My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA PACKET 2
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2025
>
040825
>
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA PACKET 2
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/8/2025 1:04:47 PM
Creation date
4/8/2025 1:04:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
4/8/2025
DESTRUCT DATE
20Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
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
<br /> <br />2 of 4 <br /> <br />Online Budget Engagement Tool (March 5-24, 2025) <br />To expand access and ensure inclusive community input, the City launched an online <br />budget engagement tool that was open March 5-24, 2025. This tool provided an <br />accessible platform for residents to share their thoughts on potential program and <br />service reductions and offer creative strategies for revenue generation. The online tool <br />received 705 responses, representing the largest sample of public input throughout the <br />engagement process. The structure mirrored the in-person Town Hall format, with three <br />open-ended questions and optional demographic questions on gender, age, and <br />race/ethnicity. <br /> <br />Key Findings <br />Analysis of responses revealed several clear trends: <br />• Dolores Bengtson Aquatic Center: 152 respondents (22%) specifically <br />opposed closing the Dolores Bengtson Aquatic Center, making it the most- <br />mentioned facility. Many cited its importance to families, seniors, and competitive <br />swimmers, with suggestions for fee adjustments rather than closure. <br />• Library Services: 57 respondents (8%) opposed reducing library hours as <br />compared to 36 respondents (5%) who supported reductions. Many of the <br />respondents that expressed opposition emphasized the importance of after- <br />school availability for students and suggested partial hour reductions rather than <br />full-day closures. <br />• School Crossing Guards: 54 respondents (8%) opposed eliminating crossing <br />guards, frequently citing safety concerns for children, while 36 respondents (5%) <br />supported reductions. <br />• Public Safety: 30 respondents (4%) opposed closing a fire station, reflecting <br />concerns about emergency response times, compared to 24 respondents (3%) <br />who supported it. <br />• Senior Center: 29 respondents (4%) opposed reducing Senior Center hours, <br />highlighting the importance of services for seniors, while 17 respondents (2%) <br />supported reductions. <br /> <br />In addition to the reductions included as part of Internal Services and Operational <br />Support the most supported service reductions included: <br />1. Freeze the Sustainability Manager Position (44 support/11 oppose | 6%/2%) <br />2. Combine Library and Recreation Service Desks (43 support/3 oppose | 6%/<1%) <br />3. Reduce Business Partner Support (42 support/3 oppose | 6%/<1%) <br />4. Reduce Planning Consultants (40 support/5 oppose | 6%/<1%) <br />5. Reduce Community Organization Support (38 support/5 oppose | 5%/<1%) <br /> <br />Budget Reduction Suggestions <br />Several recurring themes emerged regarding potential budget reduction approaches: <br />1. Personnel Management Strategies (92 mentions): <br />o Management salary reductions <br />o Pension reform <br />o Staff consolidation <br />o Early retirement incentives <br />Page 27 of 40
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.