|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Tensions flared during the Pleasanton City Council’s discussion Tuesday regarding the future of the city’s two utility discount programs as Mayor Jack Balch and Councilmember Julie Testa engaged in a heated exchange that culminated in Balch striking his gavel and calling for a recess before briefly departing from the dais.
The back-and-forth ensued as the council was providing input to staff about how to move forward with the senior and low-income utility discount programs ahead of a final vote next month.
The council was discussing whether the city should condense the two programs, along with other eligibility criteria and additional funding specifics. When Balch was going over some of his suggestions, Testa spoke up in opposition to his recommendations.
“I think it should be 10-year residency and that it should be income-qualified at 120% (area median income), age-qualified at 65, 24 CCF, no (budget) cap, 20% discount,” Testa said.
Balch retorted, “So you’re telling me if you’re a mother — 40 years old — with a child but have only lived in our town for seven years, you’re not allowed a discount?”
“No I didn’t say that. Don’t put words in my mouth,” Testa replied.
The tense interaction escalated, ending with Balch slamming his gavel and calling for a quick recess.
Upon returning to the dais the council continued the conversation, mostly agreeing on proposed updates to the program and eventually providing staff enough to work with as they develop different recommendation options for the council to vote on next month.
The discussion surrounding Pleasanton’s two utility discount programs initially started in May when the council directed staff to analyze the senior discount program following staff’s recommendation to eliminate it as part of the city’s water rate structure overhaul.
The program provides a 20% water bill discount to about 3,200 of seniors who are 65 years or older, according to staff.
The low-income program serves about 225 households and provides a 30% discount on Pleasanton and Zone 7 Water Agency fixed and variable fees, as well as Pleasanton sewer fixed fees.
During the Sept. 16 meeting, staff provided an analysis and comparison to other Tri-Valley city programs as part of the study that public works director Siew-Chin Yeong presented.
The study highlighted several key issues including the fact that, not only did both programs combined cost the city almost $505,000 last fiscal year from its general fund, but that no other Tri-Valley city offers a program like the senior discount program.
In the 2023-24 fiscal year, the senior water discount cost the city nearly $382,000, which jumped up to just over $450,000 the following year. In comparison, the low-income water discount cost the city nearly $45,000 in the 2023-24 fiscal year and nearly $55,000 the following year.
“(Regarding) the current program, the costs are growing quickly,” City Manager Gerry Beaudin said.
Yeong said there are several factors the city needs to consider when discussing the future of the two utility discount programs.
She said Pleasanton’s high cost of living leaves certain households ineligible for support when those same households might be struggling with rising utility costs and higher inflation, which could put serious financial pressures on seniors and low-income households.
But she also said the city needs to be smart about how much money it wants to put toward helping those people, especially given the city’s financial challenges highlighted over the past year and a half.
“Our goal is to continue offering meaningful assistance without compromising the city’s budget,” Yeong said. “As low-income customers may be the group that needed the support the most, staff suggest council to consider not changing the current discount program for low-income resident customers.”
With these considerations in mind, staff sought direction from the council that night on whether it should move forward with one single water and sewer discount program that would offer a 30% utility bill discount to qualified low-income and income-qualified senior residents or if it should maintain both separate programs.
“What we’re trying to do here is just compare — if you are a senior in the community, are you going to get a discount because of your age or are you going to get it because of the income?” Beaudin said. “The income-based program is going to exist whether you’re a senior or not, but we’re really just trying to decide what to do with this preexisting senior program.”
Other discussion points staff wanted direction on included settling on an area median income (AMI) criteria for the low-income residents, lowering the maximum water usage criteria, capping the budget for the discount program to $425,000 and keeping the 30% discount for the entire utility bill.
Beaudin said the $450,000 the city spent on just the senior discount program last year is “pretty significant” while the low-income discount, even if they doubled it, would still only be $100,000.
“The goal isn’t to just keep growing the program and try to chase it,” Beaudin said. “It’s to keep it within a certain number and be realistic with the general budget.”
Overall, everyone on the dais agreed on maintaining some sort of an income-based discount program and that the maximum water usage criteria should be reduced to 24 CCF — one CCF is equal to 748 gallons of water.
Most on the council also agreed to have staff look more into increasing the AMI limit to 100%, with the caveat that they also said they would be OK with an 80% AMI.
One major discussion point was an issue brought up by Vice Mayor Jeff Nibert and Councilmember Matt Gaidos who both suggested staff look into residency criteria for the discounts.
“We’ve created a lot of discounts and subsidized benefits to people who haven’t necessarily lived in this area,” Gaidos said. “I want to make sure we’re taking care of the folks who have contributed and paid taxes into not only locally but in general.”
“I think that once you start an account and you are a new resident of Pleasanton, you should have to live here for a few years before you get the discount,” Gaidos added.
Nibert later clarified he thinks that residency criteria should only apply for a senior-focused discount program.
Testa agreed with that point but Balch did not, which foreshadowed the heated exchange later that night. Balch mainly had qualms over how a criteria for residency would work for people who might not live within city boundaries but still pay water bills to the city.
But the main contention during the meeting was that Testa did not agree with getting rid of the senior discount program altogether and moving solely to an income-based one.
“I think it’s really important that we support our seniors aging in place and being able to remain in their homes and community,” Testa said. “We should do everything we can to support this demographic.”
However, Beaudin said there is “no way to sustain a $425,000 existing senior discount program” along with a low-income program.
Balch then suggested staff look at a program where seniors could get an enhancement to their discount — given they also qualify for low-income — if they are 65 years or older and lived in the city a number of years, Testa did not agree with and what ultimately led to the conflict.
Following the meeting, staff will use council’s input to develop a final recommendation along with alternatives based on the varying opinions of the council and present those as an action item next month so that, once approved, staff could make any potential updates in time for the new water rates, which are on track to be approved and take effect Jan. 1.
Pleasanton council shows early support for annexation, downtown plan, other priority projectsMarch 25, 2026 2:36 pm
Nighttime lane closures on I-580 near Pleasanton, I-680 through San Ramon ValleyMarch 25, 2026 2:05 pm
I am confused. Sounds like Testa interrupted Balch and then does what she always does. The council went about the business at hand. Your headline is misleading and intended to stir up drama when this is always how she behaves.
I completely agree with Fact Checker!
Isn’t it discriminatory to have a residency requirement for age 65 and older and none for someone younger than 65? Seemed like staff could have handled this a bit better. Clearly, they’re worried about the general fund budget. This really goes to our values as a community!
What is called a “dustup” is actually, in my opinion, an example of Councilmember Testa getting a little bit testy as well as disrespectful on the dais. I have watched many City Council meetings and, while I have seen her act more than once in what I believe is a less than respectful and appropriate manner for a public official at a public meeting, I believe I have not seen before the level of disrespect shown recently by Councilmember Testa. I just watched the portion at issue again to make sure I saw what I thought I saw. When the Mayor tried to use a hypothetical to understand her proposal, her response was not something like, “No, that is not I meant. What I meant was …” Instead, she said, “Don’t put words in my mouth!” When the Mayor said he was trying to understand, Councilmember Testa said, “That’s because you didn’t listen.” In my opinion, this is not the sort of behavior we expect from our elected officials. I know it is not always easy for anyone to remain completely calm and polite at all times, but I am sure I am not the only one who would appreciate a bit more decorum and respect from a public official engaged in a public discussion.
If the mayor cannot handle opposing views during a discussion on matters before council he shouldn’t be behind the gavel. Testa voiced her dissent, the Mayor had a tantrum, then slammed his gavel and ran away for five minutes.
This behavior is childish and is becoming a pattern. Far below the level the community expects of its elected officers. I think the mayor needs anger-management classes.
I agree with the above posters.
Council members Testa and Nibert both need to be replaced by representatives of Pleasanton’s Asian community. Chinese/Indian individuals with their business experience have demonstrated prudent management, ensuring balanced budgets, controlled spending, and sustainable debt levels.
The nonsense of Measure PP, Charter City, and floating bonds must come to an end. Tax and spend increases debt and renders the city financially out of control.
I disagree with the Critical Thinker’s comment.
It was Testa who did not understand the issue.
It is no secret that Councilmember Testa takes great delight in getting under the mayor’s skin. She has a long history of dragging out a discussion needlessly just so she can have the last word.
I was in the room during the exchange, the only member of the public present. The rap of the gavel certainly brought everyone to attention, and as stunning as it was, it wasn’t surprising. The mayor and councilmembers had been wrangling tough issues since four o’clock in the afternoon, a nearly 5-hour session. There was a decent audience for the East Side Planning workshop, and a few stayed through several other items, but by the time they got to water discounts, everyone else had simply disappeared. Neither the interim Fire Chief nor the Police Chief were present during the Emergency Response report, and all other staff members hastily vamoosed immediately afterward, leaving only Councilmembers, and 2 staff members of the Water Utility Department, the City Manager, and City Attorney , along with the City Clerk. And me.
Five very long hours later, with no dinner break, and a few contentious conversations, yes, the mayor knew he had to get away to recover his composure. The Eastside discussion ran so far past the scheduled six o’clock closed session that it was cancelled, and they took only a brief break to stretch, returning to tackle the regular Council Meeting at its scheduled hour.
There needs to be a better way than these grueling marathon sessions; this is no way to conduct good governance. Staff must recognize this shortcoming and do a better job of scheduling. I’m not suggesting it’s easy; only that it is necessary if the city is to be successful in moving forward toward a more positive exchange of ideas, without the drama. Public apathy and lethargy were both in evidence. And that’s not the mayor’s fault.
Need is the same whether your are 40 or 65. It should be purely income based. Why a senior citizen who can afford need discount. Basic common sense..
Most important thing for Plesanton is need of more housing. Discuss how this can be accomplished, how City can help to reduce the cost of housing to all, not just to low income..middle class is suffering.. my kids and your kids cannot afford here any more, here. reduce the non-sense building code, fees, permit costs, speed up the approvals, etc. densify more, more people, more business, more tax and so on…see how genuinely you can help the people. Small businesses will come where it affordable to them to hire and prosper…not by putting a fancy flier…
District base elections can cause these types of confrontations. Council members only have to represent their district, not necessarily what is best for Pleasanton.
While city council members are elected by and accountable to their individual districts, their decisions often carry citywide consequences, especially when it comes to development, infrastructure, and zoning.
City-wide impact of local decisions:
Development projects, such as zoning, transit, or commercial zoning, rarely remain confined to a single district. Traffic, environmental effects, school enrollment, and economic shifts ripple across neighborhoods.
Infrastructure planning, such as water, power, and emergency services, requires coordination across districts. A bottleneck or delay in one area can affect the entire city.
Equity and fairness, if one district blocks affordable housing or public transit, it can exacerbate inequality and push burdens onto other districts.
Legal and ethical expectations:
While council members are elected by districts, codes of ethics expect them to act in the best interest of the entire municipality. They’re stewards of the city, not just their slice of it.
Council votes are binding across all districts, meaning a member’s vote affects everyone, not just their constituents.
Political Reality vs. Civic Responsibility: Politically, council members may prioritize their districts’ preferences to stay elected. But responsible governance demands a broader lens, balancing local advocacy with citywide vision.
Recommended Reading: –Jessica Trounstine’s Center for Effective Government.
@CriticalThinker: I agree with you 100%. The mayor had a tantrum plain and simple. He seemed to be holding his temper, but last meeting he clearly lost it.
For a city mayor, this is inexcusable. Rewatch the meeting and you will see that Ms. Testa was asking questions to which, Mr. Balch disliked. He obviously felt challenged. He does not do well when things or people do not go his way. Tantrum? Exactly.
As a 20+ year resident, I’m embarrassed for him and our Community of Character.