|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Almost $3 million every year.
That’s how much money city officials say Measure HH, which seeks to raise Pleasanton’s hotel tax rate, would generate annually after 2028 if approved by a simple majority of voters on the November ballot.
The money, according to the ballot text, would be used to fund general municipal services like “police and fire protection; park and street maintenance; recreation programs; and other general government uses”.
“We’ve spent the past year steering Pleasanton towards a more fiscally sustainable future,” Mayor Jack Balch said in a July 9 press release. “From countless conversations across our community, including close engagement with our hospitality industry, I am confident that we are presenting voters with a reasonable choice for November.”
But as Election Day gets closer, the arguments against the tax measure have begun to take shape as some people believe the proposed tax increase will negatively impact residents and businesses, even as the city claims otherwise.
“City Hall says ‘visitors’ pay this tax. But those visitors are our parents, children, friends, wedding guests, customers and business travelers,” according to one of the argument letters in opposition to the ballot measure. “Their spending supports Pleasanton businesses, and higher hotel costs make Pleasanton less competitive with neighboring communities.”
It’s been two years since Pleasanton voters rejected Measure PP, a 2024 ballot measure that sought to address the city’s ongoing structural deficit by increasing the city’s sales tax rate by half a cent.
What followed the 2024 election was a contentious two-year budget development process that resulted in cuts to services and departments across the city organization. So, after the budget was adopted, the Pleasanton City Council directed staff in August 2025 to begin looking at ways the city could generate some extra revenue.
“Based on the City of Pleasanton’s 10-year financial forecast, annual General Fund operating deficits will range from $4.4 to 8.3 million, with the most significant fiscal impact occurring during the first five years of the forecast,” according to an argument letter in support of Measure HH signed by all five sitting councilmembers.
“Generating sufficient revenue to ensure Pleasanton’s sustainability allows the City to continue providing programs and services that benefit all residents,” the letter continues.
Staff then spent months surveying residents and speaking with hotel owners and managers to see if there would be any support for raising the city’s 8% transient occupancy tax rate, a fee charged for nightly stays in hotels. According to the city’s website, its rate has remained unchanged since 1983.
“Pleasanton’s TOT rate of 8% was established in 1983 and has not been adjusted since then, while 10 of the 14 cities in Alameda County levy hotel taxes between 10% and 14%. At the 12% rate, Pleasanton would remain at or below most Alameda County jurisdictions,” the letter in support of the ballot measure reads.
The City Council then spent months discussing the ballot measure and all of the logistics before finally agreeing to place it on the ballot on July 7.
According to the ballot language, if approved, Measure HH would increase the city’s hotel tax rate from 8% to 10% starting July 2027. An additional increase from 10% to 12% would take effect the following year, which the city says could generate up to $2.8 million annually once the full increase to 12% is realized.
This phased approach, according to the letter supporting the measure, would also give hoteliers a grace period to adjust to the increased rates gradually.
One of the main talking points, both during the council meeting and in the support letters, is that this increase will not only bring in more money into the city, but it will do so without directly affecting Pleasanton taxpayers.
“A YES vote is a practical, balanced approach that helps ensure Pleasanton’s long-term financial sustainability while asking visitors — not residents — to contribute more toward the services they use during their stay,” the letter in support of Measure HH states.
However, the argument against the measure — written by Kelly M. Ceglio — contends otherwise.
“Pleasanton’s hotel tax rate is currently lower than surrounding cities—a distinct advantage that keeps our local business climate competitive, supports local commerce, and encourages visitors to stay and spend money in our community,” the letter opposing Measure HH reads. “Imposing a steep new tax on visitors threatens that economic advantage and harms local hospitality businesses.”
The letter goes on to point out other issues with the proposed ballot measure, including the fact that the ballot question itself states that the revenue “can be used” for governmental uses. This, according to the letter, is an issue because as an unrestricted general tax measure, the revenue goes directly to the city’s general fund, which means it can be used for anything.
“The City can spend those dollars on anything it chooses — including rising pension costs and bureaucratic expansion — with no legal guarantee that a single dollar goes toward public safety or infrastructure maintenance,” Ceglio states in the opposition letter.
The letter also argues that the measure does not include an expiration date, which means that if residents want to end the tax, they would have to conduct a citizens initiative.
“Having a lower hotel tax benefits Pleasanton businesses,” Ceglio states. “Before handing the City an unrestricted tax increase with no sunset clause, residents should demand real operational efficiencies first.”
According to a rebuttal argument, which is also signed by all five City Council members, the city has already been doing everything in its power to reduce spending.
The rebuttal also argues against the notion that any resident, or hotel, would be negatively impacted by these rate increases, citing studies that “show that moderate increases to hotel tax do NOT cause measurable changes in hotel occupancy, revenue, average daily room rate, or hotel employment”.
“Low taxes are good,” the rebuttal states. “However, the beneficiaries of this lower tax rate are visitors — not Pleasanton residents.”
“Hotel tax increases generally have a negligible impact on hotel activity, according to recent academic studies and research done by other Bay Area cities,” the rebuttal further states. “Pleasanton’s rate will remain at or below most neighboring cities, keeping our business climate and hospitality businesses competitive.”
Tracy High football coach, Pleasanton native accused of recording students in locker roomSeptember 13, 2026 8:03 am
'I don't think anyone's safe': Community on edge after rash of burglaries in PleasantonSeptember 10, 2026 10:57 pm
