|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Pleasanton City Council is moving forward with conducting a poll to see what city infrastructure and capital needs residents would prioritize and whether they would support funding those projects through a potential revenue bond measure on the ballot next year.
The idea for pursuing this revenue bond first came out of the March 21 council meeting where the dais directed staff to look into possible revenue options so that the city could address infrastructure deficits and support ongoing city services and programs.
While the possibility of placing such a bond measure — which would be a first for the city — is still in the early stages of gathering public desire, City Manager Gerry Beaudin said a bond could be one good option to address issues such as water quality and public repair projects while also addressing rising costs elsewhere in the municipal budget.
“In addition to rising costs related to the cost of goods and inflation and salaries, we also have rising pension costs,” Beaudin said during last week’s council meeting. “All of these factors have triggered the need for the city of Pleasanton to more proactively engage with how we generate revenue, to be able to continue to offer the services and provide the personnel that the community expects of us
He added that along with a potential ballot measure — and other funding mechanisms — city staff have also been looking at internal costs and fees that the city charges its residents in order to provide services and city-run programs.
“We’re looking at expenses along with revenues,” Beaudin said. “This is not just one side of our balance sheet. We know that we need to look at how we do our work and find efficiencies there as well in order to continue to deliver services.”
Bonnie Moss, a consultant with revenue strategy consulting firm Clifford Moss, led the presentation on Aug. 15 where she broke down the process for placing a revenue bond measure on the 2024 ballot, if that is what the council wants to do.
While the council did not actually vote on pursuing such a bond measure, they did agree to allow Moss to move forward with gauging public interest through a community poll.
She said that while Pleasanton is already in a sense a step ahead given that the city recently conducted a community survey where she and her fellow consultants can see what residents like and don’t like about things like city infrastructure and other needs, a poll would better help them understand what voters will actually support when it comes to a bond measure.
“We were happy to see that in motion because that is helping to inform where we might go in a local revenue measure poll that we would be doing this fall,” Moss said.
If the council, after several rounds of public engagement, sees voter support for a bond, then the city will have until Aug. 9, 2024 to file the measure with the county in order to place it on next year’s general election ballot.
But Moss said it really all depends on where voters’ priorities lay in a political and economic sense, which is why she said the data and research from the polls she plans to conduct is so important.
“The poll is a very, very highly predictive way to help us understand what is affordable for your community? What are the priorities that matter for your community?” she said.
One of the questions the council had for Moss was how a ballot measure could fund ongoing operations in the city.
“The city has different options, more than other public agencies,” Moss said. “There are a number of different tax revenue options that can generate revenues. Some of them are capital only, like a bond would be capital-only. Others would go directly to the general fund. If it’s a general tax, they would go to the general fund, and they would contribute to ongoing operations.”
That was one issue cited by Vice Mayor Jack Balch, saying the idea of taxes could possibly not sit well with voters when looking at this potential ballot measure.
“We’re on the front end of our assessment work. So the reality is that, yes, the word tax in a ballot measure package adds a level of complexity that a measure that doesn’t have that word doesn’t have,” Moss said. “However, you’ve got to factor in what is the threshold for passage? Is it a simple majority? Or is it a two-thirds measure? A two-thirds measure has a much steeper climb. We also need to factor in what is your community willing or interested in funding?”
Balch also said that another challenge could be that the potential bond measure wouldn’t provide as much relief to the city’s general fund, to which Beaudin said that’s where the city has to look at where they can make cuts.
“We know we have state-of-good-repair needs, and we need to find a funding source for those needs. And so how we’ve done it in the past is going to matter less as we look to the future, because salary savings and rainy day fund, all those things are getting tighter and tighter and dwindling,” Beaudin said.
“Our goal here is to identify a new way to pay for identified needs,” he added. “Because we have those needs and because we will have to put money towards them, the funding source that we have available is the general fund. And so at some point, the conversation becomes what are we doing with general fund dollars today that we have to cut to be able to fund the needed capital improvements? If we don’t find that alternate revenue stream, we’re looking at the other side of the balance sheet.”
That’s why Balch said during his closing comments that the city needs to look at where it can cut expenses right now in order to address pension obligations.
“Expenses are rising faster than revenues, and it’s a matter of fiscal responsibility and priorities,” he said. “We have to cut expenses where we can now sooner than later to help provide the greatest buffer to weather the pension obligation challenges.”
However, Councilmember Valerie Arkin said during closing comments that with all of the capital projects and upcoming infrastructure issues such as addressing the PFAS, or forever chemicals, in the city’s groundwater, cutting expenses is not going to fully help with future funding, which is why she was supportive of at least seeing what the community thinks about the potential bond measure.
“A lot of these things — especially like the water infrastructure, pension obligations — are very huge amounts of money,” Arkin said. “Cutting a little over here, a little over here is not going to solve that issue. I think that’s part of the reason we’re having this discussion because we are in a situation now that we are faced with some very significant funding issues as we move forward.”
“If we did a bond for water, that helps with that issue,” she added. “But then we also will have more money freed up to pay off our pension obligations, to pay for something else in the community that we may want to pay for … So I think this is definitely worth exploring.”
Councilmember Julie Testa also expressed some of her own concerns about how much residents are currently spending on taxes, given that the city already has some bond measure for the school district. That’s why she asked city staff to provide a complete analysis of the taxes that residents are paying in order to see that impact.
“I want to see the complete list of other bonds and property burdens that our residents already have, but I also want to see what other bond measures are headed to the ballot for 2024,” Testa said.
But while Balch ended off with saying that Pleasanton would need to work on rebuilding the trust with its residents and showing that the council has its priorities aligned to those of the city’s residents before even thinking about placing a bond on the ballot next year, the consensus from the rest of the council — minus Testa, who did not voice support — was that getting started on the polling is still a good first step.
“A potential local revenue measure, I think based on what we’ve heard tonight, is extremely worthwhile exploring,” Councilmember Jeff Nibert said.
He said that even if the city doesn’t go forward with pursuing the bond measure, the poll would at least be helpful in assessing the needs of the community.
Mayor Karla Brown ended the discussion with saying that given the financial impact from the pandemic to things like hotel tax, issues with PFAS, aging infrastructure in the city’s water systems and other increases to salaries and pensions, the city must look at these different revenue streams and a bond might just be — if the community also agrees — the best move.
“We need to look for sources,” Brown said. “So I absolutely support Ms. Moss’s project to find out what the public wants and then if they are interested in a water infrastructure bond, for example. Then it’s our job to somehow secure that and see if we can put that together and then bring that to our residents who demand and deserve clean water.”
Clarification: A previous version of the story failed to stipulate that Councilmember Julie Testa did not voice support for the plan to move forward with polling residents for a potential bond measure. The Pleasanton Weekly regrets the omission.
another bond? this is a joke right? late April fools or something? haha very funny. you almost had me. hahaha that was a good one.
Also do the pension obligations that are so great include the police pensions? just asking cause they want a huge raise and that will only increase pension contributions by the city exacerbating the issue . Maybe we should contract to Alameda Sheriff for our PD like Chief Garrett and the Dublin PD do. That would ease some of the pension impact because it would be paid by the County vs the city.
This entire issue has been grossly mishandled by the majority of the city council members. Beginning with their decision to throw millions of dollars into a skate park and that old house.
The city manager’s position requires him to support that majority council decision, regardless how wrong it is, how priorities are not a subject for discussion.
City manager Gerry Beaudin in supporting the city council majority is insincere deceitful. His sanctimonious spin presentation of Pleasanton’s finances and the necessity to borrow money is feeding the council majority mistakes.
Any poll results will not change the city council majority decisions, as we have seen that play out with the police contract. If council majority was reversed, Beaudin would have a different spin.
If voters reject Arkin and Brown in the next election, or Brown sees the writing, and does not run again, Gerry Beaudin will not return as city manager. Council will return to priorities and fiscal responsibility.
If you listen to the City Council meeting you will learn the consultant talked about more options than just a bond measure. Such things as a sales tax or an additional property tax were also mentioned as possibilities. The decision at that meeting was to move forward on a poll to see what we as citizens will support so be sure to fill out the survey when it is made available.
That same consultant also mentioned, sales tax and property tax are not received well by voters, which may require 65% voter approval.
“If you listen to the City Council meeting you will learn the consultant talked about more options than just a bond measure. Such things as a sales tax or an additional property tax were also mentioned as possibilities.”
Another sales tax increase? We’re already paying 10.25%. The irritating and predictable “it’s just a little bit more”, “it’s temporary”, etc. claims need to stop.
Time to shop in Dublin and/or Livermore if the rate goes up here.
This Council handed $25 million of our money to Costco for the privilege of them coming to town and now wants more money from us because they can’t manage the city budget. Before you say anything about revenue, the city’s own analysis says this “investment” won’t break even for 20 years. The city won awards in the ‘90s for a long-term fiscal plan that accounted for ongoing operations and maintenance of city investments far into the future. It was the first of its kind in the state. This planning continued through the 2000s, even weathering the Great Recession of 2008-2009. COVID made an impact, but I doubt it was worse than 2008-2009. At that time the city froze all employee wages, canceled all capital improvement projects, and implemented many other austerity measures until the economy recovered. In the face of this fiscal crisis, this Council gave themselves a raise, the City Manager got a raise, and they want to build a skatepark and restore a historical house, and who knows what else is on their capital project pork barrel list. I agree that the pension funding and remedying PFAS in the water will require some creative thinking to resolve and additional funding, but I don’t think this bunch is up to the task. Their solution is for us to bail out their mismanagement.
The real issue here is that the myth that endless growth is the solution to all our problems is a lie. Cities in California rely on sales tax revenue and property tax to fund their existing and future costs and that’s why they compete for big box stores, car dealerships, and approve high-end housing. Growth does not pay for itself and endless growth is not possible on a finite planet. What’s needed is a truly sustainable budget based on de-growth principles. Thomas Edison said that solutions to big problems cannot come from people or the thinking that created them. A new paradigm is needed. Here’s a place to start https://doughnuteconomics.org/
If SimpleArkin and Mayor Brown are members of the City Council, I vigorously oppose a bond. I would not trust them with ANY additional money as they have no idea how to be effective stewards of our community. Vote them out in 2024!
If they City Council had 5 members like Jack Balch – I would seriously consider it. Residents would know that the money was in competent, thoughtful and intelligent hands.
Priority Number One: Make sure Pleasanton keeps their police force alive and strong
MichaelB
Yes, paying 10.25% sales tax is annoying.
It’s the same % in Livermore and Dublin.
It can’t be increased without a vote.
We in Alameda County have voted for sales tax increases in the past.
Pleasanton has never had a bond or sales tax measure. This would be the first.
This is not a good time to float Municiple bond.
During times of inflation, secondary effects can put Municiple bands at risk. For example, inflation in the healthcare industry can put people out of work because the costs to employ them are too high.
When fewer people are working, fewer are paying income tax and sales tax, which will directly affect the Municipalities tax revenue. As a result, the ability to repay the bond will be diminished.
CalPERS minus revenue, comes to mind. Reuters: – US economy near stalling point as consumer demand weekends new recent report says – 08/23/2023.
What would happen if the city took all the money it is spending on surveys and consultants and applied it instead to things like, say, replenishing the water enterprise reserve fund? Would we still need a 300% water rate increase by 2026?
Asking for a friend.