|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
New council majority has zero credibility
The recent Pleasanton City Council meeting on March 18 had many outrageous moments, but none more so than when the new council majority voted in favor of holding a $11,500 party at taxpayers’ expense at the Callippe Preserve Golf Course.
Pleasanton’s structural deficit is severe. The $30,000 Eide Bailly consultant peer review of city finances corroborates the dire fiscal situation of the city. The Budget Advisory Committee is currently exploring cuts to the city budget that include closing the Dolores Bengtson Aquatic Center and community programming at the Firehouse Arts Center.
It should be a no-brainer that the annual Mayor’s Award party be downsized significantly. Vice Mayor Nibert and Councilmember Testa both supported a modest $500 golden ribbon, punch and cookie ceremony held at council chambers.
Why should Pleasanton taxpayers be forced to pay for a party at a golf course while council is also considering closing the Pleasanton Aquatic Center? Why was the $500 ceremony sidelined?
To leave no stone upturned requires our City Council to look for budget reductions anywhere possible. The incredulity of the new council majority at trimming the expensive Mayor’s Award party should be especially concerning to Pleasanton residents. For Pleasanton this is a “Let them eat cake” moment.
Voters, residents are understandably angry. We, Pleasanton residents, reject this excessive party considering the austere budget cuts facing the community. This is no time to celebrate. This vote demonstrates to Pleasanton that the new City Council majority has zero credibility when voting on items to correct the $10 million structural deficit.
— Matthew Gray
Pleasanton can save more on consultants
Given bloated consultant costs, Budget Advisory Committee members scoffed at the notion that city employees couldn’t trim more fat from the budget.
City employees denied the city could cut more than the $450,000 in “professional services” presented. However, many members pushed back, saying the savings presented were too low.
In a clear overreach, City Manager Gerry Beaudin browbeat one committee member into withdrawing a motion that would implore city employees to slash more consultant costs. Beaudin balked at the idea that his treasured consultants are to blame for the city’s financial woes. He pointed the finger at committee members for perpetuating a false narrative. He even faulted voters for rejecting ballot measures that would fill city coffers.
A city manager’s job is to work with what voters give him. Beaudin went so far as to saddle the public with the responsibility of finding the savings his office failed to find. A simple search for “professional services” in city-provided materials showed that in fiscal year 2024 the city’s general fund bore $6.2 million in “professional services” costs.
Subtracting miscategorizations, the city spent $4.5 million on consultants. Surely, we can find more than $450,000.
The city-provided examples of consultants to be cut — airport monitoring, legislative advocacy, stormwater management — give us a starting point. Rummaging through miscellaneous non-departmental and community promotion accounts yielded more than $450,000. Adding stormwater consultants to the mix, the savings balloon to about $850,000.
The city can do better. We can do better.
— Jason Hsu
Ask for major donors to protect amenities
I don’t live there but having been a lifeguard and having red statistics about drowning deaths as well as the benefits of water therapy, and recognizing the benefits of a theater for culture social mental health entertainment, I highly urge this community and those who are facing the budget deficit to ask for major donors.
The loss of the pool and theater hours will be a very negative impact to your people.
I can’t donate, but if you want I can make suggestions.
— Marlaina Pipal
Transparency? In city administration? It does not seem so
In last week’s City Council meeting there was significant discussion regarding Pleasanton “Urban Forest”. Discussion included the cost of planters, new development strategies and the cost of watering new planters.
There was no mention of the millions of dollars the city has paid out to replace curbs, gutters and sidewalks, which were buckled due to the city-owned trees. The city has replaced curbs, gutters and sidewalks in my neighborhood four times.
The most recent activity this month is grinding and chipping the slabs of concrete sidewalks where the slab has raised up above the neighboring slab. I asked one of the contractors involved about this activity; regarding the costs he could not give me the specifics, but it was more than $1,000 a day and involved miles of sidewalks.
The city-owned tree ruptured the sanitary sewer line from my home to the curb. It cost me $13,000 to replace that line with a seamless sanitary discharge line. I filed a claim with the city for that expense. The city’s insurance company reimbursed that cost.
I did not file a claim for $8,000 to replace the buckled driveway, and for the severed water line $3,000, which the tree roots severed at the meter. The city pays almost $600,000 for liability insurance every year.
A winter storm in 2023 brought down multiple city trees in Pleasanton. Those trees came down because the root structures were removed when the new curbs, gutters and sidewalks replaced the buckled curbs, gutters and sidewalks.
The city reacted to that storm, removing multiple trees that appeared near collapse which included the tree in front of my home. The city has not revealed that cost, the trees value loss, and the cost to remove the trees. Why does the city not mention the actual costs of the city’s Urban Forest?
— Michael Austin
Matthew Gray once again leaves out facts when trying to throw shade on our new Mayor and council members with his latest letter. Let’s review the facts Matthew conveniently omitted.
One year ago on April 11th, 2024, when budget problem were clearly known, Mayor Karla Brown, Council Member Julie Testa and Council Member Jeff Nibert had no qualms or issues with spending almost $35,000 on a lunch at Casa Real at Ruby Hill to thank commissioners and committee members for their service to the city. Never once did any of them question was it a good idea, could it be scaled back? Instead they went merrily along their way spending our tax dollars without a care.
Now fast forward a year, Ms. Testa is trying real hard to redeem herself. Taxpayers don’t forget that Ms. Testa didn’t care last year and had that cake at the $35,000 dollar lunch!
Our new Mayor and new council members still believe in thanking the commissioners and committee volunteers that help run our city at their own expense and their own time. Our new Mayor and new council members have been very transparent with this lunch and the cost. The appreciation lunch is going from $35,000 to $11,000 and will be held at a city owned property. The reduction is more than an a 60% savings. And I have heard that the cost is going to be even less.
May I suggest when you read Matthew Gray’s letters criticizing our new Mayor and new council members that you do your homework because he lacks transparency, truth and facts don’t seem to matter to him.
@Check the Facts – Mr. Matthew Gray is right. Council voting to spend $11,000 on a celebration at a golf course is not a good look. If it’s true that a $500 ceremony could have been held as an alternative, it totally undercuts the narrative pushed out by certain community members opposed to tax measure PP that city government has a spending problem. Pleasanton City council needs to take a deep look at itself in the mirror. Responsibility lies with the council.
In the private sector, employees celebrate the finish of projects, with everyone bringing in a dish and feasting. The food was always super-duper delicious.
Critical thinking I was of the same thought until I listened to Matt Gaidos (past planning commissioner) discuss why the thank you lunch was so important to residents who volunteer their time and energy to our city.
What you omitted is that past council majority including Testa and Nibert had no problem last year spending 35,000 dollars when budget problems were already known. They didn’t even try to reduce the cost. They just spent spent spent.
I admire the reduction from 35000 to 11000 and I understand it’s even less as they work on bringing the cost down. Wouldn’t be surprised to see them get to a very minimal cost. Let’s see what they can do.
The difference Michael is that public sector employees are paid/compensated for their work. Commissioners and committee members are not.
@CheckTheFacts: your response reads that you are a VERY angry person. Almost seems like this is affecting you personally. Take a breath.
Methinks @Check the Facts must be mayor Jack Balch’s pseudonym 😉
Who is @Check the Facts? Someone in the mayor’s circle? Is it possible that this person is the mayor himself posting under a pseudonym?
The private sector provides the taxes that council members spend. The private sector uses its money and resources to reward itself.
@CriticalThinker: you read my mind.