|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Pleasanton City Council was able to reach consensus on a majority of the laundry list of recommended budget cuts to city services and amenities during a special meeting Thursday. Following the council’s feedback, staff will now draft the city’s two-year budget.
After going through the 21 different items that staff have recommended for reductions or eliminations, the council ended up agreeing to cuts that would result in approximately $6.2 million in savings for the fiscal year 2025-26 and $6.6 million in the following fiscal year — both amounts are short a couple of million dollars from the city’s original reduction targets.
“Our community came together in these last four months like I have not seen in a long time related to what is important to you … and I do hope we honored as much of that as we can as we also face the situation that we are in,” Mayor Jack Balch said during the April 10 meeting which was a continuance from Tuesday’s regular meeting when the discussion first started.
While the council did not hit the city’s targeted savings goals for its two-year budget, staff said they will work over the next two months to bring back a balanced budget draft and they will continue to look at other funding sources to pull from in order to meet its targets.
“Let us work with the moving parts and with the resources we have available and I can guarantee you that the town’s finance staff will come back with a balanced budget for you,” City Manager Gerry Beaudin said to the council.
Over the past year and a half the city has been warning residents of a structural budget deficit that is projected to set the city back, on average, roughly $13 million each year over the next eight years — that number could go as high as $22 million if a recession hits. These projections came from a 10-year financial forecast that was previously found to be accurate by an independent accounting firm.
Pleasanton is facing a $10.4 million budget shortfall in the 2025-26 fiscal year and a $12 million shortfall in the 2026-27 fiscal year.
The council recently authorized the city to draw down $2 million in one-time funds from the Section 115 pension trust fund over the next two years to help offset the overall budget shortfall, which brought down the baseline reduction target of reductions to $8.4 million in the first year and $10 million in the second year.
Over the past few months, city staff have been compiling community input through various platforms and have been working with a Budget Advisory Committee to come up with the list of 21 recommendations for cuts across several city departments.
The list had originally included seven additional recommendations, such as closing the Dolores Bengston Aquatic Center, closing a fire station and reducing the Firehouse Arts Center programming, but the council had unanimously agreed during its April 8 meeting to discard those controversial cuts. They doubled down on the decision to not pursue those cuts during the April 10 meeting.
During Thursday’s meeting, staff presented some supplemental information and revised recommendations following the direction they received from the council Tuesday. All of the items that the council supported on Thursday do not represent any formal decisions as these cuts will need to be voted on during the budget adoption in June.
One of the items that the council discussed in length was the proposed cuts to the Pleasanton Public Library — a number of residents showed up in support of not making any cuts to the library during the April 8 meeting, which is what led to the revisions.
Per the new alternative recommendation that the council unanimously supported, the library would have to eliminate all of its temporary staff (about 20 employees) who help with putting books back on shelves and fill in when staff are out sick or on vacation, one full-time position would be eliminated and a management position, which is currently vacant, would also be eliminated.
The library reduction recommendation would also change the library’s schedule to 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Thursday; 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Friday and Saturday; and closing the library on Sunday.
“It’s also going to scale back the level of service that you have at the library,” Director of Library and Recreation Heidi Murphy said during the meeting. “It’s not just hours, but it is a modified service … it’s a very different service model.”
Councilmember Julie Testa said that, much like all of the other items on Thursday’s list, these cuts to the library are not something that she or the rest of the council want to do but the fact that residents did not pass Measure PP last November — a half cent sales tax increase measure — they don’t have much flexibility.
“It’s tragic that we have to make these changes but I think we have to make these changes,” Testa said. “I think it’s the responsible thing to do.”
Another point of contention during Thursday’s meeting came up as the council discussed the item to reduce park and trail maintenance. Staff’s recommendation was to eliminate mowing contracts and reduce irrigation frequency along with eliminating two vacant and two filled personnel positions.
Public Works Director Siew-Chin Yeong explained how the adjustment would mean reducing maintenance to underutilized parks and that overall, it would mean a change to how parks across the city would look.
The council was split with Councilmember Jeff Nibert and Testa supporting staff’s original recommendation while the other three council members wanted to eliminate the item from the list entirely in fear that the city would be losing, in a sense, assets that make the city great.
Nibert pointed out that staff’s recommendation wouldn’t affect the parks too much — it would probably lead to overgrown grass and grass that isn’t as green, he said — and Yeong confirmed that with this reduction specifically, it would just mean the city would have to maintain these parks with its in-house staff.
Ultimately, the council remained split on the item but the majority agreed to have staff come back in May to look at further options to consider vacancies when talking about eliminating positions through attrition.
The council was similarly split on the revised item to retain one Special Enforcement Unit officer rather than staff’s original recommendation to eliminate both that position and an Investigation Units officer position.
Councilmember Craig Eicher — a retired Pleasanton Police Department captain — was especially protective of this item and the reduction to the school resource offi program, because he said he was worried about the city’s ability to serve its community.
Testa wanted to go with the original recommendation to eliminate both special unit positions and Nibert addressed that the council was not meeting its reductions target.
“I’m feeling somewhat dismayed that we aren’t achieving the reductions that we need to achieve for the benefit of the city,” he said.
Nibert also noted that voters during the recent election cycle had called for the city to find cuts where possible in light of Measure PP not passing and that they have not gotten close to those target goals. He also mentioned that, as staff have previously pointed out, there is a possibility of an economic downturn and recession that means these cuts could only be the beginning of future discussions.
Apart from eliminating the reduction to the school resource officer program from the list, the council also agreed that the Pleasanton Unified School District needs to return to the table to discuss cost-sharing options for that program and the crossing guard program.
“If we take this away and there’s an accident, it would devastate me,” Balch said in regards to the crossing guard program.
The council mostly supported the rest of the reductions on Thursday’s list.
Those reductions include a $2.8 million cut to Internal Services and Operational Support; reductions to landscaping services citywide (this includes the removal of the city’s Fall Leaf Pickup program); reducing community support and subsidies to TV 30 by 10% and to the Museum on Main and the Senior Center.
Other reductions that the council supported are reducing the total General Fund contribution to Housing and Human Services Grants to $100,000; eliminating the entire budget for community grants in youth and civic arts categories; reducing funding for police special programs; and reductions to the city’s planning and permitting department which translate to less in-person hours for the permit center and reductions to plan checking, long-range planning and permitting consultant contracts.
Another point of contention, which at one point was labeled as the “elephant in the room,” by Balch, was his idea from the April 8 meeting where he suggested to use money from the Capital Improvement Program and the city’s other post-employment benefits (OPEB) liability fund — in addition to the $2 million that the council authorized to use from the 115 trust fund — to reduce the overall reduction target goals for both fiscal years 2025-26 and 2026-27.
Balch suggested not overfunding the OPEB fund as they have for the past two years, which would free up $1.7 million in the General Fund and not putting as much money into the CIP so that it would “free up approximately $3.22 million in year one and $3.391 million in year two.”
“That would mean the cut target … for year one would be $3.48 million and the cut target for year two would be $4.909 million,” Balch said. “If we are willing to put a little less than in the forecast to CIP, but still again more than we’ve put in prior years, this could help us to have the General Fund have additional funds to not cut as deep.”
Staff said they couldn’t weigh in on these ideas but Susan Hsieh, the city’s finance director, said they could look at using savings, revisit the city’s revenues and expenditures and even use some of that OPEB fund to balance the two-year budget as the city analyzes its options before returning to the council on May 20.
Eicher supported Balch’s suggestion and Councilmember Matt Gaidos said he wouldn’t be opposed to withdrawing money from those funds after looking at other options. However, Nibert and Testa vehemently opposed Balch’s suggestion throughout the meeting.
Testa said not putting money into capital projects have historically led the city to where it is in regards to deteriorating facilities and that if the city takes away from the CIP, it would put them all in a deeper hole.
Nibert echoed her statements and said the city needs to catch up with its facility needs or else more measures such as parcel taxes might have to go to the voters.
“Many organizations have realized, in hindsight, that not putting money towards repair and replacement … was a huge mistake,” Nibert said. “In fact Pleasanton is already suffering from this.”
“I know it’s not easy to make these decisions. These are items that we all value,” he added. “But pulling them from the CIP would be a very short-term solution and in the long term, it would come back to haunt the future councils as well as our city and all of its residents.”
The city council erred by not accepting the staff recommendations to complete the budget. They whittled off four million. Staff is now faced with finding that elsewhere. The council listened to the small number of residents (some non-residents) that were on the short end of measure PP. That voice was not applied by the council in this budget.
What did the city council ignore, not understand?
The city staff developed its budget through a structured and transparent process involving community engagement and careful financial planning. The staff employed tools and strategies to address the financial challenges and create a balanced budget.
For example, city staff launched an online Budget Engagement Tool to gather community input and potential budget adjustment. This tool allowed residents to share their ideas for cost savings or revenue generation, ensuring the budget reflected the community’s priorities. Additionally, the staff conducted budget workshops, town halls and advisory committeemeetings to discuss financial challenges and financial solutions.
The budget process included both operational and capitol expenses, with a focus on long-term fiscal sustainability, submitting a balanced budget that aligns with the city council’s strategic goals and the community’s values.
If there were one thousand people each day using the Pleasanton public library, that is less than 3 percent of Pleasanton voters. The same story for the swimming pool. Less than 3 percent of Pleasanton voters. Many pool users are from other cities. Measure PP was defeated with a 35,000 voter turnout.
@Michael Austin, the recommendations were those of the City Manager, not staff. That point was made clear at the final Budget Advisory Committee meeting when the eleven-member committee refused to make a motion to accept the proposed budget reductions. Ten men and one woman, selected for their fiscal acumen, experience, and knowledge of governmental function all recognized there was shortsightedness in the proposal and could not put their stamp of approval on it. They, as many audience members, recognized there were solutions that had been dismissed out of hand without being given the hard look that was required.
Directors Hsieh, Murphy, Yeong, Tassano, Denis, all acknowledged that their respective departments could make more adjustments without destroying the community attributes we have come to admire.
Councilmembers have given direction. It is in the City Manager’s court to follow that direction. It seemed clear staff it up to the task. This is a short term, two-tear budget we’re looking at. It isn’t the end of Pleasanton as we know it, although City Engineer Nelke’s impassioned presentation surely made one wonder. If an immediate but temporary fix lies in reduced CIP contributions and using the interest from OPEB over-contributions, then of course that makes sense! The principle monies remain intact, it smooths out the rough patch, and gives an opportunity to rebound, rethink future priorities, and sets us on a path to smooth sailing ahead. We’re in this together, and together is how we will weather the storm.
I consider Cty Manager Beaudin to be staff.
He was on my mind when I wrote.
Thank you for your thoughts.
Remember – many newer Pleasanton residents pay ~ $25,000+ in property taxes every year, the only service that the city provides that benefits majority of the residents was the Fall Leaf pickup – Now that is being cut ? Seriously ?
And folks keep bringup the measure PP (as if we are not paying enough already)
The Library needs to go digital and mostly online – reducing costs, and Library should not be a day care facility for some working parents.
This whole thing is smoke and mirrors.
Why are there no cuts to city staffing ? Why can’t the city keep the same level of services with less staffing? In the private world employees are expected to be more productive and efficient every year.
They are asking us to swallow the cuts, but I have not heard anything about city staff taking a 5% cut in pay. What would that do for the bottom line?
@DM – in asking why the city can’t keep the same level of services with less staffing, I believe you just answered your own question.