Pinole City Council
July 7, 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
July 7, 2026
5:30 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 - July 7, 2026

OTHER WAYS TO WATCH THE MEETING
LIVE ON CHANNEL 30 AND CHANNEL 1070. Meetings are broadcast again the following week on channels 30 and 1070 (previously channel 26). The Pinole Community TV program schedule is published on the City’s website at www.Pinole.gov/PCTV.

VIDEO-STREAMED LIVE ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE, www.Pinole.gov/PCTV. Meeting videos remain archived on the site for five (5) years. Pinole Community TV can also be streamed live from Roku, Apple TV, or Amazon Fire.

TEMPORARY NOTICE: Some Comcast subscribers may also be able to see PCTV Government Media programming on Channel 30 while we work through an FCC must-carry requirement.

If none of these options are available to you, or you need assistance with public comment, please contact the City Clerk, Heather Bell-Spears at (510) 724-8928 or [email protected].

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

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

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

City Council
Agenda - July 7, 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: Interim City Manager, Garrett Evans, City Attorney, Eric Casher, Human Resources Director, Stacy Shell, Finance Director, Markisha Guillory, and Gregory Ramirez, IEDA
Employee organization: AFSCME Local 1, AFSCME local 512, the Pinole Police Employees Association (PPEA), and the Management Compensation Plan (MCP).

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

City Council
Agenda - July 7, 2026

F. City Attorney Report

8. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMUNITY EVENTS
A. Proclamations

1. Independence Day

2. Honoring Centenarian Rosemarie Cutino
B. Presentations

1. Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury, Report No. 2604, Pinole's Financial Future: It's a Rough Road

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 on June 16, 2026 and the Special City Council Meeting on June 23, 2026.

B. Receive the June 13, 2026 – July 3, 2026, List of Warrants in the Amount of $1,9714,186.71, the June 18, 2026 payroll in the Amount of $565,332.19, and the July 3, 2026 Payroll in the Amount of $740,473.12.

C. Adopt a Resolution to Approve Master Salary Schedule Updates Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Stacy Shell, Charlene Davis)
D. Pinole Police Department purchase of safety equipment from the Supplemental Law Enforcement Service Fund and one vehicle from the Equipment Reserve Fund Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Justin Rogers, Melissa Klawuhn) E. Adopt an Ordinance Renewing AB481 Military Use Equipment Action: Waive the second reading and adopt an ordinance approving the renewal of the City’s Military Equipment Use Policy (Justin Rogers, Melissa Klawuhn)
F. Adopt Resolution Approving “Public Highway At-Grade Crossing Agreement” Between The City Of Pinole And Union Pacific Railroad Company For Construction Of Improvements Across The Railroad Tracks For The Tennent Avenue/Bay Trail Gap Closure Project (City Cip Project No. RO1902 - Up Real Estate Project No. 0209671) Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Heba El-Guindy)
G. Adopt Resolution Approving “Public Roadway Encroachment Agreement” Between The City Of Pinole And Union Pacific Railroad Company For City’s Construction Of Improvements In The Railroad Right-Of-Way Along Railroad Avenue As Part Of The Tennent Avenue/Bay Trail Gap Closure Project (City Cip Project No. RO1902 - Up Real Estate Project No. 0806493) Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Heba El-Guindy) H. Adopt Resolution Approving Second Amendment To The Consulting Services Agreement

City Council
Agenda - July 7, 2026

Between The City And GHD, Inc. For Development Of The City's Active Transportation Plan - Project IN2106 Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Heba El-Guindy) I. Adopt Resolution Approving Construction Services Agreement Between The City Of Pinole And McGuire And Hester For Implementation Of Phase 1 Of Fiscal Year 2026/27 Road Rehabilitation Project (Cip Project # RO2301) Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Heba El-Guindy)

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Citizens wishing to speak regarding a Public Hearing item should fill out a speaker card prior to the completion of the presentation, by first providing a speaker card to the City Clerk. An official who engaged in an ex parte communication that is the subject of a Public Hearing must disclose the communication on the record prior to the start of the Public Hearing.

A. None

11. OLD BUSINESS
A. None

12. NEW BUSINESS
A. Housing Successor Fund Policy Recommendations and Evaluation of an In-Lieu Fee Alternative to the Inclusionary Housing Requirement Action: Receive Report and Provide Direction (Jared Murti, Lilly Whalen)

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

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

14. ADJOURNMENT to the Regular City Council Meeting of July 21, 2026 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

I hereby certify under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing Agenda was posted on the bulletin board at the main entrance of Pinole City Hall, 2131 Pear Street Pinole, CA, and on the City’s website, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date set forth on this agenda. _______________________
Heather Bell-Spears, CMC
City Clerk
POSTED: Thursday, July 3, 2026 at 3:05 pm

HONORING CENTENARIAN

ROSEMARIE CUTINO
WHEREAS, In recognition of Rosemarie Cutino’s100th Birthday on July 3, 2026, the Pinole City Council would like to honor Pinole Centenarian Rosemarie Cutino; and
WHEREAS, Rosemarie was born on July 3, 1926 in Buffalo, NY; and WHEREAS, she met Thomas Cutino Sr. at a dance in Buffalo, NY in 1956; and
WHEREAS, they married in 1956 and moved to California; and WHEREAS, She and Tom initially moved to El Cerrito where they had three children Judith (1957), Camille (1958) and Philip (1960); and WHEREAS, they moved to Pinole to a brand-new home on Arroyo Avenue in November 1960 and had three more children: Thomas Jr (1961), Jeanine (1962) and Maria (1965); and
WHEREAS, Rosemarie has seven grandchildren: (Amy, Anna, Gabriel, Giancarlo, James, Joseph and Sami) and continues to live in that same house in Pinole on Arroyo Avenue to this day. She loves this community.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, ANTHONY TAVE Mayor of the City of Pinole, County of Contra Costa, State of California, on behalf of the City Council and the City of Pinole, do hereby honor Pinole Centenarian Rosemarie Cutino.

Dated: July 7, 2026

ANTHONY TAVE
MAYOR of the City of Pinole

SUMMARY
The City of Pinole faces a growing and potentially severe financial crisis driven by structural budget imbalances, rising long-term liabilities, and substantial unfunded infrastructure needs. For multiple years, Pinole has not aligned ongoing expenditures with ongoing revenues. Instead, it has relied on one-time funds and reserve withdrawals to offset annual operating deficits. This approach is contrary to Pinole’s published financial policies and is unsustainable.

In February 2026, the Pinole City Council (Council) reviewed a “Preliminary General Fund Long-Term Financial Forecast” prepared by Pinole staff that projected annual operating fund deficits starting at $700,000 in Fiscal Year 2026/27. These deficits are projected to grow to $5.6 million in Fiscal Year 2030/31 when Pinole’s pension and retiree healthcare trust funds are projected to be exhausted. Financial forecasts prepared by outside experts are consistent with Pinole’s projections.

At the same time, Pinole faces mounting long-term financial obligations that will place additional strain on its General Fund. Pinole’s unfunded pension liability has grown to approximately $45 million, and its unfunded retiree healthcare liability is approximately $35 million. Pinole also has road rehabilitation and other deteriorating infrastructure that will cost an estimated additional $60 million to eventually repair or replace.

The Grand Jury assessed Pinole’s overall financial condition using publicly reported financial data, including audited Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports. These data demonstrate pressure on General Fund reserves resulting from persistent structural budget imbalances and growing liabilities for pensions and retiree healthcare. A fiscal dashboard developed by the California Policy Center applies standardized metrics to the same data and classifies Pinole as financially distressed.

Pinole’s current financial trajectory poses serious risks to its long-term fiscal stability and its ability to maintain essential public services. Choices made by Pinole’s leadership in the next few years will be consequential for the financial and operational health of Pinole.

BACKGROUND
Situated on San Pablo Bay in west
Contra Costa County, Pinole is an
attractive suburban community.

Among the smallest in population
(approximately 19,500) of the
County’s 19 cities, Pinole offers a
variety of housing options. The
choices include single-family homes,
condominiums, townhouses, and
apartment buildings. Several of the
apartment buildings are specifically

designated as affordable housing. Visitors to Pinole see a vibrant downtown business district comprising many locally owned small businesses. Pinole has several thriving commercial areas adjacent to the Interstate 80 freeway as well as more than a dozen well-maintained city parks.

Pinole is governed by a five-person Council whose members are elected at large and serve fouryear overlapping terms. Currently, the mayor is not an independently elected position, as the mayorship rotates among the Council members. The Council holds its public meetings two times per month. The proceedings are live-streamed and broadcast by a city-owned television station, and the recordings are stored electronically and available to the public. A City Manager, supported by staff, is responsible for Pinole’s day-to-day operations. The Council hires the City Manager, who serves at the will of the Council. Pinole has faced and continues to face fiscal challenges, like many cities in California and the Bay Area. These challenges are the subject of this Grand Jury report.

METHODOLOGY
The Grand Jury referred to these sources to conduct its investigation:
 Interviews with subject matter experts on the issues addressed in this report  Financial documents from Pinole, including actual and projected budgets and policies  Financial regulatory filings (the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report) from Pinole and accompanying Report on the Audit of Financial Statements  Comparative analysis of Pinole’s financial results relative to similar cities  Review of meetings of the Council posted online, including agendas and minutes  A report from Baker Tilly Consultants, “Strategic Financial Planning,” dated April 2024

DISCUSSION
Definition of Terms Used in this Report
Municipal financial statements use standardized accounting terms to describe financial actions and results. In this report, the following terms are used:
 Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports (ACFRs): A detailed set of audited financial statements published annually by local governments, as required by the state controller’s office.
 Capital Improvement Budgets: The capital improvement budget consists of the budgeted costs for capital projects, which are a set of activities that maintain or improve city assets, often referred to as infrastructure, such as buildings and roads. These activities can be new construction, expansion, renovation, or replacement of existing infrastructure. Project costs can include the cost of land, engineering, architectural planning, and contractual services required to complete the project.  General Fund: Pinole defines it as:

The primary fund of the City used to account for all revenues and expenditures of the City not legally restricted as to use. This fund is used to offset the cost of the City's general operations. Examples of departments financed by the General Fund include the City Council, Police and others.
 Structurally Balanced Budget: A budget in which recurring expenditures are funded entirely by recurring revenues, without reliance on one-time sources, such as asset sales or reserve drawdowns.
 Pinole Sales Tax: 10.25% total tax as of May 2026, comprising:
o 7.25% California state tax
o 1.5% Pinole sales tax from:
 0.5% 2006 Measure S
 0.5% 2014 Measure S
 0.5% 2024 Measure I
o 1.5% Transportation related (BART and MTC)
 Unfunded Pension Liability: When the present value of all retirement benefits promised to current and former employees and retirees exceeds the assets currently held in the pension fund to pay those benefits, there is an unfunded pension liability. The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) administers Pinole’s pension benefits and requires annual contributions from Pinole. An unfunded pension liability may increase required annual contributions.
 Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB): Retiree health benefits administered and funded directly by Pinole.
 Section 115 Trust: A trust account authorized by the Internal Revenue Code. It is used by municipalities, school districts, and government agencies to set aside funds for future liabilities related to retiree benefits.
 Unrestricted Net Position: Governmental Activities: Net position measures the balance of an entity’s overall financial resources and obligations, a proxy for net worth.

Unrestricted net position for governmental entities is a subset of overall net position representing the portion of city resources that are not restricted and available for operations and long-term obligations like its pension and retiree healthcare obligations.

CHRONIC FINANCIAL ISSUES
Municipal budgets throughout California have been impacted by historical legislation, such as:
 Proposition 13, enacted in 1978, limited property taxes, which are a significant portion of most municipal revenue.
 Proposition 218, passed in November 1996, reformed local government finance by requiring voter approval for new or increased taxes, assessments, and certain fees.

 Proposition 26, passed in 2010, increased voting requirements from a simple majority to a two-thirds super-majority for certain new taxes and fees.

Combined, these legislative actions reduced municipalities’ ability to raise revenue while expenditures continued to increase. Furthermore, growing demand for services, rising labor costs, and other barriers to increasing revenue are being felt statewide. Pinole is not immune from these pressures.

Pinole’s Government Structure
The Pinole City Council (Council)
exercises legislative authority over the
city. The Council's responsibilities
include the adoption of the annual
budget. The Council sets spending
targets and priorities and it is the
function of the City Manager to
execute the Council’s direction. The
City Manager position is currently filled
by a part-time interim manager.

Pinole has established written financial
policies that are incorporated into each
fiscal year’s budget. The Grand Jury
reviewed controlling policies as set out
in the “Fiscal Year 2025/26 Operating
and Capital Budget Appendix: Financial
and Investment Policies,” as approved
by the Council. Pinole’s “Structurally
Balanced Budget Policy” directs the City to develop an annual budget that will be “structurally balanced whereby the operating budget will be prepared with current year expenditures funded with current year revenue.”
Furthermore, Pinole’s “Revenue Policy – One-Time (Non-Recurring) Resources” says the “General Fund Budget will be structurally in balance without relying on one-time resources.” In the event a budget is passed that is not structurally balanced and requires “one-time resources,” the “Structurally Balanced Budget Policy” calls for a plan to be “developed and implemented to bring the budget back into balance.”
When expenditures exceed revenues, Pinole posts an operating deficit.

Pinole Has a History of Financial Challenges
Pinole posted an operating deficit in five of the eleven fiscal years between 2015 and 2026.

Pinole also showed an operating budget deficit every year from 2003 to 2007. A healthy reserve position served to buffer the deficit in those years, but that reserve was fully depleted by the 2008 recession.

Pinole’s Operating Deficits Since 2021
Pinole posted a General Fund operating deficit—before one-time fund balance transfers—for four of the five years from 2021/22 through 2025/26, as shown in Table 1 on the following page.

Table 1. Pinole General Fund Operating Results 2021/22 to 2025/26 (in $ Millions) FY2021/22
Actual
FY2022/23
Actual
FY2023/24
Actual
FY2024/25
Actual
FY2025/26
Budget
Revenues $22.9 $29.4 $27.1 $27.6 $31.5
Expenditures ($25.1) ($27.6) ($31.6) ($29.1) ($32.8)
Net Surplus or
(Deficit)
($2.2) $1.8 ($4.5) ($1.5) ($1.3)
The surplus in Fiscal Year 2022-23 was the result of a one-time infusion of $4.1 million from the American Rescue Plan Act, a federal government response to the COVID-19 economic impacts.

The cumulative deficit for the last five years, including the current 2025/26 budget’s projection, is $8 million.

The City Manager’s cover letter in the 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget acknowledges:
... the City’s prior long-term financial forecast shows that ongoing City revenues are not expected to be sufficient to cover ongoing routine City services, and existing City revenue mechanisms are not going to be sufficient to address the City’s two main unfunded liabilities, which are deferred capital maintenance and other post-employment benefits.

Reliance on One-Time Funding Sources
The approved 2025/26 operating budget projects a $1.3 million deficit before special onetime adjustments:
 Total Revenues $31.5 million
 Total Expenditures $32.8 million
 Net Deficit ($1.3) million
The Council passed the Fiscal Year 2025/26 operating budget based on a one-time reduction in General Fund Reserves, or the “rainy-day fund.” While this action generated a structurally balanced budget, it cannot be repeated every year under conditions of persistent structural deficits because the General Fund Reserves will eventually be exhausted.

Pinole’s original projections for Fiscal Year 2025/26 were revenues of $31.7 million and expenditures of $33.1 million with an estimated ending General Fund Reserve balance of $4.4 million. Pinole’s staff noted in the budgeting process that Pinole lacked the capacity to fund significant ongoing expenditures beyond the budgeted amounts. The City Manager’s cover letter for Pinole’s Fiscal Year 2025/26 Operating and Capital Budget supplies further detail:

The General Fund operating budget is balanced, meaning that ongoing expenditures are funded by ongoing revenues... Also, the budget includes the use of available unassigned fund balance for a number of one-time initiatives and capital improvement projects, which is an acceptable use of this funding source.

The phrase “one-time initiatives” is significant because Pinole’s Financial Policies state that “the General Fund Budget will be structurally in balance without relying on one-time resources.” The Financial Policies go on to state:
[A]ppropriate uses of one-time resources include establishing and rebuilding the General Fund Reserve, other City established reserves, or early retirement of debt, capital expenditures, reducing unfunded pension liabilities (PERS and OPEB), and other nonrecurring expenditures.

This guiding principle establishes a policy that a reduction of fund balances to provide extra revenue to balance the General Fund budget is only appropriate for large and financially strategic expenditures that do not occur on an annual basis. Such transfers are presently the only mechanism by which Pinole can create a structurally balanced budget, even though that same budget without transfers shows a $1.3 million operating deficit.

The budget details the “other non-recurring expenditures” that required a $1.3 million transfer of unassigned fund balances in Fiscal Year 2025/26. There are 16 items ranging from $2,000 for advertising to $10,000 for an executive retreat to $350,000 for road maintenance repairs. Many of these “non-recurring expenditures” are called “Council-directed special projects” in the budget’s Executive Summary.

Council-Directed Special Projects
The “other non-recurring expenditures” in the budget document do not conform to the strategic or financial planning expenditures that are envisioned by Pinole’s financial policies. Pinole’s Operating and Capital Budgets for the two prior fiscal years (2023/24 and 2024/25) used the same approach to characterize general operating deficits as “structurally balanced general fund budgets.” In both these prior years, the City Manager’s budget cover letters used the same words to note that “the budget does use one-time sources, such as fund balance, for one-time expenditures.”
Just as in the Fiscal Year 2025/26 budget, both prior year budgets referenced a list of Councildirected special projects. These special projects in all three fiscal years do not meet the substance of Pinole’s financial policies’ definition of non-recurring expenditures. The fact that Pinole has used this funding tactic in three consecutive budgets does not adhere to the city’s financial policies. Pinole has been drawing down its General Fund Reserve balances each year to fund add-on Council-directed special projects and other recurring expenditures.

The following extract is from the 2025/26 budget Executive Summary:

City staff believes that it will be able to complete the Council-directed special projects listed above by the end of FY 2025/26 but does not have the capacity to take on

any additional special projects...and recommends that the City adopt a practice of not adding any special projects mid-fiscal year unless an existing special project is taken off of the list. It is a public finance best practice…to create a proposed General Fund operating budget that is structurally balanced, meaning that ongoing revenues equal or exceed ongoing expenditures.

This information matches the wording in the budget letters from the prior two years. Each letter focuses on controlling expenditures, specifically special projects.

LOOKING FORWARD
The Council’s Finance Subcommittee held discussions on February 18, 2026, regarding the Fiscal Year 2026/27 Operating Budget. Pinole’s finance staff presented a forecast that showed an additional $45 million deficit over the next 10 years. Pinole staff stated that while revenues are increasing 2.7% year-over-year, expenses are increasing at a 5% rate.

City documents identify several challenges Pinole faces that will impose future costs.  A comprehensive update of the General Plan within the next three years, a refresh or update of the 16-year-old Specific Plan, and a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update.
o Collectively, these efforts are expected to cost $2-3 million and will require a multi-year funding strategy.
o Staff will recommend annual budgeting to set aside funds to support these updates while balancing competing budget priorities.
 Replacement of the police department fleet and mobile radios over the next several years, with expected total costs of $595,000.
 Aging infrastructure and funding limitations, especially in the areas of road rehabilitation, facilities upgrade, and procurement of needed equipment.  Salary increases due to pending union contact negotiations are expected to increase 5%. Pension and other benefit costs are estimated to increase by 9%.  A pension benefit trust established in 2018 to help mitigate rising pension costs is estimated to be depleted by Fiscal Year 2030/31, after which the annual General Fund deficit is expected to grow to $5.6 million.
 A trust established to partially fund other post-employment benefits was funded with $2.4 million realized in Fiscal Year 2024/25 by reducing Pinole’s general reserves— its rainy-day fund—by half. This fund is also projected to be exhausted by Fiscal Year 2030/31.

The Baker Tilly “Strategic Financial Planning Report”
Baker Tilly Management Partners (Baker Tilly) is a national consulting firm that specializes in municipal governance, including budgets, financial forecasts, and organizational structures. In late 2023, Pinole engaged Baker Tilly to assist it with strategic financial planning. The goals of the engagement were:
 Reviewing the City’s financial forecast and extending it to 20 years

 Identifying gaps between current conditions and desired conditions as well as funding gaps
 Developing strategies in conjunction with City staff to close any identified gaps  Working with staff to gather feedback from elected officials and the public on potential budget strategies
 Developing a draft and final long-term financial plan In April 2024, Baker Tilly issued a “Strategic Financial Planning Report” (Baker Tilly Report) projecting that Pinole’s General Fund will be unbalanced over a 20-year timeframe if actions are not taken to balance ongoing revenues and ongoing expenditures.

PENSIONS, SECTION 115 TRUST & RETIREE HEALTHCARE
Unfunded Pension Liability with CalPERS
Pinole’s qualified permanent and probationary employees may participate in the “Public Agency Cost-Sharing Multiple-Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plan” (Plan) administered by the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS). The Plan offers an individual rate plan within a safety risk pool (police and fire) or a separate risk pool for all others. Table 2 shows the number of participants enrolled in each plan and the annual plan cost.

The approximately 500 pension participants are more than four times the number of current Pinole employees.

Table 2. Pension Liability with CalPERS – Employee Counts and Annual Expense Miscellaneous Plans Safety Plans
Active employees 74 26
Transferred employees 97 54
Retired employees and
beneficiaries 128 108
TOTAL 299 188

Annual Pension Expense $2,250,481 $4,292,423
Pension Total (Both Plans) $6,542,904*
* For the year ending 6/30/2024
Retirement Unfunded Liability Trend
Details of the total net pension unfunded liability are shown in Table 3. Note the 9.5% compound annual growth rate.

Table 3. Net Pension Unfunded Liability, 2014 – 2024 (in $ Millions) Pension Type 6/30/14 6/30/19 6/30/24
Total $18.5 $33.9 $44.7
Miscellaneous $7.8 $15.1 $18.9
Safety $10.7 $18.8 $25.8
A key metric to understand pension liability is the “funding ratio,” which calculates the ability to pay future contractual retirement benefits. A funding ratio of less than 100% means there are currently not enough assets to pay future obligations. U.S. debt rating agencies such as Standard & Poor’s consider an 80% funding ratio the minimum for avoiding potential future payment difficulties. Pinole’s funding ratio over the past decade is shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Pinole’s Pension Funding Ratios, 2014 - 2024
Pension Type 6/30/14 6/30/19 6/30/24
Miscellaneous 61.1% 69.0% 70.3%
Safety 81.4% 74.2% 72.3%
A Section 115 Trust is used by municipalities, school districts, and government agencies to set aside funds for future liabilities related to retiree benefits. Pinole initially funded a 115 Trust with $16.3 million in July 2018, using the one-time proceeds from the sale of a municipal property to help address its growing pension liability. Pinole spends a portion of its 115 Trust each year to meet its ongoing annual contribution to CalPERS.

Pinole projects a fund balance of $13 million by the end of Fiscal Year 2025/26. Pinole’s finance staff and the Baker Tilly Report both estimate that the 115 Trust will be exhausted by Fiscal Year 2030/31. At that point, Pinole’s forecasts show the City will be forced to use its General Fund to pay all CalPERS-mandated contributions. This will make it even more challenging for Pinole to achieve structurally balanced budgets.

Pinole’s Unfunded Retiree Health Care Liability
Pinole provides OPEB health care coverage to current and former employees with five or more years of service. Pinole is currently funding the benefits on a pay-as-you-go basis, with Fiscal Year 2025/26 payments amounting to approximately $1.6 million.

Table 5 shows the number of active and retired employees covered by the benefit terms under the Plan as of June 30, 2023.

Table 5. Number of Employees Covered by the Plan
Staff Type # Participants
Active Employees 102
Retirees 104
Total 206

Pinole’s unfunded OPEB liability was $34.9 million as of June 30, 2024. The City has a component of the 115 Trust account set aside to offset liabilities for OPEB in the amount of $2.4 million. This was funded by a 50% reduction of General Reserves in the current fiscal year.

However, Pinole staff forecasts the trust account will be exhausted by Fiscal Year 2030/31.

INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Pinole’s Unfunded Capital Improvements
Pinole has lagged in making capital improvement investments that provide value to its residents.

Pinole’s public roads are deteriorating due to age and lack of routine maintenance. Public buildings and amenities, such as swimming pools and municipal building roofs, lack adequate repair and maintenance. Pinole staff and the Council estimate that total capital improvement budget needs over the next 10 years amount to a minimum of $120 million. Staff has advised the Council that the total funding requirements cannot be addressed by reliance on the annual $32 million General Fund Operating Plan revenues.

Pinole’s Deteriorating Public Roads
Pinole is working to develop a plan and
identify funding for the extensive work needed
to fix its roads. Possible approaches include a
mix of strategic planning, temporary repairs to
enhance safety, and ongoing maintenance.

A “Road Rehabilitation Plan” is being
developed so that construction may begin once
the funding has been secured.

All publicly maintained roads in Contra Costa
County are inspected every two years as part of
a pavement management program through
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC). Pinole estimates it has a backlog of
approximately $60 million in pavement
maintenance and repair work, based on a 2024
MTC study.

After an inspection, the MTC assigns a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) score to different categories of roads. The most recent PCI score for Pinole’s roads overall was “55” (2024). It was “56” and “55” in the previous two years. A “55” score is considered “At Risk” and indicates a need for extensive rehabilitation, substantiating the $60 million estimate.

Roads that are satisfactory or better are less costly to maintain than roads that have already become degraded. The cost for road rehabilitation increases exponentially as the PCI score declines. At a “55” PCI, roads are approaching “Unmaintainable.” By comparison, Contra Costa County roads, on average, have a “69” PCI or a “Fair” rating.

Pinole’s current financial commitment to rehabilitation is insufficient to avoid continued road deterioration. According to Pinole’s “Road Repair” website:

Road repairs are planned to be funded through a combination of local and state sources, including $750,000 of Measure J funds for the Pavement Rehabilitation Plan and $350,000 of Measure S funds for maintenance and repairs in FY 25/26.

Fiscal Year 2025/26 spending of $1.1 million is insufficient to meet estimated overall road rehabilitation needs. Pinole’s Public Works department estimates that $20 million is the minimum budget needed over the next five years.

ASSESSMENT OF COMPARATIVE FINANCIAL HEALTH
Pinole’s Comparative Overall Financial Health
The State of California publishes comprehensive financial data for all its counties and cities (and special districts). The state does not provide an analytical tool to compare assessments of the fiscal conditions of its counties and cities. The California Policy Center (CPC) is a non-profit organization that has developed a fiscal dashboard that allows for such comparisons and overall fiscal assessments. The Grand Jury recognizes that CPC is an organization engaged in policy advocacy, but its dashboard is based on publicly reported financial data and applies standardized metrics to these same data. The Grand Jury independently reviewed Pinole’s underlying financial indicators and found them to be consistent with CPC’s assessments.

CPC’s dashboard has adopted a fiscal framework developed initially by the Hoover Institution, a public policy organization headquartered at Stanford University. CPC’s model applies a standardized set of 10 financial indicators based on Annual Comprehensive Financial Report data and combines them into a composite score. This approach enables consistent comparison of fiscal condition across cities based on liquidity, operating performance, and long-term liabilities.

CPC then assigns a letter grade from A to F based on the composite score of each city. These grades are each assigned a designation as low, moderate, or high risk for fiscal distress.

As shown in Table 6, Pinole’s overall financial score merited an “F” grade per CPC’s scorecard for the last three fiscal years for which data is available. In all three years, Pinole ranked in or near the bottom of all California cities whose ACFR data has been reported to the State.

Table 6. Pinole’s Recent CPC Scores and Rankings
Year Pinole Fiscal Health
Score Out of 100/Grade
Pinole Ranking/
Reporting CA Cities
2024 47 / F 407/410
2023 49 / F 436/442
2022 48 / F 457/460
An “F” fiscal health score is described by the CPC as having a “High Risk of Financial Distress.” Pinole’s adverse fiscal health score is largely driven by its unfunded pension and OPEB obligations and its substantially negative unrestricted net position.

For the same period (2022-2024), the 18 other cities in the County had fiscal health scores ranging from 55 to 99. See Appendix A for more details.

CITY LEADERSHIP - LEARNING TO LIVE WITHIN PINOLE’S MEANS Tax Fatigue
Pinole cannot feasibly resolve the financial challenges it faces exclusively by raising existing taxes or creating new ones. Pinole residents voted in 2024 to approve Measure I, a 0.50% sales tax increase. Following Measure I and two previous 0.50% sales tax increases approved since 2006, Pinole’s residents now pay a total sales tax of 10.25%, highest among Contra Costa County’s 19 cities. During the Grand Jury’s interviews with subject matter experts, many interviewees used the phrase “tax fatigue” when asked to describe the overall sentiment of Pinole voters. Residents have repeatedly authorized more taxes with little perceived evidence that services are improving.

At an October 14, 2025, Council Finance Workshop, various Council members expressed concern that Pinole residents would not approve additional sales or parcel tax increases. These concerns are related to having just passed Pinole Measure I and the anticipated November 2026 BART-related tax initiative. In addition, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has voted to place a 0.625% general sales tax on the June 2026 primary ballot. The Council suggested that it might not be practical to seek voter approval of additional taxes until 2028.

Expense Reduction: The Elephant in the Room
There are only two ways to bring Pinole’s structural operating deficits into balance: finding new sources of incremental revenues or reducing expenditures.

The Council has not prioritized expense reductions in recent years’ budget deliberations.

Looking ahead, Pinole’s long-term projections show expenditures continuing to grow faster than revenues based on existing service levels. The Council’s budgets for the last three years continue to promote continuity of service levels and add Council-directed special projects each year while relying on general reserve reductions to close the annual funding gap.

The Baker Tilly Report’s long-term financial forecast projects a requirement for Pinole to cut annual expenditures by a minimum 10% per year, even when taking into account the 0.5% sales tax increase authorized by Measure I. The Grand Jury noted potential areas for expenditure reductions. The Fiscal Year 2025/26 budget projects deficits in several Pinole departments, including Recreation ($1.8 million), Building and Planning ($900,000), and Pinole’s cable TV station ($400,000). These are examples of departments that have required operating subsidies in recent years and could be the types of targets for efficiency measures and expenditure cuts. In addition, Pinole’s staff has suggested to the Council that it avoid further unfunded Councildirected special projects.

The Baker Tilly Report Offers Options
The Baker Tilly Report provided three scenarios for the Council to consider for adoption, shown in Table 7 on the following page. They vary from an option that emphasizes revenue enhancement over expense reduction to an option emphasizing cutting expenses over raising revenue.

Table 7. Baker Tilly Report Fiscal Scenarios
*UUT = Utility Users Tax, an excise tax that cities impose on the consumption of utilities such as water and electricity.

To date, the Council has implemented two of the revenue recommendations in the Baker Tilly Report:
 Increase sales tax by 0.5% to a total rate of 10.25%
 Reduce Pinole’s reserve fund by half
The Baker Tilly Report illustrates consequences of not addressing Pinole’s current budget deficits:

The fiscal impact of taking no action would leave the City’s General Fund fully depleted of reserves by FY 2028-29, at which point the City would be forced to implement hiring

freezes or layoffs to avoid bankruptcy…Ultimately, the City would be placed into a form of receivership by the state and would then be overseen by an appointed court to implement the necessary actions to allow the City to operate.

Pinole Lacks Urgency in Addressing Its Fiscal Health Issues The Grand Jury, based on Pinole’s publicly available budgets and financial statements, supplemented by interviews with subject matter experts, found that Pinole faces pending operational and capital financial challenges. The Baker Tilly Report recommended significant expenditure cuts. The Grand Jury has found, however, that Pinole has not yet adopted any of the expense reduction recommendations.

Other Northern California Cities Have Experienced Bankruptcy The Baker Tilly Report makes clear that without changes in Pinole’s approach to budgeting, it faces a real risk of bankruptcy. Over the past 20 years, two Northern California cities— Stockton and Vallejo—have experienced bankruptcy proceedings. Bankruptcy neither relieves a city of its financial obligations, nor gives a free pass on having to provide essential city services.

As a result of the bankruptcy proceedings, these cities found it necessary to close fire stations, lay off public safety employees, cut support to local youth and senior citizen centers, and replace existing agreements with labor unions with less generous ones. In Stockton’s case, retired city employees lost access to free health care benefits.

There are additional consequences to municipal bankruptcy. Credit ratings are slashed, and some residents and businesses elect to move elsewhere. This results in lower tax receipts for the city, only deepening the problem.

Pinole’s current financial trajectory poses serious risks to its long-term fiscal stability and its ability to maintain essential public services. The choices made by Pinole’s leadership in the next few years will determine whether Pinole restores fiscal balance and protects its future or continues on a path that may ultimately bring severe financial and operational consequences to Pinole and its residents.

FINDINGS
F1. The City of Pinole’s Fiscal Year 2025/26 Operating Budget is characterized as structurally balanced in its budget documents.

F2. Pinole’s Fiscal Year 2025/26 Operating Budget achieves structural balance by relying on a general fund reduction to pay for what are termed “one-time initiatives.” F3. Within the Fiscal Year 2025/26 Operating Budget, deficits are projected in the Recreation Department ($1.8 million), the Building and Planning Department ($900,000), and the citysponsored cable TV station ($400,000).

F4. Pinole’s finance staff project that annual operating budget deficits will increase, growing to a $5.6 million deficit for Fiscal Year 2029/30.

F5. Pinole generated operating deficits due to expenditures exceeding revenues in four of the five years prior to Fiscal Year 2025/26.

F6. By relying on reserves to pay for “one-time expenditures” for the most recent three budget cycles (2023/24 through 2025/26), Pinole has not complied with its financial policies.

F7. Pinole has a total sales tax rate, at 10.25%, among the highest of any city in Contra Costa County.

F8. In Council meetings and workshops, Pinole officials have acknowledged the difficulty of obtaining voter approval for additional tax measures.

F9. Pinole’s long-term financial forecast projects 10 years of operating deficits beginning in Fiscal Year 2026/27.

F10. The April 2024 “Baker Tilly Strategic Financial Planning Report” projects 20 years of operating deficits through Fiscal Year 2044/45.

F11. The Baker Tilly Report emphasized a need for urgency in addressing ongoing deficit spending.

F12. Pinole’s CalPERS unfunded pension liabilities have increased from $18 million in 2014 to $45 million in 2024, an increase of 150%.

F13. Pinole’s most recently reported CalPERS annual obligation from 2024 was $6.5 million.

F14. The CalPERS obligation is projected to increase by more than 10% in Fiscal Year 2026/27.

F15. Pinole’s Section 115 Trust was funded in 2018 from proceeds from a one-time asset sale for $16.3 million to help offset the unfunded pension liability.

F16. Pinole staff projects its Section 115 Trust funds will be exhausted by Fiscal Year 2030/31.

F17. Pinole has an unfunded retiree healthcare liability (Other Post-Employment Benefits, or OPEB) of approximately $35 million.

F18. The OPEB obligations have been funded on a “pay as you go” basis with annual contributions from the General Fund.

F19. Pinole’s public roads are graded at “55” in the 2024 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Pavement Condition Index survey, indicating the roads are “At Risk” and require extensive rehabilitation.

F20. Pinole staff has estimated $60 million will be needed for public road capital improvements over the next 10 years.

F21. Pinole staff has identified an additional $60 million funding gap for infrastructure capital improvements other than public roads over the next 10 years.

F22. The Pinole finance staff told Council in 2025 that the City does not have the necessary funding for these infrastructure capital improvements.

F23. Pinole’s deferral of capital improvements will translate into higher costs (replacement versus repair) in the future.

F24. Through the Fiscal Year 2025/2026 budget cycle, the Council had not publicly developed or discussed a comprehensive strategy for expenditure reduction or service adjustments to address projected structural budget deficits.

F25. An assessment of Pinole’s overall fiscal health, based on a dashboard developed by the California Policy Center using standardized financial measures, rated Pinole among the lowest of all reported California cities from 2022 to 2024.

F26. The Baker Tilly Report concluded that Pinole faces ongoing severe operating budget issues, including the threat of bankruptcy, if it does not balance annual expenditures and revenues.

RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. When developing all future Operating Budgets, the Council should comply with Pinole’s “Financial and Investment Policies” that require a structurally balanced annual budget.

R2. During all future budget development cycles, the Council should consider directing staff to prepare an Operating Budget that includes expenditure reductions so that expenditures match revenues in each budget cycle.

R3. By Fiscal Year 2027/28, the Council should consider adopting a formal long-term financial plan that incorporates the level of expenditure reductions as outlined in the 2024 Baker Tilly Report.

R4. By December 31, 2026, the Council should consider developing methods to engage Pinole residents regarding options to address ongoing fiscal challenges.

R5. By June 30, 2027, the Council should consider developing a plan to fund and reconstruct Pinole’s public roads.

R6. By March 31, 2027, the Council should consider directing staff to review funding options, such as asset sales, to address Pinole’s unfunded pension liability.

REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933(b) et seq. and California Penal Code Section 933.05, the 2025-2026 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing bodies:

Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
City Council for the City of
Pinole, California F1- F26 R1- R6
These responses must be provided in the format and by the date set forth in the cover letter that accompanies this report. An electronic copy of these responses in the form of a Word document should be sent by email to: [email protected] and a hard (paper) copy should be sent to:

Civil Grand Jury – Foreperson
725 Court Street
P.O. Box 431
Martinez, CA 94553-0091

Attachment A
Pinole Fiscal Ranking
California Policy Center
Local Fiscal Health Dashboard
The non-profit California Policy Center (CPC) maintains a Local Fiscal Health Dashboard tracking the financial health of California cities. This dashboard assumes the role of the California State Auditor's Office Local Government High-Risk Dashboard which was discontinued in 2023. Using published data from every city's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR), the CPC rates comparative fiscal health using ten standardized financial metrics: 1) general fund reserves; 2) debt burden; 3) liquidity; 4) revenue trends; 5) pension costs; 6) pension funding; 7) pension obligations; 8) other post-employment benefit obligations; 9) other postemployment benefit funding; and 10) net worth.

Using the most recent data from 2024 ACFR reporting, Pinole ranks in the bottom 1% of nearly 500 CA cities with an overall dashboard rating of 47 out of 100 points, representing an "F" score defined by CPC as a "high risk of financial distress, including the ability of the city to pay its bills in the short and long term". Four of the ten metrics are driving Pinole's "F" rating: 7) pension obligations; 8) other post-employment benefit obligations; 9) other post-employment benefit funding; and 10) net worth.

See the following page for a relative ranking of all 19 cities in Contra Costa County using the CPC’s dashboard for the last 3 consecutive years of data.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
June 16, 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 5:30 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 T. Murphy, Mayor Pro Tem
Maureen Toms, Council Member
Cameron Sasai, Council Member

COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT
Norma Martinez-Rubin, Council Member
B. STAFF PRESENT
Garrett Evans, Interim City Manager
Heather Bell-Spears, City Clerk
Eric Casher, City Attorney
Melissa Klawuhn, Police Chief
Justin Rogers, Police Commander
Markisha Guillory, Finance Director
Stacy Shell, Human Resources Director
Lilly Whalen, Community Development Director

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

Roxane Stone, Deputy City Clerk
City Clerk Heather Bell-Spears announced the agenda had been posted on June 11, 2026 at 5:05 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. Revised attachments had been submitted by staff for Items 11B and 12A, also distributed to the City Council and staff, posted to the City website and made available to the public to view in the Council Chambers.

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

4. CONVENE TO A CLOSED SESSION:

A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Gov. Code §54957.6
Agency designated representatives: Interim City Manager Garrett Evans, City Attorney Eric Casher, Human Resources Director Stacy Shell, Finance Director Markisha Guillory and Gregory Ramirez, IEDA
Employee organization: AFSCME Local 1
B. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT
Gov. Code §54957
Title: City Manager

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Cathy McFarland read into the record written comments submitted and dated June 16, 2026, for Item 4B, as follows: NO TO THE APPOINTMENT OF NAOMI KELLY FOR CITY MANAGER! The more research I did on this candidate the more infuriated I got. It is INCOMPREHENSIBLE how she became a “vetted” candidate to begin with and then our Mayor and Council members to even consider her and now want to appoint her as our City Manager. You stated it perfectly in our agenda packet “Approve and Authorize the Mayor to EXECUTE the Employment for Naomi Kelly to become City Manager. You used the right terminology – EXECUTE! This will carry out the final death sentence to what is left of Pinole since the three of you – Council members Murphy, Sasai and Mayor Tave have been making one poor decision after another destroying our city.

The next one coming up is putting cannabis shop(s) in the city. In my research I found that Naomi Maria Kelly is also an attorney (#218628). She knows the law, supposed to uphold the law and apparently knows how to get around the law! The City also wants to pay her a ridiculous salary of $305,000 annually which is $70,000 more than our last City Manager. Also, after 6 months there is a clause showing a merit increase can be considered. It also has a severance package – lump sum equal to 6 months of base salary ($152,500) and auto/cell allowance ($665.00) plus city share of Health and Benefits premium. There should be no SEVERANCE PACKAGES for anyone! We can’t afford it! The City needs to avoid at all costs the appearance of impropriety.

Having someone with this close proximity to a major bribery, wire and bank fraud scandals creates a dangerous vulnerability in public confidence. Her contract reads: purposes of severance may include in 5d (i) Dishonesty, (iv) Any act involving moral turpitude.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

History has a tendency to repeat itself and when self-serving interests are involved it escalates.

The city needs to prioritize public trust and integrity by conducting a new search that is entirely free from an association with corruption!
Richard Cossel reported the Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury gave the City of Pinole an “F” rating for overspending and warned due to financial troubles they must cut costs. Residents were paying the highest tax rate in the County and the City of Pinole had the worst rating and worst roads. Now they were about to hire a City Manager at a $305,000 base salary with benefits, totaling $400,000 per year, much higher than nearby cities with larger populations. As examples, the City of Martinez paid its City Manager $245,000, City of Hercules $270,000, City of El Cerrito $240,000 and the City of Albany $255,000, whereas Pinole residents have a median income of $73,000 and only one third have a pension or retirement plan.

Mr. Cossel stated City Manager candidate Naomi Kelly is the wife of Harlan Kelly and she served as the City of San Francisco Administrator from 2012 to 2021 and her husband served as the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC) General Manager from 2012 to 2020. Mayor Tave also worked in city government at the same time around 2009 to 2021 in the role of Assistant Engineer with San Francisco PUC ties as a Building Grounds Maintenance Superintendent and would have been familiar with and may have worked with both Naomi and Harlan Kelly.

In 2020, Harlan Kelly had been charged and later convicted of bank fraud, wire fraud and bribery.

Ms. Kelly resigned from her position shortly thereafter and while she had not been charged, records show she was an active participant in the $1.3 million mortgage fraud scheme, which included $32,000 in credit card payoff, pay off a student loan at $200,000 and it appears the family enjoyed an all-expenses paid family vacation to Hong Kong, China, Macau along with $80,000 in home improvements. Mayor Tave almost certainly knew of this high-profile case, which had been a big Bay Area scandal.

Mr. Cossel asked whether the Mayor would abstain from voting to avoid any appearance of conflict, why Ms. Kelly had been chosen as the City Manager candidate given this background, whether a full background check had been conducted, did it include the role of mortgage fraud and had it been presented to the full City Council. He also asked whether the Mayor shared what he knew from his time of employment with the City of San Fransico and why only pre-approved questions had been allowed to be asked during the citizen interviews with the City Manager candidates. While he did not know Ms. Kelly personally and she may be capable and regretted what happened in San Francisco, given the City’s serious financial problems, he asked whether the City really needed to pay the City Manager so much for such a small city.

William Horton hoped for a different City Manager at a lower salary. He asked whether that was possible, or whether the City Manager hiring had already been finalized.

Irma Ruport read into the record written comments which had been submitted by her husband David Ruport, and dated June 16, 2026, as follows: This evening the city council and you will meet in “closed session” to consider the appointment of a new City Manager for our city. I have been closely following the selection process of our new City Manager from the beginning to its current state of affairs. I have carefully read all items published by our city, public comment and criticism from numerous Pinole citizens (which include June 2, 2026 public comments at City Council and subsequent postings on various public media sources such as “Next Door” and

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

“FaceBook”), numerous newspaper articles about Naomi & Harlan Kelly from the San Francisco Examiner from the past 15-20 years, various court filings from United States District Court for the Northern District of California Venue: San Francisco v. Harlan Kelly, and Victor Makras and other assorted sources of information. Individually and collectively each of these items raise a multitude of questions that need to be answered before a final selection of a new City Manager. Based upon my analysis of these documents, it has become painfully apparent to me that the selection process for the current City Manager should immediately stop until the public receives responses to their questions. If some of the public’s concerns are legitimate, the City of Pinole, City Council and staff should address them.

Ms. Ruport explained she was also part of the community panel for the City Manager selection and found each City Council member owed the citizens a restart and suggested the recruitment process for City Manager start over. She added each Council member she had campaigned for had promised and taken an oath at the beginning of their service that they would dedicate themselves and promise to do their best, think of residents first and not think of themselves individually or those outside of the City of Pinole. She pointed out the information about Ms.

Kelly’s background was readily available and that information should have come out much earlier.

She questioned the community panel process, with members having realized Ms. Kelly was not a good candidate. She suggested it was not fair to residents to live with the consequences when three of the Council were up for re-election and may leave office but residents would be left with the decisions made.

Kelly Fergusson, a resident of Menlo Park, a Civil Engineer and Clean Energy Executive, with 16- years of public service, and who also served as the Policy Chair of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, stated she worked closely with the City and County of San Francisco and knew Naomi Kelly at that time by reputation as a highly skilled municipal administrator. Ms.

Kelly was an extraordinarily qualified candidate for the City Manager post and a world class candidate. She suggested Ms. Kelly was the perfect fit for Pinole and she encouraged the City Council to move forward with her appointment.

Karan Slates stated she had been a resident of Pinole for over 70-years and had watched the City Council meetings for the last six months. She was disheartened by what she had seen. She did not need to hear someone from Menlo Park tell the citizens of Pinole how they should run their city. She suggested along with the other speakers that the appointment for City Manager should be deferred. She suggested Ms. Kelly did not deserve the position and the City Council needed to put a hold on a decision and say no.

Anthony Vossbrink echoed the comments of the previous speakers, with the exception of the speaker from outside Pinole, whose comments he had found to be scripted, possibly written by Naomi Kelly or a member of the City Council. He found it improper the City Council would consider Naomi Kelly as a final candidate for City Manager in such a short order of time, when normally it could take 30 to 45-days to get references and other checks and balances with regard to the candidates’ background check, especially when they were paying a consultant to do the job. Before an appointment for City Manager was made, the recruiter/consultant should provide a presentation on the recruitment process, as requested during the June 2, 2026 City Council meeting.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

Mr. Vossbrink also found the salary proposed for Ms. Kelly to be one of the highest in the area, if not in the country, while Ms. Kelly had not run a city before, and had a negative checkered past from the City of San Francisco, as documented for both her and her husband who was still being investigated. He sought a full investigation by the Director of Human Resources and the City Attorney, if not an investigation by Contra Costa County Supervisor John Gioa on this candidate, before a selection was finalized. He asked that a decision be put off for another 30 to 45-days and the City Council continue its search and keep the current Interim City Manager in the position.

Sheila Grist agreed with the comments made on this topic and asked the City Council to look for another permanent City Manager.

Stephen Tilton reported he spoke with former City Manager Kelcey Young at length and had asked why some Public Works Department employees were doing some tasks such as cleaning restrooms and emptying trash, and she had no reply but would look into it. Another former City Manager, Andrew Murray allowed a sofa to sit in front of Sue’s Place for weeks and while asked about it and was told it would be cleaned up, that had not been done, and the City had not had a proactive City Manager for years.

Mr. Tilton reported he personally worked with Naomi Kelly, as a 27-year employee of the City and County of San Francisco. He was also a 21-year resident of Pinole. He was the Captain in charge of the Sheriff Control Unit at San Francisco General Hospital when Mayor Ed Lee passed away and when Naomi Kelly responded to the hospital, took charge and ensured continuity of government, notification to the media and Supervisors and dealt with everything that needed to be done. Ms. Kelly was dynamic and in his opinion Pinole did not deserve her. Ms. Kelly managed the 17th most populated city in the nation, had thousands of contacts, whereas Pinole had City Managers who had to be prodded to bring in new businesses. He also spoke with four Council members individually, and asked whether Ms. Kelly was supported.

Mr. Tilton took the opportunity to apologize to Council member Martinez-Rubin since he had held the actions of her husband against her, and had not spoken to her because of those actions, which he found was exactly what was happening to Ms. Kelly. Ms. Kelly had not been convicted of anything but had resigned her position in San Francisco willingly and everyone who worked with her in San Francisco knew and liked her. Ms. Kelly came from a city of 900,000 residents to the 19,000 residents in Pinole, and he suggested she would be dynamic for the City. He hoped to see the City of Pinole thrive and he encouraged the City Council to support Ms. Kelly’s appointment as City Manager.

Rafael Menis suggested it would behoove everyone to be a bit more open-minded. While he did not know Naomi Kelly personally, and had not interacted with her, or been her employee or associated with her in any way, it was clear from her résumé and past experience, she was easily one of the more qualified City Manager candidates the City had seen in some time. Even given the extensive investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and various other government agencies that led to the conviction and sentencing of Ms. Kelly’s husband, as noted previously for bribery and wire fraud and other scandals, Mr. Kelly was in prison and not the person the City was considering hiring. While the situation reflected on Ms. Kelly’s judgement, she did not have criminal liability otherwise she would have been charged and likely convicted.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

Mr. Menis also referenced Page 328 of 359 of the agenda packet, and noted Ms. Kelly even after resigning as City Administrator for the City of San Francisco, served on the Board of Trustees for the University of San Francisco as part of their Investment and Audit Committee. If the university was of the opinion Ms. Kelly was of poor moral character and not able to handle her position, Mr.

Menis assumed she would no longer serve in that role, which was also a factor the City and public should consider.

Debbie Long commented on the past history, professionally and personally for Ms. Kelly. When the City Council appointed her as the City Manager, as she expected they would, she asked that the Council keep in mind her appointment was a direct reflection on the City Council’s leadership skills, for which the Civil Grand Jury Report had issued the City an “F” rating. She noted many agencies automatically disqualified a candidate for having benefited directly from the crimes committed by a spouse and there was no doubt Ms. Kelly had benefitted directly, with a family trip to China, several home improvements and loans that paid off high balance credit cards and student loans. She asked the City Council to check with the bonding agency to see whether Ms.

Kelly qualified since a spouse’s criminal or financial history may prevent the security of standard insurance.

Ms. Long also commented on the integrity question, with the role of the City Manager one of public trust. Having a spouse convicted of financial fraud and bribery should raise red flags about her own judgement, ethics and potential vulnerability. Poor judgement and the perception of poor judgement was everything. Also, given Ms. Kelly’s interactions with law enforcement with her husband’s arrest and conviction, she asked whether Ms. Kelly could oversee the Pinole Police Department (PPD) without bias. Further, she commented on the revolving door law, as part of the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) regulations, where high level executives must face a cooling off period, in which they were prohibited in being paid to represent others before their former agencies, which was important since Ms. Kelly currently was the owner of NK Strategies.

On her résumé, Ms. Kelly listed a few of her contacts and in her interview she did a lot of name dropping. The timeframe for the cooling off period was not specified, but Ms. Long suspected it could be at least a year and she asked how many future City contracts this could affect. The recruiter had stated Ms. Kelly would have to divest herself entirely from NK Strategies to become the City Manager. She asked how a successful business could be closed down so quickly before the July 1, 2026 employment date took effect. She also asked if the business was so successful, why Ms. Kelly would want to close her business and want to be the City Manager of a small city when she had served as a City Administrator for the City of San Francisco. Pinole did not have the large big city issues that San Francisco had, and she suggested this could be a big step down for her career.

Lastly, Ms. Long referenced Mayor Tave’s work history in the City of San Francisco, who had a professional relationship with the Kellys. She asked whether the Mayor asked Ms. Kelly to apply for the City Manager position or asked others, such as former Mayor Salimi, who also had a professional history with the City of San Francisco. She knew someone who worked for San Fransico who said they would not hire Ms. Kelly, and asked who she knew in the City to get this position, which was coming from a complete political outsider. She asked the City Council to not vote on Ms. Kelly’s selection as City Manager.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

Sarrah Patton, speaking to Item 4A, and representing AFSCME Local 512, stated public facing City employees provided critical services to the community daily and deserved compensation that kept pace with inflation. Without regular cost-of-living (COLA) increases, employees effectively experienced a reduction in wages, even if their salaries remained unchanged. Over time, this could negatively impact employee morale, retention and the City’s ability to attract and retain qualified staff. The COLA was not intended to provide employes with additional purchasing power, rather help employes maintain the purchasing power they already had, as the cost of everyday and essential necessities continued to rise and had increased significantly in recent years, placing financial strain on working families. The Consumer Price Index (CIP) also increased 4.2 percent over the past 12 months and showed no signs of slowing. Investing in City employees through a fair COLA demonstrated that the City valued its workforce and recognized the important role employees played in delivering high quality public services.

When asked by the City Clerk, Ms. Patton commented she was representing AFSCME Local 512, but her comments could also apply to AFSCME Local 1. She further commented that maintaining competitive wages helped to ensure continuity of operations, preserved institutional knowledge and supported a stable workforce that benefitted the City and its residents. She suggested if the City Council could find an additional $80,000 this year and a three percent COLA for the City Manager candidate, they must find a way to provide a COLA for City employees to help them mitigate rising inflation. That way should not be by requiring City employees to pay for a COLA themselves through furloughs.

PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED
Mayor Tave reported the City Council would convene to Closed Session at this time with an estimated return between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m.

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

At 7:07 p.m., Mayor Tave reconvened the meeting into open session. There was no reportable action from the 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.

Mark Zimmerman referenced Civil Grand Jury Report #2604, which was recently released about the City’s financial condition. The City of Pinole had been given an “F” rating with the key findings being the City’s annual operating deficits projected to grow significantly, eventually to $5.6 million in coming years. The City carried approximately $45 million in unfunded pension liabilities and $35 million in unfunded retiree health care. The Civil Grand Jury encouraged the City to develop methods to engage residents regarding operations to address the ongoing fiscal challenges.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

In order for the City to act on this recommendation, Mr. Zimmerman recommended the City Council direct staff to prepare for a Community Workshop to allow the City to present its financial plan to address this financial crisis, and where residents could provide feedback.

Mr. Zimmerman added that on June 17, 2026, the City would be hosting a four-hour meeting on how to implement Commercial Cannabis in Pinole. Regardless of the merits of cannabis, he stated the City had spent more time, effort and resources to engage the public on selling cannabis than it had on how to address the findings of the Civil Grand Jury Report. As requested at the June 2, 2026 City Council meeting by others, including those who spoke at this meeting, he asked the City Council to direct staff to prepare for a workshop to engage the residents as recommended by the Civil Grand Jury Report.

Jennifer Horn reported that as of today 64.12 percent of voters voted No on Measure D, and it was not a surprise Pinole voters never raised the governing structure or a lack of an Elected Mayor as a concern. She thanked the Pinole voters for their common sense, level headedness and ability to see clearly through the smoke and mirrors that was Measure D. Measure D had been a distraction from the very real and serious financial issues the City currently faced. The recent Civil Grand Jury Report found the City’s overall fiscal health merited an “F” rating in large part because the City Council for years had not prioritized the reduction of expenditures to close yearly increasing deficits, and relied on one-time funds and reserve withdrawals to deal with a structural problem. The City had been spending more than it was bringing in, with the City facing risks to its long-term fiscal ability, and ability to maintain essential public services, with bankruptcy looming large. In the midst of the fiscal morass was Measure D, which required an expenditure of $58,000 plus that the City did not have to address a concern the people did not raise.

Ms. Horn hoped this was a wake-up call for those Council members who voted to spend this money to start making the hard financial choices to keep the City solvent. A report from a consultant recommended significant expenditure cuts; but to date the City Council had adopted none. The City Council had the authority and autonomy to choose what cuts to make, but would not if the City were to be placed in a form of receivership by the state and if the court was appointed to take all action necessary for the City to continue to operate. Pinole had an untapped resource: its people, who were clear thinking and smart enough to reject Measure D and would clearly be clear thinking and smart enough to work with the City to help put the city to right. The Civil Grand Jury recommended the City Council consider developing methods to engage Pinole residents as to how to address the current budget crisis, and she asked that the City Council not just consider but to do it, there was no time to waste.

Debbie Long commented on the City’s pending financial collapse, which continued to be under the microscope by the citizens of Pinole, the Civil Grand Jury and Sierra Lopez of the Bay Area News Group, with Pinole having long-term structural deficits, papered over with one-time monies in violation of the City’s own financial policies. After borrowing from the reserves in Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/2025, the City Council was to have a plan for repayment in the next budget cycle of FY 2025/26; rather, the policy for the reserves was rewritten taking it down by 50 percent. Beginning in 2022, the City Council started to use the 115 Pension Trust to cover all new employees California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) contributions, when the trust was established only to cover the annual CalPERS increases so there would be no surprises to the annual budget. An actuarial had been procured to determine, based upon historical increases to CalPERS and interest earning on the principles, that this account should last until 2035.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

Ms. Long suggested the City Council majority was more interested in hiring more Directors and inflating the General Fund budget, which increased ongoing CalPERS contributions, by the addition of higher salary positions. She understood the City of Richmond could not hire more employees until others left by attrition since that city could no longer sustain additional CalPERS financial contributions. The City Council also did not appear to want to address the Civil Grand Jury Report, including the recommendation to engage residents on options.

As to the cuts to the budget, Ms. Long asked whether residents would be engaged or kept in the dark. She was also surprised the City Council did not appear to be embarrassed, or willing to apologize for the “F” rating given to the City, along with the ranking of Pinole as 407th out of 410 California cities. The Civil Grand Jury Report also invoked the cities of Stockton and Vallejo’s bankruptcies, as a cautionary outcome for Pinole. She suggested the City Council should count itself lucky it was comprised of elected positions since if members had been hired, they would have been fired with no letter of recommendation. She suggested the community should consider firing the City Council.

William Horton thanked Pinole voters who helped to defeat Measure D for a directly Elected Mayor. While there had been little reported in the newspaper, 64 percent voted no on Measure D as compared to the 35 percent yes votes, a decisive total. Now it was up to the City Council to take care of police, fire, parks and streets and not worry about extraneous ballot measures. He suggested the City Council would be well-served to move up agenda item 11A for consideration of the City Manager earlier on the agenda and not wait until possibly 11:00 p.m.

Bob Kopp, a long-time resident, commented this was the worst he had ever seen. He directed his comments to a member of the Council who had been absent for four meetings, who had been trying to get a different job with one of the people running for Governor and suggested this person should have been present working for the City and doing the job he was being paid for. He suggested this Council member should resign since he was not doing his job and rather using his position as a stepping stone to get into politics. He also opposed the plans to cut the budget for Pinole Community Television (PCTV). Many people were informed about City government through PCTV, which would be lost if cut.

Peter Murray also referenced the outcome of the election and the defeat of Measure D. He provided his historical perspective about Measure D, with the community having appeared before the City Council asking them not to place the measure on the ballot, although the City Council proceeded with placing the measure on the ballot, which he found to be a good litmus test whether or not it was worth going down that path. In that context, he questioned how the City Council could manage the City if it could not read the people asking it not to do something, but to do it anyway and for dubious reasons. This situation had allowed the community to organize, soundly beat Measure D, perhaps drive a new recall effort, possibly paralleling the recall from 2008, when the City did the same thing, resulting in the recall of three Council members who had done similarly as the current City Council, voting as a block and voting out two other Council members.

If the City Council did not get it, maybe those members should resign, move and allow an opportunity to get people in who really reflected the community, were part of the community and not worried about where they were going to be in the near future. He added that residents had been telling the City Council there were problems with the City’s finances for years and he referenced some contracts with outside agencies.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

Irma Ruport thanked the City Council for placing Measure D on the ballot and stated it was time for the taxpayers to decide and everyone’s voice needed to be counted. She otherwise commented as a long-time resident and someone with a Human Resources background and her husband a former retired attorney in Pinole, they knew a number of people. She emphasized Pinole had gone through a lot of City Managers but it was time to bring the responsibilities and duties to the table, and bring it out for discussion. In her opinion, the City Manager had too much authority, and thought he/she was a Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Over the years, she witnessed prior City Managers do what they wanted, place items on the Consent Calendar and voluminous agenda packets, with little time for review before a meeting. As an example, there had been a past agenda item and job opening for Communications Director in 2025 with a $175,000 salary. The Assistant to the City Manager at that time who had a salary of $122,000 got the job and her position was given to someone else in the City. There were six other City positions which totaled around $819,000 for salaries alone, not including benefits on that same agenda.

Ms. Ruport emphasized the need to control the City Manager position. The City Council was elected to represent residents and there were two seasoned politicians on the current City Council. On another matter, she questioned why City Departments were being charged for PCTV, which had not been present for the recent Pride event. She did not like what she was seeing, asked that they stop throwing three Council members under the table, with two Council members having been on the Council for a longer period than the other three. She also acknowledged the City Council should have listened to the people about Measure D, but as a taxpayer, she had a right to vote.

Rafael Menis reported on the current rates of COVID-19, Influenza Type A and RSV in wastewater in the state, which were all at very low levels. Referencing the Civil Grand Jury Report, he read into the record some of the recommended findings from Findings 17 through 26 and Recommendations 1 through part of Recommendation 3.

Stephen Tilton referenced the ballot measure for Measure D and congratulated the people who had mobilized and put up signs. He commented the City of Pinole was not the same City as it was 19-years ago when he ran for office and he acknowledged he had been one of the Council members recalled years ago. In his neighborhood of Buena Vista, the neighborhood was not the same as it was 19-years ago and was now very diverse. He recognized the demographics of the City were changing, and he understood some people were saying no to everything.

Mr. Tilton also referenced the comments made by the City’s Code Enforcement Officer earlier in the meeting related to COLAs, and who was the same person who chastised him on the phone about everything she did not do and why the PPD should be contacted and whose comments he found to be very condescending. He suggested the City should think outside of the box, where money could be spent, funds rolled over and speak with the unions. The Code Enforcement Officer had informed him she was not proactive but reactive and did not do dashboard enforcement, and he asked the City Council to think about that. Having spoken with the former City Manager about why the Public Works Department team was doing certain tasks, such as cleaning restrooms, and while he was unaware of any neighbor who used PCTV, he agreed with the comments raised by Ms. Long. He otherwise thanked the Interim City Manager for calling him back and listening to him.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

Winnie Baird stated she had not spoken at City Council meetings for years, but had spoken to all members of the City Council when they originally ran for office. The current City Council had said terrible things about other members of the Council, but they did not run the City into the ground, as the current City Council had done. She also found Mayor Pro Tem Murphy responsible for much of this and stated if he were to run for office for any seat in the State of California, she would be a voice against him, loud and clear. She emphasized employees were depending on benefits, they had worked hard and tirelessly and were counting on the retirement funds, which the City had spent. She also recognized the City Council had already met behind closed doors, and made up their minds on the new City Manager, but who should not be put into the position. She was of the opinion the City Council had been irresponsible. She asked whether the City Council had a vested interest in a marijuana facility, since it wanted it so bad, when other areas had such facilities that could be patronized. While she supported marijuana for medical purposes, she found the City Council was not being fair, they were voted on by the people, but were doing what they wanted and not what the people wanted.

7. REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Mayor Report
Mayor Tave congratulated the 2026 graduates of Pinole Valley High School (PVHS) whose graduation ceremony he attended.

1. Announcements: None
B. Mayoral & Council Appointments: None
C. City Council Committee Reports & Communications
Council member Toms reported she attended the League of California Cities Housing Policy Committee meeting, an online meeting where upcoming legislation was discussed, and the Contra Costa Mayors Conference, at which time she was appointed to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Executive Committee to represent Contra Costa County starting on July 1, 2026.

Council member Sasai reported he attended the WestCAT Board of Directors meeting, with a public hearing on Assembly Bill (AB 2561) Local public employees: vacant positions, with WestCAT reporting zero vacancies for this year and with the Board also having approved the Proposed Operating and Capital Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026/27. He too attended the PVHS graduation ceremony at Contra Costa College and congratulated all graduates, and was pleased to see a former City Hall Intern graduate, walk the stage and receive her diploma.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy congratulated PVHS graduates and everyone who participated in the vote on June 2, 2026. He expressed his appreciation to City staff, particularly the City Clerk for facilitating local elections and he looked forward to the November elections. He also had the opportunity to attend the Fourth Annual Pride and Juneteenth celebrations, found it inspiring to see hundreds of residents and community members come together to celebrate equity, inclusion, diversity and freedom, with the strong turnout reflecting the vibrant spirit of the community.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy thanked the Community Services Department staff for putting the event together and also recognized all of the community partners involved. He also reported SMP Global Ratings had issued Marin Clean Energy (MCE) a stable credit rating outlook, reinforcing confidence in the agency’s financial strength and operational resilience, and he highlighted some of the key takeaways from the report.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy also represented the Contra Costa Mayors on the East Bay Economic Development Alliance, and was a member of the Legislative Policy Committee, which had decided to support AB 1751, Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act (2025-2026). He encouraged residents to learn more about AB 1751 and make their voices heard to their respective Assemblymembers and State Senators. He added that Togo’s and Travis Credit Union recently opened as new businesses in Pinole and he was pleased to join the new community partners at their ribbon cutting ceremonies. He was pleased to see economic growth and development in the City of Pinole.

D. Council Requests for Future Agenda Items
Council member Toms asked that staff schedule meetings for a community open house or community meeting to discuss the City’s responses to the Civil Grand Jury Report, with the City’s responses due in August, to be agenized for a City Council meeting in July 2026.

Mayor Tave seconded the motion but understood said direction had already been provided at the June 2, 2026 City Council meeting.

Interim City Manager Garrett Evans clarified the item could be brought before the City Council in July for discussion and there was time to put it on the first City Council meeting in August, if necessary.

ACTION: Motion by Council member Toms/Mayor Tave to ask staff to schedule meetings for a community open house or community meeting to discuss the City’s responses to the Civil Grand Jury Report, with the City’s responses due in August, to be agenized for a City Council meeting in July 2026.

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

Absent: Martinez-Rubin
ACTION: Motion by Council members Toms/Sasai for a proclamation to recognize Rose Marie Cutino, a long-time resident of Pinole who was turning 100-years old in July.

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

Absent: Martinez-Rubin

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

ACTION: Motion by Council member Sasai/Mayor Tave for staff to bring back a resolution and Letter of Support for Assembly Bill (AB) 2047: Firearms: 3-dimensional printing blocking technology.

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

Absent: Martinez-Rubin

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis requested a proclamation to recognize June 16, 2027 as Neurodiversity Pride Day, as shown at neurodiversityprideday.com, a day to recognize the contributions of neurodivergent individuals to society as a future agenda item.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
E. City Manager Report / Department Staff
Interim City Manager Evans highlighted Consent Calendar Items 9F and 9H, as shown on the meeting agenda. For Item 9H, the bids were in and under review and staff anticipated the approval of the most responsive bid would be on the July 7, 2026 agenda, with the hope and expectation that construction would follow soon thereafter. The second phase should go out to bid at the end of July. He thanked the City Council for its direction for the projects.

Interim City Manager Evans added the Cannabis Open House would be held on June 17, 2026, 3:00 to 7:00 p.m., at the Senior Center to review revenue opportunities within the community and he hoped the community would show up and provide feedback either in-person or in writing. He also reported that City Hall would be closed on June 19, 2026, in recognition of Juneteenth and the Pancake Breakfast and Car Show in Old Town would be held on June 28, 2026.

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
Mayor Pro Tem Murphy asked the Mayor to make an announcement to the community that this was a business meeting, with clapping and speaking out from the audience not permitted to ensure order and decorum in the Council Chambers.

Mayor Tave asked the City Attorney to clarify decorum.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

City Attorney Eric Casher clarified pursuant to the City Council procedures, Decorum: The City Council elected by the public must be free to discuss issues confronting the City in an orderly environment. Public members attending the City Council meeting shall observe the same rules of order and decorum applicable to the City Council. Any person making impertinent, derogatory, or slanderous remarks or who become boisterous while addressing the City Council or while attending the City Council meeting, may be removed from the room if the Presiding Officer so directs.

Mayor Tave explained the City Council would work through the agenda in the hopes of getting out in an appropriate time. He asked everyone to observe the decorum rules to be able to get through the meeting in an orderly fashion.

8. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMUNITY EVENTS
A. Proclamations

1. Juneteenth
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing June 19, 2026 as Juneteenth.

2. Pride
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing the month of June as LGBTQ+ Pride Month, with the proclamation accepted by Stephen Tilton.

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

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
B. Presentations: None

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

A. Approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting on June 2, 2026.

B. Receive the May 30, 2026 – June 12, 2026 List of Warrants in the Amount of $1,419,155.52 and the June 5, 2026 Payroll in the Amount of $578,159.12.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

C. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Execution of an Agreement with Contra Costa County for Coordinated Outreach, Referral, and Engagement (CORE) Homeless Outreach Services for FY 2026-27 fully funded by Housing Successor Funds.

Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Lilly Whalen) D. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with NORESCO for Development of a Permitting Compliance Program and Building Performance Standard Program, in the Amount of $63,300.

Fully Funded by the California Energy Commission Grant. Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Lilly Whalen, Kapil Amin) E. Approval of Fiscal Year 2026/27 Capital Budget and Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan. Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Heba El-Guindy)
F. Approval of Fourth Amendment to the On-Call Services Agreement Between the City and Coastland Civil Engineering | DCCM to Add Inspection Services Associated with Road Rehabilitation Project (CIP Project #RO2301). Action:

Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Heba El-Guindy) G. Placement of Liens for Delinquent Unpaid Waste Collection Charges Falling Delinquent Between September and December 2025, Considered at an Administrative Hearing on June 4, 2026. Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Roxane Stone)
H. Receive This Report Containing an Update on the Request for Bids for Implementation of Phase 1 of Fiscal Year 2026/27 Pavement Rehabilitation Project (CIP Project #RO2301). Action: Receive Report (Heba El-Guindy)

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis stated he provided written comments and received some responses, but asked why the City of Hercules had withdrawn from CORE. He noted with respect to Page 81 of 359 of the agenda packet, when looking at the example invoice, there were two expenses listed under the direct expenses subtotal for Heluna F&A and Admin Indirect Expenses of around 10 percent, and asked what was Heluna F&A and whether that level of indirect expense rate was for standard County overhead, amount for another Department, or the amount one would typically expect to see as an indirect expense level in a contract.

Interim City Manager Evans confirmed staff had received the email from Mr. Menis and staff would respond and post accordingly.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
ACTION: Motion by Council member Toms/Mayor Pro Tem Murphy to approve Consent Calendar Items 9A through 9H, as shown.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

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

Absent: Martinez-Rubin

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Conduct First Reading of Ordinance Approving Renewal of the City of Pinole’s Military Equipment Policy. Action: Conduct a public hearing, review and approve the 2025-2026 Pinole Police Department Annual Military Equipment Report, and Waive full Reading and Introduce by Title Only an Ordinance approving and re-adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy as Stated in Chapter 2.60 “Military Equipment Policy” of the Pinole City Municipal Code in Compliance with AB 481. (Justin Rogers, Melissa Klawuhn) Police Chief Melissa Klawuhn introduced Commander Justin Rogers who provided a PowerPoint presentation for the Pinole Police Department, California Assembly Bill 481, “Military Equipment Policy” Community Engagement Hearing, which included an overview of AB 481, Military Equipment, Funding, Acquisition and Use; PPD Policy 707, which detailed how military equipment was approved and acquired; PPD Policy 707 Equipment; Approval & Implementation Timeline; Annual Report – May 2025 – April 2026 and the findings to be made by the City Council to approve the item.

Responding to questions from the City Council Police Chief Klawuhn and Commander Rogers clarified the following:
• As to the use of Semiautomatic Rifles and Ammunition, officers carried this equipment while on duty on every shift. There was nothing in the PPD record where the equipment had been deployed other than during a training exercise. The PPD computer-aided design (CAD) system included an option for officers to click a military use button so it was tracked in the call log. The military equipment used was related to the use of drones, the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle (MRAP), Emergency Response Vehicle (ERV) and the Driving under the Influence (DUI) trailer use. (Sasai) • In the past, the PPD received requests to use the MRAP ERV, which had been declined and for this year, there had been no requests for the use of the equipment. (Toms) • As noted in the PowerPoint presentation, there had been no formal complaints or concerns brought forward by the public as to the use of the military equipment. In the event a member of the public wished to file a formal complaint or concern with the PPD, there were many ways for the community to file a report. The City website included an online complaint form that could be completed and forwarded to the PPD, and did not require a paper form to be filed, although there were paper forms available at the PPD and complaints could be made verbally, over the phone or in-person with any form of communication accepted. Whether comments during City Council meetings were audited and conducive to a community complaint or violation, confirmed such comments would be recorded. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

• Whether there was a way for the public to see on the City website or other means, whether a drone was being used for PPD purposes or being deployed, currently there was no method to track the drones in that way. The City’s drone program did not have that automated process in place. In the event someone called into dispatch and requested information, information could be provided. The City was looking in the future to provide a system where drones were being deployed during calls for service and ways for the public to track their flight when associated with a call for transparency purposes, but that was not part of the current system. (Mayor Tave)

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Irma Ruport asked whether the military equipment was equipment that had been donated to the City in the past, to which Commander Rogers explained he was in charge of the program when the City received the equipment, which was requested, with the City having waited two years for the MRAP ERV, which came from the military and the Unmanned Remotely Piloted, Power Ground Vehicles, iRobot PackBot510 delivered from the military along with everything that came with it.

Ms. Ruport commented when the City first received the military equipment it had been parked on the grass in the park during community events. At that time, there had been a lot of complaints/comments on NextDoor regarding children within proximity of the equipment and the equipment was later removed from the grass area during events. She also understood there was to be some consideration of co-sharing the MRAP ERV given the costs to the City to maintain the equipment. She asked whether the equipment had been shared with other cities to share costs, otherwise there could be lost income to the City. She also asked about the total cost of the equipment since the PowerPoint presentation did not include total costs, and reiterated the need to consider partnering with other cities on the use of the equipment to save money.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Council member Sasai thanked staff for the presentation. Referencing the drone system, he suggested this was a great program. He had talked it through with the Police Chief and staff, and learned there were many benefits to the program including more safety for officers and the public, reducing the need for pursuits of vehicles and creating more efficiency. The City also had a great drone policy. He supported the drone system and its use, as outlined, although he continued to have concerns with the MRAP ERV, as he had expressed in the past. He was pleased to see the equipment had been deployed fewer times than in previous years. He also understood there had been a request from Congressman John Garamendi about the use of mobile barriers, to be used anytime the City closed the streets for an event, and unsure of the status, he hoped it would be approved so they would have those public safety funds for the City.

With the militarized equipment in general, Council member Sasai had seen the effects of the presence of the military equipment and with the federal administration deploying the National Guard locally in places like Alameda, local residents were often pushed to the margins, and out of sensitivity to that, as he had over the past four years, he would respectfully vote no on the item, but he recognized the important work of the PPD.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

ACTION: Motion by Council member Toms/Mayor Pro Tem Murphy to approve the report and waive the full reading and introduce by Title Only an Ordinance approving and readopting a Military Equipment Use Policy as Stated in Chapter 2.60 “Military Equipment Policy” of the Pinole City Municipal Code in Compliance with AB 481.

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

Absent: Martinez-Rubin
B. FY 2025/26 Utility User’s Tax Review and FY 2026/27 Income Exemption Limits Action: Conduct Public Hearing and Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Markisha Guillory)
Finance Director Markisha Guillory provided a PowerPoint presentation for the Utility User’s Tax (UUT) Annual Review for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26, which included an overview of the background of the UUT; annual review; total UUT collections; gas and electricity UUT collections; Telecommunications UUT collections; update on UUT application to streaming services; UUT exemption guidelines and the recommended changes to income exemption thresholds.

City Attorney Casher added there were cities throughout the State and in the Bay Area that collected a UUT for online/Internet streaming services. Pinole did not have that ability under the current Pinole Municipal Code (PMC), but that could be considered if the City Council wanted more information for that potential consideration.

Finance Director Guillory recommended the City Council conduct a public hearing on the FY 2025/26 Annual Review of the Utility Users’ Tax (UUT); and adopt a resolution modifying the Household Income eligibility thresholds for exemptions from the Utility Users’ Tax for FY 2026/27.

Responding to questions from the City Council, Finance Director Guillory and City Attorney Casher, clarified the following:
• If the PMC was amended by ordinance, and voter approval required to impose a UUT on Internet-based streaming services, that would add the ability to tax for adding to the UUT the ability to collect from consumers a charge for the UUT for online streaming services.

Traditional cable services had been collected, but the City did not collect for YouTube, as an example. The PMC would have to be updated and voter approval required since it would be a tax measure and a two-thirds voter approval would be required. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Debbie Long understood the UUT was a nine percent revenue generator and PCTV used a lot of electricity, she assumed residents paid that tax on utility bills. She asked if that would be refunded back to the Department or offset for anything, and there could be other Departments, such as the Public Safety Building, which was also a high user.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

Since PCTV would be charged or that Department charged for their utility, they were actually bringing in part of the revenue due to the UUT, and Ms. Long asked if that was credited back to the Department, and if not why, or should it.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Interim City Manager Evans commented staff had not done specific analyses but PCTV would be getting a credit with the $480,000 subsidy.

ACTION: Motion by Council member Toms/Mayor Pro Tem Murphy to adopt a resolution modifying the Household Income Eligibility Thresholds for exemptions from the Utility Users’ Tax for FY 2026/27.

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

Absent: Martinez-Rubin

11. OLD BUSINESS
A. Approve and Authorize the Mayor to Execute the Employment Agreement for Naomi Kelly to Become the City Manager. Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Stacy Shell)
Human Resources Director Stacy Shell introduced Rachel Hall, Bob Hall & Associates, the executive search firm that conducted the recruitment for the recent City Manager recruitment and who provided a PowerPoint presentation on the City of Pinole, City Manager Recruitment Process, which included an overview of the following: step one – create a position profile; step two - outreach and recruiting; step-three – candidate assessment; step four – selection and presentation of top candidates, and step-five - background and reference checks.

Responding to questions from the City Council, Ms. Hall and Human Resources Director Shell clarified the following:
• As noted in the PowerPoint presentation, Bob Hall & Associates conducted a comprehensive background and reference check process, based on public records, Internet searches and readily available information but not until an offer letter was signed, was a background check allowed to be legally done. (Toms)

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Debbie Long restated for the record, the earlier comments she made as part of Item 4B.

Irma Ruport explained she had applied for a City job years ago and was given a lie detector test, background check and security clearance check. She questioned the consultant’s vetting process and procedures. She suggested something went wrong since it took her minutes after the interview with the candidate to check out names that were given to the community panel.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

Ms. Ruport also had a Human Resources background and it took her minutes to check the candidate’s background. She commented that one of the panels involved staff interviews, and she understood they had been asked whether they unanimously supported the candidate, and when asked the same had not been afforded to the community panel but later permitted, and the community panel had not chosen Ms. Kelly as the primary candidate. She found the candidates had not been vetted properly and questioned why there were no red flags for Ms. Kelly when the information was readily available. She reiterated her concern with the procedure done by the Human Resources Department and the consultant, and suggested the City had hired recycled consultants. She asked that the process start over and that the City Council not accept Ms. Kelly as the City Manager.

Ms. Ruport reiterated her husband was a private attorney and had a business in Pinole. He had submitted correspondence and also asked that the process start over since the process had not been vetted properly. She urged the City Council to start the process over since this was not what residents wanted and in November when some Council members possibly leave the City Council, residents would have to live with the nightmare left over.

Rafael Menis highlighted some of the points in the June 16, 2026, staff report about the recruitment process, with the City, not the consultant, having conducted an extensive background check, as outlined. It appeared the staff report had indicated that a series of background checks had been done. He was uncertain whether the City was allowed to do polygraph tests given questions about reliability. He noted Pinole was facing significant challenges, both now and over the next several years leading to around 2030 or so, and the City would benefit greatly from having an experienced City Manager. Whether that was Ms. Kelly or someone else and regardless of who the City Council chose as the next City Manager, he hoped the City Council picked someone who stayed around for the term of their contract and that the City Council had assurance that whoever was selected was willing to remain for the full term of the contract given the turnover of recent City Managers, which caused harm to institutional continuity and knowledge.

Mr. Menis also had questions based on Ms. Kelly’s résumé, specifically her work with the San Francisco Board of Trustees and he was also curious about some of the points listed under her work experience with NK Strategies LLC, and some of the tasks, as outlined, which he highlighted, and asked how to quantify success or failure in those approaches.

Mark Zimmerman suggested the Mayor recuse himself on the vote for Item 11A, since he had a prior working relationship with Ms. Kelly while working with the City of San Francisco and could not vote impartially, as defined. He suggested the Mayor should publicly disclose his prior working relationship with Ms. Kelly to ensure transparency and maintain the public trust. The Mayor previously worked with the proposed City Manager candidate as documented in the 2020 to 2029, City and County of San Francisco Capital Plan Report, and Ms. Kelly submitted the report as the San Francisco City Administrator, and in the acknowledgement section of the report, she specifically acknowledged Anthony Tave under the Department staff for the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD).

Mr. Zimmerman commented that the City Manager salary of $305,000 was $40,000 more than had been paid to the previous City Manager six months ago and more than the salaries of every other City Manager in Contra Costa County, as shown in the June 16, 2026 staff report, which paid on average 31 cents per person per year for their City Managers.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

The City of Pinole’s proposed $305,000 salary meant every Pinole resident would be paying over $16 per year, 52 times more than other cities and there was no benefit to paying more than other cities to achieve an “A” financial grade. Four out of the five cities that received a financial grade of A in the Civil Grand Jury Report paid less than $305,000.

Cathy McFarland read into the record the same written comments she presented for Item 4B.

Richard Cossel was confused how a background check could be done, how an indictment could be missed, and how there could be a failure to read the indictment itself. He referenced United States v. Harlan Kelly and Victor Makras. While Naomi Kelly had not been criminally charged in the case, she had been explicitly named as a participant and beneficiary in the mortgage bank fraud, received indirect benefits in a separate bribery fraud scheme involving Walter Wong, which involved a $1.3 million bank loan Ms. Kelly had signed, and was a direct participant in the Quicken Loan Refinance of the family home as co-owner of the residence, who had also signed the original 2012, $715,000 straight note to Makras Investors, and who signed the back-dated straight note, dated May 2014, that falsely inflated the loan balance by $200,000 to pay off her student loans.

Mr. Cossel added that Ms. Kelly had also signed false residential loan applications on October 2014, submitted to Quicken Loans that misrepresented the loan balance and concealed debts and credit card payment payoffs of approximately $32,5000 on a JP Morgan Chase Card, a $200,000 cash out request tied directly to the student loan, and a direct text from Harlan Kelly to Mr. Makras that explicitly requested the $200,000 inflation to pay off the student loan. He was unsure how all of that was missed as part of the background check. There had been other debt relief, fraudulent equity gains as part of the refinance, later payment that was excessive which covered additional obligations linked to Ms. Kelly for $17,000 for a Chase card service, and a vacation to Hong Kong, China and Macau for the entire Kelly Family, with evidence all documented that Ms. Kelly was directly involved. Additionally, she received a discount of $89,000 for home improvements.

Peter Murray commented that during the prior City Council meeting, he had raised concern as a member of the community panel about those issues and had focused on the discussion of vetting.

There was now more information that preliminary vetting had been done and a more thorough vetting process after the fact. As a member of the community panel involved in the interview of candidates, he had asked whether the City had all of the information for all candidates, and was told they were thoroughly vetted and he was unaware there was an issue. He suggested the City Council was digging itself into a hole he was uncertain it would get out of. He was able to readily obtain information about Ms. Kelly and since that time, all of the information had been piling up and getting deeper. He also commented there appeared to be connections between the Mayor and former Mayor Salimi to Ms. Kelly. He agreed this was likely a done deal but had hoped the City Council would come to reality. If the City Council could not read what was in front of it, it was more of the same as what happened with Measure D, as he had earlier commented at the start of the meeting.

Stephen Tilton thanked the PPD for the presentation earlier on the use of military equipment, which items were needed and he was pleased the City Council supported the item. He had served on the City Council in the past and was aware of the challenges. He asked the City Council to consider a legacy vote on this matter. He too repeated some of the comments he made as part of Item 4B.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

Mr. Tilton sought a City Manager who was proactive. He reiterated he was a retired Chief Deputy Sheriff for San Francisco and he supported Ms. Kelly as the City Manager. He also reported he received a telephone call this date from Kevin O’Connell, a Chief Deputy, who described Ms. Kelly as a “change agent.” While he agreed with some of the comments made by Mr. Murray and Ms.

Long fiscally, he suggested they had a chance to put into place a City Manager for continuity, who could be here for many years and would get things done. He wanted to see something developed in the Safeway and Kmart lots, vacant properties developed and wanted a City Manager who had the backs of the employees and who was respected. He spoke with some City employees, some members of the PPD and members of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD), who supported Ms. Kelly. Ms. Kelly served as a manager of 40,000 employees over multiple departments. He reiterated when San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee passed away, Ms. Kelly had ensured the continuity of government. He had seen her in action and if the City was able to hire her, it would be a legacy vote for the City Council.

Emilio Cruz, explained he was present to provide moral support for Ms. Kelly but after hearing the public comments he wanted to step up and say something. As noted in the presentation, this was the decision of the City Council and while members of the public may have sat on committees and may want to make the decision, they were criticizing the City Council for what it did and then tell them what to do. No one had the courage to sit in the seats the Council was sitting in. He had served on the Board of Education of San Francisco and had heard a lot of testimony and no matter how emotional, good public policies were made on facts, not on emotion.

While accusations had been made, Mr. Cruz guaranteed if Ms. Kelly was guilty of those things, the federal government would have convicted her. There had been a long investigation and a long trial, and while Ms. Kelly’s name may appear in the newspaper, nothing ever came to her as far as any guilt, whether in public office or in her private life. He congratulated the City of Pinole for being an extremely diverse community. He looked at the numbers and noted that Pinole was one-third White, one-third Latino, one-third Asian and ten percent African-American. He recognized that speakers were highly critical of the City Council and he applauded the City Council for sitting in their seats and having the bravery to take on the issues. He wished the City Council and the City of Pinole all the best.

Vincent Salimi stated as a former Mayor for the City of Pinole, he knew exactly what it took to make choices for the City’s future. The most critical decision a City Council could make was choosing a City Manager. He had listened closely to the concerns, and suggested in a healthy democracy skepticism was welcomed and required; however, as a public servant and as a citizen, City Council members also had the responsibility to separate rumor from facts and guilt by association. He stated Ms. Kelly’s husband had been held accountable for his actions and the federal government spent years turning the City of San Francisco inside out and had scrutinized every contract and meeting and found no evidence against Ms. Kelly, who was never charged or indicted. When the scandal hit, Ms. Kelly had stepped aside so City employees could work without a major circus, which was not an admission of guilt but a profound act of self-less leadership.

Mr. Salimi added that the City of Pinole was a City with lots of potential but faced a structural, financial and operational challenge and could not afford on-the-job training. Ms. Kelly served as a City Administrator overseeing 25 departments and a massive budget, had a law degree and knew how to navigate complex labor negotiations, streamlined Public Works and a City bureaucracy and knew how to deliver to residents.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

Mr. Salimi suggested the City of Pinole was being handed an unprecedented opportunity to hire a world class executive, who had the highest level of municipal government experience and who was ready to bring that immense expertise to Pinole. He suggested the City Council had done its job, it had vetted Ms. Kelly and interviewed her and recognized her extraordinary capability. He asked fear not be allowed to dictate the future of Pinole, and judge Ms. Kelly on her merits, character and unmatched record of public service. He strongly urged the City Council to appoint Ms. Kelly as City Manager.

William Horton commented that for a City that was having a deficit problem, a salary of over $300,000 was too much. He urged the City Council to start over, go back and reduce the salary to be comparable to the City of Hercules, which was in the $250,000 range. He suggested there could be enough candidates to choose from with a lower salary.

Anthony Vossbrink asked for a breather until the Mayor could return to the dais.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy stated this was the time for the speaker to provide his comments.

City Clerk Bell-Spears advised the Mayor was back in the Council Chambers.

Mr. Vossbrink asked why the gang of three had voted for Ms. Kelly to be appointed as the City Manager at a salary of $305,000 a year, how the salary number had come up, and if Ms. Kelly was such a great catch why had she not been hired one to two years ago, when interviews were conducted for the former City Manager. If Ms. Kelly was successful in her consulting firm, he asked why she would want to work for the City of Pinole, was it for the salary or as a stepping stone to polish her résumé as part of next steps, as prior City Managers had done. He echoed the comments from other speakers and stated for the record he was half-Asian and he took offense to the speaker who brought up race stating that people should not be judged on their color, but on their character. While the City claimed Ms. Kelly had been vetted, he found she had questionable character, integrity and other things that should be on her résumé.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Council member Toms thanked people for coming out. She noted when the City Council had its interviews with the City Manager candidate they were aware of the newspaper articles, which were not necessarily fact, but indictments were challenges, someone had to be adjudicated and this case had been adjudicated, and Ms. Kelly was not party to, indicted or convicted. The City Council based its interviews and discussions on the facts, and while there were play-by-play articles that were written as the investigation went forward, she found it unfortunate for someone to go through that, when a woman especially worked so hard on her career and was judged by her partner. She stressed that Ms. Kelly had not been indicted or convicted, she had an excellent résumé with two very strong interviews with the City Council. While the community came to a different conclusion, the staff interviews were very strong in support of Ms. Kelly and the City Council had voted 5-0 to advance Ms. Kelly’s employment. She had a lot of confidence in Ms.

Kelly to move forward and to help the City address its significant issues. Should Ms. Kelly’s contract be approved by the City Council, Ms. Kelly had a plan for the first 100-days to engage the public to work through the issues and she had a heavy, heavy load in front of her but was up for the challenge.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

Council member Toms recognized Ms. Kelly would have significant challenges in terms of what the City of Pinole was facing and would have more challenges than in her previous employment; but she would like to see the community come together and move forward as a City and get behind the new City Manager. She emphasized the need to work together as a team with the City Council, City Manager, staff and citizens.

Council member Sasai was disappointed to hear people make a mockery of Dr. Martin Luther King during this and the prior City Council meeting. At this time, he read into the record, an excerpt from written correspondence received from California State Treasurer Fiona Ma, dated June 11, 2026, as follows: Having worked with Naomi for many years, I have witnessed firsthand her ability to navigate complex challenges, build consensus among diverse stakeholders, and achieve meaningful results. She played a key role in supporting and implementing San Francisco's Local Business Enterprise Ordinance, helping local businesses participate more fully in public works projects while strengthening economic opportunity throughout the city. Beyond her impressive professional accomplishments, Naomi is a person of exceptional integrity and character. She leads with humility, treats everyone with respect, and consistently demonstrates sound judgment, accountability, and an unwavering commitment to public service.

Council member Sasai explained he was a member of the City Council Subcommittee to negotiate the Employment Agreement for Ms. Kelly. After receiving input from the local unions into consideration, the current Employment Agreement for Ms. Kelly had stricken the section around the three percent COLA, and he thanked the candidate for being amendable. He too reported the City Council had voted 5-0 in Closed Session to hire Ms. Kelly.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy thanked residents for making their voices heard and commented on the prize and value of public comment. He acknowledged making public comment was not necessarily making facts, and it was important as a community to acknowledge that part of diversity, equity and inclusion was recognizing being uncomfortable not knowing information and knowing perhaps they were using some of their bias in their commentary. He was disturbed about comments about things people were seeing and characterizing about a person they had not met.

As reported, the City Council voted 5-0 to move Ms. Kelly’s employment forward, due to the due diligence working with partners like Bob Hall & Associates and listening to residents throughout the entire process.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy advised that Ms. Kelly was in the audience and had to listen to the comments, and reiterated that what was in the media was not always fact. He was disturbed, but at the same time inspired, in what Ms. Kelly had done and he spoke to her experience in her previous world and some of the work they had ahead. He encouraged audience members and those who may not have met Ms. Kelly to meet her.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy also encouraged everyone to acknowledge this was a person who wanted to come to the City of Pinole and make Pinole better. Ms. Kelly had a world of fiscal management experience, economic experience and experience to repave roads. City staff supported her moving forward. This was a moment to consider what may be possible with someone with Ms.

Kelly’s résumé backing the work that needed to be done. He added that Ms. Kelly’s résumé, as included in the staff report, was inspiring and incredible. He supported the Employment Agreement for Ms. Kelly.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

Mayor Tave thanked everyone for their comments and noted there was not much more to say from what had already been said. Moving forward, he encouraged the community to engage with the new City Manager, have those discussions, and while they may be difficult, there were difficult things ahead. He supported Ms. Kelly as the next City Manager based on merit, credibility and her extensive experience. He suggested Ms. Kelly could carry the City through difficult times since she had done it over and over in other agencies.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Murphy/Council member Sasai to Approve and Authorize the Mayor to Execute the Employment Agreement for Naomi Kelly to become the City Manager.

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

Absent: Martinez-Rubin
B. Revised Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2026/27 Operating and Capital Budget.

Action: Receive Report and Provide Direction (Markisha Guillory) Interim City Manager Evans thanked the City Council and the Finance Subcommittee for their leadership and guidance to see the item brought forward with a balanced budget, and management staff for hard and difficult recommendations to reach a more balanced budget than in years past, which had come down to, must haves, should haves and nice to have. Even after the recommended cuts, there were still looming challenges with ongoing CalPERS retirement and retiree medical costs, and finalizing conversations with the CCCFPD. Any program enhancements or cuts to be reduced now and in the future, would mean a larger Yellow Brick Road to address now and impact the potential response to the Civil Grand Jury Report.

Interim City Manager Evans provided a PowerPoint presentation for the Revised Proposed Fiscal Year 2026/27 Operating and Capital Budget, which included an overview of the major revenue and expenditure trends; process and timeline; March, May, June 2, 2026 and June 16, 2026 budget outlooks and revised Yellow Brick Road. He also highlighted the recommendations from the Civil Grand Jury Report Recommendations R1 through R6.

Interim City Manager Evans recommended the City Council receive the updated version of the revised proposed budget, provide direction on any changes, and direct staff to prepare the final proposed budget for adoption on June 23, 2026.

Responding to questions from the City Council, Interim City Manager Evans and Finance Director Guillory clarified the following:
• Revised Yellow Brick Road, clarified the Proceeds from Sale of Property was not related to any major property sales. Property sales were not integrated into the current budget forecast or the budget proposal before the City Council. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy) • City staff had been working with the CCCFPD Fire Chief and the County to identify, rather than by contract, a full annexation, which would reduce some of the exposure of

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

contractual costs that the County ran into their COLAs, and which would come out of the property tax revenue share the City would get, which was something the County had discussed and the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) would be open to having implemented by January 1, 2027, if the City could hit the timelines. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)
• The full budget document was not before the City Council at this time. It would be provided on June 23, 2026 for final approval. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis thanked the Interim City Manager for addressing some of his questions, but he was unclear how the $830,000 value in the Yellow Brick Model matched up with the $701,000, and the various other bits fitting together. Referencing the modified attrition topic, he understood erring on the side of being conservative with that calculation, with the actual attrition value roughly double what was being credited in the budget, nowhere near enough to meet the gap in reinstating the frozen positions in future years, but something nonetheless.

As to the 115 Trust values, Mr. Menis noted originally the attempts to get down closer to zero, but it looked as if there were still withdrawals for this year, next year and following years, going off of the correction memo values. He asked how much of an impact that would have on the carried forward balance of the 115 Trust, whether the interest would be drawn down or whether it would impact the principle going at those levels. He also asked what other sorts of cuts would get to $830,000, if not considering freezing positions. He further asked what sorts of things could get the City to the $830,000 number or the $701,000 number, over time.

Interim City Manager Evans explained with respect to the 115 Trust that was covered through interest only earnings. The real goal there and depending on working with the County, if the percentage of costs for the first year of the CCCFPD contract was carried forward in the negotiations with the County, there would be an additional $600,000 in play, which ideally would then cover 100 percent of the Pinole retirees. If not, working with the Finance Director, the strong recommendation to the City Council was to ensure it was interest only and not touch the principal, and if it did, then they had to figure out something else, otherwise that principal was there for a real rainy day. In terms of filling the gap, with no other revenues coming in, it would be evaluating the staff prioritization and looking at work load, and when openings occurred those openings may not be filled at the time until there were revenues to justify it.

Kym Anderson, Business Agent, AFSCME Local 512, understood staff was asking the City Council to provide direction on the budget. In the seven years she had been representing AFSCME Local 512 and working with the City, she had seen the City add a number of management positions, which were not doing the boots on the ground work of providing City services that residents relied on. In some cases, managers were delegating their work to the staff doing the boots on the ground work. AFSCME Local 512 members could not afford to live in the City of Pinole. They were priced out when the City continued to approve the creation of management positions, and overpaid those managers in some cases, harming residents of the City by not prioritizing the positions providing those services residents needed. One public speaker this evening stated he did not watch PCTV and did not know anyone who did.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

Ms. Anderson commented other public speakers stated they watched PCTV and their neighbors relied on it to know what was happening in the City. There had also been recent surveys on PCTV that showed the same thing. She also understood the new City Manager was amendable to striking the three percent COLA from her Employment Agreement and she was glad she was open to that change. She suggested the first challenge for the new City Manager would be to look at other ways management could cut their budgets and salaries, other than cuts from PCTV and from asking employees to pay for their own COLA through furloughs.

David Snell thanked the City Council and staff for making a difficult but new proposed budget for consideration. He asked the City Council to consider employees who were presently employed as opposed to the vacant positions, and while he understood that was difficult, City employees appreciated those who may be facing layoffs, possibly being preserved before some of the vacancies were filled. He also expressed his appreciation and looked forward to the opportunity to find solutions to some of the matters facing PCTV with the new City Manager.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Mayor Pro Tem Murphy was happy to move forward.

Mayor Tave also supported that action.

City Clerk Bell-Spears clarified the action asked of the City Council was to receive the report and provide direction.

Council member Toms asked if the item would come back on the Consent Calendar at the June 23, 2026 City Council meeting, and the Interim City Manager confirmed that was the intent.

Mayor Tave thanked staff and the Interim City Manager for the budget. He looked forward to the new fiscal year, and to further discussions on several of the issues presented. He found they were providing a balanced budget which was a good starting point.

12. NEW BUSINESS
A. Approve a Purchase and Sale Agreement by and Between the City of Pinole and American Postal Infrastructure (APIF) for the Sale of Property Located at 2101 Pear Street (Post Office). Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Eric Casher, Lilly Whalen)
Community Development Director Lilly Whalen provided a PowerPoint presentation for the Sale of 2101 Pear Street, which included an overview of the background of the property; site details; continuation of Post Office operations; Planning Commission and Environmental Review and fiscal impacts.

Community Development Director Whalen asked the City Council to adopt a resolution approving the purchase and sale agreement with APFI-California LLC and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Agreement. She added the Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) would be recorded at closing to ensure the parking lot remained part of the City Hall property, regardless of whether the sale proceeded.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

Responding to questions from the City Council, Interim City Manager Evans clarified the following:
• The annual lease revenue for the Post Office had been removed from the budget and staff confirmed it was possible to place the proceeds from the sale of the Post Office into the 115 Trust without negatively impacting the budget for next year. (Toms)

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis stated he had submitted comments in writing about this item prior to the meeting.

He noted that Attachment C, Resolution 26-04, Post Office GP Consistency, the signed declaration for the Planning Commission Report, was incorrect, since he had voted in favor of the motion as shown in the March 23, 2026 Planning Commission meeting minutes, Page 5, Line 12, and asked that the document be corrected. He also asked about the potential of adding the proceeds from the sale to the 115 Trust, and asked if there was a difference between adding the money in or using the money and not withdrawing from the 115 Trust. He also asked whether there were any practical impacts or whether it would even out, one way or another.

Interim City Manager Evans would like to provide a more formal response in writing to the question.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Council member Sasai supported the item since the risk involved as time moved on could involve some repairs necessary that could be major for a 60-years old building that could take away from the City’s ability to address issues that the community had voiced multiple times about roads and other deferred maintenance issues. He appreciated Council member Toms’ idea about what one time revenue could go to, although that could not be decided tonight and he looked forward to a community discussion where those proceeds could go.

Council member Toms offered a motion, seconded by Mayor Tave to adopt a resolution approving the purchase and sale agreement by and between the City of Pinole and the American Postal Infrastructure (APIF) for the sale of the property located at 2101 Pear Street, and deposit the sales proceeds into the 115 Trust.

On the motion, Mayor Pro Tem Murphy noted that was a different motion from the staff recommendation.

Council member Toms clarified her motion was to modify the staff recommendation, as shown, and she had spoken briefly with the Interim City Manager about this.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy asked that they come back to the City Council before a decision was made since the staff recommendation was simply to approve the purchase and sales agreement and authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement.

Council member Toms was trying to address issues brought up by the Civil Grand Jury Report in terms of the City’s long-term sustainability. If the sales proceeds were deposited into the 115 Trust, that would show the City making progress in response to the Civil Grand Jury findings.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

If the funds were withdrawn again, in the same or similar amount to cover FY 2026/27, it would still go through that process.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy commented he was not saying he agreed or disagreed with the idea of moving the sales proceeds to the 115 Trust, but the City Council had not discussed it. One of the findings from the Civil Grand Jury Report was to include the community in the process of figuring it out. He insisted not moving on something that had not been discussed by the City Council yet and recommended it be brought back at a future date, whether the next City Council meeting or another date.

Council member Toms was trying to save staff time on doing another staff report, to direct funds into a place that they could direct them now, with a motion.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy asked how community input could be integrated.

Council member Toms commented she had brought up the idea before the public hearing and there was only one public comment, but the meeting was still active. Again, she was trying to save staff time and address the Civil Grand Jury Report.

Council member Sasai supported the resolution as attached to the staff report. As related to where the revenue from the sale proceeds should go, he looked forward to a broader discussion about the use of one-time revenues from the sale of properties, and possibly standardizing the process across the board.

ACTION: Motion by Council member Toms/Mayor Tave to adopt a resolution approving the purchase and sale agreement by and Between the City of Pinole and the American Postal Infrastructure (APIF) for the sale of the property located at 2101 Pear Street, and deposit the sale proceeds into the 115 Trust.

Vote: Failed 2-2-1
Ayes: Tave, Toms
Noes: Murphy, Sasai,
Abstain: None

Absent: Martinez-Rubin
ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Murphy/Mayor Tave to adopt a resolution approving the purchase and sale agreement by and Between the City of Pinole and the American Postal Infrastructure (APIF) California LLC and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Purchase and Sale Agreement.

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

Absent: Martinez-Rubin

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – June 16, 2026

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy commented that given the questions from the member of the public, and the suggestion by the City Council to discuss the sale of the property, he asked about the next steps to discuss the proceeds from that sale.

Interim City Manager Evans stated ideally it could be a component addressing the Civil Grand Jury discussion, and probably also include in the discussion other properties, owned and controlled by the City of Pinole.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy supported the idea but recommended also considering the findings and recommendations in the Civil Grand Jury Report, and reaching out to the community when making those decisions.

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

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

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

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

14. ADJOURN to the Special City Council Meeting of June 23, 2026 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

At 10:07 p.m., Mayor Tave adjourned to a Special City Council Meeting on June 23, 2026 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

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

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – June 23, 2026

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
June 23, 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 Special Meeting of the City Council to order at 5:30 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 T. Murphy, Mayor Pro Tem
Norma Martinez-Rubin, Council Member
Maureen Toms, Council Member

COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT
Cameron Sasai, Council Member
B. STAFF PRESENT
Garrett Evans, Interim City Manager
Heather Bell-Spears, City Clerk
Markisha Guillory, Finance Director
Roxane Stone, Deputy City Clerk
City Clerk Heather Bell-Spears announced the agenda had been posted on June 18, 2026 at 3:30 p.m. with all legally required written notices. No written comments had been received in advance of the meeting.

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – June 23, 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 LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Gov. Code §54957.6
Agency designated representatives: Interim City Manager Garrett Evans, City Attorney Eric Casher, Human Resources Director Stacy Shell, Finance Director Markisha Guillory and Gregory Ramirez, IEDA
Employee organization: AFSCME Local 1, AFSCME Local 512, the Pinole Police Employees Association (PPEA), and the Management Compensation Plan (MCP).

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

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

5. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION TO ANNOUNCE RESULTS OF CLOSED SESSION At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Tave reconvened the meeting into open session with all Council members present, with the exception of Council member Sasai who was absent. There was no reportable action from the 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.

City Clerk Bell-Spears reported there were no comments from the public.

7. 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. Fiscal Year (FY) 2026/27 Appropriations Limit. Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Markisha Guillory)

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – June 23, 2026

B. Call Election for City Council Seats, Request Consolidation of the Pinole Municipal Election on November 3, 2026 with Contra Costa County, and Set Specifications of the Election Order. Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Heather Bell-Spears)
C. Final Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2026/27 Operating and Capital Budget. Action:

Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Markisha Guillory) Mayor Pro Tem Murphy requested that Items B and C be pulled for discussion.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy thanked staff for the work around the budget. If Item 7B was approved, which called for around $30,000 for the election, he noted the current budget only identified an expense of $22,000 for the election. He asked for clarification from staff whether the numbers matched what was needed for the budget.

City Clerk Bell-Spears reported she had made the Finance Director and the Interim City Manager aware of the increased estimates for election costs. Typically, the City was billed for an election following the election and the City usually received that cost in April. As such, there was time to address any variance in cost.

Finance Director Markisha Guillory confirmed the City Clerk’s explanation.

Interim City Manager Garrett Evans explained the additional cost could be covered in the midyear budget update. If there was an increase of the $22,000 cost for the election, offsetting revenue would be identified to ensure the increase was covered.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy referenced the membership fees for the City Council, as shown in the City Council budget. He suggested the City could save more if making reductions in that area.

He had been the representative for the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for the past two years. A total of $250 had been provided for per diem and parking. He suggested that expense could be reduced to $150, $100 or be eliminated.

Council member Toms commented she had never been reimbursed for attending ABAG General Assembly meetings.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy added the ABAG Membership Fee was $5,500.

Council member Toms suggested the delegate expense was not needed. She had covered her own expenses and reiterated she had not requested reimbursement to attend ABAG General Assembly meetings.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy offered a motion to cut the ABAG Delegate expense of $250. Also, as part of the motion, he supported cutting the League of California Cities Membership Fee of $7,685, National League of Cities (NLC) Membership Fee of $1,700 and a $400 expense for the League of California Cities East Bay Division, which he understood was for dinners from the City Council budget, which expenses had also been listed in the City Manager’s budget. That would allow a reduction of $800 for that expense, and reductions overall would represent around $10,000 in cost savings to the overall budget.

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – June 23, 2026

Council member Toms stated she would support the motion if it removed the cuts to the League of California Cities membership, which would impact the City locally and stated the retention of that membership was important. She noted the City Council did not have to attend Thursday night League meetings but the League membership was important.

Council member Martinez-Rubin agreed with the importance of the League membership. Since the City of Pinole did not have its own lobbyist, that service was folded into being represented by the League’s lobbyist, who was doing work on behalf of the cities, especially the smaller cities.

She suggested what was not necessary was the expense for the membership for the NLC. The NLC membership was in the budget, as shown on Page 67 of 265 of the agenda packet, with an expense of $1,700, and she suggested that was a membership the City could do without.

Mayor Tave seconded the motion for discussion purposes.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy suggested based on the feedback from the City Council and due to the report from the Civil Grand Jury, the City had to cut back on the fat in the budget. As noted, and staff had affirmed, there was the possibility an additional $8,000 would be needed for the November 2026 election, which costs had been consistently around $32,000, but budgeted at $22,000. Consistently, he heard the need to cut the City Council budget, which was why he had suggested cutting the ABAG Delegate expense of $250 and the expense for the League of California Cities East Bay Division at $400, which he understood was for dinners, and which same line item and amount should also be cut from the City Manager’s budget. If both expenses were cut, it would provide a total reduction of $800. The NLC Membership Fee of $1,700 and League Membership Fee of $7,685, could also be cut from the budget, which would total around $10,000 in cost savings to the overall budget.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy stated the lobbyist who worked with the League would still benefit the City of Pinole. At every Mayors Conference each month, there was a report from the lobbyist as a standing item and the City paid membership into the Mayors Conference. The City still benefitted from educational opportunities if Council members wanted to spend their own money to attend conferences. He stated that staff had done a tremendous job and there were anticipated expenses in the next year. Making these cuts and providing a savings of $10,000 was the responsible thing to do.

Council member Martinez-Rubin commented that the monthly Mayors Conference meetings did not include a report from the lobbyist each month, but a report by the Regional Manager for the East Bay Division on what the lobbyist had been doing. If there was no budget for travel to conferences and including individual Council members’ representing the City of Pinole in Statewide Policy Committees, they were relying even more on being at the table, indirectly, as a City member of the League to be able to reap the benefits the lobbyist provided. She was not in favor of cutting the entire budget of City Council memberships in the interests of trying to offset costs and suggested the City Council should have had that discussion before this time. She would support eliminating the membership to the NLC. She emphasized the membership benefits of belonging to the League.

Council member Toms also advocated for the retention of League membership given the ability to attend League conferences, even when paying out of pocket.

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – June 23, 2026

Council member Toms added that there were a number of round tables that happened often with the League, where one could participate in a Zoom call and discuss different items that were happening, which was free and included with League membership.

Mayor Tave understood if the motion was moved, as stated, Council members would have to attend League conferences on their own volition and at their own expense. For those Council members who wanted to retain the League membership, he understood they saw the League as a primary function of a City in California, to get information from the collective and bring it back to the City and advocate to and explain to the public what was going on.

Council member Toms understood Council members would be unable to attend legislative briefings held on Zoom, as an example, if not a member of the League.

Council member Martinez-Rubin added that in addition to the round table discussions, the League also offered Webinars that were available to League members as an option, which was important, particularly if there was no travel budget. That was another source of information from an organization whose purpose was to keep Council members abreast of the latest legislation pertinent to the State of California as well as any other issues that may surface. She also noted the City could now be part of discussions as a Coastal City, which was not available in the past, and also a benefit of being a League member.

Mayor Tave understood there had been advocacy for those organizations before and there had been discussions about cutting the cost of memberships. Arguments had been made as they were now, but now the City was in the position of really having to consider cuts and he wondered if enough cuts were being made.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy pointed out he had raised the discussion about cutting City Council memberships in the past. He thanked staff for getting them this far, and he recognized each City Department made cuts to their training budgets to the extent some Departments, like Human Resources, no longer had a training budget. He pointed out the Community Development Department was responsible for economic development, and the Department cut every training, travel and membership expense possible, while the Department was responsible for the Economic Development Strategy, which relied on some of those memberships. On the other hand, the City Council had not made the same cuts. He was surprised at this conversation given there had been specific comments made by Council members Toms and Martinez-Rubin about the need to make cuts to the City Council budget, and given the recommendations from the Civil Grand Jury Report about the need to cut back. He reiterated it was possible the City would need an additional $8,000 mid-year for the November 2026 election, and those cuts would be a great use of that money.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy also commented he had attended a number of workshops, training opportunities and taken advantage of the use of the City’s membership as an agency in CivicWell, the League and NLC. He had seen it from all of the lens and while it pained him to make the cuts, they were necessary and they may have to go even further. He added he could not recall the City of Pinole receiving a Letter of Support for any League items as it related to bills and could not recall the last time anyone suggested support in that way.

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – June 23, 2026

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy reiterated the City had an association fee as part of the Mayors Conference, which was an important opportunity for League representatives to provide updates.

He again offered the motion to provide responsible cuts.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Murphy/Mayor Tave to cut the ABAG Delegate expense of $250; expense for the League of California Cities East Bay Division at $400 from the City Council and City Manager’s budgets for a total reduction of $800; National League of Cities (NLC) Membership Fee of $1,700 and League of California Cities Membership Fee of $7,685, which would total around $10,000 in cost savings to the overall budget.

Vote: Failed 2-2-1
Ayes: Tave, Murphy
Noes: Martinez-Rubin, Toms
Abstain: None

Absent: Sasai
ACTION: Motion by Council member Toms/Mayor Pro Tem Murphy to cut the ABAG Delegate expense of $250; expense for the League of California Cities East Bay Division at $400 from the City Council and City Manager’s budgets for a total reduction of $800 and National League of Cities (NLC) Membership Fee of $1,700.

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

Absent: Sasai

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

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
ACTION: Motion by Council member Toms/Martinez-Rubin to adopt the Consent Calendar.

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

Absent: Sasai

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

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

Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist.

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – June 23, 2026

The City Council may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future Council meeting.

City Clerk Bell-Spears reported there were no comments from the public.

9. ADJOURN to the Regular City Council Meeting of July 7, 2026 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

At 6:51 p.m., Mayor Tave adjourned to a Regular City Council Meeting of July 7, 2026 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

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

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.C.

DATE: JULY 7, 2026
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Stacy Shell, Human Resources Director, 510-741-3864, [email protected] Charlene Davis, Human Resources Analyst, 510-724-9006, [email protected] SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MASTER SALARY SCHEDULE

UPDATES

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution (Attachment A) to amend the Master Salary Schedule.

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

To comply with CalPERS' recommendation, the City's Master Salary Schedule is submitted to the City Council for approval in turn each time any single MOU or Salary Plan change is brought to the City Council for approval.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The updated Master Salary Schedule (Exhibit A) includes the following previously approved wage updates:

• 2026 Minimum Wage Update, Resolution 2025-94
• IS Technician Retitle, Personnel Rule 3.3
• Interim City Manager, Resolution 2026-13
• Capital Improvement Program Manager Retitle and Updates, Personnel Rule 3.3 • Pinole Police Employees' Association Memorandum of Understanding, Cost of Living Adjustment, Resolution 2026-33

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact as a result of the City Council receiving this report.

ATTACHMENTS
A. ATTACHMENT A: Master Salary Schedule Amendment Resolution B. EXHIBIT A: Master Salary Schedule Adopted (Reso 2026-XX) 07072026

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

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

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

AMENDED MASTER SALARY SCHEDULE TO INCLUDE SALARY PLAN

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

WHEREAS, the City now desires to amend the current Master Salary Schedule to include salary plan adjustments for previously approved salary range amendments; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Pinole does hereby approve the amendment of the Master Salary Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this reference.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pinole City Council held on the 7th day of July 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 7th day of July 2026.

______________________________________
Heather Spears, CMC
City Clerk

Master Salary Schedule Adopted (Reso 2026-XX) EXHIBIT A

ELECTED OFFICIALS
City Treasurer 3,000 ANNUALLY as of 07/01/2016
Councilmembers Elected prior to 12/2024 6,750 ANNUALLY as of 01/2017 Councilmembers Elected on or after 12/2024 11,400 ANNUALLY as of 12/2024 Individual Employment Agreements, eff. 07/14/2025 Minimum Annual Minimum Hourly Maximum Annual Maximum Hourly Interim City Manager, eff. 03/09/2026 $272,950.12 $ 131.2260 City Manager, eff. 07/01/2026 $305,000.00 $ 146.6346
City Clerk $190,960.75 $ 91.8081
Executive, Management, Confidential, eff. 07/14/2025 Minimum Annual Minimum Hourly Maximum Annual Maximum Hourly Assistant City Manager $ 230,165.48 $ 110.6565 $ 279,881.23 $ 134.5583 Police Chief $ 230,165.48 $ 110.6565 $ 279,881.23 $ 134.5583 Development Services Director/City Engineer $ 219,205.16 $ 105.3871 $ 266,553.48 $ 128.1507 Community Development Director $ 199,278.43 $ 95.8069 $ 242,322.57 $ 116.5012 Finance Director $ 199,278.43 $ 95.8069 $ 242,322.57 $ 116.5012 Fire Chief $ 199,278.43 $ 95.8069 $ 242,322.57 $ 116.5012 Human Resources Director $ 199,278.43 $ 95.8069 $ 242,322.57 $ 116.5012 Public Works Director $ 199,278.43 $ 95.8069 $ 242,322.57 $ 116.5012 Police Commander $ 189,685.58 $ 91.1950 $ 230,657.66 $ 110.8931 Communications Director, eff. 03/04/2025 $ 181,064.43 $ 87.0502 $ 220,174.35 $ 105.8531 Community Services Director $ 181,064.43 $ 87.0502 $ 220,174.35 $ 105.8531 Building Official $ 172,441.43 $ 82.9045 $ 209,688.78 $ 100.8119 Fire Battalion Chief (contract for services, eff. 03/01/2023) $ 172,441.43 $ 82.9045 $ 209,688.78 $ 100.8119 Planning Manager $ 172,441.43 $ 82.9045 $ 209,688.78 $ 100.8119 Police Lieutenant $ 172,441.43 $ 82.9045 $ 209,688.78 $ 100.8119 Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager $ 172,441.43 $ 82.9045 $ 209,688.78 $ 100.8119 Capital Improvement Program Manager, eff. 10/23/25 $ 142,513.27 $ 68.5160 $ 173,296.14 $ 83.3155 Information Technology Manager, eff. 03/04/2025 $ 142,513.27 $ 68.5160 $ 173,296.14 $ 83.3155 Public Works Manager $ 142,513.27 $ 68.5160 $ 173,296.14 $ 83.3155 Recreation Manager $ 126,678.82 $ 60.9033 $ 154,041.44 $ 74.0584 Assistant to the City Manager $ 126,678.82 $ 60.9033 $ 154,041.44 $ 74.0584 Senior Accountant, eff. 03/18/2025 $ 111,712.66 $ 53.7080 $ 135,842.60 $ 65.3089 Accountant, eff. 03/18/2025 $ 101,556.83 $ 48.8254 $ 123,493.11 $ 59.3717 Human Resources Analyst $ 100,455.01 $ 48.2957 $ 122,153.29 $ 58.7275 Deputy City Clerk $ 96,809.33 $ 46.5429 $ 117,720.15 $ 56.5962 Human Resources Specialist $ 91,322.80 $ 43.9052 $ 111,048.52 $ 53.3887 Accounting Specialist, eff. 03/18/2025 $ 86,742.99 $ 41.7034 $ 105,479.48 $ 50.7113 Human Resources Technician $ 83,020.73 $ 39.9138 $ 100,953.20 $ 48.5352 Accounting Technician, eff. 03/18/2025 $ 68,753.69 $ 33.0547 $ 83,604.48 $ 40.1945 Bargaining Unit A
Monthly
A
Hourly
B
Monthly
B
Hourly
C
Monthly
C
Hourly
D
Monthly
D
Hourly
E
Monthly
E
Hourly
LOCAL 1230 @ 07/04/2022; Contract for services, eff. 03/01/2023 Fire Academy Recruit (EMT-1)* 5,493.53 31.6934
Fire Academy Recruit (EMT-P)* 6,397.76 36.9102
Firefighter 7,108.62 29.2938 7,464.06 30.7585 7,837.27 32.2964 8,229.14 33.9113 8,640.61 35.6069 Firefighter/Paramedic 7,819.48 32.2232 8,210.47 33.8343 8,621.00 35.5261 9,052.06 37.3024 9,504.67 39.1676 Fire Engineer 8,160.99 33.6304 8,569.05 35.3120 8,997.51 37.0776 9,447.39 38.9316 9,919.77 40.8782 Fire Captain 9,030.79 37.2148 9,482.34 39.0756 9,956.47 41.0294 10,454.30 43.0809 10,977.02 45.2350 PPEA @ 07/14/2025
Community Safety Specialist 6,379.16 36.8028 6,698.12 38.6430 7,033.04 40.5752 7,384.69 42.6040 7,753.94 44.7343 Dispatcher 7,254.64 41.8537 7,617.38 43.9464 7,998.25 46.1438 8,398.17 48.4510 8,818.09 50.8736 Lead Dispatcher 7,765.74 44.8024 8,154.04 47.0425 8,561.75 49.3947 8,989.85 51.8645 9,439.35 54.4578 Police Officer 9,195.65 53.0518 9,655.44 55.7045 10,138.22 58.4897 10,645.14 61.4143 11,177.41 64.4851 Police Sergeant 10,771.57 62.1436 11,310.15 65.2509 11,875.67 68.5135 12,469.47 71.9393 13,092.96 75.5363 * Monthly rate is calculated on a 40-hour workweek.

Master Salary Schedule Adopted (Reso 2026-XX) EXHIBIT A

Bargaining Unit A
Monthly
A
Hourly
B
Monthly
B
Hourly
C
Monthly
C
Hourly
D
Monthly
D
Hourly
E
Monthly
E
Hourly
AFSCME Local 512 @ 07/14/2025
Accountant 8,463.07 48.8254 8,886.22 51.2667 9,330.53 53.8300 9,797.06 56.5215 10,286.91 59.3476 Accounting Specialist 7,228.57 41.7033 7,590.00 43.7885 7,969.50 45.9779 8,367.98 48.2768 8,786.38 50.6906 Administrative Coordinator 7,984.27 46.0631 8,383.48 48.3663 8,802.66 50.7846 9,242.79 53.3238 9,704.93 55.9900 Assistant Engineer 9,131.94 52.6843 9,588.54 55.3185 10,067.97 58.0844 10,571.37 60.9887 11,099.94 64.0381 Associate Civil Engineer 10,045.09 57.9525 10,547.35 60.8501 11,074.71 63.8926 11,628.45 67.0872 12,209.87 70.4416 Associate Planner 8,463.07 48.8254 8,886.22 51.2667 9,330.53 53.8300 9,797.06 56.5215 10,286.91 59.3476 Building Inspector I 7,481.07 43.1600 7,855.13 45.3180 8,247.88 47.5839 8,660.28 49.9631 9,093.29 52.4613 Building Inspector II 8,247.87 47.5839 8,660.27 49.9631 9,093.28 52.4612 9,547.94 55.0843 10,025.34 57.8385 Cable Access Coordinator 7,984.27 46.0631 8,383.48 48.3663 8,802.66 50.7846 9,242.79 53.3238 9,704.93 55.9900 Code Enforcement Officer I 7,481.07 43.1600 7,855.13 45.3180 8,247.88 47.5839 8,660.28 49.9631 9,093.29 52.4613 Code Enforcement Officer II 8,247.87 47.5839 8,660.27 49.9631 9,093.28 52.4612 9,547.94 55.0843 10,025.34 57.8385 Environmental Compliance Inspector 7,481.07 43.1600 7,855.13 45.3180 8,247.88 47.5839 8,660.28 49.9631 9,093.29 52.4613 Information Systems Administrator 7,984.29 46.0632 8,383.50 48.3664 8,802.68 50.7847 9,242.81 53.3239 9,704.95 55.9901 Information Systems Specialist 7,646.73 44.1158 8,029.07 46.3216 8,430.52 48.6376 8,852.05 51.0695 9,294.65 53.6230 Junior Engineer 8,301.77 47.8949 8,716.86 50.2896 9,152.71 52.8041 9,610.34 55.4443 10,090.86 58.2165 Laboratory Analyst I 8,640.09 49.8467 9,072.10 52.3390 9,525.70 54.9560 10,001.99 57.7038 10,502.09 60.5890 Laboratory Analyst II 9,525.70 54.9560 10,001.99 57.7038 10,502.09 60.5890 11,027.19 63.6184 11,578.55 66.7993 Laboratory Supervisor 10,826.00 62.4577 11,367.30 65.5806 11,935.67 68.8596 12,532.45 72.3026 13,159.07 75.9177 Management Analyst 8,453.45 48.7699 8,876.12 51.2084 9,319.93 53.7688 9,785.93 56.4573 10,275.22 59.2801 Police Services Supervisor 7,783.02 44.9020 8,172.17 47.1471 8,580.78 49.5045 9,009.82 51.9797 9,460.31 54.5787 PW Maintenance Supervisor 8,717.72 50.2946 9,153.61 52.8093 9,611.29 55.4497 10,091.85 58.2222 10,596.45 61.1333 Public Works Specialist 7,520.60 43.3881 7,896.63 45.5575 8,291.47 47.8354 8,706.04 50.2271 9,141.34 52.7385 Recreation Coordinator* 6,248.83 36.0509 6,561.27 37.8535 6,889.33 39.7461 7,233.80 41.7334 7,595.49 43.8201 Rental Inspector 7,481.09 43.1601 7,855.15 45.3182 8,247.90 47.5841 8,660.30 49.9633 9,093.31 52.4614 Project Manager 7,310.68 42.1770 7,676.21 44.2859 8,060.02 46.5001 8,463.03 48.8251 8,886.18 51.2664 Senior Accountant 9,309.39 53.7080 9,774.86 56.3934 10,263.61 59.2131 10,776.79 62.1738 11,315.63 65.2825 Senior Project Manager 8,463.07 48.8254 8,886.22 51.2667 9,330.53 53.8300 9,797.06 56.5215 10,286.91 59.3476 WWTP Operations Supervisor 10,826.00 62.4577 11,367.30 65.5806 11,935.67 68.8596 12,532.45 72.3026 13,159.07 75.9177 WPCP Supervisor 8,229.19 47.4761 8,640.65 49.8499 9,072.69 52.3424 9,526.32 54.9595 10,002.64 57.7075 * Monthly rate is calculated on a 40-hour workweek.

Master Salary Schedule Adopted (Reso 2026-XX) EXHIBIT A

Bargaining Unit A
Monthly
A
Hourly
B
Monthly
B
Hourly
C
Monthly
C
Hourly
D
Monthly
D
Hourly
E
Monthly
E
Hourly
AFSCME LOCAL 1 @ 07/14/2025
Accounting Assistant I 3,553.54 20.5012 3,731.22 21.5263 3,917.78 22.6026 4,113.67 23.7327 4,319.35 24.9193 Accounting Assistant II 3,845.44 22.1852 4,037.71 23.2945 4,239.59 24.4592 4,451.57 25.6821 4,674.15 26.9663 Accounting Technician 5,729.47 33.0546 6,015.94 34.7074 6,316.74 36.4427 6,632.58 38.2649 6,964.21 40.1781 Administrative Assistant 6,364.37 36.7175 6,682.59 38.5534 7,016.72 40.4811 7,367.55 42.5051 7,735.93 44.6304 Cable Access Technician 6,460.97 37.2748 6,784.02 39.1386 7,123.22 41.0955 7,479.38 43.1503 7,853.35 45.3078 Community Service Officer 6,254.26 36.0823 6,566.98 37.8864 6,895.32 39.7807 7,240.09 41.7698 7,602.10 43.8582 Cook* 3,758.20 21.6819 3,946.11 22.7660 4,143.41 23.9043 4,350.58 25.0995 4,568.11 26.3545 Custodian 3,359.30 19.3806 3,527.27 20.3496 3,703.63 21.3671 3,888.81 22.4355 4,083.25 23.5572 Field Maintenance Mechanic 6,124.51 35.3337 6,430.73 37.1004 6,752.27 38.9554 7,089.88 40.9032 7,444.38 42.9483 Fleet Maintenance Mechanic 6,948.53 40.0877 7,295.96 42.0921 7,660.76 44.1967 8,043.80 46.4065 8,445.99 48.7268 Food Services Specialist 5,152.61 29.7266 5,410.24 31.2129 5,680.75 32.7736 5,964.79 34.4123 6,263.03 36.1329 Information Systems Assistant (formerly IS Technician I) 3,619.64 20.8825 3,800.62 21.9267 3,990.65 23.0230 4,190.18 24.1741 4,399.69 25.3828 Information Technology Technician (formerly IS Technician II), eff. 02/16/26 6,579.87 37.9608 6,908.87 39.8588 7,254.31 41.8518 7,617.03 43.9444 7,997.88 46.1416 Laboratory Technician I 6,853.38 39.5387 7,196.04 41.5156 7,555.85 43.5914 7,933.64 45.7710 8,330.32 48.0595 Laboratory Technician II 7,555.84 43.5914 7,933.64 45.7710 8,330.32 48.0595 8,746.83 50.4625 9,184.17 52.9856 Lead Records & Property Specialist 5,917.51 34.1395 6,213.38 35.8464 6,524.05 37.6388 6,850.26 39.5207 7,192.77 41.4967 Office Assistant 5,046.63 29.1152 5,298.96 30.5710 5,563.91 32.0995 5,842.11 33.7045 6,134.21 35.3897 Permit Technician I 5,990.05 34.5580 6,289.55 36.2859 6,604.03 38.1002 6,934.23 40.0052 7,280.94 42.0054 Permit Technician II 6,604.03 38.1002 6,934.23 40.0052 7,280.94 42.0054 7,644.99 44.1057 8,027.24 46.3110 Permit Technician III 7,280.94 42.0054 7,644.98 44.1057 8,027.23 46.3109 8,428.59 48.6265 8,850.02 51.0578 Police Property Specialist 6,569.03 37.8982 6,897.48 39.7932 7,242.35 41.7828 7,604.47 43.8720 7,984.70 46.0656 Police Records Specialist 5,368.15 30.9701 5,636.56 32.5186 5,918.39 34.1445 6,214.31 35.8518 6,525.02 37.6444 PW Maintenance Worker Assistant 4,873.65 28.1172 5,117.34 29.5231 5,373.20 30.9993 5,641.86 32.5492 5,923.96 34.1767 PW Maintenance Worker 5,641.85 32.5491 5,923.94 34.1766 6,220.14 35.8854 6,531.14 37.6797 6,857.70 39.5637 PW Senior Maintenance Worker 6,126.30 35.3440 6,432.61 37.1112 6,754.24 38.9668 7,091.96 40.9151 7,446.55 42.9609 Recreation Activities Specialist* 5,151.88 29.7224 5,409.47 31.2085 5,679.95 32.7689 5,963.94 34.4074 6,262.14 36.1277 Wastewater Operator in Training 6,067.40 35.0043 6,370.77 36.7545 6,689.31 38.5922 7,023.78 40.5218 7,374.97 42.5479 Wastewater Operator 8,410.96 48.5248 8,831.51 50.9510 9,273.08 53.4986 9,736.74 56.1735 10,223.58 58.9822 Wastewater Senior Operator 9,475.04 54.6637 9,948.80 57.3969 10,446.24 60.2667 10,968.55 63.2801 11,516.98 66.4441 Wastewater Maintenance Mechanic 7,093.00 40.9212 7,447.65 42.9672 7,820.03 45.1156 8,211.03 47.3714 8,621.59 49.7399 Wastewater Sr. Maintenance Mechanic 8,377.05 48.3292 8,795.91 50.7456 9,235.70 53.2829 9,697.49 55.9470 10,182.36 58.7444 * Monthly rate is calculated on a 40-hour workweek.

Master Salary Schedule Adopted (Reso 2026-XX) EXHIBIT A

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

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.D.

DATE: JULY 7, 2026
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Justin Rogers, Police Commander, 510-724-8946, [email protected] Melissa Klawuhn, Acting City Manager/Police Chief, [email protected] SUBJECT: PINOLE POLICE DEPARTMENT PURCHASE OF SAFETY EQUIPMENT

FROM THE SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE FUND AND

ONE VEHICLE FROM THE EQUIPMENT RESERVE FUND

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to execute the following purchases for the Pinole Police Department:

1. 28 Safariland AMP-1X Tactical Helmets and 28 Avon C50 First Responder Air Purifying Respirator (APR) Kits from Curtis Blue Line (CBL Dublin) in the amount of $73,494.50 (including estimated tax and shipping); and

2. One (1) 2026 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 SSV 4WD Crew Cab from Winner Chevrolet / Elk Grove Auto Group under California State Contract No. 1-22-23-20D in the amount of $54,363.29 (including tax and fees).

BACKGROUND
The Pinole Police Department requests City Council approval to purchase protective equipment and a patrol vehicle to support the department's operational readiness and officer safety.

The protective equipment consists of 28 Safariland AMP-1X high-cut tactical helmets and 28 Avon C50 First Responder Air Purifying Respirator (APR) kits. Each APR kit includes clear and sunlight outsert assemblies, a CBRN canister, a riot agent canister, a universal carrier, and a storage face form. This equipment is essential for equipping officers for critical incident response, including civil unrest and hazardous materials incidents.

The patrol vehicle is a 2026 Chevrolet Silverado 1500, configured as a Special Service Vehicle (SSV) with a 5.3L EcoTec3 V8 engine, 4WD, Crew Cab, and law enforcement-specific features, including the Special Service Package, LED pillar-mounted spotlamps, surveillancemode interior and exterior lighting, and taillamp flashers. The vehicle will support administrative and community outreach functions. The police department currently does not have a full-size truck.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS

Tactical Helmets
The Pinole Police Department's current tactical helmets are Level IIIa ballistic helmets purchased before 2017. Ballistic helmets carry a manufacturer-recommended service life of five years, meaning the department's current helmets have exceeded their rated service life by several years. Continued use of expired protective equipment creates significant officer safety and liability concerns, as the structural integrity and ballistic protection of aged helmets cannot be guaranteed.

The replacement helmets — Safariland AMP-1X High-Cut ACH helmets — provide current Level IIIa ballistic protection and include rails, NVG mounting studs, and bungee retention systems. The high-cut design improves compatibility with communication devices and situational awareness. Purchasing 28 helmets will ensure all sworn personnel are equipped with compliant, in-service protective headgear.

Air Purifying Respirators (APRs)
The Pinole Police Department currently has no APRs in its inventory, leaving officers without respiratory protection during patrol activities or critical incidents. The Avon C50 First Responder APR Kit provides officers with protection against chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) agents, as well as riot control agents commonly encountered during civil unrest.

The need for APRs is in several operational areas. During routine patrol, officers may encounter hazardous materials incidents or environments requiring respiratory protection.

Officers need APRs at certain crime scenes to protect themselves from hazardous chemicals, airborne toxins, biohazards, and unknown environmental risks while safely preserving the integrity of the scene. During protests or civil unrest, the ability to deploy in a chemically contaminated environment is essential for officer safety and effective crowd management.

Additionally, the department participates in regional mutual aid responses, where APRs are standard required equipment for personnel deployed to CBRN incidents, protest response, or other hazardous environments.

Each Avon C50 kit includes the C50 Air Purifying Respirator (APR), clear and sunlight outsert assemblies, a CBRN canister, a riot agent canister, a universal carrier, and a storage faceform — providing a complete, field-ready solution for each officer. Equipping all 28 sworn personnel closes a critical gap in the department's protective equipment inventory.

Administrative Patrol Vehicle — 2026 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 SSV The 2026 Chevrolet Silverado 1500, configured as a Special Service Vehicle (SSV), will serve as an administrative and multipurpose vehicle for the Pinole Police Department. The vehicle will be assigned to the Support Commander and will be used for administrative duties, deployment to scenes, and operational support functions.

The truck's utility extends to several departmental functions. It will serve as the primary tow vehicle for the department's DUI Trailer, enabling deployment to sobriety checkpoints and other traffic safety events throughout the City. The vehicle will also be available to the Community Outreach Unit for transporting equipment and materials to and from community events, programs, and outreach activities.

The Silverado SSV is configured with law-enforcement-specific features, including a 5.3L

EcoTec3 V8 engine, 4WD Special Service Package, LED pillar-mounted spot lamps, surveillance-mode lighting, and taillamp flashers, making it suitable for both administrative use and operational deployment as needed. Procurement under California State Contract No. 1- 22-23-20D ensures competitive pricing and compliance with the City's procurement policy.

FISCAL IMPACT
Helmets and Air Purifying Respirators — $73,494.50, funded from the Supplemental Law Enforcement Service Fund (206).
2026 Chevrolet Silverado SSV — $54,363.29, funded from the Equipment Reserve Fund (160).

Total Appropriation: $127,857.79

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
B. APRs and Helmet quote
C. Silverado SSV Winner Chevrolet

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-___

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

CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF

SAFETY EQUIPMENT AND AN ADMINISTRATIVE PATROL VEHICLE FOR THE

PINOLE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR A FUNDING AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $127,857.79
WHEREAS, the City of Pinole is committed to the safety and operational readiness of the Pinole Police Department; and
WHEREAS, the Pinole Police Department's current tactical helmets were purchased prior to 2017 and have exceeded their manufacturer-recommended five-year service life, and their continued use presents officer safety and liability concerns; and WHEREAS, the Police Department currently has no air purifying respirators in its inventory, leaving officers without respiratory protection during patrol activities, at crime scenes, when deployed to incidents of civil unrest, chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) incidents, and during mutual aid deployments; and WHEREAS, the Police Department has identified a need for 28 Safariland AMP-1X tactical helmets and 28 Avon C50 First Responder air purifying respirator kits to replace expired equipment and close a critical gap in officer protective equipment; and WHEREAS, the protective equipment is available from Curtis Blue Line (CBL Dublin), a qualified law enforcement equipment supplier, at a total cost not to exceed $73,494.50, inclusive of estimated taxes and shipping, pursuant to Quotation No. 388516 dated May 12, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the purchase of the tactical helmets and air purifying respirator kits will be funded by the Public Safety Fund; and
WHEREAS, the Police Department has identified a need for one (1) 2026 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Special Service Vehicle (SSV) to serve as an administrative and multipurpose vehicle assigned to the Support Commander, and to be used for administrative duties, towing the department's DUI trailer, deployment to scenes, and support of Community Outreach Unit activities; and
WHEREAS, the 2026 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 SSV is available from Winner Chevrolet / Elk Grove Auto Group at a total cost not to exceed $54,363.29, inclusive of taxes and fees, pursuant to Quotation No. 22760 dated May 29, 2026, and is procured under California Department of General Services State Contract No. 1-22-23-20D, satisfying the City's competitive procurement requirements; and
WHEREAS, the purchase of the 2026 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 SSV will be funded by the Equipment Reserve Fund; and
WHEREAS, the combined total funding amount for these purchases shall not exceed $127,857.79; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pinole does hereby approve the purchase of the tactical helmets and air purifying respirator kits from Curtis Blue Line and the 2026 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 SSV from Winner Chevrolet / Elk Grove Auto Group as identified herein, for a total amount not to exceed

$127,857.79, and authorize the City Manager to approve the Purchase Agreements and associated documents in conformance with the Procurement Policy.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pinole City Council held on the ___ day of ____________, 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 ___ day of ____________, 2026.
___________________________
Heather Bell-Spears, CMC
City Clerk

Ph: 925-269-4100
[email protected]
CBL Dublin
6723 Sierra Court, Suite C
Dublin, CA 94568
www.CurtisBlueLine.com

Quotation
CUSTOMER: SHIP TO:

Pinole City Police Department
CA
880 Tennent Avenue
- None -
Pinole CA 94564
Pinole City Police Department
CA
Commander Rogers
880 Tennent Avenue
Pinole CA 94564
QUOTATION NO. ISSUED DATE EXPIRATION DATE
388516 05/12/2026 06/11/2026

SALESPERSON CUSTOMER SERVICE REP
Brett Viboch
[email protected]
530-204-1310
Miranda Williams
[email protected]
510-268-3379
REQUISITION NO. REQUESTING PARTY CUSTOMER NO. TERMS OFFER CLASS AMP 1X Helmets and
C50
Commander Justin
Rogers / 510-914-0219
C60635 Net 30 LE
F.O.B. SHIP VIA DELIVERY REQ. BY
FTSP Standard Shipping

NOTES & DISCLAIMERS
Thank you for this opportunity to quote. We are pleased to offer requested items below. If you have any questions, need additional information, or would like to place an order, please contact your Customer Service Rep as noted above.

Safety Warning Notice: Products offered, sold, or invoiced herewith may have an applicable Safety Data Sheet (SDS) as prepared by the manufacturer of the product. The SDS is provided with the product. In addition, manufacturer’s safety and/or warning notices, instructions and information relating to the proper use and care of the product is provided with the product. All applicable SDS, safety and/or warning notices, instructions and other information provided with the product should be thoroughly read, reviewed, and understood prior to handling, distributing, using, reselling, or servicing any and all products provided by Curtis. Materials utilized to clean, repair, maintain and/or service your owned equipment, as well as Curtis owned equipment, may contain per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to meet national standards or original equipment manufacturer specifications. For other important product notices and warnings, or to request an SDS, product specifications, manufacturer’s safety notices, instructions and/or warning notices, please contact Curtis or visit https://www.curtisblueline.com/product-notices-warnings

LN QTY UNIT PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION PL UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1 28 EA SAFARILAND
CUSTOM
As Below:
1365944
AMP-1X, ACH, High-Cut, Rails, Padded
Bag, Studs for NVG, Bungees, Black
(Must Select UNITY NVG Shroud)
*Need to confirm helmet color and cut*
$1,725.00 $48,300.00
2 28 EA 70501-556 AVON C50 First Responder Kit MED
Kit includes: C50 APR, Clear Outsert
Assembly, Sunlight Outsert Assembly,
CBRNCF50 Canister, CTCF50 Riot
Agent Canister,
Universal Carrier & Storage Faceform
$625.00 $17,500.00

Ph: 925-269-4100
[email protected]
CBL Dublin
6723 Sierra Court, Suite C
Dublin, CA 94568
www.CurtisBlueLine.com

LN QTY UNIT PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION PL UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE Small Business
CAGE Code: 5E720
SIC Code: 5099
Federal Tax ID: 94-1214350
This pricing generally remains firm until 06/11/2026. Pricing is subject to change if product is affected by the implementation of a tariff. Contact us for updated pricing after this date.

Due to market volatility, global supply chain pressures, and supply shortages, we recommend contacting your local L.N. Curtis and sons office prior to placing your order to confirm pricing and availability. This excludes our GSA Contract and other Fixed Price Contracts which are governed by contract-specific prices, terms, and conditions.

Subtotal $65,800.00
Estimated Tax Total $6,744.50
Transportation $950.00
Total $73,494.50
View Terms of Sale and Return Policy

Winner Chevrolet DATE May 29, 2026
TO: Justin Rogers Quotation # 22760
Pinole PD FAN # 916876
775-450-9209 Mobile 2131 Pear St.

Pinole, CA 94564
Prepared by: Jerry Powers
(510) 914-0829
Comments or special instructions: Vehicle build and options are in additional pages.

AMOUNT
$ 43,903.00
$ 8,405.00
$ (3,500.00)
$ 48,808.00
DOC Fee $ 85.00
Taxable Subtotal: $ 48,893.00

10.250% $ 5,011.54
Tire Fee: $8.75
Fuel
$450.00
Total: $ 54,363.29
QTY 1 Grand Total $ 54,363.29
If you have any questions concerning this quotation, contact Jerry Powers at 775-450-9209 or email at [email protected]
Line 27 Silverado
Options (Refer to Window Sticker):

Delivery Charge:
**** specs with the PO or the vehicle will not be ordered. **** Subtotal
**** Please review, sign, and return a copy of the quote and **** Vehicle qualifies for a $500 prompt payment discount if paid within 20 days of receiving. ___________________________________________________
7220 Fawn Way,
Sacramento, CA 95823
State Contract # 1-22-23-20D
****Shipping charge added for deliveries beyond Sacramento. No charge for will call.**** CA Tire Fee: $1.75 / Per Tire
Tax Rate(Subject to change):

Description
In stock discount
(Order Acknowledgment Signature) (Date)
THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS!

Winner Chevrolet / Elk Grove Auto Group
Jerry Powers | 916-426-5752 | [email protected]
Vehicle: [Fleet] 2026 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (CK10543) 4WD Crew Cab 147" Work Truck

Winner Chevrolet / Elk Grove Auto Group
Jerry Powers | 916-426-5752 | [email protected]
This document contains information considered Confidential between GM and its Clients uniquely. The information provided is not intended for public disclosure. Prices, specifications, and availability are subject to change without notice, and do not include certain fees, taxes and charges that may be required by law or vary by manufacturer or region.

Performance figures are guidelines only, and actual performance may vary. Photos may not represent actual vehicles or exact configurations. Content based on report preparer’s input is subject to the accuracy of the input provided.

Data Version: 28516. Data Updated: May 19, 2026 1:47:00 AM UTC.

May 19, 2026 Page 2
Table of Contents
• Dealership Information
• Window Sticker
• Standard Equipment
• Technical Specifications

Winner Chevrolet / Elk Grove Auto Group
Jerry Powers | 916-426-5752 | [email protected]
This document contains information considered Confidential between GM and its Clients uniquely. The information provided is not intended for public disclosure. Prices, specifications, and availability are subject to change without notice, and do not include certain fees, taxes and charges that may be required by law or vary by manufacturer or region.

Performance figures are guidelines only, and actual performance may vary. Photos may not represent actual vehicles or exact configurations. Content based on report preparer’s input is subject to the accuracy of the input provided.

Data Version: 28516. Data Updated: May 19, 2026 1:47:00 AM UTC.

May 19, 2026 Page 3
Winner Chevrolet / Elk Grove Auto Group
Dealership Information
***PLEASE REVIEW THE "WINDOW STICKER," QUOTE, AND ALL INCLUDED INFORMATION AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ACCURACY. IF A PURCHASE ORDER IS ISSUED, PLEASE INCLUDE A SIGNED COPY OF THIS QUOTE WITH THE "WINDOW STICKER." BY THIS QUOTE

BEING SIGNED AND RETURNED BY THE PURCHASING AGENCY, THE PURCHASING

AGENCY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE VEHICLE CONFIGURATION AND PRICE ARE ACCURATE.******TAX IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE QUOTE PRICE. PURCHASING AGENCY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CALCULATING TAX. THE TAX RATE IS BASED ON THE REGISTRATION ADDRESS AND CANNOT BE A PO BOX. ******IF THE VEHICLE IS GOING TO BE DELIVERED BEYOND F.O.B. SACRAMENTO, ADDITIONAL COST WILL BE REQUIRED. *** Prepared By:

Jerry Powers
Winner Chevrolet / Elk Grove Auto Group
916-426-5752
[email protected]

Winner Chevrolet / Elk Grove Auto Group
Jerry Powers | 916-426-5752 | [email protected]
Vehicle: [Fleet] 2026 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (CK10543) 4WD Crew Cab 147" Work Truck ( Complete ) This document contains information considered Confidential between GM and its Clients uniquely. The information provided is not intended for public disclosure. Prices, specifications, and availability are subject to change without notice, and do not include certain fees, taxes and charges that may be required by law or vary by manufacturer or region.

Performance figures are guidelines only, and actual performance may vary. Photos may not represent actual vehicles or exact configurations. Content based on report preparer’s input is subject to the accuracy of the input provided.

Data Version: 28516. Data Updated: May 19, 2026 1:47:00 AM UTC.

May 19, 2026 Page 4
Window Sticker

SUMMARY
[Fleet] 2026 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (CK10543) 4WD Crew Cab 147" Work Truck MSRP:$46,000.00 Interior:Jet Black, Cloth seat trim
Exterior 1:Summit White
Exterior 2:No color has been selected.

Engine, 5.3L EcoTec3 V8
Transmission, 10-speed automatic, electronically controlled

OPTIONS

CODE MODEL MSRP
CK10543 [Fleet] 2026 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (CK10543) 4WD Crew Cab 147" Work Truck
$46,000.00

OPTIONS
1WT Work Truck Preferred Equipment Group $0.00
5J1 Calibration, keyless remote panic button exterior lights/horn disable Inc. 5J3 Calibration, Surveillance Mode Interior & Exterior Lighting Inc. 5J9 Calibration, Taillamp Flasher, Red/White Inc.
5LO Calibration, Taillamp Flasher, Red/Red Inc.
5T5 Seats Front cloth and second row vinyl $0.00
5W4 Special Service Package $650.00
5Y1 Seats, Driver and passenger front individual seats $0.00 6J7 Flasher System Inc.
7X2 Spotlamps Left and right-hand pillar mounted, LED $1,800.00 9R1 Decal delete, Pickup bed $0.00
A2X Seat adjuster, driver 10-way power including lumbar $290.00 AKO Glass, deep-tinted Inc.

AMF Remote Keyless Entry Package $75.00
AZ3 Seats, front 40/20/40 split-bench $0.00
C49 Defogger, rear-window electric Inc.

C5Y GVWR, 7100 lbs. (3221 kg) Inc.

CGN Chevytec spray-on bedliner, Black $545.00

Winner Chevrolet / Elk Grove Auto Group
Jerry Powers | 916-426-5752 | [email protected]
Vehicle: [Fleet] 2026 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (CK10543) 4WD Crew Cab 147" Work Truck ( Complete ) This document contains information considered Confidential between GM and its Clients uniquely. The information provided is not intended for public disclosure. Prices, specifications, and availability are subject to change without notice, and do not include certain fees, taxes and charges that may be required by law or vary by manufacturer or region.

Performance figures are guidelines only, and actual performance may vary. Photos may not represent actual vehicles or exact configurations. Content based on report preparer’s input is subject to the accuracy of the input provided.

Data Version: 28516. Data Updated: May 19, 2026 1:47:00 AM UTC.

May 19, 2026 Page 5
CTT Hitch Guidance Inc.

DLF Mirrors, outside heated power-adjustable Inc.

G80 Auto-locking rear differential Inc.

GAZ Summit White $0.00
GEZ Ship Thru, Produced in Silao Assembly and shipped to Kerr Industries (Arlington). Returned to Arlington Assembly for shipping to final destination.

Inc.

GU5 Rear axle, 3.23 ratio Inc.

H0U Jet Black, Cloth seat trim $0.00
IOR Audio system, Chevrolet Infotainment 3 system $0.00 JHD Hill Descent Control Inc.

K47 Air filter, heavy-duty Inc.

KC4 Cooling, external engine oil cooler Inc.

KC9 Power outlet, bed mounted, 120-volt Inc.

KI4 Power outlet, interior power outlet, 120-volt Inc.

KNP Cooling, auxiliary external transmission oil cooler Inc.

L84 Engine, 5.3L EcoTec3 V8 $1,595.00
MI2 Transmission, 10-speed automatic, electronically controlled Inc.

NQH Transfer case, two-speed Inc.

NZZ Skid Plates Inc.

PCV WT Convenience Package Inc.

PEB WT Value Package $960.00
QT5 Tailgate, gate function manual with EZ Lift $150.00 R3O Tires, LT275/65R18C blackwall Goodyear Wrangler Territory MT $695.00 RCV Wheels, 18" x 8.5" (45.7 cm x 21.6 cm) Bright Silver painted aluminum
$650.00
UBI USB ports, rear, dual, charge-only Inc.

UTQ Alarm, Horn Content Theft Deterrent, Disabled $75.00 VQ2 Fleet Processing Option $0.00
XCQ Tire, spare 265/70R17SL all-season, blackwall Inc.

YF5 Emissions, California state requirements $0.00
Z71 Z71 Off-Road Package $920.00
Z82 Trailering Package Inc.

Winner Chevrolet / Elk Grove Auto Group
Jerry Powers | 916-426-5752 | [email protected]
Vehicle: [Fleet] 2026 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (CK10543) 4WD Crew Cab 147" Work Truck ( Complete ) This document contains information considered Confidential between GM and its Clients uniquely. The information provided is not intended for public disclosure. Prices, specifications, and availability are subject to change without notice, and do not include certain fees, taxes and charges that may be required by law or vary by manufacturer or region.

Performance figures are guidelines only, and actual performance may vary. Photos may not represent actual vehicles or exact configurations. Content based on report preparer’s input is subject to the accuracy of the input provided.

Data Version: 28516. Data Updated: May 19, 2026 1:47:00 AM UTC.

May 19, 2026 Page 6
___ Option/package discount ($500.00)
SUBTOTAL $53,905.00
Adjustments Total $0.00
Destination Charge $2,795.00
TOTAL PRICE $56,700.00

FUEL ECONOMY
Est City:15 MPG
Est Highway:19 MPG
Est Highway Cruising Range:456.00 mi

Winner Chevrolet / Elk Grove Auto Group
Jerry Powers | 916-426-5752 | [email protected]
Vehicle: [Fleet] 2026 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (CK10543) 4WD Crew Cab 147" Work Truck ( Complete ) This document contains information considered Confidential between GM and its Clients uniquely. The information provided is not intended for public disclosure. Prices, specifications, and availability are subject to change without notice, and do not include certain fees, taxes and charges that may be required by law or vary by manufacturer or region.

Performance figures are guidelines only, and actual performance may vary. Photos may not represent actual vehicles or exact configurations. Content based on report preparer’s input is subject to the accuracy of the input provided.

Data Version: 28516. Data Updated: May 19, 2026 1:47:00 AM UTC.

May 19, 2026 Page 7
Standard Equipment
Package
Chevy Safety Assist includes (UHY) Automatic Emergency Braking, (UKJ) Front Pedestrian Braking, (UHX) Lane Keep Assist with Lane Departure Warning, (UE4) Following Distance Indicator, (UEU) Forward Collision Alert and (TQ5) IntelliBeam
Mechanical
Durabed, pickup bed
Engine, TurboMax (310 hp [231 kW] @ 5600 rpm, 430 lb-ft of torque [583 Nm] @ 3000 rpm) (STD) (Not available with (Z71) Z71 Off-Road Package, (VYU) Snow Plow Prep Package or (ZW9) pickup bed delete.) Transmission, 8-speed automatic, electronically controlled with overdrive and tow/haul mode. Includes Cruise Grade Braking and Powertrain Grade Braking (STD) (Included and only available with (L3B) TurboMax engine.

Requires (AZ3) front 40/20/40 split-bench seats.)
Rear axle, 3.42 ratio
GVWR, 7000 lbs. (3175 kg) (STD) (Requires Crew Cab or Double Cab 4WD model and (L3B) TurboMax engine.)
Push Button Start
Automatic Stop/Start (Not available with (5W4) Special Services Package, (9C1) Police Pursuit Package or (FHS) E85 FlexFuel capability.)
Transfer case, single speed electronic Autotrac with push button control (4WD models only) Four wheel drive
Battery, heavy-duty 730 cold-cranking amps/80 Amp-hr, maintenance-free with rundown protection and retained accessory power
Alternator, 220 amps (Included with (L3B) TurboMax engine, (VYU) Snow Plow Prep Package, (5W4) Special Service Package or (9C1) Police Pursuit Package.)
Recovery hooks, front, frame-mounted, Black
Frame, fully-boxed, hydroformed front section
Suspension Package, Standard
Steering, Electric Power Steering (EPS) assist, rack-and-pinion Brakes, 4-wheel antilock, 4-wheel disc with DURALIFE rotors Brake lining wear indicator
Capless Fuel Fill
Exhaust, single outlet
Exterior
Wheels, 17" x 8" (43.2 cm x 20.3 cm) Ultra Silver painted steel (STD) Tires, 255/70R17 all-season, blackwall (STD)

Winner Chevrolet / Elk Grove Auto Group
Jerry Powers | 916-426-5752 | [email protected]
Vehicle: [Fleet] 2026 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (CK10543) 4WD Crew Cab 147" Work Truck ( Complete ) This document contains information considered Confidential between GM and its Clients uniquely. The information provided is not intended for public disclosure. Prices, specifications, and availability are subject to change without notice, and do not include certain fees, taxes and charges that may be required by law or vary by manufacturer or region.

Performance figures are guidelines only, and actual performance may vary. Photos may not represent actual vehicles or exact configurations. Content based on report preparer’s input is subject to the accuracy of the input provided.

Data Version: 28516. Data Updated: May 19, 2026 1:47:00 AM UTC.

May 19, 2026 Page 8
Exterior
Tire, spare 255/70R17 all-season, blackwall (STD) (Included with (QBN) 255/70R17 all-season, blackwall tires.) Wheel, 17" x 8" (43.2 cm x 20.3 cm) full-size, steel spare Tire carrier lock, keyed cylinder lock that utilizes same key as ignition and door Bumpers, front, Black (semi-gloss)
Bumpers, rear, Black (semi-gloss)
CornerStep, rear bumper
Cargo tie downs (12), fixed rated at 500 lbs per corner Headlamps, halogen reflector with halogen Daytime Running Lamps IntelliBeam, automatic high beam on/off
Lamps, cargo area, cab mounted integrated with center high mount stop lamp, with switch in bank on left side of steering wheel (incandescent on Regular Cab models, LED on Crew Cab and Double Cab models) Taillamps with incandescent tail, stop and reverse lights Mirrors, outside manual, Black (Standard on Crew Cab and Double Cab models only. Not available on Regular Cab models.)
Glass, solar absorbing, tinted
Door handles, Black
Tailgate and bed rail protection cap, top
Tailgate, standard
Tailgate, locking utilizes same key as ignition and door (Removed when (QT5) EZ Lift power lock and release tailgate is ordered.)
Tailgate, gate function manual, no EZ Lift
Entertainment
Audio system, Chevrolet Infotainment 3 system 7" diagonal HD color touchscreen, AM/FM stereo, Bluetooth audio streaming for 2 active devices, voice command pass-through to phone, Wireless Apple CarPlay and Wireless Android Auto compatibility (STD)
Sirius XM, delete (Can be upgraded to (U2K) SiriusXM.)
Audio system feature, 6-speaker system (Requires Crew Cab or Double Cab model.) Wireless phone projection for Apple CarPlay and Android Auto Bluetooth for phone, connectivity to vehicle infotainment system Wi-Fi Hotspot capable (Terms and limitations apply. See onstar.com or dealer for details.) Interior
Seats, front 40/20/40 split-bench with covered armrest storage and under-seat storage (lockable) (STD) Seat trim, Vinyl

Winner Chevrolet / Elk Grove Auto Group
Jerry Powers | 916-426-5752 | [email protected]
Vehicle: [Fleet] 2026 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (CK10543) 4WD Crew Cab 147" Work Truck ( Complete ) This document contains information considered Confidential between GM and its Clients uniquely. The information provided is not intended for public disclosure. Prices, specifications, and availability are subject to change without notice, and do not include certain fees, taxes and charges that may be required by law or vary by manufacturer or region.

Performance figures are guidelines only, and actual performance may vary. Photos may not represent actual vehicles or exact configurations. Content based on report preparer’s input is subject to the accuracy of the input provided.

Data Version: 28516. Data Updated: May 19, 2026 1:47:00 AM UTC.

May 19, 2026 Page 9
Interior
Seat adjuster, driver 4-way manual
Seat adjuster, passenger 4-way manual
Seat, rear 60/40 folding bench (folds up), 3-passenger (includes child seat top tether anchor) (Requires Crew Cab or Double Cab model.)
Floor covering, rubberized-vinyl (Not available with LPO floor liners.) Steering wheel, urethane
Steering column, Tilt-Wheel, manual with wheel locking security feature Steering column lock, electrical
Instrument cluster, 6-gauge cluster featuring speedometer, fuel level, engine temperature, tachometer, voltage and oil pressure
Driver Information Center, 3.5" diagonal monochromatic display Exterior Temperature Display located in radio display
Compass located in instrument cluster
Window, power front, drivers express up/down
Window, power front, passenger express down
Windows, power rear, express down (Not available with Regular Cab models.) Door locks, power
Remote Keyless Entry, with 2 transmitters
Cruise control, electronic with set and resume speed, steering wheel-mounted Power outlet, front auxiliary, 12-volt
USB Ports, 2, Charge/Data ports located on instrument panel Air conditioning, single-zone manual
Air vents, rear, heating/cooling (Not available on Regular Cab models.) Mirror, inside rearview, manual tilt
Assist handles front A-pillar mounted for driver and passenger, rear B-pillar mounted Safety-Mechanical
Automatic Emergency Braking
Front Pedestrian Braking
StabiliTrak, stability control system with Proactive Roll Avoidance and traction control, includes electronic trailer sway control and hill start assist
Safety-Exterior
Daytime Running Lamps with automatic exterior lamp control

Winner Chevrolet / Elk Grove Auto Group
Jerry Powers | 916-426-5752 | [email protected]
Vehicle: [Fleet] 2026 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (CK10543) 4WD Crew Cab 147" Work Truck ( Complete ) This document contains information considered Confidential between GM and its Clients uniquely. The information provided is not intended for public disclosure. Prices, specifications, and availability are subject to change without notice, and do not include certain fees, taxes and charges that may be required by law or vary by manufacturer or region.

Performance figures are guidelines only, and actual performance may vary. Photos may not represent actual vehicles or exact configurations. Content based on report preparer’s input is subject to the accuracy of the input provided.

Data Version: 28516. Data Updated: May 19, 2026 1:47:00 AM UTC.

May 19, 2026 Page 10
Safety-Interior
Airbags, Dual-stage frontal airbags for driver and front outboard passenger; Seat-mounted side-impact airbags for driver and front outboard passenger; Head-curtain airbags for front and rear outboard seating positions; Includes front outboard Passenger Sensing System for frontal outboard passenger airbag (Always use seat belts and child restraints. Children are safer when properly secured in a rear seat in the appropriate child restraint. See the Owner's Manual for more information.) OnStar services capable (See onstar.com for details and limitations. Services vary by model. Service plan required.)
OnStar Basics (OnStar Fleet Basics for Fleet) Drive confidently with core OnStar services including remote commands, built-in voice assistance, real-time traffic and navigation, and Automatic Crash Response to help if you're in need. (Requires (UE1) OnStar. OnStar Basics includes remote commands, Navigation, Voice Assistance, and Automatic Crash Response, for eligible vehicles with compatible software. OnStar Basics is standard for 8 years; OnStar plan, working electrical system, cell reception and GPS signal required. OnStar links to emergency services. Service coverage varies with conditions and location. Service availability, features and functionality vary by device and software version. See onstar.com for details and limitations.) HD Rear Vision Camera
Lane Keep Assist with Lane Departure Warning
Following Distance Indicator
Forward Collision Alert
Rear Seat Reminder (Requires Crew Cab or Double Cab model.) Rear Seat Belt Indicator (Requires Crew Cab or Double Cab model.) Teen Driver a configurable feature that lets you activate customizable vehicle settings associated with a key fob, to help encourage safe driving behavior. It can limit certain available vehicle features, and it prevents certain safety systems from being turned off. An in-vehicle report card gives you information on driving habits and helps you to continue to coach your new driver
Buckle to Drive prevents vehicle from being shifted out of Park until driver seat belt is fastened; times out after 20 seconds and encourages seat belt use, can be turned on and off in Settings menu Tire Pressure Monitoring System, auto learn includes Tire Fill Alert (does not apply to spare tire)

Winner Chevrolet / Elk Grove Auto Group
Jerry Powers | 916-426-5752 | [email protected]
Vehicle: [Fleet] 2026 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (CK10543) 4WD Crew Cab 147" Work Truck ( Complete ) This document contains information considered Confidential between GM and its Clients uniquely. The information provided is not intended for public disclosure. Prices, specifications, and availability are subject to change without notice, and do not include certain fees, taxes and charges that may be required by law or vary by manufacturer or region.

Performance figures are guidelines only, and actual performance may vary. Photos may not represent actual vehicles or exact configurations. Content based on report preparer’s input is subject to the accuracy of the input provided.

Data Version: 28516. Data Updated: May 19, 2026 1:47:00 AM UTC.

May 19, 2026 Page 11

WARRANTY
Warranty Note: <<< Preliminary 2026 Warranty >>>
Basic Years: 3
Basic Miles/km: 36,000
Drivetrain Years: 5
Drivetrain Miles/km: 60,000
Drivetrain Note: Silverado TurboMax^TM engines, 3.0L & 6.6L Duramax® Turbo-Diesel engines, and certain commercial, government, and qualified fleet vehicles: 5 years/100,000 miles Corrosion Years (Rust-Through): 6
Corrosion Years: 3
Corrosion Miles/km (Rust-Through): 100,000
Corrosion Miles/km: 36,000
Roadside Assistance Years: 5
Roadside Assistance Miles/km: 60,000
Roadside Assistance Note: Silverado TurboMax^TM engines, 3.0L & 6.6L Duramax® Turbo-Diesel engines, and certain commercial, government, and qualified fleet vehicles: 5 years/100,000 miles Maintenance Note: First Visit: 12 Months/12,000 Miles

Winner Chevrolet / Elk Grove Auto Group
Jerry Powers | 916-426-5752 | [email protected]
Vehicle: [Fleet] 2026 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (CK10543) 4WD Crew Cab 147" Work Truck ( Complete ) This document contains information considered Confidential between GM and its Clients uniquely. The information provided is not intended for public disclosure. Prices, specifications, and availability are subject to change without notice, and do not include certain fees, taxes and charges that may be required by law or vary by manufacturer or region.

Performance figures are guidelines only, and actual performance may vary. Photos may not represent actual vehicles or exact configurations. Content based on report preparer’s input is subject to the accuracy of the input provided.

Data Version: 28516. Data Updated: May 19, 2026 1:47:00 AM UTC.

May 19, 2026 Page 12
Technical Specifications
Powertrain
Transmission
Drivetrain Four Wheel Drive Trans Order Code MI2
Trans Type 10 Trans Description Cont. Automatic
Trans Description Cont. Again N/A First Gear Ratio (:1) 4.70 Second Gear Ratio (:1) 2.99 Third Gear Ratio (:1) 2.15
Fourth Gear Ratio (:1) 1.77 Fifth Gear Ratio (:1) 1.52
Sixth Gear Ratio (:1) 1.28 Reverse Ratio (:1) 4.87
Clutch Size N/A Trans Power Take Off N/A
Final Drive Axle Ratio (:1) N/A Transfer Case Model N/A Transfer Case Gear Ratio (:1), High N/A Transfer Case Gear Ratio (:1), Low N/A Transfer Case Power Take Off N/A Seventh Gear Ratio (:1) 1.00 Eighth Gear Ratio (:1) 0.85 Ninth Gear Ratio (:1) 0.69
Tenth Gear Ratio (:1) 0.64
Mileage
EPA Fuel Economy Est - Hwy 19 MPG Cruising Range - City 360.00 mi EPA Fuel Economy Est - City 15 MPG Fuel Economy Est-Combined 16 MPG Cruising Range - Hwy 456.00 mi Estimated Battery Range N/A Engine
Engine Order Code L84 Engine Type Gas V8
Displacement 5.3L/325 Fuel System Direct Injection
SAE Net Horsepower @ RPM 355 @ 5600 SAE Net Torque @ RPM 383 @ 4100 Engine Oil Cooler N/A
Electrical
Cold Cranking Amps @ 0° F (Primary) 730 Cold Cranking Amps @ 0° F (2nd) N/A Cold Cranking Amps @ 0° F (3rd) N/A Maximum Alternator Capacity (amps) 220 Cooling System
Total Cooling System Capacity N/A

Winner Chevrolet / Elk Grove Auto Group
Jerry Powers | 916-426-5752 | [email protected]
Vehicle: [Fleet] 2026 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (CK10543) 4WD Crew Cab 147" Work Truck ( Complete ) This document contains information considered Confidential between GM and its Clients uniquely. The information provided is not intended for public disclosure. Prices, specifications, and availability are subject to change without notice, and do not include certain fees, taxes and charges that may be required by law or vary by manufacturer or region.

Performance figures are guidelines only, and actual performance may vary. Photos may not represent actual vehicles or exact configurations. Content based on report preparer’s input is subject to the accuracy of the input provided.

Data Version: 28516. Data Updated: May 19, 2026 1:47:00 AM UTC.

May 19, 2026 Page 13
Powertrain
Traction Battery
Usable/net Traction Battery Capacity
(kWh)
N/A Gross Traction Battery Capacity (kWh) N/A
Vehicle
Emissions
Tons/yr of CO2 Emissions @ 15K mi/year 9 (2025) EPA Greenhouse Gas Score 3 Chassis
Weight Information
Standard Weight - Front 0.00 lbs Standard Weight - Rear 0.00 lbs Base Curb Weight N/A Gross Axle Wt Rating - Front 3800 lbs Gross Axle Wt Rating - Rear 3800 lbs Curb Weight - Front 2845 lbs Curb Weight - Rear 1981 lbs Option Weight - Front 0.00 lbs Option Weight - Rear 0.00 lbs Reserve Axle Capacity - Front 955.00 lbs Reserve Axle Capacity - Rear 1819.00 lbs As Spec'd Curb Weight 4826.00 lbs As Spec'd Payload 2274.00 lbs Maximum Payload Capacity 2274.00 lbs Gross Combined Wt Rating 15000 lbs Gross Axle Weight Rating 7600.00 lbs Curb Weight 4826.00 lbs Reserve Axle Capacity 2774.00 lbs Total Option Weight 0.00 lbs Payload Weight Front 0 lbs Payload Weight Rear 0 lbs Gross Vehicle Weight Rating 7100.00 lbs Trailering
Dead Weight Hitch - Max Trailer Wt. 5000 lbs Dead Weight Hitch - Max Tongue Wt. 500 lbs Wt Distributing Hitch - Max Trailer Wt. 9400 lbs Wt Distributing Hitch - Max Tongue Wt. 940 lbs Fifth Wheel Hitch - Max Trailer Wt. 9000 lbs Fifth Wheel Hitch - Max Tongue Wt. 2250 lbs Maximum Trailering Capacity 9400 lbs
Frame
Frame Type Box Ladder Sect Modulus Rails Only N/A
Frame RBM N/A Frame Strength N/A
Frame Thickness N/A

Winner Chevrolet / Elk Grove Auto Group
Jerry Powers | 916-426-5752 | [email protected]
Vehicle: [Fleet] 2026 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (CK10543) 4WD Crew Cab 147" Work Truck ( Complete ) This document contains information considered Confidential between GM and its Clients uniquely. The information provided is not intended for public disclosure. Prices, specifications, and availability are subject to change without notice, and do not include certain fees, taxes and charges that may be required by law or vary by manufacturer or region.

Performance figures are guidelines only, and actual performance may vary. Photos may not represent actual vehicles or exact configurations. Content based on report preparer’s input is subject to the accuracy of the input provided.

Data Version: 28516. Data Updated: May 19, 2026 1:47:00 AM UTC.

May 19, 2026 Page 14
Chassis
Suspension
Suspension Type - Front Independent coilover-shockSuspension Type - Rear Solid Axle Spring Capacity - Front N/A Spring Capacity - Rear N/A
Axle Type - Front N/A Axle Type - Rear N/A
Axle Capacity - Front N/A Axle Capacity - Rear N/A
Axle Ratio (:1) - Front 3.23 Axle Ratio (:1) - Rear 3.23 Shock Absorber Diameter - Front N/A Shock Absorber Diameter - Rear N/A Stabilizer Bar Diameter - Front 1.30 in Stabilizer Bar Diameter - Rear N/A Tires
Front Tire Order Code R3O Rear Tire Order Code R3O
Spare Tire Order Code XCQ Front Tire Size LT275/65R18C
Rear Tire Size LT275/65R18C Spare Tire Size 265/70R17SL Front Tire Capacity N/A Rear Tire Capacity N/A
Spare Tire Capacity N/A Revolutions/Mile @ 45 mph - Front N/A Revolutions/Mile @ 45 mph - Rear N/A Revolutions/Mile @ 45 mph - Spare N/A Wheels
Front Wheel Size 18 x 8.5 in Rear Wheel Size 18 x 8.5 in Spare Wheel Size 17 x 8 in Front Wheel Material Aluminum Rear Wheel Material Aluminum Spare Wheel Material Steel Steering
Steering Type Electric Rack &
Pinion
Steering Ratio (:1), Overall N/A
Steering Ratio (:1), On Center N/A Steering Ratio (:1), At Lock N/A Turning Diameter - Curb to Curb 46.3 ft Turning Diameter - Wall to Wall N/A Brakes
Brake Type Pwr Brake ABS System 4-Wheel
Brake ABS System (Second Line) N/A Disc - Front (Yes or ) Yes Disc - Rear (Yes or ) Yes Front Brake Rotor Diam x Thickness 13 x 1.18 in

Winner Chevrolet / Elk Grove Auto Group
Jerry Powers | 916-426-5752 | [email protected]
Vehicle: [Fleet] 2026 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (CK10543) 4WD Crew Cab 147" Work Truck ( Complete ) This document contains information considered Confidential between GM and its Clients uniquely. The information provided is not intended for public disclosure. Prices, specifications, and availability are subject to change without notice, and do not include certain fees, taxes and charges that may be required by law or vary by manufacturer or region.

Performance figures are guidelines only, and actual performance may vary. Photos may not represent actual vehicles or exact configurations. Content based on report preparer’s input is subject to the accuracy of the input provided.

Data Version: 28516. Data Updated: May 19, 2026 1:47:00 AM UTC.

May 19, 2026 Page 15
Chassis
Brakes
Rear Brake Rotor Diam x Thickness 13.6 x 0.79 in Drum - Rear (Yes or ) N/A Rear Drum Diam x Width N/A
Fuel Tank
Fuel Tank Capacity, Approx 24 gal Aux Fuel Tank Capacity, Approx N/A Fuel Tank Location N/A Aux Fuel Tank Location N/A
Dimensions
Interior Dimensions
Passenger Capacity 5 Front Head Room 43.03 in
Front Leg Room 44.53 in Front Shoulder Room 66.02 in
Front Hip Room 61.18 in Second Head Room 40.12 in
Second Leg Room 43.4 in Second Shoulder Room 65.16 in
Second Hip Room 60.24 in
Exterior Dimensions
Wheelbase 147.4 in Length, Overall w/o rear bumper N/A
Length, Overall w/rear bumper N/A Length, Overall 231.88 in Width, Max w/o mirrors 81.24 in Height, Overall 75.51 in Overhang, Front N/A Overhang, Rear w/o bumper N/A
Front Bumper to Back of Cab N/A Cab to Axle N/A
Cab to End of Frame N/A Ground to Top of Load Floor N/A Ground to Top of Frame N/A Frame Width, Rear N/A
Ground Clearance, Front 8.08 in Ground Clearance, Rear 8.08 in Body Length 0.00 ft Cab to Body N/A
Cargo Area Dimensions
Cargo Box Length @ Floor 69.92 in Cargo Box Width @ Top, Rear N/A Cargo Box Width @ Floor 71.4 in Cargo Box Width @ Wheelhousings 50.63 in Cargo Box (Area) Height 22.4 in Tailgate Width N/A
Cargo Volume 62.9 ft³ Ext'd Cab Cargo Volume N/A

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.E.

DATE: JULY 7, 2026
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Justin Rogers, Police Commander, 510-724-8946, [email protected] Melissa Klawuhn, Acting City Manager/Police Chief, [email protected] SUBJECT: ADOPT AN ORDINANCE RENEWING AB481 MILITARY USE EQUIPMENT

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council waive the second reading and adopt an ordinance approving the renewal of the City’s Military Equipment Use Policy as Stated in Chapter 2.60 “Military Equipment Policy” of the Pinole City Municipal Code, based upon approval of the Pinole Police Department’s 2025-2026 Annual Military Equipment Report, in compliance with AB 481.

BACKGROUND
California Assembly Bill (AB) 481 (Government Code §7070 et seq.) requires the Pinole Police Department (“Department”) to obtain City Council approval of a military equipment use policy by ordinance before purchasing, raising funds for, acquiring or using "military equipment" as defined in Government Code §7070 (c). Under AB 481, the City Council may only approve the policy if it makes specific findings regarding the equipment including safeguards, cost effectiveness, reasonableness of use, and fiscal impact.

On May 3, 2022, the City Council approved the Department’s Policy (identified as Department Policy 707), finding it met the requirements under AB 481, and introduced and adopted an ordinance adding Chapter 2.60, “Military Equipment Policy,” to the Pinole Municipal Code (Ord. 2022-02).

Once the Department obtains approval for a military equipment use policy, AB 481 requires the Department to submit an annual military equipment report to the City Council for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The Department must also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on its internet website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. Additionally, the City Council must review the ordinance it has adopted that approves the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment at least annually and vote on whether to renew the ordinance at a regular meeting. During the review process, the City Council must determine, based on the military equipment report, whether each type of military equipment in the report has complied with the standards for approval set forth in Government Code sections 7071(d)(1) and 7071(e)(2). The City Council most recently approved and reaffirmed the Department’s Policy on July 17, 2025 (Ord. 2025-02).

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
In compliance with the Government Code, the Department’s annual use report and policy were released to the community via the Department’s website on May 26, 2026, and provided to City Council. On June 16, 2026, at a regularly scheduled City Council Meeting, the Department held a well-publicized, conveniently located public meeting where the general public could discuss and ask questions about the annual military equipment report and the law enforcement agency’s funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment. After review and consideration, three councilmembers voted affirmatively, and one councilmember voted against approval of the annual report and introduction by title only of the proposed ordinance approving and renewing Chapter 2.60 to the Pinole Municipal Code adopting the Policy in compliance with AB 481.

By this ordinance, the Department seeks City Council 1) approval of its 2025-2026 annual military equipment report, 2) authority to purchase COLT AR/M4 ammunition and FN 303 MK2 projectiles to replenish training and duty inventory, and 3) renewal of Pinole Police Department Policy 707, upon a finding that the report complies with the approval standards set forth in Government Code sections 7071(d)(1) and 7071(e)(2). If approved on second reading, the ordinance and policy will take effect in thirty (30) days.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact from the adoption of the ordinance.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Ordinance
B. Staff Report dated June 16, 2026

ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XXXX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PINOLE APPROVING AND RE-ADOPTING A MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY AS STATED IN CHAPTER 2.60 “MILITARY EQUIPMENT POLICY” OF THE PINOLE MUNICIPAL CODE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ASSEMBLY BILL 481 (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7070, et. seq.) WHEREAS, on September 30, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 481 relating to the use of military equipment by California law enforcement agencies; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 481 seeks to provide transparency, oversight, and an opportunity for meaningful public input on decisions regarding whether and how military equipment is funded, acquired, or used by law enforcement agencies; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 481, codified at California Government Code section 7070, et. seq., requires law enforcement agencies to obtain approval of the applicable governing body, by an ordinance adopting a “military equipment” use policy, at a regular meeting held pursuant to open meeting laws, prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment. The term “military equipment” is defined in California Government Code section 7070(c); and
WHEREAS, the policy must be a document covering the inventory, description, purpose, use, acquisition, maintenance, fiscal impacts, procedures, training, oversight, and complaint process, applicable to the police department’s use of such equipment; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 481 allows the governing body of a city to approve the military equipment use policy for continued or future funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment within its jurisdiction only if it makes specified determinations specified in Government Code section 7071(d); and
WHEREAS, on May 3, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2022-02 approving and adopting a military equipment use policy identified as Pinole Police Department Policy 707, having received the information required under Assembly Bill 481 regarding the Pinole Police Department’s use of military equipment as defined in said law and upon a finding of the specified determinations required under Government Code Section 7071(d); and WHEREAS, on June 17, 2025, the City Council approved and reaffirmed the Department’s Policy (identified as Department Policy 707), finding it met the requirements under AB 481 and introduced and adopted an ordinance adding Chapter

2.60 “Military Equipment Policy” to the Pinole Municipal Code (Ord. 2025-02).

WHEREAS, Government Code section 7072 provides that a law enforcement agency that receives approval for a military equipment use policy pursuant to Section 7071 shall submit to the governing body an annual military equipment report for each type of military equipment approved by the governing body within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use; and

WHEREAS, the law enforcement agency shall also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on its internet website for as long as the military equipment is available for use; and
WHEREAS, the annual military report shall include the following information for the immediately preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment:
a. A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use; b. A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment;
c. The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response; d. The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report;
e. The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment; f. If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 7071(d) provides the governing body shall determine, based on the annual military equipment report submitted pursuant to Section 7072, whether each type of military equipment identified in that report has complied with the following standards for approval:
a. The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety; b. The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties;
c. If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost-effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety;
d. Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance; and
WHEREAS, if the governing body determines that a type of military equipment identified in that annual military equipment report has not complied with the standards for approval set forth

above, the governing body shall either disapprove a renewal of the authorization for that type of military equipment or require modifications to the military equipment use policy in a manner that will resolve the lack of compliance; and
WHEREAS, the governing body shall review any ordinance that it has adopted approving the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment at least annually and vote on whether to renew the ordinance at a regular meeting held pursuant to open meeting laws; and WHEREAS, the Pinole Police Department’s annual military equipment report was posted on the department’s internet website on May 26, 2026, and within thirty (30) days conducted a wellpublicized public meeting concerning the renewal of the military equipment at issue in compliance with Government Code Section 7072 (b); and
WHEREAS, the Pinole Police Department seeks renewal of Policy 707; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pinole, having received the information required under Assembly Bill 481 regarding the Pinole Police Department’s renewed use of military equipment as defined in said law, and makes the specified determinations required under Government Code Section 7070, et. seq., deems it to be in the best interest of the City to approve and renew the Pinole Police Department’s Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition and Use Policy as set forth in the policy identified as Pinole Police Department Policy 707.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, in accordance with Government Code Section 7070 et. seq., and pursuant to the findings stated herein, that the City Council of the City of Pinole hereby finds as follows:

Section 1. Recitals.

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

Section 2. Determinations.

Based on the findings above, in addition to information provided to the City Council at the public meeting, the City Council determines as follows:

1. The military equipment identified in the annual military equipment report has complied with the standards for approval as set forth in Government Code section 7071 subdivision (d).

2. The Pinole Police Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy is necessary because there are no reasonable alternatives that can achieve the same objectives of officer and civilian safety.

3. The Pinole Police Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.

4. The military equipment identified in the Pinole Police Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objectives of officer and civilian safety.

5. Prior military equipment use by the Pinole Police Department complied with the Military Equipment Use Policy although it was not yet in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.

6. The Pinole Police Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy, Policy 707, setting forth the City’s military equipment use policy is approved and renewed.

Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each of every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 4. Effective Date and Duration. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final adoption.

Section 5. Publication. The City Clerk is directed to cause this ordinance to be published in a manner required by law.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pinole City Council held on June 16, 2026, the City Council passed this urgency ordinance by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

IN WITNESS of this action, I sign this document and affix the corporate seal of the City of Pinole on July 7, 2026.

____________________________
Heather Spears, CMC
City Clerk
5361438.1

CITY COUNCIL

REPORT XXX
DATE: JUNE 16, 2026
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: COMMANDER JUSTIN ROGERS
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING; CONDUCT FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE APPROVING RENEWAL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE’S MILITARY
EQUIPMENT POLICY AS STATED IN CHAPTER 2.60 OF THE
PINOLE MUNICIPAL CODE; AND REVIEW OF 2025-2026 ANNUAL
REPORT IN COMPLIANCE WITH AB 481

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing, review and approve the 2025-2026 Pinole Police Department Annual Military Equipment Report, and waive full reading and introduce by title only an ordinance approving and re-adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy as Stated in Chapter 2.60 “Military Equipment Policy” of the Pinole City Municipal Code in compliance with AB 481.

BACKGROUND
On September 30, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill (AB) 481, which went into effect on January 1, 2022, and added California Government Code Sections 7070 through 7075 relating to the funding, acquisition, and use of military equipment by local law enforcement agencies. The bill required law enforcement agencies seeking to fund or acquire new military equipment or continue use of any military equipment acquired prior to January 1, 2022, to draft a military equipment use policy and obtain approval from its governing body via adoption of an ordinance no later than May 1, 2022. On May 3, 2022, the City Council approved the Department’s Policy (identified as Department Policy 707), finding it meets the requirements under AB 481, and introduced and adopted an ordinance adding Chapter 2.60 “Military Equipment Policy” to the Pinole Municipal Code (Ord. 2022-02).

AB 481 (Government Code §7072) requires that the Department submit to the City Council an annual military equipment report for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use.

Additionally, the City Council must review the ordinance that it has adopted, approving the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment, at least annually, and vote on whether to renew the ordinance at a regular meeting. During the review process, the City Council must determine, based on the military equipment report, whether each type of military equipment in the report has complied with the standards for approval set forth in Government Code sections

City Council Report
May 21, 2024
7071(d)(1) and 7071(e)(2). If it determines a type of equipment identified in the report has not complied with the standards for approval, the City Council must either disapprove of the renewal of the ordinance or require modifications to the military equipment use policy in a manner that will resolve the lack of compliance.

AB 481 further requires the governing body, at least annually, to review any ordinance that it has adopted approving the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment and vote on whether to renew the ordinance. The annual report shall include a summary of each type of military equipment, its intended purpose, how each type of equipment was used by the agency during the preceding year, a summary of any complaints received concerning the equipment, the results of any internal audits pertaining to violations of the 1 military equipment use policy, the total cost for each type of equipment, and the quantity possessed. The City Council may renew or not renew the authorizing ordinance, disapprove authorization for equipment where standards have not been met, or require modifications to the military equipment use policy based on whether the equipment detailed within the annual report complies with policy and meets specified standards as set forth in California Government Code Section 7071, subdivision (d).

On July 17, 2025, the City Council approved and reaffirmed the Department’s Policy (identified as Department Policy 707), finding it met the requirements under AB 481 and introduced and adopted an ordinance adding Chapter 2.60 “Military Equipment Policy” to the Pinole Municipal Code (Ord. 2025-02).

By this ordinance the Department seeks 1) approval of its 2025-2026 annual military equipment report, 2) authority to purchase COLT AR15/M4 ammunition and FN 303 MK2 projectiles to replenish training and duty inventory, and 3) renewal of Pinole Police Department Policy 707 upon a finding that the report has complied with the standards for approval set forth in Government Code sections 7071(d)(1) and 7071(e)(2).

Attachment A is the proposed ordinance. Attachment B is the 2025-2026 Annual Report, including the inventory list of military equipment the Department has and intends to use in the future that falls within the definition of “military equipment” under AB 481. Attachment C is the Department’s military equipment use policy. Attachment D is the Department’s Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations policy.

DISCUSSION
Annual Report
AB 481 requires a law enforcement agency that receives approval for a military equipment use policy to submit to the City Council an annual military equipment report for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use. (Govt. Code §§7071(d)(1) and 7071(e)(2).) The law enforcement agency must also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on its internet website for as long as the military equipment is available for use.

Government Code section 7072 (a) states that the annual report must include the following information:

City Council Report
May 21, 2024

1. A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment.

2. The results of any internal audits or information about violations of the military equipment use policy. This includes any actions taken in response.

3. The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report.

4. The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment.

5. If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.

6. A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use.

In compliance with the Government Code, the Department’s annual use report and policy was released to the community, via the Department’s website on May 26, 2026, and provided to City Council. Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing its annual military equipment report, the Department is required to hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located public meeting, at which the general public may discuss and ask questions regarding the annual military equipment report and the law enforcement agency’s funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment. That meeting is being held concurrently with the presentation of this ordinance. The annual use report contains all the required elements of Government Code section 7072 (a) set forth above.

The 2025-2026 Annual Report (Attachment B) outlines the Department’s military equipment inventory and usage, community complaints over the use of military equipment, and internal audits from May 1, 2025, through April 30, 2026. An inventory was completed on April 21, 2026, which identified all of the Department’s military equipment in preparation to fulfill the obligations set by Assembly Bill 481. Equipment used by the Department during the preceding year is found to be consistent with current Policy 707. No complaints concerning the equipment were made to the Department.

During this period (May 2025 – April 2026), the Department has used military equipment under this policy during community events (ERV, command post, Drones) and officer training (ERV, rifles, FN 303 MK2, Drones). The Department utilized the Command Post to assist with logistics and personnel during two DUI checkpoints. The Department deployed drones in 15 incidents. These incidents included mutual aid assistance to allied agencies and for incidents taking place in the City of Pinole.

During this period, the Colt AR-15/M4 Carbine rifles underwent routine maintenance. The Department performed annual vehicle maintenance on the Emergency Rescue Vehicle (ERV/MRAP).

Proposed Acquisition
In accordance with Government Code section 7072 (a), the Department is requesting approval for the purchase of 7000 rounds of .223 62 gr ammunition for the COLT AR15/M4 rifles and 300 rounds of FN 3030 MJ2 projectiles to replenish training and duty inventory. Additionally, the department is requesting approval to purchase 30 COLT AR15/M4 patrol rifle lights, as

City Council Report
May 21, 2024
the current lights are nearing the end of their service life.

The Department has a significant interest in continuing to have access to equipment that will provide peace officers as many options as possible to safeguard lives, ensure safety, and protect the civil liberties of the citizens of the City of Pinole. The use of the military equipment identified on the inventory list is vital to the Department’s mission and will continue to be strictly regulated through internal processes and oversight.

Renewal of Military Equipment Use Policy
In addition, the Department is required to resubmit the previously approved policy for reapproval consideration, as an agenda item during open session. The previously approved policy is attached to this report (Attachment C). Council must determine, based on the annual military equipment report, whether each type of military equipment identified in the report has complied with the following:

1. The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

2. The policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.

3. If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

4. Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.

The Department does not anticipate any significant change in the previously approved policy but does seek approval to acquire additional equipment, listed above. All items needing to be replenished are included in the policy and attached inventory which were previously approved by the City Council.

Any future attempts to obtain additional equipment not provided for herein will comply with the procedures set forth in the Government Code and the approved military equipment policy, including a public hearing and City Council approval prior to acquisition.

Through acceptance of the annual report and renewal of the ordinance, the City Council will authorize the continued use of preexisting equipment considered “military equipment” under AB 481. This includes a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle (MRAP) for use as an Emergency Rescue Vehicle (ERV) to safely evacuate residents in the event of a natural disaster or critical incidents, to move personnel and/or resources in support of natural disasters (i.e. flood, fire, earthquake), large scale logistics, active shooter incidents, and incidents where there is reason to expect potential armed resistance requiring protection. The Policy also includes a single unmanned, remotely piloted, powered ground vehicle used to enhance peace officer and community safety when encountering potentially dangerous situations by providing first responders with the ability to capture video and still images, and to transport communication equipment or other resources prior to, or in lieu of, sending in personnel into hazardous incidents or environments.

City Council Report
May 21, 2024
The use of UAS (drones) has proven to be vital to the safety and security of our community, enabling the Department to conduct area searches, locate wanted persons, assess scenes prior to officer arrival, and provide public safety services to our law enforcement partners.

Other items deemed “military equipment” under AB 481 include foundational equipment, such as rifles and ammunition. These rifles allow peace officers to address lethal threats from a greater distance and with greater precision. The Department also seeks authorization to use four FN 303 MK2 Launchers and projectiles, to limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable. The projectiles provide officers with a less-lethal option in incidents of combative or self-destructive individuals, riot/crowd control and civil unrest incidents, circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained, potentially vicious animals, and training exercises or approved demonstrations. The equipment allows for more time and opportunity to attempt to de-escalate situations and provide for safer tactics to resolve life-threatening events in the safest way possible.

The Policy safeguards the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties by ensuring that there are safeguards, including transparency, oversight, and accountability measures in place. For instance, the Policy authorizes the Chief of Police to designate a member of the Department to act as the military equipment coordinator. The responsibilities of the military equipment coordinator include, but are not limited, acting as a liaison to City Council for all matters related to the requirements of AB 481, identifying “military equipment” as defined under the statute, conducting annual inventory and review, collaborating with outside agencies, and scheduling and coordinating an annual community engagement hearing to address the Department's funding, acquisition, and use of military equipment.

In compliance with the Government Code, the Military Equipment Policy has remained on the Department’s transparency portal continuously since prior to Council adoption in 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact from the acceptance of the annual report or the approval of continuing the ordinance approving the military equipment use policy. The Policy explicitly references the fiscal impact related to costs to maintain or acquire equipment and is included in the existing department’s budget allocation.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pinole Approving and Re-Adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy as Stated In Chapter 2.60 “Military Equipment Policy” of the Pinole Municipal Code In Compliance With Assembly Bill 481 B. Pinole Police Department Annual Military Equipment Report May 2025 – April 2026 C. Pinole Police Department Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition, and Use Policy 707
D. Pinole Police Department Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations Policy 608

ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XXXX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PINOLE APPROVING AND RE-ADOPTING A MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY AS STATED IN CHAPTER 2.60 “MILITARY EQUIPMENT POLICY” OF THE PINOLE MUNICIPAL CODE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ASSEMBLY BILL 481 (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7070, et. seq.) WHEREAS, on September 30, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 481 relating to the use of military equipment by California law enforcement agencies; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 481 seeks to provide transparency, oversight, and an opportunity for meaningful public input on decisions regarding whether and how military equipment is funded, acquired, or used by law enforcement agencies; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 481, codified at California Government Code section 7070, et. seq., requires law enforcement agencies to obtain approval of the applicable governing body, by an ordinance adopting a “military equipment” use policy, at a regular meeting held pursuant to open meeting laws, prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment. The term “military equipment” is defined in California Government Code section 7070(c); and
WHEREAS, the policy must be a document covering the inventory, description, purpose, use, acquisition, maintenance, fiscal impacts, procedures, training, oversight, and complaint process, applicable to the police department’s use of such equipment; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 481 allows the governing body of a city to approve the military equipment use policy for continued or future funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment within its jurisdiction only if it makes specified determinations specified in Government Code section 7071(d); and
WHEREAS, on May 3, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2022-02 approving and adopting a military equipment use policy identified as Pinole Police Department Policy 707, having received the information required under Assembly Bill 481 regarding the Pinole Police Department’s use of military equipment as defined in said law and upon a finding of the specified determinations required under Government Code Section 7071(d); and WHEREAS, on June 17, 2025, the City Council approved and reaffirmed the Department’s Policy (identified as Department Policy 707), finding it met the requirements under AB 481 and introduced and adopted an ordinance adding Chapter

2.60 “Military Equipment Policy” to the Pinole Municipal Code (Ord. 2025-02).

WHEREAS, Government Code section 7072 provides that a law enforcement agency that receives approval for a military equipment use policy pursuant to Section 7071 shall submit to the governing body an annual military equipment report for each type of military equipment approved by the governing body within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use; and

WHEREAS, the law enforcement agency shall also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on its internet website for as long as the military equipment is available for use; and
WHEREAS, the annual military report shall include the following information for the immediately preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment:
a. A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use; b. A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment;
c. The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response; d. The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report;
e. The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment; f. If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 7071(d) provides the governing body shall determine, based on the annual military equipment report submitted pursuant to Section 7072, whether each type of military equipment identified in that report has complied with the following standards for approval:
a. The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety; b. The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties;
c. If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost-effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety;
d. Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance; and
WHEREAS, if the governing body determines that a type of military equipment identified in that annual military equipment report has not complied with the standards for approval set forth

above, the governing body shall either disapprove a renewal of the authorization for that type of military equipment or require modifications to the military equipment use policy in a manner that will resolve the lack of compliance; and
WHEREAS, the governing body shall review any ordinance that it has adopted approving the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment at least annually and vote on whether to renew the ordinance at a regular meeting held pursuant to open meeting laws; and WHEREAS, the Pinole Police Department’s annual military equipment report was posted on the department’s internet website on May 26, 2026, and within thirty (30) days conducted a wellpublicized public meeting concerning the renewal of the military equipment at issue in compliance with Government Code Section 7072 (b); and
WHEREAS, the Pinole Police Department seeks renewal of Policy 707; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pinole, having received the information required under Assembly Bill 481 regarding the Pinole Police Department’s renewed use of military equipment as defined in said law, and makes the specified determinations required under Government Code Section 7070, et. seq., deems it to be in the best interest of the City to approve and renew the Pinole Police Department’s Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition and Use Policy as set forth in the policy identified as Pinole Police Department Policy 707.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, in accordance with Government Code Section 7070 et. seq., and pursuant to the findings stated herein, that the City Council of the City of Pinole hereby finds as follows:

Section 1. Recitals.

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

Section 2. Determinations.

Based on the findings above, in addition to information provided to the City Council at the public meeting, the City Council determines as follows:

1. The military equipment identified in the annual military equipment report has complied with the standards for approval as set forth in Government Code section 7071 subdivision (d).

2. The Pinole Police Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy is necessary because there are no reasonable alternatives that can achieve the same objectives of officer and civilian safety.

3. The Pinole Police Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.

4. The military equipment identified in the Pinole Police Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objectives of officer and civilian safety.

5. Prior military equipment use by the Pinole Police Department complied with the Military Equipment Use Policy although it was not yet in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.

6. The Pinole Police Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy, Policy 707, setting forth the City’s military equipment use policy is approved and renewed.

Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each of every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 4. Effective Date and Duration. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final adoption.

Section 5. Publication. The City Clerk is directed to cause this ordinance to be published in a manner required by law.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pinole City Council held on June 16, 2026, the City Council passed this urgency ordinance by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

IN WITNESS of this action, I sign this document and affix the corporate seal of the City of Pinole on July 7, 2026.
____________________________
Heather Spears, CMC
City Clerk
5361438.1

PINOLE POLICE

DEPARTMENT

ANNUAL MILITARY

EQUIPMENT REPORT
MAY 2025 – APRIL 2026

April 2026 Annual Military Equipment Report for 2025/2026 1 Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................ 2 Definitions .................................................................................................. 3 Summary of Military Equipment................................................................. 4 Military EquipmentInventory...................................................................................... 4 Equipment Training Use & Purchase ........................................................... 8 Community Concerns and Complaints ........................................................ 9 Internal Military Equipment Inventory & Audit.......................................... 10 Projected Military Equipment Acquisition (2026/2027) ............................. 12

April 2026 Annual Military Equipment Report for 2025/2026 2 INTRODUCTION
On September 30, 2021, the Governor of the State of California approved Assembly Bill 481 (codified as Chapter 12.8 of the California Government Code) requiring law enforcement agencies such as the Pinole Police Department to have a military use policy approved by the City Council prior to requesting, seeking funding, acquiring or using military equipment. Assembly Bill 481 allows the governing body to approve the policy within its jurisdiction only if it determines that the military equipment meets specified standards.

On May 3, 2022,the City of Pinole Council approved Ordinance 2022-02 approving Pinole Police Department Policy #707: Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition, and Use. As required by Assembly Bill 481 and the Ordinance, annually, the Pinole Police Department must prepare a report on the use of each type of military equipment approved in the Policy over the last year. Subsequently, the City Council must then review the Ordinance, Policy and Annual Report, and determine whether the Department’s use of military equipment in the past year complied with the Policy, and whether to continue the Ordinance and Policy, take action (by ordinance) to modify the Policy or repeal the Ordinance.

As set forth in the Policy, the Pinole Police Department retains and employs limited military equipment to safeguard its community. Pinole Police Department officers and certified instructional staff receive training throughout the year on the use of military equipment approved under the Policy. The Department also maintains a current Certificate of Compliance for California Government Code with the State of California, via Cal OES.

This Annual Report outlines the Pinole Police Department’s military equipment inventory and usage, community complaints over the use of military equipment, and internal audits from May 1, 2025, through April 30, 2026. The Department will submit its Military Equipment Annual Report to City Council annually in compliance with AB 481.

April 2026 Annual Military Equipment Report for 2025/2026 3 DEFINITIONS
Definitions of Military Equipment established by California Government Code §7070:
(Pinole Police Department utilizes a limited number of the resources listed below) Military equipment includes, but is not limited to the following types of equipment:
• Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles • Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers • High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), two-and-one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached
• Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants • Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units • Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles or any kind • Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include a handheld, one-person ram
• Firearms and ammunition of .50 caliber or greater, excluding standard-issue shotguns and standard-issue shotgun ammunition
• Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code §30510 and Penal Code §30515, with the exception of standard-issue firearms • Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles • Noise-flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools • Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray
• Taser Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and long-range acoustic devices (LRADs)
• Kinetic energy weapons and munitions (e.g. 40MM launcher, bean bag shotgun, foam tipped projectiles)
• Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.

April 2026 Annual Military Equipment Report for 2025/2026 4 Pinole Police Department Military Equipment
Inventory

1. Equipment Type: Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle (MRAP) – CA Govt Code §7070(c)(2)
Quantity Owned or Sought: 1 Lifespan: Unknown
Purpose/Authorized User: Emergency Rescue Vehicle (ERV) to safely evacuate residents in the event of a natural disaster or critical incidents. To move personnel and/or resources in support of natural disasters (i.e. flood, fire, earthquake), large scale logistics, active shooter incidents, and incidents where there is reason to expect potential armed resistance requiring protection. Use may be authorized by Watch Commander or Tactical/Operations Commander, based on the circumstances of the given incident.

Fiscal Impact: Acquired under the Law Enforcement Support Program Office (LESO): $0 for equipment. $9,200 for delivery, paint and upfitting. Annual maintenance cost is approximately $1,000.00. For the reporting period of May 2025 – April 2026, $1,394 was spent on annual vehicle maintenance.

Legal and Procedural Rules Governing: It is the policy of the department to utilize armored vehicles only for law enforcement purposes and pursuant to State and Federal law.

Training Required: Department provided training.

Other Notes: The MRAP is an armored vehicle manufactured by BAE Systems/Caiman weighing over 34,000 pounds and can carry a payload of over 4,000 pounds. The vehicle has six (6) wheels fitted with tires and is all-wheel drive, powered by a diesel engine. The vehicle measures approximately 22 feet long, 8 feet wide, and 10 feet tall.

2. Equipment Type: Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered ground vehicles - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(1)
Quantity Owned/Sought: 1 Lifespan: Approximately 15 years Equipment Capabilities: Vehicle is capable of being remotely navigated to provide scene information and intelligence in the form of video and still images transmitted to first responders.

Manufacturer Product Description: iRobot PackBot 510 Multi Mission Robot (MMR) Purpose/Authorized Uses: To enhance officer and community safety when encountering potentially dangerous situations by providing first responders with the ability to capture video and still images, to transport communication equipment or other resources prior to, in lieu of sending in personnel into hazardous incidents or environments.

Fiscal Impacts: Acquired under the Law Enforcement Support Program Office (LESO): $0 for equipment. Annual maintenance cost is approximately $500.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: The use of unmanned, remotely piloted, powered ground vehicles potentially involves privacy considerations. Absent a warrant or exigent circumstances, operators and observers shall adhere to all applicable privacy laws and shall not intentionally record or transmit images of any location where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Training Required: Department provided training.

April 2026 Annual Military Equipment Report for 2025/2026 5 Other Notes: None

3. Equipment Type: Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(1)
Quantity Owned/Sought: 4 Lifespan: Approximately 5 years Equipment Capabilities: Vehicle is capable of being remotely navigated to provide scene information and intelligence in the form of video and still images transmitted to first responders.

Manufacturer Product Description: DJI Mavic 3 Thermal (M3T) UAS, DJI Avata UAS Purpose/Authorized Uses: Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) designed for public safety. The UAS is a battery powered, remote operated device with a flight time of approximately 36-45 minutes depending on weather and flight conditions. The UAS has proven to be useful to public safety agencies in crime scene analysis, search and rescue, pre-operation surveillance and other critical incidents where aerial views enhance the safety and efficiency of law enforcement personnel. The UAS would assist officers or incident commanders in situations that would include, but not limited to: major collision investigations, emergency life threatening situations, search for missing persons, natural disaster management, crime scene photography, and critical incidents for preservation of life and public safety missions.

Fiscal Impacts: DJI Mavic 3 Thermal (M3T): $6,000, quantity 2 (Total: ~$12,000), DJI Avata UAS $2610, quantity 2 (Total: ~$5220)
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: The use of unmanned, remotely piloted, powered ground vehicles potentially involves privacy considerations. Absent a warrant or exigent circumstances, operators and observers shall adhere to all applicable privacy laws and shall not intentionally record or transmit images of any location where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Training Required: FAA Part 107, POST UAS Operator, and Department-provided training.

Other Notes: Capabilities include 20MP Hasselblad camera with a large 4/3 CMOS sensor camera, 24mm equivalent lens, capable of 5.1K/50fps and 4K/120fps video. It includes a secondary 12MP telephoto camera, 56x tele zoom, 640x512 thermal sensor, one-way speaker, and spotlight.

4. Equipment Type: Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units – CA Govt Code §7070(c)(5)
Quantity Owned or Sought: 1 Lifespan: 20 years
Purpose/Authorized User: Trailer is purpose‐built to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units conducting DUI enforcement checkpoints, traffic safety operations, and responding to or at an incident. The Command and Control (C&C) trailer serves as a centralized location for command decision making, enhanced communication, and other situational awareness capabilities. Use may be authorized by the Watch Commander or the Tactical/Operations Commander, based on the circumstances of the given incident.

Fiscal Impact: Acquired by grant issued by the State of California Office of Traffic Safety under a Traffic Safety Grant. $40,415 for equipment. Annual maintenance cost is approximately $1000.

Legal and Procedural Rules Governing: It is the policy of the department to utilize C&C trailer only for law enforcement purposes and pursuant to State and Federal law.

Training Required: Department provided training.

April 2026 Annual Military Equipment Report for 2025/2026 6 Other Notes: The command-and-control trailer is standard tow-behind trailer with dual axels manufactured by Universal Trailer with a GVW of 3,100 pounds. The trailer measures approximately 16 feet long, 8.5 feet wide, and 9 feet tall. The trailer is equipped with a folddown rear door, lighting, and a generator.

5. Equipment Type: Semiautomatic Rifles and Ammunition - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(10) Quantity Owned or Sought: 28 Lifespan: 15 years
Purpose/Authorized User: Colt AR-15/M4 Carbine semiautomatic shoulder fired rifle with long spirally grooved barrel that fires .223 Rem/5.56 mm projectile bullet. The rifles are equipped with 10.5” barrel, Surefire muzzle brake, and Surefire SOCOM556-RC2 suppressors.

Ammunition is Speer Gold Dot caliber .223 62 grain.

A standard officer issue to be used as a precision weapon to address a threat with more precision and/or greater distances than a handgun, if present and feasible.

Fiscal Impact:
• Colt AR-15/M4 Rifle: $32,400, quantity: 28
• Surefire muzzle brake: $2,779, quantity: 28
• Surefire SOCOM556-RC2 Suppressors: $22,408, quantity: 28 • .223 62 gr ammunition: $2,715, quantity: 4,525
• Annual maintenance cost is approximately $1,500
Legal and Procedural Rules Governing: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force. Various Pinole Police Department Policies on Use of Force and Firearms.

Training Required: Department firearms training and qualifications as required by law and policy by POST certified instructors. CA POST certified 24-hour patrol rifle course.

Other Notes: These rifles are standard-issue service weapons for our officers and are therefore exempt from this Military Equipment Use Policy per CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(10). They have been included in this document in an abundance of caution and in the interest of transparency.

6. Equipment Type: Less lethal launcher and Projectiles - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(12) Quantity Owned or Sought: 4 Lifespan: 20 years
Purpose/Authorized User: FN 303 MK2 Less Lethal Launcher utilizing compressed-air to fire less-lethal fin-stabilized projectiles. The FN303 MK2 features a magazine fed system that offers the ability to quickly switch between projectile types. Projectiles: .5% PAVA containing pepper powder designed for direct impact and area saturation, Clear Impact projectile intended for distraction, Washable Paint for training and marking, Indelible Paint projectile intended for marking with indelible colorant for later identification, and Inert Powder projectile for training.

To limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable.

Provides officers with a less-lethal option in incidents of combative or self-destructive individuals, riot/crowd control and civil unrest incidents, circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained, potentially vicious animals, and training exercises or approved demonstrations.

April 2026 Annual Military Equipment Report for 2025/2026 7 Fiscal Impact:
• FN 303 MK2 & Slings: $5,080, quantity: 4
• PAVA Projectile: $768, quantity: 128
• Indelible Paint Projectile: $750, quantity: 150
• Washable Paint Projectile: $1,461, quantity: 300
• Inert Powder Projectile: $456, quantity: 450
• Magazine Assembly, Slings, and Maintenance Items: $486 • Cases: $1,587, quantity: 4
• Annual maintenance cost is approximately $250
Legal and Procedural Rules Governing: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force. Various Pinole Police Department Policies on Use of Force.

Training Required: Department provided training conducted by POST certified instructors.

Other Notes: None

7. Equipment Type: Less-Lethal Shotgun and Bean Bag Projectile - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(14)
Quantity Owned or Sought: 4 Lifespan: 25 years
Purpose/Authorized User: Remington 870 Less-Lethal 12-gauge Shotgun with orange and black marked stocks is used to deploy the less lethal 12-guage CTS Super-Sock Beanbag round.

The Combined Tactical Systems (CTS) Super-Sock Beanbag round is a less-lethal 2.4-inch 12- gauge shotgun round firing a ballistic fiber bag filled with 40 grams of lead shot.

To limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable.

Provides officers with a less-lethal option in incidents of combative or self-destructive individuals, riot/crowd control and civil unrest incidents, circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained, potentially vicious animals, and training exercises or approved demonstrations.

Fiscal Impact:
• Remington 870 Less-Lethal 12-guage Shotgun: $2,200, quantity: 4 • CTS Model 2581 Super-Sock Beanbag Round: $1,090, quantity: 200 • Glass Breaker Ball: $480, quantity: 200
• Annual maintenance $0
Legal and Procedural Rules Governing: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force. Various Pinole Police Department Policies on Use of Force.

Training Required: Department provided training conducted by POST certified instructors.

Other Notes: None

April 2026 Annual Military Equipment Report for 2025/2026 8 Equipment Purchase and Training Use
2025/2026 Purchases and Maintenance
Military Equipment Quantity Cost Date of Purchase
COLT AR 15/M4 –
ammunition, .223 62 gr 4000 $1976 10/01/2025
COLT AR 15/M4 –
ammunition, .223 62 gr 5000 $2740 02/09/2026
ERV Maintenance
1 $1394 10/19/2025
2025/2026 Training/ Military Equipment Utilized
Training Military
Equipment
Frequency
Officer Training - Range
Colt AR-15/M4
Carbine w/
.223/556
ammunition
Quarterly Ranges
Officer Certification -
Range
Colt AR-15/M4
Carbine w/
.223/556
ammunition
As needed for certification. One course
in this period.

Patrol Rifle Armorers
Course
Colt AR-15/M4
Carbine w/
.223/556
ammunition
As needed.

FN 303 MK2Training -
Range
FN 303 MK2 Annually for patrol personnel and as
needed for new Officers
ERV Orientation and
Driver Training
ERV As needed for new Officers and
Community Service Officers
UAS Operator
Certification Training
UAS/Drone As needed for new UAS Operators.