Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />4 of 4 <br /> <br />community facilities, questions about economic development strategies, and concerns <br />about potential impacts on Pleasanton's quality of life. <br /> <br />These personal interactions provided valuable context for understanding how residents <br />who might not typically attend formal budget meetings perceive the City's financial <br />challenges and priorities. Notably, community members consistently expressed <br />appreciation for the City's presence at this community gathering, regardless of their <br />perspective on the budget challenges or preferred approach to resolving them. Many <br />specifically commented on the value of direct conversation, information sharing, and <br />transparency, highlighting the importance of these informal engagement opportunities in <br />building trust and understanding between the City and its residents. <br /> <br />What We Heard: Community Values and Priorities <br />Across all engagement platforms, several consistent themes emerged that have directly <br />informed the preliminary General Fund budget reduction recommendation: <br /> <br />• Protection of Community Assets: Residents expressed strong attachment to <br />physical spaces that foster community connection, particularly the aquatic center, <br />library, parks, and senior center. These facilities are viewed not merely as <br />amenities but as essential components of Pleasanton's identity and quality of life. <br />• Concern for Vulnerable Populations: There was consistent concern about <br />services for youth, seniors, and economically disadvantaged residents. Many <br />comments emphasized the importance of programs that support the most <br />vulnerable community members and foster equitable access to services. <br />• Preference for Administrative Efficiencies: There was broad support for <br />finding savings through operational adjustments, reduced consulting contracts, <br />and administrative streamlining before cutting direct services to residents. <br />• Public Safety as a Core Function: While some specialized police and fire <br />services received mixed feedback, there was strong opposition to reductions that <br />might impact emergency response times or community safety. <br />• Creative Alternative Solutions: Rather than simply accepting service <br />reductions, community members offered alternatives, including revised fee <br />structures, volunteer programs, public-private partnerships, and economic <br />development initiatives. <br /> <br />Page 29 of 40