RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA,
ESTABLISHING A MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY
CITY DEPARTMENTS AND A FEE SCHEDULE THAT WILL IMPLEMENT COST
RECOVERY AND WILL SERVE AS THE BASIS FOR FUTURE FEE ADJUSTMENTS
WHEREAS, Section 2.34.040 of the Municipal Code of the City of Richmond provides for the establishment of a Master Fee Schedule for the fees to be charged by the various City departments for City services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richmond desires to enact a Master Fee Schedule which updates the fees assessed by the City departments to reflect the actual cost associated with providing the service, as supported by the analysis prepared by Willdan Financial (incorporated herein by reference); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richmond desires to enact a Master Fee Schedule which can be utilized as the basis for the future fee adjustments based on the Employment Cost Index.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Richmond that, in accordance with Section 2.34.040 of the Municipal Code of the City of Richmond, there is hereby established a Master Fee Schedule for the City of Richmond.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Master Fee Schedule for the City of Richmond which is established by this resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein by this reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all fees set forth in the Master Fee Schedule shall become effective thirty days after the adoption of this resolution, with the exception of A.B. 1600 Developer impact fees which shall become effective sixty days after the adoption of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any fee set forth in the Master Fee Schedule is for any reason found to be unconstitutional or invalid, such a decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining fees contained in the Master Fee Schedule.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted each of the fees individually set forth in the Master Fee Schedule irrespective of the unconstitutionality or invalidity of any particular or specified fee.
*****************
558
I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held June XX, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
Approved:
Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
559
TO: WCCTC Board MEETING DATE: March 28, 2025
FR: Leah Greenblat, Transportation Planning Manager
RE: FY 25-26 Annual STMP Fee Adjustment
REQUESTED ACTION
Information only.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
The 2019 Subregional Transportation Mitigation Program (STMP) Update became effective on July 1, 2019. The Master Cooperative Agreement, signed by all participating member agencies, specifies an automatic annual fee adjustment so that the fees are kept in sync with construction-related costs (whether inflation or deflation). The agreement links the fee adjustment to the Engineering News Record’s February San Francisco Bay Area Construction Cost Index for the prior twelve months. It should be noted that Engineering News Record’s Bay Area Construction Cost Index is a source commonly used by jurisdictions to make annual fee adjustments. This year that rate of change was -0.8%. STMP fees will be adjusted downward for FY 25-26, accordingly. WCCTAC staff is in the process of notifying partner agencies of this impending annual fee adjustment, which becomes effective July 1, 2024, so it may be incorporated into their local fee schedules.
The STMP Quarterly Reporting form for FY 25-26 is included as an attachment and reflects the lower fees for FY 25-26. Local agency staff should begin using this version of the reporting form to report STMP fees collected after July 1, 2025.
The FY 24-25 and FY 25-26 STMP fees are shown below.
ATTACHMENT
A. FY 2025-2026 STMP Quarterly Reporting Form
560
Master Fee Schedule Update
Andrea Miller, Director of Finance
Mubeen Qader, Deputy Director of Finance
Antonio Bañuelos, Accounting Manager
City Council Meeting – May 20, 2025
1 561
Agenda
2 • Recommended Action
• Updated Fees
• Next Steps
• Questions
562
Recommended Action
HOLD a public hearing; and INTRODUCE an Ordinance
(first reading) establishing certain fees for the proposed Master Fee Schedule.
3 563
Updated Fees
• Most increasing by Employment Cost Index (ECI)
• Other fees were analyzed to determine the actual cost for the City to provide that particular service
• Recreation fees remain unchanged
4 564
Fee Updates: +3.6%
5 565
New Fees – Fire Department
6 Description New Proposed Fees
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Fire Protection System Signaling Service
Building Owner (Parent) Fire Permit New $285.00
AB-38 Inspections New $285.00
566
Fiscal Impact of Fee Updates
7 Departments
Estimated Additional
Revenue Generated
Recreation -
Other 1,031
Public Works 2,697
Police 5,760
Fire 13,113
Public Works 34,406
Community Development 316,454
Grand Total 373,461
567
Next Steps
• Second Reading of Ordinance and Resolution approval on June 3, 2025
• Traffic Impact Fee study
• Completion of Long Range Transportation Study by end of FY 2025-26
• Updated Transportation Impact Fee study to City Council by December 2026
• Storm Drainage Rate Adjustment Study by early 2026
• Storm Rate Adjustment taken to voters in Fall 2026
8. 568
Recommended Action
HOLD a public hearing; and INTRODUCE an Ordinance
(first reading) establishing certain fees for the proposed Master Fee Schedule.
9 569
Thank you
Questions/Comments?
10 570
May 20,2025
City Council
DATE: May 20, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Councilmember Soheila Bana
Councilmember Jamelia Brown (co-sponsor)
Subject:
Retain an Independent Legal Expert to Investigate
Allegations of Ethical Breaches and Bias in the
Community Police Review Commission (CPRC)
FINANCIAL IMPACT: To be determined based on proposals solicited from independent legal experts experienced in police
oversight, administrative ethics, and quasi-judicial bodies.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
Ordinance No.15-84 N.S. -Chapter 3.54 of the Richmond
Municipal Code
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
To investigate the allegations and ethical concerns raised by Jerry Threet, former Confidential Investigative and
Appeals Officer (CIAO) of the Community Police Review
Commission (CPRC).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Direct City Staff to hire an independent third-party legal expert to:
1. Investigate the allegations and ethical concerns raised by Jerry Threet, former Confidential Investigative and
Appeals Officer (CIAO) of the CPRC, in his resignation
letter dated September 10, 2024; and
2. Determine whether the CPRC has engaged in conduct
that reflects bias, or a failure to meet its semi-judicial obligations—particularly as they pertain to due process protections and adherence to objective investigative
standards.
AGENDA
REPORT
571
May 20,2025
Until the findings of the third-party legal expert are
finalized and submitted to the City Council, the CPRC
may continue its work but shall be advised to refrain from adjudicating any cases involving police officers. In
addition, the CPRC, as an advisory commission, shall not bring forward any recommendations, findings, or policy
proposals to the City Council during this period -
Councilmember Soheila Bana (510-672-
3490)/Councilmember Jamelia Brown (510-412-2050).
DISCUSSION:
In September 2024, Jerry Threet submitted his resignation from his position as Confidential Investigative Officer (CIAO) of the Community Police Re CPRC, citing serious concerns about the commission’s ethical and procedural integrity. In his resignation letter (attached), Mr. Threet states that recent trends in CPRC conduct have eroded his confidence in its ability to function lawfully, fairly, or credibly.
The letter includes several troubling assertions:
“There has been a steady erosion in adherence to evidence-based, objective evaluation of investigations of complaints... Sometimes, evidence is completely ignored, even when it is crucial to the questions at issue in the investigation.” “Commissioners have reached a sustained finding of misconduct... in a case where any objective view of the investigative evidence would lead to a finding of ‘exonerated’ or ‘not sustained.’”
“Commissioners often first open the files of investigative evidence a couple of hours prior to the closed session... There sometimes is little to no effort by commissioners to watch all relevant body worn camera video footage...”
“I no longer believe the commission can be relied upon to reach a valid finding... based on an objective, thorough, and unbiased view of the totality of the investigative evidence.”
“Doing so would require that I support a body that does not adhere to the NACOLE Code of Ethics.”
The Community Police Review Commission (CPRC) holds quasi-judicial responsibilities that affect the reputations, rights, and employment of sworn officers. The issues raised in Mr. Threet’s letter cast doubt on the commission’s ability to operate in a fair and unbiased manner. Given the serious implications, it is critical that a neutral third-party 572
May 20,2025
with legal and investigative expertise review the CPRC’s recent conduct and decision- making practices.
The goals of this investigation would be to:
Identify whether any misconduct, bias, or bad faith influenced CPRC findings Recommend corrective actions, including additional training, restructuring, or revision of policies
Restore public and institutional trust in the City’s civilian oversight mechanisms
The National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) Code of Ethics establishes ethical standards and principles. These principles emphasize independence, impartiality, transparency, competence, confidentiality, and integrity in civilian oversight. Members and agencies that subscribe to NACOLE's code are expected to conduct investigations and reviews in a manner that is objective, evidence- based, and respectful of the rights of both complainants and law enforcement personnel.
The CPRC may continue its work but shall be advised to refrain from adjudicating any cases involving police officers, until the findings of the third-party legal expert are finalized and submitted to the City Council. In addition, the CPRC, as an advisory commission, shall not bring forward any recommendations, findings, or policy proposals to the City Council during this period.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Resignation Letter from Jerry Threet, CIAO – September 10, 2024
573
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resignation Letter from Jerry Threet, CIAO – September 10, 2024
From: Jerry Threet <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 11:57:31 AM
To: Mayor City Council <[email protected]>; Claudia Jimenez <[email protected]>; Eduardo Martinez <[email protected]>; Soheila Bana <[email protected]>; Gayle McLaughlin <[email protected]>; Doria Robinson <[email protected]>; Melvin Willis <[email protected]>; Cesar Zepeda <[email protected]>; Carol Hegstrom <[email protected]>; Oscar Garcia <[email protected]>; Marisol Cantu <[email protected]>; Steven Lacy <[email protected]>; Andre Jackson <[email protected]>; Daniel Lawson <[email protected]>; Rachel Lorber <[email protected]>; Carmen Martinez <[email protected]> Cc: Shasa Curl <[email protected]>; Sharrone Taylor <[email protected]>; Shannon Moore <[email protected]>; Kimberly Chin <[email protected]>; Benjamin Therriault <[email protected]>; Bisa French <[email protected]>; Joseph England <[email protected]> Subject: Resignation from position of CPRC Investigative & Appeals Officer
Good Morning, Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers, and Commissioners -
I write to notify you of my resignation from the position of Investigative and Appeals Officer for the Richmond Community PoliceReview Commission (CPRC). While it has been my intention to continue serving in this role until Richmond was able to hire myreplacement through a recruitment process, recent events sadly have led me to decide that is no longer possible. My own sense ofprofessional integrity prevents me from continuing to serve in this role. While my resignation is effective September 30, 2024 so that Imay assist the City with transition issues, I will suspend work on investigations for the CPRC.
As the City Council has made steady progress filling empty seats on the CPRC, there have understandably been changes in group dynamics within the CPRC and in the approach the Commission takes to its mission. For the most part, I have felt supportive ofthese changes as a natural evolution of the CPRC under new commissioners. For example, I have offered my support for proposed changes to the CPRC ordinance by providing information about how other oversight bodies approach their tasks and outlined possible options for change when appropriate.
There also has been an uptick in complaints filed with the CPRC over the last year. Again, I feel this is an overall positive development, as complainants have told me they learned about the option of filing a complaint with the CPRC from thecommissioners, most of whom are newly appointed in the last year or so.
Engaging the public so that they know they can lodge complaints is a key mission of the CPRC. This is a necessary development after the isolation of COVID and helps ensure accountability..
However, there also has been trends that has not been so positive. As newer commissioners have joined the CPRC, there has been a steady erosion in adherence to evidence based, objective evaluation of investigations of complaints and other cases subject to CPRCreview. Sometimes, evidence is 574
completely ignored, even when it is crucial to the questions at issue in the investigation, such as theofficer’s state of mind at the time. At times, commissioners have described the evidence in ways that are diametrically opposed to theactual facts in evidence. Some commissioners have accused those with a difference view of the facts with bias in favor of policeofficers for considering evidence that supports the officers’ actions as appropriate under the circumstances. And some commissioners have begun to approach discussions as if they are grudge matches to be won or lost between those discussing difficult issues. Most concerning, commissioners have reached a sustained finding of misconduct, which requires that a violation be “highly likely,” in a case where any objective view of the investigative evidence would lead to a finding of “exonerated” or “not sustained.”
Nor do I think commissioners are currently giving these important matters the time and attention they need to thoroughly review theevidence, which sometimes is quite voluminous. Commissioners often first open the files of investigative evidence a couple of hours prior to the closed session when a matter will be considered, as indicated by the time stamps of their access through DropBox. There sometimes is little to no effort by commissioners to watch all relevant body worn camera video footage that is material to the issues under consideration. Yet, some commissioners come to the discussion of the cases with strong opinions that do not seem informed by a thorough understanding of the evidence
Put plainly, I no longer believe the commission can be relied upon to reach a valid finding on allegations of officer misconduct based on an objective, thorough, and unbiased view of the totality of the investigative evidence. Unfortunately, that is the standard that must be met to honor both the ethical obligations of each commissioner, as well as the due process rights of the civil servants who serve as Richmond Police Department officers.
Given this, I can no longer continue to be associated professionally with this civilian oversight body. Doing so would require that Isupport a body that does not adhere to the NACOLE Code of Ethics. It also would require that I object to actions I consider unethical and illegal, which would require more emotional and cognitive attention that I can give to this endeavor. In addition, the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys suggests that an attorney should resign from a position that could assist in theviolation of law.
I strongly suggest that the CPRC receive supplemental training in the ethical obligations as commissioners on a semi-judicial body that adjudicates matters affecting the due process rights of city employees. I also think it will be very important to ensure that thehiring committee for my replacement in this position be carefully balanced to ensure that its members respect both the ethical obligations of the CPRC and the due process rights of police officers in Richmond.
I wish you the best of luck in this endeavor.
Sincerely,
Jerry Threet
Investigative & Appeals Officer
Community Police Review Commission
City of Richmond, CA
575