Around the Valley: Council majority needs lesson in municipal budgets … or ethics

“City budgets are difficult to understand,” a councilmember wrote in response to an email asking the budget be taken off the June 6 consent calendar.

Mayor Karla Brown and councilmembers Valerie Arkin, Jeff Nibert and Julie Testa are either finding the budget difficult to understand or knowingly obfuscating in order to justify spending $10.6 million on discretionary amenities.

That $10.6 million should be put toward treatment of water contaminated with PFAS and increasing compensation for police officers. But the council majority would have us believe it can’t be used, which is not correct. And, in carefully-worded statements, they are attempting to gaslight those who do understand while completely confusing others.

To ensure I share correct information, I checked my understanding with individuals who have extensive experience with municipal budgeting. I have a few thoughts on assertions that have been made.

During the June 6 meeting, Pleasanton City Manager Gerry Beaudin said, “Capital projects are one-time money and, while there are operational costs associated with a capital investment, they’re not the same as the salary and benefits. Investment in our water system doesn’t compete with our capital projects.” This statement is technically correct; the Capital Fund is specifically for one-time projects and the money for water comes from a different fund.

What he didn’t say is that a majority of the money funding the skatepark and Century House — roughly $10 million — was transferred and/or originated from the General Fund. Money from the General Fund covers payroll and other operating expenses and can be transferred or loaned to other funds because it’s unrestricted dollars.

Beaudin is in an unenviable position. As city manager, he reports to the city council; the council sets the priorities and it’s his job to execute the plan. Direct reports who value their jobs would probably not contradict or correct their supervisor — especially in public.

In one finessed email response, a councilmember wrote, “Regarding moving funds from parks to policing, within the city budget are ‘Enterprise Funds,’ which are separate funds that should not be comingled (sic) or moved.” The email continued, “These enterprise funds should not be used for police personnel, park amenities or road improvements. Separate funds for separate uses.”

This is correct — but, again, technically. The city’s separate enterprise funds include water, sewer, storm drain, golf and cemetery. Enterprise funds should be self-supported with revenue specific to the fund. For example, water consumer rates should cover the annual operating expenses of the city’s water utility, including infrastructure projects — like a PFAS treatment plant — which would be paid for out of this fund.

Transfers from the General Fund have been recently made to the various enterprise funds to cover operating shortfalls. For example, General Fund money currently supports the storm drain fund, subsidized senior and low-income user water rates for the Water Enterprise Fund and could be used for a water treatment facility.

Arkin said during the meeting, “A $5 million, $6 million project can’t begin to address (a water treatment plant). ” This is not correct.

Another email response said, “Eliminating any of the capital projects we have already approved will not have a significant impact on moving forward with our plan to address the water infrastructure due to the vast difference in amount of funding needed.” This is also not correct.

Furthermore, nobody is asking to eliminate any projects. Only to pause them.

Spending on any new amenities, and the subsequent maintenance costs, will reduce the money that could be used for water infrastructure.

Beaudin mentioned that unspent unrestricted Capital Fund money can be transferred back to the General Fund. This money can then be transferred or loaned to the Water Enterprise Fund to go toward the $45 million cost of an urgently needed PFAS treatment facility.

This is similar to what happened when the city developed its municipal golf course, Callippe Preserve, which opened in 2005. $20 million of the approximately $40 million project was transferred from the General Fund to fund this new amenity. The other $20 million was financed, thereby reducing the borrowing impact on the city. Because the amount financed was reduced, the annual debt payments were more favorable than if the entire amount was financed.

Debt service fees are, of course, passed along to ratepayers. Couple that with the cost of all the city’s water coming from Zone 7 and no rate adjustment for years and there is bound to be a fairly sizable rate increase in the future.

Back to the $5 million or $6 million mentioned by Arkin, that money could be used similarly as a down payment to reduce the amount borrowed and obtain more favorable rates on any remaining amount financed — like a home mortgage.

After citing “misinformation” and “fear mongering,” Testa said, “It’s unfortunate that so many of our community members feel we aren’t working in their best interest.”

These community members understand how the budget works and know they are being misled. These individuals see this for what it is: a water treatment plant isn’t “sexy.” A fully staffed, robust police department wasn’t implicitly “promised”.

What would be in the best interest of community members is if work is paused on the skatepark and interior improvements of Century House until there is a plan to remove toxins from the water and an agreement with our police officers is solidified.

Not spending money on discretionary amenities might also help in the labor negotiations with the Pleasanton Police Officers Association (PPOA), which last month called an impasse in labor negotiations with the city. The PPOA leaders and members see where money is being spent and where the council’s priorities lie. They are understandably frustrated.

Furthermore, we have seen how vindictive the majority can be when it comes to groups that didn’t endorse them, like the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce and the defunding of Leadership Pleasanton. The PPOA did not endorse Brown, Arkin, Nibert or Testa in their bids for their current seats, which has to be in the back of the minds of its members.

In regard to the negotiations with PPOA, one councilmember’s email response said, “This budget includes the raises offered in our labor negotiations.”

This is probably true, but the PPOA soundly rejected the city’s offer, which included a 6% increase in Year 1. This percentage increase would still leave Pleasanton’s officers below the market average compensation, according to the PPOA. They are asking for Year 1 of the contract to include a 10.5% increase for all officers.

In other words, they will need a lot more to recruit and keep qualified law enforcement officers.

A labor negotiation impasse is not to be taken lightly. The city will need to make compensation on par with that of officers in other communities. It is difficult to imagine what will eventually be agreed is already included in the 2023-24 budget.

According to PPOA, the department is losing officers to other Bay Area communities that provide better compensation and they are having difficulty recruiting, both of which are evidenced by units being temporarily disbanded and officers reassigned.

Another troubling piece of the staffing issues is that the city has lowered the minimum score on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) standards when recruiting. Historically it was 50, but has been lowered to 42. City staff did not answer when this change took place or why.

When you don’t try to hire the best, you don’t get the best.

Prolonging the negotiations and allowing the relationship with the PPOA to further deteriorate is a real concern. The understaffed department can’t afford to lose more officers.

But politicians like Brown, Arkin, Nibert and Testa are more interested in short-term gain, which will likely lead to long-term pain.

Former councilmember Arne Olson said during public comment, “It’s all a matter of priorities. The four of you have decided to balance this budget by taking General Fund money that could be allocated to the Water Fund and, if it were, that would reduce the amount of money you’re going to have to borrow.”

Olson concluded, “I’m not sure voters are going to forget about this.”

I hope they don’t. Higher water rates and the glistening new concrete at the skatepark will likely be good reminders.

New retail, dining options coming to Stoneridge Shopping Center later this yearApril 19, 2026 9:24 pm

New public Fitness Court opens at Dublin school campusApril 24, 2026 2:08 pm

The rise and fall of Eric SwalwellApril 23, 2026 12:32 pm