My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2017
>
060617
>
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/8/2017 11:28:00 AM
Creation date
6/6/2017 11:52:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
6/6/2017
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
SUPPLEMENTAL
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Karen Gonzales <br /> From: Pleasanton City Clerk <br /> Subject: FW: Please delay vote until all details can be reviewed regarding City funding <br /> SUPPLEMENT -L MATERl' L <br /> Provided to the Git_yGouncii—_ <br /> From:John Carroll After Distribution of Packet <br /> Sent:Tuesday,June 06, 2017 2:27 PM //�� <br /> To: Mayor and City Council<citycouncil @cityofpleasantonca.gov> Date 6-'G-- 17 <br /> Subject: Please delay vote until all details can be reviewed regarding City funding <br /> Dear Mayor and Council, <br /> I see that you will be considering the approval of taxpayer funding for the Johnson Drive EDZ infrastructure to the tune <br /> of$6.4 million with your two-year CIP budget Tuesday night. The budget report also indicates that additional funding <br /> will need to be identified later to fully fund the project. In addition,you will be transferring$5 million from the <br /> Operating Budget to the CIP, and while not directly identified to fund the JDEZ, it's easy to come to that conclusion. <br /> I must assume that if a dollar amount has been identified for the budget that an agreement—even tentative—with <br /> Costco and Nearon Enterprises must have been reached for the city subsidies. Perhaps the city is just preparing to enter <br /> into an agreement,and wanted to have possible funding sources lined up. However, I don't want the city to provide <br /> any additional funding, or even the appearance of additional funding sources until we are certain that Costco and other <br /> potential parties have made their end of the commitment clear. We (the public) are not their piggy bank, and we are <br /> not here to bail them out or subsidize their ventures. <br /> Please release the details of the subsidy agreement publicly and postpone your hearing on this matter until you give us <br /> all enough time to review it. While the opinion piece in the Weekly would like to conveniently interpret MM results as <br /> the public wanting a Costco, I must strongly disagree. Not everyone may have wanted to eliminate the possibility of a <br /> Costco, but that's a long long way from saying we want one at any cost. Given the lack of transparency in this process, <br /> there is going to be a lot of scrutiny given any agreement entered into by the city. <br /> Has Cal Trans agreed to complete the freeway on-ramp expansion necessary for the additional traffic created by a <br /> possible Costco ? Last I heard the city had only submitted an engineering spec. Any agreement on funding would have <br /> to fully disclose the cost of any freeway improvements. Without the approval from Cal Trans any agreement on <br /> development would be grossly premature, and in my opinion, make any further discussion a Non-starter. <br /> Thank you, <br /> John Carroll <br /> Click here to report this email as spam. <br /> i <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.