SUPPLEMENTAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Jocelyn Kwong From: Erin Sharpe<erinsharpe@pleasantonrage.org> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 4:13 PM To: Pamela Ott<POtt@cityofpleasantonca.gov> Cc: Kevin Crow Gerry Beaudin <gbeaudin@cityofpleasantonca.gov>; Heidi Murphy<hmurphy@cityofpleasantonca.gov>; Sean Fogarty Subject: Re: City of Pleasanton's Co-Sponsorship Policy Changes ***[EXTERNAL]This message comes from an external organization.Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links,especially from unknown senders.*** Pamela, We have followed your lead and blind copied City Council members on our emails as well. We wanted to bring to your attention that last night at the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, Library and Recreation staff presented a proposal to adjust the Master Fee Schedule, including special event fees. This would have had tremendous negative impacts to our annual soccer parade, a community based event that our organizations and the city have partnered on since 1970, as well as to our mowing needs for our tournament events, which have a positive economic impact to Pleasanton. Thank you for your reassurance in your email last week that Library and Recreation staff will engage all Co-sponsor groups in fee policy items, given that you also value our long-tenured relationship and programs we provide for our community. Sadly, despite this reassurance and the direct impacts to our programming, this policy presented last night was never shared with our groups, including the opportunity to do so at our Sports Council meeting earlier this week. Fortunately, a community member outside of city staff alerted us to this proposal shortly before the meeting, allowing us the opportunity to attend the meeting and share our perspectives and concerns with the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Parks and Recreation Commission recognized the many flaws within the noted section of this proposal and voted against passing this section at this time. This is yet another example of the Parks and Recreation Commission not entirely aligning with city staff on policy language surrounding fees and why it is critical to maintain the checks and balances that city policies have always had relative to fee assessments. Again, we respectfully request that City Council members not allow the verbiage requiring Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council approval for fee assessments to be removed from the Co- sponsorship policy being presented on October 17th. The Parks and Recreation Commission did not request that it be added back into the new proposal at the September 14th Commission meeting, after being told that this language is not in the existing policy by Library and Recreation staff. This language is absolutely in the existing policy (attached in Exhibit A, Section III-C) and we believe numerous recent events prove how vital these checks and balances are. Finally, if the need is to hear this directly from our extended membership on October 17th as well, can you please give us guidance so we can properly coordinate? Specifically, will the Co-sponsorship policy changes remain a consent item on the agenda? And is there consideration to add the verbiage back into this policy requiring Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council approval prior to assessing fees to Co-sponsorship groups? i