My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2017
>
082917
>
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/29/2017 3:00:53 PM
Creation date
8/25/2017 2:01:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
8/29/2017
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
81
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
INFECIEVaT . <br /> Re: 8/29/17 Staff Report on the JDEDZ financing <br /> k,4.3292)17 <br /> §ifY M V OFFICE <br /> Mayor Thorne, Council Members It rown, <br /> Olson, and Mr. Fialho, <br /> After reading the current Staff Report about the significant <br /> subsidies for infrastructure costs using tax payer money, <br /> including TIP fees and the plan to finance a long term loan <br /> from Costco for 25 years in order to locate a Costco Store on <br /> Johnson Drive, I am very m <br /> uch against this financial proposition. Using $19 million <br /> dollars of our Pleasanton dollars and fees is not in the best <br /> interest of the City now and in the future. Please seriously <br /> consider postponing any decision on the funding of the <br /> infrastructure for the JDEDZ using the terms presented in the <br /> Staff Report until further independent financial reports are <br /> considered and there is more transparency in the justification <br /> of this financial arrangement. <br /> The Staff Report is a challenge for many of us to <br /> understand regarding how this funding arrangement was justified <br /> or a reasonable investment. The City has not made public the <br /> Century Urban consultant's report nor given the public and the <br /> Council enough time to review the documents and come up with <br /> alternatives to this funding proposal in a public setting. What <br /> happened to a public vetting of this use of significant public <br /> funds, or should I say "misuse" of funds. The City's push to <br /> approve financing before having an actual project seems out of <br /> the normal progression of a land use approval process and <br /> developer agreements. <br /> U P X <br /> 7-7,Tcmcced 10 i'e Ce!y Ccuncel <br /> ipv o J .� rrr w c��i� Pac e'l <br /> JL /1 r 2 9 LSiJU <br /> Late <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.