Amazing! Thank you Lisa.

YES ON MM.

Simple. Understandable. Second worst Costco deal in the United States!

Our City leaders actions are questionable!

Lisa S., may I ask, if this is such a terrible deal why is the city heck-bent on making this happen?

I mean, they have telling everyone how much money it will bring. In fact, they have gone so far as to suggest that if this isn't approved, we are stuck with worse traffic problems because there will be no money to male the nessary repairs in the future. The message from the City seems simple: Costco is best because it will bring the most money. I've been keeping posted on this since March and I have heard and/or read at least a dozen times, in counsel meetings, reports, articles in Pleasanton Weekly, etc..., that Costco will bring huge money. The City has not been bashful to repeated express this.

I am for measure MM for serval reasons. But I can't understand how the City could knowingly lead us down a path with false pretense. And yet we won't break even on our taxpayer subsidies for almost 28 years.

This may be the second worse deal any city has made with Costco. But, this could be the worst deal because not only is it a terrible investment, the City is trying to put lip stick on this pig.

Thank you, Lisa S, we need to know the real facts!!
Vote yes on "MM"!

Over the years I’ve learned to question our leadership in Pleasanton. When they want something badly it usually means we should be cautious and look into the details.

Sadly, the details of this deal are not a good investment for our city.

I support Yes on MM

I've said all along that I can't understand why we have to use taxpayer money to fund this project. That's the strongest argument I've heard yet that shows we should NOT.

Unless city leaders become more transparent and tell us exactly what is going on with this project, we as citizens must stop this nonsense. Forget the round trip mileage, forget the $1.50 hot dogs, forget the rude and disrespectful guy talking about our "crappy businesses" - those are all smokescreens. If you were sitting in the mayor's chair, and you had the awesome responsibility to "protect the taxpayer's money" - would you make such a decision when there are better alternatives?

Yes on MM. Let's come up with a better plan and keep our money in Pleasanton.

The city won't give the specifics on how long it will take to recoup our investment because it is easy to see how terrible it is for Pleasanton. There isn't enough lipstick to make this pig attractive for our city!
Yes on MM!

I see that a post was deleted by the PW.

I hope that discussion is continued on this very important topic of break-even analysis, and costs. Voters need this information.

I find it very interesting that the Costco people have been silent on this topic.

I wonder why?

The problem with this topic and the other similar topics, the poster and commentators are anonymous.

If all of you would identify your self's and your neighborhood's you may generate some respect and perhaps convince voters to consider your opinions.

No body will harness respect or consider an opinion when topic posters are anonymous and the commentators are anonymous.

As I suspected, no mention of the topic. Diversion. Avoidance.

What are your thoughts about the topic?

JJ,

Regarding your vacuous comment. It is well published on this forum that I support Costco, I support Thorne, I support the city council, I support the chamber, and I support Herb Ritter.

Michael,

It's seems that you still manage to avoid and divert the topic.

Yes, I have read your voting positions. These, are your right and privilege. I am not attempting to dissuade you.

My question is what are your thoughts on the years to break- even on Costco with this huge expenditure of taxpayer funds, and the statement by Lisa S that this is the second worst deal in the United States made by a City in locating a Costco within their boundaries.

No debate on at least 27 1/2 years to break-even?
No debate on second worst deal ever made by a city in the United States?

Lisa,
To answer your question: there is no debate. Financially, it is a bad deal!

So, why do some still want Costco? If it is not for financial benefits to the City (which you have shown it is not) - then why bring in the traffic, the pollution, borrowing for future generations to repay?

For most that still want Costco, it simply boils down to a selfish desire for convenience at any cost. If they have their way, we will all have to pay for their convenience. Not just in dollars, but in traffic delays, pollution, city costs to provide services annually ($150,000), etc.

And, the City will still not tell us what other taxpayer gifts are being negotiated. The known $11 million equates to $220 per person over the age of 18. And, there is more.

The second worse deal ever made by a city in the United States?? I found the worst. Does this sound familiar?

Web Link

Keeping in mind that a second Home Depot was blown out of the water and look what replaced it, over 300 apartments that won't count towards low income rentals because the developer paid those up front in lieu of fees to the city so that they can charge those outrageous rents. I would rather have that Costco built there instead of what our sneaky city planners come up with as a plan B!! How about eliminating parking on Johnson Drive, put just a Costco gas station in and make the rest a park. You people who oppose Plan A better find out what the cities Plan B is, it's not going to be pretty!!

@ Flightops

I can understand your concern with the unknown, but this still does not make Costco a good deal. Paying $11 million plus other "negotiated subsidies" is absolutely a wrong decision.

The City ordered a study which was completed in August. It studied diversified, smaller retail as an alternative; not apartments.
If MM passes, there are many good alternatives, without the costs of $11 million of taxpayer money; without borrowing.

I MM fails, you have no alternatives: subsidies, debt, traffic.

Please vote "Yes on MM".

I don't understand why the city won't
No1 address this concern (is it really or not) - other factors being omitted from the simple math. If this is going to be a ballat item I imagine the cost breakdown will be present then, why not now?

No2 why we don't propose a counter deal to get costco in? Seems the city shoukd have a std roi on all subsidy programs weighted by projected revenue. Why all or nothing?

@ Pleasanton Parent,

I agree. It's time for the City to give us the facts on other subsidies being negotiated with Costco. I, personally, have attended all meetings since November12. It has been asked at each. The answer is always the same: "we are negotiating".

The staff will not tell us what is being negotiated. By law, they do not have to. They will most likely wait until after November 8- because revealing the truth would be damaging to their position.

They will not respond to this simple math comparison which shows 27.5 years to break-even, even using zero present value costs of our $11 million.

They will not respond to the statement that this is the second worst deal ever negotiated with Costco.

You ask: where is the middle ground in negotiating with Costco and Nearon-- there is none! This deal was made a long time ago, and it will not be changed.

Please vote: Yes on MM.

No lease has been signed and yet all act like one has?
Let the vote proceed in November and stop the circular, never-ending bickering with the same opinions (sometimes facts) comments.
The truth is a tiny percent of voters read this paper or these comments.

@ JustSayingHi

There is a lease. The City said so.
The truth is that well- informed people (like you) do read this forum. It may be a small percent- but sticking to the topic and using facts is a good way to debate the issues. Most of the time-- it is respectful.

Would you invest $11 million to break-even in 27.5 years? How is this a good deal?

Anybody recall that deal with the city made with the temporary church structure on Busch road that was only supposed to be there until the permanent church building could be built not to exceed 10 years?? Well time was up, ponderosa steps in and the property is rezoned for more houses, Hmmmmmm. So many back door deals going on in this town. Anybody taking bets on who is going to end up paying for that facility on Stanley Blvd after the city allows the developer to build all those house first??

@Flightops

You point is? The city leaders are not to be trusted? "So many back door deals in this town."
.....I agree! Costco is one of them.
Do you see any reason to invest $11 million which will take 27.5 years to recoup the money with no interest payed on our $11 million? If we just got 2% on our money, it would be over 30 years to break-even.

I also agree that the influence of special interests is powerful-- but, it's no reason to make a bad deal on Costco or to give up.

I know that you have supported Costco- but, for the good of our City- let's stop this "back door deal." It can be the first step.

Does anyone know of a group hitting the streets to promote Yes on MM? I'd like to volunteer my time, but I don't so an organized effort (yes, there was an organized effort to get it on the ballot, but since then I haven't seen anything).

@ Get the Facts

I am communicating with Bill Wheeler at Black Tie Transportation. Any help is appreciated. It is a good cause to help Pleasanton. It is the right cause!

Just tell him you want to help on MM. He will gladly call you back, if unavailable when you call.

Just a thought. As someone who is still trying to form my opinion on Costco, a couple points come to mind after reading this post.

1) $400,000 "additional" sales tax revenue is not the same as total sales tax revenue, which is expected to be $2-2.5 Million. Taking into account the total sales tax revenue makes a new break even date of about 5 years or less.

Source: "The net fiscal gain for the city would be $1.9-$2.1 million a year at build-out, compared to $2.3-$2.5 million from a Costco or other big-box store." - Pleasanton Weekly

2) Even if smaller retailers go in to that space, the traffic impact would be similar - so improvements to the roads would still be needed to help mitigate traffic impacts. Problem is, we'd have $400,000 less each year to help pay for it.

Source: "The ESA/ALH study shows that although the initiative proposal would generate fewer vehicle trips to the Johnson Drive area, it would result in the same significant and unavoidable near-term transportation impacts that would result from the zone program. In addition, funding of the traffic improvements would likely be more difficult due to smaller retailers who would open businesses at the site." - Pleasanton Weekly

3) Smaller retailers (likely still chains, just smaller) would have larger and more negative impact on our local companies and downtown businesses.

Source: "The initiative project would capture more market demand locally compared to a Costco store, which would have a greater regional appeal. The study shows, therefore, that the initiative project would result in substantially more impacts on local retail businesses in Pleasanton, contrary to what critics of a Costco store have been saying. According to the study, the restricted 50,000-square-foot zoning rule would divert $5.7 million of sales from local businesses each year after the area would be built out in 2028, compared to $1.2 million of sales impacts if Costco built there." - Pleasanton Weekly

Read more: Web Link

@ Alexis B

My break-even analysis was clearly stated it was a comparison from the August study.

1) Smaller retail would net $400,000 less per year. $11 million divided by $400,000 equals 27.5 years to break- even on the expenditure of $11 million, comparing smaller retail to Costco. In other words, it would take 27.5 years to get our $11 million back having a Costco versus smaller retail. Smaller retail and the developer would have to pay the $11 million, as is common.

2) The traffic impact would not be similar. The August study shows 2500-3600 fewer vehicle trips per day. This is significant.

3) Smaller retailers' impact on existing businesses was disputed by the consultant for Citizen for Planned Growth. Most independent studies agree that Costco would have a larger impact, up to 84% of Costco's business is taken from existing businesses. (Institute of Local Self-Reliance.)

What's the relationship between daily traffic and annual spend.

These numbers seem too related yet significantly different to net only a $400k difference yet ~3k trip per day difference. The only way these could both hold true is if the single trip spend at the non-Costco option is significantly more than a Costco trip, and my costco trips are always expensive

@Pleasanton Parent,

I see your point, but you would have to ask the people who did the study for the City and paid by Nearon. These are their numbers.

I would suspect that there are explanations.

It upsets me that the City will not tell us what is being negotiated with Costco. They tell us that they are negotiating -- but not what? Sales tax "giveaways" most likely.

This is in addition to the $11 million which has already been promised.

Does this bother anyone else?

@Val

Absolutely! This thread states that it will take at least 27.5 years to break-even on the $11 million, compared to smaller retail. Investing $11 million and getting no interest for 27.5 years- just to get our $11 million back with no interest.

But- additional amounts are being negotiated! What? How Much? This started in 2014, why won't they tell us?

Where is the transparency from our city leaders?

How can anyone vote for Costco without knowing the total giveaways?

It's terrible to think that the City is not being transparent.
It's terrible to think that 84% of business will come from existing business.
It's terrible that most don't know a mega gas station will also come, worthy of about 12 gas stations
It's terrible the mayor owned Costco stock for years and has been pushing this all along.

To learn that they are "negotiating" and not telling anyone does bother me. Reminds me of when you go to buy a car at the dealership and the price magically keeps changing--and you know it's never to your advantage.

Again, I am not a Costco hater. I am a member and have been going to the Livermore Costco for years. I'm glad the facts are coming out about this project, though. There are better uses for this site than a Big Box.

@Lisa

We have to do the road improvement in BOTH scenarios. Although the traffic #'s would be lower for a costco, the traffic IMPACT would be roughly the same and require the same road improvements.

Costco: People go throughout the day, so the # of trips is spread throughout the day as well. Let's assign of a hypothetical number of 500 trips per hour as the maximum peak.
Mixed Use: Tend to be busier at certain peak times. During these peak times, there is also 500 trips per hour.

So the nearby roads need to be able to handle the peak times, which in both cases would be roughly the same #'s of vehicles. Thus, regardless of the option you choose, we need massive road improvements.

@Alexis B

Yes, the road work has to be done either way- but the difference is: WHO PAYS FOR THE ROADWORK? The City or the developer. My argument is that developers pay for road work. In this case, because Costco is involved, the City wants the taxpayers to pay.

An example: when Fallon was developed in Dublin, the developer paid for all roadwork including the I-580 freeway interchange. The City of Dublin was out nothing. No giveaways. The developer profited from the improvements, and was responsible. Why is Pleasanton willing to giveaway $11 million.

If other developers pay for road work, why wouldn't Pleasanton require this for Costco/Nearon?

There is something wrong here!

$11 million wrong! Plus what else is being negotiated as additional giveaway?

Thanks for all of the information on this subject... though I think everyone can play with numbers to arrive at a conclusion that supports their position. I do agree that there should be more conversation regarding the 11M deferment of cost to the city and needs to be more fully explained. However I also believe that any assumptions that replacement business's (at this point pure speculation) will not have or request similar types of arrangements. I also think the reference to this:

"3) Smaller retailers' impact on existing businesses was disputed by the consultant for Citizen for Planned Growth. Most independent studies agree that Costco would have a larger impact, up to 84% of Costco's business is taken from existing businesses. (Institute of Local Self-Reliance.)" This based upon an assumption of a net new Costco or warehouse type of business appearing into a locality. Since a Costco already exists in both Danville and Livermore customers of the small business have the opportunity with minimal effort to take their business to these locations and the impact has already been addressed on local pleasanton small businesses (e.g. the 84% number is a red herring).

I think another aspect is the types of jobs that would be brought into the community- having a hotel or other small retail establishments will not pay the wages or benefits that a Costco provides- this is a net benefit to the community in providing more disposable income and better opportunities. Of course if a business park suitable for a high tech or other business entity that provides real wages is built there then the benefit will be larger than a Costco. Unfortunately right now alternative development on this site is speculation and potentially wishful thinking.

Certainly, the affect on other businesses and wages can be debated, and as you said, data produced by both sides to argue their positions-- Including the fact that the City-ordered study showed over 500 more jobs with smaller retail. Whether the jobs pay $15 hr or $20 hr-- most likely neither will support a family living in Pleasanton.

The bigger issue to people is the $11 million, and the lack of transparency on additional giveaways that the City is negotiating. And, why should we pay for roadwork which is a developer's responsibility.

$11 million is a lot of money.

Costco has a pay scale that starts at $11.50 for hourly assistants (cart pushers, cashier assistants, stockers, ect.) and goes up to $23.50 for clerks (cashiers, fork lift drivers, ect) the Highest rung on their hourly workers is the Supervisors which make $24.50 an hour On top of that all part time and full time employees get full benefits(medical, dental prescription drug, vision and mental health and substance abuse plans) . Your get raises automatically based on total number of hours worked and begin getting bonuses twice a year at about 5-8 years depending on total hours worked. Every year you get a Cost of Living adjustment to your salary in addition to your standard raises. It does take between 5-8 years to top out your salary. I doubt Black Tie provides similar benefits to their employees.

While this might not be enough for a single breadwinner to support a family in pleasanton it is significantly higher in wages and benefits compared to retail and hotel workers... and is a good alternative for a secondary income within a family. We might want to think about the impact this could have for others within pleasanton who would want to transition from working at McDonalds, starbucks, Sears, Hilton or other other lower paying jobs within our community.

If the 11M can be addressed responsibly and transparently then I see this as a win for pleasanton.

@ Lisa

No! We, the taxpayers should not pay for the roadwork which benefits the developer. No City makes this kind of deal! This is very suspicious.

You mentioned Fallon. The developer not only paid all of the roadwork, freeway interchange -- but threw in a fire staton too. Dublin negotiated a good deal.

Costco will only come if we subsidize them heavily. I say: No Way. I can drive.

$11 million contribution to Costco! That's absurd!

Lisa S. makes a good point when she says
"The bigger issue to people is the $11 million, and the lack of transparency on additional giveaways that the City is negotiating. And, why should we pay for roadwork which is a developer's responsibility. $11 million is a lot of money."

I'm NOT excited about a request to help fund this project through economic incentives.

Yes on MM!

@Lisa S

But I feel like this whole conversation assumes that if non-Costco stores go in, we don't need road improvements. But this isn't the case, the roads have to be improved either way. The problem is that if non-Costco stores go in, they are going to be smaller and not able fiscally compensate for the road improvements.

Either way, we pay for the road improvements. So how does everyone propose we pay for road improvements, assuming Costco is out of the picture?

The point is that developers normally pay for road improvements. In this case, to subsidize and to entice Costco, our leaders want the taxpayers to pay $11 million, of which $6 million is to be borrowed.

This is not necessary. Let the developer pay. The developer will then charge the end user. It will not be Costco, because they demand that it is free. We can't afford Costco!

@ Lisa S - you haven't answered the question though. I understand that you believe the developer should pay. But if it's not Costco, then the smaller retailer stores can't afford to pay the $11 Million..

I feel like you are saying that you want smaller retailers. I understand that.

But then if we have smaller retailers then we still have to do the road improvements.

So who pays for them?

@Alexis B,

I appreciate your persistence. It keeps the topic fresh, and continues to allow me to point out what a bad deal that Pleasanton leaders --(City Manager and Mayor?)-- are negotiating.

I will say again-- the answer to whom pays is "The Developer". An example in Dublin has been quoted. The developer at Fallon paid the road work, the interchange work, and even built a fire station for Dublin. The taxpayers did not pay $11 million; they paid zero.

This is a very poor deal for Pleasanton citizens. In fact, it is the second worst deal that I can find that has ever been negotiated by a city to secure a Costco within its boarders. I challenge you to find another this bad. (There is one!).

First of all assumptions that Fallon Gateway were not subsidize are false: (Web Link

Almost all major developments have some financial incentives associated with them provided by the city they reside in. Secondly its not true we can't afford Costco - we can if we decide to spend the money in that direction its a question if we want to or not. I agree with Alexis that any development will require traffic improvements so if Costco does not get approved we will have to evaluate the cost of the next proposal and its merits.

It seems that the original impetus of the No-Costco movement was provided by Black Tie- who was concerned about the impact on their business- primarily employee parking (on city streets no less) as Costco by itself does not compete with Black Tie. The other initial driver was local residents concerned about the traffic impact on their neighborhoods (much more legitimate). The issues about effect on local business is a red herring in my opinion.

I see a lot of cut and paste discussion on this thread without a lot of constructive discussion about the alternatives to Costco. So if someone has some real information on what will go into that area other than a Costco I would like to hear about it.

@ sumati,

Goodness. I must have struck a nerve. On June 15, the Pleasanton Weekly reported that both Trader Joe's and Walmart Grocery are interested. IKEA recently opened a small 5 acre area for discussion, and within a few days had over 100 interested small businesses which would take an acre or less.

As to Dublin paying $11 million up front. The answer is no! The developer paid for road work.

Since you gave me a link, I will give you one. This is the worst deal made by a city. If people like you and Alexis B are successful in paying our $11 million for Costco, the City of Pleasanton can have second place.

Web Link

@ Lisa

You haven't hit a nerve but based upon your comments maybe I hit some of yours. I didn't state that Dublin paid 11M for Fallon- a little bit of hyperbole on your part and not a fair statement. Dublin did provide tax relief to pay for Fallon Gateway improvements.. this information is in the public domain.

I may be going out on a limb here but large companies like Walmart and Trader Joe's (googling trader joe's development incentives brings up a few articles) might also ask for some cost relief as well. I do agree with you that the 11M is substantial and needs to be vetted and addressed and if it doesn't make economic sense for the community I am against it. But I am also aware that Costco does pay their employees better than almost all retailers (though Trader Joes might be equivalent I don't know) and thats not a bad thing for Pleasanton.

If folks want to shop at Costco, it’s a short ride to Livermore. We can have it all; our wonderful town and cheap toilet paper just down the road.

@sumati,
Yes, others may ask for incentives- but that doesn't mean they are given. You used the term Walmart - not Walmart Grocery. Big difference.
You also mention Trader Joe's incentives. Try to find one where $11 million has been granted.

Using our $5 million reserve now; borrowing $6 million Costco now (a total of $11 million) upfront is impossible for me to find to find it's equal.

You said this should be vetted. The City has had over 2 years to vet this. Their most recent study ordered, shows a difference of $400,000 per year in sales tax of smaller/ medium businesses compared to Costco. Simple math will tell you this is a very bad deal.
$11,000,000 divided by $400,000 equals 27.5 years. It's less than 1% return on our money. In fact it's about 1/2 of 1% return, if calculated over a 30 year loan, which was mention in the April 12 meeting.

It's rather easy to vet. I will take you at your word, that if it does not make economic sense, you are against it.

It does not!

Break-Even? I don't thing so. Allowing Costco to enter our wonderful town to save on large bottles of ketchup and paper goods seems an enormous price to pay. How much money would it take to sell out? No amount, I hope. Think outside the box about Costco entering our town.

I dunno Tom, those $1.50 hot dogs sure are scrumptious. I think that alone is worth $11 million.

@Tom M

"Think outside the box about Costco entering our town". As in outside the "big- box". Good one!

Most of us would drive a few miles to Costco, if it is better for Pleasanton. It doesn't mean we are anti- Costco people. But if this is a bad deal financially, creates 20% more traffic than alternatives, creates long term borrowing for future generations to repay, adds more to pollution-- I think we will do the right thing.

I agree. On the surface, Costco in Pleasanton sounded wonderful to many people. I think even our city leaders may have thought this to be a "good catch". I am giving everyone the possible benefit of the doubt that it was not based on self interests or political or other influences. Let's assume everyone had good intentions.

After considerable analysis and studies, we now know differently. The argument of keeping the sales tax dollars in Pleasanton, no longer is a good argument when analyzed on an $11 million cost. Plus, there are other negotiations for additional subsidies, which are not revealed to us. This could be millions more. Plus, the cost of infrastructure has already gone from $15 million to $16 million. What if it goes to $20 million?

This is a bad deal now, which will only get worse.

I hope citizens vote for what is best for Pleasanton over personal convenience.

So if Costco agrees to pay $11 million for road improvements, then you are in favor of it?

@Alexis B

You are directing at me? I am a financial person. Show me the numbers. If they are good, then I could support Costco.

Other negotiations are going on. The City tells us so- but will not give us any details. I guess this is legal, but far from transparent. How could anyone be asked to make that decision without knowing the total? Is it $5-10 million more in sales tax and property tax subsidies being negotiated?

Another concern is the final road work costs. As pointed out by Val, costs will likely go up. In just 6 months it went up $1 million.

Give me all of the facts. I am not anti-Costco, but I can tell you that my research shows that Costco will not come without considerable gifts. Right now, there is nothing to analyze but the $11 million, which could turn into $15-20 million, or more.

@Alexis B,

My answer to your question is : No Way! There are two Costco's within 8 miles or less in either direction. I want medium/small retail. I do not want the extra traffic of a Costco. I do not want the pollution. I do not want the big warehouse and parking lot. I do not want the equivalent of 10-12 gas stations in one spot. I do not want the big-rig trucks and gas tankers on our streets. These are dangerous!

I will take the alternatives, even if Costco paid us!

To me, there is nothing appealing about having a Costco in our City.

After careful study of the various letters and editorials on the subject...I come down on the side of barring Costco from our town. Why throw away, and I believe that is what would happen, all we and those who came before, strove to build? Arguments for the tax monies that might be brought in are, for me, far outweighed by the increase in congestion on all our already challenged roads and a changed perception of who we are and what we value.

Agree with Val and Tom M

Lisa S, good luck in getting the real numbers being negotiated! I can't see how you say that you could support a Costco if the numbers are good. (Of course, they never will be). But what would be good numbers??

Do you mean numbers for pollution? Numbers for traffic? Numbers of big-rigs? How about freeway congestion at Stoneridge Interchange and the mess at I-680/ I-580. This is not on a CalTrans priority list. These numbers count too!

This is not just a financial decision. It's about our City!

@ JJ,

I see your point- but, it is moot. We will never get the subsidy numbers which are "being negotiated." Numbers in addition to the $11 million. So, if Costco/ Nearon will never pay the $11 million and we will never get told the additional negotiations- we have nothing to debate. You and I are in agreement.

As I said: Costco will not come without considerable gifts. The City will not tell us the whole story because it would kill the deal for sure. Measure MM wins easily, if the total package is revealed now. The City's (and Chamber's) only chance to win is to keep it a secret - but this will backfire. The vast majority of voters are too smart for this deception. They will not vote to write a blank check.

As I said, your point is moot. Costco/Nearon will not pay the $11 million. The City will not be transparent.

(Removed)
No matter what goes in, traffic will increase.

The only real meaningful debate here is the cost to Pleasanton (if the $11m subsidy is real/accurate) along with any associated pay back period.

@ Pleasanton Parent

The City-ordered study says, yes, both will generate traffic - but that medium/small retail will generate 2500 -3600 fewer cars daily. This is about a 20% reduction vs Costco. To me, that is significant - not stupid. The City-ordered study was completed August, 2016, and paid for by Nearon.

The $11 million is accurate, but does not include additional subsidies which are "still being negotiated" according to the staff and Mayor. You mentioned the payback period-- according to Gerry Beaudin on April 12, it will either be 30 or 40 years at 4% interest with the principal amount being $6 million. This will equate to over a $10 million payback of just the $6 million. Additionally, $5 million will come from our reserve.

I do hope that you will consider changing your thoughts on Costco. I respect your opinion.

Lisa,
As we've discussed - that traffic statistics and revenue statistics don't make sense. And to your own admission you haven't seen the numbers (assumptions) around spend per trip.

I would love to get Costco over many other options, and I think much of the argument around why Costco shouldn't come is stupid (Gas Station protectionism, parking, traffic - all special interests trying to protect themselves over looking at the overall benefit).

However, I am a fiscal conservative and am not in favor in an unfair deal. Here is a real issue we should better understand - but instead of a steadfast no, I think we should be working with Costco on a mutually beneficial arrangement. I think Costco is a really good company and has a place in Pleasanton - in a fiscally responsible manner.

I love Costco but I do not think this is a good location for Costco.

I'm very concerned about increased traffic, in an already highly congested area, undetermined costs to taxpayers for infrastructure costs, and pollution which exceeds City guidelines.

I feel Yes on MM is a better solution for Johnson Drive.

@Pleasanton Parent

Your comments are directed at me, so I am happy to answer.

Traffic - yes, you questioned the August City-ordered studies findings regarding traffic to revenue ratios. Again, I do believe there is rationale behind these numbers, and suggest you contact the authors of the study to try to understand, rather than dismissing the numbers as incorrect.
Costco does generate more traffic per square foot than other smaller retail. Since you do not believe the current study, let's look at the SEIR. It shows that with Costco, an additional 12,000- 15,000 vehicle trips per day will be generated in the JDEDZ. Costco will generate 7,000- 10,000 of those trips daily.
Dismissing traffic as "something will be there" is not a good a good comparison. Yes, something will be there- but it will not generate the traffic of 150,000 square foot warehouse with a gas station which will have 20 fueling dispensers and service 157.3 vehicles per day according to the SEIR.

Stupid Argument- you say the argument against Costco is "stupid", and blame it on "protectionism", and "special interests." I disagree. There are at least two groups of citizens which have been formed independently who do not want Costco. I think that there will be a third group. Blaming the resistance or disapproval of Costco on one or two people is incorrect. There are thousands.

Working with Costco - The decisions have been made a long time ago. The City leaders are in agreement. Costco is in agreement. The developer, Nearon is in agreement. The Chamber of Commerce is in agreement. None of these people have talked about a new agreement. In fact, they withhold details of negotiations over and above the $11 million.

Unless Measure MM is approved, the current deal with Costco and the developer will steamroll ahead. Speaking at meetings, emails, letters - none have had an impact. The "deal is done". Nearon announced in January "Costco is here". The only negotiations that are occurring are how much more will be given in the form of sales tax and property tax subsidies.

So when it's convenient to ignore figures it's OK to direct to those that support.

Again, you've done an excellent job digging into statistics that support you claim, and are quick to get the last word in on any post constantly pounding in on $11m subsidy.

You quickly come up with reasons why any sort of renegotiation isn't plausible - your position is clear, yet what I don't understand is your all or nothing stance (take it as it is - trust me, the only option is as is or MM) and clear agenda to stop any further discussion on bringing costco to Pleasanton.

The traffic claim (removed)- it's common to both and again, paired with spend per trip doesn't make sense for both claims to stand - unless you're discounting gas purchases from Costco store purchases.

Pleasanton Parent,

I am trying to hold a respectful discussion with facts to respond to your points. (Removed because it referenced a portion of another post that was removed) I will ask you:

1) Please tell me why the $11 million number used by the City is incorrect or should not be the main subject of our decision.
2) What figures did I ignore. I have used numbers from each study. I have not ignored the numbers any from studies. It is you who wants to ignore the numbers from the City- ordered study in August. Please tell me which figures from which study that I have ignored.
3) I welcome new negotiations on Costco- but I am a realist. They are not happening. I responded to Alexis B yesterday that I could support Costco if they paid the $11 million, and I was informed of other costs and negotiations. Please tell me what actions you think will produce new negotiations. Or, if you have evidence of changes to the plan that we have been given on a April 12, I would like to hear of them.

@Pleasanton Parent

(Removed because it referenced a portion of another post that was removed)

Let's get to the real truth: you want Costco even if it's a very bad deal. I think you should vote for Costco.

Let's forget the $11 million. I think the number is really over $20 million! What do you think of that? There are interest payments of $4 million to Costco, cost overruns on the roadwork will be at least $3 million in 2-5 years, and other subsidies "still be negotiated" could be $5 million or more!

Let's talk about the second worst deal ever made by a city in the United States to secure a Costco.

Val brings up a good point that has not been discussed or quantified before.

Let's talk about $20 million. Does anyone dispute:
1) $4 million in interest payments to Costco?
2) Cost overruns on the roadwork of 20% when completed. Another $3.2 million
3) Current negotiations by the City with Costco. They won't tell us, but could easily be $5 million

When added to the $11 million, that's $23 million. Costco will say these are scare tactics. The first number is a given. The second is conservative. The third is unknown (and will remain unknown) until after November 8.

(Removed because it was disrespectful and unnecessary)

I don't support subsidizing costco at $11m or 27 yrs if those numbers are correct.

I do believe costco is a good company and good for Pleasanton.

I don't believe it's an all or nothing discussion.

(Removed because it was disrespectful and unnecessary)

- there are two major freeways right there with existing heavy traffic
- the traffic to this location is likely already existing (split between livermore and San ramon). Ie pollution neutral. Maybe better due to shortened distances travelled.
- gas stations are using it as a reason for preventing when they typically target high traffic areas.

I have no idea what was removed from Pleasanton Parent's post, but I do appreciate the Town Square Moderator, removing disrespectful comments.

I hope we can have a respectful discussion. There are many issues:
1) costs
2) traffic
3) borrowing
4) pollution

I am willing to discuss any of these, or anything which can be productive and is pertinent.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Can we have some respectful discussion regarding the $11 million turning into $20 million or more- with interest on the loan, overruns on the roadwork and unknown "negotiations still in progress" ?

This is an important topic. One which should be known.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?