|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
During the last meeting of the year, the Pleasanton City Council unanimously adopted a new framework for the city’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) so that staff could systematically prioritize various city projects in a way that best aligns with community needs amid ongoing budget challenges.
City staff said during the Dec. 17 meeting that the new framework — dubbed the Capital Improvement Program Process and Prioritization (CIPPP) strategy — will help them effectively allocate funding and resources as they make data-driven decisions on which projects to fund during this next budget cycle.
City Manager Gerry Beaudin said the CIPPP mirrors similar strategies from surrounding Bay Area cities and that with a ranking and prioritization system in place it “allows us to be much more focused with the limited resources that we have relative to the needs that we have.”
“This has been a concept that we’ve been discussing in light of the fact that we had to go back and re-review our capital improvement spending several times over the last couple of years,” Beaudin said during the meeting.
In Pleasanton, the CIP budgeting for each two-year budget cycle involves prioritizing the funding for proposed projects based on revenue projections for the upcoming two-year budget period. The council then adopts the CIP two-year budget along with the city’s operating budget — the council will be doing the same this June.
According to the Dec. 17 presentation, Pleasanton — like many other cities in the Bay Area — has aging infrastructure and a significant backlog of deferred maintenance projects. Facilities such as the police department and certain fire stations, pavement, water and sewer pipes and many other things across the city are all in need of repair or replacement.
The CIP typically guides the city’s decisions regarding the construction, repair and replacement of those city assets, but this year the city is dealing with a structural deficit that is forcing departments to look for ways to save money as the city’s expenditures continue to outweigh revenues, which is why staff brought forward the CIPPP in December.
“With the city facing financial challenges, with limited funding availability and constrained staff resources, it is more important than ever to have a structured, well defined strategy that is data driven and aligned with (the) One Pleasanton strategic plan and the valuable input that we have received previously from the community,” public works director Siew-Chin Yeong said.
Yeong said the CIPPP strategy will look at all of the city’s various needs — anything from aging city infrastructure to community amenities — and determine how each should be prioritized so that the city can figure out what needs to be funded based on its limited budget.
The CIPPP strategy is broken down into six categories that will be used as the city prioritizes its CIP project list over the next few months. Those categories — in order from most important to least — include health, safety and regulatory compliance; partnerships, collaboration and grants; equitable community benefits; environmental sustainability and conservation; economic prosperity; and asset condition, infrastructure maintenance and improvements
Adam Nelkie, a senior civil engineer for the city, said recent community survey results and the city’s five-year strategic plan, One Pleasanton, also helped shape the six categories.
Nelkie said health and safety ranked the highest based on community input and that the city’s overall goal is to create a safer and healthier community for the residents and businesses.
However, as Councilmember Craig Eicher pointed out during his closing comments, the council will ultimately still have the final decision on what projects should be funded, regardless of what staff present in June based on the new CIPPP strategy.
Another major change to the CIP process thanks to the unanimous council approval was the addition of a sunset clause that states after five years on the CIP list, all un-funded projects or projects that have not met their funding target will be removed from the list.
Staff also said projects on the reserves list will be reviewed for removal every four years, all non-restricted funds in the CIP will be re-allocated after four years and previously deferred or unfunded projects will be removed from the current CIP.
Nelkie, however, said that those same projects can still be resubmitted and added that they probably should be resubmitted if it’s been in the CIP list for too long.
Apart from adopting the CIPPP strategy, the council also agreed to approve a list of annual core capital projects that staff said are crucial for the city to fund every year. These projects that have to do with maintaining the city’s core infrastructure — street repavement was one example from staff — will be excluded from the CIPPP strategy.
The council also approved excluding the city’s enterprise-funded CIP projects — projects related to the city’s water and sewer systems — from the CIPPP.
While the entire council more or less agreed with Beaudin in that the strategy is a positive step forward for the city’s planning purposes as it gets set for difficult budget decisions in the future, Councilmember Julie Testa did express some concerns about projects that benefit the community, but that might not rank as highly as other infrastructure projects.
“I question what the role of the city is,” Testa said. “It isn’t only just about needs … it is quality of life and some of those are not necessarily needs.”
Testa said she doesn’t want a “process that excludes that,” but ultimately she said she thought the new strategy is needed and important given where the city is at financially.
Mayor Jack Balch also agreed with Testa in that he wants to make sure quality of life projects also stand a chance within the new CIP process — staff made the point earlier that certain projects could fall under multiple categories, which would help move them up in the priority list.
In other business
In a 3-2 vote, the council approved the boards and commissions appointments for 2025, which included the appointment of Jeff Nibert as the new vice mayor.
The item was originally pulled from the council’s consent calendar, which are items considered routine in nature and are typically approved by a single vote, by the new vice mayor not because of his new role, but because of his other appointments.
“My understanding was that the final list would be largely balanced, which admittedly is a subjective standard,” Nibert said. “My name in the proposed list has the fewest membership assignments and the most alternate assignments.”
Every year, the mayor assigns themselves and the rest of the council to various council subcommittees as well as local or regional boards and committees.
According to the 2025 assignments, Nibert will have a permanent seat on one of the 12 council subcommittees — the Dublin Liaison Committee. The only other council subcommittee he will be on this next year is the Pleasanton Unified School District Liaison Committee; however, he was assigned as the alternate member, which means he would step in if either Balch or Councilmember Matt Gaidos cannot make the meeting.
He will also be on six local and regional board and committees, according to the appointments document.
Nibert argued during the meeting that due to his skills and experience, he would have preferred to at least be a permanent member on the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority Committee or the Zone 7 Liaison Committee. He had previously served as the alternate on the transit authority committee and as the permanent member on the Zone 7 committee.
Testa agreed with Nibert and said she thought the two more recently elected council members — Eicher and Gaidos — seemed to have more meaningful assignments compared to Nibert who, even though he has been on the council for two years, has not been moved up from the alternate assignments.
Due to those concerns Testa voted no on the appointments, along with Nibert.
“I think Councilmember Nibert has a legitimate concern,” Testa said.
Balch said he did try to balance the assignments out as evenly as possible and believed he did a fair job in doing so, which is why he moved to approve the assignments as they were instead of entertaining Nibert’s motion to revise.
Before their vote, Gaidos did offer to trade assignments with anyone but no one accepted his proposition.
New retail, dining options coming to Stoneridge Shopping Center later this yearApril 19, 2026 9:24 pm
Pleasanton commission set to vote on major redevelopment project off Dublin Canyon RoadApril 21, 2026 4:30 pm
Vice Mayor Jeff Nibert has a BS in Nuclear Engineering and a MS in Civil Engineering. He is an eminently qualified expert with decades of experience in the private and public sectors working as a project manager. The fact that Mayor Balch is choosing to sideline his committee assignments to more junior council members illustrates our new Mayor’s fixation with score settling and inability to move past prior disagreements.
A high school dropout can serve on any of those committees and be a significant contributor.
Nibert is not representing the people who elected him in district one. He prioritizes personal beliefs or other influences over his constituents’ desires. Nibert is mistaken about what is in his constituents’ best interests.
Voters in District One voted no on Measure PP, (55% No 45% Yes) and Nibert voted yes on Measure PP.
Vice Mayor Nibert showed leadership and stick-to-itiveness on Measure PP. We need leadership that takes the correct stance for the good of our community. Remember, voters elected Jeff Nibert over Dean Wallace for council member because of Nibert’s expertise and his commitment to responsible growth. Nibert’s done a great job on council representing his district.
Tax and spend is the wrong stance.
There are action heroes and there are also-rans on the city council. Action heroes actively seek out problems within the community and work towards finding innovative solutions.
They prioritize listening to and understanding the needs and concerns of their constituents, often holding town hall meetings and engaging in community outreach.
They make informed and timely decisions, even in complex or contentious situations, to ensure the best outcomes for the community.
They champion important causes and policies that benefit the community, advocating for necessary resources and support.
They work effectively with fellow council members, city staff, and community organizations to achieve common goals.
They maintain open and honest communication with the public, ensuring that their actions and decisions are clear and understandable.
Launching and supporting projects that improve local infrastructure, public safety, and quality of life.
Responding promptly to constituents’ concerns, such as housing challenges and environmental concerns.
Crafting and implementing policies that address critical issues like affordable housing, public health, and economic development.
Leading efforts to respond to emergencies or crises, such as natural disasters or public health threats.
Ensuring that city resources are distributed fairly and effectively to meet the needs of all community members.
Being an action hero on the city council is about making a tangible difference in the lives of residents and driving to create a better, more equitable community.
Also-rans complain about assignments, increase taxes to spend more, and create greater debt.