Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Downtown Funding Pbids topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council pauses PBID formation effort after feasibility study shows mixed property-owner support
Summary
After a staff presentation and Civitas Advisors— feasibility study, the Pleasanton City Council voted to pause the Property and Business Improvement District (PBID) formation process and ask for further outreach and property-owner-led engagement, with a 6—6-month check-in window.
Pleasanton — The City Council directed staff not to move immediately into the formal PBID formation phase after a feasibility study and outreach by Civitas Advisors showed limited and mixed support among property owners. Instead, council voted unanimously to pause the consultant-led formation work and asked staff, the PDA and property owners to continue engagement and return for a council check-in in six to nine months.
Civitas project manager Kelly Rankin summarized outreach findings, saying the team contacted roughly 45% of property owners (by assessed contribution) during the four-month feasibility phase and that, among those engaged, "14% of the engaged property owners ... would support the PBID formation" with another segment leaning toward support. Rankin said 47 property owners responded to the survey and that priority needs identified included public parking, vacant properties and business attraction; lighting, safety and holiday lighting were high-ranked service priorities.
Why it matters: A PBID would move assessment responsibility from businesses to property owners and could raise additional funds for downtown services beyond the current BID. Civitas presented three scenarios; a middle scenario would have generated just over $200,000 annually for marketing, events and enhanced maintenance, with a rule-of-thumb 45% of that budget for marketing/events and 25% for maintenance/safety. Civitas recommended reaching 30—40% property-owner support before moving to formal formation.
Public comment and council reaction: Multiple downtown property owners and business advocates urged caution and more time. Property owner Bruce Sorkamata testified he was "very confused" by the feasibility outreach and asked council to "vote no at this point and postpone it," adding he would try to rally other property owners to discuss alternatives. Mike Madden, past PDA president, said he supported a robust plan but wanted clear commitments and protections for downtown funding.
Council action and rationale: Staff described a two-part Phase 2 (Phase 2a: focused property-owner outreach and education; Phase 2b: formation steps including petitions and formal vote). The consultant—s fee for Phase 2a was presented as about $26,000. After hearing property-owner speakers and council members emphasize the importance of PDA leadership and broader buy-in, Council Member Testa moved (with a friendly amendment to check in at six to nine months) to pause formal PBID formation and instead encourage the PDA and property owners to continue outreach and work toward consensus; Council Member Gaydos seconded. A roll-call vote was unanimous.
Next steps: The council—s pause leaves the current BID assessment and the newly approved one-year city match in place for 2025; staff and the PDA were asked to advance property-owner engagement, complete PDA director recruitment and return to council in six to nine months for an update or next steps.
