|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Pleasanton City Council directed staff last Tuesday to begin discussions with regional hotel stakeholders and municipalities about the possibility of placing a transient occupancy tax/hotel tax increase on the November ballot next year.
The council majority did not signal staff to move forward with polling efforts to determine if there is community interest in other revenue sources such as a sales tax increase, general obligation bond or a parcel tax, citing reasons including a lack of unanimous support for the polling efforts and overall disinterest in pursuing those other revenue options following the failure of Measure PP.
“I definitely have an appetite for discussion around (the TOT tax), but things beyond that seem so volatile and it seems so fresh after the last election — we’re not even a year out — that I’m frankly afraid that we’re going to get an even stronger pushback than we already had the first time,” Councilmember Matt Gaidos said during the Aug. 19 meeting.
Aarón Zavala, assistant to the city manager, told the council that the city continues to face an ongoing projected structural fiscal deficit in upcoming budget cycles. He said there have been significant reductions made to the city’s budget during the adoption of the current two-year budget, including economic development initiatives and a comprehensive municipal service in the works that will identify additional efficiencies within the organization; but there is still a need for additional revenue sources.
Staff presented the council with a proposal to conduct professional voter opinion polling to get residents’ thoughts on potential revenue measures for the November 2026 election. The proposal comes after a council majority in July halted plans for the city to become a charter city, which in turn also halted plans to implement a voter-approved real property transfer tax.
According to Zavala, the polling would have provided data-driven insights and testing on initial support levels for multiple proposed revenue measures. The cost for the polling would have been anywhere between $31,000 to $50,000, Zavala said.
Staff said, as they have during past council meetings, that the city must continue to look into other revenue sources in addition to the work they have been doing to balance the numbers through other means, especially as staff continue to predict a $6 million to $9 million budget deficit every year for the next few years — despite having a balanced budget for the next two.
“You never know what’s going to happen and the city may need to add other services to support the community,” city finance director Susan Hsieh said. “There may be changes to financial conditions that we did not include in the (financial) forecast. The $6 to $9 million that I mentioned earlier is assuming there will not be significant changes to economic conditions down the road.”
And City Manager Gerry Beaudin said with Measure PP having lost by only about 4% in the 2024 election, another potential revenue measure wasn’t entirely outside the realm of possibilities for the city.
“A lot of work to be done but we know enough today to tell you as the elected body — and we have been saying it for quite some time — that we have a structural deficit and we do need to find new revenue, expense reductions and to work on that longer term, medium term economic development programmings,” he said.
The four top revenue measures that the city proposed for polling included a transient occupancy tax/hotel tax increases; sales tax alternatives; parcel taxes for specific services; and general obligation bonds for infrastructure.
The transient occupancy tax, according to staff, could potentially be increased from 8% to up to 12%, which could rake in nearly $3 million in revenue while the city’s sales tax could possibly go up to 10.75%, which could produce around $10.8 million in revenue. The city doesn’t currently have any parcel or general obligation bonds but each of those, as laid out by the city, could bring in anywhere from $9.7 million to $10.2 million a year.
The last two options would need a two-thirds voter approval while the first two would need a simple majority.
Vice Mayor Jeff Nibert was the main voice on the council who supported polling residents about the potential measures because he said the city needs to take immediate action in order to ensure its fiscal sustainability.
“I think we owe it to ourselves to get as much information as we can,” Nibert said. “We need to act with urgency. Our structural deficit has not gone away and will not go away.”
While economic development is great and welcomed, he said it is unpredictable and that the city really needs predictable sources of revenue so staff can develop a budget without cutting services.
“I don’t think our residents want to live with constant cuts to services and deteriorating infrastructure for years to come,” Nibert said. “If that’s where we’re headed, I think the community deserves a direct say.”
However, the rest of the council had mixed feelings about polling residents.
Gaidos agreed with Nibert in acknowledging how Pleasanton’s infrastructure is aging and there will be future repair and replacement problems — he pointed to the water system as an example — that will cost the city money.
However, Gaidos remained hesitant on the city going out to poll residents on new potential revenue measures because he said it will be very hard to get residents to pass any such ballot measure without the unanimous support of the entire council.
Councilmember Julie Testa echoed similar sentiments. While acknowledging that she hates the idea of having to make future cuts to services, she said, “I do not support going forward with any of these unless we have unanimous support, and I don’t believe we have that on our council.”
“I think it’s sad because we are going to have significant community impacts — it was really hard to sit up here and listen to the concerns of our community during our last round of cuts — but we’ll have it again and it’ll be worse but I don’t think we will be successful putting anything forward without unanimous support,” she added.
Councilmember Craig Eicher was also on the fence as he said he could understand why the city should poll its residents on how they would feel about the idea of new revenue measures but as someone who voted against Measure PP, he still thought the city should work on living within its means.
Pleasanton resident Debbie Wallace said during public comment that polling to gauge residents’ views on another sales tax increase, or any tax increase, would be a waste of peoples’ tax dollars.
“Measure PP was defeated, which in itself — I believe — indicates the answer you would get from asking residents for another tax increase,” Wallace said.
The council ultimately came to agreement on supporting continued discussions about pursuing a hotel tax increase, which staff said wouldn’t need community polling because it affects hotel stakeholders and residents don’t usually pay those taxes — it’s the visitors staying in those hotels who pay them.
The council also directed staff to speak with other cities in the region so that other Tri-Valley hotels could possibly implement such a tax.
Mayor Jack Balch noted throughout the meeting that with the city’s recent efforts to balance its budget and introduce various strategies to improve its financial status, the city is building its credibility so that in the future, it might be easier to get residents on the same page regarding any revenue measures.
Balch said the credibility of any future ballot measure depends on whether or not this council can demonstrate “that we have modernized operations, that we have streamlined the processes, that we have actually changed how we do business”.
“That credibility then leads us to help the community understand that we have belt-tightened, as proven in the budget we’ve just passed, and we’re doing something different so that we’re not just throwing cash at the problem and going back to them,” Balch said. “That we are using prudent measures going forward.”
He said while he also supports pursuing a hotel tax increase, the city needs to see how its recent efforts to improve things like economic development will affect its financial forecast, which will then signal whether or not the city will need to pursue revenue measures in the future.
“I think we’ve got to perform,” Balch said. “I think we’ve got to see some of our initiatives perform and I think that will build credibility.”
Despite being on board with considering an increase to the hotel tax, Nibert said he was disgusted by the overall discussion Tuesday and vehemently disagreed with the council’s decision to not poll residents on the other measures.
“We’re talking about polling,” Nibert said. “We’re not talking about placing items on the ballot yet. We’re just talking about getting information … What’s the matter with asking our residents their opinion?”
Mayor Balch and my District 4 Councilmember Gaidos are listening and heeding as is District 2 Councilmember Eicher. Councilmember Nibert is becoming increasingly tone-deaf and out of touch with the electorate.
Multiple measures were painfully explored and applied to the budget to make it balance. The ink is barely dry on those measures, as has been noted. Polling yet again, with questions weighted toward the outcome managerial staff seeks, spends money in precisely the manner voters are identifying as wasteful and unnecessary.
That same make-work approach is being applied to the crucial water rate discussion, and remains a large factor in public distrust. Unless and until council directs staff to give the recently adopted measures a chance to prove their mettle, it is an insult to the intellegence of voters to keep paying pollsters to tell you what has already been made clear.
Oh, wait! Despite Councilmember Nibert’s misplaced vehemence, that’s what happened! So staff has been directed by council to quit polling, sharpen their pencils, open their eyes and minds, and give the new plan a chance to work. It is now up to them to follow those directions and quit wasting big bucks asking the same-old questions and start implementing new policies before continuing to cry woe is me.
Hi keeknlinda,
Thank you so much for your thoughtful comments. I truly value our respectful and constructive relationship.
I want to share my perspective with care and honesty. While the budget is an essential tool for guiding how the city allocates its resources over the next two years, I believe it’s not a substitute for a comprehensive plan. A balanced budget is important, but it doesn’t resolve the deeper issue: the city’s structural deficit. As things currently stand, we’re looking at a projected $6 to $9 million annual shortfall starting in 2027, even after the difficult cuts already made. That reality remains, regardless of the Council’s immediate actions.
In the short term, we need new revenue — something residents in my district previously voted to approve. I recognize that cuts to city services are painful, and while some may advocate for even deeper reductions, I personally do not. I believe we must protect the services that make our community livable and strong.
To be fair, the Council has unanimously directed the city to pursue a range of strategies — perhaps this is what you were referring to as a plan. These include improving operational efficiency, streamlining processes, seeking sponsorships, and investing in economic development, especially by attracting innovative businesses and expanding retail. These are promising steps, and I sincerely hope they succeed. We all do. But they’re not guaranteed to yield measurable budget relief in the near term, and many are tied to broader economic conditions beyond our control.
I remain hopeful that these efforts will bear fruit, but realistically, we may not see significant impact in the next two to four years. And if the economy falters, that timeline could stretch even further. Taken together, these strategies are unlikely to close the $6 to $9 million gap by July 2027.
That’s why I believe it’s wise to begin planning for the next budget cycle now. The challenges ahead are visible, and waiting too long could leave us with fewer options and greater risks. As the saying goes, failing to plan is planning to fail — and I know none of us want that for our city.
Thank you again, keeknlinda, for being part of this important conversation. Your engagement helps move us forward.
Warmly,
Jeff
When City Councils go Comatose on Creativity:
In cities across America, local governments are supposed to be the engines of innovation, the stewards of smart growth, and the champions of fiscal responsibility. But what happens when a city council becomes so addicted to the same tired revenue streams–taxes and bonds–that they forget how to think?
Welcome to the land of municipal stagnation:
This isn’t just fiscal conservatism, it’s fiscal cowardice. When a city council refuses to explore new ways to raise revenue–be it through public-private partnerships, land value capture, tourism, or tech-driven efficiencies–they’re not protecting taxpayers. They’re failing them.
Instead of cultivating opportunity, they cling to the status quo like barnacles on a sinking ship. Need a new park? Tax Hike. Want to fix the roads? Bpnd measure. Dreaming of a community center? Better brace for another round of property tax pain. It’s a one-note symphony of financial laziness.
And let’s be clear:
This isn’t about being frugal. It’s about being unimaginative. Cities around the world are experimenting with dynamic pricing, congestion fees, green infrastructure credits, and even monetizing data responsibly. Meanwhile, our council seems stuck in a time warp where the only tools are “raise taxes” or “issue bonds”.
Jeff Nibert and Juli Testa should be replaced, and the city manager must refocus the city staff on a revenue stream of income other than taxes and bonds.
It is indeed sad to say that our city hall failed to recognize that the voters have spoken. Spending another $30k to $50k to do another poll is a total waste of our precious resources and a slap in voter’s faces. Everyone knows the economic conditions will turn as the world evolves. Everyone know why we have this structural deficit and yet no one is addressing it. As long as there is no movement in this front, the voters should resist the ever increasing pressure to raise taxes. We all should take note that the recent idea of moving Pleasanton to become a Charter City is a total disguise to burden the property owners with a transfer tax. Did you miss this subtle scheme someone in City Hall dreamt up?!? We have a lot of devious politicians in City Hall to scheme ways to burden the very residents with additional fees or taxes. Enough is enough!
Common Pitfalls in Conducting Polls. Poor question design:
1. Leading questions push respondents toward a particular answer.
2. Ambiguous wording confuses participants or allows multiple interpretations.
3. Double-barreled questions ask two things at once (e.g., “Do you support increasing taxes and improving schools?”).
Sampling Bias. If your sample is not representative of the population, your results won’t be either.
Over-reliance on convenience samples (e.g., only polling online users or event attendees) can skew results.
Under coverage of key groups (like young voters, renters, or non-English speakers) leads to distorted findings.
Low response rates. A small number of responses can make results statistically unreliable. Those who respond may be more passionate or polarized, creating non-responses.
There is a misinterpretation of data, a lack of transparency, and overgeneralization.
Good poll questions are clear, unbiased, and tailored to the audience and purpose. The key is to ask questions that yield meaningful, actionable insights.
The following are examples of correct polling questions:
1. Do you feel valued at work? Always/often/Sometimes/Rarely/Never.
2. How would you rate communications within your team?
Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor/Very poor.
3. Which learning format do you prefer? In-person/Online/Hybrid/Self- modules.
Pleasanton’s Population is white 41%, Asian 39%, 12% Asian are Indian, and 10% Hispanic. A correct poll of Pleasanton residents would necessitate sampling a minimum of 30% of each group. Bearing in mind, there are twelve different religious groups/organizations in Pleasanton. One’s religion may impact responders’ answers.
It’s pretty clear that all the years of a no/slow growth mentality has caught up with Pleasanton (vis a vis Julie Testa and Jeff Nibert). We’ve been homeowners here since 1985 and it boggles the mind to recall all of the opportunities for revenue producing enterprises and housing production (pre-State mandate) that were rejected in persuit of some quixotic dream that we could somehow indefinitely maintain the status quo of our little Hallmark town forever; that the population of Pleasanton would not age out along with our infrastructure; that culture would dramatically change the way we shop; that the cost of everything would explode; that the income gap would grow to what it is today.
One recent blaring example is the misplaced opposition to Costco by slow-growthers and Nimbys. Well, folks, it did happen after costing the Costco and the City a still untold amount of money in defense fees and redundant environmental studies, and yet Costco is thriving; the infrastructure improved vastly. Can’t wait to hear how much revenue Pleasanton does realize from our Costco.
We do, collectively, with a view to the future of the city we all love, need to focus on revenue, not savings ourselves into prosperity. We are all called to creative solutions as other cities have done. Since we can’t seem to be able to support enough police officers to do traffic patrol, how about those traffic cameras that fine folks who run red lights (we don’t have any of those, do we?)! Could they also save lives and limbs? How about congestion fees for commute traffic on Stoneridge eating up the roadway? How about reviewing our permitting process to facilitate small businesses. Let’s don’t wait for Governor Newsome to mandate what we do to create opportunities for our kids who would love to live in Pleasanton along with the newcomers.
We don’t have to pay huge bucks for polling. City Council members should be out polling their constituency; the City can poll on it’s website – it’s not rocket science.