Pinole City Council
June 17, 2025

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

PINOLE CITY COUNCIL

MEETING AGENDA
June 17, 2025
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 17, 2025

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.pinole.gov.

VIDEO-STREAMED LIVE ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE, www.pinole.gov 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.pinole.gov. 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 17, 2025

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

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

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

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

A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Gov. Code § 54957.6
Agency designated representatives: City Manager, Kelcey Young, City Attorney, Eric Casher, Human Resources Director, Stacy Shell, Finance Director, Markisha Guillory, and Gregory Ramirez, IEDA
Employee organizations: AFSCME Local 1, AFSCME Local 512, and the Pinole Police Employees Association (PPEA)
B. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Gov. Code § 54957
Title: City Manager

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

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

AGENDA FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS

7. REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Mayor Report

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

City Council
Agenda - June 17, 2025

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

8. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMUNITY EVENTS
A. Proclamations
None
B. Presentations

1. PCTV Community Media Center Strategy

2. Presentation on California Lineage Based Reparations and the California Reparations Commission Recommendation

3. Robert Walker Memorial Presentation

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

A. Approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting on June 3, 2025.

B. Receive the May 31, 2025 – June 13, 2025 List of Warrants in the Amount of $1,450,114.06 and the June 6, 2025, Payroll in the Amount of $532,924.45.

C. FY 2025/26 Final Proposed Operating and Capital Budget Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Markisha Guillory)
D. FY 2025/26 Appropriations Limit Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Markisha Guillory)
E. Adoption of Growth Management Plan (GMP) Checklist and Authorization for Submission to CCTA Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (David Hanham) F. Approve An Amendment To The Employment Agreement For The City Clerk Action:

Approve an Amendment to the Employment Agreement for the City Clerk (Stacy Shell) G. Adopt and Ordinance Renewing AB481 Military Use Equipment Action: Waive the second reading and adopt an ordinance approving the renewal of the City’s Military Equipment Use Policy. (Melissa Klawuhn, Jeremy Crone)
H. Adopt an Ordinance Designating Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map in Pinole Action: Waive the second reading and adopt an Ordinance per Staff Recommendation (David Hanham) I. Amended Reserve Policy Action: Adopt a Resolution per Staff Recommendation

City Council
Agenda - June 17, 2025

(Markisha Guillory)
J. Approval of Fiscal Year 2025-26 Capital Budget and Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Heba El-Guindy) K. Amend Consulting Services Agreement between the City and GHD, Inc. for the Development of an Active Transportation Plan - Project IN2106 Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Heba El-Guindy)
L. Approve Memorial Installations in Dedication of Robert Walker Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Fiona Epps)

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 2024/25 Utility Users' Tax Review Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Markisha Guillory)
B. Community Services Department FY 2025/26 Master Fee Schedule Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Andrea Dwyer)

11. OLD BUSINESS
None

12. NEW BUSINESS
None

13. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD (Continued from Item 6) (Public Comments) Open only to members of the public who did not speak under the first Citizens to Be Heard, Agenda Item 6 Citizens may speak under any item not listed on the Agenda. The time limit is 3 minutes for City Council items and is subject to modification by the Mayor. Individuals may not share or offer time to another speaker.

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

14. ADJOURNMENT to the Regular City Council Meeting of July 1, 2025 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: Wednesday, June 11, 2025 at 4:30 pm

City Council
Agenda - June 17, 2025

Community Media Center Strategy
June 17, 2025

PCTV STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
• On October 17, 2023, Council requested an update on a Pinole Community Television (PCTV) Master Plan;
• On March 1, 2024, PCTV oversight was temporarily assigned to the Assistant to the City Manager;
• In July 2024, staff kicked off the PCTV Strategy development; • Staff decided to create the PCTV strategy in-house, removing the $25,000 consulting budget for the PCTV Master Plan from the FY 24/25 budget at Midyear; • On March 4, 2025, PCTV was officially moved into the City Manager’s Office and under the direction of the Communications Director.

Dave Snell,
PCTV Coordinator
40+ years in
television broadcast
27 years PCTV

ABC, CNN,CBS,

ESPN, FOX
Erick Wilson,
Cable Technician
20+ years in
television broadcast
13 years PCTV
Air Force Veteran
Fiona Epps,
Communications
Director
Project Management &
Operations
Development

2.5 years City of Pinole
Prajwol Bhandari,
Administrative
Coordinator
Marketing &
Graphic Design
7 months City of
Pinole
The PCTV Strategy Development Team

Ariana Rogers,
Media &
Communications
Fellow
4 months City of Pinole
Charlie Elison,
Media &
Communications
Fellow
3 weeks City of
Pinole
Sade Mitchell,
Media &
Communications
Fellow
4 months City of Pinole
Gabriela Cardona,
Media &
Communications
Fellow
4 months City of Pinole
THANK YOU TO OUR VOLUNTEERS!

ASSESSMENT
• Council Members’ input
• Department input
• PCTV survey (community input)
“What is the city’s
vision for the future
of community media
in Pinole?”
“How does the city
engage
underrepresented
voices in PCTV?”
“It would be great to see
where our community is
at so we may look into
tech upgrades for our
PCTV team.”

PCTV SURVEY

RESULTS
Viewership
• 60% have previously watched PCTV
on channels 26 or 28
• 31% watch 1-3 times per month
• 9% watch weekly
• 71% would watch PCTV more often
if it were available through
internet streaming platforms
171 participants, 5,544 responses

PCTV SURVEY

RESULTS
Most Valued Services
• Job training for youth
• Cultural event coverage
• Coverage of local government meetings
• Media literacy education
• Local sports broadcasts
• Preserving community history through
video

PCTV SURVEY RESULTS
Content & Programming Interest
Local Business News & Information: 65%
Local Government Meetings: 70%
Community Festivals & Neighborhood
Events: 70%
Local Public Safety Information: 67%
Additional areas of interest
• City Services and Programs: 66%
• Local Health and Wellness Programs: 58%
• Informational programs about services &
activities of local orgs/clubs: 58%
• Diverse cultural programs/events: 57%
• Environmental Programs: 49%
• Agricultural and Gardening Content: 48%
• Information from Local Colleges and
Universities: 45%
• Local Sports and Recreational Activities: 44%
• Board of Education Meetings: 44%

PCTV SURVEY RESULTS
Community Engagement and Support
Even though just 60% of respondents reported having watched PCTV, 96% of respondents rated preserving funds to maintain PCTV services as Important to Vitally Important, with 40% considering it Vitally Important.
171 participants, 5,544 responses
18% of respondents opted to
subscribe for updates, showing
an ongoing interest in staying
informed. Furthermore, 11
individuals expressed interest
in becoming sponsors, and 10
people volunteered to
contribute their time.

VISION
PCTV envisions an engaged, informed, and
inclusive Pinole community, connected through
accessible digital media and empowered by a
trusted leader in local news and community
storytelling.

MISSION
To enhance civic engagement, government
transparency, and community storytelling
through accessible media resources. We provide
high-quality video production, broadcasting, and
digital media services to support the City of Pinole,
local agencies, and community organizations in
sharing important information, public meetings, and
local stories.

VISION AND MISSION

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

1. Establish, maintain and operate public
access center.

2. Support residents, organizations,
and local businesses in sharing their
stories and staying informed.

3. Foster learning opportunities and
workforce development that inspires the
next generation and strengthens their
investment in the Pinole community.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

4. Air distinctively local content that reflects
local news and the unique stories, cultures, and
perspectives of the Pinole community.

5. Increase community awareness and
engagement with PCTV’s public access center and
services through a targeted outreach and
marketing plan.
(Continued)

PROGRAMMING STRATEGY
Local Government &
Community Content
• Council meetings and council meeting
highlights
• Community event recaps
• Local news stories (including The Beat
of Pinole)
• Government meetings
Community
Engagement & Services
• Business spotlights
• Community resources (i.e. AARP,
mental health)
• City of Pinole services
• Animal services
• Youth podcasts
• Senior Center programs

PROGRAMMING STRATEGY
Cultural and Educational
Content
• Local art and music
• DIY/home improvement
• Fitness and meditation videos
• Audiobook readings
• Pinole Library programs
Interactive and Special
Features
• Livestreams (traffic, weather, wildlife,
social media)
• Community bulletin boards
• Local sporting events
(Continued)

PROGRAMMING STRATEGY
Partnerships and
Collaborative
Projects
• Collaborations with
local organizations
• Funded by sponsors or
grants
(Continued)

TECHNOLOGY
Goals: replace obsolete equipment and support PCTV’s
evolving mission to provide high-quality, lower cost video production and broadcast.
• Mobile and flexible equipment
• AI and streamlined editing tools
• Enhanced streaming and accessibility
• Compact and high-quality broadcast technology
• Upgraded control and monitoring

Sponsorships
• Program sponsors
• Movies in the Park
• Local sports broadcast
• Community Champion

SPONSORSHIPS AND MEMBERSHIPS
Memberships
• Youth/Senior
• Individual
• Community Organization
• Business

CITY SUPPORT
• Event coverage, photo/videography, video
production, AV support
• Cost Challenges: High internal service costs and
budget constraints may limit the frequency and
scope of PCTV support.
• Shift in Strategy: Bringing back communitycentered services and building partnerships to enrich content.
• Capacity Considerations: Staff time must be reallocated across core functional areas to meet new objectives.

FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY
• Cable
Franchise
Fees
• PEG Fees
• General Fund
• Client
Contracts
• Equipment
Rentals
• Professional
Services
• Client
Contracts
• Sponsorships
• Memberships
• Grants
Current Funding
Sources
Services
Offered
Community
Support

COMMUNITY

ENGAGEMENT &

OUTREACH

1. Public Presence and Outreach
• Car Show Interactive Booth
• Materials & Ambassadors

2. Community Film Screening (FY26/27)
• Host annual Community Film Screening

3. Training & Media Literacy Workshop
• Media & Video Tech Workshop
• Partner with library and Senior Center

COMMUNITY

ENGAGEMENT &

OUTREACH

4. Digital Engagement & Visibility
• Social Media Strategy
• Webpage Redesign

5. Volunteer, Internship & Youth
Engagement
• Establish partnerships with local schools
• Partner with local student journalists
• Create a structured volunteer program

6. Equity & Inclusion
• Targeted outreach
• Representative programming
• Inclusive hiring

MARKETING PLAN
Launch &
Awareness
Business
Engagement &
Membership
Introduction
Community
Connection &
Growth
• Website visibility &
publish webpages
• Finalize sponsorship
package
• Social media
• Promote in The Pulse
• Signage and posters
• Email business owners
• Business video
invitations
• Develop membership
model
• Partner with Sports
Leagues
• Host Open House
event
• Launch email
campaigns

Prajwol Bhandari

PCTV WEBSITE TOUR

THANK YOU. QUESTIONS?

1 City of Pinole
Pinole Community Television (PCTV) Community
Media Center Strategy FY 25/26
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary………………………………………………….2
II. Community Needs Assessment / Needs Analysis………………..3 III. Inventory of Existing / Current State ..…………………………….6 IV. Internal Services Assessment………………………………………11
V. Programming Strategy ..……………………………………………12
VI. Technology and Infrastructure…………………………………….12
VII. Community Engagement and Outreach………………………….13
VIII. Marketing and Branding ..…………………………………………15
IX. Financial Stability …………………………………………………..16
X. Implementation Timeline ………………………………………….16
XI. Metrics and Evaluation …………………………………………….17
XII. Conclusion …………………………………………………………17

2 I. Executive Summary
Pinole Community Television (PCTV) has embarked on a renewed department strategy, evolving into a dynamic hub for local media, civic engagement, and community connection.

PCTV aims to expand beyond traditional government broadcasts and provide a diverse range of services, including local news coverage, community-driven content, and public access programming. By integrating professional video production, digital media resources, and workforce development opportunities, these new initiatives will enhance public engagement, promote economic growth, and create accessible platforms for information, entertainment, and community dialogue.

Mission Statement
The mission of Pinole Community Television (PCTV) is to enhance civic engagement, government transparency, and community storytelling through accessible media resources. We provide high-quality video production, broadcasting, and digital media services to support the City of Pinole, local agencies, and community organizations in sharing important information, public meetings, and local stories.

Vision Statement
PCTV envisions an engaged, informed, and inclusive Pinole community, connected through accessible digital media and empowered by a trusted leader in local news and community storytelling.

Goals and Objectives

1. Establish, maintain and operate public access center:
• Develop funding resources and administer such funds in order to promote Public, Education and Governmental programming in the public interest; • Provide the City, individuals and organizations the necessary resources and support to produce programming for the access channel(s), including training, equipment, production facilities and channel time; and
• Operate in the public interest by ensuring access to meaningful Public, Education, and Government (PEG) media that empowers the Pinole community, in alignment with FCC rules, California DIVCA regulations, and Pinole community standards.

2. Support residents, organizations, and local businesses in sharing their stories and staying informed:
• Provide innovative digital technologies and content to inform, engage and connect the diverse voices and interests of our communities;

3 • Create a sponsored-advertising program and local business highlight segment in accordance with California DIVCA regulations;
• Facilitate hands-on training programs and production opportunities which empower the public to create content; and
• Provide inclusive access to local government meetings to ensure the community stays informed, engaged, and feels empowered to participate in civic decision-making.

3. Foster learning opportunities and workforce development that inspires the next generation and strengthens their investment in the Pinole community:
• Provide hands-on media experiences for students, graduates, and/or individuals interested in community media;
• Build partnerships with local schools to support internship and fellowship programs that create higher education and career pathways;

4. Air distinctively local content that reflects local news and the unique stories, cultures, and perspectives of the Pinole community:
• Connect community members and create opportunities for storytelling which features residents, local artists, activists, historians, and others; • Broadcast and livestream news, community events and local sports; • Support community-produced segments by offering public access services; • Advertise the community bulletin board to encourage the public to share local announcements and everyday happenings that reflect community life; • Establish procedures to discover original content made by local creators;

5. Increase community awareness and engagement with PCTV’s public access center and services through a targeted outreach and marketing plan:
• Develop and implement a community-centered outreach strategy; • Launch a comprehensive marketing plan to promote PCTV’s offerings; • Increase visibility and brand recognition of PCTV across the region; • Track and evaluate outreach impact through data collection and analysis, community surveys, adjusting strategies accordingly.

II. Community Needs Assessment / Needs Analysis
In July 2024, staff asked council members to provide their input about what they wished to see addressed in a community needs assessment. Staff received replies from two council members at the time: Devin T. Murphy and Cameron Sasai.

Devin T. Murphy identified key areas requiring further clarity and strategic planning for PCTV, including staffing levels, potential funding sources, and the establishment of performance metrics. Broader considerations include the City's long-term vision for community media,

4 opportunities for collaboration with local organizations, adaptation to evolving technologies and audience habits, and efforts to engage underrepresented voices in media content.

Cameron Sasai emphasized the importance of aligning PCTV efforts with community preferences, suggesting the survey gather input on preferred social media platforms and perceptions of PCTV’s current technology. He noted the need to assess potential technology upgrades and expressed interest in reviving internship opportunities, recommending community feedback to gauge support for such programs.

Staff used this input to craft targeted questions in a community needs assessment (referred to as “PCTV Survey”) whose results would shape the PCTV Strategy.

PCTV Survey
To ensure its new strategy reflects the needs and interests of the community it serves, PCTV launched a digital survey between November and December 2024. The survey resulted in a high level of engagement, with 170 participants contributing a total of 5,544 thoughtful and insightful responses. Several areas were assessed to gain valuable insight for how PCTV can develop its service delivery model, including but not limited to: Viewership, Services, Content & Programming, Streaming Access, Areas for Improvement, and Community Support. View the full PCTV Survey Report in Attachment A.

A) Viewership
Historically, PCTV has been unable to gain access to viewership data from cable franchises.

Internet streaming is a new way to gain valuable viewership data, but because it is new, the City used its recent survey to get a better understanding for current and past viewership.

Survey results revealed that 60% of respondents have previously watched PCTV on channels 26 or 28. However, regular viewership remains modest—31% reported tuning in 1–3 times per month, while only 9% watched weekly. The most commonly viewed content included city council and other government meetings. Despite relatively low cable viewership, PCTV’s numbers remain high compared to other PEG stations with strong interest in more accessible formats: 71% of respondents indicated they would watch PCTV more often if it were available through internet streaming platforms. This highlights a significant opportunity to expand reach and engagement by enhancing PCTV’s digital presence.

B) Services
An important component of the survey asked participants about how much they value PCTV’s current and potential service offerings. The most valued PCTV activities, based on survey responses, were job training for youth, preserving community history through video, and maintaining funding for these services. Job training received the highest level

5 of support, with 41% of respondents rating it as "Vitally Important." Preserving the community’s history through video followed closely at 39%, and preserving funds to maintain these services was also highly prioritized, with 40% rating it as "Vitally Important." These topics not only received the highest top-tier ratings but also showed strong overall support across the "Very Important" and "Important" categories, indicating they are seen as essential to the community’s well-being.

Moderately valued activities included coverage of local government and education meetings, as well as media literacy education. For government and education coverage, 34% of respondents rated it as "Vitally Important," 32% as "Very Important," and 27% as "Important," showing a strong majority in favor, though with slightly less top-tier support compared to the highest-rated activities. Media literacy followed a similar pattern, with 31% considering it "Vitally Important" and 29% "Very Important." Cultural event coverage and local sports broadcasts received more varied responses, reflecting a range of community interests. While 24% of respondents rated cultural events as "Vitally Important," others may view them as more complementary to core services. Local sports broadcasts, with 18% rating them as "Vitally Important," also showed a mix of opinions, highlighting the diverse priorities within the community. These results suggest that while not considered essential by all, these activities still hold value for many.

C) Content & Programming
To inform the development of community-driven programming and boost audience engagement, PCTV assessed viewer content preferences through its recent survey. The findings revealed strong interest across a range of local topics. The top four topics were:

1. Local Business News and Information: 65% of showed interest (22% interested, 43% very interested).

2. Local Government Meetings: 70% showed interest (28% interested, 42% very interested).

3. Community Festivals and Neighborhood Events: 69% showed interest (31% interested, 38% very interested).

4. Local Public Safety Information: 67% showed interest (38% interested, 29% very interested).

Additional areas of interest included:
• City Services and Programs: 66%
• Local Health and Wellness Programs: 58%
• Informational programs about services & activities of local orgs/clubs: 58% • Diverse cultural programs/events: 57%
• Environmental Programs: 49%
• Agricultural and Gardening Content: 48%

6 • Information from Local Colleges and Universities: 45% • Local Sports and Recreational Activities: 44%
• Board of Education Meetings: 44%
The above insights underscore the community's desire for relevant, hyper-local content and offer PCTV valuable direction for future programming initiatives.

D) Streaming Access
Survey results show that PCTV has a strong opportunity to grow its audience through streaming platforms. Among respondents, 29% reported using Amazon Fire, 28% use Apple TV, and another 29% subscribe to Roku. This indicates a significant potential to increase viewership by promoting PCTV's availability on these widely used platforms.

E) Areas for Improvement
Accessibility emerged as a key area for improvement, with 51% of respondents indicating they were either only partly satisfied or not at all satisfied with PCTV’s current accessibility.

In addition, several comments highlighted a need for enhanced marketing and outreach efforts to raise community awareness about PCTV's programming and services.

F) Community Engagement and Support
Even though just 60% of respondents reported having watched PCTV, 96% of respondents rated preserving funds to maintain PCTV services as Important to Vitally Important, with 40% considering it Vitally Important.

The survey also revealed strong interest in supporting and engaging with PCTV in the future. Notably, 18% of respondents opted to subscribe for updates, showing an ongoing interest in staying informed. Furthermore, 11 individuals expressed interest in becoming sponsors, and 10 people volunteered to contribute their time—demonstrating a meaningful level of community investment in PCTV’s mission.

III. Inventory of Existing / Current State
A thorough assessment was conducted to establish a baseline for PCTV’s strategic planning.

Key areas reviewed include equipment, citywide functions and funding, audience demographics, partnerships, and staffing and volunteers. These elements were evaluated to identify current strengths, gaps, and opportunities for improvement as PCTV works to expand its services and impact.

A) Equipment

7 PCTV is currently operating with a significant inventory of outdated and obsolete equipment, much of which is over 20 years old. To address this issue, PCTV has developed a three-year strategic plan to modernize its technology infrastructure. This plan includes the allocation of previously unused Public, Educational, and Government (PEG) Access Funds - documented and available since 2016 - for the purpose of replacing outdated equipment and procuring new tools that align with PCTV’s evolving mission to better serve the community (due to fiscal limitations, this plan was scaled back in the proposed FY 25/26 budget).

B) Citywide Functions and Funding
PCTV plays a vital role in supporting citywide functions, including event coverage, broadcast and video production, as well as audio/visual support for public meetings and community events. The organization also manages production services for government and client contracts.

Recently, City departments have gained a clearer understanding of the costs associated with PCTV’s internal service delivery. High internal costs coupled with budget constraints have limited the frequency and nature of PCTV support for citywide functions. Currently, PCTV is funded through a combination of Cable Franchise Fees, PEG Fees, and contributions from the General Fund. These revenue streams are under increasing pressure, as cable subscriptions decline and consumers shift toward internet-based streaming services, leading to a reduction in both Cable Franchise and PEG revenues.

To ensure long-term operational viability, PCTV must diversify its funding sources. In addition to continued support from the General Fund, the organization will pursue grants, sponsorships, and other alternative revenue opportunities. These may include equipment rentals, video production services, and other fee-based offerings. A sustainable financial model will be critical to maintaining PCTV’s role in delivering essential media services to the community.

C) Audience Demographics
Due to a lack of viewership data from cable franchises, PCTV has been unable to analyze viewership demographics until recently with the implementation of its new master control automation system. PCTV strives to identify key audience segments for targeted programming and outreach, and with new data collection tools built into PCTV’s internet streaming platforms, this is possible and will be woven into its broadcast and programming strategies.

D) Partnerships
PCTV has several promising opportunities to strengthen its operations and community outreach through strategic partnerships. Recent interest from local college programs (Contra

8 Costa College, Diablo Valley College, UC Berkeley) in fields such as Film & Video Production and Journalism presents an ideal avenue to collaborate on the creation of original, locally-focused news and storytelling content. These partnerships could also provide valuable internship opportunities for students while helping to address PCTV’s staffing needs. Additionally, ten local community organizations expressed interest through the survey in having their content aired on PCTV, indicating a clear demand for platform access. Further collaboration with local agencies could enhance public communication by helping disseminate key initiatives, programs, and safety messages. Opportunities also exist to partner with local Pinole schools and nonprofit organizations, reinforcing PCTV’s role as a hub for community engagement and information sharing.

E) Staffing & Volunteers
PCTV currently operates with a small but dedicated team consisting of two full-time employees: Dave Snell, PCTV Coordinator, and Erick Wilson, Cable Technician. In addition, the division has a 0.75 full-time equivalent (FTE) allocation reserved for part-time Cable Operators. The table below provides an allocation of how staff time is currently distributed across core functional areas:

Functional Area Percentage of Staff Time
Video Production 58%
Master Control 10%
Maintenance 9%
Management and Administration 9%
Public Access 6%
Editing 6%
Scheduling 2%
Due to a high volume of City-sponsored meetings, events, and community programs, coupled with the time-intensive nature of video production, outdated technology, and a lack of a formal volunteer program, the current staffing model has resulted in a backlog of projects. This has led to delays in the delivery of timely content, especially coverage of local events.

As PCTV continues to adopt new technologies and streamline processes to improve operational efficiency while working to expand its focus on community-produced content, the allocation of staff time across core functions will gradually shift toward a more publicaccess–centered model:

Current breakdown of staff-time as of April 30, 2025

9 Functional Area Percentage of Staff Time
Video Production 20%
Master Control 8%
Maintenance 5%
Management and Administration 20%
Public Access 23%
Editing 6%
Scheduling 18%
Ongoing volunteerism and community partnerships will be key to PCTV implementing its new strategy, which includes enhanced programming, and increased community outreach.

Recently, the City’s Media and Communications Fellows (volunteers) have already helped PCTV begin to launch its new strategy with creative development, content generation, and special projects.

Gap Analysis
Category Current State
Survey Insights
/ Community
Expectations
Identified Gaps Recommendations
A) Equipment
PCTV operates with
equipment that is
over 20 years old; a
3-year
modernization plan
is in place using
previously unused
PEG funds.

Community
places high value
on public access
and quality
production, with
strong support for
preserving history
and delivering
local
programming.

Current equipment
limits the quality
and efficiency of
services. Survey
results highlight
the public’s
expectation for
high-quality,
modern media
services.

Expedite procurement
and deployment of new
equipment.

Communicate upgrade
milestones to the public
to build confidence and
engagement.

B) Citywide
Functions &
Funding
Provides critical
support for city
functions (event
coverage, meeting
A/V, etc.), but facing
funding cuts.

Survey shows
community values
job training (41%
“Vitally
Important”) and
content that
informs and
supports civic life.

Misalignment
between city
department
budgets and
community
demand for PCTV
services. Funding
needed for service
continuity.

Develop a detailed costbenefit case for
departments. Explore
shared service models,
grants, and sponsorship
to diversify funding
and offset General Fund
subsidies.

Public access-centered breakdown of staff-time

10 Category Current State
Survey Insights
/ Community
Expectations
Identified Gaps Recommendations
C) Audience
Demographics
Lack of historical
viewership data, but
new automation
system and
streaming platform
analytics will soon
provide insights.

Strong interest in
targeted and
accessible content,
potentially among
younger
audiences and
culturally diverse
communities.

Absence of
demographic
insights has limited
strategic
programming and
outreach.

Leverage new analytics
tools to gather data,
define audience
segments, and tailor
programming.

D) Partnership
Opportunities
Actively exploring
partnerships with
local colleges,
schools, nonprofits,
and agencies. Survey
revealed interest
from 10 local
organizations for
content
collaboration.

The community
supports
collaboration and
local storytelling.

There is
enthusiasm for
student
internships and
organization-led
programming.

Partnerships are
underutilized and
informal. No
structured
outreach or
collaboration
framework
currently in place.

Formalize partnership
strategy. Develop
outreach plan and
MOU templates.

Launch a community
content initiative with
clear submission and
review processes.

Recruit more volunteers
and develop intern
programs.

E) Staffing &
Volunteers
PCTV operates with
two full-time staff
and 0.75 FTE in parttime Cable
Operators, with 58%
of staff time
dedicated to video
production. High
meeting volume and
outdated technology
results in backlogs.

PCTV has begun to
engage Media and
Communications
Fellows to support
new strategic
initiatives.

Community
values PCTV’s
role in job training
(41% rated job
training as
“Vitally
Important”),
government
transparency, and
event coverage
There is strong
interest in timely,
high-quality
coverage and
expanded
programming.

Several
respondents also
expressed a
willingness to
volunteer or
sponsor.

PCTV’s current
staff time
allocation doesn’t
align with
community
expectations,
resulting in
delayed content
delivery and
limited outreach.

Current
operational
inefficiencies
hinders strategic
growth. The lack of
a formal volunteer/
internship
program limits the
ability to leverage
community
support and
delegate tasks.

To improve efficiency,
PCTV should adopt
updated technologies,
streamline workflows,
and delegate routine
coverage to
departments using tools
like Zoom. Expanding
staffing through grants,
Media and
Communications
Fellows, and internship
pipelines will support
strategic growth.

Establishing a
structured volunteer
program with clear
roles and training will
enhance capacity and
strengthen community
engagement.

11 IV. Internal Services Assessment
PCTV provides an estimated $110,839 (this amount fluctuates depending on event schedules, services, and staffing) in annual services across City departments, primarily supporting meetings and events. This breakdown helps identify where staff time is spent and where adjustments can be made. To operate more efficiently and achieve its new goals/objectives, PCTV recommends scaling back lower-priority services and/or shifting some responsibilities to departments.

Cost breakdown by Department (Total = $110,839)
Department Service Description Est. Annual Cost
City Council ($75,945) City Council Meeting video production & live Broadcast
$58,185
The Beat of Pinole production (12
episodes)
$17,280
West Contra Costa Mayors Conference
AV support
$480
Community Development
($21,024)
Planning Commission Meeting video
production & live broadcast)
$21,024
Community Services ($7,360) Ceremonial Events (AV support, broadcast, video production,
livestream)
$800
Tree Lighting AV support & video
production
$1,040
3x Movies in the Park (outdoor screen
& AV set-up/take-down, movie
management)
$5,520
Police Department ($5,710) National Night Out AV support & video production
$1,200
2x Police Chief Meet & Greet AV
support & video production
$4,510
City Manager’s Office ($800) Community Forum AV support & video production
$800
To better allocate resources, PCTV recommends scaling back or eliminating certain services.

Commission meeting video production can be transitioned to staff liaisons using basic video equipment and Zoom for recording and livestreaming. Additionally, video coverage of Citysponsored events can be limited to a select number of high-priority events annually. These adjustments will enable PCTV to dedicate more time and resources to community-based projects and strategic initiatives, including revenue-generating activities.

12 V. Programming Strategy
PCTV will focus on a diverse mix of local content that reflects reported community interests and promotes engagement. Key programming will include:

1. Local Government & Community Content: Council meeting highlights, community event recaps, local news stories, and government meetings.

2. Community Engagement & Services: Business spotlights, community resources (e.g., AARP, mental health), animal services, youth podcasts, and senior center programs.

3. Cultural & Educational Content: Local art/music, DIY/home improvement, fitness/meditation videos, audiobook readings, and Pinole Library programs.

4. Interactive & Special Features: Livestreams (traffic, weather, wildlife, social media), community bulletin boards, and local sporting events.

5. Partnerships & Collaborative Projects: Collaborations with local organizations, such as the Pinole Historical Society and youth podcasts.

This strategy will expand PCTV’s reach while focusing on high-impact, community-driven programming.

VI. Technology and Infrastructure
To optimize operations while recognizing the valuable contributions of PCTV’s dedicated staff, the strategy focuses on integrating modern, mobile, and user-friendly video and broadcast technologies. This approach aims to improve efficiency and accessibility, making programming more accessible to all community members, while reducing the need for heavy equipment and streamlining staff efforts.

Key components of the Technology and Infrastructure strategy include:

1. Mobile and Flexible Equipment: Investing in handheld ozmo cameras, dual-purpose video cameras (SD cards), and DSLRs for quick, versatile production in the field. Clip-on production microphones and gimbals will increase mobility and improve audio/visual quality during events, making it easier to capture clear content in dynamic environments.

2. AI and Streamlined Editing Tools: Leveraging AI editing tools to simplify and speed up post-production processes, reducing the need for extensive editing staff. Integrating YouTube Premier and automated closed captioning tools to ensure timely, accessible content delivery, providing captions for all video content.

3. Enhanced Streaming and Accessibility: Using Starlink satellite mobile internet and streaming encoders for live broadcasts in any location, ensuring reliable streaming and

13 real-time accessibility. All streams will include closed captioning, making content available to a wider audience, including those with hearing impairments.

4. Compact and High-Quality Broadcast Tech: Moving away from bulky equipment by adopting a multi-camera fly pack (rentable and requiring less editing) and Blackmagic HD port for high-definition, streamlined production. These tools will allow for easy deployment and superior production quality without the need for large, cumbersome setups.

5. Upgraded Control and Monitoring: Upgrading the control room with a switcher, monitors, and waveform monitor/conversion software for better quality control.

Ensuring that all equipment supports seamless integration with accessibility features like closed captioning, making sure all content is accessible to diverse community needs.

By adopting these modern technologies and focusing on accessibility, PCTV will reduce operational complexity, ensure high-quality content delivery, and provide inclusive programming that meets the needs of all viewers, with a focus on enhancing mobility.

VII. Community Engagement and Outreach
To rebuild its connection with the Pinole community in an inclusive way, PCTV will take a multi-faceted outreach and engagement approach that increases awareness of services, fosters participation from a broader range of residents, and positions the station as a hub for local storytelling and learning. This approach emphasizes accessibility, representation, and community ownership of media.

1. Public Presence and Outreach
• Car Show Interactive Booth: Relaunch PCTV’s public-facing outreach with an engaging and informative presence at the annual Car Show. The booth will feature hands-on activities (e.g., green screen selfies, mic/interview demos), livestreams from the event, and easy-to-understand information about PCTV’s services and programming.
• Materials & Ambassadors: Distribute multilingual brochures, QR-coded links to sample videos, and enlist trained volunteers to guide visitors in real-time and collect feedback.

2. Community Film Screening
• Host an annual Community Film Screening (FY 2026/2027) to showcase locally produced films, youth video projects, and historical retrospectives. Include audience voting, panel discussions, and student categories to attract broad participation. This event will celebrate local voices and generate interest in content creation.

14 3. Training & Media Literacy Workshops
• Media & Video Tech Workshops: Offer free, hands-on workshops covering media literacy, video production, and live-streaming tools (like Zoom), with a focus on accessibility for seniors using smart devices.
• Partner with local libraries and senior center for program delivery and promotion.

4. Digital Engagement and Visibility
• Social Media Strategy: Expand PCTV’s presence on platforms like Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and TikTok to reach younger and more diverse audiences.

Feature behind-the-scenes content, upcoming events, volunteer stories, and short clips of community content.
• Webpage Redesign: Remodel PCTV’s webpage to be visually dynamic, with sections for:
 On-demand programming
 Community-submitted content
 How-to guides and training signups
 Volunteer and internship opportunities
 Content submissions and story ideas

5. Volunteer, Internship & Youth Engagement
• Establish partnerships with local schools, PVH, Contra Costa College, and nearby universities to offer internships, media fellowships, and class collaborations. • Partner with local school journalism programs (middle, high school, college) to cocreate student-produced segments on local news, events, and storytelling. Provide support, mentorship, and a broadcast platform for student work. • Create a structured volunteer program with defined roles (camera operator, editor, interviewer, etc.) and mentorship opportunities to build experience and deepen community ties.

6. Equity & Inclusion Strategy
• Targeted Outreach: Partner with community-based organizations that serve youth, BIPOC, non-English speakers, and working-class residents to co-create content, identify storytellers, and promote opportunities.
• Representative Programming: Prioritize programming that highlights underrepresented voices, such as immigrant experiences, youth perspectives, LGBTQ+ stories, and multilingual segments.
• Community Content Fund: Explore grant funding for small stipends or equipment loans for underrepresented residents to develop and submit short video projects.

15 • Inclusive Hiring: When possible, prioritize recruiting interns, fellows, and part-time staff from underrepresented communities to ensure internal capacity reflects the external community.

7. Ongoing Feedback
• Use surveys and in-person feedback forms (especially at events) to continuously evaluate who is participating (and who isn’t) and adjust strategies accordingly.

PCTV will strengthen its presence, deepen trust, amplify diverse voices, and better reflect the full range of stories within the Pinole community by adopting this approach; especially by engaging the next generation of media creators.

VIII. Marketing and Branding
A phased marketing strategy aims to strengthen PCTV’s presence and impact in the community. The plan focuses on establishing a clear brand identity that reflects PCTV’s role in Pinole, launching targeted audience engagement campaigns to boost viewership (particularly among underrepresented groups) and building partnerships with local businesses and organizations to expand outreach and foster community connections. Staff have already begun work on several of the following activities:

Phase 1: Launch & Awareness (Weeks 1-3)
• Enhance Website Visibility: Make the PCTV link more prominent on the homepage by swapping it with the Pinole Speaks or other section.
• Finalize Sponsorship Package: Develop clear, attractive sponsorship tiers (e.g., Bronze, Silver, Gold & Platinum) with defined benefits.
• Publish Webpages: Launch dedicated pages for community-based video submissions and sponsorship/membership opportunities.
• Social Media Campaign: Post on SM platforms inviting community members to submit videos, with clear instructions and links.
• Pulse Advertisement: Promote a call for video content from the community in the Pulse newsletter.
• Signage & Flyers: Distribute eye-catching posters and flyers with a QR code linking to PCTV in high-traffic local areas.

Phase 2: Business Engagement & Membership Introduction (Weeks 4-6) • Email Business Owners: Announce a limited-time free broadcast period (e.g., 3 months) to attract initial business participation.
• Business Video Invitations: Invite local businesses to submit short promotional videos/ads (per PCTV guidelines) for airtime.

16 • Develop Membership Model: Create a tiered membership structure (e.g., Student, Business) with benefits like rentals, discounted ads or exclusive content.

Phase 3: Community Connection & Growth (Weeks 7-10)
• Partner with Sports Leagues: Collaborate with local youth and adult sports leagues to broadcast games or highlights, engaging families and attracting sponsors. • Host Open House Event: Organize a PCTV Open House to showcase content, introduce the team, and pitch sponsorship and membership opportunities to businesses and residents.
• Launch Email Campaigns: Build a dedicated PCTV email list for regular updates, exclusive previews, and calls to action for sponsorships and memberships.

Progress will be measured through web streaming viewership analytics, growth in sponsorships, content submissions, and increases in revenue.

IX. Financial Sustainability
PCTV aims to achieve long-term financial sustainability by gradually rebuilding its role as a dynamic community media center. To support this goal, it has begun identifying and pursuing grant opportunities, with 3–4 potential grants targeted for FY 2025–26. Additional revenue will come from reintroducing services previously offered (which were paused due to a shift in focus toward City and Council meeting coverage). These services include equipment and studio rentals, audio-visual support, outdoor movie events, video production, and consulting.

Community support will also play a critical role, with PCTV seeking sponsorships (e.g., sponsored ads and sports broadcasts), donations, and memberships to help fund its operations.

To help offset revenue lost from previous contract reductions, PCTV will offer video meeting production services to neighboring jurisdictions. It currently provides these services for the City of El Cerrito and WestCAT, and will seek additional partnerships to expand this revenue stream.

PCTV will also evaluate the potential to collect cable franchise and PEG fees from neighboring unincorporated communities (Rodeo, Crockett, and El Sobrante) that currently receive its cable broadcast, ensuring fair contribution from all areas benefiting from its services.

X. Implementation Timeline
Implementation of this strategy is already underway, with staff actively working toward key objectives. The full roll-out of all programs and services is expected to be completed within one year. The marketing plan is projected to be implemented within 3 to 4 months.

17 XI. Metrics and Evaluation
While viewership data from Comcast and AT&T remains unavailable, PCTV can now track internet streaming metrics via its new Master Control Automation System: Telvue. Monthly data reviews will help assess programming and marketing effectiveness.

Sponsorships, memberships, and equipment rentals will be tracked and evaluated on an ongoing basis to measure the success of new programs and marketing efforts, and PCTV can adjust marketing strategies or programming as needed, based on these metrics. PCTV can also measure community engagement by phone and web data, email volume, and participation at events.

A follow-up community survey is planned for year-end to measure progress and inform service improvements.

By FY 2026–27, PCTV aims to establish a revitalized, community-driven operation; quadrupling its current viewership and achieving a 300% increase in community support and participation.

XII. Conclusion
PCTV has long served as a valuable resource for civic engagement, government transparency, and local storytelling in Pinole. This new strategy outlines a path forward to expand its role by improving access, increasing community involvement, and creating more opportunities for education and creative expression. With updated technology, renewed programming, and stronger community partnerships, PCTV will continue to be a vital part of how Pinole connects and communicates.

Moving forward, support from residents, local businesses, and organizations will be essential.

Whether through sponsorships, content submissions, or simply tuning in, community participation will help ensure PCTV remains a strong and relevant voice for Pinole.

PCTV Survey
Project Engagement
VIEWS
920

PARTICIPANTS
171

RESPONSES
5,436

COMMENTS
165

SUBSCRIBERS
19 Tell us how important each of the following PCTV activities are to you.

Seeing coverage of local government and
education meetings on TV?
34%
Vitally
Important
32%
Very
Important
26%
Important
6%
Not Very
Important
2%
Not
Important
Seeing local community cultural events on
local TV? (i.e. Tree Lighting, Pinole Pride,
Juneteenth, Black History Month, Earth Day,
Egg Hunt, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Veterans
Day, Philippines Independence Day, AAPI
Theater, etc.)
24%
Vitally
Important
34%
Very
Important
22%
Important
8%
Not Very
Important
12%
Not
Important
Seeing local sporting events broadcast on TV?
(i.e. high school football games, Little League)
20%
Vitally
Important
24%
Very
Important
27%
Important
16%
Not Very
Important
13%
Not
Important
Preserving the history of our community
through video?
39%
Vitally
Important
30%
Very
Important
23%
Important
3%
Not Very
Important
5%
Not
Important
Media literacy? (media literacy is the public's
understanding of how media manipulates
viewers attitudes and ideas about our world)
30%
Vitally
Important
30%
Very
Important
24%
Important
9%
Not Very
Important
6%
Not
Important
Job training for our youth? (PCTV can provide
free job training/internships to Pinole high
school and college students)
42%
Vitally
Important
33%
Very
Important
20%
Important
4%
Not Very
Important
1%
Not
Important
Preserving the funds to maintain the services
above?
40%
Vitally
Important
28%
Very
Important
24%
Important
4%
Not Very
Important
4%
Not
Important
163 responses
6/5/25, 12:55 PM City of Pinole, CA - Report Creation
https://publicinput.com/report?id=31410 1/23

15 Agree 6 months ago
5 Agree 5 months ago
5 Agree 6 months ago
5 Agree 6 months ago
5 Agree 6 months ago
Didn't even know PCTV existed.

I haven't had cable in twenty years and pretty much exclusively watch online streaming media, so I don't even know how to access local TV programming.

With many households cutting the cable, PCTV needs to spread out to other media outlets where most viewers are getting their information. Also a re-branding to remove the TV from the department to be more inclusive of other media outlets. We are a good way into the 21st Century and I believe now would be a good time to prepare for the next 25 years.

For the people saying to volunteer why aren't there more volunteer for PCTV, Senior Kitchen, Senior programs, and recreation. They barely have any staff nor do they have any volunteers at least when I attend the programs.

Eliminate the top 6 paid city positions. Make them volunteer jobs open to current Pinole residents of 10 years or more. That move alone will get your $2.5 million you need instead of taxing broke people to death.

Fix the roads!!! It's getting dangerous!
Do you currently subscribe to AT&T Cable TV service (U-verse) or Comcast Cable TV in Pinole? 126 respondents
53 %
46 %
1%
No
Yes
I don't know
6/5/25, 12:55 PM City of Pinole, CA - Report Creation
https://publicinput.com/report?id=31410 2/23

What types of programming do you or your family members think should be more available on the Cable Company's channel line-up?
77 Respondents
2 Agree 6 months ago
2 Agree 7 months ago
Right now media literacy of the general public is so incredibly low that I don't even know where to start.

All of the above should be a priority. Everyone of these events mean something to somebody and not utilizing and programming these events is lost to the viewer/public/and taxpayers who are paying for the two tv stations 26/28 that we are paying for and not utilizing them to its potential. Why pay for something that we are not getting our values and return of. We need to change this immediately if not wait another day/minute/years for change. In the meantime get volunteers and get some movement on these programs. We don't need to reinvent the wheel on our broadcasting or wait until someone gets up to speed to do something. Lets get something done NOW. Thanks. 82%
55%
40%
34%
4%
36%
26%
30%
29%
23%
19%
14%
63 
42 
31 
26 
3 
28 
20 
23 
22 
18 
15 
11 
Rank: 1.94
Rank: 2.17
Rank: 2.77
Rank: 3.69
Rank: 4.00
Rank: 4.21
Rank: 4.55
Rank: 4.61
Rank: 4.77
Rank: 6.17
Rank: 7.20
Rank: 8.18
Local Pinole News, activities, events
News and information (i.e. Public Service Announcements) Arts/Cultural
Educational
Other
Documentaries
Children's
Sports
Movies
Music
Comedy
Religious
6/5/25, 12:55 PM City of Pinole, CA - Report Creation
https://publicinput.com/report?id=31410 3/23

1 Agree 6 months ago
1 Agree 6 months ago
1 Agree 7 months ago
Broadcasting school plays and sports will give kids an opportunity to see themselves on Tv.

Keep it local. Community news and police stats. Local meetings Children's Shows could be tied into the Library program and be of educational value that way we could get something more for the money we are investing in the library.

Would you be interested in seeing locally produced cable TV programs about Pinole residents, organizations, events, schools and government?
97 respondents
75 %
13 %
11 %
Yes
I don't know
No
4 Agree 6 months ago
3 Agree 5 months ago
2 Agree 7 months ago
try interviewing various businesses
I would like the community to be aware of Pinole Rotary events.

I would love a menu for public access tv
6/5/25, 12:55 PM City of Pinole, CA - Report Creation
https://publicinput.com/report?id=31410 4/23

2 Agree 7 months ago
1 Agree 5 months ago
This should not even be a questioned. The taxpayers are paying for the TV Stations. This has always been the case and should continue.

I'm interested in programs about Pinole, schools, government, etc., but the question says "locally produced cable TV programs." I don't have cable so if the programs could be available via streaming, then that would work.

Would you be interested in seeing locally produced cable TV programs about neighboring communities' organizations, events, residents, schools and government (i.e. Hercules, San Pablo)? 97 respondents
61 %
26 %
13 %
Yes
No
I don't know
6/5/25, 12:55 PM City of Pinole, CA - Report Creation
https://publicinput.com/report?id=31410 5/23

5 Agree 7 months ago
6 months ago  4 Agree
6 months ago  3 Agree
6 months ago  2 Agree
5 months ago
Priority is Pinole. However, we use to have other programs/tv schedule: school board meetings, other cities, etc. in the past. We need to bring those back with a fee/contract like before. Dave, remembers the time we use to have these programs and I would like for him to be part of this planning since he has been with City of Pinole for over 20 years. He knows that we need and he understands where we have been, how we got here, and where we should be with the resources we have. Do not hire a consultant for this. I think we can figure this out with Dave's help and not exclude him in this planning.

Why didn't anyone in Pinole apply? Did we not have any qualified applicants from the City? I guess not because no one wants to take heat from their neighbors.

They just hired some lady from Oregon at $300,000 per year to come make our city more financialy responsible.

Seems like a local resident could do the same for FREE!! With their heart in it. Not their paycheck.

Simply outrageous that there's no one in Pinole to fill that position and you have to hire an outsider with no skin in the game!
My interest is in Pinole. I'm not to interested in nrighboring cities.

Have you ever watched PCTV (channels 26 and 28) which features local government and educational programming, and information, programs and services available to Pinole residents? 101 respondents
59 %
38 %
3%
Yes
No
I don't know
6/5/25, 12:55 PM City of Pinole, CA - Report Creation
https://publicinput.com/report?id=31410 6/23

How many times have you watched PCTV in the past month? 97 respondents
44 %
22 %
18 %
9%
4%
3%
Never
1-3 times per month
Less than once a month
1-6 times per week
I don't know or don't remember
Daily
Describe/name the programs that you have watched on PCTV. 3 Agree 6 months ago
1 Agree 5 months ago
1 Agree 7 months ago
5 months ago
5 months ago
The police stats, council and planning commission meetings(occasionally). Car show video City Council meeting
I would watch it more if there was better programming
police stats, council and planning commission meetings
council meetings
6/5/25, 12:55 PM City of Pinole, CA - Report Creation
https://publicinput.com/report?id=31410 7/23

Do you watch TV through internet streaming channels? (i.e. Netflix, Hulu, Disney Plus) 91 Respondents
No data to display...

Which of the following internet streaming services do you subscribe to in your household? (select all that apply)
78 Respondents
76%
23%
2%
76%
45%
44%
36%
28%
28%
27%
26%
69 
21 
2 
59 
35 
34 
28 
22 
22 
21 
20 
Yes
No
I don't know
Netflix
Hulu
Disney Plus
HBO Max
Roku
Amazon Fire
Apple TV
Other
6/5/25, 12:55 PM City of Pinole, CA - Report Creation
https://publicinput.com/report?id=31410 8/23

Would you watch PCTV if it was available on internet streaming channels? 91 respondents
71 %
22 %
7%
Yes
I don't know
No
No data to display...
6/5/25, 12:55 PM City of Pinole, CA - Report Creation
https://publicinput.com/report?id=31410 9/23

Tell us your level of interest in seeing each of the following types of local programs that could be provided on PCTV in the future:

Student-produced programs 22%
Very
interested
35%
Interested
19%
Interested
17%
Not very
interested
7%
Not at all
interested
Programs about K-12 schools and school
activities
19%
Very
interested
27%
Interested
18%
Interested
25%
Not very
interested
11%
Not at all
interested
Community festivals, and neighborhood
events
39%
Very
interested
32%
Interested
21%
Interested
5%
Not very
interested
4%
Not at all
interested
Diverse cultural programs/events 25%
Very
interested
33%
Interested
26%
Interested
6%
Not very
interested
10%
Not at all
interested
Informational programs about services &
activities of local organizations/clubs
31%
Very
interested
28%
Interested
28%
Interested
11%
Not very
interested
2%
Not at all
interested
Local business news and information 43%
Very
interested
22%
Interested
26%
Interested
7%
Not very
interested
2%
Not at all
interested
Local health and wellness programs 28%
Very
interested
29%
Interested
24%
Interested
12%
Not very
interested
7%
Not at all
interested
Programs about activities and concerns
of persons with disabilities
12%
Very
interested
24%
Interested
33%
Interested
18%
Not very
interested
12%
Not at all
interested
Religious programming (local churches) 8%
Very
interested
11%
Interested
16%
Interested
24%
Not very
interested
41%
Not at all
interested
Senior citizen activities and concerns 14%
Very
interested
27%
Interested
36%
Interested
13%
Not very
interested
9%
Not at all
interested
Agricultural and gardening programs 17%
Very
interested
32%
Interested
30%
Interested
15%
Not very
interested
6%
Not at all
interested
6/5/25, 12:55 PM City of Pinole, CA - Report Creation
https://publicinput.com/report?id=31410 10/23

Information from local colleges and
universities (courses, events)
22%
Very
interested
23%
Interested
22%
Interested
18%
Not very
interested
16%
Not at all
interested
Board of education meetings 23%
Very
interested
23%
Interested
20%
Interested
25%
Not very
interested
10%
Not at all
interested
Foreign language/international programs 7%
Very
interested
21%
Interested
21%
Interested
26%
Not very
interested
26%
Not at all
interested
High School equivalency 10%
Very
interested
11%
Interested
24%
Interested
29%
Not very
interested
26%
Not at all
interested
Kindergarten through 12th grade
instructional courses
11%
Very
interested
20%
Interested
20%
Interested
21%
Not very
interested
28%
Not at all
interested
Local sports and recreational activities
(Little League, football, soccer, etc.)
27%
Very
interested
17%
Interested
18%
Interested
21%
Not very
interested
17%
Not at all
interested
City government meetings 42%
Very
interested
27%
Interested
22%
Interested
5%
Not very
interested
4%
Not at all
interested
Environmental programs 20%
Very
interested
29%
Interested
31%
Interested
7%
Not very
interested
12%
Not at all
interested
Local public safety information 39%
Very
interested
28%
Interested
27%
Interested
2%
Not very
interested
5%
Not at all
interested
Programs about City services 31%
Very
interested
36%
Interested
25%
Interested
5%
Not very
interested
4%
Not at all
interested
Programs about issues facing municipal
government
28%
Very
interested
35%
Interested
25%
Interested
7%
Not very
interested
5%
Not at all
interested
Local arts, history and culture 28% 31% 26% 7% 7%
6/5/25, 12:55 PM City of Pinole, CA - Report Creation
https://publicinput.com/report?id=31410 11/23

Very
interested
Interested Interested Not very
interested
Not at all
interested
86 responses
3 Agree 6 months ago
1 Agree 5 months ago
1 Agree 7 months ago
1 Agree 7 months ago
5 months ago
Let's erase history and make this a woke low income urban spillover! I enjoy PCTV
All of the above.

There are a number of potential programming opportunities listed under not interested that could be combined with some of the others, Some of the others I have listed lower cause me to pause because I see potential problems that would need to have better defined scope.

Take responsibility and pride in your local community!
6/5/25, 12:55 PM City of Pinole, CA - Report Creation
https://publicinput.com/report?id=31410 12/23

Where do you typically get information about what's going on in the Pinole community? (select all that apply)
81 Respondents
52%
47%
43%
36%
32%
21%
20%
14%
11%
11%
9%
7%
5%
4%
1%
42 
38 
35 
29 
26 
17 
16 
11 
9 
9 
7 
6 
4 
3 
1 
The City of Pinole website (www.Pinole.gov)
The Pulse e-newsletter
NextDoor
Social Media (Facebook, Instagram, X)
Neighbors, friends, family
Rec n' Roll e-newsletter
PCTV channels 26/28
Local news stations
The City of Pinole mobile app
Senior Center
Community events/gatherings
Other, please explain:

School
Radio/podcast
Youth Center
6/5/25, 12:55 PM City of Pinole, CA - Report Creation
https://publicinput.com/report?id=31410 13/23

3 Agree 6 months ago
5 months ago
5 months ago
5 months ago
5 months ago
5 months ago
6 months ago
7 months ago
Pinole Pulse email
P C T V is where i go for all local events.

Pinole Pulse email newsletter
Ask council members
We have a mobile app?!? Omg 🙄
Through the Rotary Club members
Office. My business office is located here
All of the above.
6/5/25, 12:55 PM City of Pinole, CA - Report Creation
https://publicinput.com/report?id=31410 14/23

Currently PCTV does not offer podcast services. Please tell us how interested you are in the following podcast activities:

Pinole residents having access to use a community
podcast studio to produce their own podcast
programs
21%
Very
interested
34%
Interested
16%
Not very
interested
29%
Not at all
interested
Listen to Pinole news, events and information
through podcast
26%
Very
interested
38%
Interested
12%
Not very
interested
23%
Not at all
interested
Listen to local and original podcast programs by
people from your community
22%
Very
interested
37%
Interested
15%
Not very
interested
26%
Not at all
interested
Being able to rent podcast equipment from PCTV 20%
Very
interested
16%
Interested
22%
Not very
interested
42%
Not at all
interested
76 responses
3 Agree 7 months ago
3 Agree 7 months ago
5 months ago
5 months ago
5 months ago
If people are allowed to have podcasts, it should not be about political opinions or advancement of personal politics and agendas.

This will be taken over very quickly by individuals with extreme opinions, driving well meaning individuals away.

Seen it before...
all these issues are very important.

If no political opinions or airing of personal agendas are allowed.

Nope!
6/5/25, 12:55 PM City of Pinole, CA - Report Creation
https://publicinput.com/report?id=31410 15/23

How would you rate the current accessibility level of Public, Educational , and Government access programing?
78 respondents
32 %
32 %
18 %
10 %
8%
Satisfied
Partly satisfied
Not at all satisfied
Extremely satisfied
Very Satisfied
Do you have any recommendations for how we can improve accessibility to Public, Educational, and Government access programming? Please explain:
2 Agree 6 months ago
1 Agree 6 months ago
1 Agree 6 months ago
5 months ago
7 months ago
Ad-free, public Internet stream.

A local tax increase for better communication and advertising of provided sports, educational, summer, activities for all kids through High School. I want pinol to be known for providing the best sports fields and having the best playgrounds in all of the East Bay.

Free. Not requiring a subscription. It could be videos linked in your website? No
Increase budget to create more programs.
6/5/25, 12:55 PM City of Pinole, CA - Report Creation
https://publicinput.com/report?id=31410 16/23

PCTV operates with a small team and welcomes volunteers! If you would like to volunteer for PCTV, please provide us with your contact information.

No data to display...

If you are interested in sponsoring PCTV activities or making a donation to keep local, public access television programming thriving in the Pinole community, please provide your contact information.

No data to display...

If you or your organization is interested in creating original programming for broadcast on PCTV, please provide us with your contact information.

No data to display...

If you are interested in volunteering for PCTV, please provide us with your contact information.

No data to display...

What is your age?
59 respondents
27 %
17 %
17 %
15 %
12 %
5%
3%
3%
65-74
35-44
55-64
75-84
45-54
85 or over
15-24
Others
6/5/25, 12:55 PM City of Pinole, CA - Report Creation
https://publicinput.com/report?id=31410 17/23

What is your gender?
61 respondents
51 %
46 %
3%
0%
Female
Male
Prefer not to answer
Others
What is your race/ethnicity?
57 respondents
56 %
16 %
11 %
7%
5%
4%
2%
White
Asian
Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish
Prefer not to answer
Black or African-American
Two or more races
Others
6/5/25, 12:55 PM City of Pinole, CA - Report Creation
https://publicinput.com/report?id=31410 18/23

National Origin:
58 respondents
78 %
9%
5%
3%
5%
United States
Other
Europe
Philippines
Others
What is your highest formal education level?
58 respondents
34 %
29 %
22 %
7%
7%
0%
Bachelor's Degree
Graduate or Professional Degree
Some College
High School/GED
Associate's Degree
Others
6/5/25, 12:55 PM City of Pinole, CA - Report Creation
https://publicinput.com/report?id=31410 19/23

What is your marital status?
60 respondents
72 %
12 %
8%
5%
3%
Married or Domestic Partnership
Never Married
Divorced
I prefer not to answer
Others
Total household income:
57 respondents
25 %
21 %
19 %
16 %
14 %
5%
$68,501-$109,600
$150,700 or greater
Prefer not to answer
$109,601-$150,700
$41,101-$68,500
Less than $41,100
6/5/25, 12:55 PM City of Pinole, CA - Report Creation
https://publicinput.com/report?id=31410 20/23

Do you have a disability?
57 respondents
81 %
11 %
9%
No
Yes
Prefer not to answer
Are you a resident of Pinole?
58 respondents
98% Yes
2% No
6/5/25, 12:55 PM City of Pinole, CA - Report Creation
https://publicinput.com/report?id=31410 21/23

How many people do you have in your household, including yourself? 57 respondents
44 %
19 %
19 %
12 %
5%
0%
2 3
4 1
5 Others
What is your employment status?
56 respondents
46 %
45 %
5%
4%
Retired
Employed
Unemployed
Prefer not to answer
6/5/25, 12:55 PM City of Pinole, CA - Report Creation
https://publicinput.com/report?id=31410 22/23

What is your housing situation?
59 respondents
90 %
8%
2%
I own my home
I rent my home
Others
6/5/25, 12:55 PM City of Pinole, CA - Report Creation
https://publicinput.com/report?id=31410 23/23

June 17, 2025

APPROVE MEMORIAL

INSTALLATIONS IN

DEDICATION OF
ROBERT WALKER JR.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council approve two Memorial Applications for Naming and Dedication of City Facilities in honor of Robert Walker Jr., accepting special circumstances for the memorial according to the City's Memorial Policy:

1. Install a memorial sign on the Corp Yard Building; and

2. Install a redwood memorial plaque adjacent to Pinole Valley Park.

CORP YARD MEMORIAL

SIGNAGE
• 10 applications were received by City of Pinole
staff (Public Works and Police Department)
• Request to install an aluminum memorial sign on
the City’s Corp Yard building in honor of Robert
Walker Jr’s exceptional 45 years of service:

Robert Walker Jr. Corporation Yard
In Honor of His 45 Years of Service
• $3,040.91 is the estimated cost of the sign
(Visual example only)

“Robert dedicated 45
years of his life to
the City of Pinole and
was the longest
tenured employee.”
~ Eduardo A.

Applicant

REDWOOD MEMORIAL

PLAQUE (PINOLE VALLEY
PARK)
• Application submitted by Pinole resident Bob Kopp
• Request is to install a redwood memorial with a
stainless steel plaque, native flowers, stones, and
solar ground lighting (not pictured) adjacent to
Pinole Valley Park
• Materials and labor to install would be donated.

Ongoing maintenance costs would be minimal and
would be done by Public Works.
(Visual example only)

In Honor of Robert Walker Jr.

November 21, 1952 – October 13, 2024
“A True Pillar of Our Community”
With 45 years of devoted service to the City of Pinole, Robert’s unwavering dedication, kindness, and leadership touched countless lives. His legacy will forever inspire and remind us of the power of compassion and commitment.

With gratitude and love from the Pinole Community and Family.

NEXT STEPS
• If approved by council, the Corp Yard sign and redwood plaque would make plans to install the memorials before the end of the year
• Corp Yard sign: If approved, staff will proceed with working with the vendor on final design concepts for the sign. Staff will review to ensure that signage design will adhere to all City branding guidelines. Installation will be performed by the vendor.

Signage expenses will be paid for by the City of Pinole • Redwood Plaque: If approved, staff will coordinate with Pinole resident Bob Kopp on installation. Materials and installation will be donated by Mr. Kopp

THANK YOU.

QUESTIONS?

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
June 3, 2025

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 Sasai called the Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at 5:01 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

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

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

Code § 87105.

A. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT
Cameron Sasai, Mayor
Anthony Tave, Mayor Pro Tem
Norma Martinez-Rubin, Council Member
Devin Murphy, Council Member
Maureen Toms, Council Member
B. STAFF PRESENT
Kelcey Young, City Manager
Heather Bell, City Clerk
Eric Casher, City Attorney
Markisha Guillory, Finance Director
Melissa Klawuhn, Police Chief
Jeremy Crone, Police Commander
Heba El-Guindy, Public Works Director
Andrea Dwyer, Community Services Director
Roxane Stone, Deputy City Clerk

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

City Clerk Heather Bell announced the agenda had been posted on May 29, 2025 at 4:00 p.m. with all legally required written notices. Written comments had been received in advance of the meeting, distributed to the City Council and staff, posted to the City website and made available to the public to view in the Council Chambers. Updates for the presentation files for Items 11A and 12A were also posted to the City website and available in the Council Chambers for public viewing.

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 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Gov. Code § 54957
Title: City Clerk
B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Gov. Code § 54957.6
Agency designated representative: City Attorney Eric Casher Unrepresented Employee: City Clerk
C. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Gov. Code § 54957.6
Agency designated representatives: City Manager Kelcey Young, City Attorney Eric Casher, Human Resources Director Stacy Shell and Gregory Ramirez, IEDA Employee organizations: AFSCME Local 1, AFSCME Local 512 and the Pinole Police Employees Association (PPEA)

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

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

5. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION TO ANNOUNCE RESULTS OF CLOSED SESSION At 6:39 p.m., Mayor Sasai reconvened the meeting into open session. He reported the City Council approved a four-year extension to the City Clerk’s Employment Agreement and staff would prepare a contract amendment to be approved at the next City Council meeting.

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.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

Irma Ruport, reported at its March 4, 2025 meeting the City Council considered Item 12A, MidYear Budget Review. At that time, she asked for an explanation for the reclassification of the Assistant to the City Manager to Communications Director and had received none. On March 18, 2025, the City Council considered Consent Calendar Item 9D, the adoption of an Amended Master Salary Schedule. The staff report for the item included a reference to Personnel Rule 12, Compensation, employees are assigned job classifications with salary ranges adopted by the City Council. The resolution adopted by the City Council at its March 4, 2025 meeting included new job classification specifications for a Communications Director position at $175,000 and Information Technology (IT) Manager at $138,000. The Assistant to the City Manager had been earning $122,000 but had been promoted to Communications Director with a $53,000 raise.

Ms. Ruport commented that during the March 18 City Council meeting, she had opposed Item 9D, and although she had raised a number of questions she had received no answers at that time. She had later done some research, looked up the City of Pinole’s Personnel Rules adopted May 19, 2009, and noted Personnel Rules 12.7 and 3.3 had been used in the adopted resolution.

She pointed out the City Manager had been hired in August 2024, and she asked why the Assistant to the City Manager, a new position for the City with the above-mentioned salary, had been reclassified and promoted to a new position approved by the new City Manager. She asked whether all Personnel Rules and procedures had been followed to justify the increase in salary and job title, and commented she would be willing to file a grievance with the City Manager if any groups, organizations or persons felt violated. Having a Human Resources Degree, being retired from the government, and having been a Chief Steward in the union, she questioned the unfair action.

Rafael Menis, reported on the current state of transmission for COVID-19 in the community, which had decreased from the latest report from May 24, 2025 to 1.48 per 100,000. While the main site offering data on COVID-19 would sunset shortly, the data would be shifted to a new website with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). On another matter, he thanked everyone who participated in the recent march in Pinole protesting the Trump Administration’s actions which continued to undermine the constitutional system of government. Another protest had been scheduled in the cities of Hercules and Pinole on June 14, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. starting in Hercules and shifting to 1:00 p.m. in Pinole at Target, and then marching over to the Appian/Fitzgerald overcrossing to honor the anniversary of the founding of the United States Army, a counterprotest against the Trump Administration’s inappropriate military parade in honor of the President’s birthday. He suggested there should be a protest to any attempt to use military tanks in this fashion. More information was available at mobilize.us/lHT2QJ or the mobilize.us website. He added the City would hold Pride/Juneteenth on June 8, 2025 from 12:00 to 3:00 p.m. at Fernandez Park and he encouraged everyone to attend.

7. REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Mayor Report

1. Announcements
Mayor Sasai reported he and Council member Murphy met as the Memorial Subcommittee to discuss applications received and recommended the City rename the Corporation Yard after Robert Walker, a treasured long-time City employee.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

The Memorial Subcommittee also recommended approval of signage in Mr. Walker’s name at the facility and recommended moving forward with a memorial plaque for Mr. Walker in Pinole Valley.

In consultation with the City Manager, those items would come before the City Council for consideration at its regular meeting on June 17, 2025. Mayor Sasai thanked all of the applicants and those who advocated for the memorial.

Mayor Sasai also reported the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Commission (WCCTAC) approved a resolution urging state legislators to support public transit funding in the region and in the Bay Area in the face of budget difficulties. He would request a similar resolution be considered by the Pinole City Council as a future agenda item. He also invited everyone to the Pride/Juneteenth Event at Fernandez Park on June 9, 2025.

B. Mayoral & Council Appointments: None
C. City Council Committee Reports & Communications
Council member Toms reported she attended the funeral services for former Contra Costa County Supervisor, District 5, Federal Glover. She recognized Mr. Glover’s volunteerism and work for the County, in particular for transportation. She announced the City was working on hosting a part of the Special Olympics Torch Run on June 25, 2025, traveling from the City of Hercules to Pinole and on to the City of San Pablo. Athletes and torch run officers would make the exchange around 8:45 a.m. at the corner of Tennent and San Pablo Avenues.

Council member Murphy reported he attended Fish Migration Day, an incredible event celebrating the local ecosystem and environmental stewardship and provided a speech on the work being done by the Contra Costa Flood Control District (CCFCD), Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), Contra Costa County and many other partners. He also participated in the West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) System Change Collaborative as the City of Pinole’s representative and reported that WCCUSD would consider its budget on June 4, 2025, and announce a new WCCUSD Superintendent. Planned campus closures this summer due to construction had also been discussed, and it was clarified Pinole campuses would not be impacted by the summer closures other than with an influx from families from other communities due to the summer closures. The collaborative also compiled feedback around its work over the last year with the Interim Superintendent and Contra Costa County Supervisor Gioia, who chaired the collaborative and whose goal for the next year was to shape the collaborative structure with a new Superintendent and consider ways to deal with some of the budget cutbacks being considered by the WCCUSD.

Council member Murphy added that residents had been provided information from the City and the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) on ways to ensure the City was fire wise and fire safe. He reported Copter 1, the contracted aerial firefighter helicopter, was now active for the 2025 Wildfire Season, supporting daylight missions across Contra Costa County throughout October, with a possible extension depending on the weather. He detailed the specifics for Copter 1, a program funded by PG&E and the CCCFPD. He thanked PG&E, CCCFPD and Contra Costa County staff for making this asset available to protect communities.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

Council member Murphy continued to report on his attendance at a meeting of Marin Clean Energy (MCE), with a discussion of customer programs and a $250,000 Initiative to Support NonResidential Municipal Storage Projects, with the goal for one in each county. He detailed the specifics of the initiative, with more information to be provided at an MCE Technical Committee meeting on June 6, 2025. More information was also available on the MCE website. He also represented the City of Pinole at the East Bay Economic Development Alliance/Economic Outlook and Membership meeting presented by Bank of America and hosted In the San Ramon Community Center, with a discussion on data on the East Bay Real Estate market, economic trends and information from the State Labor and Workforce Development Agency. Following that meeting, a Board of Directors meeting for the East Bay Economic Development Alliance was held with the agenda items identified including a presentation from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco that examined the impacts from Artificial Intelligence (AI) on workers and Low and Moderate-Income households.

Council member Murphy further recognized Community Development Director Lilly Whalen for her continued work with the East Bay Economic Development Alliance Economic Development Director’s Council, and whose involvement ensured the City of Pinole was at the table and part of the regional conversations.

Council member Martinez-Rubin reported she attended the funeral services for former Contra Costa County Supervisor Glover and emphasized the importance of representatives helping foster and develop projects that had enduring effects and positive consequences for all of the people they represented. In particular, she appreciated the work Mr. Glover had done to improve State Route 4. She also attended Fish Migration Day and emphasized the importance and value of the watershed Pinole shared into the County’s jurisdiction and beyond Pinole Valley Road south. She also spoke about an initiative she had been involved in during 2019-2022, Thriving Earth Exchange, an international collection of scientists and science community interns who worked locally to try to create projects that had enduring effects and benefitted the environment.

She had been part of the initiative as a Council Liaison during those years. The project later became a literal assessment in Pinole and informed the creation of a single-use plastics ordinance the City Council eventually adopted in 2024, which took effect in January 2025, to be enforced as of July 1, 2025. More information on single use plastic reduction was available on the City website. She thanked those who worked to reduce single use plastics in the community.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED (Item 7A)
Rafael Menis, clarified pursuant to the City website, that the Pride/Juneteenth event would be held on Sunday, June 8, 2025, not June 9, 2025, as the Mayor had reported.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
D. Council Requests for Future Agenda Items
ACTION: Motion by Mayor Sasai/Council member Murphy to consider a resolution to support public transit funding and Senate Bill (SB) 63, which would authorize a multicounty transit ballot measure to support public transit.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

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

Absent: None
Mayor Sasai offered a motion, seconded by Council member Murphy to consider a resolution and Letter of Support for Assembly Bill (AB) 1388, which prohibited the use of Settlement Agreements in California.

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked for an explanation of what prohibiting the use of Settlement Agreements meant since it was broad, and she asked about the implications in Pinole.

Mayor Sasai explained that Settlement Agreements under AB 1388 had been defined as a practice that intentionally hides, destroys or conceals officer misconduct reports from other agencies.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Sasai/Council member Murphy to consider a resolution and Letter of Support for Assembly Bill (AB) 1388, which prohibits the use of Settlement Agreements in California.

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

Absent: None
E. City Manager Report / Department Staff
City Manager Kelcey Young reported the summer camps and Pinole Swim Center would be open for summer programming starting June 16, 2025. She thanked City staff for all of their hard work over the past few months and the ability to present a balanced budget, which was rare at this time period. In particular, she thanked Finance Director Markisha Guillory.

F. City Attorney Report: None

8. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMUNITY EVENTS
A. Proclamations

1. Juneteenth
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing June 19, 2025 as Juneteenth, with the proclamation to be presented to recipients at community events this month.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
There were no comments from the public.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

2. Pride Month
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing the month of June as Pride Month, with the proclamation to be presented to recipients at community events this month.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
There were no comments from the public.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

3. Philippine Independence Day
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing Philippine Independence Day with the proclamation to be presented to recipients at community events this month.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
There were no comments from the public.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
B. Presentations: None

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 20, 2025.

B. Receive the May 17, 2025 – May 30, 2025, List of Warrants in the Amount of $855,035.26 and the May 23, 2025 Payroll in the Amount of $528,173.52 C. Approve Amendment to a Consulting Services Agreement for Employee Benefits Broker of Record Services. Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Stacy Shell)
D. FY 2024/25 Third Quarter Financial Report. Action: Receive a Report (Markisha Guillory)
E. FY 2024/25 Third Quarter Investment Report. Action: Receive a Report (Markisha Guillory)

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

F. Amended Reserve Policy. Action: Adopt a Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Markisha Guillory)
G. Receive Update on Capital Projects Progress, Inspection and Permits Issuance, and Maintenance Operations. Action: Receive Update on Capital Projects Progress, Conducted Inspections and Issued Permits, and Performed Maintenance Operations (Heba El-Guindy)
H. Approval of Agreement between the City of Pinole and West Valley Construction Company Inc., Roble Avenue Storm Drain Improvements Project (SW2001).

Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Heba El-Guindy)

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis stated he had provided comments in writing prior to the meeting, had received some responses from the Finance Director, but provided the following comments on the Consent Calendar:
- Item 9D, Page 66 of 764, of the agenda packet, Property Tax, information as shown for Q3 was substantially lower than prior years and asked why. - All tables in Item 9D were flagged in his PDF as having been Artificial Intelligence (AI) generated content that may be incorrect. Asked if the City was using AI generation for its charts, and if so, what measures were being used to ensure accuracy. - Item 9D, Page 69 of 764, of the agenda packet, Q3, Waste Franchise Tax was less than prior years. Asked if this was because of the timing of the agreement negotiation or other reason(s).
- Item 9D, Page 70 of 764, of the agenda packet, the Transit Occupancy Tax was dropping sharply this year and asked whether the City expected this trend to continue into the next fiscal year.
- Item 9D, Page 81 of 764, of the agenda packet, Supplement Law Enforcement Services Fund (Fund 206), had a revenue of 117 percent of the amended budget. Asked for clarification.
- Item 9D, Page 81 of 764 of the agenda packet, NPDES Storm Water Fund (Fund 207), had revenue of $147 or zero percent of the amended budget. Since there should have been payments in December and April, asked whether there had been an error or whether the City had not received the payments.
- Item 9F, noted staff had stated the recommendation was to set aside funds to begin prefunding Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEBs), as noted on Page 102 of 764 of the agenda packet, and given the primary use of the transfer from the Section 115 Trust was to offset the City’s pension costs, asked to what extent the Section 115 Trust would be sustainable if it also needed to cover the City’s other OPEB costs as well as the pension costs.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

Mayor Sasai asked staff to follow-up with the questions via email.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Council member Murphy asked that the City Council consider Item 9F after its conversation about the budget, otherwise he asked that the City Council continue the item to the next meeting.

City Attorney Eric Casher advised that Item 9F could be continued to the next City Council meeting if that was the preference of the City Council.

ACTION: Motion by Council members Murphy/Toms to adopt Consent Calendar Items 9A, 9B, 9C, 9D, 9E, 9G and 9H, as shown.

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

Absent: None
ACTION: Motion by Council members Murphy/Toms to continue Consent Calendar Item 9F to the City Council meeting of June 17, 2025.

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

Absent: None

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 1
st Read AB481 Military Use Equipment. Action: Action: Conduct Public Hearing and Introduce Ordinance on First Read (Jeremy Crone, Melissa Klawuhn)
Pinole Police Department Commander Jeremy Crone provided a PowerPoint presentation for AB481, Military Use Equipment, which included the background of AB481 Military Equipment, Funding, Acquisition and Use and overview of Pinole Police Department Policy #707, which required the Pinole Police Department to provide guidelines for the approval, acquisition and reporting requirements of military equipment. He reported that the Pinole Police Department worked closely with Lexipol (Law Enforcement Risk Management Group), collaborated with the regional law enforcement agencies in Contra Costa County and worked closely with the City Attorney’s Office to create Policy #707.

Pinole Police Department Policy #707, Military Equipment List per AB481; Approval and Implementation Timeline; Annual Report; Purchase and Maintenance; Training, Event and Incident Use; Community Complaints, Concerns or Violations; Projected Military Equipment Acquisition for FY 2025/26 and findings to be made by the City Council at its regular meeting on June 17, 2025 were all highlighted.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

Responding to questions from the City Council, Chief of Police Melissa Klawuhn and Commander Crone clarified the following:
• Policy #707 was a policy by ordinance shown in Chapter 2.60 of the Pinole Municipal Code (PMC). (Martinez-Rubin)
• Clarified if any military equipment failed it would be destroyed. As an example, if a drone was no longer usable, it would be a failed piece of equipment and would be destroyed and how it would be disposed would depend on the equipment. Other examples, such as rifles could not be sold to anyone other than a law enforcement agency. Whether a rifle or shotgun, once it reached its end of service life, it would be destroyed, with the functional part of the firearm destroyed and with the equipment logged and accounted for. (MartinezRubin) • Clarified in addition to these public hearings, the Police Department also publicized through its social media channels its drone capability. Law enforcement was reluctant to publicize that at the time of an incident, but it was noticed to the public at appropriate times when reporting out on an incident. (Mayor Pro Tem Tave) • Clarified any concerns with unauthorized drone use could be forwarded to the Pinole Police Department on its non-emergency line (510) 724-1111. Concerns with unauthorized drone flights may also be reported to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (Mayor Sasai and Mayor Pro Tem Tave)
• Acknowledged a request to add the City seal to the Annual Report to be submitted as part of AB481 requirements. (Murphy)
• Clarified Commander Crone was the Pinole Police Department Operations Commander, with the Commander in that role to be assigned as the AB481 Coordinator. Commander Crone would serve in that capacity or any Commander overseeing the Operations side. (Murphy)
• No formal complaints or concerns had been brought forward by the public with respect to the Pinole Police Department’s use of military equipment. There were multiple ways for a citizen to lodge a formal complaint, either by contacting the Watch Commander/Seargeant over the phone, contacting the Police Department via the website, and filling out a form.

The Police Department was also working on an automated option on the website. Anyone may also come to the Police Department in-person to fill out a complaint form. (Murphy) • Clarified a recent incident in Tara Hills had not involved the Pinole Police Department’s Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle (MRAP) Emergency Rescue Vehicle (ERV). (Toms)
• Clarified armored vehicles were not always an MRAP, with the only armored vehicle existing in West County being the Pinole Police Department MRAP. The Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff did have two BearCats, which were armored vehicles on a 550 platform and which fell under the category of military equipment per the Government Code, but were not a true piece of military equipment. (Toms)

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

• Clarified there were a couple of Police agencies in East County that also had armored vehicles. Pinole’s MRAP ERV could be loaned out for use by another agency in an emergency or in an incident that required it through a mutual aid request. (Toms)

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Rafael Menis commented that he provided written comments in advance of the meeting. He referenced Page 188 of 764 of the agenda packet, the public hearing notice, which stated: Copies of the text of the proposed ordinance will be available for public review as part of the City Council agenda and meeting packet no later than May 13, 2025 at 5:00 PM.; however, this agenda packet had been posted on May 29, 2025. He asked whether the date was a typographical error or had something been posted on May 13, 2025.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
City Clerk Bell understood the public hearing had been moved and that could have been an oversight in that piece. The ordinance was available for this meeting on May 29, 2025, and made available on the City website. The ordinance was a draft and this item would come back to the City Council on June 17, 2025 for further review.

In response to Council member Martinez-Rubin as to whether a motion was necessary, City Attorney Casher identified the staff recommendation as shown on the June 3, 2025 staff report, as follows: Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing, review and approve the 2024-2025 Pinole Police Department Annual Military Equipment Report, and waive full reading and introduce by title only an ordinance approving and re-adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy as stated in Chapter 2.60 “Military Equipment Policy” of the Pinole City Municipal Code in compliance with AB481. This was the first read of the ordinance, with the second read to come back on June 17, 2025 for formal adoption of the ordinance.

City Clerk Bell confirmed in response to Council member Martinez-Rubin that a motion was needed.

Mayor Sasai advised his position on this item remained consistent over the past few years. He thanked the Pinole Police Department for its hard work, but he would be voting in opposition to the item.

Motion by Council members Toms/Martinez-Rubin for the City Council to conduct a public hearing, review and approve the 2024/2025 Pinole Police Department Annual Military Equipment Report, and waive full reading and introduce by title only an ordinance approving and re-adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy as stated in Chapter 2.60 “Military Equipment Policy” of the Pinole City Municipal Code in compliance with AB481.

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

Absent: None

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

B. Approval of Increase to Waste Collection Rates (Prop 218). Action: Conduct Public Hearing and Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Kelcey Young)
City Manager Young introduced Scott Hanin, Principal, R3 Consulting Group, Inc., to provide a presentation for Item 10B, which presentation would also cover Item 12A.

Council member Toms asked if the City Council could consider Item 12A after the completion of Item 10B, to be able to keep the discussion on both items.

City Attorney Casher clarified that Item 10B was a public hearing. As long as the public hearing was conducted for Item 10B, the City Council may move forward thereafter to Item 12A.

Scott Hanin, Principal, R3 Consulting Group, provided a PowerPoint presentation on the City of Pinole, New Republic Collection Services Agreement, dated June 3, 2025, which included an overview of his personal background; the background of the negotiations process; key terms of the agreement; Franchise Fee Study and Findings; breakdown of the Residential Collection Rates and how Pinole compared with neighboring jurisdictions. He recommended the City Council accept the findings from the City Fee Study and adopt resolutions authorizing approval of revised rates effective July 1, 2025, execution of a new franchise agreement and use of rate stabilization funds (side letter).

Responding to Council member Toms, Mr. Hanin clarified the Residential Collection Rates graph, as shown in the PowerPoint presentation, depicted an 11 to 12 percent increase.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Helaine Starr Jow, a 27-year resident of Alamo Street, reported her street had never been paved but there had been some repairs. Many of her neighbors were unable to park their vehicles in front of their homes due to a deep furrow on the street. The repairs that had been made consisted of filling of holes with asphalt, although trucks running back and forth over the filled holes had disrupted the asphalt with chunks in the road impacting vehicles. She asked how the street could be listed for repairs since she was uncertain the City would get funds from Republic Services to do the work. She added that years ago, a sewer line had been replaced from her driveway out to the middle of the street and the approximate $12,000 cost had been a painful expense for someone living on Social Security. She added there had been postings on NextDoor that the increase in waste collection rates seemed to be more of a tax than a fee and she expressed concern this could be another new tax when residents just voted in November to approve a new sales tax to repair City roads.

Bob Kopp, commented that while he was not concerned with an increase in the waste collection rates, he was aware of the cost increase of diesel fuel and the effects of cost increases on his own personal business. He found this proposal to be a new tax and not a fee and suggested the City was slipping this in as a fee increase since it would not require a vote of the people. He asked how much of his fee per month would come back from Republic Services, how the process had been set up and whether the funds to be returned to the City from Republic Services would be used 100 percent to repair damage to City streets from Republic Services trucks.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

Mark Zimmerman, stated he had reviewed some of the documents related to the garbage rate increases. He asked the City Council to amend the resolution of approval for the item, and reduce the $1.2 million Vehicle Impact Fee (VIF) by at least half so the rate increase would be approximately five percent for the typical customer, which would be consistent with the key terms and keeping the increase under the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The Bureau of Land Statistics had shown inflation at 2.3 percent and if this rate increase occurred on July 1, 2025, it would be at least five times the current CIP and even more so for seniors. He pointed out there had been a rate increase on January 1, 2025 related to the CPI, the proposed rate increase was 13 percent for the typical customer for a 35-gallon bin and 19 percent for seniors, almost entirely due to the VIF. Seniors were bearing the brunt of this increase at 19 percent and he asked why the increase was so much more for seniors than the typical customer. Also, there was no sunset on the VIF, which would be in perpetuity every year and should be recognized.

Mr. Zimmerman added that Pinole’s Housing Affordability Goals would not be supported by such a large increase, and he asked the City Council to also consider increased housing costs and anything that could be done to lower those costs. He too commented on the fact the City just passed a new sales tax and suggested current garbage customers should not be responsible for paying for years of deferred road maintenance. A five percent rate increase would be more consistent moving forward and reducing it would be relative to what the typical customer and seniors deserved.

Jason Littlefield, explained the prior speaker covered much of what he was going to say. He expressed concern with the legal exposure and highlighted the residential rates for neighboring jurisdictions and the fact R3 Consulting had mentioned there was a legal landscape for such fees that remained unsettled. He pointed out the current litigious society and found there would be great exposure in the legality and money involved in this proposal. Prior to July 1, 2025, there would be no VIF, and he suggested a tax should be considered so that voters would have a voice in the proposed increase. While not necessarily opposed to the increase, he found the fee appeared to be a workaround to a budget shortfall. As an experienced General Contractor and knowledgeable about budgets, he found the City had gotten behind and recommended a fee workaround as opposed to a tax and noted that being redundant took the voice away from the voters. He was also concerned that prior to this proposal no VIF assessment had been done and suddenly there were now significant VIF funds.

Mr. Zimmerman emphasized that garbage trucks had been traveling City streets for some time and he asked why VIFs were suddenly happening. He also found the $1.7 million identified for the pavement impacts, as shown in the PowerPoint presentation, only involved garbage trucks.

Around $800,000 had been projected for the City’s annual road rehabilitation, which was not a projected budget number but an estimated average which meant that amount had a wide swing.

As a pragmatist, that swing would not go lower but higher. He also commented on the $500,000 shortfall between R3 Consulting’s recommendation and the City’s $1.2 million figure placing everyone at a shortfall again.

Marcia Joswick, Pinole, had many objections to the proposed increase in fees for solid waste pickup including the fact that the proposed increase in monthly residential fees had been calculated at a higher percentage for seniors than others at 18.4 percent, with non-seniors at 11.7 percent. She asked why seniors were being charged a higher rate, suggested that was discriminatory, and noted that any rate increase should be the same across the board.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

Ms. Joswick stated in January 2025, Republic Services raised its fees and those fees would increase again in July 2025 and every year thereafter. Residents already approved a one-half percent sales tax increase in November 2024, which was to go to street improvements. The City wanted to make Pinole affordable for seniors but this was not leading to greater affordability. She objected to the legal ramifications of this proposal as indicated in the consultants’ report that the fee was entering into an unsettled legal landscape. She asked why the City was placing everyone at risk. She also objected to the situation where Republic Services would now have to reimburse the City for damage their trucks did to the City’s roads. Republic Services was not reimbursing the City but acting as a collection agency for money paid by residents and would simply return residents’ money to pay for damage caused by Republic Services vehicles. She also objected to the fact there had been no workshop to explain this proposal and allow residents a chance to get questions answered. She suggested the City Council and staff had largely ignored residents’ questions with the only opportunity to ask questions and raise objections to this unfair and possibly illegal increase limited to a single agenda item on a very long agenda. Additionally, she found the proposed fee increase to be discriminatory against seniors with legal liability disguised as a fee when it was really a tax.

Janet Wilks, commented on the concerns among Pinole residents regarding the 19 percent waste collection rate increase for seniors as opposed to the around 13 percent increase for other ratepayers. There was also concern about the VIF being a tax versus a fee, with legal precedent being set up and down the state, most notably Zolly v. City of Oakland 2022. If the legality of the VIF was challenged, it could lead to additional expenses for the City in terms of a legal defense and that should be considered if passing a VIF. She suggested the City Council include some funding in the budget to fund a defense of this proposal and she asked the City Council to consider not approving the VIF and rather pursue a tax proposal. If that could not be done, she recommended a reduction that would result in a five or six percent waste collection increase. She asked that the City not lay the burden of the VIF on seniors. She also commented it had been a challenge to have a productive conversation with City Council and staff about this issue since the passage of Proposition 218. She emphasized residents had repeatedly requested a workshop on this issue and commented on the difficulty in expressing the long list of concerns with only three minutes to speak at meetings. She suggested the City could do a better job in communicating on this side of the conversation since residents were feeling stonewalled.

Rafael Menis, thanked Ms. Wilks for her written comments which introduced him to Zolly v. City of Oakland 2022, where he found commentary from legal firm KBK, Kabateck LLP, discussing the case. He read into the record portions of the discussion and portions of the California Constitution and possibly two exemptions from Article XIII of the California Constitution, which may apply to the city’s franchise fees, specifically Article XIII C, subdivision (e) (4) or Article XIII, C, subdivision (1) (e) (1) and the City of Oakland’s response to the issue.

Mr. Menis referenced Page 241 of 764 of the agenda packet and commented that the presentation stated the annual use charge for special and lasting use of the solid waste containers was listed as a separate item from the annualized cost of pavement repair maintenance rehabilitation resulting from the unique impacts of street pavement caused by Republic’s collection vehicles during the course of providing service. He asked the City Attorney to opine whether those would be linked to Article XIII, C, subdivision (1) or Article XIII, C, subdivision (e) (4), or some other cause or whether it would be more beneficial to consider this as many speakers had noted, as a tax. He asked for more specificity.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

As to the actual cost to the City of road repair, and as stated in many prior Council agenda items, Mr. Menis suggested the cost to the City of maintaining the roads was well above what the City regularly expended in any given year since the overall cost of dealing with it all at once was much, much greater, which was why there were a number of estimates related to the fee for the impact for the service.

Debbie Long, found it disturbing there had been no discussion with the public prior to proposing the increase especially given the higher increase to the senior population. She suggested the City had hidden a $1.2 million tax in the guise of a fee, with no mention of this in the Proposition 218 Notice. Rather, the staff report stated the City was converting the Solid Waste 214 Fund into a VIF. She understood legally the City could not rename a fee to side step calling it a tax. A fee must be justified and meet the definition, which the VIF did not. She found this was more accurately defined as a vehicle impact tax, as it was more directly related to services. The definition of a tax was a charge imposed with a primary purpose of raising revenue. The definition of a fee was the purpose of recouping costs incurred in providing the service, and fees that disproportionately burdened certain groups of people were illegal.

In this case, a VIF was only being charged for the use of the garbage truck, but Pinole had many other large trucks and businesses that impacted roads and the City was not charging any of them a VIF, only garbage trucks. Taxes that were not taxes violated the principle of transparency by denying the taxpayer of making meaningful choices about public priorities. To charge a fee for the roads used by Republic Services was not in direct relationship to the service Republic provided. As a previous Public Works Director stated in a meeting regarding the City’s roads, the City’s roads could be gravel and they would still serve the purpose, and therefore logically speaking garbage could still be picked up with roads in any condition and therefore the $1.2 million fee was taxation by definition. A tax needed the vote of the people. All states, including California but excluding Oregon, adhered to a meaningful taxpayer-protected definition of taxes, and had rules requiring that any ambiguity in tax statutes could be resolved in the taxpayer’s favor.

Ms. Long suggested that calling road repairs, including the calculations used as renting space of the cans, was not even close to the definition of a fee, and this City Council was guilty of hiding a tax and calling it a fee, not to mention that the reports stated the $1.2 million “could” be used for road repairs, not “shall” be used for road repairs, with no mention in the resolution or the attachment of the $1.2 million. She suggested the City Council needed to tighten its belt, engage the community and be transparent instead of trying to approve a tax under the guise of a fee, and perhaps the City Attorney should look into the ambiguity of trying to pass a tax as a fee not to mention converting one fee that was totally unrelated to the new proposed tax.

Kathleen Tobin, representing the Willowbrook Homeowner’s Association (HOA), a 106-unit residential development on San Pablo Avenue, commented on the incredibly poor service from Republic Services. She had not followed the details of the increase but strongly opposed any increase in fees. She reported the HOA Board of Directors had written letters repeatedly to the City of Pinole that were never passed on to Republic Services. The letters raised concerns about absent garbage pickups, the fact the HOA had to hire a pest management company and with the situation having escalated into a serious health and environmental hazard since the prolonged accumulation of waste attracted pests and created unsanitary conditions. As a result, the HOA was strongly opposed to any increase in fees by Republic Services.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

Mary Horton, former Mayor for the City of Pinole, thanked former Mayor Long for her excellent presentation and having raised some of the points she had with the proposal. She had received no notice about the proposal on a subject that was potentially litigious and confusing to the public, particularly given the suggestion that the fees were higher for seniors. She suggested the City should consider holding a workshop, be transparent, and if there was a direct through line with garbage trucks causing all of the upheaval on the roads, Republic Services should pay the City a fee for using City roads rather than the other way around. She added that WestCat buses, school buses, FedEx, Amazon and U.S. Postal Service trucks also used City streets. She recognized why there had been litigation around this issue, she had been through it as a Mayor, it was not fun, particularly when speaking with constituents. She did not support the VIF and urged the City to tread lightly.

William Horton, commented he had voted for utility and sales taxes in Pinole from 1998 through 2024, and was concerned the proposed increase would come so soon after the passage of the increase in sales taxes in November 2024. He asked the City Council and staff to provide the public with details of every year of expenditures.

Noreen Buller, a senior, opposed the garbage increase since it did not adequately justify the reason for the proposed increase. There was no mention of changing the Solid Waste Fund into a VIF, much less stating that $1.7 million or $1.2 million would be added to garbage invoices, which would add roughly $50 to each billing cycle, in addition to the rate increases from Republic Services. She asked why this had not been discussed openly, noting that members of the public requested a workshop, which request had been ignored. It appeared as if the City was trying to pass a tax while calling it a fee and if vetting in a public forum, calling the tax a fee would be met with resistance. She found the biggest issue was this was a tax, not a fee, and a fee would be for providing the cost of services, with taxes imposed as a revenue generator.

Ms. Buller commented the $1.2 million in taxes would not provide a service, but a road tax, and taxpayers already paid for road repairs. She emphasized the biggest promise of the recently passed Measure I was that it would go towards road repairs. She asked when that work would start. She commented the lack of transparency and accountability was disturbing, and she hoped the City Council would listen to the comments, split its vote into two actions; one to vote on the rate increase and the other on the tax increase, and put in on the ballot for the people to decide.

Irma Ruport, agreed with the comments, noted she had been back and forth with the City Council every two weeks and decried the lack of communication. The City had two stations with PCTV, a Communications Director, and the public was clueless about what was going on. She suggested the City Council needed to get it together and ensure communication was out in the public as it should be. She agreed a workshop should be held, recognized there may not be enough staff, but the City Council needed to be transparent and inform the public. She wanted the City Council to do better, communicate and get on the ball.

Anthony Vossbrink, echoed the previous comments and suggested just hearing from a few people in the Council Chambers could be multiplied if there was a Town Hall or public workshop. He suggested the City Council should stand up to Republic Services, not make back room deals. He emphasized most seniors were on fixed incomes, living off of Social Security and little else, and the proposed increase would burden seniors who did not use a large trash bin. He suggested the discrimination against the seniors in the community should be investigated.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

Mr. Vossbrink also asked what was occurring with recycling work at the City level, and asked about the status of recycling bins outside of the Senior Center, Pinole Library, tennis courts and Pinole Valley Park. He understood the City combined all bottles and cans into their trucks even though they were pre-separated, and were taken to the Corporation Yard for Richmond Sanitary Service to pick-up. He questioned whether recycled items were really being recycled, and asked for more transparency with the public. He requested that the senior rates be adjusted downwards and that the majority on the City Council keep this item open for further discussion.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
City Attorney Casher clarified in response to the public comments the distinction between a tax and a fee. A tax was mandatory payment or charge collected by the City for the primary purpose of raising General Fund revenue. It was not tied to a specific service but a tax paid for City services more broadly. The sales tax, as an example, was a tax imposed with no specific service tied to it. A fee was a charge imposed for the primary purpose of covering the cost of providing a specific service directly to the rate payer. The solid waste fee being imposed and discussed, was not imposed on every resident in the City but imposed on a property owner who received collection services through the Solid Waste Franchise Agreement. The fee being imposed was for the service Franchise Agreement, the cost of the total service for the Franchise Agreement. The Nexus Fee Study that had been prepared was the analysis of the overall cost of the service, and for each of the rate payers was a portion based on the size of the trash bin, all calculated and referenced in the Nexus Fee Study.

The distinction under the California Constitution referenced the fee not exceeding the cost of the service, which was the purpose of the Nexus Fee Study that laid out the total cost of the service including the VIF, and the impact on roads of the Republic Services trucks driving over it, and that was the justification for why the fee was what it was.

City Attorney Casher added the Zolly v. City of Oakland case was a challenge to Franchise Fee Agreements more broadly and was not specific to VIFs. It was to address the issue of cities that were imposing a franchise fee without any Nexus Fee Study, and arbitrarily coming up with amounts not tied to the actual service without demonstrating that the fee for service did not exceed the actual cost of the service. That had been addressed by the Nexus Fee Study and pointing out the cost of impacts to the City’s roads. The VIF proposed was lower than the actual impact provided for in the Nexus Fee Study.

Mr. Hanin acknowledged the concerns with the senior issue and commented that even the issue of a senior discount was potentially subject to the same fee issue the City Attorney discussed, with the presumption that if the non-senior rate was $50 as an example, and the senior rate was $45, using the same truck, driver and fuel, it could wind up that everyone who was not a senior would be subsidizing the senior rate. Because of that, many jurisdictions had eliminated special rates given the same pervasive fear that everyone was suing everyone over every fee. Since there was already a built-in rate where the senior rate was roughly $3, pursuant to Page 30 of the Franchise Agreement, it included specific language on senior discounts at the contractors’ good will. In exchange for the good will of the City and the general public, the contractor would voluntarily agree to discount the rate it charged for solid waste services and the maximum rates should not be otherwise paid for or subsidized by any other service recipients.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

While the rate increase was more for seniors, it was because that gap was $3, and through the negotiations there was a desire to maintain a lower rate and they got to $2 as part of the total package of Republic Services’ rates, and were making up the senior discount. It was not a subsidy, which was the way of maintaining at least a $2 discount for seniors, being done as part of a negotiated settlement where Republic Services was giving the discount to the City as part of the total package of negotiations.

Council member Martinez-Rubin understood as part of the negotiation process the contract was offering something to seniors, but it was not apparent or obvious, and as a result the total monthly rate appeared to be great. She referenced Table 1, as shown on Page 233 of 764 of the staff report, which summarized the proposed July 1, 2025 rate components as compared to the figures in the PowerPoint presentation, which may be why it was difficult to understand the rates shown and the negotiation process. She also referenced the table of Residential Collection Rates, as part of the PowerPoint presentation, and clarified with Mr. Hanin how the rate increases in percentages had been calculated. Based on the information shown, she asked why the increases had been shown as they had.

Mr. Hanin again walked through the Residential Collection Rates, in particular the 35-gallon senior and regular 35-gallon rates as shown in the PowerPoint presentation, and commented the increase to the VIF for everyone, residential and commercial, had been two and half times higher, with a math issue happening because the $2 change had been negotiated. The senior calculation made the rate change higher, from a $3 difference to a $2 difference, which had increased the VIF proportionally. It really came down to the $3 spread between the two rates becoming a $2 spread and adding the VIF, resulting in the six percent or so difference.

Council member Martinez-Rubin again referenced the Residential Collection Rates, acknowledged seniors had been paying a little under $3, and it seemed they were making up for fees that had not been collected, but Mr. Hanin suggested focusing on the collection rate as shown in the table. He recognized it was difficult when speaking of 44 cents to percentages that seemed big, but the collection changes tried to keep, and to Republic Services’ credit, the ability to use the solid waste fee that had been collected. There was a relatively small collection increase, with the fee spread evenly across the board for residential and commercial ratepayers, and it would be two and a half times what it was now. The two-and-a half-time increase was reflected in the overall cost increases. He clarified that with the ending of the franchise agreement; there was an opportunity to review the agreement including the fees.

Mayor Pro Tem Tave referenced the Draft Agreement, Line 1019, Section 6.02, which spoke to the senior discount and goodwill and noted the spirit of that element of the agreement was still there. He acknowledged comments from the public asking how the money would be accounted for, which was very important. He believed in return to source, if the fee was generated by something it would return back to that intent. He asked whether the City Manager, City Attorney and Finance Director could provide details on how that would be reported this time next year.

City Manager Young explained the VIF as part of this arrangement would have to be recorded as a separate line item in the budget and would be something that could be easily reported on annually through the audit and budget processes. The intent and understanding of how VIF could be used was to potentially support the City’s public waste process, but primarily it would only go towards roads and not the General Fund.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

Mayor Pro Tem Tave asked about the current CPI and what that meant in relation to the discussion around the five percent increase. He sought insight as to what that 18-month freeze would do for the City and how the CPI tied into that.

Mr. Hanin clarified the 18-months meant the City did not have to do this in six months, which was the normal schedule and did not have to adjust rates until January 2027. The water, sewer, trash over the past 20-years on average adjusted four and five percent and the CPI had run a little bit less. He offered an example of when inflation spiked a few years ago and where cities had faced significant increases, and although inflation during most of the current agreement was relatively flat, there were spikes at the end. As part of negotiations, since the indexes had been running three to four-and-a-half percent, a five percent cap had been included to protect the City from potentially significant inflation. Although Republic Services was entitled to attempt to recoup that in the next year or the following year, if the inflation came back down it protected the City from any spikes above five percent.

Council member Toms thanked the speakers who provided questions ahead of time and thanked the City Manager and staff for responding to those with their Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and responses. Speaking to the fee for the impacts from the service being provided, the estimate was $1.7 million, but had been reduced and was now proposed at 75 percent of that total.

Council member Toms acknowledged comments the City Council should consider splitting that in half again, and noted if that were done, they would be down to almost where the solid waste fee was currently or a bit higher. At this time, the VIF was for direct impacts associated with garbage trucks. She was aware the City could not and it was almost impossible to charge other delivery impact fees, but with respect to construction there were many times when a construction project was approved that the conditions of the roads before and after construction were noted and the contractor was required to make repairs applicable to damage, which directly addressed the impacts of the vehicles on the roads that created damage to them.

Council member Toms added that Measure I had not been a 100 percent fix-all for liability for road improvements and was never meant to cover the vast work that needed to be done; it was just one part of it. This proposal would not replace Measure I since there was a huge liability the City had in its road system.

Council member Murphy offered a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Tave, to adopt a resolution authorizing increases to the Solid Waste Collection Services Rates.

On the motion, Council member Martinez-Rubin commented she had reviewed her notes as to whether the comments made by members of the public had been addressed. They had discussed via the City Attorney, the explanation of a fee versus a tax, why now, an opportunity presented itself to analyze the costs associated with the services provided as well as impacts to the City because of the provision of these services, and the City’s inability at this time to charge other large vehicles such as Amazon trucks. She noted the City had tried that in a different state policy committee she sat on and there were no means currently to incur charges. She commented they also had to consider the weight and recurrence on certain City streets, the damage done by the greater weight of vehicles and the frequency of those vehicles on the street, which was different compared to how WestCat buses traveled on its routes.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

Council member Martinez-Rubin commented the history of VIFs had been discussed, the City was in need of funds to cover its pavement program since the City was behind in addressing the maintenance and the necessary repairs and would continue to be. There had been a lot of deferred maintenance and now in 2025, the City was confronted with some of that deferred maintenance. Over the years, the roads had been needing more repairs and those repairs now had to be done and the means to do so had to be found. She also referred to the questions about “can” or “shall” be used and the interpreted ambiguity about the language of the VIF, and commented that because it was a fee it was meant for a specific use. Given the immediate need to repair City roads, there was an opportunity to levy this fee for road repair.

Council member Martinez-Rubin noted with respect to any correspondence received by the City from the Willowbrook residents and the HOA, that more research needed to be done to determine what happened with the letters the HOA had provided. Communication with Republic Services had occurred, most recently the negotiations of the contractual agreement. She was curious whether there were ever times when Republic Services had gone without providing services to particular areas of the City and hoped to have an answer to that later.

Mr. Hanin commented with respect to communications between the Willowbrook HOA and its residents that Republic Services should be present to respond, and Council member MartinezRubin asked that Republic Services respond to those concerns.

Council member Toms commented that her concerns were that the CPI was 2.3 percent and then utilities were estimated at 4 percent, and the increase would represent an 11 to 19 percent increase, which was a hard hit for people, particularly those with fixed incomes. Rather than a VIF, and cutting it in half from the net as described in the PowerPoint presentation, which was already a 75 percent reduction of the actual costs, the City could consider something in between for an easier number so the increase would not be so high. She asked whether there was interest in taking a look at those numbers and returning with something in between if that was the will of the City Council.

Council member Martinez-Rubin wanted more information to address that question by the next City Council meeting and bringing the item to a vote at that time.

Council member Toms clarified, for instance, that the City was looking at the estimated cost at $1.7 million, yet that had been reduced by 75 percent, which was what had been recommended at $1.2 million. If taking the base of $1.7 million and instead only take 50 percent of that total, there would be a total of $851,720. She was not ready to translate that onto the schedule of what the VIF could be since it needed some math, but suggested it was a way to allow the City to do something in between and would be a more conservative approach to the VIF based on actual estimated costs and bringing it down closer to the CPI.

Mayor Sasai asked whether that was something staff could calculate at this meeting, and City Manager Young explained that would take some time for staff to do and bring back and that would also change the VIF, which was something to consider as well.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

Council member Martinez-Rubin commented they were speaking of a 15-year period, not only savings for a certain group of people, but the roads would continue to degrade and costs would increase. She was leaning more toward if they could have the funding to do the repairs now, either pay now or later, but someone would pay.

Mayor Pro Tem Tave referenced Table 2, 1/1/2026 Estimated Residential Rate Survey, How does Pinole compare? as part of the PowerPoint presentation, and commented that he and his colleagues had asked that question for the past four years. Based on the information, the cities of Pinole, Hercules and El Cerrito were about the same size and the cities of Pinole and Pleasant Hill had enjoyed low rates for a long time, although their peers were in the middle range. He recognized the work to keep the value and intent of the contract intact and still address the looming issues, and while $1.7 million would bring Pinole closer to the City of Concord range, Pinole was middle range for towns around it and the services provided, which had to be taken into consideration moving forward, particularly with services lacking.

Mayor Pro Tem Tave commented the City Council also had to take into consideration that roads did not degrade linearly, they must be rebuilt at extreme cost, and the strategy was to recoup some of those costs. The proposed fee would responsibly send that money back to the roads in partnership with Republic Services.

Mayor Pro Tem Tave added that street sweeping services were usually the ones picking up the gravel on the roads that was broken up, which meant there had to be more runs to clean the road.

He found the VIF to be moderate. The spirit of the contract still held with what the City had in the past, and going to $1.2 million rather than $1.7 million kept them to a reasonable amount of increase. He asked about the total increase the City would absorb per month.

City Manager Young advised on average it would be around $5 per month.

Mayor Pro Tem Tave found that to be a fair rate. It would generate close to $1.2 million per household with a rate increase that would be fair, reasonable, and in the spirit and intent of the contracts and he wanted that to be a consideration as well.

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked the City Manager to again explain the average per month, and City Manager Young referenced the Residential Collection Rates table as part of the PowerPoint presentation, and based on the information shown, there would be around a $4.06 increase but a bit more increase for seniors, which was just under $5.

Mayor Pro Tem Tave noted that under Section 6.02 of the contract, Republic Services was required to reach out to the community and notify ratepayers about the $2 rate and whether it was built into the contract.

Mr. Hanin advised Republic Services would inform residents of the new rate, it had been posted on its website, and if the City Council adopted the new rates, they would be made public and shared with Republic Services customers. He again clarified the Residential Collection Rates table as part of the PowerPoint presentation.

Council member Murphy restated the motion to adopt a resolution authorizing increases to the Solid Waste Collection Services Rates.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

City Attorney Casher advised for the record that as part of the Prop 218 public hearing process, the City had received 115 written protest/objections. As identified in the public hearing notice, it would require a majority of the property owners/customers of record, and having conducted the public hearing, the City Council was authorized to approve the rates as proposed, or make modifications.

Motion by Council member Murphy/Mayor Pro Tem Tave to adopt a resolution authorizing the increases to the Solid Waste Collection Service Rates.

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

Absent: None
The City Council moved forward to Item 12A at this time.

12. NEW BUSINESS
A. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the New Solid Waste Franchise Agreement with Richmond Sanitary Service, Inc. dba Republic Services and to Execute a Side Letter Agreement Regarding Use of City Rate Stabilization Funds to Offset Maximum Service Rates. Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Kelcey Young)
City Manager Young clarified the prior presentation provided the overall entire package. This item would bring the Franchise Agreement forward but there could be a few minor modifications made, such as typos or word changes, otherwise the draft before the City Council was the draft staff recommended. A Side Letter was included with Solid Waste Funds to be used to supplement the rate so the community would not feel a significant rate increase, already reflected in the rates discussed, at $200,000 annually.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, spoke to the implementation of the rate increases and noted as indicated in written comments he provided to staff, and a carryover from Item 10B, for the annual automatic inflationary increases to be approved and implemented each January 1, 2027, thereafter, through and including January 1, 2029. He asked if that meant on each January 1 from 2027, 2028 and 2029. Also, Page 764 of 764 of the agenda packet included Exhibit 10, Acceptable Recyclable Materials, and he commented it appeared there were more items than in the past that were acceptable for recycling at Republic Services, some of which he read into the record, particularly pizza boxes, which he understood fell more in the green waste category, and polystyrene (Styrofoam), which he understood was not a recyclable item. He asked whether all lof the items listed in Exhibit 10 would now be recyclable under the agreement.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Tave/Council member Murphy to adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to Execute the New Solid Waste Franchise Agreement with Richmond Sanitary Service, Inc. dba Republic Services and to Execute a Side Letter Agreement Regarding Use of City Rate Stabilization Funds to Offset Maximum Service Rates.

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

Absent: None
The City Council returned to agenda Item 11, Old Business at this time.

11. OLD BUSINESS
A. FY 2025/26 Revised Proposed Operating and Capital Budget. Action: Receive a Report (Markisha Guillory)
Finance Director Markisha Guillory provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Revised Proposed Operating and Capital Budget, which included information that had previously been presented to the City Council and Finance Subcommittee on multiple occasions during meetings held in February through May 2025.

The General Fund Revised Proposed Budget Highlights included the City’s baseline budget, which was balanced as ongoing revenues equaled ongoing expenditures. The baseline budget revenues and expenditures were consistent with the prior forecast as there were no major changes to assumptions, with status quo staffing and service levels, new sales tax revenue expected to generate approximately $2.6 million, the General Reserve amended to 25 percent from 50 percent of total ongoing General Fund expenditures with proceeds being transferred to the OPEB Trust, and Staff Travel and Training Budget reductions did not include any potential salary adjustments that could result from labor agreements. In terms of the financial goals, they included the development of a fiscally sustainable budget annually and in future years, maintaining a positive net position whereby total assets exceeded total liabilities, maintaining a positive cash position by implementing balanced budgets with no deficit spending and addressing unfunded liabilities.

The Revised Proposed General Fund Budget; Baseline Revenues and Expenditures, Travel and Training Budget Reductions, General Fund One-Time Budget Items, Recreation, Building and Planning, PCTV and Sewer Enterprise Funds were all highlighted.

Other budget updates included:

Reserve Policy Amendment
• Reduced reserve level from 50 percent to 25 percent of total ongoing General Fund expenditures.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

• Proceeds of $2.4 million would be transferred into the Section 115 Trust to set aside funds for OPEB (retiree medical).
• A portion would be transferred into the General Fund to offset OPEB costs. • Estimated General Reserve Balance, 6/30/25: $10,252,000. • 25 percent of Total Ongoing General Fund Expenditures (Amount to remain in General Reserve) $7,852,845.
• Amount Available to Transfer to Section 115 Trust $2,400,000.

The City Council also directed staff to include a new Associate Civil Engineer to be added to the Sewer Enterprise Fund and explore debt financing for major road projects ($15 to $20 million over a 15-year period, as directed) and return to a future City Council meeting with more information.

The Revised Proposed Budget also currently included an allocation of $4,250 per Council member for a total of $21,250 for City Council Travel and Training allocations. If any changes were made to increase the amount, that amount would have to be reduced elsewhere in the budget to ensure a balanced budget.

Finance Director Guillory advised the FY 2025/26 Revised Proposed General Fund Baseline Budget was balanced but very lean. Staff would continue to explore options to generate revenues, including grant opportunities, sponsorships and others as well as to capture expenditure savings.

She recommended the City Council review the FY 2025/26 Revised Proposed Operating and Capital Budget and provide direction to staff for changes to incorporate into the next draft of the document, with the Final Proposed version for City Council adoption scheduled for June 17, 2025.

Responding to questions from the City Council, Finance Director Guillory, City Manager Young, and Community Services Director Andrea Dwyer clarified the following:
• No action was being asked of the City Council on the budget at this time, only feedback.

If Consent Calendar Item 9F was not approved, more work would be required on the budget since there was a transfer in from the OPEB Trust to the General Fund. (Mayor Pro Tem Tave)
• The new Associate Engineer position had been included in the current budget. The job description and key responsibilities for the position could be provided at the June 17, 2025 meeting. (Murphy)
• With respect to the Holiday Tree Lighting event, the community desire for a tree similar in size, impact and to the standards of the 2023 tree, not the 2024 tree (which involved feedback from the community about the poor size of the tree), was noted. Staff reported the company providing the tree for 2025 had been asked to inform the City in advance via photographs of the tree prior to delivery to ensure the tree was full and that information could be shared with the public. Staff would seek donations for the cost of the tree with the tree to be similar in pricing and size as the 2023 tree. (Murphy)

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

• Clarified the 2023 tree had been donated to the City, and whether that could be tracked, would require further research. The 2024 tree which the City had purchased could be tracked through receipt of payment. (Murphy)
• This year’s budget included integration of Measure I funding. Measure I funds were General Funds with the details in the budget document. A large portion of Measure I funds would go towards public safety, roads, park maintenance and a portion to recreation programs. The percentage of Measure I funds allocated to each Department could be provided at the June 17, 2025 City Council meeting and staff could include a summary in the staff report for the June 17 meeting, with details where to find the information in the budget document. A separate audit report would be required for Measure I funds at the end of each year, similar to Measure S funds, reconciled to the ballot language, and would be a part of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) with a couple of small reports that also accompanied the ACFR. (Murphy)
• Clarified the Staff Travel and Training Budget Reductions and acknowledged a request for staff to detail the specific travel and training that would be impacted by the reductions for each City Department, with staff clarifying the reductions involved some professional conferences in various professional areas of expertise and some memberships to a number of professional associations. For the Police Department, the reductions would impact Officer Wellness Programs. (Mayor Sasai)
• Clarified the Public Works Department, Park Caretaker position had been vacant for at least three or four years. The position involved a reduced rent for a person to reside in the Caretaker’s House to maintain the grounds around the area. The position would be funded by whoever occupied the house. There were no plans to fill the position at this time, with staff to come back at a later date with a recommendation for the usage of the property. Staff clarified the space for the position had been held in the budget since it would not cost the City anything. Should there be an opportunity to consider that in the future staff had not completely cut the position fully allowing staff to bring it back to the City Council at the mid-year budget review or when financial circumstances had changed.

The position had been shown in the budget as a part-time position (not funded) and the City would only receive revenue if the property were occupied ($15,000 for the rent for the person occupying the caretaker’s house). (Mayor Sasai)
• Clarified Special Events, specifically the Car Show, was privately hosted. The City Council budgeted $30,000 within the Community Services Department for Special Events. The collectors for the Car Show paid a park permit fee (through the Parks Department) and parade permit fee (through the Police Department), which fees were under $100. The event organizer pursued donations after the event. Direct revenue to the City was a donation to the organizer’s choosing. The total costs for staffing and supplies for the event was closer to $70,000, as reflected in 2024 for the 2024 Car Show including staff from the Public Works and Police Departments, which higher number accounted for staff all-day costs for the event. Staffing costs only for the Car Show was $35,000, with the total of $70,000 for event supplies, staff time and overtime. The staffing cost only for the Fourth of July event was $16,000, with 3,000 having attended the event in 2024. (Mayor Sasai)

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

• Measure I funds would come in monthly with sales taxes but with a two-month lag. (Mayor Pro Tem Tave)
• There were a lot of unknowns with the current economy and over the next few months, staff would conduct more analyses and consider potential revenue sources and track costs more specifically than had been done before and bring that forward to the City Council as part of a larger discussion. Staff hoped there was the possibility the City may have better revenue and be more comfortable in the future, but due to the unknowns in the economy staff may have to make a lot of assumptions in different directions. Staff described the budget as being “balanced on a knife’s edge” given potential expenses and a possible reduction in sales taxes due to tariffs. There was a good chance during the mid-year review, the City Council would have a better understanding of what the economy looked like. Staff was being conservative to account for those possibilities and could be even more conservative, but it was something that could be reassessed in another six months or so. (Mayor Pro Tem Tave)
• Acknowledged a request that impacts to City services due to the economy be metered to minimize impacts to existing programs, with the knowledge more information would be known in the next couple of months. (Mayor Pro Tem Tave) • A Master Fee Schedule for the Recreation Department was due to be presented to the City Council soon since the Master Fee Schedule had not been updated for some time.

Staff would provide a comparison to neighboring agencies to ensure services matched the quality and costs. (Mayor Pro Tem Tave)
• The methodology used to estimate staff costs per Community Event was highlighted and based on costs for part-time, full-time and Police Department staff including any overtime, and reflected the staff who were paid for work the day of the event. (Martinez-Rubin)

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis provided the following comments on the budget:
- For the Car Show, as to the direct economic impacts of the contributions from the hosts to whatever entities funds were contributed to and the indirect economic development impacts of having the event in Pinole, asked whether staff had any estimates of the indirect economic impact of the Car Show in the City of Pinole/surrounding businesses as part of its economic development model.
- For Measure I funds, noted there was a segment in the budget, Fund 107, Page 340 of 764 of the agenda packet, which listed the specific values that Measure I funds were planned to be spent on and highlighted that information as shown. - As to where cuts were being made, felt uneasy around classifying cuts to the Police Department Health and Wellness Programs falling under Travel and Training which seemed a different thing categorically, similarly to non-mandatory spending.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

- Given the City’s budget constraints with Police salaries, suggested cutting Police Health and Wellness Programs could potentially have negative impacts on retention and should be considered as part of the broader policy impacts of funding. - Noted if the various City Departments were making cuts to their Travel and Training Budgets, increasing funding to the City Council Travel and Training Budget looked bad just as a pure matter of optics.

Irma Ruport, reported she had received a lot of comments about the Christmas tree and suggested the downtown appeared too dark and perhaps lights could be hung in the downtown, which had been done in the past and looked decorative. In terms of the classifications and new job descriptions, as a former Human Resources person, she wanted the job descriptions detailed on the agenda when those jobs opened to allow a description of the requirements and education needed to fill the position As to the Car Show, she had submitted an email to the City Council which she understood the City Attorney had seen and she asked that her questions be answered as soon as possible. If there was any damage to City property during the Car Show given it was operated by a private entity, she suggested any damages should be assessed and paid for by the private entity rather than the burden being placed on taxpayers, and recommended the requirement for a deposit. She added PCTV had not participated in many community events, and if it was not being used fully funds for PCTV should be used elsewhere. As to the City Council Travel and Training Budget, she suggested the City Council should have travel and training, get out of the City and go to other places, to network and put Pinole on the map. She appreciated those Council members who had traveled outside the City and reported back meeting people that could impact the City of Pinole.

Anthony Vossbrink, asked that the numbers for the Car Show and Fourth of July events be revisited. He asked whether the Car Show was valued absent the estimated number of attendees over the Fourth of July drone show. He found there was a disconnect with the numbers reported for the event last year and in 2023, and his understanding the City underbudgeted the event by roughly $30,000 to $50,000. He also referenced the fact a couple of years ago the fireworks show had been canceled by the Fire Marshal. In 2024, the Fourth of July drone show had been budgeted between $30,000 and $50,000 but ballooned to $80,000. He asked for clarification as to how the costs for the Fourth of July Show for 2025 had been reduced so significantly as compared to what had been paid in 2024. He suggested the money was not well spent with regards to the type and quality of drones for the 2024 event and commented that another city in the country had a drone show that experienced technical problems, injuring a number of people, which could be a concern for Pinole. He also asked about the recommendation to reduce the General Reserve level from 50 to 25 percent whereas other cities had a 60 or 70 percent cash reserve.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Council member Toms thanked staff for the budget presentation. In terms of the City Council Travel and Training Budget, she suggested it was appropriate to go back to $4,250 per Council member, particularly since other City Departments made reductions to the Staff Travel and Training Budget, and it was only fair.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

Council member Toms pointed out there were some alternatives to traveling, Council members did not necessarily need to visit representatives in Washington, D.C. since representatives were frequently available locally, which was the direction she wanted the City Council to take.

Council member Murphy clarified with Finance Director Guillory the shortfalls in the budget for the operation subsidies had been fully funded with the transfers-out from the General Fund into those funds, as shown in each of the operating funds in the PowerPoint presentation, and who detailed in depth how the budget had been balanced.

Council member Martinez-Rubin concurred with the comments about keeping the City Council Travel and Training Budget at $4,250 per Council member since it was non-critical, not mandated and with plenty of opportunities in the state and regionally with conferences provided by the League of California Cities and Institute for Local Government that were all accessible to Council members. She recommended keeping the budget as it was in FY 2023/24, which had served well until some Council members recognized opportunities to travel nationally. She agreed there were alternatives and networking could be done locally in the District Offices of Congressional representatives.

Council member Martinez-Rubin suggested Council members were knowledgeable. It was a privilege to serve and not receive any entitlement for travel and training, and Council members could be selective in the conferences attended. She added if Council members used the funds allotted for travel and training, they should ensure bringing back information after those events to allow the City Council and the public to learn about the benefits to the entire community.

As to the allotment of funds for Special Events, Council member Martinez-Rubin noted last year the City Council had supported the City being the lead agency/organization with respect to honoring veterans. The City did not have a Veterans Day event and there were models from other cities for such an event, which had been held in Pinole until 2023. Until that time, the Pinole Historical Society along with the City of Pinole had coordinated the event, which was well attended and documented in the archives that PCTV recorded. Given the connection with the Valor Village development, the City could include and integrate some of the veterans who resided in the facility for that particular activity. She asked that Special Events, under Community Services distribution of funds, itemize a Veterans Day event as part of a Special Event listing and the City Council consider at least $1,000 allotted for expenses associated with the event since costs would be limited other than a permit and staff time. There were resources already available with the County and the City could further enhance those relationships with the County.

Mayor Sasai thanked staff for being willing to return with more details on the impacts from the Staff Travel and Training Budget reductions. He understood there was no need to make adjustments to the Holiday Tree Lighting ceremony other than to ensure there was a better-quality tree for 2025. In terms of the Fourth of July event, he recognized it was the most expensive event the City hosted and as such he was not in favor of continuing the event, which had been budgeted at $50,000 in addition to $16,000 for staffing expenses. He did support including a Veterans Day event as a line item for the budget and found it great to connect with the veterans and hearing the stories from residents of Valor Village and City employees who were veterans. He recognized honoring veterans was something missing in the community at this point in time and such an event was not something that would require a large amount of money.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

Mayor Sasai again recommended that the Fourth of July event be discontinued. He understood the City of Hercules hosted a fireworks show and the reason Pinole had switched from fireworks to a drone show in previous years had been due to environmental, wildfire and public safety concerns. People could be referred to the Hercules fireworks display and the City could share those resources in that way as a West County community. He suggested replacing the Fourth of July event with a Veterans Day event and possibly a member of Congress could be invited to participate.

Council member Toms clarified that if discontinuing the Fourth of July event that would be for 2026, not 2025, which event had already been set and that change would show up in the FY 2026/27 budget.

Mayor Sasai understood his recommendation to discontinue the Fourth of July show would be in the FY 2025/26 budget but the event would not be discontinued until 2026, with staff having already planned the 2025 event.

Council member Toms liked the idea of sharing regional fireworks shows and reported there would be an event in the City of Richmond on July 3, 2025. For the Fourth of July in 2026, the City could direct and advertise that event on Richmond’s behalf. She also liked the idea of bringing back the Veteran’s Day celebration.

Mayor Sasai also would like to see staff explore options for the host for the Car Show to see whether they could contribute or solicit in terms of sponsorships to make the event more affordable on the City’s end and that be reflected in the budget, if possible.

City Manager Young commented since the City Council was almost at the end of the budget that would be challenging to be able to come up with an estimate, although if the City Council wanted to come up with a new amount of a budgeted amount, that was something staff could work around.

It would probably require scaling back in certain areas.

Mayor Sasai understood the staffing for the Car Show was $35,000 more than the actual dollar amount reflected in the budget, with the City contributing significant funds for staffing for Police and Public Works. He wanted a line-item break down of what was included in the $35,000.

City Manager Young confirmed some of that data could be brought forward since staff was tracking the event more thoroughly than had been done in the past. After this year’s event, staff would have a better grasp of the exact costs and economic impacts and would reach out to local businesses to determine for this event and others, whether businesses were impacted by community events and staff could bring back that data as well.

Council member Murphy asked what would happen if the Staff Travel and Training Budget items were reinstated, and Finance Director Guillory advised if that was done, staff would have to go back and find the funds elsewhere.

City Manager Young also did not have a recommendation on that issue, but there were areas they could look at. From the staff side, this was about the seventh version of staff working through the budget and taking out as much as possible. She explained there was little left to cut.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

Finance Director Guillory further responded to Council member Murphy and commented if reinstating the Staff Travel and Training Budget, at the direction of the City Council, the $63,000 in funds that had been cut would require a reduction elsewhere, such as community events. She also clarified the recommendation to reduce the General Reserve from 50 to 25 percent. If the City Council were to consider giving $2.3 million to OPEB (rather than $2.4 million as staff initially recommended, which amount was not a requirement) and give staff back its Travel and Training Budget that option could be discussed among staff and the City Council.

Council member Murphy commented there had been recent staff turnover and staff would benefit from the training opportunities. He also referenced the 2022 Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP) and the need to consider policy alternatives. With respect to the amendment to the General Reserve from 50 to 25 percent, he suggested it could all be placed in the Section 115 Trust, with the exception of the Staff and City Council Travel and Training Budgets.

City Manager Young explained while that could be an option it would put the City in a position of having a larger deficit in 2026. Staff had considered with the General Reserve having more or less the ability to have a balanced budget over the next three years and the more front loaded this year, the more challenging it would be over the next few years. Over the next few years, the City would still have to find significant revenue or make significant changes.

Council member Murphy recognized the uncertainty of the economy and the fact the budget would be looked at again in six months. Given that uncertainty, he wanted to see the City Council invest in staff and in the leadership of the City Council, with $100,000 used to cover the Staff and City Council Travel and Training Budgets, and rather than place proceeds of $2.4 million into the Section 115 Trust to set aside funds for OPEB, the City could consider $2.3 million. He asked whether that was an idea the City Council would consider.

City Manager Young advised staff would follow any direction the City Council wanted to go, but it would make it more challenging to balance the budget in 2026.

Council member Murphy commented he had been a member of the City Council since 2020. In 2022, the City Council adopted the LTFP which listed a number of policy alternatives including a Commercial Cannabis Tax and Permitting, and he suggested the City should lean into that.

Council member Murphy offered a motion, seconded by Mayor Sasai to direct staff to explore the feasibility of establishing a Commercial Cannabis Tax and/or Permitting Program in the City of Pinole, as per the 2022 Long-Term Financial Plan, including potential revenue projections, regulatory models, community impacts and legal considerations, and return to the City Council with a report and recommendations within 180-days.

Mayor Pro Tem Tave recognized that was an item the City Council had previously discussed. He asked if that item had been calculated into the current budget as a revenue source, and Finance Director Guillory stated it had not.

Mayor Pro Tem Tave was curious about the cost for the report and if that meant the City needed to pull $2.2 million into OPEB to fund that effort or whether it was something staff could work on.

He asked about the timing and the level of effort that would take and whether it required adjustment to the current budget.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

City Manager Young advised this had been something staff had been discussing on a higher level and depending on how the City moved forward, there would be an additional cost, primarily with the City Attorney’s time, her time, the Finance Director and the Community Development Director who would have to work on the proposal. Depending on the recommendation whether to move forward with an ordinance versus a ballot, there would be additional costs, but that could be brought back in any report. She did not recommend changing the budget for this item.

Mayor Sasai asked if this would be something the City Attorney would take the lead on a presentation or a possible discussion, and City Attorney Casher stated that would be coordinated at the staff level. It would either involve an ordinance approach or a ballot measure, and those two options could be presented to the City Council for direction. A number of staff members would work on the proposal.

Whether it was possible to have a high-level discussion or briefing on the two options in July or August 2025, and in response to the Mayor, Council member Murphy explained the intent of his motion was for staff to return in 180-days with a proposal and he recognized staff may be able to do that work faster. His intent was to be more intentional of the staff review of the numbers and he recognized there had also been a review of the statewide cannabis industry that could be beneficial to City staff and suggested the staff assessments would play a part in that. He asked if 180-days was doable for staff.

Finance Director Guillory suggested 180-days would be reasonable.

Mayor Sasai recalled the City Council had previously been provided a presentation on a cannabis retail tax, and Finance Director Guillory clarified a presentation had been made in 2022/23 and staff could build upon that presentation.

Council member Martinez-Rubin commented the presentation would need to be updated since circumstances and the statewide experience with that type of tax had changed, it was not as lucrative as one would anticipate or desire, and the City would need to include workshops given the discussion of an idea in a community that was still fairly conservative. There were a number of speakers available through the League of California Cities who could provide presentations and who had the experience in other cities on both the pros and cons on this topic rather than have staff work on this just yet. That could be another consideration for the City Council and public to hear the idea as an idea, and gage from a presentation how receptive the public would be. She was of the opinion this was something that would be controversial.

Mayor Sasai wanted to see a robust community engagement in the process and see what the community thought about it. He noted the City of San Pablo passed such a proposal with 75 precent approval and Contra Costa County had Countywide approval of a similar measure in 2018. He suggested a high-level discussion could happen on the two options and then get into the stakeholder engagement.

City Clerk Bell and Council member Murphy restated the initial motion to direct staff to explore the feasibility of establishing a Commercial Cannabis Tax and/or Permitting Program in the City of Pinole, as per the 2022 Long-Term Financial Plan, including potential revenue projections, regulatory models, community impacts and legal considerations and return to the City Council with a report and recommendations within 180-days.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

Mayor Sasai again seconded the motion.

Mayor Pro Tem Tave understood with that motion the budget would not reflect the item, the budget would not be changed, but at the six-month review there could be an adjustment.

Council member Murphy acknowledged as staff had pointed out the status of the economy was unknown and it was likely the budget would be looked at quarterly, with the City Council to have an idea about the future in some way. He also recognized the 10-year LTFP had projected the City would have a deficit in the future and he suggested the need to push those ideas out. In some ways, he found the narrative around the travel and training budgets to be frustrating given he had delivered so much to the City Council, in conversation, in his time, and his money as an elected, where he had brought so much back to the City. He saw the value of training and travel as critical to enhancing the standard of the City and the City Council.

Motion by Council member Murphy/Mayor Sasai to extend the City Council meeting to 11:30 p.m.

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

Absent: None
Council member Murphy continued his comments and recognized Council members had different personalities and experiences, and as someone who constantly was engaged in the community and who served on different boards representing the City Council, and as someone who had received a lot of support in the community, it was important he share that narrative since those who did not understand may never understand, but people were counting on the City Council to do better and enhance the standard in Pinole. He was concerned with staff not having the funds for travel and training. He reported he had a conversation with the City Manager who stated the cuts would not affect her but as a new City Manager, she would be unable to attend potential beneficial sessions.

Council member Murphy commented that when the City Council stopped thinking about research and development, it stopped thinking about innovation and if doing that, the City Council would stop thinking about delivering the needs of the community.

Motion by Council member Murphy/Mayor Sasai to direct staff to explore the feasibility of establishing a Commercial Cannabis Tax and/or Permitting Program in the City of Pinole, as per the 2022 Long-Term Financial Plan, including potential revenue projections, regulatory models, community impacts and legal considerations and return to the City Council with a report and recommendations within 180-days.

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

Absent: None

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

Council member Murphy offered a motion, seconded by Mayor Sasai to amend the Revised Proposed Operating and Capital Budget to increase the Travel and Training allocation for each Council member from $4,250 to $12,000.

On the motion, Council member Toms commented when there were budget uncertainties the City should avoid budgeting in a way that was not sustainable. By increasing the Travel and Training allocation for the City Council, it sets it up a situation that was not sustainable. She had worked in a public agency during two cycles of economic downturns where staff had been asked to take a five percent salary reduction and increase staff contributions to health care. She could see that if continuing on this trajectory of pulling out of the reserves that was where the City was headed and she wanted to be mindful of having a sustainable budget. She reiterated there were opportunities for training locally that did not cost as much, the Council could meet with federal agencies and representatives when they were in their Districts, which would not involve reimbursement for hotel and travel expenses. She suggested taking a look at being more conservative with the travel and training budgets. She had been able to attend both the League of California Cities and a CivicWell conference in Yosemite one year, which was out of pocket somewhat, but Council members needed to retain some level of responsible budgeting since it would just snowball in three years where the City Council may have to consider drastic cuts.

Mayor Sasai recognized there were different opinions on this issue. His stance had not changed since last year and he challenged the City Council to consider where cuts could be made.

Council member Martinez-Rubin suggested as leaders they all had the responsibility to be responsive to the constituents who would like them to bring back resources, but it was a bit arrogant to consider any Council member was the key holder of information that would not be otherwise obtained in an alternative way She suggested it was not irresponsible, but responsible to use the funds that were reasonable for regional and in-state travel and bring back resources that would yield the most to constituents and set aside their own interests in wanting to attend particular events since they believed they were a necessity for one’s professional growth.

Mayor Pro Tem Tave understood the discussion was about $60,000 to cover the increase to the City Council Travel and Training Budget. He explained that he chose the events he wanted to attend and tried to balance them. He otherwise wanted the Fourth of July event to remain and he understood the current event was underway. At this time, he supported the need to keep City staff trained if that meant the Fourth of July event would need to be eliminated. He noted that over the past two to three years, there had been an acceleration of professionals coming on board critically looking at the City and its growth. He appreciated Council member Murphy’s recommendation to consider a Cannabis Tax since it would add a different dimension of revenue, which the City Manager was very qualified to review. He asked if the City Council could allocate the travel and training budgets for staff and the City Council and ensure staff knew that keeping that investment would mean that something else would have to be eliminated.

Mayor Pro Tem Tave also commented the City did not have a fireworks display but a drone show for the Fourth of July in 2024, which was a hit and potentially another drone show in 2025. There were ways to invest in what was really needed. He suggested it was up to each Council member to consider what they valued and use the travel and training budget or not, and that training should be there which was part of the reason why the City was in the current situation over the last couple of years.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

Motion by Council member Murphy/Mayor Sasai to amend the Revised Proposed Operating and Capital Budget to increase the Travel and Training allocation for each Council member from $4,250 to $12,000.

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

Absent: None
Council member Murphy understood the impacts from the motions would be brought back at the June 17 City Council meeting. He was okay waiting until that meeting to make further motions, although Finance Director Guillory advised that the meeting on June 17 was intended to adopt the Final Budget. There were no plans for an extra meeting at the end of the month of June.

Council member Murphy understood the process for the budget was a bit different this year. The Finance Subcommittee saw the budget once when it was usually reviewed at least twice, the Planning Commission meetings were canceled for the month of May with its review of the CIP to occur on June 9, 2025, and he understood direction could be given on June 17 to make adjustments to the budget. He asked staff to provide clarification.

City Attorney Casher explained the item would come forward on June 17 for adoption but there could be some discussion and some tweaks, but it would need to be adopted at that meeting, with any changes incorporated into the Final Budget at that time.

Council member Murphy commented he was going to offer a motion to remove the Fourth of July celebration from the list of City-sponsored events but proposing the additional direction around the feasibility of a Commercial Cannabis Tax and Permitting Program, and he pointed out the City Council had not yet approved an amendment to the Reserve Policy. Amongst that approval, the City Council would have $2.4 million to disburse. At this time, staff was recommending using all of that money for the Section 115 Trust. There was consideration from the City Council perspective, that rather than use $2.4 million, it could use $2.3 million and fully fund the Staff Travel and Training Budget and still have funds for the Fourth of July celebration that some still wanted.

Finance Director Guillory advised that would be considered a one-time source of funds and the City would have to address that as an additional expense in 2026.

Council member Murphy pointed out next year the City would have to address a deficit anyway.

He reiterated that without additional revenue, the 10-year LTFP foresaw a deficit in the future.

Finance Director Guillory clarified the last forecast was a bit outdated, it did not have Measure I and the situation had changed a bit where at this point it was unknown whether or not there would be a deficit in 2026. The City did start the upcoming fiscal year with a deficit, which shortfall had been fixed with Measure I funds. Long-term forecasting beyond FY 2025/26 had not been done yet to account for current circumstances and uncertainty.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

Council member Murphy stated information provided in the past had shown the City ran at a deficit and with increased costs including retirement liabilities that would not decrease but increase. He was reluctantly in support of continuing the Fourth of July celebration, which he suggested was not truly a day for all, but it was very costly and there had been only 3,000 people in attendance at the 2024 event. He suggested the funds would be better used in other areas, including staff travel and training and a light, at most $10,000 program, for Veterans Day.

Mayor Sasai reiterated he would not be in favor of moving forward with a Fourth of July event for July 4, 2026, and thereafter for the reasons he previously stated.

Mayor Sasai offered a motion, seconded by Council member Murphy to remove the Fourth of July event from Special Events in the FY 2025/26 Budget and include instead a Veterans Day event, with staff to return with an approximation of the cost for the event, not to exceed $5,000.

On the motion, Council member Toms commented that given the current consideration of the FY 2025/26 budget, removing the Fourth of July event was not for this budget but for the following budget.

Finance Director Guillory clarified it would be reflected in the 2025/26 Budget since it would be paid in this upcoming fiscal year.

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked for consideration of an amendment to the motion. The Fourth of July event at a cost of $50,000 in 2024 was because it had been a drone show. She recommended halving the budget for a Fourth of July event, which would require a redesign but it could still be an event that did not require a drone show but people liked the gathering and the day was honored.

Mayor Sasai did not support the amendment to the motion since he did not want residents to pick and choose between a Pinole event and a regional event. He stood by his motion, as stated.

Motion by Mayor Sasai/Council member Murphy for FY 2025/26 remove the Fourth of July event from Special Events and instead include a Veterans Day event, with staff to return with an approximation of the cost for the event (cash value) not to exceed $5,000.

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

Absent: None
Council member Martinez-Rubin offered a motion to incorporate into Special Events, a Veterans Day and Flag Retirement Ceremony with an allotment of $8,000.

Mayor Sasai advised the motion that was just passed was to remove the Fourth of July event from Special Events and instead include a Veterans Day event, with staff to return with an approximation of the cost for the event (cash value) not to exceed $5,000. He asked if Council member Martinez-Rubin was recommending an increase for the Veterans Day event.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

Council member Martinez-Rubin restated her motion to integrate in the Special Events listing, a Veterans Day and Flag Retirement Ceremony with an allotment of $8,000.

There was no second to the motion.

Mayor Sasai clarified the reason he asked for an approximation of the cost for the event (cash value) not to exceed $5,000 was because $5,000 or $8,000 was an arbitrary number, and staff could come back with an approximation for the event that could be discussed from there.

Mayor Pro Tem Tave asked if the gap in training included the City Council Travel and Training Budget and was informed it was not and there remained around $60,000 needed in order to keep those motions accurate. Based on the motions, he understood the Staff Travel and Training Budget had been reinstated based on the elimination of the Fourth of July event.

City Manager Young sought more direction form the City Council defining where those funds were going. Based on the discussions, the City Council had eliminated the Fourth of July event but there was no motion defining where the funds would specifically go.

Council member Murphy asked if staff was asking for the City Council to move that those funds be expended to replace the Staff Travel and Training Budget, and the City Manager stated that would be great if that was the City Council’s direction.

Council member Murphy offered a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Tave that those funds be expended to replace the staff travel and training budget Motion by Council member Murphy/Mayor Pro Tem Tave that the funds from the eliminated Fourth of July event be expended to replace the Staff Travel and Training Budget.

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

Absent: None
Council member Murphy asked where staff would pull the $60,000 for the City Council Travel and Training Budget, and City Manager Young recommended a motion from the City Council whether it be from the reserve (from the $2.4 million transfer to be brought to the Section 115 Trust) or other source.

On the discussion of the numbers, the Finance Director clarified that $38,750 was the delta of the change and the additional amount needed.

Council member Murphy offered a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Tave to direct staff to utilize approximately up to $38,000 from the General Reserve for the City Council Travel and Training Budget.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

Motion by Council member Murphy/Mayor Pro Tem Tave to direct staff to utilize approximately up to $38,000 from the General Reserve for the City Council Travel and Training Budget.

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

Absent: None
Motion by Council member Murphy/Mayor Sasai to extend the City Council meeting to 11:45 p.m.

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

Absent: None
B. Draft Fiscal Year 2025/26 Baseline Budget and Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan. Action: Review the Draft Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Capital Budget and the Five-Year FY 2025/26 through 2029/30 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Direct Staff on Changes. (Heba El-Guindy)
Public Works Director Heba El-Guindy reported there had been no recommendations for changes to the Draft Fiscal Year 2025/26 Baseline Budget and Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) during the May 13, 2025 City Council meeting. Staff did make a change to Project #RO1710, San Pablo Avenue Bridge Over BNSF Railroad, through coordination with WCCTAC, which on May 23, 2025, approved adjustments to the agreement which would allow flexibility to use Strategic Management Planning Program (STMP) Grant Funds to replace the local match. The local match had been reduced from $241,000 to $100,000 from Measure S just to have cash flow since the City had to pay the consultants until they sought reimbursements.

Responding to questions from the City Council, Public Works Director El-Guindy clarified the following:
• Measure I was not assumed for FY 2025/26, although it was assumed in the following four years to be utilized for payments towards the debt financing. Debt financing would only be assumed in the Pavement Rehabilitation Project, assumed in FY 2026/27 through FY 2029/30 for an amount of $4 million in FY 2026/27, $4 million in FY 2027/28, $2,750,000 in the following year and $2,250,000 the year following. The summary table included in the PowerPoint presentation had not mentioned Measure I but included Measure S 2006 and 2014. (Murphy)
• Project #RO2404, Crosswalk Tennent Avenue at Prune Street, had been moved to FY 2026/27, with $50,000 for an analysis to be done in FY 2026/27, unless the City Council directed otherwise. (Murphy)

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

• Project #IN2105, Appian Way Complete Streets, had been pushed to FY 2026/27, with the STMP fees for the project not collected, which would be on a reimbursement basis.

The project was not moving quickly since it had not been a priority and been on the books for some time, unless the City Council directed otherwise. (Mayor Sasai) • The Pavement Rehabilitation project would start with Pinole Valley Road in FY 2025/26 in addition to a few small streets. The following year the City would continue with the rest of the corridor and the hope was to establish it as a Complete Streets project with bicycle and pedestrian facilities. San Pablo Avenue would be considered afterwards and staff would look at San Pablo Avenue as a Complete Streets project and hopefully it would be done with the San Pablo Avenue Bridge Project. (Mayor Sasai)

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
There were no comments from the public.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Council member Martinez-Rubin thanked the Public Works Director for her work.

Public Works Director El-Guindy thanked the City Council for the approval of the Associate Engineer position at its last meeting, which was greatly appreciated and would make a significant difference for the Public Works team. She also thanked the City Council for the approval of the VIFs.

In response to the Mayor, Public Works Director El-Guindy advised the CIP would be brought back on June 17, 2025 for approval. She understood no changes had been proposed to the CIP at this time.

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.

Anthony Vossbrink, reported over the past few months it had been noted the back end of the tennis courts needed to be tidied up, with bushes and trees growing through the chain link fence and protruding into the sidewalks. Nothing had been done to maintain the area other than cutting some weeds that were left on the side of the tennis courts. There had been no notification to the public of the status of repairs to the two outdoor public restrooms on the outer perimeter of the tennis courts and there had been continued vandalism of the fencing on the outer fence perimeter by the bus stop near the library. This issue had been raised with Council member Murphy who was to look into it. He asked the City to contact the Pinole Valley High School (PVHS) Principal and Head Librarian to address the continued vandalism to the fence.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 3, 2025

Mr. Vossbrink also asked about the status of the renovation of the Adobe Road Trail behind the caretaker’s house and dog park, and reported two large dead trees on the trail were a fire hazard and the City continued to dump asphalt and old concrete from street renovations on the trail. In addition, Pinole Valley Road and San Pablo Avenue continued to have street light outages, and light bulb replacements were needed along with replacement of some of the yellow reflectors and traffic calming signs that had been knocked down some time ago. He also asked about the status of Coffee with a Cop and meetings with the City Manager, and asked if the meetings had been canceled as had Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Committee (TAPS) meetings.

Council member Toms reported this date marked 37 years since Amber Swartz had been taken from her home and she wanted that milestone to be recognized.

14. ADJOURNMENT to the Regular Meeting of June 17, 2025 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

At 11:45 p.m., Mayor Sasai adjourned the meeting to a Regular City Council Meeting on June 17, 2025 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

Submitted by:
_________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
Approved by City Council:

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.C.

DATE: JUNE 17, 2025
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Markisha Guillory, Finance Director, 510-724-9823, [email protected] SUBJECT: FY 2025/26 FINAL PROPOSED OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET

RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Final Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget (“Final Proposed budget”, attached).

BACKGROUND
The City operates on an annual budget cycle. Through the budget, the City Council approves revenue estimates and authorizes City staff to expend the City’s limited financial resources.

City staff is responsible for preparing a proposed budget for City Council’s consideration, modification, and adoption.

As noted above, the City goes through an annual process of developing a budget for the upcoming fiscal year. The City’s budget is considered an “incremental” budget, meaning that the budget for the upcoming year is developed based on the current year’s budget and includes incremental changes.

The Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Final Proposed Operating and Capital Budget was created through a collaborative, iterative process involving the City Council, community, and City staff and included the creation of a Preliminary Proposed, Revised Proposed, and ultimately Final Proposed budget.

City staff presented the draft baseline General Fund budget to the Finance Subcommittee on April 24, 2025 to receive feedback on the assumptions contained in the baseline budget. The Finance Subcommittee did not direct staff to make any changes to the baseline General Fund budget. Staff reviewed and revised the baseline budget multiple times to ensure that it does not include any one-time revenues or expenditures and that all of the estimates it contains are as precise as feasible. This resulted in a Preliminary Proposed budget.

At its regular meeting on May 6, 2025 and a special meeting (budget workshop) on May 13, 2025, the City Council reviewed the Preliminary Proposed budget. Staff presented the General Fund budget which was balanced and reflected a surplus of approximately $1.4 million, however, the other operating funds (Recreation, Pinole Community Television, and Building and Planning) were unbalanced and required additional General Fund operating subsidies.

Staff incorporated several changes into the budget, including increasing the transfers from the General Fund to the operating funds to balance the funds, reducing the General Reserve from

50% to 25% of total ongoing General Fund expenditures, and using the available funds from the amended General Reserve to establish an Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) trust to set aside funds to offset the cost of reimbursements to active retirees receiving medical benefits. Also, in an effort to reduce General Fund expenditures, City departments reduced their travel & training budgets. Incorporating the changes, staff prepared a Revised Proposed budget.

At its meeting on June 3, 2025, the City Council reviewed the Revied Proposed budget and directed staff to restore the staff travel and training budgets to their original amounts and the City Council travel and training to the amended amount. Staff incorporated the changes and prepared the Final Proposed budget, which is scheduled to be adopted on June 17, 2025.

City staff is required by the City’s Financial Policy on a Structurally Balanced Budget to create a proposed General Fund operating budget that is structurally balanced, meaning that ongoing revenues equal or exceed ongoing expenditures. The final proposed baseline General Fund budget is structurally balanced.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The Final Proposed budget for FY 2025/26 is a status quo budget, meaning that it does not include any significant new City programs or services or any major changes to staffing levels.

The Final Proposed budget recommends that the City carry out the same ongoing programs and activities in FY 2025/26 as it has in the current fiscal year.

The budget includes the following noteworthy assumptions:
• The General Fund operating budget is structurally balanced; • Includes new sales tax revenue as a result of Pinole voters passing a half-cent sales tax measure (Measure I) during the 2024 municipal election. It is expected to generate approximately $2.6 million annually;
• Includes proceeds of $2.4 million, resulting from the General Reserve Policy reduction from 50% to 25%, and deposited into the Section 115 Trust for Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB). A portion will be transferred into the General Fund annually to offset increases in OPEB costs; and
• Does not include a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for employees, as the City is in the process of negotiating successor Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs), and compensation plans for all employees and salary adjustments have not been determined.

The Final Proposed budget contains staff’s recommendations regarding revenues and expenditures for FY 2025/26. The total (all funds) revenue budget is approximately $54.4 million. The City’s total (all funds) expenditure budget is approximately $95 million. The Final Proposed budget is structurally balanced, meaning that ongoing revenues are sufficient to cover ongoing expenditures. One-time expenditures are paid for using one-time revenues and other sources, including fund balance, which is why total expenditures in a given year can exceed total revenues. The budget includes a planned net use of fund balance of $40.6 million for all funds combined as shown in Table 1 below. The majority of the use of fund balance is for several large, multi-year capital improvement projects, notably in the wastewater enterprise

fund. It is important to note that the total estimated costs of some capital projects are budgeted in year one (FY 2025/26) of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) although some projects may take several years to complete. The total costs are budgeted up front to earmark the full amount of funding needed to complete the CIP projects.

City staff will undertake a thoughtful and substantial set of programs and activities in FY 2025/26. Staff will complete routine work and staff-initiated special projects to improve efficiency and services; 2020-2025 Strategic Plan “strategies”; Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects; and other Council-directed special projects. These are all consistent with City goals.

Table 1 – All Funds Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures

The General Fund (including Measure S 2006 and 2014, Measure I 2024) total revenue budget is approximately $31.5 million, and its total expenditure budget is approximately $32.8 million.

The Final Proposed FY 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget includes the use of approximately $1.3 million from the General Fund and Measure S unassigned fund balance to fund several one-time capital projects, several of which were budgeted in the FY 2024/25 Operating and Capital Budget but were not completed and have been carried over.

As noted above, it is a goal of the City’s Financial Policy on a Structurally Balanced Budget,

and a public finance best practice, to create a structurally balanced proposed budget.

Table 2 below shows the ongoing General Fund revenues and expenditures in the Final Proposed budget and illustrates the balance. Table 2 below shows the composition of the Final Proposed Budget. As shown, the budget assumes the use of $1.3 million of fund balance. Table 3 below provides a detailed list of the one-time budget items and capital improvement projects to be funded by available unassigned fund balance.

Table 2 - Final Proposed Budget – Ongoing Revenues and Expenditures and One-Time Items Table 3 – General Fund One-Time Budget Items and Capital Projects

Other Budget Updates
At its June 3, 2025 meeting, the City Council requested staff to gather some additional budget related information to be included in the staff report for the June 17, 2025 meeting. The information below is responsive to those requests.

Measure I Budget Allocation
Pinole voters passed an additional half-cent sales tax measure (Measure I) in the November 2024 municipal election. The FY 2025/26 Final Proposed Budget allocates the $2.6 million that it is expected to generate. Measure I is a general tax that can be used to fund any municipal purpose as approved by the City Council. The new revenue was intended to be used to maintain critical City services with public safety being the community’s highest priority.

The City Council directed staff to provide a breakdown of how Measure I is allocated in the FY 2025/26 proposed budget. As shown on page 46 of the FY 2025/26 Final Proposed Operating and Capital Budget document (Attachment A), Measure I allocated to ongoing police, roads, parks, and recreation expenditures, as follows:
• Police operations - $1,752,454
• Road maintenance - $182,752
• Park maintenance - $356,256
• Recreation programs - $300,000
Associate Civil Engineer Job Description and Duties

The City Council directed staff to provide the Associate Civil Engineer job description, which can be found on the City’s website
at https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/pinole/classspecs/1509626?page=2&pagetype=cl assSpecifications. This position was added to the FY 2025/26 budget and will be fully funded by the Sewer Enterprise Fund. The position will add staff capacity and will be primarily responsible for completing a number of capital improvement projects at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, including several system upgrade projects.

Special Event Updates
The City Council directed staff to include a budget allocation of up to $5,000 for a Veterans Day ceremony. The Veterans Day event will be held to honor and recognize the service and sacrifice of our nation's veterans. The event will include a heartfelt ceremony featuring the national anthem, a flag retirement ceremony, and speeches from community leaders, veterans, and/or service members. Attendees will have an opportunity to participate in a moment of silence and enjoy patriotic performances. The event will serve as a powerful reminder of the courage and dedication of those who have served in the United States Armed Forces, fostering community appreciation and unity. An allocation of $5,000 is included in the special events budget.

The $55,000 allocated for the Fourth of July 2026 celebration has been removed from the special events budget as directed by the City Council.

Next Steps
City staff invites the feedback of the City Council and members of the public on the Final Proposed budget at the City Council’s June 17, 2025 meeting. The City has also developed a Final Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 – 2029/30 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), which contains the capital budget for FY 2025/26 and a conceptual capital budget for FY 2026/27 – FY 2029/30.

Following City Council adoption of the Final Proposed budget on June 17, 2025 Council meeting, the adopted budget will be implemented on July 1, 2025.

FISCAL IMPACT
The FY 2025/26 General Fund baseline budget is balanced. The Final Proposed FY 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget proposes the use of approximately $1.3 million of General Fund unassigned fund balance for several one-time items and capital improvement projects. For all funds, in total, the Final Proposed budget proposes revenues of $54.4 million, expenditures of $95 million and use of approximately $40.6 million of fund balance. Anticipated revenues, projected expenditures, and use of fund balance (if applicable) are shown for all funds in Table 1 above and in the budget summaries of the FY 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution

B. FY2025-26 Final Proposed Operating and Capital Budget C. Exhibit A- Budget Summaries
D. Exhibit B- Budgeted Positions

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PINOLE, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE FINAL PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2025/26

OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET
WHEREAS, the City Manager has presented a Final Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget for the City of Pinole; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public meeting on the matter of the Final Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget and has discussed the individual department and fund budgets with City staff members; and WHEREAS, the City Council has solicited public input on the Final Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pinole as follows:

Section 1. The Final Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget commencing July 1, 2025 and ending June 30, 2026 is hereby approved and adopted.

Section 2. That appropriations are established by fund as follows:
100 General Fund $23,775,898
105 Measure S - 2006 Fund 2,970,750
106 Measure S - 2014 Fund 3,462,937
107 Measure I – 2024 Fund 2,591,462
150 General Reserve Fund 2,400,000
160 Equipment Reserve Fund 205,000
200 Gas Tax Fund 2,512,167
201 Restricted Real Estate Maintenance Fund 26,000
203 Public Safety Augmentation Fund 613,388
205 Traffic Safety Fund 57,191
206 Supplemental Law Enforcement Svc Fund 303,281
207 NPDES Storm Water Fund 385,631
209 Recreation Fund 2,323,613
212 Building & Planning Fund 2,744,232
213 Refuse Management Fund 189,710
214 Solid Waste Fund 177,241
215 Measure C and J Fund 1,191,732
225 Asset Seizure-Adjudicated Fund 19,268
276 Growth Impact Fund 2,436,000
285 Housing Assets Fund 342,961
310 Lighting & Landscape District Fund 85,175
317 Pinole Valley Caretaker Fund 14,989
324 Public Facilities Fund 502,000
325 City Street Improvements Fund 2,907,583
377 Arterial Streets Rehabilitation Fund 560,960
500 Sewer Enterprise Fund 38,229,096

505 Cable Access TV Fund 653,088
700 Pension Trust Fund 3,300,445
TOTAL OPERATIONS BUDGET $94,981,818
Section 3. That the appropriations established for FY 2025/26 by fund shall be allocated to individual departments as presented in Exhibit A (Budget Summaries). In addition, the unspent balance of capital projects, grants, and encumbrances authorized in the prior fiscal year are authorized to be carried over to FY 2025/26.

Section 4. That the control point for expenditures is herein established at the fund department level as set forth in Exhibit A (Budget Summaries).

Section 5. That authority is granted to each department manager under the direction of the City Manager to allocate appropriations within the department control limits among specific line items in the most cost-effective manner that maintains or enhances the delivery of programs and services to the residents of the City of Pinole.

Section 6. That the Finance Director will prepare Quarterly Reports to the City Council reporting the budget performance to the control limits herein established.

Section 7. Estimated revenues and transfers anticipated to fund appropriations for expenditures for the FY 2025/26 Fiscal Year are presented in Exhibit A (Budget Summaries). Any changes to the established control limits will be subject to approval by resolution of the City Council.

Section 8. All positions listed in the “Budgeted Positions (FTE)” (Exhibit B) are hereby authorized positions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day June 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced, passed and adopted on this 17th day of June, 2025.
____________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk

OPERATING AND

CAPITAL BUDGET
Final Proposed Budget - June 17, 2025
Fiscal Year 2025/26

CITY OF PINOLE

Page intentionally blank

June 17, 2025
Dear City Council and Residents -
City staff is pleased to present the Final Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget (“FY 2025/26 Budget”).

City staff is responsible for preparing a proposed budget for City Council’s consideration. The FY 2025/26 Budget incorporates input that was provided by the City Council and members of the community through multiple meetings of the Finance Subcommittee, City Council, and other engagement opportunities.

The FY 2025/26 Budget is a status quo budget meaning that service levels and revenue mechanisms in the budget are essentially the same as those in the current year budget, FY 2024/25. The General Fund operating budget is balanced, meaning that ongoing expenditures are funded by ongoing revenues. The City was able to accomplish this due to the Pinole voters passing an additional local half-cent sales tax (Measure I) during the November 2024 municipal election. As a budget stabilization strategy, the City established an Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) trust to start to address increasing costs related to OPEB (medical insurance coverage for retired City employees). The OPEB trust was funded by funds that became available as a result of the City reducing the Reserve Policy from 50% to 25% of total ongoing General Fund expenditures and transferring the funds into the trust. Also, the budget includes the use of available unassigned fund balance for a number of one-time initiatives and capital improvement projects, which is an acceptable use of this funding source.

The Pinole community demonstrated incredible resilience while facing current economic challenges. The City has maintained all core municipal services. Further, the City began work on and completed a number of special projects to improve City operations and community quality of life. The City made one organizational change which entailed reinstituting an internal information technology department in order to improve efficiencies. Information technology services had been performed under a contract with an external firm, which will end after the new department is up and running.

In FY 2025/26, the City will continue to work on completing the City’s remaining 2020 – 2025 Strategic Plan strategies, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects, routine staff work, staffi

initiated process improvements, and other Council-directed special projects. These include completion of the Active Transportation Plan, development of a Storm Drain Master Plan, and completion of several road projects, and economic development and housing initiatives. It is a thoughtful and ambitious work program that will create improved services and plans for a better future.

Looking to the future, the City will continue to work on strategic financial planning efforts including updating its 20-year financial forecast. The City’s prior long-term financial forecast shows that ongoing City revenues are not expected to be sufficient to cover ongoing routine City services, and existing City revenue mechanisms are not going to be sufficient to address the City’s two main unfunded liabilities, which are deferred capital maintenance and other postemployment benefits. The strategic financial planning report illustrates all of the City’s mandatory and discretionary future financial obligations and identifies potential measures to address them, including revenue generation options and debt financing for major road and infrastructure projects.

A key goal of the City is to engage with the community and provide welcoming, high-quality services. City staff looks forward to working with you to make Pinole the best that it can be for current and future generations. Please connect and engage with the City through its numerous platforms.

I would like to thank all of the members of the community that participated in this year’s budget development process, as well as the City’s Finance Department for preparing the budget.

Sincerely,
Kelcey Young
City Manager
ii

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
iii

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Table of Contents
Page intentionally blank
iv

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Table of Contents
FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2025/26 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter of Transmittal .................................................................................................................. i Table of Contents.....................................................................................................................iii Executive Summary.................................................................................................................. 1 Executive Summary................................................................................................................. 3 Background...............................................................................................................................7 Elected Officials and Department Heads .................................................................................9 Strategic Plan 2020 – 2025 Vision, Mission, and Goals.........................................................11 Profile of the City ...................................................................................................................12 City Organizational Structure................................................................................................. 13 Budget Development Process and Budget Award ...............................................................15 Budget Development Process ...............................................................................................17 Budget Award........................................................................................................................21 Revenue and Expenditure Summaries ..................................................................................23 General Fund Revenue and Expenditures.............................................................................25 Major Non-General Funds .....................................................................................................37 All Funds Revenue and Expenditures....................................................................................41 Budgeted Positions................................................................................................................55 Labor Allocations...................................................................................................................59 Department Budgets...............................................................................................................61 Elected Officials.....................................................................................................................63 City Council .......................................................................................................................63 City Treasurer....................................................................................................................69 Appointed Officials.................................................................................................................71 City Manager .....................................................................................................................71 Information Technology ................................................................................................. 76 Pinole Community Television ........................................................................................79 City Attorney ......................................................................................................................85 City Clerk ...........................................................................................................................89 Administration........................................................................................................................93 Finance..............................................................................................................................93 v

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Table of Contents
Human Resources .............................................................................................................97 Public Safety .......................................................................................................................103 Police...............................................................................................................................103 Fire ..................................................................................................................................115 Public Works .......................................................................................................................119 Administration & Engineering...........................................................................................127 Road Maintenance...........................................................................................................129 Facility Maintenance ........................................................................................................132 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water ........................135 Park Maintenance............................................................................................................135 Waste Reduction .............................................................................................................139 Lighting & Landscape District...........................................................................................140 Water Pollution Control Plant ...........................................................................................141 Community Development ....................................................................................................147 Planning...........................................................................................................................155 Building Inspection...........................................................................................................157 Successor Agency Administration....................................................................................159 Housing Assets for Resale...............................................................................................160 Code Enforcement...........................................................................................................161 Economic Development ...................................................................................................162 Community Services............................................................................................................163 Administration..................................................................................................................169 Recreation .......................................................................................................................169 Senior Center ..............................................................................................................171 Tiny Tots .....................................................................................................................174 Youth Center ...............................................................................................................176 Swim Center................................................................................................................178 Memorial Hall ..............................................................................................................179 Tennis .........................................................................................................................180 Library Services...........................................................................................................181 Animal Control.............................................................................................................182 General Government ...........................................................................................................183 Schedule of Transfers ................................................................................................. 187 Debt Obligations..........................................................................................................189 Capital Improvement Plan ....................................................................................................193 Appendix ...............................................................................................................................193 Accounting Basis.................................................................................................................195 Monitoring the Budget .........................................................................................................195 Fund Structure.....................................................................................................................195 Glossary of Budget Terms & Acronyms ...............................................................................199 Financial and Investment Policies........................................................................................205 Employee Compensation and Benefits ................................................................................209 Jurisdictional Comparison....................................................................................................211 Budget Resolution ...............................................................................................................211 Appropriations Limit and Resolution .....................................................................................211 vi

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
1

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Executive Summary
Page intentionally blank
2

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City operates on an annual budget cycle. Through the budget, the City Council approves revenue estimates and authorizes City staff to expend the City’s limited financial resources. City staff is responsible for preparing a proposed budget for City Council’s consideration.

The Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget was created through a collaborative, iterative process involving the City Council, community, and City staff and includes the creation of a Preliminary Proposed, Revised Proposed, and ultimately Final Proposed budget. The budget development process is more fully described in the Budget Development Process section below.

The Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget is primarily a status quo budget, meaning that it does not include any major changes to City programs or services.

The City’s all funds revenue in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget is approximately $54.4 million, and all funds’ expenditures are approximately $95 million.

The budget projection assumes a net use of fund balance of $40.6 million for all funds combined as shown in Table 1 below. The majority of the use of fund balance is for several large, multi-year capital improvement projects, notably in the sewer enterprise fund. It is important to note that the total estimated costs of sewer capital projects are budgeted in year one (FY 2025/26) of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) although some projects may take several years to complete.

The General Fund (including Measure S 2006, Measure S 2014, and Measure I 2024 Funds) revenue is approximately $31.5 million, and General Fund expenditures are approximately $32.8 million, including the use of fund balance of $1.3 million to complete one-time projects.

The budget includes funding for a number of Council-directed special projects, beyond staff’s baseline work, Strategic Plan strategies, and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects.

City staff believes that it will be able to complete the Council-directed special projects listed above by the end of FY 2025/26 but does not have the capacity to take on any additional special projects. Staff also recommends that the City adopt a practice of not adding any special projects mid-fiscal year unless an existing special project is taken off of the list.

It is a public finance best practice, and a goal of the City’s Financial Policy on a Structurally Balanced Budget, to create a proposed General Fund operating budget that is structurally balanced, meaning that ongoing revenues equal or exceed ongoing expenditures.
3

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Executive Summary
Table 1 – All Funds Final Proposed Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures At this point, the FY 2025/26 General Fund baseline budget projection indicates it is structurally balanced with estimated ongoing revenues of $31.5 million and estimated ongoing expenditures of $31.5 million. Total General Fund expenditures include operating subsidies to special revenue funds that are not able to collect sufficient revenues to cover all their expenditures. Currently, the operating subsidies are as follows: Recreation Fund ($1,750,050); Building and Planning Fund ($908,095); PCTV Fund ($367,262).

The Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget consists of the baseline budget (ongoing operating budget), one-time operating budget items such as special Council-directed initiatives, and capital improvement projects that are funded by the General Fund including the Measure S and Measure I Funds. Table 2 and the following graphic below depict the composition of the Final Proposed budget. As shown, the budget assumes the use of $1.3 million of unassigned fund balance. 4

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Executive Summary
Table 2 – General Fund Final Proposed Budget
FY 2025/26
Baseline Budget
FY 2025/26 OneTime Items* FY 2025/26 Total
Budget
Revenues
Property Taxes $ 6,698,790 $ - $ 6,698,790
Sales and Use Taxes 4,567,189 - 4,567,189
Sales and Use Taxes - Measure S 2006 2,599,000 - 2,599,000 Sales and Use Taxes - Measure S 2014 2,599,000 - 2,599,000 Sales and Use Taxes - Measure I 2024 2,599,000 - 2,599,000 Utility Users Taxes (UUT) 2,345,000 - 2,345,000
Franchise Taxes 850,000 - 850,000
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) 400,000 - 400,000
Business License Tax 469,200 - 469,200
Intergovernmental Taxes 2,513,149 - 2,513,149
Permits 301,700 - 301,700
Fees 132,309 - 132,309
Charges for Services 1,861,497 - 1,861,497
Other Revenues 366,619 - 366,619
Transfers In - Pension Trust 2,552,745 - 2,552,745
Transfers In - OPEB Trust 682,700 - 682,700
Total Revenues 31,537,898 - 31,537,898
Expenditures
Salaries and Wages 10,526,279 - 10,526,279
Benefits - PERS 4,437,115 - 4,437,115
Benefits - Other Benefits 3,741,236 - 3,741,236
Professional Services 8,913,471 468,937 9,382,408
Other Operating 378,156 - 378,156
Materials and Supplies 184,998 - 184,998
Interdepartmental Charges (665,537) - (665,537)
Capital Outlay 191,440 795,000 986,440
Debt Service 653,545 - 653,545
Transfers Out 3,176,407 - 3,176,407
Total Expenditures 31,537,110 1,263,937 32,801,047
Net Surplus/(Deficit) $ 788 $ (1,263,149)
*Funded by unassigned fund balance.
5

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Executive Summary
Table 3 below provides a detailed list of the one-time budget items and capital improvement projects funded by the General Fund. Note that only the capital improvement projects that are funded by the General Fund are shown in Table 3. All capital improvement projects and their respective funding sources are detailed in the FY 2025/26 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for FY 2025/26 – FY 2029/30.

Table 3 – One-Time Budget Items and Capital Improvement Projects FY2025/26 Operating
and Capital Budget
$31,537,898
Baseline Budget
(Ongoing Operating
Budget)
$31,537,110
One-time Operating
Budget Items
$468,937
Capital Improvement
Projects
$795,000
Department Description Amount
Community Development/
Economic Development Advertising (gen and industry-specific) $ 2,000 Community Development/
Economic Development Business Development/Community Help Reserve 10,000 Community Development/
Economic Development Revitalization Reserve 10,000
Finance Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan 20,000
Finance Grant Consulting 16,000
Human Resources Executive Team Development/Retreat 10,000 Police CERT Program Supplies 20,000
Police Alex Clark Room Transformation 2,000
Public Works Active Transportation Plan 30,000
Public Works On-call Consultants for Capital Projects 75,000 Public Works IN1703 Storm Drain Master Plan 273,937
Total One-Time Items 468,937
Public Works RO2401 Road Maintenance Repairs 350,000
Public Works FA2501 Zero-Emission Vehicle/EV Charging Infrastructure 75,000 Public Works RO1710 San Pablo Ave. Bridge Over BNSF Railroad 100,000 Public Works SW2401 Storm Drain Creek Discharge Improvements 120,000 Public Works SW2501 Stormwater Upgrade & Trash Capture 150,000 Total Capital Improvement Projects 795,000
Total One-Time Items and Capital Improvement Projects $ 1,263,937 Use of Unassigned Fund Balance = $1,263,937
6

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Background
Background
7

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Background
Page intentionally blank
8

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Background – Elected Officials and Department Heads

ELECTED OFFICIALS
Cameron Sasai Anthony Tave Devin Murphy
Mayor Mayor Pro Tempore Council Member
Maureen Toms Norma Martínez-Rubin Roy Swearingen
Council Member Council Member City Treasurer

DEPARTMENT HEADS
City Manager Kelcey Young
City Attorney (Contract) Eric Casher
City Clerk Heather Bell
Community Development Director Lilly Whalen
Community Services Director Andrea Dwyer
Finance Director Markisha Guillory
Human Resources Director Stacy Shell
Police Chief Melissa Klawuhn
Public Works Director Heba El-Guindy
9

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Background – Elected Officials and Department Heads
Page intentionally blank
10

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Background – City of Pinole Strategic Plan 2020-2025
CITY OF PINOLE STRATEGIC PLAN 2020-2025
In February 2020, the City of Pinole adopted a Strategic Plan 2020 – 2025. The Strategic Plan established the following vision, mission, and goals for the City, as well as 22 specific “strategies” (special projects), to be completed over a five-year timeframe, that would help the City achieve the goals.

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

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

GOALS

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

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

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

4. High Performance Pinole: Build an organization culture that is efficient, ethical, and effective in delivering quality services with community involvement and fiscal stewardship.

The City Council held a special strategic planning meeting on April 29, 2023 during which it reaffirmed the vision, mission, and goals of the Strategic Plan and made some adjustments to some strategies.
11

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Background – Profile of the City

PROFILE OF THE CITY
The City is primarily a residential community located in the San Francisco Bay Area on the shores of San Pablo Bay in West Contra Costa County. Highway Interstate 80, which traverses Pinole, connects the San Francisco/Oakland metropolitan area with Sacramento and points east. Pinole is linked to central Contra Costa County which includes the cities of Martinez, Concord, and Pleasant Hill by State Route 4 which begins just north of Pinole and connects with Interstate 680. There are approximately foursquare miles of land included in Pinole’s boundary. The City’s population on January 1, 2024 was 18,192, according to the California Department of Finance.

The City of Pinole is a general law city that was incorporated on June 25, 1903. The City operates under a Council-Manager form of operation, whereby policies of the City Council are administered by a City Manager who is appointed by the City Council. All municipal departments operate under the supervision of the City Manager. The Council consists of five members who are elected at large for four-year overlapping terms. The Council elects one of the Council members to serve as Mayor each year.

The City is a full-service city that provides the following services: public safety (police), public works, community services (including recreation and Pinole community television), community development, and general administration services. 12

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Background – Organizational Structure

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
13

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Background – Organizational Structure
Page intentionally blank
14

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Budget Development Process and Budget Award
Budget Development Process and Budget Award
15

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Budget Development Process and Budget Award
Page intentionally blank
16

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Budget Development Process and Budget Award

BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The City’s budget is created through a collaborative, iterative process involving the City Council, community, and City staff. The City’s budget development process is considered an “incremental” budget process, meaning that the budget for the upcoming year is developed based on the current year’s budget and includes incremental changes.

City staff takes the following steps to create the budget:
• Finance Department uses the current budget, which incorporates any mid-year changes approved by the City Council, as the starting point; • Finance Department creates a “baseline budget” for the upcoming year by taking the ongoing revenues and expenditures included in the current budget and factoring in known or assumed changes to revenues and expenditures (i.e., forecasted changes to different revenue streams, general inflation, known changes to debt service, etc.);
• Departments review and confirm the known and assumed changes incorporated into the baseline budget;
• Departments submit requests for changes from the baseline budget to address proposed special projects or increased service levels;
• Finance Department and City Manager consider department requests for changes to the baseline budget and prepare a Preliminary Proposed budget for the Finance Subcommittee and/or City Council’s consideration; • Finance Department incorporates changes and prepares the Revised Proposed budget for the Finance Subcommittee and/or City Council’s consideration;
• City Manager and Finance Department incorporates any final changes as necessary and submits the Final Proposed Budget to the City Council for adoption.
17

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Budget Development Process and Budget Award
Page intentionally blank
18

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Budget Development Process and Budget Award

KEY MILESTONES OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUDGET AND CIP FOR FY 2025/26
March 17, 2025
• Department Proposed FY 2025/26 Budget Requests due to Finance April 24, 2025
• Finance Subcommittee Meeting
• Draft FY 2025/26 General Fund Baseline Budget
• Draft FY 2025/26 - FY 2029/30 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) March-April, 2025
• Budget Review Meetings
• City Manager and Finance Department meet with Department Directors to review and discuss proposed budgets
May 6, 2025
• City Council Meeting
• Preliminary Proposed FY 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget • Preliminary Proposed FY FY 2025/26 - FY 2029/30 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
May 13, 2025
• City Council Special Meeting (Budget Workshop)
• Preliminary Proposed FY 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget • Preliminary Proposed FY FY 2025/26 - FY 2029/30 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
June 3, 2025
• City Council Meeting
• Revised Proposed FY 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget • Revised Proposed FY 2025/26 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) June 17, 2025
• City Council Meeting
• Adopt Final Proposed FY 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget • Adopt Final Proposed FY 2025/26 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) • Adopt FY 2025/26 Appropriations Limit
July 1, 2025
• FY 2025/26 Adopted Budget Implemented
19

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Budget Development Process and Budget Award
Page intentionally blank
20

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Budget Development Process and Budget Award

BUDGET AWARD
The City received its eleventh consecutive Operating Budget Excellence Award from the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO) for its FY 2024/25 budget. The City previously received the Meritorious Award for its FY 2005/06 through FY 2010/11 budgets, and Outstanding Financial Reporting for its FY 1995/96 through FY 2000/01 budgets. The award reflects the commitment of the City to meeting the highest principles of government budgeting. To receive this award, the City had to satisfy nationally recognized guidelines for effective budget presentation. 21

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Budget Development Process and Budget Award
Page intentionally blank
22

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries
23

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries
Page intentionally blank
24

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries-General Fund

REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE SUMMARIES
The City’s General Fund accounts for all general revenues received by the City. The General Fund supports various City operations, including primarily public safety. The City also has numerous other funds that account for revenue received and expended for specific purposes.

GENERAL FUND REVENUE
The major revenue sources for the General Fund are property tax, sales tax, utility users’ tax, intergovernmental tax, franchise fees, business license tax, and transient occupancy tax. The City’s Finance Department creates the estimates of these General Fund revenues for the budget using economic information obtained from several sources, including the State of California, Contra Costa County, and third-party consultants.

Estimates of revenues generated by City departments are prepared by the respective department with assistance from the Finance Department. Each of these revenue sources is described in detail below.

Total General Fund (including Measure S 2006, Measure S 2014, and Measure I 2024 Funds) revenue is projected to be $31.5 million, including transfers in, as summarized below.

Revenue Category FY 2025/26
Budget
% Total
Budget
Property Taxes $6,698,790 21%
Sales and Use Taxes 4,567,189 14%
Sales and Use Taxes - Measure S 2006 and 2014,
Measure I 2024
7,797,000 25%
Utility Users Tax 2,345,000 7%
Franchise Taxes 850,000 3%
Transient Occupancy Tax 400,000 1%
Business License Tax 469,200 1%
Intergovernmental Taxes 2,513,149 8%
Permits 301,700 1%
Fees 132,309 0.4%
Public Safety Charges 1,861,497 6%
Other Revenues 366,619 1%
Transfers In 3,235,445 10%
Total $31,537,898
Property Tax
Property tax is an ad valorem tax imposed on real property (land and permanently attached improvements such as buildings) and tangible personal property (movable property). The fixed statutory rate is 1% of assessed valuation. Assessed value is based 25

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries-General Fund
on the 1975 property values with subsequent increases limited to 2% or CPI growth, whichever is less. However, when there is a change in property ownership, property renovation or new construction, property is reappraised at its full current market value.

Proposition 8 allows the County Assessor to decrease these assessed values when property values decline and recapture these valuations back to the original amounts in the following years if property values increase.

The General Fund receives on average 19% of the total ad valorem property taxes levied (excluding voter approved tax overrides pledged for the retirement of bonded debt) on property located within the City’s boundary (exclusive of the Redevelopment Project Areas). Property tax settlements are received in December (55%), April (40%) and June (5%). Property tax is imposed and collected by the County. Contra Costa County is on a Teeter Plan. The County absorbs the delinquencies under this plan. Property Tax also includes unsecured, supplemental, and property transfer tax.

The City uses property tax estimates provided by consulting firm HdL as the basis for the budget. For FY 2025/26, property tax is estimated to be $6.7 million, a 9% increase over the FY 2024/25 revised budget. The increase is largely due to the increase in residual property tax revenue that the City expects to receive from the former Redevelopment agency due to the retirement of outstanding debt and dissolution of the Successor Agency.

The chart below illustrates the breakdown of the agencies that receive the property tax dollar.

Property Tax Dollar Breakdown
West Contra Costa
Unified
34%
Pinole General
Fund
19%
County General
15%
K-12 Schools ERAF
14%
Community College
District
5%
East Bay Regional
Park
3%
Community College
ERAF
2%
Health Care, Library,
EBMUD
5%
Other
3%
26

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries-General Fund
Sales Tax
Sales tax is the General Fund’s single largest revenue source. The City’s 10.25% Sales tax is levied on all merchandise and includes the 1% Bradley Burns Sales Tax, and Local Sales and Use Taxes Measure S 2006 (0.5%), Measure S 2014 (0.5%), the new Measure I 2024 (0.5%), passed by voters in 2024. The local sales taxes do not have sunset dates.

The City uses sales tax estimates provided by consulting firm HdL as the basis for the budget. For FY 2025/26, General Fund sales tax, including Measure S 2006 and 2014, and Measure I 2024 is projected to be $12.4 million, a 27% increase over the FY 2024/25 revised budget due to Measure I 2024. The chart below illustrates the breakdown of the agencies that receive the sales tax dollar.

Sales Tax Dollar Breakdown
Utility Users’ Tax
Utility Users’ Tax (UUT) is levied in accordance with Chapter 3.26 of the Municipal Code, amended in 2018 which levies an 8% tax on the value public utilities services consumed within the City limits for electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications. Low-income households are eligible for exemption from payment. The Electorate ratified renewal of the taxing authority in November 2018 with no sunset date. The FY 2025/26 baseline budget assumes a 3% growth rate based on past trends. The electricity segment in particular continues to increase substantially year over year in line with rate increases set by service providers.

Franchise Tax
Franchise tax is levied on public utilities and other corporations that use the public right of way to furnish gas (PG&E) (1%), electric (PG&E) (2%), refuse (Republic Services) (10%), and cable television (Comcast and AT&T) (5%) to citizens living within city State General Fund

3.94%
Bradley-Burns

1.00%
County
Mental Health/
Welfare/
Public Safety

1.56%
Measure S
2006

0.50%
Measure S
2014

0.50%
Measure I
2024 0.50%
County Public Safety (Prop
172)

0.50%
Countywide Transportation
Fund

0.25%
BART

0.50%
Contra Costa
Transportation Authority

0.50%
CCC
Transaction
& Use Tax

0.50%
27

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries-General Fund
boundaries. The various fees are delineated in franchise agreements and are paid directly to the city by these franchisees. The FY 2025/26 baseline budget assumes no growth based on historical trends. While the gas, electricity, and refuse segments are projected to grow slightly, the increase is offset by the decrease in the cable segment. This is due to consumers continuing to move away from traditional cable.

Business License Tax
Business license tax is assessed on all businesses doing business within City limits in accordance with Municipal Code Title 5. The City charges business license tax in accordance with the provisions of Government Code 37101. Pinole’s tax is computed based on a flat tax (currently $168) per year combined with a variable tax component based on the number of employees. The FY 2025/26 baseline budget assumes a 2% growth rate based on historical trends.

Transient Occupancy Tax (Motel or Bed Tax)
Transient occupancy tax (TOT) is a 10% tax levied by the City for the privilege of occupying quarters on a transient basis in accordance with Chapter 3.24 of Municipal Code. This tax is imposed upon persons staying 30 days or less in a motel or lodging facility. The FY 2025/26 baseline budget assumes a -13% growth rate based on past trends, which has shown a continuous downward trend.

Intergovernmental Tax
Motor vehicle in-lieu fee (VLF) is the City’s share of motor vehicle license fees levied, collected and apportioned by the State. VLF is a tax on the ownership of registered motor vehicles which takes the place of taxation of this personal property. The VLF is paid annually at the time vehicle licenses are renewed based on current value adjusted for depreciation. The FY 2025/26 baseline budget assumes a 5% growth rate, consistent with projections provided by HdL, the City’s property tax consultant.

Public Safety Charges
Public safety charges is comprised of public safety charges which are received for dispatch services provided to the cities of Hercules and San Pablo under an Intergovernmental Service Sharing agreement. A portion of the costs of this activity are reimbursed by the City of Hercules and City of San Pablo. Under the current agreement, the City’s recovers approximately 67% of the activity’s budget. The FY 2025/26 baseline budget assumes a 5% growth rate based on projections provided in the five-year agreement that went into effect on July 1, 2023.
28

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries-General Fund
Permits
Permits consist of various permits, including sidewalk, grading, and encroachment permits. The FY 2025/26 baseline budget assumes a 20% growth rate. This is primarily due to the projected growth in encroachment permits, consistent with past trends, and the increase in citywide fees consistent with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase of

2.7%.

Fees
Fees consist of various fees mostly related to permits, including rental inspection, technology, administrative fees, abatement, and code enforcement fees. The FY 2025/26 baseline budget assumes a small reduction of 4%. This is primarily due to a projected decrease in code enforcement fees, consistent with past trends.

Other Revenues
Other revenue is made up of all other revenue sources, including fines and forfeitures, interest income, grants, and other miscellaneous revenue. These revenues are projected primarily using historical trend analysis. The FY 2025/26 baseline budget assumes a - 21% growth rate. The reduction is mostly due to a projected decrease in investment earnings, consistent with market trends and less idle cash available to invest.

Transfers In
The transfer in comes from the Section 115 Trust to offset the increase in pension and Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) costs in the General Fund. The amount transferred for pension is based on the difference between the City’s base year (FY 2018/19) contribution toward employee pensions and the forecasted required City contribution in the budget year.

GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
General Fund revenues are not restricted to any specific use and can be expended on any allowable municipal purpose. For FY 2025/26, total General Fund expenditures are projected to be $32.8 million, including transfers out, as summarized below.

Expenditure Category FY 2025/26
Budget
% Total
Budget
Salaries and Wages $10,526,279 32%
Employee Benefits 8,178,351 25%
Professional/Admin Services 3,395,059 10%
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District 5,997,349 18% Other Operating 378,156 1%
29

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries-General Fund
Materials and Supplies 184,998 1%
Interdepartmental Charges -665,537 -2%
Capital Outlay 986,440 3%
Debt Service 653,545 2%
Transfers Out 3,166,407 10%
Total $32,801,047
Salaries and Wages
Salaries and wages expenditures in the baseline budget are computed based on the City’s current staffing level of 116.64 full-time equivalents (FTEs). It assumes one new position (Associate Civil Engineer) which will be fully funded by the Sewer Enterprise Fund. The FY 2025/26 baseline budget assumes a 2% growth rate and does not include any increases other than the normal salary increases for staff who have not reached the top of their job classification’s salary range.

Also, the baseline budget includes a vacancy savings factor to account for estimated cost savings resulting from unfilled positions. The vacancy savings factor is $500,000, or 3% of total salary and benefits expenditures.

Employee Benefits
Retirement benefits are the City’s annual required contribution as determined by the most recent actuarial valuation reports as of July 2024 provided by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS). The FY 2025/26 baseline budget reflects the estimated cost net of the required employer contribution minus employee contributions. Based on labor contracts between the City and its employees, employees contribute the 8% required employee contribution plus an additional 7% toward the required employer contribution, for a total of 15% for classic members. It should be noted that the pension unfunded liability increased significantly from FY 2024/25 to FY 2025/26 due to CalPERS’ investment losses in previous years. As a result, the required employer contribution increased by 11% in the General Fund alone.

Other benefits include employee medical, dental, and vision care; workers’ compensation; and others. The benefits cost in the FY 2025/26 baseline budget is based primarily on industry trends and rates established by benefit providers. The FY 2025/26 baseline budget assumes a net 10% increase mostly due to significant increases healthcare costs.

Professional and Administrative Services
Professional services include consulting and administrative services, building and equipment maintenance, office expenses, travel & training, and various other professional services.

Contracted services provided by other government agencies, including the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) for fire services ($5,997,349), and County animal services ($226,437) and library services ($202,430), are included in this category. The FY 2025/26 baseline budget accounts for contract escalators.

Other Operating
30

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries-General Fund
Other operating expenditures include water, electricity & power, and cable utility costs. The FY 2025/26 baseline budget assumes a 17% growth rate based on projected rate increases, primarily in electricity.

Materials and Supplies
Materials and supplies include fuel, maintenance supplies, and safety equipment. The FY 2025/26 baseline budget assumes no growth based on past trends.

Interdepartmental Charges
Interdepartmental charges include administrative charges and reimbursements for services provided by one City department to another, such as finance, human resources, information technology, and legal services. This category also includes general liability insurance premiums.

The FY 2025/26 baseline budget assumes a net 8% decrease based on lower reimbursements to the General Fund from other funds and higher insurance premiums.

Asset/Capital Outlay
Capital outlay includes non-major asset acquisition and improvements, such as computer equipment and furniture. The FY 2025/26 baseline budget includes cost estimates of specific items to be purchased.

Major capital improvements funded by the General Fund and Measure S are not reflected in the FY 2025/26 baseline budget. Though they may span multiple fiscal years, capital projects are non-recurring in nature and are not accounted for in the baseline budget. All planned capital projects are detailed in the City’s Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2025/26 – FY 2030/31.

Debt Service
Debt service includes the payment of principal and interest on the 2006 pension obligation bonds (POBs) that were issued to finance the City’s unfunded accrued actuarial liability with CalPERS.

The required annual payment is based on the long-term debt obligation schedule.

Transfers Out
Transfers out include the transfer of funds from the General Fund, Measure S, and Measure I Funds to other funds, including road funds, and Recreation, Pinole Community Television (PCTV), and Building and Planning. The transfer helps to stabilize the budgets in those areas as the operating costs are not fully recoverable.
31

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries-General Fund
Page intentionally blank
32

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries-General Fund

GENERAL FUND
(Including Measure S 2006, 2014 and Measure I)
FY 2021/22
Actual
FY 2022/23
Actual
FY 2023/24
Actual
FY 2024/25
Revised
Budget
FY 2025/26
Proposed
Budget
Revenue by Category
311 - Property Taxes 4,307,208 5,055,790 5,948,810 6,168,067 6,698,790 312 - Sales and Use Taxes 9,613,625 9,328,351 9,430,219 10,159,156 12,364,189 313 - Utility Users Tax 2,063,773 2,312,830 2,445,715 2,285,000 2,345,000 314 - Franchise Taxes 788,146 875,058 901,208 850,000 850,000 315 - Other Taxes 929,466 898,797 846,439 864,599 876,172 321 - Intergovernmental Taxes 2,108,808 2,247,072 2,346,237 2,402,673 2,513,149 322 - Federal Grants - - 129,788 33,461 -
323 - State Grants 13,847 43,442 36,194 95,882 73,022
324 - Other Grants 46,937 43,793 50,913 47,025 72,025
332 - Permits 120,780 190,687 324,534 251,700 301,700
341 - Review Fees 42,210 50,279 22,875 25,500 25,500
342 - Other Fees 23,880 56,772 113,399 65,854 64,809
343 - Abatement Fees 5,127 30,193 22,539 47,000 42,000
351 - Fines and Forfeiture 10,411 17,579 29,716 26,050 15,550 361 - Public Safety Charges 1,477,492 1,598,997 1,834,100 1,774,307 1,861,497 370 - Interest and Investment Income (134,495) 211,725 173,488 200,000 100,000 381 - Rental Income 96,516 95,432 86,084 81,450 81,450
383 - Reimbursements 16,341 20,133 78,831 11,500 11,500 384 - Other Revenue 35,606 5,969 13,045 5,100 5,100
392 - Proceeds from Sale of Property 240,182 12,080 139 1,000 1,000 393 - Loan/Bond Proceeds - 91,907 - - -
399 - Transfers In from Section 115 Trust 1,061,736 2,160,519 2,231,793 3,268,790 3,235,445 399 - Transfers In from ARPA Fund - 4,071,404 - -
Revenue Total 22,867,595 29,418,810 27,066,064 28,664,114 31,537,898 Expenditures by Category
40 - Salaries and Wages 10,550,396 11,006,433 10,113,758 10,331,587 10,526,279 41 - Employee Benefits 6,030,608 6,884,786 6,843,838 7,399,988 8,178,351 42 - Professional/Administrative Services 4,083,329 5,686,957 9,049,450 9,708,533 9,382,408 43 - Other Operating Expenses 304,499 359,085 426,472 322,711 378,156 44 - Materials and Supplies 261,505 291,123 223,342 185,033 184,998 46 - Interfund/Interdepartmental Charges (838,609) (505,978) (578,056) (690,318) (665,537) 47 - Asset Acquisition, Improvement, Disposal 697,550 596,527 1,633,513 7,772,370 986,440 48 - Debt Service 608,736 617,582 635,769 636,107 653,545 49 - Transfers Out 3,360,117 2,654,750 3,210,114 1,561,300 3,176,407 Expenditures Total 25,058,131 27,591,266 31,558,201 37,227,311 32,801,047 Expenditures by Department
10 - City Council 215,904 209,697 227,194 241,089 252,450 11 - City Manager 527,117 567,995 535,472 683,431 535,563 12 - City Clerk 327,468 511,112 615,496 731,224 733,895 13 - City Treasurer 8,375 8,268 9,681 10,148 9,990
14 - City Attorney 406,476 330,354 229,817 297,031 305,965 15 - Finance Department 561,011 661,743 957,421 974,117 1,025,744 16 - Human Resources 377,614 749,748 831,985 925,991 965,908 17 - Non-Departmental 5,274,979 4,673,970 5,437,314 3,257,051 5,128,503 18 - Information Systems - - - - -
22 - Police Department 9,847,359 10,267,281 11,662,505 12,354,609 12,758,655 23 - Fire Department 5,100,962 6,687,185 6,108,651 6,433,461 6,742,965 34 - Public Works 1,824,492 2,160,055 4,069,879 10,258,988 3,283,599 46 - Community Development 263,181 398,605 547,007 600,338 610,142 55 - Community Services 272,629 365,253 325,779 459,833 447,667 64 - Sewer 50,563 - -
Expenditures Total 25,058,131 27,591,266 31,558,201 37,227,311 32,801,047 Net Operating Results (2,190,536) 1,827,544 (4,492,136) (8,563,197) (1,263,149) 33

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries-General Fund
Property Taxes,
6,698,790 , 21%
Sales and Use
Taxes, 12,364,189 ,
39%
Utility Users Tax,
2,345,000 , 7%
Franchise Taxes,
850,000 , 3%
Other Taxes,
876,172 , 3%
Intergovernmental
Taxes, 2,513,149 ,
8%
Public Safety
Charges, 1,861,497
, 6%
Other Revenues,
793,656 , 3%
Transfers In ,
3,235,445 , 10%
General Fund Revenue by Type: $31,537,898
Salaries and Wages,
10,526,279 , 31%
Employee Benefits,
8,178,351 , 24%
Professional/Admin
Svcs, 3,374,559 , 10%
CCCFPD Fire Services
Agreement, 5,997,349 ,
18%
Other Operating ,
378,156 , 1%
Materials and Supplies,
184,998 , 2%
Interdepartmental
Charges, (665,537), -2%
Capital Outlay, 986,440 ,
3% Debt Service, 653,545 ,
2%
Transfers Out,
3,176,407 , 9%
General Fund Expendiures by Type: $32,801,047
34

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries-General Fund
City Council, 252,450 ,
1%
City Manager, 535,563 ,
2%
City Clerk, 733,895 , 2%
City Treasurer, 9,990 ,
0%
City Attorney, 305,965 ,
1%
Finance Department,
1,025,744 , 2%
Human Resources,
965,908 , 3%
Non-Departmental,
5,128,503 , 16%
Information Systems, -
, 0%
Police Department,
12,758,655 , 39%
Fire Department,
6,742,965 , 20%
Public Works, 3,283,599
, 10%
Community
Development, 610,142 ,
2%
Community Services,
447,667 , 1%
General Fund Expendiures by Department: $32,801,047
35

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries-General Fund
Page intentionally blank
36

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries-Major Non-General Funds

MAJOR NON-GENERAL FUNDS
Aside from the General Fund, the City also maintains special revenue funds, capital project funds, and enterprise funds. These funds generate revenue from many sources, such as taxes, charges for services, and user fees. Below find descriptions of the major Non-General Funds.

Special Revenue Funds
Gas Tax Fund - 200
The Gas Tax Fund accounts for the Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) State imposed excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel sales within the City Limits. These taxes are distributed primarily on the basis of population pursuant to formulas specified in Streets and Highways Code Sections 2105, 2106, 2107, 2107.5, and Section 2103. As a result of the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB1 Beall), funds received as part of the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) Section 2106 are also accounted for in this fund. Gas Tax funds are restricted for use in the construction, improvement, and maintenance of public streets. These funds support both annual operating and capital projects related to streets. It is common for funds that support capital projects to accrue significant fund balances over multiple years while cities save resources over time to invest in large projects, which have greater economies of scale.

For FY 2025/26, revenue is projected to be $1.1 million. Expenditures are projected to be $2.5 million for road maintenance projects. It is anticipated that approximately $1.4 million of available fund balance will be used for capital projects.

Recreation Fund - 209
The Recreation Fund accounts for program fees, fundraising proceeds, and donations for Recreation programs. Resources are used towards staffing and maintenance costs to operate the programs. The fund receives a transfer in from the General Fund to offset a recurring operating loss. For FY 2025/26, revenue is projected to be $573,563 and the General Fund transfer is $1,750,050. Expenditures are projected to be $2.3 million.

Building and Planning Fund - 212
The Building and Planning Fund accounts for fees collected for building permits and plan check fees. Fees collected are used to cover the cost involved in plan checks and inspections performed. The last fee study conducted recommended changes to the City’s building and planning fees, which has increased revenue. The fund receives a transfer in from the General Fund to offset a recurring operating loss. For FY 2025/26, revenues are projected to be $1.8 million and the General Fund transfer is $908,095. Expenditures are projected to be $2.7 million.
37

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries-Major Non-General Funds Solid Waste Fund – 214
The Solid Waste Fund accounts for funds received from Republic Services, Inc. from a surcharge it assesses on customer rates for solid waste services. These funds are set aside for future solid waste capital projects and for a rate stabilization fund. For FY 2025/26, revenues are budgeted at $368,000 and expenditures are budgeted at $177,241.

Measure C/J Fund - 215
The Measure C/J Fund accounts for special override sales tax revenues collected by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) and reapportioned to the cities for local street projects. The City must submit a checklist each year to confirm compliance with a Growth Management Program to maintain eligibility for the funds. Estimates of annual funding are provided by the CCTA, and jurisdiction allocations are based on a formula split (50/50) between population and road mileage. It is common for funds that support capital projects to accrue significant fund balances over multiple years while cities save resources over time to invest in large projects, which have greater economies of scale.

For FY 2025/26, revenues are projected to be $1.4 million. Expenditures are projected to be $1.2 million.

Growth Impact Fund – 276
The Growth Impact Fund accounts for development fees collected to mitigate the impact of new development. Specifically, it provides for the expansion, design, construction, or upgrade to facilities, roadways, and equipment. The City collects impact fees for police, fire protection, municipal, community, wastewater, roadways, and drainage. For FY 2025/26, no revenue is expected. Expenditures are projected at $2.4 million for capital projects. It is anticipated that approximately $2.4 million of available fund balance will be used for capital projects.

Housing Assets Fund – 285
The Housing Assets Fund accounts for resources related to the affordable housing activities and portfolio of the former Redevelopment Agency. Funds must be expended for housing activities. The fund balance has increased in recent years due to the repayment of a significant loan due to the fund. For FY 2025/26, revenue is budgeted at $55,000 primarily from interest earned on the cash balance and loan repayments.

Expenditures are projected to be $342,961 for housing administration activities. It is anticipated that approximately $287,961 of available fund balance will be used for housing administration activities.
38

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries-Major Non-General Funds Capital Project Funds
City Street Improvements Fund – 325
The City Street Improvements Fund received a transfer of $250,000 per year from Measure S 2014 to fund road maintenance projects and has a substantial fund balance due to the accumulation of unspent funds from prior fiscal years. For FY 2025/26, revenues are budgeted at $1.6 million due to anticipated grants from the West County Subregional Transportation Mitigation Program (STMP), CalTrans Highway Bridge Program, CalTrans Highway Safety Improvement Program, and Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) Program. Expenditures are budgeted at $2.9 million for street improvement projects. It is anticipated that approximately $1.2 million of available fund balance will be used for capital projects.

Arterial Streets Rehabilitation Fund - 377
The Arterial Streets Rehabilitation Fund received a transfer of $250,000 per year from the Measure S 2014 to fund road rehabilitation projects and has a substantial fund balance due to the accumulation of unspent funds from prior fiscal years. For FY 2025/26, expenditures are budgeted at $560,960 for street rehabilitation projects. It is anticipated that approximately $560,960 of available fund balance will be used for capital projects.

Enterprise Funds
Sewer Enterprise Fund -500
The Sewer Enterprise Fund accounts for fees charged to residents and businesses for sewer service provided by the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Sewer user fees are charged in the amount specified by City Council Resolution (Section 13.04.040 PMC). Fees are used to operate, maintain, and renew the WWTP. The cost of operations is shared between the two cities using a cost sharing formula based on sewage inflows by each city. For FY 2025/26, revenue is projected to be $13 million. Expenditures are projected to be $38.2 million. It is anticipated that approximately $25.2 million of its projected fund balance will be used to complete several key capital projects over the next five fiscal years.

Pinole Community Television (PCTV) Fund - 505
The Pinole Community Television (PCTV) Fund accounts for revenues and expenditures related to the operation of PCTV. Revenue is received from video production charges to other cities, Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) access fees, and an operating subsidy from the General Fund. PEG fees are designated for equipment purchases. For 39

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries-Major Non-General Funds FY 2025/26, revenue is projected to be $285,826 and the General Fund transfer is $367,262. Expenditures are projected to be $653,088.

Information Systems -525
The Information Systems Fund is an internal service fund used to account for activities that provide technology goods or services to other City funds and departments on a costreimbursement basis. The budget includes funding for routine operating activities as well as special initiatives identified in the City’s Information Technology Plan. For FY 2025/26, revenue and expenditures are balanced with each projected to be $1.5 million.

Fiduciary Funds
Pension Fund – 700
The Pension Fund accounts for funds in the City’s Section 115 trust, funded with one-time General Fund resources, to offset growth in the City’s annual required contribution to CalPERS pension. The remaining assets in the trust are invested and earn interest income.
40

Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries-All Funds
ALL FUNDS FY 2021/22
Actuals
FY 2022/23
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Actuals
FY 2024/25
Revised
Budget
FY 2025/26
Proposed
Budget
Revenue by Category
311 - Property Taxes 4,307,208 5,055,790 5,948,810 6,168,067 6,698,790 312 - Sales and Use Taxes 9,613,625 9,328,351 9,430,219 10,159,156 12,364,189 313 - Utility Users Tax 2,063,773 2,312,830 2,445,715 2,285,000 2,345,000 314 - Franchise Taxes 810,080 893,814 918,135 876,486 876,486 315 - Other Taxes 929,466 898,797 846,439 864,599 876,172 321 - Intergovernmental Taxes 3,530,117 3,701,389 3,867,073 3,985,975 4,118,354 322 - Federal Grants 911,070 4,857,566 378,855 74,855 41,394 323 - State Grants 290,576 312,655 786,382 1,165,544 1,723,501 324 - Other Grants 785,671 128,346 595,567 2,241,952 2,137,552 332 - Permits 601,210 687,955 952,518 728,866 807,961
341 - Review Fees 398,529 567,490 507,729 394,275 502,855 342 - Other Fees 116,892 273,501 390,127 517,146 473,495 343 - Abatement Fees 5,127 30,193 22,539 47,000 42,000
344 - Impact Fees 2,453,146 577,792 28,017 29,218 -
351 - Fines and Forfeiture 39,392 52,592 83,186 91,050 66,050 361 - Public Safety Charges 1,477,492 1,598,997 1,834,100 1,774,307 1,861,497 363 - Sewer Enterprise Charges 7,764,868 7,831,703 8,072,292 10,164,403 12,735,506 364 - Recreation Charges 311,782 413,497 421,472 352,610 387,900 365 - Cable TV Charges 216,837 277,903 192,464 179,047 159,840 366 - Other Charges - - - - 9,000
370 - Interest and Investment Income (2,951,193) 1,910,982 3,763,858 1,514,500 1,396,000 381 - Rental Income 121,141 116,688 111,946 152,279 230,779 383 - Reimbursements 444,545 455,269 584,664 386,636 386,636 384 - Other Revenue 87,107 25,215 36,238 226,650 157,960 392 - Proceeds from Sale of Property 346,615 944,423 9,746 1,000 1,000 393 - Loan/Bond Proceeds 107,531 178,562 138,127 5,000 5,000 399 - Transfers In 4,421,853 8,886,673 5,441,907 4,897,090 4,010,852 Revenue Total 39,204,459 52,318,973 47,808,126 49,282,711 54,415,768 Expenditures by Category
40 - Salaries and Wages 12,977,267 13,990,485 13,616,899 14,292,283 14,954,397 41 - Employee Benefits 7,227,194 7,465,419 8,458,454 9,448,743 10,597,549 42 - Professional/Administrative Services 7,179,480 9,041,346 11,859,033 13,988,277 13,647,590 43 - Other Operating Expenses 1,773,766 1,952,203 2,217,282 1,747,475 1,840,576 44 - Materials and Supplies 1,227,452 1,409,785 1,282,203 1,691,444 1,708,098 46 - Interfund/Interdepartmental Charges 733,387 786,349 947,072 928,156 1,003,767 47 - Asset Acquisition, Improvement, Disposal 4,711,084 3,294,566 4,536,516 47,236,706 40,153,253 48 - Debt Service 1,415,202 1,405,682 1,311,798 2,247,675 2,264,737 49 - Transfers Out 4,421,853 8,886,672 5,441,907 4,830,090 8,811,852 Expenditures Total 41,666,684 48,232,508 49,671,165 96,410,849 94,981,818 Expenditures by Department
10 - City Council 215,904 209,697 227,194 241,089 252,450 11 - City Manager 527,117 567,995 535,472 683,431 535,563 12 - City Clerk 327,468 511,112 615,496 731,224 733,895 13 - City Treasurer 8,375 8,268 9,681 10,148 9,990
14 - City Attorney 406,476 330,354 229,817 297,031 305,965 15 - Finance Department 561,011 739,907 1,032,662 1,024,117 1,090,744 16 - Human Resources 377,614 749,748 831,985 925,991 965,908 17 - Non-Departmental 7,026,762 10,946,547 7,697,607 6,533,341 10,771,448 18 - Information Systems 95,874 77,892 126,215 (194) 21 19 - Cable Access TV 439,347 502,606 555,518 748,883 653,088 22 - Police Department 10,153,924 10,614,182 12,483,720 13,238,373 13,716,783 23 - Fire Department 5,100,962 6,687,185 6,108,651 6,433,461 6,742,965 34 - Public Works 4,807,382 4,128,470 6,223,825 20,965,596 14,507,787 46 - Community Development 3,154,647 3,887,809 3,427,516 3,119,483 3,702,336 55 - Community Services 1,630,344 1,940,328 2,219,864 3,087,511 2,763,780 64 - Sewer 6,833,477 6,330,406 7,345,942 38,371,365 38,229,096 41,666,684 48,232,508 49,671,165 96,410,849 94,981,818
Net Operating Results (2,462,225) 4,086,466 (1,863,039) (47,128,138) (40,566,050) 41