MEMORANDUM
Date: November 18, 2025
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Gerry Beaudin, City Manager
Susan Hsieh, Finance Director
Subject: November 18, 2025, City Council Agenda Item 12 - Fiscal Year 2024/25 Year-End Operating Report – Responses to City Council Questions
This memorandum responds to questions and comments received regarding the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 year-end operating budget report.
Regarding the question about using a table and narrative format for the report, staff will consider the suggestions as part of implementing the recommendations from the Eide Bailly report, taking into account practical examples used by other agencies.
The year-end report is intended to cover the financial transactions that took place during FY 2024/25. As part of the Mid-Year Budget Review in February 2026 and Mid-Term Budget Update in May 2026, financial projections will be adjusted based on more current financial data. Staff will seek input and reconsider options and strategies to balance the budget for the current budget cycle during those discussions, including the reserve level for the General Fund.
Overall, actual General Fund revenue and expenditure are in line with the budget, excluding one-time transactions. Excluding the $12.8M revenue associated with the Costco project, actual revenue is higher than budget by $7.0M, or 4.6%. Excluding the $3.4M in one-time development services fees, mainly due to large development projects, actual revenue is higher than budget by only 2.4%. As a practice, staff will continue to recommend that one-time revenue be used for one-time expenditures..
Excluding the $12.8M expenditure associated with the Costco project, actual expenditure is below budget by $0.8M, or 0.5%. Net income is approximately $7.2M before accounting for the use of program reserves and transfers to/from other funds.
Consistent with the City’s financial policies, available resources are used to fund one- time projects and strengthen reserves as outlined in Tables 1 and 2 of the staff report, including:
2 of 2
• $2.4M to the Streets Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Fund • $3.08M to replace the cancelled transfer from the Capital Reserve Fund • $0.5M to replace the cancelled transfer from the Golf Fund • $62,000 to the Library & Recreation Facilities and Equipment Fund The remaining funds are used to maintain a 20.0% General Fund reserve target.
On the revenue side, while property tax was lower than the budget by about $1.3M, the decrease was offset by increases in business license tax and sales tax. The one-time development revenue discussed above was mainly derived from some large development projects and increased development activities. Certain impact fee funds (non-General Funds) also collected more revenues in FY 2024/25 due to large projects; the new development impact fees approved by the Council in late 2024 may have also contributed to additional revenues, as they took effect in the second half of the fiscal year.
On the expenditure side, the staffing savings were approximately $1.1 million, net of nearly $0.9 million related to the adjustment for compensated absences. With the implementation of a new accounting standard, GASB 101, the adjustment for FY 2024/25 is higher than the prior year's adjustment by approximately $ 0.7 million. The vacancy saving factor is about 2.8% taking into account the GASB 101 adjustment, compared to 2.0% reflected in the General Fund budget. The vacancy factor will be re- evaluated as part of the 2027-29 budget development.
In terms of the General Fund reserve, the calculation is not a straight calculation of prior year fund balance plus current year net income/deficit due to the unrealized investment gain/loss. For the February 2025 Mid-Year Budget Report, the June 30, 2024 ending fund balance was from the FY 2023/24 year-end report, which reflects approximately $1.6M in unrealized investment loss that was added back to the June 30, 2023 fund balance (or beginning fund balance for FY 2023/24). For the FY 2024/25 year-end report, the June 30, 2024, beginning fund balance excludes $3.0M in unrealized investment gain.
Additionally, due to the restricted Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) pension trust funds, if there is an increase in the investment balance, resources must be set aside for the restricted reserve before being made available to the unrestricted reserve.
That is why the available resources from FY 2024/25 cannot be just added to the unrestricted reserve. Exhibit A to the resolution shows the calculation of fund balance for the General Fund and other funds.
Please note that the fund balance used for budget development represents estimates, which may change due to variations in available financial resources. As stated above, Staff will seek input and bring forward options and strategies to balance the budget for the current budget cycle during the Mid-Year Budget Review in February 2026 and the Mid-Term Budget Update in May 2026.
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 17, 2025
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Gerry Beaudin, City Manager
Ellen Clark, Director of Economic and Community Development
Subject: November 18, 2025, City Council Agenda Item 11 – Receive a Report on the BART Station Concept Plan, BART Rider Parking at Dublin-Pleasanton Station
After a presentation from BART at the October 21, 2025, City Council meeting, staff received questions about parking at the Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station, specifically in light of the planned site redevelopment and BART’s policy goals around Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). This memorandum shares background on the project site, its intent, and the basis for the ongoing planning efforts, as well as additional context regarding parking considerations for the site should a developer propose a housing development.
BACKGROUND
The City is undertaking a grant-funded effort, working with BART and a professional services team, to develop a Concept Plan for the East Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station on Owens Drive. Staff is bringing a discussion of scenarios for site development to the November 18, 2025, City Council Meeting for the City Council’s input.
The scope of the project includes developing re-use concepts for the surface parking lots, including high-density housing and complementary, but ancillary, commercial uses. The impetus for redevelopment of the site comes from the 6th Cycle (and prior) Housing Elements, which identify this location as a key opportunity site for new high-density housing.
The Concept Plan effort, along with two key related studies (Parking Management and Station Access), is being funded by grants from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission - Association of Bay Area Governments (MTC-ABAG).
Housing Element
The 6th Cycle Housing Element identifies the BART site for residential development, as did the 4th and 5th Cycle Housing Elements. Specifically, Program 1.3 of the Housing Element outlines the preparation of a Concept Plan for the BART site by the end of 2026, to plan for housing in accordance with the densities specified in the Housing Element and State law.
2 of 3
The Housing Element also requires the Plan to assess potential complementary non- residential uses and evaluate the vehicular parking demand of on-site uses, in addition to BART rider parking.
MTC-ABAG Grant Funding
The grant funding from MTC-ABAG is to facilitate completion of the Concept Plan and evaluation of parking (with special emphasis on BART rider parking) and station access.
The objective of the parking analysis is to “right-size” the number of parking spaces on the site, balancing demand from BART riders and facilitating housing development consistent with the densities assumed in the Housing Element and permitted by State law. The parking evaluation effort has yet to commence, although MTC-ABAG has advised that it plans to hold kick-off meetings in early 2026. The BART Concept Plan will evaluate how best to incorporate these considerations following City Council input regarding the site re-use scenarios at the November 18, 2025, City Council meeting.
BART Transit-Oriented Development Policy
Over the last several years, BART’s policy position on vehicular parking has substantially shifted, with planning and funding priorities for station improvements and investments increasingly focused on multimodal station access and TOD. The BART Board has adopted a TOD Policy to provide a vision, goals, and strategies to further TOD around its stations.
BART has established a TOD Work Plan to analyze, among other things, market readiness, local support for TOD, infrastructure needs, and development capacity, with the goal of informing BART’s development priorities for its stations.
The Dublin-Pleasanton station is identified for the Tier 2 mid-term timeframe, meaning that the Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit developer interest will be issued in the 2029-2033 timeframe. This straddles the end point for the 6th Cycle Housing Element, which is from 2023-2031. Accordingly, the first Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with BART, which aims to solidify the cooperative partnership between the two agencies, identifies that the RFP for developer interest will be issued by 2028 or 2029 to facilitate the construction of housing within the timeframe of the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
DISCUSSION
Concept Plan Parking Approach at Dublin-Pleasanton BART To develop the site with housing, considering the objectives of the BART TOD Policy, along with the City’s Housing Element goal, the site would have fewer vehicular BART rider parking spaces than currently exist. If BART rider parking (retaining or increasing the number of on-site spaces) is prioritized over the development of the site for housing, the site’s ability to be counted as part of the inventory may be threatened. If so, the City may need to reevaluate its Housing Element and potentially rezone sites in addition to those already earmarked earlier this year.
The site re-use scenarios that will be presented to the City Council on November 18 each assume that some BART rider parking will be provided with redevelopment (along with parking to serve new residential and other uses). However, the concepts do not identify the specific number of replacement parking spaces to be provided, but rather provide a degree 3 of 3
of flexibility for the final number to be scaled up or down. In all concepts, the number of spaces provided will be less than exists today, since replacing 100 percent of the spaces will not be feasible, physically or financially.
A key input, before the Concept Plan is finalized, will be the completion of the above-noted parking and station access studies. These studies will provide a more detailed and broader assessment of parking conditions, supply, and opportunities in the half-mile radius of the station, within both Pleasanton and Dublin, as well as opportunities to improve “mode split” (the share of users accessing the station by modes other than single-occupancy vehicles).
Conclusion
While the BART Board will ultimately determine the appropriate maximum replacement parking ratio, having support from the City for the overall development concept and parking approach will be important for BART to invest resources in furthering redevelopment efforts.
As the Concept Plan advances, the City will need to be judicious in its approach to replacement parking for BART riders. The approach will need to balance objectives related to housing (i.e., a reasonable replacement parking ratio that allows a financially feasible redevelopment of the site), while leveraging available parking resources and effective parking management in the vicinity of the station, in addition to funding capital improvements that may be required to facilitate multimodal access to the site.
Submitted On:
Nov 14, 2025, 09:51AM PST
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Joy
Last Name: Montgomery
Email (this entry is disclosable if
included) [email protected]
Meeting type Regular Meeting
Agenda Item Number 8
Comments Wouldn't it be patriotic if the City of Pleasanton sponsored a Pleasanton Military Families team with someone on staff to manage events and space for activities? You might get more young people involved in projects and propel them into City leadership eventually.
Submitted On:
Nov 12, 2025, 12:08PM PST
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Pamela
Last Name: Hardy-Alpert
Email (this entry is disclosable if
included) [email protected]
Meeting type Regular Meeting
Agenda Item Number 10
Comments November 18, 2025 City Council Agenda,
Item 10. PGS Franchise Agreement
Please consider provisions to specify PGS compliance with requiring covered truck loads to reduce litter and debris on streets, particularly Busch Road.
Mandate a user fee for non-compliance, otherwise if denied entry by PGS the trucks loads will illegally dump.
Require weekly PGS street sweeping and debris removal along Busch Road and Busch/Valley Avenue intersection, the primary access route to PGS.
Dangerous debris like wood, broken glass, metal, construction materials, etc. is hazardous to bicyclists and motorists. Thank you.
Submitted On:
Nov 13, 2025, 05:14PM PST
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Sophia
Last Name: DeWitt
Email (this entry is disclosable if
included) [email protected]
Meeting type Regular Meeting
Agenda Item Number 11
Comments On behalf of East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO), a 41 year old membership nonprofit that advocates for affordable housing across Alameda and Contra Costa counties, I am excited that the City Council and the broader City of Pleasanton is beginning active planning for affordable housing and other services and community amenities at the BART station.
We encourage plans that maximize the number of affordable homes at the station, to meet community need, as well as quality amenities for this new neighborhood in the City.
Submitted On:
Nov 18, 2025, 10:16AM PST
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Kellene
Last Name: Cousins
Email (this entry is disclosable if
included) [email protected]
Meeting type Regular Meeting
Agenda Item Number 4
Comments Dear Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express concerns regarding the proposed approval of Agenda Item 4 on the 11/18/25 Consent Calendar related to the Gulf Station signage. • The Gulf signage leans heavily into corporate branding and intense brightness, which conflicts with Pleasanton’s long-standing policy to discourage “prototype” and “franchise” signage.
• The scale and prominence of the canopy and monument sign appear incompatible with the small-town, pedestrian-oriented character envisioned in the Downtown Specific Plan.
• The installation work that began prior to full city review raises troubling questions about consistency in how our design-review process is applied.
If the large, brightly branded Gulf canopy is allowed to remain as installed, it would represent a departure from the very codes and guidelines that protect Pleasanton’s character. These standards exist for a reason: to guide councils and staff in making decisions that preserve our unique community—not to accommodate corporations seeking convenience at the expense of our small- town identity.
I respectfully ask the Council to withhold approval of Item 4 and ensure that all signage complies fully with Pleasanton’s adopted design principles.
Sincerely,
Kellene Cousins
35-year Pleasanton resident
Submitted On:
Nov 17, 2025, 10:53PM PST
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Andrea
Last Name: Bloom
Email (this entry is disclosable if
included) [email protected]
Meeting type Regular Meeting
Agenda Item Number 10
Comments We need to negotiate a contract that enables Ridwell to be another recycling organization allowed to do pickups in Pleasanton for recyclables that our current waste management services contractor Pleasanton Garbage Service in not able to process. As Chair of the Energy & Environment Commission, it is incumbent on me to bring new services to Pleasanton that reduce our impact on the environment. There is so much that goes into the landfill because our current contractor does not recycle plastic waste such as multilayer plastic, plastic film, bottle caps and flat lids, bread tags, corks, clothing and more. This service through Ridwell helps in 2 ways: reduce items that go into the landfill while sending recyclables to partners that use them for making products. It has no cost to the city, people who want the service contract with Ridwell for pickup at their home once every 2 weeks. Ridwell came to Pleasanton and shared this service with the community at a public meeting April 28th at 4443 Black Avenue with a strong response.
Pleasantonians want to contribute to reducing their impact on the environment and want to minimize the proliferation of microplastics. Here is our opportunity to make a meaningful difference by enabling residents to have another service they pay for that minimizes waste. The current options available: eg the recyclable bin in front of Safeway, mailing to Ridwell and not convenient or cost effective to make these efforts scalable. Any extension of a contract with Pleasanton Garbage Service must include the option to bring in additional waste management companies that will process waste that PGS cannot handle.
Submitted On:
Nov 17, 2025, 06:33PM PST
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Robert
Last Name: Prinz
Email (this entry is disclosable if
included) [email protected]
Meeting type Regular Meeting
Agenda Item Number 11
Comments Hello, this is a public comment on behalf of Bike East Bay for the November 18th, 2025, Pleasanton City Council meeting agenda item 11 — Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station Concept Plan.
Bike East Bay encourages Council Members to support the full proposal for 1000 units of housing on the BART parking lot with a goal of 35% affordable housing, and a minimum of 20%. We also encourage Pleasanton to maximize both secure long term and short term bicycle parking on site with accommodations for cargo bikes and e-bikes. We also encourage Pleasanton to implement high quality, all ages and abilities bikeways on every public corridor through or adjacent to these future development sites. These include Class 4 physically protected bikeways, Class 1 multi-use trails, and Class 3 traffic calmed bikeways on narrow, low-traffic streets.
Through this effort Pleasanton will join with many other East Bay jurisdictions that have been entering into BART station parking lot reuse, with many development success stories already implemented and more on the way.
We can make our streets safer though infrastructure design upgrades. But to make our public spaces more bikeable and walkable we have to look to land use, and reducing the distances people must travel in order to accomplish daily tasks and errands.
Transit-oriented, mixed use developments like the one proposed here in Pleasanton are a great way to accomplish this sustainably while also increasing affordability, as housing and transportation are the two largest burdens on family budgets in the United States at 33% and 17% respectively.
Thank you for receiving these comments.
N
ovember 17, 2025
M
ayor Jack Balch & Councilmembers
cc. City Clerk
RE:
Response to November 18 Staff Report
Dear Mayor Jack Balch,
Pleasanton Garbage Service, Inc., (PGS) looks forward to the opportunity to continue working with the City as a partner in solid waste collection and management. PGS has fully reviewed the Staff Report and would like the opportunity to clarify some items related to the compliance record of the T ransfer Facility. Please find attached a letter submitted to the Solid Waste & Recycling Subcommittee that addressed each one of these items and the immediate action that PGS took to resolve the items.
PGS is committed to working with the City over the next six months to fully address the items discussed in the staff report, including a thoughtful and long -term approach to the future of the Transfer Station.
We look forward to the opportunity to continue working closely with the City.
Best Regards,
President, Pleasanton Garbage Services
[email protected]
925.580.1538
Page | 1
October 22, 2025
Solid Waste & Recycling Subcommittee
City Council Member Matt Gaidos
City Council Member Craig Eicher
City Manager Gerry Beaudin
ZeeLaura Page Waste and Recycling Manager
RE: Response to Subcommittee Staff Report on September 23, 2025 Pleasanton Garbage Service (PGS) provided a presentation to the Waste & Recycling Subcommittee on September 23, 2025, to discuss the future opportunities PGS is prepared to offer to enhance City Collection and Transfer services. During the meeting a staff report was provided and PGS would like to take the opportunity to respond to the comments that were provided in it. PGS was unable to provide comment during the meeting because we had not been provided the Staff Report ahead of time.
As summarized in the table below , the Staff Report includes several old and fully addressed items. The Operations and Facilities team at PGS is working with several professional consulting and engineering firms to ensure that all items are fully addressed for the future and are integrated into our site retrofit planning efforts.
Summary of Items in Subcommittee Staff Report and PGS Responses Item
No.
Items Addressed by City Manager &
Waste and Recycling Manager Pleasanton Garbage Service Response 1 12 LPFD violations related to fire
safety, hazardous materials
management, petroleum storage,
hazardous waste, and household
hazardous waste.
PGS paid all associated fines and hired an
Environmental Health and Safety Professional
(Yorke Engineering) who has conducted site
visits and has recently delivered both reports
containing detailed recommendations for the
site.
PGS will execute all recommendations as
advised by Yorke Engineering.
Please also refer to Item 4.
2 | Page
Item
No.
Items Addressed by City Manager &
Waste and Recycling Manager Pleasanton Garbage Service Response 2 Environmental Services violations,
including stormwater management
deficiencies such as improper
containment of contaminants and
inadequate housekeeping practices.
PGS has installed a stormwater filtration
system that is presently onsite. SCS Engineers
was immediately hired and is actively working
with PGS Operations staff to fully test and fine
tune the system to ensure that it is in full
operation for the storm season.
This stormwater system is a long-term solution
for stormwater compliance for the site.
3 Expired permits, including the facility’s
Temporary Use Permit and its
Stormwater Industrial General Permit.
Our Stormwater Industrial Permit has been
active since 2015 and has not expired.
The Temporary Use Permit was for the property
next door, which no longer exists. This Permit
does not relate to any of the current operations.
4 Certified Unified Program Agency
(CUPA) consent order included fines
and required retaining an
Environmental Health and Safety
Professional and establish/maintain
employee training programs on
hazardous waste handling.
PGS has paid all fines and has obtained an
Environmental Health and Safety Professional
to maintain employee training programs and
hazardous waste handling.
This is the same as Item 1.
5 SB1383 Compliance Reporting and
Recordkeeping
There have been zero items that PGS is aware of
related to the City’s SB 1383 Compliance
Reporting and Recordkeeping. PGS has
submitted all required reports to the City and
maintains records as required by the
Agreement.
6 Transfer Station Infrastructure &
Investment Needs
PGS has begun negotiation to relocate the
Transfer Station to a nearby site.
With a sole-source or open competitive bidding
process, other haulers will also have to
improve, expand, or acquire property and will
most likely be located outside of Pleasanton
City limits.
Note that 84% of residents support having a
waste transfer station for public drop-off
located in Pleasanton, while 77% express
strong support.
Other bidders do not have the local
infrastructure that PGS does.
3 | Page
Item
No.
Items Addressed by City Manager &
Waste and Recycling Manager Pleasanton Garbage Service Response Community Outreach Themes:
*51% of residents have not used the
Pleasanton Transfer Station in the last
12 months.
*MFD & Commercial customers need
more education and outreach
PGS is interested in working with the City and
potential consulting firms to promote and
encourage residents to use the Transfer Station.
Our education and outreach plan will be
expanded and improved as part of the sole
source negotiations, as agreed by the Waste &
Recycling Subcommittee.
RFP Process Assumptions There is no mention of the additional consultant fees associated with an open-
source procurement process instead of a sole-
source. There will be a significant cost savings
associated with negotiating directly with PGS
instead of the time associated with reviewing,
leveling, interviewing, and analyzing up to 4
proposals.
PGS looks forward to working in partnership with the City to plan for the future needs of Pleasanton. A sole source negotiation offers a cost-effective opportunity for the City to further explore opportunities at the existing site, as well as consider how best to plan for a potential future relocation, should that become necessary to manage the encroachment of homes on Busch Road.
We look forward to the opportunity to discuss any of these items with you.
Best regards,
President, Pleasanton Garbage Services
[email protected]
925.580.1538
From: CHRISTINE BOURG
To: Pleasanton City Clerk
Cc: Christine Bourg
Subject: Gulf gas station signage
Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 11:18:46 AM
I am writing regarding the signage and design of the Gulf gas station on the corner of First St. and Vineyard Ave.
This project wasn’t approved by our City Council. As a past member of the General Plan Steering Committee, I
know that the City Council has the authority and responsibility to adopt and amend regulations to establish and modify zoning and signage regulations to align with the city’s aesthetic goals.
Signage should not significantly
impact the community’s visual character and complies with established standards to maintain the city’s aesthetic
integrity.
The Gulf sign is out of compliance with our General plan. It doesn’t fit in our historic Downtown. Please require
a project that fits Pleasanton, not a look that is inappropriate for our city.
Christine Bourg
Pleasanton