For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 34 of 83 QUESTION 13
STAFF OBSERVATION: For the businesses that this question applies to, slightly more businesses are willing to increase the price of thicker plastic bags BUSINESS COMMUNITY WRITTEN RESPONSES/COMMENTS:
• People reuse them all the time for all kinds of things • Let the market decide
• Bad for business
• Thicker plastic is bad for environment and most people don't reuse them anyway.
So we do not want to offer the thicker plastic even at the cost to the customer • has not worked, if you raise the cost, consumers will just not buy them and typically affects how much they purchase. consumers end up purchasing less items so they can carry them without having to purchase a bag. • It’s a business deterrent
• I feel that raising the price of something to deter customers from purchasing that thing is unethical
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 35 of 83 QUESTION 14
STAFF OBSERVATION: Respondents collectively averaged a fee of 23 cents deterring the purchase of thicker film plastic bags. Interesting, San Francisco’s 2019 Ordinance increasing the amount of money charged for checkout bags from $0.10 to $0.25 referenced an Irish law, which increased the price of plastic checkout bags from 15 cents to 22 cents, reducing plastic checkout usage by more than 95 percent, as precedent.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 36 of 83 QUESTION 15
STAFF OBSERVATION: About 60% of respondents are comfortable with customers bringing their own to-go cups and Tupperware. The majority of comments raised concerns with sanitation. One commentator worries it will invite false accusations of food poisoning if the customer’s container was not clean in the first.
BUSINESS COMMUNITY WRITTEN RESPONSES/COMMENTS:
• Contamination
• not sanitary
• It's only going to hurt Pinole businesses. It's not the job of Pinole to make this rule, if it's a state rule then everyone affected evenly. Local rule only hurts Pinole businesses. Why are you trying to hurt Pinole? People will just go to Hercules, Richmond, unincorporated, San Pablo... too many other options. It will only hurt us! • Could contaminate
• Sanitary issues
• Might have food contamination and establishment blamed • If someone brings a container that was not properly cleaned and sanitized, they could claim that a business gave them food poisoning because their container was not clean and not that the food business mishandled the food. I think this can present liability or problem.
• Sanitation issue
• Absolutely not, folks have pets. Some folks like myself are allergic. • that's ridiculous to ask a customer
• I just think it's weird but I guess it's ok
• Does not apply to our service
• Cross contaminating
• contamination due to bacteria
• too unsanitary. unless they have dishwasher in the car.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 37 of 83 • contamination of main food from customers Tupperware
• Not applicable
• Cups ok, not food
• Sanitation concerns
• Health reasons
• Not all the customers will bring in clean food ware, it will cause cross contamination. • ?
• My business doesn't sell food.
• Sanitary issue
• I don’t think that is sanitary
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 38 of 83 QUESTION 16
STAFF OBSERVATION: No answer option received a majority. The main concerns are cost, functionality, and hygiene/cleanliness.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 39 of 83 QUESTION 17
STAFF OBSERVATION: About half of respondents are either open or willing to participate in the returnable, reusable loop.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 40 of 83 QUESTION 28
STAFF OBSERVATION: This question was only asked of food service businesses. More than 80% of the 16 respondents have the ability to wash dishes at their business, which means they also have the ability to accommodate reusables.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 41 of 83
RESIDENT/VISITOR SURVEYS
SNAPSHOT OF RESPONDENTS
Table 3 below shows the number of responses received from the resident/visitor community by method of survey distribution.
Table 3: Resident/Visitor Survey Respondents by Survey Method Email invitations 48 responses
Website 32 responses
Flyer posting/distribution 15 responses
Social Media 8 responses
Total Responses 103 responses
94 respondents shared how they are associated with the City of Pinole. Most respondents (over 80%) live in Pinole (see Chart 6).
Chart 6: Resident/Visitor Respondent Association with City
KEY FINDINGS
The following provides key findings from the survey. Full results are in Appendix B.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 42 of 83 QUESTION 1
STAFF OBSERVATION: Respondents overwhelmingly answered they are concerned with the number of single-use plastic items disposed.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 43 of 83 QUESTION 4
STAFF OBSERVATION: More than 80% of 104 respondents would support regulation on singleuse plastic bags and foodware.
RESIDENT/VISITOR WRITTEN RESPONSES/COMMENTS:
• There is increased cost for the business and it force many small businesses to participate who may not be able to afford this change. Some of my favorite restaurants are small business owners. I would feel better if their needs were also taken into consideration.
• The added costs to struggling businesses is the problem • Because we the consumer will have to pay for all of this, as retailers will raise their prices to buy the special products
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 44 of 83 QUESTION 7
STAFF OBSERVATION: 65% of respondents bring their own bags for groceries
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 45 of 83 QUESTION 10
STAFF OBSERVATION: A majority of respondents are only purchasing the thicker film plastic bags because they forgot to bring their own bag. From the comments, it seems online grocery shopping does not have an option to pre-select “bringing my own bag” as online orders are packed in plastic bags.
RESIDENT/VISITOR WRITTEN RESPONSES/COMMENTS:
• Its what is available
• I am forced to by your regulations
• I forgot to bring bags and paper bags are not available or I'm not given a choice.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 46 of 83 • when I shop online for store pickup, the items are packed in plastic bags • Drive up, forced upon one
• when using store pick up (someone else has bagged the groceries I purchase ahead of time)
• I don't buy them. Charge way more than to purchase these bags and people will stop using them. Ban them all together.
• It's a drive up order and the bags are automatically loaded with my order with no way to opt out.
QUESTION 13
STAFF OBSERVATION: The majority of respondents are reusing thicker plastic bags for only about 1-10 times.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 47 of 83 QUESTION 14
STAFF OBSERVATION: The average of 77 responses led to a result of 49 cents being a price that would deter the purchase of thicker plastic bags
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 48 of 83 QUESTION 16
STAFF OBSERVATION: About 75% of 93 respondents would support legislation that requires customers to bring their own reusable bag or pay for a paper bag at food businesses.
RESIDENT/VISITOR WRITTEN RESPONSES/COMMENTS:
• I will shop in another town if you force your beliefs on customers • Most to all retailers in Pinole already charge for plastic or paper. • I will only support this if the funds help support actual recycling programs.
Otherwise, it just cost consumer more and we don't know where the extra money is going.
• I can't afford their charges and I bet they'd be ridiculous where they would try to make money off of the consumer, instead of charging what it cost them. • free paper bag only
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 49 of 83 QUESTION 17
STAFF OBSERVATION: 80% of 93 respondents would support requiring customers to bring their own reusable bag or purchasing a paper bag at all retail businesses.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 50 of 83 QUESTION 18
STAFF OBSERVATION: More than 80% of respondents are okay with being charged 10 cents for a paper bag at any food or retail location
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 51 of 83 QUESTION 19
STAFF OBSERVATION: More than 80% of 93 respondents would still eat at eating establishments if they switched to compostable or reusable foodware. More than 50% of respondents state reusable or compostable foodware would increase their support of that business.
RESIDENT/VISITOR WRITTEN RESPONSES/COMMENTS:
• You are virtue signaling
• I would not eat in the establishment if served on compostable foodware • not clear, is this for take out or in-house eating. I would not eat at a restaurant without real utensils.
• NA - I don't eat out
• Compostable straws do not work and are not disabled friendly • Compostable yes, used and sanitized no
• You can't guarantee they are washed or sanitized at an acceptable lever
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 52 of 83 QUESTION 20
STAFF OBSERVATION: More than 50% of respondents are okay with a slightly increased price of a meal to help businesses switch to reusable or compostable foodware.
RESIDENT/VISTOR WRITTEN RESPONSES/COMMENTS:
• The cost of reusable eating utensils
• Too many increases already, in so many areas.
• Inflation already has eating out too expensive.
• You are penalizing customers for your agenda
• Why should we pay for a healthier environment
• Food is already high, timing for this is not inline with current inflation • they'd over charge to make a profit knowing these businesses. • NA - I don't eat out
• Not a fan of subsidizing these costs
• This is confusing. I'd pay more for take out to help transition or subsidize compostable, but not more for dine in
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 53 of 83 QUESTION 22
STAFF OBSERVATION: More than 80% of 94 respondents feel it is extremely or very important for Pinole businesses to use environmentally friendly practices
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 54 of 83 QUESTION 23
STAFF OBSERVATION: About 90% of 93 respondents are okay with other customers bringing their own reusable Tupperware for leftovers. Comments raised sanitation concerns and liability issues for businesses.
RESIDENT/VISITOR WRITTEN RESPONSES/COMMENTS:
• Not sure of cleanliness of foodware that will be brought by resident, potential for liability for business for not using store-supplied containers. • unsanitary and could open up lawsuits for bad food caused by dirty containers • I’m happy with the business providing recyclable to go containers • Inconvenience
• Is this a joke. I think health dept and lawyers would nix this silly idea • Hygiene issues
• Seems a bit unsanitary and it would be fine in some establishments but not others, like high-end restaurants.
• Sanitary
• not sanitary; too much liability for business
• Sanitary concerns abound
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 55 of 83 QUESTION 24
Please list any concerns you may have with the usability or functionality of compostable foodware
STAFF OBSERVATION: A majority of comments raised no concerns with compostable foodware.
QUESTION 25
STAFF OBSERVATION: More than 50% of 92 respondents are likely to participate in a system of returning and exchanging reusable to-go containers.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 56 of 83
ALTERNATIVES TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS EXPO
An Alternatives to Single-use Plastics Expo was fittingly scheduled on April 6, 2023 at the Youth Center in Pinole from 9am - 1pm. This event coincided with Water Week of Earth Month to additionally bring awareness to pollution of water bodies from plastics. The date and time was selected for the expo as the best window of time from a poll that was sent to food businesses.
The expo was open to all – businesses, residents and visitors. The goal of the expo was to provide information regarding the cost and functionality of alternatives to plastic. The expo showcased viable, cost-effective products and systems that can supplant single-use plastic foodware. Three compostable companies, Hay!Straws, Eco Products, and World Centric, as well as a compostable distributor were present. Four reusables companies, Foodware, Sparkl, Encora, and Huskee, were also present. Rethink Disposable, a consulting group, provided a presentation and flyers of case studies of cost savings by providing reusables for dine-in. Republic Services was in attendance to provide education and public information related to recycling and waste disposal.
Pricing for reusables and compostables was made available. Attendees were given the opportunity to test the products with the food and drink at the event. The provided food/beverage was intentionally selected to test the expo products against variables such as heat and liquids. A raffle with reusable prizes was also organized to encourage more attendance at the expo. Two physical exit surveys (one for businesses and one for resident/visitors) were available for guests to complete on their way out. Publicity for the expo was conducted similar to the survey – using social media, emails through community partners, emails to food businesses, flyers, and flyer posting. Additionally, a Facebook event page was created, and a press release was generated. For businesses and residents that could not attend the expo, a miniinteractive expo was set up at City Hall for about 6 weeks. All information about the expo was posted on the PlasticWise Pinole webpage.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 57 of 83
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 58 of 83
SNAPSHOT OF ATTENDEES
The expo was attended by approximately 30 residents/visitors, three food businesses, and the WCCUSD cafeteria manager.
EXPO EXIT SURVEY RESULTS
EXIT SURVEY RESULTS - BUSINESSES
QUESTION 4
STAFF OBSERVATION: Food business attendees are split on the functionality of compostable foodware
BUSINESS WRITTEN RESPONSES/COMMENTS:
• Quality and price not on par
• Utensil quality poor with bamboo
• Compostable items are a great way we can help save the environments 0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1
1.2 1 (very dissatisfied) 2 3 4 5 (very satisfied)
After having a chance to explore alternatives to single-use plastics, how satisfied are you with the functionality of compostable foodware?
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 59 of 83 QUESTION 6
STAFF OBSERVATION: Most food business attendees were not satisfied with the price of compostable foodware.
BUSINESS WRITTEN RESPONSES/COMMENTS:
• Too expensive
• Price is a big consideration as it is an addition to the food and labor costs 0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
3 3.5
1 (very dissatisfied) 2 3 4 5 (very satisfied)
How satisfied are you with the price of compostable
foodware?
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 60 of 83 QUESTION 8
STAFF OBSERVATION: Half of food business attendees were unchanged after the expo on embracing compostable/reusable foodware while one was more open and one was less open. 0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
More open tha nwhen I arrived
today
About the same as when I arrived
today
Less open than when I arrived
today
After today's expo. How open are you to embracing
reusable and compostable foodware?
After today's expo. How open are you to embracing reusable and compostable foodware?
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 61 of 83 QUESTION 9
STAFF OBSERVATION: Food business attendees were mainly not open to converting to reusable dine-in foodware.
BUSINESS WRITTEN RESPONSES/COMMENTS:
• Our schools are not equipped currently with an infrastructure for reusable items • Not sure- complicated. We have our own reusables
0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
Yes Maybe No
Based on the information you learned at this event, would your business consider converting to reusable dine-in
foodware?
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 62 of 83 QUESTION 10
STAFF OBSERVATION: Food business attendees were not open to a trackable, returnable togo foodware system BUSINESS WRITTEN RESPONSES/COMMENTS:
• I did not receive any info and do not want any additional costs • With students we cannot charge a deposit or fee for lost items • Most likely not- complicated process for a business of our size 0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
3 3.5
Yes No
Based on the the information you learned about trackable, returnable, and reusable to-go foodware at this event,
would your business try out subscribing to a trackable, returnable to-go foodware service?
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 63 of 83 QUESTION 13
Please share any additional thoughts or comments you have related to alternatives to singleuse plastics BUSINESS WRITTEN RESPONSES/COMMENTS:
• Looking for education versus legislation
• Involve the public and businesses prior to deciding
EXIT SURVEY RESULTS - VISITOR/RESIDENTS
QUESTION 2
STAFF OBSERVATION: All resident/visitor attendees that took the survey found the expo worthwhile
RESIDENT/VISITOR WRITTEN RESPONSES/COMMENTS:
• Learned about new things being implemented to reduce plastic waste 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 Yes No
Was attending this event worthwhile to you?
Was attending this event worthwhile to you?
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 64 of 83 QUESTION 3
STAFF OBSERVATION: All resident/visitor attendees that took the survey were satisfied or extremely satisfied with compostable foodware.
RESIDENT/VISITOR WRITTEN RESPONSES/COMMENTS:
• Fiber sources- we need to find ways to not destroy new trees; bioplastics still produce micro and nano plastics
• Decrease single-use plastics!!
• Paper straws tend to fall apart
• Vegans like me, want to help save the environment. Recycling and composting helps • I hope we see more restaurants using recyclable containers • Best for environment
• I love how everything is to help the earth.
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
1 (very dissatisfied) 2 3 4 5 (very satisfied)
After having a chance to explore alternatives to single-use plastics, how satisfied are you with the functionality of compostable foodware?
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 65 of 83 QUESTION 5
STAFF OBSERVATION: About 90% resident/visitor attendees that took the survey were open to trying a returnable reusables foodware program.
RESIDENT/VISITOR WRITTEN RESPONSES/COMMENTS:
• No need…I have compostables and reusable containers at home • Don’t do takeout
• Maybe reusable coffee cups
QUESTION 9
Please share any additional thoughts or comments you have related to alternatives to singleuse plastics.
RESIDENT/VISITOR WRITTEN RESPONSES/COMMENTS:
• Requirement to bring your own containers for your leftovers at restaurants • I find some hard to open since I have arthritis
• Get the restaurants and vendors here; Get that ordinance on the books; We don’t want to keep cleaning up plastic Thanks!
• I would like our grocery stores to stock more items in returnable containers milk, juice etc.
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 Yes No
Based on the information you learned about trackable,
returnable, and reusable to-go foodware at this event,
would you be willing to try this model if it were offered when taking food to go in Pinole
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 66 of 83 • Encourage more food purveyors to use dishes of ceramic and metal utensils and glass glasses
• You guys doing great keep it up!
• I already receive the City Manager report thank you!
ADDITIONAL RESEARCH
FOODWARE/FIREWINGS PILOT
A reusable, returnable foodware pilot in partnership with Foodware and Fire Wings Pinole was launched in June. Reusable to-go containers are currently available at Fire Wings Pinole.
Customers can download the Foodware app and can checkout a container for a small deposit, credited back once it is returned. Publicity for this pilot was done through social media, tabling at the Pinole Car Show, posting flyers along the Pinole Creek trail, email communications to businesses, interested parties and community partners, and a press release.
To date, there have been two participants in in the Foodware/Firewings Pilot.
OUTREACH TO PINOLE GROCERS
Outreach to Pinole grocers to gather their feedback on single-use plastics was also conducted.
Grocers were hand delivered a letter to request a meeting to discuss single-use plastics and food insecurity issues in Pinole. One-on-one meetings with grocers began in July. Four meetings with grocers have been conducted so far. Staff will continue to meet with the 12 remaining Pinole business that sell grocery products, including CVS, Target, Lucky, Dollar Tree, Sprouts Farmers Market, Walgreens, 7-Eleven and Valley Produce Market.
See Table 4 for a summary of the conversations to-date related to single-use plastics.
Table 4: Summary of Pinole Grocer’s Feedback on Single-Use Plastics Grocer Information/Thoughts Shared
Trader Joe’s • About 30% of customers brings their own reusable bags • Does not supply plastic bags
• Supportive of not supplying thicker plastic grocery bags Grocery Outlet • About 40% of customers bring their own reusable bags • Is willing to increase the price of thicker plastic bags • A price point of 50 cents would deter the purchase of thicker plastic bags
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 67 of 83 Grocer Information/Thoughts Shared
• Is willing to participate in a discount program for customers bringing in their own reusable bag if cost-effective
Safeway • About 25% of customers bring their own bags
• Currently has a plastic bag recycling program
• Would need to go through corporate and legal to stop the sale of or increase the price of thicker film bags
FoodMaxx • About 15-20% of customers bring their own reusable bag • There is no store sustainability goal to increase that percentage • Corporate office decides if the Pinole location will no longer provide reusable plastic bags
• Corporate decides if the price of reusable bag in the Pinole location can be increased
• The store manager feels a price point of 50 cents will deter the purchase of thicker film plastic bags
REPUBLIC SERVICES WASTE HAULER INFORMATION
Republic Services (the City’s waste hauler) has provided key information and recommendations with respect to developing policy related to single-use plastics. See Figure 9 for a graphic representation of the guidance.
Figure 9: Republic Services’ Guidance on Single-Use Plastic Foodware Policy Development Not
Recommended
as Alternative to
SUP
Aluminum
food
containers
Recyclable
plastic food
containers
Prohibited From
Compost/Green
Bin
Bioplastic
compostable
foodware
Allowed to be
Composted
Singlelaminated
PLA
Allowed to be
Recycled
Plastics #1-7
(only
promoted: #s
1&2 - water
bottles)
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 68 of 83
NOT RECOMMENDED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS • Aluminum food containers are not recommended because
although they can be incinerated and recycled with food residue, the food residue contaminates other recyclables in a mixed recycle bin
• Recyclable plastic food containers are not recommended because they usually get sent to the landfill
PROHIBITED FROM COMPOST/GREEN BIN
• Republic Services does not allow bioplastic compostable foodware at its compost processing facility.
• Bioplastics also increase the risk of contamination of organic waste collection as bioplastics are difficult to differentiate from regular plastics
ALLOWED TO BE COMPOSTED
• Single-laminated PLA is allowed and can be processed at the compost facility
ALLOWED TO BE RECYCLED
• Plastics #1-7 are accepted by Republic Services, although Republic Services promotes only plastics #1 and #2 (water bottes) since they have the most reliable markets
BAG PRICING
Table 5 provides information from online bag retailers on average bag pricing.
Table 5: Comparative Bag Pricing
Bag type Unit Price
Thin .55 mil plastic bag
8 cents
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 69 of 83 Bag type Unit Price
Thick 2.25 mil plastic bag
24 cents
100% recycled paper bag
25 cents
FOODWARE (APP-BASED RETURNABLE REUSABLES COMPANY) PRICING The Foodware program allows for businesses serving to-go food to participate in a reusable program. The program ran via an App. To-go customers receive their take-out in
reusable containers which are then brought back to
restaurants for collection and cleaning after customer use.
The program involves a one-time $150 fee for set-up, signage and staff training. Containers, labor, water and detergent are additional costs to the business for a monthly fee (see Table 6 for program pricing by number of containers).
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 70 of 83 Table 6: Foodware Program Pricing
Number of Containers Monthly Business Cost
Up to 35 $35
50 $45
100 $88
150 $128
200 $168
250 $208
300 $246
500 $400
1000 $750
CASE STUDY: UNCLE CHUNG’S SZECHUAN (2550 APPIAN WAY)
Tables 7-8 provides information from a case study conducted by Sustainability Fellow, Kapil Amin, in July 2023 at Uncle Chung’s Szechuan. The restaurant owners provided the quantity of their current non-compostable foodware, which was then used to be cost compared if the current inventory was replaced with compostables. The study found a 10% increase in foodware cost for the business from $33,932.34 to $37,395.02. An interesting finding from this study is the main entrée packaging in a compostable version is 7 cents/unit cheaper given its construction from sustainable bamboo, a natural material that regenerates quickly, and its sleek design.
Table 7: Uncle Chung’s Szechuan Case Study: Cost Comparison of Foodware Products Container type Unit Price
Plastic 24 oz
30 cents
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 71 of 83 Container type Unit Price
Plastic fork 7 cents
Plastic spoon 7 cents
32 oz container 16 cents
26 oz container 14 cents
Compostable 26 oz
23 cents
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 72 of 83 Container type Unit Price
Compostable fork 3.5 cents
Compostable spoon 3 cents
Compostable 32 oz
container
20 cents
Compostable 26 oz
container
18 cents
Table 8: Uncle Chung’s Szechuan Case Study: Annual Cost Burden to Shift to Compostables Item and Quantity
(annual)
Non-Compostable
Price
Compostable Price Cost Comparison
39,000 24oz
containers
$10,025.60 $8,969.22 +$1,056.38
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 73 of 83 70,200 32 oz
containers
$11,232.00 $13,884 -$2,652.00
70,200 26 oz
containers
$9,828.00 $12,948 -$3,120.00
26,000 spoons $1,884.74 $686.40 +$1,198
26,000 forks $962.00 $907.40 +54.60
Total Annual Added Cost $3,463.02
TOWN OF TRUCKEE GREEN BOX PROGRAM PRICING (NON-APP RETURNABLE,
REUSABLE PROGRAM)
The Town of Truckee’s Green Box Program seeks to reduce plastic waste with a reusable to-go container program. Participating business receive 100 free boxes with additional boxes costing $2/each.
Boxes are sold to customers for $5 to enter the exchange loop. After enjoying their meal, the customer rinsesthe box and brings it back to any participating restaurant to trade for a clean one with their next order. Currently nine restaurants participate in Truckee’s reusables system.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 74 of 83
COST SCENARIOS
If a foodware ordinance were adopted, the ideal, cost-effective scenario is feasible for food businesses. Most food businesses have dishwashing capacity. With educational and technical assistance to businesses, making the switch to reusables can be cost-effective proven by countless cases studies by Rethink Disposable. The market is also providing various cost-effective, compliant compostable foodware as seen by the unit price column in San Mateo County’s Foodware Aware Purchasing Guide 8. Although it may upset customers, a takeout fee can additionally offset costs for businesses.
Using the case study of Uncle Chung’s Szechuan, if a weekly average of 150 customers were charged a flat takeout fee of 25 cents regardless of the number of containers they take away, the restaurant will offset their annual additional cost of approximately $3,500 to about $1,500.
Uncle Chung’s were to participate in a City-wide reusables program and 30 of their weekly customers participate in the program, they can offset their annual cost by about $1,100 in purchasing compostables and reduce that cost to only the price of water and detergent. With remaining 120 customers being charged a takeout fee, their total offset would come to about $2,700, reducing the additional annual cost to about $800 plus the cost of additional water and detergent to wash takeout containers. Compostable trash bags will also be an additional cost for businesses if offering compostables for dine-in, but they are comparable in price to plastic trash bags.
CITY-WIDE REUSABLES PROGRAM
The City could consider a City-wide reusables cup and foodware program, either through a nonapp based program such as Town of Truckee’s model or an universal app-based reusables program, such as Foodware. The reusables cup design should cater to boba customers as well.
Reusables are more sustainable than compostables because they do not rely on constant resource consumption. There are pros and cons to each model type.
For an app-based model, depending on the app customers would need to deposit a small fee to checkout containers or have a credit card on file. The fee is deposited back to customers once the container is returned. Figure 10 below shows the pros and cons of an app-based model. 8 FOODWARE AWARE PURCHASING GUIDE - County of San Mateo (updated 2023) - Google Sheets
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 75 of 83 Figure 10: Pros/Cons of App-Based Reusable Foodware Model As seen by the low participation in the Fire Wings pilot with Foodware, the initial steps of downloading an app and setting up payment may hinder customers to participate, especially if there is no incentive. Depending on the app system in addition to the attentiveness of restaurant staff, customers can also easily evade (unintentionally or intentionally) scanning their container’s QR code when returning the container. These unscanned containers will not be accounted for, which can disrupt the loop system.
Figure 11 below shows the pros and cons of a non-app-based model.
Pros Cons
Ability to track
participation data,
containers
consistently being
returned back by
customers because
of risk being
charged, reminder
alerts and easily
managing a
rewards program
through the app
Excluding
customers who are
not comfortable
using an app and
opt to not
participate
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 76 of 83 Figure 11: Pros/Cons of Non-App-Based Reusable Foodware Model Considering the persuasive pros and cons in Figure 11 above, a hybrid program can possibly be negotiated with a reusables company to capture as much participation possible. To get businesses on board, the City may need to act as the catalyst for the reusables program to gain traction. A successful reusables programs means many restaurants are accepting exchanges, which creates a win-win situation for businesses and customers with more containers in circulation.
As an example of cost, the Town of Truckee has spent $8,500 to date providing 100 free boxes to 9 participating restaurants that can then sell them to customers for $5 each. For an appbased program, the City can offer interested restaurants a number of free-months to test the system, supported by a robust social media campaign.
Some businesses are leading the reusables loop initiative without regulation. Beginning this month, Starbucks locations in Napa and Petaluma will prepare drinks in either a customerbrought cup or their own “Borrow A Cup”. Customers who borrow a cup, scan and return to the Pros Cons
Customers being
able to easily enter
the loop system at
a set price for a box
they can keep
exchanging at
participating
locations accepting
that box.
Difficulty tracking
participation;
increased chance
for containers to be
underutilized
because there is no
deposit at risk to
keep customers
returning
containers to the
loop
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 77 of 83 store. This program will help Starbucks reach its sustainability targets of reducing single-use cups by 2025 and cut its landfill waste in half by 2030. 9 “TAKEOUT FEE” VERSUS “REWARDS” PROGRAM
A community reusables program will streamline the process for customers to easily return container to multiple locations and minimize the number of purchased containers. As seen by low participation in the Foodware pilot with Fire Wings, when there is no incentive to download an app, most people will forego that option. This is why it is important to consider either a takeout fee or a rewards program to develop and encourage a reusables program.
TAKEOUT FEE
A takeout fee would be an additional fee, collected and retained by the business, applied to takeout orders. A takeout fee can serve two purposes: (1) helping businesses subsidize the cost of compostables and (2) encouraging customers to participate in the reusables program. The City of Richmond allows an optional takeout fee at the businesses’ discretion. The staff at Town of Truckee have weighed both a takeout fee and a rewards program, and found that a mandatory takeout fee of 25 cents per needed container, a heavy mandate, imposed on customers will be more effective in increasing more participation in the reusables program. Although Truckee businesses have shared they would not be comfortable charging that amount per container and cautioned the rise in negative interactions with customers, the Town is hoping offering the $5 reusable box as an alternative will increase more participation and help businesses mitigate negative interactions with customers.
As fee of per container may ultimately negatively impact business, the City could consider a flat takeout fee regardless of the number of containers. In deliberating whether or not to set a fee, considerations should be given to the right balance between encouraging customers to join the resuables program with an undue burden on customers and/or negative impacts to business. An education campaign could provide some information regarding if the program is “worth it”. For example, it would take 20 meals of paying a 25 cent take out fee to break even on the reusable container. An aforementioned con of the non-app reusables program was people not bringing back containers at an ideal rate. A 25 cent take out fee will remedy this by reminding customers to bring back containers.
From an equity perspective, requiring all businesses to charge a takeout fee means larger businesses also benefitting from the subsidization by customers when these businesses may not be as in need of these subsidies compared to smaller businesses. At the same token, only allowing 9 Starbucks cups: No more disposable cups at select North Bay locations (kron4.com)
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 78 of 83 small businesses to benefit from a takeout fee can drive customers away from already fragile businesses and cause them to avoid those businesses.
Another variable around a takeout fee that needs to be considered is making a takeout fee optional. This allows a business to make their own decision on how this imposition might affect customers. Not requiring a takeout fee may hurt participation if the City wants a successful reusables program, which can also help other businesses mitigate costs. It can also drive business away from charging businesses to non-charging businesses.
Since this regulation will result in a shared community benefit, it is important to make a community effort to support businesses with the transition. A takeout fee can allow the public to contribute to the shared benefit of a cleaner City, especially when there is a blurred line of responsibility between businesses and consumers. Another stakeholder that can contribute to the mitigation of costs is the landlord if the food business is leasing. The City can possibly offer to send a letter of support to a landlord to offer a slight relief on the lease amount for the business given the business is contributing to a shared community benefit. The City can also continue to explore grants to mitigate costs for businesses and offer technical/educational assistance.
REWARDS PROGRAM
A takeout fee can be supplanted or enhanced with a rewards program. The rewards system can take any desired form. A rewards system has the potential to encourage more use of reusables, a more sustainable alternative, as well as reduce costs for businesses. An example of a rewards systems for reusables could be a stamp card for every time a reusable container is used. A filled stamp card can be redeemed for a treat or discount at a participating location. An in-app rewards system can also fulfill the same purpose.
Although a little more complex, the rewards system can be more inclusive of other encouraged behaviors that are assigned a certain number of points. Some behaviors that can be rewarded are opting to dine-in versus taking out at a restaurant with reusables for dine-in, bringing your own container for leftovers rather than asking for compostable containers, and/or bringing your own to-go cups and containers where businesses are following the health department guidelines set in AB 619 for such a system. A certain number of collected points can be redeemed for a treat or discount at a participating location. Taking inspiration from Santa Cruz’s policy, a 25 cent discount can be given to customers that bring a City-wide reusables box or their own foodware.
PARTNERSHIP WITH PLASTIC REDUCTION PROJECT
A Pinole local and advocate for single-use plastic reduction, John Bromage, is currently working to bring and build a chapter of Plastic Reduction Project, Restaurant Rescue (plasticreductionproject.org), to the Bay Area. The non-profit offers free education, cost analysis and consultation to businesses to help them transition away from single-use plastics.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 79 of 83 Once a group of volunteers is assembled, technical assistance can be provided to food businesses without a cost to food businesses or the City. However, the organization strongly suggests a donation for their efforts.
Mr. Bromage works closely with a reusables company Brite Hoods, https://britehoods.com/adopt-a-city , which offers customizable City-wide reusables (pictured below). The Plastic Reduction Project volunteers can also potentially introduce restaurants to reusables program and assist with a rewards program, if that route is selected.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
This section provides some key considerations following the outreach efforts related to singleuse plastics.
BAGS
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
• Consider pros/cons of the Berkeley approach to post SB 270 ordinance development including environmental review
• Consider concerns with sanitation when allowing customers’ reusable bags for picking up takeout at food businesses (can possibly be addressed with a designated pickup station for less concerned patrons with reusable bags)
• Explore a focus on paper bags, which may include the following, pending legal counsel:
o Requiring paper bags at public eating establishments and retail stores to meet the same requirements as SB 270 (40% or 20% postconsumer recycled material and the ability to be accepted in curbside recycling)
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 80 of 83 o Requiring paper bags at retail stores to be mandatorily charged to encourage customers to bring their own reusable bags; balance this consideration with encouragement of purchase of thicker plastic bags
o Raising the minimum price of paper bag to be no less than 25 cents, since 10 cents will not be as deterring. A 25-cent fee is also the cost of a 100% recycled content paper bag, which will not financially harm businesses and will encourage customers to bring their own reusable bag.
PROGRAMMATIC CONSIDERATIONS
• Explore developing and funding a reusable bag share program at all grocery or retail stores in Pinole
• Consider developing a campaign encouraging customer-brought resuable bags at any retail stores without prepared food
• Consider developing and funding a reusable bag loyalty program where customers get points for using their reusable bags in Pinole (points could equate to dollars redeemed in local stores)
• Consider providing reusable bags as swag at outreach events • Consider developing a SUP reduction campaign centered around Pinole Creek. Metrics could include annual creek clean up data to demonstrate progress in SUP reduction • For businesses regulated under SB 270, such as grocers, where additional bag regulations cannot be imposed in Pinole due to State preemption, consider asking businesses to agree to raise the 10 cent minimum to at least 25 cents or ban the sale of thicker film plastic bags, which is currently the same cost of a sturdy paper grocery bag
FOODWARE
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
• Only allow single-laminated PLA foodware; bioplastic, full PLA foodware should be prohibited (as it is not accepted at the Richmond compost facility) • Consider allowing only unbleached paper products
• Do not allow PFAS
• Do not restrict products to only BPI certified because a large number of products can compost without that certification (refer to El Cerrito Product Guide:
Foodware_Ordinance_Product_Guide (el-cerrito.org))
• Consider developing and funding a reusables program
o Consider a single-provider for a reusable system (for example, Truckee’s program) to ensure that the system is streamlined and successful
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 81 of 83 o Consider a takeout fee as a (stick-approach) alternative to the resusables program. This takeout fee could be mandatory or optional. Another point of consideration is to consider allowing small businesses (only) to charge a “goinggreen takeout fee” to help offset costs. o Consider a rewards program (carrot-approach) to encourage participation in a resusables program.
PROGRAMMATIC CONSIDERATIONS
• Allocate staffing or contract to provide monthly training opportunities for businesses at varied days/times
• Build public awareness by funding and launching a city-wide educational campaign (using social media, banners, information in The Pulse, on the City’s website, through press releases, etc)
• Funding, producing and delivering a resource packet to all existing impacted businesses and future businesses (as a part of the business license process) which would include a factsheet, a Compliant Disposable Foodware guide, and sample signage to impacted businesses in January 2023.
• Consider funding and providing a series of educational opportunities for the foodbusiness community to learn about the functionality and costing of alternatives to singleuse plastics, build relationships with providers, and receive information from local waste haulers.
• Consider developing and funding a Close the Loop Pinole (1) reusable program (similar to the Truckee model), (2) a City-loyalty program (similar to the San Ramon model) and/or (3) a rewards program to encourage reusables for takeout. • Consider equity with DBE and small businesses versus big business in enforcement and transition period
• Consider exemptions for products where the market has not caught up (such as boba cups)
• Consider unique alternative programs such as San Ramon’s reusable tumbler program (e.g., a city-wide boba cup program)
TRANSITION PERIOD
A transition period is essential for any single-use plastic reduction regulation. This is to ensure businesses have time to digest the new regulations, develop new relationships with suppliers, test products and eliminate existing inventory. El Cerrito gave more than six months from adoption of ordinance to the effective date of the ordinance. Additionally, enforcement in El Cerrito does not begin until after about 15 months of the effective date to give time for offering free technical assistance and education to businesses.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 82 of 83 APPENDIX A: FULL RESULTS OF BUSINESS SURVEY
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 83 of 83 APPENDIX B: FULL RESULTS OF RESIDENT/VISITOR SURVEY
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 1 of 49
PHASING OUT SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN
PINOLE
PINOLE BUSINESSES FEEDBACK AND POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS
JANUARY 2024
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 2 of 49
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMMONLY USED TERMS IN THIS DOCUMENT 3
INTRODUCTION 4
SINGLE USE PLASTIC FOODWARE 5
METHODOLOGY 5
The Landscape of Pinole Food Businesses 6
Survey Response Rate 6
SURVEY RESPONSE RESULTS 8
RECOMMENDED COMPONENTS OF PINOLE FOODWARE ORDINANCE 23
Compostable foodware requirements: 23
Takeout fee: 23
Receptacles: 23
Foodware Accessories: 24
Transition Period: 24
Technical Assistance: 24
Bags: 24
Waivers: 24
TIMELINE AND RESPONSIBILITIES AFTER FOODWARE ORDINANCE ADOPTION 24 SINGLE USE PLASTIC BAGS 27
METHODOLOGY 27
SURVEY RESPONSE RATE 27
SURVEY RESPONSE RESULTS 30
RECOMMENDED DRAFT PINOLE BAG ORDINANCE 37
TIMELINE AND RESPONSIBILITIES AFTER BAG ORDINANCE ADOPTION 39 Appendix A: BREAKDOWN OF THE FOOD BUSINESS CRITERIA 41
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF FOODWARE ORDINANCES IN BERKELEY, RICHMOND AND EL CERRITO 44 City of Berkeley 44
City of El Cerrito 44
City of Richmond 45
APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF SUP BAG ORDINANCES IN BERKELEY AND SAN FRANCISCO 46 City of Berkeley 46
City of San Francisco 46
Appendix D: Full SUP Foodware Survey Results 48
Appendix E: Full SUP Bag Survey Results 49
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 3 of 49
COMMONLY USED TERMS IN THIS DOCUMENT
AB Assembly Bill
BPI Biodegradable Products Institute
Calfresh California food benefit program
COVID-19 Coronavirus disease
DBE Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
EBT Electronic Benefit Transfer
mil 1/1000th of an inch
PCRC Post-consumer recycled content
PFAS Per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances: a toxic class of fluorine compounds known as “forever
chemicals”
PLA Polylactic acid derived from renewable sources
such as cornstarch or sugarcane
SB Senate Bill
SUP Single-use plastic
SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
WIC Women, Infants and Children Program
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 4 of 49
INTRODUCTION
Given the detrimental impacts of single-use plastics (SUP) on our health and environment, the City of Pinole initiated an effort, Plastic Wise Pinole, to understand the views of residents, visitors and businesses regarding the phase-out of single-use plastic foodware and bags.
The first phase of the project lasted from January – August 2023. A logo and website, www.ci.pinole.ca.us/plasticwise, were created for the initiative. Staff compiled background information on the topic and synthesized SUP legislation at the federal, state and local levels. Two surveys were distributed to residents/visitors and businesses. Additionally, an interactive, mini-expo to introduce food businesses to alternatives to SUP foodware was organized by City Staff. Additionally, the City kickstarted a reusable foodware takeaway pilot with Fire Wings Pinole and Foodware to introduce a sustainable method of food packaging to residents, visitors, and businesses.
A cost analysis case study of a Pinole food business transitioning away from single-use plastic foodware was also performed by the City. The result of this first phase of work is complied in the report Phasing Out Single-Use Plastics in Pinole: Issue Summary and Outreach Results dated August 2023, along with the Supplemental Data for Single-Use Plastics Policy Development report, dated August 25, 2023.
After meeting twice with the Municipal Code Subcommittee in August 2023, and receiving some policy direction, the second phase of the project began in September 2023. The feedback and information gathered from different outreach methods were distilled into two brief 10-question surveys. A SUP foodware survey was distributed to food-based businesses and a SUP bag survey was distributed to all non-food businesses. Surveys were distributed in Chinese, English, Spanish, and Tagalog via email, US mail, and with various return options for feedback. This report examines the Phase 2 survey results and the resulting SUP policy recommendations.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 5 of 49
SINGLE USE PLASTIC FOODWARE
METHODOLOGY
Pinole’s 68 food businesses were mailed (by US mail) four sets of a 1-page, doublesided letter and 2-page, double-sided hard copy survey in four different languages:
Chinese, English, Spanish, and Tagalog. The letter reminded food businesses about the City’s SUP reduction initiative, and provided information on potential regulations for foodware and bags. It also provided resources to help understand the cost of transitioning. The letter also informed food businesses to use any or all of the four outlets below to voice their thoughts and concerns on regulation. Food businesses were given about four weeks to submit their feedback. Full survey results are in Appendix D. • Outlet 1: Scan the QR code provided in the letter and complete an online survey
• Outlet 2: Complete and mail/dop off the attached hard copy survey to City Hall • Outlet 3: Email, mail, or drop off written comments with attention to Sustainability Fellow, Kapil Amin
• Outlet 4: Book an in-person meeting using the QR code in the letter with Community Development Director, Lilly Whalen and Sustainability Fellow, Kapil Amin
Survey questions helped gauge a food business’s level of support, barriers, as well as needed resources to support the transition to tailor regulation with all types of food businesses in mind.
Email reminders with digital versions of the letters and survey were sent out during the outreach process.
Staff set an ambitious goal of receiving feedback from 80% of businesses. The methods detailed above did not reach the target, and so the City made in-person visits to food businesses that had not submitted a response.
An in-person visit took many shapes depending on the type of business. If a decision maker for the business was present and had time, their responses to the survey questions were recorded by the City. If a decision maker did not have time for the City to record their responses, a hard copy survey and survey QR code with a follow-up date was provided. If a decision maker was not present, a hard copy survey, survey QR code, and follow-up date were provided to a staff member to be relayed to the decision maker. Multiple visits were especially needed for corporate and franchise food businesses with rotating staff members and more complex chains of command in
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 6 of 49 comparison to independent food businesses. A corporation and franchise can consist of rotating shift leads, day managers, night managers, assistant managers and general managers. Phone calls and emails to corporations collected from corporate webpages were also utilized to elicit more feedback on the survey.
A decision maker can take different shapes dependent on the type of business/chain of command in the ecosystem of food businesses in Pinole. Appendix A provides a breakdown of the criteria used to select individuals to survey.
The Landscape of Pinole Food Businesses
68 businesses currently comprise Pinole’s food service landscape, shown in Figure 2 divided into categories by ownership structure. Amongst all food businesses in Pinole there are 10 corporations, 23 franchises and 36 independent businesses.
Survey Response Rate
54 of 68 businesses provided survey responses (80% response rate). Of the 43 food businesses that divulged their business name, 4 were corporate, 13 were franchises, and 26 were independent. Five surveys were completed in Chinese. Four surveys were completed in Spanish. See Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Survey Response Rate, Food Businesses
Response Rate by Ownership Type Number
Total completed surveys received 53
Corporation responses 4
Franchise responses 13
Independent business responses 26
Anonymous food business responses 10
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 7 of 49 Corporations
Chipotle
Mod Pizza
Noah's New York Bagel
Panda Express
Panera Bread
Peet's Coffee
Pizza Hut
Starbuck's
The Cheese Steak Shop
The Habit Burger
Franchises
Applebee's
Burger King
Carl's Jr
Cold Stone Creamery
Fire Wings Pinole
Five Guys
Ike's Love and Sandwiches
Jamba Juice
Kentucky Fried Chicken
McDonald's
Menchie's Frozen Yogurt
Mochinut
Mountain Mike's Pizza
Original Mel's
Outback Steakhouse
Pho Hoa
Pinole Foster Freeze
Quickly
Round Table Pizza
Taco Bell
Teaspoon
Wendy's
Wingstop
Independent businesses
A La Mode
Aguililla Taqueria
Antler's Tavern
Bear Claw
Boba Birds
Butter Pecan
China Delights
China House
East Bay Coffee Company
Famiglia
Happy Ramen
Hunan Villa
Kimchi House
King Valley
Kyoto Ramen & Lilikoi
Mint Vietnamese Deli
Ohana Hawaiian Barbecue
Pear Street Bistro
Pho Craze
Que Onda
Rickshaw Restaurant
Ristorante Due Rose
Sabor Latino 17
Sue's Place
Sweet Pipers
Tachikawa Japanese
Tandoor
Taqueria Morena
Thai Spice
The Embers
The New Deli
The Original Red Onion
Tina's Place
Uncle Chung's Szechuan
Yumy Gurt
Figure 2: Ownership Structure of Food Businesses in Pinole
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 8 of 49
SURVEY RESPONSE RESULTS
Question 1: How supportive are you of new regulations in Pinole that would require all food providers using any disposable foodware to replace all single-use plastic foodware (such as cups, plates, bowls, straws, containers, etc.) with compostable fiber foodware only? The regulations would not allow any plastic products, even if they are marketed as biodegradable or compostable, because these do not break down well in the City's commercial green waste program.
Question 1 was designed to gauge support from food businesses of regulations that model Berkeley’s SUP foodware ordinance. 53% of respondents (28 of 53) were either somewhat, moderately, or extremely supportive of regulation that would require replacing SUP foodware with compostable. 11% of respondents (6 of 53) are slightly supportive. 36% of respondents (19 of 53) are not at all supportive. The majority of “not at all supportive” selections come from independent businesses (13 of 19 total respondents “not supportive at all”). However, the majority of independent businesses responding to the survey were “slightly supportive” to “moderately supportive” of regulation. Franchises and corporate businesses were in the moderate and extreme level of support.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 9 of 49 Question 2: How supportive are you of new regulations in Pinole that would require all food providers using any disposable foodware to replace all single-use plastic foodware with recyclable foodware* or compostable fiber foodware only? *recyclable foodware includes aluminum foil food trays but it does not include recyclable plastic such as clamshells.
Question 2 aimed to assess food businesses' support of regulations similar to Richmond's SUP foodware ordinance. Respondents showed similar support for restricting disposable foodware to compostable fiber only compared to allowing both compostable and recyclable foodware (excluding clamshells). In fact, there were two respondents who demoted their selection from “moderately supportive” of compostable fiber-only regulations to “somewhat supportive” of compostable and recyclable regulations. Only two respondents promoted their selection from “slightly supportive” of compostable fiber-only regulations to “somewhat supportive” of compostable and recyclable regulations.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 10 of 49 MUNICIPAL CODE SUBCOMMITTEE POLICY GUIDANCE:
TYPES OF APPROPRIATE DISPOSABLE FOODWARE PRODUCTS
Based on staff research and survey responses, the Municipal Code Subcommittee should consider the following competing factors in recommending policy related to the types of disposable foodware products allowed:
• Food business respondents didn't have a significant preference either way on allowing aluminum in addition to compostable fiber products.
• Correspondence with Republic Services revealed that only clean aluminum containers can be recycled, as food-soiled aluminum increases contamination of other clean recyclables, such as cardboard.
• Rinsing containers relies on consumption of water, a limited resource.
• If the City does not allow aluminum, an exception for aluminum foil wraps (for, example, burritos) should be allowed per the Berkeley model.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 11 of 49 Question 3: Select all applicable items below that would increase your level of support for these new regulations:
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 12 of 49 Question 3 asked about what resources the City could provide that would increase the respondent’s level of support for regulations. Of 51 respondents, the top three selected resources that would increase level of support of foodware regulations is a transition period of 12-18 months to deplete current SUP stock and find new suppliers (51%), financial assistance (47%) and charging customers some form of takeout fee (49%).
Out of the 51 respondents, the top three resources that would increase the level of support for foodware regulations were:
• A transition period of 12-18 months to use up current SUP stock and find new suppliers (51%)
• Financial assistance (47%)
• Charging customers some form of takeout fee (49%)
Mainly franchises and independent businesses are looking for a transition period of 12 to 18 months which will increase their level of support for regulation. They feel this time is vital in order to deplete their stock, learn new regulation requirements, receive technical assistance, and establish new supply chain connections.
Corporations tended to not indicate that they need any resources or assistance. Their branches in other jurisdictions with SUP foodware regulations have already established supplier relationships. They generally did not indicate they would be seeking financial assistance due to their well-known brand names that attract customers throughout the year.
The majority of responding franchises indicated interest in financial assistance to increase their support of regulation. Franchise owners have a unique blend of characteristics that combine elements of both corporate and independent businesses.
They have the marketing advantage of using a trademark household name similar to a corporation to draw in more business. However, they cannot pull from a large bucket of resources like a corporation typically can. Their day-to-day operations are similar to an independent business in that they focus their energy on the success of a sole business location rather than a chain of businesses. Unlike independent businesses, franchises have a competitive edge and, therefore, more financial security with easily identifiable brands.
Responses to this question demonstrate that when resources to support foodware regulations are offered, the level of support for these regulations increases almost always. 7 total businesses, mainly independent, reported not supporting the regulations at all while also choosing the option of not receiving any resources. Independent businesses are mainly concerned about the financial impact of regulations. Some of these businesses are still recovering from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Several businesses have expressed their concern about the impact of regulations, particularly in conjunction with the increase in the minimum wage in 2024. They fear that regulations might push them over the edge and force them to close their business.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 13 of 49 However, this does not apply to all
independent businesses. A few popular
independent businesses did not consider
financial assistance as a necessary
resource to support the transition. Based
on staff research, currently the shift to
compostables may increase supply costs
by 10-15%. However, costs are expected
to decrease over time as the market
catches up with new regulation. There is
split opinion among food businesses on
charging customers a takeout fee to
mitigate the increased cost of
compostables. As discussed below, 49%
of respondents (25 of 51) indicated that
they would prefer to charge customers a
takeout fee to help mitigate costs.
Question 4: Select all the takeout fee types you would be interested in to help offset the cost of compostables.
As indicated in Question 3, 49% of respondents (25 of 51) selected “charging customers a takeout fee” as a resource that would help increase their level of support of regulation. 24%
35%
35%
6%
Forms of Selected Takeout Fees
flat 25 cents per order
25 cents per cup
25 cents per take out item
Flat 50 cents
Tandoor Pinole is extremely
supportive of regulation as they
already incorporate eco-awareness
in their practices. Tandoor uses
recycled paper bags and allows
customers to bring their own
reusable containers for food. They
are also excited to test a reusables
loop system!
BUSINESS SHOUT OUT!
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 14 of 49 Question 4 asked respondents what type of takeout fee they might be interested in to help offset the cost of compostables. There was mixed feedback in response to this question. The majority of respondents are split between a charge of 25 cents per cup1 and 25 cents per takeout item. A flat 25 cents per order was not far behind. Only one business was interested in a flat 50 cent takeout fee.
In-person conversations with food businesses revealed many do not feel comfortable charging customers additional fees. They do not want to put the onus on their customer base who are already frustrated with increased costs due to inflation. Some also reported fears of driving away business.
Other jurisdictions that enforce takeout fees do so to increase uptake of reusables.
Berkeley enforces a reusables only for dine-in. Their logic for a 25-cent takeout fee per cup is to potentially encourage customers to consume their beverage at the business rather than for take away. The Town of Truckee enforces a 25-cent fee per takeout item to increase uptake of their Green Box program to encourage customers to participate in the reusables takeaway program.
It is recommended to not mandate reusables only for dine-in as seen in Berkeley’s ordinance, and allow compostables for dine-in as well. Many of Pinole’s independent businesses are already using reusables for dine-in. Technical assistance and education can help nudge remaining businesses in that direction. Staff found that the Berkeley Chick-Fil-A opted to cease dine-in service to avoid complying with reusable foodware legislation and only operates as a drive-thru. Some faster moving businesses such as fast-food restaurants with limited dishwasher space may not find it feasible to accommodate dine-in guests with only reusables.
If a reusables takeaway program were pursued by the City, a carrot approach can be taken through a rewards program instead rather than enforcing all businesses to charge customers. A niche demographic of businesses and customers can help take a reusables program off the ground while not deterring others from visiting Pinole and supporting the local economy.
Given there is a split on charging versus not charging, it is not recommended that the City legislate a mandatory take-out fee. If the sole intention of the fee is to mitigate the cost for businesses, consideration could be given for allowing discretion of a business owner to make that choice. Businesses should have the freedom to experiment and trial a takeout fee that may work or not work for their business and pivot based on feedback and reactions from customers.
1 This option was modeled after Berkeley’s ordinance, which mandates reusables for dine-in, and requires that a 25 cent take out fee per cup be charged if compostable cups are made available for dine-in customers.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 15 of 49 Question 5: What concerns do you have about shifting to compostable fiber-only products?
Question 5 asked what concerns a business had in shifting to compostable fiber-only products. Increased cost is the number one concern for food businesses shifting to compostables with 67% of respondents (35 of 52). Supply chain issues follows with 62% of respondents (32 of 52). Durability and functionality of compostable foodware are the third biggest concerns each with 52% of respondents (26 of 52). The concern with cost is seen minimally from corporate business structures, split amongst franchises and in the majority of all independent businesses.
A conversation with the City of Berkeley has corroborated that durability and functionality of compostables is still a barrier businesses run into at times. As bioplastics would be banned with new regulation, fiber-based products may not always properly contain hot liquids. During the conversation, it was mentioned that the supply chain may not be able to keep up with the increased demand, which could lead to potential issues.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 16 of 49 Some food businesses have expressed that they don't have enough time to search and test the supply chain to find the most suitable product, as they have many other responsibilities to manage while running their business. Some food businesses have struggled to find compliant products due to quality and suitability issues.
A waiver solution might be the most appropriate way to handle these concerns. The City of Berkeley offers a waiver process for businesses unable to find compostable disposable foodware items with substantially similar size, performance and/or utility, or if such an item exists, that costs of using such time would cause undue financial hardship.
In Berkeley, food businesses can fill out a partial or full waiver request and submit to the City for review with the following process requirements:
• City Staff may contact the business to request additional clarification, information, or to schedule an onsite inspection
• Enforcement on the business cannot occur during the review process • A 2-year maximum exemption can be granted by staff
As Berkeley’s ordinance limits food businesses to BPI-Certified compostables only and reusables for dine-in only, waiver request reasons include:
• No BPI-Certified foodware item(s) exist with substantially similar size, performance and/or utility (if cannot be met, must be recyclable) • The cost of using BPI-certified item(s) would cause undue hardship • Insurmountable space constraints/inability to store reusables onsite • Lack of staff available to wash reusables
• Opportunity to describe other reason(s)
Photos, documentation, and good-faith effort to comply must be attached to application for review. See more information regarding the foodware waiver offered to food businesses by the City of Berkeley online2.
Franchise businesses often expressed a concern regarding the use of branded foodware packaging which is supplied for purchase by the trademark owner. However, most trademark owners have already modified their supply chain to comply with legislation in other jurisdictions, and therefore, this issue may be resolved with education. For instance, the Taco Bell franchise in Richmond has started using compostable packaging for its customers. During the transition period, trademark owners could be provided with Pinole's foodware ordinance for creating compostables with their branding if they wish to do so.
2 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Waiver-Request-Single-Use-Foodware-and-Litter-ReductionOrdinance.pdf
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 17 of 49 It can be challenging for food businesses to
reduce their plastic usage, but technical
assistance from organizations like Plastic
Reduction Project and Rethink Disposable
can help (see the sidebar for information on
costs). These organizations might also be
able to work with multiple businesses to
identify common foodware items and
negotiate bulk orders from suppliers to
reduce costs.
An on-site visit by a technical assistance
service can potentially entail providing the
following aid to food businesses:
• Waiver request assistance and
approval if supply chain issues are
supported and/or performance test of
compostable packaging fails
• Support with converting to reusables
for dine-in if logistically and
economically feasible
• Scouring the supply chain for
affordable, regenerative (sustainable
crop and forestation), optimized
compostable food packaging
• Education, training, support and
reinforcement of AB 1276 (single-use
foodware accessories and standard
condiments only upon request and
unbundled including for third party
delivery services) and AB 619 (allows
consumers to bring their own
reusables for takeout and leftovers
once a food business follows a
standard sanitation guidelines)
• City reusables loop onboarding and
training
• Finding common compostable
foodware items among businesses
and help establish bulk order
community contracts
Plastic Reduction Project
Trains volunteers to work with food
businesses; connects businesses with
suppliers that offer affordable,
compostable alternatives; helps
businesses apply for a subsidy to cover
the difference in cost. Cost is a $10,000
suggested donation.
Rethink Disposable
Helps businesses transition to reusable
containers for dine-in Cost varies.
Depending on the City size and varying
programmatic support, costs can range
from about $20,000 to $330,000+
• San Francisco (~$150,000):
providing training San Francisco’s
Department of Environment and
ongoing program support to replace
single-use foodware with reusables
to 100 restaurants
• City of Berkeley (~$48,000): five
collateral pieces (point-of-sale cards,
guide for the City of Berkeley’s
Foodware Reduction Guide,
technical assistance to 10
businesses that signed up, level of
compliance surveying of 153
businesses)
• San Mateo County (~$330,000):
Bringing approx. 500 food
businesses into compliance and
creation of the Foodware Purchasing
Guide and Foodware Aware website.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE OPTIONS
AND COSTS TO THE CITY
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 18 of 49 • Restaurant business grant application support
If financially feasible the City should take advantage of the expertise of technical assistance groups than can synergize multiple single-use plastic reduction efforts.
Technical assistance organizations could be contracted by the City to verify and sign off on waiver applications, if exemptions for certain products are needed by businesses.
MUNICIPAL CODE SUBCOMMITTEE POLICY GUIDANCE:
RESOURCES AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO BUSINESSES
Based on staff research and survey responses, the Municipal Code Subcommittee should consider the following competing factors in recommending policy related to the types of resources and technical assistance that would be most helpful to businesses:
• Integrating a transition period of 15-18 months without enforcement is crucial to enable businesses to use their current SUP stock and find new suppliers
• Offering financial assistance to independent and franchise businesses to assist in purchasing compliant products is important to consider • Allowing compostables for dine-in (not mandating reusables for dine-in • Considering a voluntary reusables program
• Not imposing a mandatory take-out fee
• Considering contracting with technical support organizations for a variety of tasks
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 19 of 49 Question 6: Would you be interested in participating in (select all that apply):
Question 6 asked respondents if they
would be interested in participating in a
resusables program. Reusables are
the most sustainable option for
foodware as they require the least
amount of energy consumption and
natural resources. The Town of
Truckee’s green box program is a Cityled initiative that encourages businesses to opt-in to the program3.
The majority of food businesses
responding to the survey (86% of 42
respondents) are not interested in a
reusables loop program. However, the City may consider pursuing piloting reusables for takeout with interested responding restaurants (10% of 42 respondents). A successful 3 Town purchases takeaway container for $4/each and provides to food businesses who sell to customers for $5 Pinole Starbucks on Pinole Valley
Road is a staunch supporter of
reusables and even volunteered to
be a part of the corporation’s pilot
of a reusables cups loop system!
BUSINESS SHOUT OUT!
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 20 of 49 program would require multiple restaurants to increase the number of exchange hubs for customers to participate in. Creating the foundation of the program with an interested restaurant and customer base can hopefully develop into a robust City-wide program.
The City can also pursue grants to install drop-off stations for reusable containers.
Conversations with different reusable container programs shed light in their interest in leasing space in the City to be converted into a commercial dishwashing facility. A public-private partnership could be created to support/subsidize sustainable washing of reusables for takeaway, dine-in, and larger cafeterias with bio-based detergents and reclaimed water. Facilities such as the Senior Center, Tiny Tots, and elementary, middle and high school facilities in Pinole where cost and space of washing reusables may be a barrier are good candidates for program consideration.
A reusables cup system can also be pursued by the City. Multiple Starbucks locations in Napa/Petaluma are piloting a similar returnable cup system. The City could potentially partner and harness the loop system efforts of Starbucks to expand the loop to other food businesses in Pinole.
The City could also create its own loop system.
An example of companies that offer this Citywide service is Huskee cup4 with their sleek, stylish, and spill-proof cups. Given the
prevalence of Pinole’s boba businesses, a
potential request to Huskee can be made to
incorporate into the cup’s design compatibility
with boba drinks. As boba businesses purchase
a novelty machine that seals plastic lids to plastic
cups, an exemption may be needed for these
businesses, but a reusable boba cup may help
reduce the plastic waste from these cups.
4 https://us.huskee.co
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 21 of 49 Question 7: How supportive are you of new regulations in Pinole that would require all food providers to offer paper bags exclusively for to-go orders, and providing plastic bags only upon request from customers?
Question 7 asked respondents about their support for new regulation requiring paper bags for to-go orders and providing plastic bags only upon request from customers.
Together, 61% of 42 respondents selected “somewhat supportive”, “moderately supportive” and “extremely supportive”. Approximately 33% of 42 food businesses are not at all supportive of new regulation requiring paper bags. The following table compares the carrying capacity and cost of a paper vs plastic bag.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 22 of 49 Type of Bag Capacity Composition Unit Price
Paper Bag 20 lbs 100% postconsumer recycled
content (PCRC)
$0.05/unit (the
average unit price
would decrease if
businesses buy a
range of paper bag
sizes as a 20 lb.
paper bag may not
be fitting for
smaller food items)
Less green
alternative with no
PCRC
$0.08/unit
Plastic Bag 12 lbs Standard .5 mil
plastic bag
$0.04/unit
Figure 3: Price comparison of plastic versus paper bags Cost would not be too big of a burden on businesses as plastic bags and paper bags are comparable in price. If a food business uses 200 plastic bags per week or 10,400 annually, the annual cost increase to shift to recycled content paper bags would be roughly $100. A 20 lb. capacity bag is also more than sufficient and durable to carry customers’ takeaway items. It is not customary for bags to be charged for at restaurants as they are seen as complimentary and is not common practice for customers to bring their own bags to restaurants.
However, functionality and cost of paper bags are the biggest concerns of food businesses. A waiver solution might be the most appropriate way to flexibly handle these concerns. The waiver request can allow businesses to mark financial hardship or functionality defects. Technical assistance organization could also support finding suppliers and establishing bulk community contracts.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 23 of 49
RECOMMENDED COMPONENTS OF PINOLE FOODWARE ORDINANCE
Based on staff research, review of other jurisdiction’s regulations, and survey results, staff has prepared components of a draft foodware ordinance for the Municipal Code Committee’s consideration, below. As technical assistance is a significant component of ensuring success, the draft foodware ordinance components below assume an investment of at least $20,000-$50,000 in funding. See Appendix B for a summary of Foodware Ordinances in Berkeley, Richmond and El Cerrito.
Applicability:
All food providers (restaurants, deli counters, market vendors, food trucks, caterers etc.) must provide food to customers in reusable or compostable foodware products only.
The food provider should make a good-faith effort to maximize reusables where practicable for in-person dining.
Compostable foodware requirements:
• Bioplastics are not allowed
• Single-use plastic or recyclable plastic foodware is not allowed • Fiber-based, uncoated paper, and natural (wood, bamboo, etc.) foodware packaging is allowed (BPI-Certified and regenerative/recycled content is preferable, but any compostable material accepted in green waste collection is allowed)
• Single-sided PLA laminated foodware is allowed
• Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluroalkyl substances (PFAS) in foodware is not allowed • Aluminum foodware is not allowed
• Aluminum foil to wrap/form items is allowed
Takeout fee:
A takeout fee may be charged at the discretion of the business and is not mandatory.
Businesses may set their own takeout fee (examples below). • $0.25 cents per disposable cup if reusable cups are accepted by business • $0.25 cents per takeout item
• $0.25 cents flat per takeout order
• $0.25 cents for dine-in customers requesting packaging for leftovers if their own reusables to pack leftovers are allowed
If a business choses to impose a takeout fee it cannot be charged to customers with WIC or EBT proof.
Receptacles:
If food is served in compostable foodware for dine-in customers and self-bussing is necessary, a receptacle for collecting organic waste must be present at the food business.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 24 of 49 Foodware Accessories:
All foodware accessories (utensils, straws, stirrers etc.) are to not be bundled at selfserve stations and/or upon request only. If the food provider uses a third-party platform (Doordash, Uber Eats, etc.) staff must remember to only provide utensils if app user requested.
Transition Period:
A transition period of 15-18 months (until all food businesses receive technical assistance) is granted before enforcement due to non-compliance begins.
Technical Assistance:
Technical assistance, signage, and foodware guide will be provided to all food businesses
Bags:
• Bags with any plastic are not allowed for customers’ takeaway food • Paper bags with post-consumer recycled content is required (if the City finds PCRC paper bags are no longer being supplied at an affordable and sustainable rate, regular paper bags will suffice in the meantime)
A bag fee is at the discretion of the food business and is not mandatory. If customerbrought reusable bags are allowed, a business should consider a bag fee to encourage reusable bags.
Unless for delivery, food business staff should ask customers if a bag is required and should not automatically bag food item(s) if the customer feels comfortable without a bag.
Waivers:
A waiver request form would be available for valid, supported reasons to be exempted partially or fully from the foodware ordinance for up to two years. Municipal Code Subcommittee should consider contracting with a technical support organization to consider business requests for waivers.
TIMELINE AND RESPONSIBILITIES AFTER FOODWARE ORDINANCE ADOPTION The graphic below represents an example timeline starting with the Foodware Ordinance adoption as Month 0. The narrative below provides detailed responsibilities of the City and technical assistance organizations, if contracted by the City. After a transition period the City will begin enforcement on food businesses for non-compliance of foodware ordinance.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 25 of 49 Figure 4: City of Pinole timeline after foodware ordinance adoption Months 1-2:
• Continue the process of searching/applying for grants to foster programmatic needs of the City and financial/ resource support for food businesses o Financial assistance for businesses
o Drop-off stations for reusables
o Community reusables dishwashing facility
• Vet and procure the services of technical assistance
• Procure samples of compostables from different companies and various shapes/sizes for technical assistance groups to demonstrate and test functionality for the waiver exemption process
• Begin organization of an interactive expo for food businesses to explore compostables
• Begin preparation of a Foodware Purchasing Guide
• Begin preparation of signage for food businesses of new regulation to inform customers
• Begin procuring green waste receptacles to be dispersed throughout the City on sidewalks and shopping complexes to collect compostable foodware • Begin procurement process of a reusables loop service or City-led purchasing for distributing
• Begin the procurement process of a community reusables dishwashing facility • Begin logistics of rolling out technical assistance to food businesses • Begin process of creating waiver request form
• Begin process of rewards program to encourage participation in customerbrought reusables and/or reusables loop system • Begin education process of public of collecting organic waste, purchasing biobag liners, and food takeaway package waste sorting at home and place of work Month 0
• Council adopts
Ordinance;
grants a
transition
period
Months 1-2
• Research grants
• Solicit TA
• Procure
samples
• Design expo
• Draft guide
• Draft signage
• Etc
Months 3-4
• Publish guide
• Distribute
information
• Finalize TA
contract
• Hold expo
• Finalize waiver
request
Months 5-6
• Explore
dishwashing
facility
• Explore drop
off stations
Months 5-
16 • Technical
Assistance
rollout
• Education
• Support
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 26 of 49 Months 3-4:
• Foodware Purchasing Guide published on website
• New regulation, signage, technical assistance sign-up, and foodware purchasing guide mailed to all food businesses
• Technical assistance contract finalized
• Green waste receptacles contract finalized
• Reusables loop system contract finalized
• Expo for food businesses to meet local distributors and test/learning pricing of compostables
• Utilize expo as an opportunity to create cost-effective, community contracts with supplier by learning what common compostable items are shared by food businesses so they can be ordered in bulk
• Waiver request form finalized
• Rewards program finalized
• City mails letters to independent business leasers requesting a small discount on lease amount to support their lessee going green
• City provides independent businesses with “going green” donation jars Months 5-6:
• Explore a commercial dishwashing facility for increased reusables loop uptake • Explore drop-off stations for increased reusables loop uptake Months 5-18
• Rollout of technical assistance begins in the order of o Small, independent businesses
o Franchises
o Corporates
• Educate food businesses on new regulation
• Support maximization of reusables where practicable by assisting with feasibility of dishwasher installation, promotion of the City’s reusable loop system to increase uptake, and training on AB 619 sanitation guidelines to allow customerbrought reusables • Help food businesses search the supply chain cost-effective alternatives to plastic food packaging
• Learn where there is synergy among food businesses packaging to create community contracts for businesses to order from and City discount codes • Support with business grant application
• Support with testing functionality of foodware with sample compostables • Support with filling out waiver request forms
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 27 of 49
SINGLE USE PLASTIC BAGS
METHODOLOGY
To gauge support of SUP bag regulation, Pinole’s non-food businesses (690 from the active business license list in 2023) were mailed four sets of a 1-page double-sided letter and a 2-page double-sided hard copy survey in four different languages: English, Spanish, Chinese, and Tagalog. The letter informed businesses of potential regulation on SUP bags if they were not already regulated by SB270. The letter informed businesses about the environmental and health impacts of SUP bags that led to policy development and presented them with the potential costs and benefits of regulation.
Businesses were given four outlets to voice their feedback on the regulation within a month. Full survey results are in Appendix E.
• Outlet 1: Take a brief 10-question survey online
• Outlet 2: Complete attached hard copy survey
• Outlet 3: Email, mail, or drop off written comments
• Outlet 4: Book an in-person meeting with Lilly Whalen and Kapil Amin Survey questions helped to tailor potential regulation and gauge level of support, barrier, as well as needed resources to support the transition.
Email reminders with digital versions of the letter and links to the survey were emailed in four languages.
Emails to corporations of Pinole’s big box stores were also sent the survey to provide feedback.
Due to the initial low response rate (30 of 688 businesses) of the overall survey, the City sought the assistance of volunteers from the Plastic Reduction Project to gather additional feedback on regulation from non-food businesses. The volunteers were provided with a letter from the City, which granted permission to gather feedback from the businesses. The survey was mainly conducted among store owners and general managers of big box stores, who have a good understanding of the business and can provide valuable insights to help tailor the regulation of SUP bags.
Volunteers strategized soliciting feedback by splitting businesses on Pinole’s main roads: e.g., Fitzgerald Drive, San Pablo Ave., Pinole Valley Road, and Appian Way.
SURVEY RESPONSE RATE
Survey responses came from all types of businesses using plastic bags: big box retailers, smaller corporate stores, independent businesses, and businesses regulated under SB270.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 28 of 49 Surveys were sent to 688 businesses and responses were received from 91 businesses. See Figure 5. Although this may seem like a small overall response rate, a significant number of the 688 non-food businesses in Pinole, such as insurance brokers, educational services, consulting firms, construction, real estate, gyms, finance/accounting, auto repair, nail salons, and hair salons, do not use plastic bags. If volunteers found a common trend of no bag usage among a certain business category, they would halt visiting businesses in that category to tackle the large volume of nonfood businesses in Pinole. Businesses that sell or give away takeaway items and big box stores/corporations such as Michael's and Best Buy use the most plastic bags.
Volunteers made sure to visit every business and in between on Pinole’s main streets to encompass the randomness of bag usage and business types.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 29 of 49 Figure 5: Summary of non-food business respondents to SUP bag regulation survey Corporate big
box stores
Staples
Ulta
Home Goods
Ace Hardware
Best Buy
Big 5
Michaels
Independent
businesses
Solutions for Learning
Mike’s Appliances
Hailie’s Haircuts
Pinole Valley Lanes
Ocean Day Spa
Bayeast Insurance
I Brow Bar
Transitions Salon
Fiat Music
World Phones
Hathcoat Family Dental
Serenity Nail Salon
Dolans
The Treasure Hunt
Pinole Beauty Supply
Smart Stop
General and Implant Dentistry
Valley Produce
Grip It Golf Repair
Smoke n Save
Evaluation Focused Consulting
Classic Organic Nails Spa
Aquinos Care Home
Garden of Gems Custom Jewelry
ZC for Hair
Pinole’s Paws Pet Grooming
O Connor Physician Group
Nurani Institute
Flourish Daylillies
Westland Gemstones
Saving Memories
Results Realty
My K9 Teacher
Sculpting Friends in Hair
Cawperthwaite
Simple BOIs Petals and Events
Square Deal Garage
Cortez Tires and Auto Repair
Richmond Urological Group
Travel Travel
Able to Loan
Benjamin Rosales DDS
Chaton Salon
360 Wielding and Fabrication Inc
AD Dern Insurance Agency
Chamberlux
Murrah Molina Therapy
The Drill Factory
Corporate
small/medium
stores
Sally Beauty
Bright Now Dental
Auto Zone
Orangetheory Fitness
Sherwin Williams
Supercuts
T-mobile
Mancini’s Sleep World
Shoe Palace
GNC
Oreily’s Auto
David’s Bridal
Pet Food Express
America’s Best Contacts
and Sunglasses
Verizon
Cosmo Pro
SB270-
regulated
businesses
99 Cents
Pinole Vista Liquor
Appian Liquors
Sprouts
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 30 of 49
SURVEY RESPONSE RESULTS
Question 1: How supportive are you of potential regulations in Pinole that would require all businesses (except for restaurants) selling perishable or nonperishable goods to use paper or reusable bags instead of plastic bags for their customer’s carryout items?
An overwhelming number of respondents
(63% of 82 respondents) are extremely
supportive of regulations of plastic bags.
Only 5 of 82 respondents (6%) would not
support regulation. 2 businesses are
independent and mainly sell small
takeaway items such as jewelry and beauty
supplies. Other businesses were in the
insurance and warehousing sector, which
conventionally do not use bags, and did not
disclose if they used bags. These
Sprouts, regulated under SB270,
shared their willingness to convert
from thicker film plastic bags to
paper grocery bags!
BUSINESS SHOUT OUT!
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 31 of 49 businesses were mainly upset with the idea of regulation and did not provide further explanation such as concerns with cost or functionality.
Question 2: Select all applicable items below that would increase your level of support for this potential regulation:
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 32 of 49 Question 2 ask which resources would increase level of support for regulation of sup bags. The number one reply among survey takers (42 of 79 respondents) was “none”.
This makes sense, given businesses would only need to phase out one item in their supply chain, The next most selected resource was free signage (27 of 79 respondents) followed by a transition period of 12 to 18 months (19 of 79 respondents).
MUNICIPAL CODE SUBCOMMITTEE POLICY GUIDANCE:
SUP BAGS
RESOURCES AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO BUSINESSES
Based on staff research and survey responses, the Municipal Code Subcommittee should consider the following competing factors in recommending policy related to the types of resources and technical assistance that would be most helpful to businesses in phasing out SUP bags:
• A transition period of 6 months would be sufficient time for business to find a new supplier of bags.
• A list of compliant bag suppliers can be provided via email and mail, along with a City contact for further assistance.
• During conversations with managers at big box stores, it was revealed that intricate systems are already in place to ship specific bags to stores based on their jurisdiction, making it easy to shift from plastic to paper bags.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 33 of 49 Question 3: Which fee would you be interested in charging customers to offset the cost of paper bags?
Question 3 asked the bag fee they would be interested in charging customers. Most businesses will avoid charging customers to the extent possible because they feel it is bad for business. 90% of respondents are interested in charging 10 cents or less per paper bag. The cost difference between a plastic versus paper bag is about 15 cents for smaller takeaway items as well as larger grocery bags.
Figure 6: Price comparison of various options of plastic versus paper bag Non-green Green Greener
SB270 2.25
mil thick
plastic
bags-
$0.15/bag
100% postconsumer
content paper
bag- $0.25/bag
0% postconsumer
content paper
bag- $0.30/bag
60% postconsumer
content paper
bag- $0.17/bag
0% postconsumer
content paper
bag- $0.16/bag
.5 mil
plastic bag-
$0.04/bag
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 34 of 49 Question 4: Which fee do you think will incentivize customers to use their own reusable bags?
43% of 67 respondents feel a fee greater than 10 cents would discourage store bag use and promote reusable bags. A close second is a 10 cent fee selected by 37% of 67 respondents. Survey results showed that 10 cents tends to dissuade customers from bringing their own reusable bags.
Best Buy is running through their
last stock of plastic bags and have
already decided to convert to paper
bags after
BUSINESS SHOUT OUT!
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 35 of 49 MUNICIPAL CODE SUBCOMMITTEE POLICY GUIDANCE:
SUP BAG FEES
Based on staff research and survey responses, the Municipal Code Subcommittee should consider the following competing factors in recommending policy related to the type of SUP bag fee that would be most helpful in phasing out SUP bags:
• Conversations with businesses regulated under SB270 that charge 10 cents for reusable plastic bags revealed that only about 15% of customers bring their own bags.
• Conversations with businesses revealed that 10 cents does not alarm a customer to bring their own bag as that amount seems
inconsequential.
• 15 cents should be considered as the minimum required of businesses to charge customers. This will help businesses break even on the additional cost of paper bags as well as push customers to remember to bring their reusable bag beyond at grocery stores.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 36 of 49 Question 5: What concerns do you have about shifting to paper bags? Question 5 asked what concerns there were for transitioning to paper bags. The other category was the highest selected, where the majority of respondents specified “no concerns” with shifting to paper bags. The next most selected answer is durability of paper bags. .5 mil plastic bags carry about 12 lbs of weight and high performance paper bags can meet and exceed that same standard by looking at the basis weight of the bag which indicates the strength of the paper. If durability is still an issue, businesses can potentially request to demonstrate performance failure with the City through a waiver process.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 37 of 49 Question 6: Is your business comfortable with customers using their own reusable bags to carry away items?
Question 6 asked businesses if they were comfortable with customers bringing their own bags. An overwhelming 59 of 68 businesses are comfortable with customers bringing their own reusable bags to their businesses. Some concerns brought up in comments are increased shoplifting and hygiene concerns. However, these concerns have not been alarming enough to stop grocery stores. The ordinance should require all businesses providing bags to allow customer-brought reusable bags. A waiver request form can be completed with valid reason for exemption.
RECOMMENDED DRAFT PINOLE BAG ORDINANCE
Based on staff research, review of other jurisdiction’s regulations, and survey results, staff has prepared components of a draft SUP bag ordinance for the Municipal Code Committee’s consideration, below. See Appendix C for a summary of SUP Bag Ordinances in Berkeley and San Francisco.
City of Pinole (proposed)
Any Pinole business and vendor (market, food truck, packaging facility) selling perishable and/or nonperishable goods (retail, food, etc.) (some Pinole businesses have packaging facilities (example Best Damn Nuts), but no physical customer store) and is not regulated by SB270 must comply with the following in replacement all single-use plastic checkout bags and pre-checkout bags (SB 1046 goes into effect 1/1/2025 as well):
o Recycled-content paper bags (40% minimum) must be provided for customers in place of plastic bags at checkout and pre-checkout
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 38 of 49 o BPI-Certified compostable t-shirt bags are acceptable for checkout o BPI-Certified compostable produce bags are acceptable for pre-checkout o Customer-brought reusable bags are to be accepted at all businesses o 15 cents must be charged for medium/large paper/compostable bags o Small paper bags are not mandatory to be charged for
o Food businesses bags are not mandatory to be charged for o WIC, SNAP, Calfresh, etc. customers are exempt from charge with valid proof o A waiver request form is available for financial hardship, customer-brought reusable bags, and bag performance failure
o A 6 month transition period will be granted
The City should aim to work with Pinole dry cleaning businesses to have standard procedures prior to the 1950s such as an option for customers to bring their own bag, request no bag, or branded reusable loop bags provided by the business. Beyond Plastics has provided a guide to foster this.
PLASTIC-FREE DRY CLEANING!
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 39 of 49
TIMELINE AND RESPONSIBILITIES AFTER BAG ORDINANCE ADOPTION
CITY OF PINOLE
Figure 7: City of Pinole timeline after SUP bag ordinance adoption Months 1-6
• Campaign to educate businesses and public of new regulation • Signage mailed to all impacted businesses of new regulation • Creation of purchasing guide for businesses to purchase from • Creation of community contracts/discount codes for businesses to purchase from Campaign idea:
KEEP YOUR 15
Month 0
• Council adopts Ordinance; grants a
transition period
Months 1-6
• Regulation campaign
• Regulation signage
• Puchasing guide
• Community contracts
I HOLD MORE THAN
GROCERIES…
KEEP YOUR 15 CENTS
&
TAKE ME TO ANY
PINOLE BUSINESS
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 40 of 49 The official Earth Day theme of 2024 is…
PLANET VS. PLASTICS
FUN FACT!
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 41 of 49 Appendix A: Breakdown of the Food Business Criteria
Corporation
If a food business was categorized as a corporation, a response from the corporate office would be ideal. However, reaching a decision maker at the corporate office became convoluted and elusive quickly. A pivot in strategy to find a decision maker by proxy was necessary. In-person visits at a corporate food business begin with informing the general manager that an attempt to reach corporate was made to no avail. The general manager would then be asked if they understood the financial health of their store/corporation and felt comfortable providing their feedback on behalf of corporate.
The general manager was also told a response from their superior, the district manager, would also be sufficient since they have a greater scope of understanding the corporation’s health managing multiple branches. More often than not, a general manager of a corporate food business felt comfortable gauging if the food business can financially take on the weaning of SUP. General managers also regularly meet with corporate and district managers and are briefed on corporate sales targets aside from observing daily sales first-hand. Additionally, given the financial structure of corporate food businesses, even if sales of the Pinole branch were under target, corporate can still pull from its overall bucket to support Pinole’s transition. All survey responses from general managers and district managers understood the financial health of the food business/corporation and felt comfortable taking on the role of decision maker by proxy.
Corporate
General
Manager
Assistant
Manager
Shift Lead
District
Manager
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 42 of 49 Franchise
Franchise food businesses move differently than corporations. Depending on the business, franchise owners either work as the general managers of their own branch, communicate directly with their store’s general manager, or do not communicate with their store’s general manager. General managers who do not directly communicate with the franchise owner, speak with their district manager to connect to the franchise owner.
Franchise owners take different shapes. They can be a sole individual or an investment company/management company. Overall, it is easier to solicit a response from a sole franchise owner in comparison to a restaurant owned by a group. Direct contact with the franchise owner was made if their contact information was provided to the City’s Finance Department. If the franchise owner did not provide a response, an attempt to contact the franchise trademark owner was made. A franchise owner’s response would trump the franchise trademark owner’s response to uphold equity as a franchise owner would be under more financial constraint than their trademark owner. If a franchise owner’s contact information was not known or they were not present at their food business, the City spoke with the food business’s general manager. General managers were provided a hard copy survey and survey QR code. Since general managers did not feel comfortable divulging franchise owners’ contact information, they were asked to relay the survey at their next check-in, by text, or gathering responses by phone call. If general managers did not directly speak with franchise owners, they were asked to relay to district managers to reach the franchise owner. Some franchises do not have any managers and only rotating staff members that were asked to relay. Multiple visits are required to follow up on the survey response. If after multiple attempts a survey response could not be solicited from a franchise owner, a similar methodology of asking Franchise
trademark
owner
District
Manager
General
Manager
Assistant
Manager
Shift Lead
Franchise
owner
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 43 of 49 the general manager or district manager by proxy to take the survey if they felt comfortable and understood the financial health of the food businesses was used. A franchise owner does not have the same luxury of a corporation to pull from, at times, a national bucket of funds to funnel an underperforming branch especially if they are an individual owner. Franchise owners are also under the constraint of the franchise trademark owner’s supply chain which can offer competitive pricing but the franchise owner cannot take it upon themselves to look elsewhere even if it may be more costeffective. If a proxy response was submitted, the City was ensured by the survey taker of their awareness of the financial health of the business. Responses from Pinole franchise food businesses came from franchise owners and general managers.
Independent businesses
Pinole’s independent food businesses usually see their owners on site taking care of the business’s day to day needs. A handful of them had time for the City to record their responses to their survey in-person. If not, decision makers were provided a hard copy survey, survey QR code, and follow-up date. If English was not the primary language spoken by the owner, a hard copy survey in their desired language was provided. If the business owner was not present, managers were asked to relay the survey to business owners. Survey responses from any independent food business came directly from the food business owner or a family member that works at the business and understood the financial health of the business.
Independent
business owner
General Manager
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 44 of 49 APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF FOODWARE ORDINANCES
IN BERKELEY, RICHMOND AND EL CERRITO
City of Berkeley
Ordinance applies to any business selling prepared food o Restaurants, food trucks, cafes, bakeries, grocery stores, drug stores, markets, festivals, theaters, bars
On-site dining requirements
• Reusable foodware to serve customers eating on premises o Exceptions: paper tray liners, paper wrappers, napkins, bioplastic and paper straws are allowed for dining on-premises
o Recyclable aluminum foil is allowed for wrapping/forming items Color-coded recycling and compost bins
• Prepared food businesses that allow self-bussing must provide color-coded receptacles for customers to sort waste: blue (recyclables), green (organic waste), and black/gray (landfill waste)
Takeout Dining Requirements
• All take-out foodware must be BPI-Certified Compostable • BPI-Certified Exceptions: paper napkins or natural wood accessories $0.25 Charge for Disposable Cups
• Vendors must charge 25 cents for every disposable beverage cup provided to incentivize reusable cups
o 25 cent charge itemized separately
o Proof of Electronic Benefit Transfer card (EBT) or California Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) are exempt from the charge
City of El Cerrito
All food providers (restaurants, food trucks, deli counters etc.) in the City must use compostable or reusable foodware.
• Must be accepted in City’s green waste collection program • Bioplastics are not allowed
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 45 of 49 • Compostable plastics not allowed
• Bundling or wrapping of foodware accessories is not allowed (self-serve stations okay)
City of Richmond
All food providers using any disposable foodware for providing prepared food to customers will use
• Compostable (bioplastics allowed) or recyclable (can be sorted, cleansed, and reconstituted and does not include incinerating, converting, or thermally destroying solid waste.)
• Takeout fee at discretion of food provider
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 46 of 49 APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF SUP BAG ORDINANCES IN
BERKELEY AND SAN FRANCISCO
City of Berkeley
Single-use bags rules apply to all entities that provide or sell goods directly to a customer, such as: grocery stores, markets, festivals, retail stores, convenience stores, and restaurants.
Grocery stores or any entity selling food products (larger than 2,500 sq. ft.) must meet pre-checkout bag (used for produce, bulk goods, etc.) o Recycled-content paper or BPI-certified compostable pre-checkout bags may be provided for free
o Plastic pre-checkout bags may be provided for 10 cents per bag o WIC or Calfresh customers are exempt from charge
o Reasonable effort to sell reusable pre-checkout bags for sale Restaurants
o Recycled-content paper bags may be provided for free
o Plastic carryout bags upon request only by dine-in customers for a charge of 10 cents
All other entities (selling perishable or nonperishable goods) o Plastic film carryout bags regardless of thickness are not allowed o Recycled-content (minimum 40%) paper carryout bags may be provided for 10 cents per bag
o WIC or Calfresh customers exempt from charge
o Non-plastic reusable bags may be provided free or for sale Exempt bags
o Dry cleaning bags, packaging film, packages of multiple bags (garbage liners, pet waste, yard waste etc.)
Enforcement and waivers
o Enforcement is complaint-based only
o Waiver application form available
City of San Francisco
Beginning July 1, 2020 all food establishments and retail stores must:
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 47 of 49
1. Offer BPI-certified, compostable plastic bags, 40% PCRC paper bags, reusable checkout bags (125 uses and washable) in replacement of single-use plastic checkout bags
2. Charge at least 25 cents per checkout bag and display itemized charge separately (EBT, WIC, SNAP, and food stamp customers exempt)
3. Offer acceptable pre-checkout bag (compostable plastic or recyclable paper)
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 48 of 49 Appendix D: Full SUP Foodware Survey Results
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review- January 22, 2024 Page 49 of 49 Appendix E: Full SUP Bag Survey Results
SINGLE-USE PLASTICS REDUCTION
CITY OF PINOLE
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
MAR BUSINESS AND RESIDENT/VISITOR
SURVEY RELEASE
JUN
FIRE WINGS/FOODWARE PILOT
SEP/
NOV
REGULATION FEEDBACK SURVEY RELEASE TO
BUSINESSES AND INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS
CONSULTATION
FEB MSCS MEETING #5; REVIEW
DRAFT ORDINANCE
APR/
MAY
MSCS MEETING #6 (IF NEEDED);
REVIEW FEEDBACK
MCSC MEETING # 4; REVIEW
RESULTS OF BUSINESS FEEDBACK
PRESENT DRAFT ORDINANCE
TO BUSINESSES FOR FEEDBACK
MCSC MEETING #2 &3; AUG
REVIEW SURVEY RESULTS &
PROVIDE DIRECTION ON REGULATIONS
MSCS MEETING #1;
REVIEW FEDERAL, STATE, REGIONAL LEGISLATION
JAN
PUBLIC EXPO: APR
ALTERNATIVES TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS
JAN
MAR/
APR
MAY/
JUN
PRESENT ORDINANCE TO COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION
DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE
2 0
2 3
2 0
2 4
BUSINESS INPUT OPPORTUNITIES MCSC: MUNICIPAL CODE SUBCOMMITTEE
WHO WILL BE IMPACTED?
RETAILERS
FOOD PROVIDERS
any establishment that sells or
otherwise provides prepared
food or beverages within the
City of Pinole
any establishment that sells
perishable and/or non-perishable
goods that are packaged for
customer takeaway and is not
currently regulated by SB270
(NOT EXHAUSTIVE)
(NOT EXHAUSTIVE)
WHAT WILL FOOD PROVIDERS NEED TO CHANGE?
COMPOSTABLE FOODWARE REQUIREMENTS
NO BIOPLASTIC
NO PFAS
ONLY FOIL TO WRAP NO BLEACH
OTHER ORDINANCE COMPONENTS FOR FOOD PROVIDERS
TAKEOUT FEES & BAG
SURGHARGE FEEs are
OPTIONAL
self-bussing
food ESTABLISHMENTS
MUST PROVIDE CUSTOMERS
3 BINS FOR DIFFERENT
WASTE STREAMS
MAXIMIze use OF
REUSABLE FOODWARE
and encourage
reusable bags
wHEn/wheRE
FEASIBLE
UNBLEACHED
40% postconsumer
recycled content
bag
WHAT WILL RETAILERS NEED TO CHANGE?
MANDATORY FOR ALL RETAILERS NOT SUBJECT TO SB 270
VOLUNTARY BUT HIGHLY ENCOURAGED FOR RETAILERS SUBJECT TO SB 270
ORDINANCE COMPONENTS FOR RETAILERS
CONSUmer-owned
bags are allowed
RETAILERS MUST ISSUE A
15 cent SURCHARGE FEE
to customers requiring a
M/L bag for takeaway
items
UNBLEACHED and 40%
POSTCONSUMER
RECYCLED CONTENT
PAPER or BPI
COMPOSTABLE BAG
PRE-CHECKOUT BAGS
MUST BE COMPOSTABLE
TRANSITION TIMELINE
COUNCIL CONSIDERS ADOPTION
EFFECTIVE DATE of ordinance;
6-month timeframe to comply
NON-COMPLIANCE enforcement BEGINS
May/June 2024
January 1, 2025
July 1, 2025
6- month EXTENSION OF TIME
(eligibility Required, businesses must apply)
JULY-DECEMBER 2025
January -July 2026
TRANSITION PERIOD of 2+ years for eligible businesses
6- month additional EXTENSION OF TIME
(eligibility Required, businesses must apply)
July-December 2024 Education/assistance to businesses WAIVER
TIMELINE TBD
WAIVERS & EXTENSION OF TIME
WAIVERS
undue financial hardship
supply chain issues
performance
health and safety
EXTENSION OF TIME
Employ 10 full time equivalents or less
gross ANNUAL receipts less than $500,000
RESOURCES
The City will, at minimum,
provide simple technical
assistance i.e.WEBINARS, INPERSON SUPPORT and a
resource packet to all
impacted businesses.....
and a good-faith effort to seek
out ADDITIONAL resources
(PARTNERSHIPS, FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE,
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES, etc.) to
SUPPORT BUSINESSES
THANK YOU!
PROVIDE COMMENTS TO:
LIVE WEBINAR W/ Q&A
THURSDAY, APRIL 18
9AM
KAPIL AMIN, SUSTAINABILITY FELLOW
[email protected]
BY THURSDAY, APRIL 18
CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 10.C.
DATE: JUNE 4, 2024
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JEREMY CRONE, COMMANDER
ERIC CASHER, CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: MILITARY USE EQUIPMENT POLICY AND CITY ORDINANCE: AB481
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a first reading of an ordinance approving and re-adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy as Stated in Chapter 2.60 “Military Equipment Policy” of the Pinole City Municipal Code in compliance with AB 481 and approve the 2023- 2024 Pinole Police Department Annual Military Equipment Report.
BACKGROUND
On September 30, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill (AB) 481, which went into effect on January 1, 2022, and added California Government Code Sections 7070 through 7075 relating to the funding, acquisition, and use of military equipment by local law enforcement agencies. The bill required law enforcement agencies seeking to fund or acquire new military equipment or continue use of any military equipment acquired prior to January 1, 2022, to draft a military equipment use policy and obtain approval from its governing body via adoption of an ordinance no later than May 1, 2022. On May 3, 2022, the City Council approved the Department’s Policy (identified as Department Policy 707) finding it meets the requirements under AB 481 and introduced and adopted an ordinance adding Chapter 2.60 “Military Equipment Policy” to the Pinole Municipal Code (Ord. 2022-02).
AB 481 (Government Code §7072) requires that the Department submit to the City Council an annual military equipment report for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use.
The annual report shall include a summary of each type of military equipment, its intended purpose, how each type of equipment was used by the agency during the preceding year, a summary of any complaints received concerning the equipment, the results of any internal audits pertaining to violations of the military equipment use policy, the total cost for each type of equipment, and quantity possessed.
Additionally, the City Council must review the ordinance that it has adopted, approving the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment, at least annually, and vote on whether to renew the ordinance at a regular meeting. During the review process, the City Council must determine, based on the military equipment report, whether each type of military equipment in the report has complied with the standards for approval set forth in Government Code sections 7071(d)(1) and 7071(e)(2). If it determines a type of equipment identified in the report has not complied with the standards for approval, the City Council must either disapprove of the
renewal of the ordinance or require modifications to the military equipment use policy in a manner that will resolve the lack of compliance. The City Council may renew or not renew the authorizing ordinance, disapprove authorization for equipment where standards have not been met, or require modifications to the military equipment use policy based on whether the equipment detailed within the annual report complies with policy and meets specified standards as set forth in California Government Code Section 7071, subdivision (d).
On June 6, 2023, the City Council approved and reaffirmed the Department’s Policy (identified as Department Policy 707) finding it met the requirements under AB 481 and introduced and adopted an ordinance adding Chapter 2.60 “Military Equipment Policy” to the Pinole Municipal Code (Ord. 2023-04).
By this ordinance the Department seeks 1) approval of its 2023-2024 annual military equipment report, 2) authority to acquire two (2) DJI Mavic 3 Thermal (M3T) UAS drones defined as “military equipment” under the statute, and 3) renewal of Pinole Police Department Policy 707 upon a finding that the report has complied with the standards for approval set forth in Government Code sections 7071(d)(1) and 7071(e)(2).
Attachment A is the proposed ordinance. Attachment B is the 2023-2024 Annual Report, including the inventory list of military equipment the Department has and intends to use in the future that falls within the definition of “military equipment” under AB 481. Attachment C is the Department’s military equipment use policy. Attachment D is the Department’s Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations policy.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
AB 481 requires a law enforcement agency that receives approval for a military equipment use policy to submit to the City Council an annual military equipment report for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use. (Govt. Code §§7071(d)(1) and 7071(e)(2).) The law enforcement agency must also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on its internet website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. Government Code section 7072 (a) states that the annual report must include the following information:
1. A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment.
2. The results of any internal audits or information about violations of the military equipment use policy. This includes any actions taken in response.
3. The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report.
4. The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment.
5. If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.
6. A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use.
In compliance with the Government Code, the Department’s annual use report and policy was
released to the community, via the Department’s transparency portal on April 22, 2024, and provided to City Council. On May 21, 2024, the Department held a well-publicized and conveniently located public meeting, at which the general public was able to discuss and ask questions regarding the annual military equipment report and the law enforcement agency’s funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment. The Department heard the communities’ concerns regarding the use of the ERV and proposed acquisition of a UAS. The Department maintains previous authorized possession and use of the ERV and the proposed acquisition and implementation of a UAS program is essential to the protection and preservation of life.
The annual use report contains all the required elements of Government Code section 7072 (a) set forth above.
The 2023-2024 Annual Report (Attachment B) outlines the Department’s military equipment inventory and usage, community complaints over use of military equipment, and internal audits from May 1, 2023, through April 30, 2024. An inventory was completed on March 27, 2024, which identified all of the Department’s military equipment in preparation to fulfill the obligations set by Assembly Bill 481. Equipment used by the Department during the preceding year is found to be consistent with current Policy 707. No complaints concerning the equipment were made to the Department.
During this period (May 2023 – April 2024), the Department has used military equipment under this policy during community events (ERV and command post) and officer training (ERV, rifles, PepperBall VKS, and FN 303 MK2). The Department utilized the ERV in a mutual aid request from an allied agency to protect officers responding to a shooting that had just occurred. The Department also utilized the Command Post in a mutual aid request to assist with logistics and personnel on an authorized DUI checkpoint for an allied agency. The Department had two incidents in which an outside agency provided their authorized UAS to assist with the search for fleeing suspects who posed a danger to the community. These incidents resulted in the quick and safe apprehension of the suspects with no harm to the community. The Department deployed the FN 303 MK2 Launcher in an incident with a suspect who had crashed his vehicle, fled, threatened to kill officers, assaulted a police K9 and had barricaded himself. The FN 303 MK2 allowed officers to engage the suspect at a safe distance, distracting the suspect so officers could safely apprehend him.
During this period, the Colt AR-15/M4 Carbine rifles underwent routine maintenance.
For the 2023/24 Annual City Budget, Council approved $30,000 for the purchase, training and maintenance of a UAS program.
Proposed Acquisition
In accordance with Government Code section 7072 (a), the Department is requesting approval for the purchase of two (2) DJI Mavic 3 Thermal (M3T) UAS (drones) as set forth in the annual report and inventory. The Mavic 3 is an unmanned Aerial System (UAS) designed for public safety. The UAS is a battery powered, remote operated device with a flight time of approximately 36-45 minutes depending on weather and flight conditions. The UAS has proven to be useful to public safety agencies in crime scene analysis, search and rescue, preoperation surveillance and other critical incidents where aerial views enhance the safety and efficiency of law enforcement personnel. The UAS would assist officers or incident commanders in situations that would include, but not limited to: major collision investigations, emergency life threatening situations, search for missing persons, natural disaster
management, crime scene photography, and critical incidents for preservation of life and public safety missions. The UAS falls under CA Government Code section 7070(c)(1) – Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles.
The UAS would be operated under FAA Part 107 authorization and regulations and in accordance with Department Policy 607- Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations (Attachment D). This policy ensures compliance with FAA regulations, sets forth training requirements, authorizations for use, privacy, and prohibited uses.
The Department has a significant interest in continuing to have access to equipment that will provide peace officers as many options as possible to safeguard lives, ensure safety, and protect civil liberties of the citizens of the City of Pinole. The use of the military equipment identified on the inventory list is vital to the Department’s mission and will continue to be strictly regulated through internal processes and oversight.
Renewal of Military Equipment Use Policy
In addition, the Department is required to re-submit the previously approved policy for reapproval consideration, as an agenda item during open session. The previously approved policy is attached to this report (Attachment C). Council must determine, based on the annual military equipment report, whether each type of military equipment identified in the report has complied with the following:
1. The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
2. The policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.
3. If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
4. Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.
The Department does not anticipate any change in the previously approved policy but does seek approval to acquire additional equipment, only the addition of equipment. The Department intends to acquire two (2) DJI Mavic 3 Thermal (M3T) UAS drones as further provided above. At this time, forecasted purchases for the Department in 2024/25 only include additional ammunition for the previously approved COLT AR15/M4 patrol rifles and projectiles for the previously approved FN 303 MK2 launchers which need to be replenished after being used in either the field or training environments and anticipated deferred maintenance to the MRAP/ERV. All items needing to be replenished are included in the policy and attached inventory which were previously approved by the City Council.
Any future attempts to obtain additional equipment not provided for herein will comply with procedures set forth in the Government Code and the approved military equipment policy; this includes a public hearing and City Council approval prior to acquisition.
Through acceptance of the annual report and renewal of the ordinance, the City Council will authorize the continued use of preexisting equipment considered “military equipment” under AB 481. This includes a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle (MRAP) for use as an Emergency Rescue Vehicle (ERV) to safely evacuate residents in the event of a natural disaster or critical incidents, to move personnel and/or resources in support of natural disasters (i.e. flood, fire, earthquake), large scale logistics, active shooter incidents, and incidents where there is reason to expect potential armed resistance requiring protection. The Policy also includes a single unmanned, remotely piloted, powered ground vehicle used to enhance peace officer and community safety when encountering potentially dangerous situations by providing first responders with the ability to capture video and still images, and to transport communication equipment or other resources prior to, or in lieu of, sending in personnel into hazardous incidents or environments.
Other items deemed to be “military equipment” under AB 481 include foundational equipment such as rifles and ammunition. These rifles allow peace officers to address lethal threats from a greater distance and with greater precision. The Department also seeks authorization to use four FN 303 MK2 Launcher and projectiles, to limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable. The projectiles provide officers with a less-lethal option in incidents of combative or self-destructive individuals, riot/crowd control and civil unrest incidents, circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained, potentially vicious animals, and training exercises or approved demonstrations. The equipment allows for more time and opportunity to attempt to deescalate situations and provide for safer tactics to resolve life threatening events in the safest way possible. During the 2023/24 period, the FN 303 MK2 Launcher replaced the legacy technology of the PepperBall VKS launcher that had also reached the end of its serviceable life.
The Policy safeguards the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights and civil liberties by ensuring that there are safeguards, including transparency, oversight, and accountability measures in place.
For instance, the Policy authorizes the Chief of Police to designate a member of the Department to act as the military equipment coordinator. The responsibilities of the military equipment coordinator include, but are not limited, acting as a liaison to City Council for all matters related to the requirements of AB 481, identifying “military equipment” as defined under the statute, conducting annual inventory and review, collaborating with outside agencies, and scheduling and coordinating an annual community engagement hearing to address the Department's funding, acquisition, and use of military equipment.
In compliance with the Government Code, the Military Equipment Policy has remained on the Department’s transparency portal continuously since prior to Council adoption in 2022.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact from the acceptance of the annual report or the approval of continuing the ordinance approving the military equipment use policy. The Policy explicitly references the fiscal impact related to costs to maintain or acquire equipment and is included in the existing department’s budget allocation.
ATTACHMENTS
A. 2023_2024 PPD Military Annual Report Document
B. Military_Equipment_Funding__Acquisition_and_Use_Policy and Inventory C. Pinole_Ordinance Re-Adopting Military Equipment Use Policy (AB 481) 2024 Updated (CAO Revisions)
D. Unmanned_Aerial_System__UAS__Operations Policy 607 Updated E. Revised Notice Public Hearing (AB 481) 2024 Final
PINOLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT
ANNUAL MILITARY
EQUIPMENT REPORT
MAY 2023 – APRIL 2024
May 2024 Annual Military Equipment Report for 2023/2024 1 Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................ 2 Definitions .................................................................................................. 3 Summary of Military Equipment................................................................. 4 Military EquipmentInventory...................................................................................... 4 Equipment Training Use & Purchase ........................................................... 8 Community Concerns and Complaints ........................................................ 9 Internal Military Equipment Inventory & Audit.......................................... 10 Projected Military Equipment Acquisition (2024/2025) ............................. 12
May 2024 Annual Military Equipment Report for 2023/2024 2 INTRODUCTION
On September 30, 2021, the Governor of the State of California approved Assembly Bill 481 (codified as Chapter 12.8 of the California Government Code) requiring law enforcement agencies such as the Pinole Police Department to have a military use policy approved by the City Council prior to requesting, seeking funding, acquiring or using military equipment. Assembly Bill 481 allows the governing body to approve the policy within its jurisdiction only if it determines that the military equipment meets specified standards.
On May 3, 2022,the City of Pinole Council approved Ordinance 2022-02 approving Pinole Police Department Policy #707: Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition, and Use. As required by Assembly Bill 481 and the Ordinance, annually the Pinole Police Department must prepare a report on the use of each type of military equipment approved in the Policy over the last year. Subsequently, the City Council must then review the Ordinance, Policy and Annual Report, and determine whether the Department’s use of military equipment in the past year complied with the Policy, and whether to continue the Ordinance and Policy, take action (by ordinance) to modify the Policy or repeal the Ordinance.
As set forth in the Policy, the Pinole Police Department retains and employs limited military equipment to safeguard its community. Pinole Police Department officers and certified instructional staff, receive training throughout the year on the use of military equipment approved under the Policy.
During this period, 03/05/2024, the Department transitioned from the PepperBall VKS Launcher to the FN 303 MK2 Launcher due to the PepperBall VKS Launcher platform being a legacy technology and at its end of life.
This Annual Report outlines the Pinole Police Department’s military equipment inventory andusage, community complaints over use of military equipment, and internal audits from May 1, 2023, through April 30, 2024. The Department will submit its Military Equipment Annual Report to City Council annually in compliance with AB 481.
May 2024 Annual Military Equipment Report for 2023/2024 3 DEFINITIONS
Definitions of Military Equipment established by California Government Code §7070:
(Pinole Police Department utilizes a limited number of the resources listed below) Military equipment includes but is not limited to the following types of equipment:
• Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles • Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers • High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), two-and-one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached
• Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants • Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units • Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles or any kind • Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include a handheld, one-person ram
• Firearms and ammunition of .50 caliber or greater, excluding standard-issue shotguns and standard-issue shotgun ammunition
• Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code §30510 and Penal Code §30515, with the exception of standard-issue firearms • Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles • Noise-flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools • Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray
• Taser Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and long-range acoustic devices (LRADs)
• Kinetic energy weapons and munitions (e.g. 40MM launcher, bean bag shotgun, foam tipped projectiles)
• Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.
May 2024 Annual Military Equipment Report for 2023/2024 4 Pinole Police Department Military Equipment
Inventory
1. Equipment Type: Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle (MRAP) – CA Govt Code §7070(c)(2)
Quantity Owned or Sought: 1 Lifespan: Unknown
Purpose/Authorized User: Emergency Rescue Vehicle (ERV) to safely evacuate residents in the event of a natural disaster or critical incidents. To move personnel and/or resources in support of natural disasters (i.e. flood, fire, earthquake), large scale logistics, active shooter incidents, and incidents where there is reason to expect potential armed resistance requiring protection. Use may be authorized by Watch Commander or Tactical/Operations Commander, based on the circumstances of the given incident.
Fiscal Impact: Acquired under the Law Enforcement Support Program Office (LESO): $0 for equipment. $9,200 for delivery, paint and upfitting. Annual maintenance cost is approximately $1,000.00
Legal and Procedural Rules Governing: It is the policy of the department to utilize armored vehicles only for law enforcement purposes and pursuant to State and Federal law.
Training Required: Department provided training.
Other Notes: The MRAP is an armored vehicle manufactured by BAE Systems/Caiman weighing over 34,000 pounds and can carry a payload of over 4,000 pounds. The vehicle has six (6) wheels fitted with tires and is all-wheel drive, powered by a diesel engine. The vehicle measures approximately 22 feet long, 8 feet wide, and 10 feet tall.
2. Equipment Type: Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered ground vehicles - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(1)
Quantity Owned/Sought: 1 Lifespan: Approximately 15 years Equipment Capabilities: Vehicle is capable of being remotely navigated to provide scene information and intelligence in the form of video and still images transmitted to first responders.
Manufacturer Product Description: iRobot PackBot 510 Multi Mission Robot (MMR) Purpose/Authorized Uses: To enhance officer and community safety when encountering potentially dangerous situations by providing first responders with the ability to capture video and still images, to transport communication equipment or other resources prior to, in lieu of sending in personnel into hazardous incidents or environments.
Fiscal Impacts: Acquired under the Law Enforcement Support Program Office (LESO): $0 for equipment. Annual maintenance cost is approximately $500.
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: The use of unmanned, remotely piloted, powered ground vehicles potentially involves privacy considerations. Absent a warrant or exigent circumstances, operators and observers shall adhere to all applicable privacy laws and shall not intentionally record or transmit images of any location where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Training Required: Department provided training.
Other Notes: None
May 2024 Annual Military Equipment Report for 2023/2024 5 3. Equipment Type: Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(1)
Quantity Owned/Sought: 2 Lifespan: Approximately 5 years Equipment Capabilities: Vehicle is capable of being remotely navigated to provide scene information and intelligence in the form of video and still images transmitted to first responders.
Manufacturer Product Description: DJI Mavic 3 Thermal (M3T) UAS Purpose/Authorized Uses: Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) designed for public safety. The UAS is a battery powered, remote operated device with a flight time of approximately 36-45 minutes depending on weather and flight conditions. The UAS has proven to be useful to public safety agencies in crime scene analysis, search and rescue, pre-operation surveillance and other critical incidents where aerial views enhance the safety and efficiency of law enforcement personnel. The UAS would assist officers or incident commanders in situations that would include, but not limited to: major collision investigations, emergency life threatening situations, search for missing persons, natural disaster management, crime scene photography, and critical incidents for preservation of life and public safety missions.
Fiscal Impacts: DJI Mavic 3 Thermal (M3T): $6,000, quantity 2 (Total: ~$12,000) Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: The use of unmanned, remotely piloted, powered ground vehicles potentially involves privacy considerations. Absent a warrant or exigent circumstances, operators and observers shall adhere to all applicable privacy laws and shall not intentionally record or transmit images of any location where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Training Required: FAA Part 107, POST UAS Operator, and Department provided training.
Other Notes: Capabilities include 48 MegaPixel camera, 56x tele zoom, 640x512 thermal sensor, one-way speaker, and spotlight.
4. Equipment Type: Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units – CA Govt Code §7070(c)(5)
Quantity Owned or Sought: 1 Lifespan: 20 years
Purpose/Authorized User: Trailer is purpose‐built to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units conducting DUI enforcement checkpoints, traffic safety operations, and responding to or at an incident. The Command and Control (C&C) trailer serves as a centralized location for command decision making, enhanced communication and other situational awareness capabilities. Use may be authorized by Watch Commander or Tactical/Operations Commander, based on the circumstances of the given incident.
Fiscal Impact: Acquired by grant issued by the State of California Office of Traffic Safety under a Traffic Safety Grant. $40,415 for equipment. Annual maintenance cost is approximately $1000.
Legal and Procedural Rules Governing: It is the policy of the department to utilize C&C trailer only for law enforcement purposes and pursuant to State and Federal law.
Training Required: Department provided training.
Other Notes: The command-and-control trailer is standard tow-behind trailer with dual axels manufactured by Universal Trailer with a GVW of 3,100 pounds. The trailer measures approximately 16 feet long, 8.5 feet wide, and 9 feet tall. The trailer is equipped with a folddown rear door, lighting, and a generator.
May 2024 Annual Military Equipment Report for 2023/2024 6 5. Equipment Type: Semiautomatic Rifles and Ammunition - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(10) Quantity Owned or Sought: 28 Lifespan: 15 years
Purpose/Authorized User: Colt AR-15/M4 Carbine semiautomatic shoulder fired rifle with long spirally grooved barrel that fires .223 Rem/5.56 mm projectile bullet. The rifles are equipped with 10.5” barrel, Surefire muzzle brake, and Surefire SOCOM556-RC2 suppressors.
Ammunition is Speer Gold Dot caliber .223 62 grain.
A standard officer issue to be used as a precision weapon to address a threat with more precision and/or greater distances than a handgun, if present and feasible.
Fiscal Impact:
• Colt AR-15/M4 Rifle: $32,400, quantity: 28
• Surefire muzzle brake: $2,779, quantity: 28
• Surefire SOCOM556-RC2 Suppressors: $22,408, quantity: 28 • .223 62 gr ammunition: $6,270, quantity: 10,450
• Annual maintenance cost is approximately $1,500
Legal and Procedural Rules Governing: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force. Various Pinole Police Department Policies on Use of Force and Firearms.
Training Required: Department firearms training and qualifications as required by law and policy by POST certified instructors. CA POST certified 24-hour patrol rifle course.
Other Notes: These rifles are standard issue service weapons for our officers and therefore exempted from this Military Equipment Use Policy per CA Gov’t Code §7070 (c)(10). They have been included in this document in an abundance of caution and in the interest of transparency.
6. Equipment Type: Pepper Ball Launcher and Projectiles - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(12) Quantity Owned or Sought: 4 Lifespan: 20 years
Purpose/Authorized User: FN 303 MK2 Less Lethal Launcher utilizing compressed-air to fire less-lethal fin-stabilized projectiles. The FN303 MK2 features a magazine fed system that offers the ability to quickly switch between projectile types. Projectiles: .5% PAVA containing pepper powder designed for direct impact and area saturation, Clear Impact projectile intended for distraction, Washable Paint for training and marking, Indelible Paint projectile intended for marking with indelible colorant for later identification, and Inert Powder projectile for training.
To limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable.
Provides officers with a less-lethal option in incidents of combative or self-destructive individuals, riot/crowd control and civil unrest incidents, circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained, potentially vicious animals, and training exercises or approved demonstrations.
The FN 303 MK2 is a like for like replacement of the PepperBall VKS Launcher legacy system.
Fiscal Impact:
• FN 303 MK2: $5,080, quantity: 4
• PAVA Projectile: $900, quantity: 150
• Indelible Paint Projectile: $750, quantity: 150
May 2024 Annual Military Equipment Report for 2023/2024 7 • Washable Paint Projectile: $1,315, quantity: 270
• Inert Powder Projectile: $1,245, quantity: 450
• Magazine Assembly, Slings, and Maintenance Items: $486 • Cases: $1,587, quantity: 4
• Annual maintenance cost is approximately $250
Legal and Procedural Rules Governing: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force. Various Pinole Police Department Policies on Use of Force.
Training Required: Department provided training conducted by POST certified instructors.
Other Notes: None
7. Equipment Type: Less-Lethal Shotgun and Bean Bag Projectile - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(14)
Quantity Owned or Sought: 4 Lifespan: 25 years
Purpose/Authorized User: Remington 870 Less-Lethal 12-gauge Shotgun with orange and black marked stocks is used to deploy the less lethal 12-guage CTS Super-Sock Beanbag round.
The Combined Tactical Systems (CTS) Super-Sock Beanbag round is a less-lethal 2.4-inch 12- gauge shotgun round firing a ballistic fiber bag filled with 40 grams of lead shot.
To limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable.
Provides officers with a less-lethal option in incidents of combative or self-destructive individuals, riot/crowd control and civil unrest incidents, circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained, potentially vicious animals, and training exercises or approved demonstrations.
Fiscal Impact:
• Remington 870 Less-Lethal 12-guage Shotgun: $2,200, quantity: 4 • CTS Model 2581 Super-Sock Beanbag Round: $1,090, quantity: 200 • Glass Breaker Ball: $480, quantity: 200
• Annual maintenance $0
Legal and Procedural Rules Governing: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force. Various Pinole Police Department Policies on Use of Force.
Training Required: Department provided training conducted by POST certified instructors.
Other Notes: None
May 2024 Annual Military Equipment Report for 2023/2024 8 Equipment Purchase and Training Use
2023/2024 Purchases and Maintenance
Military Equipment Quantity Cost Date of Purchase
COLT AR 15/M4 –
maintenance
1 $76.00 01/26/204
COLT AR 15/M4 –
ammunition, .223 62 gr 1,000 $609.00 01/15/2024
FN 303 MK2 Launcher,
projectiles, cases, slings,
and maintenance
equipment
4 $11,363.00
07/18/2023,
11/06/2023,
12/11/2023,
03/04/24
2023/2024 Training/ Military Equipment Utilized
Training Military
Equipment
Dates
Officer Training - Range
Colt AR-15/M4
Carbine w/
.223/556
ammunition
10/10&13/23,
12/6&8/2023,
01/16&17/24,
01/19&20/24, 02/12/24,
04/16/24, 04/26/24
MRAPPepperBall VKS
Training – Range
PepperBall VKS 06/07/23, 08/16/23,
12/07/23
FN 303 MK2Training -
Range
FN 303 MK2 02/27/24, 03/01/24,
03/05/24
ERV Orientation and
Driver Training
MRAP/ERV 03/25/24, 03/28/24
May 2024 Annual Military Equipment Report for 2023/2024 9 Community Concerns and Complaints
In April of 2022, the Pinole Police Department published its Military Equipment Funding, Use and Acquisition policy on its website. Community concerns and complaints can be received via the Department’s website, in-person at the police department or in the field during police contacts, telephone, emails and social media. 2023/2024 Community Concerns, Complaints & PD Internal Investigations Related to Military Equipment Use
Community Concerns Community Complaints PD Internal Investigations 0 0 0
**No formal complaints or concerns were brought forward by the public. Officers regularly engaged with the community regarding the use of the ERV at community events and its role within the community.
May 2024 Annual Military Equipment Report for 2023/2024 10 Internal Inventory & Audit (PPD Military
Equipment)
Per Pinole Police Department policy 707.3 (c), the Department’s military equipment coordinator, is required to complete an internal inventory of all military equipment within the possession of the Department at least once annually.
An inventory was completed on March 27, 2024, which identified all of the Department’s military equipment in preparation to fulfill the obligations set by Assembly Bill 481.
The Department did not add any new military equipment to its inventory since that time.
All current military equipmentinventory was found to be in good shape and working order. 2023/2024 Event or Incident Military Equipment Utilized Case# /
Incident#
Date Equipment
Used
Classification Reason
05/18/2023 Command Post Event Project Hope
06/11/2023 Command Post Event Pride Event
2306200155 06/20/2023 ERV Mutual Aid
Outside assist to Richmond
PD for officer protection in
shooting incident
06/25/2023
Command Post
ERV Event Pinole Car Show
10/03/2023
Command Post
ERV Event National Night Out
10/07/2023 Command Post Event Special Olympics Bike the Bridges
May 2024 Annual Military Equipment Report for 2023/2024 11 10/31/2023 ERV Event Halloween Caravan
23-1714 11/14/2023 Drone (outside
agency) Incident
Outside agency assist with
drone for wanted domestic
violence subject
12/01/2023 ERV Event Holiday Tree Lighting
12/14 &
12/18/2023
Command Post Event Shop with a Cop / Toy Drive
2312290152 12/29/2023 Command Post DUI Checkpoint
Mutual Aid for Hercules PD
DUI Checkpoint
24-298 03/08/2024
FN 303 MK2 /
Drone (outside
agency)
Incident
Deployed FN 303 MK2 /
Outside agency assist with
drone for barricaded subject
24-512 04/20/24 FN 303 MK2 Incident
Deployed FN 303 MK2 for
subject barricaded in vehicle
with firearm
04/25/24 Command Post Event Project Hope
May 2024 Annual Military Equipment Report for 2023/2024 12 Projected Military Equipment Acquisition
(2024/2025)
For 2024/2025 (May - April), the Pinole Police Department projects the purchase of COLT AR15/M4 ammunition and FN 303 MK2 projectiles to replenish inventory due to training. The Department anticipates the purchase of two (2) Mavic 3T UAS (drones) with funds approved during the 2023/2024 budget. In addition, we anticipate deferred maintenance for the ERV due to use and age. The estimated purchase price of this equipment and maintenance is approximately $25,400.00. The operating costs of this equipment, which includes acquisition, personnel time, training facilities, transportation/storage of equipment, equipment upgrades, and other ongoing costs is budgeted and allocated within the Department’s approved operating budget for FY2023- 2024 and FY2024-2025.
Military Equipment Projected Purchase
Amount
Projected Purchase Price
.223 62 gr ammunition 7,000 rounds $4,000
FN 303 MK2 Projectiles 300 rounds $1,400
Mavic 3T UAS 2 Drones $12,000
ERV Maintenance $8,000
Policy
707
Pinole Police Department
Pinole PD CA Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2024/04/22, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Pinole Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition and Use Policy - 1
Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition and Use
Policy
707.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the approval, acquisition, and reporting requirements of military equipment (Government Code § 7070; Government Code § 7071; Government Code § 7072). This policy applies to all members of the Department 707.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include (Government Code § 7070):
Governing body – The elected or appointed body that oversees the Department.
Military equipment – Includes but is not limited to the following:
• Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. • Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. • High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), two-and-one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. • Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants. • Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units. • Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. • Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include a handheld, one-person ram.
• Firearms and ammunition of_.50 caliber or greater, excluding standard-issue shotguns and standard-issue shotgun ammunition.
• Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than_.50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code § 30510 and Penal Code § 30515, with the exception of standard-issue firearms.
• Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. • Noise-flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools. • Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
• TASER® Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and long-range acoustic devices (LRADs).
• Kinetic energy weapons and munitions.
• Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.
Pinole Police Department
Pinole PD CA Policy Manual
Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition and Use Policy
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2024/04/22, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Pinole Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition and Use Policy - 2
707.2 POLICY
It is the policy of the Pinole Police Department that members of this department comply with the provisions of Government Code § 7070 and 7071 with respect to the use and acquisition of military equipment.
707.3 MILITARY EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR
The Chief of Police should designate a member of this department to act as the military equipment coordinator. The responsibilities of the military equipment coordinator include but are not limited to:
(a) Acting as liaison to the governing body for matters related to the requirements of this policy.
(b) Identifying department equipment that qualifies as military equipment in the current possession of the Department, or the equipment the Department intends to acquire that requires approval by the governing body.
(c) Conducting an inventory of all military equipment at least annually. (d) Collaborating with any allied agency that may use military equipment within the jurisdiction of Pinole Police Department (Government Code § 7071). (e) Preparing for, scheduling, and coordinating the annual community engagement meeting to include:
1. Publicizing the details of the meeting.
2. Preparing for public questions regarding the department's funding, acquisition, and use of equipment.
(f) Preparing the annual military equipment report for submission to the Chief of Police and ensuring that the report is made available on the department website (Government Code § 7072).
707.4 MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
The following constitutes a list of qualifying equipment for the Department: See attachment:
Military Equipment Pinole Police Department Inventory Final 4_2024.pdf 707.5 APPROVAL
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall obtain approval from the governing body by way of an ordinance adopting the military equipment policy. As part of the approval process, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure the proposed military equipment policy is submitted to the governing body and is available on the website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue (Government Code § 7071). The military equipment policy must be approved by the governing body prior to engaging in any of the following (Government Code § 7071):
(a) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to 10 USC § 2576a.
Pinole Police Department
Pinole PD CA Policy Manual
Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition and Use Policy
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2024/04/22, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Pinole Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition and Use Policy - 3
(b) Seeking funds for military equipment, including but not limited to applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers.
(c) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
(d) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the jurisdiction of this department. (e) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body.
(f) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of military equipment.
(g) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided above. 707.6 COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
On occasion, the department may be required to assist or be assisted by other law enforcement agencies in a formal Mutual Aid Request or support with day to day operational collaboration (i.e. pursuits, investigative unit assistance, joint law enforcement operations, etc.). The specific guidance and requirements for Mutual Aid is governed by PPD Policy 331 - Outside Agency Assistance.
In certain mutual aid or operational collaboration circumstances, it may be necessary for sworn department members to utilize military equipment in order to fulfill an assigned mission (i.e. active shooter, civil unrest, barricaded suspects in a vehicle, etc.). When sworn department members utilize military equipment in instances of mutual aid or law enforcement collaboration, the following shall apply:
a. Department members are required to adhere to the Department's Military Equipment Procedure and all policies and procedures outlined within the Pinole Police Department's Policy and Procedures Manual, regardless of operational jurisdiction. b. Should the Pinole Police Department request mutual aid from another law enforcement agency within Contra Costa County and military equipment is required during the course of the response, the following shall apply:
1. The Pinole Police Department shall remain in charge of the overall incident command.
2. The Incident Commander or designee shall brief the supervisor from the assisting agency and inform them of the mission, enforcement posture, and any pertinent information related to the incident.
3. The assisting agency will be expected to adhere to their respective policies and procedures, particularly those governing the use of military equipment.
4. If the Incident Commander or their designee is informed of or witnesses the utilization of military equipment by an assisting agency inconsistent with the guidelines set forth in this
Pinole Police Department
Pinole PD CA Policy Manual
Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition and Use Policy
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2024/04/22, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Pinole Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition and Use Policy - 4
procedure, the Incident Commander may elect to cancel the request for mutual aid or reassign the assisting agency to a different support mission. 707.7 ANNUAL REPORT
Upon approval of a military equipment policy, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee should submit a military equipment report to the governing body for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use (Government Code § 7072).
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee should also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on the department website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The report shall include all information required by Government Code § 7072 for the preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment in department inventory. 707.8 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual report, the Department shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the Department should discuss the report and respond to public questions regarding the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.
707.9 COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS
The Pinole Police Department has established a Community Concerns and Complaints process with forms available at the department and online. The community will have the ability to provide verbal concerns/complaints over the telephone or in-person at the Pinole Police Department (PPD policy 1010).
707.10 CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
Pursuant to California Government Code section 7071, the City Council of Pinole approved this Policy pursuant to Ordinance #. Further substantive amendments to the Policy need to be reviewed and approved by the City Council.
Pinole PD CA Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2024/04/22, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Pinole Police Department ***DRAFT*** Attachments - 5 Attachments
Attachment
Pinole PD CA Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2024/04/22, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Pinole Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment Pinole Police Department Inventory Final 4_2024.pdf - 6
Military Equipment Pinole Police
Department Inventory Final 4_2024.pdf
Military Equipment Pinole Police Department Inventory Final 4_2024.pdf
AB 481 Qualifying Equipment Inventory: Pinole Police Department Pinole Police Department
April 22, 2024
1. Equipment Type: Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle (MRAP) – CA Govt Code §7070(c)(2)
Quantity Owned or Sought: 1 Lifespan: Unknown
Purpose/Authorized User: Emergency Rescue Vehicle (ERV) to safely evacuate residents in the event of a natural disaster or critical incidents. To move personnel and/or resources in support of natural disasters (i.e. flood, fire, earthquake), large scale logistics, active shooter incidents, and incidents where there is reason to expect potential armed resistance requiring protection. Use may be authorized by Watch Commander or Tactical/Operations Commander, based on the circumstances of the given incident.
Fiscal Impact: Acquired under the Law Enforcement Support Program Office (LESO): $0 for equipment. $9,200 for delivery, paint and upfitting. Annual maintenance cost is approximately $1,000.00
Legal and Procedural Rules Governing: It is the policy of the department to utilize armored vehicles only for law enforcement purposes and pursuant to State and Federal law.
Training Required: Department provided training.
Other Notes: The MRAP is an armored vehicle manufactured by BAE Systems/Caiman weighing over 34,000 pounds and can carry a payload of over 4,000 pounds. The vehicle has six (6) wheels fitted with tires and is all-wheel drive, powered by a diesel engine. The vehicle measures approximately 22 feet long, 8 feet wide, and 10 feet tall.
2. Equipment Type: Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered ground vehicles - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(1)
Quantity Owned/Sought: 1 Lifespan: Approximately 15 years Equipment Capabilities: Vehicle is capable of being remotely navigated to provide scene information and intelligence in the form of video and still images transmitted to first responders.
Manufacturer Product Description: iRobot PackBot 510 Multi Mission Robot (MMR) Purpose/Authorized Uses: To enhance officer and community safety when encountering potentially dangerous situations by providing first responders with the ability to capture video and still images, to transport communication equipment or other resources prior to, in lieu of sending in personnel into hazardous incidents or environments.
Fiscal Impacts: Acquired under the Law Enforcement Support Program Office (LESO): $0 for equipment. Annual maintenance cost is approximately $500.
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: The use of unmanned, remotely piloted, powered ground vehicles potentially involves privacy considerations. Absent a warrant or exigent circumstances, operators and observers shall adhere to all applicable privacy laws and shall not intentionally record or transmit images of any location where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
AB 481 Qualifying Equipment Inventory: Pinole Police Department Pinole Police Department
April 22, 2024
Training Required: Department provided training.
Other Notes: None
3. Equipment Type: Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(1)
Quantity Owned/Sought: 2 Lifespan: Approximately 5 years Equipment Capabilities: Vehicle is capable of being remotely navigated to provide scene information and intelligence in the form of video and still images transmitted to first responders.
Manufacturer Product Description: DJI Mavic 3 Thermal (M3T) UAS Purpose/Authorized Uses: Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) designed for public safety. The UAS is a battery powered, remote operated device with a flight time of approximately 36-45 minutes depending on weather and flight conditions. The UAS has proven to be useful to public safety agencies in crime scene analysis, search and rescue, pre-operation surveillance and other critical incidents where aerial views enhance the safety and efficiency of law enforcement personnel. The UAS would assist officers or incident commanders in situations that would include, but not limited to: major collision investigations, emergency life threatening situations, search for missing persons, natural disaster management, crime scene photography, and critical incidents for preservation of life and public safety missions.
Fiscal Impacts: DJI Mavic 3 Thermal (M3T): $6,000, quantity 2 (Total: ~$12,000) Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: The use of unmanned, remotely piloted, powered ground vehicles potentially involves privacy considerations. Absent a warrant or exigent circumstances, operators and observers shall adhere to all applicable privacy laws and shall not intentionally record or transmit images of any location where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Training Required: FAA Part 107, POST UAS Operator, and Department provided training.
Other Notes: Capabilities include 48 MegaPixel camera, 56x tele zoom, 640x512 thermal sensor, one-way speaker, and spotlight.
4. Equipment Type: Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units – CA Govt Code §7070(c)(5)
Quantity Owned or Sought: 1 Lifespan: 20 years
Purpose/Authorized User: Trailer is purpose‐built to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units conducting DUI enforcement checkpoints, traffic safety operations, and responding to or at an incident. The Command and Control (C&C) trailer serves as a centralized location for command decision making, enhanced communication and other situational awareness capabilities. Use may be authorized by Watch Commander or Tactical/Operations Commander, based on the circumstances of the given incident.
AB 481 Qualifying Equipment Inventory: Pinole Police Department Pinole Police Department
April 22, 2024
Fiscal Impact: Acquired by grant issued by the State of California Office of Traffic Safety under a Traffic Safety Grant. $40,415 for equipment. Annual maintenance cost is approximately $1000.
Legal and Procedural Rules Governing: It is the policy of the department to utilize C&C trailer only for law enforcement purposes and pursuant to State and Federal law.
Training Required: Department provided training.
Other Notes: The command-and-control trailer is standard tow-behind trailer with dual axels manufactured by Universal Trailer with a GVW of 3,100 pounds. The trailer measures approximately 16 feet long, 8.5 feet wide, and 9 feet tall. The trailer is equipped with a folddown rear door, lighting, and a generator.
5. Equipment Type: Semiautomatic Rifles and Ammunition - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(10) Quantity Owned or Sought: 28 Lifespan: 15 years
Purpose/Authorized User: Colt AR-15/M4 Carbine semiautomatic shoulder fired rifle with long spirally grooved barrel that fires .223 Rem/5.56 mm projectile bullet. The rifles are equipped with 10.5” barrel, Surefire muzzle brake, and Surefire SOCOM556-RC2 suppressors. Ammunition is Speer Gold Dot caliber .223 62 grain.
A standard officer issue to be used as a precision weapon to address a threat with more precision and/or greater distances than a handgun, if present and feasible.
Fiscal Impact:
• Colt AR-15/M4 Rifle: $32,400, quantity: 28
• Surefire muzzle brake: $2,779, quantity: 28
• Surefire SOCOM556-RC2 Suppressors: $22,408, quantity: 28 • .223 62 gr ammunition: $6,270, quantity: 10,450
• Annual maintenance cost is approximately $1,500
Legal and Procedural Rules Governing: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force. Various Pinole Police Department Policies on Use of Force and Firearms.
Training Required: Department firearms training and qualifications as required by law and policy by POST certified instructors. CA POST certified 24-hour patrol rifle course.
Other Notes: These rifles are standard issue service weapons for our officers and therefore exempted from this Military Equipment Use Policy per CA Gov’t Code §7070 (c)(10). They have been included in this document in an abundance of caution and in the interest of transparency.
6. Equipment Type: Pepper Ball Launcher and Projectiles - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(12) Quantity Owned or Sought: 4 Lifespan: 20 years
AB 481 Qualifying Equipment Inventory: Pinole Police Department Pinole Police Department
April 22, 2024
Purpose/Authorized User: FN 303 MK2 Less Lethal Launcher utilizing compressed-air to fire less-lethal fin-stabilized projectiles. The FN303 MK2 features a magazine fed system that offers the ability to quickly switch between projectile types. Projectiles: .5% PAVA containing pepper powder designed for direct impact and area saturation, Clear Impact projectile intended for distraction, Washable Paint for training and marking, Indelible Paint projectile intended for marking with indelible colorant for later identification, and Inert Powder projectile for training.
To limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable. Provides officers with a less-lethal option in incidents of combative or selfdestructive individuals, riot/crowd control and civil unrest incidents, circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained, potentially vicious animals, and training exercises or approved demonstrations.
The FN 303 MK2 is a like for like replacement of the PepperBall VKS Launcher legacy system.
Fiscal Impact:
• FN 303 MK2: $5,080, quantity: 4
• PAVA Projectile: $900, quantity: 150
• Indelible Paint Projectile: $750, quantity: 150
• Washable Paint Projectile: $1,315, quantity: 270
• Inert Powder Projectile: $1,245, quantity: 450
• Magazine Assembly, Slings, and Maintenance Items: $486 • Cases: $1,587, quantity: 4
• Annual maintenance cost is approximately $250
Legal and Procedural Rules Governing: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force. Various Pinole Police Department Policies on Use of Force.
Training Required: Department provided training conducted by POST certified instructors.
Other Notes: None
7. Equipment Type: Less-Lethal Shotgun and Bean Bag Projectile - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(14)
Quantity Owned or Sought: 4 Lifespan: 25 years
Purpose/Authorized User: Remington 870 Less-Lethal 12-gauge Shotgun with orange and black marked stocks is used to deploy the less lethal 12-guage CTS Super-Sock Beanbag round. The Combined Tactical Systems (CTS) Super-Sock Beanbag round is a less-lethal
2.4-inch 12-gauge shotgun round firing a ballistic fiber bag filled with 40 grams of lead shot.
To limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable. Provides officers with a less-lethal option in incidents of combative or selfdestructive individuals, riot/crowd control and civil unrest incidents, circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained, potentially vicious animals, and training exercises or approved demonstrations.
Fiscal Impact:
• Remington 870 Less-Lethal 12-guage Shotgun: $2,200, quantity: 4 • CTS Model 2581 Super-Sock Beanbag Round: $1,090, quantity: 200 • Glass Breaker Ball: $480, quantity: 200
AB 481 Qualifying Equipment Inventory: Pinole Police Department Pinole Police Department
April 22, 2024
• Annual maintenance $0
Legal and Procedural Rules Governing: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force. Various Pinole Police Department Policies on Use of Force.
Training Required: Department provided training conducted by POST certified instructors.
Other Notes: None
ORDINANCE NO. 2024-XXXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PINOLE APPROVING AND RE-ADOPTING A MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY AS STATED IN CHAPTER 2.60 “MILITARY EQUIPMENT POLICY” OF THE PINOLE MUNICIPAL CODE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ASSEMBLY BILL 481 (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7070, et. seq.) WHEREAS, on September 30, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 481 relating to the use of military equipment by California law enforcement agencies; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 481 seeks to provide transparency, oversight, and an opportunity for meaningful public input on decisions regarding whether and how military equipment is funded, acquired, or used by law enforcement agencies; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 481, codified at California Government Code section 7070, et. seq., requires law enforcement agencies obtain approval of the applicable governing body, by an ordinance adopting a “military equipment” use policy, at a regular meeting held pursuant to open meeting laws, prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment. The term “military equipment” is defined in California Government Code section 7070(c); and
WHEREAS, the policy must be a document covering the inventory, description, purpose, use, acquisition, maintenance, fiscal impacts, procedures, training, oversight, and complaint process, applicable to the police department’s use of such equipment; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 481 allows the governing body of a city to approve the military equipment use policy for continued or future funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment within its jurisdiction only if it makes specified determinations specified in Government Code section 7071(d); and
WHEREAS, on May 3, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2022-02 approving and adopting a military equipment use policy identified as Pinole Police Department Policy 707, having received the information required under Assembly Bill 481 regarding the Pinole Police Department’s use of military equipment as defined in said law and upon a finding of the specified determinations required under Government Code Section 7071(d); and WHEREAS, On June 6, 2023, the City Council approved and reaffirmed the Department’s Policy (identified as Department Policy 707) finding it met the requirements under AB 481 and introduced and adopted an ordinance adding Chapter
2.60 “Military Equipment Policy” to the Pinole Municipal Code (Ord. 2023-04);and WHEREAS, Government Code section 7072 provides that a law enforcement agency that receives approval for a military equipment use policy pursuant to Section 7071 shall submit to the governing body an annual military equipment report for each type of military equipment approved by the governing body within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use; and
WHEREAS, the law enforcement agency shall also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on its internet website for as long as the military equipment is available for use; and
WHEREAS, the annual military report shall include the following information for the immediately preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment:
a. A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use; b. A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment;
c. The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response; d. The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report;
e. The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment; f. If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 7071(d) provides the governing body shall determine, based on the annual military equipment report submitted pursuant to Section 7072, whether each type of military equipment identified in that report has complied with the following standards for approval:
a. The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety; b. The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties;
c. If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety;
d. Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance; and
WHEREAS, if the governing body determines that a type of military equipment identified in that annual military equipment report has not complied with the standards for approval set forth
above, the governing body shall either disapprove a renewal of the authorization for that type of military equipment or require modifications to the military equipment use policy in a manner that will resolve the lack of compliance; and
WHEREAS, the governing body shall review any ordinance that it has adopted approving the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment at least annually and vote on whether to renew the ordinance at a regular meeting held pursuant to open meeting laws; and WHEREAS, the Pinole Police Department’s annual military equipment report was posted on the department’s internet website on April 22, 2024 and conducted a well-publicized public meeting concerning the renewal of the military equipment at issue in compliance with Government Code Section 7072 (b) on May 21, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the Pinole Police Department seeks renewal of Policy 707; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pinole, having received the information required under Assembly Bill 481 regarding the Pinole Police Department’s renewed use of military equipment as defined in said law, and makes the specified determinations required under Government Code Section 7070, et. seq., deems it to be in the best interest of the City to approve and renew the Pinole Police Department’s Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition and Use Policy as set forth in the policy identified as Pinole Police Department Policy 707.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, in accordance with Government Code Section 7070 et. seq., and pursuant to the findings stated herein, that the City Council of the City of Pinole hereby finds as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
The above recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance.
Section 2. Determinations.
Based on the findings above, in addition to information provided to the City Council at the public meeting, the City Council determines as follows:
1. The military equipment identified in the annual military equipment report has complied with the standards for approval as set forth in Government Code section 7071 subdivision (d).
2. The Pinole Police Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy is necessary because there are no reasonable alternatives that can achieve the same objectives of officer and civilian safety.
3. The Pinole Police Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.
4. The military equipment identified in the Pinole Police Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objectives of officer and civilian safety.
5. Prior military equipment use by the Pinole Police Department complied with the Military Equipment Use Policy although it was not yet in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.
6. The Pinole Police Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy, Policy 707, setting forth the City’s military equipment use policy is approved and renewed.
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each of every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 4. Effective Date and Duration. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final adoption.
Section 5. Publication. The City Clerk is directed to cause this ordinance to be published in a manner required by law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pinole City Council held on June 18, 2024, the City Council passed this urgency ordinance by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
IN WITNESS of this action, I sign this document and affix the corporate seal of the City of Pinole on June 18, 2024.
____________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
5361438.1
Policy
607
Pinole Police Department
Pinole PD CA Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2024/05/22, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Pinole Police Department
***DRAFT*** Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations -
1 Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations
607.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for the use of an unmanned aerial system (UAS) and for the storage, retrieval and dissemination of images and data captured by the UAS.
It is the policy of the department that trained and authorized personnel may use/deploy a UAS when such use is appropriate in the performance of their duties and authorized by the Chief of Police or designee. The deployment of a UAS will be in accordance with Federal, State, and municipal law and as the needs of the department dictate. 607.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include:
Certificate of Authorization (COA) – A certificate granted to an individual or entity by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which outlines specific conditions for flight for small UAS.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) – An entity of the federal government that regulates all aspects of civil aviation.
Part 107 – A certificate granted to an individual by the FAA, which outlines specific conditions of flight for small UAS aircrafts.
Pilot in Command (PIC) –Trained officer who is the sole person responsible for the operation of the UAS.
Unmanned aerial system (UAS) - An unmanned aircraft of any type that is capable of sustaining directed flight, whether preprogrammed or remotely controlled (commonly referred to as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)), and all of the supporting or attached systems designed for gathering information through imaging, recording or any other means.
UAS Supervisor – Assigned by the Chief of Police to insure program requirements are met to include maintenance, training, and operations in adherence to policy and FAA regulations.
Visual Observer –Trained officer who may act as a spotter for PIC to assist in navigating the UAS and avoidance of hazards.
607.2 POLICY
Unmanned aerial systems may be utilized to enhance the department’s mission of protecting lives and property when other means and resources are not available or are less effective. Any use of a UAS will be in strict accordance with constitutional and privacy rights and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations.
Pinole Police Department
Pinole PD CA Policy Manual
Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2024/05/22, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Pinole Police Department ***DRAFT*** Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations - 2 607.3 USE OF UAS
Only authorized operators who have completed the required training shall be permitted to operate the UAS.
Use of vision enhancement technology (e.g., thermal and other imaging equipment not generally available to the public) is permissible in viewing areas only where there is no protectable privacy interest or when in compliance with a search warrant or court order. In all other instances, legal counsel should be consulted.
UAS operations should only be conducted consistent with FAA regulations. 607.4 FAA COMPLIANCE FOR DEPLOYMENT
Use of the UAS shall be allowed for criminal investigations or public safety purposes consistent with this policy, provided the requirements below are followed:
(a) Prior to any use of a UAS, the department shall obtain a COA from the Federal Aviation Administration, unless the Police Chief authorizes personnel to use a UAS under the officer's own Part 107 certification.
(b) Prior to the deployment of the UAS, the UAS PIC and the Visual Observer must be adequately trained in the use and operation and must be knowledgeable of the standards set forth in this policy.
(c) Any operation of a UAS must fully comply with all FAA requirements guidelines. It is the PIC's responsibility to ensure compliance with FAA requirements and guidelines and this policy. If the PIC believes the requested deployment potentially violates any federal regulation, guideline or this policy, then the PIC must inform his or her immediate supervisor and the UAS Supervisor.
(d) The PIC may not deploy the UAS for criminal investigative purposes without the knowledge of the on-duty watch commander or senior supervisor should the watch commander not be available.
(e) Where a search warrant would normally be obtained for a criminal investigation, the PIC shall not deploy the UAS until such warrant is secured. This does not apply to non-investigative public safety deployments or for the purpose of training, testing, or evaluation.
(f) Each deployment of an UAS shall be properly documented in a flight log by the PIC. Such documentation must include at a minimum:
(a) The date, time, and purpose of each deployment.
(b) Whether a search warrant was obtained by the agency. (c) Identity of the PIC and Visual Observer (if there is a Visual Observer. (d) Supervisor approving the deployment.
(g) The PIC that deploys the UAS must have the capability to adequately track and record the flight pattern and location of the UAS.
Pinole Police Department
Pinole PD CA Policy Manual
Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2024/05/22, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Pinole Police Department ***DRAFT*** Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations - 3 (h) If more than one UAS is deployed in an area or event, then each PIC shall coordinate and define the parameters of the area where each UAS will be operated. 607.5 AUTHORIZED USES FOR PUBLIC SAFETY DEPLOYMENT
Deployments include but are not limited:
(a) Security Checks - The UAS may be deployed while conducting Security Checks of businesses or public lots in furtherance of the department's mission. Indiscriminate surveillance of private areas, absent a call for service requiring a public safety response or applicable warrant is prohibited.
(b) Area Searches – The UAS may be deployed when conducting an area search for missing persons, property, etc.
(c) Crime Scene / Area Documentation – The UAS may be deployed to assist in documenting crime scenes, accident scenes, or other areas where an aerial perspective is needed.
(d) Search and Rescue – The UAS may be deployed during search and rescue operations to assist in locating lost or missing persons or other search and rescue operations. (e) Tactical Situations – The UAS may be deployed during certain tactical situations such as hostage / barricaded gunmen, active shooter, warrant services, or any other situation where an aerial or remote view is advantageous. (f) Fleeing Suspects – The UAS may be deployed to search for suspects that flee from police.
(g) Training – All training flights will be conducted in accordance with the procedure and privacy requirements outlined in this policy.
607.6 PRIVACY
The use of the UAS potentially involves privacy considerations. Absent a warrant or exigent circumstances, operators and observers shall not intentionally record or transmit images of any location where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g., residence, yard, enclosure). Operators and observers shall take reasonable precautions to avoid inadvertently recording or transmitting images of areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Reasonable precautions can include, for example, deactivating or turning imaging devices away from such areas or persons during UAS operations.
607.7 PROGRAM COORDINATOR
The Chief of Police will appoint a program coordinator who will be responsible for the management of the UAS program. The program coordinator will ensure that policies and procedures conform to current laws, regulations, and best practices and will have the following additional responsibilities:
• Coordinating the FAA Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) application process and ensuring that the COA is current, and/or coordinating compliance with FAA Part 107 Remote Pilot Certificate, as appropriate for department operations.
Pinole Police Department
Pinole PD CA Policy Manual
Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2024/05/22, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Pinole Police Department ***DRAFT*** Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations - 4 • Ensuring that all authorized operators and required observers have completed all required FAA and department-approved training in the operation, applicable laws, policies, and procedures regarding use of the UAS.
• Developing uniform protocol for submission and evaluation of requests to deploy a UAS, including urgent requests made during ongoing or emerging incidents.
Deployment of a UAS may require written authorization of the Chief of Police or the authorized designee, depending on the type of mission.
• Coordinating the completion of the FAA Emergency Operation Request Form in emergency situations, as applicable (e.g., natural disasters, search and rescue, emergency situations to safeguard human life).
• Developing protocol for conducting criminal investigations involving a UAS, including documentation of time spent monitoring a subject.
• Implementing a system for public notification of UAS deployment. • Developing an operational protocol governing the deployment and operation of a UAS including but not limited to safety oversight, use of visual observers, establishment of lost link procedures, and secure communication with air traffic control facilities. • Developing a protocol for fully documenting all missions. • Developing a UAS inspection, maintenance, and record-keeping protocol to ensure continuing airworthiness of a UAS, up to and including its overhaul or life limits. • Developing protocols to ensure that all data intended to be used as evidence are accessed, maintained, stored, and retrieved in a manner that ensures its integrity as evidence, including strict adherence to chain of custody requirements. Electronic trails, including encryption, authenticity certificates, and date and time stamping, shall be used as appropriate to preserve individual rights and to ensure the authenticity and maintenance of a secure evidentiary chain of custody.
• Developing protocols that ensure retention and purge periods are maintained in accordance with established records retention schedules. • Facilitating law enforcement access to images and data captured by the UAS. • Recommending program enhancements, particularly regarding safety and information security.
• Ensuring that established protocols are followed by monitoring and providing periodic reports on the program to the Chief of Police.
• Maintaining familiarity with FAA regulatory standards, state laws and regulations, and local ordinances regarding the operations of a UAS.
607.8 PROHIBITED USE
The UAS video surveillance equipment shall not be used:
• To conduct random surveillance activities.
Pinole Police Department
Pinole PD CA Policy Manual
Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2024/05/22, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Pinole Police Department ***DRAFT*** Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations - 5 • To target a person based solely on actual or perceived characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, national origin, immigration status, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, economic status, age, cultural group, or disability. • To harass, intimidate, or discriminate against any individual or group. • To conduct personal business of any type.
• The UAS will not be weaponized or used to transport any weapons, explosives, or incendiary devices.
607.9 RETENTION OF UAS DATA
Data collected by the UAS shall be retained as provided in the established records retention procedure and schedule.
CITY OF PINOLE
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday, June 4, 2024, at or after 5:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 2131 Pear Street, Pinole, California, the City Council of the City of Pinole will hold a Public Hearing in the matter of:
CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING RENEWAL OF THE CITY’S MILITARY EQUIPMENT POLICY AS STATED IN CHAPTER 2.60 OF THE PINOLE MUNICIPAL CODE AND REVIEW OF 2023-2024 ANNUAL REPORT
Assembly Bill (AB) 481 (codified at Govt. Code §§7070 et. seq.) requires that the City of Pinole Police Department obtain City Council approval of a military equipment use policy via adoption of an ordinance before purchasing, raising funds for, acquiring or using "military equipment" as defined in Government Code §7070 (c). On May 3, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2022-02 approving and adopting a military equipment use policy as stated in Pinole Municipal Code Chapter 2.60 and identified as Pinole Police Department Policy 707. AB 481 requires all law enforcement agencies that have received approval for a military equipment use policy to submit to the City Council an annual military equipment report for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval and annually thereafter. The City Council must review any ordinance that it has adopted at least annually and, based upon the annual report, vote on whether to renew the ordinance. The City Council most recently approved and reaffirmed the Department’s Policy on June 6, 2023 (Ord. 2023-04).
The Pinole Police Department seeks renewal of Policy 707. On May 21, 2024, this City Council is scheduled to review and consider for approval the policy and annual military equipment report for the calendar year 2023, at which time members of the public may discuss and ask questions.
In compliance with AB 481, a copy of the proposed policy and annual report is available to the public in advance of the hearing and available for viewing on the department’s website at:
https://www.ci.pinole.ca.us/city_government/police/resources Instructions on how to join the Zoom Teleconference to provide comments orally during the public hearing are contained in the agenda for the meeting. Copies of the text of the proposed ordinance will be available for public review as part of the City Council agenda and meeting packet no later than May 30, 2024 at 5:00 PM.
If you challenge the action of the City Council on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to the Public Hearing.
Dated: June __, 2024
/S/
Heather Bell
City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 11.A.
DATE: JUNE 4, 2024
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: MARKISHA GUILLORY, FINANCE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: REVISED PROPOSED FY 2024/25 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends that the City Council review the Revised Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Operating and Capital Budget and provide direction to staff for changes to incorporate, including budget balancing strategies, into the next draft of the document, the Final Proposed version.
BACKGROUND
The City operates on an annual budget cycle. Through the budget, the City Council approves revenue estimates and authorizes City staff to expend the City’s limited financial resources.
City staff is responsible for preparing a proposed budget for City Council’s consideration, modification, and adoption.
As noted above, the City goes through an annual process of developing a budget for the upcoming fiscal year. The City’s budget is considered an “incremental” budget, meaning that the budget for the upcoming year is developed based on the current year’s budget and includes incremental changes. City staff takes the following steps to create the Preliminary Proposed budget:
• Finance Department uses the current FY 2023/24 budget, which incorporates any midyear changes approved by the City Council, as the starting point; • Finance Department creates a “baseline” budget for FY 2024/25 by taking the ongoing revenues and expenditures included in the current FY 2023/24 budget and factoring in known or assumed changes to revenues and expenditures (i.e., forecasted changes to different revenue streams, general inflation, known changes to debt service, etc.); • Departments review and confirm the known and assumed changes incorporated into the baseline budget;
• Departments submit requests for changes from the baseline budget to address proposed special projects or increased service levels; and • Finance Department and City Manager consider department requests for changes to the baseline budget and prepare a Preliminary Proposed budget for the City Council’s consideration.
City staff presented the baseline General Fund budget to the Finance Subcommittee on April 16, 2024 and to the City Council at a special meeting on April 30, 2024 to receive feedback on
the assumptions contained in the baseline budget. The Finance Subcommittee and City Council did not direct staff to make any changes to the baseline General Fund budget. Staff has reviewed and revised the baseline budget multiple times to ensure that it does not include any one-time revenues or expenditures and that all the estimates it contains are as precise as feasible. This resulted in a revised baseline budget.
At its meeting on May 21, 2024, the City Council directed staff to prepare detailed six percent (6%) and ten percent (10%) budget reduction scenarios, indicating the fiscal and operational impacts of these substantial budget cuts. City departments completed the exercise as directed and submitted reductions as shown in Attachments A and B. We want to emphasize that the proposed reductions are only illustrative at this point as no final decisions have been made, and the reductions have not been incorporated into the Revised Proposed budget (Attachment C).
City staff is required by the City’s Financial Policy on a Structurally Balanced Budget to create a proposed General Fund operating budget that is structurally balanced, meaning that ongoing revenues equal or exceed ongoing expenditures. The baseline General Fund budget has a shortfall of $1.3 million. This has resulted in a Revised Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Operating and Capital Budget that is not yet structurally balanced.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The Revised Proposed budget contains staff’s recommendations regarding revenues and expenditures for FY 2024/25. The total (all funds) revenue budget is approximately $48.6 million. The City’s total (all funds) expenditure budget is approximately $95.5 million. One-time expenditures are paid using one-time revenues and other sources, including fund balance, which is why total expenditures can exceed total revenues. The budget projection assumes a net use of fund balance of $46.8 million for all funds combined. The majority of the use of fund balance is for several large, multi-year capital improvement projects, notably in the wastewater enterprise fund. It is important to note that the total estimated costs of capital projects are budgeted in year one (FY 2024/25) of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) although some projects may take several years to complete. The total costs are budgeted up front to earmark the full amount of funding needed to complete the CIP projects. This is a new budgeting practice for the City. In the past, the City only encumbered the first-year cost of multi-year capital projects. The cost for subsequent years of multi-year projects was left in fund balance as unassigned. Because the full cost to complete a capital project is now encumbered in the first year of a multi-year capital project, this reduces unassigned fund balance in funds that support capital projects, including the General Fund.
The General Fund (including Measure S 2006 and 2014) total revenue budget is approximately $27.4 million, and its total expenditure budget is approximately $37.5 million. The Revised Proposed budget is not structurally balanced, meaning that ongoing revenues are not sufficient to cover ongoing expenditures. The Revised Proposed FY 2024/25 Operating and Capital Budget includes the use of approximately $8.9 million from the General Fund and Measure S unassigned fund balance to fund several one-time capital projects, most of which were budgeted in the FY 2023/24 Operating and Capital Budget but were not completed and have been carried over.
The Revised Proposed budget for FY 2024/25 is a status quo budget, meaning that it does not
include any significant new City programs or services, and does not include any new City staff positions. The Revised Proposed budget recommends that the City carry out the same ongoing programs and activities in FY 2024/25 as it has in the current fiscal year. While there have been no major changes to service or staffing levels, the budget has a structural shortfall of $1.3 million. This is primarily due to expenditures increasing at a faster rate than revenues.
The City maintains a stable revenue base, but it is not enough to sustain the higher growth in expenditures, mostly attributable to increasing required employer contributions to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), other post-employment benefits for retired City employees' medical insurance coverage, and labor costs.
City staff will undertake a thoughtful and substantial set of programs and activities in FY 2024/25. Staff will complete routine work and staff-initiated special projects to improve efficiency and services; 2020-2025 Strategic Plan “strategies”; Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects; and other Council-directed special projects. These Council-directed special projects are all consistent with City goals.
City staff believes that it will be able to complete most of the Council-directed special projects listed below by the end of FY 2024/25, and they have been included in the Revised Proposed budget, but staff does not have the capacity to take on any additional special projects. Staff recommends that the City adopt a practice of not adding any special projects unless an existing comparable special project is eliminated.
Revised Proposed Baseline Budget
As noted above, it is a goal of the City’s Financial Policy on a Structurally Balanced Budget, and public finance best practice, to create a structurally balanced proposed budget. The table below shows the ongoing General Fund revenues and expenditures in the Revised Proposed budget and illustrates.
Table 1 - Revised Proposed Budget
FY 2024/25
Revised Proposed
Baseline Budget
Sources
Property Tax $ 6,168,067
Sales Tax (General, Measure S 2006 and 2014) 9,698,436
Utility Users' Tax 2,285,000
Franchise Tax 850,000
Intergovernmental Tax 2,402,673
Transient Occupancy Tax 460,000
Business License 460,000
Charges for Services 1,774,307
Other Revenues 852,160
Total Revenues 24,950,643
Transfer In 2,425,000
Total Sources 27,375,643
Uses
By Category
Salaries & Wages 10,266,663
Benefits 7,684,115
Professional Services 8,407,020
Other Operating 322,711
Materials and Supplies 185,033
Interdepartmental Charges (710,335)
Asset/Capital Outlay 128,440
Debt Service 636,107
Total Expenditures By Category 26,919,754
Transfers Out 1,611,301
Total Uses By Category 28,531,055
By Department
City Council 213,022
City Manager 606,000
City Clerk 693,260
City Treasurer 9,990
City Attorney 330,035
Finance 850,649
Human Resources 877,147
Non-Departmental 3,090,825
Police 12,568,018
Fire 6,433,461
Public Works 1,946,494
Community Development 545,255
Community Services 426,898
Total Uses By Department 28,531,055
Net Surplus/(Deficit) $ (1,155,412)
Because the baseline General Fund budget for FY 2024/25 has a shortfall of $1.3 million and City departments needed to make reductions in their ongoing expenditures in the Revised Proposed budget, there is no capacity for City departments to add new ongoing General Fund expenditures to the Revised Proposed FY 2024/25 budget. City departments were asked to prepare 6% and 10% budget reduction scenarios.
Because the baseline General Fund budget for FY 2024/25 has a shortfall and City departments needed to propose reductions in their ongoing expenditures in the Revised Proposed budget, there was no capacity for City departments to add new ongoing General Fund expenditures to the budget. The Community Development Department did request funding for a Housing and Economic Development Coordinator to advance the work of the City’s comprehensive economic development strategy. The full cost for this position is approximately $196,000 and could be partially offset by Housing funds. If the position is not
funded, the funding for economic development activities currently budgeted at $20,000 would need to be increased back to $80,000. The Community Development Department also requested funding for a new Sustainability Coordinator which is necessary to complete the actions of the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP). The full cost of this position is approximately $115,000. Staff is seeking grants to fund the position and is recommending that the City Council authorize the position, which will not be filled unless the City receives grant funding. Lastly, the Community Development Department requested funding for a Planner I-III series which would replace the temporary, outsourced Senior Planner services currently provided three days per week. The full cost is approximately $189,000 and the position would be a permanent, full-time position. This position would be funded by the Building and Planning Fund. Attachment D provides draft job descriptions for each of these positions for Council consideration. The sustainability and economic development work cannot be done by an existing position.
Six Percent (6%) and Ten Percent (10%) Budget Reduction Scenarios At its meeting on May 21, 2024, the City Council directed staff to prepare 6% and 10% budget reduction scenarios. It is important to note that this exercise is illustrative as no decisions have been made and none of the reductions have been incorporated into the budget. All departments whose operations are supported by the General Fund completed the exercise of determining where to make cuts and the potential impact on operations. As shown in Attachment A, the 6% budget reductions total $1.3 million and, if implemented, would close the $1.3 million budget gap. As shown in Attachment B, the 10% budget reductions total $2.1 million and, if implemented, would close the $1.3 million budget gap as well as create a surplus in the General Fund. While the budget would be balanced under either of the scenarios, staff anticipate significant impacts on departments' operations as described in the attachments.
At the direction of the City Council, staff developed and launched the FY 2024/25 Community Budget Input Survey using the PublicInput community engagement platform. The purpose of the survey is to give community members an opportunity to provide their input on how to balance the budget, given the 6% and 10% budget reduction scenarios. The survey results will be presented at the June 4, 2024 Council meeting.
One-Time Budget Items and Capital Improvement Projects
The FY 2024/25 Revised Proposed budget includes funding for a number of Council-directed special projects, beyond staff’s baseline work, Strategic Plan strategies, and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects, summarized below. As one-time, non-recurring items, these initiatives and projects will be funded by unassigned fund balance in the General Fund and Measure S Funds.
Table 2 – One-Time Budget Items and Capital Improvement Projects (Some are Projects Budgeted in FY 2023/24, but Not Completed, so Carried Forward to FY 2024/25) Department One-Time Operating
Items
Proposed
Budget
Community
Development/Economic
Development
Economic Development
Strategy - Final Branding
$10,000
Community Meeting/Workshop/Mixers 5,000
Development/Economic
Development
Community
Development/Economic
Development
Tobacco Education
Related (Grant Funded)
10,000
Community
Development/Economic
Development
Advertising (General and
Industry-Specific)
2,000
Community
Development/Economic
Development
Marketing Materials 5,000
Community
Development/Economic
Development
Business
Development/Community
Help Reserve
10,000
Community
Development/Economic
Development
Revitalization Reserve 10,000
City Clerk Policies & Procedures
Update Support
20,000
City Council City Council
Retreat/Planning
Workshop
10,000
City Manager DEI Consulting 40,000
City Manager EOP Training (citywide) 20,000
Finance Ballot Measure Consulting 40,000
Finance Grants Consulting 48,000
Information Technology Professional Services 68,222
Police CERT Program Supplies 20,000
Public Works Active Transportation
Plan
25,000
Public Works Emergency Power for
Critical Facilities
200,000
Public Works Recycled Water
Feasibility
60,000
Public Works City Hall
planting/landscaping
20,000
Public Works GoGov or Similar App 5,000
Public Works On-call Consultants for
Capital Projects
75,000
Public Works Storm Drainage Master
Plan
150,000
Public Works Pedestrian Bridge
Inspection & Maintenance
50,000
Total One-Time
Operating Items
903,222
Department Asset/Capital Outlay Proposed
Budget
Information Technology Computer Equipment
Replacement
137,959
Police Alex Clark Room
Transformation
20,000
Public Works Weatherization/Energy
Efficiency Program
250,000
Public Works Brandt St. Improvements 170,000
Public Works Street Improvements 200,000
Public Works FA1901 Senior Center
Auxiliary Parking Lot
1,530,000
Public Works RO2401 Road
Maintenance Repairs
1,750,000
Public Works Citywide Roof Repairs
and Replacement
900,000
Public Works City Hall Modernization 200,000
Public Works Senior Center
Modernization
205,000
Public Works Public Safety Building
Modernization
450,000
Public Works Tiny Tot Improvements 50,000
Public Works Skatepark Rehabilitation 150,000
Public Works Replace Parks'
Chips/Rubber Matting
50,000
Public Works San Pablo Ave. Bridge
Replacement
300,000
Public Works Safety Improvement
Arterial Roadway
35,960
Public Works Pinole Smart Signals 154,302
Public Works Sidewalk/ADA Curb
Ramp Program
150,000
Public Works Roble Road Drainage
Improvements
700,000
Public Works Storm Drain Creek
Discharge
600,000
Recreation Restroom Walls/Floor
Repair
11,000
Recreation Replace Youth Center
Vinyl Flooring
10,000
Total Capital
Improvement Projects
8,024,221
Total $8,927,443
Budget Balancing Strategies for Consideration
Staff recommends the following budget balancing strategies for Council consideration and recommends that the City Council provide direction on which strategies to implement.
1. Implement the 6% reductions of $1.3 million, which would balance the budget.
2. Implement the 10% budget reductions of $2.1 million, which would balance the budget as well as create a surplus of about $1 million.
3. Freeze one or more of the five vacant positions that are funded in the budget. This would result in savings of about $430,000, which is net of the total amount budgeted for the vacancies ($940,000) and the vacancy savings factor ($510,000) that is already included in the budget. The vacant positions are as follows:
o Police:
▪ Police Seargent - $203,831
▪ Police Officers (2) - $356,472
o Public Works:
▪ Capital Improvement Manager - $200,974
▪ Associate Civil Engineer - $174,890
4. Reduce the City’s General Reserve from 50% to 40% of total ongoing General Fund expenditures and move the difference of approximately $1 million to the General Fund.
This would reduce the current balance of $10.3 million to $9.3 million. At the 40% level, the General Reserve provides five months of coverage as opposed to six months of coverage at the 50% level. It should be noted that this is a one-time short-term solution that should not be used on an ongoing basis. Also, the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) and industry standards recommend 18-25% reserve levels. At the 40% level, the General Reserve will remain significantly higher than the standard level.
5. Implement a combination of the above options or other options.
Next Steps
City staff invites the feedback of the City Council and members of the public on the Revised Proposed budget at the City Council’s June 4, 2024 meeting. The City has also developed a Revised Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 – 2028/29 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), which contains the capital budget for FY 2024/25 and a conceptual capital budget for FY 2025/26 – FY 2028/29. City staff also invites the feedback of the City Council and members of the public on the Revised Proposed CIP at the City Council’s June 4, 2024 meeting.
Following the June 4, 2024 Council meeting, staff will incorporate the Council’s feedback as well as additional staff-generated content into a Final Proposed version of the budget that will be presented to the City Council for adoption on June 18, 2024.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City Council’s review and direction on the Revised Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Operating and Capital Budget does not itself have any fiscal impact on the City. The fiscal impact of the Revised Proposed budget is well described in the budget document itself. The implementation of one or more of the proposed budget balancing measures will result in a structurally balanced budget.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Six Percent Budget Reduction Scenario
B. Ten Percent Budget Reduction Scenario
C. Revised Proposed FY 2024-25 Operating and Capital Budget D. Community Development Department Proposed New Positions
City of Pinole
FY 2024/25 General Fund Budget Reduction Scenario
Six Percent (6%)
Department
Baseline
Budget
Reduction
Needed
Department
Proposed
Reductions Description and Impact
City Council $ 213,001 $ 12,780 $ 12,780 Reduce Council intern program Total Reduction 12,780 12,780
City Treasurer 9,986 599 400 Eliminate office supplies
110 Eliminate dues and memberships
Total Reduction 599 510
City Clerk 692,929 41,576 27,351 Reduce professional services - This will impact records support and minutes transcription 11,725 Eliminate travel and training
2,500 Eliminate Board and Commission Appreciation event Total Reduction 41,576 41,576
City Manager 619,937 37,196 6,000
Graphic Design Services - Eliminate professional graphic art services, including graphic design for annual reports, media, print, website moved in-house.
15,000 Communication & Engagement Consulting - Decreased communication and engagement services 5,000 Miscellaneous Consulting - Decreased miscellaneous consulting for unanticipated projects 11,196
Procurement & Research Consulting - Decrease scope for Pinole Community Television (PCTV) Master Plan Request for Proposals (RFP) and project management. Defer feasibility study of a municipal bank RFP and project management.
Total Reduction 37,196 37,196
City Attorney 330,035 19,802 19,802
Discontinue Municipal Code Update Subcommittee meetings; and discontinue City Attorney office representative covering Planning Commission Meeetings.
Total Reduction 19,802 19,802
Finance 853,772 50,932 5,000 Eliminate professional services for the update to the cost allocation plan 2,100 Eliminate all travel and training
5,000 Eliminate mass mailing to Pinole residents and businesses regarding City budget matters 38,832
Reduce 1 FTE to 0.75 FTE, which will significantly impact day to day fiscal operations, including delays in the processing of payroll, business licenses, and vendor payments, and providing support to other City departments and customers
Total Reduction 50,932 50,932
City of Pinole
FY 2024/25 General Fund Budget Reduction Scenario
Six Percent (6%)
Department
Baseline
Budget
Reduction
Needed
Department
Proposed
Reductions Description and Impact
Human Resources 933,808 56,028 3,000 Reduce Contingencies - Citywide Employee Learning & Professional Development 3,000 Reduce Citywide Employee Wellness Workshops
3,000 Reduce Citywide CPS-HR Employee Learning & Professional Development Workshops 5,000 Eliminate Supervisors' Academy
10,000 Eliminate Executive Teambuilding Retreat
5,000 Reduce Employment Law Advisement (LCW)
5,000 Reduce Tax & Employee Benefit Advisement
3,000 Reduce Contingencies - Employee Benefits
15,000 Reduce Total Compensation Survey & Analysis - Contract w/ GovInvest for savings 5,000 Eliminate OnDemand Yoga
Total Reduction 56,028 57,000
Police 12,590,430 657,619 8,000
Reduce Firearms Range Rental by $5,000 and State of CA POST by $3,000 - Reduce departmental training for sworn members to only meet minimal standards 20,000
Eliminate Smart Guardian ($10,000); Reduce: Video Surveillance by $10,000 - Remove training component and eliminate expansion of video surveillance system 35,000
Correct In-Time Scheduling System from $43,630 to $8,000 a year (5 year contract) - Adjustment to reflect annual costs
500 Eliminate Photo Supplies - Not needed with iPhones and digital cameras 1,000 Reduce Crime Prevention Vehicle maintenance - Still have $4,000 for vehicle maintenance 400 Reduce Fax Machine - Wil become general equipment expense when replacement needed 363,532
Freeze Two (2) Officer Positions (A step) - Prevent movement to modified 4/10 plan and inability to fill COU with officer. Will have significant negative impact on Community Engagement events and programs 102,826
Freeze one (1) CSO Position (A step) - Reduction in community services (towing abandoned vehicles, cold crime reporting, patrol support)
130,993 Freeze one (1) Dispatcher Position (A step)- Increase in dispatcher overtime and staffing at minimum Total Reduction 657,619 662,251
Fire 6,428,461 241,712 60,000
Reduce fire abatement from $120,000 to $60,000
(Cannot reduce the City's contract with ConFire)
Total Reduction 241,712 60,000
City of Pinole
FY 2024/25 General Fund Budget Reduction Scenario
Six Percent (6%)
Department
Baseline
Budget
Reduction
Needed
Department
Proposed
Reductions Description and Impact
Public Works 2,020,201 92,613 73,600
Eliminate Administrator Coordinator position (previously shared with Community Development). This will impact PW ability to address GIS related services to customers. GIS update and all related tasks will be added to other staff's responsibility or a consultant will be engaged to take up these tasks on an as needed basis.
20,000
Eliminate Professional Engineering Support for Road Maintenance, items will not be available to Public Works operations and maintenance staff if and when necessary. It may affect some of the road repair including road sub-base testing, compaction testing, other road related material testing services.
Total Reduction 92,613 93,600
Community Development 514,537 30,872 17,500
This budget funds seasonal assistance for weed abatement activities, specifically supporting a 2-day-perweek contract code enforcement officer from April to October. This officer is crucial for the Code Enforcement Division, providing education and enforcement of weed abatement on private properties during the fire season. The proposed reduction will reduce funding to a 1-day-per-week contract position, which will hinder the City's proactive efforts during fire season, leaving us more reliant on public complaints to enforce the Ordinance, and less support to do so.
500
This budget funds a new annual postcard sent to all properties in Pinole, emphasizing the critical importance of weed abatement during the summer months. It serves as a crucial reminder for property owners to cut their weeds and comply with City municipal codes, while also providing information on how to report non-compliant properties. The proposed reduction here will revert this postcard to a mailed letter only to properties 1/4 acre or larger or back up onto open space, consistent with practices prior to 2024.
Reducing this funding will diminish public education and awareness, undermining our efforts to maintain a safe and fire-resistant community.
14,715
This budget was originally established to support the economic development coordinator position (0.5 FTE) envisioned in the economic development strategy (EDS). To date, a part-time economic Development Coordinator has not been hired, and this funding is supporting a contract with RSG to help the Community Development Director implement the EDS. Reducing this funding to $65,285 will make it more difficult to hire an in-house part time coordinator and result in slower implementation of the EDS.
Total Reduction 30,872 32,715
Community Services 426,898 25,236 25,236 Reduce library hours from 40 hours per week which will impact community access to library resources Total Reduction 25,236 25,236
Non-Departmental 3,036,737 182,204 154,873 Reduce operating subsidy to Community Services/Recreation which could result in program cuts 27,331 Reduce operating subsidy to Pinole Community Television (PCTV) which could result in service cuts Total Reduction 182,204 182,204
Grand Total $ 1,449,169 $ 1,275,802
City of Pinole
FY 2024/25 General Fund Budget Reduction Scenario
Ten Percent (10%)
Department
Baseline
Budget
Reduction
Needed
Department
Proposed
Reductions Description and Impact
City Council $ 213,001 $ 21,300 $ 21,300 Reduce Council intern program Total Reduction 21,300 21,300
City Treasurer 9,986 999 400 Eliminate office supplies
110 Eliminate dues and memberships
Total Reduction 999 510
City Clerk 692,929 69,293 27,351 Reduce professional services - Will impact records support and minutes transcription 11,725 Eliminate travel and training
2,500 Eliminate Board and Commission Appreciation event 27,717 Reduce 1 full-time equivalent (FTE) to part time - Significant impact on day to day operations Total Reduction 69,293 69,293
City Manager 619,937 61,994 6,000
Graphic Design Services - Eliminate professional graphic art services, including graphic design for annual reports, media, print, website moved in-house.
20,000 Communication & Engagement Consulting - Decreased communication and engagement services 5,000 Miscellaneous Consulting - Decreased miscellaneous consulting for unanticipated projects 28,000
Procurement & Research Consulting - Decrease scope for Pinole Community Television (PCTV) Master Plan Request for Proposals (RFP) and project management. Defer feasibility study of a municipal bank RFP and project management.
2,994
Mass Mailing Services - Eliminate one mass mailing campaign (previously two per year): "Wildfire Prevention" brochure or "Year in Review & Look Ahead" report Total Reduction 61,994 61,994
City Attorney 330,035 33,004 33,004
Discontinue Municipal Code Update Subcommittee meetings; and discontinue City Attorney office representative covering Planning Commission Meeetings.
Total Reduction 33,004 33,004
Finance 853,772 85,377 5,000 Eliminate professional services for the update to the cost allocation plan 2,100 Eliminate all travel and training
5,000 Eliminate mass mailing to Pinole residents and businesses regarding City budget matters 73,277
Reduce 1 FTE to 0.5 FTE, which will significantly impact day to day fiscal operations, including delays in the processing of payroll, business licenses, and vendor payments, and providing support to other City departments and customers
Total Reduction 85,377 85,377
City of Pinole
FY 2024/25 General Fund Budget Reduction Scenario
Ten Percent (10%)
Department
Baseline
Budget
Reduction
Needed
Department
Proposed
Reductions Description and Impact
Human Resources 933,808 93,381 6,000 Eliminate Contingencies - Citywide Employee Learning & Professional Development 6,000 Eliminate Citywide Employee Wellness Workshops
6,000 Eliminate Citywide CPS-HR Employee Learning & Professional Development Workshops 5,000 Eliminate Supervisors' Academy
10,000 Eliminate Executive Teambuilding Retreat
10,000 Eliminate Employment Law Advisement (LCW)
10,000 Eliminate Tax & Employee Benefit Advisement
6,000 Eliminate Contingencies - Employee Benefits
15,000 Reduce Total Compensation Survey & Analysis - Contract w/ GovInvest for savings 5,000 Eliminate OnDemand Yoga
6,050 Eliminate Annual Employee Uniform/Polo Distribution 3,000 Eliminate Berevement Flowers/Donations
4,300 Eliminate Employee Engagement Holiday Events/Wellness Fair Luncheon 1,100 Reduce HR Staff Professional Development/Certification Total Reduction 93,381 93,450
Police 12,590,430 1,095,728 15,000
Reduce Firearms Range Rental by $5,000 and State of CA POST by $3,000 - Reduce departmental training for sworn members to only meet minimal standards 20,000
Eliminate Smart Guardian ($10,000); Reduce: Video Surveillance by $10,000 - Remove training component and eleminate expansion of video surveillance system 35,000
Correct In-Time Scheduling System from $43,630 to $8,000 a year (5 year contract) - Adjustment to reflect annual costs
500 Eliminate Photo Supplies - Not needed with iPhones and digital cameras 1,000 Reduce Crime Prevention Vehicle maintenance - Still have $4,000 for vehicle maintenance 400 Reduce Fax Machine - Wil become general equipment expense when replacement needed 14,976 Eliminate StarChase - Remove tool for officers to safely track fleeing wanted vehicles 727,066
Freeze Four (4) Officer Positions (A step) - Prevent movement to modified 4/10 plan and inability to fill COU with officer. Will have significant negative impact on Community Engagement events and programs 102,826
Freeze one (1) CSO Position (A step) - Reduction in community services (towing abandonded vehicles, cold crime reporting, patrol support)
130,993 Freeze one (1) Dispatcher Position (A step)- Increase in dispatcher overtime and staffing at minimum 20,158 Eliminate community events involving overtime or not funded through the event 5,000 Eliminate community events not funded through the event Total Reduction 1,095,728 1,072,919
Fire 6,428,461 402,853 60,000
Reduce fire abatement from $120,000 to $60,000
(Cannot reduce the City's contract with ConFire)
Total Reduction 402,853 60,000
City of Pinole
FY 2024/25 General Fund Budget Reduction Scenario
Ten Percent (10%)
Department
Baseline
Budget
Reduction
Needed
Department
Proposed
Reductions Description and Impact
Public Works 2,020,201 202,020 73,600
Eliminate Administrator Coordinator position (previously shared with Community Development). This will impact PW ability to address GIS related services to customers. GIS update and all related tasks will be added to other staff's responsibility or a consultant will be engaged to take up these tasks on an as needed basis.
87,000
Freeze or eliminate Associate Engineer position and stop recruitment efforts. This will in general affect the delivery schedule of all the CIP projects. PW won't able to start any new projects but will continue to work on projects those are currently in progress. Some of the current projects may have to be deffered or PW will need to engage consultants to move/complete current projects. 20,000
Eliminate Professional Engineering Support for Road Maintenance, items will not be available to Public Works operations and maintenance staff if and when necessary. It may affect some of the road repair including road sub-base testing, compaction testing, other road related material testing services. 10,000
The line item under Admin Expense/ Special Department -Recommendations of Beautification Ad Hoc Subcommittee can be removed from budget. This fund will not be needed and does not affect any current efforts of PW or CIP projects.
16,000
Modify the responsibilities of an Analyst role to align with those of an Administrative Assistant position, aiming to conserve funds.
Total Reduction 202,020 206,600
Community Development 574,537 54,525 35,000
This budget funds seasonal assistance for weed abatement activities, specifically supporting a 2-day-perweek contract code enforcement officer from April to October. This officer is crucial for the Code Enforcement Division, providing education and enforcement of weed abatement on private properties during the fire season. The proposed reduction here will eliminate funding entirely for this contract position, which will hinder the City's proactive efforts during fire season, leaving us soley reliant on public complaints to enforce the Ordinance. Without this support, our community faces increased fire risk and reduced safety, making proactive weed abatement essential. 500
This budget funds a new annual postcard sent to all properties in Pinole, emphasizing the critical importance of weed abatement during the summer months. It serves as a crucial reminder for property owners to cut their weeds and comply with City municipal codes, while also providing information on how to report non-compliant properties. The proposed reduction here will revert this postcard to a mailed letter only to properties 1/4 acre or larger or back up onto open space, consistent with practices prior to 2024. Reducing this funding will diminish public education and awareness, undermining our efforts to maintain a safe and fire-resistant community.
19,025
This budget was originally established to support the economic development coordinator position (0.5 FTE) envisioned in the economic development strategy (EDS). To date, a part-time economic Development Coordinator has not been hired, and this funding is supporting a contract with RSG to help the Community Development Director implement the EDS. Reducing this funding to $60,975 will make it more difficult to hire an in-house part time coordinator and result in slower implementation of the EDS.
Total Reduction 54,525 54,525
City of Pinole
FY 2024/25 General Fund Budget Reduction Scenario
Ten Percent (10%)
Department
Baseline
Budget
Reduction
Needed
Department
Proposed
Reductions Description and Impact
Community Services 426,898 42,690 42,690 Reduce library hours from 40 hours per week which will impact community access to library resources Total Reduction 42,690 42,690
Non-Departmental 3,036,737 303,674 258,123 Reduce operating subsidy to Community Services/Recreation which could result in program cuts 45,551 Reduce operating subsidy to Pinole Community Television (PCTV) which could result in service cuts Total Reduction 303,674 303,674
Grand Total $ 2,466,838 $ 2,105,336
Fiscal Year 2024/25
OPERATING AND
CAPITAL BUDGET
Revised Proposed - June 4, 2024
Page intentionally blank
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
i
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Table of Contents
Page intentionally blank
ii
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Table of Contents
FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2024/25 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................i Executive Summary.................................................................................................................. 1 Executive Summary................................................................................................................. 3 Background............................................................................................................................... 9 Elected Officials and Department Heads ...............................................................................11 Strategic Plan 2020 – 2025 Vision, Mission, and Goals.........................................................13 Profile of the City ...................................................................................................................14 City Organizational Structure................................................................................................. 15 Budget Development Process and Budget Award ...............................................................17 Budget Development Process ...............................................................................................19 Budget Award........................................................................................................................23 Revenue and Expenditure Summaries ..................................................................................25 General Fund Revenue and Expenditures.............................................................................27 Major Non-General Funds .....................................................................................................39 All Funds Revenue and Expenditures....................................................................................43 Long-Term Financial Forecast...............................................................................................57 Budget Positions....................................................................................................................61 Labor Allocations................................................................................................................... 65 Department Budgets............................................................................................................... 67 Elected Officials..................................................................................................................... 69 City Council ....................................................................................................................... 69 City Treasurer.................................................................................................................... 75 Appointed Officials.................................................................................................................77 City Manager ..................................................................................................................... 77 Information Technology ................................................................................................. 82 Pinole Community Television ........................................................................................ 85 City Attorney ...................................................................................................................... 91 City Clerk ...........................................................................................................................95 Administration........................................................................................................................ 99 Finance.............................................................................................................................. 99 Human Resources ...........................................................................................................103 Public Safety .......................................................................................................................109 Police...............................................................................................................................109 iii
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Table of Contents
Fire .................................................................................................................................. 123 Public Works ....................................................................................................................... 127 Administration & Engineering........................................................................................... 135 Road Maintenance........................................................................................................... 137 Facility Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 140 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water ........................ 143 Park Maintenance............................................................................................................ 145 Waste Reduction .............................................................................................................148 Lighting & Landscape District...........................................................................................149 Water Pollution Control Plant ........................................................................................... 150 Community Development .................................................................................................... 157 Planning........................................................................................................................... 164 Building Inspection........................................................................................................... 166 Successor Agency Administration....................................................................................168 Housing Assets for Resale...............................................................................................169 Code Enforcement........................................................................................................... 170 Economic Development ................................................................................................... 172 Community Services............................................................................................................ 173 Administration.................................................................................................................. 178 Recreation ....................................................................................................................... 180 Senior Center .............................................................................................................. 180 Tiny Tots ..................................................................................................................... 183 Youth Center ............................................................................................................... 185 Swim Center................................................................................................................187 Memorial Hall ..............................................................................................................188 Tennis .........................................................................................................................189 Library Services........................................................................................................... 190 Animal Control............................................................................................................. 191 General Government ........................................................................................................... 193 Schedule of Transfers ................................................................................................. 197 Debt Obligations..........................................................................................................199 Appendix ...............................................................................................................................201 Accounting Basis.................................................................................................................203 Monitoring the Budget .........................................................................................................203 Fund Structure.....................................................................................................................203 Glossary of Budget Terms & Acronyms ...............................................................................207 Financial and Investment Policies........................................................................................213 Employee Compensation and Benefits ................................................................................ 217 Jurisdictional Comparison....................................................................................................219 Budget Resolution ...............................................................................................................000 Appropriations Limit and Resolution........................................................................................000 iv
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Execu�ve Summary
Execu�ve Summary
1
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Execu�ve Summary
Page intentionally blank
2
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Execu�ve Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City operates on an annual budget cycle. Through the budget, the City Council approves revenue estimates and authorizes City staff to expend the City’s limited financial resources. City staff is responsible for preparing a proposed budget for City Council’s consideration.
The Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Operating and Capital Budget was created through a collaborative, iterative process involving the City Council, community, and City staff and includes the creation of a Preliminary Proposed, Revised Proposed, and ultimately Final Proposed budget. The budget development process is more fully described in the Budget Development Process section below.
The Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Operating and Capital Budget is primarily a status quo budget, meaning that it does not include any major changes to City programs or services.
The budget includes the following two noteworthy assumptions:
• A “vacancy savings factor” of 4% to account for savings in salaries and benefits resulting from normal position vacancies; and
• A 4% cost of living adjustment (COLA) for all employees, as the City is in the process of negotiating successor MOUs and compensation plans for all employees.
The City’s all funds revenue in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Operating and Capital Budget is approximately $48.6 million, and all funds’ expenditures are approximately $95.5 million. The budget projection assumes a net use of fund balance of $46.8 million for all funds combined as shown in Table 1 below. The majority of the use of fund balance is for several large, multi-year capital improvement projects, notably in the wastewater enterprise fund. It is important to note that the total estimated costs of capital projects are budgeted in year one (FY 2024/25) of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) although some projects may take several years to complete. The total costs are budgeted up front to earmark the full amount of funding needed to complete the CIP projects. This is a new budgeting practice for the City. In the past, the City only encumbered the first-year cost of multi-year capital projects. The cost for subsequent years of multi-year projects was left in fund balance as unassigned. Because the full cost to complete a capital project is now encumbered in the first year of a multi-year capital project, this reduces unassigned fund balance in funds that support capital projects, including the General Fund. 3
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Execu�ve Summary
Table 1 – All Funds Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures
Fund
Estimated
Beginning
Fund Balance
July 1, 2024
Total
Revenues
Total
Expenditures
Contribution
To/(From)
Fund Balance
Estimated
Ending
Fund Balance
June 30, 2025
General Fund
General Fund (including Measure S 2006
and 2014) $ 8,488,073 $ 27,375,643 $ 37,458,497 $ (10,082,854) $ (1,594,781) General Reserve Fund 10,150,387 - - - 10,150,387
Equipment Reserve Fund 231,732 150,000 205,000 (55,000) 176,732 Special Revenue Funds
Gas Tax Fund 723,248 1,046,400 2,201,572 (1,155,172) (431,924) Restricted Real Estate Maintenance Fund 162,237 39,991 26,000 13,991 176,229 Public Safety Augmentation Fund 358,392 249,855 545,805 (295,950) 62,442 Traffic Safety Fund 274,081 46,500 56,836 (10,336) 263,745 Supplemental Law Enforcement Fund 285,497 175,000 294,699 (119,699) 165,798 NPDES Storm Water Fund (121,347) 253,272 378,966 (125,694) (247,041) Recreation Fund (583,260) 1,303,486 2,374,956 (1,071,470) (1,654,730) Building & Planning Fund (1,929,848) 1,482,526 2,032,560 (550,034) (2,479,881) Refuse Management Fund (10,397) 66,060 186,658 (120,598) (130,995) Solid Waste Fund 2,525,024 368,000 174,379 193,621 2,718,645 Measure C/J Fund 2,388,533 1,152,257 1,708,207 (555,950) 1,832,583 Rate Stabilization Fund 213,313 - - - 213,313
Asset Seizure-Adjudicated Fund (3,577) - 41,236 (41,236) (44,814) Growth Impact Fund 3,526,408 1,039,594 1,623,000 (583,406) 2,943,002 Housing Assets Fund 8,014,224 55,000 322,628 (267,628) 7,746,596 Capital Projects Funds
Lighting & Landscaping District Fund 27,418 63,911 85,175 (21,264) 6,154 Pinole Valley Caretaker Fund (983) 15,000 14,893 107 (876) Public Facilities Fund 471,649 - 70,000 (70,000) 401,649 City Street Improvements Fund 2,166,783 2,064,683 3,687,304 (1,622,621) 544,162 Arterial Streets Rehabilitation Fund 252,513 250,000 895,000 (645,000) (392,487) Parks Grants 21,522 - - - 21,522
Enterprise Funds
Sewer Enterprise Fund 16,889,155 10,364,403 37,760,374 (27,395,971) (10,506,816) Cable Access Television (PCTV) (227,800) 368,657 831,771 (463,114) (690,915) Information Systems Fund (4,104) - (4,104)
Fiduciary/Agency Funds
Pension Fund 13,430,374 700,000 2,475,000 (1,775,000) 11,655,374 Recognized Obligation Retirement Fund - - - - -
Total $ 67,719,246 $ 48,630,239 $ 95,450,517 $ (46,820,278) $ 20,898,969 The General Fund (including Measure S 2006 and 2014 Funds) revenue is approximately $27.4 million, and General Fund expenditures are approximately $37.5 million. The budget includes the use of fund balance in a number of funds to complete one-time projects.
The budget includes funding for a number of Council-directed special projects, beyond staff’s baseline work, Strategic Plan strategies, and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects.
City staff believes that it will be able to complete the Council-directed special projects listed above by the end of FY 2024/25, but does not have the capacity to take on any additional special projects. Staff also recommends that the City adopt a practice of not adding any special projects mid-fiscal year unless an existing special project is taken off of the list.
It is a public finance best practice, and a goal of the City’s Financial Policy on a Structurally Balanced Budget, to create a proposed General Fund operating budget that is structurally balanced, meaning that ongoing revenues equal or exceed ongoing expenditures.
4
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Execu�ve Summary
At this point, the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Operating and Capital Budget is not structurally balanced in that ongoing expenditures exceed ongoing revenues. The baseline budget currently reflects a shortfall of $1.1 million. The budget does use one-time sources, such as fund balance, for one-time expenditures.
The Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Operating and Capital Budget consists of the baseline budget (ongoing operating budget), one-time operating budget items such as special Council-directed initiatives, and capital improvement projects that are funded by the General Fund including the Measure S Funds. The graphic below depicts the composition of the Budget. As shown, the budget assumes the use of $8.9 million of fund balance.
Table 2 on the following page provides a detailed list of the one-time budget items and capital improvement projects.
Table 2 – One-Time Budget Items and Capital Improvement Projects (Some are Projects Budgeted in FY 2023/24, but Not Completed, so Carried Forward to FY 2024/25) Department One-Time Operating Items Proposed
Budget
Community
Development/Economic
Development
Economic Development Strategy - Final
Branding
$10,000
Community
Development/Economic
Development
Meeting/Workshop/Mixers 5,000
FY2024/25 Operating
and Capital Budget
$37,458,498
Baseline Budget
(Ongoing Operating
Budget)
$28,531,054
One-time Operating
Budget Items
$903,222
Capital Improvement
Projects
$8,024,221
Use of Available Fund Balance = $8,927,443
5
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Execu�ve Summary
Community
Development/Economic
Development
Tobacco Education Related (Grant Funded) 10,000
Community
Development/Economic
Development
Advertising (General and Industry-Specific) 2,000
Community
Development/Economic
Development
Marketing Materials 5,000
Community
Development/Economic
Development
Business Development/Community Help
Reserve
10,000
Community
Development/Economic
Development
Revitalization Reserve 10,000
City Clerk Policies & Procedures Update Support 20,000
City Council City Council Retreat/Planning Workshop 10,000 City Manager DEI Consulting 40,000
City Manager EOP Training (citywide) 20,000
Finance Ballot Measure Consulting 40,000
Finance Grants Consulting 48,000
Information Technology Professional Services 68,222
Police CERT Program Supplies 20,000
Public Works Active Transportation Plan 25,000
Public Works Emergency Power for Critical Facilities 200,000 Public Works Recycled Water Feasibility 60,000
Public Works City Hall planting/landscaping 20,000
Public Works GoGov or Similar App 5,000
Public Works On-call Consultants for Capital Projects 75,000 Public Works Storm Drainage Master Plan 150,000
Public Works Pedestrian Bridge Inspection &
Maintenance
50,000
Total One-Time Operating Items 903,222
Department Asset/Capital Outlay Proposed
Budget
Information Technology Computer Equipment Replacement 137,959 Police Alex Clark Room Transformation 20,000
Public Works Weatherization/Energy Efficiency Program 250,000 Public Works Brandt St. Improvements 170,000
Public Works Street Improvements 200,000
Public Works FA1901 Senior Center Auxiliary Parking Lot 1,530,000 Public Works RO2401 Road Maintenance Repairs 1,750,000
6
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Execu�ve Summary
Public Works Citywide Roof Repairs and Replacement 900,000 Public Works City Hall Modernization 200,000
Public Works Senior Center Modernization 205,000
Public Works Public Safety Building Modernization 450,000 Public Works Tiny Tot Improvements 50,000
Public Works Skatepark Rehabilitation 150,000
Public Works Replace Parks' Chips/Rubber Matting 50,000 Public Works San Pablo Ave. Bridge Replacement 300,000
Public Works Safety Improvement Arterial Roadway 35,960 Public Works Pinole Smart Signals 154,302
Public Works Sidewalk/ADA Curb Ramp Program 150,000
Public Works Roble Road Drainage Improvements 700,000
Public Works Storm Drain Creek Discharge 600,000
Recreation Restroom Walls/Floor Repair 11,000
Recreation Replace Youth Center Vinyl Flooring 10,000
Total Capital Improvement Projects 8,024,221
Total $8,927,443
7
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Execu�ve Summary
Page intentionally blank
8
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Background
Background
9
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Background
Page intentionally blank
10
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Background – Elected Officials and Department Heads
ELECTED OFFICIALS
Maureen Toms Cameron Sasai Devin Murphy
Mayor Mayor Pro Tempore Council Member
Anthony Tave Norma Martínez-Rubin Roy Swearingen
Council Member Council Member City Treasurer
DEPARTMENT HEADS
Interim City Manager Neil Gang
City Attorney (Contract) Eric Casher
City Clerk Heather Bell
Community Development Director Lilly Whalen
Community Services Director Andrea Dwyer
Finance Director Markisha Guillory
Human Resources Director Stacy Shell
Police Chief Neil Gang
Public Works Director Sanjay Mishra
11
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Background – Elected Officials and Department Heads
Page intentionally blank
12
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Background – City of Pinole Strategic Plan 2020-2025
CITY OF PINOLE STRATEGIC PLAN 2020-2025
In February 2020, the City of Pinole adopted a Strategic Plan 2020 – 2025. The Strategic Plan established the following vision, mission, and goals for the City, as well as 22 specific “strategies” (special projects), to be completed over a five-year timeframe, that would help the City achieve the goals.
VISION
Pinole is a safe, vibrant, and innovative community with small town charm and high quality of life.
MISSION
Pinole will be efficient, ethical, and effective in delivering quality services with community involvement and fiscal stewardship.
GOALS
1. Safe and Resilient Pinole: Develop and communicate resilience through quality public safety service delivery, property maintenance policies and practices, and disciplined investment in community assets.
2. Financially Stable Pinole: Ensure the financial health and long-term sustainability of the City.
3. Vibrant and Beautiful Pinole: Facilitate a thriving community through development policies and proactive relationship building.
4. High Performance Pinole: Build an organization culture that is efficient, ethical, and effective in delivering quality services with community involvement and fiscal stewardship.
The City Council held a special strategic planning meeting on April 29, 2023 during which it reaffirmed the vision, mission, and goals of the Strategic Plan and made some adjustments to some strategies.
13
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Background – Profile of the City
PROFILE OF THE CITY
The City is primarily a residential community located in the San Francisco Bay Area on the shores of San Pablo Bay in West Contra Costa County. Highway Interstate 80, which traverses Pinole, connects the San Francisco/Oakland metropolitan area with Sacramento and points east. Pinole is linked to central Contra Costa County which includes the cities of Martinez, Concord, and Pleasant Hill by State Route 4 which begins just north of Pinole and connects with Interstate 680. There are approximately foursquare miles of land included in Pinole’s boundary. The City’s population on January 1, 2023 was 18,244, according to the California Department of Finance.
The City of Pinole is a general law city that was incorporated on June 25, 1903. The City operates under a Council-Manager form of operation, whereby policies of the City Council are administered by a City Manager who is appointed by the City Council. All municipal departments operate under the supervision of the City Manager. The Council consists of five members who are elected at large for four-year overlapping terms. The Council elects one of the Council members to serve as Mayor each year.
The City is a full-service city that provides the following services: public safety (police), public works, community services (including recreation and Pinole community television), community development, and general administration services. 14
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Background – Organiza�onal Structure
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
15
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Background – Organiza�onal Structure
Page intentionally blank
16
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Budget Development Process and Budget Award
Budget Development Process and Budget Award
17
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Budget Development Process and Budget Award
Page intentionally blank
18
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Budget Development Process and Budget Award
BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The City’s budget is created through a collaborative, iterative process involving the City Council, community, and City staff. The City’s budget development process is considered an “incremental” budget process, meaning that the budget for the upcoming year is developed based on the current year’s budget and includes incremental changes.
City staff takes the following steps to create the budget:
• Finance Department uses the current budget, which incorporates any mid-year changes approved by the City Council, as the starting point; • Finance Department creates a “baseline budget” for the upcoming year by taking the ongoing revenues and expenditures included in the current budget and factoring in known or assumed changes to revenues and expenditures (i.e., forecasted changes to different revenue streams, general inflation, known changes to debt service, etc.);
• Departments review and confirm the known and assumed changes incorporated into the baseline budget;
• Departments submit requests for changes from the baseline budget to address proposed special projects or increased service levels;
• Finance Department and City Manager consider department requests for changes to the baseline budget and prepare a Preliminary Proposed budget for the Finance Subcommittee and/or City Council’s consideration; • Finance Department incorporates changes and prepares the Revised Proposed budget for the Finance Subcommittee and/or City Council’s consideration;
• Finance Department incorporates any final changes as necessary and submits the Final Proposed Budget to the City Council for adoption.
City staff presented the General Fund baseline budget to the Finance Subcommittee on April 16, 2024 and to the City Council on April 30, 2024 at the budget workshop. At the April 30, 2024 meeting, staff asked the City Council whether it would like to add any special projects or other changes to the baseline budget. The City Council did not direct staff to add any additional items to the budget. Staff then prepared the Preliminary Proposed budget, which was presented to the City Council on May 21, 2024. 19
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Budget Development Process and Budget Award
Page intentionally blank
20
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Budget Development Process and Budget Award
KEY MILESTONES OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUDGET AND CIP FOR FY 2024/25
March 27, 2024
• Department Proposed FY 2024/25 Budget Requests due to Finance April 18, 2024
• Finance Subcommittee Meeting
• FY 2024/25 General Fund Baseline Budget
• Draft FY 2024/25 - FY 2028/29 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) April 2-26, 2024
• Budget Review Meetings
• Interim City Manager and Finance Department meet with Department Directors to review and discuss proposed budgets
April 30, 2024
• City Council Special Meeting (Budget Workshop)
• FY 2024/25 General Fund Baseline Budget
• Proposed Projects for FY 2024/25 - FY 2028/29 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
May 21, 2024
• City Council Meeting
• Preliminary Proposed FY 2024/25 Operating and Capital Budget • Preliminary Proposed FY 2024/25 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) • Preliminary Status Quo Ten-Year Financial Forecast for FY 2024/25 - FY 2033/34
June 4, 2024
• City Council Meeting
• Revised Proposed FY 2024/25 Operating and Capital Budget • Revised Proposed FY 2024/25 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) June 18, 2024
• City Council Meeting
• Adopt Final Proposed FY 2024/25 Operating and Capital Budget • Adopt Final Proposed FY 2024/25 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) • Adopt FY 2024/25 Appropriations Limit
July 1, 2024
• FY 2024/25 Begins
21
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Budget Development Process and Budget Award
Page intentionally blank
22
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Budget Development Process and Budget Award
BUDGET AWARD
The City received its tenth consecutive Operating Budget Excellence Award from the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO) for its FY 2023/24 budget. The City previously received the Meritorious Award for its FY 2005/06 through FY 2010/11 budgets, and Outstanding Financial Reporting for its FY 1995/96 through FY 2000/01 budgets. The award reflects the commitment of the City to meeting the highest principles of government budgeting. To receive this award, the City had to satisfy nationally recognized guidelines for effective budget presentation. 23
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Budget Development Process and Budget Award
Page intentionally blank
24
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries
25
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries
Page intentionally blank
26
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries – General Fund
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE SUMMARIES
The City’s General Fund accounts for all general revenues received by the City. The General Fund supports various City operations, including primarily public safety. The City also has numerous other funds that account for revenue received and expended for specific purposes.
GENERAL FUND REVENUE
The major revenue sources for the General Fund are property tax, sales tax, utility users’ tax, intergovernmental tax, franchise fees, business license tax, and transient occupancy tax. The City’s Finance Department creates the estimates of these General Fund revenues for the budget using economic information obtained from several sources, including the State of California, Contra Costa County, and third-party consultants.
Estimates of revenues generated by City departments are prepared by the respective department with assistance from the Finance Department. Each of these revenue sources is described in detail below.
Total General Fund (including Measure S 2006 and 2014 Funds) revenue is projected to be $27.4 million, including transfers in, as summarized below.
Revenue Category FY 2024/25
Budget
% Total
Budget
Property Taxes $6,168,067 23%
Sales and Use Taxes 4,536,436 17%
Sales and Use Taxes - Measure S 2006 and 2014 5,162,000 19% Utility Users Tax 2,285,000 8%
Franchise Taxes 850,000 3%
Transient Occupancy Tax 460,000 2%
Business License Tax 460,000 2%
Intergovernmental Taxes 2,402,673 9%
Public Safety Charges 1,774,307 6%
Other Revenues 852,160 3%
Transfers In 2,425,000 9%
Total $27,375,643
Property Tax
Property tax is an ad valorem tax imposed on real property (land and permanently attached improvements such as buildings) and tangible personal property (movable property). The fixed statutory rate is 1% of assessed valuation. Assessed value is based on the 1975 property values with subsequent increases limited to 2% or CPI growth, whichever is less. However, when there is a change in property ownership, property renovation or new construction, property is reappraised at its full current market value.
Proposition 8 allows the County Assessor to decrease these assessed values when 27
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries – General Fund
property values decline and recapture these valuations back to the original amounts in the following years if property values increase.
The General Fund receives on average 19% of the total ad valorem property taxes levied (excluding voter approved tax overrides pledged for the retirement of bonded debt) on property located within the City’s boundary (exclusive of the Redevelopment Project Areas). Property tax settlements are received in December (55%), April (40%) and June (5%). Property tax is imposed and collected by the County. Contra Costa County is on a Teeter Plan. The County absorbs the delinquencies under this plan. The chart below illustrates the breakdown of the agencies that receive the property tax dollar.
The City uses property tax estimates provided by consulting firm HdL as the basis for the budget. For FY 2024/25, property tax is estimated to be $6.2 million, a 9% increase over the FY 2023/24 revised budget. The increase is largely due to the increase in residual property tax revenue that the City expects to receive from the former Redevelopment agency due to the retirement of outstanding debt.
Property Tax Dollar Breakdown
Sales Tax
Sales tax is the General Fund’s single largest revenue source. The City’s 9.75% Sales tax is levied on all merchandise and includes the 1% Bradley Burns Sales Tax, and Local Sales and Use Taxes Measure S 2006 (0.5%) and Measure S 2014 (0.5%) both of which have no sunset date. The City uses sales tax estimates provided by consulting firm HdL as the basis for the budget. For FY 2024/25, General Fund sales tax, including Measure S 2006 and 2014, is projected to be $9.7 million, a 3% increase over the FY 2023/24 revised budget. The chart below illustrates the breakdown of the agencies that receive the sales tax dollar.
West Contra Costa
Unified
34%
Pinole General Fund
19%
County General
15%
K-12 Schools ERAF
14%
Community College
District
5%
East Bay Regional
Park
3%
Community College
ERAF
2%
Health Care, Library,
EBMUD
5%
Other
3%
28
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries – General Fund
Sales Tax Dollar Breakdown
Utility Users’ Tax
Utility Users’ Tax (UUT) is levied in accordance with Chapter 3.26 of the Municipal Code, amended in 2018 which levies an 8% tax on the value public utilities services consumed within the City limits for electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications. Low-income households are eligible for exemption from payment. The Electorate ratified renewal of the taxing authority in November 2018 with no sunset date. The City estimates UUT based on historical trends and industry resources. For FY 2024/25, UUT is projected to be $2.3 million, a 5% increase over the FY 2023/24 revised budget.
Franchise Fees
Franchise tax is levied on organizations that use the public right of way to furnish gas (PG&E) (1%) and electricity (PG&E) (2%), refuse (Republic Services) (10%), and cable television (Comcast and AT&T) (5%). The various fees are delineated in franchise agreements and are paid directly to the city by these franchisees. Estimates are based on historical experience considering contract amendments which impact future years. For FY 2024/25, franchise tax is projected to be $850,000, a 7% increase over the FY 2023/24 revised budget.
Business License Tax
Business license tax is assessed on all businesses doing business within City limits in accordance with Municipal Code Title 5. The City charges business license tax in accordance with the provisions of Government Code 37101. Pinole’s tax is computed based on a flat tax of $160 (current) per year combined with a variable tax component based on number of employees engaged in each business. Estimates are based on trend analysis. For FY 2024/25, business license is projected to be $460,000, a 2% increase over the FY 2023/24 revised budget.
State General Fund
3.94%
Bradley-Burns
1.00%
County Mental
Health/Welfare/Publ
ic Safety
1.56%
Measure S 2006
0.50%
Measure S 2014
0.50%
County Public
Safety (Prop 172),
0.50%
Countywide
Transportation
Fund, 0.25%
BART, 0.50%
Contra Costa
Transportation
Authority, 0.50%
CCC Transaction &
Use Tax, 0.50%
29
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries – General Fund
Transient Occupancy Tax (Motel or Bed Tax)
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is a 10% tax levied by the City for the privilege of occupying quarters on a transient basis (Chapter 3.24 of Municipal Code). This tax is imposed upon persons staying 30 days or less in a motel or lodging facility. The tax rate is set at the discretion of the City Council, subject to ratification by the City’s electorate.
Estimates are based on trend analysis and industry resources. For FY 2024/25, transient occupancy tax is projected to be $460,000, a 2% increase over the FY 2023/24 revised budget.
Motor Vehicle In-lieu
Motor Vehicle In-lieu (VLF) is the City’s share of motor vehicle license fees levied, collected and apportioned by the State. VLF, also called the “motor vehicle in-lieu tax” is a tax on the ownership of registered motor vehicles which takes the place of taxation of this personal property. The VLF is paid annually at the time vehicle licenses are renewed based on current value adjusted for depreciation. The budget projection is based on projections provided by the City’s property tax consultant HdL. For FY 2024/25, VLF is projected to be $2.4 million, a 4% increase over the FY 2023/24 revised budget.
Public Safety Charges
Public safety charges are received for dispatch services provided to the cities of Hercules and San Pablo under an Intergovernmental Service Sharing agreement. A portion of the costs of this activity are reimbursed by the City of Hercules and City of San Pablo. Under the current agreement, the City’s recovers approximately 67% of the activity’s budget.
The budget projection is based on the formula provided in the current five-year agreement effective July 1,2023. For FY 2024/25, public safety charges are projected to be $1.8 million, a 5% increase over the FY 2023/24 revised budget.
Other Revenue
Other revenue is made up of all other revenue sources, such as fees, permits, interest income, grants, reimbursements, and other miscellaneous revenue. These revenues are projected primarily using historical trend analysis. The FY 2024/25 budget assumes a 34% increase over the FY 2023/24 revised budget. The substantial growth is mostly due to increased revenue resulting from the imposition of updated fees following the comprehensive user fee study.
Transfers In
Transfers in shown in the FY 2024/25 budget comes from the Pension Section 115 Trust to offset the increase in pension costs in the General Fund and Measure S Funds. The amount transferred is based on the difference between the City’s base year (FY 30
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries – General Fund
2018/19) contribution toward employee pensions and the forecasted required City contribution in future years.
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
General Fund revenues are not restricted to any specific use and can be expended on any allowable municipal purpose. For FY 2024/25, total General Fund expenditures are projected to be $37.5 million, including transfers out, as summarized below.
Expenditure Category FY 2023/24
Budget
% Total
Budget
Salaries and Wages $10,266,663 27%
Employee Benefits 7,684,115 21%
Professional/Admin Services 9,448,201 25%
Other Operating 322,711 1%
Materials and Supplies 185,033 0%
Interdepartmental Charges (710,335) -2%
Capital Outlay 8,014,702 21%
Debt Service 636,107 2%
Transfers Out 1,611,301 4%
Total $37,458,498
Salaries and Wages
The forecast for salaries and wages is based on the City’s current staffing level (114) fulltime equivalents (FTEs), future salary increases for different classifications already agreed upon in the City’s current labor memorandums of understanding (MOUs). The budget includes a savings factor equal to 4% of total annual salary and benefits expenditures to account for savings resulting from position vacancies. For FY 2024/25, salaries and wages are projected to be $10.3 million, am 6% increase over the FY 2023/24 revised budget.
Employee Benefits
The cost of retirement benefits is the City’s annual required contribution for employees’ pension to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS). The City’s annual required contribution is determined by an annual actuarial valuation report, the most recent of which is as of July 2023. The budget reflects the net cost to the City (the required total contribution minus the employee contributions). All classic employees currently contribute the required employee contribution plus a portion of the employer’s contribution for a total of 15%.
31
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries – General Fund
Other benefits include employee medical/dental/vision care, workers’ compensation, and others. The benefits cost in the forecast is based primarily trends and information provided by service providers.
For FY 2024/25, benefits are projected to be $7.7 million, a 21% decrease over the FY 2023/24 revised budget.
Professional and Administrative Services
Professional and administrative services includes consulting services, legal services, temporary services, network and software maintenance, and equipment and building maintenance. Contract services with other government agencies, such as the County animal services and library services, are also included in professional services. This category is primarily projected based on contractual obligations and historical trends. For FY 2024/25, professional and administrative services are projected to be $9.4 million, an 8% decrease over the FY 2023/24 revised budget.
This category includes the City’s fire services agreement with the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) to provide fire protection services to Pinole residents.
For FY 2024/25, the cost is $5.7 million per the approved five-year agreement.
Other Operating Expenses
Other operating expenses include all other expenditure categories, such as travel/training, office expenses, utilities, indirect costs, and materials and supplies. This category is projected based on historic trends. For FY 2024/25, other operating expenses are projected to be $322,711, a 10% increase over the FY 2023/24 revised budget.
Capital Outlay
Capital outlay includes non-major asset acquisition and improvements, such as computer equipment and furniture, as well as several major capital projects to be funded by the General Fund unassigned fund balance. This category is projected based on historical trends as well as estimated costs of capital projects. For FY 2024/25, capital outlay is projected to be $8 million.
Capital improvement projects are detailed in a separate Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Each fiscal year, capital needs are assessed and prioritized through the CIP planning process.
Debt Service
Debt service includes the payment of debt for the 2006 pension obligation bonds (POBs) that were issued to finance the City’s unfunded accrued actuarial liability with CalPERS.
The future years are forecasted based on the long-term debt obligation schedule. 32
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries – General Fund
Transfers Out
Transfers out includes the transfers from the General Fund and Measure S to other funds to support Recreation programs, Pinole Community Television (PCTV), vehicle and equipment replacement.
33
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries – General Fund
Page intentionally blank
34
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Opera�ng and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries – General Fund
GENERAL FUND
(Including Measure S 2006 and 2014)
FY 2020/21
Actual
FY 2021/22
Actual
FY 2022/23
Actual
FY 2023/24
Revised
Budget
FY 2024/25
Proposed
Budget
Revenue by Category
311 - Property Taxes 4,091,345 4,307,208 5,055,790 5,678,211 6,168,067 312 - Sales and Use Taxes 8,927,361 9,613,625 9,328,351 9,443,023 9,698,436 313 - Utility Users Tax 1,939,726 2,063,773 2,312,830 2,185,485 2,285,000 314 - Franchise Taxes 751,598 788,146 875,058 794,658 850,000 315 - Other Taxes 795,839 929,466 898,797 890,714 924,599 321 - Intergovernmental Taxes 2,034,203 2,108,808 2,247,072 2,319,918 2,402,673 323 - State Grants 10,951 13,847 43,442 65,882 95,882
324 - Other Grants 287,768 46,937 43,793 47,025 47,025
332 - Permits 77,992 120,780 190,687 108,700 251,700
341 - Review Fees 37,139 42,210 50,279 500 25,500
342 - Other Fees 56,754 23,880 56,772 15,054 65,854
343 - Abatement Fees 3,844 5,127 30,193 33,500 47,000
351 - Fines and Forfeiture 13,166 10,411 17,579 22,050 15,550 361 - Public Safety Charges 1,345,588 1,477,492 1,598,997 1,693,539 1,774,307 370 - Interest and Investment Income 33,340 (134,495) 211,725 150,000 200,000 381 - Rental Income 86,880 96,516 95,432 89,896 81,450
383 - Reimbursements 83,285 16,341 20,133 16,928 11,500 384 - Other Revenue 3,788 35,606 5,969 7,560 5,100
392 - Proceeds from Sale of Property 83,209 240,182 12,080 1,000 1,000 393 - Loan/Bond Proceeds 55,197 - 91,907 - -
399 - Transfers In from Section 115 Trust 1,327,427 1,061,736 2,160,519 2,245,480 2,425,000 399 - Transfers In from ARPA Fund - - 4,071,404 - -
Revenue Total 22,046,398 22,867,595 29,418,810 25,809,123 27,375,643 Expenditures by Category
40 - Salaries and Wages 9,687,549 10,550,396 11,006,433 9,359,141 10,266,663 41 - Employee Benefits 5,492,537 6,030,608 6,884,786 6,219,651 7,684,115 42 - Professional/Administrative Services 3,120,915 4,083,329 5,686,957 10,227,822 9,448,201 43 - Other Operating Expenses 332,324 304,499 359,085 292,711 322,711 44 - Materials and Supplies 148,389 261,505 291,123 183,200 185,033 46 - Interfund/Interdepartmental Charges (916,482) (838,609) (505,978) (772,912) (710,335) 47 - Asset Acquisition, Improvement, Disposal 1,397,824 697,550 596,527 6,661,263 8,014,702 48 - Debt Service 558,607 608,736 617,582 611,107 636,107 49 - Transfers Out 1,588,652 3,360,117 2,654,750 2,440,775 1,611,301 Expenditures Total 21,410,315 25,058,131 27,591,266 35,222,758 37,458,497 Expenditures by Department
10 - City Council 221,252 215,904 209,697 215,412 223,022 11 - City Manager 603,505 527,117 567,995 602,710 666,000 12 - City Clerk 243,065 327,468 511,112 624,354 713,260 13 - City Treasurer 8,286 8,375 8,268 8,727 9,990
14 - City Attorney 489,955 406,476 330,354 320,428 330,035 15 - Finance Department 573,555 561,011 661,743 1,037,368 938,649 16 - Human Resources 292,727 377,614 749,748 888,227 877,147 17 - Non-Departmental 3,534,790 5,274,979 4,673,970 4,042,120 3,297,006 18 - Information Systems - - - 3,600 -
22 - Police Department 8,495,554 9,847,359 10,267,281 11,125,612 12,608,018 23 - Fire Department 5,429,808 5,100,962 6,687,185 5,596,735 6,433,461 34 - Public Works 1,335,586 1,824,492 2,160,055 9,715,846 10,376,756 46 - Community Development 173,504 263,181 398,605 619,883 537,255 55 - Community Services 8,727 272,629 365,253 421,736 447,898 64 - Sewer 50,563 -
Expenditures Total 21,410,315 25,058,131 27,591,266 35,222,758 37,458,497 Net Operating Results 636,084 (2,190,536) 1,827,544 (9,413,635) (10,082,854) 35