Pinole City Council
February 17, 2026

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

PINOLE CITY COUNCIL

MEETING AGENDA
February 17, 2026
5:00 PM
Attend in Person: PINOLE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 2131 PEAR STREET OR
Attend VIA ZOOM TELECONFERENCE – Details provided below How to Submit Public Comments:

In Person:

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

Via Zoom:

Members of the public may submit a live remote public comment via Zoom video conferencing. Download the Zoom mobile app from the Apple Appstore or Google Play. If you are using a desktop computer, you can test your connection to Zoom by clicking here. Zoom also allows you to join the meeting by phone.

From a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89335000272
Webinar ID: 893 3500 0272
By phone: +1 (669) 900-6833 or +1 (253) 215-8782 or +1 (346) 248-7799 • Speakers will be asked to provide their name and city of residence, although providing this is not required for participation.
• Each speaker will be afforded up to 3 minutes to speak (subject to modification by the Mayor) • Speakers will be muted until their opportunity to provide public comment.

When the Mayor opens the comment period for the item you wish to speak on, please use the “raise hand” feature (or press *9 if connecting via telephone) which will alert staff that you have a comment to provide and press *6 to unmute. To comment with your video enabled, please let the City Clerk know you would like to turn your camera on once you are called to speak.

Written Comments:

All comments received before 3:00 pm the day of the meeting will be posted on the City’s website on the agenda page (Agenda Page Link) and provided to the City Council prior to the meeting. Written comments will not be read aloud during the meeting. Email comments to [email protected] Please indicate which item on the agenda you are commenting on in the subject line of your email.

City Council
Agenda - February 17, 2026

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 Deputy City Clerk, Roxane Stone at (510) 724-8937 or [email protected].

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

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

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

City Council
Agenda - February 17, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AGENDA FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS

7. REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Mayor Report

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

City Council
Agenda - February 17, 2026

8. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMUNITY EVENTS
A. Proclamations

1. Japanese Day of Remembrance

2. Lunar New Year

3. Pinole Historical Society
B. Presentations

1. City Manager Executive Search Kick-Off — Bob Hall & Associates, Joe Gorton

2. Pinole Community TV Performance Dashboard

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 February 3, 2026.

B. Receive the January 31, 2026 – February 13, 2026, List of Warrants in the Amount of $1,412,701.55 and the February 13, 2026 Payroll in the Amount of $557,031.97.

C. Adopt a Resolution Approving the Submission of an Application to the California Coastal Commission for Whale Tail Grant funds and Designating the Authorized Representative Action: Adopt a resolution per staff recommendation (Lilly Whalen, Kapil Amin)
D. FY 2025/26 Second Quarter Investment Report Action: Receive a Report (Markisha Guillory)
E. Placement of Liens for Delinquent Unpaid Waste Collection Charges Falling Delinquent Between September and December 2025, Considered at an Administrative Hearing on February 4, 2026. Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Roxane Stone)

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. Introduction of an ordinance amending Section 2.12.010 to modify the start time of regularly scheduled city council meetings Action: Introduction of an ordinance amending Section

2.12.010 to modify the start time of regularly scheduled city council meetings (Eric Casher)
B. Community Services Master Fee Schedule Action: Conduct Public Hearing and Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Andrea Dwyer, Markisha Guillory)

City Council
Agenda - February 17, 2026

11. OLD BUSINESS
A. None

12. NEW BUSINESS
A. FY 2025/26 Mid-Year Budget Review (Second Quarter Financial Report) Action: Receive Report and Adopt Resolution Authorizing Budget Amendments (Markisha Guillory) B. Approve and Authorize the Mayor to Execute the Employment Agreement for Garrett Evans To Become the Interim City Manager. Action: Adopt a Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Stacy Shell)

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

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

14. ADJOURNMENT to the Regular City Council Meeting of March 3, 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. _______________________
Roxane Stone, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
POSTED: Thursday, February 12, 2026 at 5:30 pm

Lead Recruiter: Joe Gorton
Recruitment for City Manager
City of Pinole
Bob Hall & Associates
Executive Recruiters
www.bobhallandassociates.com

Pinole City Manager Recruitment
Agenda
• Recruiter Introduction
• Overview of the Recruitment Process
• Timeline
• Council Feedback on Ideal City Manager Candidate

Pinole City Manager Recruitment
Introduction of Lead Recruiter
• Former City Manager
• Former Police Chief
• Advisory Committee on Mental Health Response in CCC.
• Master’s Degree in Organizational Development (USF)
Joe Gorton- Lead Recruiter (35 years Experience)
https://www.bobhallandassociates.com/joe

Pinole City Manager Recruitment
Recruitment Process & Timeline
Community Engagement
• Solicit City Council Feedback on Ideal Candidate
• Hold Community-wide Feedback Forum (In-person, Online) • Solicit Stakeholder Feedback
Business Community
Youth & Schools
Faith-based Community
Other Stakeholders
Feb Mar April May June

Pinole City Manager Recruitment
Recruitment Process & Timeline
Community Engagement & Recruitment
• Launch Nationwide Recruitment
• Targeted Outreach
• Conduct Online Community Survey
• Meet with additional stakeholders as necessary.

Feb Jan Mar Feb March April April May June May

Pinole City Manager Recruitment
Recruitment Process & Timeline
Candidate Screening
• Preliminary Screening Candidates
Candidate Resumes and Cover Letters will be Evaluated to Determine Experience and Education Most Closely Aligned to City’s Desired Qualifications Bob Hall & Associates Will Conduct Screening Interviews with Candidates to Assess which Applicants Should be Moved Forward to the City’s Selection Process • Most Qualified Candidates Presented to the City Council for Consideration to be Invited to Participate in the Interview Panels
Feb Jan Mar Feb March April April May June May

Pinole City Manager Recruitment
Recruitment Process & Timeline
City Selection Process
• Candidates Participate in Oral Assessment with the City Council Finalists
• Candidates Determined by the Council to be Most Aligned with the City’s Desired Qualifications will be Invited to a second interview with the City’s Executive Team panel and a Community Leadership panel who will provide feedback to the City Council prior to the final interview. • Finalists will Participate In a Final Interview with the City Council Feb Jan Mar Feb March April April May June May

Pinole City Manager Recruitment
Recruitment Process & Timeline
City Manager is Selected
• City will Conduct Background Investigation, reference check and other HR Functions
• New City Manager Start Date will be Determined.

Feb Jan Mar Feb March April April May June May

Pinole City Manager Recruitment
City Council Feedback

PLEASE PROVIDE FEEDBACK FOR
• Ideal City Manager Candidate
• Desired Experience & Qualifications
• Desired Leadership and Management Style
• Desired Community Engagement and Communication Style
• Collaboration and Partnerships

Fiona Epps, Communications Director
February 17, 2026

PINOLE COMMUNITY TV

PERFORMANCE

DASHBOARD

BACKGROUND
• June 17, 2025 – Staff presented the Pinole Community Television (PCTV) Community Media Center Strategy FY 25/26.
• City Council requested that staff bring back:
1) a proposed framework to measure community engagement in alignment with strategic communication goals; and
2) include a proposal for an annual public forum focused for PCTV services and programs that will help us explore membership tiers and fees.

PCTV STRATEGY GOALS & OBJECTIVES

1. Establish, maintain, and operate public access center.

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

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

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

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

PCTV DASHBOARD METRICS
Goal #4: Local content and
storytelling
• Hours of locally produced content aired
per month
• Number of live
broadcasts/livestreams
• Original local content aired (from
community creators)
• Viewer engagement with local
content (i.e. views)
Goal #5: Community awareness &
engagement
• Outreach activities conducted
• Marketing campaign reach
• PCTV brand recognition
• New public access users
• Community satisfaction/feedback
• Change in participation rate (i.e.
growth in volunteers)

PCTV PERFORMANCE DASHBOARD
HTTPS://PINOLE.GOV/PCTV/PCTV-PERFORMANCE-DASHBOARD

Local
bulletins
New
series
PCTVproduced
content
LocallyProduced
content
Live sports &
Breaking
coverage
July 2025 - January 2026
46 42 19 12 6 1 / 1

TOP TYPES OF PROGRAMS AIRED

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STATISTICS
21 12 8 5 2 0
Volunteers
Media
requests
Outreach
booth
Donations
Sponsorships
July 2025 - January 2026

PCTV Survey
• First circulated November-December
2024
• Part of the PCTV Community Media
Strategy
• Next proposed cycle: Summer 2026

PROPOSED ANNUAL PUBLIC FORUM

THANK YOU!
QUESTIONS?

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
February 3, 2026

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 Tave 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
Anthony Tave, Mayor
Devin Murphy, Mayor Pro Tem
Norma Martinez-Rubin, Council Member
Maureen Toms, Council Member
Cameron Sasai, Council Member
B. STAFF PRESENT
Melissa Klawuhn, Acting City Manager/Police Chief
Eric Casher, City Attorney
Fiona Epps, Communications Director
Markisha Guillory, Finance Director
Roxane Stone, Deputy City Clerk
Deputy City Clerk Roxane Stone announced the agenda had been posted on January 29, 2026 at 3:40 p.m. with all legally required written notices. Written comments had been received in advance of the meeting, distributed to the City Council and staff, posted to the City website and made available to the public to view in the Council Chambers.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

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

4. CONVENE TO A CLOSED SESSION:

A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Gov. Code §54956.8
Property: Assessor’s Parcel Number: 401-230-016
Agency Negotiators: Community Development Director Lilly Whalen, City Attorney Eric Casher
Negotiating Parties: Patrick Donovan, Project Manager, On Air Communications Inc.

Authorized Agent: Crown Castle
B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Gov. Code §54957.6
Agency designated representatives: City Attorney Eric Casher, Human Resources Director Stacy Shell
Unrepresented employee: Interim City Manager
C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Gov. Code §54956.9(d)(4): Initiation of Litigation
Number of Potential Cases: One

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

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

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

At 6:03 p.m., Mayor Tave reconvened the meeting into open session. There was no reportable action for Closed Session Items 4A and 4B. For Item 4C, direction was given to initiate legal action and the name of the defendants and other particulars could be disclosed to anyone who inquired once the action was formally commenced.

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.

Ann Moriarty, Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed and Jodie Ingals, Pinole Garden Club, described the City of Pinole’s Community Services Department’s collaboration with the Pinole Garden Club and Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed on the Pinole Pollinator Pathway Project.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

The project would be planted with a majority of California natives with a commitment to being pesticide free, the gardens would be both public and private and would welcome pollinators such as birds, butterflies, bumble bees and other native bees and insects. The existing public gardens included the garden at Bay Front Park at the base of the Bay Trail Pedestrian Bridge, a model garden in Fernandez Park, the Pinole Library Native Garden, the Blue Star Garden at I-80 and the Pollinator Garden in the Upper Watershed. The installation of the native pollinator garden would be celebrated on February 7, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. at Fernandez Park. This would be a public garden sponsored by the City of Pinole, planted with keystone species and native plants and located by the children’s play structure. Different activities were planned during the event, with garden medallions in two different sizes, to be offered for sale to those who participated.

Everyone was encouraged to attend.

7. REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Mayor Report

1. Announcements: None
B. Mayoral & Council Appointments: None
C. City Council Committee Reports & Communications
Council member Toms reported she attended the East Bay Leadership Council Wastewater Testing Webinar, with East Bay Leadership having kicked off 2026 with a Special Joint Task Force meeting co-hosted by the Health, Water, Energy and Environment Task Forces, and with a representative from the California Department of Public Health having shared how the state used wastewater surveillance to track disease outbreaks and guide public health decisions. She reported she had asked why the City of Pinole had not been included as a participant and was informed there was a good sampling throughout Contra Costa County of participants in the program. She was also told there was uncertainty about funding to continue let alone expand the program; however, she indicated the City’s willingness to participate if the opportunity came up.

Council member Toms also attended the Road Maintenance Town Hall and thanked the Mayor and City staff for a great job presenting the issues. She reported the East Bay Wildfire Government Coalition had not met since the meeting location at El Cerrito City Hall was under renovation, although a SPUR Report on Bay Area Fire Mitigation Strategies had been posted on the agency website which identified how communities could come together to prepare and recover from wildfire. She also attended the Policy Committee for Housing, with a presentation from the cities of Humbolt and Arcadia, on their 7th Cycle Housing Element, and reported their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers were much higher than the 6th Cycle.

Council member Sasai reported he attended a meeting of the West Contra Costa Transportation Commission (WCCTC) and he had been selected as Chair, Rebecca Saltzman representing the City of El Cerrito as Vice-Chair and appointments had been made to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). He added the WCCTC by-laws would be changed at its next meeting to allow for two alternate seats to the CCTA, and WCCTC received a presentation and overview of the Hercules Hub Project, a regional transportation development on the Hercules waterfront. He highlighted the specifics of that project.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Council member Sasai also reported he had recently been appointed to the League of California Cities Policy Committee on Environmental Quality; attended the Contra Costa Immigrant Rights Alliance, and reported on the discussion of the closure of the immigration courts in San Francisco.

As a result, an influx of people was expected to go to the nearest immigration court located in the City of Concord. Additional topics had also been discussed during the meeting.

Council member Sasai thanked the City Attorney and the Acting City Manager/Police Chief for their support for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Free Zone Policy, and reported since the City’s adoption of an ordinance in December 2025, several cities in the state had used the City’s language and proposed their own similar ordinances. He emphasized the importance of the City of Pinole being the first to adopt such an ordinance and others who had followed with the implementation of similar ordinances. The City’s ordinance was strong and restricted immigration enforcement on all public property unless there was a court order or judicial warrant.

Council member Sasai also thanked the Acting City Manager/Police Chief for responding to complaints about the traffic signals on Pinole Valley Road and I-80 near Kaiser and Starbucks.

The traffic signals had little delay between turning red or green resulting in near misses. He was informed that Caltrans operated the signals and the County also played a part, and once the County had been informed, the County would communicate with Caltrans to address the timing of the lights.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy wished everyone Happy Black History Month, urged everyone to take a moment to reflect and consider how they may develop a brighter current state, and remember on February 3, 1870 that black men for the first time were granted the right to vote through the ratification of the 15th Amendment. He emphasized that Black History Month was both a celebration of resilience and achievement and a call to remain vigilant to protect civil rights and democratic participation for all.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy also reported the Pinole Library would close on March 1, 2026, to accommodate important construction improvements. Other libraries would be available outside of Pinole and he would share updates so that residents could be informed accordingly and plan for alternative library services during the closure. He thanked City staff, the Mayor, community partners and the participants who provided feedback during the Roads Maintenance Town Hall.

He also reported receiving emails from residents about sidewalk vendors, with greater interest whether or not sidewalk vendors were legal. He encouraged residents to reach out to the Community Development Department, which developed and distributed resources for sidewalk vendors, with the materials clarifying permitting requirements, operational guidelines and available resources.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy further reported on January 29, 2026, community partners, educators and local leaders in West County had come together for a joint meeting with the West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) Community School Support Collaborative and the WCCUSD Systems Change Collaborative. The meeting focused on strengthening partnerships and elevating youth leadership including learning from the City of Richmond’s collaboration with West County schools through the Y-Plan Initiative, a collaborative effort between the City of Richmond and the U.C. Berkeley Y-Plan Team, to engage youth in the planning process and address their unique needs. A larger report would be provided at the WCCUSD Board of Trustees’ first meeting of the month of March.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy added that he had been appointed by the President of the League of National Cities, to serve on the Finance Administration and Intergovernmental Relations Committee for 2026, which committee played a critical role in protecting how cities funded essential services and infrastructure. With this appointment, it placed the City of Pinole on the front line of national advocacy, safeguarding federal funding streams and preserving and keeping tools cities relied on, specifically tax-exempt municipal bonds, which he highlighted. He was honored to represent the City in this way and bring all of the issues back to the League of National Cities.

D. Council Requests for Future Agenda Items
Council member Sasai requested staff be directed to provide an overview of a Wage Theft Ordinance and to discuss options to implement such an ordinance for the City of Pinole as a future agenda item.

On the motion, Council member Toms asked whether an ordinance was needed. She asked whether the City should spend the money on an ordinance or whether the City could rely on state law.

City Attorney Eric Casher explained while there were some state laws, this would be unique since it would be the City withholding or refusing to issue a Certificate of Occupancy or final close out of a local project based on prevailing wage violations or if a contractor did not comply with certain labor laws. Staff could look into the matter further if directed to return with a presentation.

ACTION: Motion by Council member Sasai/Mayor Pro Tem Murphy to direct staff to add to a future agenda, an overview of a Wage Theft Ordinance and to discuss options to implement such an ordinance for the City of Pinole.

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

Absent: None
ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Murphy/Council member Toms to direct staff to prepare a proclamation recognizing and honoring Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Fire Chief Lewis Broschard on his retirement.

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

Absent: None
Mayor Pro Tem Murphy offered a motion, seconded by Council member Toms to direct staff to receive a presentation from Marin Clean Energy (MCE) and provide direction, as appropriate.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

City Attorney Casher reported a presentation from MCE had been scheduled for the month of June, and the Mayor Pro Tem explained he understood but the motion was intended as a formality.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Murphy/Council member Toms to direct staff to receive a presentation from Marin Clean Energy and provide direction, as appropriate.

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

Absent: None
E. City Manager Report / Department Staff
Acting City Manager/Police Chief Melissa Klawuhn reported Bob Hall & Associates had been selected to conduct the nationwide executive search for the City’s next City Manager; Probolsky Research had been selected to poll public sentiment about ballot measures and community priorities to move forward in the next several weeks; the Public Works Department had been busy submitting for grant and funding opportunities; a request had been submitted for Transportation Development Act Article 3 (TDA-3) funding for traffic control improvements on San Pablo Avenue, with application made to the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) for traffic data analytics and community outreach and engagement. The Public Works Department also recently submitted a grant application to the Federal Railroad Administration Federal State Partnership for the Intercity Passenger Rail Program, to assist with the right-of-way (ROW) and construction of the Tennant Avenue at-grade railroad crossing improvements project.

In addition, the Pinole Police Department (PPD) had been invited to the Special Olympics Luncheon on February 12, 2026 in the City of Pleasant Hill. The City of Pinole was one of the top revenue collectors for the Special Olympics and Officers Lewis and Witschi would attend.

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

1. Black History Month
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing the month of February as Black History Month.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Sanai Daniels McCockran President and Gerald Davis, Vice-President, African American Student Union, Pinole Valley High School (PVHS), thanked the City Council for the proclamation.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Council member Sasai thanked the student leaders for their participation. He acknowledged the Black History Month proclamation as read into the record, and commented the proclamation should also include the recognition of Nuclear Chemist James Harris, who helped to discover Elements #104 and #105 on the periodic table and who was also the grandfather of Pinole artist Iamsu. He was honored to serve with the City officials listed in the proclamation. He also invited the public to the PVHS Black History Month Jubilee scheduled for February 28, 2026 from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. at PVHS, with more information at [email protected].

Mayor Tave was excited to celebrate Black History Month and also looked forward to the PVHS Black History Month Jubilee and the celebration of Black History. He too urged everyone to participate.

B. Presentations

1. The State of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the City of Pinole – Communications Director, Fiona Epps
Communications Director Fiona Epps provided a PowerPoint presentation on the state of Artificial Intelligence (AI), which included an overview of the definition of AI, a software system capable of performing tasks that typically required human intelligence, such as pattern recognition, decisionmaking, or language understanding, often using algorithms and neural networks to compute; the background of AI technology including federal and state frameworks; an overview of the California AI Accountability Act, Senate Bill (SB) 896; the background of the City’s AI approach, generative and AI opportunities and risks and ethical considerations.

The City of Pinole’s AI Policy established a comprehensive, yet flexible, governance structure for Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems used by, or on behalf of the City of Pinole. The policy enabled the City of Pinole to use AI systems responsibly for the benefit of the community while safeguarding against potential harms. The City’s AI Policy and key objectives when purchasing, configuring, developing, operating, or maintaining AI systems; user-specific rules when engaging in high-risk generative AI use cases; prohibited uses; Department usage of AI; future uses of AI including training and communication and the AI and the Information Technology (IT) Plan 2026- 2031 were highlighted in depth.

Communications Director Epps explained that the next steps would include the final review and approval of the AI Policy collection, which would require a draft to be sent to the unions for review.

A final draft of the AI Policy would be presented to the City Manager for review and approval since it was an administrative policy, after that would be implementation where external and internal communications would come into play. Monitoring would occur with quarterly revisions to the AI Policy given the ever-and-rapidly changing technology, quarterly revisions of the AI Policy, monitoring of state and federal policies and participation in GovAI Coalition Activities.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Responding to questions from the City Council, Communications Director Epps and Acting City Manager/Police Chief Klawuhn clarified the following:
• Staff used quite a few policy resources in the development of the City’s AI Policy, including examples from other cities including Walnut Creek, Concord, Lafayette and a number of Bay Area policies along with shared examples from the Public Managers Association (PMA). The Communications Director attended the GovAI Coalition Conference and connected with other cities and communicated with IT staff who were facing the same issues. Some cities already had approved AI polices and put those policies in place.

Templates vetted by both the GovAI Coalition in terms of governance frameworks in municipal settings were used as well as a template from the Municipal Information System Association of California. Bits and pieces of all of this information had been applied to the City of Pinole’s specific situation in preparation of an AI Policy that worked for the City of Pinole. (Sasai)
• The City currently did not have any approved AI policies at this time, although the PPD had an AI Policy that was specific to the PPD. Recent legislation that spoke specifically to criminal reports generated by law enforcement went into effect January 1, 2026. The system used by the PPD, Lexipol, was being reviewed to ensure compliance with the new legislation. (Sasai)
• Clarified policies in terms of generational application, with the City having addressed the issue of bias, equity and a human-centered approach in the guiding principles of the AI Policy. There were a lot of predictive analytics that could produce erroneous results, and AI was not always correct. There was also a lot of AI failure occurring since the machine learning algorithms relied on protected information such as race, gender and disability status, which could lead to adverse outcomes due to societal structural inequities built into the system. The City did not have any machine learning technologies that relied on this type of data, but the key themes in the AI Policy had been human oversight and data safeguards, which staff was of the opinion could help to prevent any adverse outcomes.

Bias awareness training for staff would also be very important which could help prevent misrepresentation in AI generated imagery. Staff recommended the use of authentic Pinole Community Television (PCTV) photos for communications or stock images. Staff was also exploring the possibility of revising or adding an addendum to the City’s branding guidelines that would restrict the use of AI generated imagery in communications. (Sasai) • AI usage subject to the Public Records Act (PRA) was something staff had yet to better define. Currently, pursuant to the City’s records retention guidelines and policies, AI was not clearly defined, but it could be categories according to the records retention schedule, and could include correspondence used for drafts, data, reports dropped into generative AI, but mostly apply to the output when dropping information into CoPilot, as an example. (Sasai)
• Users of the data used could be reminded that the public may request to see the work flow. Staff was uncertain of the exact content that could be applied to the records retention policies, but it could be generative AI as a catch-all and there were many policies that could apply. It was a safe approach to tell people whatever was placed in generative AI, it could be subject to the PRA. (Sasai)

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

• Staff strongly encouraged, as outlined in the AI Policy, City-approved AI applications, which would be safer, vetted and IT had assessed those applications for risks. Staff would ask that users use City e-mail addresses and accounts, but if one chose to use a generative AI territory, they need to review the terms and conditions and were required to understand those terms and conditions. (Sasai)
• Clarified again the California AI Accountability Act, SB 896. There had been no recent changes in the legislation other than a federal executive order that came out in December 2025, which dealt with White House filings and emphasis on inconsistent state regulations that could create costly compliance burdens for economic growth. SB 896 focused more on government transparency, not so much on private entity regulation. (Sasai) • Clarified SB 524, Law enforcement agencies: artificial intelligence, which was specific to law enforcement reports. In terms of draft retention, for law enforcement reports drafted through AI, the first draft must also be retained with the final draft of the crime report. The reports were subject to the retention of the crime reports and subject to the same PRA requirements of those crime reports. There were also additional disclaimer requirements, including that the report was generated through AI and that it had been reviewed by an officer. (Sasai)
• The PowerPoint presentation before the City Council at this time was the current state of the City’s AI Policy. It was an administrative policy that impacted employees. The typical process was to run the policy by the unions and allow them to provide feedback then move it to the City Manager for approval. If the City Council wanted the AI Policy to be brought back as a Consent Calendar item or a discussion item to allow the City Council to provide feedback, that could be done. (Sasai)
• As to whether AI had improved services to residents and what metric would be used to evaluate the effectiveness of those tools moving forward, staff was in the beginning stages of exploring and using AI. As an example, the recent Town Hall on road maintenance had used public input as part of a hybrid meeting to test out the transcription capabilities which helped to produce an accurate report. Microsoft CoPilot had been used to organize that information into a report the Acting City Manager distributed to the City Council. Another example where AI was a great benefit to the public had also been used at a Town Hall meeting, where the live streaming of the meeting had been able to be transcribed in real time, allowing a member of the public to have that information translated into their language (into any Google language live while watching the Town Hall). That had been a real impactful benefit to the public of the use of AI. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy) • As to how the success of AI would be measured moving forward, staff had not established specifics for the use of the AI tools and how they impacted the public. As part of the AI Policy, staff wanted to implement a way for people to give feedback, suggestions and comments around AI since they were still learning how AI could be used to better serve the public. Staff already discovered that using AI internally had helped staff save time, improve productivity and do more with less. When measuring success with the AI applications and the public, that would depend on specific projects or applications when AI was being used to compare, such as the level of engagement of non-English speakers before versus after the use of the AI translation tool. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

• Acknowledged the need to identify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) before an AI Policy was adopted whether it was done by the City Manager or the City Council. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)
• The AI Policy would apply to employees, interns and volunteers making it an administrative policy, as determined by the City Manager. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy) • As to what issues would determine supporting a requirement for the AI Policy to come before the City Council for review and approval prior to administrative/City Manager approval if the City Council requested the policy be brought back, staff would follow the City Council direction. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)
• None of the PPD technologies fell under the prohibited uses in the AI Policy. The PPD used the Peach Safety Report Program, which complied with the policies and the requirements of the Department of Justice. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy) • Clarified again the user-specific rules of the AI Policy. When opting-out of data collection, if possible, the user-rules applied to staff usage of generative AI. As an example, when opting-out of data collection when possible meant if there was an option to opt-out of the data collection, staff should select that before entering in/dropping data into the generative AI platform. Clarified many of the generative AI platforms such as ChatGPT were opensource platforms where the data would go into the AI abyss. Opting-out, would allow the data that was dropping-in in a little box that would not be shared with the entire world.

While not always an option, when there was an option to opt-out, staff would be asked to check that box. (Martinez-Rubin)
• Acknowledged a request to first pose questions before considering KPIs, the usual route before undertaking a process that would yield any potential measures of any process or outcomes and staff was thanked for thinking along those lines. Also, acknowledged the suggestion the AI Policy did not necessarily need to come back to the City Council since it was an administrative policy. Acknowledged the role of the City Council to develop legislative policies and while it would be a bonus to get back that information, it was not essential. (Martinez-Rubin)

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis argued if the City was considering the use of AI or large language models, it should also consider the following: the substantial harms caused by the creation and ongoing renovation of those models in terms of the raw computational resources required to run those models; the physical land it occupied along with water consumed, power consumed, carbon dioxide emissions created with that power, colossal theft of all knowledge and its reassembly into pseudo-valid statements; and the inherent and unavoidable risk of confabulations or hallucinations or lies and the like where large language models fundamentally could run into issues with simple tasks. As examples, how many “r’s” in the word strawberry and did two plus two equal four. He noted the default assumption about computers was that they would always do the same thing in the same way, but they were deterministic. Large language models were probabilistic and not deterministic; they could make errors, they could be subtle, designed to tell things one wanted to hear even when they were not true, and to use the things that made up matter and style without question.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Mr. Menis added that even in those narrow areas where large language models were matching models or generative AI could do tasks that generated benefit, it still eroded the fundamental capability of the human that used it to undertake the tasks that were being outsourced to AI, even for skilled professionals like doctors, as Bloomberg had noted. There were also numerous harmful uses of AI, as noted in some of the points the City had addressed in its policies, but more broadly, the harm that AI could cause would be in conflict with the City of Pinole’s values and the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP), and the City should not use AI for any purpose.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Council member Toms commented that during the latest League of California Cities Conference, there had been a live demonstration of AI. While a great tool, it was only a tool and would not replace humans in terms of editing, checking and the like. She found the most important policy the City had was to review and revise, as necessary. She added that since it was administrative, the AI Policy did not need to come back to the City Council for approval and should be kept on the administrative side of things with staff.

Council member Sasai stated there were many productive uses for AI, such as language access.

He noted the City of San Jose’s City Council had live AI translations for different languages which was a useful AI tool. Many of the City Council members had been approached by different firms and initiatives that used AI, such as community outreach, which could be made more efficient with AI technology. As an example, Google had different applications that were geared more towards cities and towns. He recognized that many lawmakers had embraced AI technology and he recognized it would happen and be a part of the reality for many people. He also recognized that AI was intended as a tool and not a replacement for jobs.

Council member Sasai reported he spoke with the President of Local 1 and people from the Contra Costa Labor Council (but had not spoken with Local 512 or the Pinole Police Employees’ Association (PPEA)) about AI. Based on those conversations, they were not grasping all of AI, which was new technology. He commented the takeaways were the concerns with any use of AI that took a significant portion of the work away from staff and the jobs of others, along with privacy concerns. He understood there was an opt-out policy as part of data collection, when possible, and suggested that policy be tightened a bit to be a requirement given the concern that as employee/staff used AI more and more, the data would be used by those companies to learn how to do the employee/staff jobs and it could be a reality in the near future that some jobs across departments could be replaced with AI. He did not want to contribute to that danger. He encouraged staff to continue to reach out to staff and the unions for input on the AI Policy.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy thanked staff for the presentation for one of the issues many were still learning about. He acknowledged the work of the Communications Director and her team. He also appreciated the transparency on the process as to how staff was recommending moving forward from this moment. He had been a member of the City Council when the City did not have an IT Plan and there had been struggles to have conversations about bringing the City into the 20th century in terms of technology and consider what other cities had done to move forward.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy found the guiding principles to be a value, which a lot of residents were looking for when discussing AI. The City had wonderful values and the Strategic Plan, which had not talked enough about IT and AI, and he appreciated starting there.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy emphasized AI had been used as a tool, and he had questions around GovAI and the improvement of productivity through AI. He wanted to know how much more productivity the City was getting through AI and how it would affect organized labor and address workers’ fear of losing their jobs to AI. He supported a public review of the process given the number of unanswered questions amid the public’s distrust with the use of AI, and wanted to create more trust between the City Council, staff and the public. He added the City should also consider other agencies, such as the CCCFPD since he was unsure the policy integrated the CCCFPD or whether the Fire Chief had been consulted on the AI Policy. He appreciated the process that had been developed thus far, recognized a number of unanswered questions in 2025 when the Mayor had asked for this agenda item, and suggested the answers to more and more questions would be possible through public engagement and review.

Mayor Tave recognized that technology would always influence the community and there had been fears in the past when new technology had been created. He was pleased with the presentation in a public forum and suggested the AI Policy, as outlined, kept human intuition and the human element included. He was also pleased photographs of staff had been included in the PowerPoint presentation. As the City decided how to use AI, he suggested fencing (parameters) be included with AI usage to ensure boundaries were provided while highlighting the human element citizens expected. He supported the item’s return to the City Council on the Consent Calendar to allow the information on the public record and to engage public comment.

Council member Sasai agreed with the benefit of placing the item on the Consent Calendar to allow the public and the City Council the opportunity to weigh-in on the fully completed AI policy, which he recognized was an administrative policy to be approved by the City Manager.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Murphy/Mayor Tave to direct staff to release the Draft Artificial Intelligence Policy for public review and return with a Final Artificial Intelligence Policy for City Council consideration; establish an annual reporting process on the City’s use of Artificial Intelligence, including approved applications, compliance with Artificial Intelligence Policy, any incidents and upcoming regulatory changes; and direct staff to finalize and implement Artificial Intelligence requirements for vendors including disclosure, compliance with the City’s Artificial Intelligence Policy and Incident Reporting for inclusion in future Requests for Proposals and contracts.

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

Absent: None

2. 360 Public Assistance Portal (Citizen Request Portal) – Acting City Manager, Chief of Police Melissa Klawuhn and Communications Director Fiona Epps
Communications Director Epps and Acting City Manager/Police Chief Klawuhn provided a PowerPoint presentation on the 360 Public Assistance Portal (Citizen Request Portal).

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

The presentation included an overview of Council Priorities for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 for a 360 Public Assistance Portal, a digital platform that enabled residents to submit service requests, track issues, and access City support resources in a streamlined and transparent manner. The Police Commendation/Complaint Form involved the implementation of a commendation/complaint portal with multi-lingual translation a plus. The current methods for tracking and transparency, current state of digital service requests, different categories of web forms, what was intended to be accomplished with the 360 Public Assistance Portal (Citizen Request Portal) and the workflow once a request was submitted, along with key features and benefits of the Citizen Request Portal and implementation timeline were all highlighted.

The PPD Commendation/Complaint Form was also highlighted and included an overview of CueHit, which offered an additional way to provide feedback.

Responding to questions from the City Council, Communications Director Epps and Acting City Manager/Police Chief Klawuhn clarified the following:
• The Citizen Request Portal would offer a central place for a request to be made and tracked. Oftentimes, many questions on social media were answered with one response.

Some required more work from staff and may require a referral to a City Department.

These requests would best be serviced by being inserted into the portal. Staff would have to explore and discuss with the City Departments the types of requests to be tracked as part of the portal. The portal would replace staff responses to questions via e-mail and staff still needed to discuss how that would work, whether the question was easily answered in one shot or whether it would require more work from a specific City Department. (Sasai)
• Information on residents’ addresses and demographic information were optional. Staff still needed to determine the required fields to serve the residents better and e-mail/telephone and first name at the least would likely be required, although some departments required a first and last name. All data on the site would be secured and the City’s network security should offer comfort in providing information. If residents were not comfortable using the electronic form, a resident could always contact City staff by telephone or come to City Hall in-person. (Sasai)
• Quotes had been gathered for the portal which would be built by the City’s existing website vendor at a cost of $10,000. The cost was already in the budget for this fiscal year under Professional Services - Website Improvements. (Sasai)
• Acknowledged a request to speak with the City’s website vendor about the possibility of an added feature for the public sector as a consumer of services, to also include indication when the request/compliant for service was going to be met, so that internally as the City Departments were acquainted with the work flow to address certain requests of service there would be a better way to estimate when a request would be met. As an example, Amazon provided notification to its customers on the status of ordered items. Another example was offered which Council member Martinez-Rubin had personally experienced, when a permit request was submitted to the City for the replacement of windows. In that case, no status was provided on the estimate of time it would take to receive a permit, which ultimately took six months. (Martinez-Rubin)

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

• Consumers of public services would find it helpful and advantageous once a request was made or complaint filed, to be notified of the progress as part of the work flow.

Acknowledged again a request for the City’s website vendor to provide the cost of featuring the status of a request in the work flow rather than just “in progress” so that the portal could offer a means to manage expectations and lower public frustration. (MartinezRubin) • Clarified code enforcement actions would not be entered into the Citizen Request Portal since there was a separate system for the management of code enforcement complaints.

The portal would only come into play as a way to notify the person about the status of the request and ability to etrack it internally or code enforcement could be contacted to provide additional details and information. The portal would also include a feature for staff to mark a request as “confidential,” to be hidden from view. (Toms) • There would be space for the actual text for the complaint or commendation on the PPD form, which would include an open field for information to be included. Clarified required information on the commendation and complaint form had no mandatory field other than acknowledgement at the end to check a box. Anonymous complaints could be made that the PPD would investigate without the complainant providing a name, contact information and the like; however, staff acknowledged if that information was not provided, no followup could be done. As to whether there would be a requirement for someone to identify themselves as not being a bot when leaving a complaint or commendation, staff suggested a “reCAPTCHA” could be included in the forms. (Martinez-Rubin) • Clarified again the estimated cost of the new portal was $10,000 to build the system with an additional $1,500 annually for the website subscription to maintain the portal. This quote was much cheaper than quotes from outside applications at about $12,000 annually.

Staff was currently evaluating the software systems being used, mapping renewal data in the Five-Year Plan to phase out some software, and when building the new portal and using it, staff should feel comfortable the portal would do the same things that any software being replaced could do. At this time, no software was being replaced other than merging website forms. (Mayor Tave)
• Described the Pinole App as a remote control to the City website. If there was a link on the website, it could be included on the app on the Report a Problem button on the app.

As to whether community engagement would be provided when the new portal was rolled out, the community would be notified through social media. The Pulse featured programs on the front page of the City website and it would replace the Report a Problem button on the City website. Acknowledged a suggestion for a fun community activity as part of the roll-out of the new portal when implemented. As an example, information could be provided to the public during the upcoming Farmer’s Market in the summer, although staff was uncertain the portal would be ready for roll-out at that time. (Mayor Tave)

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

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy commended the Communications Director on the presentation and the advances made since his election to the City Council in 2020. He appreciated the work to reach this point, emphasized the importance for people to know that in 2025, the City Council’s current composition held a retreat with a number of priorities having been discussed, one of which was the Citizen Request Portal. He recalled conversations that the City had a great website, although there was some disconnect in certain Departments needing additional support and coordination to solve some of the more complex problems. He liked the Report a Problem subsection of the City website and found the portal an incredible and positive step for the City. He also thanked the City Council for the fact they all identified the portal as a priority with the Communications Director having done a great job integrating the feedback from the City Council and speaking to others to make this happen.

Having spoken with residents about the improvements to communications, Mayor Pro Tem Murphy acknowledged there were still people who were challenged attempting to navigate City government. Staff had done a great job addressing those who were challenged and providing support. He was excited to see this project through and serve as an Ambassador to residents to use the portal.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy also responded to Council member Martinez-Rubin’s recommendation at some point to leverage the data received and the processing of the completed service deliveries, which would eventually inform the vendor how things were being done and in what department, timewise. He noted in 2020, most of the City’s permitting requests were done through e-mail and spreadsheets, which were etracked to show how quickly the request was turned around. This was why in the prior presentation he had emphasized the importance of KPIs which allowed them to track and reinforce how the City’s policies and operations were not moving with people, and those service completion times could be a great opportunity to explore. He could see that as the future of City government, similar to how it was done in the private sector, when the individual knew when something was to come back to them and were otherwise notified of the status of any service changes. He was excited about that data possibility and how staff may consider how to meet those KPIs through the use of the portal.

Council member Sasai commented he received feedback from residents’ years go about e-mails being sent and then falling through the cracks. He suggested the portal would strengthen case constituent management and make sure everything was closed out and issues addressed. He thanked the Communications Director and looked forward to the implementation of the new portal.

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 January 20, 2026 and the Minutes of the Special City Council meeting on January 27, 2026.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

B. Receive the January 17, 2026 – January 30, 2026, List of Warrants in the Amount of $957,782.07 and the January 30, 2026, Payroll in the Amount of $535,819.62.

C. Adopt a Resolution to Surplus Vehicles from the Police Department. Action:

Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation. (Justin Rogers) D. Fiscal Year (FY) 2026/27 Budget Development Process and Timeline. Action:

Receive a Report (Markisha Guillory)
E. Approve the Municipal Pooling Authority Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA) for Providing Property, Worker’s Compensation, Public Liability and Other Insurance Coverages to the City of Pinole. Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Stacy Shell)
Council member Sasai requested Items 9A and 9C be pulled for discussion.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafal Menis speaking to Item 9C, noted when reviewing the list of vehicles being surplused that one was a trailer made in 2018. He asked for more detail why it was being scrapped and the expected usable life of a given police vehicle.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Acting City Manager/Police Chief Klawuhn explained the trailer had been listed in the surplus vehicle was an electronic sign trailer, often informing of road closures. She could not speak to the longevity of the trailers since she was unfamiliar with their general lifespan, although the City received grant funding for the replacement of the trailer and would seek grant funding for a second trailer.

For Item 9A, Council member Sasai reported he previously spoke to the Deputy City Clerk about a request to revise Page 1 of the Special City Council Meeting Minutes of January 27, 2026, to reflect that he had been present and participated in the Special Meeting, arriving at approximately 6:50 p.m.

For item 9C, Council member Sasai asked for clarification of the process for surplus vehicles and how funds were used for replacement vehicles, if all vehicles went to auction or were disposed of, the anticipated value of auctioning the six vehicles that had been listed and whether there were any other vehicles across all departments that may qualify as beyond their life or close to it. He also asked whether the six vehicles were stored in the public parking lot on Pear Street.

Acting City Manager/Police Chief Klawuhn confirmed for the most part that the surplus vehicles would go to auction, and whatever money was generated would be placed in the replacement fund. Any time a vehicle was either at the end of service or the cost of repairs outweighed the maintenance of the vehicle, they would be submitted to the City Council for approval to surplus the items to allow the money to be put towards replacements. She also clarified she did not have a ballpark of the sale of the six vehicles at auction, but could get back to the City Council with information. She verified the auction companies would take a percentage of the funds.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Acting City Manager Police Chief Klawuhn was unaware of the status of the fleets from other City Departments but that was something she could find out and bring back to the City Council. The current list of six vehicles was a comprehensive list for the PPD at this time. The PPD was taking a strong look at its fleet given the number of vehicles reaching a maximum life as a patrol vehicle and she noted it had been some time since the PPD last submitted a surplus request to the City Council. Most of the vehicles were being stored across the street from the PPD, although the Harley Davidson and sign trailer were within the secured parking lot of the PPD by St. Joseph.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Murphy/Council member Toms to approve Consent Calendar Item 9A, as amended by Council member Sasai, and Items 9B, 9C, 9D and 9E, as shown.

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

Absent: None

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Resolution Calling for Special Election and Submitting Question Regarding Office of Elected Mayor to Voters. Action: Adopt a Resolution Calling for Special Election and Submitting Question Regarding Office of Elected Mayor to Voters (Eric Casher)
City Attorney Casher provided a PowerPoint presentation on a Resolution Calling for a Special Election and Elected Mayor Ballot Measure, which included an overview of the background of the December 2, 2025 request by the City Council majority for staff to prepare the necessary materials to submit to voters the question of whether the office of Elected Mayor shall be established pursuant to Government Code Section 34900 in the City of Pinole. He also highlighted the current makeup of the City Council comprised of five members elected at-large, and the position of Mayor annually based on the number of votes in the previous election. The procedural requirements for a ballot measure, powers of the Mayor, salary of an Elected Mayor and the fiscal impacts were all detailed.

City Attorney Casher recommended the City Council consider the adoption of the proposed resolution calling for a Special Election and submitting to voters the question of creating the office of Elected Mayor. If the City Council voted to move forward, staff also sought direction on the compensation for an Elected Mayor.

Responding to questions from the City Council, City Attorney Casher clarified the following:
• The City ordinance for City Council salaries went into effect in August 2024. When a Council member was newly elected that Council member received the salary of $950 per month, whereas Council members in office at the time did not receive the new salary adjustment. Only two members of the City Council currently have that salary. (MartinezRubin)

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

• Pinole was a General Law City, with a City Council-City Manager form of government. A General Law City with an Elected Mayor could become a Charter City, with the process for doing that requiring the City Council to direct staff to prepare a resolution to place a ballot measure for the City to become a Charter City. An Elected Mayor could not unilaterally create a Charter City. That would require City Council direction, a resolution approving that and a ballot measure with the voters to decide whether or not the City would become a Charter City. A Charter City ballot measure needed to be a General Election ballot. The next General Election was in November 2028. Typically, Charter Cities had the ability to establish a Strong Mayor, which was the case currently if the City Council were to direct a ballot measure and the voters decided to become a Charter City, even if there was a Rotating Mayor, the City Council may still establish that appointed Mayor to be a Strong Mayor, but the same would be true for an Elected Mayor. (Martinez-Rubin) • Elected Mayor compensations, as provided in the PowerPoint presentation, were again clarified. Identified the City of San Ramon as the most comparable to Pinole, which city paid its Elected Mayor $100 more per month than other members of the City Council. Staff was unaware of the responsibilities the Elected Mayor had in each of the cities shown, and with the information not an apples-to-apples comparison. Some cities may have higher compensation based on responsibilities, duties and time commitments. Clarified under state law, Council members’ salaries were set by statute and capped based on the population of a particular city. For the City of Pinole, as an example, there was a maximum amount the City could compensate Council members, but under state law there was no limitation or restriction on the amount of the salary for an Elected Mayor. (Martinez-Rubin) • Clarified the limitations on salaries for Council members was outlined in the Government Code. Again clarified the compensation for an Elected Mayor had no state law restriction, it was open. The example cities, as outlined in the PowerPoint presentation, showed a range in compensation. The cities shown that had a City Council-City Manager form of government included the cites of Richmond, Union City, Newark and San Leandro.

Confirmed the City of Martinez, which had not been included on the list of cities, had an Elected Mayor. Staff was uncertain whether that jurisdiction had a City Council-City Manager form of government but that could be reviewed. Confirmed the City of Petaluma, which was of similar size to Pinole, had a City Council-City Manager form of government but staff was unsure that city had an Elected Mayor.

A prior staff report which had been provided to the City Council included a list of cities with Elected Mayors. The vast majority of cities in the region had a City Council-City Manager form of government. For a Strong Mayor, that was where the Mayor had more or less the authority of the City Manager and acted as the City administrator but those were rare situations. There were several cities with Elected Mayors that still had City Council-City Manager forms of government. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)
• Clarified again state restrictions on City Council salaries based on population size. Staff would have to review the history of the legislation and why it had been set in that way, but the legislation had been adjusted for inflation and other reasons. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

• Clarified again how a City could become a Charter City. Confirmed a City with an Appointed Mayor could become a Charter City. The item before the City Council, if approved, would adopt a resolution calling for a Special Election and submit the question regarding the office of an Elected Mayor. It would not create a Charter City. (Sasai) • The measure, if passed, would not approve a full-time salary for an Elected Mayor. The City Council would set the salary for the Elected Mayor as part of this discussion, with the roles and responsibilities of the Elected Mayor as described in the ordinance. It would not be a full-time position, but consistent with the current Mayor. (Sasai) • Clarified again the Pinole Municipal Code (PMC) set Council member’s salaries at $950, and those elected before 2024 did not receive the updated compensation, with the idea that a Council member who was in office should not increase their own compensation while on the Council, and the higher salary was for newly-elected Council members only. (Sasai)
• If passed, the measure would not create veto authority or power for the Elected Mayor and would not allow an Elected Mayor to unilaterally appoint Commissioners, and the powers of the Elected Mayor were similar to what currently existed in the ordinance. (Sasai)
• If there was interest in having a Primary Election for an Elected Mayor, that could be established as the process, but as the ordinance now read, it was just an election for the Mayor position. (Toms)
• In the event there was a vacancy on the City Council, the City Council would make an appointment to fill the vacancy, with that process outlined in the PMC even if everyone decided to run for the office of Elected Mayor, as an example. (Mayor Tave)

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Ann Moriarty wanted to give the City Council the benefit of the doubt if the voters of Pinole wanted an Elected Mayor, although it seemed there were two ways to do that, and two ways for the City Council to understand where citizens stood. The City Council could be fiscally irresponsible and commit political suicide by voting to spend up to $58,000 plus of taxpayers’ funds to place the question on the ballot measure in June or vote no to authorize this ballot measure and instead submit a well-thought-out question to the voters on the Citywide poll, which was already scheduled for the spring. In speaking with the City Attorney, this would not cost the City a dime and get them the same information. The current proposal would only slow the process down. If the City Council’s thought was to understand where the citizens of Pinole were on the subject, she assumed they were wise enough to make the right choice.

Kent Moriarty was unclear why members of the City Council had been pushing so hard to change the City’s system of government to that of an Elected Mayor. Residents had not asked for it and appeared to be opposed to it. He was opposed to it since consolidating more power in one person would create problems for the City, and the current system of rotating the Mayor was more democratic since eventually the Council members the voters felt most represented them rotated into the Mayoral position.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Mr. Moriarty suggested if there was really no agenda behind the proposal and the City Council simply wanted to take the temperature of the room and know what the community wanted, the City Council should add the question to the poll already planned for free. Rushing into an expensive Special Election was not justified and he seriously questioned why anyone would support doing so.

Richard Cossel thanked the City Council for its service to the City and the people, which was appreciated. He recognized the City Council was compensated and while it would be nice to give more, on this matter he was confused. He questioned the underlying purpose and asked if there was a particular problem that could not be fixed with the current Council since he understood an Elected Mayor would have the same tasks and authority. He questioned the need for a Special Election as opposed to waiting for a General Election. He noted that 90 percent or more of cities the size of Pinole did not have an Elected Mayor and again questioned why Pinole needed it. In 2018, he stated that almost 80 percent of the population voted no on Proposition P to change term limits and he questioned whether 80 percent of the population would vote for an Elected Mayor, as opposed to keeping the 100-year history of Pinole doing things the way they had been done. He emphasized no one had been able to explain why an Elected Mayor was being placed on the ballot and given that unknown there were reasons not to do so including cost and animosity.

Peter Murray congratulated Mayor Tave on his election as Mayor. He read into the record comments he found on the Nextdoor platform and an opinion on this topic, which raised some of the same questions and concerns expressed by the previous speakers.

Debbie Long voiced her opposition to having an Elected Mayor in the small City of Pinole; however, she also responded specifically to the Mayor Pro Tem’s post on Nextdoor, which had likely broken the Brown Act in the form of a serial meeting. The Mayor Pro Tem had been clarifying the item of an Elected Mayor and his perception of misinformation, yet he was not specific and had stated the City could not make this choice on its own. It appeared the Mayor Pro Tem was not listening since residents had established that an election was not appropriate given there had been no public outcry. The Council had not considered polling as with other ballot measures and the costs of putting this on the ballot, up to $57,000 plus staff time as well as the cost of the November ballot, was not financially a sound decision given the City’s budget constraints. The Mayor Pro Tem also stated this ballot measure would not change the current form of government, yet he continued to point out this new structure would directly impact leadership, accountability and stability. Currently, all Council members had demonstrated the necessary qualities to serve and she asked whether the Mayor Pro Tem was diminishing current City Council members’ qualifications. She stated this was the Mayor Pro Tem’s third attempt to push this item through and asked if his suggestion was that he was the only one who could successfully lead the City.

Ms. Long found the Mayor Pro Tem was continually trying to change the form of government and if he was not elected as a Strong Mayor, the Council majority could vote to give him more power, as well as more financial compensation. The Mayor Pro Tem had expressed the opposition to this measure was due to personal grievances and political grudges, but nothing could be further from the truth. She wished she had the time to state the 44 plus names of the individuals who had posted on Nextdoor, all denouncing an election and need for an Elected Mayor.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Ms. Long added that according to the Mayor Pro Tem, the City of Pinole had frequent turnovers and inconsistency in leadership, and if he was referring to losing two City Managers in as many years, then he was part of that as well. Nowhere in the Mayor Pro Tem’s posting had he articulated how the City would be better served under an Elected Mayor. She suggested the Mayor Pro Tem had made a public post for all of the City Council to read since only two members could have any discussion on the comment on the topic, which she found clearly in violation of the Brown Act for a serial meeting. As she had previously stated, “No Kings in Pinole.” She added this was not just about the Mayor Pro Tem but the rest of the City Council as well. She hoped their vote reflected the citizens of Pinole and not the alliances on the City Council.

William Horton opposed Item 10A for a separately Elected Mayor since the cost would be unnecessary taking funds away from police, fire, parks and streets. The existing Mayoral rotation worked fine and provided four people one year each as Mayor, and there had been no public outreach such as polling. As a result, he would not vote in June to waste money for an Elected Mayor.

Mark Zimmerman commented the PowerPoint presentation listed six cities with an Elected Mayor to support a decision for an Elected Mayor, although those cities were three to six times larger than the City of Pinole. He suggested Pinole should not be compared to the larger cities and the cities listed paid the Mayor more than Council members, and some provided the same benefit package as City employees, including a pension. The City of Richmond, the nearest city to Pinole, paid its Mayor $84,000; $73,000 more than the current Council received. The assertion was that the ballot was about democracy and let the people decide, but it seemed to be a move by one or more to satisfy political ambitions and a desire to have a full-time job with benefits courtesy of Pinole taxpayers. The City Council could set that salary and benefits.

Mr. Zimmerman also noted that the PowerPoint presentation estimated the fiscal impacts from placing the measure on the ballot, which estimate had doubled since the December 2025 meeting, along with additional unidentified costs for staff time, consultants and legal experts in addition to a potential salary increase and benefits. Including the cost of the ballot measure, the estimated cost was $154,000 not counting unidentified costs. He suggested the salary could start off at $100,000 a year for both the salary and benefits and over ten years it could be another million dollars without inflation. There was no need for the ballot measure, but if the City must proceed, he asked that polling be done first. He understood City staff already issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for three upcoming proposed tax increases, and the question of an Elected Mayor could simply be added to that poll at no additional cost.

Marcia Joswick asked the City Council to do the right thing and vote no on this resolution since the estimated cost for one ballot measure on the June 2026 ballot was estimated at more than $55,000, with unknown additional costs. She questioned why the City would move forward with a ballot measure when a poll was already in the planning stages and this item should be added to it. She asked the City Council to do its duty to spend taxpayer monies in ways that were fiscally responsible, which was why she and constituents voted for them. She suggested the ballot measure was not fiscally responsible and was a waste of money, especially when essential needs were not being met. She commented that residents had heard the often excuse the City did not have the money to pay for that. She again asked the City Council to do the right thing and take fiscally responsible action and vote no on the resolution.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Jennifer Horne read into the record written comments dated February 3, 2026, as follows: Good evening. My name is Jennifer Horne and I am here to speak on Agenda Item 10A. I was prepared to urge a “NO” vote on the resolution at issue until I became aware of and read Mayor Pro Tem Devin Murphy’s mid-December post on Next Door, which I have submitted, along with my comments, for the record. In light of this post, I believe that a vote on the current resolution is premature. In his mid-December Next Door post, Mayor Pro Tem Murphy announced that he would soon be sworn in as Mayor Pro Tem. In response, a person posted the following question:
“What happened to the current mayor?”
Here, in relevant part, is Mayor Pro Tem Murphy’s response: “I’m pleased to share that we are advancing a ballot measure that would establish a directly elected Mayor, putting the choice of leadership in the hands of Pinole residents - not the Council. This change would modernize our system and provide consistency and accountability in leadership. The measure will go before voters in June 2026.” Why is this response so concerning? Because at the time of this post, the requisite process to bring this measure to a ballot had not been followed. Staff still had to prepare all applicable documents, a public meeting still needed to be scheduled, the people of Pinole still had to be heard, and the Council still had to vote to place the measure on the ballot. Mayor Pro Tem Murphy did not communicate this process in his post, and the public was left with the impression that its sole opportunity to speak regarding this measure was through a vote on a ballot measure in June 2026.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy’s statement that the measure “will go” before voters in June 2026 also made me wonder how he could be so definite about that. Had a majority of this Council already decided to vote “yes” on this measure after “discuss[ing] [or] deliberat[ing] . . . on [it]. . . “outside of a public meeting? I don’t know, but the post certainly raises that possibility, and casts a long shadow both over this proceeding and the propriety of a vote tonight. It is therefore incumbent on this Council to slow this process down and postpone tonight’s vote, to ensure maximum transparency and full compliance with the law. Take a poll and/or hold a townhall meeting, and listen to what the citizens of Pinole really think about our current governance structure. By doing either or both before you vote, you might just unearth an actual reason for this measure and gauge public sentiment. This Council would be much better able to determine if an expenditure of $55,000+ dollars plus to place this measure on the ballot is justified. In closing, I have to say that this measure brings to mind a sticker that someone I worked with had on his office door: “If something ain’t broke, fix it until it is.” Unless this Council fully develops the need for this measure before voting to place it on the ballot, you risk “fixing” our current governing structure until it, and the City we love, are both “broke.”
Cathy McFarland commented the Mayor and City Council were to serve and protect the community and the City and not systematically destroy the City by taking out the perfect protocol for Mayor that had been effective for most of the City’s existence. She found the City Council had been too focused on a self-serving agenda for wanting a Special Election and Elected Mayor, which would be another financial hit to residents and which seemed to be constantly and consistently occurring. This effort had already wasted a lot of time and money while the most important items for the community and City had been neglected. Residents had lost confidence on who was representing the City. She emphasized that a properly functioning City needed a good City Manager, a good contract for the PPD, well maintained roads and be financially sound, all of which was lacking. She stressed that residents had the power to vote and to recall.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Rafael Menis commented he was not speaking for or against the resolution. He asked the following questions: whether the term limits mentioned by a prior commenter as part of Measure P applied to the position of an Elected Mayor if created or established separately by ordinance, whether the cost of the measure was based primarily on the June ballot as opposed to the November General Election ballot or whether there was a flat cost or a range of costs. In terms of public support for this measure, he noted while the people in the Council Chambers and those who had commented were not necessarily a sample of the voter base of Pinole as a whole, it was notable that the vast majority of people who had spoken in-person and comments he had seen online were opposed to this measure. Technically speaking in terms of political success for the measure, the City Council would want to see more public support for the item in the Council Chambers before voting to place it before the voters as a whole, and separately, whether it should be considered as a polling item. As to the timing of the measure, he asked if it would be correct the reason it was being timed for the June election as opposed to a November election would be to allow for the first election of Mayor to occur in this cycle rather than in 2028.

Christian Green recognized Black History Month, a time which honored progress, representation and the ongoing passion for democracy. He strongly supported an Elected Mayor system. As a long-time resident, he found the City had shown what progress looked like in the community, including the Mayor Pro Tem who became the City’s first Black-elected official, which had shown when residents were in power to choose their leaders, the government became more inclusive, more accountable, and more representative of the people it served. Black History taught that democracy was stronger when the voice of the people grew louder, with the fight for voting rights and fair representation, and progress came from expanding participation and not limiting it. An Elected Mayor would give people a direct say in who led the City and created clearer accountability, stronger public engagement and leadership that answered directly to the voters who knew who was setting the City’s vision when trust increased and civic participation rose.

Mr. Green added that cities with Elected Mayors saw a higher voter turnout in local elections, clearer leadership during times of crisis and more transparent decision making. Power conceded nothing without a demand, and scripture in Proverbs 29:2, stated, “When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice …” Giving the people the power to chose their Mayor is how to ensure leadership that reflected shared values. A vote for Mayor would be a vote for accountability, transparency and people having a stronger voice in the City’s future. He urged the City Council to place the measure before the voters and allow the community the opportunity to share the City’s next leadership.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Mayor Pro Tem Murphy commented he was not the only one to encourage conversation. A lot of residents had come out to encourage conversations and he thanked residents on both sides. He explained that he had been elected to the City Council in 2020, and had committed each day in his role to ensure he was serving the needs of voters, which was why he decided to step into a second term, reaching numerous voters in the City to set a mandate for the need for increasing civic engagement. One of the items that was so important about this referendum, from the City Council perspective, was that it increased civic engagement and everyone was thanked for making their voices heard.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy noted this conversation occurred prior to his election to the City Council from prior electeds and residents who had discussed this topic, and while it may have not have been put forward as an agenda item, they had asked for this to happen.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy took the opportunity to read into the record the following written comments from former Mayor Vincent Salimi, received via email and dated January 30, 2026: Hello Heather, I hope you are well. I have a comment for item 10 A agenda, I am sorry I will be in LA for work. I am writing in support of the Pinole City Council’s upcoming consideration of a resolution to place before voters the question of whether the City of Pinole should transition to an elected mayor form of governance, as authorized under California Government Code Section 34900.

This action is not about predetermining the outcome of that question. Rather, it is about affirming transparency, civic participation, and the fundamental right of residents to decide how their city is governed. Allowing voters to weigh in strengthens trust in local government and reinforces an open and democratic process.

I also wish to share a personal perspective as a former mayor. Under Pinole’s current system, a 12-month mayoral term is simply not long enough to meaningfully set priorities, build momentum, and see complex initiatives through to completion. Effective leadership, particularly in today’s challenging municipal environment requires continuity, accountability, and sufficient time to deliver results.

In addition, if the City is to expect strong leadership and effective governance, both the mayor and councilmembers should be equipped with the tools necessary to do the job well. This includes adequate staff support and compensation that allows elected officials to serve in a serious, professional, and full-time capacity when needed. These structural considerations are ultimately policy choices for the community to evaluate, which is precisely why placing this question before voters is so important.

Regardless of individual views on the merits of an elected mayor system, I strongly support giving Pinole residents the opportunity to decide this question for themselves.

I encourage the City Council to move this item forward so the community can have a clear voice in shaping the City’s future governance. Thank you for your continued leadership and for fostering a transparent and inclusive civic process.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy explained he had shared the letter because he had seen a lot of people blame him. He acknowledged this was not about him, but about the residents of Pinole. His job as a policy maker was to ensure he was bringing new ideas to support residents. He brought numerous ideas around the environment, economic development and housing. This was one of the areas he brought around governance since the City must do something about the current system which he suggested was not working. As noted by the City Attorney, there were things that this measure did not do, and that was okay and something for the City Council to consider in the future, one of which was the possibility of changing the City into a Charter City, which this measure did not do, nor was he proposing that be done. One other thing this measure would not do was to change the City from a City Council-City Manager form of government to a different form of government. The measure would set a political mandate for residents to decide who wanted their Mayor to be.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Whether one agreed or not, as an individual and as a resident of Pinole and an eligible voter, Mayor Pro Tem Murphy stated the City Council had the right to make that decision for themselves.

As an agency, the goal of the City Council was to educate the pros and cons of that decision and have an election. He knew there were people who continued to want to make personal attacks against him and he was used to that from that individual, but he emphasized the City Council had the responsibility to improve the quality of life of Pinole residents and to engage people in discussion. He suggested the reason the City Council was so diverse was because it continued to open doors for conversations even against people who opposed them and whether they supported this measure or not.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy fully supported the resolution and suggested the City Council should move forward with it. He suggested with or without this measure, the City Council would continue to make Pinole move forward and no matter how one felt about him, he acknowledged the job was challenging and difficult, but his responsibility was to the 6,000 voters who voted for him and he would not stop working to move the City forward, which was his goal and mission.

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked for clarity about a Council member posting online on social media, such as on Nextdoor. She asked whether that was a violation of the Brown Act and related to that whether making statements in past, present or future tense with definitive verbiage was a violation of the Brown Act. She also asked for clarity on the polling. She understood the polling that was upcoming in the spring was related to revenue generating streams and asked whether or not an additional question about the public’s interest in an Elected Mayor would involve an additional cost, and what that cost would be.

City Attorney Casher explained he had not seen the social media posts and was unaware of the actual content, but more broadly, the Brown Act required that any of the City’s business be conducted in a public meeting. Many members of the City Council or electeds throughout the state had social media accounts and posted things, and again not aware of the exact substance of the comments, he could not comment whether or not it was a violation of the Brown Act. He could look into it and advise the City Council. Generally speaking, he explained that the Brown Act prohibited any discourse, dialogue or decisions being made by the City Council outside of a public meeting. If there were multiple Council members discussing an item and deciding on it outside of this space, it would be a violation of the Brown Act and was the most obvious example, but there was also nuance to that.

City Attorney Casher acknowledged there were some comments that a “decision had been made,” but again he had not seen the comments and was not aware when the comments had been posted. Pursuant to the staff report, the City Council had directed staff to bring this item forward at the December 2, 2025 meeting.

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked for clarity on the estimated range of costs to place the measure on the ballot and the timing of placing the measure on the ballot.

City Attorney Casher explained the costs were set by Contra Costa County which administered elections. At the time the presentation had initially been made, estimated costs were provided and staff was able to verify the costs for this cycle with the County, which was $3 to $4.50 per registered voter, a formula used by the County.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

City Attorney Casher acknowledged primary elections were more expensive with higher costs for a June primary versus a November election. In terms of the timing for this measure on the June ballot, he had been asked to bring this item forward at this meeting as directed by the City Council.

If the City were to move forward with a primary election, this would have to go to the County by March 6, 2026, which was why the item had been scheduled for this meeting in February, so if any changes needed to be made, there would be another meeting in the month of February to bring forward a final version.

Finance Director Markisha Guillory responded to the question of adding another question to the current polling efforts and explained the standard was usually about two measures. The City already had three measures, and to add a fourth may change the scope. The polling firms the City had worked with in the last round expressed concern at that time with three measures. The current polling firm supported three measures, which was the industry standard. Adding another measure would make the survey much longer, could cause survey fatigue and skew the survey results, and four measures would push the limits and change the scope of work.

Mayor Tave understood that if another question was added to the survey, there was the potential to diminish the quality and reliability of the survey, which the Finance Director confirmed.

Council member Martinez-Rubin did not support the agenda item in that an Elected Mayor in a small diverse City like Pinole was not necessary. Developing meaningful policy, the role of a full Council was doable when Council members had equal authority and the City currently had that with rotating Mayors. Democratic ideology centered around government by the people, where power was exercised through free, fair and regular elections. In Pinole, free spoke to voters having a choice as to who would be elected to the City Council and who would become its Mayor.

There had been free elections for Council members in the City every two years, which had resulted in a City Council where often a majority rather than unanimous agreement, took ideas to reality of what the City ought to address, what was given priority and who ended up on City Commissions and Committees, regardless of whether the ways to address issues were sensible, practical or economically feasible. Council members did not always agree on what made Pinole better, especially when there were proposals where the intent appeared to be self-serving or a precursor to unproven policy to benefit the citizenry.

Council member Martinez-Rubin commented on essential matters such as infrastructure, economic development and safety where the City Council generally agreed; it was how they got to that agreement that may cause tensions and differences. Ignoring those tensions and differences was idealistic since as diverse as the City was, the City Council and the City’s voters had varied opinions and values, resulting in very social, educational and political backgrounds.

Council member Martinez-Rubin added that the majority of the state’s 482 cities employed a City Manager, where the Mayor was often chosen by the City Council or had limited direct independent authority. This form of government, separated political policy making, elected Council from administrative operations by the appointed professional City Manager. Key benefits included increased efficiencies, and expertise in City management, enhanced professionalism in staffing, reduced corruption, improved non-partisan service delivery and increased accountability as the City Manager was accountable to the elected City Council. This form of government was a local government system combining the political leadership of an elected Council with the administrative experience of an appointed professional manager.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

The City Council made policy decisions while the City Manager oversaw day-to-day operations and department heads and promoted non-partisan professional management, which was well and good when voters were informed of the intentions of their elected representatives.

Council member Martinez-Rubin recognized in Pinole there had been a gradual transition to electing Council members with charismatic eagerness to make Pinole better. Now some Council members supported having an Elected Mayor to illustrate democracy. She questioned whether Pinole needed an Elected Mayor who required staff and a salary higher than other Council members, questioned how many Elected Mayors in Pinole would make the City better, and in her opinion would be a precursor to proposing a charter or Strong Mayor, tilting further the authority of said Mayor and placing the executive power on one individual, the Elected Mayor, which was a form of government not supported and one that did not exist in most cities in California.

Council member Sasai thanked everyone for their participation whether for or against this ballot measure. He invited everyone to continue to participate, particularly during the budget season.

He recognized there would likely not be full agreement on this issue, but hoped the City Council could achieve a mutual understanding on the measure based on the facts, which was why he had asked the City Attorney for clarity on a number of questions. It was important to ensure starting from a foundation of facts, and he thanked everyone for listening.

Council member Sasai recognized some members of the public had picked apart some Council members’ comments about how they would characterize the current system as being archaic, and while he would not have used that term to characterize the current Mayoral system, it was a long-standing policy that had been in place for some time. He also responded to the comments “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” which he found to be a terrible way to look at policy and law, since there was always room to refine policy and that concept assumed the system was working for everyone, with the harm obvious and immediate, and they must go beyond that sentiment, and investigate and refine better policies to ensure those policies worked for everyone.

Council member Sasai commented on what was expected of the person who served as the Mayor for the City of Pinole. When he served as Mayor in 2025, he had been honored by the experience.

He asked whether the public wanted a Mayor who just showed up for meetings and cast a vote, or someone more deeply engaged in the community who participated in all community events and other events and offered a number of examples. He pointed out the role of Mayor took away from families but was a responsibility and passion for many with little compensation.

Council member Sasai commented the entire City Council membership had different amounts of resources and time to commit to the role. Thinking about those who had initially served Pinole as Mayors and Council members, he described them as primarily land-owning wealthy white men, but over time that had changed and just recently younger people had become involved, such as with his election to the City Council. He appreciated this conversation and this item, which highlighted many of the inequities of the current system, and why low-income people and people who had historically not been part of the process were becoming representatives of the City and representing a larger part of the City as a result.

When thinking about the role of the Mayor, Council member Sasai commented it was not just extra authority, but extra responsibility and he wanted that to be kept in mind when considering the current Mayoral rotating system.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Council member Sasai commented that the role of the Mayor had regional power, was part of the Contra Costa Mayors Conference, which made appointments to several agencies and the Mayor shifted the culture of the City and beyond. He suggested an Elected Mayor would provide more choice for the voters, and other than the price tag, he could not see anything wrong with that since it would benefit all.

In terms of not having formal polling on this issue, Council member Sasai commented of the measures he had seen in the state where there had been a transition from an appointed to an Elected Mayor, overwhelmingly those measures had passed by more than 70 percent. While those cities were not Pinole, there was that track record.

Council member Toms thanked the speakers present who spoke on the issue and noted of the 12 speakers, only one was in support of the measure. She also recognized those who provided comments in writing and pointed out only one of the letters had been in support and that was the letter read into the record from former Mayor Salimi. She acknowledged former Mayor Salimi’s comments that 12-months was not long enough to set and implement the priority of the Mayor, but noted the Mayor did not set the priorities, the City Council did, which was an important point.

Council member Toms opposed the resolution because the existing rotation practice worked well.

There were four people, not everyone got a turn during their term, but the Mayor always had at least two years-experience. A directly Elected Mayor may result in someone who had never served as Mayor. If three people ran for the Office of an Elected Mayor, someone may get around 34 percent of the vote, as an example, and they could be the Mayor without any experience. She noted the staff report indicated an Elected Mayor could collect a larger stipend or salary, taking the majority of the City Council to approve. If a mid-term Council member ran or won the Elected Mayor, it would create a vacancy on the Council that would require a costly Special Election to fill the vacancy, or the vacancy would be filled by City Council appointment and the argument of democracy would not apply when filling the vacancy. If a Council member at the end of their term decided to run for Elected Mayor and did not win, the City would have lost an experienced Council member, which had occurred in a nearby city.

Council member Toms added that residents had supported an additional sales tax measure in 2024, and a member of the public informed her they felt betrayed by the City Council for tripling their travel budget, increasing the monthly stipend and now this proposal for an unnecessary election issue, which actions were making residents feel used. She suggested the City Council needed to show citizens they were responsible with the extra funding the citizenry had voted for to support the City and the City Council needed to focus on what they told taxpayers they would be using the funds for, and focus on hiring a City Manager, getting a PPD contract, maintaining roads and not focus on something no one had asked for. The public had not weighed-in, was not asked for an Elected Mayor, and there had been no polling. The City had gone to great extent to use the Budgeting Tool for residents when they worked on the budget, and it was important to have public input on expenditures for the fiscal year, but somehow $57,000 did not need a poll, which was troubling.

Council member Toms further commented the Mayoral position was largely ceremonial, the Mayor acted as the presiding officer for Council meetings, and the City’s official representative at public events, and held no more executive power than other members of the City Council.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Each Council member had their own interests and that would not change. Any Council member could continue doing that work and that work could continue as Mayor. Also, the rotation of the Mayor promoted equity and representation on the City Council and thereby the community, and the rotation of the role ensured that no single special interest group could monopolize the bully pulpit, and by limiting the Mayor’s individual authority and duration of service, the system diffused political power across the entire City Council making it harder for special interests to exert influence. It also promoted a clear separation of powers and allowed Council members to focus on the big picture of policy planning without the distraction of administrative tasks or personnel management, which was handled by a professional City Manager.

Council member Toms found the current system worked and each member of the City Council had the opportunity to rotate as Mayor. She had been able to set aside some of her own personal obligations for one year, to devote attention to when she had served as Mayor, and she recognized not everyone would be able to do that for four years. She reiterated the proposal and the expense was a prime example of misplaced priorities by the City Council if this were to pass.

There were higher priorities for City funds and staff resources, such as roads and public safety.

She suggested citizens deserved better than the City Council approving this resolution without really having public input other than attending a City Council meeting. She reiterated that no polling had been done and she asked her fellow Council members to vote no on the resolution.

If there was an outcry by those who wanted the City Council to spend its time and limited City funds to bring the item back, that could be done.

Mayor Tave recognized the City Council was currently comprised of five very well qualified and seasoned members, which was good for Pinole. He had seen a slightly different leadership with every Mayoral rotation. As an example, during a prior strategic planning session, there were almost 50 things that had been clearly outlined that Pinole needed, including roads, public safety, parks and the like, which list had been published in a memorandum prepared by a former City Manager and shared with the public. With five individuals, there was a difficult time prioritizing all of the items. He had been focused on roads since he had been elected to the City Council and the City was finally getting to a point to perform that work.

Mayor Tave found governance the most important and most powerful thing in the City was not the Mayor or the City Council, but the voice and vote of the people. The responsibilities of the Mayor were to run the City Council meetings, agenda setting and ensure they were moving forward, but another Mayor would be appointed in the next rotation. With this ballot measure, voters would decide whether to consider an Elected Mayor. He believed in that kind of governance and the public making the decision, to retain the Mayoral rotation or change to some type of consistent leadership such as an Elected Mayor. The City Council had not yet discussed the parameters or responsibilities of an Elected Mayor, compensation, or whether there would be term limits, all of which the City Council still needed to discuss. He emphasized they were empowering the citizenry to make that decision, which he suggested was the right thing. He supported putting the measure on the ballot and supported consistent leadership to set the tone for the citizenry.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy reiterated the need to keep moving the City forward, and as policy makers the City Council’s mandate and responsibility was to suggest ideas, particularly when the City had the ability for residents to decide which of those ideas would be codified. He thanked staff and the residents for the discussion.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy offered a motion for the City Council to adopt a resolution calling for a Special Election and submitting to the voters the question regarding the Office of an Elected Mayor; and the City Council direct staff to work in coordination with the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem to develop and implement a public education and communications plan so residents have clear, accessible and factual information well before ballots are cast. The plan should include at minimum, a dedicated page on the City website with a full text of the measure and impartial explanation of what changes and what does not change, including the City Council/City Manager form of government, key dates and how to participate. This plan should also include a plain language Frequently Asked Questions, addressing common questions about authority, accountability and impacts and also multiple outreach channels, including mailers if appropriate, social media, Pinole Community Television, e-mail lists and community partners with translations and accessibility accommodations consistent with City practices.

Mayor Tave seconded the motion but asked that compensation be kept the same as the City’s ordinance with a term of two years for an Elected Mayor. He asked whether that amendment was acceptable to the maker of the motion.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy was happy to include a friendly amendment about changing the resolution, as included in the staff report, for an additional $100 per month for an Elected Mayor (consistent with the City Council) with residents to decide the term limits. He asked the City Attorney to provide clarification since he understood that the voters and not the City Council would decide whether there would be a two-year or a four-year term for an Elected Mayor.

City Attorney Casher explained the voters would decide the term for an Elected Mayor, either two or four years. The PMC had term limits which provided Council members could not serve beyond three terms. If the voters elected a two-term Elected Mayor, as an example, three consecutive terms could be allowed (six-years) and the individual could not run again without sitting out a cycle, which was consistent with City Council members. If the City Council so directed, that same term limit for the Elected Mayor position could be included and that language could be incorporated into the PMC.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy understood there would be three questions voters would consider if the action before the City Council at this time passed. He asked the City Attorney to provide clarification.

City Attorney Casher clarified there would be three questions on the ballot as it related to the term, assuming it was not literally the same vote count, whichever had the highest vote count, two or four years was what would be adopted as the term for an Elected Mayor. For the issue of term limits, state law did not have a term limit set for Elected Mayors, so the Council through ordinance could determine whatever that term limit would be, which could be changed later on and after the ballot measure was in effect at any point. It would be good to know that so that it could be incorporated into the language of the ordinance and final approval, but again it could also be changed after the ballot measure was in effect at any point.

On the original motion, Council member Sasai acknowledged reform cost money and resources, and based on his experience on the City Council he had proposed ordinances around things like the environment, gun prevention, public safety and wage theft, among others. He understood such reforms usually cost in the range of $2,000 to $20,000.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

City Attorney Casher clarified the range of costs associated with bringing an ordinance forward depended on the complexity of the ordinance. If a simple, straightforward change such as changing the City Council meeting time, as an example, that was very straightforward, although in another example changes to the Cannabis Ordinance was very involved and complex and involved more time. He confirmed the range could be between $2,000 and $20,000.

Council member Sasai reiterated reforms took resources, and he encouraged the public to take that into consideration and comment on that process any time a member of the City Council proposed a new ordinance or new program initiative that would be an expenditure.

City Attorney Casher referenced Section 7, Page 102 of the City’s ordinance, which provided the Mayor shall sign the categories of documents, which he had used to illustrate the types of things other cities had done, but it provided that the Mayor will sign all written contracts and conveyances made or entered into by the City. He recommended that language be stricken since currently the Mayor did not sign all contracts. Contracts were already signed by the City Manager, City Clerk and approved as to form by the City Attorney. He recommended removal of that language based on City Council approval, which should be included in the motion.

Mayor Tave asked that the motion be amended, to include striking the language that the Mayor will sign all written contracts and conveyances made or entered into by the City.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy accepted the amendment to the motion.

Council member Toms referenced the second part of the motion that had to do with public information and commented staff already had a work program. This was not on their priority list and would move some of the other priorities the City Council had previously established due to the timing, and she wanted that to be acknowledged.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy responded and confirmed Council member Toms’ understanding, commenting the City Council had approved items in the past, including an item Council member Toms requested at the prior City Council meeting, where staff stated they did not have the time or the work plan to do something, but the item was still moved forward and this would be consistent with what had been done in the past, which was why his motion had included a subcommittee where they could also support staff with the development of an education plan, again consistent with what the City Council had done in the past.

Council member Martinez-Rubin commented she was dumbstruck by some of the comments made on the dais, and found it incredible how actions by the City Council could be made to appear that current situations were favored, when the context was different for situations in which they had to vote.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Murphy/Mayor Tave for the City Council to adopt a resolution calling for a Special Election and submitting to the voters the question regarding the Office of an Elected Mayor; and the City Council direct staff to work in coordination with the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem to develop and implement a public education and communications plan so residents have clear, accessible and factual information well before ballots are cast. The plan should include at minimum, a dedicated page on the City website with a full text of the measure and impartial explanation of what

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

changes and what does not change, including the City Council/City Manager form of government, key dates and how to participate. This plan should also include a plain language Frequently Asked Questions, addressing common questions about authority, accountability and impacts and also multiple outreach channels, including mailers if appropriate, social media, Pinole Community Television, e-mail lists and community partners with translations and accessibility accommodations consistent with City practices; and subject to striking the language in the ordinance that the Mayor will sign all written contracts and conveyances made or entered into by the City.

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

Absent: None
B. Conduct a Public Hearing and Adopt a Resolution Confirming the Community Services Master Fee Schedule. Action: Continue to February 17, 2026 (Andrea Dwyer)
City Attorney Casher advised the item would be continued to the City Council meeting of February 17, 2026. He asked that the public hearing be opened and a motion made to continue the item to February 17, 2026.

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

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

ACTION: Motion by Council member Toms/Mayor Pro Tem Murphy to continue the public hearing to consider the adoption of a resolution confirming the Community Services Master Fee Schedule, to February 17, 2026.

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

Absent: None

11. OLD BUSINESS: None

12. NEW BUSINESS: None

13. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD (Continued from Item 6) (Public Comments) Only open to members of the public who did not speak under the first Citizens to be Heard, Agenda Item 6.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Citizens may speak under any item not listed on the Agenda. The time limit is 3 minutes and is subject to modification by the Mayor. Individuals may not share or offer time to another speaker.

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

Rafael Menis reported COVID-19 rates in the Contra Costa County region were still at a Very Low level, but with some Moderate, High and Very High data results in Alameda County, and with overall trends indicating the virulent level in Contra Costa County and the state as a whole was flat; however, he continued to encourage people to get vaccinated/or get a booster shot and wear masks in crowded indoor areas. He also asked the City Council to adjourn the meeting in memory of Alex Pretti, another American citizen killed whether by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

Mark Zimmerman asked the City Attorney if he had the ability to submit written comments through a Council member so they could potentially be read if they were longer than three-minutes.

City Attorney Casher advised there were no limits on Council member statements or discussion and Council members could take as long as they liked.

14. ADJOURN to the Regular City Council Meeting of February 17, 2026 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz and Alex Pretti.

At 10:30 p.m., Mayor Pro Tem Tave adjourned to a Regular City Council Meeting on February 17, 2026 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz and Alex Pretti.

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

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.C.

DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2026
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 APPROVING THE SUBMISSION OF AN

APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION FOR WHALE

TAIL GRANT FUNDS AND DESIGNATING THE AUTHORIZED

REPRESENTATIVE

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution approving the application submission for Whale Tail Grant funds from the California Coastal Commission and designating an authorized representative.

BACKGROUND
In August 2024, 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. Given Pinole is a shoreline community, a key strategy in the CAAP is sea level rise adaption. Modeling tools such as the Surging Seas Risk Finder and NOAA Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding Viewer show significant risk to critical infrastructure and facilities, including Bayfront Park, Pinole High School, the Pinole Library, and the shared Pinole-Hercules Water Pollution Control Plant. CAAP actions to mitigate the impacts of sea level rise include:
• SLR-1a Conduct a shoreline stabilization study to determine the most effective methods for protecting Pinole’s shoreline communities and infrastructure from erosion and sea level rise, and to identify opportunities for restoring natural coastal habitats that can serve as a buffer against storm surges and other impacts of climate change. • SLR-1b In collaboration with Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development and state agencies, develop a sea level rise resilience and adaptation strategy with shoreline restoration projects using innovative nature-based solutions and green engineering that would enhance public access, shoreline habitat (e.g., reestablishing native dune habitats, wetlands, and lagoons) and increase shoreline recreational opportunities.
• SLR-1c Partner with the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), and/or similar entities, regarding regional approaches, strategies, and mitigation actions to address sea level rise. Implement a Shoreline Management Plan, and/or a Shoreline Monitoring Program that would identify erosional hotspots and

timely response.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The City secured $736,730 in grant funding from the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) to create the Pinole-Hercules Multi-Jurisdiction Shoreline Adaptation Plan. The original proposal included a task for Data Collection and Community Engagement to gather site-specific visual data for the Vulnerability Assessment and to guide development of the Shoreline Adaptation Plan. This task proposed two complementary approaches:
• Fixed-point photo monitoring using CoastSnap (or a similar cradle-based system) • Community-based documentation of flooding during king tide and storm events As part of this effort, the City planned to partner with community organizations and the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) to host public king tide photo-collection events, ensuring broad participation and representation from populations most affected by flooding.

OPC ultimately removed this task from the approved scope because it did not align with their funding criteria. As a result, the grant award was reduced from $894,750.91 to $736,730. City staff emphasized the importance of this component to OPC and is actively seeking alternative funding.

After reviewing the Whale Tail Grant solicitation from the California Coastal Commission, staff determined it aligns well with the data collection scope, given its focus on community science and coastal access. In December 2025, staff submitted an application (Attachment B) to the Coastal Commission for the maximum amount of $50,000. A governing body resolution authorizing the application (Attachment A) is required by February 26, 2026. Applications are under review, and awards are expected to be announced in April 2026.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact for the adoption of this resolution.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
B. Application WT Grants

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX

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

SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

FOR WHALE TAIL GRANT FUNDS AND DESIGNATING THE AUTHORIZED

REPRESENTATIVE
WHEREAS, in August 2024, the City Council adopted Pinole’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, which includes strategies for sea level rise adaptation as a shoreline community; and
WHEREAS, the City secured $736,730 in grant funding from the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) to complete the Pinole-Hercules Multi-Jurisdiction Shoreline Adaptation Plan; and
WHEREAS, limited OPC funding could not cover an integral data collection component to monitor erosional hotspots and address other data gaps through a citizen science approach led by the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI); and WHEREAS, the Whale Tail Grant program administered by the California Coastal Commission aligns with this unfunded data collection scope by prioritizing community science and expanding access to coastal and marine experiences; and WHEREAS, the City of Pinole submitted an application for Whale Tail Grant funds on December 15, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission requires a resolution from the applicant’s governing body authorizing submission of the application, authorizing entry into a grant agreement if awarded, and designating an authorized representative to execute the grant agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pinole hereby:

1. Approves the submission of the Whale Tail Grant application to the California Coastal Commission;

2. Authorizes the City to enter into a grant agreement with the California Coastal Commission if the grant is awarded;

3. Designates the City Manager, as the City’s authorized representative, to execute the grant agreement and any related documents.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pinole held on the 17th day of February, 2026 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 17th day of February, 2026
____________________________________
Heather Bell-Spears, CMC
City Clerk

2025 WHALE TAIL
® Grant Application

CONTACT INFORMATION
Name of Applicant Organization: City of Pinole
Name and Title of Contact Person: Kapil Amin, Sustainability Project Manager Email (where you will receive grant notifications): [email protected] Telephone: 510-372-0989
Organization Mailing Address: 2131 Pear Street Pinole, CA 94564 Website: Home -Welcome to the City of Pinole

PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Title: Pinole Sea Level Rise Adaptation Community Science and Stewardship WHALE TAIL® Grant Request: $ 49,750
Total Project Budget (if larger than Grant Request): $
Brief Project Summary (no more than 3 sentences, focusing on WHAT you propose to do, not WHY):

With the support and expertise of San Francisco Estuary Institute, Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed, and local community partners, the City of Pinole will engage residents through a series of community science and stewardship events focused on understanding shoreline change and habitats along the San Pablo Bay shoreline. The project will be enhanced by an interactive shoreline photo-monitoring station, such as CoastSnap, paired with interpretive signage and a public-facing website that translates existing shoreline science and planning information into accessible community-oriented educational content. Together, the events and photo-monitoring program will build community awareness, hands-on learning, and long-term capacity for local involvement in shoreline/creek stewardship and adaption efforts.

Location(s) where project participants are based: The CoastSnap monitoring cradle with educational signage and instructions will be installed on the East Bay Regional Park Bay Trail (pictured below) Shoreline programming led by SFEI will be conducted along the Pinole shoreline.

SFEI visited Pinole to find the optimal location for CoastSnap installation (pictured above).

SFEI-lead data collection programming will occur along the Pinole Shoreline

Creek stewardship (phragmites removal as a nature-based solution to sea level rise adaptation) will be conducted at the mouth of the creek that feeds into bay shore.

Number of people who will be directly reached by the project: ~200 participants through a combination of in-person shoreline events and a virtual engagement session.

Project Start Date: July 1, 2026
Project End Date: April 17, 2028
Projects must start between May 15 and October 1, 2026. If the project starts on or before June 30, 2026, the project must end by April 17, 2028. If the project starts on or after July 1, 2026, the project must end by November 30, 2028. Grant-funded expenses must occur between start date and end date.

Which describes your organization? (Mark all that apply) ☐ Non-profit corporation
☒ Government entity
☐ CA Native American Tribe
☐ Project of non-profit fiscal sponsor
☐ Public school
Are you applying for the Tribal Set-Aside of funds? (Select one) ☐ Yes ☒ No If “Yes,” please see #17 for additional required documentation.

Where/how did you find out about this grant program?
OPC Technical Assistance
Name and title of person submitting proposal (may be same or different from Contact Person):

Kapil Amin, Sustainability Project Manager
Signature of person submitting proposal:

Date: 12/15/2025

BACKGROUND

1. Organization’s History
Pinole is a bayfront community of about 19,000 residents in Contra Costa County, incorporated on June 25, 1903. The City has a land area of more than five square miles and is bordered by Hercules to the North, San Pablo and Richmond to the South, and the unincorporated areas of Tara Hills and El Sobrante to the southeast and southwest of the City.

The City of Pinole is a “full-service” city, meaning that the City provides all of the traditional municipal services (police, land use management, public works, and parks and recreation) to its residents. The City of Pinole also provides residents with some non-traditional municipal services, such as wastewater treatment, community television programming, and childcare. The City operates on the City CouncilCity Manager system of local government with five elected Council members serving four-year terms with a rotating mayor. City Hall hours of operation are 8:00 am to 4:30 pm, Monday through Thursday.

City Hall is closed to the public on Fridays.

Pinole is working towards being a more equitable, sustainable and resilient community. The City greatly considers sustainability in its operations and governance. In 2024, Council adopted its inaugural Climate Action and Adaption Plan, a roadmap to carbon neutrality by 2045 and a more climate resilient community. Pinole is tackling environmental issues across many sectors. The City recently passed a single-use plastics ordinance spurred by excessive litter in our beloved Pinole Creek. Our procurement policy was enhanced to include provisions for more green procurement. For more sustainable transportation, the City is near adoption of its first ever Active Transportation Plan and will soon be installing EV chargers at various facilities. In building decarbonization, The City is considering adoption of reach codes and additionally is working towards streamlining and incentivizing adoption of community electrification by developing a virtual concierge, offering rebates and express permitting.

WHAT

2. Goals and Objectives
Goal Objective
• Increase community understanding of
shoreline change and climate impacts
along the Pinole shoreline
• Install an interactive shoreline photomonitoring station (e.g. CoastSnap) with interpretive signage that invites
community members to observe and
document shoreline conditions over time.
• Provide high-level context on the PinoleHercules Shoreline Adaptation Plan, including its purpose, timeline, and how
community observations complement the
planning process.
• Engage community members in hands-on
shoreline observation and stewardship
activities that inform adaptation
discussions
• Host up to five community science and
stewardship events, including two inperson shoreline events, two creek stewardship events and one virtual

session, designed to introduce
participants to local shoreline and creek
features, flooding pathways, and areas of
erosion and vulnerability.
• Include two hands-on creek stewardship
event, led by Friends of Pinole Creek
Watershed, focused on removal of
invasive Phragmites to support creek
health.
• Use the in-person events to support
guided shoreline walks and hands-on
observation, including photo
documentation during typical conditions
and during King Tide or other high-water
event, when feasible.
• Introduce participants to the CoastSnap
installation and public-facing website so
they can continue observing and learning
independently beyond organized events.
• Use facilitated discussions during events
to help participants connect what they
are observing to broader shoreline
change processes and the goals of the
Pinole-Hercules Shoreline Adaptation
Plan.
• Create accessible tools that connect
community learning to long-term
shoreline adaptation efforts
• Develop a simple, public-facing project
website linked from the CoastSnap
signage that explains shoreline change,
climate impacts, and the role of
community observations within the
adaptation planning process.
• Translate existing technical information
from the Pinole-Hercules Shoreline
Adaptation Plan’s Existing Conditions
Assessment into clear, visual, and publicly
accessible web content that supports
community learning and engagement.
• Expand inclusive outreach and sustained
participation in shoreline stewardship
and adaptation
• Leverage City communication channels
and community partner networks to
promote events and learning
opportunities tied to the Pinole-Hercules
Shoreline Adaptation Plan.
• Engage residents from neighboring and
under-resourced communities who use

Pinole’s shoreline to ensure broad
participation in adaptation-related
learning.

Project Description –
The City of Pinole, in partnership with the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) and local community partners, will carry out a shoreline education and engagement project focused on helping residents better understanding shoreline change, flooding, and climate impacts along the San Pablo Bay shoreline. The project includes installation of a shoreline photo-monitoring station (such as CoastSnap), interpretive signage, a public-facing website, and a small number of guided community science events. Together, these elements are intended to support hands-on learning and build awareness of the Pinole-Hercules Shoreline Adaptation Plan.

The project will host up to four community science and stewardship events, designed as a sequence that builds understanding over time. The first event will be an introductory shoreline walk, focused on orienting participants to local shoreline, project goals, and observed flooding and erosion issues. The second event will be a high-water (King Tide) shoreline observation event, timed to coincide with a King Tide when feasible, and focused on observing shoreline conditions during elevated water levels. The third and fourth event will be a hands-on creek stewardship activity, led by Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed, focused on removal of invasive Phragmites to improve creek function and health. The fifth event will be a virtual reflection and discussion session, providing an opportunity to review example shoreline photographs collected through the project and discuss how these observations relate to shoreline change and adaptation planning.

Activities are designed for a broad audience, including youth, families, and community members with varying levels of familiarity with coastal issues. Educational content will be delivered in clear, non-technical language and supported by visuals when helpful. Events will take place at publicly accessible shoreline and creek locations. Project partners will assist with outreach to encourage participation by a wide range of community members.

A key project deliverable is a public-facing educational website linked directly from the CoastSnap signage via QR code. The website will provide an overview of shoreline change and climate impacts in Pinole and will translate existing technical information from the Pinole-Hercules Shoreline Adaptation Plan’s Existing Conditions Assessment into plain-language explanations for a general audience. The CoastSnap installation, signage, and website are intended to serve as durable educational tools that support ongoing public engagement beyond the grant period.

WHO

3. Participants
The project will directly engage with approximately ~200 participants through a combination of inperson shoreline events and a virtual engagement session. Participants will primarily be residents of the City of Pinole and surrounding communities along the San Pablo Bay shoreline, including individuals and families who already use Pinole’s shoreline for recreation, walking, and naturebased activities. The project is designed for a broad audience, including youth, families, students, and adult community members.

Direct participants are expected to include members of existing community groups that have expressed interest in shoreline engagement, such as Pinole Valley High School Earth Team students, Pinole Girl Scouts, and Pinole Rotary. The project will also engage residents from

neighboring and under-resourced unincorporated communities including Bayview, Montalvin Manor, and Tara Hills. The Native American Tribe Nations of Lisjan has also committed to help disseminate event information as well as provide consultation during the community science activities. OPC SB1 funding will support compensation for participating community groups for their efforts, while this grant will focus on delivering accessible education and public engagement opportunities.

In addition to direct participants, the project will reach a broader indirect audience through permanent interpretive signage, the CoastSnap installation, and a public-facing educational website. Indirect reach will also occur through the City’s communication channels, including the Pulse newsletter (approximately 8,000 subscribers), social media, and community television, as well as through partner organizations sharing project information within their own networks. These efforts are expected to reach several thousand additional community members over the course of the project period.

4. Partners
The project will be led by the City of Pinole, which will provide overall coordination, outreach, and alignment with the Pinole-Hercules Shoreline Adaptation Plan. The City will leverage its existing communication channels and community relationships to recruit participants.

The San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI), will provide technical and educational support for the project, drawing on its experience in shoreline science and climate adaptation. SFEI will support the design and facilitation of shoreline observation activities, assist with installation and use of the CoastSnap photomonitoring station, and help translate existing shoreline science and planning information into accessible content for the public-facing website and event materials.

Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed will lead creek stewardship events with programming to include phragmites removal and education on the impacts of invasive species, the creek’s ecological function and adaptation benefits, benefits of maintaining native species and more.

Community partners, including local and community-based organizations, will assist with outreach and participant engagement by sharing event information within their networks and encouraging participation.

5. Organization and Staff
The project will be led by the City of Pinole, which serves the resident and communities who live, work, and recreate along the Pinole shoreline. City staff are actively engaged in shoreline access, community outreach, and climate resilience efforts, including development of the Pinole-Hercules Shoreline Adaptation Plan. This project builds directly on those ongoing efforts.

Key City of Pinole staff include:
• Kapil Amin, Sustainability Project Manager, will serve as the project lead and oversee coordination, outreach, and implementation.
o UC Riverside, B.S. Biology
o Harvard Extension, M.L.A Sustainability

o As a Climate Corps Fellow for the City of Pinole, Kapil lead the development and adoption of the city’s inaugural Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. His equitable and comprehensive engagement efforts included pop-up workshops, surveys, interest holder roundtables, innovative engagement tools such as art and games, and more.

Similar efforts were conducted for the single-use plastics ordinance, active transportation plan, permanent service station ban, building reach codes, and more. In his current role as Pinole’s Sustainability Project Manager, Mr. Amin oversees CAAP implementation across many sectors in building decarbonization, climate resilience, waste reduction, water conservation, and sustainable transportation. • Lilly Whalen, Community Development Director, will provide oversight and ensure alignment with City priorities and shoreline adaptation planning
o UC Berkeley, B.S. Environmental Science
o CalPoly San Luis Obispo, M.S. City and Regional Planning with Distinction, Emphasis in Urban Development and Design
o Lilly brings 15 years of experience delivering innovative and equitable solutions. As Community Development Director for Pinole, she led updates to the Housing, Safety, and Health Elements and a brand new Environmental Justice Element, integrating climate adaptation and prioritizing vulnerable communities. In her previous role of the same position in Sausalito, Ms. Whalen managed a comprehensive General Plan update emphasizing climate resilience, equity, and public engagement while addressing Sausalito’s coastal challenges.

City staff will be responsible for participant outreach, event coordination, and serving as the primary point of contact for the public.

The City is partnering with the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI). SFEI staff include:
• Alex Braud, Environmental Scientist and GIS Specialist, will support project design and facilitation of shoreline observation activities, assist with installation and use of the CoastSnap photo-monitoring station, and help develop clear, public-facing educational content for signage, events, and the project website.
o Louisiana State University, B.S. Geography, Minor in Oceanography & Coastal Sciences o Louisiana State University, B.A. Disaster Science & Management, Minor in Business Administration
o College of Charleston, M.S. Environmental Studies, Certificate in Urban & Regional Planning
o College of Charleston, M.S. Public Administration
o Alex brings extensive experience working at the intersection of coastal science, shoreline processes, and geospatial analysis related to climate adaptation. At the San Francisco Estuary Institute, he serves as a technical lead on regional baylands and shoreline resilience efforts, including habitat mapping and development of sciencebased tools that support planning and decision-making. His work focuses on applying best available science to real-world coastal management challenges and translating technical information into clear, usable products that can be shared with planners, partners, and the public.

• Anthony Khalil, Senior Community Engagement Specialist at SFEI, will support community outreach, event facilitation, and participant engagement, ensuring activities are accessible and welcoming to a broad audience.
o San Francisco State University, B.A. Environmental Studies o Anthony brings over two decades of experience working with community-based organizations and public agencies on environmental education, stewardship, and climate resilience initiatives throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. At the San Francisco Estuary Institute, he supports projects that center community knowledge and participation in addressing environmental and climate challenges, with a focus on partnerships that benefit communities historically excluded from environmental decision-making. His background includes leadership roles with Literacy for Environmental Justice and Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates, as well as experience supporting community-based ecological restoration and watershed health projects. Anthony currently serves as an Environmental Justice Advisor to the Bay Conservation & Development Commission
Together, SFEI staff bring experience in shoreline science, community-based monitoring, and public engagement throughout the San Francisco Bay region.

The City is also partnering with The Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed to lead creek stewardship events. Lead staff includes Jon Jarvis. Mr. Jarvis served 40 years with the US National Park Service as a ranger/biologist and has undertaken dozens of large and small restoration projects throughout the national parks. He has decades of experience in planning and execution of restoration projects that include stream and river restoration, native plant revegetation, and invasive control. Jon recently led the UC Berkeley Institute for Parks, People, and Biodiversity and is now fully retired but committed to restoration of Pinole Creek. Overall, the Friends have extensive experience in restoration and health of Pinole Creek over the past 20 years. Projects include a case study in litter assessment, completion of the Pinole Creek Fish Passage Improvement Project, The Pinole Creek Watershed Sediment Source assessment, the Pinole Creek Demonstration Project, and is currently working on restoration of a native plant garden in collaboration with Contra Costa Resource Conservation District and an unhoused cohort through SOS Richmond.

WHY

6. Why are you proposing this project? Explain your “why” as an issue, interest, or need that your project will address and explain why this project is suited to be successful in that effort. How did you come to identify and understand this issue, interest, or need? Why is this project of value to the community you want to engage?
The City of Pinole is proposing this project to help community members better understand what shoreline change and flooding look like locally, and how those changes connect to longer-term adaptation planning along the San Pablo Bay shoreline. Tools such as NOAA’s Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding Viewer and Surging Seas show that parts of the Pinole shoreline are likely to experience more frequent flooding in the coming decades. While those tools are useful, they are often abstract, and many residents have limited opportunities to see or talk about these issues in place.

Pinole’s shoreline includes important public spaces and infrastructure, including Bayfront Park and the Pinole-Hercules Water Pollution Control Plant. The City is beginning engagement in technical planning efforts related to sea level rise and flood risk through OPC SB1 Funding. This project is intended to complement that work by focusing on community education and stewardship.

The need for this project was identified through recent City planning and engagement efforts, including development of Pinole’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP). This project builds interest in learning more about climate risks by creating simple, hands-on opportunities for people to observe shoreline conditions, participate in stewardship activities, and connect what they see to broader adaptation discussions. Guided shorelines walks, a creek stewardship event focused on invasive Phragmites removal, a small photo-monitoring installation, and a public-facing website all provide accessible entry points for learning. Together, these activities help ground adaptation planning in lived experience and local observation.

The project is of value to the community because it supports environmental literacy, encourages stewardship of the shoreline and creek, and helps residents feel more informed and prepared to engage in future shoreline adaptation conversations. This project creates space for shared learning and dialogue about how shoreline change may affect Pinole over time.

HOW

7. Project Future and History
This project builds on ongoing shoreline engagement and adaptation planning efforts led by the City of Pinole. While the community events proposed under this grant are limited in number, several core project elements are intended to continue beyond the grant period. The CoastSnap installation, interpretive signage, and public-facing website will remain in place after the grant concludes, providing ongoing opportunities for informal public learning and shoreline observation without requiring additional dedicated funding. The City anticipates incorporating upkeep of these materials into routine operations and future shoreline adaptation and outreach efforts, as feasible.

The project is closely connected to the Pinole-Hercules Shoreline Adaptation Plan, which is currently being developed with funding from the Ocean Protection Council (OPC). Funding includes support for technical analysis, existing conditions assessment, and formal planning activities. This proposal is intended to complement that work by focusing specifically on community education, engagement, and accessibility, rather than technical analysis or plan development.

8. Tracking and assessing your impact – Describe your project evaluation plan. You are encouraged to include impact tracking and assessment in your timeline and budget. (If selected for funding, you must report on project impact in your final grant report.) Objective Tracking mechanism
• Install an interactive shoreline photomonitoring station (e.g. CoastSnap) with interpretive signage that invites
community members to observe and
document shoreline conditions over time.
• Provide high-level context on the PinoleHercules Shoreline Adaptation Plan, including its purpose, timeline, and how
• Documentation of install/signage
completion
• QR code to CoastSnap
• Number of members interacting with
CoastSnap (number of unique users and
total number of photographs submitted)
and website visits
• Outreach materials of high-level context

community observations complement the
planning process.
• Feedback survey for use of CoastSnap to
troubleshoot and improve experience
• Host up to five community science and
stewardship events, including two inperson shoreline events, two creek stewardship events and one virtual
session, designed to introduce
participants to local shoreline and creek
features, flooding pathways, and areas of
erosion and vulnerability.
• Include two hands-on creek stewardship
event, led by Friends of Pinole Creek
Watershed, focused on removal of
invasive Phragmites to support creek
health.
• Use the in-person events to support
guided shoreline walks and hands-on
observation, including photo
documentation during typical conditions
and during King Tide or other high-water
event, when feasible.
• Introduce participants to the CoastSnap
installation and public-facing website so
they can continue observing and learning
independently beyond organized events.
• Use facilitated discussions during events
to help participants connect what they
are observing to broader shoreline
change processes and the goals of the
Pinole-Hercules Shoreline Adaptation
Plan.
• Outreach report (number of attendees,
programming, participants details
(number of youth, etc.) photos, etc.)
• Link to public-facing website and
engagement data/dissemination methods
• Feedback survey for use to improve next
event and outreach methods for next
events
• Develop a simple, public-facing project
website linked from the CoastSnap
signage that explains shoreline change,
climate impacts, and the role of
community observations within the
adaptation planning process.
• Translate existing technical information
from the Pinole-Hercules Shoreline
Adaptation Plan’s Existing Conditions
Assessment into clear, visual, and publicly
accessible web content that supports
community learning and engagement.
• Link to website and engagement data

• Leverage City communication channels
and community partner networks to
promote events and learning
opportunities tied to the Pinole-Hercules
Shoreline Adaptation Plan.
• Engage residents from neighboring and
under-resourced communities who use
Pinole’s shoreline to ensure broad
participation in adaptation-related
learning.
• Dissemination methods/number of
people reached
• Social media posts
Permits (if any) – If permits will be required for your project, explain whether you already have them or whether you will need to acquire them during the project timeline.

Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed will be obtaining a NPDES permit from the State Water Board and is experienced with this process.

WHEN

9. Task timeline
• Summer - Fall 2026
o Confirm CoastSnap siting and installation requirements, including coordination with Public Works and applicable permits
o Design interpretive signage and develop initial public-facing project website structure
• Winter 2026 – Spring 2027
o Install CoastSnap photo-monitoring station and interpretive signage at one shoreline location
o Publish initial project website content, including overview of shoreline change and adaptation planning context
o Conduct introductory community shoreline walk focused on local shoreline conditions, flooding pathways, and erosion issues
o Introduce participants to CoastSnap and the project website as tools for ongoing observation and learning
• Spring – Summer 2027
o Conduct two hands-on creek stewardship event focused on removal of invasive Phragmites, led by Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed
• Winter 2027 – Witner 2028
o Coordinate timing of shoreline observation event to align with a King Tide or other elevated water level event, when feasible
o Conduct guided shoreline walk and observation during high-water conditions, emphasizing safety, interpretation, and learning
• Spring – Summer 2028
o Compile representative shoreline photographs and observations collected through the project

o Host virtual reflection and discussion session to review observations and connect experiences to shoreline adaptation planning
o Update public-facing project website with summary content and project outcomes ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION (THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE 15-PAGE LIMIT):

10. Budget – Use our Grant Project Budget Form, or your own document that includes the same information, to explain your grant request. The form is at the end of this application packet or can be downloaded in an Excel format. Please take careful notice of the footnotes, which contain important information. If your total project budget is larger than your grant request, complete the Total Project Budget Form as well (located at the end of the packet).

11. Authorization (can be submitted after deadline by 2/28/26)- A letter of authorization or a resolution from the applicant organization’s governing body that contains the following:
support for and authority to submit the proposal, authority to enter into a contract with the California Coastal Commission if the grant is awarded, and designation of the applicant’s authorized representative—the person who would sign a grant contract (name and title). If the authority to perform such tasks has already been delegated by the governing body, you may submit a letter from the person who has that delegated authority.

If your organization is the project of a non-profit fiscal sponsor, the document will come from them. Examples of letters of authorization and resolutions can be found here.

This is the only item that may be submitted after the proposal deadline. If it must be late, for example due to your board meeting schedule, submit your resolution or letter by 2/28/2026.

12. Proof of tax status - For non-profits, proof of 501(c)(3) status in the form of an exemption letter from the IRS. If you are a project of a non-profit fiscal sponsor, this document will be for that organization.

13. Leadership - The names of board members and/or organization leaders. For a public school, this could be your principal, department head/s, and perhaps the superintendent if the district is the applicant. If you’re fiscally sponsored, list the leaders of your own organization rather than the sponsor. If any organization leaders or board members (including those of a fiscal sponsor) are California Coastal Commission members or staff, please note that.

City Council Members -Welcome to the City of Pinole

14. Organization Budget - Your organization’s most recent annual budget, including sources of funds. We do not require a specific format – send your budget in the format you have. Budget information is not necessary for public schools or government agencies.

15. For Tribal Set-Aside: Proof of Partnership – Proof of partnership or formal support with a brief description of the applicant’s relationship to the tribe(s) or tribal communities engaged, such as a signed letter from the tribes’ leadership council or chairperson or signed tribal council resolution authorizing and consenting to partnership. If you are a tribe, your letter of authorization (see #13) fulfills this requirement.

16. OPTIONAL: Supporting materials – Any other supporting material you would like to provide such as newsletters, press stories, or letters of support or commitment from project partners or others. Any letters may be addressed to “California Coastal Commission” or “Whale Tail Grant Review Panel.”

Submit your complete application package by 8:00pm, December 15, 2025, by:

Email: [email protected]
OR
Upload
OR
Mail:

Whale Tail Grants
California Coastal Commission
455 Market Street, Suite 200, Room 228
San Francisco, CA 94105
Refer to Grant Guidelines for complete instructions on how to submit your proposal.

Make sure you have all the following before you submit your proposal:

Completed and signed Cover Sheet
Answers to Questions 1-11
Curriculum sample, if applicable – see #3
Examples of assessment tools, if applicable – see #9
Grant Project Budget showing your grant request – see #12 Total Project Budget, ONLY if project budget is larger than grant request – see #12 Letter of Authorization or Resolution – see #13 (This item can be sent late if necessary.) 501(c)(3) status letter from the IRS, if applicable – see #14 Names of board members and/or organization leaders – see #15 Your organization’s most recent annual budget, if applicable– see #16 Proof of formal tribal support or partnership, if applying for Tribal Set-Aside – see #17 Optional: Letters of support, press stories, or other supporting materials – see #18

WHALE TAIL® GRANT PROJECT BUDGET FORM

PERSONNEL EXPENSES
Job title #1:

Rate ($/hour): Time (hours): Total (Rate x Time): $
Job title #2:

Rate ($/hour): Time (hours): Total (Rate x Time): $
Job title #3:

Rate ($/hour): Time (hours): Total (Rate x Time): $
(Add additional positions as needed. Include title, rate, hours, and $ amount.) Total Benefits requested (1): $

1. Total Personnel Expenses requested (all positions plus benefits): $

OPERATING EXPENSES
Supplies/Materials (2): $
List your anticipated major purchases of supplies/materials and estimated costs:

Travel (3): $
Briefly explain any proposed travel costs:

Food (4): $
Briefly explain the purpose of this food or beverage request:

External Contract(s): $
Briefly explain the purpose of the contract(s):

Other operating expenses (participant stipends, admission fees, fiscal sponsor fees, etc.) Type of expense: Amount: $
Type of expense: Amount: $
(Add additional types of expenses as needed, with dollar amount for each.)

2. Total Operating Expenses requested: $
1 Pay rates and benefits reflect actual rates. Benefits may not exceed 50.38% of amount requested for wages. 2 Grant funds can’t purchase vehicles, insurance, prizes, incentives, gift cards, cash gifts, or items that will be sold. 3 Use of owned vehicles are reimbursed at the federal rate, currently 70 cents/mile. Rented vehicles are reimbursed for rental fee and gas. Travel to or from outside California is not eligible for funding by this grant. 4 Maximum reimbursement for food is $20 per person per meal. No tips are reimbursed for food that’s not part of overnight travel. Any food in the grant budget must be essential to the success of the project. 5 Indirect costs are limited to 10% of Total Personnel Expenses and include, for example, a pro rata share of rent, utilities, and salaries for certain positions indirectly supporting the proposed project but not directly staffing it.

3. Indirect Costs/Overhead requested(5)
: $
Total Budget Request (add 1, 2, and 3): $

TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET FORM
ONLY complete this form IF Project Budget is LARGER than your Grant Request. In the spaces below, note the TOTAL amounts needed to complete your entire project.

TOTAL PROJECT PERSONNEL EXPENSES

1. Total Personnel Expenses for this project (all positions plus benefits): $

TOTAL PROJECT OPERATING EXPENSES
Supplies/Materials: $
Travel: $
Food: $
External Contract(s): $
Other operating expenses (participant stipends, admission fees, fiscal sponsor fees, etc.) Type of expense: Amount: $
Type of expense: Amount: $
(Add additional types of expenses as needed, with dollar amount for each.)

2. Total Operating Expenses for this project: $

3. Indirect Costs/Overhead for this project: $
Total Project Budget (add 1, 2, and 3): $
Please answer the following questions in the box below:

Have you already secured the additional funds (beyond the grant request) needed to complete your project? If not, what is your plan to secure them?

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.D.

DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2026
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Markisha Guillory, Finance Director, 510-724-9823, [email protected] SUBJECT: FY 2025/26 SECOND QUARTER INVESTMENT REPORT

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend that the City Council receive the Quarterly Investment Report for the second quarter (ending December 31, 2025).

BACKGROUND
The City of Pinole Investment Policy requires that a Quarterly Investment Report be submitted to the City Council. The City’s investments, as shown in the attached Investment Report for the quarter ending December 31, 2025, conform to the City’s Investment Policy as well as all applicable State and federal requirements, including California Government Code Section 53646.

The funds that the City invests, and which are reported in the Quarterly Investment Report, are comprised of cash and investment balances that are held across all City funds. The cash and investment balances across all City funds are “pooled” for investment purposes, with the exception of the assets of the General Reserve, which is discussed further below. Cash is invested in accordance with the City’s Investment Policy. Interest earnings on investments are allocated to the various funds based on the cash and investment balances of those funds.

The City also maintains a Section 115 Pension Trust that was established for the purpose of setting aside resources to offset anticipated increases in future City pension costs. The cash and investments in the trust are designated as restricted fund balance in the City’s General Fund. These funds are invested according to the policy objectives and guidelines of the City’s Pension Investment Policy.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Investment Policy
All investments held at December 31, 2025 conform to the City’s Investment Policy and all applicable State and federal requirements. The City’s investment objectives, in order of priority, are safety, which is investing in the highest quality securities; liquidity, which is the ability to convert the investment to cash as necessary to meet cash flow requirements; and yield, which is earning a higher return.

Investment Strategy

The City utilizes a passive investment management approach by buying and holding securities until maturity. Earnings on investments held until maturity typically fluctuate with market conditions and are considered “unrealized” prior to maturity. The City expects to yield a gain on all investments at maturity. A “laddered maturity” investment strategy is applied to the longterm portion of the City’s investment portfolio. A laddered portfolio is structured with securities that have different maturity dates. As securities are called or mature, proceeds are reinvested in a new security with another long term at the end of the ladder. Laddering helps to minimize interest-rate risk, increase liquidity, and diversify credit risk.

Staff continue to monitor rates of return on City funds invested and make investments to best achieve the objectives laid out in the Investment Policy.

Second Quarter Investment Summary
As of December 31, 2025, total cash and investments decreased by $1,823,050 from the previous quarter, from $43,750,057 to $41,927,007. Typically, the City experiences swings in cash inflow and outflow due to the seasonality of large receipts, such as property taxes, and large disbursements, like debt service that is paid semiannually. The City will have sufficient cash flow to meet the next six months of estimated expenditures.

Investment Instruments
The Finance Director, in consultation with the City Treasurer, selects the instruments in which to invest the City’s funds, in order to best meet the objectives laid out in the City’s Investment Policy. The balances held in different investment instruments at December 31, 2025 are noted in Attachment A. The bulk of the City’s investment funds are invested in the State of California’s Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), because of the safety and liquidity of that investment.

Funds in the City’s General Reserve are maintained in an account that is separate from the rest of the pooled funds. This enables the Finance Director to implement a directed investment plan for the General Reserve funds. The City’s practice has been to invest these funds in instruments with longer duration, thereby yielding greater investment earnings.

Investment Yield and Duration
The weighted average yield of the City’s investment portfolio for the quarter ended December 31, 2025 is summarized in Attachment A. The total investment portfolio yielded 3.728% for the second quarter (October-December 2025), slightly down from the 3.982% yielded in the previous quarter (July-September 2025).

For the second quarter, LAIF earned an average annual yield of 4.025%, down from an average annual yield of 4.212% for the first quarter.

The General Reserve, which holds the longer-term investments, earned an average annual yield of 3.304%, slightly down from the 3.619% average annual yield in the first quarter. There were no investment maturities, and no new investments were purchased during the second quarter.

Section 115 Trust
The Section 115 Trust is comprised of a diversified portfolio of investments consistent with the Trust’s objectives and liquidity requirements. The funds are invested on behalf of the City by Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS). The portfolio summary for the quarter ending December 31, 2025 is included in Attachment B to this report.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Investment Report-Quarter Ending December 31, 2025
B. Pension Trust Investment Report-Quarter Ending December 31, 2025

CITY OF PINOLE
INVESTMENT REPORT DECEMBER 2025

PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
Weighted
Days to Average
Investments Par Value Market Value Book Value % of Portfolio Maturity Yield Maturity Investment Pool - LAIF 17,011,001 17,048,111 17,048,111 43.62% 1 4.025 0 Investment Pool - CalTrust 3,715,746 3,715,746 3,715,746 9.51% 1 3.645 0 Money Market Savings 10,658,265 10,658,265 10,658,265 27.27% 1 3.595 0 Mutual Funds 6,175,629 6,175,629 6,175,629 15.80% 1 3.374 0 Certificates of Deposit 497,000 500,121 500,121 1.28% 184 4.870 1 Medium-Term Corporate Notes 1,000,000 988,800 988,800 2.53% 254 2.070 6 Federal Agency Securities - - - 0.00% 0 0.000 0
Subtotal Investments $ 39,057,642 $ 39,086,672 $ 39,086,672 100.00% 88 3.728 1 Average Years to Maturity: 0.2
Cash
Mechanics Bank - Vendor Checking * 1,338,691 1,338,691 1,338,691 1 BMO - Payroll Checking * 796,863 796,863 796,863 1
BMO - Checking (Credit Card Clearing) * 704,781 704,781 704,781 1 Subtotal Cash 2,840,335 2,840,335 2,840,335 1
Total Cash and Investments $ 41,897,977 $ 41,927,007 $ 41,927,007 *Not included in yield calculations
The above investments are consistent with the City's Investment Policy and allowable under current legislation of the State of California. Investments were selected using safety, liquidity and yield as the criteria. The source of the market values for the investments are provided by US Bank in accordance with the California Government Code requirement. The City has sufficient cash flow to cover anticipated expenditures through the next six months.

Investment Pool
53%
Money Market savings
27%
Mutual Funds
16%
Certificates of Deposit
1%
Medium-Term
Corporate Notes
3%
Federal Agency
Securities
0%

CITY OF PINOLE - INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO
JANUARY 2022
-
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
0-3 mo 4-6 mo 7-12 mo 1-2 yr 2-3 yr 3-4 yr 5 yr +
Millions

MATURITY DISTRIBUTION
53%
27%
16%
1%
3%
0%
$0 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000
Investment Pool
Money Market savings
Mutual Funds
Certificates of Deposit
Medium-Term Corporate Notes
Federal Agency Securities

CITY OF PINOLE - INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO
DECEMBER 2025

CITY OF PINOLE
INVESTMENT REPORT DECEMBER 2025

PORTFOLIO DETAILS
Type /
Account
Number CUSIP Issuer Manager GL Acct # Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Yield Days to
Maturity
S&P
Rating
Maturity
Date
Weighted
Average
Maturity
Investment Pool
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) LAIF 999-10201 17,011,001 17,048,111 17,048,111 4.025 4.025 1 N/A 0 CalTrust - Short Term Fund (City) CalTrust 999-10202 28,471 28,471 28,471 3.670 3.670 1 N/A 0 CalTrust - Medium Term Fund (City) CalTrust 999-10203 3,687,275 3,687,275 3,687,275 3.620 3.620 1 N/A 0 20,726,748 20,763,857 20,763,857 3.772 3.953 1 0
Money Market Savings
Mechanics Bank City 999-10102 9,045,303 9,045,303 9,045,303 3.750 3.750 1 N/A 0 Mechanics Bank City 500-10311 1,146,955 1,146,955 1,146,955 3.740 3.740 1 N/A 0 Mechanics Bank City 999-10108 357,921 357,921 357,921 3.740 3.740 1 N/A 0 BMO City 999-10104 108,086 108,086 108,086 0.995 0.995 1 N/A 0 10,658,265 10,658,265 10,658,265 3.056 3.595 1 0
Mutual Funds
19-516680 U.S. Bank US Bank 150-10110 25,086 25,086 25,086 1.980 1.980 1 N/A 0 19-516680 31846V203 1st American Government Obligation Fund US Bank 150-10110 6,150,544 6,150,544 6,150,544 3.380 3.380 1 N/A 0 6,175,629 6,175,629 6,175,629 2.680 3.374 1 0
Certificates of Deposit
19-516680 01025RAG4 Alabama Cr Un US Bank 150-10110 248,000 249,590 249,590 5.000 4.970 173 N/A 6/22/2026 1 19-516680 910286GR8 United Fid Bk FSB Evansville I US Bank 150-10110 249,000 250,531 250,531 4.800 4.770 195 N/A 7/14/2026 1 497,000 500,121 500,121 4.900 4.870 184 1
Medium-Term Corporate Notes
19-516679 037833DN7 Apple Inc. US Bank 150-10110 1,000,000 988,800 988,800 2.050 2.070 254 AA+ 9/11/2026 6 1,000,000 988,800 988,800 2.050 2.070 254 6
Federal Agency Securities
- - - 0.000 0.000 - 0
$ 39,057,642 $ 39,086,672 $ 39,086,672 3.292 3.728 88 1 Average Years : 0.2

Investments Market Value Book Value % of Market Yield
Cash and Equivalents 336,884 336,884 2.56% 3.640
U.S. Government Issues 3,564,968 3,681,756 27.05% 4.020 Corporate Issues 2,103,857 2,100,123 15.96% 4.990
Foreign Issues 145,418 143,255 1.10% 5.430
Municipal Issues - - 0.00% -
Mutual Funds-Equity 6,547,776 5,798,183 49.68% 2.000
Mutual Funds-Fixed Income 440,098 437,940 3.34% 6.480
Total Assets 13,139,001 12,498,140 99.70% 3.260
Accrued Income 39,692 39,692 0.30%
Grand Total $ 13,178,693 $ 12,537,832 100%

CITY OF PINOLE
INVESTMENT REPORT DECEMBER 2025
SECTION 115 TRUST PORTFOLIO SUMMARY-PENSION

49.68%

27.05%

15.96%

3.34%

2.56%

1.10%

0.30%

0.00%
$0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 Mutual Funds-Equity
U.S. Government Issues
Corporate Issues
Mutual Funds-Fixed Income
Cash and Equivalents
Foreign Issues
Accrued Income
Municipal Issues
Portfolio Summary

Investments Market Value Book Value % of Market Yield
Cash and Equivalents 53,530 53,530 2.20% 3.610
U.S. Government Issues - - 0.00% -
Corporate Issues - - 0.00% -
Foreign Issues - - 0.00% -
Municipal Issues - - 0.00% -
Mutual Funds-Equity 1,214,493 1,223,414 49.99% 2.000
Mutual Funds-Fixed Income 1,161,460 1,162,724 47.80% 4.380 Total Assets 2,429,482 2,439,668 99.99% 3.170
Accrued Income 168 168 0.01%
Grand Total $ 2,429,650 $ 2,439,836 100%

CITY OF PINOLE
INVESTMENT REPORT DECEMBER 2025
SECTION 115 TRUST PORTFOLIO SUMMARY-OPEB

49.99%

0.00%

0.00%

47.80%

2.20%

0.00%

0.01%

0.00%
$0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 Mutual Funds-Equity
U.S. Government Issues
Corporate Issues
Mutual Funds-Fixed Income
Cash and Equivalents
Foreign Issues
Accrued Income
Municipal Issues
Portfolio Summary

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.E.

DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2026
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Roxane Stone, Deputy City Clerk, [email protected] SUBJECT: PLACEMENT OF LIENS FOR DELINQUENT UNPAID WASTE COLLECTION

CHARGES FALLING DELINQUENT BETWEEN SEPTEMBER AND
DECEMBER 2025, CONSIDERED AT AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ON FEBRUARY 4, 2026.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the placement of liens for the purpose of collecting outstanding payments for garbage collection services pursuant to PMC Section 8.08.110 (b) and (c).

BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Section 8.08 of the Pinole Municipal Code, an administrative hearing was held on February 4, 2026, regarding unpaid garbage collection services that fell delinquent between September and December 2025. No parties attended the hearing to protest the charges. The administrative hearing was the final step in the process to collect the delinquencies, prior to Council approval to place the liens on the subject properties to recover the full amount owed, including delinquent charges and administrative fees.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS

FISCAL IMPACT
The City of Pinole receives an administrative recovery charge for each lien at the time of tax settlement or payment of the lien. There are 118 properties on which liens are being imposed, representing a total of $93,847.33 in delinquent service charges. The total administrative recovery fee is $60 per lien; a portion of which is remitted to Contra Costa County. The administrative recovery fees are $7,080.00; the total lien amount, including recovery fees, is $100,927.33.

Following approval by Council, a revised list will be provided to the City Clerk for recording, removing properties where accounts have been brought current since the publication of this report.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF PINOLE, CALIFORNIA, PLACING LIENS

ON PROPERTIES SITUATED IN THE CITY OF PINOLE, COUNTY OF CONTRA

COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS

UNPAID WASTE COLLECTION CHARGES FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING CONDUCTED FEBRUARY 4, 2026
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Municipal Code of the City of Pinole, Chapter 8.08, Section 8.08.090, subscription to garbage collection service is required for all premises in the City of Pinole, and the premises described in Exhibit "A" located in the City of Pinole, County of Contra Costa, State of California, were provided with garbage collection services as required by PMC, Chapter 8.08; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.08.110, the owners of said premises were notified in writing of their requirement to subscribe to and make payment for garbage collection services as provided in said Code Section; and WHEREAS, the owners of the premises failed to make payment for garbage collection services as required (collection charges fell delinquent between September and December 2025); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.08.110, a hearing was held on February 4, 2026; and
WHEREAS, as a result thereof, the City of Pinole has incurred expenses for delinquent collection charges and administrative costs as enumerated in Exhibit "A"*, which amounts remain unpaid.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 8.08.110 of the Municipal Code of the City of Pinole, the City Council of the City of Pinole does hereby place a lien against said premises for the amounts as described above and as applicable to each specific premise identified as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and, by this reference, incorporated herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to record this resolution with the Office of the Recorder of Contra Costa County, California.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of February 2026, 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 this 17th day of February 2026
_________________________________
Roxane Stone, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
* Exhibit A is not included as an attachment to this resolution that is posted on the City website or disseminated as part of the City Council Agenda Packet. The names of the individuals are confidential until the liens are recorded and become public record.

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 10.A.

DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2026
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Eric Casher, City Attorney, N/A, [email protected] SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.12.010 TO

MODIFY THE START TIME OF REGULARLY SCHEDULED CITY COUNCIL

MEETINGS

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce and waive the first reading of an Ordinance amending Section 2.12.010 “Time of Regular Meetings” to modify the start time of regularly scheduled City Council meetings.

BACKGROUND
Section 2.12.010 of the City of Pinole Municipal Code establishes a set time, date and location for regularly scheduled meetings of the Pinole City Council. It currently provides that the regularly scheduled meetings of the Pinole City Council shall be held at five p.m. (5:00 p.m.).

On January 20, 2026, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance amending the start time of regular meetings from five p.m. (5:00 p.m.) to five-thirty (5:30 p.m.). For members of the City Council who travel to regular meetings immediately after their primary jobs, a 5:00 p.m. meeting start time can prove to be difficult to accommodate, particularly with commuter traffic.

The City of Pinole is authorized to change or amend the start time of regularly scheduled City Council meetings. The proposed Ordinance (Exhibit A) reflects the Council’s proposed revisions and amends Section 2.12.010 of the Pinole Municipal Code to advance the start time of regularly scheduled City Council meetings from five p.m. (5:00 p.m.) to five-thirty p.m. (5:30 p.m).

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS

FISCAL IMPACT
Adopting the proposed Ordinance will have no direct fiscal impact. Costs related to staff attendance and preparation for Council Meetings will not change as the proposed Ordinance will only impact the meeting start time and not impact meeting duration or frequency.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Ordinance

ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE
AMENDING SECTION 2.12.010 OF THE PINOLE MUNICIPAL CODE TO MODIFY

THE START TIME OF REGULARLY SCHEDULED CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WHEREAS, Pinole Municipal Code Section 2.12.010 “Time of Regular Meetings” provides that regular meetings shall be held at 5:00 p.m.; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend PMC Chapter 2.12 “Council Meetings,” Section 2.12.010 “Time of Regular Meetings” to advance the City Council’s fixed meeting time from five p.m. (5:00 p.m.) to five-thirty p.m. (5:30 p.m.).

NOW, THEREFORE, 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. Municipal Code Amendment – Chapter 2.12.

Pinole Municipal Code Chapter 2.12 “Council Meetings,” Section 2.12.010 “Time of Regular Meetings” is hereby amended as follows (with text in strikeout indicating deletion and double underline indicating addition).
“2.12.010 TIME OF REGULAR MEETINGS.

The regular meetings shall be held in the council chambers on the first (1st) and third (3rd) Tuesdays of each month at five five-thirty p.m. (5:00 5:30 p.m.), except when a meeting day falls upon a holiday, in which case the meeting shall be held on the next succeeding business day at the same hour.”
Section 3. 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 on the thirty-first day after adoption.

Section 6. Publication.

Within fifteen (15) days after the passage of this Ordinance the City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance or a summary thereof to be published or to be posted in at least three public places in the City of Pinole in accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 36933.

PASSED AND ADOPTED on this _____ day of _______ 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:
______________________________
Heather Bell, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Eric S. Casher, City Attorney

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 10.B.

DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2026
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Andrea Dwyer, Community Services Director, 5107249820, [email protected]
Markisha Guillory, Finance Director, 510-724-9823, [email protected] SUBJECT: COMMUNITY SERVICES MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council hold a Public Hearing and adopt the proposed Resolution.

BACKGROUND
The City maintains a comprehensive schedule of user and regulatory fees. The fee schedule includes fees collected by the Community Services Department for requests such as reserved use of City facilities and participation in various City programs, such as the City’s Tiny Tot program.

The City examines and adjusts user and regulatory fees as part of its normal operations.

Periodically, comprehensive studies are conducted to identify the City’s costs of performing various services. In years between comprehensive studies, the City Council has authorized inflationary adjustments to fees.

A comprehensive fee study is currently being conducted and will be presented to the City Council later in FY 2025/26. However, since many of the City’s Community Services programs begin registration in late winter/early spring staff recommends that the City Council consider adjustments to Community Services fees at this time. This will allow staff to notify prospective users and program participants of updated rates for the coming season.

User and regulatory fees are set by resolution of the City Council at the conclusion of a public hearing to consider adoption of any new fees or fee increases pursuant to California Government Code Section 66016.

If adopted, the updated fees will be incorporated into the City’s comprehensive schedule of fees, so they can be examined and updated, as needed, as part of the City’s ongoing operating practices.

Periodic review and adjustment of fees provides multiple benefits, including:
• Increasing the availability of General Fund revenues to be used for services and activities available to all residents and businesses, such as public safety services. • Keeping pace with general cost inflation.

• Avoiding fee spikes that are more likely to occur when municipalities leave fees unchanged for a multi-year period.
• Providing fee payers, city staff, and city policymakers with a pattern of consistency that provides information for forecasting and decision-making purposes. • Helping meet fee-payer service level expectations by collecting fees to fund the existing level of services provided.
• Encouraging generational equity among fee payers by avoiding long-term stagnation of fees followed by significant fee increases.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Staff recommended adjustments are intended to:
• Clarify services offered by the Department (e.g., remove fees for services that are no longer offered)
• Adjust fees to align to demand for services and fees collected by other agencies for similar services.
• Apply consistency in pricing structures for various user groups (e.g., resident; nonresident; Pinole non-profit groups; Non-Pinole non-profit groups).

The proposed fee schedule continues to:
• Target active, dynamic, use of public spaces.
• Prioritize non-profit and resident users.
• Provide multiple venue sizes and types with corresponding pricing to accommodate the needs of various users.

The cost recovery analysis considers:
• Direct divisional costs such as personnel, services and supplies, utilities and insurance. • Departmental administration costs for services such as departmental direction and departmental internal service fund charges.
• Costs of citywide overhead support received from City Manager’s Office, Finance, Human Resources, etc.

Current cost recovery levels for the City’s primary recreation programs is as follows:

Description Senior
Center
Tiny Tots Youth CenterSwim Center Other
(e.g. Facility
Rentals)
Total
Revenues $214,087 $153,743 $102,006 $107,591 $228,286 $805,712 Total Costs $961,326 $447,578 $557,490 $340,501 $149,891 $2,456,788 Cost
Recovery
22% 34% 18% 32% 152% 33%
General Fd $747,240 $293,836 $455,484 $232,911 $78,394 $1,651,076

Subsidy
*Note: Costs of field, park, and building maintenance are not included in totals above.

Updated fees are anticipated to generate an additional $55,000 in cost recovery, composed primarily of:
• $45,000 additional cost recovery for Tiny Tots programming • $10,000 additional cost recovery for reserved use of fields and facilities.

Adjusted cost recovery levels are anticipated as follows:

Description Total
Current Revenues $805,712
Add’l Revenues from fee Adjustments$55,000
Forecast Revenue After Adjustments $860,712
Total Costs $2,456,788
Cost Recovery 35%
General Fd Subsidy $1,596,076
The Department relies heavily on part-time/seasonal employees. Since 2021, the time of the prior study, the California minimum wage has increased over 20%. If fees are left unchanged in an environment of increasing costs, the City’s cost recovery levels deteriorate.

Of note, the National Recreation and Park Association conducts a nationwide annual survey park and recreation agencies, intended to understand the percentage of operating expenditures recovered from fees and charges. The results of the most recent survey indicate average cost recovery levels of 25%.

FISCAL IMPACT
At this time no adjustments are recommended to the City’s budget. Staff will monitor activity levels and recommend adjustments, as needed, as part of the FY 2026/27 budget development process.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
B. Fee Schedule - Final
C. Proposed Fee Changes
D. Cost of Service Model

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

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

CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, UPDATING COMMUNITY

SERVICES DEPARTMENT MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, user and fees are established by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City staff have reviewed the current fee structure and aligned with operational costs, industry standards, and the eveolving needs of the community; and WHEREAS, this process includes an internal cost-of-service analysis, comparisons with neighboring agencies, and evaluation of service usage trends; and WHEREAS, adjustments are proposed to reflect increases in staffing, maintenance, supplies, utilities, and other direct and indirect costs; and WHEREAS, the updated Master Fee Schedule for the Community Services Department includes new fees for recently developed programs and facilities, revised rates for existing services to improve cost recovery, and the removal of outdated or underutilized fees; and
WHEREAS, these changes aim to balance affordability for residents with the need for sustainable program funding; and
WHEREAS, in adopting this Resolution, the City Council is taking action only on those fees for the services and programs which have been modified from prior resolutions of the City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Pinole does hereby resolve as follows:

SECTION 1: That the foregoing recitals and findings are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2: That the City Council hereby adopts the fees, charges, and rates as set forth in attached Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 3: That any new or adjusted fees adopted by this Resolution shall go into effect February 18, 2026.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pinole City Council held on the 17th day of February 2026 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS
_________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEES Fee Note
1 Year-round Tiny Tot Program
a) 3-Day AM
i) Session - 3 Months (Resident) $1,080
ii) Session - 3 Months (Non-Resident) $1,242
b) 3-Day PM
i) Session - 3 Months (Resident) $1,080
ii) Session - 3 Months (Non-Resident) $1,242
c) 2-Day AM
i) Session - 3 Months (Resident) $720
ii) Session - 3 Months (Non-Resident) $828
d) 2-Day PM
i) Session - 3 Months (Resident) $720
ii) Session - 3 Months (Non-Resident) $828
e) Session Membership Fee
i) Resident $60
ii) Non-resident $69
2 Summer Tiny Tot Program
a) 3-Day
i) Weekly (Resident) $102
ii) Weekly (Non-Resident) $117
b) 2-Day
i) Weekly (Resident) $68
ii) Weekly (Non-Resident) $78
3 Administration
a) Late Pick Up (Every 10 Minutes After 10 Minute Grace Period) $25 b) Late Payment (After the 5th of the Month) $25
4 Athletic Fields
a) Resident/Pinole Organizations (Hourly) $20
b) Non-Resident/Non-Pinole Organizations (Hourly) $25
c) Fernandez Park Light Fee (Hourly) $15
5 Tennis Courts
a) Resident (Hourly per Court) $7
b) Non-Resident (Hourly per Court) $10
c) Commercial Use - Instructor (Hourly per Court) $15
Activity Description
1

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEES Activity Description Fee Note
6 Park Rentals
a) Fernandez Park BBQ Area (Per Day)
i) Resident $130
ii) Non-Resident $163
iii) Deposit (Refundable) $100
b) Gazebo (Per Day)
i) Resident $150
ii) Non-Resident $188
iii) Deposit (Refundable) $50
c) Pinole Valley Park BBQ Area (Per Day)
i) Resident $65
ii) Non-Resident $81
iii) Deposit (Refundable) $50
7 Youth Center
a) Camp (5-Day)
i) Resident $237
ii) Non-Resident $276
iii) Deposit $25
b) Camp Extended Hours (Camp Participants Only)
i) Resident $30
ii) Non-Resident $40
c) Leader In Training Program
i) Resident $118
ii) Non-Resident $142
d) Late Payment (after the 5th of the Month) $25
e) Late Pick Up (Every 10 Minutes After 10 Minute Grace Period) $25 2

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEES Activity Description Fee Note
8 Senior Center
a) Drop-In Classes
i) Member $1 - $15 / Class
ii) Non-Member $2 - $20 / Class
b) Westcat Ticket $2/Ticket
c) Lunch Program
i) Member $5 - $15
ii) Non-Member $8 - $20
d) Special Activities/Food Items $1 - $15
e) Special/Themed Luncheons
i) Member $15 - $30
ii) Non-Member $17 - $40
f) Fundraiser Events $5 - $80
g) Social Dance $15 - $30
h) Pancake Breakfast $10 - $15
i) Annual Membership
i) Ages 50-84 $30
ii) Ages 85 and Older Free
j) Travel Varies based on trip cost
9 Classes
a) Third Party Programs The fees for all third party
provided activities may vary
based on contract negotiations &
market rates at discretion of the
Community Services Director
10 Community Events
a) Booth Fees
i) Pinole Business (For Profit) $20
ii) Non-Pinole Business (For Profit) $20
iii) Non-Profit $20
b) Craft Fair Vendor $25-$75
3

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEES Activity Description Fee Note
11 Facility Rental
Non-Profit Rates Apply to 501(c)(3) Nonprofits, and Schools only a) Security Guard $40/Guard/Hour
b) Senior Center Main Hall (250 Capacity)
i) Booking $60
ii) Deposit
a) Deposit without Alcohol permit $500
b) Deposit with Alcohol Permit $600
iii) Decoration/Clean Up Time (up to 2 hrs) $60/Hour (2 Hr. Max) iv) Rental Rate
a) Resident
i) Base Rate (First 5 Hours) $150/Hour
ii) Each Additional Hour $75/Hour
b) Non-resident
i) Base Rate (First 5 Hours) $180/Hour
ii) Each Additional Hour $90/Hour
c) Non-Profit Pinole Organization
i) Base Rate (First 5 Hours) $115/Hour
ii) Each Additional Hour $56/Hour
d) Non-Profit Non-Pinole Organization
i) Base Rate (First 5 Hours) $125/Hour
ii) Each Additional Hour $70/Hour
v) Change of Date Fee
a) Change of Date Fee (76 Days or More in Advance) $75
b) Change of Date Fee (75 Days or Less in Advance) $100 c) Senior Center - Large Room - 2 Hour Minimum
i) Non-Profit Organizations (Hourly) $30/Hour
ii) Resident (Hourly) $40/Hour
iii) Non-Resident (Hourly) $50/Hour
iv) Change of Date Fee
a) Change of Date Fee (76 Days or More in Advance) $25
b) Change of Date Fee (75 Days or Less in Advance) $45
d) Senior Center - Small Room - 2 Hour Minimum
i) Non-Profit Organization Hourly $25/Hour
ii) Resident Hourly $35/Hour
iii) Non-Resident Hourly $45/Hour
iv) Change of Date Fee
a) Change of Date Fee (76 Days or More in Advance) $25
b) Change of Date Fee (75 Days or Less in Advance) $45
4

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEES Activity Description Fee Note
e) Senior Center Commercial Kitchen
i) Deposit $75
ii) Resident $40
iii) Non-Resident $48
iv) Non-Profit Organizations $25
f) Youth Center Main Area - 4 Hour Minimum (120 Person Capacity) i) Booking $60
ii) Deposit
a) Deposit without alcohol permit $200
b) Deposit with alcohol permit $400
iii) Rental Rate
a) Resident (Hourly) $70/Hour
b) Non-Resident (Hourly) $84/Hour
iv) Decoration Time (up to 2 hours) $60/Hour (2 Hr. Max) v) Change of Date Fee
a) Change of Date Fee (76 Days or More in Advance) $75
b) Change of Date Fee (75 Days or Less in Advance) $100 g) Youth Center Meeting Room - 2 Hour Minimum (40 Capacity) i) Booking $60
ii) Deposit $100
iii) Rental Rate
a) Resident (Hourly) $55/Hour
b) Non-Resident (Hourly) $65/Hour
c) Non-Profit Pinole Organization (Hourly) $40/Hour
d) Non-Profit Non-Pinole Organization (Hourly) $50/Hour iv) Decoration/Clean Up Time (up to 2 hrs) $30/Hour (2 Hr. Max) v) Change of Date Fee
a) Change of Date Fee (76 Days or More in Advance) $25
b) Change of Date Fee (75 Days or Less in Advance) $45
5

Illustration of Proposed Fee Changes

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - RECREATION COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEES Current Fee Proposed Fee Fee Change Note
1 Tiny Tots Year-round Tiny Tot Program
a) M/W/F a.m. 3-Day AM
i) Resident Monthly Session - 3 Months (Resident) $298 $894 $1,080 $186 ii) Non-resident Monthly Session - 3 Months (Non-Resident) $347 $1,040 $1,242 $202 b) M/W/F p.m. 3-Day PM
i) Resident Monthly Session - 3 Months (Resident) $247 $742 $1,080 $338 ii) Non-resident Monthly Session - 3 Months (Non-Resident) $289 $866 $1,242 $376 c) T/Th 2-Day AM
i) Resident Monthly Session - 3 Months (Resident) $167 $500 $720 $220 ii) Non-resident Monthly Session - 3 Months (Non-Resident) $192 $575 $828 $253 d) 2-Day PM
i) Session - 3 Months (Resident) new $720 n/a - new
ii) Session - 3 Months (Non-Resident) new $828 n/a - new e) Session Membership Fee
i) Resident $54 per session $60 $6
ii) Non-resident new $69 n/a - new
2 Summer Tiny Tot Program
d) Summer M/W/F a) 3-Day
i) Resident (per 4 week session) Weekly (Resident) $328 $82 $102 $20 ii) Non-Resident (per 4 week session) Weekly (Non-Resident) $381 $95 $117 $22 e) Summer T/Th b) 2-Day
i) Resident (per 4 week session) Weekly (Resident) $272 $68 $68 $0 ii) Non-Resident (per 4 week session) Weekly (Non-Resident) $317 $78 $78 $0 3 Administration
f) a) Late Pick Up (Every 10 Minutes After 10 Minute Grace Period) $22 $25 $3 i) Within 15 minutes After Grace Period $22
ii) Every 10 Minutes Thereafter $22
g) b) Late Payment (After the 5th of the Month) $14 $25 $11 i) After the 7th of the Month $14
ii) After the 15th of the Month $43
h) Administrative
i) Membership Fee $54/ per session
Activity Description
1

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - RECREATION COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEES Activity Description Current Fee Proposed Fee Fee Change Note 4 Athletic Fields
a) Youth and Adult Leagues
i) a) Resident/Pinole Organizations (Hourly) $17 $20 $3 ii) b) Non-Resident/Non-Pinole Organizations (Hourly) $25 $25 $0 b) Restroom Key Deposit-refundable $54
c) Lighting Fee at Fernandez Park Fernandez Park Light Fee (Hourly) $13 $15 $2 5 Tennis Courts
a) Resident (Hourly per Court) $6 - $8 $7 varies
b) Non-Resident (Hourly per Court) $8 - $11 $10 varies
c) Commercial Use - Instructor (Hourly per Court) $11 $15 $4 a) Weekdays
i) Resident $6.00 / hr / court
ii) Non-Resident $8.00 / hr / court
b) Weekends and Holidays
i) Resident $8.00 / hr / court
ii) Non-Resident $11.00 / hr / court
c) Commercial Use—Instructor Fee $11.00 / hr / court
6 Park Rentals
a) Fernandez Park BBQ Area- per day (Per Day)
a) i) Resident $130 $130 $0
b) ii) Non-Resident $163 $163 $0
iii) Deposit (Refundable) new $100
5 b) Gazebo-per day (Per Day)
a) i) Resident $296 $150 ($146)
b) ii) Non-Resident $370 $188 ($182)
iii) Deposit (Refundable) new $50
6 Inflatable Jumper Fee
a) Resident $54
b) Non-Resident $81
7 c) Pinole Valley Park BBQ Area-per day-per area (Per Day) a) i) Resident $65 $65 $0
b) ii) Non-Resident $98 $81 ($17)
8 Restroom Key Deposit- refundable $54 ($54)
9 Cleaning / Damage Deposit - refundable iii) Deposit (Refundable) $215 $50 2

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - RECREATION COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEES Activity Description Current Fee Proposed Fee Fee Change Note 7 Youth Center
10 Enrichment Sessions at Schools
a) Resident Varies based on enrichment
sessions and provider
b) Non-Resident Add 10% to resident
11 Enrichment Sessions at PYC
a) Resident Varies based on enrichment
sessions and provider
b) Non-Resident Add 10% to resident
12 Summer Camp-Weekly a) Camp (5-Day)
i) Resident $237 $237 $0
ii) Non-Resident $276 $276 $0
iii) Deposit new $25
13 b) Camp Extended Hours (Camp Participants Only)
a) i) Resident $45 $30 ($15)
b) ii) Non-Resident $51 $40 ($11)
14 c) Leader In Training Program-Summer
i) Resident $118 $118 $0
ii) Non-Resident $142 $142 $0
15 Contract Camps 20% to 40% markup
16 School Break Camps
a) Resident $237
b) Non-Resident $276
17 Drop-In Activities Varies
18 d) Late Payment (after the 5th of the Month) $15/week & increases $11 each subsequent week
$25 varies
19 e) Late Pick Up (Every 10 Minutes After 10 Minute Grace Period) $1.00/minute after 5-minute grace period
$25 varies
20 Days Off Care (Hours 8:30am – 6:00pm)
a) Members/Resident $57 day
b)Non-Members/Resident $76 day
c) Member/Non-Resident $62 day
d) Non-Member/Non-Resident $94 day
21 Extended Care (7:00-8:30 am) $36 day
3

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - RECREATION COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEES Activity Description Current Fee Proposed Fee Fee Change Note 8 Senior Center
a) Drop-In Classes
a) i) Member $2 - $8 per class $1 - $15 / Class varies
b) ii) Non-Member $3 - $9 per class $2 - $20 / Class varies b) Westcat Ticket $1/Ticket $2/Ticket $1
c) Daily Lunch Program
a) i) Member $8 - $13 $5 - $15 varies
b) ii) Non-Member $10 - $15 $8 - $20 varies
d) Special Activities/Food Items $1 - $15 $1 - $15 varies e) Special/Themed Luncheons
a) i) Member $15 - $20 $15 - $30 varies
b) ii) Non-Member $17 - $22 $17 - $40 varies
Salon Services $15 - $45
a) Shampoo/Set/Blow Dry $15
b) Hair Cut and Blow Dry $25
c) Hair Cut $15
d) Shampoo and Set $15
e) Color $35
f) Perm $60
g) Highlights $45 & up
f) Fundraiser Events $5 - $80 $5 - $80 $0
g) Monthly Social Dance $12 $15 - $30 varies
Alcoholic Drinks $3 - $12
h) Annual Pancake Breakfast $10 - $12 $10 - $15
i) Annual Membership $30
i) Ages 50-84 $30 $30 $0
ii) Ages 85 and Older n/a Free $0
j) Travel Varies based on trip cost Varies based on trip cost 9 Classes
Adult and Youth Classes
a) Resident 40% of Instructor Fee plus
$7.00 Processing fee
b) Non-Resident Add 10% to Resident fee
a) Third Party Programs The fees for all third party
provided activities may vary
based on contract
negotiations & market rates at
discretion of the Community
Services Director
4

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - RECREATION COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEES Activity Description Current Fee Proposed Fee Fee Change Note 10 Community Events
a) Booth Fees
a) For Profit Pinole Business i) Pinole Business (For Profit) $89 $20 ($69) b) For Profit-Non-Pinole Business ii) Non-Pinole Business (For Profit) $118 $20 ($98) c) iii) Non-Profit $35 $20 ($15)
Senior Center Craft Fair b) Craft Fair Vendor $25 - $55 $25-$75 varies 11 Facility Rental
(Non-Profit Rates Apply to 501(c)3 Nonprofits, Faith Organizations and Schools only) Non-Profit Rates Apply to 501(c)(3) Nonprofits, and Schools only a) Security Guard new $40/Guard/Hour
Alcohol Permit $78
Certificate of Insurance Purchase (for Quinceaneras only/per Diversified Risk Mgmt) (Certificate required but may be provided by renter’s insurance company at no cost) $189
Alcohol Use Insurance
(Must be purchased in conjunction with Certificate of Insurance or provided by renter’s insurance at no cost) $621
b) Senior Center Main Hall (100-250 Capacity)
a) i) Booking $56 $60 $4
b) ii) Deposit
i) a) Deposit without Alcohol permit $563 $500
ii) b) Deposit with Alcohol Permit $845 $600
c) Table and Chair Setup $59
d) Table and Chair Takedown $59
e) iii) Decoration/Clean Up Time (up to 2 hrs) $51 per hour; 2-hr max. $60/Hour (2 Hr. Max) f) iv) Rental Rate (Base Rate for First 5 Hours)
i) a) Resident
i) i) Base Rate (First 5 Hours) $739 $148/Hour $150/Hour i) ii) Each Additional Hour $106 $75/Hour
ii) b) Non-resident
i) i) Base Rate (First 5 Hours) $917 $183/Hour $180/Hour i) ii) Each Additional Hour $142 $90/Hour
iii) c) Pinole Organization (5 hours) Non-Profit Pinole Organization i) i) Base Rate (First 5 Hours) $451 $90/Hour $115/Hour i) ii) Each Additional Hour $56 $56/Hour
iv) d) Non-Pinole Organization (5 hours) Non-Profit Non-Pinole Organization i) i) Base Rate (First 5 Hours) $563 $113/Hour $125/Hour i) ii) Each Additional Hour $79 $70/Hour
g) v) Change of Date Fee
i) a) Change of Date Fee (76 Days or More in Advance) $237 $75 ($162) ii) b) Change of Date Fee (75 Days or Less in Advance) $355 $100 ($255) 5

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - RECREATION COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEES Activity Description Current Fee Proposed Fee Fee Change Note Senior Center Main Hall - Non-Profit Rates (Weekends)
a) Booking $56
b) Deposit $282
c) Table and Chair Setup $56
d) Table and Chair Takedown $56
e) vi) Decoration/Clean Up Time (up to 2 hrs) $51 per hour; 2-hr max. f) Rental Rate
i) Pinole Organization (5 hours) vii) Non-Profit Pinole Organization Hourly $451 ii) Non-Pinole Organization (5 hours) viii) Non-Profit Non-Pinole Organization Hourly $563 iii) Pinole Org. each add'l hour ix) Non-Profit Pinole Organization Hourly $56 iv) Non-Pinole Org. each add'l hour x) Non-Profit Non-Pinole Organization Hourly $79 Senior Center - Computer, Arts/Crafts, & Board Room – M-F 8:30am– 4:30pm d) Senior Center - Large Room - 2 Hour Minimum
a) i) Non-Profit Organizations Hourly $40/rental Includes 2 hours $17/hr after
$30/Hour
b) Private or Commercial Organizations ii) Resident Hourly $56/rental Includes 2 hours; $29/hr after
$40/Hour
iii) Non-Resident Hourly new $50/Hour
c) Deposit $45
iv) Change of Date Fee
a) Change of Date Fee (76 Days or More in Advance) new $25 b) Change of Date Fee (75 Days or Less in Advance) new $45 Senior Center - Computer, Arts/Crafts, & Board Room – M-F 4:30pm– 7:30pm e) Senior Center - Small Room - 2 Hour Minimum
a) Non-Profit Organizations i) Non-Profit Organization Hourly $56/rental Includes 2 hours; $29/hr after
$25/Hour
b) Private or Commercial Organizations ii) Resident Hourly $85/rental Includes 2 hours; $40/hr after
$35/Hour
iii) Non-Resident Hourly new $45/Hour
c) Deposit $45
iv) Change of Date Fee
a) Change of Date Fee (76 Days or More in Advance) new $25 b) Change of Date Fee (75 Days or Less in Advance) new $45 e) Senior Center Commercial Kitchen
i) Deposit new $75
ii) Resident new $40
iii) Non-Resident new $48
iv) Non-Profit Organizations new $25
6

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - RECREATION COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEES Activity Description Current Fee Proposed Fee Fee Change Note f) Youth Center Main Area - 4 Hour Minimum (120 Person Capacity) a) i) Booking $56 $60 $4
b) ii) Deposit
i) a) Deposit without alcohol permit $282 $200
ii) b) Deposit with alcohol permit $563 $400
c) iii) Rental Rate
i) a) Resident (Hourly) $282 $70 $70/Hour $0
ii) b) Non-Resident (Hourly) $366 $91 $84/Hour ($7)
iii) Resident for Each Add’l hour $73
iv) Non-Resident for Each Add’l Hour $96
iii) Pinole Organization each add’l hour $47
iv) Non-Pinole Organization each add’l hour $71
d) iv) Decoration Time (up to 2 hours) $51.00/hr $60/Hour (2 Hr. Max) e) v) Change of Date Fee $84
a) Change of Date Fee (76 Days or More in Advance) $75
b) Change of Date Fee (75 Days or Less in Advance) $100 Youth Center Workshop Room (40 Person Capacity)
g) Youth Center Meeting Room - 2 Hour Minimum (40 Capacity) a) i) Booking $56 $60 $4
b) ii) Deposit $282 $100
i) Deposit without alcohol permit $282
ii) Deposit with alcohol permit $563
c) iii) Rental Rate
i) a) Resident (2 hours) Hourly $83 $41 $55/Hour $14
ii) b) Non-Resident (2 hours) Hourly $118 $59 $65/Hour $6 iii) Pinole Organization (4 hours) c) Non-Profit Pinole Organization (Hourly) $213 $53 $40/Hour ($13) iv) Non-Pinole Organization (4 hours) d) Non-Profit Non-Pinole Organization (Hourly) $308 $77 $50/Hour ($27) iii) Resident for each add'l hour $41
iv) Non-resident for each add'l hour $59
d) iv) Decoration Time (up to 2 hours) Decoration/Clean Up Time (up to 2 hrs) $30.00/hr $30/Hour (2 Hr. Max) e) v) Change of Date Fee $59
a) Change of Date Fee (76 Days or More in Advance) $25
b) Change of Date Fee (75 Days or Less in Advance) $45
7

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - RECREATION COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEES Activity Description Current Fee Proposed Fee Fee Change Note Youth Center Main Area - Non-Profit Rates (Weekends)
a) Booking $56
b) Deposit $282
c) Rental Rate
i) Pinole Organization (4 hours) vi) Non-Profit Pinole Organization Hourly $213 ii) Non-Pinole Organization (4 hours) vii) Non-Profit Non-Pinole Organization Hourly $308 iii) Pinole Organization each add’l hour $47
iv) Non-Pinole Organization each add’l hour $71
d) Decoration Time (up to 2 hours) $47.00/hr
Alex Clark Room (50 Person Capacity) - Nonprofit meetings only a) Security Deposit $154
b) Rental Rate
i) Pinole Organization $12.00/2 hr. mtg
ii) Non-Pinole Organization $30.00/2 hr. mtg
c) Key Replacement Fee $54
8

User and Regulatory Fees
Cost of Service Analysis
Community Services Fees

Description Page
Allocation of Department Administration and Cost Recovery by Program Area 1 Senior Center 5
Tiny Tots 10
Youth Center 15
Swim Center 20
City of Pinole
Cost of Service Analysis

City of Pinole
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost Recovery Analysis - Community Services
Recurring Expenditures - Recreation Administration [a]
Fund Fund Desc Dept Dept Desc Division Division Desc Account Account Desc Total Direct to
Special Events
Allocable
Expense Notes
100 General Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 42511 Admin Exp/Equipment Rent $3,500 $0 $3,500 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 40101 Salary & Wages/Full Time $412,537 $0 $412,537 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 40108 Salary & Wages/Longevity Pay $1,496 $0 $1,496 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 40306 Other Pay/Medical In Lieu $7,200 $0 $7,200 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 40308 Other Pay/Bilingual Pay $2,400 $0 $2,400 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 40311 Other Pay/Cell Phone $780 $0 $780 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 41001 Emp Benefits/Medical-Active $45,449 $0 $45,449 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 41002 Emp Benefits/Dental $3,783 $0 $3,783 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 41003 Emp Benefits/Vision Care $597 $0 $597 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 41004 Emp Benefits/PERS Retirement $138,081 $0 $138,081 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 41005 Emp Benefits/Employee Assistan $140 $0 $140 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 41007 Emp Benefits/Life-ADD $863 $0 $863 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 41008 Emp Benefits/Long Term Disabil $941 $0 $941 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 41009 Emp Benefits/Workers Comp $26,467 $0 $26,467 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 41010 Emp Benefits/FICA - Medicare $6,154 $0 $6,154 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 41012 Emp Benefits/Unemployment In $404 $0 $404 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 42101 Prof Svcs/Professional Service $1,181 $0 $1,181 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 42201 Office Expense $1,500 $0 $1,500 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 42301 Travel & Training/Conf-Registrat $6,500 $0 $6,500 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 42302 Travel & Training/Mileage, Toll, $6,000 $0 $6,000 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 42303 Travel & Training/Meal Allowanc $800 $0 $800 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 42401 Dues & Pub/Memberships $1,030 $0 $1,030 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 42510 Admin Exp/Software Purch $3,200 $0 $3,200 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 42514 Admin Exp/Special Depart $24,600 $0 $24,600 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 42515 Admin Exp/Special Events $88,200 $88,200 $0 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 46122 Admin Debits $18,417 $0 $18,417 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 46124 IS Charges $93,637 $0 $93,637 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 46126 Legal Charges $2,000 $0 $2,000 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 46201 Insurance/General Liability $29,316 $0 $29,316 Subtotal $927,173 $88,200 $838,973
Allocation of Citywide Overhead
Description
C'wide OH
Rate Mod Op Exp
Allocation of
C'wide OH Notes
Citywide Overhead Allocation 17.4% $838,973 $145,981 [b] Allocation of Total Costs - Recreation Administration
Description Total Share Notes
Direct Expenses $838,973 85%
Allocation of Citywide Overhead $145,981 15%
Total $984,955 100%

City of Pinole
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost Recovery Analysis - Community Services
Recurring Expenditures - Direct Services [c]
Description
Senior Center
552
Tiny Tots
553
Youth Center
554
Swim Center
557
Memorial Hall
558
Tennis
559
Library Svcs
560
Animal
Control
561 Special Events Total Notes
Personnel $283,723 $217,264 $263,950 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $764,937 Services & Supplies $265,341 $36,184 $49,617 $199,860 $0 $0 $202,430 $226,437 $88,200 $1,068,069 Indirect Cost Alloc $16,606 $9,919 $14,475 $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,500 Subtotal $565,670 $263,367 $328,042 $200,360 $0 $0 $202,430 $226,437 $88,200 $1,874,506 Allocation of Citywide Overhead $98,427 $45,826 $57,079 $34,863 $0 $0 $35,223 $39,400 $15,347 $326,164 Allocation of Recreation Admin $297,230 $138,386 $172,369 $105,279 $0 $0 $106,366 $118,981 $46,344 $984,955 Total $961,326 $447,578 $557,490 $340,501 $0 $0 $344,019 $384,818 $149,891 $3,185,625

City of Pinole
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost Recovery Analysis - Community Services
Revenues
Fund Fund Desc Dept Dept Desc Division Division Desc Account Account Desc Total Generated
Revenue
All Other
Revenues &
Transfers In
209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 32399 State Grant/Misc $41,722 $0 $41,722 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 33224 Permits/Special Event Permit $1,469 $1,469 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 34218 Fees/Field Usage Fee $43,370 $43,370 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 36401 Recreation Chg/Contract Fees $215 $215 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 36406 Recreation Chg/Booth Fee $320 $320 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 38112 Rental Income/Facility Rental $6,524 $6,524 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 38401 Other Rev/Contributions $167,050 $167,050 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 38402 Other Rev/Contributions-Specia $1,500 $1,500 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 38404 Other Rev/Miscellaneous Reven $1,137 $1,137 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 551 Recreation Administration 39901 Transfers In $1,455,969 $1,455,969 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 36401 Recreation Chg/Contract Fees $16,553 $16,553 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 36402 Recreation Chg/Memberships $16,170 $16,170 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 36409 Recreation Chg/Class Fee $37,237 $37,237 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 36410 Recreation Chg/Personal Service $766 $766 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 36411 Recreation Chg/Food Program $63,794 $63,794 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 36412 Recreation Chg/Travel $9,510 $9,510 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 36416 Recreation Chg/Fundraising $2,676 $2,676 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 36417 Recreation Chg/Gift Shop Sales $21,648 $21,648 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 38112 Rental Income/Facility Rental $38,516 $38,516 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 38401 Other Rev/Contributions $3,409 $3,409 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 38402 Other Rev/Contributions-Specia $3,808 $3,808 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 36401 Recreation Chg/Contract Fees $132,334 $132,334 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 36405 Recreation Chg/Internal Program $20,529 $20,529 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 38404 Other Rev/Miscellaneous Reven $880 $880 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 36402 Recreation Chg/Memberships $5,606 $5,606 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 36405 Recreation Chg/Internal Program $83,643 $83,643 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 36407 Recreation Chg/Vending Machin $164 $164 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 38112 Rental Income/Facility Rental $2,593 $2,593 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 38401 Other Rev/Contributions $10,000 $10,000 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 557 Swim Center 36403 Recreation Chg/Swim Fee $105,301 $105,301 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 557 Swim Center 38112 Rental Income/Facility Rental $2,290 $2,290 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 557 Swim Center 39901 Transfers In $65,000 $65,000 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 558 Memorial Hall 38110 Rental Income/Rental Property $6,701 $6,701 Subtotal $2,368,403 $805,712 $1,562,691

City of Pinole
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost Recovery Analysis - Community Services
Generated Revenues
Description Senior Center Tiny Tots Youth Center Swim Center General Rec
Field & Facility
Fees Total Notes
Total $214,087 $153,743 $102,006 $107,591 $228,286 $ 805,712 Recurring Allocable Costs
Description Senior Center Tiny Tots Youth Center Swim Ctr Memorial Hall Tennis Library Animal
Control Special Events Total Notes
Total $961,326 $447,578 $557,490 $340,501 $0 $0 $344,019 $384,818 $149,891 $3,185,625 Cost Recovery Analysis - Full Cost
Description Senior Center Tiny Tots Youth Center Swim Ctr Memorial Hall Tennis Library Animal
Control All Other Total Notes
Revenues $214,087 $153,743 $102,006 $107,591 $0 $0 $0 $0 $228,286 $805,712 Allocable Costs $961,326 $447,578 $557,490 $340,501 $0 $0 $344,019 $384,818 $149,891 $3,185,625 Cost Recovery 22% 34% 18% 32% n/a n/a 0% 0% 152% 25%
Over / (Under) ($747,240) ($293,836) ($455,484) ($232,911) $0 $0 ($344,019) ($384,818) $78,394 ($2,379,913) Cost Recovery Analysis - Recreation Only
Description Senior Center Tiny Tots Youth Center Swim Ctr All Other Total Notes Revenues $ 214,087 $ 153,743 $ 102,006 $ 107,591 $ 228,286 $ 805,712 Allocable Costs $ 961,326 $ 447,578 $ 557,490 $ 340,501 $149,891 $ 2,456,788 Cost Recovery 22% 34% 18% 32% 152% 33%
Over / (Under) $ (747,240) $ (293,836) $ (455,484) $ (232,911) $ 78,394 $ (1,651,076) [a] Source: FY 25/26 adopted budget.
[b] Source: Citywide overhead cost allocation plan.
[c] Source: FY 25/26 adopted budget. Excludes capital outlay and Measure S funded expenses.

User and Regulatory Fees
Cost of Service Analysis
Senior Center

City of Pinole
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Community Services - Senior Center Position Hourly FTE Yearly
Total Hours
Per FTE
Less: Holiday
& Leave
Productive
Hours Per FTE
Total
Productive
Hours Notes
Recreation Coordinator $44 1.00 $91,146 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 [a],[b] Food Services Specialist $36 0.75 $56,367 2,080 2,080 1,560 [a],[b] Senior Recreation Leader $26 0.50 $27,266 2,080 2,080 1,040 [a],[b] Recreation Leader $21 0.50 $21,364 2,080 2,080 1,040 [a],[b] Rental Facility Custodian $21 1.65 $70,500 2,080 2,080 3,432 [a],[b] Total 4.40 $266,644 8,936
Allocation of Hours Share Total Notes
Indirect 20% 1,787 [b]
Direct 80% 7,149 [b]
Total 100% 8,936
[a] Source: FY 25/26 authorized positions.
[b] Direct/Indirect hours are intended to serve as reasonable estimates. Amounts will vary from year-to-year depending on activity, projects, and City Council priorities.

City of Pinole
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate - Community Services - Senior Center Recurring Expenditures [a]
Fund Fund Desc Dept Dept Desc Division Division Desc Account Account Desc Total Adjustment Allocable
Expense Note
209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 40101 Salary & Wages/Full Time $72,802 $0 $72,802 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 40102 Salary & Wages/Part Time $149,300 $0 $149,300 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 41001 Emp Benefits/Medical-Active $25,249 $0 $25,249 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 41002 Emp Benefits/Dental $1,124 $0 $1,124 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 41003 Emp Benefits/Vision Care $348 $0 $348 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 41004 Emp Benefits/PERS Retirement $10,221 $0 $10,221 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 41005 Emp Benefits/Employee Assistan $82 $0 $82 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 41007 Emp Benefits/Life-ADD $406 $0 $406 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 41008 Emp Benefits/Long Term Disabil $487 $0 $487 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 41009 Emp Benefits/Workers Comp $14,090 $0 $14,090 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 41010 Emp Benefits/FICA - Medicare $3,220 $0 $3,220 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 41011 Emp Benefits/FICA - Soc Sec $6,179 $0 $6,179 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 41012 Emp Benefits/Unemployment In $215 $0 $215 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 42101 Prof Svcs/Professional Service $36,200 ($36,200) $0 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 42107 Prof Svcs/Equipment Maintenan $22,200 ($22,200) $0 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 42108 Prof Svcs/Building-Structure Ma $40,740 ($40,740) $0 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 42201 Office Expense $2,000 $0 $2,000 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 42202 Office Exp/Printing & Binding $4,000 $0 $4,000 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 42301 Travel & Training/Conf-Registrat $200 $0 $200 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 42401 Dues & Pub/Memberships $165 $0 $165 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 42515 Admin Exp/Special Events $3,750 $0 $3,750 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 43102 Utilities/Water $20,000 ($20,000) $0 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 43103 Utilities/Electricity & Power $47,000 ($47,000) $0 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 43201 Taxes/Property Tax $10,756 ($10,756) $0 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 43804 Program Cost/Food Program $65,000 ($65,000) $0 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 43809 Program Cost/Newsletter $3,550 ($3,550) $0 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 43813 Program Cost/Membership Even $4,980 ($4,980) $0 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 44304 Other Materials Supp/Permit Fe $2,800 ($2,800) $0 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 44306 Other Materials Supp/Maintena $2,000 $0 $2,000 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 46126 Legal Charges $1,000 $0 $1,000 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 46201 Insurance/General Liability $15,606 $0 $15,606 Total $565,670 ($253,226) $312,444
Allocation of Citywide Overhead
Description
C'wide OH
Rate Mod Op Exp
Allocation of
C'wide OH Note
Citywide Overhead Allocation 17.4% $312,444 $54,365 [b] Allocation of Department Administration
Description Total Note
Department Administration $297,230 [c]

City of Pinole
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate - Community Services - Senior Center Allocation of Total Costs - Recreation Administration
Description Total Share Note
Direct Expenses $312,444 47%
Allocation of Citywide Overhead $54,365 8%
Allocation of Department Administration $297,230 45%
Total $664,039 100%
Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Description Total Note
Costs $664,039
Direct Hours 7,149 [c],[d]
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate $93
Calculation of Cost Multiplier for Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate (Apply to Base Salary Cost Per Hour) Description FTE
Annual Hours
Per FTE
Total Annual
Hours
Estimated
Salaries
Hourly Wage
Rate Only
Assuming Total
Annual Hours
Fully-Burdened
Hourly Rate
Indirect Cost
Rate Multiplier
(ICR)
Senior Center 4.40 2,080 9,152 $266,644 $29 $93 3.19
Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate by Position
Position Total Salaries Total FTE
Avg Salary
Per FTE
Avg Salary
Per Hour
ICR for FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
Fully-Burdened
Hourly Rate
Recreation Coordinator $91,146 1.00 $91,146 $44 3.19 $140 Food Services Specialist $56,367 0.75 $75,156 $36 3.19 $115 Senior Recreation Leader $27,266 0.50 $54,532 $26 3.19 $84 Recreation Leader $21,364 0.50 $42,728 $21 3.19 $66
Rental Facility Custodian $70,500 1.65 $42,728 $21 3.19 $66

City of Pinole
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate - Community Services - Senior Center Revenues
Fund Fund Desc Dept Dept Desc Division Division Desc Account Account Desc Total 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 36401 Recreation Chg/Contract Fees $16,553 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 36402 Recreation Chg/Memberships $16,170 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 36409 Recreation Chg/Class Fee $37,237 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 36410 Recreation Chg/Personal Service $766 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 36411 Recreation Chg/Food Program $63,794 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 36412 Recreation Chg/Travel $9,510 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 36416 Recreation Chg/Fundraising $2,676 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 36417 Recreation Chg/Gift Shop Sales $21,648 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 38112 Rental Income/Facility Rental $38,516 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 38401 Other Rev/Contributions $3,409 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 552 Senior Center 38402 Other Rev/Contributions-Specia $3,808 Total $214,087
Recurring Allocable Costs
Description Total Note
Direct Costs $565,670
Citywide Overhead $98,427
Department Admin $297,230
Total $961,326
Cost Recovery Analysis
Description Total Note
Revenues $214,087
Allocable Costs $961,326
Cost Recovery 22%
Over / (Under) ($747,240)
[a] Source: FY 25/26 adopted budget.
[b] Source: Citywide overhead cost allocation plan.
[c] See separate worksheet.
[d] Direct/Indirect hours are intended to serve as reasonable estimates. Amounts will vary from year-to-year depending on activity, projects, and City Council priorities.

User and Regulatory Fees
Cost of Service Analysis
Tiny Tots

City of Pinole
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Community Services - Tiny Tots Position Hourly FTE Yearly
Total Hours
Per FTE
Less: Holiday
& Leave
Productive
Hours Per FTE

Productive
Hours Notes
Recreation Coordinator $44 1.00 $91,146 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 [a],[b] Recreation Leader $21 1.25 $53,409 2,080 2,080 2,600 [a],[b] Total 2.25 $144,555 4,464
Allocation of Hours Share Total Notes
Indirect 20% 893 [b]
Direct 80% 3,571 [b]
Total 100% 4,464
[a] Source: FY 25/26 authorized positions.
[b] Direct/Indirect hours are intended to serve as reasonable estimates. Amounts will vary from year-to-year depending on activity, projects, and City Council priorities.

City of Pinole
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate - Community Services - Tiny Tots Recurring Expenditures [a]
Fund Fund Desc Dept Dept Desc Division Division Desc Account Account Desc Total Adjustment Allocable
Expense Note
209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 40101 Salary & Wages/Full Time $88,492 $0 $88,492 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 40102 Salary & Wages/Part Time $42,900 $0 $42,900 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 40108 Salary & Wages/Longevity Pay $2,655 $0 $2,655 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 40306 Other Pay/Medical In Lieu $7,200 $0 $7,200 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 41002 Emp Benefits/Dental $1,577 $0 $1,577 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 41004 Emp Benefits/PERS Retirement $60,590 $0 $60,590 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 41005 Emp Benefits/Employee Assistan $47 $0 $47 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 41007 Emp Benefits/Life-ADD $162 $0 $162 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 41008 Emp Benefits/Long Term Disabil $299 $0 $299 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 41009 Emp Benefits/Workers Comp $8,504 $0 $8,504 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 41010 Emp Benefits/FICA - Medicare $2,048 $0 $2,048 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 41011 Emp Benefits/FICA - Soc Sec $2,660 $0 $2,660 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 41012 Emp Benefits/Unemployment In $130 $0 $130 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 42107 Prof Svcs/Equipment Maintenan $400 ($400) $0 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 42108 Prof Svcs/Building-Structure Ma $22,250 ($22,250) $0 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 42201 Office Expense $2,650 $0 $2,650 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 42301 Travel & Training/Conf-Registrat $600 $0 $600 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 42302 Travel & Training/Mileage, Toll, $2,000 $0 $2,000 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 42303 Travel & Training/Meal Allowanc $300 $0 $300 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 42401 Dues & Pub/Memberships $234 $0 $234 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 42514 Admin Exp/Special Depart $5,000 ($5,000) $0 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 43102 Utilities/Water $250 ($250) $0 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 43103 Utilities/Electricity & Power $2,500 ($2,500) $0 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 46126 Legal Charges $500 $0 $500 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 46201 Insurance/General Liability $9,419 $0 $9,419 Total $263,367 ($30,400) $232,967
Allocation of Citywide Overhead
Description
C'wide OH
Rate Mod Op Exp
Allocation of
C'wide OH Note
Citywide Overhead Allocation 17.4% $232,967 $40,536 [b] Allocation of Department Administration
Description Total Note
Department Administration $138,386 [c]

City of Pinole
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate - Community Services - Tiny Tots Allocation of Total Costs - Recreation Administration
Description Total Share Note
Direct Expenses $232,967 57%
Allocation of Citywide Overhead $40,536 10%
Allocation of Department Administration $138,386 34%
Total $411,889 100%
Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Description Total Note
Costs $411,889
Direct Hours 3,571 [c],[d]
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate $115
Calculation of Cost Multiplier for Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate (Apply to Base Salary Cost Per Hour) Description FTE
Annual Hours
Per FTE
Total Annual
Hours
Estimated
Salaries
Hourly Wage
Rate Only
Assuming Total
Annual Hours
Fully-Burdened
Hourly Rate
Indirect Cost
Rate Multiplier
(ICR)
Tiny Tots 2.25 2,080 4,680 $144,555 $31 $115 3.72
Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate by Position
Position Total Salaries Total FTE
Avg Salary
Per FTE
Avg Salary
Per Hour
ICR for FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
Fully-Burdened
Hourly Rate
Recreation Coordinator $91,146 1.00 $91,146 $44 3.72 $163 Recreation Leader $53,409 1.25 $42,728 $21 3.72 $76

City of Pinole
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate - Community Services - Tiny Tots Revenues
Fund Fund Desc Dept Dept Desc Division Division Desc Account Account Desc Total 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 36401 Recreation Chg/Contract Fees $132,334 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 36405 Recreation Chg/Internal Program $20,529 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 553 Tiny Tots 38404 Other Rev/Miscellaneous Reven $880 Total $153,743
Recurring Allocable Costs
Description Total Note
Direct Costs $263,367
Citywide Overhead $45,826
Department Admin $138,386
Total $447,578
Cost Recovery Analysis
Description Total Note
Revenues $153,743
Allocable Costs $447,578
Cost Recovery 34%
Over / (Under) ($293,836)
[a] Source: FY 25/26 adopted budget.
[b] Source: Citywide overhead cost allocation plan.
[c] See separate worksheet.
[d] Direct/Indirect hours are intended to serve as reasonable estimates. Amounts will vary from year-to-year depending on activity, projects, and City Council priorities.

User and Regulatory Fees
Cost of Service Analysis
Youth Center

City of Pinole
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Community Services - Youth Center Position Hourly FTE Yearly
Total Hours
Per FTE
Less: Holiday
& Leave
Productive
Hours Per FTE
Total
Productive
Hours Notes
Recreation Coordinator $44 1.00 $91,146 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 [a],[b] Senior Recreation Leader $26 1.00 $54,532 2,080 2,080 2,080 [a],[b] Recreation Leader $21 2.00 $85,455 2,080 2,080 4,160 [a],[b] Total 4.00 $231,133 8,104
Allocation of Hours Share Total Notes
Indirect 20% 1,621 [b]
Direct 80% 6,483 [b]
Total 100% 8,104
[a] Source: FY 25/26 authorized positions.
[b] Direct/Indirect hours are intended to serve as reasonable estimates. Amounts will vary from year-to-year depending on activity, projects, and City Council priorities.

City of Pinole
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate - Community Services - Youth Center Recurring Expenditures [a]
Fund Fund Desc Dept Dept Desc Division Division Desc Account Account Desc Total Adjustment Allocable
Expense Note
209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 40101 Salary & Wages/Full Time $88,492 $0 $88,492 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 40102 Salary & Wages/Part Time $110,399 $0 $110,399 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 41001 Emp Benefits/Medical-Active $32,824 $0 $32,824 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 41002 Emp Benefits/Dental $1,577 $0 $1,577 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 41003 Emp Benefits/Vision Care $199 $0 $199 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 41004 Emp Benefits/PERS Retirement $7,387 $0 $7,387 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 41005 Emp Benefits/Employee Assistan $47 $0 $47 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 41007 Emp Benefits/Life-ADD $187 $0 $187 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 41008 Emp Benefits/Long Term Disabil $299 $0 $299 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 41009 Emp Benefits/Workers Comp $12,617 $0 $12,617 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 41010 Emp Benefits/FICA - Medicare $2,884 $0 $2,884 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 41011 Emp Benefits/FICA - Soc Sec $6,845 $0 $6,845 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 41012 Emp Benefits/Unemployment In $193 $0 $193 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 42101 Prof Svcs/Professional Service $5,000 ($5,000) $0 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 42107 Prof Svcs/Equipment Maintenan $1,300 ($1,300) $0 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 42108 Prof Svcs/Building-Structure Ma $27,042 ($27,042) $0 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 42201 Office Expense $500 $0 $500 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 42301 Travel & Training/Conf Registrat $200 $0 $200 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 42401 Dues & Pub/Memberships $375 $0 $375 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 42514 Admin Exp/Special Depart $5,000 $0 $5,000 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 43102 Utilities/Water $500 ($500) $0 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 43103 Utilities/Electricity & Power $6,000 ($6,000) $0 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 43201 Taxes/Property Tax $1,200 ($1,200) $0 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 44301 Other Materials Supp/Fuel $500 $0 $500 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 44304 Other Materials Supp/Permit Fe $2,000 ($2,000) $0 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 46126 Legal Charges $500 $0 $500 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 46201 Insurance/General Liability $13,975 $0 $13,975 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 47201 Improvements/Building $15,000 ($15,000) $0 Total $343,042 ($58,042) $285,000
Allocation of Citywide Overhead
Description
C'wide OH
Rate Mod Op Exp
Allocation of
C'wide OH Note
Citywide Overhead Allocation 17.4% $285,000 $49,590 [b] Allocation of Department Administration
Description Total Note
Department Administration $172,369 [c]

City of Pinole
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate - Community Services - Youth Center Allocation of Total Costs - Recreation Administration
Description Total Share Note
Direct Expenses $285,000 56%
Allocation of Citywide Overhead $49,590 10%
Allocation of Department Administration $172,369 34%
Total $506,959 100%
Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Description Total Note
Costs $506,959
Direct Hours 6,483 [c],[d]
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate $78
Calculation of Cost Multiplier for Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate (Apply to Base Salary Cost Per Hour) Description FTE
Annual Hours
Per FTE
Total Annual
Hours
Estimated
Salaries
Hourly Wage
Rate Only
Assuming Total
Annual Hours
Fully-Burdened
Hourly Rate
Indirect Cost
Rate Multiplier
(ICR)
Youth Center 4.00 2,080 8,320 $231,133 $28 $78 2.81
Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate by Position
Position Total Salaries Total FTE
Avg Salary
Per FTE
Avg Salary
Per Hour
ICR for FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
Fully-Burdened
Hourly Rate
Recreation Coordinator $91,146 1.00 $91,146 $44 2.81 $123 Senior Recreation Leader $54,532 1.00 $54,532 $26 2.81 $74 Recreation Leader $85,455 2.00 $42,728 $21 2.81 $58

City of Pinole
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate - Community Services - Youth Center Revenues
Fund Fund Desc Dept Dept Desc Division Division Desc Account Account Desc Total 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 36402 Recreation Chg/Memberships $5,606 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 36405 Recreation Chg/Internal Program $83,643 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 36407 Recreation Chg/Vending Machin $164 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 38112 Rental Income/Facility Rental $2,593 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 554 Youth Center 38401 Other Rev/Contributions $10,000 Total $102,006
Recurring Allocable Costs
Description Total Note
Direct Costs $328,042
Citywide Overhead $57,079
Department Admin $172,369
Total $557,490
Cost Recovery Analysis
Description Total Note
Revenues $102,006
Allocable Costs $557,490
Cost Recovery 18%
Over / (Under) ($455,484)
[a] Source: FY 25/26 adopted budget.
[b] Source: Citywide overhead cost allocation plan.
[c] See separate worksheet.
[d] Direct/Indirect hours are intended to serve as reasonable estimates. Amounts will vary from year-to-year depending on activity, projects, and City Council priorities.

User and Regulatory Fees
Cost of Service Analysis
Swim Center

City of Pinole
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost Recovery Rate - Community Services - Swim Center
Recurring Expenditures [a]
Fund Fund Desc Dept Dept Desc Division Division Desc Account Account Desc Total Adjustment Allocable
Expense Note
209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 557 Swim Center 42101 Prof Svcs/Professional Service $99,500 $0 $99,500 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 557 Swim Center 42108 Prof Svcs/Building-Structure Ma $67,610 $0 $67,610 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 557 Swim Center 43102 Utilities/Water $7,000 $0 $7,000 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 557 Swim Center 43103 Utilities/Electricity & Power $19,000 $0 $19,000 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 557 Swim Center 43201 Taxes/Property Tax $4,000 $0 $4,000 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 557 Swim Center 44304 Other Materials Supp/Permit Fe $2,750 $0 $2,750 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 557 Swim Center 44307 Other Materials Supp/Janitorial $0 $0 $0 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 557 Swim Center 46126 Legal Charges $500 $0 $500 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 557 Swim Center 47103 FF&E/Furniture & Appliances $20,000 ($20,000) $0 Total $220,360 ($20,000) $200,360
Allocation of Citywide Overhead
Description
C'wide OH
Rate Mod Op Exp
Allocation of
C'wide OH Note
Citywide Overhead Allocation 17.4% $200,360 $34,863 [b] Allocation of Department Administration
Description Total Note
Department Administration $105,279 [c]
Allocation of Total Costs - Recreation Administration
Description Total Share Note
Direct Expenses $200,360 59%
Allocation of Citywide Overhead $34,863 10%
Allocation of Department Administration $105,279 31%
Total $340,501 100%
Revenues
Fund Fund Desc Dept Dept Desc Division Division Desc Account Account Desc Total Generated
Revenue
All Other
Revenues &
Transfers In
209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 557 Swim Center 36403 Recreation Chg/Swim Fee $105,301 $105,301 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 557 Swim Center 38112 Rental Income/Facility Rental $2,290 $2,290 209 Recreation Fd 55 Recreation 557 Swim Center 39901 Transfers In $65,000 $65,000 Total $172,591 $107,591 $65,000

City of Pinole
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost Recovery Rate - Community Services - Swim Center
Recurring Allocable Costs
Description Total Note
Direct Costs $200,360
Citywide Overhead $34,863
Department Admin $105,279
Total $340,501
Cost Recovery Analysis
Description Total Note
Revenues $107,591
Allocable Costs $340,501
Cost Recovery 32%
Over / (Under) ($232,911)
[a] Source: FY 25/26 adopted budget.
[b] Source: Citywide overhead cost allocation plan.
[c] See separate worksheet.

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 12.A.

DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2026
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Markisha Guillory, Finance Director, 510-724-9823, [email protected] SUBJECT: FY 2025/26 MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW (SECOND QUARTER FINANCIAL

REPORT)

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend that the City Council receive the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Second Quarter Financial Report, and adopt a resolution authorizing budget amendments.

BACKGROUND
The quarterly financial report is intended to provide the City Council, City staff and management, and the community a general update on the financial activities and condition of the City.

The City operates on an annual budget cycle. Through the budget, the City Council approves revenue estimates and authorizes City staff to expend the City’s limited financial resources. As one of the many activities that the City undertakes to help ensure its financial soundness, staff provides quarterly financial reports on the City’s budget condition.

The Second Quarter Financial Report (Attachments A and B) covers financial activity through the second quarter of FY 2025/26, ending December 31, 2025. It provides preliminary yearend results.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
An important part of managing the City’s budget performance is through the mid-year budget review which includes a projection through the end of the fiscal year. The mid-year budget, excluding any one-time adjustments, serves as the baseline budget for the subsequent fiscal year and for the long-term financial forecast.

The mid-year budget review involves a detailed analysis of budget-to-actuals from July 1 to December 31 and helps us determine if adjustments to anticipated revenue and planned expenditures are necessary. At the mid-point of the fiscal year most revenues and expenditures are expected to be at 50% of budget, although this may vary based on the timing of certain receipts and spending trends.

At its meeting on June 17, 2025, the City Council adopted the FY 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget. The FY 2025/26 budget is a status quo budget, meaning that the service and staffing levels included in the budget are similar to those included in the prior year’s budget.

The City remains in a stable financial position and is able to fund its operating and capital expenditures through annual, recurring funding sources. The budget does include the use of unassigned fund balance (residual, unrestricted funds) primarily for several one-time, Councildirected initiatives, which is an acceptable use of unrestricted funds.

For the second quarter, revenues and expenditures mostly are on target with budgeted amounts as expected at this point in the fiscal year. However, staff recommend several revenue and expenditure adjustments across several City funds. The Second Quarter (MidYear) Financial Report contains financial activity of all City funds, including details for the proposed adjustments.

The FY 2025/26 budget and actual revenue, expenditures, and estimated beginning and ending fund balance for each City fund is listed in the Financial Summary (Attachment B).

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of the proposed budget adjustments are summarized in the table below.

Fund
Proposed
Adjustments
General Fund (Fund 100)
Revenues -
Expenditures $99,366
Equipment Reserve Fund (Fund 160)
Revenues

$68,747
Expenditures $89,819
Solid Waste Fund (Fund 214)
Revenues

$1,156,000
Expenditures -
Cable Access TV Fund (Fund 505)
Revenues

$90,500
Expenditures -

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
B. FY 2025-26 Second Quarter Financial Report
C. FY 2025-26 Second Quarter Financial Report Summary by Fund

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-xx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING THE CITY BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025/26

WHEREAS, the City Council did adopt a Budget for City Operations by Resolution number 2025-32 on June 17, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Finance Director has presented proposed
recommendations for amendment of the Adopted Fiscal Year 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget as part of a Mid-Year Budget Review at the regular City Council Meeting held on February 17, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered these recommended changes, as to the matter of the City budget; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has solicited public input on the proposed amendments to the Fiscal Year 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget.

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

Amendments to the budget and program of services for the City of Pinole for Fiscal Year 2025/26 commencing July 1, 2025 and ending June 30, 2026 are hereby approved and adopted, as set forth in Exhibit #1 (herein incorporated).

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of February 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced, passed and adopted on this 17th day of February, 2026.

______________________________________
Heather Bell-Spears, CMC
City Clerk

Mid-Year Budget Adjustments Exhibit 1
Proposed
Adjustments
General Fund (Fund 100)
Revenues -
Expenditures $99,366
Equipment Reserve Fund (Fund 160)
Revenues $68,747
Expenditures $89,819
Solid Waste Fund (Fund 214)
Revenues $1,156,000
Expenditures -
Cable Access TV Fund (Fund 505)
Revenues $90,500
Expenditures -

0 City of
Pinole
Prepared by Finance Department
February 17, 2026
FY 2025/26 Second Quarter
Financial Report

0 This page intentionally blank

FY 2025/26 Second Quarter Financial Report
Table of Contents
1 Table of Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................................3 General Fund Overview ................................................................................................................4 General Fund Revenue.................................................................................................................6 Sales Tax ..............................................................................................................................7 Property Tax..........................................................................................................................9 Utility Users’ Tax .................................................................................................................10 Intergovernmental Tax.........................................................................................................11 Franchise Tax......................................................................................................................12 Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) ...........................................................................................13 Business License Tax ..........................................................................................................14 Public Safety Charges .........................................................................................................15 Other Revenue....................................................................................................................16 Transfers In.........................................................................................................................16 General Fund Expenditures ........................................................................................................17 Salaries and Wages.............................................................................................................19 Employee Benefits ..............................................................................................................20 Professional and Administrative Services.............................................................................21 Other Operating Expenses...................................................................................................21 Materials and Supplies........................................................................................................21 Interdepartmental Charges .................................................................................................22 Asset/Capital Outlay...........................................................................................................22 Debt Service .......................................................................................................................22 Transfers Out......................................................................................................................22 Non-General Funds....................................................................................................................23 Special Revenue Funds ..........................................................................................................23 Gas Tax Fund (Fund 200) .....................................................................................................23 Public Safety Augmentation Fund (Fund 203) .......................................................................23 Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (Fund 206)...................................................24 NPDES Storm Water Fund (Fund 207) ..................................................................................24 Recreation Fund (Fund 209) ................................................................................................24 Building and Planning Fund (Fund 212) ................................................................................25 Refuse Management Fund (Fund 213)..................................................................................25

FY 2025/26 Second Quarter Financial Report
Table of Contents
2 Solid Waste Fund (Fund 214)...............................................................................................26 Measure J Fund (Fund 215)..................................................................................................26 Development Growth Impact Fund (Fund 276) .....................................................................26 Housing Assets for Resale Fund (Fund 285)..........................................................................27 Lighting and Landscape District Fund (Fund 310) .................................................................27 Capital Project Funds .............................................................................................................28 City Street Improvement Fund (Fund 325)............................................................................28 Arterial Streets Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 377) ....................................................................28 Enterprise Funds ....................................................................................................................28 Sewer Enterprise Fund (Fund 500) .......................................................................................28 Cable Access TV Fund (Fund 505)........................................................................................29 Information Systems Fund (Fund 525)..................................................................................29 Financial Summary by Fund .......................................................................................................30

FY 2025/26 Second Quarter Financial Report
Introduction
3 Introduction
The quarterly financial report is intended to provide the City Council, City staff and management, and the community a general update on the financial activities and condition of the City.

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

As one of the many activities that the City undertakes to help ensure its financial soundness, staff provides quarterly financial reports on the City’s budget condition.

The Second Quarter Financial Report details financial activity through the second quarter of the FY 2025/26, July 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025. It also provides projected year-end results.

The City’s full budget document, FY 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget, and other financial reports, can be found on the City’s website at https://www.pinole.gov/financialreports/.

FY 2025/26 Second Quarter Financial Report
General Fund Overview
4 General Fund Overview
The FY 2025/26 budget is a status quo budget, meaning that the revenue sources and service and staffing levels included in the budget are similar to those included in the prior year’s budget. The City remains in a stable financial position and is able to fund its operating and capital expenditures through annual, recurring funding sources. While the City’s budgeted revenues are sufficient to fund its current expenditures, the City does not have the capacity to fund any additional significant ongoing expenditures beyond budgeted amounts.

At its meeting on June 17, 2025, the City Council adopted the FY 2025/26 budget, which is structurally balanced with revenues and expenditures totaling 31.5 million. The budget includes the use of unassigned fund balance (residual, unrestricted funds) from the General Fund (including Measure S 2006 and 2014), primarily to support several one-time, Councildirected initiatives and capital projects. This is an appropriate use of unrestricted funds and totals $1.3 million, as shown in the tables below.

FY 2025/26 Second Quarter Financial Report
General Fund Overview
5 Breakdown of One-Time Initiatives and Capital Projects Funded by General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance
Additionally, the City maintains a separate General Reserve Fund, which is required by the City’s Cash Reserve Policy to maintain a reserve balance equal to 25% of total ongoing General Fund operating expenditures. The General Reserve fund balance is projected to end the fiscal year with a balance of approximately $7.8 million.

The City is projecting to close FY 2025/26 with revenues totaling $31.7 million and expenditures totaling $33.1 million, and an estimated ending fund balance of $4.4 million.

The table below summarizes the General Fund budget to actuals for the second quarter.

Department Description Amount
Community Development/
Economic Development Advertising (gen and industry-specific) $ 2,000 Community Development/
Economic Development Business Development/Community Help Reserve 10,000 Community Development/
Economic Development Revitalization Reserve 10,000
Finance Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan 20,000
Finance Grant Consulting 16,000
Human Resources Executive Team Development/Retreat 10,000 Police CERT Program Supplies 20,000
Police Alex Clark Room Transformation 2,000
Public Works Active Transportation Plan 30,000
Public Works On-call Consultants for Capital Projects 75,000 Public Works IN1703 Storm Drain Master Plan 273,937
Total One-Time Initiatives 468,937
Public Works RO2401 Road Maintenance Repairs 350,000
Public Works FA2501 Zero-Emission Vehicle/EV Charging Infrastructure 75,000 Public Works RO1710 San Pablo Ave. Bridge Over BNSF Railroad 100,000 Public Works SW2401 Storm Drain Creek Discharge Improvements 120,000 Public Works SW2501 Stormwater Upgrade & Trash Capture 150,000 Total Capital Improvement Projects 795,000
Total One-Time Items and Capital Improvement Projects $ 1,263,937 General Fund (including
Measure S 2006 and 2014, and
Measure I 2024)
FY 2025/26
Original
Budget
FY 2025/26
Revised
Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
FY 2025/26
Amended
Budget
FY 2025/26
YTD Actuals
FY 2025/26
YTD Actuals
w/ Encumb.
% of
Amended
Budget
Projected
Year-End
Revenues $ 31,537,898 $ 31,537,898 $ - $ 31,537,898 $ 11,645,303 $ 11,645,303 37% $ 31,745,156 Expenditures 32,801,047 32,984,679 99,366 33,084,045 14,177,974 14,234,173 43% 33,084,045 Net surplus/deficit (1,263,149) (1,446,781) (99,366) (1,546,147) $ (2,532,672) $ (2,588,869) (1,338,889) Beginning Fund Balance 5,746,650 5,746,650 5,746,650 5,746,650 Ending Fund Balance $ 4,483,501 $ 4,299,869 $ 4,200,503 $ 4,407,762 Page 163 of 206 FY 2025/26 Second Quarter Financial Report
General Fund Revenue
6 General Fund Revenue
The City Council authorized General Fund revenues of $31,537,898 for FY 2025/26. Actual revenues for the second quarter totaled $11,645,303, or 37% of the budget. As the second quarter represents approximately 50% of the fiscal year, actual revenues are expected to be around 50% of the annual budget. However, variations may occur due to the timing of certain receipts. The table below summarizes General Fund revenue activity for the second quarter.

The following section provides detailed explanations of second quarter financial activities for each revenue category, as well as historical trend data.

Category FY 2025/26
Original
Budget
FY 2025/26
Revised
Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
FY 2025/26
Amended
Budget
FY 2025/26
YTD Actuals
% of Amended
Budget
Projected
Year-End
Property Taxes $ 6,698,790 $ 6,698,790 $ - $ 6,698,790 $ 1,922,535 29% $ 6,698,790 Sales and Use Taxes 4,567,189 4,567,189 - 4,567,189 1,851,090 41% 4,567,189 Sales and Use Taxes - Measure S 2006 2,599,000 2,599,000 - 2,599,000 1,004,741 39% 2,599,000 Sales and Use Taxes - Measure S 2014 2,599,000 2,599,000 - 2,599,000 1,004,860 39% 2,599,000 Sales and Use Taxes - Measure I 2024 2,599,000 2,599,000 - 2,599,000 982,340 38% 2,599,000 Utility Users Tax 2,345,000 2,345,000 - 2,345,000 1,286,250 55% 2,345,000 Franchise Taxes 850,000 850,000 - 850,000 264,143 31% 850,000 Other Taxes: TOT 400,000 400,000 - 400,000 149,970 37% 400,000 Other Taxes: Business License 476,172 476,172 - 476,172 220,158 46% 476,172 Intergovernmental Taxes 2,513,149 2,513,149 - 2,513,149 1,258,382 50% 2,513,149 Public Safety Charges 1,861,497 1,861,497 - 1,861,497 1,040,712 56% 1,861,497 Total Other Revenue 793,656 793,656 - 793,656 660,123 83% 1,000,914 Revenue Total: 28,302,453 28,302,453 - 28,302,453 11,645,303 41% 28,509,711 Transfer In from Pension/OPEB Trust 3,235,445 3,235,445 3,235,445 - 0% 3,235,445 Revenue/Sources Total: $ 31,537,898 $ 31,537,898 $ - $ 31,537,898 $ 11,645,303 37% $31,745,156 Page 164 of 206 FY 2025/26 Second Quarter Financial Report
General Fund Revenue
7 Sales Tax
Sales Tax is the City’s largest general revenue stream at 39% of total General Fund revenues.

The City’s 10.25% sales tax is levied on taxable sales, and the City receives 1% for the standard Bradley Burns Sales Tax and 0.5% from each of the three local sales tax measures.

This category includes the main General Fund ($4,567,189), Measure S 2006 ($2,599,000), Measure S 2014 ($2,599,000), and Measure I 2024 ($2,599,000). For the second quarter, sales tax receipts totaled $4,843,030, or 39% of the budget. This amount reflects collections from the months of July through November 2025. There is typically a two-month lag between sales activity and remittance to the City.

City staff meet quarterly with the sales tax consultant, HdL, to review updates on the prior quarter’s sales tax performance. Highlights from the most recent update for the period July through September 2025 include:
• Overall gross sales tax receipts were up 14.6% compared to the same period in 2024; after adjusting for reporting modifications, actual sales were up 4.3%. • Service stations were boosted by the reopening of an outlet, which also boosted gains in the building-construction sector.
• While quick-service dining showed mixed performance, a new outlet helped boost the overall restaurant category.
• General consumer goods showed slowing in several categories. • The Measure Ss and Measure I were boosted by the gains in the various categories, and growth was furthered by locals purchasing new motor vehicles and an increase in online merchandise delivered into the City.
• Taxable sales for all of Contra Costa County were flat compared to the same period in 2024; the Bay Area was up 2.4%.

FY 2025/26 Second Quarter Financial Report
General Fund Revenue
8 FY 2021/22
Actual
FY 2022/23
Actual
FY 2023/24
Actual
FY 2024/25
Actual
FY 2025/26
Actual
FY 2025/26
Budget
Total 9,613,625 9,328,351 9,430,219 10,065,999 4,843,030 12,364,189 Q4 2,322,856 2,307,279 2,425,993 3,146,670
Q3 2,428,400 2,387,064 2,360,669 2,209,133
Q2 2,502,822 2,341,406 2,338,691 2,575,405 1,827,486
Q1 2,359,547 2,292,602 2,304,865 2,134,791 3,015,545
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
$10,000,000
$11,000,000
$12,000,000
$13,000,000
Sales Tax

FY 2025/26 Second Quarter Financial Report
General Fund Revenue
9 Property Tax
Property Tax is the City’s second largest revenue stream at 21% of total General Fund revenues. It is comprised of four segments – secured, unsecured, supplemental, and transfer tax. The largest segment is the secured property tax. It is received in three installments in December (55%), April (40%), and June of each year (5%). Secured property tax revenue includes the basic 1% property tax. For the second quarter, revenue totaled $1,922,535, or 29% of the budget. The second quarter came in lower than usual because property tax revenue from the former Successor Agency has not yet been received. Due to the process to close out the agency, this revenue is expected in June.

Between October and December 2025, there were 39 single family residential sales in Pinole. The median price was $762,500 and reflects a 6.79% increase compared to the previous quarter and an 8.93% increase compared to the same period in 2024.

FY 2021/22
Actual
FY 2022/23
Actual
FY 2023/24
Actual
FY 2024/25
Actual
FY 2025/26
Actual
FY 2025/26
Budget
Total 4,307,208 5,055,790 5,948,810 6,209,280 1,922,535 6,698,790 Q4 1,492,871 2,060,252 2,816,214 2,925,567
Q3 1,221,885 1,311,320 1,351,164 16,223
Q2 1,564,444 1,670,279 1,765,376 3,212,512 1,885,606
Q1 28,007 13,939 16,056 54,977 36,929
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
Property Tax

FY 2025/26 Second Quarter Financial Report
General Fund Revenue
10 Utility Users’ Tax
Utility Users’ Tax (UUT) of 8% is levied on telecommunication, electricity, gas, and prepaid mobile telephones. For the second quarter, UUT revenue totaled $1,286,250, or 55% of the budget. Actuals are trending slightly higher in the telecommunications and electricity segments.

FY 2021/22
Actual
FY 2022/23
Actual
FY 2023/24
Actual
FY 2024/25
Actual
FY 2025/26
Actual
FY 2025/26
Budget
Total 2,063,773 2,312,830 2,445,715 2,657,156 1,286,250 2,345,000 Q4 471,356 572,657 581,069 611,163
Q3 622,765 699,442 714,965 763,370
Q2 493,892 520,972 596,338 638,050 635,010
Q1 475,760 519,759 553,343 644,573 651,239
$(100,000)
$100,000
$300,000
$500,000
$700,000
$900,000
$1,100,000
$1,300,000
$1,500,000
$1,700,000
$1,900,000
$2,100,000
$2,300,000
$2,500,000
$2,700,000
Utility Users' Tax

FY 2025/26 Second Quarter Financial Report
General Fund Revenue
11 Intergovernmental Tax
Intergovernmental Tax is comprised of the Motor Vehicle License Fee (VLF), which is the City’s share of motor vehicle license fees levied, collected, and apportioned by the State.

This category also includes the Homeowners Property Tax Relief ($30,000), which is a reimbursement from the State to offset loss of property tax for the state-imposed homeowner exemption. The VLF revenue is received in equal installments in December and June. For the second quarter, revenue totaled $1,258,382 or 50% of the budget.

FY 2021/22
Actual
FY 2022/23
Actual
FY 2023/24
Actual
FY 2024/25
Actual
FY 2025/26
Actual
FY 2025/26
Budget
Total 2,079,739 2,219,137 2,319,153 2,431,824 1,258,382 2,513,149 Q4 1,028,682 1,099,865 1,147,883 1,214,314
Q3 22,376 19,408 23,388 29,855
Q2 1,028,682 1,099,865 1,147,883 1,187,655 1,229,433
Q1 - - - - 28,949
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
$1,800,000
$2,000,000
$2,200,000
$2,400,000
$2,600,000
Intergovernmental Tax

FY 2025/26 Second Quarter Financial Report
General Fund Revenue
12 Franchise Tax
Franchise Tax is levied on gas (1%), electricity (2%), cable (5%), and refuse. For the second quarter, revenue totaled $264,143, or 31% of the budget. The amount reflected includes cable and refuse revenue only. Revenue from the remaining segments—gas and electricity—is received later in the fiscal year.

FY 2021/22
Actual
FY 2022/23
Actual
FY 2023/24
Actual
FY 2024/25
Actual
FY 2025/26
Actual
FY 2025/26
Budget
Total 788,146 813,494 901,208 910,745 264,143 850,000
Q4 332,661 322,641 402,957 403,529
Q3 157,804 165,387 167,826 171,030
Q2 149,190 162,326 167,133 169,109 108,000
Q1 148,492 163,140 163,292 167,075 156,143
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
Franchise Tax

FY 2025/26 Second Quarter Financial Report
General Fund Revenue
13 Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), also known as the “hotel tax,” is levied at 10% on persons staying 30 days or less in a motel or lodging facility within City limits. For the second quarter, revenue totaled $149,970, or 37% of the budget. Actual revenue is lower due to the timing of receipts.

FY 2021/22
Actual
FY 2022/23
Actual
FY 2023/24
Actual
FY 2024/25
Actual
FY 2025/26
Actual
FY 2025/26
Budget
Total 487,687 456,288 401,499 322,889 149,970 400,000
Q4 130,974 114,768 105,338 69,068
Q3 105,958 101,466 96,822 66,229
Q2 114,050 106,897 87,439 64,364 58,375
Q1 136,705 133,158 111,900 123,228 91,595
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$450,000
$500,000
Transient Occupancy Tax

FY 2025/26 Second Quarter Financial Report
General Fund Revenue
14 Business License Tax
Business License Tax is assessed on all businesses doing business within City limits. For the second quarter, revenue totaled $220,158, or 46% of the budget. The bulk of the revenue is received in December and January through annual business license renewals.

FY 2021/22
Actual
FY 2022/23
Actual
FY 2023/24
Actual
FY 2024/25
Actual
FY 2025/26
Actual
FY 2025/26
Budget
Total 441,779 438,329 464,672 486,344 220,158 476,172
Q4 38,852 42,421 34,119 28,693
Q3 223,061 287,509 263,646 293,428
Q2 135,421 86,522 145,533 141,476 203,683
Q1 44,445 21,876 21,374 22,747 16,476
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$450,000
$500,000
Business License Tax

FY 2025/26 Second Quarter Financial Report
General Fund Revenue
15 Public Safety Charges
Public safety charges are received for dispatch services provided to the cities of Hercules and San Pablo under an Intergovernmental Service Sharing agreement. For the second quarter, actual receipts were $1,040,712, or 56% of the budget. The first quarter amount was higher because it included a reconciliation payment based on actual usage from the prior fiscal year.

FY 2021/22
Actual
FY 2022/23
Actual
FY 2023/24
Actual
FY 2024/25
Actual
FY 2025/26
Actual
FY 2025/26
Budget
Total 1,447,934 1,568,849 1,803,884 1,960,443 1,040,712 1,861,497 Q4 353,105 368,748 415,192 457,762
Q3 353,105 368,748 415,192 457,184
Q2 353,105 368,748 415,192 457,486 491,732
Q1 388,620 462,606 558,308 588,009 548,980
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
$1,800,000
$2,000,000
Public Safety Charges

FY 2025/26 Second Quarter Financial Report
General Fund Revenue
16 Other Revenue
Other revenue includes permits, fees, fines and forfeitures, rental income, proceeds from the sale of property, interest income, and grants. All revenues in this category totaled $660,123, or 83% of the budget. Actual revenues are trending higher in the permit fees, abandoned vehicle fees, abatement fees, and reimbursements subcategories.

Transfers In
The transfer in comes from the Pension and Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Trust to offset the increase in pension and OPEB costs in the General Fund. The anticipated amount of the transfer is $3,235,445. The actual amount will be determined and processed at year-end.

FY 2025/26 Second Quarter Financial Report
General Fund Expenditures
17 General Fund Expenditures
The City Council originally authorized General Fund expenditures of $32,801,047 for FY 2025/26. Several adjustments were approved in the first and second quarters, resulting in a revised budget of $32,984,679. For the second quarter, expenditures including encumbrances totaled $14,234,173, or 43% of the budget. As the second quarter represents approximately 50% of the fiscal year, actual expenditures are expected to be around 50% of the annual budget. However, variations may occur due to the timing of certain disbursements. The tables below summarize General Fund expenditure activity for the fiscal year.

Staff recommend the following budget amendments:
• Finance – increase the expenditure budget by $33,000 for polling consulting for the potential ballot measures; this is a one-time expenditure. • Public Works – increase the expenditure budget by $31,366 for a labor allocation that was inadvertently removed during budget development.
• Community Development – increase the expenditure budget by $35,000 for code enforcement abatement that was inadvertently removed during budget development.
• Equipment Reserve Fund (separate but funded by the General Fund) – increase the revenue budget by $68,747 for insurance recovery for totaled police vehicles, and increase the expenditure budget by $89,919 to replace two police vehicles.

Below are explanations of expenditure variances exceeding the 50% threshold, by department.
• City Manager - expenditures exceeded the threshold primarily due to compensated leave payouts.
• City Attorney - expenditures consist of two subcategories—attorney services and reimbursements (credits) from Non-General Funds, such as the Sewer Enterprise Fund. The table above presents the net amount. The higher percentage is primarily Department FY 2025/26
Original
Budget
FY 2025/26
Revised
Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
FY 2025/26
Amended
Budget
FY 2025/26
YTD Actuals
FY 2025/26
YTD Actuals
w/ Encumb.
% of
Amended
Budget
Projected
Year-End
City Council $ 252,450 $ 252,450 $ - $ 252,450 $ 86,980 $ 86,980 34% $ 252,450 City Manager 535,563 535,563 - 535,563 343,792 343,792 64% 535,563 City Clerk 733,895 733,895 - 733,895 384,381 384,381 52% 733,895 City Treasurer 9,990 9,990 - 9,990 4,520 4,520 45% 9,990 City Attorney 305,965 305,965 - 305,965 239,104 239,104 78% 305,965 Finance Department 1,025,744 1,025,744 33,000 1,058,744 515,002 515,002 49% 1,058,744 Human Resources 965,908 965,908 - 965,908 478,368 478,368 50% 965,908 Non-Departmental 5,128,503 5,128,503 - 5,128,503 1,180,880 1,180,880 23% 5,128,503 Police Department 12,758,655 12,758,655 - 12,758,655 6,095,279 6,095,279 48% 12,758,655 Fire Department 6,742,965 6,742,965 - 6,742,965 3,328,698 3,328,698 49% 6,742,965 Public Works 3,283,599 3,433,599 31,366 3,464,965 1,160,380 1,210,959 35% 3,464,965 Community Development 610,142 643,774 35,000 678,774 200,679 206,299 30% 678,774 Community Services 447,667 447,667 - 447,667 159,911 159,911 36% 447,667 Expenditure Total: $ 32,801,047 $ 32,984,679 $ 99,366 $ 33,084,045 $ 14,177,974 $ 14,234,173 43% $ 33,084,045 Page 175 of 206 FY 2025/26 Second Quarter Financial Report
General Fund Expenditures
18 due to delayed reimbursements from other funds for legal services provided. Actual expenditures were at the 50% threshold.

Below are explanations of expenditure variances exceeding the 50% threshold, by category. • Debt service - expenditures were 100% of the budget due to the annual payment of the 2006 Pension Obligation Bonds made at the beginning of the fiscal year.

The following section provides detailed explanations of FY 2025/26 financial activities for each expenditure category, as well as historical trend data.

Category FY 2025/26
Original
Budget
FY 2025/26
Revised
Budget
Proposed
Adjustment
s
FY 2025/26
Amended
Budget
FY 2025/26
YTD Actuals
FY 2025/26
YTD Actuals
w/ Encumb.
% of
Amended
Budget
Projected
Year-End
Salaries & Wages $ 10,526,279 $ 10,526,279 $ 10,526,279 $ 4,961,544 $ 4,961,544 47% $ 10,526,279 Benefits 8,178,351 8,178,351 8,178,351 3,919,606 3,919,606 48% 8,178,351 Professional/Admin Services 9,382,408 9,416,040 99,366 9,515,406 4,303,346 4,338,479 46% 9,515,406 Other Operating 378,156 378,156 378,156 187,196 187,196 50% 378,156 Materials and Supplies 184,998 184,998 184,998 87,253 87,253 47% 184,998 Interdepartmental Charges (665,537) (665,537) (665,537) 1,020 1,020 0% (665,537) Asset/Capital Outlay 986,440 1,136,440 1,136,440 67,028 88,094 8% 1,136,440 Debt Service 653,545 653,545 653,545 650,981 650,981 100% 653,545 Transfers Out 3,176,407 3,176,407 3,176,407 - - 0% 3,176,407 Expenditure Total: $ 32,801,047 $ 32,984,679 $ 99,366 $ 33,084,045 $ 14,177,974 $ 14,234,173 43% $ 33,084,045 Page 176 of 206 FY 2025/26 Second Quarter Financial Report
General Fund Expenditures
19 Salaries and Wages
The FY 2025/26 budget includes salaries and wages based on the City’s staffing level of 117 full-time equivalents (FTEs), and salary increases for different classifications already agreed upon in the City’s current labor memorandums of understanding (MOUs). The budget includes a savings factor equal to 3% of total annual salary and benefits expenditures to account for savings resulting from position vacancies. For the second quarter, salaries and wages totaled $4,961,544, or 47% of the budget.

FY 2021/22
Actual
FY 2022/23
Actual
FY 2023/24
Actual
FY 2024/25
Actual
FY 2025/26
Actual
FY 2025/26
Budget
Total 10,550,396 11,006,433 10,113,758 10,502,237 4,961,544 10,526,279 Q4 3,282,972 2,534,186 2,609,792 2,832,962
Q3 2,405,510 3,025,957 2,772,505 2,863,902
Q2 2,814,371 2,822,048 2,405,708 2,341,722 2,597,808
Q1 2,047,542 2,624,243 2,325,753 2,463,651 2,363,736
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
$10,000,000
$11,000,000
Salaries and Wages