Submitted On:
Jun 18, 2024, 07:55AM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: David
Last Name: Ott
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included) [email protected]
City Council Meeting Date June 18, 2024
Meeting Type Regular Meeting at 7 PM
Agenda Item Number 20
Comments To the city council,
I am writing to you today because I will be unable to attend tonight’s city council meeting in person. As I have mentioned to you previously in person and in e-mail, I am opposed to the city implementing a permanent half cent sales tax to make up for the temporary budget shortfall. The city should live within your means and be fiscally responsible. The first step is to place a hold on some of the capital improvement projects and also look within each city department to remove wasteful, excessive and unnecessary spending to make up the budget shortfall. When the economy recovers and the normal tax base returns, the city can move forward with the improvement projects. Please remember that an increase to the sales tax is permanent, as in forever, and it would be far better to place a few of the capital improvement projects on hold temporarily than to raise our taxes permanently. People are leaving California in the hundreds of thousands every year because of the high taxes and high cost of living. Taxes have consequences. I am confused as to why you refuse to explore this common sense approach of placing a hold on some of the capital improvement projects. Instead you are using scare tactics that you will have to reduce public safety services such as the police and fire departments, school crossing guards and road maintenance, and other quality of life services such as the water distribution system, parks and the library. Stop the fearful rhetoric and place a hold on some of the capital improvement projects, reduce the budget shortfall and prevent the tax increase. As leaders of our city your job is to be fiscally responsible and to make the sensible financial decisions. I urge you to live within your means and do not raise our taxes. Thank you.
David Ott
36 years Pleasanton Resident
Submitted On:
Jun 13, 2024, 12:50PM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Samir
Last Name: Shah
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
City Council Meeting Date June 18, 2024
Meeting Type Regular Meeting at 7 PM
Agenda Item Number 20
Comments This sales tax increase will take us as the highest sales tax levied by a city in the state of California. What is so unique about our situation as compared to neighboring cities? Exactly how revenue has not kept up as compared to say, Dublin? You seem to have a plan to fill the gap with tax increase but 0 thoughts what policies city will change ASAP to increase the revenue?
Submitted On:
Jun 18, 2024, 11:59AM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: George
Last Name: Reid
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included) [email protected]
City Council Meeting Date June 18, 2024
Meeting Type Regular Meeting at 7 PM
Agenda Item Number 14
Comments I have been researching the issue of PFAS contamination in our GW Basin along with two other local Geologists/Hydrogeologists. I recommend that the test wells be postponed until the updated GW Model by EKI is completed.
The millions of dollars for the test wells seems excessive for the info to be provided (seismic reflection survey in the area of the alleged GW barrier would provide better info). If a test well is done then use the location closest to the western edge of the PFAS plume and test soil and water samples for PFAS. If significant levels of PFAS encountered then stop drilling, save money.
George Reid, Certified Hydrogeologist
Pleasanton
Submitted On:
Jun 18, 2024, 09:39AM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Phil
Last Name: Bowman
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included) [email protected]
City Council Meeting Date June 18, 2024
Meeting Type Regular Meeting at 7 PM
Agenda Item Number 1
Comments Regarding June 18 Council Agenda Item #1 regarding switching away from 100% Renewable Energy
I urge the Council to remove Item #1 from the Consent Calendar and vote NO on it.
Like many residents of Pleasanton, I’m proud that our city is known for its responsible environmental stewardship. We have wonderful parks and trails which enhance the quality of life of our city and we also take care of our environment by working to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions as laid out in our outstanding Climate Action Plan (CAP 2.0).
I commend the City Council’s foresight in 2021 when it voted to enroll Pleasanton in the 100% Renewable Energy option from Ava Energy (then called East Bay Community Energy). For only 1.5% additional cost at that time (reference) we reduced our Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by thousands of tons over the last few years.
From the Pleasanton Weekly Nov. 23, 2021: “… Pleasanton City Councilmember and EBCE Board Member Kathy Narum said the transition to 100% renewable energy ‘is an important step toward reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions in Pleasanton for the long-term benefit of our community,’ as the city sets a new goal in its Climate Action Plan 2.0 to be carbon neutral by 2045.” This was a smart move at the time and is just as smart now.
Pleasanton isn’t the only city using 100% renewable power; at least half of the cities within the Ava service area are also acting responsibly and are currently signed up for Renewable 100.
Rincon Consultants, the company hired by the City to evaluate this proposal, estimates that if approved, it would cause an increase in emissions of 7,000 metric tons (MT) of CO2e over the four years.
That’s a lot of greenhouse gasses!
Rincon also notes that “the broader influence of municipal leadership in promoting Ava’s Renewable 100 electricity package warrants consideration.” This means that if the City switches away from Renewable 100, other Pleasanton electricity customers may follow their lead and further erode our ability to meet our CAP 2.0 targets.
The City’s analysis estimates this switch would save about $80K per year or $320K total. This is a small savings given the enormous amount of pollution we’d be adding to our air. Remaining on the Renewable 100% plan would only cost ~$46 per metric ton ($320K savings / 7,000 MT of CO2). This is a good deal compared to many other GHG reduction investments.
A peer-reviewed 2022 scientific paper from Princeton University and UC Berkeley (ref: www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05224-9) provides detailed analysis to arrive at the real economic cost to society of CO2 pollution. The study objectively analyzed the two major economic impacts from climate change caused by GHGs:
reduction in agricultural crop yields (resulting in higher priced foods and food insecurity) and premature deaths due to more frequent, deadly heat waves.
The report estimates the true economic cost to society is $182 per MT of CO2 – and they believe this is optimistically low since it limits the study to objective economic data.
(Some other academic studies have suggested economic impacts up to $400/MT!)
In addition, the US Federal Government has set an initial assessment for carbon cost to be used for assessing impacts from new projects and programs. Their initial evaluation for the cost of carbon is at least $51/MT, which is recognized to still be optimistically low.
Compared to the university study’s $182/MT, Ava’s $46/MT price to save 7,000 metric tons of CO2 is a huge bargain! Even if we compared it to the much lower federal estimate, the $46/MT is still a good deal.
The $80K per year savings is only 0.6% of the $13M annual budget shortfall. Surely, we can find some less damaging option to reduce our expenditures by less than 1%.
Since Pleasanton previously mandated that the default power source for resident and business electricity customers is the Renewable 100% plan, it seems hypocritical for the City to now back off and switch to the higher polluting option while still telling everyone else to take the responsible high road.
I urge the city council to remove item 1 from the Consent Calendar and vote NO on it. Let’s stay on the Renewable 100% Plan like most Pleasanton residents and help save our environment for our children.
One of the reasons people love Pleasanton is because of its environmental stewardship policies. Let’s not take a major step back now. Let’s walk the talk and stay with the 100% Renewable Energy Plan!
As an aside, I would like to encourage the City to use economic analyses as a tool to assess and prioritize the other CAP 2.0 initiatives. Specifically, I suggest using the metric of $$ cost per metric ton of CO2 reduction over a 10-year period (considering both acquisition cost and operations cost). Those options providing the most CO2 reduction for the least cost per metric ton should be prioritized. Perhaps the Energy and Environment Commission could be tasked with looking into this?
Submitted On:
Jun 14, 2024, 10:24AM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Nisha
Last Name: Nagdev
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
City Council Meeting Date Pleasanton
Meeting Type Regular Meeting at 7 PM
Agenda Item Number 20
Comments I oppose another tax to cover for poor planning. And I strongly object to our city spending our money on 'education' mailers with one viewpoint. I read that there is no opposition. Maybe not organized, but I assure you there are more opposed than shows.
Nisha and Sunil Nagdev
1265 Pineto Place
From: Pamela Ott
To: Jocelyn Kwong
Subject: FW: Sales Tax Measure Questions
Date: Friday, June 14, 2024 4:03:00 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Sharon Piekarski
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 3:43 PM
To: Pamela Ott <[email protected]>
Subject: Sales Tax Measure Questions
*** [EXTERNAL] This message comes from an external organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. *** Hi Pam,
I wasn’t sure who to request this information from so please pass it on to someone else if you are unable to answer my questions.
Regarding the materials posted for next Tuesday’s Council meeting:
1). Are the cost savings listed in the “potential cuts” list annual savings or savings for a 2 year budget cycle? 2). In the heading for the Resolution to put a sales tax measure on the ballot it refers to including it at the “direct primary election”. In the body of the resolution it refers to “general municipal election”. Is that an error in the heading?
3). Would the 1/2 cent sales tax apply to online purchases where currently sales tax collected is pooled at the County level and sent to cities based on a formula?
Thank you
Sharon
Redact
From: Gerry Beaudin
To: Pleasanton City Clerk; Todd Nelson
Cc: Karla Brown; Valerie Arkin; Jeff Nibert; Julie Testa; Jack Balch Subject: RE: Consent Calendar - Item #1
Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 7:00:10 PM
Good evening, Todd –
I am sending this to the Clerk’s office to include it as a public comment since it pertains to an item on a published agenda. Of course you’re always welcome to email Council, me, and other staf, but because emails can get heavy leading up to certain meetings and we are working to avoid Brown Act issues, please consider emailing comments to the City Clerk ([email protected]
) or using the instructions on the published agenda:
To submit written public comment regarding an open session item on this meeting agenda visit https://forms.cityofpleasantonca.gov/f/writtenpubliccomment. Comments will be accepted by the City Clerk’s Office until 12:00 p.m. on the day of the Council meeting.
Have a good evening,
Gerry Beaudin, AICP (He/Him)
City Manager
Office: 925-931-5002
[email protected]
City of Pleasanton | P.O. Box 520 | 123 Main St., Pleasanton, CA 94566
From: Todd Nelson
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 17:58
To: Karla Brown <[email protected]>; Valerie Arkin <[email protected]>; Jeff Nibert <[email protected]>; Julie Testa <[email protected]>; Jack Balch <[email protected]>; Gerry Beaudin <[email protected]> Subject: Consent Calendar - Item #1
*** [EXTERNAL] This message comes from an external organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. ***
I am writing against item #1, Bright Choice.
Redact
Please stay with Renewable 100% energy. It sends the wrong message about your commitment to the Climate Action Plan if you switch to fossil fuel souces (Bright Choice). I understand that it represents 0.6% of the forecast budget shortfall. And I understand your "point in time" interpretation of the CAP 2.0 goal for 2030. I just disagree.
Thank you,
Todd Nelson
Responses to City Council Agenda Items – June 18, 2024
Geologic Hazard Abatement District Meeting:
Agenda Item 1 - Adopt resolutions approving the annual assessments according to the Engineer’s reports for the Geologic Hazard Abatement Districts (GHAD) for Laurel Creek, Moller Ranch, Lemoine Ranch, and Oak Tree Farm
1. “Bi-annual inspections” = every two years. Is this accurate? A. For the purposes of this engineer’s report, bi-annual inspections refer to inspections performed twice a year.
2. Are the Plans of Control available to the public on the city’s website? A. The Plans of Control are not available on the city’s website; however, we can provide them upon request.
3. Does our public works department create the engineer’s reports? A. Yes, the Public Works Department creates the annual Engineer’s Reports.
Specifically, Michael Stella, the GHAD Engineer, is responsible for these reports.
Regular Meeting:
City Manager
Agenda Item 1 – Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to purchase Bright Choice as the default electricity product for the City of Pleasanton's municipal accounts to save approximately $80,000 per year or $320,000 over the next four years
1. Do we have to commit to the change to Bright Choice till 2028 or could we do a shorter term?
A. The July 1, 2028 date was based on a scenario provided by the City’s Climate Action Plan consultants to ensure the City could meet its CAP 2.0 goals. However, if the City is fiscally able to fund Renewable 100 at an earlier date, it can make that change. Doing so would positively affect the City’s cumulative greenhouse gas reduction but will have no effect on our 2030 CAP 2.0 Goals.
Public Works
Agenda Item 13 – Adopt a resolution to incorporate engineering recommendations for the list of resurfacing streets into the Streets Capital Improvement Program, Annual Resurfacing and Reconstruction of Various Streets Project, CIP No. 25503 for Fiscal Year 2024/25 funded by Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017
1. Is the list of streets a routine extension to the Pavement resurfacing program? Or do the engineering recommendations that are being incorporated constitute a significant scope increase?
A. The street listing provided within the SB-1 report includes streets that were previously programmed in the Streets Program and budgeted within the CIP to utilize the SB-1 funding. The listing does not change the scheduled scope of work but provides the actual list of streets, which isn’t issued publicly until the design is completed. This allows for adjustments in case some streets need to be cut due to current market conditions.
Agenda Item 14 – Approve agreement between City of Pleasanton and Zone 7 Water Agency to perform Phase I Feasibility Review for the Regional Groundwater Facilities Project
1. There has been discussion in the community by some water geologists questioning our direction, due to the likelihood of PFAS migration. Can you please comment on this agenda item in light of this discussion on the topic.
A: The goal of Phase I of the Regional Groundwater Project is to investigate the feasibility of constructing new groundwater facilities that increase Zone 7’s groundwater production capacity and drought resiliency for the overall Tri-Valley region. This phase aims to recover the use of the City’s groundwater production capacity and produce water that meets and exceeds all State and federal water quality standards, including those for Per and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
Current testing and modeling analysis suggests that the Bernal subbasin, located within the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, is outside the existing PFAS plume, making it a worthwhile location for investigation. The feasibility study will evaluate whether new groundwater facilities can produce water of sufficient yield and quality to meet the project’s goals. It will also recommend necessary improvements and estimate capital and O&M costs for implementation.
In addition to Zone 7’s role as a wholesale water supplier, the agency is the exclusive Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin and is responsible for compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA). Zone 7 will utilize their groundwater model during the feasibility phase to evaluate impacts on the sustainability of the groundwater basin, including PFAS plume management.
These findings will be incorporated into the project recommendations. The project will only proceed to implementation if the feasibility study shows that the recommended project cost-effectively meets the desired goals and Zone 7 determines the project is compliant with SGMA.
Agenda Item 15 – Approve three-year trash collection maintenance services agreement with Universal Site Services, Inc., in the not-to-exceed contract amount of $527,048 with the option to extend two additional one-year extensions
1. How much $ was the prior contract?
A. The contract amount for FY24 is $153,324, and we anticipate spending $137,000 for FY24.
Public Hearings and Other Matters
Agenda Item 20 – Receive a report outlining polling results, draft ballot measure language, and other considerations related to a local sales tax ballot measure
1. What would be the city’s plan to demonstrate that additional revenue is spent locally and to perform the expenditure reports and audits? A. Legally, the state and other agencies are not allowed to take the funding away, so revenues would stay in Pleasanton to support essential City services and programs. Revenues generated from the proposed 1/2 cent sales tax would be tracked separately. Sales tax revenues and expenditures will be audited as part of the annual financial statement audit.
2. What do the carets (^) in slides 23 and 24 mean? I see the note on slides 23 and 24 “^ Not part of split sample”. So, does that mean that these questions were part of the full sample, and hence have a smaller sampling error? A. The carets (^) indicate that the questions were asked of the full sample. All other items were asked of half the sample and therefore have a margin of error that is a couple of points higher.
3. Are the cost savings listed in the “potential cuts” list annual savings or savings for a 2-year budget cycle?
A. The proposed cost/service reductions listed on the Contingency Menu represent potential cuts for one budget year.
4. In the heading for the Resolution to put a sales tax measure on the ballot, it refers to including it at the “direct primary election.” In the body of the resolution, it refers to the “general municipal election.” Is that an error in the heading? A. It should be the general election. We will correct this in the final version.
5. Would the 1/2 cent sales tax apply to online purchases where currently sales tax collected is pooled at the County level and sent to cities based on a formula? A. Transaction tax activity does not generate pool revenues.