Pleasanton City Council
April 8, 2025

CITY COUNCIL

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, April 8, 2025
5:00 PM
City Council Chamber
200 Old Bernal Avenue
Pleasanton, CA 94566
The meeting will be held in-person, broadcast live on Channel 29 and at https://www.tri- valleytv.org and streamed at https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCityofPleasanton.

Public participation: It is requested that members of the public wishing to address the City Council submit a speaker card. When public comment is opened on an agenda item, individuals may speak once per agenda item.

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.

In Person at Council Chamber:
• Submit a physical speaker card to the City Clerk at the meeting. When your name is called, please provide comment at the podium.

CALL TO ORDER
• Roll Call

1. Public Comment - Comments are limited to only those items listed on the agenda.

2. Receive a report on the Fiscal Years 2025/26 - 2026/27 preliminary budget reduction recommendations and provide direction to inform development of the two-year General Fund operating budget

3. Receive a report on General Fund dependent capital needs and other capital/infrastructure priorities for FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27 and provide direction to inform the development of the two-year Capital Budget and five-year Capital Improvement Program

ADJOURNMENT
Notice
Unde
r Government Code §54957.5, any writings/documents regarding an open session item on this agenda and items received by the City Clerk’s Office by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet will be available for public inspection on the City’s website https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/
and also
at the Pleasanton Library located

City Council Agenda Page 2 of 2 April 8, 2025

at 400 Old Bernal Ave., Pleasanton, CA 94566.

There is a 90-day limit for the filing of a challenge in the Superior Court to certain City administrative decisions and orders, which require a hearing by law, the receipt of evidence, and the exercise of discretion. The 90-day limit begins on the date the decision is final (Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.6). Further, if you challenge an action taken by the City Council in court, you may be limited, by California law, including but not limited to Government Code §65009, to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council prior to or at the public hearing. The City Council may be requested to reconsider a decision if the request is made prior to the next City Council meeting, regardless of whether it is a regular or special meeting.

Accessible Public Meetings
The City of Pleasanton can provide special assistance for persons with disabilities to participate in public meetings. To make a request for a disability-related modification or accommodation (e.g., an assistive listening device), please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 123 Main Street, Pleasanton, CA 94566 or (925) 931-5027 at the earliest possible time. If you need translation or interpretation assistance, please provide at least two working days’ notice prior to the meeting date.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
April 8, 2025
Finance
TI
TLE: RECEIVE A REPORT ON THE FISCAL YEARS 2025/26 - 2026/27

PRELIMINARY BUDGET REDUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS AND

PROVIDE DIRECTION TO INFORM DEVELOPMENT OF THE TWO-YEAR

GENERAL FUND OPERATING BUDGET
S
UMMARY
The City faces an ongoing structural fiscal deficit. To begin to address this challenge, the City identified a need for approximately $10 to12 million in ongoing General Fund reductions in each of the next two fiscal years.

O
ver the last decade or more, revenues were not keeping pace with expenses and the City’s historical financial practices “were lacking in a number of areas relative to long- term financial planning” (Eide Bailly Report, Feb. 2025). While certain actions were taken, like establishing a Section 115 pension trust (a budget stabilization tool to prefund pension liabilities), over time, these challenges left the City with an operating budget that is not sustainable. In addition to the operating budget issues, there is inadequate funding for the City’s vehicles, buildings, facilities, parks, streetlights, other capital assets, and pension liability (even with the Section 115 Pension Trust).

A
fter diligent work to understand the scope of the financial challenges in 2022 and 2023, the City placed Measure PP, a proposed ½ percent sales tax increase that was projected to generate approximately $10 million of new General Fund revenue each year for 10 years, on the November 2024 ballot. Based on the City’s financial forecast, some spending reductions would have been necessary even with the passage of Measure PP. However, the failure of Measure PP necessitates deeper cuts to the City’s spending or more use of one-time funding/emergency reserves to achieve a balanced budget.

T
his agenda report presents the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 and FY 2026/27 Preliminary Budget Reduction recommendations (see Attachment 1 for a Summary of the Potential Reductions). Direction from this workshop will be used to prepare the City Manager’s proposed two-year budget which will be presented to the City Council on May 20, 2025. Any final direction from the City Council at that meeting will be incorporated into the budget, so it can be recommended for adoption in June.

RE

COMMENDATION
Receive a report on the FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27 preliminary budget reduction recommendations and provide direction to inform the development of the two-year operating budget.

Item #2

2 BACKGROUND
The operating budget represents the City’s two-year financial plan for delivering General Fund programs and services in a fiscally responsible manner consistent with the priorities, goals, and objectives adopted by the City Council. Collectively, the Budget, Capital Budget, and five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) include funding for projects, programs, and services.

Ten-Year Financial Forecast
The City prepared a financial forecast as part of its long-term fiscal sustainability planning effort, and the information was presented to the City Council and community several times over the last two years, most recently at the March 4, 2025, City Council meeting. The full report can be viewed at:
https://pleasantonca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/386/files/report/1935. That financial forecast highlighted an ongoing structural deficit, projected at approximately $10.4 million for FY 2025/26 and $12.0 million for FY 2026/27. Using the preliminary numbers from this forecast, City staff began to develop a list of potential budget reduction scenarios to achieve a balanced budget. It is important to note that the two-year proposed budget numbers are still being refined, as new data points, including more up- to-date property and sales tax projections become available. It should also be noted that the proposed budget will not fully account for the City’s true operating and capital investment needs, because, to show a balanced budget, many known operating and capital/infrastructure/facilities needs simply cannot be funded. The latest financial forecast projects that the structural deficit gets significantly larger if there is an economic slowdown that impacts spending and investments.

Independent Financial Assessment
The City also completed an independent financial assessment to validate the methodologies and assumptions used to develop the City’s financial forecast and confirm the magnitude of the budget deficit and the City’s overall financial challenges.

The full report was presented to the City Council at its February 20, 2025, meeting and can be viewed at: https://pleasantonca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/384/files/report/1921.

According to Eide Bailly, the firm that provided the independent assessment, the City’s historical financial practices “were lacking in a number of areas relative to long-term financial planning.” While certain actions were taken, like establishing a Section 115 pension trust, other important steps like setting realistic growth assumptions (in terms of magnitude and timing of development/revenue) and setting aside adequate funding for capital needs did not happen. As concluded by Eide Bailly regarding the City’s financial outlook, “the additional work to be completed in the near-term will only further illustrate that the City’s resources are constrained and that its long-term funding needs are significant.”

Sales Tax Revenue Measure
The City Council has worked to contain costs (e.g., reduced spending by over $2.5 million in FY 2024/25 and deferred purchases of equipment and vehicles), considered

3 various options for supplemental revenues since 2023, and supported placing a ½ percent sales tax revenue measure (Measure PP) on the November 2024 ballot. With Measure PP not passing, the City began working on developing the next two-year budget with significant cost-containment measures included. Specifically, all City departments were directed by the City Manager to provide options for cost savings, revenue enhancements, and service reductions.

City Council Budget Development Priorities
The City Council identified fiscal priorities at its January 9, 2025, budget workshop to guide the City's budget development process:

1. Community Engagement & Equity: Actively engage the community and seek input to promote a collaborative and transparent budgeting process.

2. Long-Term Fiscal Stability: Prioritize placing Pleasanton on a strong financial foundation for long-term fiscal sustainability over short-term outcomes.

3. Protect Core & Essential Services: Ensure the preservation of essential programs and services before considering funding for non-essential initiatives.

4. Prioritize Infrastructure: Maintain and enhance Pleasanton's infrastructure.

Identify capital improvement projects and maintenance costs early in the planning process to ensure appropriate funding allocation.

Budget Advisory Committee and Community Engagement
In conjunction with comprehensive evaluation of City’s services and programs to identify potential areas of reductions, staff developed a public engagement plan to seek community input during the first three months of 2025.

As part of the City’s engagement strategy, an 11-member Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) was appointed in December and has met three times, starting in January, with the fourth BAC meeting planned for April 2. The BAC's near-term responsibility is to provide input on community priorities related to program and service reductions to guide the City toward a balanced budget for the next two years.

The City also hosted a Budget Town Hall, launched an online budget engagement tool, and hosted a pop-up at the farmer’s market to share information about the budget and programs and services provided by the City. These sessions included exercises to weigh in on potential service reductions. In addition, each City Council meeting since November has included at least one significant budget-related agenda item for discussion, and monthly special workshops were added to the City Council calendar to facilitate further City Council and public discussion of budget-related items.

A summary of the Budget Town Hall engagement results was shared with the City Council at its March 18, 2025, meeting and is available at:
https://pleasantonca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/308/files/report/1955. A complete summary of all budget engagement, including the BAC’s final recommendation and the results from the online budget engagement tool and farmer’s market event, is included as Attachment 2 to this report.

4 DISCUSSION
Preliminary General Fund Budget Reduction Proposals
As discussed above, the preliminary General Fund reduction proposals were developed using the projected deficit numbers ($10.4 million in Year 1 and $12.0 million in Year 2) from the ten-year financial forecast previously presented to the City Council. These proposals, along with other budget balancing options and potential limited use of one- time funding, are included in this preliminary recommendation as part of the overall strategy to achieve a balanced two-year budget. It should be emphasized that the use of one-time funds is an interim solution and does not address the ongoing structural deficit. As advised by the City’s actuarial consultant, consistent use of one-time funds, such as Section 115 Pension Trust and/or OPEB Trust, could deplete the trusts prematurely, resulting in persistent high unfunded pension and retiree medical liabilities (higher overall expenses) and low funded status.

Use of Reserves and Other “One-time Money”
The City Council received a report on potential strategies, risks, and benefits of utilizing pension trust funds in the near term at its March 4, 2025, City Council meeting. https://pleasantonca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/386/files/report/1933.

That report outlined a number of options for one-time funds. Other than the $2.0 million in one-time funding from the Section 115 Pension trust already authorized by the City Council, use of additional one-time funds is not recommended at this time.

Section 115 Pension Trust and OPEB
The City’s Pension Trust funds retirement benefits and the Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) account funds retiree medical benefits. The City’s actuary recommended not using any of the funds that had been set aside in the Section 115 Pension Trust until the obligation is 100% funded. For the OPEB account, the actuary recommended that the City should continue to fund the required contribution until the obligation is 100% funded, and the use of funds should be limited to the amounts determined in the actuarial valuation reports. However, the actuary acknowledged that the City is in a challenging financial situation. On March 4, 2025, the City Council voted to authorize staff to develop a budget that would use up to $2.0 million of Section 115 Trust funding in FY 2025/26 and another $2.0 million in FY 2026/27. In future years, the use of these funds will be considered on a rolling basis.

It should be noted that the funded ratio for the City’s pension plans is only 68.2% without the pension trust funds, which is below the state average. With the supplemental trust, the funded ratio is 75.0%, which is in line with the state average.

Use of the trust funds at any level could see the City’s funded status decrease.

The OPEB plans have a much lower liability (in real dollars), and the funded ratio is about 81.0%. The City was able to achieve this funded status without withdrawing significant amounts from the trust accounts since the establishment of these accounts.

While it is possible to withdraw funds from this account, it is not recommended at this

5 time. If the City starts to withdraw funds from these accounts, the funded ratio will not continue to improve at the current rate.

General Fund Reserve
The purpose of the City’s General Fund Reserve is to ensure financial stability and maintain operations in the event of economic uncertainty or emergency. The City’s unassigned General Fund reserve is currently at about 21.0% of the Operating Budget.

This is 1.0% above the City’s policy target of 20.0%. While drawing down on the reserve could yield $1.5 million in one-time money, this is not a sustainable practice. As expenses continue to rise, the current 21.0% reserve will drop below the 20.0% reserve target in FY 2025/26. At this time, staff does not recommend drawing down on the City’s General Fund unassigned reserve during the upcoming two-year budget.

Capital/Facilities/Repair and Replacement Funds
The City’s General Fund Capital needs for a “state of good repair” (just taking care of the assets that the City has today) over the next 10 years is estimated to average about $50 million per year. The City is currently investing less than $4 million per year in capital investment. The City’s assets and facilities are in need of significant investment; continuing to underfund capital, facilities, repair and replacement needs is only increasing costs and liability for the City in years to come. In certain instances, deferring maintenance and replacement is also creating additional risk and liability. As assets deteriorate, they become unusable and unable to serve the community. At this time, staff does not recommend any reduction in suggested investments in capital funding in the upcoming two-year budget. (Refer to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Agenda Report, which is published as part of the April 8, 2025, City Council Agenda, for additional information about capital funding needs that rely on the General Fund).

Preliminary Program and Service Reduction Recommendation The Preliminary Reduction Recommendation outlined below is derived from a list of 28 potential General Fund program and service reduction options developed with input from every City department. These reduction options were vetted with the BAC and the community (via Town Hall, online engagement, farmer’s market pop-up), and that feedback was considered when developing the preliminary recommendation. The recommendation also considers City Council priorities that were established through a Strategic Plan discussion earlier this year and operational factors, such as where there are current vacancies/frozen positions or where data shows that programs are underperforming.

The ten-year financial forecast presented to the City Council in March 2025 was used to prepare the Preliminary Reduction recommendation, using the original target reduction amounts of $10.4 million in FY 2025/26 and $12.0 million in FY 2026/27. As discussed above, the reduction target will continue to change as new inputs are received. For purposes of this reduction exercise, staff is assuming a target reduction consistent with the previous forecast and will adjust up or down as necessary before the final proposed budget is presented at the May 20 City Council workshop/meeting. It is important to

6 note that the budget shortfall is projected to increase significantly if there is an economic slowdown.

Based on City Council direction, approximately $2.0 million in one-time funds (anticipated interest from the Section 115 Trust) has been applied to the preliminary structural deficit in FY 2025/26 and again in FY 2026/27. That resulted in a baseline reduction target of $8.4 million in General Fund spending reductions (services, programs, personnel) in FY 2025/26 and $10.0 million in FY 2026/27 using preliminary baseline assumptions.

Table 1 below shows the reductions by category as a percentage of the total General Fund budget for each program and service area. Each of the recommended reduction categories includes multiple non-personnel (e.g., equipment, temporary staffing, contracts) and personnel (staff positions) expenses, offset by lost revenue, where applicable. A summary list of the potential reductions has been included as Attachment

1. A list of potential personnel impacts is included as Attachment 3.

Table 1. Summary of Preliminary General Fund Reduction Recommendations

Total
Program
Budget
Year 1
Reduction
Year 2
Reduction*
% of Total
Program
Budget**
Internal Services and
Operational Support 25,924,566 2,560,000 2,830,000 11% Library and
Recreation Services 11,577,926 1,820,000 2,050,000 18% Community Support
and Human Services 8,712,500 1,510,000 1,660,000 19%
Parks, Streets, and
Facilities 31,065,327 1,730,000 1,750,000 6%
Planning & Building 11,146,353 380,000 380,000 3%
Police and Fire 66,049,103 880,000 920,000 1%
TOTAL 154,475,775 8,880,000 9,590,000 6%
+480,000 (-410,000)
* Savings are not cumulative – the Year 2 savings represents the highest (not additional) annual reduction amount in each of the two budget years. ** For this reason, all reduction percentages are based on the highest/ Year 2 amount.

As the table shows, the preliminary recommendation includes an additional $480,000 of savings beyond the $8.4 million target in Year 1, and a gap of $410,000 below the reduction target of $10.0 million in Year 2. As discussed above, the target reduction may adjust (up or down) from the preliminary baseline assumptions in the final proposed budget. The recommendation is to take the additional savings in Year 1 to offset the gap in Year 2. Other options are discussed in the Alternatives section below.

7 The largest dollar amount reduction ($2.83 million) is to Internal Services and Operational Support (11% of total program budget), reflecting the intent to minimize community impacts while balancing the need to maintain a sustainable and effective City organization. Reduction to this category had the highest level of support from both the BAC and the community feedback.

The second largest dollar amount ($2.05 million) is to Library and Recreation Services (18% of total program budget), followed by Community Support and Human Services ($1.66 million or 19%). Feedback from the Town Hall, BAC and online engagement tool indicate that the community highly values these services, and in many cases these programs primarily serve more vulnerable populations and provide significant community benefits. Nevertheless, reduction of these services mostly aligns with the City’s focus on preserving critical, essential programs and services before considering funding for non-essential initiatives as outlined in the City Council budget priorities listed above.

For Parks, Streets and Facilities ($1.75 million or 6% of total program budget) and Planning and Building ($380,000 or 3% of total program budget), while the recommended reductions in these categories will have significant community impacts (reduced park maintenance, potential for slower permit approval times), the comparatively smaller reductions reflect the City Council priorities around economic development and maintaining and enhancing Pleasanton's infrastructure.

Public Safety (Police and Fire) is the City’s largest cost category, accounting for more than $66.0 million, or 43% of the total General Fund budget. The relatively low recommended reduction (1%) as compared to other service areas reflects the community’s and the City Council’s prioritization of public safety and essential services over other programs.

The following includes a description of each of the 21 recommended program and service reduction areas, including community (external) and organizational (internal) impacts for each, as well as the initial basis for each proposal. All savings are annual, and where indicated, some savings cannot be realized until Year 2 of the two-year budget. Please note that savings are not cumulative – the Year 2 savings represents the highest (not additional) annual reduction amount. It is important to also note that the services, programs, and the people who deliver them all have value. This is a difficult exercise as the City aims to change its financial trajectory.

Internal Services and Operational Support - $2.83 million total savings

1. Further Reduce General Administrative Costs - $1.55 million, starting in Year 1 This is the largest internal operations reduction category, and it builds on the $2.5 million in operational reductions already implemented in the current FY 2024/25.

This reduction consists of non-personnel items from various departments, including partial reduction of travel and training, utility savings, elimination of select software

8 subscriptions, elimination of citywide Central Services (internal print and copy service), and reductions to departmental equipment and office supply budgets, among other items.

These cost-cutting measures should have minimal community impacts, as most primarily affect internal City operations. In some cases, such as the elimination of Central Services, organizational impacts could have community implications, as all City departments will need to procure external printing and copying services, which could result in less availability of printed materials for the community, such as posters, flyers and mailers. In other instances, the City will be returning to minimum requirement (i.e., neighborhood noticing consistent with State law) rather than expanded noticing for things like development projects.

These operational reductions were identified for their minimal community impact, and in some cases, they represent desirable operational efficiencies, such as the allocation of eligible operating expenses from the General Fund to Enterprise funds for costs associated with those programs (approximately $650,000), and implementation of an internal PG&E Energy Reduction policy (estimated at approximately $100,000 annual savings).

2. Internal personnel adjustments - $880,000 (Year 1), $1.15 million (Year 2) This category consists of personnel changes across multiple City departments that are not associated with any of the enumerated community programs or services below. This involves the elimination of 3.5 full-time equivalent (FTE), 1.0 FTE of which is currently vacant, as well as the reclassification (downgrade of position) of another 1.0 FTE. Non-personnel items in this category include reduction of some temporary salaries and police on-call pay.

The general organizational impact from the loss of 3.5 FTE staff will cause the reprioritization (or de-prioritization) of certain City (and City Council priorities) as well as non-essential tasks and initiatives as team sizes are reduced. This will likely also translate into slower responses to general community inquiries directed toward the City Council/City.

This is recommended due to the minimal community impact of these changes, although the organizational effects, particularly to impacted teams and employees, are significant.

3. Reduce professional services and contracts - $130,000, starting in Year 1 This includes a reduction of consulting and professional services contracts across various departments. Please note that this includes only those contract reductions not associated with another program or service reduction – this is not an exhaustive list of all contract reductions recommended in the budget proposal. Those contracts are discussed as part of the specific program or service reduction area, where appropriate. This will create some community and organizational impacts, as staff

9 will need to scale back the activities that were previously supported by these consultants, especially for areas requiring specific technical expertise, such as Johnson Aviation for advising on matters related to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the Livermore airport.

These items were recommended because, while some of these contracts provide critical guidance on important issues, such as the Rincon contract for Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2.0 support, the impacted contracts are deemed non-essential when compared to other City programs and funding needs.

Library and Recreation Services - $2.05 million total savings

4. Reduce weekly Library hours - $890,000 Year 1, $1.09 million Year 2 This reduction would close the library, which is currently open seven days a week, for two days per week. Fewer library hours would impact access to library materials, programs, services and facilities. Additionally, this reduction includes a 50% reduction to library collections, both physical and print, further limiting access to library materials. Organizational impacts include the release of many temporary employees and elimination of 3.0 FTE personnel positions, 1.0 FTE of which is currently vacant.

This item is recommended because it is one of the largest overall reduction options, saving more than $1.0 million annually starting in Year 2 by reducing, but not eliminating, a highly valued community service. If this item were removed from consideration, it would be very challenging to achieve the necessary overall cost reductions. The recommendation reflects the intent to balance the community’s strong interest in preserving library services against the need for budget savings.

5. Combine Library & Recreation Service Desks - $320,000 Year 1, $330,000 Year 2 This reduction would modify the current service desk model at the Library to create a single desk for both library and recreation-related inquiries from the public.

Community impacts should be minimal, since fewer service desks and counters could increase wait times but should ultimately enhance overall service with one- stop access. Organizationally, this change would eliminate 2.5 FTE personnel positions, all currently vacant. The loss of this Library staffing, combined with the reduction of funding for human services, civic arts and youth grants, recommended below, will necessitate the pause of the Civic Arts and Human Services commissions.

This reduction is recommended because it primarily leverages existing staff vacancies while creating operational efficiencies.

6. Restructure Recreation Programs & Events - $610,000 Year 1, $630,000 Year 2 This change will convert adult sports (softball, basketball, bocce) to athlete- organized programs, and streamline overall recreation and special event offerings.

10 Non-personnel savings would result from the elimination of temporary salaries and referee contracts related to adult sports, as well as from modifying or eliminating non-cost recovering City-sponsored events, including the Hometown Holiday Celebration, Rose Show, Movies in the Park, and some cultural celebrations.

Approximately $870,000 in total savings will be offset by approximately $240,000 per year in lost revenue, which is reflected in the totals above.

Community impacts for the changes to adult sports will have a minimal impact on Pleasanton residents, as 2024 data shows that nearly three quarters of adult sport league participants are non-residents. It’s important to note that the adult sports programs recover less than 50% of their costs, failing to meet even the lowest threshold of 51-75% cost recovery (as set in the City’s Master Fee Schedule).

Players will still be able to create their own leagues and rent the fields and courts for play. The community will be impacted by reductions or the elimination of cherished events, such as the Hometown Holiday Celebration, although staff could explore alternate models that do not involve City staff time, including partnerships and sponsorships, where feasible. Organizational impacts include the elimination of 3.0 FTE personnel positions that are currently vacant. Vacant positions are not currently associated with adult sports or special events, necessitating a reorganization and movement of staff to other areas of the recreation division.

Parks, Streets, and Facilities - $1.75 million total savings

7. Reduce park and trail maintenance - $920,000 Year 1, $940,000 Year 2 This reduction involves both non-personnel expenses and personnel expenses.

Non-personnel reductions include things like elimination of mowing contracts and reduction in irrigation frequency at City parks. Community impacts would include a reduction in the upkeep and appearance of City parks and trails. Personnel impacts include elimination of 4.0 FTE staff positions, 2.0 FTE of which are currently vacant.

This item is recommended because, at nearly $1.0 million, it is one of the largest overall program reduction categories available by reducing, without eliminating, a valued community service.

8. Reduce janitorial services at City parks and facilities - $550,000 starting in Year 1 Savings from this item consist of only non-personnel reductions to existing contracts.

In most cases, daily janitorial services will be reduced from daily to twice weekly, and trash pickup at City parks and facilities, including the Library, Senior Center, Veterans Memorial Building, and others, will occur less frequently. Community impacts would include a reduction in the cleanliness and appearance of City parks and facilities. This reduction would have minimal organizational impacts, since it affects contracted work only, with no direct personnel impacts. City staff may be affected by a reduction in the upkeep of office space and facilities.

11 This reduction is recommended because it offers significant savings (more than $500,000 per year) with no personnel impacts while allowing for the reduction, but not elimination, of a valued service.

9. Reduce landscaping services citywide - $260,000 starting in Year 1 This reduction includes only non-personnel expenses (contracts) by reducing or eliminating existing median and mulch contracts, as well as eliminating the free Fall Leaf Pickup program. Community impacts would include a reduction in the appearance of medians and public landscaping and the need for residents and businesses to be responsible for the cleanup and disposal of leaves that fall on their own property. Organizational impacts are minimal as this reduction is to contracts only, with no personnel impacts.

This reduction is recommended because it offers significant savings (more than $250,000 per year) with no personnel impacts.

Community Support and Human Services - $1.66 million total savings

10. Reduce Community Support and Subsidies - $250,000 Year 1, $360,000 Year 2 This reduction includes non-personnel reduction of support for various partner organizations, including the Veterans Parade, Tri-Valley Community Television , Axis Community Health, Museum on Main, and senior support services. In some cases, these contracts are underused and will expire at the end of FY 2024/25 and not be renewed.

In recognition of the value of these services to the community, and the impact to the organizations that depend on these funds, the proposal assumes a gradual step down of funding with partial reduction in Year 1 and the balance in Year 2. This will allow time to work with impacted organizations to scale back services and seek alternate funding options outside of City General Funds, where available.

This reduction is recommended because it offers significant savings (more than $250,000 per year) by reducing support for non-essential services. Staff acknowledges the value of the services provided by the City’s non-profit partners.

11. Eliminate City-funded School Crossing Guard Program - $710,000 Year 1, $750,000 Year 2
This recommendation assumes the elimination of the entire City-funded contract for 22 crossing guard locations at elementary and middle schools throughout Pleasanton, in some cases at multiple locations at the same school. The current contract expires in June 2025. There is no personnel or organizational impact from eliminating this City-funded contract.

It should be noted that pedestrian collisions are not considered for establishment of a crossing guard location. Crossing guards provide parents with a sense of comfort

12 that an adult is assisting them with the crossing and casual observance of crossing guard locations does suggest that students behave differently when there is a crossing guard present, but the number of pedestrian collisions are low and dispersed, making it impossible to use crash data to determine that the presence of a crossing guard makes the crossing safer. Ultimately the placement and moving of crossing guards is based on engineering judgement. The Caltrans guidance for crossing guard placement provides a suggestion that guards may be placed "where justified through analysis of the operations of the intersection."

This reduction is recommended as this City-funded contract is a significant cost for a service that is not typically provided solely by a city, at approximately $650,000 in the current fiscal year, increasing to nearly $750,000 by FY 2026/27. The City Council had previously directed staff to work with the Pleasanton Unified School District (PUSD) to negotiate potential cost-sharing arrangements, in line with practices in other jurisdictions. While no agreement has been reached at this point, City staff is discussing potential impacts and collaboratively exploring options with PUSD, taking into the account the budgetary challenges currently faced by both agencies.

There has been community support to sustain this program; however, with costs continuing to rise and no support from the school district, it is not sustainable as it currently operates.

12. Reduce Business Partner Support Funding - $200,000, starting in Year 1 This recommendation would reduce non-personnel funding support for economic development partners, including the Pleasanton Downtown Association (PDA), Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce, i-GATE, and Visit Tri-Valley. There would be no personnel or organizational impacts from reducing this funding. Community impacts would include fewer resources to advance economic development initiatives and support the downtown and broader business community in Pleasanton. However, the City would continue to partner with all organizations to provide policy, event, and administrative support where feasible.

The City is also recommending new financial tools that would allow the PDA to support the downtown area (e.g., Property-based Improvement District) and will continue to support the Chamber of Commerce Leadership Program, and support Visit Tri-Valley in its efforts to attract tourism to the region as Pleasanton is the agency which administers the assessment district.

This reduction is recommended because, although it is not fully aligned with the City Council’s prioritization of economic development, it is a significant source of potential savings, without impacting personnel or essential services, and the City is still able to partner with and support, despite less direct funding.

13 13. Eliminate Housing and Human Services Grants - $270,000, starting in Year 1 This item eliminates the entire General Fund subsidy for Housing and Human Services grants (HHSG), currently totaling approximately $270,000 per year. No personnel are affected by this reduction. Community impacts would include a loss of funding to support many nonprofit organizations that serve vulnerable individuals.

This item is recommended because Pleasanton has been contributing funding to regional housing and human services partners at a significantly higher rate than the other cities in the Tri-Valley for many years. The City is currently in discussions with Alameda County and others about how to ensure that non-profits can transition away from City General Fund contributions. This funding is not sustainable at this time as the City grapples with funding to support core functions.

14. Eliminate Youth and Civic Arts Grants - $80,000, starting in Year 1 This reduction eliminates the budget for community grants in youth and civic arts categories. No personnel are affected and there are no organizational impacts from eliminating this discretionary grant funding. Community impacts include a loss of funding for individual youth and civic arts grants, which are smaller amounts up to $7,500.

This item is recommended because the relatively small grant amounts require staff hours to administer and monitor, disproportionate to the size or impact of the funds.

Due to the difficulty tracking results and the heavy administrative burden, this grant program would have been discussed for elimination even if these budget reduction discussions were not underway.

Police and Fire - $920,000 total savings*

*Please note that the $920,000 total savings above does not include personnel impacts from two positions with the Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department (LPFD), one of which is currently vacant. Since these costs are shared with Livermore, these positions accrue only 50% to Pleasanton and are budgeted as 0.5 FTE each. Together, these LPFD positions account for another approximately $250,000 in savings (Pleasanton’s share), which is already included in the “Internal Personnel Adjustments” category above.

15. Reduce Funding for Police Special Programs - $100,000 starting in Year 1 These reductions include non-personnel costs across a variety of non-core police programs, including promotional and communication materials, equipment maintenance budgets (e.g. vehicle washing), and the annual report. Community and organizational impacts would be minimal. The community may note a reduction in police-related surveys and public engagement activities. This item is recommended due to its minimal impact on the community and organization.

14 16. Eliminate School Resource Officers (SRO) - $390,000 Year 1, $410,000 Year 2 The proposed reduction would eliminate the School Resource Officer (SRO) function for 2.0 FTE officers currently assigned to Pleasanton Unified School District schools and reassign those officers to other core police duties. Community impacts would include the loss of a resource benefitting students and school faculty at Pleasanton high schools. Organizationally, eliminating these services, which are currently provided by a unit, would result in other police patrol staff needing to respond to these calls. Personnel cost savings would result from freezing 2.0 FTE vacant police officer positions.

This item is recommended because, in spite of its recognized value to the school community, a reduction in these services yields significant savings by leveraging existing vacancies without significantly impacting core police functions. This is also an example of a service that has been cost shared between cities and school districts in the state. It is also important to note that elimination of the City’s Alternative Response Unit (ARU), which spends nearly 50% of its time in the schools, is not recommended to be eliminated at this time.

17. Reduce Special Enforcement and Investigation Units – $390,000 Year 1, $410,000 Year 2
The proposed reduction would eliminate the special enforcement and investigative unit, which is currently paused (not staffed). If fully staffed, community impacts would include reduced ability to address certain crimes including human trafficking, drugs, and targeted plain clothes enforcement activities. Organizational impacts consist of freezing an additional 2.0 FTE vacant police officer positions. Similar to the SRO reduction, this item is recommended because it yields significant savings by leveraging existing vacancies without significantly impacting current core police functions.

Planning & Building - $380,000 total savings

18. Eliminate Neighborhood Traffic Calming program – No measurable savings This reduction would suspend the neighborhood traffic calming program, which facilitates resident-requested installation of speed lumps and enhanced traffic calming on neighborhood streets. While there are no personnel or organizational impacts from pausing or eliminating this program, additional restricted funding would be freed up to allow for road work to be completed with less General Fund money.

Community impact could include a reduced perception of safety at certain locations.

19. Reduce plan checking, long-range planning and permitting consultant contracts - $230,000, Starting in Year 1
This item includes the reduction of funding for outside consulting services related to long-range planning projects and on-call plan check and inspection services. There are no personnel impacts from reducing these contract funds.

15 Consultant services help maintain and manage workload and processing times during periods of higher volume, and when staff is not available or doesn’t have specific expertise. Reducing these funds could impact advancement of critical long- range planning projects, such as the Safety Element, General Plan Update, Stoneridge mall, and East Pleasanton-related services if not reimbursed by developers. It may also slow Housing Element implementation items, and Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2.0 implementation items. Finally, it may result in an additional approximately five business days turnaround time for building permit plan submittal processing and plan review.

Due to the City Council’s prioritization of economic development and the regulatory requirements around permit processing timelines and housing element implementation, an approximately 50% reduction of the total amount, rather than the entire $450,000 put forward in the initial reduction list, is recommended at this time.

20. Reduce in-person permit counter service to 2.5 days/week - $150,000, starting in Year 1
This item would reduce temporary, part-time staffing, and freeze a vacant clerical position in the Community Development Department. These staffing reductions will result in decreased service levels within the Permit Center, necessitating closure of the public counter for two and a half days per week due to the loss of staff to fill public counter/cashier shifts.

This item is recommended because it leverages existing staff vacancy and yields notable savings, without major personnel impacts. Community impacts would be mitigated by continuing to provide online/ phone/ email-based service during the days when the in-person permit counter is closed.

21. Freeze Sustainability Manager position – Already frozen, no additional savings This reduction would continue to freeze the vacant Sustainability Manager position that is currently frozen in the budget, so no new savings will be realized. Freezing this position will reduce the City’s ability to perform CAP 2.0 Implementation tasks and necessitate the pause of the Energy and Environment Commission due to lack of staff resources to support the Commission’s ongoing work. In spite of these impacts, this item is recommended because it leverages existing staff vacancies without impacting core services.

Alternatives (Reduction Options)
The potential reduction list included an additional seven potential program and service savings that are not included in the preliminary recommendation. The following is a list of each non-selected reduction with an explanation for why it was not included.

16 Other Reduction Options Not Included - $3.9 million total savings

22. Close the Dolores Bengtson Aquatic Center - $1.2 million The potential closure of the Dolores Bengtson Aquatic center is one of the largest operational costs on the potential reduction list, with total reduction of $1.2 million starting in Year 2 including savings from elimination of temporary and permanent staffing and operating costs to keep the pool open full time, reduced by ongoing cost of maintaining the facility in a "mothballed" state and lost revenue.

The closure of the pool is not included in the preliminary recommendation list because, as part of the ongoing asset management and capital project planning, staff has identified approximately $5-6 million in unfunded capital needs at the aquatic center that will require additional planning outside of this operating budget reduction process.

Staff is working to identify a strategy for the pool’s ongoing sustainability that could include philanthropic or other funding options for the capital needs and possibly revisiting usage fees to sustain long-term operations. That item will be brought separately as part of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) discussion.

23. Police and Fire - Close a Livermore-Pleasanton fire station - $1.15 million One of Pleasanton's five fire stations would be closed leaving a portion of the city without fire and medical first responder services in the immediate area. Response times to the closed district would likely more than double due to travel time and unit availability, increasing the potential for increased property and life loss and could further impact insurance availability and rates. Pleasanton would be unable to staff a first alarm fire; Dublin (Alameda County Fire) and Livermore-Pleasanton firefighters (out of Livermore stations) would respond into Pleasanton as needed to supplant services in violation of the Automatic Aid Agreement and the balance that currently exists between Livermore and Pleasanton (each with 5 stations), requiring potential payment of compensation to those cities that would offset savings. Other offsets to savings might include increases to Workers’ Compensation costs, use of outside counsel, and settlements and damages. For these reasons, and the overwhelming lack of public support from community engagement or BAC discussion, this item is not included at this time.

24. Police and Fire - Reduce support for non-emergency calls – $150,000 This reduction would eliminate one non-vacant Community Service Officer (CSO) position. Reducing one CSO would require a police officer to respond to calls typically handled by CSOs. This has the potential to increase both emergency and non-emergency response times, potentially impacting an essential public safety service. For these reasons, as well as the other police-related reductions included in the preliminary reduction recommendation, this option is not recommended at this time.

17 25. Police and Fire - Reduce or eliminate Alternative Response Unit - $800,000 The Alternative Response Unit (ARU) is an award-winning service that provides emergency support for critically in-need members of the community, often by diverting calls that would otherwise be directed to police patrol staff. This program has also been well used by PUSD. Eliminating these services would result in other patrol staff needing to respond to calls for service that would otherwise be redirected and could increase overall response times. In addition, this program reduction is strongly opposed by both the community and the BAC.

26. Community Support and Human Services - Reduce Firehouse Arts Center hours - $250,000
This reduction would yield approximately $250,000 in net savings after reducing temporary staff and eliminating 3.0 FTE non-vacant personnel positions that support both the Firehouse Arts Center (FAC) and the Senior Center (this item is tied to the staffing in item F. below). Community impacts would include loss of City-run programs, including Presenting Series performances, specialty theater programs, and youth classes. To achieve these savings, the staff reduction at the Senior Center (discussed below) would have to occur simultaneously. This item is not recommended at this time due to the impact on non-vacant staff positions, as well as the value of these services to vulnerable populations, including youth and seniors.

27. Community Support and Human Services - Reduce Senior Center hours - $250,000 As stated above, this reduction would yield approximately $250,000 in net savings after reducing temporary staff and eliminating 3.0 FTE non-vacant personnel positions that support both the Firehouse Arts Center (FAC) and the Senior Center (this item is tied to the staffing in item E. above). Community impacts would include reduced center operations from five to three days per week, impacting seniors rely on those programs and senior services. To achieve these savings, the staff reduction at the Senior Center (discussed above) would have to occur simultaneously with the reduction at the FAC. This item is not recommended at this time due to the impact on non-vacant staff positions, as well as the value of these services to vulnerable populations, including youth and seniors.

28. Parks, Streets, and Facilities - Update City sidewalk maintenance obligations - $100,000
This reduction would shift responsibility for sidewalk maintenance to property owners, where feasible, consistent with other surrounding jurisdictions. While this reduction could save costs, it could also potentially increase risk and liability, as some property owners may face challenges in maintaining sidewalks adequately.

Finally, this is something that the City should consider in the future, but it will take more time and simply doesn’t yield significant savings at this time. For these reasons, as well as strong opposition in community engagement about budget reductions, this item is not recommended at this time but could be studied further and brought back for consideration at a future date.

18 As an alternative, the City Council could include one or more of these items to reduce in Year 1 or Year 2 of the budget. The City Council could also consider partial or modified reduction of any of the 21 items recommended above, although, given the many components that go into each program, modified reductions will require recalculation and analysis of true costs and impacts and may not yield proportional savings or be feasible in all cases.

Due to resource constraints, even with cost reductions, the General Fund cannot support many critical program areas at the required level. Insufficient resources will continue to negatively impact service delivery, and the City’s ability to properly invest in facilities and other infrastructure used to serve the community. For example, the City’s Repair and Replacement Program, including many areas such as buildings and facilities, parks and medians, storm drain systems, police and fire vehicles, equipment, information technology, streetlights, and traffic signals, remains significantly underfunded. Other program areas, such as streets and roads, sound walls, traffic poles, and workers’ compensation insurance, are also underfunded.

It is also important to note that any changes to the Preliminary Reduction Recommendation will necessitate the inclusion of other reduction alternatives or the use of one-time funds that will have negative impacts on the City’s financial stability and other programs.

Developing the Revised General Fund Budget Forecast
As the budget development process progresses, new information will continue to allow staff to recommend a balanced budget closer to the May timeframe. As previously mentioned, the preliminary budget proposal was built based on the baseline forecast assumptions presented to the City Council on March 4. Since then, the forecast has been revised slightly and those updated numbers are shared below for initial reference only. The total revised budget with updated forecast will be presented in total at the May 20 City Council meeting. Note that in addition to the numbers included below, the City is anticipating other key information, such as the LPFD budget and updated liability- related insurance costs, which will need to be taken into account.

For FY 2025/26, General Fund revenues, excluding additional adjustments/budget balancing strategies, are projected at $159.8 million. General Fund expenditures, excluding additional adjustments/budget balancing strategies, are projected at $161.0 million. The net transfer is projected at $8.3 million. Net transfer represents transfers between funds to support various City programs such as Senior and LowIncome Water & Sewer Discounts, the Transit Program, and the Capital Improvement Program. The deficit is projected at approximately $9.5 million.

For FY 2026/27, General Fund revenues, excluding additional adjustments/budget balancing strategies, are projected at $164.6 million. General Fund expenditures, excluding additional adjustments/budget balancing strategies, are projected at $168.1

19 million. The net transfer is projected at $8.1 million. The deficit is projected at approximately $11.7 million.

Modest revenue growth is expected in the next two years. With cost reductions, expenditure increase is also expected to be modest. Restoration of proposed reduced/eliminated services and programs in future years will require significant new revenue sources.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Ensuring the long-term fiscal sustainability of the City organization ensures that the City is able to continue to provide programs and services into the future to serve all of Pleasanton’s diverse community.

OUTREACH
Staff developed a public engagement plan to seek community input during the first three months of 2025.

As part of the City’s engagement strategy, an 11-member Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) was appointed in December and has met three times, starting in January, with the fourth BAC meeting planned for April 2. The BAC's near-term responsibility is to provide input on community priorities related to program and service reductions to guide the City toward a balanced budget for the next two years.

The City also hosted a Budget Town Hall attended by more than 90 people, launched an online budget engagement tool that received more than 700 responses, and hosted a pop-up at the Farmer’s Market to share information about the budget and programs and services provided by the City. These sessions included exercises to weigh in on potential service reductions. In addition, each City Council meeting since November has included at least one significant budget-related agenda item for discussion, and monthly special workshops were added to the City Council calendar to facilitate further public discussion of budget-related items.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Ensuring the long-term fiscal sustainability of the City aligns with the ONE Pleasanton strategic plan goal of Funding Our Future to support financial health and sound fiscal policies through long-term planning, cost recovery, increased revenue, and cost- containment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact by the City Council providing direction on budget reductions. The direction will be used by staff to finalize the FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27 City Manager Recommended General Fund Operating Budget in May.

20 Submitted by: Approved by:

Susan Hsieh Gerry Beaudin
Director of Finance City Manager

Attachments:

1. Preliminary General Fund Operating Budget Reductions Recommendation for FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27

2. Community Engagement Summary

3. FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27 Preliminary Budget Reduction Recommendation - Potential Personnel Impacts

Preliminary General Fund Operating Budget Reductions Recommendation for FY 2026 and FY 2027 Attachment 1 Category Program or Service
Personnel
Total
Non-Personnel
Total Revenue Detail Adjusted Value FTE Year 1 Year 2
FTE -
F
FTE -
V
Internal Services
and Operational
Support
Further reduce
general admin costs - 1,550,000 - Non-personnel items from various departments, including:
*Elimination of Central Services (internal print and copy service) *Elimination of redundant/underused software services
*Transfer of eligible Public Works expenses from GF to special funds, where permitted
*PG&E Energy Reduction policy implementation
*Misc. other reductions (e.g. partial reduction to travel and training, equipment and office supply budgets) $1,550,000 0.00 $1,550,000 $1,550,000 0.00 0.00 Internal Services
and Operational
Support
Internal personnel
adjustments 1,000,000 150,000 - Personnel costs associated with elimination or reclassification of 3.5 FTE positions.

Non-personnel items include reduction of some temp salaries and PD on-call pay.$1,150,000 3.50 $880,000 $1,150,000 2.00 1.50 Internal Services
and Operational
Support
Reduce professional
services and
contracts - 130,000 - Reduction of consultant and professional services contracts across various departments, and elimination of the following contracts:
*TruePoint for assistance with Accela Cloud Migration
*Townsend Public Affairs (Pleasanton Only contract)
*Johnson Aviation
*Rincon (CAP 2.0 Support) $130,000 0.00 $130,000 $130,000 0.00 0.00 Library and
Recreation
Services
Reduce weekly
Library hours from 62
to 40 530,000 570,000 - Close the library 2 day per week. Release all Library temporary employees not paid for by the State Library for Literacy program. Personnel savings from elimination of

3.0 FTE positions. $1,090,000 3.00 $890,000 $1,090,000 2.00 1.00 Library and
Recreation
Services
Restructure
Recreation Programs 470,000 400,000 (240,621) Reduction of offered programs, convert adult sports (softball, basketball, bocce) to athlete-organized programs. Non-personnel items include elimination of temp salaries and referee contracts, and reducting or eliminating events (Hometown Holiday, Rose Show, Movies in the Park, cultural celebrations). Offset by lost revenue. Eliminate 3.0 FTE personnel positions. $630,000 3.00 $610,000 $630,000 0.00 3.00 Library and
Recreation
Services
Combine Library and
Recreation Service
Desks 330,000 - - Modify Library and Recreation Service Desk Model at Library. Personnel savings from elimination of 2.5 positions. $330,000 2.50 $320,000 $330,000 0.00 2.50 Police and Fire
Reduce funding for
Police special
programs - 100,000 - Reduce non-personnel costs across a variety of programs, including promotional and communication materials, equipment and annual report. $100,000 0.00 $100,000 $100,000 0.00 0.00 Police and Fire
Reduce or eliminate
School Resource
Officers (SRO) 410,000 - - Freeze 2.0 FTE Officer Positions. Eliminate School Resource Officer (SRO) function and reassign officers to other duties. $410,000 2.00 $390,000 $410,000 0.00 2.00 Police and Fire
Reduce Special
Enforcement and
Investigation Units 410,000 - - 2 FTE police officer positions (When fully staffed would be assigned to SEU).$410,000 2.00 $390,000 $410,000 0.00 2.00 1

Preliminary General Fund Operating Budget Reductions Recommendation for FY 2026 and FY 2027 Attachment 1 Category Program or Service
Personnel
Total
Non-Personnel
Total Revenue Detail Adjusted Value FTE Year 1 Year 2
FTE -
F
FTE -
V
Parks, Streets, and
Facilities
Reduce park and trail
maintenance 560,000 380,000 - Non-personnel expenses include elimination of mowing contracts and reduction in irrigation frequency. Personnel impacts include elimination of 4.0 positions.$940,000 4.00 $920,000 $940,000 2.00 2.00 Parks, Streets, and
Facilities
Reduce janitorial
services at City parks
and facilities from
daily to twice weekly - 550,000 - Non-personnel reductions to existing contracts for janitorial contracts (reduce frequency) and trash pick up. $550,000 0.00 $550,000 $550,000 0.00 0.00 Parks, Streets, and
Facilities
Reduce landscaping
services citywide - 260,000 - Non-personnel reductions to median, mulch contracts. Elimination of free Fall Leaf Pickup program. $260,000 0.00 $260,000 $260,000 0.00 0.00 Community
Support and
Human Services
Reduce Community
Support and
Subsidies - 360,000 - Non-personnel reduction of support for various partner organizations, as follows.

Assumes step down of funding with 50% reduction in Year 1 and the balance in Year

2. Impacted organizations:
*Vets parade
*TV30
*Axis - Youth counseling
*Museum on Main
*Senior support services $360,000 0.00 $250,000 $360,000 0.00 0.00 Community
Support and
Human Services
Reduce or eliminate
City-funded School
Crossing Guard
Program - 750,000 - Recommendation involves elimination of entire contract for 22 crossing guard locations. $750,000 0.00 $710,000 $750,000 0.00 0.00
Community
Support and
Human Services
Reduce Business
Partner Support
Funding - 200,000 - Reduced economic development support to Downtown Association, Chamber of Commerce, Visit Tri-Valley. $200,000 0.00 $200,000 $200,000 0.00 0.00 Community
Support and
Human Services
Restructure and
Reduce Housing and
Human Services
Grants - 270,000 - Eliminates100% of the General Fund subsidy for Housing and Human Services grants. $170,000 0.00 $270,000 $270,000 0.00 0.00
Community
Support and
Human Services
Reduce or Eliminate
Youth and Civic Arts
Grants - 80,000 - Eliminates the entire budget for community grants in youth and civic arts categories.$80,000 0.00 $80,000 $80,000 0.00 0.00 Planning & Building
Eliminate
Neighborhood Traffic
Calming program - 100,000 - Suspend neighborhood traffic calming program, which facilitates resident- requested installation of speed lumps and enhanced traffic calming on neighborhood streets. $100,000 0.00 $0 $0 0.00 0.00
2

Preliminary General Fund Operating Budget Reductions Recommendation for FY 2026 and FY 2027 Attachment 1 Category Program or Service
Personnel
Total
Non-Personnel
Total Revenue Detail Adjusted Value FTE Year 1 Year 2
FTE -
F
FTE -
V
Planning & Building
Reduce plan
checking, long-range
planning and
permitting consultant
contracts - 230,000 - Non-personnel reductions include funding for outside consulting services related to long-range planning projects and on-call plan check and inspection services.$230,000 0.00 $230,000 $230,000 0.00 0.00 Planning & Building
Reduce in-person
permit counter
service to 2.5
days/week 110,000 40,000 - Non-personnel impacts include elimination of temporary staffing. Personnel impact to eliminate 1.0 FTE position. $150,000 1.00 $150,000 $150,000 0.00 1.00 Planning & Building
Freeze Sustainability
Manager position - - - Eliminates vacant Sustainability Manager position that is currently frozen in the budget, so no new savings will be realized. $0 0.00 $0 $0 0.00 0.00 Parks, Streets, and
Facilities
Close the Dolores
Bengtson Aquatic
Center - - $1,200,000 Parks, Streets, and
Facilities
Update City sidewalk
maintenance
obligations - - - $100,000 Police and Fire
Reduce support for
non-emergency calls - - - $150,000 Police and Fire
Reduce or eliminate
Alternative Response
Unit - - - $800,000 Police and Fire
Close 1 Pleasanton
fire station - - - $1,150,000 Community
Support and
Human Services
Reduce Firehouse
Arts Center hours - - - $250,000 Community
Support and
Human Services
Reduce Senior Center
hours - - - $250,000 ($8,880,000)($9,590,000)6.00 15.00
Assume Section 115 Trust Contribution ($2,000,000)($2,000,000) Diff from Reduction Target $480,000 ($410,000)
Reduction Target ($10,400,000)($12,000,000)
3

Attachment 2

Community Engagement Summary

Overview
The City has conducted extensive community engagement throughout the Fiscal Years 2025-27 budget development process. This engagement directly supports the City Council's fiscal priority of "Community Engagement and Equity," which calls for actively engaging the community to promote collaborative and transparent decision-making.

Following the November 2024 defeat of Measure PP (½ percent sales tax), the City understood that tough decisions would be necessary to address the projected structural deficit. Through multiple platforms, including a Budget Town Hall, a dedicated 11- member Budget Advisory Committee, an online engagement tool that received more than 700 responses, a farmer’s market pop-up, and informal conversations at community gatherings, the City has heard from hundreds of residents about their priorities, concerns, and ideas. The City also worked to keep the community informed about the budget development process through its Budget Development webpage, monthly e-newsletter, a special edition e-newsletter in early March, four budget-focused press releases, a budget explainer video, and social media posts.

Below is a summary of the community engagement opportunities and the feedback received. This input was considered in the development of the City Manager’s preliminary budget reduction recommendation.

Budget Town Hall (February 11, 2025)
The Budget Town Hall at the Pleasanton Library attracted approximately 90 community members from across all four City Council districts. Participants engaged in a dot-voting exercise to indicate which services they prioritized preserving and which they would accept reductions for. Key findings included strong opposition to closing the Aquatic Center and a fire station, support for maintaining library hours, and willingness to reduce administrative expenses and planning consultant contracts.

A detailed report on the Budget Town Hall feedback was presented to the City Council on March 18, 2025.

Budget Advisory Committee (January-April 2025)
The 11-member Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) met four times between January and April 2025, reviewing financial forecasts, evaluating potential service reductions, and providing recommendations on budget priorities. The committee's work provided valuable community perspective on difficult budget decisions.

The BAC's recommendations, finalized at its March 13th meeting, prioritized operational efficiencies and administrative reductions over direct service cuts. After hearing public testimony, the committee made a notable adjustment by moving "Reduce Firehouse Arts Center hours" lower in priority—a change reflected in the preliminary budget recommendations. A recommendation is included in the April 2 BAC agenda packet.

2 of 4

Online Budget Engagement Tool (March 5-24, 2025)
To expand access and ensure inclusive community input, the City launched an online budget engagement tool that was open March 5-24, 2025. This tool provided an accessible platform for residents to share their thoughts on potential program and service reductions and offer creative strategies for revenue generation. The online tool received 705 responses, representing the largest sample of public input throughout the engagement process. The structure mirrored the in-person Town Hall format, with three open-ended questions and optional demographic questions on gender, age, and race/ethnicity.

Key Findings
Analysis of responses revealed several clear trends:
• Dolores Bengtson Aquatic Center: 152 respondents (22%) specifically opposed closing the Dolores Bengtson Aquatic Center, making it the most- mentioned facility. Many cited its importance to families, seniors, and competitive swimmers, with suggestions for fee adjustments rather than closure. • Library Services: 57 respondents (8%) opposed reducing library hours as compared to 36 respondents (5%) who supported reductions. Many of the respondents that expressed opposition emphasized the importance of after- school availability for students and suggested partial hour reductions rather than full-day closures.
• School Crossing Guards: 54 respondents (8%) opposed eliminating crossing guards, frequently citing safety concerns for children, while 36 respondents (5%) supported reductions.
• Public Safety: 30 respondents (4%) opposed closing a fire station, reflecting concerns about emergency response times, compared to 24 respondents (3%) who supported it.
• Senior Center: 29 respondents (4%) opposed reducing Senior Center hours, highlighting the importance of services for seniors, while 17 respondents (2%) supported reductions.

In addition to the reductions included as part of Internal Services and Operational Support the most supported service reductions included:

1. Freeze the Sustainability Manager Position (44 support/11 oppose | 6%/2%)

2. Combine Library and Recreation Service Desks (43 support/3 oppose | 6%/<1%)

3. Reduce Business Partner Support (42 support/3 oppose | 6%/<1%)

4. Reduce Planning Consultants (40 support/5 oppose | 6%/<1%)

5. Reduce Community Organization Support (38 support/5 oppose | 5%/<1%)

Budget Reduction Suggestions
Several recurring themes emerged regarding potential budget reduction approaches:

1. Personnel Management Strategies (92 mentions):
o Management salary reductions
o Pension reform
o Staff consolidation
o Early retirement incentives

3 of 4

2. Operational Efficiencies (54 mentions):
o Reduce travel and training expenses
o Energy efficiency improvements
o Technology adoption for automation
o Remote work options

3. Contract and Vendor Management (47 mentions):
o Renegotiate existing contracts
o Reduce consultant usage
o Enhance competitive bidding

4. Volunteer Utilization (41 mentions):
o Create volunteer crossing guard program
o Park maintenance volunteers
o Library and senior center assistance

Revenue Generation Ideas
Participants proposed numerous strategies to enhance City revenue:

1. Fee Adjustments (83 mentions):
o Increase recreational program fees
o Higher non-resident rates
o Premium service tiers

2. Business Development (79 mentions):
o Downtown revitalization
o Stoneridge mall redevelopment
o Streamlined permitting processes

3. Sponsorships and Partnerships (68 mentions):
o Corporate naming rights for facilities
o Public-private partnerships
o Business sponsorship of events

4. Paid Parking/Transportation (46 mentions):
o Downtown parking meters
o Special event parking fees
o Commuter parking charges.

Demographic Profile
Among respondents who provided demographic information:
• Gender: 58% women, 25% men, and 17% preferred not to say • Age: Strongest representation in the 36-55 age range (53%), followed by 65+ (17%)
• Race/Ethnicity: 48% White (non-Hispanic), 21% Asian, 3% Hispanic/Latino, with 16% preferring not to answer

Farmer's Market Pop-Up (March 15, 2025)
To complement the more structured engagement efforts, staff conducted informal outreach at the Pleasanton Farmer's Market, engaging directly with approximately 100 community members. These conversations revealed strong emotional connections to

4 of 4

community facilities, questions about economic development strategies, and concerns about potential impacts on Pleasanton's quality of life.

These personal interactions provided valuable context for understanding how residents who might not typically attend formal budget meetings perceive the City's financial challenges and priorities. Notably, community members consistently expressed appreciation for the City's presence at this community gathering, regardless of their perspective on the budget challenges or preferred approach to resolving them. Many specifically commented on the value of direct conversation, information sharing, and transparency, highlighting the importance of these informal engagement opportunities in building trust and understanding between the City and its residents.

What We Heard: Community Values and Priorities
Across all engagement platforms, several consistent themes emerged that have directly informed the preliminary General Fund budget reduction recommendation:

• Protection of Community Assets: Residents expressed strong attachment to physical spaces that foster community connection, particularly the aquatic center, library, parks, and senior center. These facilities are viewed not merely as amenities but as essential components of Pleasanton's identity and quality of life. • Concern for Vulnerable Populations: There was consistent concern about services for youth, seniors, and economically disadvantaged residents. Many comments emphasized the importance of programs that support the most vulnerable community members and foster equitable access to services. • Preference for Administrative Efficiencies: There was broad support for finding savings through operational adjustments, reduced consulting contracts, and administrative streamlining before cutting direct services to residents.

• Public Safety as a Core Function: While some specialized police and fire services received mixed feedback, there was strong opposition to reductions that might impact emergency response times or community safety.

• Creative Alternative Solutions: Rather than simply accepting service reductions, community members offered alternatives, including revised fee structures, volunteer programs, public-private partnerships, and economic development initiatives.

FY 2025/26 - 2026/27 PRELIMINARY BUDGET REDUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS - POTENTIAL PERSONNEL IMPACTS
Attachment 3
Dept Program or Service Reduction Reduction
# of FTE
Impacted
FTE
Status**
CDD Reduce in-person permit counter service hours 1.0 FTE Office Assistant 1.00 V CDD Reduce in-person permit counter service hours Reclassify Office Manager position* - F CMO Internal personnel adjustments 1.0 FTE Deputy City Manager 1.00 V CMO Eliminate Central Services Reduce 1.0 FTE to 0.5 FTE Office Assistant 0.50 F CMO Reduce citywide communications

1.0 FTE Community and Public Relations
Coordinator 1.00 F
Fire Internal personnel adjustments 0.5 FTE Fire Marshal 0.50 F Fire Internal personnel adjustments 0.5 FTE Emergency Preparedness Manager 0.50 V L&R Combine Library and Recreation Service Desks 1.0 FTE Office Manager 1.00 V L&R Combine Library and Recreation Service Desks 1.5 FTE Library Clerk 1.50 V L&R Reduce weekly Library hours 2.0 FTE Senior Librarians 2.00 F L&R Reduce weekly Library hours 1.0 FTE Library Manager 1.00 V L&R Restructure/ Reduce Recreation Programs 1.0 FTE Recreation Manager 1.00 V L&R Restructure/ Reduce Recreation Programs 1.0 FTE Recreation Supervisor 1.00 V L&R Restructure/ Reduce Recreation Programs 1.0 FTE Recreation Coordinator 1.00 V PD Reduce School Resource Officers (SRO) 2.0 FTEs Officer Positions (SRO) 2.00 V PD
Reduce Special Enforcement and Investigation
Units 2.0 FTE Officer positions (SEU) 2.00 V PW Reduce park and trail maintenance 1.0 FTE Park Landscape Maintenance Worker I/II 1.00 V PW Reduce park and trail maintenance 1.0 FTE Park Landscape Maintenance Worker I/II 1.00 F PW Reduce park and trail maintenance 1.0 FTE Street Maintenance Worker I/II 1.00 V PW Reduce park and trail maintenance 1.0 FTE Street Maintenance Worker I/II 1.00 F *Reclassification not included in totals Total 21
**V = Vacant, F = Filled Vacant 15
Filled 6

Item #3

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

April 8, 2025
Public Works - Engineering Division

TITLE: RECEIVE A REPORT ON GENERAL FUND DEPENDENT CAPITAL NEEDS AND OTHER CAPITAL/INFRASTRUCTURE PRIORITIES FOR FY 2025/26 AND FY 2026/27 AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO INFORM THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE

TWO-YEAR CAPITAL BUDGET AND FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAM

SUMMARY
The City faces an ongoing General Fund structural deficit. This report provides a summary of current capital projects that rely on the City’s General Fund for funding to move forward and seeks City Council direction on how to prioritize these capital projects as the City Council considers the General Fund Budget Preliminary Reduction recommendations. The proposed full Capital Improvement Program (CIP) will be presented in May 2025.

The City is developing its five-year CIP for fiscal years 2026-2030 amid significant infrastructure funding challenges. The City has identified approximately $900 million in “state of good repair” infrastructure needs over the next 10 years, and available funding is insufficient to meet these demands. The ongoing Asset Management Program (AMP), expected to be completed by year-end, will provide more precise data to guide future investments. However, current funding constraints require prioritization of the most urgent projects.

After a call for projects from all City departments, staff identified $53.4 million in needed General Fund-supported CIP requests. If all available fund reserves and anticipated General Fund contributions were expended, the General Fund could not address all the requests.

Given this funding gap, staff recommends deferring most identified CIP projects until the AMP is complete to ensure the City does not spend resources on projects that might not ultimately be the most necessary. In the interim, staff recommends prioritizing only the most urgent/critical projects totaling $16.6 million. Staff also recommends allocating $2.0 million to the Repair and Replacement (R&R) program to extend the service life of assets on the deferred project list. As the AMP advances toward completion later this year, staff will present new options to the City Council to plan for and take care of the City’s long-term capital funding needs.

RECOMMENDATION
Receive a report on General Fund dependent capital needs and other capital/infrastructure priorities for FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27 and provide direction to inform the development of the two-year Capital Budget and five-year Capital Improvement Program

BACKGROUND
Capital Improvement Program Overview
Projects discussed in this report include Capital Improvement Projects and Repair and Replacement Projects.

• Capital Improvement Project: A Capital Improvement Project is for the construction, upgrade, or major renovation of assets that enhances the long-term value or functionality of a property or facility. These projects are typically large in scope, involve new construction or significant improvements, increase the overall capacity or value of the infrastructure and are often completed through development of plans and specifications and publicly bid.

• Repair and Replacement Project: A Repair and Replacement Project focuses on fixing or replacing worn-out, damaged, or outdated parts of an existing structure or system.

These projects are usually more routine and maintenance-oriented, aiming to restore functionality or prevent further deterioration, and are often completed through as- needed contracts and requests for proposals.

CIP Purpose and Process
The City updates its five-year Capital Improvement Plan biennially, incorporating both Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs) and Repair and Replacement (R&R) projects. The upcoming five-year CIP for FY 2026-2030 will be recommended for adoption in June 2025. A newly- developed and more systematic process, the Capital Improvement Program Process and Prioritization (CIPPP), was adopted by the City Council in December 2024 and guided project prioritization.

As noted, Capital Improvement Projects focus on new construction or significant asset replacement, while R&R projects ensure the continued functionality of existing infrastructure.

Deferred maintenance refers to postponed repairs that often lead to higher costs if not addressed.

It is important to note that this report does not address the entire CIP. Rather, this report presents high-priority General Fund-supported projects and excludes core and enterprise- funded projects, such as water, sewer, and storm drain projects that are funded through various restricted funds (e.g., Gas Tax, Measure BB, Developer Impact Fees) and grants.

DISCUSSION
Infrastructure Assessment and Asset Management Program
An internal assessment estimated $900 million in CIP and R&R needs over the next decade, prior to the implementation of the Asset Management Program (AMP), to maintain infrastructure and other assets in a “state of good repair”. As presented in an update to the City Council on February 4, 2025, when completed by year-end, the AMP will provide a complete asset list with high-level condition assessment and a prioritized implementation plan linked to a long-term funding strategy. Given these pending results, staff recommends limiting capital investments in the current budget cycle to the most critical projects. Staff may provide additional recommendations to adjust the FY2026-2030 Capital Improvement Program during the two-year budget cycle, based on the results of the AMP.

CIP Project Prioritization and Funding Availability
As part of the CIP planning and budget development process, all City departments were asked to submit “high-priority projects.” In total, 27 such projects requiring General Fund

support were submitted, totaling $53.4 million. The estimated existing general fund and developer impact funds resources plus various available transportation and grants funds over the five-year CIP period is $40.0 million, including $2.4 million from recommended projects to defund. The funding is comprised of: $15.5 million in General Fund contributions, $8.2 million in general and park general CIP funds, $3.7 million in developer impact funds plus an additional $1 million of anticipated revenue, $4.0 million of anticipated earned interest income and $7.6 million in various available transportation funds and grants.

General Fund Contributions
Contributions from the General Fund are essential to ensure sufficient funding for certain critical infrastructure needs – particularly those that are not funded by enterprise or other restricted funding sources. Unfortunately, due to limited funds, the City has not been allocating adequate General Fund support to the CIP or R&R needs for many years. This will need to change to ensure that the City’s infrastructure, including parks and facilities, are properly maintained.

The ten-year financial forecast, which was presented to the City Council at its March 4, 2025, meeting, assumed a CIP General Fund contribution of $3.0 million in FY 2025/26 and increasing that annual contribution by $0.25 million each year to reach $4.0 million in FY 2029/30, for a cumulative total of $17.5 million.

However, it should be noted that $2.0 million of the recommended $3.0 million General Fund contribution for FY 2025/26 will now be going to R&R in the Facilities Renovation Fund to address certain critical maintenance needs, with the remaining $1.0 million going to the Miscellaneous CIP – General Fund, resulting in an updated five-year total of $15.5 million.

Critical needs supported by the the $2.0 million allocation will address deferred maintenance for the Dolores Bengtson Aquatic Center, Fire Station 2, and Bernal Synthetic Fields, as discussed below. Funds will be held in the Facilities Renovation Fund, where resources are generally used for building and facility-related maintenance, and funds will be distributed to these three projects when the specific scopes and amounts have been determined. The anticipated five-year total contribution and other available resources remain insufficient to cover the $53.4 million in requested projects, meaning only the highest-priority projects (above the funding threshold) can be funded. When the AMP is completed later this year, the target number will increase, which will result in a much higher unfunded amount. Removing or re- allocating any additional General Funds from the available "pot" will severely impede the City's ability to undertake essential projects, leading to the deterioration of community assets, declining use, and increased future costs due to lack of proper repair and maintenance.

Program Reserves and Future Funding Strategy
In addition to the funds described above, the City maintains a General Fund CIP Reserve to address unforeseen emergencies and failures. The City’s General Fund CIP reserve is $1.2 million, which is inadequate to address these types of needs.

Over the past two years, the City has canceled, defunded and reassigned $26.4 million in General Fund-dependent projects to address more urgent needs. In this cycle, staff is recommending an additional $2.4 million in deferrals because there are insufficient funds to meet ongoing operation and maintenance needs. Fully committing all available funds now will limit the ability to address future needs and will necessitate reprioritization when the AMP is

complete. Furthermore, a long-term funding strategy is required and will be developed as the City continues to move forward with financial stabilization and planning efforts.

Recommended Projects
After using the City’s recently adopted CIP Prioritization Process, staff recommends funding only the most critical/urgent General Fund-supported projects that address regulatory requirements, prevent facility closures, or are significantly grant-funded. The total value of the recommended project list is $16.6 million. These include:

Staff is seeking the City Council’s input and direction on the proposed list of General Fund- reliant projects provided above. Direction on these items is necessary at this time because any changes to the project list of proposed funding levels will impact the amount of General Fund available to support the Operating Budget. See Attachment 1 for the recommended list of proposed projects and Attachment 2 for a list of the submitted unfunded projects.

Critical Deferred Maintenance Projects
Continuing to deferring critical maintenance projects will increase longer-term costs and may result in unexpected facility closures. Many facilities have exceeded their expected service life and rely on temporary repairs to remain in operation. To mitigate risks, staff recommends

adding $2.0 million to the R&R program over the next two years to address the increased maintenance in addition to the following larger projects:

#1 Dolores Bengtson Aquatic Center (DBAC): $500,000 for 50-meter pool and locker room repairs
The DBAC is in need of $5-6 million for major renovation of the plaster, decking and mechanical equipment (pumps and filters) that have exceeded service life and has already required many repairs due to corrosion. When/if this money is identified, the facility will have to be closed for up to one year to complete the work. The temporary investment of $500,000 recommended at this time may “bandaid” the operation of the pool for up to 3-5 years; however, this approach will increase the risk of the pool being out of service should other known issues become more severe or critical to address. Concurrently, staff is working to identify a strategy for the pool’s ongoing sustainability that could include philanthropic or other funding options for the larger capital needs, and possibly revisiting usage fees to sustain long- term operations.

#2 Fire Station 2: $350,000 for kitchen and exterior repairs A report was completed in 2012 showing that Fire Station 2 was in need of a complete remodel or replacement; however, no significant investments were made in the last 13 years and the facility’s condition has worsened since that time. The $350,000 recommended at this time will address a kitchen that can no longer be maintained and paint the building to seal cracks in the stucco. This proposed “band aid” approach does nothing to address the Station's outdated and inadequate facilities (e.g. gang showers and barracks sleeping quarters, lack of gender balance in the facility) or needed site access, driveway and sidewalk improvements.

As a facility at or near the end of its useful life, this Station needs to be replaced, at an estimated cost of approximately $30.0 million. There is no funding source and no reserve at this time to address this need.

#3 Bernal Synthetic Fields: $500,000 - $750,000 to replace high-use segments Bernal Community Park includes three synthetic turf fields. These well-used fields are approximately eight years old, are no longer under warranty, and are at the end of their useful life. At this time, there is an increased risk of injuries as the turf deteriorates from UV exposure and use. The estimated costs for replacement of the three fields is $6.0 million. Replacing the high-use areas will extend the useful life for areas of the turf that have broken down. Without mitigation of the most worn areas, the fields will need to be closed. No money has been set aside for the turf replacement project. While these are pressing examples, there are many more needs that are currently unfunded. These specific projects are recommended to extend asset life; however, these investments will not guarantee long-term operability.

Conclusion
Current capital funding levels are inadequate to meet identified critical needs. The AMP will provide data to guide future investments; when that work is complete, the City’s known capital funding needs will be greater.

With the current lack of available General Fund dollars and anticipated (minimal) General Fund contributions toward capital needs for the coming years, the City will not be able to keep key facilities operating. Given the General Fund Operating Budget structural deficit, staff does not recommend using Capital Improvement Program and Repair & Replacement Program General Fund dollars to supplement operating costs. Doing so would further deplete the CIP

and R&R budgets necessary to keep City infrastructure and facilities in a basic state of repair.

Next Steps/Conclusions
Staff is seeking direction from the City Council regarding the prioritization of General Fund- dependent capital needs and other capital/infrastructure priorities for FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27 to inform the development of the two-year Capital Budget and five-year Capital Improvement Program. The recommended project list is included as Attachment 1 and the submitted unfunded projects list in Attachment 2.

As noted, if all available fund reserves and anticipated General Fund contributions were expended, the General Fund could not address all requested Capital Improvement and R&R projects. Given this funding gap, staff recommends deferring most identified CIP projects until the AMP is complete to ensure the City does not spend resources on projects that might not ultimately be the most necessary. In the interim, staff recommends prioritizing only the most urgent/critical projects totaling $16.6 million. Staff also recommends allocating $2.0 million to the Repair and Replacement (R&R) program to extend the service life of assets on the deferred project list, with funds suggested to be allocated to three critical maintenance projects.

Staff will present the complete draft CIP with the City Manager’s initial Operating budget recommendation to the City Council on May 20, 2025. City Council direction in May will be incorporated into a complete budget recommendation, including CIP, for adoption in June.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Ensuring the long-term fiscal sustainability of the City organization ensures that the City is able to continue to provide programs and services into the future to serve all of Pleasanton’s diverse community.

OUTREACH
All City departments were asked to submit “high-priority” projects to be included in the upcoming CIP as outlined in the Capital Improvement Program Prioritization Process. Review and adoption of the Capital Improvement Plan will be considered by the City Council at future public meetings.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Update and alignment of the 5-Year CIP aligns with ONE PleasantonStrategic Plan goal of Investing in Our Environment, including to "Promote effective use of existing facilities through maintenance and repair, and plan for future facilities, amenities, and infrastructure to benefit the community with a focus on environmental stewardship." And, ensuring the long-term fiscal sustainability of the City aligns with the goal of Funding Our Future to support financial health and sound fiscal policies through long-term planning, cost recovery, increased revenue, and cost-containment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact by the City Council providing direction on Capital Improvement Program. The direction will be used by staff to finalize the FY 2026 -2030 City Manager Recommended Capital Improvement Program to be presented to the City Council in May.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Adam Nelkie, Assistant Dir.
of Public Works -
Engineering
Siew-Chin Yeong, Director of Public
Works

Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager

Attachments:

1. Capital Improvement Program - General Fund Recommended Project List

2. Unfunded CIP General Fund Supported Requested Projects

Attachment 1
Capital Improvement Program - General Fund Recommended Project List Project Category Cost Fund Source
Annual Facility Replacement Facilities 2,155,000$ $1,665k GF Misc., $490k Public Facility/Park Development Fee
Annual Storm Repair/Replacement Storm 1,000,000$ Storm Drain Replacement West Las Positas Multimodal Reconst Willow to
Stoneridge * Transportation 9,000,000$ $3.8m GF Misc., $5.2m GF Streets
Library Fire Alarm Upgrade Facilities 750,000$ $580k GF Misc., $170k Public Facility
West Las Positas Multimodal Reconst Design -
Owens to Santa Rita ** Transportation 1,000,000$ $750k Grant, $250k Measure BB
I-580 Overcrossing Bicycle & Pedestrian
Improvements ** Transportation 700,000$ $525k Grant, $175k Measure BB
Park Trail & Pathway Resurfacing Program Parks 684,000$ $184k GF Misc., $500k Measure BB
Nonfunctional turf conversion Parks 1,100,000$ $850k GF Parks, $250k Park Dev.

Pleasanton Traffic Model Transportation 230,000$ Gas Tax Total Recommended Projects 16,619,000$
*West Las Positas Improvements - (Willlow to Stoneridge) will require all the funding from the 2026 Streets Program allocation from core projects to fully meet the estimated $32 million construction costs. ** Total funding needs for FY 2026-2030 shown.

Attachment 2
Unfunded CIP General Fund Supported Requested Projects
Project Category Cost Running Total
Total Recommended CIP Project Cost - FY 2026-2030 $ 16,619,000 Unfunded Projects
City-Wide Access Control System Replacement and
Security Integration Facilities 4,200,000$ 20,819,000$ Fire Station 2 Emergency Generator Replacement Facilities 320,000$ 21,139,000$ EOC and PW DOC/ Training Center Facilities 575,000$ 21,714,000$ Aquatic Center 50m pool renovation Parks 5,200,000$ 26,914,000$ Fire Station 2 Kitchen Remodel Facilities 350,000$ 27,264,000$ LPFD Fire Station 2 Building Exterior Repairs Facilities 200,000$ 27,464,000$ LPFD Training Center Remodel Facilities 460,000$ 27,924,000$ LPFD Fire Station 2 Bunks and Bathrooms Remodel Facilities 2,000,000$ 29,924,000$ Playground Renovations Program Parks 1,065,000$ 30,989,000$ Bernal Park Synthetic Turf Replacement Parks 6,100,000$ 37,089,000$ All Abilities Playground *** Parks 136,515$ 37,225,515$ LPFD Fire Station 2 Sitework Renovation **** Facilities 410,000$ 37,635,515$ Irrigation Upgrades Program Parks 600,000$ 38,235,515$ LPFD Fire Station 4 Shower Remodel Facilities 210,000$ 38,445,515$ Estimated FY 26 -30 cut off line if fully expending all Reserve and General Fund contributions Court Resurfacing Program Parks 1,920,000$ 40,365,515$ PD Vehicle Storage Facilities 310,000$ 40,675,515$ Pleasanton Skatepark Parks 7,775,000$ 48,450,515$

Project Category Cost Running Total
Railroad quiet zone Miscellanous 175,000$ 48,625,515$ Century House Master Plan Facilities 4,500,000$ 53,125,515$ Fire Station 3 Parking Lot Gate Facilities 260,000$ 53,385,515$ Total Unfunded Projects $ 36,766,515 Recommended CIP Project Cost - FY 2026-2030 $ 16,619,000 Total Unfunded Projects $ 36,766,515 Total Proposed Project Costs - FY 2026 -2030 53,385,515$ Starting Balances for the General Fund Supported Capital Funds and Transportation Funds $ 19,500,000 General Fund Contributions - FY 2026-2030 $ 15,500,000 New Developer Impact Fee Revenue and Anticipated Interest Income - FY 2026-2030 $ 5,000,000 Ending Balance $ (13,385,515) Notes:
***Additional funding to existing park development balance of $283,145 **** Pending on Stoneridge Mall Framework Project Needs