching Program, which assists in helping those who work in Pinole find housing options in the City. The draft Resolution in Attachment A recognizes these efforts.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with adoption of the Resolution.

ATTACHMENT(S)
A – Resolution
B – BOE Resolution Adopted April 19, 2023
183 of 704
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE TO SUPPORT

THE DEVELOPMENT OF EDUCATION WORKFORCE HOUSING IN CONTRA

COSTA COUNTY
WHEREAS, according to a 2022 UC Berkeley study (the “Study”) entitled Education Workforce Housing in California: Developing the 21st Century Campus (Education Workforce Housing in California) public school teachers have a difficult time finding affordable housing as their salaries are often too low to compete in the local housing market but too high to qualify for traditional affordable housing; and WHEREAS, according to the Study, nationally, 35 percent of teachers are considered rent-burdened (defined as paying more than 30 percent of their income as rent), and the problem is even more pronounced among Black and Latino teachers and in California where teacher salaries have been unable to keep up with the worsening housing crisis as costs to rent and buy homes soar across the state; and WHEREAS, according to the Study, every county in California has public land that may be ideal to build housing for teachers and school staff, in fact it found that 75,000 acres of a total of 150,000 acres of land owned by California’s school districts could be developed into affordable housing and at 30 units per acre there could be 2.3 million units of teacher and school staff housing; and
WHEREAS, according to the Study, 224 potentially developable properties in Contra Costa County are owned by Local Education Agencies, totaling 2,209 acres of potentially developable land; and
WHEREAS, the City’s adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element contains Policy 1.3 which directs the City to pursue partnerships to encourage affordable housing production and Program 11 which includes teachers as eligible tenants for a Home Sharing and Tenant Matching Program which assists in helping those who work in Pinole find housing options in the City; and
WHEREAS, State legislative action in recent years is paving the way for more housing development on school lands including The Teacher Housing Act of 2016, AB 1157: Teacher Housing (2017), Building Homes and Jobs Act (2017), and AB 2295 (2022) which empowers school districts in California to utilize low-income housing tax credits to develop affordable housing for teachers and other school employees on district-owned vacant land; and
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2023 the County Board of Education adopted Resolution No. 32-22/23 recognizing the need for education workforce housing in Contra Costa County and supporting efforts to increase affordable housing options for the education workforce living in the County; and

ATTACHMENT A
184 of 704
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pinole supports the County Board of Education’s efforts to increase affordable housing options for the educational workforce living in the County and commits to partnerships and collaborations to address this issue through the implementation of the programs, policies, and actions outlined in the City’s Housing element.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pinole held on the 16th day of May, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was regularly introduced, passed, and adopted on the 16th day of May, 2023,
___________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
185 of 704

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

RESOLUTION TO PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF EDUCATION WORKFORCE

HOUSING IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Resolution #32- 22/23
WHEREAS, due to severe teacher/educator shortages, the Contra Costa County Board of Education, representing the five areas of Contra Costa County, including all 18 school districts, believes all students deserve the highest quality education, which shall include attracting and retaining the best, brightest and most qualified teachers and support staff.

WHEREAS, according to a recent UC Berkeley study entitled Education Workforce Housing in California: Developing the 21st Century Campus (Education Workforce Housing in California) the growing interest in building workforce housing comes amidst two intertwined crises in California: Strong challenges in teacher recruitment and retention, and challenges which stem from low salary and benefits.

WHEREAS, nationally, 35 percent of educators are considered rent-burdened, the problem is especially pronounced in California where teacher salaries have been unable to keep up with the worsening housing crisis as costs to rent and buy homes soar across the state. Nationally, 35 percent of teachers are considered rent-burdened, defined as paying more than 30 percent of their income as rent, and the problem is even more pronounced among Black and Latino teachers, according to the report.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that existing county and school district vacant property may be utilized to build housing for teachers and school staff, and that local leaders may work with the Contra Costa County Building and Construction Trades Council to ensure a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) is agreed upon prior to financing the work and through the construction of workforce housing LEAs can provide the opportunity for apprentices enrolled in State of California approved Joint Apprenticeship & Training Committee (JATC) programs to further their educational goals.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County Office of Education; the Contra Costa County Board of Education Trustees; the 18 Contra Costa County district school Boards; the many city mayors and city councilmembers; Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council and the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors may all promote and lead the way to workforce housing for teachers and education staff through partnerships and collaborations. We, the undersigned do agree with this resolution and encourage its passage.

Ayes:

Noes:

Abstain:

Absent:

Passed and Adopted April 19, 2023
President, Board of Education

ATTACHMENT B
186 of 704

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
9G

DATE: MAY 16, 2023
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JEREMY ROGERS, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION FUNDING FOR EAST BAY REGIONAL

PARK DISTRICT TRAIL EXPANSION PROJECTS

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider approving a letter of support for U.S. Department of Transportation funding for East Bay Regional Park District trail expansion projects.

BACKGROUND
At its meeting of April 4, 2023, the City Council approved as a future agenda item a letter of support for funding from the United States Department of Transportation to the East Bay Regional Park District for the Bay Trail to be extended to Point Pinole.

The attached letter will show support for the East Bay Regional Park District’s 2023 Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Grant Application for $19,940,000. This grant submission is intended to connect East Bay communities sustainably and equitably across 33 cities and two counties.

The East Bay Regional Park District (Park District) manages 200 miles of paved active transportation trails serving 2.8 million East Bay residents. With an expansive network in high demand – up to a 50% increase in use during the Covid-19 pandemic – it is a timely need for the Park District to have sufficient resources aimed at expanding the system. In 2010, the Park District received a highly competitive Federal TIGER II grant of $10.2 million to close gaps in this non-motorized transportation network.

As the East Bay population continues to increase, the Park District is preparing innovative and equitable solutions to address the need for safe, environmentally friendly transportation. Traffic congestion is a high priority for many East Bay residents. With dramatic weather conditions affecting shorelines, the Park District recognizes the role its trail network can play in addressing the impacts of sea level rise with safe, climate friendly Bay and Delta trail infrastructure. 187 of 704
This letter is in support of RAISE grant funding for the following proposed projects:

1. Oakland Bay Trail Extension
Project: Construction of a .1-mile paved multi-use connection from East Oakland to the new Brooklyn Basin development and the San Francisco Bay Trail.

Partners: Port of Oakland and City of Oakland
Community Benefits: The Brooklyn Basin was originally part of the Port of Oakland and is now being converted into homes and businesses. This trail will link the Basin to the Fruitvale neighborhood of Oakland and into East Oakland. This new connection will allow cyclists and pedestrians to access businesses and retail or use the Bay Trail for active transportation and health. The proposed project is located in a census tract for which 19% of the population lives below poverty (2019 American Community Survey).

2. Iron Horse Trail Extension – Concord to Benicia Bridge:

Project: Construction of a .25-mile paved multi-use trail extension of the Iron Horse Trail – Marsh Drive to Imhoff Drive. The project includes a safe signalized crossing and safety improvements of Marsh Drive.

Partners: Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Community Benefits: This is a key extension of the 34-mile paved trail paralleling Interstate-680. It would extend a previously funded TIGER II trail corridor. The Iron Horse Trail, designated as a National Millennium Trail in 2000, is one of the nation’s great Rails-to-Trails success stories. Located primarily within an abandoned rail corridor, the trail attracts over a million users per year along 34 miles of completed trail. It connects to four BART stations, 19 schools, one community college and multiple business parks – including headquarters for Chevron, AT&T, Kaiser Permanente and Shaklee.

3. Richmond Bay Trail Extension:

Project: Construction of a .9-mile paved multi-use extension of the San Francisco Bay Trail from Pinole Point Business Park in Richmond – where companies including Amazon, Whole Foods and UPS distribution centers are located – to Point Wilson providing a connection to the Regional Intermodal Transportation Center (RITC) and Pinole Shores railroad overcrossing – two active transportation projects previously funded by TIGER II.

The trail also connects to the Bio-Rad Laboratories campus. This trail segment has regional transportation benefits because it would complete the San Francisco Bay Trail between the City of Oakland and the City of Hercules.

4. George Miller Regional Trail to Martinez Intermodal Station Extension Project: This project is a .5-mile paved multi-use trail extension of the San Francisco Bay Trail. It connects the TIGER II funded segment of the Bay Trail named after former U.S. Representative George Miller to the 188 of 704
downtown Martinez intermodal station. The project includes pedestrian safety improvements to the at-grade railroad crossing of Berrellesa Street in Martinez.

Completing this gap will create public health, economic and social equity benefits for residents within low-income communities, in addition to enhancing the mobility opportunities for residents.

5. Marsh Creek Trail Extension:

Project: The three-mile paved multi-use extension of the Marsh Creek Trail from a parkway in Brentwood, next to businesses and the Los Medanos College Brentwood Center reside, through Marsh Creek State Historic Park to Round Valley Regional Preserve.

Partners: California Department of Parks and Recreation, Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Contra Costa County

FISCAL IMPACT
There would be no direct fiscal impact to the City created by submitting a letter of support.

ATTACHMENTS
A. City of Pinole Letter of Support for United States Department of Transportation funding
189 of 704

CITY OF PINOLE
City Hall Phone: (510) 724-9000
2131 Pear Street FAX: (510) 724-9826
Pinole, CA 94564 www.ci.pinole.ca.us
May 16, 2023
Sabrina Landreth
General Manager
East Bay Regional Park District
2950 Peralta Oaks Court
Oakland, California 94605
RE: Support for East Bay Regional Park District DOT RAISE Grant Application Dear General Manager Landreth:

On behalf of the City of Pinole, we are writing to express our support for the East Bay Regional Park District’s 2023 Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Grant Application for $19,940,000. This grant submission is intended to connect East Bay communities sustainably and equitably across 33 cities and two counties.

As the East Bay population continues to increase, the Park District is preparing innovative and equitable solutions to address the need for safe, environmentally friendly transportation. Traffic congestion is a high priority for many East Bay residents. With dramatic weather conditions affecting shorelines, the Park District recognizes the role its trail network can play in addressing the impacts of sea level rise with safe, climate friendly Bay and Delta trail infrastructure. This letter is in support of RAISE grant funding for the following proposed projects:

1. Oakland Bay Trail Extension
Project: Construction of a .1-mile paved multi-use connection from East Oakland to the new Brooklyn Basin development and the San Francisco Bay Trail.

2. Iron Horse Trail Extension – Concord to Benicia Bridge:

ATTACHMENT A
190 of 704
Project: Construction of a .25-mile paved multi-use trail extension of the Iron Horse Trail – Marsh Drive to Imhoff Drive. The project includes a safe signalized crossing and safety improvements of Marsh Drive.

Partners: Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Community Benefits: This is a key extension of the 34-mile paved trail paralleling Interstate-680. It would extend a previously funded TIGER II trail corridor. The Iron Horse Trail, designated as a National Millennium Trail in 2000, is one of the nation’s great Rails-to-Trails success stories. Located primarily within an abandoned rail corridor, the trail attracts over a million users per year along 34 miles of completed trail. It connects to four BART stations, 19 schools, one community college and multiple business parks – including headquarters for Chevron, AT&T, Kaiser Permanente and Shaklee.

3. Richmond Bay Trail Extension:

Partners: City of Richmond and Contra Costa Transportation Authority Community Benefits: The trail would connect to three modes of public transportation – rail, ferry and bus – at one convenient location along the waterfront in a growing community located at the San Pablo Bay shoreline. The trail also connects to the BioRad Laboratories campus. This trail segment has regional transportation benefits because it would complete the San Francisco Bay Trail between the City of Oakland and the City of Hercules.

4. George Miller Regional Trail to Martinez Intermodal Station Extension Project: This project is a .5-mile paved multi-use trail extension of the San Francisco Bay Trail. It connects the TIGER II funded segment of the Bay Trail named after former U.S. Representative George Miller to the downtown Martinez intermodal station. The project includes pedestrian safety improvements to the at-grade railroad crossing of Berrellesa Street in Martinez.

Partners: Contra Costa County, Union Pacific Railroad and City of Martinez Community Benefits: The project will provide direct access to Amtrak, the Capitol Corridor commuter rail service to Sacramento, and regional bus service for the residents of Port Costa and Crockett – as well as providing improved connectivity to the intermodal station for Martinez residents. Completing this gap will create public health, economic and social equity benefits for residents within low-income communities, in addition to enhancing the mobility opportunities for residents.

5. Marsh Creek Trail Extension:

Partners: California Department of Parks and Recreation, Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Contra Costa County 191 of 704
Community Benefits: The project includes safety barriers near Marsh Creek Reservoir.

It also provides a safe grade separated trail and wildlife crossing of the heavily used, high speed Marsh Creek Road in Contra Costa County.

We strongly support this application and respectfully request the Department of Transportation favorably consider the East Bay Regional Park District’s application for funding.

Sincerely,
Devin T. Murphy
Mayor
City of Pinole
192 of 704

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
9H
DATE: MAY 16, 2023
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: LILLY WHALEN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: OPTIONS FOR A CITY-SPONSORED JOB FAIR

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that it survey Pinole businesses regarding their employee recruitment needs and return to Council with a proposal for a job fair to meet the businesses’ needs.

BACKGROUND
At the December 20, 2022 Council meeting, Councilmember Tave requested a future agenda item regarding options for a City-sponsored job fair. This report provides a recommendation for considering a job fair focused on aiding Pinole businesses in connecting with job seekers.

REVIEW & ANALYSIS
A job fair is an event at which employers and recruiters give information to potential employees.

Fairs can vary in size and scope and be performed in person or (more recently) online. Job fairs provide an opportunity for job seekers to connect with multiple employers at one time in a single location, and for employers to connect with multiple job seekers. At in person job fairs, each registered employer gets a booth or table at which they talk with job seekers who wish to learn more about the company, or are interested in submitting an application for a specific role. Some job fairs provide space for same day interviews and other screenings, and some even offer on the spot hiring. Job fairs can expedite hiring processes for both the employer and the employee and support the health of the local economy by strengthening the workforce. However, hosting a job fair is a large undertaking, requiring significant outreach, recruitment, and event planning.

A budget is also required to support this effort. The City adopted an Economic Development Strategy in October 2022. It did not recommend that the City host job fairs, but did recommend that the City improve communication and coordination between employers and educators/trainers such that the educators/trainers were producing appropriately skilled workers (Initiative Six).

Objective of Job Fair
One of the first steps in planning a job fair is to determine the primary goal of the fair. The City must determine if the chief objective of the fair is to serve local businesses by helping them 193 of 704
City Council Report
May 16, 2023 2
identify applicants, or serve Pinole job seekers by helping them find employers. Although there is some overlap in those objectives, they do address different populations of employers and job seekers. City staff recommends that the focus of a City-sponsored job fair be helping local businesses connect with applicants.

To better understand local businesses’ recruitment needs, staff recommends that it survey local businesses to determine if they are having any challenges finding qualified applicants, what positions and skills they are having trouble finding and filling, and whether they would find it useful and would participate in a City-hosted job fair if it focused on those positions and skills.

Staff would make phone calls or site visits to businesses in order to increase participation in the survey.

Staff would evaluate the results of the survey to determine if there is enough demand for a Cityhosted job fair, or if the needs of the businesses would be better met by another agency’s job fair. For example, the Workforce Development Board of Contra Costa County (WDBCCC) and Contra Costa College regularly host job fairs. The WDBCCC hosts three job fairs a year; the fair for the West County area is scheduled for the fall or winter of 2023 at Contra Costa College.

Staff proposes to return to the City Council to present the data and analysis of the survey and a recommendation for whether the City should host a job fair or simply promote job fairs hosted by other organizations. Staff anticipates that it will take a minimum of two to three months to develop survey questions, distribute the survey, conduct outreach for maximum participation, and analyze results.

FISCAL IMPACT
Staff estimates that the fiscal impact of a City-sponsored job fair focused on businesses in Pinole is approximately $5,000 for basic advertising/promotion ($3,000) and supplies ($2,000). Other enhancements, such as a cash or gift card incentive for job seekers to attend the fair or a headshot photographer, would be analyzed during program design and budget recommendation. Additionally, approximately 200-250 staff hours are anticipated to be needed to plan, coordinate, organize, promote and conduct day-of/post- event activities. Staffing from Community Development, Finance, Public Works, Community Services, and the City Manager’s Office would be required to assist with pre, day-of and post event activities.

ATTACHMENT(S)
None
194 of 704

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
DATE: MAY 16, 2023
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: MARKISHA GUILLORY, FINANCE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER

TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH THE PUN GROUP FOR

PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEARS
ENDING JUNE 30, 2023 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2025, WITH THE

OPTION TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT AT ONE-YEAR INTERVALS,

NOT TO EXCEED A TOTAL OF TWO ADDITIONAL FISCAL YEARS

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) that authorizes the City Manager to execute a contract with The Pun Group for professional auditing services for Fiscal Years (FY) ending June 30, 2023 through June 30, 2025, with the option to extend the contract at one-year intervals, not to exceed a total of two additional fiscal years.

BACKGROUND
At the end of each fiscal year, the City conducts an audit of its financial records. This work is performed by an external auditing firm that audits the City’s financial statements to provide reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatement and are fairly presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

It has been the City’s practice to use a competitive selection process to hire a new firm every five years in accordance with Government Finance Officers Association best practices. For the past five fiscal years, Badawi & Associates has performed this work, most recently at a cost of $40,875, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022.

The scope of work completed by the auditor includes:
• Examination and audit of official financial records and accounts, and internal controls of the City of Pinole and the Pinole Successor Agency; • Preparation of the City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR), and Basic Financial Statements of the Pinole Successor Agency; • Review of federally funded programs subject to the provisions of the Single Audit Act for compliance with federal funding standards and regulations; 9I
195 of 704
City Council Report
May 16, 2023 2
• Preparation of the Agreed Upon Procedures for the City’s Local Use Taxes (Measure S 2006 and 2014) consistent with assurances provided to the local electorate for collection and disbursement of tax receipts; • Preparation of the Agreed Upon Procedures for the City’s Appropriations Limit; • Preparation of the City Financial Transactions and Street Reports for submission to the State Controller’s Office.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The current external auditor, Badawi & Associates, was initially awarded a three-year contract beginning with the audit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018. Subsequent to the award of that contract, two additional one-year contract extensions were awarded. Badawi & Associates has provided auditing services to the City for the last five fiscal years. The Government Finance Officers Association best practice is to change auditors at least every five years. Following that guideline, the City went through the competitive selection process to select new auditors beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30, 2023.

Staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Professional Auditing Services on March 6, 2023 seeking proposals from qualified firms of certified public accountants for auditing services for Fiscal Years (FY) ending June 30, 2023 through June 30, 2025, with an option to extend the contract at one-year intervals, not to exceed a total of two additional fiscal years. The RFP specified the scope of services to be performed and reports to be issued consistent with services provided by the current auditors. The RFP was posted on the City’s procurement web page, the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO) RFP website, and the Public Purchase platform for four weeks. The City received a total of four proposals in response to the RFP.

All of the proposals submitted met the minimum requirements as specified in the RFP.

Proposals were evaluated based on the qualifications of the firm, including staff education and background; audit approach, including project scope, sampling and analytical techniques, and technical and procedural efficiencies; references from other agencies; and fees.

The review team, consisting of the Finance Director, Accountant, and Accounting Specialist, evaluated the proposals and invited the top two firms with the highest scores to an interview. Of the two firms interviewed, staff agreed that The Pun Group is the most qualified to perform auditing services for the City. Also, The Pun Group was the lowest cost bidder of the four firms that submitted proposals. Therefore, staff is recommending that the City Council approve a contract to provide professional services for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2023 through June 30, 2025, with the option to extend the contract at one-year intervals, not to exceed a total of two additional fiscal years.
196 of 704
City Council Report
May 16, 2023 3

FISCAL IMPACT
The annual budget includes an appropriation for auditing services, which is funded by the General Fund and the Successor Agency Fund. City Council approval of the proposed contract will authorize budget appropriations for the next three fiscal years (the initial contract term) and the additional optional years, as follows:

Initial Contract Term
Years 1-3
Optional
Year 1
Optional
Year 2
Fund 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27
General Fund $38,750 $39,912 $40,049 $41,251

$42,488
Successor Agency Fund

1,750

1,803

1,857

1,912

1,970
Total (not-to-exceed) $40,500 $ 41,715 $41,906

$43,163

$44,458
A breakdown of the costs is provided on page 38 of the proposal (Attachment C).

ATTACHMENTS
A – Resolution
B – Consulting Services Agreement for Professional Auditing Services C – Proposal from The Pun Group
197 of 704
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE AUTHORIZING

THE CITY MANAGER TO AWARD AND EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH THE PUN

GROUP FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEARS ENDING JUNE 30, 2023 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2025, WITH THE OPTION TO EXTEND THE

CONTRACT AT ONE-YEAR INTERVALS, NOT TO EXCEED A TOTAL OF TWO

ADDITIONAL FISCAL YEARS
WHEREAS, the City of Pinole engages a professional auditing firm each year to audit its financial records, and those of the Pinole Successor Agency, to provide reasonable assurance that the City’s financial statements are free of material misstatement and are fairly presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; and
WHEREAS, City staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) from qualified accounting firms to perform annual audits for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2023 through June 30, 2025; and
WHEREAS, four firms responded to the RFP and were confirmed as submitting responsive proposals; and
WHEREAS, after a detailed evaluation and scoring of each firm’s proposal and qualifications, two firms were invited to be interviewed by City finance staff; and WHEREAS, after interviewing the firms and checking references, staff is recommending that the City enter into a contract with The Pun Group in accordance with the scope of services and fees set forth in Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, the proposed FY 2023/24 budget will include an allocation of $40,500 for auditing services, and subsequent budgets will include allocations based on the fees set forth in Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, the new agreement would be effective May 17, 2023 for auditing services for fiscal years ending June 30, 2023 through June 30, 2025, with the option to extend the contract at one-year intervals, not to exceed a total of two additional fiscal years.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pinole authorizes the City Manager to execute a three-year contract with The Pun Group for professional auditing services, in an amount not to exceed $124,121 for the initial term, in a form approved by the City Attorney, and attached hereto as Exhibit A upon the associated scope of work and rates as follows in Exhibit B.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to execute the Agreement with The Pun Group substantially in the form presented in Exhibit A with minor revisions as shall be approved by the City Attorney.

ATTACHMENT A
198 of 704
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pinole held on the 16th day of May, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

I, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was regularly introduced, passed, and adopted on the 16th day of May, 2023
____________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
199 of 704
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Pinole and The Pun Group
May 17, 2023

Page 1 of 17 ends

Pinole City CouncilMay 16, 2023

Pinole City Council
May 16, 2023