|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Jeff Nibert
Pleasanton’s residents deserve straight talk. Regarding Pleasanton’s newly approved two-year budget, the city’s financial future remains precarious.
The process to create a budget following the failure of Measure PP was necessarily long and arduous. Painful cuts were made. Our residents who engaged in the process are to be thanked and commended.
I voted in favor of the resulting final budget as the culmination of the hard work of our city staff, the Budget Advisory Committee and all involved. Despite my reservations, I believe the City Council needs to show unanimity of resolve, not necessarily complete agreement, to move the city forward.
The mayor’s Guest Opinion in the June 20 issue, while laudatory, obscures the big picture regarding two serious threats to our future: Pleasanton’s rapidly escalating pension contributions and the very high cost to fix the city’s deteriorated infrastructure and facilities, following years of deferring their maintenance.
While the City Council did make tough decisions, a council majority also voted to sidestep other recommended actions that were before us to tackle the structural deficit. In my opinion, we as a body fell short, and because of that, the remaining gap in the new budget is now filled with onetime money and lost opportunity.
Some difficult choices are still being deferred or overshadowed. In other words, on these serious threats, the proverbial can was kicked further down the road.
With our pension situation, the big picture metric is the unfunded liability. The Section 115 Pension Trust is meant to keep a lid on our unfunded liability.
In March, the city’s actuary recommended ideally not taking money out of the trust, as doing so increases our liability. I myself wrestled with following the alternate path taken by the council.
The decision to withdraw $3 million means it will be unavailable for both future use and compounded earnings — whether it’s interest or principal doesn’t matter. That is the wrong direction as the city heads into the critical period when pension costs, which have already ballooned, are forecast to soar. Just because we can raid the trust doesn’t mean we should.
Furthermore, the investment in Pleasanton’s infrastructure and facilities has been woefully inadequate for many years. While the added allocation in this budget is welcome, it still is not powerful enough to meet any significant fraction of the enormous need. In the original draft budget, city staff had recommended $1.6 million more for the Deferred Maintenance program than what the council approved.
Considering the critical infrastructure conditions that exist, denying the recommended amount was also a step in the wrong direction. When facilities break down, the services they provide go away. Right now, there is a long list of needed repairs that $1.6 million could have helped to fund, above and beyond the final budget dollars. In this respect, the budget doesn’t do enough to safeguard our quality of life.
The city will seek measures to increase revenue, but these will likely take years to make a dent in the still alarming financial forecast. Without significant new revenue of millions of dollars annually, the required improvements to city facilities and infrastructure, as well as mandatory pension funding, will either lead to deeper cuts to city services or become impossible to implement.
Yes, Pleasanton will have a balanced budget. But the financial situation is not all happy talk. Pleasanton is not out of the fiscal woods, not by a long shot.
Editor’s note: Jeff Nibert is in his third year on the Pleasanton City Council, representing District 1 in the northwest part of the city. Nibert is serving as vice mayor during 2025.
Vice Mayor Jeff Nibert’s opinion about Pleasanton’s newly adopted budget strikes an alarmist tone that doesn’t reflect the full picture. Yes, the city faces long-term challenges—but the 2025–27 budget represents real progress, not denial.
The Vice Mayor himself voted in favor of this budget. To now suggest that the city is kicking the can down the road is to undercut the very process he participated in and approved. To now call it inadequate or a missed opportunity feels like political grandstanding, second-guessing
and not leadership. The reality is: hard decisions were made, and services were preserved while also putting more money toward deferred maintenance and pensions than in past years.
On pensions, the Council’s decision to withdraw from the Section 115 Trust was not taken lightly. It was a temporary move—made in consultation with staff and actuaries—to help balance the budget without deeper service cuts. Preserving city services now doesn’t mean ignoring long-term obligations. It means managing both wisely.
As for infrastructure, the city is increasing investment compared to prior budgets. While we all wish more funding was available, the Council worked within real constraints. Blaming others for not adding an extra $1.6 million—when that amount wouldn’t come close to solving decades of deferred maintenance—is a distraction.
What our community needs now isn’t finger-pointing or posturing. We need clear-eyed leadership that builds trust and continues the difficult but essential work of modernizing our city services, responsibly investing in infrastructure, and preparing a sustainable path forward.
Vice Mayor Nibert is right about one thing: residents deserve straight talk. But they also deserve the full picture—not selective criticism after the fact!
I’m deeply concerned that Council Member Nibert has voted in ways that do not reflect the expressed will of the constituents in his district. Representation is a cornerstone of democracy.
When elected officials take positions that conflict with the clear voice of the people they represent, trust erodes. We have participated in community forums and made our priorities clear. Yet, these efforts seem to be overlooked,
I’m not here to attack, but to advocate. We ask that Council Member Nibert align with the values and needs of our district. Not to represent himself and his opinions/beliefs. Democracy thrives when leaders listen. We are watching. And we expect our voices to matter.
My concern is about the Council Members’ decision to vote yes on Measure PP, despite a clear majority of District One voters-55% voting no on that very measure.
When elected officials override the express will of their constituents, it undermines the trust we place in representative government. Our district spoke. And yet, that voice was disregarded. This raises urgent questions about whose interests are being prioritized.
This is not about politics, it’s about principles. Representation means honoring
The decisions of the people who entrusted you with that seat. At the very least, we deserve a transparent explanation for why our votes were overturned by someone chosen to carry them forward.
Beyond the issue of representation, I’d like to raise a fiscal concern. Measure PP involves increased spending and new taxes under the premise of addressing community needs. But for many of us in District One, this approach doesn’t pass the test of fiscal responsibility.
Taxing and spending without structural reforms doesn’t solve a deficit; it compounds it. We are watching budgets tighten, services strain, and families adjust to a higher cost of living. Supporting this Measure, despite 55% of our district voting against it, sends the message that our financial anxieties are being ignored.
Same can be said for Julie Testa, she also ignored her constituents in District 2.
Sorry district 3 not 2
Council member Nibert did not respond to my comment publicly. He sent an email.
Nibert email,
Regarding your recent characterization:
1. “Summer 2024. The city council voted 4-1 to place Measure PP on the ballot, asking voters whether to adopt a sales tax increase to minimise cuts to services.”
2. “November 2024. In answer to that question, almost 19,000 voters revealed their express will on Measure PP, advising the council to make serious budget cuts.”
3. “To use your words, I listened to the express will of my constituents. In council meetings, I have been the most aggressive member in advocating for the 55% majority of voters by attacking the city’s structural budget deficit. In these meetings, several times I specifically called for the will of these 19,000 voters to be respected, even tho the loudest voices came from the other 45% of voters and non-voters.”
“Michael, knowing this, your characterization seems greatly off base.”
My response:
Jeff,
“You approved, wasting District One taxpayers’ money on consultants to put Measure PP on the ballot.”
“You approved Measure PP against the wishes of your district one constituents.”
“After the entire city council, city staff, and residential voters demanded it,
you jumped on the bandwagon to support the budget cuts.”
“There was no other option for you.”
“Your published opinion was a public display of your condescending position.”
“I commented on It in the same public manner.”
“In response, you sent me an email in private.”
“Your manner of response is an indication of your irresponsibility in taking ownership.”
“A lack of accountability.”
Nibert Response:
“I’m sorry you feel that way.”
Jeff Nibert made multiple disparaging comments regarding the Costco development on Johnson Drive.
Nibert was endorsed by Matt Sullivan, a highly vocal critic of the Costco development.
Nibert stated, regarding the local business impact caused by the big box retailer Costco. Downtown businesses will be impacted.
As it turned out, small businesses downtown are plagued with vacancies, parking, and building ownership issues.
Costco is located well out of the downtown area with the likes of Home Depot and others.
More than 35,000 Pleasanton residents are dard carrying Costco members. The primary factor in the Costco development on Johnson Drive, to relieve the stressed-out Livermore Costco.
I said there will be more traffic on Stoneridge Drive. I do not recall making any disparaging comments regarding Costco. I love shopping there.
Public record Council discussion:
“Council member Jeff Nibert has expressed concerns about Johnson Drive Costco Project and its impact on Pleasanton’s Small businesses and downtown vitality.”
Similar statements in local publications.
As indicated above, Pleasanton downtown is experiencing slow self-erosion, unrelated to Costco and any other ‘big-box’ store.
Does anyone else find it ironic that CM Nibert opposed building a Costco yet supports increasing the sales tax? Imagine where city finances would be without the Costco. Typical tax and spend mentality.
Has anyone else noticed that during the budget discussions CM Nibert was reading his comments? He apparently had his mind made up prior to the meeting to come with prepared comments. Disappointing!
I joined the Council in December 2022, well after decisions on Costco had already been made. I did not oppose or vote against Costco.