Agenda packet — Pinole City Council, December 16, 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
December 16, 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.

Page 1 of 133 ends

City Council
Agenda - December 16, 2025

Page 2 ends

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-Spears at (510) 724-8928 or [email protected].

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

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

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

Page 2 of 133 ends

City Council
Agenda - December 16, 2025

Page 3 ends

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

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

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

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

A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT
Gov. Code § 54957
Title: Interim City Manager
PLEASE NOTE: Closed Session will cease at 7:00 p.m. and Council will resume the public portion of the agenda.

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

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

AGENDA FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS

7. REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Mayor Report

1. Announcements
B. Mayoral & Council Appointments
C. City Council Committee Reports & Communications
D. Council Requests for Future Agenda Items
E. City Manager Report / Department Staff
F. City Attorney Report

Page 3 of 133 ends

City Council
Agenda - December 16, 2025

Page 4 ends

8. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMUNITY EVENTS
A. Proclamations

1. None
B. Presentations

1. 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 December 2, 2025.

B. Receive the November 29, 2025 – December 12, 2025, List of Warrants in the Amount of $1,247,959.72 and the December 5, 2025 Payroll in the Amount of $628,431.84.

C. Adopt a Resolution to Increase Minimum Wage Rates Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Stacy Shell, Charlene Davis)
D. Adopt a resolution authorizing, through the FY 2026/27 budget cycle, budgeting to enroll all municipal energy accounts in the MCE Deep Green option consistent with the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Lilly Whalen, Kapil Amin)
E. Adopt a Resolution Accepting $309,910 in Grant Funding from the California Department of Justice Tobacco Grant Program for FY 2025–26 and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Required Documents Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Lilly Whalen) F. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance Adding Chapter 2.68 to Title 2 of the Pinole Municipal Code Restricting the Use of City-Owned or City-Controlled Property for Federal Civil Immigration Enforcement Activities Action: Waive the Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance. (Eric Casher)
G. Approval of Second Amendment To The Consulting Services Agreement Between The City And West Yost For Additional Services Associated With The Development Of The Storm Drain Master Plan (CIP Project # In1703) Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Heba El-Guindy)

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. None

11. COUNCIL REORGANIZATION

Page 4 of 133 ends

City Council
Agenda - December 16, 2025

Page 5 ends

A. Presentations to Mayor Cameron Sasai
B. Remarks by Mayor Sasai
C. Selection of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem
D. Administer Oaths to Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem
E. Transfer of Gavel and Comments by the New Mayor

12. OLD BUSINESS
A. None

13. NEW BUSINESS
A. Nominate Council Members To Serve on Boards and Subcommittees Action: Discuss and Provide Direction (Heather Bell)

14. 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.

15. ADJOURNMENT to the Regular City Council Meeting of January 20, 2026 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-Spears, CMC
City Clerk
POSTED: Friday, December 12, 2025 at 2:30 pm

Page 5 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 1 ends

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
December 2, 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 5:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

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

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

Code § 87105.

A. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT
Cameron Sasai, Mayor
Anthony Tave, Mayor Pro Tem*
Norma Martinez-Rubin, Council Member
Devin Murphy, Council Member
Maureen Toms, Council Member
*Arrived After Roll Call
B. STAFF PRESENT
Melissa Klawuhn, Acting City Manager/Police Chief
Heather Bell-Spears, City Clerk
Eric Casher, City Attorney
Fiona Epps, Communications Director
Andrea Dwyer, Community Services Director
Heba El-Guindy, Public Works Director
Roxane Stone, Deputy City Clerk
City Clerk Heather Bell-Spears announced the agenda had been posted on November 25, 2025 at 4:55 p.m. with all legally required written notices.

Page 6 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 2 ends

Ms. Bell-Spears stated the agenda had later been amended to correct the titles for Items 4A and 4B. 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.

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

A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Gov. Code § 54957.6
Agency designated representatives: Human Resources Director Stacy Shell, Finance Director Markisha Guillory and Gregory Ramirez, IEDA Employee organizations: The Pinole Police Employees Association (PPEA) B. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT
Gov. Code § 54957
Title: Acting City Manager

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Amy Eubanks, President, Pinole Police Employees Association (PPEA), speaking to Item 4A, reported the largest union in the City of Pinole had been out of contract for 154-days due to the City’s inability so far to offer terms to meet the needs of one of the most critical professions in any municipality, law enforcement officers. She commented that a raise that merely met the inflation rate was not really a raise. As she had expressed before, the City of Pinole had struggled with the retention of officers for years and at present only nine officers had more than five years of service with the City of Pinole, while eleven officers had less than five years on the job. This level of turnover and the resulting lack of experience had a measurable and potentially detrimental impact on the Pinole Police Department (PPD) to be able to provide high quality policing. A Police Department with a high proportion of novice officers inevitably faced challenges and situations that seasoned officers would solve quickly and confidently. Officers were now taking significantly longer to handle issues, not due to a lack of training since officers were well trained and committed, but there could be no price tag on experience. Experienced officers possessed the judgment, intuition and confidence that only years on the street provided.

Ms. Eubanks added that new officers learned on the beat and relied on the mentorship, guidance and steady presence of veteran officers. When experienced personnel left faster than they could be replaced the entire system would become strained. Retention was just as crucial as recruitment. If expecting to maintain a PPD delivering the best outcome for residents, competitive compensation was not about rewarding officers but ensuring the City could retain the skilled professionals who mentored the next generation, safeguarded the community and kept response times efficient and effective. Without a fair and sustainable contract, the City risked further destabilization of a department already stretched thin. She strongly urged the City Council to prioritize solving the contract and to recognize that maintaining a strong and experienced police force was not only beneficial, but essential for public safety.

Page 7 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 3 ends

Cathy McFarland commented that the two priorities for the City of Pinole had always been public safety and good roads. She was beyond disappointed with the Mayor and Council members who could not, after six months, get police officers and emergency dispatchers a signed contract.

There had been a half cent sales tax increase to cover those services and the City Council could still not get it together. She asked the City Council to deliver what had been promised. She asked whether the Mayor’s past personal ideology to defund the police was what was taking hold.

If that was the case, it was a conflict of interest and not in the best interests of the City, and she suggested the Mayor should excuse himself.

Ms. McFarland also understood the City now wanted to add Chapter 2.68 to Title 2 of the Pinole Municipal Code (PMC), to restrict the use of City-owned and City-controlled property for Federal Civil Immigration Enforcement Activities, which included the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, and the City wanted to endorse aiding, abetting and welcoming more criminals who wanted a safe harbor, to come into the City. She suggested no criminals in Pinole should be allowed regardless of status. She pointed out taxpayers had paid and maintained what the City owned and it should be residents who decided that issue. If agenda Item 10A was adopted, each member who voted to support the item should be held legally and financially responsible for any incidents created by an illegal criminal against a Pinole resident going forward.

Also, since the City wanted transparency, she suggested closed meetings should be open to the public to allow the public to see who was actually supporting the City rather than using the City to further one’s own agenda, to allow the public to make informed decisions at the next election.

Rafael Menis speaking to Item 4A, was curious whether the City had data available that compared the overtime costs versus the costs of having a police officer in a given position to allow for cross comparison analyses of pension costs and the like. He recognized the equity concerns from the PPD given the increase in inflation but was concerned if the City adopted an eight percent raise, other City Departments that negotiated for smaller raises may feel they were undercut, making future negotiations in those Departments more difficult. He suggested the dispatchers should at the least receive an equivalent rate to the highest bilingual bonus rate elsewhere in the City given their high-stressed environment and being able to speak in multiple languages, which could make a difference between life and death. This should be the area where the City encouraged multilingual capabilities. When moving forward, he hoped the City Council would at least consider an adjustment to dispatchers’ pay.

Anthony Vossbrink referenced Item 4A, and asked why the Human Resources and Finance Directors were part of the negotiations rather than the majority for both sides given that the bottom line was the Mayor and City Council made the decision, with the Council majority being the Mayor and his fellow Councilmen. He suggested the PPD deserved the raise but should also be able to secure more officers to be funded within the negotiations. He understood the average Police Departments throughout the nation were staffed with three officers per 1,000 population. He suggested the PPD should have more officers and was understaffed with only two officers on the street at any time. For Item 4B, he asked why the City Manager had left the City and why she was asked to resign. The full story needed to be disclosed to the public before or after the Closed Session. He suggested the City Manager had been doing a good job.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

Page 8 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 4 ends

Mayor Sasai advised the City Council would convene to Closed Session and reconvene at approximately 6:30 p.m.

City Clerk Bell-Spears advised there was another speaker wishing to speak under public comment for Item 4, and that speaker was allowed to address the City Council at this time.

Peter Murray referenced the recent departure of the City Manager, who was the second City Manager in three years who had left the City. He was concerned things were being done in Closed Session and the community was not being told why the City Manager had left and whether the reason was the City Manager or the City Council. The City Manager who had served the City prior to the most current City Manager had landed solidly in another community and was doing well, with the latest City Manager someone the community and City staff had supported. He emphasized the City Council should address that issue but not in Closed Session since the community was unaware what was going on, which was a violation of trust with the community.

He suggested City Manager Kelcey Young had been very involved in the community but had been let go due to reasons unknown. He urged the City Council to do a deep dive to identify the problem. Having listened to the issues and watching City Council meetings, he found there were some personality issues between the City Manager and Council members and had spoken about that in the past. He urged the City Council to conduct some self-analysis individually and consider what it took to manage a city. The City Council’s job was to provide oversight. The City Manager was to provide the management style.

5. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION TO ANNOUNCE RESULTS OF CLOSED SESSION At 7:15 p.m., Mayor Sasai reconvened the meeting into open session. He reported the City Council voted unanimously to appoint Police Chief Melissa Klawuhn as the Acting City Manager.

Rafael Menis reported on the COVID-19 rates per the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Rates in wastewater were low and continued to decline, although rates typically rose during the months of December and January, and he encouraged everyone to get vaccinated and a booster shot if possible. He also wished everyone Happy Holidays and noted the need to come together as a community and celebrate what connected us. He commented when sending out emails people needed to check their email lists since some people may have received an email they did not wish to receive.

Bob Kopp asked for an accounting of Council member Murphy’s travel expenses to Washington D.C. and how that benefitted the City of Pinole. He hoped a breakdown could be provided at the next meeting of the City Council.

Page 9 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 5 ends

Mr. Kopp commented on the fact the City Council had given itself a raise this year and increased its travel and training budget and was now soliciting interns to help Council members do their jobs. Council member Murphy was in his second term on the City Council and should have gained experience in his first term.

George Pursley, member of the Contra Costa County Library Commission, reported the County finally had the funds to repair the Pinole Library, which included repair of the roof and HVAC equipment. The library would be closed from March 2026 to January 1, 2027, and library cards would be recognized in neighboring libraries. He added on December 4, 2025, the United Teachers of Richmond (UTR) K-12 and adult teachers planned to go on a sympathy strike in support of the West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD). He reported that he favored agenda Item 10A.

Irma Ruport reported on her understanding former City Manager Kelcey Young had been pursuing other career opportunities, left the City on her own and based on her Facebook page, resigned her position. She suggested former City Manager Young had not been vetted appropriately for the job by the Human Resources Department or the recruitment consultant. She found public information available on LinkedIn, which had shown for the past 10-years former City Manager Young had not held the same position for more than two years. Shortly after former City Manager Young had come on board, she and her husband met with the City Manager in her office and were informed she was getting other offers. For the last year, former City Manager Young had been missing in action in the office and she understood she had not secured a job in the State of Arizona, but was pending for a position in the State of Arkansas. She emphasized former City Manager Young had the most performance evaluations than any other City Manager in the past.

Ms. Ruport was well aware of the City’s history which included the history of City Managers over the years. She also had information about spotting red flags when reviewing résumés and reiterated that former City Manager Young had not planned to stay long in Pinole. She again suggested the recruitment consultant and Human Resources Department had not vetted former City Manager Young properly and the next person to be considered for the position should be vetted properly and want to be in the position. She requested that the new city manager not be someone who was handpicked or a friend, but someone able to lead the City and do their job.

Peter Murray reported on his stance against cannabis dispensaries in Pinole, and commented “if his child or grandchild found themselves living on the street in San Francisco, if they got started here in Pinole, there would be a price to pay.” He emphasized Pinole was a community, and everyone should be taken into consideration, from the youngest to the oldest. He suggested cannabis was a stepping stone drug, was not needed, and the City had put much effort into imposing a moratorium to prevent cannabis in Pinole. He suggested the people that made that effort should be recognized. In response to the personalized discussions from the prior speaker, he stated he knew more about hiring and firing of City Managers and the verbiage used and why it was used, and he had spoken with a number of City Attorneys in his lifetime.

7. REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Mayor Report

1. Announcements

Page 10 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 6 ends

Mayor Sasai reported he attended the National League of Cities Conference and met with policy experts nationally. Given the changes at the federal level, having that space was exceptional to learn what cities were doing to confront the changes and lobby members of Congress to get funds necessary for communities to succeed. He thanked the City Clerk and others for the discussions and he hoped to attend a future conference. He added the Contra Costa Mayors Conference would be hosted by the City of Pinole on December 4, 2025 at the Pinole Senior Center and he looked forward to meeting with former Mayors and City staff. He also reported the Christmas Tree Lighting ceremony would be held on December 6, 2025 from 3:00 to 6:30 p.m. at the Community Corner in downtown Pinole. He thanked City staff for procuring and making the effort to handpick the tree.

B. Mayoral & Council Appointments: None
C. City Council Committee Reports & Communications
Council member Martinez-Rubin reported she attended the Ad Hoc Committee to Review Council Procedures to provide feedback on the handbook staff had drafted on Council procedures, and identify items for further discussion including how meetings were run. The next Ad Hoc Committee meeting was scheduled for December 3, 2025.

Council member Murphy reported over the past several weeks he had the opportunity to represent the City in a number of regional and statewide conversations that directly affected residents, local government and the future of energy and economic development in the City. He attended a Marin Clean Energy (MCE) Board of Directors meeting and reported on the Executive Committee’s referral to the MCE Board of Directors around the formation of a new Finance Committee. The MCE Executive Board approved the formation of the new committee which would join the Executive and Technical Committees as Standing Committees to provide oversight over the MCE budget. He also announced the City’s Sustainability Project Manager, Kapil Amin, had been nominated as one of eight nominees for the Charles F. McGlashan Awards and who had been honored mostly for his work in the City of Pinole and his leadership around innovation, particularly related to the development of the City’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP). He congratulated Mr. Amin for his work.

Council member Murphy also reported the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) Subcommittee met and worked closely with the Acting City Manager/Police Chief to finalize the Draft EOP before it was presented to the City Council for adoption. He participated in the Ad Hoc Committee to Review Council Procedures, and to discuss updates to the City Council procedure rules to ensure the process was more inclusive, clear and accessible. He also participated in a tour of the California Independent System Operator (CAL ISO), and detailed the background and purpose of the agency. He added that MCE, a member of the statewide organization, California Community Choice Association, filed a Petition of Writ Review challenging a recent California Public Utilities (CPU) Commission decision that retroactively changed the methodology used to calculate the power charge indifferent adjustment, with a request for the court to reverse the decision noting the sudden and aftereffect changes to approved rates jeopardized local budgets and eroded public trust in the regulatory process. He planned to follow the issue closely since it had direct implications on the affordability and energy of governments in Pinole and across the State of California.

Page 11 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 7 ends

Council member Murphy also attended an East Bay Economic Development Alliance meeting, with a presentation on the future of work for young people and with the Alliance having adopted an updated legislative platform focused on business competitiveness, economic empowerment education and workforce development. He also represented the Contra Costa Mayors on this Board by way of the City of Pinole, with more information on the Alliance website.

Council member Murphy further reported he attended the National League of Cities Conference joining the Mayor in making sure the City’s voice was heard, with more than 2,700 cities across the country represented including the cities of Richmond and El Cerrito. The League adopted national policies addressing issues that mattered to the cities including the preservation of the tax exempt status of municipal bonds, urging federal engagement with local governments on cryptocurrency oversight, calling for resolution of conflicts between state and federal cannabis laws, protecting federal scientific data critical for climate resilience and support for the bipartisan Neighborhood Homes Investment Act (NHIA), to expand affordable home ownership in distressed communities.

Council member Toms reported she attended the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Executive Committee meeting with a presentation on the Draft Plan Bay Area 2050+, which detailed expected demographic changes. She learned the process for determining the demographic changes would be different than what had been required after a lawsuit from the building industry and since several cities believed the demographic information provided in the last round of Housing Elements had overstated the potential growth for the Bay Area and overrequired housing units to be planned for in the area. The Draft Plan was currently out for public review. As the Alternate, she also attended a meeting of the MCE Board of Directors, with one of the big issues being the creation of a Finance Subcommittee, separate from the Executive and Technical Committees.

Council member Toms added on November 21, 2025, Public Works and City staff came together with the family of Robert Walker to dedicate the Maintenance Building in his honor, and she participated in a review of the City’s EOP with the Acting City Manager/Police Chief and Council member Murphy, with more information to be provided at a later date.

Mayor Sasai added to his comments and reported he was pleased to have met with Senator Jesse Arreguín who came to City Hall to personally meet with him and he thanked the Senator’s Office for updates on work being done in Sacramento, and bills that had passed in the past year including a range of topics from housing, public transit funding, immigration enforcement to police accountability and transparency. He was thankful for Senator Arreguín’s leadership.

D. Council Requests for Future Agenda Items: None
E. City Manager Report / Department Staff
Acting City Manager/Police Chief Melissa Klawuhn reported the City Manager’s Office hours would resume with the Acting City Manager starting Thursday, December 11, 2025, from 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. at the Police Department. Interested persons were asked to come to the lobby on the second floor, with the office hours to continue each Thursday, with the exception of December 25, 2025 and January 1, 2026.

Page 12 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 8 ends

Acting City Manager/Police Chief Klawuhn also reported a Planning Commission Parklet Workshop would be held on December 8, 2025 starting at 7:00 p.m.; the Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project would be complete by Friday, December 5, 2025 including resurfacing of the work area, with the Public Works Department to team with the pavement subcontractor to perform additional pavement repairs at the intersection of Pinon Avenue, Hutchinson Court and Ramey Court, to be performed during the month of December or early January, with affected residents to be notified in advance. The Public Works Maintenance Operations Team started the installation of holiday decorations and testing of lights in the downtown area in preparation of the Christmas tree lighting scheduled for December 6, 2025, with a traffic detour plan to be published to minimize traffic impacts of the planned road closure on San Pablo Avenue.

Community Services Director Andrea Dwyer invited everyone to the Annual City of Pinole Holiday Tree Lighting ceremony on December 6, 2025 at the Community Corner, located at the intersection of Tennent and San Pablo Avenues, from 3:00 to 6:30 p.m. with family, friends and neighbors encouraged to participate. There would be children’s activities, Santa and the Grinch would make a stop, and vendors and businesses would be open for people to shop during the event and enjoy the holiday season. There would also be snow and the lighting of the annual tree. More information was available at pinole.gov/events. She added the holiday breakfast sales were now online as was registration for Glow Pinole.

F. City Attorney Report: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED (Items 7A through 7F)
Deputy City Clerk Stone reported there were no comments from the public.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

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

1. Contra Costa County Regional Alternative Compliance System Overview Public Works Director Heba El-Guindy introduced Rinta Perkins, Interim Program Manager, Contra Costa County Clean Water Program, to present information on the Municipal Stormwater Requirements and the possibility of establishing a regional reporting system. Staff was not requesting a decision at this time since the presentation would be provided for informational purposes. The item could be brought back for Council consideration in February or March 2026.

Initial feedback and input from the City Council was requested.

Rinta Perkins, Interim Program Manager, Contra Costa County Clean Water Program, provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Contra Costa County Regional Alternative Compliance (RAC) System Overview, which included an overview of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP), issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), to be implemented on new development and redevelopment projects.

Page 13 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 9 ends

The purpose was to retrofit a proportion of permittee existing impervious surfaces and to address polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)/mercury and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) in the San Francisco Bay. The challenges with the existing system, how the RAC could address the challenges, the legal basis for alternative compliance, an overview of the Contra Costa County RAC System and RAC Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and Community Facilities District (CFD), examples of what that could look like in Pinole, next steps for implementation and the implementation steps and timeline were highlighted in depth.

Ms. Perkins reported that fourteen agencies had expressed interest in joining the RAC JPA. If this was something the City of Pinole was interested in, the City Attorney would review and comment on the JPA term sheet. Each agency that was interested in joining the RAC JPA, was asked to send a representative to attend a kick-off meeting, receive follow-up materials and resources such as templates (including a resolution) and adoption of a resolution, and then consider approval of a JPA Agreement by the agency’s governing body.

Ms. Perkins responded to comments from the City Council:
• It was anticipated as the county-wide RAC System evolved there would be additional projects, whether in West, Central or East County, with the idea to be able to achieve compliance together in a more cost-economical way since it would offer a regional solution for RAC JPA members. (Toms)
• The same presentation had been made to various stakeholder groups and could be provided to the Contra Costa Mayors Conference, if requested, and there would be communication with the Building Industry Association. Currently there was reliance on the member agencies to share information with their city councils. (Murphy) • Provided examples of underutilized parking lots where good value could be provided to the community in terms of meeting compliance as part of the requirements of the RAC JPA.
• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded the consortium of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program a total of $2 million in grant funds to set up the RAC System. Contra Costa County was one of the 21 member agencies. Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties did not have a RAC and were looking for the RAC System JPA to be formed to see if there were any possibilities for those agencies to join in the RAC JPA so they could then take advantage of regional projects to meet the compliance requirements. Verified that Ms. Perkins’ time and others’ efforts to build the RAC system were paid by EPA Grant funds. (Murphy)
• Acknowledged concerns with the City’s experiences with JPAs and the RWQCB and issues with governance, particularly how projects were selected and the possibility of the City being pinned down to an organization selecting areas in Pinole where the City of Pinole may have other plans, thereby constraining the City as to how it could utilize a particular property. Recognized the City was not the only small city in the County. As an example, the City of Clayton was also a small city with a small downtown where space was limited and where purchasing a “compliance unit” elsewhere might be preferable.

Page 14 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 10 ends

• A current example of properties in process were properties owned by Chevron. In that situation, Chevron planned to leave California and wanted to give up its land and there had been discussions with Chevron for property located in an all-industrial area where an original green stormwater infrastructure facility could be constructed, with preliminary designs showing around 500 acres of all-industrial. This was where Pinole, as an example, could be a member of that project and still reap the benefit of meeting the permit compliance without having to construct a physical facility in the City of Pinole. (Mayor Pro Tem Tave)
• Acknowledged concerns the agencies identified in the PowerPoint presentation could quickly eat up the credits, where Pinole as a smaller city, would move to the bottom of the list. Also acknowledged concerns how that situation would balance across all member agencies and the possibility of larger cities being able to reap more of the benefits than the smaller cities. Those concerns could be brought up with the JPA in that the term sheet was not locked in and more feedback was being sought from the member agencies to help shape the agreement, which could possibly include more regulations and rules that allowed some equal treatment for all communities. (Mayor Pro Tem Tave) • Acknowledged feedback as follows: provide clarification how parcels for infrastructure were identified to eventually have infrastructure developed given the city may not have the space or topography to create something; how parcels would be identified and who would identity them and how much power/authority each member/organization would have; a better understanding of obtaining credits in-lieu of having the infrastructure and the cost benefit that would be determined for a smaller city that would not have the funds to build the infrastructure anyway and would allow for the management of rainwater for the longterm (at least 20-years); and a request for living examples, with recognition that the City of Pinole had a shoreline and a desire for an urban tree canopy that had been discussed with other parties which could open up possible collaboration. (Martinez-Rubin) • Acknowledged a request for more discussion and clarification to be provided as part of a future discussion or presentation on the CFD concept, and clarification of who would pay the taxes and how the parcels, whether public or private, were determined along with what determined the terms “buyer” or “seller.” (Martinez-Rubin) • Clarification that every project whether private or public would be required to treat stormwater runoff improvements on-site, pursuant to the permit requirements. If that was impossible, the property owner could look elsewhere. Examples were provided for an affordable housing project in the downtown area of Pinole where it was not possible to construct treatment on-site, and a good example where the City could consider purchasing a compliance unit. (Martinez-Rubin)
• Clarified interested agencies that had expressed interest in joining the JPA, for one reason or another may have private developers asking for a way “out” to move a project forward, defined as the “sellers” or may have a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) project where the infrastructure could not be built on-site, again defined as the “sellers.” In that scenario, the City’s circumstances were unknown and the City could be the “buyer” or the “seller.” How the project could be prioritized was voluntary. (Martinez-Rubin)

Page 15 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 11 ends

• An example was provided of a green street project located not far from the City of Pinole, which happened to treat excess runoff that could be sold as a compliance credit. In that example, that entity was the “seller.” Member agencies were being asked to submit their own project that they felt could create the excess compliance units. If a matter of funding, such as if the EPA had money it would like the RAC JPA to construct, the JPA as a legal entity could receive the funds or grant funds from other entities, and in that scenario if given to the JPA, there needed to be an agreement among the members as to the appropriate projects to be funded by the external funding source that would benefit the JPA members. The JPA members should have a say on the priority of the projects. (Martinez-Rubin)
• Clarified the CFD and if the City was interested in joining the JPA it would open the City’s CIP projects to be able to participate in the compliance unit exchanges, as well as private developers and nonprofits located within the jurisdictions. CFDs allowed the levy of special taxes, which would go against the “buyers.” A private developer would be responsible for paying the special taxes, not the City of Pinole. This was a voluntary arrangement and the party choosing to participate in the transaction would bear the cost for ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) as well as the purchase of the prorated share of the compliance unit initially. (Martinez-Rubin)

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis understood the EPA set up a requirement that a certain number of PCBs and mercury be filtered out of stormwater, and that most of the PCBs and mercury were from areas in the county that were not in the City of Pinole; but each individual site was responsible for its own filtration unless there was a membership in the RAC. Based on the presentation, he suggested the City of Pinole sign up to spread the pool of costs to pay for regional projects that offset the pollutants coming from areas that were sites of pollution, but it would not necessarily mitigate pollutants coming from Pinole itself, but create a resource equivalency that paid for the pollutants, and any pollutants that were generated in Pinole would still enter the stormwater stream and the Bay but be offset by the RAC system. He commented it seemed as if the City of Pinole signed up for the RAC JPA, it would get taxes voluntarily assessed on the properties that took part in the RAC, not every property in the City, but properties that could do the mitigation on-site. Most of the benefit would not necessarily go to the City of Pinole, but to the members of the RAC JPA that were actually generating the PCBs and mercury contaminated stormwater that needed to be treated. Aside from the regulatory compliance, he asked about the benefit that Pinole gained from subsidizing the rest of the region’s projects.

Ms. Perkins clarified the requirement to reduce PCBs and mercury was not set by the EPA but the State Water Resources Board. The City of Pinole along with 75 other municipalities shared the same stormwater permit, which indicated that the San Francisco Bay was the watershed.

Even though the pollutants were found in other communities, because the permit had been designed over one common watershed, which was the San Francisco Bay, the City of Pinole along with the other 75 other agencies were responsible and the requirement to reduce PCBs and mercury was assigned to Pinole and the other agencies. The RAC system created a regional accounting system, where a regional project could be constructed.

Page 16 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 12 ends

Ms. Perkins explained that there were funding sources available to the JPA to pay to construct a project and the JPA members’ obligation would only be limited to the ongoing maintenance of the bioretention, as an example, which in this case would involve bioretention, typically landscaping that would contribute to mowing or pruning the landscaping to ensure that trash was free from inlets and establish any eroded slope of the bioretention. This was one way to help meet the compliance in a more cost-effective way.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Mayor Pro Tem Tave thanked Ms. Perkins for the presentation and noted the public speaker could reach out to Ms. Perkins directly as well. He asked Public Works Director El-Guindy whether she had any comments to the questions raised during the presentation.

Public Works Director El-Guindy thanked Ms. Perkins for the presentation and clarified that for the City to participate and be part of the RAC JPA, and based on initial estimates, it would cost the City about $2,000 initially for the formation of the JPA if the JPA was at least a ten-member agency. The annual cost for membership in the RAC JPA would be another $2,000. Forming the JPA and establishing a regional system would provide an opportunity for development and CIP projects to either buy or sell credits, but it was not an obligation and would not change the City’s practice on how it proceeded with projects. As an example, the Roble Street Widening Project and the addition of a sidewalk had a bioretention component, but if the City proceeded with the RAC JPA option, it would significantly increase the cost of the project, which was a choice the City Council needed to make when bringing the project forward.

When reporting this year, the City was at 80 percent in terms of compliance. The locations still being identified from a regional perspective within Pinole for installation of trash capture devices, were near commercial areas that were currently mostly vacant and the City did not have much influence in making that change. Staff had looked into large-scale trash capture devices in the downflow location, but that itself would cost between $3,000 to $4,000. The RAC JPA would not prevent the City from pursuing various options, it would just provide another option for capital and development projects.

In response to the Mayor Pro Tem, Public Works Director El-Guindy confirmed for the installation of the trash capture devices through the RAC JPA, the City would receive credits for installing the devices or someone may want to pay for them as part of credits the City needed for a different area in the region. That type of trading could fill the need for the City of Pinole and solve issues for the region.

Council member Toms understood if a private developer were to ask for some off-site mitigation that would become part of the CFD and the developer would be charged an annual fee on their property tax. But a capital project that needed to find mitigation, such as public streets, would not be taxed. She asked for clarification, and also asked about the funding sources the City received from grant funds or federal funds to pay for infrastructure, and whether or not that was an eligible charge and who paid for the ongoing costs.

Ms. Perkins again cited a green street project which involved two agencies interested in purchasing the project.

Page 17 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 13 ends

Ms. Perkins stated a green street project could not be taxed and for those transactions, there would be one agency as the “seller” and two separate small communities as the “buyers,” two public transactions, and in that scenario, the condition was the three must be part of the JPA to have the facility. A special tax could not be levied under the CFD. For this transaction, the three agencies would enter into a separate agreement to approve the compensation. In terms of the ongoing O&M, the calculation had been computed by a life-cycle of 25-years, with the numbers still being worked out, but the fund would go into the JPA escrow to then be used for ongoing maintenance of the project.

Mayor Pro Tem Tave asked about next steps. He looked forward to a future staff report and how this option would work for the City and possibly could be something the City could start getting into immediately.

Public Works Director El-Guindy advised the terms of the agreement had been provided to the City Attorney for initial feedback. Staff was doing that initial work and review, with the item to return to the City Council in February or March 2026, at which time staff would provide a request for a decision.

Council member Martinez-Rubin thanked staff for inviting Ms. Perkins to make the presentation for this potential option.

A. Approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting on November 18, 2025.

B. Receive the November 15, 2025 – November 28, 2025, List of Warrants in the Amount of $683,568.25 and the November 21, 2025 Payroll in the Amount of $584,043.92.

C. Approving the Application for and/or Execution of Grant Funds up to $736,370 from the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) for the Pinole-Hercules Multi-jurisdictional Shoreline Adaptation Plan. Action: Adopt a Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Lilly Whalen, Kapil Amin)
D. Second Reading of an Ordinance to Adopt the 2025 California Building Standards Code and Update the City’s Building and Fire Code and Adoption of a Resolution Approving Findings to Support Local Modifications to the 2025 California Building Code. Action: Adopt Ordinance on Second Reading and Adopt Resolution (Lilly Whalen, Keith Marks)

Page 18 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 14 ends

E. Approve Resolution to Add 1.0 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Information Technology Technician. Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Fiona Epps)
F. FY 2024/25 Development Impact Fee Report (AB 1600). Action: Receive a Report and Adopt a Resolution (Markisha Guillory)
G. Initiate Formation of the Appian Village Residential Lighting Assessment District and Order Preparation of the Required Engineer’s Report pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and Section 4 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution. Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Lilly Whalen, David Hanham)
H. Receive a Report on the Status of the Information Technology (IT) Plan Fiscal Year (FY) 2021/22 through FY 2025/26 and Development of the IT Plan FY 2026/27 through FY 2031/32. Action: Receive a Report (Fiona Epps) I. Approval of Agreement between the City of Pinole and Diablo Roofing, Inc. – Public Safety Building Roof Replacement Under project #FA1702. Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Heba El-Guindy)

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Cathy McFarland provided the following comments on the Consent Calendar:
- Item 9E, questioned whether the City had the budget to add one Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Information Technology (IT) Technician employee.
- Item 9F, understood Development Impact Fees were to be used for related impacts on public streets, facilities and services but none of the slated projects included funds for streets. Funds had been earmarked for Public Safety Building Modernization and City Hall Modernization projects and asked how those projects helped the community other than beautifying the work area. Funds had also been slated for Fernandez Park Improvements and Upgrades to City Pools. Given the City had stated it had minimal funds to run the community, those funds should be spent more wisely and less frivolously. - Item 9I, the contract stated the work would be only for the Public Safety Building but the prior paperwork had whereas clauses identifying three buildings with the same number for Project FA#1702. Asked whether the City was paying over half a million dollars for one or three roofs.

Public Works Director El-Guindy responded to the public comment and clarified with respect to Item 9I that the cost of the project would be only for the replacement of the roof of the Public Safety Building, which was in poor condition and determined to be an urgent project.

Rafael Menis read into the record written comments he had provided prior to the meeting, updates to the comments and additional comments, as follows:

Page 19 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 15 ends

- Item 9B, Page 54 of 258 of the agenda packet had shown a refund of $500 to Republic Services. Asked if the refund was linked to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or some other reason. Reported he had received a reply from the Finance Director this was a return of a $500 contribution that Republic Services had made to the Mayors Conference concerned the City had a business relationship with the firm. - Item 9C, Page 73 of 258 of the agenda packet. Disappointed the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) cut the data collection segment from the grant since the OPC should have understood the importance of community buy-in. Appreciated the Nations of Lisjan had been willing to partner with the cities of Pinole and Hercules. Reported the Community Development had noted agreement with these comments.
- Item 9D, Page 95 of 258 of the agenda packet, noted major earthquakes with a magnitude of 4 or greater in the City of Concord had been identified in 1958 and 1955, but understood there had been similar magnitude quakes closer to the City of Pinole this year. Pages 151 and 158 of 258 of the agenda packet included a typographical error in the first sentence under Section 15.22.010 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code-Adoption, which should be corrected to read: The City of Pinole hereby adopts the 2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code. Reported the typographical error had been corrected. - Item 9H, Page 207 to 208 of 258 of the agenda packet, recognized the IT report was from 2022, and pre-fire contract, and asked to what extent the City was responsible for the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) IT expenses under the contract, with Page 224 of 258 of the agenda packet mentioning several benchmarks. Asked if the City had those benchmarks available. Reported separate responses on this inquiry had been received with the benchmark data not yet available, but currently being compiled.

The City was also responsible for fire software expenses since the Pinole Fire Department transferred to the CCCFPD in 2023.
- Item 9I, understood the bid accepted was the second lowest bid and asked if the City Council could elaborate why the lowest bidder was not responsive, and whether it covered other areas or whether the bidder was not competent to perform the bid.

Irma Ruport provided the following comments on the Consent Calendar:
- Item 9E, noted the Communications Director just come in to the position that had been created a few months ago by the former City Manager. She was not aware of the Communications Director’s background, whether she had IT experience and noted she had recently received a raise. Asked the Acting City Manager/Police Chief to review this request before moving forward. Noted Pinole Community Television (PCTV) had been transferred to the City Manager’s Department last year and a Communications Department had been created under the City Manager. Asked that the Acting City Manager/Police Chief consider transferring PCTV back to the Recreation Department.

Suggested there were too many inexperienced people in the IT Department. - Item 9H, commented the status of the IT Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021/22 through FY 2025/26 and Development of the IT Plan for FY 2026/27 through 2031/32, was a very long report and the item should not have been placed on the Consent Calendar.

Page 20 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 16 ends

- The City was shorthanded in the IT Department, with inexperienced employees.

Suggested PCTV and the IT position go back to the Recreation Department and the City Council review this area again and ensure things were being done right.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Council member Murphy asked that Items 9E and 9H be pulled for discussion.

ACTION: Motion by Council members Martinez-Rubin/Murphy to approve Consent Calendar Items A, B, C, D, F, G and I, as shown.

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

Absent: None
For Item 9H, Council member Murphy commented on how far the City had come with the IT Plan developed and adopted in 2021/22, and with the City having prioritized the issue of cybersecurity and upgrading technology systems. He thanked Communications Director Fiona Epps for administering the program but he would like to see staff come back with a presentation on the benchmarks noted in FY 2021/22 through FY 2025/26, which warranted a larger discussion. He suggested adding IT staff was necessary and asked staff about the idea around the development of an IT Plan.

Communications Director Fiona Epps reported the City was coming close to the end of the current five-year IT Plan and staff had taken steps towards planning for the strategic development of the next five-year plan. The plan had been included as an attachment to the staff report, and was the existing plan that had been approved by the City Council in 2022, the first IT Plan of its kind. Staff was looking forward to the next five-year IT Plan, and taking a different strategy towards development of the plan to maximize cost effectiveness and move towards greater steps of modernization.

As outlined in the staff report, staff was in the middle of a software evaluation Citywide to gather data and examine in greater depth how various departments were using software and how they could maximize the integrations between the software, reduce redundancies and plan fiscally over the next five-years in a more holistic way. Staff also outlined in the report an update on the status of the development of the IT Plan, and the development of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy, which was not part of the five-year plan the City had currently.

Communications Director Epps also commented on the building of an internal IT Department and transitioning from relying predominantly on consultants and outside expertise to service the entire City for its IT needs. Staff was transitioning to an internal department where it had greater control, greater internal expertise and which cost less, and staff would be able to do more by bringing in internal staffing that would replace consulting fees. The strategy moving forward as part of the next five-year plan was to look at the use of consulting resources and funds and move that over to internal IT staffing where staff could be of greater service to the City’s departments.

Page 21 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 17 ends

Council member Murphy commented in terms of adding one FTE for an IT Technician, as part of Item 9E, he understood that position would not have a direct fiscal impact to the current fiscal year budget, with the goal to approve the item for next year’s budget. He asked what would be lost if the City Council were to consider the item in the next year’s budget as opposed to action being taken now.

Communications Director Epps highlighted the two strongest reasons to bring the item to the City Council now before the mid-year budget cycle, which included the fact the City had one IT Manager who provided support and all of the IT management duties and responsibilities such as strategic planning, IT development, oversight and budget and financial planning and the like. Staff wanted to ensure the City had a sustainable model that did not have an impact on staff morale and did not affect services provided to the City. She reported staff received approximately 60 percent of the help desk tickets from the PPD, and tickets from the PPD were the number one priority to ensure the PPD had what it needed to serve the community. Staff wanted to ensure adequate IT staffing in place to ensure backup coverage and 24/7 help desk support.

The current model being used reduced the budget for using Precision IT Consulting, Inc. as the service provider for IT support, which was providing a fraction of the services prior to the City scaling back on IT support and in preparation for building an IT Department. She described it as a balance of providing the level of support needed across the City and the appropriate management of resources. The consultant budget for Precision IT Consulting, Inc. was due to last through March 2026. The second reason for asking for an FTE IT Technician now was because staff wanted to avoid exhausting that budget prior to the mid-year budget and having to add additional funding for consulting services that would overlap bringing in an IT person. Staff was trying to do this in a way that did not result in the expenditure of any more consulting funds than needed.

Item 9E would not impact the FY 2025/26 budget since it would simply reallocate funds from another source for consulting and move it to an in-house staff person. This explanation had been included in the staff report and highlighted the plans moving forward. For the FY 2026/27 budget, the intent was to move away from having to use additional funding from the Professional Services budget and move the work in-house to provide the best possible service to the City and the community.

Council member Murphy expressed his appreciation to Communications Director Epps for her work. While he understood Item 9E would not impact this fiscal year’s budget and he recognized the City had scaled back the work of Precision IT Consulting, Inc., he was unsure how these decisions were being made. He suggested the City had moved far from 2022, when it had no IT support at all, but he was uncomfortable approving a new position that would have an impact eventually in the next budget cycle and with the next budget cycle process to start in the next quarter. While he supported growth in IT, he wanted a better understanding what the City was getting if adding an FTE IT Technician. He also understood a future five-year plan was under development, but was again unsure what the City would get by adding the position. He reiterated it was difficult for him to understand how decisions were being made and resources allocated since the City Council made a point to say that IT was important.

Page 22 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 18 ends

Council member Murphy added in terms of the AI Policy conversation, that was different but under the wheel house of IT and people used AI before it was a common term. He was uncertain what staff was looking for in an AI Policy, with the IT Department having already been using AI technology in different ways. He could not support Item 9E at this time and urged the City Council to forward Items 9E and 9H to the Finance Subcommittee for the next budget cycle and more conversation.

Council member Toms supported Item 9E and noted the City Council discussed the transition from consulting work and bringing the IT work in-house. This had been discussed and planned for with Item 9E, one piece to transition that work in-house. She offered a motion, seconded by Council member Martinez-Rubin to approved Items 9E and 9H, as shown.

Mayor Pro Tem Tave understood Item 9E was one piece, but he asked how many other pieces were being considered, with a full picture of what an IT Plan looked like not having been presented to the City Council. He suggested that was worth coming back to the City Council for a larger discussion. He understood things moved quickly with a lot of development behind the scenes, but oftentimes discussions were fragmented, and he preferred to see the whole picture and stick to the process of adding staff coupled with the staff needs across the entire City. He recognized the need to grow the IT Department but needed to figure out what that looked like.

Mayor Pro Tem Tave also recognized PCTV had a lot of equipment and they were coming up to the time for replacement. He questioned how that replacement plan was going and preferred to see a larger conversation come back to the City Council.

Council member Toms noted as Communications Director Epps stated, the contract for IT work ended in March and it took time to recruit new staff. She suggested there could be a hole in services in the IT Department if deferring the item.

Council member Murphy reiterated this was an important task being brought in-house and he recalled the discussion around cybersecurity, but remained challenged with how they were seeing this as the bigger picture. He pointed out the City Council had approved an extension of the Precision IT Consulting, Inc. contract two to three times already, and asked for clarification from staff if the contract was not extended.

Communications Director Epps clarified the City was currently working with a month-to-month contract with Precision IT Consulting, Inc. and would need to give the firm 30-days to terminate the contract. She also clarified the March 2026 timeline for the contract with the firm had to do with funds budgeted for a certain number of services for this fiscal year, which budget was estimated to be exhausted in and around March 2026, particularly if continuing the trend in the help desk support.

Mayor Sasai understood the contract with Precision IT Consulting, Inc. could be extended between March and June 2026, if needed.

Communications Director Epps confirmed that while the month-to-month contract could be continued, the City would exhaust the budget funds by March 2026, and if needing to extend services beyond that time, they would need to come to the City Council and request additional funding to continue those services without an internal IT person.

Page 23 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 19 ends

Council member Martinez-Rubin commented she had initially asked for a presentation on an IT Plan and had been informed the City had a plan. An IT Plan had been discussed in 2020 and approved by the City Council in 2022. The staff report presented what had been done to date, with indications of progress by fiscal year. The IT Plan helped staff to set ideas and consider the next set of dates. She suggested the City Council could approve Items 9E and 9H without any conflict and also request a presentation. She noted the City did not have an IT Manager in the past, but did have a team of people on contract as consultants who could be called upon when needed. She suggested if the City Council did not individually see the benefits of in-house staff, it was because they were not in-house. Having the IT Manager respond to everything that needed to be attended to in-house, including software in process, legacy systems in place, adoption of new software to integrate AI as it was being used now, and security as required by all staff in each department, was being done by one person. Having an IT Technician would help with the timeliness of all that work and could consider the innovative work required to bring the City to another five-year plan.

Council member Martinez-Rubin supported Items 9E and 9H in tandem, with the knowledge the City Council could have a presentation to hear the comprehensive approach desired to understand better at a later date.

Mayor Sasai asked about the status of the scheduling for Finance Subcommittee meetings, and was informed by City Clerk Bell-Spears that staff was considering initial meetings in January and to go from there.

Mayor Sasai suggesting the consideration of an FTE IT Technician be considered as part of a broader conversation in the context of the annual budget.

Mayor Pro Tem Tave recognized the stress of one person carrying the IT Department between now and June 2026; but he too sought a larger discussion and not one fragmented between City Departments. He suggested Item 9E be considered when it was ready to come to the City Council in its entirety. He could support the motion, but would do so reluctantly if not being able to have the funds during budget discussions for everyone and may have to consider cutting services to support a decision made fragmented throughout the year. He would support the motion rather than having one person do all the work given the critical nature of the IT Department and how much it was interwoven into public safety and the vital functions of the City. He again understood the position had been budgeted for this fiscal year, although the next step was unknown.

ACTION: Motion by Council members Toms/Martinez-Rubin to approve Consent Calendar Items 9E and 9H, as shown.

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

Absent: None
Council member Murphy again was grateful for the report from Communications Director Epps, but asked staff to come back with a presentation and information on the work being done in the IT Department and the budget implications.

Page 24 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 20 ends

Mayor Sasai reiterated his comments and again preferred not to take this action absent having a larger discussion of the budget and a discussion and referral from the Finance Subcommittee.

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing and Introduction of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 2.68 to Title 2 of the Pinole Municipal Code Restricting the Use of City-Owned or City-Controlled Property for Federal Civil Immigration Enforcement Activities. Action: Hold a Public Hearing, Waive the First Reading and Introduce an Ordinance Adding Chapter 2.68 to Title 2 of the Pinole Municipal Code (Eric Casher) City Attorney Eric Casher and Acting City Manager/Police Chief Klawuhn provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Introduction of an Ordinance Restricting Use of City-Owned Property for Federal Civil Immigration Activities, which included an overview of the background of the future agenda item request; ordinances imposed by neighboring jurisdictions in the Bay Area; the proposed ordinance that would only apply to City-owned and controlled properties that included Bayfront, Fernandez, Louis Francis, Meadow, Pinon, View and Wilson Point Parks, Pinole Senior Center, Pinole Youth Center, Water Pollution Control Plant, Faria House and City Hall; requirements of the proposed ordinance and the typical process for federal law enforcement coordination and enforcement of the ordinance and directives to ICE.

Staff recommended the City Council waive the first reading and introduce an ordinance adding Chapter 2.28 to Title 2 of the PMC restricting the Use of City-Owned or City-Controlled Property for Federal Civil Immigration Enforcement Activities. If approved on the first reading, it would come back for a second reading on December 16, 2025.

City Attorney Casher and Acting City Manager/Police Chief Klawuhn responded to questions from the City Council:

• If the City becomes aware of any federal law enforcement activity that could take place in the City of Pinole, whether being notified by federal agents or through gathering information, the federal agents would be advised of the ordinance and asked for compliance. If compliance did not happen, or if the matter continued to be an ongoing issue, that was when the City would have to consider other options. Clarified if the City were to pursue an injunction to enforce the ordinance, the City Attorney would seek direction from the City Council before taking such action through a Closed Session and possible Special City Council meeting to allow the City Council to provide direction. (Mayor Pro Tem Tave)
• Acknowledged if there was a high likelihood of staging of immigration agents in the City of Pinole, they would likely outnumber PPD officers even if protect and serve was the mission of the PPD. Emphasized the well-being of the public needed to be considered at that time.

Again, non-compliance with the ordinance could lead to a more administrative type of action. The last thing anyone wanted to see was a physical confrontation between local law enforcement and federal agents, unless there was a crime committed, and that was not what staff was trying to accomplish. (Martinez-Rubin)

Page 25 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 21 ends

• While the enforcement side of such an ordinance was untested, staff hoped by designating areas within the City, and through an ordinance, possible federal civil immigration enforcement activities could not occur on City-owned or City-controlled properties. If the City had information ahead of time, it was also hoped the City could deter federal agents and ask for compliance with the ordinance at that time. The purpose of the ordinance was a local law where the City would require compliance and adherence to the local laws in place. Non-compliance would result in seeking remedies through judicial intervention. (Martinez-Rubin)
• For federal civil immigration activities happening on non-City-owned properties, clarified the City did not have the ability to regulate private property in the same way. Private property owners or an individual homeowner, as an example, could choose what they want to do or allow on their own property. The rights of residents of the City of Pinole when faced with that type of interaction with law enforcement, was that they were individuals, and if the individual was being detained wrongfully, as an example, there could be a cause of action against the federal government and an individual right of action, not something in which the City could intervene. (Martinez-Rubin) • For the purposes of the ordinance on City-owned and City-controlled properties, the ordinance would not be required to be amended at this time to include any training that would be needed for City staff, identifying properties and the like, and similar to how the issue came up initially, staff could bring items forward on an as-needed basis. (Murphy) • As to concerns whether a city ordinance was enforceable to a federal agency was acknowledged, with again the statement that the enforcement was untested, and with jurisdictions having their own authority related to their own property in terms of property rights and police powers provided to cities under the Constitution. Staff understood the challenge would be compliance. (Toms)
• Of the jurisdictions in the Bay Area that had similar ordinances, whether having been adopted or were pending adoption, and whether those ordinances had been tested, it was noted that the cities of San Francisco and Berkeley had Sanctuary City polices which included those types of prohibitions on the use of city-owned property. The Berkeley City Council had directed its city staff to move forward with an ordinance in addition to Sanctuary City policies, which had yet to be acted upon by the Berkeley City Council.

Santa Clara County and the City of San Jose may be a bit further along but staff was uncertain of their exact status. (Toms)
• As to whether the federal administration would possibly limit federal funds for designated Sanctuary Cities and cities like that, staff was aware those issues had been tested but had not been resolved. As an example, the City of San Francisco was a Sanctuary City, and yet it still received millions in federal funds and those funds had not yet been restricted.

Staff had communicated with the City Attorney for the City of San Francsico and learned the attorney spent most of his time in litigation against the federal government and was actively pushing back against efforts to strip grant funding. The conflict between the federal government and local jurisdictions was an active legal issue. (Toms)

Page 26 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 22 ends

• If the City of Pinole was brought forward as a test case in the enforcement of the ordinance, the legal costs would depend on the form enforcement took. If the City was forced to file a legal injunction, as an example, that involved one brief to be filed in short order, with a hearing typically scheduled between 30 and 60 days and which may involve around 10-hours of City Attorney time. The more expensive longer drawn-out legal challenge/appeal process would be something the City Council would have to discuss in a Closed Session. (Toms)
• Acknowledged there was State legislation restricting ICE access to schools and health care facilities, which laws would go into effect soon along with policies adopted by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors restricting ICE access to certain facilities. (Mayor Sasai)
• Staff had no specific conversations with anyone at the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department in terms of enforcement and training but could reach out and provide that information to the City Council, if so directed. If a state law was passed restricting ICE activities at schools or health care facilities and if the City was enforcing state law, there would then be the protection of state law, with the State Attorney General’s Office to step in and defend any violation of state law. The proposed ordinance would be a local ordinance with the City on its own. (Mayor Sasai)
• Clarified again the City-owned and City-controlled properties that would be covered under the proposed ordinance with clarification provided on how PPD staff would be trained, with a request for compliance with the ordinance being the main focus. The intent was for staff to be aware of the ordinance, how and when it applied and having some conversations around engagement with ICE Officers if they were present on City-owned or Citycontrolled property. (Mayor Sasai) • Acknowledged the General Assembly of the National League of California Cities Conference recently adopted a resolution, Advancing Federal Immigration Policy to Empower Economic Growth Across Key Industries, including agriculture, construction, hospitality, health care, technology, science and entrepreneurship, and there were economic impacts with those activities in the country. If federal immigration activities were occurring regardless of the ordinance, whether or not the City would expend resources would depend on the activities involved. Historically, there had been some questions about reported sightings of ICE agents and the City had used some staff time and resources to try to confirm whether those sightings were correct. In that regard, the City had already expended limited resources. (Murphy)
• Clarified the City was interested in securing federal funding for projects and in order to so there was a requirement to comply and agree to comply with all executive orders and any future executive orders, presenting a question for any agency interested in securing federal funding, whether to comply with all of the executive orders, and to what extent the proposed action would result in federal funds being clawed back or the loss of federal funds. Clarified the fear among agencies, and the examples throughout the region, and while there had been threats, there had not been a broad sweeping removal and clawing back of federal funds, and that included some sanctuary cities. While staff did not say that would happen, monitoring of the situation continued. (Mayor Sasai)

Page 27 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 23 ends

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Cathy McFarland asked that local, county, state and federal laws be honored, while each law may be something different. She expressed concern the ordinance was putting a line between City and private property, which did not make sense and which made a difference in how she was treated.

Rafael Menis supported the ordinance, although it would not do as much as many would hope to protect residents from the arbitrary and capricious actions of federal enforcement agents. He highlighted the surveillance clause in the ordinance, as shown on Page 250 of 258 of the agenda packet pursuant to Section 2, Addition of Chapter 2.68 to Title 2 of the Pinole Municipal Code, Section 2.68.020 Definitions, Surveillance, and he read that section into the record. He understood based on the text of the ordinance that if the ordinance was not adopted, federal agents could through an administrative warrant or other civil procedure, compel the City to turn over information from its camera systems from license plate readers or any drone operations and the City would have no power to object, which would effectively commandeer local resources for federal purposes.

Mr. Menis commented a number of people assumed immigration enforcement would act in a civil manner, but they had seen ICE agents go out of their way to appear masked, go without identification, use weapons of disruption to cause as much disorientation and disruption as possible to install terror as their primary objective, and not just to pick up people they were trying to grab but to strike fear into communities. That fundamentally was not what government was about and the City of Pinole should not take part in these tactics of fear and terror, and to the extent City property was used to implement those tactics, the City at the very least should be able to say you can’t do this and we will undertake a legal process to require it to stop. He was not happy it could take up to 30 days for any action to combat non-compliance with the ordinance, to actually occur, but apparently that was the limitation of the process the City could actually undertake.

Bob Kopp was opposed to Pinole being a Sanctuary City given that every Sanctuary City in the United States was where criminals went to get away from law enforcement and they served as a haven for criminals. He cited the City of Oakland as an example. He emphasized the City of Pinole did not have the law enforcement to protect the City now since it did not pay enough to retain police officers in Pinole. He reported one police officer had been beaten badly recently and was unable to get the backup needed for her at the right time to provide assistance. He questioned stirring up something with the federal government and if the federal government deployed enforcement into the City, with only two officers on duty 24/7, he questioned where the City would get the people needed to watch what federal officers were doing. He suggested the federal officers would not care about an ordinance and the City could not afford to have the City Attorney enforce the ordinance since the City did not have the funds. He did not want to see the PPD have to fight with federal agents, be involved with the federal government or be put into a position where they could be injured. He could not see an ordinance would do anything to help the City and if the federal government was angered, it could pull funds from the City.

Gabriel Sandoval, Pinole speaking on behalf of State Senator Jesse Arreguín, reported the Senator was in strong support of the ordinance as was he as a Pinole resident.

Page 28 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 24 ends

Mr. Sandoval spoke to the chaos and disorderly violence from immigration enforcement and the inhumane treatment during enforcement activities. While the City was limited in its ability, this was a good action to protect residents and to make the community feel safe and supported. He did not feel a government agency like ICE was welcome in Pinole and this type of treatment of the immigrant and refugee community should be outright condemned. He suggested that history would not be kind to those who did not step up to prevent this kind of injustice.

Mr. Sandoval referenced Senate Bill (SB) 54, the state sanctuary law, and noted if someone committed a violent crime they could be arrested and handed over to ICE, with a process on the books for those situations. A portion of the ordinance also allowed for a process for this, not just raids or chaos, and a warrant was different than just showing up and kidnapping people. In terms of the effects on federal funding, he suggested that should not be considered since the City would likely lose the funding anyway for being in a blue state. He understood some communities had already had their funding pulled, whether or not they were a sanctuary city or county. Contra Costa County and North Richmond had EPA funds pulled, with the government cutting funding anyway, with cities and counties in the community already hit hard. He urged the City Council to pass the ordinance and possibly go further such as preventing information sharing, such as through license plate reader information or stronger protections for those in the PPD to go a step further and prohibit information sharing with federal agencies.

Ann Moriarty supported the ordinance and described Pinole as a community that brought in all parts, government, organizational and law enforcement, which all worked together to protect the weakest and most vulnerable. She appreciated the comments from the prior speaker, referencing SB 54 and noting that immigrants were not criminals, and the City was not inviting criminals into the City by passing the ordinance. Serving and protecting and looking out for people, was a strong concern the community had with the Police Chief coming from the Contra Costa Sheriff’s Department. She thanked the Police Chief for being present and being able to address the issues.

She had hoped for a stronger response, but seeing the need to work together, everyone had to do their part and this ordinance was one part the City Council could do.

Peter Murray found this was a red or blue issue, whether Republican or Democrat and the City did not deserve that. As to whether the City should have declared a State of Emergency, he found that suggestion ridiculous given that there was no issue in Pinole, and such declaration was not needed. He had communicated with a member of the PPD who stated the PPD was unable to handle a lot of the things that were going on in the City, and that the City was in a tough situation if someone was hurt when the City was undermanned. He questioned why get involved with this proposal to begin with.

Irma Ruport supported the ordinance and emphasized everyone were immigrants. She asked that the ordinance be advertised and communicated to all residents in Pinole, with signage posted in all public locations including a telephone number to contact the City. She suggested the PPD not be placed between immigrant enforcement activities and suggested the PPD could stand aside. This was a national issue impacting all neighborhoods, with immigrant enforcement agents picking up American citizens, which was not right. If someone did not believe in the ordinance or in the possibility of being affected by immigration enforcement activities, when and if it happened the ordinance would provide some protection from what was occurring daily, nationally.

Page 29 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 25 ends

Ms. Ruport agreed that training should be provided on what the City could or could not do or should or should not do, and suggested the City had the laws and rights behind them and if it cost money, it was the right of protection and citizens were paying for that freedom. She urged the City Council to adopt the ordinance.

Maria Alegria thanked the City Council for considering the ordinance and strongly urged the City Council to support it. As local elected leaders, the City Council’s primary responsibility was to ensure the health, safety and wellbeing of those who lived, worked, went to school, shopped and visited the City of Pinole. Cities were being bombarded by the invasion of ICE agents, stopping at nothing to violate basic Constitutional rights and protections. This was the most racist immigration enforcement by ICE she had witnessed in her life as a resident of West County and Pinole, with the agency clearly targeting people who looked like her, people of Mexican descent, whose family were immigrants from Mexico.

Since the 1940s when her family came to the City of Richmond, Ms. Alegria explained the immigration policy had been known as the Family Unification Act. ICE was destroying immigrant families and communities, which was unacceptable. She was proud the school her grandfather and granddaughter attended, Ellerhorst Elementary School, was a safe haven for students and who clearly stated ICE was not allowed on school premises. Contra Costa County had similar policies in place. Pinole needed bold leadership in these dark times, and she urged the City Council to stand united in protecting democracy and human decency in the City. She again urged adoption of the ordinance to ensure public safety so that community members felt safe accessing City services and facilities, and to prevent the voluntary use of City resources to support federal civil immigration enforcement.

Council member Martinez-Rubin left the meeting at this time.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Mayor Sasai asked the City Attorney to respond to the public comments about surveillance in the ordinance and federal immigration enforcement having access to footage from City equipment.

City Attorney Casher explained the ordinance would prohibit surveillance on City property. The use of federal law enforcement using a drone or surveillance equipment on City property would be prohibited. If there was a request for PPD body camera footage, it would likely be because it was evidence in a federal investigation or crime, accompanied by a warrant or search warrant and not prohibited under the ordinance. In that instance, the City would comply, even if it meant sharing information the City had in evidence but in response to a judicial order or federal warrant.

Mayor Sasai understood information sharing was already covered in sanctuary city state laws and the City could not provide data to federal immigration enforcement unless there was a risk of public safety as well as the judicial warrant or other documentation to request information.

City Attorney Casher clarified he was not familiar with every aspect of SB 54, but believed that was the case as it related to judicial warrants.

Mayor Sasai asked the City Attorney to clarify the difference between the proposed ordinance and sanctuary city policies.

Page 30 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 26 ends

City Attorney Casher clarified the adoption of the ordinance would not make the City of Pinole a sanctuary city, which was a separate and distinct action. The cities of Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco had taken different steps to become sanctuary cities and a safe haven for the immigrant community. The ordinance was tailored and applied only to City-owned and City-controlled properties in the City of Pinole, as it related to civil and federal immigration enforcement action.

Mayor Sasai thanked the City Attorney and the Acting City Manager/Police Chief for their collaboration over the past few months on this topic, members of the public for their input, Senator Arreguín’s Office for support of the ordinance and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, who issued a formal letter via email that her office supported the ordinance.

Mayor Sasai suggested the City should be proactive in such matters. The first time this issue had come to mind was when the area was under threat of the National Guard being deployed to the San Francisco Bay Area and ICE enforcement within the radius of the San Francisco Bay Area.

While the deployment was ultimately canceled, residents expressed fear of the potential. He referenced correspondence received from an educator with the WCCUSD, that was included in the agenda packet, and who had reported students and their families in West County had been very concerned going to school, being in areas that should be a safe haven and the possibility of being arrested, not only for those who were undocumented, but the fact people who were documented had been arrested and detained. He emphasized the importance of due process in this country and highlighted the restrictions in the ordinance, that federal immigration enforcement carry out their duties in a lawful and respectful manner. The ordinance was asking federal law enforcement to do their job lawfully and he recognized the City would have to test how the ordinance proceeded and how other communities had done. He supported the ordinance.

Council member Toms thanked the members of the public who provided comments. She had looked at both sides of the issue. On the negative side, she questioned the need for the City to risk federal funding from an administration that was deeply unfair. She also questioned the timing given that there were deeper pocket jurisdictions like the cities of San Francisco, Santa Clara and Berkeley that could test an ordinance whereas that would be a challenge for the City of Pinole.

The other side of the argument was that this ordinance was very narrow and sent an important message to residents.

Council member Toms reported she had become aware of numerous people detained by ICE who were in the country legally including a woman from the City of El Sobrante who was arrested, detained and sent back to India. In that case, the person’s family was in the Bay Area and had followed all of the regular check-ins, was here legally and the person detained was threatened with deportation to a country in Africa but ultimately had been sent to India. She recognized the many issues with the ordinance, including the potential financial impacts to the City, but she supported the ordinance as an important message to Pinole residents.

Mayor Pro Tem Tave also commented on the issues that had occurred in 2018 and 2019 when people were put in cages. Now, people were being kidnapped by masked individuals with ICE on their uniform or hoody, or not uniformed at all, and there could be people out there who may believe this will never happen in Pinole, but what happened in Los Angeles, as an example, had been a full-on disaster. He found the ordinance to be fair and a step in the right direction to send a message to Pinole residents, that the City Council was listening and the oath Council members took mattered, and the City Council was there to protect them.

Page 31 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 27 ends

While the ordinance may not go far enough, there was some level of what could or could not be done. Mayor Pro Tem Tave was disheartened that the City had to have this conversation, but given the state of the country, he supported the ordinance but would like more discussion about what it would look like if there were to be an incident and what would happen in terms of City Council direction moving forward. The ordinance showed the City Council was taking this issue seriously and there was a need to protect the most vulnerable which must be aligned somewhere.

The state was trying to draw the line on what the federal government could or could not do, with numerous lawsuits filed, and local government had to keep a strong pulse on the community and its concerns.

Mayor Sasai understood some may consider the ordinance to be a nuisance, but this matter was personal for him as someone who worked for a nonprofit that served vulnerable communities facing those issues and as someone from an immigrant family. He detailed his family’s ancestry and background with his mother from the Philippines and Japanese-American family members, who although were naturalized citizens had been detained without due process, rounded up and incarcerated in Tule Lake, California for crimes not committed during the period of World War II.

This issue was about due process. The City Council should take action, set an example and it could have a ripple effect across the region.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Sasai/Council member Murphy to waive the first reading and introduce an ordinance adding Chapter 2.28 to Title 2 of the Pinole Municipal Code restricting the Use of City-Owned or City-Controlled Property for Federal Civil Immigration Enforcement Activities.

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

Absent: Martinez-Rubin
City Attorney Casher reiterated the item would come back for a second read of the ordinance on December 16, 2025.

Mayor Sasai asked when the item returned that staff provide additional guidance on how the ordinance would be communicated to the public, and he asked about the communication plan around the ordinance, whether a press release or direct communications would be provided to residents.

City Attorney Casher advised some information could include communications strategy for the second read of the item, with staff to come up with suggestions that could be included in the staff report for the City Council to consider.

11. OLD BUSINESS: None

12. NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion of Process for Establishing the Office of Elected Mayor. Action:

Receive Report and Provide Direction (Eric Casher)

Page 32 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 28 ends

City Attorney Casher provided a PowerPoint presentation on the process to establish an Elected Mayor in the City of Pinole, which included an overview of the future agenda item request:
procedural requirements for establishing an Elected Mayor; election timelines; powers of the Mayor; additional powers of an Elected Mayor; differences between a Strong Mayor and Elected Mayor; neighboring cities who had Elected Mayors and the fiscal impact to place a ballot measure on the 2026 ballot, along with additional staff costs.

City Attorney Casher asked the City Council to receive the presentation on the process for establishing the office of Elected Mayor and provide direction to staff on next steps.

Responding to questions from the City Council, City Attorney Casher clarified:
• The procedural requirements for placing an item on the ballot as outlined in the PowerPoint presentation and the three questions to be potentially asked on the ballot, as outlined in the December 2, 2025 staff report, did not all have to be included on the ballot, in that one question could be posed to the voters asking whether they wanted to have an Elected Mayor, with the decision of the term to be made at a later date. Or, all three questions could be asked together on the ballot. The City Council may decide the term of the Mayorship if the first two questions were included on the ballot. If the item were to move forward, staff would come back with additional information How the question was shown on the ballot would have to be researched based on how it had been done by other agencies. (Mayor Sasai)
• As to the timeline for a Request for Proposal (RFP) for polling, staff was close to having the RFP go out to bring on a polling consultant. Staff had discussed if the item were to move forward, staff could add the question about potential future options to generate revenue to one of the questions asked by a polling consultant. (Murphy)

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Kent Moriarty commented on the downside of an Elected Mayor, such as the financial cost, with an estimate of $25,000 for the ballot measure, unknown legal costs, staff time, consultants and potential additional pay for an Elected Mayor. Another cost could be less representation. He suggested there was a benefit to each Council member rotating into the Mayor position. Each Council member was voted into position by residents and when the Mayor role was rotated, those votes were better represented. He expressed concern with the time being spent to discuss the expenditure of resources and money to solve a problem that did not exist. He saw no benefit other than to a Mayor who had more power, which in his opinion, was the crux of the matter. He was uncomfortable discussing the expenditure of funds for a change that would result in giving one Council member more power and at the same time, the City would be spending lots of money as a result of the two recent City Managers who appeared to have been pushed out by the City Council. There had been little transparency and it appeared the situation was motivated by some Council members seeking more power. He reported the cost to the City for former City Manager Andrew Murray’s departure was $301,228 and the cost due to the recent departure of City Manager Kelcey Young, while unknown could be similar. He characterized the changing of the role of the Mayor as bad optics.

Page 33 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 29 ends

Ann Moriarty was disappointed that the City had to go through this process. It seemed that Pinole bred this kind of “only I can fix it’ political environment, similar to the President, which was chilling, and this kind of political ambition sent the City spinning, particularly without transparency. The City lost two competent City Managers in a row, continuity was wrecked and at the same time, some believed an Elected Mayor would maintain continuity. The hubris and entitlement were remarkable, and rather than use City resources to pay staff to produce reports on how one could further their own political ambitions, it would be better to remember the commitment to the citizens of Pinole. She stated this situation was similar to when two Council members attempted to end term limits that voters had approved, which did not go so well for those two Council members, and she did not anticipate this maneuver would go well either.

Rafael Menis appreciated the way the item had been brought forward. It was not being brought forward immediately before the next Mayor was due to be appointed and had been done in a more organized and orderly way as a matter of public policy. He suggested it may be worthwhile to have a longer duration term for Mayor since having the shift between Mayors had resulted in a dramatic shift in terms of policy, how meetings were managed, and the overall flow of discussions and it had been challenging to adjust year after year. There was some merit to that, but he had questions about the costs, and asked if the City would seek an additional salary associated with the Elected Mayor role or whether it would be treated like a regular Council seat, but with additional responsibilities. He also asked whether the Mayor role would be elected at-large and Council members elected in a district-based level, and whether everyone would be elected atlarge or at a district-based level.

While not part of the agenda item, Mr. Menis suggested this topic would likely come up if the Council decided to move forward with an Elected Mayor and clarity would be needed how the electorate would be represented in the election process. He was neutral, leaning towards positive on the agenda item question, since he found there was legitimacy to a direct election of a Mayor for a given term but the City could also continue things the way it was and there would not be a huge problem.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Tave/Mayor Sasai to Extend the City Council meeting to 11:20 p.m.

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

Absent: Martinez-Rubin
Irma Ruport, a 50-year resident, commented the City had gone through the voting process for the Mayor and City Council in terms of rotation and during her time in the City, she had seen Council members vote for someone not to be Mayor when it was their time. She suggested the question should be posed to the voters. The City had been in a sink or swim environment on some decisions; many decisions had not been done properly and the City Council made decisions and the public was unaware what was going on. She cited the Faria House as a possible museum as an example. In that case, the current City Council voted that down. She urged the City Council to let the people decide.

Page 34 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 30 ends

Ms. Ruport reiterated that the City did not know what was going on, particularly with respect to the recent loss of the City Manager. She urged the facts be provided, the truth be brought forward, and that the elected City Council look out for residents and make decisions for the benefit of the community and not for special interests. She pointed out three Council seats would be open in 2026, and she planned to be present with everyone’s record so that the truth would come out.

Peter Murray had spoken on this issue in the past. The City had a total of five Council members for years with everyone having the opportunity to serve as Mayor. As one who had served on the City Council, he had learned how the process worked and what the constituency was all about.

He suggested the process of an Elected Mayor reeked of narcissism, and that someone wanted this badly, while the current process had worked well in the past. He commented there were things not being discussed that were in the documents, such as a Strong Mayor, and suggested someone was bringing that into the equation. A Strong Mayor and a Charter City had been mentioned, and there were people who wanted a Charter City, which would go along with a Strong Mayor where the City would be managed differently. He opposed putting that power into one person’s hands. With five Council members, hopefully at least one person would inform the public and save the community from going down a path that could bankrupt the City and place it in a dire situation. He did not support an Elected Mayor.

Debbie Long noted a few years ago a former City Council member tried not to have the established Mayor rotation process followed with the suggestion that only those who received the highest vote could be mayor, but the people protested loud and clear. Shortly thereafter, the City Council wanted the City to become a Charter City, only for the purpose of passing a Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT). At that time, it had been made known a Charter City would include an Elected or Strong Mayor. The City Council had vehemently denied that was one of its objectives.

The City Council was now on that same path, and given the Council majority that always voted 3- 2, she assumed this item would move forward. She emphasized it had been determined that a form of a Strong Mayor could be in a General Law City, at least according to her research. Most likely, she suggested that majority would increase their pay and expense accounts and the Mayor would be paid as if full time, and likely seek pension benefits as well. She pointed out a Strong Mayor would have the right to fire and hire Department Heads. Once it had a Strong Mayor, the Council may act in more of a legislative role, with the Mayor responsible for the day-to-day operations. The Mayor would also control the agenda and have the power to appoint and create commissions and commissioners.

Ms. Long suggested the public would likely be told that was not the intention and that this agenda item request was intended to create continuity; however, since Council members may be elected for 12-years, there was already that continuity. She suggested this issue was about power and egos. The City had gotten along for almost 125-years without an Elected Mayor, had done well and had a rotating Mayor, which created checks and balances of those powers being sought.

Ms. Long added that not long ago, a Council member told a Department Head that he disagreed with that “you work for me,” and while not true at the time, gave insight as to what would become of the City if it had an Elected or Strong Mayor. She suggested the Council had already made up its mind to approve an Elected Mayor that would be voted upon by the people, but rest assured the Council’s spending habits would be put out there for the community to weigh-in on as well as the cost of this new position.

Page 35 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 31 ends

Since the Council favored taxing the public and continued to spend without accountability or safeguards, Ms. Long stated she would continue to inform the public of the Council’s tax agenda.

She further commented and notified the City Attorney that should this item move forward on the ballot, she would like to be notified when a Statement of Opposition could be submitted, and for any other tax measures that may make it to the ballot.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Council member Toms was opposed to the proposal since the rotating Mayor process worked fine. When she had been Mayor, she had been able to adjust her work schedule to address the additional work as the Mayor. This had been a busy year for the current Mayor and would be busy for the upcoming Mayor. One year at a time would allow adjustment of work schedules to take on the additional work. An Elected Mayor may be looking at someone for two or four years, which may deter some people from running, since they may not be able to take the time needed to modify their work schedule. Also, the process of an Elected Mayor for a two- or four-year cycle could result in the loss of an experienced Council member who might run for mayor and lose, creating a vacancy for which the rest of the Council would have to appoint someone or have a Special Election. For every election cycle, there would be the potential for the creation of vacancies, requiring the City Council to appoint someone to complete a term, which did not promote consistency. Rotation of the Mayor allowed each Council member the opportunity for the experience of running meetings since the position was primarily ceremonial. She suggested there was no need to place an item on the ballot and she opposed the additional costs. She suggested citizens did not want to see this kind of issue on the ballot, which was not meaningful to running a successful City.

Council member Murphy supported the item and allowing residents to decide how they wanted the City to be governed and he was unsure why increasing civic engagement and allowing residents to decide was a problem. As a Council that prided itself on civic and public engagement, he was confused why this continued to be a question. He referred to other cities in the Bay Area and the state that had Elected Mayors. As someone who received a lot of votes from residents, he suggested the City had a mandate to allow residents to decide on things outside of just taxes, and residents should choose both the Mayor and the structure that holds that Mayor accountable to ensure the person making decisions about various issues and essential services was directly answerable to those who experienced those decisions daily.

Council member Murphy added that cities including Pinole, had moved from an archaic approach from a rotational Mayor. Mayors may either be selected through a rotational term process or the public elected the Mayor directly. The current system emphasized shared leadership among Council members, but also meant the residents had no direct role in choosing who represented their City as their Mayor and he suggested the residents deserved the respect of holding their own office accountable to taxpayers.

Council member Murphy suggested the proposed initiative, which he brought up several times for City staff to consider, would change the current system from an internal Council decision to a public election and allow residents an opportunity to vote on this proposal. Rather than choosing a Mayor behind the Council dais, that choice would move into the hands of voters. An Elected Mayor with a public mandate carried clear legitimacy and spoke for the entire City, which was in the ordinance, as the chief spokesperson for the City.

Page 36 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 32 ends

An Elected Mayor would also provide greater transparency and help residents understand exactly who was responsible for results, and if the Mayor failed to deliver, voters not the City Council, had the power to remove them at the next election, which was a direct and powerful accountability.

This change would not change the Council/City Manager form of government or the City Manager’s responsibility, but determine who selected the Mayor and how that selection was made. For the City Council, it would shift the responsibility of choosing the Mayor from the Council Chambers to the ballot box, and ultimately government and governance should not be something done to a community but be shaped by the community and allow residents the authority to elect their Mayor, which would strengthen leadership, deepen the commitment to civic engagement and ensure that power rested with the people.

Council member Murphy stated he would continue to support this initiative since he believed this was something that would change the City and he noted this same process had been done for the past 100+ years over and over again. He asked that residents consider the decision themselves, which was why he supported this measure.

Vice Mayor Pro Tem Tave asked about the next step if the item moved forward, to which City Attorney Casher advised the next action of the City Council would be for staff to bring forward a staff report and resolution to place the item on the ballot. Staff sought direction on the timing if the item moved forward, whether to consider a ballot measure for the June Primary or November election. He did not believe there would be enough time for polling since the City would need a Council resolution approved by February 2026 to get it on the March 6, 2026 County Election cycle. The City Council already provided direction to put out an RFP to bring on a polling consultant to ask a couple of different questions about property tax measures and bonds, and if the City Council wanted to include a question about an Elected Mayor as part of that effort that could be folded in.

City Attorney Casher stated the RFP was not yet out, and would take a couple of weeks to put out and get responses. Once there was a consultant engaged for the polling around January/February, the consultant would have to then do the polling, get the results and present the data to the City Council, which process would not allow enough time to meet the June Primary.

The work could be done to meet the November election. If there was no interest in the polling, it would only involve a staff report and resolution to be approved by the City Council to meet the June Primary.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Sasai/Mayor Pro Tem Tave to Extend the City Council meeting to 11:30 p.m.

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

Absent: Martinez-Rubin
Council member Murphy noted in the past polling had been done for financial matters on the ballot primarily to decide what was the most acceptable by residents. In this case, polling was not needed.

Page 37 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 33 ends

Council member Murphy offered a motion, seconded by Mayor Sasai to direct staff to prepare the necessary documents and actions to place a measure on the ballot regarding the method of selecting the Mayor of Pinole. This preparation should include coordination with the County Registrar of Voters to identify the earliest available election date that allowed for consolidation with a County administered election.

Staff was further directed to return to the City Council with the required resolutions, timeline, cost estimates and other procedural steps needed to advance the ballot measure for City Council consideration.

On the motion, Mayor Sasai explained when he first thought of this concept he had been neutral but when he became Mayor his perception of the role quickly shifted. While a lot of the Mayor’s responsibilities were ceremonial, there was a significant number of community events and other responsibilities, including heightened community engagement and working closely with the City’s Executive Team.

Mayor Sasai stated there were clear Mayoral authorities laid out in the PMC that currently existed, one of which was setting the meeting agendas for City Council meetings and what that looked like for the year as Mayor, including prioritization and what was appropriate for staff. He found the role of Mayor was not, in fact, ceremonial but had a lot of cultural sway in the City and in the region, with each Mayor to decide how to best use that for residents. The role of Mayor was currently a part-time position with a payment of $7,000 per year. As the Mayor, he also worked full-time and it had been a struggle to answer everyone, to get everything people needed, and he had fallen short in some aspects since he could not be everywhere at once.

Mayor Sasai suggested the City of Pinole deserved someone who could do that and have an office that allowed for that level of engagement. He agreed this should be brought to the voters to decide, which was what democracy was all about. He also clarified the intent was to create the office of an Elected Mayor, not a Strong Mayor, which was something Pinole voters would decide, with the majority to determine the outcome.

Mayor Pro Tem Tave asked whether the intent was for the ballot measure to be on the June 2026 ballot.

Council member Murphy clarified the motion, as stated, included the statement, include coordination with the County Registrar of Voters to identify the earliest available election date that allows for consolidation with a County administered election, which would be the June 2026 election.

ACTION: Motion by Council member/ Murphy/Mayor Sasai to direct staff to prepare the necessary documents and actions to place a measure on the ballot regarding the method of selecting the Mayor of Pinole. This preparation should include coordination with the County Registrar of Voters to identify the earliest available election date that allows for consolidation with a County administered election. Staff is further directed to return to the City Council with the required resolutions, timeline, cost estimates and other procedural steps needed to advance the ballot measure for City Council consideration.

Page 38 of 133 ends

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – December 2, 2025

Page 34 ends

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

Absent: Martinez-Rubin

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.

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

14. ADJOURN to the Regular City Council Meeting of December 16, 2025 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

At 11:20 p.m., Mayor Sasai adjourned to a Regular City Council Meeting on December 16, 2025 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

Submitted by:
_________________________________
Heather Bell-Spears CMC
City Clerk
Approved by City Council:

Page 39 of 133 ends

Page 40 of 133 ends

Page 41 of 133 ends

Page 42 of 133 ends

Page 43 of 133 ends

Page 44 of 133 ends

Page 45 of 133 ends

Page 46 of 133 ends

Page 47 of 133 ends

Page 48 of 133 ends

Page 49 of 133 ends

Page 50 of 133 ends

Page 51 of 133 ends

Page 52 of 133 ends

Page 53 of 133 ends

Page 54 of 133 ends

Page 55 of 133 ends

Page 56 of 133 ends

Page 57 of 133 ends

Page 58 of 133 ends

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.C.

DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2025
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Stacy Shell, Human Resources Director, 510-741-3864, [email protected] Charlene Davis, Human Resources Analyst, 510-724-9006, [email protected] SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO INCREASE MINIMUM WAGE RATES

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution to increase the minimum pay rates and step increments of certain unrepresented temporary/seasonal classifications to conform to the 2026 California Minimum Wage Increase and maintain an appropriate differential between steps and within classification series, effective January 1, 2026, and amend the Master Salary Schedule pursuant to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) recommendation.

BACKGROUND
Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5, CalPERS recommends that all CalPERS employers maintain their compensation levels in one publicly available document, approved and adopted by the governing body.

Beginning January 1, 2026, California’s minimum wage will increase to $16.90 per hour. Staff has proposed amendments to the Master Salary Schedule to update the minimum pay rates and step increments of certain unrepresented temporary/seasonal classifications to conform to the State minimum wage and maintain an appropriate differential between steps and within the classification series. The updated Master Salary Schedule includes the State minimum wage increase.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
On August 1, 2025, the California Department of Finance calculated the average U.S.

Consumer Price Index for the 12-month period from July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025, increase by 2.49 percent compared to the 12-month period from July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024. As a result, pursuant to section 1182.12(c), the minimum wage shall increase by 2.49 percent to $16.90 per hour and shall be implemented for all employers on January 1, 2026.

Pursuant to Personnel Rule 12 – Compensation, employees are assigned job classifications with salary ranges adopted by the City Council. The City Council has the authority to approve changes to unrepresented temporary/seasonal classifications without engagement in the meet and confer process because the employees allocated to this employee group are not represented by a labor union.

Page 59 of 133 ends

Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the amended Master Salary Schedule to update the minimum pay rates and step increments of certain unrepresented temporary/seasonal classifications to conform to the State minimum wage.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of the increased minimum pay rates and step increments for the remainder of FY 2025-2026 is estimated to be $2,865 to adjust the salaries of affected unrepresented temporary/seasonal employees, effective January 1, 2026.

Communications: $1,879
Community Services: $986
The cost for the salary adjustments will be absorbed within the Communications and Community Services Department’s current budget.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
B. Exhibit A: Master Salary Schedule Adopted

Page 60 of 133 ends

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2025-XX

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

CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF THE

AMENDED MASTER SALARY SCHEDULE TO INCLUDE MINIMUM WAGE UPDATES WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the current Master Salary Schedule to conform to the 2026 California Minimum Wage Increase for the minimum pay rates of certain unrepresented temporary/seasonal classifications; and WHEREAS, the City desires to update the pay rate step increments of those classifications to maintain an appropriate differential between steps.

WHEREAS, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) has requested all CalPERS employers list their compensation levels on one document, approved and adopted by the governing body, in accordance with Title 2 California Code of Regulations Section 570.5, and meeting all the following requirements thereof:
• Has been duly approved and adopted by the employer’s governing body in accordance with requirements of applicable public meetings laws; • Identifies the position title for every employee position; • Shows the pay rate for each identified position, which may be stated as a single amount or as multiple amounts within a range;
• Indicates the time base, including, but not limited to, whether the time base is hourly, daily, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, or annually; • Is posted at the office of the employer or immediately accessible and available for public review from the employer during normal business hours or posted on the employer’s internet website;
• Indicates an effective date and date of any revisions; • Is retained by the employer and available for public inspection for not less than five years; and
• Does not reference another document in lieu of disclosing the pay rate.

WHEREAS, the City now desires to amend the current Master Salary Schedule to include salary plan adjustments for previously approved salary range amendments; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pinole does hereby resolve the amendment of the Master Salary Schedule, attached hereto as

Page 61 of 133 ends

Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of December 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 16th day of December 202.
____________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk

Page 62 of 133 ends

Master Salary Schedule Adopted (Reso 2025-XX) EXHIBIT A

Page 1 ends

ELECTED OFFICIALS
City Treasurer 3,000 ANNUALLY as of 07/01/2016
Councilmembers Elected prior to 12/2024 6,750 ANNUALLY as of 01/2017 Councilmembers Elected on or after 12/2024 11,400 ANNUALLY as of 12/2024 Individual Employment Agreements, eff. 07/14/2025 Minimum Annual Minimum Hourly Maximum Annual Maximum Hourly City Manager $272,950.12 $ 131.2260
City Clerk $190,960.75 $ 91.8081
Executive, Management, Confidential, eff. 07/14/2025 Minimum Annual Minimum Hourly Maximum Annual Maximum Hourly Assistant City Manager $ 230,165.48 $ 110.6565 $ 279,881.23 $ 134.5583 Police Chief $ 230,165.48 $ 110.6565 $ 279,881.23 $ 134.5583 Development Services Director/City Engineer $ 219,205.16 $ 105.3871 $ 266,553.48 $ 128.1507 Community Development Director $ 199,278.43 $ 95.8069 $ 242,322.57 $ 116.5012 Finance Director $ 199,278.43 $ 95.8069 $ 242,322.57 $ 116.5012 Fire Chief $ 199,278.43 $ 95.8069 $ 242,322.57 $ 116.5012 Human Resources Director $ 199,278.43 $ 95.8069 $ 242,322.57 $ 116.5012 Public Works Director $ 199,278.43 $ 95.8069 $ 242,322.57 $ 116.5012 Police Commander $ 189,685.58 $ 91.1950 $ 230,657.66 $ 110.8931 Communications Director, eff. 03/04/2025 $ 181,064.43 $ 87.0502 $ 220,174.35 $ 105.8531 Community Services Director $ 181,064.43 $ 87.0502 $ 220,174.35 $ 105.8531 Building Official $ 172,441.43 $ 82.9045 $ 209,688.78 $ 100.8119 Fire Battalion Chief (contract for services, eff. 03/01/2023) $ 172,441.43 $ 82.9045 $ 209,688.78 $ 100.8119 Planning Manager $ 172,441.43 $ 82.9045 $ 209,688.78 $ 100.8119 Police Lieutenant $ 172,441.43 $ 82.9045 $ 209,688.78 $ 100.8119 Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager $ 172,441.43 $ 82.9045 $ 209,688.78 $ 100.8119 Capital Improvement & Environmental Program Manager $ 142,513.27 $ 68.5160 $ 173,296.14 $ 83.3155 Information Technology Manager, eff. 03/04/2025 $ 142,513.27 $ 68.5160 $ 173,296.14 $ 83.3155 Public Works Manager $ 142,513.27 $ 68.5160 $ 173,296.14 $ 83.3155 Recreation Manager $ 126,678.82 $ 60.9033 $ 154,041.44 $ 74.0584 Assistant to the City Manager $ 126,678.82 $ 60.9033 $ 154,041.44 $ 74.0584 Senior Accountant, eff. 03/18/2025 $ 111,712.66 $ 53.7080 $ 135,842.60 $ 65.3089 Accountant, eff. 03/18/2025 $ 101,556.83 $ 48.8254 $ 123,493.11 $ 59.3717 Human Resources Analyst $ 100,455.01 $ 48.2957 $ 122,153.29 $ 58.7275 Deputy City Clerk $ 96,809.33 $ 46.5429 $ 117,720.15 $ 56.5962 Human Resources Specialist $ 91,322.80 $ 43.9052 $ 111,048.52 $ 53.3887 Accounting Specialist, eff. 03/18/2025 $ 86,742.99 $ 41.7034 $ 105,479.48 $ 50.7113 Human Resources Technician $ 83,020.73 $ 39.9138 $ 100,953.20 $ 48.5352 Accounting Technician, eff. 03/18/2025 $ 68,753.69 $ 33.0547 $ 83,604.48 $ 40.1945 Bargaining Unit A
Monthly
A
Hourly
B
Monthly
B
Hourly
C
Monthly
C
Hourly
D
Monthly
D
Hourly
E
Monthly
E
Hourly
LOCAL 1230 @ 07/04/2022; Contract for services, eff.
03/01/2023
Fire Academy Recruit (EMT-1)* 5,493.53 31.6934
Fire Academy Recruit (EMT-P)* 6,397.76 36.9102
Firefighter 7,108.62 29.2938 7,464.06 30.7585 7,837.27 32.2964 8,229.14 33.9113 8,640.61 35.6069 Firefighter/Paramedic 7,819.48 32.2232 8,210.47 33.8343 8,621.00 35.5261 9,052.06 37.3024 9,504.67 39.1676 Fire Engineer 8,160.99 33.6304 8,569.05 35.3120 8,997.51 37.0776 9,447.39 38.9316 9,919.77 40.8782 Fire Captain 9,030.79 37.2148 9,482.34 39.0756 9,956.47 41.0294 10,454.30 43.0809 10,977.02 45.2350 PPEA @ 07/01/2024
Community Safety Specialist 6,193.36 35.7309 6,503.03 37.5175 6,828.19 39.3934 7,169.61 41.3631 7,528.09 43.4313 Dispatcher 7,043.34 40.6346 7,395.51 42.6664 7,765.29 44.7998 8,153.57 47.0398 8,561.25 49.3919 Lead Dispatcher 7,539.56 43.4974 7,916.54 45.6724 8,312.38 47.9560 8,728.01 50.3539 9,164.42 52.8716 Police Officer 8,927.81 51.5066 9,374.21 54.0820 9,842.93 56.7862 10,335.09 59.6255 10,851.86 62.6069 Police Sergeant 10,457.83 60.3336 10,980.73 63.3504 11,529.78 66.5180 12,106.28 69.8439 12,711.61 73.3362 * Monthly rate is calculated on a 40-hour workweek. Page 63 of 133 Master Salary Schedule Adopted (Reso 2025-XX) EXHIBIT A

Page 2 ends

Bargaining Unit A
Monthly
A
Hourly
B
Monthly
B
Hourly
C
Monthly
C
Hourly
D
Monthly
D
Hourly
E
Monthly
E
Hourly
AFSCME @ 07/14/2025
Accountant 8,463.07 48.8254 8,886.22 51.2667 9,330.53 53.8300 9,797.06 56.5215 10,286.91 59.3476 Accounting Specialist 7,228.57 41.7033 7,590.00 43.7885 7,969.50 45.9779 8,367.98 48.2768 8,786.38 50.6906 Administrative Coordinator 7,984.27 46.0631 8,383.48 48.3663 8,802.66 50.7846 9,242.79 53.3238 9,704.93 55.9900 Assistant Engineer 9,131.94 52.6843 9,588.54 55.3185 10,067.97 58.0844 10,571.37 60.9887 11,099.94 64.0381 Associate Civil Engineer 10,045.09 57.9525 10,547.35 60.8501 11,074.71 63.8926 11,628.45 67.0872 12,209.87 70.4416 Associate Planner 8,463.07 48.8254 8,886.22 51.2667 9,330.53 53.8300 9,797.06 56.5215 10,286.91 59.3476 Building Inspector I 7,481.07 43.1600 7,855.13 45.3180 8,247.88 47.5839 8,660.28 49.9631 9,093.29 52.4613 Building Inspector II 8,247.87 47.5839 8,660.27 49.9631 9,093.28 52.4612 9,547.94 55.0843 10,025.34 57.8385 Cable Access Coordinator 7,984.27 46.0631 8,383.48 48.3663 8,802.66 50.7846 9,242.79 53.3238 9,704.93 55.9900 Code Enforcement Officer I 7,481.07 43.1600 7,855.13 45.3180 8,247.88 47.5839 8,660.28 49.9631 9,093.29 52.4613 Code Enforcement Officer II 8,247.87 47.5839 8,660.27 49.9631 9,093.28 52.4612 9,547.94 55.0843 10,025.34 57.8385 Environmental Compliance Inspector 7,481.07 43.1600 7,855.13 45.3180 8,247.88 47.5839 8,660.28 49.9631 9,093.29 52.4613 Information Systems Administrator 7,984.29 46.0632 8,383.50 48.3664 8,802.68 50.7847 9,242.81 53.3239 9,704.95 55.9901 Information Systems Specialist 7,646.73 44.1158 8,029.07 46.3216 8,430.52 48.6376 8,852.05 51.0695 9,294.65 53.6230 Junior Engineer 8,301.77 47.8949 8,716.86 50.2896 9,152.71 52.8041 9,610.34 55.4443 10,090.86 58.2165 Laboratory Analyst I 8,640.09 49.8467 9,072.10 52.3390 9,525.70 54.9560 10,001.99 57.7038 10,502.09 60.5890 Laboratory Analyst II 9,525.70 54.9560 10,001.99 57.7038 10,502.09 60.5890 11,027.19 63.6184 11,578.55 66.7993 Laboratory Supervisor 10,826.00 62.4577 11,367.30 65.5806 11,935.67 68.8596 12,532.45 72.3026 13,159.07 75.9177 Management Analyst 8,453.45 48.7699 8,876.12 51.2084 9,319.93 53.7688 9,785.93 56.4573 10,275.22 59.2801 Police Services Supervisor 7,783.02 44.9020 8,172.17 47.1471 8,580.78 49.5045 9,009.82 51.9797 9,460.31 54.5787 PW Maintenance Supervisor 8,717.72 50.2946 9,153.61 52.8093 9,611.29 55.4497 10,091.85 58.2222 10,596.45 61.1333 Public Works Specialist 7,520.60 43.3881 7,896.63 45.5575 8,291.47 47.8354 8,706.04 50.2271 9,141.34 52.7385 Recreation Coordinator* 6,248.83 36.0509 6,561.27 37.8535 6,889.33 39.7461 7,233.80 41.7334 7,595.49 43.8201 Rental Inspector 7,481.09 43.1601 7,855.15 45.3182 8,247.90 47.5841 8,660.30 49.9633 9,093.31 52.4614 Project Manager 7,310.68 42.1770 7,676.21 44.2859 8,060.02 46.5001 8,463.03 48.8251 8,886.18 51.2664 Senior Accountant 9,309.39 53.7080 9,774.86 56.3934 10,263.61 59.2131 10,776.79 62.1738 11,315.63 65.2825 Senior Project Manager 8,463.07 48.8254 8,886.22 51.2667 9,330.53 53.8300 9,797.06 56.5215 10,286.91 59.3476 WWTP Operations Supervisor 10,826.00 62.4577 11,367.30 65.5806 11,935.67 68.8596 12,532.45 72.3026 13,159.07 75.9177 WPCP Supervisor 8,229.19 47.4761 8,640.65 49.8499 9,072.69 52.3424 9,526.32 54.9595 10,002.64 57.7075 * Monthly rate is calculated on a 40-hour workweek. Page 64 of 133 Master Salary Schedule Adopted (Reso 2025-XX) EXHIBIT A

Page 3 ends

Bargaining Unit A
Monthly
A
Hourly
B
Monthly
B
Hourly
C
Monthly
C
Hourly
D
Monthly
D
Hourly
E
Monthly
E
Hourly
LOCAL 1 @ 07/14/2025
Accounting Assistant I 3,553.54 20.5012 3,731.22 21.5263 3,917.78 22.6026 4,113.67 23.7327 4,319.35 24.9193 Accounting Assistant II 3,845.44 22.1852 4,037.71 23.2945 4,239.59 24.4592 4,451.57 25.6821 4,674.15 26.9663 Accounting Technician 5,729.47 33.0546 6,015.94 34.7074 6,316.74 36.4427 6,632.58 38.2649 6,964.21 40.1781 Administrative Assistant 6,364.37 36.7175 6,682.59 38.5534 7,016.72 40.4811 7,367.55 42.5051 7,735.93 44.6304 Cable Access Technician 6,460.97 37.2748 6,784.02 39.1386 7,123.22 41.0955 7,479.38 43.1503 7,853.35 45.3078 Community Service Officer 6,254.26 36.0823 6,566.98 37.8864 6,895.32 39.7807 7,240.09 41.7698 7,602.10 43.8582 Cook* 3,758.20 21.6819 3,946.11 22.7660 4,143.41 23.9043 4,350.58 25.0995 4,568.11 26.3545 Custodian 3,359.30 19.3806 3,527.27 20.3496 3,703.63 21.3671 3,888.81 22.4355 4,083.25 23.5572 Field Maintenance Mechanic 6,124.51 35.3337 6,430.73 37.1004 6,752.27 38.9554 7,089.88 40.9032 7,444.38 42.9483 Fleet Maintenance Mechanic 6,948.53 40.0877 7,295.96 42.0921 7,660.76 44.1967 8,043.80 46.4065 8,445.99 48.7268 Food Services Specialist 5,152.61 29.7266 5,410.24 31.2129 5,680.75 32.7736 5,964.79 34.4123 6,263.03 36.1329 Information Systems Assistant (formerly IS Technician I) 3,619.64 20.8825 3,800.62 21.9267 3,990.65 23.0230 4,190.18 24.1741 4,399.69 25.3828 Information Systems Technician (formerly IS Technician II) 6,579.87 37.9608 6,908.87 39.8588 7,254.31 41.8518 7,617.03 43.9444 7,997.88 46.1416 Laboratory Technician I 6,853.38 39.5387 7,196.04 41.5156 7,555.85 43.5914 7,933.64 45.7710 8,330.32 48.0595 Laboratory Technician II 7,555.84 43.5914 7,933.64 45.7710 8,330.32 48.0595 8,746.83 50.4625 9,184.17 52.9856 Lead Records & Property Specialist 5,917.51 34.1395 6,213.38 35.8464 6,524.05 37.6388 6,850.26 39.5207 7,192.77 41.4967 Office Assistant 5,046.63 29.1152 5,298.96 30.5710 5,563.91 32.0995 5,842.11 33.7045 6,134.21 35.3897 Permit Technician I 5,990.05 34.5580 6,289.55 36.2859 6,604.03 38.1002 6,934.23 40.0052 7,280.94 42.0054 Permit Technician II 6,604.03 38.1002 6,934.23 40.0052 7,280.94 42.0054 7,644.99 44.1057 8,027.24 46.3110 Permit Technician III 7,280.94 42.0054 7,644.98 44.1057 8,027.23 46.3109 8,428.59 48.6265 8,850.02 51.0578 Police Property Specialist 6,569.03 37.8982 6,897.48 39.7932 7,242.35 41.7828 7,604.47 43.8720 7,984.70 46.0656 Police Records Specialist 5,368.15 30.9701 5,636.56 32.5186 5,918.39 34.1445 6,214.31 35.8518 6,525.02 37.6444 PW Maintenance Worker Assistant 4,873.65 28.1172 5,117.34 29.5231 5,373.20 30.9993 5,641.86 32.5492 5,923.96 34.1767 PW Maintenance Worker 5,641.85 32.5491 5,923.94 34.1766 6,220.14 35.8854 6,531.14 37.6797 6,857.70 39.5637 PW Senior Maintenance Worker 6,126.30 35.3440 6,432.61 37.1112 6,754.24 38.9668 7,091.96 40.9151 7,446.55 42.9609 Recreation Activities Specialist* 5,151.88 29.7224 5,409.47 31.2085 5,679.95 32.7689 5,963.94 34.4074 6,262.14 36.1277 Wastewater Operator in Training 6,067.40 35.0043 6,370.77 36.7545 6,689.31 38.5922 7,023.78 40.5218 7,374.97 42.5479 Wastewater Operator 8,410.96 48.5248 8,831.51 50.9510 9,273.08 53.4986 9,736.74 56.1735 10,223.58 58.9822 Wastewater Senior Operator 9,475.04 54.6637 9,948.80 57.3969 10,446.24 60.2667 10,968.55 63.2801 11,516.98 66.4441 Wastewater Maintenance Mechanic 7,093.00 40.9212 7,447.65 42.9672 7,820.03 45.1156 8,211.03 47.3714 8,621.59 49.7399 Wastewater Sr. Maintenance Mechanic 8,377.05 48.3292 8,795.91 50.7456 9,235.70 53.2829 9,697.49 55.9470 10,182.36 58.7444 * Monthly rate is calculated on a 40-hour workweek. Page 65 of 133 Master Salary Schedule Adopted (Reso 2025-XX) EXHIBIT A

Page 4 ends

Bargaining Unit A
Monthly
A
Hourly
B
Monthly
B
Hourly
C
Monthly
C
Hourly
D
Monthly
D
Hourly
E
Monthly
E
Hourly
TRAINEE - BENEFITTED @ 07/14/2025
Police Officer Trainee* 7,602.10 43.8582
NON-BENEFITTED PART TIME @ 01/01/2026
Information Systems Technician 16.9000 17.7450 18.6323 19.5639 20.5421 Fire Reserves @ 01/01/2026
Reserve Fire Captain 16.9000
Reserve Fire Engineer 16.9000
Reserve Firefighter 16.9000
Interns @ 01/01/2026
Intern 16.9000 17.7450 18.6323 19.5639 20.5421
Police @ 01/01/2026
Crossing Guard 16.9000
Community Services Department @ 01/01/2026
Cable Equipment Operator I 16.9000 17.7450 18.6323 19.5639 20.5421 Cable Equipment Operator II 21.5692 22.6477 23.7800 24.9690 26.2175 Recreation Leader 16.9000 17.7450 18.6323 19.5639 20.5421 Senior Recreation Leader 21.5692 22.6477 23.7800 24.9690 26.2175 Rental Facility Custodian 16.9000 17.7450 18.6323 19.5639 20.5421 Rental Facility Senior Custodian 21.5692 22.6477 23.7800 24.9690 26.2175 Administration - 05/03/17
Records Management Administrator 60.0000
CONTRACT-Part Time
Public Works @ 07/01/05
Park Caretaker 20.7000
* Monthly rate is calculated on a 40-hour workweek. Page 66 of 133

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.D.

DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2025
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Lilly Whalen, Community Development Director, 510-724-9832, [email protected]
Kapil Amin, Sustainability Project Manager, N/A, [email protected] SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING, THROUGH THE FY 2026/27

BUDGET CYCLE, BUDGETING TO ENROLL ALL MUNICIPAL ENERGY

ACCOUNTS IN THE MCE DEEP GREEN OPTION CONSISTENT WITH THE

CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution (Attachment A), which authorizes, through the FY 2026/27 budget cycle, budgeting to enroll all municipal energy accounts in Marin Clean Energy’s Deep Green option consistent with the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.

BACKGROUND
In August 2024, the City Council adopted Pinole’s inaugural Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP), establishing a pathway to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 in alignment with Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 1279. Pinole’s 2021 municipal greenhouse gas inventory identifies building energy use as contributing 22% of total emissions. The CAAP includes a targeted municipal action that will completely eliminate these emissions by transitioning all municipal energy accounts to 100% renewable electricity:

CIO-1f Upgrade all municipal electricity accounts to MCE Deep Green by 2025 and electrify or otherwise decarbonize all municipal buildings and facilities by 2035 To support implementation of this action, staff requested a cost analysis from Marin Clean Energy (Attachment B) for upgrading all City accounts to the Deep Green option.

The CAAP also calls for broader community transition to Deep Green, with a goal of upgrading 95% of all community accounts via a City resolution by 2030. That future resolution will include identification of a funding or subsidy program to prevent bill increases for customers enrolled in California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) or Family Electric Rate Assistance (FERA) programs. By 2030, the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard requirements will also result in a significantly cleaner electricity grid, further supporting this transition.

As of today, only 326 of Pinole’s 7,330 MCE accounts (4.4%) have opted up to Deep Green.

For those who do, the average household bill increases by approximately $1 per month, while a typical small business may see an increase of approximately $3. MCE has stated several

Page 67 of 133 ends

jurisdictions have expressed interest in automatic opt-up programs that enroll constituents into MCE Deep Green by default, but none have to date.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
All City electricity accounts are currently enrolled in MCE Light Green, which provides a 69% renewable electricity mix. Opting up to Deep Green increases the electricity supply to 100% renewable energy, consistent with the City’s climate action goals. The City presently maintains 821 electricity accounts.

Over the past 12 months, the City’s total electricity costs were approximately $623,492.15, with total usage of about 4,255,666 kWh. MCE’s Deep Green premium is $0.0125 per kWh.

Assuming similar usage going forward, opting up all municipal accounts to Deep Green would result in an estimated additional cost of approximately $4,500 per month, or about $53,000 per year (see Attachment B).

Benefits of Deep Green include:
• Investment in local renewable projects: The Deep Green premium is reinvested into MCE’s Local Renewable Energy & Program Development Fund, which supports installation of EV charging stations and development of renewable energy projects across MCE’s service area.
• Climate alignment: Deep Green provides 100% renewable electricity, supporting Pinole’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) and municipal decarbonization goals.
• California Green Business credits: Participation helps qualify for credits toward California Green Business certification.
• LEED certification points: Deep Green enrollment can contribute points toward U.S.

Green Building Council LEED certification.
• Additional EV incentive: Customers receive an extra $500 rebate per EV charging port installed when enrolled in Deep Green.

In Contra Costa, the City would join the cities of Danville, El Cerrito, Lafayette, Martinez, Richmond, San Pablo, Walnut Creek, and unincorporated Contra Costa County with this Deep Green opt-up.

FISCAL IMPACT
Adoption of this resolution will result in an estimated fiscal impact of approximately $53,000 annually, assuming electricity usage remains consistent. Staff is actively pursuing strategies to reduce overall energy costs through conservation measures and on-site energy generation and storage.

The City recently completed a no-cost energy audit of all municipal facilities to identify retrofit opportunities that will increase energy efficiency. In addition, with Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) grant funding secured for EV charger installations at City Hall and the Pinole Senior Center, the City will be eligible for an additional $4,000 in incentives through Deep Green enrollment, supplementing the $32,000 in existing rebates.

Page 68 of 133 ends

With grant fund support from the California Energy Commission, the City has also released a request for proposals for a Municipal Building Decarbonization Plan. This plan will identify actionable steps and funding strategies for measures such as energy generation and storage that can help offset electricity costs.

The City was also recently notified of a pre-award from MCE, contingent on federal Department of Energy approval, to install battery storage systems at the Pinole Youth Center and the Tiny Tots/Swim Center. As a condition of the award, the batteries will dispatch between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., when electricity rates are highest. Staff anticipates that these storage systems will significantly offset peak-period electricity costs at these facilities.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
B. Pinole Deep Green Cost Analysis

Page 69 of 133 ends

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE,

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AUTHORIZING, THROUGH THE FISCAL YEAR 2026/2027 BUDGET CYCLE,

BUDGETING TO ENROLL ALL MUNICIPAL ELECTRICITY ACCOUNTS

IN MCE DEEP GREEN SERVICE CONSISTENT WITH THE

CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN
WHEREAS, in August 2024 the City Council of the City of Pinole adopted its inaugural Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (“CAAP”) to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 in alignment with Assembly Bill 1279; and
WHEREAS, Pinole’s 2021 municipal greenhouse gas inventory identifies that approximately 22 percent of municipal greenhouse gas emissions result from fossil fuel energy use in buildings; and
WHEREAS, CAAP action CIO-1f directs the City to upgrade all municipal electricity accounts to Marin Clean Energy’s (“MCE”) Deep Green service, which provides 100 percent renewable electricity, by 2025 and to electrify or otherwise decarbonize all municipal buildings and facilities by 2035; and
WHEREAS, opting up City accounts to MCE Deep Green will further position Pinole as a regional leader and strong advocate for clean energy and climate action, consistent with similar actions taken by other Contra Costa County jurisdictions.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pinole resolves as follows:

SECTION 1: Through the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 budget cycle, the City Council hereby authorizes staff to budget for enrollment of all municipal electricity accounts in MCE Deep Green service consistent with the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.

SECTION 2. The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to implement this Resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pinole held on the 16th day of December, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was regularly introduced, passed, and adopted on the 16th day of December, 2025.

Page 70 of 133 ends

___________________________________
Heather Spears, CMC
City Clerk

Page 71 of 133 ends

MCE & City of Pinole
Deep Green Opt-Up Consideration for Municipal Facilities September 2025
Prepared by: Tyla Brown, MCE

Executive Summary
MCE has provided electric generation services to the Pinole community since 2018. Approximately 91% of eligible electricity customers within the City of Pinole are enrolled in MCE service. MCE is a joint powers authority, governed by a local Board of Directors. Councilmember Devin Murphy currently serves as Pinole’s representative on the MCE Board of Directors, and Councilmember Maureen Toms as the MCE Board alternate.

MCE serves 16 jurisdictions within Contra Costa County, 8 of which have opted to enroll their municipal electric service accounts in MCE’s 100% renewable service option, Deep Green. If the City of Pinole were to enroll all of its municipally owned electric accounts in Deep Green, the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the City’s buildings sector would be reduced to zero. Additionally, the City could receive up to 6 credits for US Green Building Council LEED certification for Green power purchases, receive credits toward California Green Business, and support the City’s Climate Action Plan. The estimated annual cost with enrolling all City owned accounts to Deep Green is $53,195.83. This report has been prepared to help the City of Pinole assess the costs and benefits associated with enrolling its municipal accounts in Deep Green.

MCE’s Energy Sources
MCE’s offers two energy service options to its municipal customers:

Light Green, MCE’s 69% renewable service
Deep Green, MCE’s 100% renewable service
● Existing Light Green customers may opt up to Deep Green at any time. ● Deep Green customers will remain on their current rate schedule and will see a Deep Green line item for a penny per kilowatt–hour ($0.0125/kWh) on the MCE portion of their monthly energy bill.

Half of the premium paid for Deep Green service is invested in MCE’s Local Renewable Energy & Program Development Fund, which supports funding and implementation of EV charging stations and renewable energy projects like MCE Solar One across MCE’s service area.

Page 72 of 133 ends

Deep Green Rate Increase
Since the launch of MCE’s Deep Green service, rates have not increased. However, in recent years the cost for MCE to purchase electricity has risen, and to ensure cost equity across customer classes, the MCE Board voted in July 2025 to increase the Deep Green premium from $0.01 to $0.0125. This update represents the first change to the Deep Green premium since MCE’s launch 15 years ago. The updated rate went into effect on October 1, 2025. MCE’s Board of Directors will assess the premium each year following the standard rate setting process.

The estimate below is based on the $0.0125 premium for Deep Green.

Cost and GHG Analysis
The City of Pinole currently has 821 accounts served by MCE’s 69% renewable Light Green service. In the last 12 months, these accounts have used approximately 4,255,666 kWh of energy. In the last 12 months, the City of Pinole’s energy bills totaled approximately $623,492.15 ● Opting up all City accounts to MCE’s 100% renewable Deep Green generation service would result in an added cost of approximately $53,195.83 over a 12-month period for the City of Pinole’s energy bills.

The City of Pinole can choose to opt all or some accounts into Deep Green (DG). The table below demonstrates four options for Deep Green opt-ups and associated costs.

Options City Account Estimated Annual
DG cost
Estimated Monthly
Costs
% increase in MCE
costs
Opting up 1 account City Hall $3,059.24 $254.94 8.3%
Opting up 181
accounts
City Hall +
Streetlights
$8,185.22 $682.08 9.3%
Opting up 444
accounts
City Hall +
Streetlights + Traffic
Control
$9,236.01 $769.66 9.3%
Opting up 821
accounts
All City Accounts $53,195.83 $4,432.92 8.5%
The cost associated with opting up Deep Green is calculated by multiplying energy usage on a per kWh basis by $0.0125.

Next Steps
Should the City of Pinole decide to opt-up its municipal accounts to Deep Green, it would join the following jurisdictions in Contra Costa County that have already opted up: Danville, El Cerrito, Lafayette, Martinez, Richmond, San Pablo, Walnut Creek, and unincorporated Contra Costa County.

Page 73 of 133 ends

Typically, jurisdictions considering Deep Green opt up action for all municipal accounts will bring the matter before their City Council for a vote. Should the City of Pinole decide to agendize this matter at a future meeting of its City Council, MCE would be happy to attend to answer any questions and present any materials, if deemed necessary by the Council and staff.

If the City votes to opt up all or some municipal accounts to Deep Green, MCE would be able to carry out the process of opting up said accounts through MCE’s internal customer database, and the $0.0125 per kWh line item would be applied to the City’s next eligible monthly bill cycle.

If members of the Pinole City Council or staff have further questions about MCE Deep Green, please contact [email protected].

Commented [1]: Not sure what this means
Commented [2]: just FYI that sometimes this
can take two months depending on when the
opt up action takes place and their PG&E
meter read date.

Page 74 of 133 ends

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.E.

DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2025
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Lilly Whalen, Community Development Director, 510-724-9832, [email protected]
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING $309,910 IN GRANT FUNDING FROM

THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TOBACCO GRANT
PROGRAM FOR FY 2025–26 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution:

1. Accepting a $309,910 grant award from the California Department of Justice (DOJ) Tobacco Grant Program (DOJ-PROP56-2025-26-1-038); and

2. Authorizing the City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and any related documents necessary to implement the grant.

Note: Grant revenue and expenditures were already included in the adopted FY 2025–26 budget in anticipation of this award; therefore, no additional budget appropriation is required.

BACKGROUND
The California Department of Justice Tobacco Grant Program provides funding to local jurisdictions to prevent illegal sales and marketing of tobacco products to underage youth through enforcement, inspections, and retailer education.

The City of Pinole submitted a competitive application for FY 2025–26 requesting $315,687 (Attachment B). On November 19, 2025, the DOJ issued an Award Letter (Attachment C) and Summary of Award approving the City for $309,910 (Attachment D).

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Program Management
The grant will be managed by the Community Development Department (CDD), Code Enforcement Division, which will serve as the primary unit responsible for all inspections, retailer education visits, program coordination, reporting, and grant compliance.

Page 75 of 133 ends

The program will be supported by:
• The Pinole Police Department, which will provide assistance with minor decoy operations and enforcement protocols; and
• The City’s on-call professional consultant (TRB+/4Leaf), who will assist with inspections, documentation, educational outreach, and operational coverage.

Approved Activities
The DOJ-approved activities include:
• 20 annual tobacco retailer inspections, prioritized by risk factors • 16 annual minor decoy operations, conducted per Penal Code §308 • Annual educational visits and toolkit distribution for all licensed retailers • Training for code enforcement personnel
• Grant-funded equipment procurement (Year 1 only)
Funding and Allowability
• No matching funds are required.
• The grant will fully cover all staff time, including Code Enforcement, Police Department support, and consultant assistance.
• All expenditures will be reimbursed by DOJ in accordance with the approved scope and budget (Attachments C-E)

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no negative fiscal impact to the City. The total grant award of $309,910 was budgeted in the adopted FY 2025–26 operating budget, and the grant covers all staff time and project activities. There are no matching funds required.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
B. 25-26 Tobacco Grant Application
C. Pinole Award Letter
D. Pinole Summary of Award 25-26
E. Pinole Budget Detail 25-26

Page 76 of 133 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE ACCEPTING

GRANT FUNDING FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TOBACCO

GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL

REQUIRED DOCUMENTS
WHEREAS, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) Tobacco Grant Program provides funding to reduce illegal tobacco sales and marketing to underage youth; and WHEREAS, the City of Pinole submitted an application requesting funding for enforcement activities, minor decoy operations, tobacco retailer inspections, and retailerfocused education; and WHEREAS, on November 19, 2025, the DOJ awarded the City of Pinole $309,910 under Award Number DOJ-PROP56-2025-26-1-038; and
WHEREAS, the grant will be administered by the Community Development Department, Code Enforcement Division, with implementation support from the Police Department and the City’s on-call code enforcement consultant; and WHEREAS, the City incorporated anticipated grant revenue and expenditures into the FY 2025–26 operating budget; therefore, no additional appropriation is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the grant requires no matching funds, and the award will fully reimburse the City for staff time, equipment, consultant assistance, and all approved project activities; and; and
WHEREAS, acceptance of the grant will enhance the City’s capacity to enforce tobacco retailer laws, reduce underage youth access to tobacco products, and promote public health and safety.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pinole hereby accepts the $309,910 award from the California Department of Justice Tobacco Grant Program.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute all related documents required to implement the grant.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pinole City Council held on the 16th day of December, 2025 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Page 77 of 133 ends

I, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was regularly introduced, passed, and adopted on this 16th day of December, 2025.

______________________________________
Heather Spears, CMC
City Clerk

Page 78 of 133 ends

"#

$

%&

'

(&

!!!"

)

#)

* +,

&

) -
#

.
)

&&

)

&&

$%"%
&
"

!

/(
&0
1& *&
)2

3
&&

(

&&
)

)

&&
-
#

&&

&&

$%"%
&
"

Page 79 of 133 ends

/(
&0
1& *&
)2

4#)
5&+

(

3&&

#
7
)

)
#

*'%!+,$
-
""
$
&&

.

/ 0

/
"

$
&&

.

/ 0

/
8
9

3&&

(

11
)
#

*'%!+,$

!!,
$
&&

0

/
"

$
&&

0

/
1%

+

).

6

)
#

*'%!+,$

-$"

Page 80 of 133 ends

$
&&

/
"

$
&&

/
:
9
!#

%#&,;# &
"%'3 -,
%#&
#

"

&!

033

<<<<2
%%!%$!$'
!#

&
9

4

4

35

/2
5

35
5

&
"!-35

.

3
7

3

.
3

8
49
/

5

7
3

3

/4

:
3

/
::

=#

)
)

&

)

&

-
#

:

:
4;<=

&

5
.

=)

'
&*))

)
-

>
1 *;
7

+?4.

*

+

,
9

@

113
5

?
A5

3

3

3

/
A&

3

3

5

&
"!-/
A

3

5

5/
A;

3

7

8

/
A@

7

3

3

3
B 3

/
4

6

5

Page 81 of 133 ends

$'

&?#

6
7

?4;<=
C
9/4

5

B

3

3

-"$

3

3

/4

3
8

7

11/

#
&)

@ &6

"0
%2
4;<=EC&E8E4E2 EEC

E&

#)

&&

&&-
#

:

C

&

5
.

=)

'
&*))

)
-

>
1 *;
7

+?4.

*

+

,
9

@

113
5

?
A5

3

3

3

/
A&

3

3

5

&
"!-/
A

3

5

5/
A;

3

7

8

/
A@

7

3

3

3
B 3

/
4

6

5

$'

&?#

6
7

?4;<=
C
9/4

5

B

3

3

-"$

3

3

/4

3
8

7

11/

#
&)

@ &6

"0
%2

C
EC

EE&EEEEEE

E8E4E2 E
E! %-$'/

#)

&&

&&-
F

!

)

"
&
9

#
*)
9

Page 82 of 133 ends

#
AB&
:*)
9

$!
,

*)
9

$!
,

*):>%
!
) 0*)
9

2

,
6

' )
9

-
#

#

#

* #

9

-
#

!

3
5

5
%3!!!

B
.

/

$!$$

4G

4
*4G4+3

/
>

$!$%H$$
G

(

&

5

% '

/
4
5

" 3!!!

5 .

3

35
3'

/
2

5

5/
:

&+ 9

0 2
;

1

)

;

,

(

>)*

*
&-
$!
(

;

B

.3

3

D

/

5

3

5

3

3

3
3

/

113

&
"!-5

7
5

/
(
$'

4

115

D 3
3

I

I
I

/@

3

.5

3
3

3
3

/

Page 83 of 133 ends

3

+

>)*

&

&-
%

>)*

*

&

)
-
$!
+

4

)

5

&
"!-

5/

5

&

/ 5

7
5

/

5

3
5

/
+

$'

35

B

/

3

)

&

/% /!"!:

4B
9

*49+
/
,

$&#

$&#

>)*

*

&#

-
$!

>)*

*

&#

-
$!
,

$&#

115

./

.5

64;

)

&

/% +3

4B
9

/)

5
5
3

3

5

5/
3

.3
B

3
5

B
/1

/
$'

&,

$&#

5/&

842

3

/G

B

/
1

$&#

>)*

-
$

Page 84 of 133 ends

$&#

115

5
3 3

3
3

5/4

5

B
/
$'

&

$&#

11
$!

B

3

3

.

D

/G

B

842 35

/ 6

B

B

/
:
9

)

)

)
*

-
#

9

:

"

,
C

11
=
9

)
&
>
)>
)-

#
;

1

)

;

,
&,

11 5

&
"!-3

5/
5

3

.3

3

7
/&

5

3

/
$'

&?#

11
$!

B

D 3

3 3

I

7
I

I

I
5. 5

5

5

53

/

)

&&

)
*

-
#

9

"

,
C

=
9

)
&
>
)>
)-

Page 85 of 133 ends

#
)

,
&,
4

55

3

/
5

7

5

/4

3
5

3

5

&
"!-/
$'

&?#

B

B

3

/

5

5

3
3

/

)

&&

)
*

-
F
.
9

"

,
C

*&5
&+1FC

=
9

)
&
>
)>
)-

#
)

,
&,
4

/
5

5
5

/
$'

&?#

&
"!-
/

)

&&

)
*

-
F
.
9
D#&
D#&

#
&0$'

2
EE

EE8E E

E5.

/B
B

#
D#&

#&' &!
D0+)
+
$'
&$;#2-
#

Page 86 of 133 ends

D#&

E

&9#

)' &*)!
D
)D#&

!)0+
$'
&$;#2F
4

7

B

842 /
4

5

3

11/;
3
K

B
/

D
)
/%

5

/
4

;9/
)
&

L$'

3L'! 3

1

/
4

5

/
B

3

3

/
4 ;

4
.:
3

3
5
5
:

3

+

/
)

7
*

3
3

3

+

"!-
/
;

* 3

3
3D
5

3

+

6

7

/
D#&0 2)
*&

#
,

(

11*4+

/4

5/;

4
.

/B

7
*
3

3
+

35

/
D#&0 2)
*&

#
3

11*4+

/
*4+

313

/
.

3

3

/;

7

/
D#&0 2)
*&

#
,

$&#

11
4

4
.

3
3
/

7

/
5
7

B

B
/
D#&0 2)
*&

#

$&#

4

/B
/

7

/

/
+)
%#&!#

4 6

3

/

3

3
5

:
:

B
/
.:
"

Page 87 of 133 ends

3

$'

4

B

D

/4

3

B

3

3

L'!!3!!!
L%

3

3

3

/4

/
4 6

842

$!$$/4

5
8
7

3

3

3

3

. 5

5
8
7

/
"#
&"

4

. 5

3 3

3
3

5

/
"#!#
6

&.
EC&E

/

G
#

&

)
#))
+7

-
#

.

&0 2
4

5
B

3

3

/
!#

&0 2
4

5

./4

3

3

3

5.

.

/
")
#&

&0 2

5

/4

3

6
3

3
3

5
8

7

/4

6

B
/
."

&!
#

#)
5&+

#

(
C
##@F2

Page 88 of 133 ends

Rob Bonta
Attorney General

DIVISION OF OPERATIONS

OFFICE OF FISCAL SERVICES

GRANT SERVICES BRANCH

TOBACCO GRANT PROGRAM
P.O. Box 160187
Sacramento, CA 95816-0187
E-Mail Address: [email protected]
November 20, 2025
Kelcey Young, City Manager
Pinole, City of
2131 Pear St
Pinole, CA 94564
Re: Tobacco Grant Award Notification Fiscal Year 2025-26 (RFP: DOJ-PROP56-2025-26-1) Dear: Kelcey Young
Congratulations! On behalf of the California Department of Justice (DOJ), Tobacco Grant Program, I am pleased to inform you that your agency’s grant application for the fiscal year 2025-26 grant cycle has been approved for grant funds authorized under the California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2016. The total amount of your agency’s grant award is $309,910 under Award # DOJ-PROP56-2025-26-1-038.

The Tobacco Grant Program award process is highly competitive, and for the 2025-26 grant cycle, the Department received approximately $50 million in requests. As noted in the application materials, grant funding prioritized support for local retailer enforcement including prosecution and task force collaboration. Consequently, some awards were approved with modifications to align with these funding priorities and because of limited funds. Attached is a Summary of the Award and Budget Detail outlining the funding provided along with any modifications applied.

To accept the 2025-26 grant award, please complete and return a signed copy of your Letter of Intent (see template and instructions attached) by email within 15 calendar days of the date of this letter. This letter will affirm one of the following:

1. Your agency will seek a resolution from the governing body to accept the award (if your agency has a governing body)

2. Your agency has a governing body but does not require a resolution to accept the award, OR

3. No governing body exists and therefore no resolution is required.

Please email the signed Letter of Intent as noted above to [email protected] with the subject line including the name of your agency: “FY 25-26_Letter of Intent_Pinole, City

Page 89 of 133 ends

November 20, 2025

Page 2 ends

of.” Upon receipt of this information, DOJ will provide your agency with additional documents for execution/use (e.g., Memorandum of Understanding, Governing Body Resolution template, Grantee Handbook, etc.). These documents will contain more information about the process for reimbursement and other important details. Activities for reimbursement under this grant may commence on or after the date of this letter, depending upon your selected start date.

Should you have any questions regarding this letter or the required follow up information, please email [email protected].

Sincerely,

JENNIFER IVERY JOHNSON
Manager, Grant Services Branch
For ROB BONTA
Attorney General
Attachments:

Letter of Intent
Summary of Award
Budget Detail

Page 90 of 133 ends

Tobacco Grant Program
GRANT SERVICES BRANCH – LOCAL

ASSISTANCE

DIVISION OF OPERATIONS
11/19/2025 Page 1 of 4

TOBACCO GRANT SUMMARY OF AWARD
DOJ-PROP56-2025-26-1-038

PINOLE, CITY OF
This Summary of Award document will be used by the Tobacco Grant Program when determining whether an activity or expense claimed was approved for funding and is reimbursable. Activities other than those presented here may not be reimbursable. A Grant Modification may be necessary for material deviations. Please consult with your Grant Program Officer before engaging in any activity beyond this scope or if you have questions about the scope of the activities and budget allowability.

By signing the Memorandum of Understanding, your agency agrees to the commitments outlined below and this document becomes part of the Grant Agreement.

AWARD SUMMARY
Award Amount: $309,910 Requested Amount: $315,687
Removed from Award: Outreach equiment,
supplies, incentive materials.

Reduced Line Items: None
Other Changes or Stipulations: Moved expenses from equipment to Other. Any outreach must focus on retailers.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS FOR ALL GRANTEES
I. Enforcement Activities
a. Authorized - If enforcement activities were proposed, only activities that target retailers for illegal sales/marketing of tobacco products were approved. It is expected that the flavor ban will be enforced within one or more enforcement activities. b. Unauthorized - Community or school patrols, or other enforcement actions related to tobacco use and possession, are not permitted.

II. Educational Activities
a. Authorized – Retailer and/or officer educational activities on tobacco laws and ordinances, if included, are authorized as noted below. b. Unauthorized – School or community education efforts, including media campaigns, are not permitted as part of this award. All educational efforts should be directed to retailers and/or officers.

Page 91 of 133 ends

11/19/2025 Page 2 of 4
III. Removed Personnel or Other Items
a. If specific personnel or other items were removed and not funded, they cannot be reinstated during the grant term.

IV. Reduced Line Items
a. If a specific line item was reduced, the intention was to not fully fund it or the activities it represents.

V. Mileage/Fuel
a. Budgets that include mileage or fuel were amended to include both together in one line item for flexibility and the type of backup documentation available. Mileage is limited to the state rate in effect at the time of travel.

VI. Equipment
a. All equipment items must be purchased during the first year of the project as noted on the Budget Detail. Their awarding is intended to support project goals and be used to support grant activities throughout the grant term.

Please reference the Tobacco Grant Program Grantee Handbook for more information regarding allowable costs.

GOALS AND ACTIVITIES
Retail Inspections
• Per year, 20 retailers will be inspected.
• Additional details regarding these inspections:
o Retailers will be prioritized for inspection based on proximity to schools and parks, complaint history, and a randomized rotation schedule to ensure broad coverage. Each inspection will confirm the presence of prohibited products like flavored tobacco, review advertising practices, verify state and local licenses, and include delivery of toolkits with ordinance summaries, signage, and compliance materials. A Certified Code Enforcement Officer II, supported by a part-time officer from the City's on-call consultant list, will conduct inspections. Minor decoy operations under Penal Code Section 308 will supplement inspections to test compliance. Grant-funded equipment will support documentation and ensure transparency.

Minor Decoy Operations
• Per year, 16 minor decoy operations will be conducted. • Per year, 20 retailers will be targeted through these operations. • Additional details regarding these operations:
o The City of Pinole will implement a structured Minor Decoy Operation program in compliance with California Penal Code Section 308 and all applicable laws. Decoy recruitment will occur with prior approval from Pinole Valley High School administration. Participation will be strictly voluntary and require written consent from a parent or guardian. Decoys will be selected based on verified age, demonstrated

Page 92 of 133 ends

11/19/2025 Page 3 of 4
maturity, and reliability, and will receive thorough training on safety protocols, operational procedures, and their limited role in the enforcement process.

Shoulder Tap Operations – Not Applicable
Undercover Buys – Not Applicable
Retailer Education
• Per year, 20 retailers will receive educational materials. • Per year, 20 retailers will receive on-site education. • Additional details regarding these retailer education activities:
o The Certified Code Enforcement Officer II will provide all licensed tobacco retailers in the City of Pinole with a comprehensive compliance toolkit. Each toolkit will include required signage related to underage sales, a summary of the City's Tobacco Retailer Ordinance (Pinole Municipal Code Section 9.16), and educational materials from the California Department of Justice and the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. Materials such as window clings, compliance posters, and contact magnets will reinforce responsibilities and support visible adherence to the law. During in-person visits, the Officerâ€”assisted by a part-time Code Enforcement Officer from the City's on-call consultant listâ€”will deliver the toolkit, explain inspection protocols and minor decoy operations, and answer retailer questions to promote understanding of enforcement expectations. If a retailer is found to be in violation, additional visits will occurâ€”both educational and unannouncedâ€”to provide ongoing support and monitor compliance. This outreach strategy supports long-term engagement and improved accountability.

Enforcement Officer Education
• Per year, 2 enforcement officers will receive education about tobacco laws and ordinances. • Additional details regarding these officer education activities:
o The City of Pinole will ensure its enforcement personnel remain current on evolving tobacco regulations and best practices. The Certified Code Enforcement Officer II will attend all DOJ-sponsored webinars, trainings, and roundtables throughout the grant term. Information gained will be shared internally to promote consistent application of federal, state, and local tobacco laws. The part-time Code Enforcement Officer, procured from the City's on-call consultant list, will also receive this training to ensure alignment with enforcement protocols and expectations.

Prosecution – Not Applicable
Task Force – Not Applicable
Other Activities – Not Applicable

PARTNERING AGENCIES
Based upon the proposal submitted and any subsequent modifications approved by DOJ, the following agencies are expected to partner with and support the activities and fulfillment of goals referenced above:

Page 93 of 133 ends

11/19/2025 Page 4 of 4
• TRB+ / 4Leaf - professional Safety Code Compliance consultants on-call to assist the City of Pinole with task order assignments
Under the supervision of the Certified Code Enforcement Officer II, this position will: â€¢ Assist with tobacco retailer inspections, focusing on license verification, signage compliance, and identification of prohibited products. Support the execution of minor decoy operations, including site coordination and observation, in compliance with Penal Code Section 308. Deliver educational materials to retailers, reinforcing compliance with state and local tobacco laws. Receive training in tobacco control enforcement protocols, including proper use of equipment and DOJ reporting standards. Use equipment purchased under the grant, including a laptop, tablet, body camera, call radio, and Axon subscription, to document inspections and maintain records. This role expands the City's enforcement capacity while ensuring continuity of operations and field coverage throughout the grant term.

Please notify your Grant Program Officer of any proposed changes to partnering agencies, particularly if they are included within your budget.

Page 94 of 133 ends

DOJ-PROP56-2025-26-1-038 TOBACCO GRANT BUDGET DETAIL AWARD BUDGET Costs Per Fiscal Year (July 1 - June 30)
A. Personnel Services
Salaries
Classification/Positions Computation FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 TOTALS NONE $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
SUBTOTAL $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Overtime
Classification/Positions Computation FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 TOTALS Code Enforcement Officer $ 40,919 $ 44,257 $ 47,595 $ - $ 132,771 Sworn Personnel (Police Officers) $ 18,572 $ 19,129 $ 19,686 $ - $ 57,387 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
SUBTOTAL $ 59,491 $ 63,386 $ 67,281 $ - $ 190,158
Benefits
Classification/Positions Computation FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 TOTALS Benefits (consolidated for all positions listed above) $ 862 $ 919 $ 975 $ - $ 2,756 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
SUBTOTAL $ 862 $ 919 $ 975 $ - $ 2,756
TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES $ 60,353 $ 64,305 $ 68,256 $ - $ 192,914 AGENCY: CITY OF PINOLE

Page 1 of 3 ends

Page 95 of 133 ends

DOJ-PROP56-2025-26-1-038 TOBACCO GRANT BUDGET DETAIL AWARD BUDGET B. Operating Expenses and Equipment
Equipment (Tangible items with a PER-UNIT cost of $5,000 or more) Description Computation FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 TOTALS NONE $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
SUBTOTAL $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other Expenses (Excludes Equipment and Travel/Training) Description Computation FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 TOTALS Minor Decoy Stipends Must not be in the form of gift cards or food. $ 1,040 $ 1,040 $ 1,040 $ - $ 3,120 Axon subscription (for body camera) $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ - $ 4,200 Buy Money $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ - $ 300
Retailer Educational Materials/Toolkit May require pre-approval $ 6,000 $ 700 $ 700 $ - $ 7,400 Contract - Code Enforcement Officer
May include laptop, tablet, call radio, body camera,
headphones. Must purchase items within the first year of the project. Must not include admin costs. Copy of contract must be provided to DOJ. $ 29,000 $ 28,040 $ 29,080 $ - $ 86,120 Minor Decoy Costs
Audio recorders, buy money, decoy disguises, badge holders, and minimal annual replenishment.

Must purchase these items within the first year of the project. $ 900 $ 100 $ 100 $ - $ 1,100 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
SUBTOTAL $ 38,440 $ 31,380 $ 32,420 $ - $ 102,240
Travel Expenses/Registration Fees*
Description and Destination Computation FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 TOTALS NONE $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
*For approved tobacco related training and travel only. Travel cannot exceed current state rates.

SUBTOTAL $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES AND EQUIPMENT $ 38,440 $ 31,380 $ 32,420 $ - $ 102,240 C. Administrative Costs*
Description Enter Desired Percentage (up to 5%) FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 TOTAL Administrative Costs 5.0% $ 4,939 $ 4,784 $ 5,033 $ - $ 14,756 *Administrative costs must not exceed 5% of the total budget for Sections A & B. TOTAL $ 4,939 $ 4,784 $ 5,033 $ - $ 14,756 AGENCY: CITY OF PINOLE

Page 2 of 3 ends

Page 96 of 133 ends

DOJ-PROP56-2025-26-1-038 TOBACCO GRANT BUDGET DETAIL AWARD BUDGET

SUMMARY
Budget Category FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 Total Request A. Personnel Services $ 60,353 $ 64,305 $ 68,256 $ - $ 192,914 B. Operating Expenses and Equipment $ 38,440 $ 31,380 $ 32,420 $ - $ 102,240 C. Administrative Costs $ 4,939 $ 4,784 $ 5,033 $ - $ 14,756 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 103,732 $ 100,469 $ 105,709 $ - $ 309,910 AGENCY: CITY OF PINOLE

Page 3 of 3 ends

Page 97 of 133 ends

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.F.

DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2025
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Eric Casher, City Attorney, N/A, [email protected] SUBJECT: SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER

2.68 TO TITLE 2 OF THE PINOLE MUNICIPAL CODE RESTRICTING THE

USE OF CITY-OWNED OR CITY-CONTROLLED PROPERTY FOR FEDERAL

CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council waive the second reading and adopt the ordinance adding Chapter 2.68 to Title 2 of the Pinole Municipal Code establishing a policy restricting the use of City-owned or City-controlled property for federal civil immigration enforcement staging areas, processing locations, surveillance activities, and operations bases, except as required by a valid judicial warrant or court order.

BACKGROUND
On Tuesday, December 2, 2025, the City Council approved the first reading and introduction of an ordinance adding Chapter 2.68 to Title 2 of the Pinole Municipal Code to establish a policy restricting the use of City-owned or City-controlled property for federal civil immigration enforcement staging areas, processing locations, surveillance activities, and operations bases, except as required by a valid judicial warrant or court order. The ordinance was prompted by concerns that federal immigration enforcement agencies may utilize local government property for staging, surveillance, processing, or operational purposes without local authorization, potentially undermining public trust and discouraging residents from accessing City services or facilities.

The ordinance also responds to broader statewide and regional concerns regarding federal immigration enforcement activities occurring in public spaces, and the importance of maintaining trust between immigrant communities and local government.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
If the City Council adopts the ordinance at this meeting, it will take effect 30 days after its final passage, in accordance with California Government Code section 36937. Once in effect, the ordinance will prohibit the voluntary use of City-owned or City-controlled property for civil immigration enforcement staging, processing, surveillance, or operational purposes unless required by a valid judicial warrant or court order. The ordinance does not restrict federal agents from entering areas open to the general public and preserves the City’s obligation to comply with all lawful court orders.

Page 98 of 133 ends

Public notification of the ordinance will occur through a coordinated outreach effort. Staff will post the adopted ordinance on the City’s website and in the Municipal Code, publish announcements on the City’s social media platforms, and include information in the City newsletter. Staff may also prepare informational signage or notices for relevant City facilities.

Outreach may include coordination with community-based organizations and neighborhood groups to ensure broad awareness.

Members of the public who observe or experience federal civil immigration enforcement activity that they believe is unlawful may report their concerns through the California Attorney General’s ICE Misconduct Reporting Portal, which has been established by California Attorney General Rob Bonta. This statewide reporting tool allows individuals to file concerns about potential misconduct, discriminatory practices, or unauthorized operations. Staff will include a link to the reporting portal on the City’s website and in related outreach materials. The portal address is https://oag.ca.gov/reportmisconduct
If members of the public believe there has been a violation of the ordinance once effective, they may file a complaint with the Pinole Police Department. Reported concerns will be reviewed to determine whether the ordinance was violated and whether further administrative follow-up is required in accordance with existing City procedures.

FISCAL IMPACT
The ordinance is not expected to create significant fiscal impacts. Minor administrative costs may arise related to preparing outreach materials, updating the City’s communication channels, signage, staff training, or policy updates if the Council so directs. No additional staffing or enforcement mechanisms are anticipated.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Ordinance

Page 99 of 133 ends

1 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE
ADDING CHAPTER 2.68 TO TITLE 2 OF THE PINOLE MUNICIPAL CODE

RESTRICTING THE USE OF CITY-OWNED OR CITY-CONTROLLED PROPERTY FOR

FEDERAL CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
WHEREAS, the City of Pinole is home to people of diverse racial, ethnic, and national backgrounds, including a large immigrant population; and
WHEREAS, immigrants are valuable and essential members of the City of Pinole community who contribute to the City’s economic, civic, and cultural vitality; and WHEREAS, a strong and trusting relationship between the City’s immigrant communities and the City of Pinole, including its departments, programs, and personnel, is essential to the public safety and wellbeing of all residents; and WHEREAS, this trust is undermined when state and local agencies become entangled with federal civil immigration enforcement, causing immigrant community members to fear reporting crimes, seeking health services, accessing City facilities, or engaging in civic life, which detracts from the safety and welfare of the entire community; and
WHEREAS, entanglement with federal civil immigration enforcement diverts limited City resources and blurs lines of accountability among local, state, and federal governments; and WHEREAS, the federal government, through U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), has undertaken broad civil immigration enforcement operations involving personnel from multiple federal agencies in ways that have generated concern among local communities; and WHEREAS, state and local governments bear primary responsibility for ensuring the safety and wellbeing of their communities and possess the discretion and authority to adopt policies best suited to those communities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pinole believes that public safety is best achieved through trust and collaboration between residents and their local government, not through the militarization or deputization of local resources in service of federal civil immigration enforcement; and WHEREAS, current City policies do not explicitly restrict federal civil immigration enforcement agencies from using City-owned land or facilities for operations, staging, processing, or surveillance, and without such protections, City assets may be inadvertently weaponized against the very communities the City serves, undermining trust in local government; and

Page 100 of 133 ends

2 WHEREAS, the City seeks to implement an “ICE-Free Zone” ordinance to protect public safety, ensure community members feel safe accessing City services and facilities, and prevent voluntary use of City resources to support federal civil immigration enforcement; and WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has long recognized that state and local governments retain primary authority over matters affecting the health, safety, and welfare of their residents, and that decisions concerning local public resources are best made by governments closest and most accountable to the people they serve; and
WHEREAS, respect for local police powers is a core principle of American federalism, reflected in the United States Constitution and widely affirmed in judicial precedent; and WHEREAS, California Constitution Article XI, Section 7 grants cities the authority to enact and enforce ordinances that are not in conflict with general state law, including ordinances governing municipal property and local government operations; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, this ordinance constitutes a general policy action that does not have the potential to cause a physical environmental impact and therefore is not a project subject to CEQA; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pinole is the decision-making body for this ordinance and has reviewed and considered the CEQA determination before taking action to introduce and adopt this ordinance; and
WHEREAS, regulating the use of City-owned or City-controlled property, without regulating the conduct of federal agencies, is a lawful exercise of municipal authority and an appropriate and necessary means of promoting public safety, community trust, and the responsible use of public resources.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. RECITALS.

The above recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance.

SECTION 2. ADDITION OF CHAPTER 2.68 TO TITLE 2 OF THE PINOLE MUNICIPAL CODE Title 2 of the Pinole Municipal Code is amended to add Chapter 2.68, to read as follows:

Chapter 2.68 – Use of City-Owned or City-Controlled Property for Civil Immigration Enforcement Activities

2.68.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this Chapter is to protect public safety, promote community trust, and ensure that Cityowned or City-controlled property is not voluntarily used to support federal civil immigration enforcement activities except when mandated by a valid judicial warrant or court order.

2.68.020 Definitions.

Page 101 of 133 ends

3 For purposes of this Chapter:
“Civil Immigration Enforcement” means any investigation, detention, arrest, surveillance, monitoring, questioning, information-gathering, or operational activity undertaken for the primary purpose of enforcing federal civil immigration laws, including actions by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). “City Property” or “City-Owned or City-Controlled Property” means any real or personal property, land, building, facility, structure, vehicle, equipment, or space owned, leased, operated, or controlled by the City of Pinole.
“Judicial Warrant or Court Order” means a warrant or order issued by a federal or state judge or magistrate based on probable cause and legally sufficient to compel compliance by the City. “Surveillance” means observing, recording, monitoring, or collecting information about individuals for civil immigration enforcement purposes, including through cameras, license plate readers, drones, or other technologies.

2.68.030 Prohibited Uses of City Property.

Unless required by a valid judicial warrant or court order, no department, employee, official, contractor, or agent of the City shall knowingly permit City-owned or City-controlled property to be used for staging civil immigration enforcement operations; processing, interviewing, or temporarily detaining individuals for civil immigration purposes; surveillance or monitoring activities related to civil immigration enforcement; or as operations bases, coordination points, or logistical hubs for civil immigration enforcement actions.

2.68.040 Exceptions.

Nothing in this Chapter prohibits federal officers or employees from entering areas of City property generally open to the public. Nothing in this Chapter prevents the City or any City employee from complying with a valid judicial warrant or court order. Nothing in this Chapter restricts criminal law enforcement activities where civil immigration enforcement is not the primary purpose.

2.68.050 Implementation.

The City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, shall develop administrative procedures to implement this Chapter. City departments shall receive training, as appropriate, regarding the requirements of this Chapter.

2.68.060 Enforcement; No Private Right of Action.

This Chapter does not create or form the basis of liability on the part of the City or any City department, agency, official, or employee, nor does it create a private right of action against the City or any City personnel. This Chapter shall be implemented through existing administrative policies and procedures governing City operations. The City Manager may establish additional rules or regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of this Chapter.

Page 102 of 133 ends

4 SECTION 3. CEQA.

Approval of the proposed amendments is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), which provides a general rule exemption for projects with no potential for a significant effect on the environment. Because this ordinance solely regulates the governmental use of existing City-owned or City-controlled property and does not authorize or require any physical construction, alteration of facilities, or change in land use, it can be seen with certainty that the ordinance will not result in any direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical environmental impacts.

SECTION 4. Severability.

If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council of the City of Pinole hereby declares that it would have passed each Section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.

SECTION 5. Effective Date.

In accordance with California Government Code Section 36937, this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its final passage.

SECTION 6. Publication.

The City Clerk is directed to certify to the adoption of this ordinance and arrange for its posting and publication as required by law.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pinole City Council held on December 2, 2025, the City Council passed this Ordinance by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

IN WITNESS of this action, I sign this document and affix the corporate seal of the City of Pinole on December 2, 2025.
____________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk

Page 103 of 133 ends

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.G.

DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2025
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Heba El-Guindy, Public Works Director, [email protected] SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND WEST YOST FOR ADDITIONAL

SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STORM
DRAIN MASTER PLAN (CIP PROJECT # IN1703)

RECOMMENDATION
Review and approval of the attached Resolution authorizing execution of the attached Second Amendment to the Agreement between the City of Pinole and West Yost (Consultant) to extend term of the Agreement to December 31, 2026, to add to the work scope tasks shown under Option 1 (Exhibit A-1), and to increase the Consultant compensation by $102,756.00 for a total Agreement amount not to exceed $455,060.00.

BACKGROUND
The Council approved Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) includes a funded project for development of a Storm Drain Master Plan (CIP Project # IN1703). On August 15, 2023, the City Council approved awarding a contract to West Yost (Consultant) for development of the Storm Drain Master Plan with goals to evaluate the flood control system including vulnerabilities to climate change and establish a series of infrastructure improvement priorities, in an amount not to exceed $243,264. On February 18, 2025, the City Council approved First Amendment to the Agreement which increased the Consultant’s scope of work to add field inspections, as well as extended term of the Agreement to August 15, 2026, and increased the Consultant’s compensation by an additional $109,040.00 for a total amount of $352,304.00.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Development of the Storm Drain Master Plan has been progressing since execution of the First Amendment. During the data collection and field inspections performed by West Yost, the Consultant identified the need for delineating up to an additional 80 subsheds, with associated additional modeling and evaluation of the hydraulic capacity. The Storm Drain Master Plan will serve the City for years to come and is best to cover areas citywide. It will also offer base data for the future Pinole-Hercules Sea Level Rise and Adaptation Plan. To carry out the additional scope, the Second Amendment proposes extending term of the Agreement to December 31, 2026, and to increase the Consultant compensation by $102,756.00 for a total Agreement amount not to exceed $455,060.00.

FISCAL IMPACT

Page 104 of 133 ends

Second Amendment to the Agreement between the City and West Yost for development of the Storm Drain Master Plan (CIP PROJECT # IN1703) will increase the Consultant compensation by $102,756.00 for a total Agreement amount not to exceed $455,060.00. If approved by the City Council, the increased compensation will be funded by the 2014 Measure S (Fund 106).

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
B. Exhibit A - Amendment No. 2
C. Exhibit A-1 - Scope of Work

Page 105 of 133 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-___

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE,

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SECOND

AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WEST YOST

FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN (CIP PROJECT # IN1703)
WHEREAS, the City of Pinole (“City”) adopted a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) which includes the development of a Storm Drain Master Plan (CIP Project # IN1703), as a funded project; and
WHEREAS, on August 15, 2023, City Council adopted Resolution 2023-65 to award a contract to West Yost (“Consultant”) for development of the citywide Storm Drain Master Plan with goals to evaluate the flood control system including vulnerabilities to climate change and establish a series of infrastructure improvement priorities, in an amount not to exceed $243,264; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement between the City and Consultant was executed/signed on August 16, 2023 with an initial expiration date of August 15, 2025; and WHEREAS, the original Agreement with West Yost did not include extensive field inspection efforts necessary for the Storm Drain Master Plan. These efforts were planned to be contracted by the City via an on-call consultant. Due to unforeseen events, the oncall consultant was unable to perform the field inspections; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved First Amendment to the Agreement on February 18, 2025, which increased scope of West Yost to include the field inspections, as well as extended term of the Agreement to August 15, 2026, and increased the Consultant’s compensation by an additional $109,040.00 for a total amount of $352,304.00; and
WHEREAS, the data collection and field inspections identified the need for delineating additional 80 subsheds, modeling and evaluation of the hydraulic capacity, and additional project management including coordination meetings; and WHEREAS, this Second Amendment to the Agreement (Exhibit A) covers the additional scope of services by Consultant (Exhibit A-1), extend term of the Agreement to December 31, 2026, and increase the Consultant’s compensation by an additional $102,756.00 for a total not to exceed amount of $455,060.00.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pinole does hereby approve the Second Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with West Yost for development of the Storm Drain Master Plan (CIP Project # IN1703), to extend the Agreement term to December 31, 2026, to increase Consultant compensation by $102,756.00 for a total amount not to exceed $455,060.00,

Page 106 of 133 ends

and to authorize the Acting City Manager to execute the Second Amendment to the Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pinole City Council held on the 16th day of December 2025 by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was regularly introduced, passed, and adopted on the 16th day of December 2025.
____________________________
Heather Bell
City Clerk

Page 107 of 133 ends

Exhibit A
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE

CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF PINOLE AND WEST YOST
This Amendment No. 2 (the “Second Amendment”) to the Consulting Services Agreement dated August 16, 2023 (the “Agreement”), between the City of Pinole, a general law city and municipal corporation, (“City”) and West Yost (“Consultant”) (together sometimes referred to as “Parties”) is approved as of the date executed below.

This Second Amendment is entered into light of the following recited facts (each a “Recital”).

RECITALS
A. The Parties entered into the Agreement dated August 16, 2023, for providing the City of Pinole’s Public Works Department consulting services for development of the citywide Storm Drain Master Plan (CIP Project IN1703), in an amount not to exceed $243,264.00.

B. The City Council approved First Amendment to the Agreement on February 18, 2025, which extended term of the Agreement to August 15, 2026, and increased the Consultant’s compensation by an additional $109,040.00 for a total amount of $352,304.00.

C. The Parties desire to enter into this Second Amendment to the Agreement to extend term of the Agreement to December 31, 2026, and to add to the work scope tasks shown under Option 1 of the attached Exhibit A-1, for an additional compensation of $102,756.00 for a total not to exceed amount of $455,060.00.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Recitals and the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement, and for the other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties set forth their mutual covenants and understanding as follows:

TERMS

1. SCOPE OF WORK. The Scope of Work set forth in Exhibit A of the Agreement is hereby amended to include Exhibit A-1, attached to this Second Amendment and incorporated into this Amendment by this reference.

Page 108 of 133 ends

Exhibit A

2. TERM OF SERVICES. Section 1.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to extend term of the Agreement to December 31, 2026.

3. COMPENSATION. Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to a total amount not to exceed $455,060.00.

4. CONTINUING EFFECT OF AGREEMENT. Except as amended by this Second Amendment, all other provisions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.

From and after the date of this Amendment, whenever the term “Agreement” appears in the Agreement, it shall mean the Agreement and its Amendments.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Second Amendment to be executed and delivered by their respective representatives, thereunto duly authorized as of the date first written above.

City of Pinole West Yost
_____________________________ _____________________________ Melissa Klawuhn, Acting City Manager Elizabeth Drayer, Vice President

Approved as to Form
_____________________________
Eric S. Casher, City Attorney
Attested By:
_____________________________
Heather Bell, City Clerk

Page 109 of 133 ends

2020 Research Park Drive
Suite 100
Davis CA 95618
530.756.5905 phone
530.756.5991 fax
westyost.com
October 29, 2025 SENT VIA: EMAIL
Heba El-Guindy
Public Works Director
City of Pinole
2131 Pear Street
Pinole, CA 94564
SUBJECT: Contract Amendment Request for the City of Pinole Storm Drain Master Plan Dear Heba:

The purpose of this letter proposal is to provide the City of Pinole (City) with a proposed scope of services, budget, and schedule for the Storm Drain Master Plan (SDMP) contract amendment request.

SCOPE OF SERVICES
West Yost is currently under contract for the City of Pinole SDMP. We are requesting a contract amendment for Task 1 and Task 3, as summarized below.

Task 1. Project Management and Quality Control
Task 1 of the SDMP includes project administration, workshops and progress meetings, and project QA/QC activities. Project meetings are scheduled bi-weekly for the duration of the project. The original SDMP proposal included an anticipated 14-month project duration and assumed 28 one-hour long virtual progress meetings. The previous SDMP amendment covered survey activities that were not included in the original scope and an additional 18 progress meetings (total of 46 meetings).

An updated project schedule is provided with this proposal. The schedule is based on receiving notice to proceed with the selected scope of the contract amendment by November 19, 2025 (following the November 18 City Council Meeting). Based on this schedule, an additional 30 progress meetings will be required to cover the duration of the project. It is assumed the West Yost project manager will attend all progress meetings, and one other staff (project modeler or QA/QC) will attend half of the progress meetings.

Task 3. Identify Watersheds, Develop Models, and Evaluate Existing Hydraulic Capacity
Task 3 is underway, and West Yost has delineated subwatersheds (subsheds) within the City based on topographic mapping and storm drain GIS data. The SDMP scope includes delineating approximately 100 subsheds to model design flows at key locations. This number was provided as an estimate for scoping purposes prior to storm drain system mapping being provided to West Yost. Due to the number of individual outfalls to Pinole Creek and the San Pablo Bay, approximately 180 subsheds were delineated.

Exhibit A-1

Page 110 of 133 ends

Heba El-Guindy
October 29, 2025

Page 2 ends

The additional subsheds will require additional effort in the subshed hydrologic analysis and developing/evaluating the hydrologic/hydraulic model.

Option 1
Option 1 includes modeling all 180 subsheds for the City in the SMDP model. This includes both the subsheds shown in green and the subsheds shown in orange on Figure 1 attached.

Option 2
Option 2 includes modeling approximately 125 subsheds, including only the subsheds shown in green on Figure 1. The orange subsheds along Pinole Creek that would not be evaluated with this option have only a single storm drain pipe or a short length of pipe draining directly to Pinole Creek and are assumed to be less likely to have flooding issues. The orange subsheds in the western part of the City (including the Pinole Vista Shopping Center, Apian 80 Shopping Center, Pinole Middle School, and Shannon Elementary School) will drain to an open channel in Louise Francis Park and leave the City before discharging to the San Pablo Bay.

PROJECT BUDGET
West Yost’s proposed level of effort and budget for each of the tasks described above is shown in Table 1.

West Yost will perform the scope of services described above on a time-and-expenses basis, at the billing rates set forth in West Yost’s attached 2026 Billing Rate Schedule, with a not-to-exceed budget of $102,756 for Option 1 and $53,833 for Option 2. Any additional services not included in this scope of services will be performed only after receiving written authorization and a corresponding budget augmentation.

Table 1. Estimated Project Hours and Budget
Task
Level of Effort,
hours
Estimated Budget,
dollars
Task 1. Project Management and Quality Control 45 14,458 Task 3. Identify Watersheds, Develop Models, and Evaluate Existing Hydraulic Capacity
Option 1 288 88,298
Option 2 126 39,375
Total Project Hours and Budget (Option 1) 333 $102,756
Total Project Hours and Budget (Option 2) 171 $53,833

SCHEDULE
An updated schedule is shown in Table 2 on the following page. This schedule assumes that a notice to proceed for this contract amendment request is received by November 19, 2025. Based on this schedule, we anticipate providing the City with a draft SDMP by October 31, 2026. The SDMP chapters will be submitted to the City as they are completed. Final chapters will be provided to the City within three weeks of receiving comments on draft chapters.

Page 111 of 133 ends

Heba El-Guindy
October 29, 2025

Page 3 ends

Table 2. Updated Project Schedule
Task Estimated Completion Date
Task 1. Project Management and Quality Control Ongoing
Task 2. System Inventory, Pipe Condition Assessment, and GIS Database Development Completed
Task 3. Identify Watersheds, Develop Models, and Evaluate Existing Hydraulic Capacity March 31, 2026
Task 4. Propose Capital Improvement Projects for Storm Drain Improvements July 31, 2026 Task 5. Prepare Master Plan October 31, 2026
Thank you for providing West Yost the opportunity to be of continued service to the City of Pinole. We look forward to continuing work with you on this important project. Please call if you have any questions or require additional information.

Sincerely,

WEST YOST
Melissa Duffy, PE
Senior Engineer II
RCE #87217
Attachment(s): Attachment A. West Yost’s 2026 Billing Rates Attachment B. Figure 1

Page 112 of 133 ends

Attachment A
West Yost’s 2026 Billing Rates

Page 113 of 133 ends

(Effective January 1, 2026, through December 31, 2026)*

POSITIONS

ENGINEERING
Principal/Vice President $392
Engineer/Scientist/Geologist Manager I / II $370 / $387 Principal Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I / II $333 / $355 Senior Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I / II $297 / $312
Associate Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I / II $246 / $265 Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I / II / III $191 / $221 / $231 Engineering Aide $117
Field Monitoring Services $145
Administrative I / II / III / IV $107 / $133 / $160 / $176

ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY
Engineering Tech Manager I / II $384 / $387
Principal Tech Specialist I / II $353 / $365
Senior Tech Specialist I / II $320 / $334
Senior GIS Analyst $292
GIS Analyst $277
Technical Specialist I / II / III / IV $206 / $231 / $261 / $291 Technical Analyst I / II $148 / $176
Technical Analyst Intern $119
Cross-Connection Control Specialist I / II / III / IV $154 / $167 / $188 / $208 CAD Manager $233
CAD Designer I / II $181 / $204

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
Senior Construction Manager $373
Construction Manager I / II / III / IV $222 / $237 / $251 / $318 Resident Inspector (Prevailing Wage Groups 4 / 3 / 2 / 1) $200 / $222 / $247 / $256 Apprentice Inspector $181
CM Administrative I / II $96 / $130
Field Services $256
2026 Billing Rate Schedule

LABOR CHARGES (DOLLARS PER HOUR)
■ Hourly rates include charges for technology and communication, such as general and CAD computer software, telephone calls, routine in-house copies/prints, postage, miscellaneous supplies, and other incidental project expenses. ■ Outside services, such as vendor reproductions, prints, and shipping; major West Yost reproduction efforts; as well as engineering supplies, etc., will be billed at the actual cost plus 15%. ■ The Federal Mileage Rate will be used for mileage charges and will be based on the Federal Mileage Rate applicable to when the mileage costs were incurred. Travel other than mileage will be billed at cost. ■ Subconsultants will be billed at actual cost plus 10%. ■ Expert witness services, research, technical review, analysis, preparation, and meetings will be billed at 150% of standard hourly rates. Expert witness testimony and depositions will be billed at 200% of standard hourly rates. ■ A finance charge of 1.5% per month (an annual rate of 18%) on the unpaid balance will be added to invoice amounts if not paid within 45 days from the date of the invoice. * This schedule is updated annually Page 1 of 2

Page 114 of 133 ends

(Effective January 1, 2026, through December 31, 2026)* Equipment Charges

EQUIPMENT
2" Purge Pump & Control Box $300 / day
Aquacalc / Pygmy or AA Flow Meter $28 / day
Emergency SCADA System $35 / day
Field Vehicles (Groundwater) $200 / day
Gas Detector $80 / day
Generator $60 / day
Hydrant Pressure Gauge $10 / day
Hydrant Pressure Recorder, Impulse (Transient) $55 / day Hydrant Pressure Recorder, Standard $40 / day
Low Flow Pump Back Pack $135 / day
Low Flow Pump Controller $200 / day
Powers Water Level Meter $32 / day
Precision Water Level Meter 300ft $30 / day
Precision Water Level Meter 500ft $40 / day
Precision Water Level Meter 700ft $45 / day
QED Sample Pro Bladder Pump $65 / day
Skydio 2+ Drone (2 hour minimum) $100 / hour
Storage Tank $20 / day
Sump Pump $24 / day
Transducer Communications Cable $10 / day
Transducer Components (per installation) $23 / day
Trimble GPS – Geo 7x $220 / day
Tube Length Counter $22 / day
Turbidity Meter $30 / day
Turbidity Meter (2100Q Portable) $35 / day
Vehicle (Construction Management) $18.75 / hour
Water Flow Probe Meter $20 / day
Water Quality Meter $50 / day
Water Quality Multimeter $185 / day
Well Sounder $30 / day

BILLING RATES
2026 Billing Rate Schedule
* This schedule is updated annually Page 2 of 2

Page 115 of 133 ends

Attachment B
Figure 1

Page 116 of 133 ends

Nob Hill Ave
Marlesta Rd
San Pablo Ave
Tara Hills
Bayview
80 Richmond Pkwy
Blume
Dr
Fitzgerald Dr
Shamrock Dr
Manor Rd
Sha wn
Dr
Rolling Hills
Memorial Park
Pinole Vista
Shopping
Center
80 Sycamore Ave
Railroad Ave
John Muir Pkwy
Refugio Valley Rd
Tennent
Ave
P
hea sant Dr
Hercules Ave
Partridge Dr
Willow Ave
Sycamore Ave
San Pablo Ave
John Muir Pkwy
Hercules
Morningside Dr
Appian Way
Rancho Rd
Sobrante Ave
Simas Ave
C ircle Dr
Sarah Dr
May
Rd
Galbreth Rd
Ramona
St
Sheldon Dr
Wright Ave
Pinole Park
De Anza High
School
Pinole
4 Coronado St
Lupine Rd
Redwood Rd
Bay
Area Rid
ge Trl
Wright Ave
Carriage
Dr
Pinole
Valley Rd
Bay Pointe
City Boundary
City Storm Drains
Pinole Creek
Watershed Boundaries
Included in Option 1 and
Option 2
Included in Option 1
0 0.5 1
Miles City of Pinole
Storm Drain Master Plan
Prepared by: Prepared for:

Figure 1
Model Subsheds N
LP Figure 1: N:\Clients\956 City of Pinole\60-23-02 SDMP\GIS\PinoleSDMP\PinoleSDMP.aprx - mduffy - 10/21/2025

Page 117 of 133 ends

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 11.C.

DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2025
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Heather Bell, City Clerk, [email protected]
Roxane Stone, Deputy City Clerk, [email protected]
SUBJECT: SELECTION OF MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve resolution appointing Anthony Tave as Mayor and Devin T. Murphy as Mayor Pro Tem, per the current Mayoral Rotation List.

BACKGROUND
The City of Pinole has a long-standing tradition, approved by City Council resolution, to select a Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem on an annual basis according to a system of succession that permits the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem to gain sufficient experience prior to assuming their respective roles. The selection of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem is made from a Mayoral List maintained by the City Clerk and based on a councilmember’s receipt of the highest votes in the prior election.

On October 19, 2010, Resolution 2010-87 was adopted by the City Council, approving the current succession procedures. Resolution 2010-87 requires the City Clerk to prepare and maintain a current mayoral rotation schedule in the form of a Mayoral List memorializing the mayoral ascension, following each Municipal election. The most recently approved rotation schedule, based on the 2024 Municipal Election of officers is contained as Attachment B.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
B. 2024 Mayoral Rotation Schedule
C. Resolution 2010-87

Page 118 of 133 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE

APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2010-87 regarding procedures for selecting the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem each year; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has maintained a Mayoral Rotation List in accordance with Resolution No. 2010-87; and
WHEREAS, per Resolution No. 2010-87, when the office of Mayor is vacated for any reason, the Mayor Pro Tem listed on the then-current Mayoral Rotation List shall succeed to the office of Mayor; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Cameron Sasai’s one-year term as Mayor is expiring and Mayor Sasai will be vacating the office of Mayor; and
WHEREAS, per Resolution No. 2010-87, Mayor Pro Tem Anthony Tave shall succeed to the office of Mayor, and vacate the office of Mayor Pro Tem; and WHEREAS, per Resolution No. 2010-87, when the office of Mayor Pro Tem is vacated for any reason, the next Council Member listed on the then-current Mayoral Rotation List shall succeed to the office of Mayor Pro Tem; and WHEREAS, per the procedure laid out in Resolution No. 2010-87, Council Member Devin T. Murphy is the next Council Member listed, and therefore shall succeed to the office of Mayor Pro Tem;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pinole voted as documented below, and does hereby appoint the aforementioned officers to the offices of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem also serve as the Chair and Vice Chair of the Pinole Successor Agency to the Former Redevelopment Agency of the City of Pinole; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is directed to administer the Oath of Office to the new officers.

Page 119 of 133 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of December 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was regularly introduced, passed, and adopted on this 16th day of December 2025.
___________________________
Heather Bell-Spears, CMC
City Clerk

Page 120 of 133 ends

2024 MAYORAL ROTATION LIST
Procedure Approved by Resolution 2010-87;
Pursuant to the 2022 Election and Proposed for the 2024 Election results Received Accepted by the City Council: 12/17/24

SASAI TAVE MURPHY TOMS
FUTURE

ROTATION

DETERMINED
Established by highest
# of votes in
11/8/2022 Election
Established by 2nd highest
# of votes in 11/8/2022
Election
Established by
highest # of votes in
11/5/2024 Election
Established by 2nd
highest # of votes in
11/5/2024 Election
By the highest votes
received in the
November 2026
Election
Office Term: Office Term: Office Term: Office Term: Office Term:
12/2022 – 12/2026 12/2022 – 12/2026 12/2024-12/2028 12/2024-12/2028 12/2026-12/2030 Mayor Term: Mayor Term: Mayor Term: Mayor Term: Mayor Term:

December December December December December
2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028-2030
2024 MAYORAL ROTATION SCHEDULE
2 NEWLY ELECTED

MEMBERS FROM
NOVEMBER 2024

ELECTION ADDED

TO CHART FOR

ROTATION

BEGINNING
DECEMBER 2026

Page 121 of 133 ends

RESOLUTION 2010-87

PROCUEDURES FOR SELECTING MAYOR & MAYOR PRO TEM
REAFFIRMATION OF THE MAYORAL ROTATION SCHEDULE APPROVED IN 2003 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pinole adopted Resolution 3211 on February 6, 1996 concerning the procedure for selecting the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tempore; and:

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pinole adopted Resolution 3285 on December 17, 1996, concerning the procedure for selecting the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tempore; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pinole adopted Resolution 109-2000 on February 15, 2000, concerning the procedure for selecting the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tempore; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pinole adopted Resolution 179-2003, amending the procedure for selecting the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tempore; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pinole adopted a minute order action on January 19, 2009 concerning the procedure for selecting the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tempore; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pinole intends to adopt a single resolution to ratify the actions and reaffirm the former procedure (Resolution 109-2000) for selection of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore; NOW, therefore, the City Council of the City of Pinole does hereby resolve as follows:

It is in the best interest of the City of Pinole that the councilmembers that shall serve as Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore are selected by the City Council annually according to a system of succession that permits the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore to gain sufficient experience prior to assuming their respective offices. It is appropriate to base such succession on rotation, seniority and election results in accordance with the following:

1. Mayoral List. The City Clerk shall maintain a Mayoral List in accordance with this Resolution.

The City Clerk shall update the Mayoral List for Council affirmation, following each council election and council vacancy that occurs. The Mayoral List in effect as of the adoption date of this Resolution is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution.

2. Succession Generally, When a position on the Mayoral List is vacated for any reason, except as otherwise provided in this Resolution, the next councilmember listed on the Mayoral List shall succeed to the vacant position in accordance with the Mayoral List and this Resolution.

3. Succession to Mayor, When the office of Mayor is vacated for any reason, the Mayor Pro Tempore listed on the then-current Mayoral List shall succeed to the office of Mayor.

4. Succession to the Office of Mayor Pro Tempore. When the office of Mayor Pro-tempore is vacated for any reason, the next councilmember listed on the then-current Mayoral List shall succeed to the office of Mayor Pro Tempore.
1 ATTACHMENT B

Page 122 of 133 ends

5. Placement of the Outgoing Mayor on the Mayoral List. The name of the outgoing Mayor shall be placed at the end of the Mayoral List, unless the outgoing Mayor is re-elected (in that election year), in which case, Section 6 shall apply.
6, Placement of Newly Elected Councilmembers on the Mayoral List. The names of the highest vote getters among newly elected councilmembers (incumbent or non-incumbent) shall be placed on the Mayoral List after incumbent councilmembers in order of most votes received, but before the outgoing Mayor unless the outgoing mayor is re-elected at the same election, in which case the outgoing Mayor shall also be placed on the list in order of votes received.

7. Placement on the Mayoral List of Non-Incumbent Councilmembers Newly Elected or Appointed to Fill Vacancies. Non-incumbent councilmembers newly elected or appointed to fill vacancies on the City Council shall be placed last on the Mayoral List, but above the outgoing Mayor, if any, at the time the vacancy is filled,

8. Councilmembers’ Right to Decline the Offices of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore. Councilmembers may decline to succeed to the office of Mayor or Mayor Pro Tempore pursuant to the Mayoral List and this Resolution. When a councilmember so declines to succeed to such office, such office shall pass to the next councilmember listed on the Mayoral List that is eligible pursuant to this Resolution to succeed to such office.

The names of councilmembers that so decline to succeed to the office of Mayor or Mayor Pro Tempore shall be placed on the Mayoral List immediately following the name of the councilmember that succeeds to such office, notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution.

9. Removal of Mayor by Council Vote, Councilmembers that have succeeded to the office of Mayor in accordance with the Mayoral List and this Resolution may be removed from that office by a majority vote of the full Council. Such removed Mayor shall be treated the same as an outgoing Mayor for purposes of the Mayoral List and this Resolution.

This resolution supercedes Resolutions 3211 and 3285, 109-2000, and 179-2003, and any prior minute order actions, which are hereby repealed and of no further force or effect.

THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED this 19th day of October 2010, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Banuelos, Fujita, Long, Murray, Swearingen NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Patricia Athenoui1lMC
City Clerk
2

Page 123 of 133 ends

EXHIBIT A to Resolution 2010-87

MAYOR ROTATION LIST
October 19, 2010 — Current Status

LONG SWEARINGEN MURRAY FUJITA BANUELOS
(2nd place vote (2nd highest (Outgoing Mayor Served 1/2 year Appointed August recipient in vote recipient in 12/2008, & term as Mayor in 18, 2008, fill Feb 08 in Nov 4, 2008 highest vote May 2008, when vacancy from Vacancy Election- recipient in Horton resigned Horton’s Council /Recall 1 time switch Nov 4, 2008 as Mayor resignation
Election) with Murray Election) 7/21/08
per 1/13/2009
minute order
December December December December December
2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2011-2012 2012-2013
POST NOVEMBER 2, 2010 ELECTION
SWEARINGEN MURRAY New member New member 2 NEWLY New member (2nd highest vote (Outgoing Highest vote 2nd Highest vote ELECTED 3rd Highest vote getter in recipient in Nov4, Mayor in getter in 2010 getter in 2010 MEMBERS FROM 2010 election —will never 2008 Election- 12/2008, & election Election NOVEMBER 2012 ascend to Mayor unless re I time switch with highest vote Term Dec Term Dec 2010- ELECTION ADDED elected in Nov 2012 as 1st Murray per recipient in 2010-Dec 2014 Dec 2014 TO CHART FOR or 2nd highest 1/13/2009 minute Nov 4, 2008 ROTATION Term Dec 2010-Dec 2014 order Election) BEGINNING
DECEMBER 2014
December December December December December
2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015
3

Page 124 of 133 ends

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 13.A.

DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2025
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Heather Bell, City Clerk, [email protected]
SUBJECT: NOMINATE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO SERVE ON BOARDS AND

SUBCOMMITTEES

RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends that the City Council nominate Council Members to serve as City representatives on specific boards and subcommittees in 2026. The City Council will have the opportunity to approve the nominations at the next City Council meeting, on January 20, 2026.

BACKGROUND
City Council Members serve as representatives of the City on the boards of numerous joint powers authorities and other regional bodies. Council Members also serve on subcommittees that the City Council creates from time to time. The Pinole City Council’s practice has been to make appointments of Council Members to serve as representatives on various external boards and Council subcommittees on an annual basis, in December, in coordination with the appointment of a new Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, and because some appointments are based on mayorship. Revisions to the list are also made throughout the year in accordance with Council action and to reflect creation of new committees and/or appoint new representatives.

The City Clerk maintains the most recent version of the list. State law requires that each city publish a list of these councilmember assignments. This is referred to as the Council Committee Assignment List.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Attached find a list of the various joint powers authorities and other regional bodies to which the City Council appoints a Council Member to serve as a representative, as well as the Council subcommittees that the Council has created over time. Staff has pre-populated the draft 2026 appointment list based on the standard mayoral succession and 2025 assignments (the 2025 appointment list is attached for reference).

The Mayor will lead a discussion during which the Council will review the list, discuss and make nominations or reaffirm the currently assigned Council members to each body. Staff will make changes to the draft 2026 appointment list based on Council nominations at the December 16, 2025 Council meeting and disseminate a revised list with a resolution for approval by the City Council at the next City Council meeting.

Following approval of the list, a copy will be provided to the Council and to the public.

Page 125 of 133 ends

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact.

ATTACHMENTS
A. DRAFT 2026 Council Assignments
B. 2025 Council Assignments

Page 126 of 133 ends

1 2026 COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS

FOR COUNCIL REVIEW

JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES AND OTHER INTERAGENCY REGULATORY BODIES OF

WHICH THE CITY IS A MEMBER

1. ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA (ABAG)
Meetings: General Assembly Conference, Friday June 20, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

General Assembly Business Meeting, Friday, June 20, 10:00 p.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Location: Bay Area Metro Center, 375 Beale Street, San Francisco, or as announced.

Contact: Fred Castro, Clerk of the Board, Ph: (415) 820-7913, Email:
[email protected]
Delegate: Murphy Alternate: Martinez-Rubin

2. GREEN EMPOWERMENT ZONE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Meetings: 3rd Friday, Every Other Month at 9:30 a.m.

Location: 30 Muir Rd. ZA Room, Martinez
Contact: Alyson Greenlee, Economic Development Director, Ph: (925) 655-2783, Email: [email protected]
Governing Board of the Green Empowerment
Zone.https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/9963/Governing-Board-of-theGreen-Empowerment Delegate: Murphy Alternate: Toms
Created: October 15, 2024

3. MCE CLEAN ENERGY
Meetings: 3
rd Thursday of every month at 6:30 p.m.

Location: Rotational locations
Contact: Jesica Brooks, Lead Clerk/Executive Assistant, Ph: (888) 632-3674 Email: [email protected]
Delegate: Murphy Alternate: Toms

4. PINOLE / HERCULES WASTEWATER SUBCOMMITTEE
Meetings: Quarterly meetings - 1st Thursday at 8:30 a.m.

Contact: Pinole Public Works Director, Ph: (510) 954-3495 Location: Location alternates between cities
Delegates: Tave/Murphy Alternate: Martinez-Rubin

Page 127 of 133 ends

2 5. WEST CONTRA COSTA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (WCCIWMA, “RECYCLEMORE”)
Meetings: Meets monthly – 2nd Thursday at 6:15 p.m., no meetings in August.

Location: Hercules City Council Chambers, 111 Civic Drive, Hercules Contact: Steve Duran, Interim Executive Director, Ph: (510) 609-1217, Email:
[email protected]
Board Secretary, Email: [email protected]
Delegate: Tave Alternate: Murphy

6. WEST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (WCCTC)
Meetings: Meets monthly - Last Friday of every month from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m., November & December Dates TBD
Location: El Cerrito City Hall
Contact: John Nemeth, Executive Director, Ph: (510) 210-5933, Email:
[email protected]
Mia Carrasco, Administrative Assistant., Ph: (510) 210-5931, Email:
[email protected]
Delegate: Sasai Alternate: Tave

7. WESTERN CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (“WCCTA / WESTCAT”) Meetings: 2nd Thursday monthly at 6:30 p.m.

Location: Pinole Council Chambers, 2131 Pear Street
Contact: Mica McFadden, Ph: (510) 724-3331 x 113, Email: [email protected] Delegate: Sasai/Martinez-Rubin Alternate: Murphy

VOLUNTARY INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION BODIES OF WHICH THE CITY IS A MEMBER

8. BAYFRONT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Meetings: Bi-Monthly, 2nd Tuesday of every month at 8:00 a.m.

Location: Remote
Contact: Sylvia Villa-Serrano, Ph: (510)741-7945, Email:
[email protected]
Delegate: Toms

9. CONTRA COSTA MAYORS CONFERENCE
Meetings: First Thursday of each month at 6:30 p.m.

Location: Rotational locations
Contact: Gary Pokorny, Ph. (510) 508-0052, Email: [email protected] Delegate: (Mayor) Tave (Mayor Pro Tem) Murphy

10. EAST BAY DIVISION, LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
Meetings: February 27, 2025, April 17, 2025, September 25, 2025, December 11, 2025.

Location: Rotational locations
Contact: Sam Caygill, East Bay Regional Public Mgr., Ph: (510) 473-5418, Email:
[email protected]

Page 128 of 133 ends

3 Delegate: (Mayor) Tave (Mayor Pro Tem) Murphy

11. PARTICIPANTS IN FORMATION PROCESS OF EAST BAY WILDFIRE PREVENTION

AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
(limited duration / specific focus)
Meetings: TBD
Attendees: Toms/Tave

12. WEST COUNTY MAYORS AND SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION
Meetings: 4th Thursday, Quarterly in January, April, July, and October at 8:30 a.m.

Location: 6
th Month Rotation: San Pablo, El Cerrito, Pinole, Hercules, Richmond Contact: January-June 2025 Hercules, Eibleis Melendez, Ph: 510-799-8208 Email:
[email protected]
July-Dec. 2025 Richmond, Pamela Christian, Ph: 510-620-6513, Email:
[email protected]
Delegate: (Mayor) Tave (Mayor Pro Tem) Murphy

SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE PINOLE CITY COUNCIL

13. FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE
Meetings: Meet Quarterly/As Needed
Delegates: Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem & City Treasurer
Contact: City Manager, Finance Director, & City Clerk
Created: (Res. 2005-15)

14. COMMITTEE ON MEMORIALS
(limited duration / specific focus)
Meetings: TBD
Attendees: Sasai/Murphy
Created: November 1, 2016

15. PLANNING COMMISSION INTERVIEW AD-HOC SUBCOMMITTEE
(limited duration / specific focus)
Attendees: Toms/Martinez-Rubin

16. TAPS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION INTERVIEW AD-HOC

SUBCOMMITTEE
(limited duration / specific focus)
Attendees: Tave/Martinez-Rubin

17. AD HOC DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS SUBCOMMITTEE Meetings: TBD
Attendees: Toms/Martinez-Rubin
Created: November 19, 2024

18. CITY COUNCIL PROCEDURES SUBCOMMITTEE
Meetings: TBD
Attendees: Martinez-Rubin/Murphy
Created: October 21, 2025

19. EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN (EOP) SUBCOMITTEE
Meetings: TBD
Attendees: Toms/Murphy
Created: October 21, 2025

Page 129 of 133 ends

Page 130 of 133 ends

1 2025 COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS