MEMORANDUM
Date: March 15, 2024
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Gerry Beaudin, City Manager
Ellen Clark, Director of Community Development
Re: P23-0177, 3200 Hopyard Road
This memorandum provides an update to the City Council with respect to the March 13, 2024 Planning Commission approval of application P23-0177, for the project located at 3200 Hopyard Road. The March 13 hearing was a continuation from the February 28, 2024, Planning Commission meeting.
At the March 13 meeting, the Planning Commission considered the approval of applications for Design Review and a Vesting Tentative Map for a 57-unit townhome and apartment project at 3200 Hopyard Road. The 57-unit project comprises 48 townhomes, and 9 lower-income apartments (to meet the requirements of the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance), in nine three story buildings.
At the continued hearing, the Planning Commission was presented with an alternative project design, voluntarily proposed by the applicant, which reduced the number of units from 57 to 55, modifying one of the nine, three-story buildings to instead comprise two, 2-story duets. This proposal also modified the inclusionary housing proposal to reduce the total number of on-site units from nine to eight, with those units deed-restricted to moderate-income, versus low- income households.
Staff found both projects to be consistent with the applicable objective development standards, also taking into account a series of waivers and concessions for which the project is eligible pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. While none of the changes proposed were required to conform to any objective standard, the applicant-proposed modifications reflect a more favorable transition to neighboring single-family homes to the north and allow for two additional guest parking spaces to be provided.
Despite these positive design changes, while the proposal provides a sufficient number of inclusionary units, the moderate-income level for the proposed units does not meet the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (IZO), which requires units to be deed-restricted to low- or very- low-income households.
The IZO does allow for alternative proposals to be considered and approved by the City Council; and while it is possible that the City and the developer could come to agreement on
2 of 2
an acceptable alternative affordable housing proposal, the determination of acceptability of such a proposal was not within the purview of the Planning Commission as they took their action. Rather, such a decision rests with the City Council, which will consider the Affordable Housing Agreement at a future date. In review of other recent Affordable Housing Agreements, the City Council emphasized its desire to maximize the inclusion of on-site affordable units, therefore, staff is concerned that any alternative proposal meet the purpose and intent of the IZO, to the maximum extent possible. (The Housing Commission is scheduled to hear and make a recommendation on the Affordable Housing Agreement on March 21, which will tentatively allow the AHA to be considered by City Council on April 16, 2024.)
Given the factors noted above, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 (Morgan voted “no”) to approve both alternatives, based on findings of conformance to the applicable development standards, with approval of the alternative contingent upon the City Council’s subsequent approval of the Affordable Housing Agreement. The Planning Commission’s action also encompassed approval of the Vesting Tentative Map and CEQA findings. The Planning Commission further recommended the City Council consider using Lower Income Housing Funds (LIHF) to support improving the affordability of the proposed for-sale units to be affordable to lower-income, rather than to moderate-income households. 1 Staff notes that, as allowed by PMC Chapter 18.144, the Planning Commission’s decision is subject to appeal to the City Council by any interested party within 15 days of the action. And, also per PMC Chapter 18.144, the City Council may, at its upcoming March 19, 2024 meeting, request a review of the Planning Commission decision at a future City Council meeting. Such appeal hearing or review request could be combined with the City Council’s required review of the Affordable Housing Agreement for the project in April.
Separately, staff has issued a supplement to the March 19 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 2, Actions of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission, formally reporting the Planning Commission’s March 13 action on the project.
Please see the following links for additional information on the proposed and revised projects:
February 28, 2024 Planning Commission Agenda Packet
March 13, 2024 Planning Commission Agenda Packet
Supplemental Memorandum to Planning Commission (Applicant-Proposed Alternative)
1 The project application was submitted pursuant to SB 330, which limits the total number of hearings to no more than five.
The initial and continued Planning Commission public hearing counts as two hearings, and two additional hearings are needed to accommodate the Housing Commission’s recommendation, and City Council decision, for approval of the Affordable Housing Agreement. The Planning Commission’s approval of either version of the project, contingent on City Council action on the Affordable Housing Agreement, minimizes the risk exhausting the total number of hearings allowed.
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 15, 2024
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Gerry Beaudin, City Manager
Re: March 19, 2024, Item 2: Actions of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission
Following the publication of the City Council’s March 19, 2024 agenda, the Planning Commission took action on the following:
P23-0177 & Tract 8672
Applications for Design Review (P23-0177) and Vesting Tentative Tract map 8672 approval pursuant to SB 330 to: 1) demolish an existing church and daycare facility; 2) construct a housing development consisting of 57 attached condominium units comprised of 48 three-story townhomes ranging in size from approximately 1,691 to 2,738 square feet and nine apartments; and 3) Vesting Tentative map.
Original Design: Construct a housing development consisting of 57 attached condominium units comprised of 48 three-story townhomes ranging in size from approximately 1,691 to 2,738 square feet and nine apartments.
Alternative Design: Construct a housing development consisting of 55 attached condominium units comprised of 47 three-story townhomes ranging in size from approximately 1,691 to 2,738 square feet and eight apartments.
On March 13, 2024, the Planning Commission:
1. Approved the Design Review (DR) application, filed as P23-0177, for both the original and alternative design, based on the required findings, and subject to the draft conditions of approval in Exhibit A and:
a. Approval of the alternative design contingent on approval of the Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) by the City Council, and further recommended the City Council consider providing funds from the Low-Income Housing Fund to convert the eight moderate-income affordable apartment units to low-income affordable apartment units.
2. Approved the Vesting Tentative Tract map (VTM) 8672, based on the required findings, and subject to the draft conditions of approval in Exhibit A.
3. Found the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Checklist for the project is adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for the project and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA.
Vote: 4-1, Morgan opposed
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
MARCH 19, 2024
1 of 2
Responses to City Council Agenda Items – March 19, 2024
Agenda Item #10 Water System Activities Update
1. Q. Does the booster equipment that the City rented last year for the Zone 7 turnout, along with interim water system adjustments already made, mean that the city is in much better shape to meet this year’s summer peak demand than last year?
A. The City will be in better shape this coming summer with improvements that are currently under construction and anticipated to be in service before peak summer demands, in addition to the continued rental of the booster pump at Turnout #4.
The improvements include upgrades at Turnout #1 and 1,600 liner feet of new 18" pipeline on Bernal Avenue which is currently under construction. The City is also building off the lessons learned last summer on how to reduce the water needs during peak demands by partnering with large water users to reduce use.
2. Q. Further, the pending $14M in [water system] improvements that are planned
(1) Would obviate the need to continue renting the booster equipment, A. That is correct. The loan covers a new pump station at Turnout #4 that will replace the rental pump.
(2) Enable the city to meet higher peaking demand further in the future, and A. That is correct. The new pump station at Turnout #4 and pipelines were designed to meet current and the systems future demands based on hydraulic modeling results.
(3) Make progress on being able to operate the system as optimally and economically as practicable (assuming that additional future improvements are made).
A. That is correct. The pipelines were upsized where appropriate to take additional capacity for lines that are at the end of their service life and will soon have to be decommissioned, providing the most economical solution. In addition, the improvements were identified as needed to re-balance and optimally run the system, and are needed for all of the Water Supply Alternatives options.
3. Are we as a city “not hopefully staving off the peaking problems this summer as fast as we can?” (Quote in the Pleasanton Weekly)
A. That is correct. The City entered into expedited design contracts in August 2023 and within six months had started construction on the most critical section. An item is being presented to the City Council this meeting to award the remaining pipelines. Construction will begin as soon as materials can be procured by the contractor. The City also worked on procuring critical valves that have long lead times to speed up start of construction. The prefabricated pump station would not have been in service this summer due to a 9-month fabrication time frame and the City is using the additional time to value engineer the project to reduce costs.
The permanent pump station is anticipated to be in service before 2025 peak demands.
Financial Forecast Assumptions &
Cost Reduction Strategies
City Council Meeting
March 19, 2024
Agenda
• The City’s Structural Deficit
• How did we get here?
• Financial Forecast Scenarios & Assumptions
• What does our forecast scenarios show?
• What are the forecast assumptions?
• Cost Reduction Strategies
• Non-personnel costs
• Personnel costs
• Proposed reductions to discretionary funding
• How will these reductions impact the City’s services and programs to the community? 2 The City’s Structural Deficit - How Did We Get Here?
• Slowing of Sales Activities at the Stoneridge Shopping Center • Delaying of Commercial and Residential Developments
• Transitioning from a Growing Community to a Mature Community • Recovering from the Pandemic
• Growing Pension Costs
• Rising Costs / Inflation
• Rising Insurance Costs
• New Labor Agreements
3 Financial Forecast
• Why do we build a forecast?
• What are the assumptions used in developing two forecast scenarios? • What does our forecast model say?
4 Forecast Assumptions: Revenues
Baseline Scenario Assumptions
• Property Tax: 3.5%
• Sales Tax: 2.0%
• Interfund Charges & Recreation Fees:
3.0%
• Other Revenues: 2.0%
Economic Slowdown/Recession
Assumptions
• Property Tax: 3.0%, 2.0%, 3,0%,
3.2%, 3.5%
• Sales Tax: -5.0%, -2.0%, 2.0%
• Hotel & Business License Tax: -0.7%,
-1.0%, 2.0%
• Rec Fees: 0.0%, 0.0%, 3.0%
• Other Revenues: 2.0%
5 Forecast Assumptions: Expenditures
6 • Expenditure Assumptions
• Salary & Benefits (excl. Pension): 3.0%
• Pension Benefits: 5.1% through FY31, -1.6% for FY32, and 0.2% for FY33 • Non-Personnel Costs (excl. Materials, Supplies, and Services category): 2.0% • Materials, Supplies, and Services category: 4.3% in FY26 but gradually declining to and staying at 2.7% starting in FY31
• Baseline capital contribution: Ranging from $3.0 million in FY26 to $4.5 million in FY33 • Contribution towards deferred infrastructure maintenance: $5.9 million General Fund Structural Deficit
Baseline Scenario
Average annual deficit:
>$13M
Cumulative deficit over
eight years: >$110M
Economic Downturn/Recession Scenario
Average annual deficit:
>$22M
Cumulative deficit over
eight years: >$180M
7 Alternative Scenario 1: Higher Property Tax Revenue
8 • Baseline scenario assumes an annual increase of 3.5% Property Tax Increas e Additional Rev
4.0% $19.6 million
4.5% $39.7 million
Alternative Scenario 2: Higher Personnel Costs
• Baseline scenario assumes an annual increase of 3.3%
9 Personnel Cost Increase Additional Exp
3.8% $22.1 million
4.3% $46.0 million
Ongoing Impact of Reduced Property Tax Revenue
10 (Numbers in millions) 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 26-33 total
3.5% 91.5 94.7 98.0 101.4 105.0 108.6 112.4 116.4 120.5 857.0
3.5% (with FY26 at 0.0%) 91.5 91.5 94.7 98.0 101.4 105.0 108.6 112.4 116.4 828.0 Variance - 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.1 29.0 (Numbers in millions) 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 26-33 total
3.5% 91.5 94.7 98.0 101.4 105.0 108.6 112.4 116.4 120.5 857.0
3.5% (with FY26 at -2.0%) 91.5 89.6 92.8 96.0 99.4 102.9 106.5 110.2 114.1 811.4 Variance - 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 45.5 Great Recession (Dec 2007 to Jun 2009)
• Property Tax
11 • Sales Tax
FY Amount % Change
08/09 50.4M
09/10 49.7M -1.4%
10/11 48.6M -2.3%
11/12 47.9M -1.3%
12/13 48.6M 1.5%
13/14 50.4M 3.5%
FY Amount % Change
06/07 22.0M
07/08 21.1M -3.8%
08/09 17.5M -17.0%
09/10 15.4M -12.1%
10/11 18.5M 20.0%
11/12 19.1M 3.3%
12/13 19.1M 0.0%
13/14 21.0M 9.9%
14/15 22.4M 6.8%
Cost Containment Framework
12 1. Non‐Personnel Costs
a. Discretionary Spending
b. Non‐Core Services/Auxiliary Services
2. Personnel Costs
Cost Containment Strategies
1. Non‐Personnel Costs
• Non-essential/critical services
• Contract services
• Supplies and materials
• Equipment
• Postponing projects
• Discretionary spending
• PUSD/Community Support
• Non-profit organizations
• Business groups (ex. Pleasanton
Downtown Association)
• Community groups (ex. youth sports
groups)
13 Cost Containment Strategies (continued)
2. Personnel Costs
• Vacant positions, temporary part‐time employees, and limited‐term employees
• Overtime budget
• Increased medical contributions from employees, etc.
• Furlough and no COLA/COLA cut
• Permanent part‐time and permanent full‐time employees 14 Other Cost Containment Strategies
15 Rebidding
Rebidding
contracts/services;
utilizing statewide
procurement programs
Changing
Changing service delivery
models (contract out
services, regional
collaboration, partner
with nonprofits/other
agencies/private
organizations, etc.)
Utilizing
Utilizing technology to
improve efficiency and
save costs
In-House Staffing vs Contract Services
• FTE count has been very stable, despite growing needs and population • Strategic use of consulting/professional services support instead of specialty staff • Job classification studies
• Website redevelopment
• Housing Element Update, Objective Design Standards development • Waste and recycling/ Garbage franchise agreement analysis • Water Rate Study/Prop 218 Analysis
16 Implementation of Cost Reduction Strategies
FY 2024/25
Mid-Term
Budget Update
Discretionary
spending
Non‐core
services
Freeze some
positions if
necessary
17 Implementation of Cost Reduction Strategies (cont.)
FY 25/26 & FY 26/27
Biennial Budget
• Additional cost reductions
in both non‐personnel and
personnel costs
• Utilization of pension trust
funds
Service Impact Evaluation
• Council and community to
consider cost reductions
and service cuts
• Adopted budget to reflect
reduced service levels
18 Proposed Reductions to Discretionary Funding
• $1.8M in funding for School Resource Officer
Program (SRO), Tobacco Education Program,
Crossing Guard, and other programs
• Agreements for the SRO and Crossing Guard
Programs will expire in June and July 2024
• Proposed changes to agreement terms: cost
sharing starting in FY 2024/25 for the SRO,
Tobacco Education, and Crossing Guard programs
• Staff recommends proposal #1
19 Impact on Services
• Reduced Police/Fire Force Presence – delay in response to 911 calls, potential increase in crime, and potential increase in insurance costs for businesses and residents
• Reduced Library/Recreation Programs – less services available to local families (reduced library hours, reduced/no summer programs, etc.) • Reduced Park, Street, and Building Maintenance Services – facilities, parks, and community infrastructure in less desirable condition • Delay in Response to Citizen Calls and Requests – fewer employees available to address service requests
• Reduced/Eliminated Support for Other Key Services – planning and housing services, business support, childcare services, etc.
• Infrastructure will continue to age and deteriorate – becoming obsolete and unusable for the organization and community (ex. 157 Main Street) 20 Questions and Comments
Sales, Use and Transaction Taxes
City of Pleasanton
City Council Meeting
March 19, 2024
About HdL
TRIFECTA
Superior service
Increased revenue
Decreased costs
COMPLIANCE
HdL helps clients reduce risk
by keeping current with
ever-changing legislation
RESULTS
Average city growth
rates are ~3%,
HdL clients are 2x that!
PROUD
TO SERVE
CITIES, COUNTIES &
SPECIAL DISTRICTS
FOR
40+ YEARS
100%
EMPLOYEE
OWNED
500+
Municipal
Clients
$3billion+
Recovered
revenue
99.6%
Avg. Client
Retention
CITY OF PLEASANTON 23/19/2024
What is Sales Tax…
3 • Tax only levied once: when purchased or used by
the ultimate consumer
• Retailer buys at wholesale and pays no tax
• Files resale permit with supplier
Sales tax is imposed on ALL sales of
tangible personal property in California
CITY OF PLEASANTON3/19/2024
What is NOT taxed…
4 And Lot’s More: CDTFA
Publication 61
is 26 pages long with small print
• Property – Land and Buildings
• Utilities – Gas, Electricity and Water sold in bulk or through pipes
• Merchandise Sold to the Federal Government
• Food Sold for Home Consumption
• Prescription Medicine
• Goods transmitted electronically
(Music, Books, Movies, Computer Software, etc.)
3/19/2024 CITY OF PLEASANTON 4
Limitation Opportunities Every Year….
New Bills: 2024 Leg Cycle:
• AB 2061 – exempt zero emission public transportation ferries • AB 2274 – tax holiday exemption, first weekend of August for school shopping What is ‘Use Tax’…
5 o Charged on goods sold to California customers from out-of-state retailers o Collected but a local place of sale limited to each county HOW IS USE TAX DISTRIBUTED?
First – allocated into the county pool
where the goods were delivered
Second – distributed from the pool to all
county agencies, based on their pro-rata
share of sales tax for that quarter.
CITY OF PLEASANTON3/19/2024
Tax Rate Breakdown:
6 * Rate above 9.25% cap: AB 1613 Transportation Tax Measure W and SB 797 PCJPB (Caltrain) Measure RR – rates are recipients of special legislation that EXEMPTED these countywide tax rates to not count against statewide TUT cap. 100% to City, Unrestricted
Shared, Restricted Use
Countywide and regional
voter approved TUTs total
3.0% of tax rate;
1.50% applied against
statewide cap of 2%.
Special legislation –
allowed to exceed cap*
CITY OF PLEASANTON
0.50% Transactions Tax Cap
Space left for City of
Pleasanton3/19/2024
Alameda Agencies – Sales Tax Rates
7 Alameda County Rate:
• Applies to all agencies within County
without a local transactions tax
• All agencies pay six TUTs – (BB, C, W, etc.)
Transactions Tax Rates:
• State law allows approval in increments of 0.125%
• Currently, County agencies can’t consider an additional countywide transactions tax without new legislative authority
CITY OF PLEASANTON
Cities listed approved local TUTs
• Six at 10.75% rates have no cap room
• Emeryville 0.25% left in cap
• Cities not listed have 0.50% cap space
3/19/2024
Local (1%) Sales and Use Tax Allocation
DIRECT ALLOCATION (JURISDICTION)
• Generally, Sales Tax
• Retailers hold a sellers permit with
registered places of business (sub-
outlets); allocation is place of sale
• City receives full 1% value
• Examples – auto dealers, general
merchandise retailers, big box stores,
restaurants, gas stations, grocers, drug
stores, etc.
INDIRECT ALLOCATION (POOLS)
• Traditionally, Use Tax
• Allocated through countywide pools
based on place of use
• Increased last 4 years due to growth
in online sales & addition of
marketplace facilitators
• Pool $ distributed to all jurisdictions
within each county based on their
pro-rata share of ‘place of sale’
revenues
CITY OF PLEASANTON 8
Pleasanton received 6 cents for each $1 paid into Alameda Pool 3/19/2024
Tax Group Comparisons
CITY OF PLEASANTON 93/19/2024
Pleasanton Sales Tax Results
CITY OF PLEASANTON 103/19/2024
Pleasanton Sales Tax - Larger Sectors
What contributed to (-1.9%) decline?
Inflation: baked into cost of many taxable
goods, added cost to customers
◦ New and used auto dealers; price
reductions, higher financing rates and
lending constraints
◦ Sales peaked prior year for pre-owned vehicles
◦ Gasoline prices soared in 2022
◦ Building materials – lumber price drops
◦ QSR’s was less $ from fairgrounds
◦ Fewer shoppers in dept. stores
◦ Spending for medical supplies and
equipment robust
◦ Sit down dining patronage still strong
CITY OF PLEASANTON 11
Top Performing Sectors:
3/19/2024
22Q4-23Q3 21Q4-22Q3 Change
Business Type Description (Count)
4,074,446 4,204,481 -3.1%
2,011,805 1,878,705 7.1%
1,742,397 1,640,397 6.2%
1,091,479 1,136,551 -4.0%
1,033,035 1,355,693 -23.8%
760,513 823,658 -7.7%
693,062 722,438 -4.1%
661,626 700,363 -5.5%
Quick-Service Restaurants (133)
Department Stores (8)
New Motor Vehicle Dealers (11)
Medical/Biotech (108)
Casual Dining (155)
Service Stations (18)
Used Automotive Dealers (27)
Building Materials (13)
Per Capita
Sales Tax
Trends
CITY OF PLEASANTON 123/19/2024
CITY OF PLEASANTON 13
Per Capita* Surplus and Leakage
• Nonresidents coming into City,
surplus tax capture sectors:
• Sit down, drive through eateries
• General merchandise
• Clothing, electronics, Dept. stores
• Grocers, Drug Stores
• Residents fulfilling needs outside of
Pleasanton, spending sectors gaps:
• Home furnishings
• Sporting Goods & Family Apparel
• Building Supply Stores
• Discount Department Stores
• This gap will substantially reduce
with opening of Costco
* Per capita computations comparing
Pleasanton sales taxes to statewide data
3/19/2024
Transaction and Use Tax History
14 • 1968 – Legislature preempts local governments from independent sales tax levies (R&T 7203.5 footnote)
• 1969 - Counties authorized to go to Voters for Transactions and Use Tax Overrides • 2004 - Cities authorized to seek voter approval for transactions tax overrides 3/19/2024 CITY OF PLEASANTON 14
o Follows the goods to
consumer/where goods
are delivered, no matter
where they come from
o Tax distributed to the
district (in this case, City
of Pleasanton boundary)
where goods are
presumably used.
6/29/2023 BART AUDIT COMMITTEE 15
Transaction and Use (District) Tax vs. Sales Tax
Recent Law Changes 2019:
Assembly Bill 147 – Regulations on Out-of-
State Online Retailers requiring them to collect
and remit sales & use tax from all transactions.
California’s implementation of Supreme
Court’s decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair
Effective October 1, 2019
While many large internet retailers were
already collecting, still a dramatic positive
impact for agencies
Transaction &
Use Taxes Info
• Many internet retailers collecting
sales tax will also collect and
remit the Local TUT to agencies –
think Amazon, Ebay, Facebook,
Wayfair
• ‘Out-of-Towners’ will pay the tax
when shopping locally, however…
• Many online purchases (deliveries)
come from City’s residents and
businesses
3/19/2024 CITY OF PLEASANTON 16
3/19/2024 CITY OF PLEASANTON 17
Functional Differences To Bradley-Burns
BUYER PAYS TOTAL SALES TAX RATE WHERE VEHICLE
WILL BE REGISTERED
Example:
1. Buyer lives in non-TUT city (Pleasanton) with total sales tax rate of 10.25%, purchases a vehicle from a car dealer in a city that has a total sales tax rate of 10.75% (Newark).
Buyer will pay 10.25% sales tax to car dealer.
Local 1% Bradley-Burns tax will be allocated to
city where car dealer is located (Newark). No
additional local taxes will be allocated. All other
taxes remitted to applicable agencies.
18 REGISTERED
VEHICLES,
VESSELS,
AIRCRAFT
Example 1 -
Pleasanton
Buyer
3/19/2024 CITY OF PLEASANTON 18
Functional Differences To Bradley-Burns
BUYER PAYS TOTAL SALES TAX RATE WHERE VEHICLE
WILL BE REGISTERED
Example:
2. Buyer lives in a city with TUT (Newark) - total sales tax rate of
10.75% (assume 0.50% Local TUT), purchases a vehicle from a car dealer in a city that has a total sales tax rate of 10.25% (Pleasanton).
Buyer will pay 10.75% sales tax to car dealer.
Local 1% Bradley-Burns tax will be allocated to
city where car dealer is located (Pleasanton).
0.50% TUT will be sent to City where Buyer lives
(Newark). All other taxes remitted to applicable
agencies.
19 REGISTERED
VEHICLES,
VESSELS,
AIRCRAFT
Example 2 –
Newark Buyer
3/19/2024 CITY OF PLEASANTON 19
Building Supplies, Equipment and Bulk Fuel
CITY WITH LOCAL TUT
DELIVERIES INTO CITY
TUT collected
DELIVERIES OUT OF CITY
TUT NOT collected
3/19/2024 CITY OF PLEASANTON 20
• Less impact, already in many communities
• Consumers focus on base cost of goods
• Hassle factor
• Alternative purchase options
HOW DO
“ADD ON”
TAXES EFFECT
BUYING?
Estimated 0.50% TUT for Pleasanton
3/19/2024 CITY OF PLEASANTON 22
Table compares HdL sales tax to
potential revenues from new TUT
o City should expect full 0.50% value from
grocer/drugs, restaurants, service stations
(walk in sales)
o Reductions made for auto dealer’s sale of
vehicles to non-residents, offset by
resident’s acquisitions outside the City
o Net impact for Building-Construction and
Business-Industry is more exported than
imported transactions
o TUT estimate includes opening of Costco
FY 2025-2026
Proposed Transaction Tax
Sales Tax Forecast 25,990,790$
Estimated TUT Revenue 10,595,000$
Ratio TUT to ST 40.8%
TUT Estimate presented –
o Annual amount consistent with
recent public opinion polling option
o Aligns with HdL’s ECONSolutions
Resident/Non-Resident Study results
TUT Examples
Weekend household project required
resident to obtain supplies at local
Home Depot costing $1,000.
Sales tax paid at current rate: $102.50
Sales tax with 0.50% TUT: $107.50
Additional Sales Tax $5.00
Once the project was completed, the
family went to Cheesecake Factory for
dinner. The bill totaled $200.
Sales tax paid at current rate: $20.50
Sales tax with 0.50% TUT: $21.50
Additional Sales Tax $1.00
3/19/2024 CITY OF PLEASANTON 23
Thank you!
Ken Nordhoff, Principal
[email protected]
888.861.0220
www.hdlcompanies.com
Brea | Fresno | Pleasanton
THE CITY OF
-
ttt
PLEASANTON
Date:
To:
From: Gerry Beaudin, City Manage
Adam Nelkie, Interim Director o ublic Works
Subject: Agenda ltem #15b - Mid-Term Budget Reallocation of Existing Non- Reskicted Funds within the CIP
Since the agenda report regarding the Mid-Term Budget Reallocation of Existing Non- Restricted Funds within the CIP (ltem #15b), staff has received response to a Request for Qualifications that was issued to better understand potential costs to development an Asset Management Plan. The initial responses received from consultants indicate that the cost of approximately $650,000 is less than staff had initially presumed. Staff still needs to work with the consultant(s) to develop a specific project cope and cost; however, it appears that the $750,000 that is currently allocated in the CIP for the Asset Management Plan project may be sufficient to complete both phases 1 and 2. With this, staff is now recommending that the Asset Management Plan not be defunded as part of the Council's direction when considering this item. Staff will address this during the presentation at the Council meeting.
March 19,2024
Mayor and City Councilmembers