CITY COUNCIL
Maureen Toms, Mayor
Cameron Sasai, Mayor Pro Tem
Anthony Tave, Council Member
Norma Martínez-Rubin, Council Member
Devin T. Murphy, Council Member
PINOLE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING AGENDA
June 4, 2024
5:00 PM
Attend in Person: PINOLE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 2131 PEAR STREET OR
Attend VIA ZOOM TELECONFERENCE – Details provided below How to Submit Public Comments:
In Person:
Attend meeting at the Pinole City Council Chambers, fill out a yellow public comment card and submit it to the City Clerk.
Via Zoom:
Members of the public may submit a live remote public comment via Zoom video conferencing. Download the Zoom mobile app from the Apple Appstore or Google Play. If you are using a desktop computer, you can test your connection to Zoom by clicking here. Zoom also allows you to join the meeting by phone.
From a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89335000272
Webinar ID: 893 3500 0272
By phone: +1 (669) 900-6833 or +1 (253) 215-8782 or +1 (346) 248-7799 • Speakers will be asked to provide their name and city of residence, although providing this is not required for participation.
• Each speaker will be afforded up to 3 minutes to speak (subject to modification by the Mayor) • Speakers will be muted until their opportunity to provide public comment.
When the Mayor opens the comment period for the item you wish to speak on, please use the “raise hand” feature (or press *9 if connecting via telephone) which will alert staff that you have a comment to provide and press *6 to unmute. To comment with your video enabled, please let the City Clerk know you would like to turn your camera on once you are called to speak.
Written Comments:
All comments received before 3:00 pm the day of the meeting will be posted on the City’s website on the agenda page (Agenda Page Link) and provided to the City Council prior to the meeting. Written comments will not be read aloud during the meeting. Email comments to [email protected] Please indicate which item on the agenda you are commenting on in the subject line of your email.
City Council
Agenda - June 4, 2024
OTHER WAYS TO WATCH THE MEETING
LIVE ON CHANNEL 26. They are retelecast the following week. The Community TV Channel 26 schedule is published on the city’s website at www.ci.pinole.ca.us.
VIDEO-STREAMED LIVE ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE, www.ci.pinole.ca.us and remain archived on the site for five (5) years.
If none of these options are available to you, or you need assistance with public comment, please contact the City Clerk, Heather Bell at (510) 724-8928 or [email protected]..
Americans With Disabilities Act: In compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, if you need special assistance to participate in a City Meeting or you need a copy of the agenda, or the agenda packet in an appropriate alternative format, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (510) 724-8928. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.
Note: Staff reports are available for inspection on the City Website at www.ci.pinole.ca.us. You may also contact the City Clerk via e-mail at [email protected].
Ralph M. Brown Act. Gov. Code § 54950. In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies, which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
City Council
Agenda - June 4, 2024
1. CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN HONOR OF THE US MILITARY TROOPS
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Before we begin, we would like to acknowledge the Ohlone people, who are the traditional custodians of this land. We pay our respects to the Ohlone elders, past, present, and future, who call this place, Ohlone Land, the land that Pinole sits upon, their home. We are proud to continue their tradition of coming together and growing as a community. We thank the Ohlone community for their stewardship and support, and we look forward to strengthening our ties as we continue our relationship of mutual respect and understanding.
3. ROLL CALL, CITY CLERK’S REPORT & STATEMENT OF CONFLICT An official who has a conflict must, prior to consideration of the decision: (1) publicly identify in detail the financial interest that causes the conflict; (2) recuse himself /herself from discussing and voting on the matter; and (3) leave the room until after the decision has been made, Cal. Gov't Code § 87105.
4. CONVENE TO A CLOSED SESSION
Citizens may address the Council regarding a Closed Session item prior to the Council adjourning into the Closed Session, by first providing a speaker card to the City Clerk.
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION Gov. Code § 54956.9 (d)(1)
Name of Case: MVP Construction
5. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION TO ANNOUNCE RESULTS OF CLOSED SESSION
6. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD (Public Comments)
Citizens may speak under any item not listed on the Agenda. The time limit is 3 minutes and is subject to modification by the Mayor. Individuals may not share or offer time to another speaker. Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The City Council may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future Council meeting. PLEASE SEE THE COVERSHEET OF THE
AGENDA FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS
7. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMUNITY EVENTS
A. Proclamations
1. Juneteenth
2. Pride
3. Philippine Independence Day
B. Presentations
1. City Manager Department Update
8. REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Mayor Report
City Council
Agenda - June 4, 2024
1. Announcements
B. Mayoral & Council Appointments
C. City Council Committee Reports & Communications
D. Council Requests for Future Agenda Items
E. City Manager Report / Department Staff
F. City Attorney Report
9. CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and noncontroversial. These items will be enacted by one motion and without discussion. If, however, any interested party or Council member(s) wishes to comment on an item, they may do so before action is taken on the Consent Calendar. Following comments, if a Council member wishes to discuss an item, it will be removed from the Consent Calendar and taken up in order after adoption of the Consent Calendar.
A. Approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting on May 21, 2024.
B. Receive the May 18, 2024 – May 31,2024 List of Warrants in the Amount of $531,059.51 and the May 24, 2024 Payroll in the amount of $507,912.11.
C. Amendment to the Joint Exercise of Powers of Agreement Between the City of Pinole and the West Contra Costa County Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Sanjay Mishra)
D. EV Charging Ordinance- 2nd Reading- and Adoption Action: Waive Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance (Sanjay Mishra, Eric Casher)
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Citizens wishing to speak regarding a Public Hearing item should fill out a speaker card prior to the completion of the presentation, by first providing a speaker card to the City Clerk. An official who engaged in an ex parte communication that is the subject of a Public Hearing must disclose the communication on the record prior to the start of the Public Hearing.
A. FY 2023/24 Utility Users' Tax (UUT) Review Action: (Item to be continued to the June 18th, 2024 meeting) (Markisha Guillory)
B. Single Use Plastic Foodware and Bag Reduction Ordinance Action: Conduct a public hearing (Kapil Amin, Lilly Whalen)
C. Military Use Equipment Policy and City Ordinance: AB481 Action: Conduct Public Hearing and Introduce Ordinance on First Read (Jeremy Crone, Eric Casher)
11. OLD BUSINESS
A. Revised Proposed FY 2024/25 Operating and Capital Budget Action: Receive a Report and Provide Direction (Markisha Guillory)
B. Revised Proposed FY 2024/25 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Action: Receive Report and Provide Direction (Sanjay Mishra)
City Council
Agenda - June 4, 2024
12. NEW BUSINESS
13. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD (Continued from Item 6) (Public Comments) Open only to members of the public who did not speak under the first Citizens to Be Heard, Agenda Item 6 Citizens may speak under any item not listed on the Agenda. The time limit is 3 minutes for City Council items and is subject to modification by the Mayor. Individuals may not share or offer time to another speaker.
Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The City Council may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future meeting.
14. ADJOURNMENT to the Special City Council Meeting of June 5, 2024 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.
I hereby certify under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing Agenda was posted on the bulletin board at the main entrance of Pinole City Hall, 2131 Pear Street Pinole, CA, and on the City’s website, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date set forth on this agenda. _______________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
POSTED: __5:15_____ pm
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
May 21, 2024
1. CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN HONOR OF THE US MILITARY TROOPS
The City Council Meeting was held in a hybrid format (in-person and via Zoom videoconference and broadcast) from the Pinole Council Chambers, 2131 Pear Street, Pinole, California. Mayor Toms called the Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at 4:05 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Before we begin, we would like to acknowledge the Ohlone people, who are the traditional custodians of this land. We pay our respects to the Ohlone elders, past, present and future, who call this place, Ohlone Land, the land that Pinole sits upon, their home. We are proud to continue their tradition of coming together and growing as a community. We thank the Ohlone community for their stewardship and support, and we look forward to strengthening our ties as we continue our relationship of mutual respect and understanding.
3. ROLL CALL, CITY CLERK’S REPORT & STATEMENT OF CONFLICT An official who has a conflict must, prior to consideration of the decision; (1) publicly identify in detail the financial interest that causes the conflict; (2) recuse himself/herself from discussing and voting on the matter; and (3) leave the room until after the decision has been made, Cal. Gov.
Code § 87105.
A. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT
Maureen Toms, Mayor
Cameron Sasai, Mayor Pro Tem
Norma Martinez-Rubin, Council Member *
Devin Murphy, Council Member *
Anthony Tave, Council Member
*Arrived after Roll Call
B. STAFF PRESENT
Sanjay Mishra, Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Eric Casher, City Attorney
Markisha Guillory, Finance Director
Lilly Whalen, Community Development Director
Jeremy Crone, Pinole Police Commander
Fiona Epps, Assistant to the City Manager
Roxane Stone, Deputy City Clerk
Deputy City Clerk Roxane Stone announced the agenda had been posted on May 16, 2024 at 5:15 p.m. with all legally required written notices.
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
Written comments had been received in advance of the meeting, distributed to the City Council, staff, posted to the City website and made available in the Council Chambers.
Following an inquiry, the Council reported there were no conflicts with any items on the agenda.
4. CONVENE TO A CLOSED SESSION:
Citizens may address the Council regarding a Closed Session item prior to the Council adjourning into the Closed Session by first providing a speaker card to the City Clerk.
A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT
Gov. Code §54957
Title: City Manager
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Deputy City Clerk Stone reported there were no comments from the public.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
5. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION TO ANNOUNCE RESULTS OF CLOSED SESSION At 6:22 p.m., Mayor Toms reconvened the meeting into open session and reported there was no reportable action from the Closed Session.
Mayor Toms reported the City Council would move to Item 7B, Presentations at this time.
1. Anti-Tobacco Program Update
Jaylan Campbell, Recreation Coordinator, provided the background where the City of Pinole had been awarded the California Department of Justice Tobacco Grant to fund a youth advocacy training program to discourage and eliminate tobacco use by underage youth. A Youth Ambassador Program had been implemented in the first year of the program to develop young leaders and encourage them to be anti-tobacco advocates on school campuses.
Youth Ambassadors Jordan, Natalie, Olivia, Camila, Anabelle, and Lele provided a PowerPoint presentation on the City of Pinole Youth Anti-Tobacco Program, which included an overview of Mind-Mapping, Take Down Tobacco, a National Day of Action held on April 1, 2024, a presentation of How Bad Can Tobacco Be, the Lorax Edition, with more information @tobaccofreepinole. Promotional materials, special events and collaboration with City Departments were also highlighted.
Mayor Toms reported she had the pleasure of hearing the presentation during the Earth Day celebrations and she encouraged the Youth Ambassadors to continue their work.
Mayor Pro Tem Sasai thanked the Youth Ambassadors for the presentation and for their amazing leadership.
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
Deputy City Clerk Stone reported there were no comments from the public.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
6. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD (Public Comments)
Citizens may speak under any item not listed on the Agenda. The time limit is 3 minutes and is subject to modification by the Mayor. Individuals may not share or offer time to another speaker.
Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The City Council may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future Council meeting.
Rafael Menis reported on the COVID-19 rate for the State of California from data tracking, with the hospitalization rate having dropped from 2 persons per 100,000 to one person. Based on the data, there appeared to be an insignificant transmission of COVID-19 in the state but that could change. Everyone was encouraged to continue to follow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) COVID-19 coverage website, look at the Pinole-Hercules Wastewater Treatment Plant data, and remain aware of their environments with those at risk or immunocomprised encouraged to wear masks.
Irma Ruport referenced a presentation from Townsend Public Affairs (TPA) during the May 7, 2024 Regular City Council meeting. After the meeting, Harpreet Sandhu, Senior Representative for Congressman John Garamendi’s Office provided her with information regarding federal grant application procedures and a community project funding request for specific projects in Congressman Garamendi’s district, along with website information. She submitted a copy of the information to the City Council and asked the City Clerk to forward copies of the information to all and include the information in the meeting minutes.
Ms. Ruport also thanked the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) for hosting the one-year anniversary Open House and Town Hall at Fire Station 74 on May 11, 2024. At that time, she had spoken with representatives from Contra Costa Television (CCTV) about televising the Town Hall on Pinole television stations on May 26 and 28, 2024. CCTV representatives had reached out to Pinole Community Television (PCTV) about televising the Town Hall, which would be scheduled for viewing on Pinole stations. She thanked PCTV staff for expediting the event, which included important information about preparing for wildfire season, and she encouraged everyone to view the Town Hall when scheduled, suggested Firewise should be adopted in Pinole neighborhoods as soon as possible and advised that firefighters would be able to assist with more information.
Ms. Ruport further reported on May 20, 2024 there had been an article on the front page of the East Bay Times about how one Safeway’s controversy had kicked off gas station bans around the Bay Area. Comments made by Mayor Pro Tem Sasai included in the article were read into the record at this time.
7. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMUNITY EVENTS
A. Proclamations
1. Public Works Week
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing May 19 through 25, 2024 as National Public Works Week, with the proclamation presented to Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Sanjay Mishra and members of Maintenance and Operations staff present in the audience.
2. Jewish American Heritage Month
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing the month of May as Jewish American Heritage Month.
3. Mental Health Awareness Month
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing the month of May as Mental Health Awareness Month.
4. Local and Community History Month
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing the month of May as Local and Community History Month, to be presented to Council member tavr-Rubin to share with the Pinole Historical Society.
5. Emergency Medical Services Week
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing May 19 through 25, 2024 as Emergency Medical Services Week, with the proclamation presented to Pinole Police Commander Jeremy Crone.
6. Asian American and Pacific Islander Month
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing the month of May as Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) Month, with the proclamation presented to Assistant to the City Manager Fiona Epps.
Mayor Pro Tem Sasai wished everyone a Happy AAPI Heritage Month and reported he had done a lot to observe AAPI Heritage Month and had participated in many events, with more information to be provided under Item 8C.
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED (Items 7A 1-6)
Deputy City Clerk Stone reported there were no comments from the public.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
8. REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Mayor Report
1. Announcements
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
Mayor Toms reported she had participated in a WestCat Finance Committee and Board meeting to discuss the fiscal year budget, and the pre-season Fire Preparedness Town Hall meeting and Open House at Station 74, with everyone encouraged to review all of the useful information provided by the CCCFPD and view the recordings of the event. She also encouraged residents to register with the Community Warning System (CWS) and emphasized there were many ways to stay prepared and safeguard one’s property.
Mayor Toms had also attended via Zoom the West Contra Costa Fire Safe Council meeting and briefed the City Council on presentations on the upcoming fire season and the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, with the public comment period for the document to end at the end of May, which plan must be approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and be adopted by the City of Pinole for the City to be eligible for pre and post disaster FEMA funding. In addition, she had attended the Family Justice Center Fundraiser event, which highlighted families in Contra Costa County who had gone through and worked to recover and live post-trauma, and which had highlighted the services available in the County. Additionally, she had attended the West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) Unified Sports Program hosted by Pinole Valley High School.
B. Mayoral & Council Appointments
1. Community Services Commission
Mayor Toms reported the City Council had been asked to approve the recommendation from the Interview Subcommittee to reappoint Laurelle Martin, Nickolas Teller, Robert Kopp and Debbie Ojeda and to appoint Omar Butler to the Community Services Commission, with all five seats to expire on May 21, 2026.
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Deputy City Clerk Stone reported there were no comments from the public.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
ACTION: Motion by Council member Tave/Mayor Pro Tem Sasai to reappoint Laurelle Martin, Nickolas Teller, Robert Kopp and Debbie Ojeda and to appoint Omar Butler to the Community Services Commission, with all five seats to expire on May 21, 2026.
Vote: Passed 4-0-1
Ayes: Toms, Sasai, Murphy, Tave
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Martinez-Rubin
2. Traffic and Safety Pedestrian Commission
Mayor Toms advised the City Council had been asked to approve the recommendation from the Interview Subcommittee to reappoint Ben Doyle, Faith Dunham-Sims, Kent Moriarty and Oliver Collins to the Traffic and Safety Pedestrian (TAPS) Committee, with all four seats to expire on May 21, 2026.
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
Deputy City Clerk Stone reported the 2023/24 roster that had been attached to the May 21, 2024 staff report stated the TAPS Commission met the second Wednesday every other month, but that needed to be corrected to read “once a month.”
Mayor Pro Tem Sasai commented that the City Council had been provided the full applications for the Planning Commission appointments when considered during the May 7, 2024 City Council meeting. He asked that the full applications for both the Community Services and TAPS Commissions be provided to the City Council in the future.
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Deputy City Clerk Stone reported there were no comments from the public.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
ACTION: Motion by Council members Tave/Murphy to reappoint Ben Doyle, Faith DunhamSims, Kent Moriarty and Oliver Collins to the Traffic and Safety Pedestrian (TAPS) Commission, with all four seats to expire on May 21, 2026.
Vote: Passed 4-0-1
Ayes: Toms, Sasai, Murphy, Tave
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Martinez-Rubin
C. City Council Committee Reports & Communications
Mayor Pro Tem Sasai reported he had attended the WestCat Board of Directors meetings; joined the Lupus Awareness Walk with the Pinole Valley High School community and thanked the educational leaders and students who had organized that event; Station 74 Open House and thanked the CCCFPD staff, Supervisor John Gioia and all other elected officials in attendance; Municipal Code Update Subcommittee meeting which included a discussion on ordinances on electronic vehicle (EV) parking and charging and safe storage of firearms; and had attended the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors AAPI annual celebration and Pinole Valley High School AAPI Heritage Month Variety Show.
Phoebe Deza, one of the main organizers of the AAPI field trip and showcase, highlighted the field trip to an Asian Art Museum, special exhibition on Chinese weapons, lunch at a dim sum restaurant, visit to Japantown shops and the AAPI Showcase/Festival, which featured performances from the K-Pop and Pinoy Clubs and participation from small businesses where Asian students were able to sell items of interest. Additionally, the West County Mandarin School had been a special feature in the showcase and the event had been well received. Future events were encouraged.
Mayor Pro Tem Sasai thanked the speaker for being an incredible intern and ambassador for the AAPI Showcase/Festival. He had also visited the West County Mandarin School and thanked those who invited him to visit.
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
Council member Murphy thanked City staff and the CCCFPD for the Open House and Town Hall at Station 74 and encouraged people to visit the CCCFPD website to view the recording of the Town Hall and reach out to the CCCFPD and the City on how to prepare for wildfire safety. He also provided an update on the City Manager recruitment process, with a total of 45 applications received and with a Special Closed Session of the City Council scheduled for June 1, 2024 to interview some of the candidates.
D. Council Requests for Future Agenda Items
ACTION: Motion by Council member Murphy/Mayor Pro Tem Sasai for a resolution in support of California Lineage Based Reparations and the California Reparations Commission Recommendations.
Vote: Passed 4-0-1
Ayes: Toms, Sasai, Murphy, Tave
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Martinez-Rubin
ACTION: Motion by Council member Murphy/Mayor Pro Tem Sasai for the City Attorney and staff to prepare and present a ballot measure for a meeting in June for the establishment of an elected Mayor.
Vote: Passed 3-1-1
Ayes: Sasai, Murphy, Tave
Noes: Toms
Abstain: None
Absent: Martinez-Rubin
ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Sasai/Council member Murphy to receive a presentation from the Northern California College Promise Coalition on the CalKIDS Children’s Savings Account Program and Education Cities Initiative.
Vote: Passed 4-0-1
Ayes: Toms, Sasai, Murphy, Tave
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Martinez-Rubin
ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Sasai/Council member Murphy for staff to provide a presentation on adoption and implementation of an online commendation and complaint portal for the Pinole Police Department.
Vote: Passed 4-0-1
Ayes: Toms, Sasai, Murphy, Tave
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Martinez-Rubin
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
E. City Manager Report / Department Staff
Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Sanjay Mishra reported the Public Works Department operation and maintenance team had completed 279 service requests in the last month, 40 were road related and various City streets had been addressed. Public Works continued with weed abatement and the new remote-controlled mower had been procured and placed into service in 2023, which had helped to reduce outside contract work and increased staff productivity. A detailed report on operation and maintenance for the month would be included in the next publication of The Pulse.
The Community Development Department kicked-off the Pinole Perks Program relaunch on May 10, 2024 with new funding and with more information at pinoleperks.com. The public comment period for the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) had been extended with the CAAP to return for City Council action on July 16, 2024. The Bay Front Chamber of Commerce was hosting a West Contra Costa County Career Fair in the City of Hercules on May 29, 2024 from 10:00 am. to 1:00 p.m. at the Hercules Community Center, the City of Pinole was a sponsor and would attend. The Open House for Station 74 had been a great success. The City Manager’s Department was working to prepare a transition to the new domain name of pinole.gov at the end of the month or beginning of June, which would apply to email addresses and the City website and it was expected to be a smooth transition. The City’s new public engagement platform Pinole Speaks was live with the public to actively view and participate in various online conversations.
F. City Attorney Report
City Attorney Eric Casher reported he had attended the League of California Cities City Attorneys Conference on May 8 through 10, 2024, with presentations on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Surplus Lands Act and litigation updates throughout the state.
City Attorney Casher asked for clarification on the action taken for Item 8.B.2, the appointments to the TAPS Commission since he understood the motion was to approve four Commissioners but five members had been recommended by the Interview Subcommittee as follows: reappoint Ben Doyle, Faith Dunham-Sims, Kent Moriarty, Oliver Collins and appoint Kyrstle Pasco. He asked for clarification whether the approval had been for four or five members.
Mayor Toms noted the staff report for the item was to consider Interview Subcommittee recommendation and approval of four (4) appointments to the Traffic and Safety Pedestrian Committee, by minute order.
Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Mishra commented the fifth appointment may have been overlooked.
To ensure the motion was clear, another motion was made to amend the original motion and approve the appointments to the TAPS Commission, as follows:
ACTION: Motion by Council member Tave/Mayor Pro Tem Sasai to amend the original motion for the appointments to the TAPS Commission and to reappoint Ben Doyle, Faith Dunham-Sims, Kent Moriarty, and Oliver Collins, and to appoint Kyrstle Pasco to the Traffic and Safety Pedestrian (TAPS) Commission, with all five seats to expire on May 21, 2026.
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
Vote: Passed 4-0-1
Ayes: Toms, Sasai, Murphy, Tave
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Martinez-Rubin
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED (Items 7E through 7F)
Deputy City Clerk Stone reported there were no comments from the public.
9. CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and noncontroversial. These items will be enacted by one motion and without discussion. If, however, any interested party or Council member(s) wishes to comment on an item, they may do so before action is taken on the Consent Calendar. Following comments, if a Council member wishes to discuss an item, it will be removed from the Consent Calendar and taken up in order after adoption of the Consent Calendar.
A. Approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting on March 19, 2024, the Special City Council Budget Workshop on April 30, 2024, the Regular City Council Meeting on May 7, 2024, and the Special City Council Meeting on May 7, 2024.
B. Receive the May 4 - May 17, 2024 List of Warrants in the Amount of $910,574.74 and the May 10, 2024 Payroll in the Amount of $498,224.63.
C. Adopt a Resolution Approving Side Letter Agreement to the Memorandum of Understanding Between the City and AFSCME Local 512 to Amend Article II – Recognition and Attachment A – Salary Schedule. Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Stacy Shell, Charlene Davis)
D. FY 2023/24 Third Quarter Financial Report. Action: Receive a Report (Markisha Guillory)
E. FY 2023/24 Third Quarter Investment Report. Action: Receive a Report (Markisha Guillory)
F. Letter of Support for AB2584 Regarding the Purchase of Single-Family Homes by Institutional Investors. Action: Consider Approval of Letter per Staff Recommendation (Fiona Epps)
G. Letter of Support for AB3259 Regarding Transactions and Use Taxes in Solano County. Action: Consider Approval of Letter per Staff Recommendation (Fiona Epps)
H. Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24 Third Quarter Report on Status of Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Projects. Action: Receive Report (Sanjay Mishra)
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
I. Adopt a Resolution Approving an Affordable Housing Agreement for Appian Village Complex. Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (David Hanham)
Council member Murphy requested that Item 9G be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Deputy City Clerk Stone requested an amendment to Item 9A, the minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting on March 19, 2024 as follows:
Adjournment to the Regular City Council meeting of April 2, 2024, in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis provided the following comments on the Consent Calendar:
- Item 9D, Page 129 of 712 of the agenda packet, the Housing Assets for Resale Fund (285) had flagged an increased revenue of 263 percent for the fund revenues due to increased interest income, and he asked whether the Finance Director or other staff could explain the significant increase in revenue.
- Item 9D, Page 131 of 712 of the agenda packet, the chart for the Information Systems Fund (Fund 525) was unclear and should be redrafted to be clearer. - Item 9D, Page 135 of 712 of the agenda packet, the FY 2023/24 Period Ending 3/31/24 Chart showed a General Government expenditure associated with Fund 209, Recreation Fund, which had not been shown in the amended budget and he asked the nature of the expenditure.
- Item 9D, Page 138 of Page 712 of the agenda packet, the FY 2023/24 Period Ending 3/31/24 Chart, the cable TV charges were low, which had been addressed elsewhere with the statement that revenues would be reassessed and with a loss of one client in 2023 due to unexpected events.
- Item 9E, Page 145 of 712 of the agenda packet, the Investment Report March 2024, Section 115 Trust Portfolio Summary, Mutual Funds – Equity, continued to have a yield marketably lower than the other categories where the City had invested while making up a substantial portion of the investments in the portfolio. He asked why the City had that level of funds allocated to a slightly higher risk category since equity funds may suffer losses, unlike cash and equivalents, and that had a lower yield than cash and equivalents, which would best meet the City’s investment priorities of safety, liquidity and yield. - Item 9E, Page 144 of 712 of the agenda packet, Investment Report March 2024 Detail, Portfolio Details, noted the City had taken out investments in federal agency securities, as shown.
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
Mr. Menis asked why the City had taken out the specific investment for Federal Farm BKS in the amount of $500,000 given the low yield as compared to the other investments on the same page.
- Item 9H, Page 162 of 712 of the agenda packet, Sanitary Sewer, Effluent Outfall, (SS2203), asked whether the City had received any responses to the Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for the project, which were due on April 30, 2024 and whether the RFPs would come before the City Council.
- Item 9I, Pages 257 and 258 of 712 of the agenda packet, was pleased to see there would be some units designated as affordable for Low Income given that when the Appian Village project had come before the Planning Commission it had been reported it would be unlikely there would be anything but a Moderate category. As a private citizen, he was pleased the developer was able to include Low Income parcels into the Affordable Housing Agreement since the Area Median Income (AMI) in the City of Pinole had increased since the time the original agreement had been made.
- Item 9I, Pages 265, 266 and 267 of the agenda packet, read into the record, Section 3.1 Maximum Initial Sale Price, (ii), and commented that given the increasing challenges acquiring home insurance in the State of California asked what impact that language may have on the affordability of projects.
- Item 9I, Page 273 of 712 of the agenda packet, Section 10.14, Time is of the Essence, asked the purpose of the clause.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Responding to some of the public comment, Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Mishra reported there had been no responses to the RFPs for the Effluent Outfall Project (SS2203) that were due on April 30, 2024. Staff was speaking with some designers to determine why there had been no responses.
Finance Director Markisha Guillory provided the following responses to Mr. Menis’ comments:
• Clarified the Housing Asset Resale Fund, the 263 percent of actuals over the budget had been due to interest income gained on the cash balance within that fund. • Clarified in response to the comments on Page 131 of 712 of the agenda packet, the indirect cost allocation was not a form of revenue but a credit or reimbursement for expenditures, which was why it had been shown as it had. • Clarified in response to the comments on Page 135 of 712 of the agenda packet, the funds in the Recreation Fund, General Government was due to a retiree medical payment for a former Recreation staff, and had not been budgeted for this fiscal year but would be budgeted moving forward.
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
• Clarified in response to comments on Page 138 of 712 of the agenda packet, acknowledged the Cable TV Access (Fund 505) revenue was down. The City received Public, Education and Government (PEG) fees on a quarterly basis and after each quarter closed. For the cable TV charges, production services for PCTV had been trending lower. • Clarified in response to comments on Page 144 of 712 of the agenda packet for the federal agency security and why the City had chosen this instrument given the low yield. This item would mature in 2025, was a five-year instrument and was a General Reserve not a Pension Fund Investment.
• Clarified in response to comments on Page 145 of 712 of the agenda packet regarding allocation to mutual equity funds, and explained that the City had a customized portfolio with Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS), which managed and invested the trust on the City’s behalf. The allocations had been based on that customized portfolio which had been chosen when the trust fund had been established. An annual review of the Section 115 Trust was done and at that time if the City desired to change the portfolio they may consider how assets had been allocated and invested in the various instruments.
Council member Murphy asked that Item 9G be continued to the first City Council meeting of June.
ACTION: Motion by Council member Murphy/Mayor Toms to continue Item 9G, to the City Council meeting of June 4, 2024.
Vote: Passed 4-0-1
Ayes: Toms, Sasai, Murphy, Tave
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Martinez-Rubin
ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Sasai/Council member Tave to approve Item 9A, as amended, and Items 9B, 9C, 9D, 9E, 9F, 9H and 9I, as shown.
Vote: Passed 4-0-1
Ayes: Toms, Sasai, Murphy, Tave
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Martinez-Rubin
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Ordinance Adding Chapter 10.80, EV Charging Stations, to the Pinole Municipal Code to Establish Restrictions for City-Owned Electric Vehicle Parking Spaces and to Establish a Schedule of Rates for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations and to Authorize the City Manager to Adjust the Rates to Recover the City’s Cost. Action:
Introduce Ordinance and Conduct Public Hearing (Sanjay Mishra, Eric Casher)
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Mishra provided a brief PowerPoint presentation, which included an overview of an ordinance adding Chapter 10.80, EV Charging Stations, to the Pinole Municipal Code (PMC) to establish restrictions for City-owned electric vehicle (EV) parking spaces and establish a schedule of rates for EV charging stations and to authorize the City Manager to adjust the rates to recover the City’s cost.
City Attorney Casher explained that this was the first reading of the ordinance. If approved, a second reading would be scheduled at the next meeting of the City Council and once approved the ordinance would go into effect 30-days thereafter.
Council member Murphy asked how they would know who was using the EV charging stations and Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Mishra explained that while the City would not be able to track the license plate the ChargePoint App could identify the type of model vehicle using the EV charging station. As to the frequency of the use of the EV charging station, that could be tracked and there was a setting on the ChargePoint App that would notify staff when the charging station was empty. Once the ordinance had been approved, it would go into effect 30- days thereafter and the ChargePoint App would be able to make that change immediately.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Rafael Menis referenced Pages 280 and 281 of 712 of the agenda packet, Section 10.80.010, City-Owned Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Station, subsection E, which read: It is unlawful for the operator of an electric vehicle to allow that vehicle to park or stand in a designated electric vehicle charging station unless the vehicle is actively conducting a charging event. He asked how much time would one have after they parked before they had to plug in the vehicle to start the charging event and whether the charging event was actively defined. He noted that Page 281 of 712 of the agenda packet, subsection G(9), had been left blank and he asked whether something was missing.
Anthony Vossbrink asked why the Mayor or City Clerk had not provided the access telephone call-in numbers at the start of the meeting for each agenda item, which should be done automatically to ensure full accessibility and engagement pursuant to the requirements of the Brown Act. He asked whether the EV charging stations would include a way to collect funds whether via credit or debit cards, the type of signage to be considered that would be effective to ward off offenders, and whether the EV charging stations would be patrolled electronically or by the Police Department which could issue citations for any over-usage. He would like to see a way to monitor whether the primary users of the EV charging stations were Pinole residents similar to the way the sandbag refill station was to be used by Pinole residents only but were being used by outside residents as well. He also asked whether surrounding cities had been contacted to see how they were operating their EV charging systems and collecting payments. He would like to see the program fast-tracked and up and running as soon as possible.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Mayor Toms reported the first page of the meeting agenda included the telephone numbers for participation in City Council meetings. She added the fee charged for the use of the EV charging stations would be programmed through the ChargePoint App, and any user when plugged in would see a display of the charges and any penalties that may be imposed if use occurred after a specified amount of time.
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
Mayor Toms provided an example of her own use of an EV charging station at the County Public Works Parking Lot and a penalty she had been charged since her vehicle had been plugged in after a certain period of time. She suggested the Police Department did not need to enforce the use of the EV charging stations since enforcement occurred through the ChargePoint App itself.
Council member Murphy asked for clarification if the City would be charged once a vehicle had been charged but left idling.
Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Mishra clarified once the vehicle was fully charged the charger would disengage and the City would not be charged for any more energy.
Mayor Toms explained that if the City’s ordinance wanted to charge an overstay fee, as an example, that was to encourage turnover of that parking space. As often as she was at City Hall, she had found only one time in the last year she had been able to charge her vehicle in the City’s EV parking space since it was always full any time of the day and since there was no incentive for someone to move their vehicle for the next user. By ordinance, the City set the fees that were programmed into the ChargePoint App and charged to the customer in that way. She added that her phone provided her an alert when her vehicle charge was complete and some EV charging stations had a grace period when to move a vehicle before additional charges may be applied.
Council member Murphy understood the intent of the ordinance was to recover City costs. He clarified with the Interim City Manager/Public Works Director that Page 281 of 712 of the agenda packet, Section G(9), which had been left blank was a typographical error and would be corrected; Section 10.80.010 City-Owned Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations, G(4) of the ordinance provided a 15-minute grace period with an overstay fee of $1 per minute up to 30 minutes charged after four hours and 15 minutes of charging from 5:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m. every day; and the ancillary processing fee of $1.50 charged by the ChargePoint App to collect the dollar amount per charging session with the energy rates the current PG&E rates paid to the City based on time of use rates. Further, the ordinance provided the City Manager the authority once a year to change the fee structure.
Council member Tave again clarified with Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Mishra how fees would be charged pursuant to the ordinance. The overstay fee of $1.00 per minute up to 30 minutes would be charged after 4 hours and 15 minutes of charging from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. every day; the City Manager may adjust the energy fees by increments no smaller than one cent ($0.01) and the ChargePoint App did not correlate how much charge was in the vehicle. He acknowledged there was no incentive to keep someone from staying in the EV parking space.
Council member Murphy asked how the City Manager may adjust the rates, to which City Attorney Casher clarified the rates would be codified in the Pinole Municipal Code (PMC) and if the rates were to change, notice to the users would be required. The PMC may have to be amended to change the rates since they would be codified in the PMC. Again, the City Manager may adjust the energy fees by increments no smaller than one cent ($0.01), which would not require a PMC amendment and could be done administratively under the laws of the ordinance.
Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Mishra acknowledged the fees could be part of the Master Fee Schedule.
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
Council member Murphy understood the City was spending $25,000 annually on the EV charger’s utility costs, but Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Mishra clarified the costs were closer to $30,000 annually. He also clarified that if the ordinance was adopted, the City would not make money but recover energy costs and the fee the City may have to pay to the ChargePoint App to collect fees would be charged to the customer.
Mayor Toms understood with the ordinance the costs would be cost neutral. She noted that as members of the Municipal Code Update Subcommittee, she and the Mayor Pro Tem had discussed the ordinance and she understood the energy fees would be flexible with what the City was being charged. The City would not charge more than PG&E charged the City.
Mayor Pro Tem Sasai also understood the City could not profit from charging fees given how the funding occurred.
City Attorney Casher explained that the overstay penalty would be assessed since it may exceed the actual cost of electricity and was really the administrative costs of administering the program.
He confirmed the City could not charge more than PG&E charged the City.
ACTION: Motion by Council member Tave/Mayor Pro Tem Sasai to conduct the first reading of an ordinance adding Chapter 10.80, EV Charging Stations, to the Pinole Municipal Code (PMC) to establish restrictions for City-owned electric vehicle (EV) parking spaces and establish a schedule of rates for electric vehicle charging stations, and to authorize the City Manager to adjust the rates to recover the City’s costs.
Vote: Passed 4-0-1
Ayes: Toms, Sasai, Murphy, Tave
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Martinez-Rubin
B. Review Draft Sewer Rates for Fiscal Years 2024/25 Through 2028/29. Action:
Adopt Resolution and Approve Staff Recommendation (Sanjay Mishra) Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Mishra presented the staff report and introduced Chris Fisher, Willdan Financial Services.
Chris Fisher, Willdan Financial Services, provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Sewer Rate Study, which provided an overview of the development of the five-year financial plan, funding of current and future operations and capital, debt repayment, compliance with bond covenants, maintenance of adequate reserves for operations and capital, ensuring that the sewer rates were equitable and based on a cost-based rate structure and in compliance with Proposition 218. He also highlighted the General Rate Study Methodology, status quo projections, aggregate amount of Capital Improvement Program programmed out in the next five years, five-year annual rate path, five-year annual bill path, comparison with neighboring utilities annually, projected financial metrics and operating results over the five-year financial plan including rate adjustments and the difference in the five-year revenue adjustments with and without the inclusion of capital projects and expenditures.
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
As to the next steps, Mr. Fisher explained the City Council was not taking any action to enact new rates at this time. A public hearing date would be required pursuant to Proposition 218 requirements 45-days in advance of the public hearing, with Proposition 218 notices to be mailed out to the public. A public hearing would be scheduled to receive testimony and comments from the public, tabulate written protests if any, City Council discussion and consideration and then adoption and implementation of the utility rates. The public hearing had been scheduled for July 16, 2024, the rates would be implemented upon City Council implementation of the new rates, and customers would see the new rates in their tax bills in October.
Council member Martinez-Rubin arrived at 8:17 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Rafael Menis referenced Page 309 of 712 of the agenda packet, Figure 1, Neighboring Rate Comparison, Annual Sewer Bill, and assumed the rates shown were the rates for the current fiscal year. He asked whether the chart could be projected farther forward, such as out to FY 2029 since the rates would be closer to the rates for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC) than the rates that had been listed. He also referenced Page 284 of 712 of the agenda packet and the proposed sewer rates as shown in the table on the same page, which had shown the flat rate for FY 2028/29 as compared to the list in Figure 1. Page 309 of 712 of the agenda packet, had shown the current rate for the San Francisco PUC as the high end and he would like to know the rate for San Francisco PUC in that fiscal year as a cross comparison. Also, while the City of Hercules had some of the same sewer system costs as Pinole, Hercules was charging a significantly lower amount or planned to than the City of Pinole, he asked if that was due to Hercules’ sewer network being built more recently with less renovation or whether there were other reasons.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Responding to the public comment, Mr. Fisher clarified he did not have utility rates for the neighboring jurisdictions projected five years out, but it was a safe assumption rates would increase. He could take a look at the rates published currently, and they could have visibility in the current schedule of increases but not when those jurisdictions considered a rate study. As to the City of Hercules, Hercules had delayed rate increases for multiple years but was in the process of evaluating their rates, and the assumption their system was newer may contribute to part of that. There were also differences in how cities ran their utilities.
Council member Tave reported he had spoken with the Interim City Manager/Public Works Director about the Private Sewer Lateral Program and asked if it was appropriate to include the project in the fee structure.
Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Mishra clarified the Private Sewer Lateral Program would be added to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), and when they doubled up the process for that was when they could evaluate how to address that issue.
ACTION: Motion by Mayor Toms/Council member Martinez-Rubin to receive the information regarding the sewer rates for Fiscal Years 2024/25 through 2028/29, schedule a public hearing for July 16, 2024, and direct a mailing of the notice of proposed sewer rate increases to all affected parties.
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
Vote: Passed 5-0
Ayes: Toms, Sasai, Martinez-Rubin Murphy, Tave
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
C. Community Engagement Hearing and Review of 2023/2024 Military Equipment Annual Report and Department Military Equipment Policies in Compliance with AB481. Action: Review and Receive Community Feedback. (Jeremy Crone) Pinole Police Commander Jeremy Crone provided a PowerPoint presentation on California Assembly Bill (AB)481, “Military Equipment Policy” Community Engagement Hearing, which included an overview of AB481, Military Equipment, Funding, Acquisition and Use; Pinole Police Department Policy #707 and list of the Police Department’s military equipment list per AB481 and the approval and implementation timeline for compliance with AB481. The contents of the Annual Report, purchase and maintenance of equipment, training, events and incident use involving the equipment under Policy #707 were all highlighted. There had been no community complaints, concerns or violations with officers regularly engaged with the community regarding the use of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle (MRAP): Emergency Rescue Vehicle (ERV) at community events and its role within the community.
Commander Crone further highlighted the projected military equipment acquisitions for Fiscal Year 2024/25 and the findings to be made by the City Council at the June 4, 2024 public hearing, that the military equipment was necessary because there was no reasonable alternative; the proposed military equipment and policy would safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights and civil liberties; the equipment was cost effective compared to available alternatives and prior military equipment use complied with the policy that was in effect or if it did not comply, corrective action had been taken to remedy nonconforming uses.
Mayor Pro Tem Sasai commented that one of the reasons the City Council in the past chose to continue the use of the MRAP-ERV was the low maintenance cost but the May 21, 2024 staff report had shown the annual maintenance costs at $1,000, with maintenance costs for 2024/25 at $8,000. He asked for clarification of the significant increase.
Commander Crone explained that one of the challenges with the MRAP-ERV was that items came up that required service, and due to the size of the equipment it was expensive. As part of the audit, the front ballistic glass on the vehicle was beginning to delaminate causing potential visibility issues over time and they had looked into the costs to properly replace that component of the vehicle. Alternatives were also being considered including repair options that were continuing to be explored but there were challenges given the limited companies that conducted those repairs.
Council member Murphy asked for clarification of the Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) operations policy and asked whether it was part of the PMC.
Commander Crone clarified the UAS was specific to the Police Department but most policies went hand-in-hand with one another. The UAS policy in essence fell under the Military Use and Acquisition Policy and must comply with AB481 rules. The practice and process were similar when developing Policy #707.
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
Commander Crone again detailed Lexipol (Law Enforcement Risk Management Group), which the Pinole Police Department collaborated with along with regional law enforcement agencies in Contra Costa County and the City Attorney’s Office to create Policy #707. Lexipol provided all of the legal and legislative requirements and Best Practices and incorporated Federal Aviation Association (FAA) requirements, privacy concerns, Fourth Amendment protections and restrictions on use of the UAS. The Police Department also received annual updates from Lexipol that corresponded to any legislative or law requirements, and incorporated that into the policy.
Council member Murphy asked whether the ordinance was strong and whether such policies as the UAS policy had been turned into an ordinance, otherwise he questioned how it would be enforced.
City Attorney Casher reported the PMC section only spoke to the military equipment use policy and referred to the policy, with drones specifically not called out as a chapter within the PMC, but there were rules, regulations and restrictions on the use of drones the City would adhere to. Policy documents tended to be more flexible, did not require first and second readings, and AB481 required the Department Military Equipment Policies be revisited annually. The actual ordinance and formal policy would come forward as part of the public hearing on June 4, 2024, with no new assets to be acquired pending City Council action on the policy.
Council member Murphy confirmed with Commander Crone he had been designated by the Police Chief as the Military Equipment Program Coordinator pursuant to Policy 607, UAS Operations, Section 607.7 Program Coordinator.
Council member Tave asked about the number of people licensed to fly drones and how many in the Police Department had been trained on the use of the equipment, and Commander Crone explained that there would be no training pending approval for the acquisition of the equipment although the structure was in place, the City had operations manuals and all internal structures were in place for the program.
Council member Tave asked about the timeframe to supply the equipment for mutual aid and whether the equipment would be under the command of the City of Pinole’s policy or another jurisdiction’s policy.
Commander Crone advised that time was based on availability and proximity. He detailed an incident in the City of Hercules where mutual aid had been requested and given the proximity the response time had been relatively quick. Another incident involved the Town of Danville, which had an extended estimated time of arrival of the equipment with the officers in a holding pattern until the equipment showed up. Once the equipment was available, it was under the purview of the City of Pinole. He added that any department in California that had this type of equipment would mimic Pinole’s policy.
Council member Martinez-Rubin asked who conducted the annual audit of the military equipment and whether the auditor had been specially trained.
Commander Crone reported he oversaw the audit and conducted most of the audit in coordination with Police Department training staff and the Training Coordinator. He had participated in the Los Angeles Police Department Audit School and learned how to conduct public safety audits with the audit conducted under those guidelines.
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
Council member Martinez-Rubin asked how Policy 607, UAS Operations addressed privacy and examples of prohibited uses as it related to drone use.
Commander Crone referenced Section 607.6 Privacy, of Policy 607, which stated: 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. He also highlighted the Fourth Amendment, search and seizure by the government of someone’s individual property or person and the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Doctrine, which included some limited exceptions, including the Exigency Doctrine and Curtilage, the expectation of extended privacy in one’s home, which were also highlighted. All of those policies guided the use of drones.
Commander Crone also provided examples of prohibited drone usage such as general surveillance, the drone use must be mission specific, under the use of a warrant or the criteria specified for a specific type of incident; the drone could not target someone specifically based on some characteristic; harass or intimidate; conduct a personal business of any type and the drone was not allowed to be weaponized in any way.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Rafael Menis spoke to Page 360 of 712 of the agenda packet and Policy 607, Section 607.3, Use of UAS, which stated: 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. He asked if a drone was being used as part of the exigent circumstance’s exemption, he understood thermal imaging could not be used. Page 361 of 712 of the agenda packet, Policy 607, Section 607.5, Authorized Uses for Public Safety Deployment (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. He asked for clarification since the subcategory was very broad and asked whether there were practical limits on tactical situations.
Mr. Menis also referenced Page 361 of 712 of the agenda packet, Policy 607, Section 607.6, Privacy, which stated: 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. He asked for more specific definitions of “reasonable precautions,” and commented that exigent circumstances showed up frequently in the privacy policy for drone use and he was unclear what exigent circumstances were, how they had been defined, and who defined them.
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
Irma Ruport appreciated the staff report but questioned why there had been no community complaints or violations since some members of the community had questioned why the military equipment was part of many community events. She suggested the display of military vehicles should be off of the grass area at Fernandez Park during a community event and if the equipment must be displayed to the public, the only event where it was logical was National Night Out not the other community events identified. She had heard and received a number of complaints in 2023 about the display of military equipment during community events and while she was personally not taking a stand, suggested the City should be more sensitive to the public’s concerns.
Anthony Vossbrink echoed the comments made by Ms. Ruport about the excessive showcasing of the strongarm police equipment that was not being used to the benefit of the City rather than to showcase the Police Department and its militaristic force with numerous viewings of the equipment each year. He asked whether the Police Chief or the City Manager authorized the display of military equipment at community events and noted some of the equipment had destroyed some of the park landscaping, and he asked who was responsible for the maintenance costs. He added that during the Christmas Tree Lighting ceremony, people had informed him they were afraid to go downtown since there were multiple police vehicles at every other intersection and the MRAP-ERV was on display. The military equipment had also been on display during the Pride event and he suggested there should be proactive programs rather than reactive programs and products that represented the City of Pinole. He pointed out that Pinole had missed applying for the retail theft grant while crime had been an issue up and down the Fitzgerald Drive Corridor. He suggested reducing the public exposure of the military equipment.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Mayor Toms clarified the MRAP-ERV had been on display at the Pinole Car Show, National Night Out and the Holiday Tree Lighting, and had otherwise been used when deployed for an incident.
The Command Post had been displayed at Project Hope, Pride, Pinole Car Show, National Night Out, Special Olympics, Bike the Bridges and Shop with the Cop.
Commander Crone responded to the public comment and clarified pursuant to Policy 607, Section 607.3 that thermal imaging would not be authorized for use under general observation but only authorized under the use of a warrant or under exigency circumstances. As to Section 607.5 (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 and this would only evolve under the use of a warrant and remote view where that advantage would be necessary to the operations’ success and safety to the public and officers involved.
As to Section 607.6 Privacy, Commander Crone clarified the definition of exigent circumstances, which was doctrine that fell under the exclusion to the Fourth Amendment, with specific requirements and which had gone through the courts on numerous occasions. He highlighted the most recent case from 2019 People v. Ovieda, where exigent circumstances had been reevaluated in the context of community caretaking when the court had reaffirmed the rare exceptions to the warrant requirements, one of which was exigency circumstances, a legal requirement that must be met, was not arbitrary, and which fell under the fleeing felon rule, imminent escape, destruction of evidence and/or immediate preservation of life.
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
City Attorney Casher reported that no action was required. The City Council was asked to receive the report and receive community feedback as part of the community engagement hearing requirement.
Council member Murphy found the report was a great report but recognized there would be challenges over time. There was a list of things that needed to be developed pursuant to Section 607.7 Program Coordinator and he asked about the timeframe for that process.
Commander Crone reiterated the UAS equipment had not been purchased yet or training conducted pending City Council action on those items. The items listed under Section 607.7, Program Coordinator, would involve internal controls the Police Department would develop with many boiler plate items that would be part of internal documents, to be adjusted over time, based on particular circumstances, new information and Best Practices that would evolve over time.
One of the items listed under Section 607.7 was Ensuring that established protocols are followed by monitoring and providing periodic reports on the program to the Chief of Police. As to whether this statement could be modified to also include providing periodic reports to the Chief of Police and the City Council, one of the mechanisms was through an annual report, a staff report from the Chief of Police to the City Council and it would be up to the Chief of Police to determine the frequency and structure of the periodic reports to be relayed through staff to the City Council and based on either a staff report included in internal communications or presented publicly.
Council member Murphy clarified the Pride celebration also honored Juneteenth and the PowerPoint should be updated to clarify that information for the Pride/Juneteenth celebration. He added the second bullet under Section 607.8 Prohibited Use, should be amended to include reference to immigration status to the list of characteristics one could not be targeted by the UAS.
He supported the current policy and transparency provided, but was interested in how the City ensured it was not scaling the policy beyond the City’s ability and ensure the policy was not feeding into itself and continuing to pull together new technologies and military equipment even if not used. He asked what it looked like to scale down the program if possible. If not possible, he would like more information when the item came back to the City Council.
Commander Crone commented the bane of any bureaucratic organization was its innate ability to become bloated. He found the City had a rare privilege under the policy and guidance of AB481 to have stop gap measures in place. Each piece of military equipment listed in the PowerPoint presentation was essential to the preservation of life and the Police Department had been very intentional in selecting the pieces of equipment and not selecting other pieces of equipment. He detailed the criteria when evaluating the military equipment and the question whether it met the ultimate priority, to protect and preserve life. The intent was that the equipment remain lean and effective otherwise it would be bloated and unnecessary.
Mayor Pro Tem Sasai noted that neither the UAS operations policy nor the military equipment report had addressed insurance and coverage for drones. He asked about the fiscal impact and whether the City would be liable for damages.
Commander Crone advised that would be addressed through general provision liability.
Mayor Toms thanked Commander Crone for the report with a modified report to be presented to the City Council on June 4, 2024.
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
11. OLD BUSINESS
A. Preliminary Proposed FY 2024/25 Operating and Capital Budget. Action:
Receive Report and Provide Direction (Markisha Guillory) Finance Director Guillory provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Preliminary Proposed FY 2024/25 Operating and Capital Budget, which included an overview of the budget development process, Structurally Balanced Budget Policy, General Fund Baseline Budget Highlights, Preliminary Proposed General Fund Budget, budget considerations, One-Time Operating Budget items, CIP and Fund Balance Summary.
Finance Director Guillory reported while some reductions had been made the General Fund baseline budget was not balanced and currently had a shortfall of $1.1 million. The City Council would need to implement other budget balancing measures to close the gap. In terms of the next steps, staff would incorporate budget changes as directed by the City Council with the Revised Proposed Budget to be presented to the City Council on June 4, 2024.
Council member Tave asked whether the direction to staff to consider a 6 and 10 percent reduction had been completed by each City Department. He also asked for clarification of the CIP Project Budget.
Finance Director Guillory clarified that reduction had not been reached. City Departments had revised their budgets and submitted reductions totaling $241,419 at this time. She also clarified, when asked, that although the CIP projects spanned several fiscal years, the funds had been earmarked in Year One of the CIP.
Council member Martinez-Rubin understood the use of temporary contract staff actually saved the City money rather than hiring a Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) who would be paid salary and benefits. One of the budget considerations was to replace a temporary outsourced contract service and replace it with a Planner I – III Series, to be funded by the Building and Planning Fund and she asked why that would be advantageous.
Community Services Director Lilly Whalen clarified the recommendation to reduce a temporary outsourced contract service and replace with a Planner I – III Series, to be funded by the Building and Planning Fund. The City currently contracted for the three-day-a-week position around $180,000 annually, with the estimates provided for a five-day-a-week in-house position, to be fully benefited. In this case, the cost for the outsourced position for three days a week was the same for the in-house position at five days a week and was fully benefitted.
Mayor Pro Tem Sasai stated he had asked for more information about utilities by Department and Fund and materials and supplies by Department and Fund, and he asked why the materials and supplies attachment had not included a number of City Departments, as shown in Attachment E, Materials and Supplies by Fund Department, to the May 21, 2024 staff report.
Finance Director Guillory explained that a City Department was not listed if that Department was not purchasing the item. Office expenses, as an example, was a different category and would fall under Professional Services with a subcategory for Office Expenses.
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
Mayor Pro Tem Sasai reiterated City Departments had been asked to reduce ongoing expenses by 6 percent but had not done so and he asked what the next step would be.
Finance Director Guillory stated the next step would be to identify other budget balancing measures. If the direction was to go back and look at budgets, they would have to start looking at fixed costs given there was no discretionary items to look to and that would be direction from the City Council to staff.
Council member Murphy understood the City Council had previously directed staff to return with a 6 percent reduction in City Departments. He questioned where the miscommunication had occurred to providing that information where the direction to staff had not returned in the way it had been requested.
Finance Director Guillory apologized for the misunderstanding on her part as far as the instruction to each City Department. She understood the direction was what that number would look like for each Department.
Council member Tave advised the direction was for the City Council to understand the delta, what would be given up in the budget based on 6 and 10 percent reductions, and he understood that information was to be provided at this meeting. He suggested the question should be directed at the Mayor and then through staff. He was sure the City Council had directed staff to return with a 6 and 10 percent reduction and they could then communicate to the public what was being given up to reach a balanced budget and not empty the accounts. He was unsure what had happened along the way and why that information had not been provided.
Mayor Toms understood staff had returned with information on what the cuts what would look like, the City Council was not through the budget process yet and had to provide direction to staff on other areas where the Council wanted to see reductions.
Council member Tave would like to know what a 6 to 10 percent reduction would look like for each City Department, particularly since the City was considering a sales tax measure.
Council member Murphy reiterated the ask from the prior City Council meeting was to direct staff, i.e. City Department Heads to return with what it looked like to cut their budgets by 6 and 10 percent. The specific line-by-line items was where he expected Directors to provide recommendations. He emphasized the time constraints given the future sales tax measure and the need to educate the public on what was possible to be done in a year or not in a year.
Council member Murphy commented as to the CIP that he had sought a waterfall diagram to show why some projects that were not funded had not been done. An example of the type of information the City Council sought from Department Heads was whether there were vacancies in any City Department that might offer some cost savings. He asked whether that information could be provided by the next City Council meeting.
Finance Director Guillory confirmed that information could be provided at the next City Council meeting.
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
Council member Murphy went on to note that if those vacancies did not cover the shortfall, more reductions had to be considered by each Department Head to address the hard choices that needed to be made, particularly with the City considering a sales tax ballot measure and if that ballot measure did not pass. Again, he wanted to see what may have to be sacrificed or not. He also recognized some City Departments were more resourced than others, and there may be a declaration from the City Council that some Departments may need to be resourced more based on performance, and he wanted to know from staff what they could commit to in terms of performance to get the budget they deserved. He wanted to see the Departments fight for their own budgets and see what was possible and what was doable. The City was facing a time crunch and had to be transparent to the public on what the City was facing. He also suggested the Mayor have an additional conversation with the Finance Director to facilitate that conversation beyond the City Council meeting.
Mayor Toms pointed out there was no one on staff looking at the City Council budget summary and it was up to the City Council to discuss in an open session how to reduce that budget.
Council member Murphy agreed that discussion should be done amongst the City Council but the majority of the shortfall would not come from the City Council budget and it had to discuss every other City Department, which was where the high performance was happening.
Mayor Toms wanted the City Council to look at everything but she was suggesting a brief discussion in the big picture on the City Council budget, recognizing it was one of many Departments and the City Council budget alone would not solve the issue.
Council member Murphy recommended the Interim City Manager and Finance Director provide recommendations on the City Council budget, particularly given the staff recommendation was not up to the expectations based on the prior direction to staff.
Council member Murphy again sought recommendations from staff on reductions to the City Council budget of 6 and 10 percent, more information on vacancies in each City Department, and commented on the challenges to understand the need to hire more people if there were vacancies.
As an example, the CIP Program Manager had been reclassified to also be the Environmental Manager, with the Sustainability Coordinator to feed into supporting the CAAP for grants only. He asked whether the roles and responsibilities between those two positions had been discussed if the City Council decided to move forward with it. He had the same questions about the expansion of the Planning I – III Series and wanted to see the job responsibilities of the three positions to ensure they were not overreaching.
Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Mishra explained for the Environmental Manager and Sustainability Coordinator, he and the Community Development Director had a discussion and if the City wanted to fund the CAAP recommendations and the projects that would come out of that, the City needed a full-time staff who could take care of some of the environmental responsibilities currently being handled by Public Works. He clarified that the Planning Series I – III was a classification series but reflected only one Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) position.
Council member Murphy again wanted to see the job responsibilities for the positions if any department head wanted support from him given there appeared to be some overlapping and he wanted to again address the vacancies and have the knowledge of the job descriptions when considering new staff and also consider increased performance if possible.
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
Council member Murphy also asked whether there was a way to map out performance-based budgeting throughout this process, particularly with a possible 10 percent reduction at most. If reaching a 6 or 10 percent reduction, he wanted a better understanding of the performance of the departments to be able to match that to available revenues.
Finance Director Guillory advised there were procedures around performance-based budgeting and things like metrics and performance measurements that were used and tracked to accompany budgets, which was something that could be instituted if directed by the City Council but could not be done for the current budget given the time constraints and the need to build out procedures. She confirmed there were examples from other cities that could be researched.
Council member Murphy added the City had not polled around a parcel tax and he asked why that had not been done. He asked what that polling would look like as an option without stopping the current work on the option the City Council had previously agreed to pursue.
Finance Director Guillory explained that polling on a parcel tax had not been done given the limit on the number of items that could polled before survey fatigue and noted the approval level was different for a parcel tax.
City Attorney Casher commented it would depend on the purpose the tax would be used for. A parcel tax had not been evaluated but could be done if that was the interest of the City Council.
Council member Murphy found the data received from polling helpful even if not moving forward with those options and he remained interested in what it would look like to pass a parcel tax or special parcel tax, which would be in investment into roads as an example. He wanted to have that conversation with the City Council and staff to have that addendum prepared as well. He wanted to have those conversations and have cost estimates on that and perhaps what that process would look like if the City Council wanted to move that forward this year.
Mayor Toms asked whether Council member Murphy was suggesting a second ballot measure for the November 2024 ballot.
Council member Murphy stated he was speaking of one ballot measure in November.
Mayor Toms understood the City Council had decided to move forward with the sales tax measure.
Council member Murphy stated after the City Council had those conversations, members of the public had expressed an interest in other funding solutions as the Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP) had stated. He did not want to stop the conversation since the polling for a parcel tax had not been done and he wanted to continue those conversations clearly beyond this year.
Mayor Toms acknowledged the sales tax measure ballot to be considered in November 2024 would not solve the long-term issue and subsequent measures may be needed.
In response to Council member Tave regarding the Citywide Roof Repairs and Replacement Project in the amount of $900,000, as shown in the list of CIP projects, Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Mishra explained the total cost was for this and the next fiscal year.
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Mishra described how the funds had been encumbered to allow CIP projects to be completed.
Council member Tave noted that the numbers in the CIP list of projects included figures that may have been completed in previous years, which had not been taken into account and would be helpful as the City Council considered a 6 and 10 percent reduction in each City Department.
Council member Martinez-Rubin commented that in the past the Public Work Department had produced documents on what CIP projects could be started, which would be helpful when considering reductions in the budget for Fiscal Year 2024/25, particularly if looking at the larger CIP projects for which Measure S 2006 and Measure S 2014 funds had been encumbered. As an example, for the Senior Center Auxiliary Parking Lot, she would like to see the funds be reduced altogether by $500,000 since they would not spend $1 million, and move that reduction to another project such as the Sidewalk Rehabilitation Program. When considering balancing the General Fund, she wanted to take a look at what had primarily been funded by Measure S 2006 and Measure S 2014 funds and what CIP projects had not yet been started but were in the CIP column for FY 2024/25, and she would like to see those projects.
Mayor Toms referenced the CIP project list and clarified with the Finance Director the projects would all be funded out of the General Fund.
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis referenced Pages 370 and 371 of 712 of the agenda packet, Table 3-Six Percent and Ten Percent Budget Reduction Scenarios and commented a flat reduction across all City Departments may sound equal but some City Departments had more expenses than others, and when considering reductions a percentile reduction across City Departments may have an impact but not that large a dollar impact. For those City Departments where the 6 and 10 percent reductions would be over $100,000, such as non-Departmental, Police and Fire, he asked of the effects of those cuts. As an example, such a reduction may impact the Police Department’s plans for the 401 Policy, which had been a major project for the Police Department for several years, and why increases in salaries had increased over the years to fill vacancies in order to move toward the 401 Policy. In terms of cutting vacancies entirely, he understood since 2022 or earlier the Finance Department had been accounting for vacancy savings as part of the budget. He was unsure how much eliminating vacancies would impact the budget since the City was already accounting for vacancy savings. As to Page 451 of 712 of the agenda packet, City Council Budget Summary, he noted the spike in employee benefits for the City Council and asked for more information on those increases.
Irma Ruport found the staff report to be incomplete. She had many questions but not enough time. She asked why reductions in City Departments had not been outlined. She noted the NonDepartmental budget figures should be clarified. She had some Human Resources experience and found there was no reason why some of the positions could not be frozen, particularly since the City had done a lot of hiring in 2023, with actions taken on performance evaluations but she too was uncertain of the job descriptions. She agreed the Senior Center Auxiliary Parking Lot project should be reconsidered, the parking lot had been vacant for some time and better things could be done with those funds.
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
Ms. Ruport stated she had attended the May 7, 2024 City Council meeting when the Department Heads had been asked to make cuts. Given upcoming tax propositions, it would be difficult to gain public support given a lack of information. Experienced in and having a background in Human Resources and fiscal management and having worked in Washington D.C. and knowledgeable of heavy federal government reductions having lost a job, been demoted and later brought back, she suggested if that was the case in Pinole it should be done. She reiterated that the information provided was incomplete and lacked details important to the public. She urged the City Council to hire a new City Manager and freeze positions if not essential or urgent and allow a new City Manager to perform his or her own evaluation.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Council member Tave emphasized the benefits of having a waterfall diagram, which would take all of the projects and provide the details on the length of the project, whether it was in the planning, design, construction or close-out and funding phases and the City Council could then see where the projects fell in a clear diagram and see the money being spent for this fiscal year.
He found the information provided would be different from the end budget and he offered examples of projects that could be tracked when allocated funds. He asked whether staff could provide that information. He added more details on the use of Measure S 2006 and Measure S 2014 funds would also be helpful to provide a clearer picture.
Council member Tave emphasized a 6 and 10 percent reduction estimate across the board in all City Departments was necessary for the City Council to make a judgment call and he wanted Department Heads to have the opportunity to see what a scaled back operation would look like.
He spoke to the work involved in considering a tax measure and polling and the need to understand what it would look like absent that funding. He sought more discussion amongst the City Council on this topic.
Council member Martinez-Rubin commented the City Council had to consider what was a want versus what was a need and if the necessary revenue to cover expenses was not available they had to consider what was essential to operate the City. She also recognized that grants were to be used for one-time expenses and not the beginning of pilot projects that would become ongoing necessities. She asked the City Council to consider the importance of making decisions on being considerate about the costs associated year after year with projects that had been on the CIP plan for the past five years and now the desire to implement some of the tasks associated with developing the CAAP when there was no funding to do that.
Council member Martinez-Rubin found the City had been ambitious in setting up the Five-Year Strategic Plan in 2020, and had encouraged ideas to help make that plan on paper something of a reality and complete assessments, but now the City was in a different economic situation and had to back-peddle, and while it would like to meet the objectives of the Strategic Plan it may not be able to do so. She wanted the City Council to look at the cost of running the City versus the interest in having projects that were trending that the City could not afford.
Mayor Pro Tem Sasai suggested there was not enough information at this time to be decisive.
He understood a 6 percent reduction across the board would eliminate the budget shortfall and then some and a 10 percent reduction would eliminate the shortfall and provide a surplus. He would like to know what the 6 percent cut would entail and a better understanding what was essential and how that would impact Pinole residents, staff, and some of the City’s projects.
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
Mayor Pro Tem Sasai asked that information be provided when the budget was brought back to the City Council to allow the City Council to work with the community to figure out what needed to be adjusted to be able to balance the budget.
Council member Murphy clarified with Finance Director Guillory the total amounts and funding sources for the projects listed in the CIP Summary Sheet for FY 2023/24, and whether the numbers matched with one-time expenditures since General Funds were involved. And, if some funding was moved or adjusted, such as the funds for the Senior Auxiliary Parking Lot as an example, he clarified that would not decrease the structural imbalance since one-time funds were being used.
As to the request for a waterfall diagram, Council member Murphy recalled that had been requested before and he clarified with Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Mishra it was likely that would be produced by the Public Works Department, but the CIP project summary sheets included all planning, design and construction details for the project. While it would be complex to produce a waterfall diagram for all 39 CIP projects, staff could identify what funds had been used for which CIP project.
Finance Director Guillory clarified the reconciliation between the summary sheet for the General Fund versus what had been detailed in the May 21, 2024 staff report, which included the total amounts. She also explained in response to Council member Murphy that both Measure S funds had ongoing costs and fund balance that had accumulated over the years. Historically, mostly public safety had been funded with Measure S 2006 funds and were ongoing costs for police and fire, with Measure S 2014 primarily used for capital improvement projects, with some ongoing staff costs included.
Mayor Toms referenced Pages 370 and 371 of 712 of the agenda packet, the budget scenarios and contract with the CCCFPD, and asked whether there was room to amend the City’s contract and reduce services from the CCCFPD. She added the cuts assigned and identified as fire should be picked-up somewhere else.
Finance Director Guillory advised a portion of costs would remain with the City. As an example, the City had the burden of paying for abatement at $120,000. The CCCFPD contract was just under $6 million and everything else was a cost burden that remained with the City.
Mayor Toms noted a 6 percent reduction in Police would be $657,000, and with a 10 percent reduction would be over a million. She would like a description whether the positions were FTEs, had already been filled, would involve freezing and not hire for vacancies or involve layoffs. Also, the Community Development Department had wanted to add an FTE position, where there would be two extra days of work a week which would be about the same. She clarified the funds would come from Development Fees and it would not be so much of an impact and cuts would have to occur elsewhere and she wanted to see what that looked like.
Mayor Toms also clarified with Finance Director Guillory the Non-Departmental category involved mostly Other-Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) and some Information Technology (IT) services paid from the General Fund and debt service, which could not be cut. She also referenced the business of the City Attorney’s Office and asked whether cuts meant that services asked of the City Attorney would have to be prioritized and she would like a description of what that meant.
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
Mayor Toms added that several years ago it had been a big deal for the City to mail out postcards due to the expense, although that had been done frequently over the last few years and possibly was something that could be stepped back. Additionally, for the City Council budget and the West County Mayors’ Breakfast meetings, it had been discussed at a recent meeting in El Cerrito the City of Pinole would not do breakfast and that could be eliminated. Whether the Internship Program should be cut or reduced was another item that could be discussed. She sought better examples of what potential cuts would mean.
Finance Director Guillory clarified in terms of the vacancy savings that $500,000 had been accounted for (about three percent of total salaries and benefits in the budget) but would be net against the vacancies in the budget. To provide more clarity, she explained the City was always running vacancies, typically in the Police Department as an example, with a flat $500,000 estimate built into the budget based on history. If the vacancies in the budget were removed, the amount would be about $1 million and if that was pulled out it would have to be understood that $500,000 had already been pulled out, so the net would be another $500,000, which would be the reduction if vacancies were removed for now.
In response to Council member Murphy whether that information could be provided by Department and the classifications provided at the next meeting, Finance Director Guillory confirmed that could be done.
Mayor Pro Tem Sasai offered a motion, seconded by Council member Tave to direct staff to bring back to the City Council in the Revised Baseline Budget, information on budget cuts between 6 percent and 10 percent for each City Department, identifying in detail what would need to be eliminated in each City Department.
On the motion, Mayor Toms noted things like fire may not be eligible for reduction but could be described.
Council member Murphy understood The Balancing Act Tool, which had been introduced to the City a few years ago and which had transitioned to Public Input had similar tools as The Balancing Act to produce the same kind of results the City Council wanted to see. He asked whether a survey had been released yet.
Finance Director Guillory advised the survey had been released to be aligned with the polling that had been done and which allowed respondents to prioritize, set up the same way as it had in The Balancing Act tool.
Council member Murphy found The Balancing Act tool helpful since it allowed residents the opportunity to make decisions around the budget and had been used as a category reference.
He understood the tool at some point had a simulation module the if over budget allowed cuts to be considered. He asked whether Public Input had the same tool.
Finance Director Guillory advised Public Input had been set up as a qualitative survey with the budget simulation as part of The Balancing Act used for input on the use of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds. She would have to check if Public Input would allow for a similar simulation.
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
Council member Murphy found now was the time to deploy that tool. The tool had been a great example of participatory budgeting with the ARPA funds and he wanted the public to be able to interact with that type of simulation module. If that tool was not already deployed, he asked staff to work on that and send information to the City Council between now and the next meeting so that the public could be educated on the tough decisions to be made. He asked for an amendment to the motion with the Public Input tool to be deployed for budget simulation purposes.
Mayor Pro Tem Sasai as the maker of the motion and Council member Tave as the second accepted the amendment to the motion.
Council member Martinez-Rubin asked whether the Finance Director had tried the budget simulation tool, what information was essential and what information the City did not have now that would help by using the simulation tool.
Finance Director Guillory clarified she had not tried the budget simulation tool but with the qualitative priority survey she imagined that could be done.
Council member Murphy clarified with Council member Martinez-Rubin she had filled out the ARPA survey, which was a qualitative measurement when the City had money. Having used the tool himself, the experience they were dealing with now was the budget shortfall and the questions they wanted answered in that shortfall was how residents saw that shortfall being addressed given the challenges they had such as the CCCFPD agreement that could not be moved.
Council member Murphy commented the qualitative measurement was a continued polling of the public and he was personally less interested in the qualitative measurement given the input from several different surveys, but stated there was insufficient information on the cuts needed to be made during a tough time other than when information was provided by Department Heads and the public on what was reasonable to eliminate.
Council member Martinez-Rubin suggested the City Council had data to work with and she questioned deferring decisions pending opinions from people might not make a difference on what needed to be cut. She commented what was obvious were the large figures before them and the need to identify what funding sources, which were primarily General Fund funds, should be focused on. She expressed concern continually deferring decision making on the dais by requesting input that really would not change the difficult City Council decisions.
Council member Tave referenced the Strategic Plan and implementation process and the need to ensure the public had a conduit for input. He referenced the public comment received during the May 7, 2024 City Council meeting about the proposed sales tax measure, and he found there were gems the community had provided and it was worth the effort for that additional input, which offered a different perspective and allowed the community the opportunity to voice their opinion, which was important, including the use of The Balancing Act and polling which should not be discounted. He noted the Public Input tool was out there and there was an expectation it would be used, and he suggested it should be used even if there was a limited response from the public.
Council member Tave recognized the decisions were not easy and the issue now was whether residents wanted to continue the status quo by supporting a sales tax measure or not. He looked forward to the outcome of the November ballot measure which would be the deciding factor.
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
Council member Martinez-Rubin appreciated perspective and opinions but did not want to entirely rely on that particularly when they did not have representative samples, and there was a difference using a tool that would provide a certain number of votes. She found the City was still at the point of not getting a large enough sample where it made a difference.
ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Sasai/Council member Tave to direct staff to bring back to the City Council in the Revised Baseline Budget, information on budget cuts between 6 percent and 10 percent for each City Department identifying in detail what would need to be eliminated in each City Department and to deploy a budget simulation through Public Input that would provide quantitative data around decisions that needed to be made in addition to the qualitative data.
Vote: Passed 5-0
Ayes: Toms, Sasai, Martinez-Rubin Murphy, Tave
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
ACTION: Motion by Council members Martinez-Rubin/Tave for staff to bring back as part of the next discussion of the budget, a summary which identified projects not yet started and their funding source.
Vote: Passed 5-0
Ayes: Toms, Sasai, Martinez-Rubin Murphy, Tave
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
ACTION: Motion by Council member Murphy/Mayor Pro Tem Sasai to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.
Vote: Passed 5-0
Ayes: Toms, Sasai, Martinez-Rubin Murphy, Tave
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
B. Preliminary Proposed FY 2024/25 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
Action: Discuss and Provide Direction (Sanjay Mishra)
Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Mishra provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Preliminary Proposed FY 2024/25 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), which included an overview of the Five-Year CIP for FY 2024/25 through 2028/29, included 38 capital projects and five infrastructure assessments, with 35 capital projects slated for work and five infrastructure projects in FY 2024/25 in the categories of facilities, parks, sewer, stormwater, streets and roads and infrastructure assessments. He also highlighted the Summary of Projects – Preliminary Proposed CIP, Projects completed by June 30, 2024; new projects for FY 2024/25; tentative schedule; budget summary and the Private Sewer Lateral Program.
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
Council member Tave referenced Project #SS2407, Private Sewer Lateral Program, commented he had spoken with Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Mishra about the fee structure and the fact that funds were limited for the program, and asked what scenarios had been envisioned if the program became extremely successful and popular and the payment structure stretched out for five years. He would like to see other structures considered rather than placing a lien on one’s property and he supported a sustainable program.
Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Mishra acknowledged if the program became highly successful it would be up to the City Council to add more funds to the program. He foresaw no problem with adding funds, but it was up to the City Council to determine the length of the loan as part of the program. He also clarified, when asked, that sewer rates would be added to the property tax, it would not involve a monthly payment to the City, although some cities had monthly payments. For Pinole, payment was twice over the period of one year and to change that process would be challenging. He was confident funds would not be an issue, the City’s sewer fund revenues were quite good with a healthy reserve, and the City could fund the program through the sewer reserves and once recovered would go back to the Sewer Enterprise Fund.
Mayor Toms also referenced Project #SS2407, Private Sewer Lateral Program and asked whether the City could refer property owners to on-call contractors so the City was not the middle man other than to have gathered the contractors, with the contractor to work directly with the property owner.
Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Mishra confirmed that could be done but that was one of the issues for the homeowners who may not be knowledgeable of all issues and may not be able to negotiate properly. His thought for the program was that the City hire the contractor who would work with the private property owner, and once the property owner indemnified the contractor and the City, the City could manage the program. He suggested the $150,000 for the program would allow the City to work with about 20 maximum sewer laterals for about a year, and if he had full staff he could manage the program; otherwise, there could be difficulties for staff to manage the program without outside assistance.
Council member Tave would like to see the different stages the CIP projects were in.
Mayor Toms would like to know what funds had restrictions and the window in which the funds must be spent down or be lost.
Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Mishra reported he had worked with the Finance Director and advised some ground work had already been done on that exercise.
Council member Murphy commented that in October 2023, the Interim City Manager/Public Works Director had provided the City Council with a memorandum detailing the challenges of the Public Works Department, in particular recruitment efforts, vacancies and challenges filling out the CIP.
Since that memorandum had been sent, no update had been provided other than Council members conversations with staff. He asked whether they were being realistic about capacity matching the CIP.
Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Mishra explained that his assumption was he could fill the two positions that remained vacant and if that was done the Public Works Department could touch most of the projects on the CIP list.
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
If the Public Works Department must cut either 6 or 10 percent of its budget that would impact personnel and if staff was lost or new staff could not be hired, projects that must be dropped or deferred to future years would have to be identified. Staff continued to interview for the two vacancies that remained to be filled.
Council member Murphy clarified the two vacancies were for an Associate Engineer and Capital Improvement and Environmental Manager. He sought an example of the status quo for this fiscal year and commented that since he had been on the Council, this was his third budget and CIP cycle. He continued to get a “dream on a piece of paper,” which was not following through, and while he was not blaming staff, he suggested the system was not working. While the public polling had shown the City was on the right track, he noted as an example the Skate Park Rehabilitation would be deferred to next year. Not a high priority, kids just wanted to get the park done. He was unsure the summary of CIP projects made sense as to what could be done this year.
Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Mishra clarified with Council member Murphy his definition of status quo meant not filling the two vacant positions.
Council member Murphy advised his intent to support staff in everything that was needed to get the work done, but he was challenged by meeting the demands of residents and scaling up the quality of service. With few exceptions, such as the Tennant Avenue/Plum/Pear Street Project, most projects were still not done. He asked how the CIP could be packaged in the right way.
Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Mishra explained that the Tennant Avenue/Plum/Pear Street Project had been directed by the City Council to be expedited and staff had stopped other work to get that project done. During his tenure with the City, most of the focus had been on assessments, many of which were complete and there were now projects to implement out of those assessments. He acknowledged that streets and roads were a hot topic and he was planning smaller projects based on the dollars available. For all other projects, if not essential, they were not being pushed forward given the limited staff resources. If the two staff vacancies were not filled and he did not have consultant assistance, it was likely 60 percent of the CIP projects would be dropped.
Council member Murphy asked how the City Council would be informed of that assessment quicker outside of quarterly reports.
Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Mishra stated he could provide a memorandum prior to the quarterly report indicating whether a project would be moved forward or dropped.
Council member Murphy also referenced Project #RO2404, Crosswalk Tennent Avenue at Prune Street and clarified with the Interim City Manager/Public Works Director the project had been grandfathered-in, with funds not co-mingled and separated out, as shown. The safety improvement portion of the project was grant funded by the state and once the project had been completed the City would be reimbursed.
The crosswalk at Tennent Avenue and Prune Street was not reimbursable since the City had not submitted for that part of the grant; it had been added at City Council direction. The projects would likely be done at the same time with the same contractor but the funds had been separated out and not-comingled.
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
Council member Murphy thanked Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Mishra for his work, and stated the October 2023 memorandum had been helpful and could be revisited after the budget season to allow a discussion of the challenges the Public Works Department faced.
Mayor Toms noted the Planning Department had assistance from an on-call contractor who worked three days a week and she asked whether an engineering firm could be contracted to provide on-call support until the staff vacancies in the Public Works Department could be filled.
Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Mishra clarified he worked with a staff member from a consultant firm who provided assistance to the Public Works Department, otherwise they would not have seen any of the projects.
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis commented he was working to find supporting documentation for the Galbreth Pocket Park, which had been pulled from the CIP list entirely. He referenced the CIP list for 2022 that had included a waterfall chart and which had identified how far along projects were, which staff should review as a model to improve the process. He asked the City Council to change the Galbreth Pocket Park to the unfunded category rather than removing it from the CIP list. He also asked whether the motion Council member Martinez-Rubin had made as part of Item 11A would have been a better motion for this item. He asked for clarification from the City Attorney.
John Bender, speaking as a private citizen, referred to the plans for a chain link fence on Plum Street and reiterated his prior opposition to chain link security fencing that was not a good look for Old Town Pinole. He frequented the parking lot downtown that was fully used, not in a high crime area and did not call for a chain link fence, although he understood a more attractive fence would cost more money.
As to Project #FA1901, Senior Center Auxiliary Parking Lot, Mr. Bender commented he had always been skeptical about the project. He lived in the area, went through the Senior Center parking lot daily to jog along the creek, and had only seen the area really maxed out during episodic city and community events pre-COVID. While the railroad area had limited parking, he found Project #FA1901 to be unnecessary. He questioned projects with seven figures, and while parking could be provided in the lot suggested that spaces would likely have to be diagonal, single lane, require the removal of existing parking and may involve significant cost and C.3 requirements, further reducing the parking count.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Council member Martinez-Rubin asked that multi-benefit projects be a criterion to help the City Council determine what was or was not essential.
ACTION: Motion by Mayor Toms/Mayor Pro Tem Sasai to extend the meeting to 11:45 p.m.
Vote: Passed 5-0
Ayes: Toms, Sasai, Martinez-Rubin Murphy, Tave
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – May 21, 2024
Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Mishra advised there was a priority list for the CIP projects, with criteria for multi-benefits, and the priority scoring had recently been completed, to be provided at the next meeting.
ACTION: Motion by Council member Tave/Mayor Toms to add a budgeted, encumbered and actual for the waterfall chart.
Vote: Passed 5-0
Ayes: Toms, Sasai, Martinez-Rubin Murphy, Tave
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Council member Murphy supported a focus on road rehabilitation as opposed to Project #FA1901, Senior Center Auxiliary Parking Lot, and asked staff to look at taking away one project and adding more to road rehabilitation in the knowledge that would not address the budget shortfall.
Interim City Manager/Public Works Director Mishra commented the details provided to move forward with the project, meaning keep the previous scope of the project, would not mean it must be done this fiscal year. The project had been slow peddled given requests for earmarks from various Council members in office, which was why they had not spent everything to the fullest design.
12. NEW BUSINESS: None
13. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD (Continued from Item 6) (Public Comments) Only open to members of the public who did not speak under the first Citizens to be Heard, Agenda Item 6.
Citizens may speak under any item not listed on the Agenda. The time limit is 3 minutes and is subject to modification by the Mayor. Individuals may not share or offer time to another speaker.
Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The City Council may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future Council meeting.
Deputy City Clerk Stone reported there were no comments from the public.
14. ADJOURNMENT to a Special City Council meeting on June 1, 2024 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.
At 11:35 p.m., Mayor Toms adjourned the meeting to a Special City Council meeting on June 1, 2024 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.
Submitted by:
_________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
Approved by City Council:
CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.C.
DATE: JUNE 4, 2024
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SANJAY MISHRA, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PINOLE AND THE WEST CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (WCCTAC)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the City Manager to execute an Amendment to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the City and the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC).
BACKGROUND
WCCTAC
The West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) is one of four Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPC) in Contra Costa County. The RTPC’s were created to manage the 1988 Measure C 1/2 cent sales tax for transportation projects and programs, and its extension, Measure J, approved by Contra Costa County voters in 2004. In addition to managing revenues from Measures C and J, WCCTAC administers the subregional transportation mitigation fee program (STMP), and participates in developing and implementing policies, programs and projects to improve local and regional transportation and air quality.
WCCTAC’s major activities are grouped into the following areas: Planning & Programming, Special Projects, Transportation Demand Management (TDM), and the Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (STMP). Additional information is provided in WCCTAC’s Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Work Program, Budget, and Member Dues, which is attached to this item.
WCCTAC is governed by a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA) between WCCTAC and its member agencies. The nine member agencies are: the cities of El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, San Pablo; Contra Costa County; and transit providers AC Transit, BART, and WestCAT. Except for the City of Richmond, each member agency appoints one primary and one alternate representative to the WCCTAC Board. The City of Richmond appoints three representatives and the Richmond alternate serves as alternate for all three Richmond representatives. Two WCCTAC Board members also serve on the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Board of Directors.
Councilmembers Anthony Tave and Cameron Sasai currently represent the City of Pinole on
the WCCTAC Board in the primary and alternate roles, respectively.
WCCTAC JPA Amendment
Since early 2023, WCCTAC has undergone a process to update its JPA, which was last updated in 2003. The WCCTAC Board first discussed the possibility of updating the JPA alongside a Board member compensation item at its January 2023 Board meeting where WCCTAC staff presented three key points.
First, WCCTAC’s current JPA prohibits Board member compensation. The JPA states that “Each member and alternate shall serve without compensation.” The JPA can be amended to allow for compensation, but amendments require approval by “no less than two-thirds of all member agencies,” which translates to six of the nine member agencies.
Second, many transportation authorities, transit agencies, and special districts in the Bay Area provide meeting stipends to Board members. For example, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority provides its Board members with $100 per meeting. While none of the Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPC), like WCCTAC, currently provide stipends, the RTPC’s are unique to Contra Costa County, and represent the county’s less centralized form of transportation decision-making.
Third, since the JPA was last updated twenty years ago, there is a need for general updates to agency names, technical terms, projects, and programs. WCCTAC staff indicated that an update to the JPA was warranted, regardless of the compensation consideration.
The Board directed WCCTAC staff to return with additional information, including potential changes to the JPA to allow Board member compensation. Below is a summary of the key steps and decisions made by the WCCTAC Board and staff and staff of member agencies over the roughly twelve months since the January 2023 Board meeting.
February 24, 2023 WCCTAC Board Meeting
• WCCTAC staff recommended that the JPA be amended, partly to allow for potential stipends, and for minor updates to technical terms and agency names. • The Board had no comments on the Draft JPA Amendment and directed WCCTAC staff to share the draft with the WCCTAC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for feedback.
March 13, 2023 WCCTAC TAC Meeting
• The WCCTAC TAC discussed the JPA amendment process and did not suggest any changes to the Draft JPA Amendment.
March 24, 2023 WCCTAC Board Meeting
• The WCCTAC Board received and voted unanimously to transmit the Draft JPA amendment to member agencies for their review and feedback.
May 2023 – February 2024: Member Agency Review
• The Draft JPA amendment was circulated to all member agencies for review and comment. • The City staff completed review on the Draft JPA Amendment and noted that the City may incur an extra expense if WCCTAC decides to provide Board member compensation.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The proposed WCCTAC JPA Amendment includes two key changes: removal of the bar on Board member compensation and minor text updates to technical terms and agency names.
Since Board member compensation is the issue of greatest focus, the following is a summary of the steps needed to enact compensation and the common tradeoffs with compensation.
At least two decisions are required to provide compensation for WCCTAC Board members. • JPA Amendment: The JPA currently prohibits Board member compensation. The Draft JPA Amendment removes this prohibition but does not institute compensation. City Council is acting on the JPA Amendment as part of this agenda item. Decision-Making Body: At least six of the nine WCCTAC member agencies
• WCCTAC Annual Budget: If the JPA Amendment is approved, the WCCTAC Board could then consider Board member compensation as part of its annual budget. As part of this process, WCCTAC solicits member agency feedback, but the WCCTAC Board is the ultimate decision-making body. Decision-making Body: Majority of WCCTAC Board If adopted, the JPA Amendment would empower the WCCTAC Board to consider Board member compensation at a future date. Should this issue arise, the City of Pinole’s interests would be represented through the City’s WCCTAC Board member. The City Council could only relay its feedback to the WCCTAC Board but would not have authority over this decision. As noted by WCCTAC staff, many transportation agencies in the Bay Area provide meeting stipends to Board members, which are generally a reflection of the responsibilities, time commitment, and travel expenses required of Board members to make informed decisions.
Transportation policy and funding are complicated topics and board member decisions substantially affect the trajectory of the region’s land use, environment, and economy.
However, if enacted, compensation would represent an additional cost that the City would likely incur through increased WCCTAC membership dues. Councilmembers also participate without compensation in other regional bodies, such as Marin Clean Energy (MCE).
City staff recommend that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the proposed JPA Amendment between the City and WCCTAC. WCCTAC fills an essential and unique transportation planning and funding role. Except for the City of Richmond, WCCTAC cities have small populations but major mobility needs. I-80 is one of the most congested corridors in the country, San Pablo Avenue has potential as a strong multimodal corridor that enables sustainable development patterns, and BART is a transit backbone that’s facing funding uncertainty in the wake of the pandemic. However, the planning, policy, and funding decisions concerning these regional assets require regional leadership to ensure local needs are heard.
This is a role that WCCTAC has filled through work such as the San Pablo Avenue Multimodal Corridor Study, the Travel Training program for older adults and disabled residents, and the Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fee program, among others. The JPA was last updated 20 years ago and the JPA Amendment will allow the WCCTAC Board to decide whether Board member compensation is in the best interest of WCCTAC member agencies, the public, and the future of the region.
FISCAL IMPACT
By eliminating the bar on Board member compensation, the City may incur additional costs should the WCCTAC Board add Board member compensation to future annual budgets. In the
May 2023 WCCTAC Board agenda packet, the Draft FY2023-2024 Work Program, Budget, and Dues included an estimate of member agency dues In the event the JPA Amendment was adopted and the WCCTAC Board enacted a stipend policy. A stipend of $50 per meeting per Board member will require dues increase of 6% in comparison to the 5% approved for FY2023-24, and a stipend of $100 per meeting per Board member would require dues increase of 7%. The City of Pinole’s FY2023-24 WCCTAC Dues were $54,494, which the City pays using Measure J Return to Source funds. The City’s annual dues would have increased by an additional $519 or $1,038 for the 6% and 7% increases, instead of the 5% approved increase, respectively.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
B. Proposed Amendments to JPA (Redline)
C. WCCTAC FY 24 Work Program, Budget, and Dues
RESOLUTION NO. 2024 - XX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT EXERCISE
OF POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PINOLE AND THE WEST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (WCCTAC).
WHEREAS, WCCTAC fulfills an essential role in administering transportation projects, plans, programs, and funding in the West Contra Costa County sub-region; and
WHEREAS, WCCTAC is governed by a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA) between WCCTAC and its member agencies; and
WHEREAS, since early 2023, WCCTAC has undergone a process to update its JPA, which was last updated in 2003. The WCCTAC Board first discussed the possibility of updating the JPA alongside a discussion about the possibility of Board member compensation; and
WHEREAS, the current WCCTAC JPA prohibits Board member compensation.
The JPA can be amended to allow for compensation, but amendments require approval by no less than two-thirds of all WCCTAC member agencies, which translates to at least six of the nine member agencies; and
WHEREAS, the WCCTAC Board directed WCCTAC staff to prepare and circulate to the member agencies a draft JPA Amendment, partly to allow for potential Board member compensation, and for minor updates to technical terms and agency names; and
WHEREAS, if the JPA Amendment is adopted by at least six of the nine WCCTAC member agencies, bar on Board member compensation would be removed, and the WCCTAC Board could, at a future date, consider adding Board member compensation to future annual budgets.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pinole that it hereby Authorizes the City Manager to execute an Amendment to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA) between the City of Pinole and the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon passage and adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pinole held on this 4th day of June 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced, passed, and adopted on the 7th day of May 2024.
____________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
WEST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
This restatement and amendment of the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (Agreement) is entered into on this X 28th day of X January , 2023 2003, by and between the City of El Cerrito, a municipal corporation; the City of Hercules, a municipal corporation; the City of Pinole, a municipal
corporation; the City of Richmond, a municipal corporation and charter city; the City of San Pablo, a municipal corporation; the County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California; the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit), a transit district organized and existing pursuant to the provisions of the California Public Utilities Code; the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), a transit district organized and existing pursuant to the provisions of California Public Utilities Code; and the Western Contra Costa County Transit Authority (WestCAT), a joint exercise of powers authority operating pursuant to Government Code Section 6500, et. seq.; and restates in full those provisions of the original Agreement, except as amended herein.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, in November 1988, the voters of Contra Costa County approved Measure "C" which established and funded a
transportation agenda for Contra Costa County; and
WHEREAS, in response to the adoption of Measure "C", the Parties to this Agreement decided to formalize the previously existing West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee as a legal entity created to address transportation issues; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2003, the WCCTAC Board restated and amended its Joint Exercise of Power Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on November 2, 2004, the voters of Contra Costa County approved Measure “J” which is the successor to Measure C; and
WHEREAS, each of the public Agencies which are a party to this Agreement, hereafter referred to collectively as the "Parties", or individually as an “Agency”, has the power to address transportation issues; and
WHEREAS, each of the Parties to this Agreement believes that a combination of their separate powers and abilities may enable
them to more effectively respond to Measure "JC", the successor to Measure “C”, and to address transportation issues; and WHEREAS, each of the Parties to this Agreement propose by this Agreement to exercise their respective common powers jointly for the purpose of responding to the passage of Measure "JC" and addressing existing and future transportation issues; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 6500, et seq. provides that two or more public Agencies by Agreement may jointly exercise any power that any one of the Agencies could exercise separately; and
WHEREAS, the Parties to this Agreement are desirous of
conferring upon a separate legal entity the necessary powers with regard to responding to Measure "JC" and for addressing transportation issues for the benefit of each and all of the Parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT DO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. OBJECTIVE AND COMMISSION
The objective of this Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement is to create a city, county, and transit district
transportation agency advisory committee which shall
protect and advance the interests of West Contra Costa
County communities with regard to transportation issues in general and the utilization of Measure "JC" funds in
particular. More specifically, the committee created by this Agreement is commissioned to:
(A) Assist member Agencies with a coordinated and
cooperative implementation of the West Contra Costa
Action Plan Updates 2000;
(B) Participate in the development and implementation of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan;
(C) Initiate "area specific" and/or "project specific"
transportation studies/plans where appropriate;
(D) Assist member Agencies with Congestion Management
Program compliance requirements;
(E) Develop regional strategies and meet regional
requirements established by Measure "JC";
(F) Cooperatively address transportation issues, beyond Measure "JC" requirements, when said issues affect
West Contra Costa County interests;
(G) Assess the transportation needs of the West Contra
Costa County area;
(H) Consider the development of expanded Develop, expand, or improve West Contra Costa County transit services
and Transportation DemandSystems Management (TDSM)
programs;
(I) Advise the Parties on transportation issues;
(J) Coordinate the actions and responses of the Parties with regard to transportation issues;
(K) Formulate transportation policy statements;
(L) Sponsor educational forums, workshops, TSM Coordinatortrainings, and discussions on transportation matters; (M) Develop and administer a West Contra Costa Regional TDSM program to encourage use of alternatives to
single occupant commute travel;
(N) Gather information necessary to carry out the foregoing purposes;
(0) Oversee the Subregional Transportation Migration
Program (STMP).; and
(P) Manage the Richmond Intermodal Station project.
2. DEFINITIONS
Certain words as used in this Agreement shall be defined as follows:
(A) "Agency" shall mean each city, transit district, county or joint exercise of powers authority which is a
signatory to this Agreement.
(B) "Board" or “WCCTAC Board” shall mean the board
constituted herein pursuant to this Agreement to
administer and execute this Agreement.
(C) "Congestion Management Program" shall mean the State mandated program which establishes performance
standards and requirements for the transportation
system, creates a process to analyze the impact of land use changes on regional transportation, and creates a
capital improvement program to maintain the regional
transportation system.
(D) "Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CCTP)" shall mean a countywide plan required under Measure
"C". The CCTP is created from the five regional
transportation planning committee action plans and is
updated every two years.
(E) "Subregional Transportation Mitigation Program" or
"STMP" shall refer to the program under which developer fees are imposed on properties located in the West
Contra Costa County area for use in funding
transportation mitigation projects.
(F) "Transportation Demand Systems Management" or "TDSM" shall mean any combination of measures that are
designed to provide information, assistance, and
incentives to employees and residents to encourage
use of alternatives to single occupant commute
travel.
(G) "TDSM Ordinance" shall mean the Transportation Demand Systems Management ordinance(s) adopted by West Contra
Costa cities and Contra Costa County setting forth the
purpose, goal, objectives, requirements, and
responsibilities of the West Contra Costa Regional
TDSM Program.
(H) "West Contra Costa Action Plan Update 2000" shall mean the regional transportation plan update for West County adopted in any given yearJuly 2000, required by
Measure JC, and intended to create a framework for
member agencies to jointly and cooperatively address
regional transportation issues.
(I) "West Contra Costa Regional TDSM Program" shall mean a Transportation Demand Systems Management Program
managed by the WCCTAC staff on behalf of the member
cities with the purpose of reducing vehicle trips
and increasing ridesharing and transit usage.
"West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee"
also referred to as "WCCTAC" shall mean the public and
separate entity created by this Agreement.
(K) "West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory CommitteeTechnical Advisory Committee" also referred to as "WCCTAC-TAC" shall mean the technical advisory
committee to the West Contra Costa Transportation
Advisory Committee.
3. HEADINGS
All headings contained herein are for convenience or
reference only and are not intended to define or limit the scope of any provision of this Agreement.
4. EFFECTIVE DATE
This restatement and amendment of the WCCTAC Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement shall become effective upon the receipt by the WCCTAC Managing Executive Director of properly
executed copies of the Agreement from not less than twothirds of all member Agencies of WCCTAC.
5. CREATION OF WEST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
WCCTAC was formally created as a "Joint Powers Agency" in 1990 pursuant to California Government Code Section 6500, et seq. Through this Agreement it is hereby confirmed that the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee
(hereinafter referred to as "WCCTAC”) shall exercise in the manner hereinafter set forth the powers common to each of the member Agencies until this Agreement is amended or
terminated. WCCTAC shall be a public entity separate from the member Agencies. No debt, liability, or obligation of the WCCTAC shall constitute a debt, liability, or obligation of any member Agency. Each Agency's obligation hereunder is expressly limited only to the appropriation and contribution of such funds as the parties hereto may agree to and direct in accordance with this Agreement.
6. POWERS
The powers of the WCCTAC shall include and be limited to the following:
(A) to annually adopt a work program along with a
budget setting forth all operational expenses for
WCCTAC, together with an apportionment of expenses
allocated to each Agency. The draft work program and
budget of the WCCTAC shall be prepared by April 1
and shall be submitted for review to each member
Agency prior to its final adoption by the WCCTAC
Board. on or about July 1. .Each member Agency
shall provide comments to WCCTAC staff concerning
the WCCTAC work program and budget by June 1.
(B) to make and enter into contracts;
(C) to apply for and accept
grants, advances, and
contributions;
(D) to employ or contract for the services of
agents, consultants, engineers, attorneys, and such
other persons or firms as it deems necessary to
carry out the objectives of this Agreement;
(E) to conduct studies and develop plans;
(F) to develop and administer the West
Contra Costa Sub-Regional TDSM program;
(G) to periodically review transportation plans and
TDSM programs and ordinances, and recommend changes
thereto; and
(H) to incur debts, liabilities, or obligations,
subject to limitations herein set forth.
(I) to oversee the West County Subregional
Transportation Mitigation Program (STMP).
7. BOUNDARIES
The boundaries of WCCTAC shall be the boundaries as
shown in Appendix A which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
8. OVERALL ORGANIZATION
The WCCTAC Board shall provide overall policy
direction for the coordinated implementation of the
West Contra Costa Action Plan Updates 2000 and
decision making for general WCCTAC operations,
including implementation of the West Contra Costa
Regional TDSM Program.
The WCCTAC Board shall also be the final arbiter in
matters related to the implementation of the STMP.
The WCCTAC-TAC shall provide administrative guidance
and technical review to the Board. Staff or
consultants hired by WCCTAC shall report directly to
the WCCTAC Executive Managing Director, or their
designee with consultation from the WCCTAC-TAC.
9. WCCTAC ORGANIZATION
(A) WCCTAC Board
WCCTAC shall be governed by the WCCTAC Board
which shall exercise all powers and authority
on behalf of WCCTAC. The Board is empowered to
establish its own procedures. The Board may do
any and all things necessary to carry out the
purposes of this Agreement.
(1) Members
(a) The Board shall consist of eleven
members which shall be allocated in
the following manner:
(i) Three members shall be
appointed by the governing
body of the City of Richmond;
(ii) The governing bodies of the
cities of El Cerrito,
Hercules, Pinole, and San
Pablo shall each appoint one
member;
(iii) The governing body of the
County of Contra Costa shall
appoint one member;
(iv) The governing bodies of AC
Transit and BART shall each
appoint one member; and
(v) The governing body of WestCAT
shall appoint one member
provided that the WestCAT
member(and said member's
alternate) shall not be a
representative(either elected
or non-elected) from either
the City of Hercules or the
City of Pinole.
(2) Officers
(b) Upon execution of this Agreement, the
governing body of each Agency shall
appoint the appropriate number of
its members to serve as members of the
Board and an appropriate number of its
members to serve as alternate
member(s) of the Board to serve in the
absence of its regular appointees.
Each member and alternate shall hold
office from the first meeting of the
Board after appointment until a
successor is selected. Each member and
alternate shall serve at the pleasure
of the governing body or bodies of the
appointing Agency or Agencies. In the
case of members or alternates who are
elected officials, if a member or
alternate ceases to be an elected
official of the member Agency, he or
she shall then be ineligible to serve
on the WCCTAC Board, and the
appointing Agency shall appoint a
successor prior to the next Board
meeting. Likewise, if a non- elected
member or alternate is replaced, said
member or alternate shall be
ineligible to serve on the WCCTAC
Board, and the appointing Agency shall
appoint a successor prior to the next
Board meeting. Each member and
alternate shall serve without
compensation.
The WCCTAC Board members shall select from the
WCCTAC Board a Chair and Vice Chair who shall hold
office for a period of one year, commencing
February 1; provided however, that in the event
that a member Agency removes from the Board a
member serving as an officer, the Board shall
appoint a member from the newly constituted Board
to fill the vacant office for the remainder of
that year.
(a) Chair. The Chair shall preside at the
meetings of the Board; call meetings to
order; adjourn meetings; announce the
business and the order it is to be acted
upon; recognize persons entitled to the
floor; put to vote all questions, moved and
seconded; announce result of votes; maintain
the rules of order; execute documents and
official actions on behalf of the Board when
duly approved; and carry out other duties set
forth in the by-laws.
(b) Vice Chair. The Vice Chair shall serve as
Chair in the absence of the regularly elected
Chair.
(c) Secretary. The WCCTAC Executive Managing
Director, or their designee, shall serve as
the Secretary and shall prepare, distribute,
and maintain minutes of meetings of the
WCCTAC Board, the WCCTAC-TAC and any
committees of the WCCTAC (or shall contract
for such services). The Secretary shall also
maintain the official records of the WCCTAC
and shall file notices as required by
Paragraph 20 of this Agreement.
(d) Treasurer. WCCTAC shall employ, or
contract for, the services of a Treasurer
who shall:
(i) Report to the WCCTAC Executive
Managing Director;
(ii) Receive and provide for the receipt
of all funds of the WCCTAC and
place them in the treasury to the
credit and for the account of the
WCCTAC;
(iii) Be responsible, upon an official
bond, for the safekeeping and
disbursement of all funds of the
WCCTAC;
(iv) Pay, when due, out of funds of the
WCCTAC, all sums payable on
outstanding Revenue Bonds and other
indebtedness of the WCCTAC;
(v) Pay any other sum duly authorized
for payment from funds of the
WCCTAC;
(vi) Verify and report, in writing, on
the first day of July, October,
January, and April of each year to
the Board and each member, at each
meeting s of the end of the
preceding month, the amount of
funds held for the WCCTAC, the
amount of receipts since the last
report and the
(vii)
amount paid out since the last
report; and
Invest WCCTAC's funds in the manner
provided by law and collect
interest thereon for the account of
the WCCTAC.
(3) Vote
(a) Authorized Voting Members
Each member or designated alternate shall be
authorized to vote.
(b) WCCTAC Business
For purposes of decisions related to the
regular business of the WCCTAC, including
policy decisions, preparation of budgets and
expenditures of funds, the City of Richmond
shall have three votes; the cities of El
Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, and San Pablo
shall have one vote apiece; the County of
Contra Costa shall have one vote; AC Transit
and BART shall have one vote apiece; and
WestCAT shall have one vote. A majority vote
of sSix affirmative votes shall be required
for the adoption of any course of action
related to the regular business of the
WCCTAC.
(c) Appointment of Representatives to the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority
Decisions related to determining WCCTAC
appointments to the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority shall be made only
by the participating City and County
jurisdictions. In these cases,
participating cities and the County shall
each have one vote. Under this section,
Richmond shall have one vote accordingly.
Board members from Richmond shall reach a
consensus on any affirmative vote under this
section. Four affirmative votes shall be
required for any WCCTAC decision related to
appointment of representatives to the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority. Appointees
must be members, or alternates, of the
WCCTAC Board.
(4) Meetings of the Board
(a) Regular Meetings
The Board shall meet at least ten times per
year unless the necessary business of the
Board can be completed with less meetings.
The date, hour, and place at which each such
regular meeting is held shall be determined
by a majority vote by the Board.
(b) Special Meetings
Special meetings of the Board may be called
in accordance with the provisions of Section
54956 of the California Government Code.
(b) Notice of Meetings
All meetings of the Board shall be held
subject to the provisions of the Ralph M.
Brown Act, being California Government Code
Sections 54950, et seq., and other applicable
laws of the State of California requiring
notice of meetings of public bodies to be
given.
(c) Minutes
The Board shall cause minutes of all meetings
to be kept and shall include the minutes in
the next agenda packet, or as soon
thereafter as they may be prepared and
provided, for approval.
(d) Quorum
A majority of the members of the Board shall
constitute a quorum for the transaction of
business.
(5) Bylaws
The Board shall adopt from time to time such
bylaws, rules, or regulations for the conduct of
its affairs as may be required.
(B) WCCTAC STAFF
(1) Composition
The WCCTAC shall have a staff consisting of an
Managing Executive Director who shall serve as
the primary staff person. Other staff may include
those with expertise in transportation planning,
funding, projects, and programs, or
administrative and finance support, a
Transportation Project Specialist and clerical
support. In addition, independent consultants
and/or interns may be engaged on a continuing or
short-term basis, as needed. The Managing
Executive Director shall report to the WCCTAC
Chair.
(2) Additional Staff
Additional staff may be added with Board approval
within budget the constraints. of the then current
fiscal year budget.
(C) WCCTAC-TAC ORGANIZATION
( 1) Composition
The WCCTAC shall have a technical advisory
committee which shall be known as the WCCTAC-TAC
and which shall be composed of the City Managers
of the participating cities or said City Managers'
designees; the District Managers of the
participating transit authorities or said District
Manager's designees; and the County Administrator
for Contra Costa County or said County
Administrator's designee.
(2) Duties
The WCCTAC-TAC shall study and discuss issues
pertaining to WCCTAC and shall make
recommendations to the WCCTAC concerning those
issues. However, the role of the WCCTAC-TAC in
making recommendations to the WCCTAC shall not be
deemed to preclude the WCCTAC from considering
recommendations from other bodies and concerned
individuals.
(3) Officers
The WCCTAC-TAC shall be chaired by the WCCTAC
Executive Managing Director.
10. SUPPORT SERVICES
Each of the Agencies shall strive to provide the necessary support to the Board and TAC as may be necessary for the Board and TAC to fulfill its their duties.
11. RESTRICTIONS UPON EXERCISE OF POWER OF BOARD
This Agreement is entered into under the provisions of Title l, Division 7, Chapter 5, Article I, Section 6500, et seq., of the California Government Code, concerning joint powers Agreements. The powers to be exercised hereunder shall be subject to the restrictions upon the manner of exercising the power of the City of San Pablo.
12. FUNDS, AUDIT AND ACCOUNTING SERVICES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 6505.5 of the
Government Code, the Director of Finance Finance Division Manager of the City of San Pablo is designated to be the depositary and to have custody of all WCCTAC funds from whatever source, and to perform the following functions, unless the WCCTAC Board determines otherwise. Fiscal
responsibilities shall include the following:
(A) Receive and receipt for all money for WCCTAC for the credit of the Board;
(B) Be responsible upon official bond for the safekeeping and disbursement of all Board money so held;
(C) Pay any sums due from the Board from Board money, or any portion thereof, only upon warrants of the WCCTAC
Executive Managing Director. There shall be a limit
of $25,000 $10,000 on the amount of warrants which
can be issued without Board approval.
(D) The Finance Division Manager of the City of San Pablo shall be considered the Treasurer of WCCTAC funds
unless otherwise determined by the WCCTAC Board. The
Treasurer of WCCTAC funds shall have custody of all
WCCTAC funds and shall verify and report in writing on
the first day of October, January, and April of each
year; and within ninety (90) days after the close of
the fiscal year ended June 30th, to the Board and to
the participating Agencies to this Agreement, the
amount of money the Treasurer holds for the Board, the
amount of receipts, and the amount paid out since the
last report to the Board.
The audit of funds shall be conducted annually in
compliance with Section 6505 of the Government Code by
an independent certified public accountant qualified
to perform on behalf of joint power authorities.
There shall be strict accountability of all funds and
reporting to the Board of all receipts and
disbursements. In each case the minimum requirements
of the audit shall be those prescribed by the State
Controller for municipalities or counties and the
audit shall conform to generally accepted auditing
standards.
(E) The Executive Managing Director and the Treasurer are hereby designated as the persons who have charge of and access to the property of WCCTAC. Each such person
shall file with the Board an official bond in an
amount to be fixed by the Board. The costs of the
bonds shall be paid by WCCTAC.
13. OBLIGATIONS OF THE AGENCIES
Each Agency shall:
(A) Be liable to the WCCTAC for, upon demand, its
proportionate share of expenses based upon the budget
adopted by the WCCTAC and member Agencies. Invoices
shall be prepared by the WCCTAC Executive Managing
Director. The proportionate share of each Agency shall
be determined according to the following formula:
City of Richmond 27.2%
City of El Cerrito 9.1%
City of Hercules 9.1%
City of Pinole 9.1%
City of San Pablo 9.1%
County of Contra Costa
San Francisco Bay Area
Rapid Transit
District Alameda-Contra
Costa
Transit District
WestCAT Western
Contra Costa Transit
District
9.1%
9.1%
9.1%
9.1%
(B) The WCCTAC Board will recommend a budget to member
Agencies each Fiscal Year and, based upon the formula set forth in Paragraph (A) above, WCCTAC shall annually
determine the amount of each member Agency's annual
proportionate share.
(C) Commencing on July 1, 1994, and continuing with
each July 1 thereafter, the WCCTAC Board shall approve a budget which reflects the annual costs and the
proportionate share of required funding to be provided
by each member Agency. WCCTAC members shall be invoiced annually on or about July 1 for the next fiscal year
and their share shall be payable immediately.
14. NON-DISCRIMINATION STATEMENT
WCCTAC promotes equal opportunities in the workplace. WCCTAC is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate based on an applicant's, employee's, intern's, or contractor's race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, citizenship, age, physical or mental disabilities, or any other characteristic protected by state or federal law.
15. DISPOSITION OF WCCTAC FUNDS UPON TERMINATION
WCCTAC funds, including any interest earned on deposits, remaining upon termination of this Agreement after payment of all obligations, shall be returned in proportion to the contribution made by each Agency during the term of this Agreement. Decisions of the Board shall be final in this regard.
16. WITHDRAWAL
Any Agency upon sixty (60) days' written notice given to the Chair of WCCTAC may withdraw from this Agreement; provided, however, that the withdrawing Agency shall be liable for its proportionate share of any expenses incurred, up to the date that the termination becomes effective, which exceeds the withdrawing Agency's contribution under Paragraph 13; and provided further, that in no event shall a withdrawing Agency be entitled to a refund of all or any part of its contribution made under Paragraph 13.
17. TERMINATION
(A) This Agreement shall remain in effect indefinitely
unless amended or terminated as provided hereunder.
(B) This Agreement may be terminated by the affirmative vote of the governing bodies of not less than two-thirds of
all member Agencies.
18. AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may be amended by the following process:
(A) The WCCTAC Board shall first consider any and all
amendments to this Agreement. A majority vote of the
WCCTAC Board shall be required before any recommended
amendment to this Agreement is forwarded to the member
Agencies for consideration and adoption.
(B) This Agreement may be amended by an affirmative vote of the governing bodies of not less than two-thirds of all member Agencies.
(C) Any amendment that is approved shall not become
effective until the WCCTAC Executive Managing Director
receives properly executed copies of the Agreement from not less than two-thirds of all member Agencies of
WCCTAC.
19. NOTICES
All notices to Agencies shall be deemed to have been given when mailed to the governing body of each Agency. Notices to WCCTAC shall be sent to the WCCTAC Board at:
WCCTAC
6333 Potrero Ave. Suite 100
El Cerrito, CA 94609
13831 San Pablo Avenue
San Pablo, CA 94806
Should WCCTAC’s address of record change, the Executive Director shall provide notices to the Agencies of the
change of address. Notices from others to WCCTAC shall be sent to the updated address.
20. FILINGS WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE
Within 30 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the Chair of WCCTAC shall file with the Office of the California Secretary of State a Notice of a Joint Powers Agreement for WCCTAC pursuant to California Government Code Sections 6505.3 and 6505.7, and a Statement of Facts - Roster of Public Agencies Filing pursuant to California Government Code Section 53051.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, these signatures attest the parties' Agreement to the provisions of this Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement.
I
·• .. .,......·······
d:::.w-;
(l
(l
>-3
(l
y
.·.·.··,·..·..·..·..·..·..·.·.··.··.··.··.··.···.·.·.··.···.•·.··.··.··.··.··.··.··.··.··.··.··.··.··.··.··,··.···.··.·•.,•·.'·•.·•.··.··.··.··.··.··.··.··.··.··.··.··.··.··.··.··.··.···.··.··.··.··.··.··.··.··.··.··.··.··.··.··.··;·?··,··.···.·.········ .. ' ..' ... '' ....'........ .·::::·:::::::::::::::.·::::::.·::::.·::::..........' ..' · ·•·
·:::::,:,:-:-:-:-:::::::\)\f .::-:-.·08. '
0 . . ..·.-:-:-:-:::-:-:-:-:-:::-::,:,:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:•:-:,:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-'.-:-:-:-:-:...:,:-:::.:,.::::,_.
H
';,"
;=i
tr)
><
tr)
::0
(l
H
Ul
t<:l
0 hj
'd
0 t<:l
::0
Ul
41 .
APPENDIXA
······················
.
:
.
:
::
.
:
..
:
.
::
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
;
:
·
:
:
:
::
:
:
:
:
:
:
::
:.
.
::
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:.
:
·
:
.·
:
:
:
::
:
:
:
:
:
.·
:
.
:
·:
:>:'
:
.
-
'
:
,
-
'
:
.
-
'
:
,
-
'
:-
..
:.:-· "
"I/
;:;;:;==--====::z.
-,
Hercules
'''\(\-_.. ).
:: -:-:-:-::<:-
'\'.-
1Jrn•••··•·•····
I
I
::0 . · · · · •· · ···..
t<:l t<:l
...
.
..................
.
·
.
·
.
·
.
·
.
·
·
·
·
··
·
·
·
·•·
.
·
.
·
.
.... ·······.·.·..
:,;;
z
t<:l
>-3
••••• •••••••'•••••••'••♦ ••
,, ,, '.' ,,,,,,''
...., . ' ............. ..·.·,'················.·.·.
.,_sr, co_f!! - E!!!l!-c_2!! r! !:!!!!P--
0 \D
'--..
\D
'--..
0 N
'tJ
0 tr)
N
CJ,
...
.,,....... 1............ w.u-
........ '
,.
WEST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION 23.05
ADOPTION OF FISCAL YEAR 2023-2014 WORK PROGRAM, BUDGET, AND
MEMBER DUES
WHEREAS. the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee ("WCCTAC") is a Joint cx:erc1se of powers authority fonned pursuant to Government Code Section 6500, et. seq. by and between the Ctty or El Cerrito, the City of H~rculcs, the City of Pinole, the City of Richmond, the City of San Pablo, Contra Costa County, Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District ("AC Transit"), San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit ("BARr'), and West Contra Costa Tram,il Authority ("W"'-stCAT .. }. l\nd
WHEREAS. the WCCT AC Jomt E,cercise of Powers Agreement{" Agreement") authorizes WCCTAC to: annually adopt a work program along with a budget scuing forth all operational expenses, together with an appo1tionment of expenses allocated to each member agency; make and enter mto contracts; apply for and accept grants, develop and administer the TransportRlion Demand Management (''TDM") Program~ and act as fiscal agent for the Subregional Transponation Mitigation Fee Pro1,rram C-'STMP"), and
WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2023·2024 proposed work program, budget, and member agency dues were circulated for review by the member agencies, and all comments received were duly noted and addressed.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED. that the Board of Directors of WCCTAC adopts the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 work program. budget, and member agency dues. and as shown in the attachments to this Resoluuon, which are incorporated herein by reference.
The foregoing Resolution was adopted b)' the WCCTAC Board at a regular meeting on June 23, 2023 by the following vote:
John
Approved as to Form:_ ~\;.Lf,fJ/'
Kristopher J. Kokotayto. General Counsel
WCCTAC
FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
WORK PROGRAM
WCCTAC's activities may be grouped into the following five major areas: Planning and Programming (General Operations), Special Projects, Transportation Demand Management (TOM), Sub-regional Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (STMP), and Office Administration.
Planning and Programming (General Operations)
This program area relates to WCCTAC's function as the Regional Transportation Planning Committee (RTPC) for West Contra Costa County under Measure J. It also includes transportation planning efforts resulting from the agency's Joint Powers Agency function.
Activities in this program area are mainly funded with annual member agency contributions and, to a smaller extent, Measure J dollars.
MEASURE J PROGRAMMING
1. Program and administer West County's Measure J projects and programs, including:
a. Low Income Student Bus Pass Program (Measure J 21b)
b. Additional Bus Transit Enhancements (Measure J 19b)
c. Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities (Measure J 15b, 20b) d. Sub-regional needs (Measure J 28b)
COUNTY-WIDE AND REGIONAL PLANNING AND FUNDING
2. Work with CCTA on the development of the Countywide Transportation Plan Update.
3. Monitor Action Plan compliance by reviewing certain proposed projects, General Plans or Amendments, and work to advance goals, objectives and actions contained in the West County Action Plan.
4. Partner with CCTA on the development of training sessions to assist local jurisdictional staff with Growth Management Program (GMP) checklist compliance.
5. Participate in follow-up activities related to the countywide Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan.
6. Participate in regional, countywide, sub-regional, and local efforts related to planning, funding, and delivery of priority capital projects in West County.
7. Participate in CCTA's Integrated Transit Plan effort.
8. Monitor the Link21 effort to improve the regional rail network in Northern California and provide input as needed.
9. Monitor local and regional efforts that support transit financial stabilization and keep the WCCTAC Board informed.
10. Monitor the AC Transit Realign effort and keep the WCCTAC Board informed about potential service changes
1-80, 1-580 and S.R. 4 CORRIDORS
11. Monitor and participate, if possible, in MTC's Bus on Shoulder Study and advocate for its implementation on 1-80, consistent with the recommendations in WCCTAC's West County Express Bus Implementation Plan.
12. Monitor the progress of recommendations in MTC's 1-80 Design Alternatives Assessment and keep the WCCTAC TAC and Board informed.
13. Work with MTC, Caltrans, and other agencies to promote capital improvements that may benefit transit in West County.
14. Work with Hercules, CCTA, and CCJPA on securing funding for the Hercules Hub, formerly known as the Regional lntermodal Transportation Center, in Hercules.
15. Work with CCTA to identify funding or address other project development needs for key projects such as the San Pablo Dam Rd interchange or Central Ave. phase 2.
16. Provide updates to the WCCTAC Board on 1-80 corridor issues as needed.
17. Continue participating in the 1-580 Open Road Tolling and HOV project led by MTC.
18. Participate in CCTA's State Route 4 Corridor Vision effort.
SUB-REGIONAL ACTIVITIES
19. Seek funding to advance and implement the projects recommended in Phase 2 of the San Pablo Avenue Multimodal Corridor Study with CCTA and ACTC and local jurisdictions.
20. Continue advancement of recommendations of: the West County High-Capacity Transit Study, the West Contra Costa County Express Bus Implementation Plan and the San Pablo Avenue Multimodal Corridor Study, Phase 2.
21. Based on the 2015 Cooperative Agreement, participate with WETA, CCTA and Richmond on annual review of the Richmond ferry's ridership, marketing, fare policy, access issues, and capital needs.
22. Monitor plans for transit-oriented development and supporting access improvements at both El Cerrito BART Stations and work with BART and El Cerrito.
23. Assist local jurisdictions in the implementation of a low stress bike network in West County through the identification of funding opportunities.
GRANTS
24. Monitor grant opportunities, inform member agencies, pursue grants if appropriate, provide letters of support to member agencuies, and facilitate prioritization of West County candidate projects for grants. Some examples of grant opportunities include State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for complete street projects, Active Transportation Program (ATP) grants for pedestrian and bicycle improvements, Program for Arterial System Synchronization (PASS) for adjusting signal timing, as well as federal 5310 grants for senior and disabled transportation.
25. Consider the potential for an on-call consultant that could assist WCCTAC staff in the development of complex grant applications.
26. Take the lead in applying for grants for planning and implementation of multijurisdictional improvements, in partnership with member agencies.
FORMAL BODIES
27. Manage or participate in meetings of the: WCCTAC Board, WCCTACTAC, CCTA Board, CCTA Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (CBPAC), CCTA Administration and Projects Committee (AP(), CCTA Paratransit Coordinating Committee (PCC), the Active Transportation Specific Plan (ATSP) Task Force, the West County Mobility Management Group, the West County Senior Coalition, CCTA Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC), CCTA Growth Management Task Force, and the Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Advisory Committee.
Special Projects
As a Joint Powers Agency, WCCTAC may apply for and receive various grants that advance the transportation goals of West Contra Costa. WCCTAC can also serve as a lead for certain studies or projects using other agency contributions. In the upcoming fiscal year, WCCTAC will:
1. Manage the on-going development of the draft Richmond Parkway Transportation Plan, formerly known as the Richmond Parkway Environmental Justice and Regional Mobility Plan.
2. Manage the Travel Training Program funded by Measure J 28b. This will involve teaching groups and individuals to use fixed route transit (BART, buses, ferry}, ADA and non-ADA paratransit, and other mobility services.
3. In partnership with CCTA, the County, and other stakeholders, develop and implement a pilot program aimed at providing medical trips outside of the subregion to senior and disabled residents.
Transportation Demand Management (TOM)
This program promotes transportation alternatives to the single occupant vehicle by encouraging walking, bicycling, transit, carpooling, and vanpooling, and is coordinated with the larger countywide 511 Contra Costa Program. It is funded on a reimbursement basis by Measure J and grants from the Air District. In the upcoming fiscal year, the TOM program will:
1. Manage the Employer-Based Trip Reduction Program, which includes: employer outreach and programs, tabling at community events, transit incentives, funding for bike racks and lockers, funding for EV charging stations.
2. Manage the West County "Pass2Class" program that provides free transit passes to students at the beginning of the school year.
3. Manage the Commuter Benefit program, which includes the countywide programs Guaranteed Ride Home, Try Transit, Take 10, and Secure Your Cycle Programs.
4. Co-lead Bike to Wherever Days 2024 with other regional partners.
5. Participate in TOM plan for the areas around the El Cerrito and Richmond BART stations.
6. Support Local Agency Climate Action plans and efforts that aim to improve access to bicycling, pedestrian facilities, transit, and emerging mobility technology such as shared bicycles and cars, electric bicycles, scooters, and autonomous vehicles.
7. Continue to implement strategy to encourage telework/work from home policies and flexible work hour policies with Contra Costa Employers.
8. Continue to coordinate micro-mobility (scooters, bike rental) planning and implementations around the West County Region, in close partnership with the cities and county.
9. Assist in the promotion of the new City of Richmond Moves shuttle service.
10. Implement the Summer Youth Pass program, which provides discounted bus passes for youth during summer months.
11. Implement and promote annual community walking and biking programs, Winter Walk Challenge and Summer Bike Challenge.
Sub-regional Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (STMP) WCCTAC acts as the trustee for the development impact fees collected by the West County cities and the unincorporated areas of the County. An updated program went into effect on July 1, 2019. Under the updated program, STMP funds are to be used for twenty preidentified, regionally-benefitting capital projects. In the upcoming fiscal year, WCCTAC will:
1. Collect, administer, and track funds and reporting forms.
2. Provide monitoring reports on revenue collected and status of local reporting.
3. Develop funding agreements with project sponsors for any Board-approved funding allocations.
4. Manager a call for projects based on Board direction, and allocate funds to eligible, Board-approved projects.
5. Respond to inquiries from local agencies and members of the public.
6. Review and process appeal and exemption requests.
7. Monitor and update, as needed, the expiration dates of existing STMP funding agreements.
8. Begin the required five-year review and update of the 2019 STMP and its nexus study.
Modify spreadsheet system to ease program administration and improve monitoring.
Administration
In the upcoming fiscal year, staff will:
1. Maintain, update, and expand content on the WCCTAC website including Zoom videos of board meetings.
2. Continually evaluate work and meeting practices, post Covid.
3. Continue digitizing WCCTAC records including funding agreements, resolutions, and Board and TAC meeting packets.
4. Develop a remote work policy.
5. Explore office options and/or prepare for lease renewal.
6. Update the Joint Powers Agreement
SUMMARY OF ALL ACCOUNTS FY
2023-2024 Final Budget
Activity Actual
FY 2021-22
REVENUES
33403 Grants (TOM) 624,036
33403 TDM Grant Reallocation .
34111 Member Contributions 531,744
343xx STMP Fees 975,875
36102 Interest (LAIF) 13,590
39906 Other Grants 312,524
39906 Measure J for Student Bus Pass Program 120,000
39906 Measure J 20b, 21b, 28b for Admin 73,102
TOTAL REVENUES 2,650,871
EXPENSES
Salary, Benefits & Insurance
41000s Salary & Benefits 888,125
41911 Liability Insurance 10,350
................................... Total. Salaries,. Benefits.&_ Insurance 898,475 ..................................
Professional Services
43600 Professional Services
Financial and IT Services 45,766
Audit 16,106
Attorney Services 13,222
Accounting Services 12,316
Program Related Services (TOM) 55,560
Other 2,182
Total Professional Services 145,152 .................................. Special Expenses (Project/ Program Funding) 44000 Special Dept. Expense
Incentives I Marketing (TOM) 176,558
TFCA Special Project .
Misc. STMP Project Funding 101,296
Student Bus Pass Program • WCCUSD 60,000
Student Bus Pass Program - J Swett 60,000
San Pablo Ave Corridor Study 312,255
Richmond Prkwy Corridor Study .
Contingency (WCCTAC Operations) 1,522
................................................................ Total. Speci a 1. Expenses 711,631 .................................. Travel & Training 44320 Travel/Training/Mileage/Mbrshp 774
.................................................................... Total.Travel/Training 774 .................................. Office Expenses & Supplies 43500 Office Supplies 4,812
43501 Postage 1,355
43502 TOM Postage 634
43520 Printing, Copier Lease 5,671
43900 Rent/Building 43,328
...................................................... Total. Office. Exp_&. Supplies ................ ss,aoo .. TOTAL EXPENSES 1,811,832 REVENUES • EXPENSES 839,039
Notes:
See notes in the attached detail sheets by account.
Original Estimated
FY 2022-23 FY 2022-23
525,095 525,095
252,561 252,561
556,329 556,329
3,770,000 3,905,861
18,000 19,827
151,109 208,212
98,000 106,416
100,150 62,233
5,471,244 5,636,534
972,121 932,299
9,278 9,278
981,399 941,577 .................................. .................................. 43,500 47,778
13,250 12,512
12,000 16,043
12,000 12,579
35,000 9,165
1,000 350
............. 116,750 .. ................ 98,427 ..
89,169 182,701
252,561 252,561
6,780,536 406,540
50,000 57,454
48,000 48,962
24,000 53,197
127,109 132,388
10,000 3,762
7,381,375 ......... 1,137,565 . .................................. 11,750 4,141
11,750 ................................. ................... 4,141 . 5,900 6,347
1,500 1,576
1,500 3,275
6,400 6,187
44,750 43,687
60,050 61,072 .................................. .................................. 8,551,324 2,242,782
(3,080,080} 3,393,752
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
Proposed
FY 2023-24
596,860
- 584,874
2,130,000
15,000
444,994
110,000
86,687
3,968,415
995,946
9,278
1,005,224 .................................
49,000
13,250
16,000
13,100
11,000
1,000
103,350 . ................................
164,060
-
6,391,144
60,000
50,000
9,829
397,165
10,000
........ 7,082,198 .
7,750
.................. 1,1so.
6,400
1,600
3,000
6,400
44,500
61,900 .................................
8,260,422
(4,292,007)
5,929,395
1,637,388
Note
....................
....................
. ...................
.. .......... ,,~, .. ,,
....................
DETAIL: WCCTAC Operations
FY 2023-24 Final Budget
Activity
REVENUES
34111 Member Contributions
36102 Interest· LAIF
39906 Other· Measure J (20b & 21b)
Other - Measure J 28b
Caltrans Planning Grant
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENSES
Salary, Benefits & Insurance
41000s Salary & Benefits
41911 Liability Insurance
Total Salaries, Benefits & Insurance ......................................................................................................
Professional Services
43600 Professional Services
Financial · City of San Pablo
IT I VOiP phone
Audit
Attorney Services
Accounting Services
Other
Total Professional Services .......................................................................................................
Special Department Expenses
44000 Special Dept. Expense
Contingency
....................... Tota 1. Special. Department. Expenses Training & Mileage
44320 Training/Mileage
................................................... Tota 1. Training/Mileage Office Expenses & Supplies
43500 Office Supplies
43501 Postage
43520 Printing, Copier Lease
43900 Rent/Building
............................... Total. Office. Expense. & . Supplies
TOTAL EXPENSES
REVENUES- EXPENSES
Notes:
Actual FY
2021-2022
531,744
192
29,000
44,102
605,038
517,874
5,175
523,049 ..................................
19,395
11,738
16,106
13,222
5,518
1,832
67,811 ..................................
1,522
1,522 ..................................
so
50 ..................................
4,216
1,355
2,591
21,594
29,756 .................................. 622,188
(17,150)
Original FY Estimated
2022-2023 2022·2023
556,329 556,329
. 277
29,000 31,000
71,150 31,233
20,000
656,479 638,839
564,484 524,733
4,639 4,639
S69,123 529,372 .................................. .................................. 19,500 20,556
12,500 12,135
13,250 12,512
12,000 16,043
6,000 5,838
1,000 350
................ 64,250 __ 67,434 .. ................................ 10,000 3,762
10,000 3,762 .................................. .................................. 4,000 1,S99
4,000 1,599 .................................. .................................. 4,500 4,556
1,500 1,576
3,200 3,260
22,750 21,897
................ 31,950 .. 31,289 . ................................. 679,323 633,456 (22,844) S,383
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
Reserve· Undesignated
Reserve · Accumulated Vacation
Available Balance above Reserve
(a) FY 23 dues are proposed to be increased by 5.25%.
(b) A portion of Measure J program funds can be used lo cover administative expenses. (c) Funds programmed by the Board for Travel Training work. (d) Revenue for Caltrans grant (Richmond Parkway) that can cover some staff time (e) Hlgher expenses mainly reflect resumption of the travel training program, also 3.5% COLA (Q Contingency per Board Reserve Po~cy.
Proposed
2023-2024
584,874
.
32,737
53,950
35,000
706,561
569,435
4,639
............. 574,074 .
21,000
13,160
13,250
15,000
6,100
1,000
69,510 .................................
10,000
................ 10,000_
2,500
2,500 . ................................
4,600
1,600
3,300
22,500
32,000 ................................. 688,084
18,477
$122,039
$140,516
$120,000
$20,000
$516
Notes
(a)
(bl
(c)
(d)
(e)
. ...................
....................
(f)
.. ..................
.. ...................
....................
DETAIL: Other Reimbursable (Special Projects)
FY 2023-24 Final Budget
Activity
REVENUES
33403 Grants
36102 Interest - LAIF
39906 Other Grants
Student Bus Pass Admin, WCCUSD
Student Bus Pass Program - J Swett
Misc Travel Training (non salary)
San Pablo Ave. Corridor Study
Richmond Prkwy Corridor Study
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENSES
Special Project Expenses
43600 Professional Services
Total Professional Services ........................................................................................................... 44000 Projects Student Bus Poss Admin, WCCUSD
Student Bus Pass Program - J Swett
Misc Travel Training (non salary)
San Pablo Ave. Corridor Study
Richmond Prkwy Corridor Study
...................................... Total_ Special _Project _Expenses
TOTAL EXPENSES
REVENUES- EXPENSES
Notes:
Actual FY
2021·22
60,000
60,000
269
312,255
.
432,524
.................................
60,000
60,000
269
312,255
-
432,524 ................................. 432,524
.
Original FY Estimated FY
2022-23 2022-2023
50,000 57,454
48,000 48,962
. 2,627
24,000 53,197
127,109 132,388
249,109 294,628
.................................. . ................................... 50,000 57,454
48,000 48,962
- 2,627
24,000 53,197
127,109 132,388
249,109 ............... 294,628 .. .................................. 249,109 294,628 . - Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
(a) Phase 2 of the San Pablo Ave. Corridor Study has targeley concluded (b) Study is expected to spend the bulk of awaitable funds in the upcoming fiscal year.
Proposed FY
Note 2023-24
60,000
50,000
3,000
9,829 (a)
397,165 (b)
519,994
. .................................. ........................... 60,000
50,000
3,000
9,829 (a)
397,165 (b)
............... 519,994_ . ..........................
519,994
-
DETAIL: STMP
FY 2023-24 Final Budget
Activity
REVENUES
34310 County STMP Fees
34315 El Cerrito STMP Fees
34320 Hercules STMP Fees
34325 Pinole STMP Fees
34330 Richmond STMP Fees
34335 San Pablo STMP Fees
36102 Interest - LAIF
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENSES
Salary & Benefits
41000s Salary & Benefits (STMP Admin)
Total Salaries and Benefits ............................................................................................................
Funding of STMP Projects
43600 Prof. Services
Total Prof. Services ............................................................................................................ 44000 Project Funding 2006 STMP Program:
Hercules Hub - Ph.3 Design
San Pablo Ave. Bridge (Pinole)
Pinole Bay Trail at Tennent Ave.
Richmond J-80/Central Ave. Ph.2
Cycle 1 2019 STMP Projects:
Appian Wy Complete St- PE
Bay Trail: Pinole Pt. to Pt. Wilson
Richmond Ferry to Bridge
Hercules RITC: Utility/Track/Signal
EC Plaza: Fare gates I Elevator
Def Norte TOD: Complete Sts.
SPA Bridge (City of San Pablo)
........................................................... Total _Project. Funding
TOTAL EXPENSES
REVENUES • EXPENSES
Notes:
Actual FY
2021-2022
-
104,625
-
290,133
444,711
136,406
13,398
989,273
65,000
................ 65,000_
. ..................................
62,852
38,444
............. 101,296_
166,296
8,645,296
Original FY Estimated
2022-2023 2022-2023
50,000 2,103,357
800,000 220,769
. -
20,000 20,067
1,600,000 1,281,778
1,300,000 279,890
18,000 19,550
3,788,000 3,925,411
75,000 75,000
75,000 .............. ..7s,ooo_ .................................. . - .................................. ................................. 750,000 137,560
1,520,000 18,980
61,556
700,000
100,000
500,000
241,000
300,000
750,000 250,000
1,189,980
668,000
6,780,536 ............. 406,540_
6,855,536 481,540
(3,067,536) 12,089,167
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
(a) STMP receipts are forecasted based on local jurisdictions' estimates and past submittals.
Proposed
FY2023-24
750,000
250,000
40,000
40,000
750,000
300,000
15,000
2,145,000
80,000
80,000 .. ................................
. ...................................
612,440
1,518,168
61,556
700,000
100,000
500,000
241,000
300,000
500,000
1,189,980
668,000
6,391,144 ..................................
6,471,144
(4,326,144)
12,089,167
7,763,023
(b) 4% of cumulative STMP revenues can be used for admin, but a max. of $BOK will be used in FY23.
Note
(a)
(b) . ...................
. ...................
WCCTAC
FY2024 DUES STRUCTURE
WCCTAC Member Agency
City of El Cerrito
Percent Share
9.1%
Proposed
FY 24 Dues
$54,494 - - --··•••····-•···-•··---.,1111111,-····-·-··-·-··•···•· - ·••.nunn1n1t1Huu 1••••Nnnnnnn,n1111 1111111 • _ ,,.,.,.,.,., .• ..•. ---• -••u11111111uu .. , , •..•• - ••••••• , . - ...... , _.,, City of Hercules 9.1% ----··un, nu,•nn,••••1•11·-- n,11111111·---··-•••••••••.-,.u-····-•1uu111111uuuuu ... ,_..._,,_ ,,,,u,111• ·•''"'"'''"'" '"'"'--- $54,494
City of Pinole 9.1% $54,494 ' "llllllll""'lll l'-" l l '"---••11111111 •• -----'-"UO.UIIIIIIIUtt ... •••••-•••-U-tlUO.UOUHOHHOH_.. ... _NIIWNIIU.-.. , , , ___ , l,IHOIIIIIIUUIUioiiioo --• I ,,., City of Richmond 27.2% $163,482 ---·- ·o•u,,,,,.,,..,..,,,.,,,,,,.-, .. -..,,,,,,,,.._ .... _ .. _ ... _ .......... _ ,,""'"''''"""""' ·-••••-- '""""•"""'"'"''-••·-----"""'•"••••••••·--- ··••• ••••••nn•,• City of San Pablo 9.1% $54,494 -·-·--····•••--··-··--·-- ·······---- ·---n11n··--·-.,•••••••,,,,,,,,,.,,,.._ .. ,....,,,,,,,,, .. ,, ..... _ . ..... - .,, ... ,1Moon11H11 H 111oonnRTI,o'- •"''''""''"'"'· Contra Costa County 9.1% $54,494 ········-·····--···-·-·-·-·,,,.,,, ______ ,,,, ... ,, ....... ___ ._,, ............ ,, .... ___ ,,,,,,, __ - ····-···-·-····""'""''"'"""""'"·--"''"'···" ··"··· AC Transit 9.1% $54,494 ·······················--·-······ ----- - - - ·-·nu·,··-.................... ,....... ___ .. HIHU I IIUHHOHU,-.... __ BART 9.1% $54,494 ., ............... -...... ---........... ______ ,,,,,,..,,,,, .... _ ........................... _,, __ ,, ___ .............. ,.·--····""""'"'""""··-·- WestCAT
discount
WestCAT Subtotal
Total
9.1%
100.0%
$54,494
($14,560)
$39,934
$584,874
CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.D.
DATE: JUNE 4, 2024
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SANJAY MISHRA, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
ERIC CASHER, CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: EV CHARGING ORDINANCE- 2ND READING- AND ADOPTION
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council conduct a second reading and adopt an Ordinance adding Chapter 10.80, EV charging stations, to the Pinole Municipal Code to establish restrictions for city-owned EV parking spaces and to establish a schedule of rates for EV charging stations and to authorize the City Manager to adjust the rates to recover the City’s cost.
BACKGROUND
Currently, City of Pinole provides a dual port EV charging station in the Public Safety Building parking lot at 808 Tennent Ave. This charger has been offered free of charge to users as part of our commitment to promoting sustainable transportation options and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As the adoption of electric vehicles continues to grow, it is imperative that we establish a sustainable framework to support the infrastructure necessary for their operation to ensure the chargers are available to residents in a fair and equitable manner.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The adoption of electric vehicles represents a significant opportunity to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and mitigate the impacts of climate change. By implementing fees for EV chargers, we can ensure the sustainability and effectiveness of our charging infrastructure while continuing to support the transition towards cleaner transportation alternatives.
At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 21, 2024, the City Council received a presentation and staff report to introduce and conduct a first reading of an ordinance adding chapter 10.80, EV charging stations, to the Pinole Municipal Code to establish restrictions for city-owned EV parking spaces and to establish a schedule of rates for EV charging stations. The City Council voted unanimously in favor of the proposed ordinance attached as Attachment A. If approved on second reading, the ordinance will go into effect in thirty (30) days.
Adopting an ordinance for EV charging fees will enable the City of Pinole to manage and optimize the use of EV charging infrastructure, support the transition to sustainable transportation, and achieve various economic, environmental, and social objectives.
The proposed fee structure will be communicated to the public through various channels,
including the City's website, social media platforms, and signage at charging stations. Users will be able to pay for charging sessions either through a mobile app, or by credit/debit card, providing convenience and accessibility.
FISCAL IMPACT
Adoption of this ordinance will help the City generate revenue to offset the costs of maintaining the EV charging infrastructure, thus making this infrastructure expansion financially sustainable.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Ordinance EV Charging
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PINOLE ADDING CHAPTER 10.80, EV
CHARGING STATIONS, TO THE PINOLE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH
RESTRICTIONS FOR CITY-OWNED ELECTRIC VEHICLE PARKING SPACES, TO
ESTABLISH A SCHEDULE OF RATES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING
STATIONS, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ADJUST THE RATES TO RECOVER CITY’S COST
WHEREAS, the City of Pinole has installed an electric vehicle (EV) charging station at a Cityowned parking lot, and will be installing more charging stations in the future; and WHEREAS, as more residents switch from internal combustion engine vehicles to electric vehicles, the demand for these EV charging stations will only grow; and WHEREAS, to ensure that EV charging stations are used in a fair and equitable manner, the City Council desires adding language to the Pinole Municipal Code to establish regulations and limitations on the occupancy of an EV charging station; and WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance would also establish rates for vehicles using the City’s EV charging stations, and authorize the City Manager to increase those rates in a specified manner; and
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance will facilitate the use of the City’s EV charging stations by a larger number of residents.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings The City Council of the City of Pinole finds that all of the above Recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. Municipal Code Amendment. Chapter 10.80, EV Charing Stations, is hereby added to the Pinole Municipal Code to read as follows:
10.80 EV Charging Stations.
10.80.010 City-Owned Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations.
A. Designation of Parking Spaces. The Public Works Director, or their designee, is authorized in accordance with the purposes of this chapter to designate spaces in off-street public parking facilities for the exclusive parking of electric vehicles that are connected to electric vehicle charging stations for the purpose of transfer of electricity to the battery or other energy storage device of an electric vehicle.
B. Signs or Markings. Upon designation of a parking space or spaces for the exclusive use of electric vehicles pursuant to Subsection A of this section, the Public Works Director hall place signs or markings giving adequate notice that the parking space or spaces are restricted and to be
used only for such electric vehicles. The signs or markings shall be in compliance with California Vehicle Code § 22511 indicating that vehicles left standing in violation of the restriction may be removed. The parking restriction shall not apply to the designated parking spaces until the sign or markings have been placed.
C. In parking stalls designated by the use of markings and/or posting as electric vehicle charging stations, only electric vehicles are allowed to park for charging events during designated hours.
D. It is unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to allow a vehicle to park or stand in a designated electric vehicle charging station longer than the posted time limit.
E. It is unlawful for the operator of an electric vehicle to allow that vehicle to park or stand in a designated electric vehicle charging station unless the vehicle is actively conducting a charging event.
F. The police department is authorized to cite and/or remove or cause the removal of vehicles parked in violation of this section in accordance with California Vehicle Code § 22511.
G. Fees for use of electric vehicle charging stations at electric vehicle parking spaces owned by the City of Pinole shall be as follows:
1. Baseline energy fee of $0.35 per kilowatt-hour, effective from 12:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and from 9:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. everyday.
2. Time-of-Use energy fee of $0.40per kilowatt-hour, effective from 3: 00p.m.to 9:00 p.m. everyday.
3. Ancillary fee of $1.50 per charging session.
4. Overstay fee of $1.00 per minute up to 30minutes, charged after 4hours and 15 minutes of charging from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. everyday.
5. The City Manager may adjust the energy fees by increments no smaller than one cent ($0.01).
6. The maximum allowable annual percentage increase in energy fees shall not exceed the annual percentage increase in PG&E’s average electric rate, published in Table 1.8 of the California Public Utility Commission’s most current Assembly Bill 67 Annual Report on electric and gas utility costs.
7. Adjustments to the energy fees associated with the use of electric vehicle charging stations shall be posted to the City’s website no later than 30 days prior to the adjustment.
8. Energy fees may be adjusted no more than once per fiscal year.
SECTION 3. CEQA. This ordinance is exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the commonsense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and Section 15273(a), the exception for the establishment of rates, tolls, fares, and charged.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council of the City of Pinole hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. Following adoption by at least a four-fifths vote of the City Council, this Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon adoption pursuant to Government Code section 65858. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Urgency Ordinance and shall cause it to be published within fifteen (15) days of the adoption and shall post a certified copy of this Urgency Ordinance, including the vote for and against the same, in the Office of the City Clerk, in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pinole City Council held on the 4th day of June 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Maureen Toms, Mayor
ATTEST:
Heather Bell, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Eric S. Casher, City Attorney
CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 10.B.
DATE: JUNE 4, 2024
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: KAPIL AMIN, SUSTAINABILITY FELLOW
LILLY WHALEN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: SINGLE USE PLASTIC FOODWARE AND BAG REDUCTION ORDINANCE
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council conduct a public hearing and first reading of an ordinance adding Chapter 8.38 "Single-use Plastic Foodware and Bag Reduction" to the Pinole Municipal Code
BACKGROUND
Single-use plastic (SUP) bags and foodware are a major contributor to street litter, ocean pollution, and wildlife entanglement. A 2022 trash study of Pinole Creek linked SUPs as the majority of debris retrieved from the creek. Furthermore, SUPs exacerbate the consumption of fossil fuels as well as maintain an extremely low recycling rate. SUPs also break down and accumulate as microplastics, posing a threat to human health. Therefore, it is imperative to consider the adoption of regulations that can reduce the consumption of SUP bags and food packaging in Pinole and improve the health of the public and environment.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Chapter 8.38, a new section of the Pinole Municipal Code (PMC), would require Pinole food providers1 to transition all (1) SUP foodware to compostable foodware and (2) SUP bags to paper bags. Retail businesses2 not currently regulated by Senate Bill 2703 would be required to transition from SUP bags to paper bags. See Attachment A for the draft Ordinance.
The draft Ordinance also emphasizes reusable bags and foodware where feasible, not only because it is the most cost-effective but also the most sustainable. Staff conducted extensive outreach and engagement with the Pinole business community in order to learn the barriers to transitioning away from SUPs. Staff comprehensively researched alternatives to SUPs and solutions to mitigate barriers for businesses.
Attachments B and C are Municipal Code Subcommittee reports which detail the engagement, research and analysis that informed the proposed Ordinance in Attachment A (and visually represented in the webinar slides in Attachment D). Equitable legislation was formulated and fine-tuned based on input and feedback from Pinole businesses, the community, the Municipal Code Subcommittee, the City's waste hauler Republic Services, and jurisdictions with similar regulation.
Below is a summary of the engagement that led to the proposed Ordinance:
Month/Year Engagement Activity Brief Summary of Work
January 2023 Municipal Code Subcommittee
Meeting (MCSC) 1
Reviewed similar legislation in
other jurisdictions
March 2023 Business and Resident/Visitor Learned community's attitude
Surveys Released towards SUPs and alternatives
April 2023 Public Expo: Alternatives to SUPs Gathered vendors of SUP alternatives for community to
explore and learn about
cost/functionality
June 2023 Fire Wings x Foodware Pilot Conducted a pilot loop system where customers can check out
and return a reusable takeout
container
August 2023 Cost analysis of Pinole food
business
Performed a cost analysis to
replace SUPs with compostable
foodware with a Pinole business
August 2023 MCSC Meetings 2 and 3 Reviewed outreach results and provided direction on regulations
(see Attachment B)
September-November 2023 Regulation Feedback Survey
Release
Emailed and consulted with
businesses to learn barriers and
required resources as well as vet
different components of regulation
January 2024 MCSC Meeting 4 Reviewed results of regulation feedback survey (see Attachment
C)
February 2024 MCSC Meeting 5 Reviewed and revised draft Ordinance (see Attachment A)
April 2024 Present draft ordinance to
business community
Collected feedback from Pinole
businesses on draft Ordinance
(see Attachment D)
The biggest concern for businesses revolves around the expense of alternative options. These alternatives can range from being less expensive, to being at par with current costs, and sometimes even 10-15% pricier. Incorporating reusable foodware and bags can help offset these expenses.
Components of the proposed legislation that have been designed to help alleviate financial burden for businesses include:
• Optional takeout fees for food providers;
• Mandatory bag surcharge fees for retailers;
• Allowance of consumer-owned bags;
• Partial and full waivers for disposable foodware item(s) when there is no compliant foodware item with substantially similar size, performance and/or utility or, if such an item(s) exist, that costs of using such item(s) would cause undue financial hardship; and • For eligible small businesses (i.e., employ ten full time equivalents or less and have gross receipts less than $500,000 annually) extensions of time to comply.
The City can further assist businesses by exploring innovative ways such as negotiating budget-friendly community contracts with suppliers, asking property owners to help alleviate costs for businesses, and offering green donation jars to support eco-friendly initiatives.
The ordinance would go into effect on January 1, 2025, and enforcement would begin July 1, 2025, with the exception of businesses who have been granted extensions of time to comply with the Ordinance.>>>>>>
FISCAL IMPACT
Effective technical support is vital to ensure businesses achieve timely and accurate compliance. At the very least, the City should offer straightforward technical assistance, including webinars, in-person guidance, resource packets, and signage, to aid businesses in meeting compliance standards. This would necessitate allocating staff hours (envisioned as a part of the Sustainability Coordinator/Manager role) to assist businesses and enforce regulations on non-compliant entities. Additionally, staff recommends the Ordinance will be more effective if the City explores and funds more extensive technical support options, such as partnering with organizations like Rethink Disposable (costing approximately $10K-$50K depending on the level of engagement) or the Plastic Reduction Project (with a suggested donation of $10K), to provide comprehensive assistance to businesses.
Services for comprehensive technical assistance may potentially include:
• Education on regulation
• Business grant application support
• Full inventory cost analysis and cost-effective conversion plan • Support granting waivers and extensions of time
• Maximization of reusables (reusable loop system integration, education on AB 619, dishwasher capacity assessment)
Investment in additional initiatives aimed at maximizing the reduction of SUPs could include:
• Implementation and maintenance of city-owned organic waste receptacles; • Initiating or contracting with a city-wide reusable loop system; • Establishing a reusables rewards program;
• Launching an educational campaign to educate the public on proper waste sorting; • Forming public-private partnerships for dishwashing facilities; • Hosting expos for Pinole businesses to trial new market products.
Costs can be mitigated with grants as they are available for these types of initiatives.
Footnotes
1 A Food Provider, as defined by the draft Ordinance, is: Any establishment located within the City, or any establishment that sells or otherwise provides Prepared Food or beverages within the City for public consumption on or off its premises and includes, but is not limited to, any store, shop, sales outlet, restaurant, bar, pub, coffee shop, cafeteria (with the exception of public school cafeterias), caterer, convenience store, liquor store, grocery store, supermarket, delicatessen, food market, farmer’s market, mobile food preparation truck or vehicle, roadside stand, or any other person or organization who provides Prepared Food. Food provider also includes any organization, group or other person that regularly provides Prepared Food to its members or the general public as a part of its activities or services.
2 A Retailer, as defined by the draft Ordinance, is: Any establishment that sells perishable and/or nonperishable goods that are packaged for customer takeaway in plastic bags and is not currently regulated by Public Resources Code sec. 42280 et seq
3 SB 270, the Statewide Single-Use Carryout Bag Ban became effective January 1, 2017 and prohibits most grocery stores, retail stores with a pharmacy, convenience stores, food marts, and liquor stores from providing single-use plastic carryout bags to their customers. Instead, these stores may provide a reusable grocery bag or recycled paper bag to a customer at the point of sale at a charge of at least 10
cents. A reusable grocery bag made from plastic film is required to be made of a minimum of 40% postconsumer recycle material capable of carrying 22 pounds over a distance of 175 feet for a minimum of 125 uses and be at least 2.25 mils thick.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft SUP Ordinance (June 2024)
B. Issue Summary and Outreach Results (August 2023)
C. Business Feedback and Policy Recommendations (January 2024) D. Single Use Plastic Webinar Slides (April 2024)
Chapter 8.38
SINGLE-USE PLASTIC FOODWARE AND BAG REDUCTION
Sections:
8.38.010 Findings and Purpose.
8.38.020 Definitions.
8.38.030 Single-use Foodware Accessories.
8.38.040 Consumer-owned Reusable Containers.
8.38.050 Takeout Food.
8.38.060 Reusable Foodware for Dining on the Premises.
8.38.070 Disposable bags.
8.38.080 Disposable Foodware Standards.
8.38.090 Disposable Bag Standards.
8.38.100 Separate Disposable Foodware Waste Receptacles.
8.38.110 Waivers-process to obtain.
8.38.120 Extension of time—process to obtain.
8.38.130 Regulations applicable to all Food Providers and Retailers
8.38.140 Duties, responsibilities and authority of the City of Pinole.
8.38.150 City of Pinole - purchases prohibited.
8.38.160 Effective Date.
8.38.170 Liability and Enforcement.
8.38.180 Severability.
8.38.190 Chapter supersedes existing laws and regulations.
8.38.010 The Council of the City of Pinole finds and declares as follows:
A. Single-use plastics (SUPs) —including bags and foodware (plates, cutlery, cups, lids, straws, “clamshells” and other containers) is a major contributor to street litter, ocean pollution, marine and other wildlife endangerment and loss. A 2022 trash survey of the Pinole Creek found SUPs represented the majority of the debris collected from the creek.
B. The production, consumption and disposal of SUPs contributes significantly to the consumption of fossil fuels and exacerbation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Plastics are made from chemicals sourced from petrol, gas, or coal. “Recyclable” plastic on average can be recycled two times before attenuating. Over three-fourths of “recyclable” plastic ends up as litter or in the landfill.
C. Plastics in waterways and oceans break down into microplastics which are not biodegradable and can now be found in most of the world's oceans. These microplastics have been detected in human blood and can disrupt normal body processes, increasing health risks.
D. Plastic debris in seawater and freshwater can attract and collect pollutants, which can then accumulate in fish, seafood, and salt that is later consumed by humans. Additionally, some food packaging, such as food contact papers and compostable paperboard containers, may contain harmful fluorinated chemicals that are associated with serious health problems.
Draft for June 4
th, 2024 City Council Public Hearing
E. 2011 Bay Area litter survey showed that over two-thirds of trash collected was from take-out food and beverage packaging. In the Bay Area, food and beverage packaging comprises the majority of street litter and is a significant contributor to the total amount of waste entering the waste stream.
F. It is in the utmost interest for the health, safety and welfare of who live, work, visit and do business in the City of Pinole that the consumption of SUPs be reduced.
G. The Pinole Sustainability Element strives for Pinole to become a “Model City” that demonstrates how sustainable practices can be incorporated in the municipal, commercial and residential functions of a city. Reduction of single-use plastic food packaging and bags furthers this goal by eliminating solid waste at its source and maximize reusing, composting and recycling.
H. This Chapter is consistent with the City’s Sustainability Element of the General Plan and the CalRecycle recycling and waste disposal regulations contained in Titles 14 and 27 of the California Code of Regulations.
8.38.020 Definitions.
A. CITY. The City of Pinole.
B. CITY DEPARTMENT. Any governmental subdivision of the City.
C. CITY FACILITY. Any building, structure, vehicle, land or park owned and operated by the City.
D. CITY FACILITY USER. Any person, society, association, organization or special events promoter who requires a permit to use a City facility or a permit or contract to use a plaza, sidewalk, or roadway.
E. CITY MANAGER. The City Manager of the City of Pinole or City Manager's designee.
F. CITY-SPONSORED EVENT. Any activity that is organized by the City, and any private activity whose organizers voluntarily request and receive from the City any endorsement, financial assistance, or similar recognition that is unrelated to any requirements for such an event under applicable law.
G. CONSUMER-OWNED BAG. A reusable customer-brought bag that is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuse, is in good performing condition, not unsanitary, and washable.
H. CONSUMER-OWNED CONTAINER. A reusable customer-brought food or beverage container that is in good performing condition, not unsanitary, and in accordance with Section 3- 304.17(B)(1) of the 2017 Food Code.
I. CONDIMENT. means relishes, spices, sauces, confections, or seasonings that require no additional preparation and that are usually used on a food or drink item after preparation, including ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise, soy sauce, hot sauce, salsa, salt, pepper, sugar, and sugar substitutes.
J. DISPOSABLE BAGS. A bag provided at the check stand, cash register, point of sale or other location for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of a Retailer or Food Provider.
Disposable Bags do not include Pre-checkout Bags.
K. DISPOSABLE CUP. A beverage cup designed for single use to serve beverages, such as water, cold drinks, hot drinks and alcoholic beverages.
L. DISPOSABLE FOODWARE. All containers, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, boxes, pizza boxes, cups, utensils, straws, lids, sleeves, condiment containers, spill plugs, paper or foil wrappers, liners and
Draft for June 4
th, 2024 City Council Public Hearing
any other items used to hold, serve, eat, or drink Prepared Food, which are designed for single use and in which Prepared Food is placed or packaged on a Food Provider’s premises.
M. DISPOSABLE FOODWARE ACCESSORY. Any Disposable Foodware item such as straws, stirrers, napkins and utensils; condiment cups and packets; cup sleeves, tops, lids, and spill plugs; and other similar accessory or accompanying Disposable Foodware items used as part of food or beverage service or packaging.
N. ESTABLISHMENT. A place of business of a food provider or other person subject to the requirements of this Chapter.
O. FOOD PROVIDER. Any establishment located within the City, or any establishment that sells or otherwise provides Prepared Food or beverages within the City for public consumption on or off its premises and includes, but is not limited to, any store, shop, sales outlet, restaurant, bar, pub, coffee shop, cafeteria (with the exception of public school cafeterias), caterer, convenience store, liquor store, grocery store, supermarket, delicatessen, food market, farmer’s market, mobile food preparation truck or vehicle, roadside stand, or any other person or organization who provides Prepared Food. Food provider also includes any organization, group or other person that regularly provides Prepared Food to its members or the general public as a part of its activities or services.
P. PRE-CHECKOUT BAG. A bag provided or sold to a customer to carry produce, bulk food, or other food items to the point of sale inside a store.
Q. PREPARED FOOD. Any food or beverage ready to consume without any further food preparation, alteration or repackaging, other than heating. Prepared food does not include (1) uncooked or raw meat, fish, poultry, or eggs unless provided for consumption without further food preparation; or (2) prepackaged food that is delivered to the food provider wholly encased, contained or packaged in a container or wrapper, and sold or otherwise provided by the food provider in the same container or packaging.
R. TAKEOUT FOOD. Prepared Food which is purchased to be consumed off a Food Provider’s premises. Takeout Food includes Prepared Food carried out by the customer or delivered by a Food Provider or by a Takeout Food Delivery Service.
S. RETAILER. Any establishment that sells perishable and/or non-perishable goods that are packaged for customer takeaway in plastic bags and is not currently regulated by Public Resources Code sec. 42280 et seq.
T. REUSABLE FOODWARE. All foodware, including plates, bowls, cups, trays, containers, glasses, straws, stirrers, condiment cups and utensils, that is manufactured of durable materials and that is specifically designed and manufactured to be washed and sanitized and to be used repeatedly over an extended period of time, and is safe for washing and sanitizing according to applicable regulations.
U. SURCHARGE FEE. A mandatory or discretionary fee charged to a customer requiring Disposable Foodware.
V. TAKEOUT FOOD DELIVERY SERVICE. A third-party delivery service which picks up Takeout Food from a Food Provider and delivers it to the customer for consumption off the premises.
8.38.030 Disposable Foodware Accessories.
Draft for June 4
th, 2024 City Council Public Hearing
A. In compliance with Public Resources Code sec. 42270 et seq. Disposable Foodware Accessory items shall be provided only upon request by the customer or at self-serve stations, except that for safety reasons Disposable Cups for delivery by a Food Provider or a Takeout Food Delivery Service may include lids, spill plugs and sleeves without request.
B. In compliance with Assembly Bill 1276, Food Provider and Takeout Food Delivery Services must provide options for customers to affirmatively request Disposable Foodware Accessory items separate from orders for food and beverages across all ordering/point of sale platforms, including but not limited to web, smart phone and other digital platforms, telephone and inperson.
C. Food Providers offering condiments are encouraged to use dispensers rather than pre-packaged disposable condiment packets.
D. Non-adhering items shall only be provided to customers who require them for medical needs.
8.38.040 Consumer-owned Containers.
A. Per Health and Safety Code sec. 114121 et seq., Food Providers, except, as provided in Chapter 11, Temporary Food Facilities of the California Health and Safety Code, Section 114353, are encouraged to allow customers to bring Consumer-owned Containers and maintain sanitary procedures to prevent cross-contamination. Food Providers may refuse, at their sole discretion, any Consumer-owned Containers that are cracked, chipped or corroded, appears inappropriate in size, material, or condition for the intended beverage, or that appears to be soiled or unsanitary.
8.38.050 Takeout Food.
A. Takeout Food shall only be served in Disposable Foodware that conforms to the Disposable Foodware Standards in Section 8.38.080. Takeout Food may also be served in Reusable Foodware made for takeaway as well as Consumer-owned Containers.
B. Disposable Foodware Accessories shall conform with the Disposable Foodware Standards in
8.38.080.
C. Takeout Food Delivery Services shall only deliver Takeout Food from a Food Provider that is served in Disposable Foodware and with Disposable Foodware Accessories, if any were requested, that conform to the Disposable Foodware Standards in 8.38.080.
D. A Food Provider may optionally apply a foodware Surcharge Fee at their own discretion. The intent of the foodware Surcharge Fee is to account for extra expense of complying with this Ordinance. A Food Provider is not required to apply a foodware Surcharge Fee. The following applies if a Food Provider chooses to apply a Surcharge Fee:
1. All foodware Surcharge Fee shall be retained as income by the Food Provider.
2. All customers demonstrating, at the point of sale, a payment card or voucher issued by the California Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 123275) of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the California Health and Safety Code and as amended, or an electronic benefit
Draft for June 4
th, 2024 City Council Public Hearing
transfer card (EBT) issued pursuant to Section 10072 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, shall be exempt from any form of foodware Surcharge Fees.
3. Foodware Surcharge Fees shall be identified separately on any post-sale receipt provided and, pre-sale, shall be clearly identified for the customer on media such as menus, ordering platforms and/or menu boards. Customers placing orders by telephone shall be informed verbally of foodware Surcharge Fees.
E. Notwithstanding the requirements at Section 8.38.050, subsections A-C, a Food Provider may request a waiver or waivers pursuant to Section 8.38.110 for one to all Disposable Foodware item(s).
1. To obtain a waiver for item(s), the Food Provider must demonstrate that:
a. No Disposable Foodware item(s) exists with substantially similar size, performance and/or utility that conforms with the Disposable Foodware Standards in Section 8.38.80 or, if such an item(s) exist, that costs of using such item(s) would cause undue financial hardship; and
b. The non-conforming Disposable Foodware item to be used in lieu of a conforming item is recyclable in the City recyclable collection program with a good-faith effort to prioritize aluminum foodware containers/packaging where practicable above recyclable plastic.
2. To obtain a waiver for item(s), the Food Provider must provide documentation of good-faith efforts to obtain a substantially similar compliant item at a non-prohibitive price. Records of attempts to obtain a compliant item may include:
a. Emails, letters or other correspondence with vendors that furnish compliant Disposable Foodware, seeking the compliant item(s).
b. Responses from such compliant Disposable Foodware vendors including, where applicable, specifications and pricing for such item(s). c. Specifications and pricing for the recyclable non-conforming item sought to be used, demonstrating its substantial superiority and/or affordability, and d. Any other verifiable records which demonstrate a good faith effort to comply with Disposable Foodware Standards for such item(s).
3. Reasonable added cost for a conforming item as compared to a substantially similar recyclable non-conforming item shall not by itself constitute adequate grounds to support a waiver for such item.
F. A Food Provider may request, pursuant to Section 8.38.120, to extend the time period of comply with all provisions of this Section 8.38.050. To be eligible for an extension of time the Food Provider must:
a. Employ 10 full time employees equivalents or less; and b. Have gross receipts less than $500,000 annually
c. Provide documentation of good-faith efforts to obtain comply with provisions of Section
8.38.050 in addition to an explanation of why additional time is needed.
8.38.060 Reusable Foodware for Dining on the Premises.
A. Food Providers are encouraged to maximize Reusable Foodware where practicable and to the extent possible and make a good-faith effort to consider serving customers utilizing Reusable
Draft for June 4
th, 2024 City Council Public Hearing
Foodware for consumption on- premise especially if there is dishwashing capacity or potential for on-site dishwashing.
B. If serving customers with Reusable Foodware is not practicable or possible, all Food Providers shall serve dine-in customers utilizing Disposable Foodware that conforms to the Disposable Foodware Standards in Section 8.38.080 and all Disposable Foodware Accessories shall conform with the Disposable Foodware Standards in 8.38.080.
C. A Food Provider may request, pursuant to Section 8.38.120, to extend the time period of comply with all provisions of this Section 8.38.060. To be eligible for an extension of time the Food Provider must:
a. Employ 10 full time equivalents or less; and
b. Have gross receipts less than $500,000 annually; and c. Provide documentation of good-faith efforts to obtain comply with provisions of Section
8.38.060 in addition to an explanation of why additional time is needed.
8.38.070 Disposable Bags.
A. Food Providers and Retailers shall only package goods in bags that conform to the Disposable Bag Standards in Section 8.38.090.
B. Takeout Food Delivery Services shall only deliver Takeout Food from a Food Provider that is bagged in a bag that conforms to the Disposable Bag Standards in 8.38.090.
C. Surcharge Fees for Disposable Bags shall be applied as follows:
1. Retailers shall charge a minimum 15-cent single-use bag Surcharge Fee per Disposable Bag over 5.25”x3.75”x8”. The Surcharge Fee is optional for Disposable Bags of a small size (at or less than 5.25”x3.75”x8”).
2. Food Providers may charge the 15 cent single-use bag Surcharge Fee for Disposable Bags at their own discretion and is not mandatory.
3. The following applies to the application of the Surcharge Fee:
a. All bag Surcharge Fees shall be retained as income by the Retailer or Food Provider. b. All customers demonstrating, at the point of sale, a payment card or voucher issued by the California Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 123275) of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the California Health and Safety Code and as amended, or an electronic benefit transfer card (EBT) issued pursuant to Section 10072 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, shall be exempt from any form of bag fees. c. Any bag Surcharge Fees shall be identified separately on any post-sale receipt provided and, pre-sale, shall be clearly identified for the customer on media such as menus, ordering platforms and/or menu boards. Customers placing orders by telephone shall be informed verbally of any bag Surcharge Fees.
D. Notwithstanding the requirements at Section 8.38.110, subsections A-C, a Retailer or Food Provider may request a waiver or waivers pursuant to Section 8.38.110 for specific Disposable Bags. To obtain a waiver for item(s), the Retailer or Food Provider must demonstrate that:
1. No Disposable Bag exists with substantially similar size, performance and/or utility that conforms with the Disposable Bag Standards in Section 8.38.090 or, if such an item exists,
Draft for June 4
th, 2024 City Council Public Hearing
that costs of using such item would cause undue financial hardship, or Consumer-owned Bags will create health risks from cross-contamination, or regulation will pose health and safety risks and;
2. The Retailer or Food Provider must provide documentation of good-faith efforts to obtain a substantially similar compliant item at a non-prohibitive price.
3. Records of attempts to obtain a compliant item may include:
a. Emails, letters or other correspondence with vendors that furnish compliant Disposable Bags, seeking the compliant item.
b. Responses from such Disposable Bag vendors including, where applicable, specifications and pricing for such item.
c. Specifications and pricing for the non-conforming item sought to be used, demonstrating its substantial superiority and/or affordability, and
d. Any other verifiable records which demonstrate a good faith effort to comply with Disposable Bag Standards for such item.
4. Reasonable added cost for a conforming item as compared to a substantially similar nonconforming item shall not by itself constitute adequate grounds to support a waiver for such item.
E. Consumer-owned Bags shall be accepted by all Retailers unless a waiver exemption is granted and at the discretion of Food Providers.
F. Retailers and Food Providers shall ask consumers if a bag is required and not automatically provide a bag.
G. Pre-checkout bags, such as produce bags, as outlined in and conforming to Public Resources Code sec. 42281.2 must be provided to consumers.
H. A Retailer or Food Provider may request, pursuant to Section 8.38.120, to extend the time period of comply with all provisions of this Section 8.38.070. To be eligible for an extension of time the Retailer or Food Provider must:
a. Employ 10 full time equivalents or less; and
b. Have gross receipts less than $500,000 annually; and c. Provide documentation of good-faith efforts to obtain comply with provisions of Section
8.38.070 in addition to an explanation of why additional time is needed.
8.38.080 Disposable Foodware Standards.
A. Disposable Foodware must be accepted by City’s municipal compost collection programs, except that non-compostable foil wrappers that are accepted in the City of Pinole recyclable collection program may be used for burritos, wraps, and other items that require foil to contain and form the food item. Acceptable material types include natural fiber-based, natural (wood, bamboo, etc.), uncoated paper, etc. Bioplastics, or compostable plastics, are not allowed. Single-sided lamination by plant-derived polylactic acid (PLA) is acceptable. Disposable foodware must be free of added fluorinated chemicals such as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluroalkyl substances (PFAS).
Bleached Disposable Foodware is not allowed. Single-use Foodware from third-party certifying organizations such as the Biodegradable Product Institute is encouraged. Disposable foodware
Draft for June 4
th, 2024 City Council Public Hearing
made from post-consumer recycled content and sustainable, regenerative practices are encouraged.
B. The City shall maintain on its website and at City Hall a list of suppliers that offer compliant Disposable Foodware.
C. Changes, if any, to Disposable Foodware Standards shall become effective on January 1 of the next calendar year, and the City shall provide notice of any such changes to Food Providers at least 90 days prior through the email address listed on the most recent Business License for the Food Provider.
8.38.090 Disposable Bags Standards
A. Disposable bags must be made of unbleached paper and with 40% postconsumer recycled content. Single-use bags may also be made of plant starches and must be BPI-certified bags.
Bags must be 100% recyclable and/or compostable.
B. The City shall maintain on its website and at City Hall a list of suppliers that offer compliant Single-use Bags.
C. Changes, if any, to Disposable Bag Standards shall become effective on January 1 of the next calendar year, and the City of Pinole shall provide notice of any such changes to Retailers and Food Providers at least 90 days prior through the email address listed on the most recent Business License for the Retailer or Food Provider.
8.38.100 Separate Disposable Foodware Waste Receptacles.
A. All Food Providers, except Food Providers that provide full bussing service and do not customarily provide waste receptacles for customer use, must provide at least one set of three easily accessed receptacles for discarded items to be composted, recycled, and, if needed, to be landfilled or otherwise wasted for self-bussing customers.
B. To the extent possible given space constraints, all three receptacles should be placed together in the same location.
C. The City shall identify materials accepted for each collection program on the City’s website, and signage must be posted on and/or above each receptacle, indicating the materials to be deposited into such receptacle. Receptacles and signage shall be color-coded as follows:
1. Blue for recyclables
2. Green for compostables
3. Black or gray for items to be landfilled or otherwise wasted D. Food Providers that share premises may share receptacles.
8.38.110 Waivers--process to obtain.
A. The City Manager shall prescribe and adopt rules, regulations and forms for Food Providers or Retailers to obtain full or partial waivers from any requirement of this ordinance that is explicitly subject to waiver.
Draft for June 4
th, 2024 City Council Public Hearing
B. Waivers shall be granted by the City Manager or their designees, based upon documentation provided by the applicant and, at the City Manager’s discretion, independent verification, including site visits.
C. The City Manager or their designees shall act on a complete waiver application no later than 60 days after receipt of such application, including mailing written notification of the City Manager’s decision to the address supplied by the applicant.
D. Waivers may be granted for a specified term of up to two (2) years. During the waiver term, the Food provider or Retailer shall make diligent efforts to become compliant. Under extraordinary circumstances, should a Food provider or Retailer demonstrate that, at the close or expiration of a granted waiver term, and with diligent efforts to become compliant, compliance remains infeasible, additional waivers of up to two (2) years each may be granted. It shall be the Food Provider’s or Retailer’s responsibility to apply for any subsequent waivers in a timely manner.
E. Notwithstanding the two (2) year maximum term for waivers set forth in Section 8.38.110(D), in certain limited and unique circumstances existing prior to adoption of this ordinance, where the Food Provider or Retailer demonstrates diligent efforts to comply but, due to economic constraints and/or other unique and extraordinary circumstances, may never be reasonably able to comply, the City Manager or their designee may grant a waiver for a longer specified term.
F. All waivers shall expire automatically in the event of a significant remodel, renovation or other alteration of the premises with a construction valuation that exceeds $60,000 or if the Food Provider or Retailer ceases operations at the location for which the waiver has been granted.
8.38.120 Extension of time—process to obtain.
A. The City Manager shall prescribe and adopt rules, regulations and forms for Food Providers or Retailers to obtain an extension of time to comply with this Chapter.
B. Waivers shall be granted by the City Manager or their designees, based upon documentation provided by the applicant and, at the City Manager’s discretion, independent verification, including site visits.
C. The City Manager or their designees shall act on a complete time extension application no later than 60 days after receipt of such application, including mailing written notification of the City Manager’s decision to the address supplied by the applicant.
D. Time extensions may be granted for a specified term of up to six (6) months. During the extension term the following requirements apply:
1. No administrative citation may be issued for violation of a requirement of this chapter
2. The Food provider or Retailer shall make diligent efforts to become compliant.
E. Under extraordinary circumstances, should a Food provider or Retailer demonstrate that, at the close or expiration of a granted time extension term, and with diligent efforts to become compliant, compliance remains infeasible, one final six (6) month extension may be granted. It shall be the Food Provider’s or Retailer’s responsibility to apply for any subsequent extensions in a timely manner.
F. Notwithstanding the maximum term for extensions set forth in Section 8.38.120(D), in certain limited and unique circumstances existing prior to adoption of this ordinance, where the Food Provider or Retailer demonstrates diligent efforts to comply but, due to economic constraints
Draft for June 4
th, 2024 City Council Public Hearing
and/or other unique and extraordinary circumstances, may never be reasonably able to comply, the City Manager or their designee may grant a waiver for a longer specified term.
G. All time extensions shall expire automatically in the event of a significant remodel, renovation or other alteration of the premises with a construction valuation that exceeds $60,000 or if the Food Provider or Retailer ceases operations at the location for which the extension has been granted.
8.38.130 Regulations applicable to all Food Providers and Retailers.
A. Each Food Provider and Retailer shall maintain written records evidencing compliance with this Chapter.
B. All records required by this Chapter shall be made available for inspection by the City Manager or their designated representative. It shall be unlawful for anyone having custody of such records to fail or refuse to produce such records upon request by the City Manager or their designated representative.
8.38.140 Duties, responsibilities and authority of the City of Pinole.
A. The City Manager or their designee shall prescribe, adopt, and enforce rules and regulations relating to the administration and enforcement of this chapter and is hereby authorized to take any and all actions reasonable and necessary to enforce this chapter including, but not limited to, inspecting any Food Provider’s or Retailer’s premises to verify compliance.
B. The City shall, at minimum, provide simple technical assistance and a resource packet to educate Food Providers and Retailers on new regulations and how to be in compliance, and make a goodfaith effort to seek out and provide financially sound resources in forms such as financial assistance, comprehensive technical assistance, advanced technologies, public-private partnerships etc. to Food Providers and Retailers in order to help mitigate any increased costs and knowledge barriers that may arise from the regulation in this chapter.
8.38.150 City of Pinole - purchases prohibited.
The City or City Facility Users shall not purchase any Disposable Foodware that does not comply with the Disposable Foodware Standards in Section 8.38.080, nor shall any City-sponsored event utilize non-compliant Disposable Foodware.
8.38.160 Effective Date.
The provisions of this Chapter shall take effect January 1, 2025.
8.38.170 Liability and Enforcement.
A. Anyone violating or failing to comply with any requirement of this chapter may be subject to an Administrative Citation pursuant to Chapter 8.25.020; however, no administrative citation may be issued for violation of a requirement of this chapter until six months after the Effective Date
Draft for June 4
th, 2024 City Council Public Hearing
of such requirement as specified in Section 8.28.150. Pursuant to Section 8.38/.20, eligible Food Providers and Retailers may submit a request to extend the period of time where no administrative citation may be issued for violation of a requirement of this chapter.
B. Enforcement shall include written notice of noncompliance and a reasonable opportunity to correct or to demonstrate initiation of a request for a waiver or waivers pursuant to Section
8.38.110.
C. The City Attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or other equitable relief to enforce this chapter.
D. The remedies and penalties provided in this section are cumulative and not exclusive.
8.38.160 Severability.
If any word, phrase, sentence, part, section, subsection, or other portion of this Chapter, or any application thereof to any person or circumstance is declared void, unconstitutional, or invalid for any reason, then such word, phrase, sentence, part, section, subsection, or other portion, or the proscribed application thereof, shall be severable, and the remaining provisions of this chapter, and all applications thereof, not having been declared void, unconstitutional or invalid, shall remain in full force and effect. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this title, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases had been declared invalid or unconstitutional.
8.38.170 Chapter supersedes existing laws and regulations.
The provisions of this chapter shall supersede any conflicting law or regulations.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 1 of 83
PHASING OUT SINGLE-USE
PLASTICS IN PINOLE
ISSUE SUMMARY AND OUTREACH RESULTS
AUGUST 2023
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 2 of 83
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Commonly Used Terms In This Document ..................................................................................... 4 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5 Legislation at the Federal, State and Local Levels.......................................................................... 8 SUP Bags...................................................................................................................................... 8 Federal Level............................................................................................................................ 8 State Level ............................................................................................................................... 8 Local Level................................................................................................................................ 9 SUP Foodware ........................................................................................................................... 13 Federal Level.......................................................................................................................... 15 State Level ............................................................................................................................. 15 Local Level.............................................................................................................................. 16 Pinole SUP Outreach Results ........................................................................................................ 19 Single-Use Plastic Surveys......................................................................................................... 19 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 19 Business Surveys.................................................................................................................... 19 Resident/Visitor Surveys........................................................................................................ 41 Alternatives to Single-Use Plastics Expo ................................................................................... 56 Snapshot of Attendees.......................................................................................................... 58 EXPO Exit Survey Results....................................................................................................... 58 Exit Survey Results - Visitor/Residents.................................................................................. 63 Additional Research .................................................................................................................. 66 Foodware/FireWings Pilot..................................................................................................... 66 Outreach to Pinole Grocers................................................................................................... 66 Republic Services Waste Hauler Information........................................................................ 67 Bag Pricing ............................................................................................................................. 68 Foodware (app-based returnable reusables company) pricing ............................................ 69 Town of Truckee Green Box Program Pricing (non-app returnable, reusable program)...... 73 Additional comments................................................................................................................ 73 Cost Scenarios........................................................................................................................ 74
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 3 of 83 City-wide Reusables program................................................................................................ 74 “Takeout Fee” versus “Rewards” program ........................................................................... 77 Partnership with plastic reduction project............................................................................ 78 Policy Considerations.................................................................................................................... 79 Bags ........................................................................................................................................... 79 Regulatory Considerations .................................................................................................... 79 Foodware............................................................................................................................... 80 Transition period....................................................................................................................... 81 Appendix A: Full Results of Business Survey................................................................................. 82 Appendix B: Full Results of Resident/Visitor Survey..................................................................... 83
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 4 of 83
COMMONLY USED TERMS IN THIS DOCUMENT
AB Assembly Bill
BPI Biodegradable Products Institute
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery DBE Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
GHG Greenhouse Gases
PLA Polylactic acid derived from renewable sources like cornstarch or sugarcane
PFAS Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances: a toxic class of fluorine compounds known as “forever chemicals”
SB Senate Bill
SUP Single Use Plastics
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 5 of 83
INTRODUCTION
Single-use plastics (SUP) items are made from fossil fuel-based chemicals (petrochemicals) that are intended to be used and disposed of immediately. These include items such as plastic bags and foodware (plates, bowls, cups, utensils, etc.) which, while convenient, have negative impacts on both our health and the environment. Plastics do not decompose naturally but rather break down into smaller pieces over time due to exposure to sun and heat, ultimately becoming microplastics.
Microplastics can be harmful to both humans and wildlife. When ingested, microplastics can build up in an animal's body and cause health issues such as organ damage or intestinal blockages.
Humans can also be negatively impacted by exposure to microplastics and the chemicals added to plastics during manufacturing. These chemicals, known as endocrine disruptors, can lead to hormonal imbalances, reproductive problems such as infertility, and even cancer1.
Although single-use plastic
pollution is visibly accumulating on
our streets, our water is actually
suffering even more. Litter is often
the beginning of a waste stream
that flows into waterways as
plastics discarded on the streets are
carried away by rain or through
storm drains and into rivers and
streams. A study conducted by
Friends of the Pinole Creek
Watershed in 2023 identified singleuse food packaging as a major pollutant in the Pinole Creek area2.
The maps in Figures 1-4
demonstrates the unsightly
prevalence of single-use plastic
litter throughout Pinole using
Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed
data.
1 https://www.nrdc.org/stories/single-use-plastics-101#why 2 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022CSJ000017 Trash collected by the Friends of the
Pinole Creek Watershed;
Photograph from
www.friendsofpinolecreek.org
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 6 of 83 Cumulatively, these alarming concerns prompted the City to conduct community outreach to understand how businesses, residents, and visitors feel about introducing policy that would regulate single-use plastic bags and/or foodware in Pinole.
Figure 1: Bayfront Park cleanup results
Figure 2: Fernandez Park cleanup results
Figure 3: Collins Elementary School to I-80 cleanup results 1/21/23 cleanup:
• 594 pieces of single-use plastics
collected
• 82% of total trash was single-use
plastics.
4/15/23 cleanup:
• 478 pieces of single-use plastics
collected
• 76% of total trash was single-use
plastics
12/3/22 cleanup:
• 351 pieces of single-use plastics
collected
• 61% of total trash was single-use
plastics
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 7 of 83 Figure 4: Pinole Library cleanup results
11/19/22 cleanup:
• 329 pieces of single-use plastics
collected
• 28% of total trash was single-use
plastics
3/25/23 cleanup:
• 346 pieces of single-use plastics
collected
• 79% of total trash was single-use
plastics
10/29/22 cleanup:
• 918 pieces of single-use plastics
collected
• 71% of total trash was single-use
plastics
2/25/23 cleanup:
• 893 pieces of single-use plastics
collected
• 77% of total trash was single-use
plastics
5/13/23 cleanup:
• 97 pieces of single-use plastics collected
• 56% of total trash was single-use
plastics
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 8 of 83
LEGISLATION AT THE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LEVELS
SUP BAGS
This section provides a summary of SUP bag legislation at the Federal, State and local levels.
Figure 5 provides a graphic of overarching regulations.
Figure 5: Single Use Plastic Bag Legislation
FEDERAL LEVEL
Currently, in the United States, there are no federal regulations restricting single-use plastics.
STATE LEVEL
There are two major pieces of legislation in California that regulate single-use plastics: Senate Bill (SB) 270 and SB 1046. See Figure 6 for a graphic representation of these two regulations. • SB 270: On November 8, 2016, California voters approved Proposition 67, the statewide Single-Use Carryout Bag Ban.
Approval of Proposition 67 made California the first state in the US to pass legislation imposing a statewide ban on single-use plastic bags at large retail stores. As a result, SB 270 became effective January 1, 2017 and prohibits most grocery stores, retail stores with a pharmacy, convenience stores, food marts, and liquor stores from providing single-use plastic carryout bags to their customers. Instead, these stores may provide a reusable Federal
No Restrictions
State
SB 270: Statewide
Single-Use Carryout Ban
(effective: 7/1/15)
SB 1046: Statewide
Non-Compostable "Precheckout" Bag Ban
(effective: 1/1/25)
Local
Jurisdictions with bag
bans pre- SB 270
Berkeley Ord. No.
7,844-N.S.: Enhanced
Single-Use Plastic Ban
(effective: 1/1/23)
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 9 of 83 grocery bag or recycled paper bag to a customer at the point of sale at a charge of at least 10 cents. A reusable grocery bag made from plastic film is required to be made of a minimum of 40% postconsumer recycle material capable of carrying 22 pounds over a distance of 175 feet for a minimum of 125 uses and be at least 2.25 mils thick. • SB 1046: In 2022 SB 1046 was adopted and will be in effect beginning on January 1, 2025.
SB 1046 will prohibit single-use, non-compostable bags to be given to shoppers before they reach the checkout counter. “Pre-checkout bags” as the bill refers to them, not only applies to bags typically seen near fresh fruit and vegetables, but also includes bags used for unwrapped food items such as meat, fish, nuts, grains, candy, and bakery goods.
Figure 6: SB 270 and SB 1046 Regulations
Applicability: Regulation:
Full-line, self-service
retail/grocery stores with
annual sales of at least $2
million that sell some
perishable items
Large retail stores with a
pharmacy that have at lease
10,000 square feet of retail
space and that generate sales
or use tax
Banned
Banned
Flimsy plastic film carry out bag
(effective 1/1/17)
Plastic pre-check out bag
(effective 1/1/25)
Convenience stores, food
marts, or liquor stores that are
engaged in the retail sale of a
limited line of goods, generally
including milk, bread, soda, and
snack foods, and that hold a
Type 20 or Type 21 alcohol
license
$0.10 min.
$0.10 min.
Thicker film carryout bags: 40%
postconsumer recycle material
capable of carrying 22 pounds
over a distance of 175 feet for a
minimum of 125 uses and be at
least 2.25 mils thick
Paper carryout bags: 20-40%
postconsumer material
LOCAL LEVEL
SB 270 included a grandfather clause in order to allow cities and counties to continue managing and enforcing the requirements established by adoption of local bag ordinances, provided that
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 10 of 83 future amendments to the ordinances were limited to increasing the amount a store could charge for bags Jurisdictions that had local ordinances in place before the state implemented SB 270 enjoy greater regulatory latitude than communities that did not adopt local ordinances, due to state preemption.
In Contra Costa County the following jurisdictions enacted single-use carryout bag bans prior to SB 270 State legislation:
• Danville: The town adopted a plastic bag ban in all stores and restaurants on December 16, 2014. Effective July 1, 2016.
• El Cerrito: The City adopted a plastic bag ban with a charge on paper and reusable bags in all retail stores on September 17, 2013. Effective January 1, 2014. • Hercules: The City adopted a plastic bag ban with a charge on paper and reusable bags in September 2014. Effective in January 1, 2015.
• Lafayette: The City adopted a plastic bag ban in all retail stores and restaurants on December 8, 2014. Grocery, drug, and convenience stores can distribute paper bags with a minimum 10 cent charge. Effective July 1, 2015.
• Martinez: The City unanimously adopted a plastic bag ban with 10 cent minimum charge on paper or reusable bags on June 18, 2014. Effective January 1, 2015 in all retail stores and restaurants.
• Pittsburg: The City adopted a bag ordinance on October 21, 2013. Effective in all retail stores by January 15, 2014. Plastic carryout bags are prohibited, and paper and reusable bags are allowed with a small charge.
• Richmond: The City adopted the first bag ordinance in Contra Costa County on July 16, 2013. All retail stores are prohibited from using single-use plastic carryout bags and may sell paper or reusable bags for a small charge. Effective January 1, 2014. • Pleasant Hill: The City adopted a bag ordinance, effective in all retail stores and restaurants on August 4, 2014. Plastic carryout bags are prohibited, and paper and reusable bags are allowed with a small charge.
• San Pablo: The City adopted a plastic bag ban with a 5 cent charge per paper or reusable bag (to increase to 10 cents after two years) on October 8, 2013. Effective January 1, 2014 in all retail stores.
• Walnut Creek: The City adopted a plastic bag ban and 10 cent minimum paper bag charge in all retail stores and restaurants in March of 2014.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 11 of 83 See a comprehensive list of jurisdictions that enacted ordinances prior to SB 270, prepared by Californians Against Waste3.
The City of Berkeley did not have a single-use plastic bag ordinance prior to SB 270. However, in 2022 Berkeley adopted an ordinance prohibiting the use of the thicker reusable plastic bags.
Berkeley’s approach targeted “loopholes” with respect to thicker carryout bags allowed under SB 270. According to the staff report for the Berkeley ordinance4:
Despite the assumption of reusability, there is limited evidence to suggest that thicker plastic bags are being repurposed to the degree accounted for by SB 270. Some studies suggest that fewer than 1% of people actually reuse the thicker and thus technically reusable film bags. [Save Our Shores, “Help Ban Plastic Bags,” https://saveourshores.org/help-ban-plastic-bags] This erroneous legislative assumption can be addressed at the local level at least in stores not regulated by the state.
The adopted ordinance applies to supermarkets, convenience food stores, foodmarts and other places greater than 2,500 square feet that sell food items. It also applies to retail stores not already regulated by the state. Additionally, a $0.10 charge will be levied for each “pre-checkout” bag (compostable or not) that grocery store customers use to carry produce to the checkout stand. The ordinance is in effect as of January 1, 2023. The following highlights the key policy measures in the Berkeley ordinance:
• Grocery Stores > 2,500 sf
o Beginning in 2025, when SB-1046 comes into effect, plastic film pre-checkout bags would be completely prohibited. The state plans to only allow paper or compostable bags to be provided as defined (however reusable bags may still be sold). In anticipation of the new State law, the Berkeley ordinance regulates grocery stores with more than 2,500 square feet of retail space by requiring store owners to apply a minimum charge of $0.10 for each plastic film pre-checkout bag provided, regardless of thickness, and regardless of composability. When SB-1046 is effective the preempted portions of Berkeley’s ordinance would be phased out. 3 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54d3a62be4b068e9347ca880/t/583f1f57e4fcb5d84205 b330/1480531800415/LocalBagOrdinances1Pager_072815.pdf
4 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-11- 15%20Item%2019%20Adopt%20an%20Ordinance%20Adding%20a%20Chapter.pdf
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 12 of 83 • Retail Stores Not Regulated by State
o The State currently regulates full-line, self-service retail stores with gross annual sales of at least $2 million that sell a line of dry groceries, canned goods, or nonfood items, and some perishable items, large retail stores with a pharmacy that have at least 10,000 square feet of retail space, and most convenience stores, food marts, or liquor stores. All other retail stores are currently unregulated by the State. Despite state preemption from further carryout regulation in Grocery Stores, Berkeley’s ordinance bans thicker plastic bags in all retail stores not already regulated by the State. Therefore, retail stores covered under the Berkeley ordinance are only be able to provide paper carryout bags for a $0.10 charge, or truly reusable bag.
• Restaurants
o Due to the COVID-19 pandemic hardships and the onset of SB 1383, Berkeley determined that further restaurant regulation was infeasible at this time. The only new provision of the Berkeley ordinance applying specifically to restaurants is that a restaurant providing a customer with a plastic film carryout bag, at the customer’s request, in order to carry leftovers after sit-down meal service, will incur a minimum of $0.10 charge. No such fee will apply to paper bags provided for such purpose.
• Permitted Events, City events, and City-sponsored events o Many of the same loopholes applicable to grocery stores and retail stores also exist at permitted events. Therefore, the Berkeley ordinance extends the same regulations applied to private businesses to any event and not subject to State law. In addition, the ordinance specifies that the City of Berkeley and any City sponsored event shall provide or sell to a customer or participant only recycled content paper bags or reusable carry-out bags for the purpose of carrying away goods or other materials from the point of sale or event. • All stores
o The Berkeley ordinance contains a provision that requires all stores, with the exception of Restaurants with respect to takeout orders, shall not unreasonably deny a customer from using bags or containers of any type that they bring themselves (exceptions granted for customer bags that are damaged or inappropriate in size, material or condition for the product. • Exemptions and Waivers
o The Berkeley ordinance exempts all product bags, or bags sold in packages containing multiple bags such as those intended for use as garbage, prescription medication, pet waste or yard waste bags, or which are integral to the use of other objects, from regulation consistent with County and State law. In addition, except as regulated by State law, the ordinance allows covered entities and food product
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 13 of 83 stores to provide recycled content paper bags as carryout bags to persons in the California Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children, Calfresh, and Supplemental Food Program for free. Additionally, the ordinance provides the City Manager with the authority to prescribe and adopt rules, regulations and forms for covered entities or food product stores to obtain a partial waiver from any requirement of this ordinance upon sufficient evidence by the applicant that the provisions would cause undue hardship. The phrase "undue hardship" may include, but is not limited to situations where compliance with the requirements would deprive a person of a legally protected right.
SUP FOODWARE
According to the California Coastal Commission5, more than 30 percent of all waste collected during their annual beach clean-ups is from disposable food ware and accessories. This section provides a summary of SUP foodware legislation at the Federal, State and local levels. Figure 7 provides a graphic of overarching regulations. Note the local legislation column is not exhaustive. 5 https://www.coastal.ca.gov/publiced/ccd/history.html
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 14 of 83 Figure 7: Single Use Foodware Legislation
Federal
No Restrictions
State
AB 619 (2019) -
Bring your Own
SB 1335 (2018) -
Sustainable
Packaging Act
Ab 1884 (2018) -
Single-Use Plastic
Straws Upon
Request
AB 793 (2020) -
Beverage
Container
Recycling and
Litter Reduction
SB 343 (2020) -
Truth in Labeling
Recyclable
Materials
AB 1276 (2021) -
Single-Use
Foodware
Accessories
SB 54 (2022) -
Plastic Pollution
Producer
Responsiblity Act
AB 619 (2019) -
Bring your Own
Local
Pinole -
Polystyrene Ban
(2018)
Contra Costa
Communities
•El Cerrito
Foodware
Ordinance
(2020)
•Richmond
Foodware
Ordinance
(2018)
•San Ramon's
Educational
Campaign
Other
Jurisdictions
•Berkeley
•Oakland
•San Francisco
•Santa Cruz
•Marin County
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 15 of 83
FEDERAL LEVEL
Currently, in the United States, there are no federal regulations restricting single-use plastics.
STATE LEVEL
There are at least seven major pieces of legislation in California that regulate single-use plastic foodware and accessories: SB 1335, AB 1884, AB 793, SB 343, AB 1276, AB 54, and AB619. • Sustainable Packaging for the State of California Act of 2018 (SB 1335) was signed into law on September 20, 2018. SB 1335 requires a food service facility located in a state-owned facility, operating on state-owned property, or otherwise contracted by the state to use “food service packaging” that is deemed to be reusable, recyclable, or compostable. “Food Service Packaging” is defined to include anything that is used to serve or transport prepared, ready-to-consume food or beverages. This category includes plates, cups, trays, bowls, and hinged or lidded containers. Beverage containers, single-use disposable items, and single-use disposable packaging for food that is mass-produced by a third party off the food service facility premises are exempted. The legislation also requires the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to create, publish, and maintain a list of acceptable packaging materials and items. CalRecycle published the initial list of approved service packaging6 on March 4, 2022. • Bring your Own Bill (AB 619) was signed into law in July 2019. The bill delineates the safety measures a restaurant must take if they want to allow their customers to bring their own cups and containers for takeaway.
• Single-Use Plastic Straws Upon Request (AB 1884) was signed into law on September 20, 2018. AB 1884, prohibits full-service restaurants from providing single-use plastic straws, unless requested by the customer. The legislation defines a “single-use plastic straw” as “a single-use, disposable tube made predominantly of plastic derived from either petroleum or a biologically based polymer, such as corn or other plant sources, used to transfer a beverage from a container to the mouth of the person drinking the beverage.” Straws made from non-plastic materials, including, but not limited to, paper, pasta, sugar cane, wood, or bamboo are not included in the definition. With the enactment of this bill, California became the first state to restrict the use of plastic straws in restaurants. • California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act (AB 793) was signed into law on September 24, 2020. Beginning in 2022, AB 793 requires all plastic bottles 6 https://calrecycle.ca.gov/packaging/statefoodservice/list/
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 16 of 83 covered by the state’s container redemption program to average at least 15% postconsumer recycled resin. The amount of required post-consumer recycled resin increases to 25% in 2025 and 50% in 2030. CalRecycle is in the process of developing regulations to implement this mandate.
• Truth in Labeling Recyclable Materials Bill (SB 343) was signed into law September 24, 2020. It prohibits environmental markings or statements on products or packaging that are not deemed to be “recyclable” by the state of California. The legislation defines a packaging product as “readily recyclable” if at least 60% of the population of California can recycle it through local programs. For plastic packaging to be labeled as recyclable, it must meet both of the following criteria:
o It may not include any components, inks, adhesives, or labels that prevent recyclability.
o It may not be made from plastic or fiber that contains perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) above 100 parts per million or that contains any intentionally added PFAS.
• Single-Use Foodware Accessories and Standard Condiments (AB 1276) was signed into law on October 5, 2021. Effective January 1, 2022 this law aims to reduce the waste created from single-use items from the retail food industry by only providing single-use accessories (utensils, chopsticks, condiment cups, straw, etc) to customers upon request. • Plastic Pollution Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54) was signed into law on June 30, 2022. This legislation requires producers of covered material to form and join the producer responsibility organization (PRO) by January 1, 2024. Covered material is defined as single-use packaging and single-use food serviceware with exemptions for items such as packaging for medical products, infant formula, and medical food. The law also:
o Prohibits the sale or distribution of covered materials manufactured on or after January 1, 2032, unless they are recyclable or compostable o Requires plastics covered under the legislation to meet the following recycling rates: 30% by January 2028, 40% by January 2030, and 65% by January 2032. o Bans expanded polystyrene (EPS) food serviceware unless it meets the following recycling rates: 25% by January 2025, 30% by January 2028, 50% by January 2030, and 65% by January 2032.
o Requires the PRO to, among other things, develop and implement a plan to achieve a 25% reduction by weight and 25% reduction by plastic components for covered material by January 2032.
LOCAL LEVEL
The City of Pinole adopted a polystyrene ban in 2018.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 17 of 83 The Sustainability Commission of Contra Costa County has made progress towards implementing a foodware ordinance. They have formed a working group to draft recommendations for the ordinance. Due to their shared waste hauler, the County is hoping to coordinate with the City of Richmond on the ordinance. Since February 2023, there has not been any movement on this ordinance, since there has not been a chance to bring it to the Board. Outside Contra Costa County, the cities of Berkeley, Cupertino, and San Mateo County, to name a few, have foodware ordinances banning single-use plastic foodware.
Other jurisdictions in Contra Costa County have done some work at tackling this issue. o El Cerrito’s foodware ordinance is effective July 1, 2022 and requires foodware to be reusable or compostable. A compliant disposable foodware product guide was created to help businesses understand options7. Enforcement begins January 1, 2024. o Richmond’s foodware ordinance, effective December 15, 2018, applies to retail and lodging establishments and allows recycleable foodware in addition to reusable and compostable foodware. The ordinance states businesses may charge a takeout fee to offset the increase of cost of compliant foodware. The ordinance allows establishments to charge a take-out fee to customers to cover the cost. o San Ramon has not adopted an ordinance regulating
plastic foodware however, the city has developed an
educational campaign. The campaign’s Instagram,
#trashfreesanramon, highlights businesses that are
“trash-free certified” by offering reusables for dine-in and invites other businesses to do the same through
their website. Participating businesses are identified
with a Trash-Free certificate and window clings. The
City also has a reusable tumbler program where
partnering businesses are offering customers a
discount for bringing in their reusable tumbler with a
City sticker.
In the greater Bay Area, a number of jurisdiction have adopted foodware ordinances. Some highlights follow:
• Berkeley: requires that only reusable foodware be used for dine-in services. All disposable foodware must be certified compostable, free of intentionally added fluorinated chemicals, and provided upon request only. Also requires food vendors that have self-bussing to provide 7 https://el-cerrito.org/DocumentCenter/View/18163/Foodware_Ordinance_Product_Guide
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 18 of 83 color coded receptacles for customers to separate their recyclables, compostables and landfill waste. And mandates a $.25 fee for every single-use beverage cups provided. • Oakland: requires that food service ware be biodegradable and compostable, and that beverage straws be provided upon request only. This extends to all Oakland food vendors selling prepared food—including restaurants, delis, fastfood establishments, vendors at fairs and food trucks. All City facilities must also follow the ordinance. • San Francisco: Starting July 1, 2019, sets limits on single-use plastic foodware accessories such as plastic beverage plugs, cocktail sticks, stirrers, toothpicks. And clarifies that foodware sold in San Francisco must be certified by the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI). Includes grocery stores and other retailers.
• Santa Cruz: Requires food providers to only give straws, lids, and cutlery and to-go condiment packages upon request of the customer. And bans plastic cutlery; stir sticks and Polystyrene #6 products including hot beverage lids. Food service providers are encouraged to charge a take-out fee of $.25 and provide a $.25 credit for customers bringing their own reusable containers for to-go items.
• Marin County: Applies to food facility operators and establishes a hierarchy of reusables are best, compostable fiber foodware is compliant, and single-use plastics are prohibited (see Figure 8)
Figure 8: Graphic Depiction of Marin County’s Food Ware Ordinance
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 19 of 83
PINOLE SUP OUTREACH RESULTS
Outreach for Pinole’s single-use plastic reduction
campaign, Plastic Wise Pinole, was conducted by various methods in March-May 2023. As a part of the outreach,
a survey was distributed to the business and resident/visitor community, an Alternatives to Single Use Plastics Expo was held, a pilot reusable takeaway program was spurred, and a cost analysis was completed. A logo and website, www.ci.pinole.ca.us/plasticwise, were developed to guide the campaign.
SINGLE-USE PLASTIC SURVEYS
METHODOLOGY
Two surveys were created to offer insight on how the community feels about regulation of singleuse plastics. These surveys were aimed at receiving input from the business community as well as the resident/visitor population. Both surveys were available directly from the City’s website.
The City conducted outreach through the city’s normal communication channels: online, through The Pulse and through social media (Facebook, NextDoor and Instagram).
Additionally, business surveys were emailed to all businesses in Pinole. Businesses without an email were mailed a letter with a QR code to participate in the survey.
A flyer was created that provided background on the reasons for the campaign as well as QR codes for each survey type. Flyers were distributed at different public events such as the City’s Earth Walk, Farmer’s market, and the Crockett Shoreline Festival. Flyers were also physically posted around town at different community boards and breakrooms.
Lastly, surveys were also disseminated with the help of community partners, such as the Chamber of Commerce, Friends of Pinole Creek, and 350 Contra Costa.
BUSINESS SURVEYS
This section provides an overview of the responses received from the business survey.
SNAPSHOT OF RESPONDENTS
Table 1 below shows the number of responses received from the business community by method of survey distribution.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 20 of 83 Table 1: Business Survey Respondents by Survey Method
Email invitations 84 responses from 674 invitations
Letter invitations 6 responses from 138 invitations
Website links 2 responses
Partners’ email dissemination 2 responses
Social media 1 response
Total Responses 95 responses
Chart 1, below, with 65 of 95 respondents answering, shows the type of industry the responding businesses most closely aligned.
Accommodation and
Food Services
(17)
26%
Construction
(3)
Educational Services 5%
(4)
6%
Finance and
Insurance
(2)
3%
Health
Care and
Assistance
(5)
8%
Information
(1)
1%
Manufacturing
(1)
1%
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
(12)
19%
Real
Estate and
Rental
and
Leasing
(1)
2%
Retail Trade
(11)
17%
Transportation and
Warehousing
(1)
2%
Adminstrative
and Business
Services
(5)
8%
Religious Facility
(1)
2%
Chart 1: Distribution of Respondents by Business Industry
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 21 of 83 Of the 17 business that identified as part of the Accommodation and Food Service type, 15 were food-related businesses. Table 2 provides more detail of the types and distribution of food-related businesses responded to the survey.
Table 2: Type of Food-Based Business (Food-Based Business Respondents) Café/Coffee House 3
Casual Dining 4
Dessert/Ice cream/ Bakery shop 1
Fast Casual 1
Gastropub/Bar 1
Other (please specify) Catering (2)
Pre-packaged snacks
N/A (2)
Chart 2 shows how the food-based business respondents’ businesses are owned.
Chart 2: Ownership Type (Food-Based Business Respondents) Additionally, 12 of 15 respondents (80%) shared their business is not a chain or franchise; 12 of 15 respondents (80%) shared their business is less than 10,000 square feet.
The seating capacity of the responding businesses is shown in Chart 3, below:
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 22 of 83 Chart 3: Seating Capacity (Food-Based Business Respondents) Of the 15 food-based business
respondents, seven reported the primary dining experience was for pick-up, four reported dinein as being the primary focus of the restaurant and two indicated that their business was focused on delivery. See Chart 4.
Chart 4: Primary Dining Experience (Food-Based Business Respondents) Of the 15 food-based business respondents, six responded that their customers never dine-in; four responded that their customers dine in about 75% of the time; three responded that their customers dine in about 25% of the time; two responded that their customers dine in about 50% of the time. See Chart 5.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 23 of 83 Chart 5: Primary Dining Experience (Food-Based Business Respondents)
KEY FINDINGS
The following provides key findings from the survey. Full results are in Appendix A.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 24 of 83 QUESTION 1
Staff observation: from 96 responses, more than 70% of business respondents worry about the amount of waste generated from single-use plastic items.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 25 of 83 QUESTION 3
STAFF OBSERVATION: 60 out of 97 respondents (about 62%) usually or always attempt to avoid using single-use plastics in their business operations demonstrating a high ecoawareness of plastics among Pinole businesses.
BUSINESS COMMUNITY WRITTEN RESPONSES/COMMENTS:
• i don't use them
• We try to reduce waste as much as possible and are very strict with trash, compost and recycling separation. However, we are a dental office and single use products are necessary.
• It depends on the items. There are some items in my business I have no choice but to use only once as I deal with chemicals as a hairstylist. Where I can avoid it I do my best to. I also have to consider my clients and what can work best for them. • to avoid cross-contamination, we are unable to.
• not relevant to our online business
• My business is in construction, not in food preparation. • We have done what we can to use compostable items where it is possible and realistic for the safety of our patrons and integrity of our product. • My business does not require packaging, so I never need to use single-use packages
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 26 of 83 QUESTION 4
STAFF OBSERVATION: 52 out of 96 respondents(54%) would support a restriction on all singleuse plastics. From the comments, cost is a concern for businesses.
BUSINESS COMMUNITY WRITTEN RESPONSES/COMMENTS:
• Too expensive
• I don’t think paper containers for food is a good idea as items with liquid would cause a difficulty and possibly hurt someone’s business that needs containers that store food properly. Also not sure what the cost would be to the residents or small businesses that would now have to find a way to provide an alternative that could potentially cost more than what can be afforded. I don’t disagree that there should be some way to reduce the use, however I urge the city to consider finding an alternative that would be the same price as or even better yet less than what is currently being spent for those items. Consider small businesses not just the bigger names that can afford paying more. Also for places that do have food items and are now needing to use and or accept reusable items, what will the new practices be
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 27 of 83 to ensure that the food is not being contaminated in some way. While good establishments may have a higher standard required for cleanliness, not every individual has or knows how to properly clean and sanitize different items. • We would prefer to retain creative control over the choices we make for our business- -to be informed by education and recommendations rather than imposed regulation and restrictive legislation.
• I just do not want the entire burden of cost and control levied on small business.
We do our best when at all possible, but some items are just cost prohibitive.
Hopefully in the future cost with align with ideals. It is especially difficult given the current economy.
• no because the non single use items never break down. need all biodegradeable only!
• I would need more information to exactly what will be banned, restricted, and what cost will be included.
• I just do not want the entire burden of cost and control levied on small business.
We do our best when at all possible, but some items are just cost prohibitive.
Hopefully in the future cost with align with ideals. It is especially difficult given the current economy.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 28 of 83 QUESTION 6
STAFF OBSERVATION: 16 out of 97 respondents (about 16%) stated they would not support a ban. For the majority, they had their own comments listed below. For the rest, the main reason was shifting the focus on increasing the recycling rate of plastics (currently 9%). There are also concerns with functionality of plastic alternatives.
BUSINESS COMMUNITY WRITTEN RESPONSES/COMMENTS:
• It's not the job of the local govt to get involved in these regulations. • Plastic alternatives can also be harmful to health and wildlife if not properly managed, regulated, and monitored.
• This is not a choose all that apply option. Cost, pros outweigh cons and quality • Take care of the crime and homeless people. More important than plastics • While bans on bags seems well and good, bans on plastic utensils and straws will affect disabled communities who can only eat/drink with those utensils in particular. For example, metal utensils can’t be used as they can get too hot/cold, and many compostable utensils could have allergens.
• It's going to be very difficult to do take out.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 29 of 83 QUESTION 7
STAFF OBSERVATION: Over 60% of 69 respondents are okay with customers bringing their own reusable bags to food businesses or charging customers for a paper/reusable bag. Comments raise concerns such as unhappy customers for charging which may impact the local economy and drive business away. There are also concerns with sanitation of customer-brought bags near food.
BUSINESS COMMUNITY WRITTEN RESPONSES/COMMENTS:
• I’m in favor of it for businesses like Target and Food Max. In fact, reusable plastic bags are the worst so paper should only be an option. Small businesses should not be required to charge.
• 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!
• People are smart They do not need city of Pinole to set regulations and create further headaches
• Could be unsanitary or contaminate other items in the store • There is already to much regulations, some people don't keep "clean" bags & bring those into the stores. Sanitary issue. Bags for the most part of free in stores. • Bad for business
• I feel in this area most folks consistently bring their own bags. Occasionally, as we all forget our re-usable bags so the bag charge seems an extra fee.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 30 of 83 • we pay enough when we get a to go order. I don't like how I get nickel and dime for every little thing. The customer should be able to leave with a bag to carry they're food in.
• For sanitary reasons, it is best to have cooked food in fresh clean bags • Too difficult to implement
• As a consumer, I don't believe in being required to pay for re-usable bags. • Not sanitary
• Guests won't typically have a bag to carry out their food. • It’s unrealistic and will create unhappy customers resulting in less revenue for businesses and less taxes being paid to the city
• I would want to supply my customers with something to hold their leftovers to take home.
QUESTION 8
STAFF OBSERVATION: Over 70% of 69 respondents support allowing customers to bring their own reusable bag or charging customers for a paper/reusable bag. Concerns with driving business away are raised in comments along with concerns about hygiene.
BUSINESS COMMUNITY WRITTEN RESPONSES/COMMENTS:
• Bad for business
• Same note as before
• my customer has already paid for they're items. I should not ask them to pay for a bag.
• If a re-usable bag is needed, it should be the responsibility of the business to supply it. They may need to increase their prices to accommodate the mandate.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 31 of 83 • there is already state regulations requiring this.
• Same reason
QUESTION 9
STAFF OBSERVATION: 60% of 68 respondents feel a paper bag will properly carry their customers’ goods. Comments raise concerns with sturdiness of a paper bag and attenuation of paper bags with spilled food.
BUSINESS COMMUNITY WRITTEN RESPONSES/COMMENTS:
• Liquids and heat cause bags to break
• A paper bag's utility depends on the weight of the product(s) placed in them and the weight of the paper bag.
• paper bags aren't always the sturdiest most take-outs are already in appropriate containers.
• Depends on the weight of the products my clients are purchasing. Similar to grocery stores, I may have to double bag in order to support the weight of the items. • Some food items may cause bag to dampen and break
• I've provided paper bags for many years!
• heavy items easily tear paper bags
• use reuseable bags
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 32 of 83 • Handles are not strong enough- use more bags with fewer items per bag • Customers regularly complain
• Paper bags break easily. I bring my own reusable bag. My business doesn't need bags. • They’ll break. Food, grease, moisture will dampen the bag causing tears, spilled food and an overall poor experience
QUESTION 10
STAFF OBSERVATION: About 36% of 67 respondents are okay with charging 10 cents or more for a paper bag. About 30% of 67 respondents feel this will deter business. Concern of cost for supplying paper bags without upsetting customers is raised in comments.
BUSINESS COMMUNITY WRITTEN RESPONSES/COMMENTS:
• I don’t feel like I would have any other option other than to charge for the bag. As a small business and a small space I don’t have the ability to order the bulk size needed to get a lesser price per bag. I don’t think .10 per bag would be enough to offset the cost to my business.
For Municipal Code Subcommittee Review – August 21, 2023 Page 33 of 83 • We already are passing on our significant rise in cost of goods to our customers and would prefer to avoid additional reasons to raise our prices--and, we already use paper bags and would prefer to continue to decide where and when to spend our limited funds.
• We have already switched to recycled paper bags and boxes and have folded those costs into our retail pricing. It’s simpler and does not make our customers like they are being nickle and dimed
QUESTION 12
STAFF OBSERVATION: Respondents are split on the question of thicker film plastic bags being reusable considering the number of time they are actually used before disposal.
BUSINESS COMMUNITY WRITTEN RESPONSES/COMMENTS:
• I have reused these bags, they have a tendency to "smell" • Studies show these bags are used less than once before being tossed. Paper is a much more sustainable option
• No. Reusable should not have a limit of 125 times.