SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Annette Brecheisen Subject: 06/06/2017 Meeting; Comment on Agenda Item#15 - Review of the two year operating budget for fiscal years 2017/18 and 2018/19 and the four year capital improvement program for fiscal years 2017/18 through 2020/21 Attachments: Pleasanton_CityCouncil_BudgetComments_06.06.AWFALEMENTAL I ATEI 9AL Provided to the City Council After Distribution of Packet From: Karen Diaz Sent:Tuesday,June 06, 2017 9:40 PM Date a (p"' /�7 , i7 To:Annette Brecheisen<abrecheisen @cityofpleasantonca.gov> Subject: FW:06/06/2017 Meeting; Comment on Agenda Item#15- Review of the two year operating budget for fiscal years 2017/18 and 2018/19 and the four year capital improvement program for fiscal years 2017/18 through 2020/21 From: Ken Johnston Sent:Tuesday,June 6, 2017 5:45 PM To: Nelson Fialho; Karen Diaz; Dan Sodergren Subject:06/06/2017 Meeting; Comment on Agenda Item#15- Review of the two year operating budget for fiscal years 2017/18 and 2018/19 and the four year capital improvement program for fiscal years 2017/18 through 2020/21 Please find attached (with the text also pasted below) a comment in regards to item#15 listed on tonight's Council Agenda- Review of the two year operating budget for fiscal years 20017/18 and 2018/19 and the four year capital improvement program for fiscal years 2017/18 through 2020/21. Sincerely, Pleasanton Citizens for Responsible Growth June 6, 2017 Nelson Fialho City Manager, City of Pleasanton 123 Main Street PO Box 520, Pleasanton, CA 94566 Mr. Fialho, We were surprised to find discussion of the Johnson Drive Economic Zone infrastructure project ("JDEZ" "the Project") nestled within the hearing scheduled for June 6, 2017, without proper notice to those parties who have expressed interest in being kept apprised of developments dealing with that project. As you are aware, the City maintains a page specific to the Project. The appropriations and allocations proposed in the budget under discussion at the June 6 hearing reflect the City's policy priorities for the JDEZ. That the City failed to update the JDEZ page or provide notice to those parties who have requested to receive notice about potential City activity regarding the Project is troublesome to say the least. The City has provided interested parties no notice of this meeting, well short of the notice requirements to provide feedback and input on this critical process. Members of the public cannot be expected to meaningfully review a complex document and provide analysis and feedback beyond observations. This is an unacceptable 1