SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
1 Responses to City Council Agenda Items – May 20, 2025
Regular Meeting
Agenda Item #8: Adopt a resolution affirming the City’s commitment to take steps toward achieving compliance with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC's) Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy
1. It appears we’d like to have the policy compliance for BART location, but how does this put us for ACE location? It is mentioned that there is a round or tier 4, but how will this come about in the future? How much funding are we anticipating being able to receive for Tier 3 for BART if applying and moving forward with this policy?
A. Application of TOC Policy to BART (Tier 3) vs. ACE (Tier 4) Radius: The TOC policy applies to transit stations within one-half mile of the two BART stations (Tier 3) and the ACE station (Tier 4). The “tier” classification is based on frequency of the transit; the tiers have different minimum and maximum residential density, commercial FAR, and parking requirements. The TOC Policy also consists of topics that could apply beyond the half-mile radius, including Citywide policies (e.g., inclusionary zoning). The City’s compliance with the TOC Policy is voluntary; however, as noted in the agenda report, initial compliance with particular focus on the east BART station is recommended for purposes of funding, since this location is where the future Valley Link hub is planned and where effort is being made for concept land use planning of the site. MTC-ABAG staff has clarified that the funding specifically for Valley Link would be tied only to the east BART site to evaluate for TOC Compliance (not the other two stations) since these funds are different than the OBAG 4 funding.
For purposes of OBAG 4 funding, however, MTC-ABAG has recently shared a proposed scoring methodology for TOC Policy compliance. The proposed methodology would include both BART stations and the ACE station to create a composite overall score for the City’s compliance with the TOC Policy; therefore, the City could receive “credit” for all three stations regarding policies applicable Citywide, but as directed by City Council, may or may not choose to adopt conforming standards or TOC-compliant policies that would meet more location-specific requirements, such as the Tier 4 density, FAR, or parking standards in downtown.
Future Funding: Available funding under OBAG 4 will be dependent on available monies at the time of the program’s release of funds, and on the specific allocations and requirements adopted as part of the program. As noted in the agenda report, OBAG 3 has awarded more than $750 million in funds across the region; some of those funds were restricted to certain types of projects and programs depending on their source, or based on priorities
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
2 and policies adopted by MTC-ABAG as part of the overall program structure (e.g., 50% of OBAG 3 funding was dedicated to regional programs and transportation investments and 50% to local and county proposed projects).
Using the OBAG 3 program for reference, project sponsorship by AC Transit or Alameda CTC resulted in most projects receiving the amount of funding they requested, including corridor, bus and bike lane, trail, and roundabout improvements (i.e., out of proposed projects in Alameda County, totaling about $74.4 million, MTC-ABAG approved $69.7 million of funding). It is noted that Alameda County accounted for just over 20% of the total local and county funding allocation (“nomination targets") in OBAG 3, second only to Santa Clara County. A comprehensive overview of the OBAG 3 program, and all regional, county and local project funding awards is available here https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-04/RES- 4505_approved.pd
Agenda Item #10: Approve a professional services agreement with Diameter Services, Inc.
2. Is it correct that this agreement is for a consultant to help us go through the RFP process for new meters? There is a small section related to proof of concept; in light of the current experiences we’re having, will they help us get meters that are 1) Zone 7 compliant, 2) AMI compatible with our existing system, and 3) reliable and with warranty?
A. This contract is for a specialized and experienced consultant to guide the City through vendor selection, contract safeguards, and implementation for the new meter program. The contract focuses on validation before purchase and strict vendor accountability.
1. Zone 7 Compliance
The consultant will support city staff in coordination and communication efforts with Zone 7 during the process including a new water meter connection fees. A communication plan and stakeholder engagement plan will be established to include and involve Zone 7 in the water meter selection, implementation and integration process.
2. AMI Compatibility & Integration
The RFP will require seamless integration with the City’s existing AMI and financial systems (Tyler Munis). During Phase III (Proof of Concept), the consultant will test and validate compatibility and ability to meet all performance criteria before citywide rollout. The IT department will be overseeing and verifying complete and seamless integration of the new system.
3. Reliability & Warranty Protections
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
3 The consultant will negotiate robust warranty terms (industry-leading coverage for defects/performance). The process will require the consultant to conduct inspections/tests during installation to enforce contract terms and to verify performance history (prioritizing proven, reliable meters)
Agenda Item #11: Approve the use of the remaining project funds of $72,860 as additional construction contingency to construct a connection to the Firehouse Arts Center parking lot from First Street, along with additional parking for the Lions Wayside and Delucchi Parks Renovations project, CIP No. 06716
3. How much money was spent on Callandar Associates with various efforts to redesign the park over the decades? And how much was the final cost estimate for the full park renovation, before we went with the scaled-down design/project? A. The City has spent $129,052 on the current design contract with Callander Associates and has about $20,000 remaining in the contract.
Prior to Callander there were three consultants that the City worked with from the 2014 master plan up until the recent change in direction to build what we could with what we had:
• Larson and Associates: around $80,000 (for the 2014 master plan) • AECOM: around $100,000 (attempted CEQA compliance for the 2014 master plan and subsequent conceptual designs)
• MIG: around $200,000 (for conceptual designs after we parted ways with AECOM, working through concepts with the regulatory agencies, and for the updated master plan that we didn’t proceed with)
The City also spent money on various subconsultants for surveys, hydrology studies, demolition plans for the 4363 First Street property, geotechnical work, etc. All said, the City will have spent somewhere in the vicinity of $600,000 to $700,000 in design consultant fees in total by the time construction is complete.
The rough order of magnitude estimate for the concept plan for the 2022 updated Lions Wayside and Delucchi Parks Master Plan was $10-12M.
Agenda Item #14: Receive annual Military Equipment Use Report for 2024; introduce an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2279 to amend the Pleasanton Police Department's Military Equipment Use Policy to add equipment to the Policy's military equipment inventory; and adopt a resolution accepting the annual Military Equipment Use Report for 2024
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
4 4. Please clarify how the report addresses the list, particularly a, b, and c on page 2 of 3 of the agenda report. Do we provide details or a summary of how military equipment was used and the purpose of its use? Is there a summary of complaints and concerns? Are there any internal audits? A. (a) The report summarizes the uses and the general reasons listed on page 12 of the Military Equipment Use Report for 2024.
(b) There were no complaints or concerns received by the police department as listed on page 11 of the Military Equipment Use Report for 2024. (c) The police department has so few uses that each use is reviewed by a sergeant and lieutenant for any violations at the time of the incident through report review including any use of force. For 2024, there has been zero reported violations of the military equipment use policy. If there were any violations of use, they would be addressed immediately.
5. Can the policy manual sections or the full report that guides the use of the equipment be shared?
A. The Military Equipment Use policy can be found on the City’s website: police- department-military-equipment-policy.pdf
Agenda Item #15: Review of the Proposed Two-Year Operating and Capital Budget for FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27 and the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2025/26 through FY 2029/30
To provide context for the responses below pertaining to the baseline budget and the proposed budget, the baseline budget and the preliminary long-term forecast were presented to the City Council in early March. Financial projections were developed based on the FY 2024/25 mid-year budget update. As stated in the staff report at the time, “the General Fund Baseline Budget does not form the proposed City budget; rather, it represents the extension of the current year’s service levels and budget. The Baseline Budget will be further refined, considering input from the City Council, the Budget Advisory Committee, the community, and the final proposals submitted by City departments, to develop a proposed FY 2025-2027 City budget which, along with an updated long-term forecast, will be presented to the City Council in May 2025.” The intent of the baseline budget and the preliminary long-term forecast was to show the trend line. The proposed budget was developed based on updated financial data, such as revenue projections provided by the City’s consultants. Many revenue and expenditure line items were refined, and the reductions and use of one-time funds directed by the Council were incorporated into the proposed budget.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
5 6. Pg 2 – second paragraph from bottom, states that we will be using $3 million from the capital reserves over the next two-year budget; is it correct that is not allocating funds from the CIP to the operating that is the use of the Rainy Day Fund remaining balance?
A. Yes, that is correct. The Capital Reserve Fund (formerly the Rainy Day Fund) was renamed to add clarity since the funds were set aside to fund the CIP but were pulled back during the COVID years. The intent was to put the funds back into the CIP if not needed during COVID.
7. Pg 29 – Graph at top of page: The modified FY 2024/25 appears to show a deficit, but per the prior presented update, there was a surplus which allocated or restored funding to several programs and internal funds. Please clarify.
A. For FY 2024/25, the modified General Fund budget is $158,729,185 in revenues and $159,032,353 in expenditures, resulting in a deficit of $303,168.
This gap was closed through the use of two restricted General Fund reserves, COVID Response & Recovery reserve ($30,000) and Mobile Outreach Vehicle ($280,000), totaling $310,000. The bar chart on page 29 does not include the use of these two restricted reserves for FY 2024/25.
8. Pgs. 33/34 – In the chart of impacts
i. Library: How much do the special events, by event cost? For clarity, how much does Movies in the Park cost? How much does the Rose Show cost? How much does the volunteer appreciation reception cost?
A. Please see the following table. While the numbers presented offer a general overview of direct costs, they do not fully capture the true expense of supporting these special events. These events often require significant behind-the-scenes coordination, extended staff hours, and logistical support that aren’t easily reflected in standard budget line items and span multiple departments. The proposed budget reduction would impact our ability to deliver these services at current levels. Efficiencies have been built into the reductions to keep as many services as possible, while meeting necessary budget reduction targets.
Event Cost
Movies in the Park – Summer 2024 $15,000
Volunteer Appreciation $5,000
Rose Show 2024 $2,500
Hometown Holiday 2024 $70,500
Cultural Celebrations $36,000
Total ~$130,000
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
6 ii. Police & Fire: Reduce Special Enforcement & Investigation Units – Please revise description to more align with revised direction from 4/10 Council meeting to retain 1 FTE SEU officer and reduce cost.
A. The proposed adjustment to this item is in line with the City Council direction from the April 10 Budget Workshop. The revised adjustment includes eliminating 1 vacant FTE SEU officer position and retaining 1 FTE SEU officer position.
iii. Parks, Streets: Reduce Park & Trails Maintenance: Please explain / update. Direction from City Council at 4/10 Council meeting was a revised plan, keeping 2, eliminating 2 vacant positions, and still maintaining our parks. The amount of reduction seems different than the Council direction to maintain parks and upkeep to not lose asset.
A. The proposed adjustment to this item is in line with the City Council direction from the April 10 Budget Workshop. The revised adjustment includes eliminating two vacant positions instead of four, eliminating mowing contracts (work will be performed by staff), and reducing irrigation frequency. This revised service level represents a compromise that yields significant savings for the City by eliminating contracts and two vacant FTE positions while still maintaining the parks.
The current pre-reduction Service Level A includes watering frequency of three to four times per week at all parks, with mowing typically occurring once a week by a contractor.
The original proposed scenario Service Level C included manually adjusting the irrigation controllers to achieve both water conservation and cost savings, eliminating the mowing contract and elimination of four FTE positions. There would have been a lower standard for neighborhood parks; examples include less frequent mowing, keeping the grass higher, so less water needed, less weed management and minimum trail maintenance.
Service Level B, as included in this budget, retains and reallocates two of the four FTE positions to offset the impacts of reduced staffing and contracts and support the ongoing maintenance and overall conditions of City parks. This revised proposal incorporates Council’s direction and represents a compromise between A (current level) and C (original proposal) that retains a higher standard for maintaining the City park system. While staff does not anticipate the reduction will cause major
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
7 CIP costs or any loss of assets, some changes in the appearance of City parks may be noticeable by residents.
iv. Confirming that the cuts to TV30, Axis, etc. are NOT CUMULATIVE, 10% in year 1, and that same amount of cut into year 2 (that is, 10% from FY 2024/25 level, not 10% more from FY 2025/26 level for FY 2026/27)? Seems like savings amount increases in year 2 – why/how?
A. Yes, confirmed that funding reduction for TV30 is 10% in both years and is not cumulative. The projected savings amount is higher in FY 2026/27 due to a step down in contribution to the Museum on Main (from 10% reduction, or $25,650 savings in FY 2025/26 to 25% reduction, or $37,630 savings in FY 2026/27). A total increase of $20,000 in savings in this reduction category is due to rounding ($83,650 in FY 2025/26 and $95,630 in FY 2026/27).
9. Pg 34 – Please clarify the statement at the bottom that, as part of the budget, we’ll not overfund OPEB by $1.0 M in year 1 and $1.1M in year 2.
A. Those amounts represent implied subsidies to the General Fund for retirees continuing to utilize the City’s group health insurance plan.
The Proposed Budget includes reducing the OPEB contribution to the Retirees Medical Fund by $0.7 million in FY 2025/26 and $1.4 million in FY 2026/27, for a total of $2.1 million. The General Fund’s share is approximately $1.9 million or 90 percent.
This reduced contribution will be offset by withdrawing the same $2.1 million from the City’s OPEB Trust over two years.
10. Pg 34 – Please clarify the statement at bottom that as part of the budget, we’ll draw down the remaining rainy day fund reserve by $1.0M in year 1 and $2.0M in year 2. This will then leave it at $500k (per top of Pg 35).
A. That is correct. The Proposed Budget includes using $1.0 million in FY 2025/26 and $2.0 million in FY 2026/27 from the Capital Reserve Fund (Rainy Day Fund). With these drawdowns, the estimated fund balance at the end of FY 2026/27 is approximately $0.5 million.
11. Pg 35 – Please clarify the statement at top and in the table that as part of the budget, there is a transfer of $7.221M to CIP in Year 1 and $9.391M to CIP in Year 2.
A. The $2 million for the Dolores Bengtson Aquatic Center (DBAC), Fire Station 2 and Bernal Fields are coming out of the first year $3 million CIP planned
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
8 contributions. Year 1 $7.221M includes $1M CIP contribution and $6.22 million that was placed in the Deferred Maintenance – Asset Management Plan project. Year two $9.391 million includes $3.25 million CIP contribution and $6.14 million that was placed in in the Deferred Maintenance – Asset Management Plan project.
12. Pg 36 – What would be the additional amount (in dollars) needed to maintain a 20% unrestricted reserve ending fund balance in each of the years (FY 2025/26 & FY 2026/27)?
A. Below is a table showing the additional amount needed to maintain a 20.0% unrestricted fund balance in the General Fund based on the proposed operating budget for FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27.
13. Pg 264 – Costco Sales Tax – when is the full amount anticipated to pay off so that we retain 100% (as compared to the 60% we retain now)?
A. Once Costco has provided the certified final costs, we will work with them to determine the payment period. Based on a prior analysis, it can take the City more than a decade to repay the costs.
14. Do we know or have direction on where the City will end up for FY 2024/25 ending 6/30/25?
A. It is a bit early to project where the General Fund will end up for the current fiscal year due to various reconciliations that happen at year-end. For example, some of the interfund charges are calculated based on actual annual personnel costs. Occasionally, as part of the internal auditing process, some adjustments may be necessary to ensure costs are booked against correct funding sources. These reviews are performed periodically, and any identified issues are fixed, but the final review and adjustments happen at year-end.
15. What is the Water Rate Increase amount and effect on the budget? How much was in the forecast, and now with the proposed rates, what does that do to the budget?
A. 5.0% and 5.2% rate increases are included in the budget for FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27. Based on the current approved financial model of 15% for the Projected
Ending Fund
Balance at
6/30/26
FY 2025/26
20.0%
Unrestricted
FB Target
Additional
amount
needed for
20.0%
Projected
Ending Fund
Balance at
6/30/27
FY 2026/27
20.0%
Unrestricted
FB Target
Additional
amount
needed for
20.0%
Unrestricted GF Reserve
(Operating Only) $30,905,982 $30,937,563 $31,581 $30,954,601 $32,133,266 $1,178,665 Unrestricted GF Reserve
(Operating & Transfers) $30,905,982 $33,035,763 $2,129,781 $30,954,601 $34,241,466 $3,286,865
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
9 first two years and 8% for the last two years, uniformed water rate structure and proposed water rate increase, the City estimated increase cost of $150K annually for city’s consumptions and expenditures. The actual increase may be less when combined with reduction of water frequency proposed through the park maintenance budget reduction strategy and State water conservation requirement. Once the Prop 218 process is completed and the Council has approved the final rates, the budget will be updated to reflect the final revenue and cost.
16. CIP Budget, page 77 (Sewer Lift Station): Wording such as criticality and potential safety hazard was used for this project and other projects. Why is funding not allocated until later years if the projects are so critical?
A. Staff acknowledges that several components of the City's sewer infrastructure are in critical condition. However, delivery for these projects has been deferred due to limited resources and competing priorities in other CIP deliveries (Major projects in 2024: Water Near Term Project, Alternative Water Supply, Costco Project, Hopyard Repaving Project, Water System Management Plan, Water Rate Study, etc.). At present, the City is still finalizing a fully developed Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) supported by a comprehensive Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which is essential for identifying and prioritizing long-term infrastructure needs.
In response to these challenges, the City has implemented enhanced operational practices and increased the frequency of maintenance activities to mitigate risks and ensure continued service reliability. In 2024, an independent audit was conducted to evaluate the deficiencies of the 2023 SSMP and provide recommendations for improvement.
Staff anticipates presenting a revised and updated SSMP to the City Council by June 2025, followed by a detailed CIP and Operations and Maintenance Plan in Fall 2025. These foundational planning documents will inform a comprehensive sewer rate study, with recommendations for revised rates expected to be brought forward in Spring 2026. The updated rate structure will be designed to support the implementation of the revised SSMP, including the allocation of adequate resources to address critical infrastructure needs in a timely and fiscally responsible manner.
17. The Water and Sewer (Non-General Fund) budget proposes to add several new positions to support operations, deliver the capital projects identified in the Water Management Plan, and meet compliance requirements. Please describe in more detail the needs and how these positions will support the programs or impact service levels. Please also explain if certain activities/positions can be contracted out and the estimated costs.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
10 A. The Water and Sewer (Non-General Fund) budget includes several new positions to support ongoing operations, ensure regulatory compliance, and deliver capital projects outlined in the Enhanced Water System Management Plan (WSMP) and the forthcoming Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (SSMP). These positions include additional Operators and Engineering staff, who are essential to:
• Manage and deliver critical infrastructure projects;
• Enhance operational capacity to maintain reliable water and sewer services;
• Support regulatory compliance with State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) mandates for drinking water, sewer system management, water conservation, and cross-connection control;
• Sustain the delivery of high-quality drinking water and reliable sanitary sewer services to the community.
A recent independent audit of the City’s sanitary sewer system identified a number of critical deficiencies that must be addressed in advance of the completed SSMP (targeted for June 2025), the associated Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Plan (Fall 2025), and the next Sewer Rate Study (Spring 2026). Immediate staffing is necessary to implement these corrective actions and maintain regulatory compliance.
In-House vs. Contracted Services:
Due to the operational complexity of the City’s water and sewer systems— and the high reliance on City-specific tools and systems such as GIS, SCADA, Maintstar, Tyler Munis, SEW, and Accela—contracting out routine Operations and Maintenance (O&M) functions is generally neither cost- effective nor efficient. These activities require deep institutional knowledge and rapid responsiveness, which are best supported by in-house personnel.
A few project-specific or specialized services may be appropriately contracted out. These include:
• Capital improvement engineering and design services,
• Repair & replacement (R&R) project design and construction, • Field inspections (e.g., CCTV inspections, water and sewer pipeline assessments),
• Construction management and inspection services for capital projects.
Historically, the City has augmented internal capacity with consulting support where appropriate and justifiable. Staff will continue to evaluate alternative delivery models to identify cost-effective solutions. Preliminary cost
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
11 comparisons indicate that contracted services for equivalent roles are typically 20–30% more expensive than utilizing full-time City staff.
While some engineering and project-specific tasks can be contracted out, the minimum staffing levels proposed in the FY 2025–26 budget are critical to effectively oversee those consultant efforts, enforce City standards, ensure regulatory compliance with State mandates, and manage contracts in accordance with the Public Contract Code, Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) requirements, and City municipal code. These positions will enhance service reliability, mitigate risks of non-compliance, improve emergency responsiveness, and ensure timely delivery of both O&M programs and the capital projects identified in the WSMP and SSMP.
18. CIP Budget, page 80 (Sewer System Emergency Power Improvements Program): Can we use the grid or make other types of investments to generate power instead of spending funds on individual structures/system as proposed?
A. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requires emergency backup power for sewer systems during emergency situations, primarily to prevent sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) during power outages. The grid system is not a viable option as the purpose of the emergency power is to mitigate PG&E outages which happen often during high usage periods in the Summer or during adverse weather conditions. Due to the high power demands of the pumps, the remoteness of some locations, and shade around the infrastructure, solar and battery backup systems are not reliable alternatives for emergency conditions.
19. CIP Budget Page 52 (Climate Action Plan): What was the timeline for the RFP of the EV charging stations?
A. The City’s Climate Action Plan reflects an ongoing commitment to the Strategic Goal of Investing in Our Environment by leading through example in environmental sustainability. As part of this commitment, on April 24, 2025, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to select a qualified Energy Services Company (ESCO) to support the development, implementation, and monitoring of comprehensive facility upgrades and infrastructure modernization. The goal of this initiative is to achieve long-term energy and operational efficiencies, enhance system resilience, and reduce ongoing operating costs.
The selected ESCO will also assist the City in identifying grant funding opportunities and developing capital projects focused on energy efficiency and resilience improvements across City facilities and infrastructure.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
12 In alignment with the State of California’s Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) Regulation, administered by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the City initiated its first phase of electric vehicle (EV) charging station installations in 2024 at the Public Works Corporation Yard to support the transition to an electric fleet. As additional EVs are procured, the City will continue to expand its charging infrastructure, subject to the availability of funding, to ensure adequate support for a growing electric vehicle fleet.
20. CIP Budget Page 34 (24534 Annual Expedited Speed Lump Program: The project is noted to be consolidated with project 25503 (Annual Street Resurfacing & Reconstruction)). Why is project 24534 still presented as a separate project?
A. The Annual Expedited Speed Lump Program (CIP 24534) was paused as part of operating budget cost reduction measures. As the program is now officially included in the cuts, its existing funding is being redirected to the Annual Street Resurfacing & Reconstruction project to support additional street maintenance work. Expanded scope has been added to the current year’s resurfacing project, and the transfer of funds will be recommended at the time of the construction contract award in June, prior to budget adoption.
For this reason, the funding still appears in the CIP book but will be consolidated.
21. Pg 28 - On the table on pg 28, how does this number for GF contributions (Misc fund 201) tie to the GF contributions reported on pg 13? The amounts are different – is there another element here?
A. Yes, the numbers on page 28 include estimated interest earnings.
22. Pg 53 – Please clarify how we’ll have clarity and transparency related to the Deferred Maintenance – Asset Management Plan – it gets a total budget of $30.29M if the Council has no oversight as to the specifics.
A. Only first two years of funding is recommended to be adopted by the City Council next month. Depending on the results of the Asset Management Plan study, staff may present recommended adjustments to the FY 2026/27 capital improvement program budget at Mid Term or future CIP cycles that will including the use of the Deferred Maintenance – Asset Management Plan funding.
23. Pg 91 –Please clarify how City Council recommends or directs action?
A. Per municipal code, staff is to recommend, and Council is to accept, adopt, and direct staff.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
13 24. Are there budget proposals or changes pertaining to the Pioneer Cemetery? A. Nothing is currently being changed at the cemetery. Per direction, an operational study has been completed to limit the General Fund subsidy for cemetery operations and will be presented to the City Council for direction at the July 15, 2025 meeting. Cemetery operations remain fully active. Following the Council's direction, no changes will take place until January 2026.
The Parks and Recreation Commission heard this item for initial direction on May 8, 2025:
https://pleasantonca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/468/files/agenda/1021. The consultant identified the most cost-effective model of service as pausing casket burial sales and focusing on cremains, eliminating the specialized equipment associated with casket burials.
In the meantime, staff is looking for more cost-effective models for the cemetery’s current service contracts from July 1 to December 31, 2025.
25. What is the current “visitor heat map” of the Library?
A. The current map is updated as of 7/1/2024-5/18/2025:
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
14 This is the heat map from 7/1/2024 - 1/22/2025:
Submitted On:
May 17, 2025, 08:00PM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:
Susan
Last Name:
Dickinson
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting at 7 p.m.
Agenda Item Number
15 Comments
Dear Mayor Balch and Pleasanton City Councilmembers,
I’m writing to you to clarify some misleading statements in the Staff Budget Report to be presented at the May 20, 2025 City Council Meeting.
Please read until the end, because I also have a solution that I hope you will at least consider.
In regards to the funding cuts to the Pleasanton Library budget, Staff attempts to justify the recommended library closure and reductions to hours, staffing and collection budget, saying, “public library hours in nearby cities range from 39 hours per week (Union City) to 65 hours per week (Livermore).
The proposed reductions would keep
Pleasanton within that range.
Proposed library hours reduction
represents staff’s best effort to achieve significant savings while preserving core library programs”.
After conducting a search of 12 local libraries’ open hours, I found that while the range of hours offered by Staff is correct, the report fails to clarify that a 48-hour week (as proposed for the Pleasanton Library) puts it firmly in the bottom quarter of the list—tied with Hayward and higher than only Union City and Castro Valley.
For a city
which prides itself on the quality of its educational system and high level of services to its residents, this is embarrassing.
For
reference, here is a list of weekly open hours at our neighboring libraries:
Livermore –
65 hours
Danville -
58 hours
San Leandro- 58 hours
San Ramon - 56 hours
Orinda - 56 hours
Walnut Creek- 52 hours
Fremont 52 hours
Dublin
51 hours
Hayward 48 hours
Pleasanton (proposed) 48 hours
Castro Valley - 44 hours
Union City - 39 hours
On top of this, Staff’s statement that the reduction in Library budget will still preserve core library programs is deceptive.
Many programs
will end with this reduction in budget:
Programs at risk with
reduction in funding include: Family Storytime –Weds night, 60+ people, accessible to families with working parents ; PAWS to Read – Tues. night, popular program which helps elementary children gain confidence reading aloud; Sensory Storytime – currently Sunday morning before the library opens to make it more comfortable for sensitive children; Book Club—Tues. night, promoting reading and discussion of a variety of literature, Baby and Toddler Storytimes.
Aside from these programs, the core services provided by the library (welcoming, safe place for students to study, heating and cooling center for those who need it, Literacy services, and vibrant, engaging programming will all be reduced or non-existent).
The Solution:
I notice on CIP budget for 25/26—29/30, there is an entry of $3.5 M in reserve for the future purchase of a new community park.
I also
notice that the Century House is still listed in the future CIP budget.
The Century House is a 2.7 acre property and house, which have been closed to the public for the last 11 years, pending an almost $5 M restoration.
The Century House is ineligible for the National
Register of Historic Places, due to non-historic add-ons and construction. With the much-hyped, dire financial state of the City for the next 10 years, it is highly doubtful that any restoration project will ever be approved.
So, divide up the parcel of land, save the back
half (or more!) along Tanager Dr. to become a community park.
This
frees up the $3.5 M in reserves for the purchase of a community park.
This money could fully fund the Library as well as some of the other reduced budget items. Sell the front portion of the land (along Santa Rita) to a developer for high density housing which would help Pleasanton comply with the State Housing Element requirements.
The properties on both sides of the property along Santa Rita are already high-density housing units, so this would fit with the neighborhood.
The developed portion of the property would yield
developer fees and eventual property tax revenue, so this would not be considered “one-time money”.
Please Mayor and City Council members, listen to the public who are asking you to fully fund the Library.
There are options if the Council
would only choose to recognize and prioritize the value the Pleasanton Library brings to the community.
Thank you for your time
Submitted On:
May 20, 2025, 10:03AM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:
Patrick
Last Name:
Shaughnessy
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
[email protected]
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting at 7 p.m.
Agenda Item Number
Pride Flag
Comments
Hello, I am a resident of Pleasanton for over 26 years and born, raised US Citizen.
I would ask why the City of Pleasanton is
interested or entertaining the idea of raising a special interest flag? If you do this , then you are asking every special interest to come to the City Council to raise their flag as well.
This is an issue that not
all Pleasanton residents support.
With this action, I would ask the
City Council are you unifying or dividing residents with this action? We have a flag and it is raised which represents all people supporting and not supporting Pride.
I would hope our City Council
would be focused on bringing together the residents of Pleasanton as a community, not special interest agendas.
Submitted On:
May 19, 2025, 07:10AM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:
Lisa D
Last Name:
Thordsen
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
[email protected]
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting at 7 p.m.
Agenda Item Number
Library
Comments
It is absolutely NOT acceptable that we live in a city like Pleasanton & pay the extreme amount of taxes that we do and our public library is being threatened with cuts to staff AND opening hours! Seriously evenings and Sundays are when students need the library most. The better question is WHAT is the city spending our tax dollars on? Threats to things like our library and city pool are not acceptable under any circumstances.
Submitted On:
May 16, 2025, 05:33PM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:
Yasmin
Last Name:
Frias
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
[email protected]
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting at 7 p.m.
Agenda Item Number
Library
Comments
Please save Pleasanton library from budget cuts. The library has been a big part of our lives and the rest of the community.
We’re in
the Library regularly borrowing books for our kids, using services and technology that has been educational. The most important is having a safe space for learning and connection. I see our kids, Elementary, Middle Schoolers and High Schoolers benefiting from library’s resources. This will definitely affect students space for learning. The library is in tie-ups with PUSD programs and cutting these will affect all the PUSD students. We loved our Library and the staff who’s all so helpful, nice and kind. The library has been a big help with the education of our kids. We shouldn’t cut corners with Knowledge. Please no budget cuts.