It says it started.

Um, I will go ahead and just kick us off then.

Um, good afternoon, everybody.

Welcome to our uh special council meeting here.

It is October the Monday, October 13th, 2025.

Um, special joint council meeting um with the NCIP.

And with that, I will ask Clementine to do roll call and make announcements.

Councilmember Barber, President, Councilmember Garcia.

Here council member Rash here.

Councilmember Smith, Mayor Williamson.

And then I'll call the role of the NCIP committee.

Um maybe you can just go in order.

Yeah, that would be easier.

Delman Beach.

Alternosa.

Downtown alternate alternate.

Thank you very much.

Public comments.

Sorry, I'm not used to such a long role.

And participation information is provided on this meeting's agenda, which is online at moderate.gov/slash agendas.

In-person attendees, please keep your electronic devices and phones muted to prevent audio interference in our meeting.

And thank you for participating in your city government.

Awesome.

Thank you, Glenn.

With that, I will ask Shanneri to kick us off with a pledge of allegiance, please.

Exactly.

Which we say is one nation under the individual liberty and justification for all.

All righty, thank you, Shannary.

And with that, we're going to go to convene a joint meeting of the City Council and NCIP committee.

And our item on the agenda is a public appearance item number one joint meeting of the council and NCIP committee to discuss potential appropriation of NCIP funds into the general fund to address the city's $10 million structural deficit in the next fiscal year's budget.

With that, I'll pass it to Nat for staff presentation.

Thank you very much.

And good evening, Mayor.

Our city council and NCIP committee members.

We're grateful for all of you and for all your time this evening.

As you know, the city is facing a $10 million structural and ongoing budget deficit.

Over the past couple of months, our city council and staff have been very hard at work identifying solutions on how to address the structural deficit.

Council conducted an index card exercise to identify revenue generating strategies and expenditure reduction strategies it supports.

And we know these discussions will continue.

In fact, next week we will review revenue generating strategies that indirectly address the budget deficit.

This has been a very open and transparent process that is involved and invited members, feedback from members of the public, including all of you.

The city council has done an excellent job of identifying solutions that address the 10 million dollar structural deficit.

Of the solutions that could directly address the deficit, the most significant proposed by council is a sales tax increase that may go on the ballot in June of 2026.

That 0.375% increase, if approved, would bring an estimated $3.375 million in revenue in fiscal year 26-27 and $4.5 million in years beyond.

Unfortunately, that would only address some of the $10 million structural deficit.

And we know that we can't count on those revenues, even as we undergo polling to gauge community support.

We have a brief slide that Andrea will share up here on the screen that walks through the timeline on revenue generation and what we're looking at, what we're looking at.

So we were able to balance the budget this current fiscal year, fiscal year 25-26.

And we'll go to the next uh next movement on the slide.

One more time.

Oh, there we go.

So uh we have some immediate options that uh we'll be talking about uh today, and council will continue to discuss.

One of the items and the key item for tonight is uh consideration of NCIP funds for the general fund to balance the budget for uh for the next fiscal year, also salary savings and chilled and uh frozen positions.

Looking at the short-term options also include pausing programs and services, council is considering that, and we've been having some conversations about those options.

As we go to the next item, midterm.

Midterm options as we look into the next fiscal year is partial revenue from the sales tax increase, as well as potentially bringing a parking tax forward and uh looking at uh potentially another service provider for filming these uh city council meetings and other boards and commission meetings.

As we look at 27 and 28 long term, a first responder fee, stormwater fee, admissions tax, these are other revenue generating strategies that are on the table.

As we've discussed, two of the deficit reduction strategies that are part of the index card exercise involves the NCIP.

One involves reappropriating a portion of this year's NCIP funds into the general fund to address the deficit next year.

The second involves a one-time defunding or what we would call freezing of existing projects.

Public works director Andrea Rennie will be explaining the options in greater detail.

When we began to discuss the topic, the city council asks that the city council and NCIP convene with a joint meeting as soon as possible so that we can discuss the challenges together and a path forward in a collaborative way.

And many thanks to our city council and our NCIP for coming together today for this joint meeting, a very productive one that we hope to have.

First, I know that today's discussion of potentially appropriating NCIP funds and putting existing projects on hold is not a recommendation that we take lightly.

It is truly a last resort for the city.

The NCIP program is a sherished and valuable program that has been critical to delivering and funding key infrastructure projects in our neighborhoods and throughout our city.

The Sports Center, Window on the Bay, community park centers, fire stations, playgrounds, traffic safety improvements, parks, trails, other projects that have either been fully or partially funded through the NCIP since its inception in 1985.

We are all very proud and we hold NCIPR near and dear to our heart because it has ensured that 16% of transient occupancy tax dollars goes to projects chosen for and by representatives of Monterey's neighborhoods.

NCIP is a true collaboration and a true example of citizen engagement and collaboration that's unique in the envy of many communities throughout the state.

Over the weekend, Elizabeth Yanish wrote to the City Council quote when community stewardship partners with city staff and council, they fulfill an independent vital role and responsibility by contributing their direct experience and knowledge of neighborhood specific issues and problems.

How true that is.

Today's challenge and today's discussion is because the city needs immediate solutions on how to address next year's fiscal deficit.

If the sales tax measure passes, we're still left with a six and a half million dollar funding gap.

We also know that we can't assume voters will pass the measure, so we do need a plan for a $10 million funding gap.

When we look at all the options on the table, appropriating NCIP funds to the general fund and freezing or defreezing or defunding a select number of NCIP projects in staff's view is our only viable option moving forward for this upcoming fiscal year.

On behalf of the city staff, we want our NCIP committee members and residents to know that we hear you and we understand the concerns that you all have about this being a reactionary solution, how this could cut the roots of a community asset and its connection to the community partnership.

And we know that the NCIP committees, all of you, many of you feel that taking any funds from NCIP would diminish your role and the value of community stewardship.

We recognize that.

But as you're a professional city management team, we're obligated to provide you with all options on the table.

And I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the reality is using NCIP funds to balance the budget is the lesser of multiple evils.

If we don't use NCIP funds, or if we didn't have NCIP funds to begin with, the two alternatives we would bring first would be to reduce expenditures.

And we have a hardworking staff, folks, frontline staff and police, fire recreation, parks, and other areas of service delivery.

And reducing expenditures would require us to reduce staffing.

And that would sadly involve the elimination of staff positions or furloughing employees, which we do not recommend.

Having gone through the COVID-19 layoffs back in 2020, we eliminated 100 positions, laid off over 70 full-time staff.

We closed facilities not just because of the health pandemic, but also because we financially couldn't afford the staff to staff it.

Other cities during the pandemic, they kept their staff on board even throughout the closure of facilities, but we couldn't afford to do that, which is why we had to implement the layoffs.

It was extremely difficult for staff.

It was extremely difficult for the community, and it was extremely heartbreaking for the families involved.

And that's one of the reasons why we're not making that recommendation today as staff.

The second alternative is to use some of the fund for economic uncertainty.

We have 24.1 million dollars in that fund, which sounds like a lot, but it's equivalent to 20% of our general fund expenditures.

Finance director Rafela King will explain to you and share that that only funds two and a half months of the city's ongoing operations.

Local government finance professionals share that reserve funds should only be used for major risks like public health emergencies, fires, flooding, tsunamis, because it is the last resort that we go to.

Because we don't recommend staffing cuts or the use of reserve funds.

This isn't NCIP versus a city or the city versus NCIP.

We're all in the same team and we're all one community working together.

And we believe that we can figure this out together.

We're hopeful that we can identify ways and how we can have voter support measures that will help shore up the deficit in future years, so that we don't have to utilize NCIP funds in future years, and we won't have to cut city services either.

So today's joint meeting serves as a purpose to have a conversation about the fiscal challenges and also to make sure that we familiarize ourselves with the fiscal challenges ahead.

So tonight's meeting has two parts.

This agenda item, the joint meeting, is for the council and NCIP committee to discuss the potential appropriation of NCIP funds into the general fund to address the city's $10 million structural deficit in next year's fiscal budget.

Again, just for next year.

After the first item, we'll take a Monterey 5 break, and the city council will then reconvene and determine arrangement on the dollar amount of NCIP funds to appropriate into the general fund, if any.

Council can also provide guidance to the NCIP on the different types of projects that it might want to prioritize, whether that's infrastructure, projects that help support public safety and accessibility, or others.

After today's meeting, the NCIP hopefully will reconvene and work with staff to come back to council with a project list to potentially defund.

Council may choose to, with a four-fifths vote, appropriate the funding, whatever that dollar amount is, to the general fund, and then also choose to fund or defund projects.

Again, we trust that we can hopefully work together to address this collective challenge that we are all facing.

The NCIP committee has worked incredibly hard to develop FET and approve projects that are not that are on the books, and that's one of the reasons why we're not recommending that we kill the projects, but rather chill the projects for consideration for future years.

Doing so will allow us to prevent impacts to key city operations, police, fire, public works, and other areas of service delivery.

So with that, here's our finance director, Rafela King to share more information about the deficit, the five-year forecast, and uh how we balance this year's budget.

We're fella.

Thanks, Nat.

So before we get started, I just want to say thank you all for being here.

Thanks for our council and um our NCIP committee.

I see a lot of your familiar faces.

So most of what I'm saying, gonna say to you, you've probably already heard, but for the benefit of anyone who has not heard um pretty much how we got here.

I just want to go over a few things.

So as you've been hearing that our structural deficit, which started this fiscal year 25-26 is 10.5 million.

So what how do we get there?

So we have rising costs.

So there's an increase in the cost of goods and services, as I'm sure most of you already know just by going to the grocery store.

Um increases in our salaries and benefits, our MOU agreements and the wage study, those are increases.

Um insurance premiums, our insurance premiums, our workers' comp and our liability, property liability, all of those have increased about 300% since COVID.

Um retirement costs, the increases in our um FTEs and also CalPERS are retirement benefits, all of those are contributing factors to our rising costs.

So the tools that we use for to balance our budget this year, there were one time, one time um things.

So some of the things that we did was we took a higher percentage of salary savings.

We typically have anywhere between 50 to 60 um vacant positions during the year, and we usually every year budget about two to three percent and that salary savings for the next fiscal year.

Um, this year we use a higher percentage.

We used about 8% for that.

We also um prose or chilled some positions.

We call them chill because we didn't specifically say um limited to certain positions.

We wanted to actually leave some wiggle room in there so in case some things happen so that we can shift some things around so that we average that between 1.8 and 2.2 million for those um positions that are not funded.

We also reduced um our reserve contributions by 50 percent for two years.

So that totaled about 4.1 million.

We reduce our ONM, our operations and maintenance by 7% across the board.

We close our spending for the year six weeks early um for the fiscal year for 25.

We also reduce our CIP appropriation by 2.5 million.

We restructured commitments, then move them to other funds, and we also um use some our some of our reserves for current year expenditures, like such as the sports, some repairs and sports centers, some of the things for um information technology.

So we kind of use some of the information some of the reserves that we already had for those to so they wouldn't have to use the current year funding.

So our five-year forecast, uh this is what I'm what's on the screen here.

So if you pay attention to the blue line that's on top, that line is and the bottom receives our start with FY27.

If we did absolutely didn't make any changes, which basically means that we have we continue to fund our CAP by 2.5 million, um, and didn't make any any changes to it to anything to do, reduce the expense expenses or to increase revenues.

We did nothing.

Our deficit will continue to increase every year.

So it would be 13.5 by 27, um, 13 million and 28.

That goes down a little bit because I believe one of the debts roll off or is paid off at that time.

15 million and 29, um, 20 million and 30 and 21 million, up to 21 million by 20 um 2030, the 2031.

So the orange line is five moderate adjustments, is basically the same things that we did to kind of to balance the budget this year.

And again, I'll say that those aren't those are one-time changes, those are not things that are sustainable.

But that if you can see the slope going down, that 10.5 that we started with this fiscal year would go down um every year.

But again, that's not sustainable because it doesn't um some of the things in there is completely freezing positions.

That means that we reduce services to our community.

That's not something we're really trying to do.

Um, continuing with the 7% reduction.

We are it was a very hard exercise this year to reduce the ONM down to um by 7% because we already run on a very lean um platform in most departments.

Also, um moderate salary increases.

That's a very sticky one because staff expect salary increases to keep up with the um with the with the CPI.

So that is actually still lower than what they're accustomed to.

And also reducing, but all of those things would reduce or other things, other items we could you know swap out anything to make um but just the thing is to actually do something, and that actually we can have um reduce the deficit over time.

Um so our reserve contributions, um I meant to say something before I moved on, but that's okay.

So our reserve contributions, um, we wanted to know what these numbers were just again.

So our balance at the year in balance for the economic uncertainty would be 24.1 million, as Nats they stated earlier for the combined for the rest of them that are in general fund, it comes to about 4.5.

Um comes to an additional 14 million, um, that's there with those accounts.

I'm sorry, go ahead.

So we wanted to also show you you probably have seen this slide before, but also let's show you the effect of drawing down from an economic uncertainty fund.

I know that's been a question plenty of times.

So why don't we just use economic uncertainty fund?

So if you go prior slide when I showed you that the deficit will go up every year.

So if we just we do nothing, the front the slide on the left hand side shows at 13.5 million deficit in 27 and 13.0 um.0 and then and 28.

If you notice that if you take the balance starting with 24 million from this year, and then you reduce it by the 13.5, the next year you're down to 10.

And FY28, you start with that 10.

You're already upside down because you have another deficit of another 13 million.

So now you're completely upside down.

So it would only take two years by two and a half years in order for that deficit to be completely or the economic uncertainty fund to be completely depleted by by doing nothing and going into the um using the economic uncertainty as a as a crutch.

By doing moderate changes, um, there's still reductions in there.

Again, this is not recommended, but it is a slower um a slower decrease.

It would take five years, a little more than five years, but by 2031, you you've gone from 24 million to 600,000 in this fund.

Again, by just doing you could see the difference in doing something versus nothing, but at the same time, some of the things that these are like one-time um answers.

So we want to get permanent solutions, so that's why we're here to kind of work on being permanent solutions, what we can come up with.

Next up is our public works director, Andrea Rennie.

We'll walk with the options.

All right, so just a quick recap and mayor council members and CIP committee, members of the public, good to see you again.

It was just two months since we're here last.

And we had a joint meeting of the NCAP and council on August 19th.

And we had discussions on budget challenges, the backlog, the desire to fund public safety and infrastructure projects.

So just to give you a quick snapshot on where we're at on NCIP, the average completion rate, and I talked to uh Reggie today, and he was telling me that it was about almost um just a little over a project a month.

So we're looking at about 13 projects per year.

Uh the average number over the past three years of new projects added every year has been 35.

So we currently have 86 projects that are approved for a total of 17 million dollars in the NCAP.

So we have a few projects that are very important that are in progress right now.

We have fire station 12.

That one is a big project that's um in progress.

And thank you to the NCIPU for funding that project.

We have hilltop repairs, and we also have fuel reduction.

We also have some projects that have not been started.

They're sort of sitting in that facklogue queue that we talked about.

We have a few projects that are inactive.

And by inactive, what we mean are, for example, pickleball that has funded the design.

So that hasn't started yet.

We have North Fremont Gap matching funds that were kind of saving.

And good news is I think we do have an opportunity in the next year to actually apply for a grant and use those matching funds.

So those are what we consider um the inactive projects.

We have the current funding that's available for fiscal year 25-26 is $6.18 million.

And there are 73 new projects that are proposed.

So just to give you an idea, the some of the new projects that have been proposed, and I want to give you a shout out.

And this is not a comprehensive list by any means.

So thank you to Nary, Dennis, Kurt, and Lee for partnering with the city and actually proposing a lot of the projects.

And just to name a few, the new projects that are in the queue for this next year are Fire Station 13, public safety facility, which is funding a way forward for our central public safety facility, improvements at the police station for storage and lockers because they need a little bit of help.

I know we had a tour there.

So next, I want to talk a little bit just and explain just a little bit of the alternatives and some of the considerations that staff uh was thinking about when putting these together.

So the alternative one is um what I call the status quo, which is basically we do nothing, all the funding stays in NCIP.

There's a new cycle of NCIP, and all the projects continue the same.

So the considerations on this one is one, it does not address the structural deficit.

And um, Nat alluded to that, it could result possibly in service or personnel cats, and we still have an amount of funding that is sitting there in the backlog.

I want to talk about alternative two, and we came up with a different solution that we thought was um considerate of the effort that you spent on these projects.

So I wanna quote Shannary, and you had spoken about one cycle of NCIP being nine meetings, 19 hours, 123 public comments, and you use the quilt analogy.

It's a labor of love.

There's a lot of pieces to it.

And so I think what happened in 2020, it was unprecedented times.

Um, the projects got closed, and I think that was heartbreaking to a lot of folks who spent a lot of time in these projects.

So, what we were proposing is not to close the projects, but almost to what we call freeze.

So basically the project gets defunded, but the project is still an approved project.

It's just waiting there for future funding and priority funding for another year once these um other strategies are in place and we don't have this deficit.

So we mentioned this alternative two being the preferred alternative.

It would freeze some of the projects that are maybe not um critical right now that don't deal with infrastructure.

It would also preserve this new cycle of NCIP.

So all these projects that I talked about, all these the fuel reduction, public safety facility, fire station 13, library, all these projects would be then um projects for the new cycle for consideration.

And this is important right now because we have zero dollars in CAP funding for general funds.

So I have zero dollars for facilities.

So the NCIP funding is the money that we have in order to repair and um make sure that we have a resilient infrastructure.

So for alternative three, we are talking about we call this one skip a cycle.

And so that one with uh would do exactly that.

It would skip the new cycle, and so it would maintain all the projects that are in a queue, all the backlog of projects, all the 17 million dollars projects, but it would skip the new cycle.

Uh the downside to that one is again, all these projects that are really important that we are not able to fund with general fund money would not be funded.

So ADA improvements, we would not be able to make any progress on those.

Any facilities that we have, fire station 13, public safety facility, all those things would continue um to not receive funding.

And alternative four is what I called a hybrid, and that is basically taking a combination of new cycle money and projects to be frozen.

not be funded so ADA improvements we would not be able to make any progress on those any facilities that we have fire station 13 public safety facility all those things would continue um to to not receive funding and alternative four is what i called a hybrid and that is basically taking a combination of new cycle money and projects to be frozen and this alternative while it combines a couple of um the different alternatives it provides some deficit reduction but it only funds certain amount of projects for our infrastructure and again not having any money in CIP does make it so that the 6.18 million dollars is very important for the city and for our infrastructure and so with that I'd like to pass it on to Nat again make you more staff very the presentations and provide an overview and we'll we'll just back to mayor and awesome thank you staff for the presentation um with that we will open it up to um let's start with the council with questions then we can go to NCIP any questions on the council um first of all good evening to everyone and thank you for being here um and thank you for the presentation thank you for details if you would please um staff whoever uh um i guess has the best information here if you would maybe uh do uh um a little bit more detailed comparison between alternative two and four like what the differences um or or the major differences the the major impacts that kind of thing absolutely so alternative two would provide us with about um and again I'm just um the numbers haven't been discussed so I'm just gonna use numbers as examples these are um just examples so if we took um alternative four is a hybrid alternative two keep six million dollars for this future cycle so in looking at the list of projects that we submitted um in conjunction with members of the NCIP so uh replacing all the radar signs fuel reduction fire station 13 hilltop those projects alone do amount to the six million dollars so if we did alternative four which is a hybrid that means that some of these projects that really need the funding in the infrastructure we wouldn't be able to completely fund it so generally we used to have about two and a half to five million dollars in CIP money so now we have zero so the six million dollars would be important so it would almost be in lieu of and in partnership with NCIP to fund these projects that we would normally fund with CIP monies and so alternative four would reduce the number of projects so we would have less projects that we're investing in and um it would also potentially free some of the projects as well so what we're saying is there's a there's a big backlog of projects I think NCIP had a lot of really great discussions um on funding maybe a less and a lesser amount of projects but bigger projects then make more of an impact and so I think looking at the new cycle and preserving the new cycle would really make that impact um and then maybe just getting some of the smaller projects that add up that are still in the backlog and basically just moving them to a future year we think that we can move further in our resiliency.

So that's why alternative two and four are very similar but alternative two just enables us to get more bang for our buck hopefully in this next cycle of NCIP is one more addition and excellent job uh there Andrea the staff is recommending alternative two if we were looking all the options it's the one that we feel most allows us to prioritize as Andrea mentioned the key infrastructure needs of the city today and the key public safety facilities library ADA improvements that are that are critical for for today's needs with the city the other projects are valuable and they're important but we feel like they can be frozen and we can reconsider them in future years.

And because of that, we really do rely on the partnership with NCIP to fund those critical projects.

And that's that's why staff's recommending alternative two.

Thank you.

Um a second question here for um relating to second option.

So the uh the funds for the next NCIP cycle would would those funds be available during the usual timeline that the NCIP would require them to continue their process as normal.

So if I understand your and I think when we're talking about a normal process, we changed our schedule a little bit.

So our schedule is a little different this year.

So but yes, the 6.18 million dollars would be available for us to bring to council after the voting and to make a difference.

And because these projects are a little bit larger and they build on current projects.

Um I want to use as an example hilltop and fire station 13.

We're able to get them done faster.

Okay, thank you.

Uh good evening, everyone.

Thank you so much for all the hard work that everyone's done.

I just had a quick question.

I know you spoke about uh um freeze, meaning that they would be defunded but still approved.

Is there a timeline on that?

Or what is that looking like as a f as far as how that lines up with even others?

If the cycle continues, then there are other applications that come in.

That's a great question.

So uh what we can do is we can take those projects that were defunded back to NCAP for a priority funding in future years.

So if I'm on, I just want to make sure I'm understanding correctly.

So if other applications are coming in, if the cycle is continuing and not stopping like the SIPA cycle or stopping the cycle, then the ones that were frozen would actually get priority.

That correct.

So assuming that all the other strategies are in place and we have balanced the budget and we're not looking at a structural deficit, then NCAP can choose.

Let's say that they're getting six million dollars again, not this cycle, but the next cycle.

They can say, for example, half of it is going to go to fund the priority projects that were defunded, and half of it are going to be new projects.

So that's a conversation we can have.

There's different options, right?

So they could choose to uh to prioritize uh those frozen projects.

There could also be as part of the NCIP's project review process, look at existing proposals or new proposals as well as frozen projects, and then identify what mix it would like to have.

So there's nothing set in stone necessarily in terms of the formula, but uh there's flexibility to go back to those projects and pull from them and refund them.

I'd like to hear more from NCIP when they start talking about their thoughts on that.

Thank you.

Yeah, I want to go back to a little bit of uh the primer that was started by um Gino on the timing of the cycle of this next project, this next process that we're we're we're doing in 2026.

So that the schedule changed a bit.

Um I think your answer was under alternative two that that would move forward as scheduled.

Yes, under alternative two or alternative four, which still maintains the cycle.

Um we did skip two meetings because we were waiting for this meeting before we had another NCAP meeting so that we could have direction.

Um, and then so we are probably, and I don't know, Reggie and Parker can help me.

Um, I think we're about one or two meetings behind, but that wouldn't be too hard to catch up, and we are able to continue um to try and stay to the schedule that we first um proposed, which is again a different schedule than we had last year.

Right.

So remind me on the schedule that we're looking at for 2026.

Those projects would be recommended, voted on, finalized, and would come to the city council in our first session where we are looking at the budget.

Is that correct?

Reggie, do you have the schedule?

Sorry, I'm gonna call a friend.

I I believe we wanted to time it so that it was closer to to the budget.

Thank you, Red.

Right.

Um, yes.

Um, so what we had plan was that we would meet throughout the fall, vote in November, and then uh go to parks and rec commission, plan and commission, and come to city council in April of 26.

So I I mean, I think there is time in the schedule to make up the missed meetings to maintain the uh April 2026 uh presentation to city council.

Okay, so I just wanted to highlight that a alternative two is not changing the cycle of 2026 in CIP process.

And I know that there's some meetings to you know hyper speed get to it and and be able to get to that April, but it would be in alignment with the council review of the budget.

That was the goal, yes.

Okay, so that's the goal, and and alternative two does not change that cycle.

Okay, thank you.

Uh I want to just say thank you for everybody coming.

I know we're gonna get into some detail and look forward to hearing uh all of your comments as well, because there are more questions coming from me after I hear from you, and as we look at our alternatives, we know that we are we are also in a collaborative effort, and we appreciate the fact that you've all had many conversations among yourselves, and maybe not enough time for formalized meetings as well.

So we'll we'll get there and it's one step at a time.

And the other thing I was gonna say is that um we we have nothing that is laying in front of us other than the decisions the council's gone through until we get to a vote for the 2026-2027 budget.

So I just wanted to echo that we're always talking about the 2026-27 budget deficit, not this year's budget.

And I've had a couple of questions this week.

So I just want to highlight that this is the conversation leading up to, and we're we're kind of a we're ahead of schedule, but we're we're really the schedules are not very long to be able to provide direction to staff so that they can do that.

So I just wanted to highlight that we are talking, in fact, about next year's budget.

Mayor, that's the only thing I have right now.

Um thank you.

So just to make sure I understand in our economic uncertainty fund, we have 24.1 million.

And the harder number in all our reserves, there's another 14 million, and that's including six million of six million, five million, five million in change for the pension liability reserve, which for some reason I don't consider a reserve that I can be touched.

Probably I shouldn't think of any of them as that they can be touched, but the sports center, technology infrastructure, facility facilities, public safety facility, maintenance reserve, library, that's another nine million round figures.4.

Well, the total those all total to 14.4.

Yeah.

Okay.

I'm sorry, could you say that number again?

It's 14 million, 394, 239.

And that's with five million on the five million in change on the pension.

Yep.

Yeah, okay.

And what is a typical year's general fund contribution to CIP on a typical year?

We have planned 2.5 million.

Um, we haven't been able to make well, we didn't do that this past year, but typically we try and do 2.5 a minimum.

I've got a middle.

And yeah, go ahead, Andrea.

If I don't mind, um and and even the 2.5 is is not enough for all the needs that that we have on our facilities.

Yeah.

I think there was an estimate we shared with council a while back.

The typical city allocates what percentage of general fund to CIP.

I want to say it's about 13 to 25 percent.

That's right.

So it's just just an example of uh the investment, the general fund dollars typically go into a California for and under project two.

The let's see the freeze.

The freeze, I think you said, but I may have misunderstood that with the freeze, there would even be no fuel reduction for a million dollars.

But we already took that.

So with alternative two, the future fuel reduction would still be on a table.

So alternative two maintains any project that's currently funding and in progress, hopefully.

Um, and we would also maintain the fuel reduction for the next cycle.

But under alternative two, because it's already in progress.

In fact, they've already got the money.

So we went early.

Thank you for that question because maybe I I need to clarify that our alternative two would freeze only select project.

Right, right.

Not not all the projects.

Okay.

Right.

And switching to other options.

If we implemented the attrition of 20 positions, I did the math, and it's not 15, it's 20 positions.

So let's call it what it is.

Um, my understanding is that would not include fire department and police department.

I I think I was told that in one of these meetings, but I'm I'm not sure why it wouldn't.

So I need clarification.

Yes, the attrition solution, which is one of the structural deficit strategy cards referred it, it doesn't identify specific positions, just uh it's a matter of depending on who leaves the organization through either retirement or uh a resignation to go on to another organization, uh, whatever those options might look like, we would look at each position that's vacant and determine whether or not we want to not fill the position and use that salary savings as attrition.

It uh we haven't gone to the detailed discussion of which positions we would fill, which ones we wouldn't.

It's one of the options, one of the strategies, but it's a harder, it's a harder one because we do have staff that are already uh very lean uh and we have uh we have staffing challenges because of uh the workload.

So uh we do know there's going to be a direct impact if we do use that uh option on there would be a direct impact on service delivery and uh morale in the organization.

Okay, those are my questions.

Thank you.

Great questions.

Okay, and I have no questions for now.

Um so I'll open it up to the NCIP committee.

Are there any questions at this point?

So the pandemic and we defunded the NCIP projects.

I believe the city attorney said that we had to bring them back and they we had to do it for two or three years.

If we're only freezing the projects, does that mean they all have to come back and they all have to get refunded?

Or can the NCIP committee vote on funding certain ones through the next several years?

See the difference what I'm I'm sorry, I'm not quite following.

Could you during the pandemic?

We defunded all most of the projects, right?

Few were left on the next year.

We left those projects available.

They came back into NCIP and we voted on them.

And we did that for three years, right?

Three years.

No, so um so we can have some drop off.

Yes, I mean, so the council has the discretion to um freeze, which means the project stays alive, was a recommended and approved, just waiting for the money to come.

That's one option.

The second option is the city council could say um we're deciding to um close this project or cancel it, defund it, the money would go back to the NCIP.

Um, our recommendation yes, and then and then the NCIP always has the purview to recommend projects for approval, and sometimes you even recommend projects to um be canceled or closed or modified on occasion.

So does that answer?

Yep.

Um, some two questions that are similar to that.

So one is a clarification of the difference between alternative one and alternative two.

It seems to me, and I mean let me get it is that alternative one status quo includes all of the projects that you listed that got put in to address the city's deficit.

So it's already there in alternative one.

Those projects would still be in there.

So the difference between one and two is freezing some of past projects in order to have more funding to solve the deficit.

Is that correct?

And then I have a question after that.

Yeah.

Thank you for the question.

So alternative one means it's status quo.

So it means that the city council would have to make different choices and find the immediate solution for the deficit.

So the NCIP would maintain all of the projects, all the 17 million dollars in projects and the current cycle.

So there would go there would be no money available under alternative one for uh solving the structural deficit.

Am I missing the I thought the things we talked about at the beginning of the projects that were put in targeting some of the um uh infrastructure projects of those would still be in the NCIP's project portfolio to review.

Yes.

So so the NCIP, so alternative two, um, I just want to make it clear that it's it's freezing selected projects that the NCIP would select, right?

It is not freezing all of the projects that are in the backlog, but it would be freezing select projects and then bringing that dollar amount to council to recommend for defunding and freezing funding at a subsequent date.

Right, but just for clarity, my first assumption was correct, right?

That still those the status quo of alternative one includes a lot of um I forget how many there were.

I didn't write it down, right?

But there were a number of uh capital improvement projects that were really important to the city.

I personally agree with.

I'm not questioning them.

I I support that right on.

Um so then when we get to freezing projects, I have a similar question to the prior one is so now we have a group of new projects that have come in from 25-26, and we've frozen from projects that were somewhere between 2021 and 2025.

Um, some of which have already been frozen, and so now we're at a refreeze.

Food's never good when you're freeze it twice, you know.

So um there be um a priority for unfreezing projects.

Uh you know, the the creates a lack of competition for those that came in later than the ones that were now wanting to freeze, not the capital improvement projects, but other projects that are coming in because that's the plan, but they're coming in over projects that have already been in the cycle for for years.

So those are that's my question.

Could I just uh ask some clarity?

There my understanding is that there's no currently frozen projects.

The the NCIP had already considered unfreezing or reconsidering those projects that were defunded during the pandemic.

So those have already been brought back into the program.

I think the question that maybe you're more getting to is how do we prioritize those projects that may have currently been fro frozen or taken off defunded and then potent the potential for them to be frozen again this time.

And I think that's gonna be something for us to discuss.

I don't think that we have to solve that today and now um, but I think that would be a charge to the NCIP to determine how you all want to move forward with that.

Good.

But that's a concern, obviously.

Okay.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Any other questions from the NCIP?

Yeah, yeah.

I guess two questions here.

Um, you know, that it was good to kind of like see all the information night.

So thank you for preparing all the materials.

Um, one thought I had coming to this meeting was you know, we're providing a stopgap solution this year by you know taking dollars from NCIP and kind of uh you know, supporting the city to continue operations, which I think everyone in this room is generally you know in favor of.

Um, but at the same time, like looking forward, um, Nat, you kind of provided some, you know, information on you know chilling or freezing positions and hiring.

And you know, like what's what's to say like we're gonna not gonna be in this position next year, you know, kind of considering that outlook and planning.

Like I know that there's a lot of work to kind of go into planning to this year too, um, and that partially there's uncertainty that kind of contributes to us being in this situation and the reason why we're in the room here tonight.

So I guess, you know, more bluntly, you know, it's like what would like what's the like how how how confident are you that we're not gonna be kind of revisiting this like next year and then the year after that?

Please great question.

And we may be in this same position next year.

It depends on how we're what we're trying to address very candidly right now is the 2026-27 budget.

Uh we know we don't have new revenues coming in.

We want to be mindful as you stated, of reducing staffing and service delivery.

And uh that's why next week uh we'll be here in council chambers again a week from tomorrow to uh talk about other deficit reduction strategies.

We want to be able to get to the 10 million dollar goal on an annual basis.

And so uh once we fix 26-27, we can then add up the dollars on what does the sales tax measure look like if it gets passed.

Uh, do we have other options?

Do we want to pursue a parking tax in June and not wait until the until the fall?

Uh there are a number of other options, uh, but it is hard to get to the 10 million dollar number.

Uh I'll be I'll be honest.

Uh and that's why we look we're looking at all options on the table.

And it's uh a continued community conversation on what that looks like and what expectations are of the community as well as the appetite for revenue generation.

We all know uh there's been some uh pushback on uh the and my one right but not unified school district, for example, because of property tax uh increases over the last couple of uh couple of weeks.

So these are some of the things we're we're gonna figure out.

We at the last city council meeting authorized a FM3, a public polling company to gauge voter support for various tax measures, and we hope to have the results of that survey to for council to review as uh as early as December.

So um these are these are to answer your question.

I we don't have we don't have a magic uh answer uh today, but uh we are we are looking forward to working on it and hope we aren't in the situation where we're back here again a year from now.

Thank you.

Um and then I guess like the second question is more so related to the uh city staff recommendation for alternative two.

I I interpret that it's the recommended pathway just because of the collaboration in this last cycle for the proposed projects and the preference of staff to fund the next cycles projects as opposed to funding prior projects.

Is there any nuance that I'm missing in that?

Because as it relates to the amount of dollars, it seems that you know both have sufficient funds to kind of fill a substantial gap here.

Do you mind kind of commenting on the thought process there again?

Sure.

So if we look at the total number of projects, there are about 87 projects.

And if you look at these projects, there are a lot of uh smaller projects or projects like the pickleball court design.

And again, I'm just going for memory.

I don't have the list in front of me.

And so those projects are sitting there funded.

So there's an opportunity to maybe get um the projects that are in the backlog that are not maybe critical right now, but they're still important to folks.

They're still important to the community because you voted, you approved them.

So they're important, but they're not critical, they're not time constrained.

And so maybe those projects can be deferred where um this next cycle has projects that if we don't fix fire station 13.

I mean, there are other more critical things that are that are we're looking ahead.

So I think it has to do with the backlog is going to be there, even though we have consultants and we have Reggie working on it.

And so let's maybe focus right now on projects that we can move on quicker, like the fire station hilltop fuel reduction, and maybe some of the projects that are in the backlog that might not be as quick.

Um they might be something that whether you freeze them or they remain in the backlog, you probably wouldn't see them completed for another couple of years anyway.

So I think that that was the rationale between but for alternative two.

Any other questions from NCIP committee?

So for I understand the financial ramifications of uh alternative three where we skip a cycle, that's the 6.1 million.

Um, for alternative two, the freeze projects.

Um I mean, if I look at what's in pro or you know, not started or um it's more like eight and a half, I think.

So is there some sort of cap on that?

Is there some sort of dollar amount that we would be working with of what gets frozen or where what NCIP can do to fill that gap?

Um, how how does that that amount get decided in alternative two?

I think this is part of the discussion for the joint meeting and then the second agenda item as well.

Okay.

Not seeing any other questions, we'll go ahead and open it up for public comment.

So just for folks' awareness, what we'll do is we'll identify the folks at the beginning of the public comment period.

Once those folks are identified, we'll close off the opportunity for folks to be able to speak during public comment.

Um, so I'll check in with folks on Zoom.

For folks on Zoom, we can use the raise hand function while you're navigating your way there.

I will check in the chamber.

Anybody in the chamber wish to speak on this item, just ask that you stand up to the left of the podium.

Or if you'd like to remain seated, I can have you raise your hand.

I see five in the chamber.

Anybody else that's still seating that wants to speak on this item?

Okay, so we'll go ahead and cut it off.

Oh, six.

Okay.

So we'll go ahead and cut off to the six um that are standing in the chamber.

And I'll do a countdown for folks on Zoom to five, four, three, two, one.

And there's also six on Zoom.

We're gonna go ahead and limit it to two minutes because we have some discussion to get through here before we end our council meeting.

So we'll go ahead and start in the chamber, please.

Hi, my name is Steve.

Um, first, thank you guys for running the city and doing the NCIP.

Um, it's often thankless work and people ask more often for news services, and then when they're willing to give them up.

So thanks for addressing this.

I know it's very hard.

I've signed up for city emails to say informed about the city and neighborhood issues.

My house is in the Kona neighborhood.

Um recently I saw information about the city's deficit and how there are three options.

I see four here though.

Um, I agree with the city staff that option two is uh the best that I understand.

I've read all the material about it that was online.

Uh, but I'd like to say that I understand the council gets the final say to appropriate NCIP money.

So my purpose in attending is to make clear that new language to appropriate must also include solutions to fix the problems that have led to the deficit, not just continually using NCIP TOT money.

The language should also have oversight and yearly termination.

So it's like this isn't getting pushed down the line.

That is like we'll we do our best for this year, and then um stop and and look again next year.

It's like, oh, we'll just roll over, we'll keep doing it, keep doing it, keep doing it.

Because if we keep doing it, then nobody has any purpose for doing what we're doing.

And I'll tell you, I'm originally from San Jose.

They don't do this.

I'm very happy and delighted to be living here.

Um, that we have the uh uh the wonderful neighborhoods that's been explained to me.

Oh, that was NCIP.

Wow.

And if more people understood that around here, I think that we'd have more uh participation and an understanding of where the city council and CIP has to go.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome aboard, Steve.

Good evening, Mayor Williamson and council members.

I want to acknowledge the hard work that the NCIP committee has done over the years for our 15 distinct neighborhoods.

Your intimate knowledge of needs in their own neighborhoods benefit citizens throughout the city of Monterey via individual NCIP projects.

Without NCIP, many of these projects could not be funded.

I have concerns that the second agenda item tonight assumes that the city will be taking NCIP funds, since it states what is the range of NCIP funding needed to address the 10 million dollar deficit, as well as how this council would prefer projects to be prioritized.

This statement shows the council's goal is to remove control from the citizens in the neighborhoods and to place these funds in the hands of the council.

NCIP has previously worked with the city, providing urgently needed funding for critical infrastructure projects due to the shortage in the city's general fund.

Why does the council feel that NCIP would not do this moving forward?

I just want to make clear that all NCIP projects benefit the city's residents.

None of the NCIP funds are being used to buy champagne for the next block party.

I understand that the def the deficit that the city faces.

However, there have been discussions of other viable sources of funding to address this deficit without using NCIP as a backup slush fund every time the city faces a fiscal emergency.

If NCIP funding is used for city infrastructure in place of general funds, and NCIP is collaborating with the city to prioritize safety concerns, it appears then that the council is just shuffling the decks on the chairs of the Titanic.

And this does not solve the deficit problem.

Asking for NCIP funds places the burden on the NCIP committee to rescue the city from its current financial crisis.

I urge the council to review your discussions on all the funding sources available for you to eliminate the deficit.

Thank you.

Good evening.

First, I'd like to say I think it's a little insulting to only have two minutes to comment.

If you'd allow three minutes, so it'll only take 12 more minutes.

We've already been here over an hour.

I don't think 12 more minutes out of this meeting would be terribly harmful.

I want to start with uh section 6.6 of the city code, the city charter rather, that says that by four-fifths vote, the city council can take the money.

Why don't we start with that vote rather than waste everybody's time?

You five people on the council can make that decision and then direct the NIP committee to tell them this is what we think we need for fiscal year 27.

Right now I'm a little bit confused.

I think we're talking about fiscal year 26 still for the NIP to that's what they're currently considering.

We're almost we're almost four months into this fiscal year.

So in a way, skipping a cycle isn't a big deal.

It's only eight more months.

I mean, you've we've already been twiddling our thumbs here and wasting time.

In the staff report, there's a recommendation that's hidden amongst the fiscal implications.

I don't agree with the recommendation in the staff report.

I won't waste my time reading that to you, but I do more or less agree with the recommendation in the second staff report, which doesn't agree with this recommendation.

Um I'm a little confused about this freezing.

I think that's gonna be confusing to the NIP committee.

I think the NIP committee should look through their projects that are already been funded.

If there are strange projects like ladders to the moon, and those should be defunded, then so be it.

They can come back with a recommendation to you for a clean defunding, defund it, return the money to the NIP fund, not this purgatory sense that well, it's it's still on the books, but it's not funded, and then we're going to demand that you consider that next year and for years to add infinite item until they they just kind of wait there on the books to be considered.

Um I would agree with alternative three or alternative four.

Thank you for my two minutes.

Good evening.

My name is Uv from New Monterey.

Um, in recent years, we have seen proposals such as the pickerball court construction, bike repair stations, and the Casa Verde Highway underpass mural.

While these projects may have merit, they do not address the broader or more urgent needs of our neighborhoods and our city as a whole.

I urge the NS NCIP committee to direct its limited resources to its priorities that surely strengthen our city's foundation and improve the life of all residents.

Our funding decision should reflect the essential needs of the entire community, not just individuals or recreational interests.

We should also be mindful not to give the impression that our neighborhoods have access to T funds available, and we are just looking for ways to spend it.

Let's work together with the city staff and protect the NCIP program and ensure that our share of neighborhood funding remains in place for the benefits of all.

Furthermore, I like to draw your attention that the language of our NCIP ordinances and resolutions appear outdated and are in need of review.

The most important 30 years ago is not necessarily what our neighborhoods need today.

The term capital improvement should be broadened to include services so that future projects can respond to modern community needs, such as such as enhanced police and or private security patrols at night, which are currently excluded under existing NCIP guidelines to reduce reserves or annual and also the annual contribution of reserves.

It's the kiss of death.

I can't believe I hear this even.

You should never consider that.

Reserves are reason for are there for a reason.

And I'm for the hybrid uh alternative number four.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Christian Schmidt, Casanova Oaknolls resident.

Quick question.

Um, we're talking about budget funding.

What percentage of our budget is funded by the federal government?

And if there is a percentage, what's the total amount per year?

I'm curious.

That's it.

Good evening.

My name's Ryan Heron.

I am the assistant business manager of Lyuna Local 792 and the union representative for the general employees of Monterey.

Uh appearing here tonight, just to urge the council to do whatever it takes to avoid having to reduce staff.

You know, I know the specter of that was raised earlier.

If uh you know the appropriate action isn't taken, uh layoffs could be a pet a potential.

And that is just something that really I want to urge the council to understand is something that is not really tenable, not something that uh really the city can can tolerate.

The projects here that we're talking about tonight are all great projects, all worthy projects, but none of those projects are run by themselves.

They're run by staff, right?

They they require staffing.

Uh you the sports center doesn't operate on its own.

The parks department and recreation department doesn't operate on its own.

These projects require staff to continue to maintain uh the city uh infrastructure, uh to run the services, the recreation uh services, the sports center, the library.

Uh, you know, none of these things are going to operate and and work on their own.

They require city staff.

So I strongly urge the council to do whatever it takes to ensure that we do not wind up in a situation where cutting of staff is on the table.

So thank you.

Okay, with that, we'll go to our callers on Zoom.

Calling first on Hans Yannish.

Hello, can you hear me?

Okay.

Hello, can you hear me?

Hans, we can't hear you.

Oh I clicked on mute.

My microphone is working.

I get the little green bars.

We can we can't hear Hans.

Um okay.

Hans, I'm going to try the next speaker and come back to you.

Sorry about this.

Okay, I'm trying with Lori.

Lori, if you could unmute, please and go ahead.

Can you guys hear me?

Can you hear me?

No, we're having trouble with sounds here.

Um hold on, hold on a moment, please.

I think it's trying to do here is a jury windows and use Andreas' laptop.

And see if we can file Johnish.

Can you hear me now?

Hello.

Hello, hello.

Hello, hello.

Can okay, if you can hear me.

I don't hear anything from you.

My microphone is working.

Somebody wishes to the city clerks.

All I hear is green, green, green, green.

Please stop.

Okay, I hear echoing.

I'm assuming that you can hear me okay.

So good evening from Woods Hole, Massachusetts.

I'm Hans Yanish, and this is the village that I grew up in.

For those of you in Marine Science, you'll know that Monterey, with all its ocean-related institutions, is often referred to as Woodshole of the West.

Anyway, I'm calling tonight regarding NCIP.

I'm in the NCIP rep for Monterey Vista, and I'd like to address three issues tonight as a guest.

First of all, regarding the six million dollars in new funding.

I see this as a left pocket, right pocket issue.

The city requested five million dollars in projects that I believe most of NCIP understands as critical and would likely get strong support.

Thus, taking these funds from NCIP will just shuffle money from the from one pocket to another for the same needs in the end.

Second, regarding the already funded projects, cutting out funded funded projects without discussing with the original submitters, many of which worked hard with their neighbors, some both before and after the pandemic was significantly to depress the morale and trust among our residents.

I would suggest the city council request.

I'm sorry, uh Hans.

You know, we just realized um committee and you uh we don't have you on the teleconference.

You're not probably brought after a lot to comment on this item.

I'm really sorry, even as a public thing.

No, yeah, just explain further.

I think you said it.

Hans, if you would like the um I think the council would appreciate receiving your comments, and we can make sure that those are included in the public record.

They are if you have read yet them, they are in there.

Okay, thank you.

Good evening, all um just to let you know there's no clock running, so I can't see anything of that.

Um, but I'm here to urge you not to raid the NCIP fund to cover the city's 10 million dollar structural deficit.

That program isn't a slush fund, it's a voter promise written into our city charter.

16 percent of hotel tax revenues dedicated to the people for neighborhood and community improvements.

That commitment built trust between residents and city hall, trust that our leaders would protect neighborhood and reinvest it, not divert it.

And this move is eroding it, and I do feel like it's setting a precedent.

And not even said we may be in this position next year.

That doesn't make me feel very confident in this situation.

So let's be clear this deficit didn't appear overnight.

It's a result of choices, rising costs, new programs, and delayed structural fixes.

Residents shouldn't be now asked to pay for those choices by sacrificing the one program that directly benefits every neighborhood.

If the city needs bridge funding, start with reserves.

That's why they're there.

Pause these nice to have programs like the COVID era, rental assistance subsidies, prioritize core services, not new spending, but do not break the faith with the voters by sweeping six million or any amount of millions of dollars from NCIP into the general fund.

Our neighborhoods are the backbone of Monterey, and NCIP is the people's program, not the city's piggy bank.

And this NCIP has been very good to co cooperate with the city over the years and fund things that are needed.

And if they do that, I think NCIP should go on as they normally do when they're going to fund X number of a million dollars uh for the city this year, as they have always in the past, and then they should be able to have the remainder in their fund because it's our fund.

That's our promise.

Please protect it.

Thank you.

Can you try that?

Hi, my name is Phil Bazuska, and I'm vice president of Monterey Firefighters Local 3707.

Our labor union represents roughly 75 men and women who work in the fire stations in Monterey, Carmel, Pacific Grove, and the Monterey Airport.

I want to extend our appreciation for city staff for taking the initiative to host this discussion to the city council for their dedication to finding solutions and to the NCIP committee for being probably the most civically engaged citizens on the Monterey Peninsula.

Over the years, the NCIP has funded numerous projects for the fire department.

Most recently the rehabilitation of Fire Station 12, which is set to begin soon.

Your firefighters know that we are just one cog and the city's big machine.

We are grateful to you for your commitment to maintaining our facilities and service as the city faces both a budget deficit and looming infrastructure needs.

The Monterey Firefighters Association encourages council and the NCIP to consider the alternatives proposed in the staff report, which appropriate NCIP funds to the general fund in order to maintain ordinary city functions and pay for critical infrastructure projects.

Even though it may be challenging to agree on a path forward, we greatly appreciate everyone's commitment to bettering our great city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

It will also be finish.

Hello, good evening.

Well, there's feedback here, but I'll keep going.

Okay.

So let me start talking again.

Can you hear me?

Okay, my name's Elizabeth Yanish.

I'm here this evening to, of course, support NCIP.

I don't think this is the responsibility that they have to our community.

Um I know I could talk about stewardship, but I don't have time in two minutes.

But I do believe it is the backbone of our community, and that people who volunteer in service, like those that are volunteering for NCIP, are doing the city an invaluable service.

So I would say that parts of what I wrote were excerpt this more at the beginning of the meeting here.

But I want to say that when uh community stewardship, which I believe in, partners with city staff and council, it fulfills I underscore an independent vital role and responsibility by contributing the direct experience they have and knowledge with neighborhood specific issues that help you govern the rest of the city.

So while we're experiencing a shortfall in funds, balancing the city budget this year, it would be easy, easy to set a precedent and vote to take money from NCIP as a solution for this problem.

But this would be a reactionary solution, I say for a long-standing fiduciary problem that they are not the source of.

And uh would probably need to be addressed annually.

So such a precedent risks cutting the roots of the stewardship in our community and the connection this group has with city partnership.

I urge my council members to do not underestimate the importance of the role NCIP serves in our community.

You won't find a monetary value assigned for the positive impact these program volunteers contribute to our community.

And make no mistake that a vote that diminishes the role of and subtracts funds from this program will diminish the role of and subtract from the value you place on community stewardship and the voice of your constituents.

Thank you.

Hi, uh, my name's Marcia Moreau.

I'm um uh resident of New Monterey and also um member of the Monterey uh Public Library Board of Trustees.

Um we all know what the library means to this community, and I will take the time to tell you because you already know.

Uh but I yeah um I've I'll just use a quote that says uh the library is kind of the soul of the community.

Um so whatever you decide tonight, uh please know the library has critical infrastructure needs that have to be addressed, including ADA compliance and safety issues, accessibility, restrooms, power, and other systems.

The city engineer did an assessment of the library's repair needs and the associated costs, and the list is long.

Um my concern is if the city assumes NCIP will fund it, and NCIP assumes the city will fund it, uh, those needs might fall through the cracks.

So I just want to urge you when you consider a solution, make sure that the library's needs fall onto somebody's plate.

Thank you.

Thank you, Marcia.

Next caller is Esther Mount.

Esther.

Good evening.

I think you need to start the clock again.

So I want to just start out saying that I agree with previous comments made that there should absolutely be no staff cuts.

And that the program absolutely needs updating given its age, and we are in a different century and different times with different needs.

Um I think everybody needs to accept that we are all in this together, and that the budget problem didn't happen overnight.

The solution's not going to happen overnight.

And we need to address this in a less contentious and territorial way.

The money that the city gets from TOT and taxes and everywhere else is money that we all need to function to have our city remain the lovely place that it is to live in and to continue to have the extraordinary services and staff that we have.

And we have to fund that regardless of where it comes from.

NCIP is a great project, and it's a great way for community engagement.

But this this territorial possession of those funds when it comes a time that the city needs other funding through no fault whatsoever of this council and staff's uh you know, situation.

We have to find a way to address this in a more community fashion.

You know, some of these comments that are territorial, we've got to, we want to have NCIP projects.

We want the city to function.

We need the city staff for all of those things to happen.

To try and make this seem like NCIP owns this money and it should never have any changes to it.

It's just not sustainable in this century, and it is not community-minded.

That concludes public comment and uh behalf of staff.

We apologize for the technical uh issues with that means just one example of each infrastructure and uh services.

It is on the way.

You know, just the last thing we want is to have a technical issue in the middle of council, but it is a project we're looking at all labor for the IT uh with that.

Well, I know that we have um funding set aside for some work to be done in the chamber here.

So this isn't disperse and that something like this is happening, which is three sheetings with public being patient with this as we now leave this.

All right, with that one bring back to council and CIP.

Um, why don't we go ahead and start with the NCIP for um comments on the item?

So first off, I want to thank uh the city council, city staff, uh my fellow NCIP committee members and the general public for being here uh tonight.

My hope is that uh for tonight we end up having a clear direction on how to move board with our NCIP process.

Um, as Andrea mentioned, we have postpones the meetings in anticipation of this meeting, just so everybody's on the same page as we move forward with our process.

Um, and it's already been noted that as a committee we haven't really had the opportunity to discuss and form a consensus.

Um so I can really only speak for myself, uh reviewing uh this the alternative options that were presented.

Um you think option two uh to maintain the current funding and brings a specific dollar amount, which I um assuming is going to be determined later um of uh the current bath level projects uh don't address is the the best of the options that have been presented.

I do think that this represents compromise and part of compromise is acknowledging that not everyone's gonna be happy.

But it is a way that we can all record um as a uh community.

Um it also allows for the NCAA committee uh to get new removal input uh when we are looking at those projects that uh we are selecting uh to be uh frozen.

Um so again, I look forward to being able to move the NCIP process along.

Uh and I'm really um looking forward to hear what my fellow committee members uh have to say as well.

Good evening.

I'm uh glad to be here with everybody, glad to see everyone.

Um yes, I have to eat the microphone because I'm a low talker.

I think Raphael and I have that in common.

Just some some common bonding there.

Uh I think what we need from city council is to remand to NCIP uh option two or alternative two for NCIP to come back with funding to assist in the shortfall with the city council telling us what specific dollar amount are we looking for so that we can go back with that in mind.

And that's what I'd like to see come out of this meeting.

Um I think that in our review of projects and the projects that haven't been worked on, we may find projects that we're going to recommend defunding.

Which those funds will be clearly available to the city.

We may freeze projects because we find value in the project and the work that has been done.

The the former could be projects that were recommended some time ago and a period of time has passed, and thus are no longer projects that are worth doing.

Uh I think the committee needs to do that review to have a diligent process to understand whether or not we are holding up funds for future viable economic use.

Uh my understanding is in getting to this budget, there was basically across the board a seven percent budget cut.

The amount of funds that we're looking at across the NCIP is 17 million dollars, 7% is 1.19 million dollars.

So if we were to do as our brother departments have done, the ask would be one point one point one nine million.

I would like to see, and this is up to city council to do, I would like to see whatever we do from NCIP, a matching amount comes out of the fund for economic uncertainty because when we looked at all of the tax increases, et cetera, that were picked up in the voting cards, we'd have an extra three million in the outgoing years to be able to fund that back into the economic contingency.

So, in the spirit of cooperation, I'd like to see whatever target we have, the economic uncertainty fund kicks in as well.

Um I agree that we do not control whether or not we'll be back here again because we cannot control the voters and whether or not they'll decide to vote on those tax increase measures that are necessary to be able to raise the funds that we've talked about in the cards so far.

So we could be back here again, but hopefully we can all work together to get the city where it needs to be really quick.

I um um there was a question that came out during public comment, and I and I meant to ask staff about this.

There was a question around how much federal funding.

Um I'm just not sure if staff is in a space tonight to be able to answer that, but I just wanted to provide that opportunity.

I do not have that number um off the top of my hand, but I can um research it.

Okay.

I can check I can share it more broadly too.

That it's it's very little.

Uh the grants that we receive are limited to specific projects throughout the year.

We are applying for a protect grant for uh the wharf.

We have uh very little federal funding that comes in.

Most of the grant funding that comes in is from the state of California, not the federal government.

And uh the little federal money that we do have is uh contracts that we receive through the Department of Defense to provide public work services at the Presidio of Monterey at the Defense Language Institute.

So it's a direct service fee for service, not revenue to provide uh to provide services.

So all of our police fire ongoing uh services for parks, the general fund dollars are not funded by the federal government.

Um we do have some CDBG funding that comes in, the community development block grant, those are specifically for housing programs.

They're designated separately, not uh, and and so uh the the short uh answer to the question is we we do not rely on federal funding uh or as a city of Monterey.

Can I ask a quick follow-up question to that?

Um so with the shutdown right now, how is that impacting our situation with their contract?

It's yeah, Audrey can explain it in greater detail.

That's a great question.

So we have pivoted very quickly.

So we have a number of CIP projects that are funded.

So most of our workforce is actually um has been reassigned to those projects that are funded.

And also uh we have some crafts workers working uh for parking funds, and so we're trying to do our best to keep our folks working and uh not burn burdening further burdening the general fund.

And is there a risk that that funding um I guess I don't know how to ask this question?

Um the timeliness might cause us to well, I guess there's that I I think that's part of it, but also right if we're burdening that cost on the city's general funds.

Um I guess when does it start to become alarming for staff as it relates to the shutdown?

So there is some work, emergency work that's still allowed.

Uh they're still on call that's still allowed.

Camp Roberts um is business as usual.

And so some of those um folks that we have reassigned, uh, they all have they're not per se burning the general burning the general fund.

They are in um projects that either either have Tide Lens funds already appropriated, um, they have parking funds that are that they're working on.

So we have a bit of a runway, and we've already um, you know, we're discussing how else can we uh make sure that we're having these folks stay busy, do work, get paid, and uh minimize any impact of the general fund.

But of course, we don't know how long this is gonna be.

And there are some impacts on we we do try, as Andrea mentioned, to reduce general fund impacts, but uh there are a few staff, for example, administrative assistants that uh we're temporarily assigning to the library department and city clerk's office.

We're able to do that because of existing vacancies, but it does reduce now the vacancy savings that we've been accustomed to in those departments as a result.

But again, we're trying to minimize it and we're we're going through the analysis.

Hopefully, the shutdown ends sooner than later.

And uh, we're certainly hopeful for that, but we are planning for the future.

Okay.

Okay.

I am um being notified that there's some issues with audio and visual on Zoom.

So I'm not sure if we can take a moment to try to get that clarified, test that out.

Yeah, we'll we'll we'll check on that.

Um, sometimes we do have usually we're notified when there are Zoom issues from multiple staff.

Okay.

Uh, but um I have a report from a staff member that uh they're on Zoom and there are no issues, so it may be a result of a connection issue with that individual.

Okay, could we just double check with them that there's been zero issues at all or just currently zero issues?

Because it looks like it's I'm getting messages that's on and off.

Um, and then just a quick question, Chrissy.

If we continue to have issues, can we proceed?

Because we're notifying the public that they can participate via Zoom.

Yeah, and I think there hasn't been a full disconnect, but let's get confirmation on the facts and I'll double check the law real quick and then let you guys know.

Okay, that should take a moment here.

I apologize for the delay.

It looks like there was maybe a very little audio feedback with a laptop, a laptop echo earlier.

Yep, but um minimal and uh strong connection from at least uh the staff member I've been communicating with who's joining remotely.

Okay, yeah, I'm getting a couple of messages here that we're we're back to being good.

So um we'll circle back around that if we need to.

Yeah, um, why don't we go ahead and continue with NCIP comments?

Who wants to take over now?

That's what I get for being the last one in.

Um actually I'm gonna stand.

So good evening, uh, city council and mayor, and uh I just want to say thank you to the city team for their support of NIP and CIP.

I really appreciate it.

Uh Jamie Fields Del Mounty Beach.

Um, so I want to twist this a little bit, different perspective and and say keep it simple.

Um you can tell by the questions that what was proposed tonight is a little complex for folks.

Um therefore I cannot recommend alternative two defunding.

Taking the money from already approved projects is taking money outside the normal payment cycle when the public is not engaged with it.

This misleads them into believing that their needs have been met when they haven't.

Defunding also wastes public funds.

Once existing projects are deferred, they must be reassessed when they're picked up again.

Time and money that has been spent on those is lost.

That's that's designing, engineering, all those things can have an impact when they're delayed.

But I think the biggest thing I want to point out is that it feels like the city staff get to pick and choose what project they like.

Now, NIP is going to go back and it's going to come back with recommendation, but it doesn't feel like NIP really gets to be the one that's deciding.

Um and those projects are really important.

We went through a big vetting process.

I can tell you about the broken arms and the broken teeth on some of these.

And I'm not sure that that's going to be considered.

Alternative number two allows the city to reach back into our historic ones and take the money it wants.

And it also allows uh the city to go forward and take money.

Uh what we heard today specifically was preserve funding for those future projects that are important.

And the assumption is then that all the ones that didn't get preserved weren't important.

And I think that's that's a big deal for us as a committee to think about.

So instead, I'm recommending alternative three, which is skipping a cycle.

It saves the most staff time and the most volunteer time.

It doesn't mislead the community into thinking that they have uh projects that are going to be uh considered when they're they may not be considered.

Um CIP is not a fast moving process.

So if there's an emergency or a need that's coming up, uh uh you're not going to be able to get NCIP to fund it anyway.

But but keep in mind the city has 300 million dollars in revenue.

The the the little million dollar emergency or $2 million emergency, it can probably be found in re-examining some of the other reserves or budget assumptions that are inside that $300 million budget.

Um as to the future, it's important to understand that transient occupancy taxes fluctuate.

Uh the city's budget cannot be built to the very top, so that that 2% that we get is what it needs to balance, because that can go away when those fluctuate and harder times are potentially coming with all those new hotels coming online, not in our tax district.

Um so you know, to close us, citizens of Monterey have been participating in this wonderful collaboration for years.

And I think it's really important for that collaboration to be maintained.

But I would say I'd rather not have us take apart the old stuff and then also come back and be asked to redirect the new stuff.

This old stuff's already been set aside once.

We just got it back on the books.

I would say let's keep the old stuff being funded, and let's just skip the whole next cycle.

Can I ask a quick question to staff?

Um based on those comments.

Is the idea if we went with option two is that something that staff is identifying the projects, or would the expectation still be that we go to NCIP to determine which projects those are?

Yeah, we go to NCIP.

Okay.

I'm not sure if that changes any of your comments at all.

So I wanted to open it back up for you to I think there's a strong trend I'm hearing tonight that the NFP NCIP committee needs to prioritize its choices to what the city is asking for.

And so you know, fire fire stations are what we're being asked to fund.

So even though technically we're gonna get to choose, I'm not sure how much we're really gonna get to choose.

You know what I mean?

Like if that gets approved or not.

That makes sense.

If I may engage with you just a little bit, I just want to be able to I think absolutely the city's gonna have a the count the staff is gonna have a position on it that's gonna likely influence the direction that the NCIP goes.

Um but I it's still the NCIP's decision to give a recommendation to the council.

Um I'm not sure if that I mean I guess I understand this staff's influence um to your point.

Um but at the end of the day, I think my assumption before the council really engages in a discussion here is that we're interested in hearing what you all have to say.

So if you all take a different position than that, then I'd I think we'd encourage that.

Well, and that that helps us to feel better about what's being offered because it doesn't when we're being told saving money for what's important, it kind of feels like that's decisions that have already been made or those directions are already charted.

So thank you for that clarification.

Jamie's a tough act to follow.

Um you know, I have I have a little bit of a the I don't know, moral, but but taking money away from projects that have already been through the process and people have put in have been told that this is going to happen.

Um taking that away and then considering new projects that are just coming up seems a little awkward for me.

Um, but the pragmatic side of me understands why that might be necessary because um some of those projects um may not be critical, as you've said, in terms of um uh what's what's really critical and important to all of us.

We all you know, fire stations and those things, we all know that needs to be funded.

So I have a little bit of a quandary there with with doing that, but I understand the practicality of of looking at the old projects um and putting those aside.

I do think that's um uh option two uh puts I think NCIP in a position of evaluating new projects and at the same time we'll have to go back and evaluate all the old projects.

So I think it that's that's a lot on um on our and your plates, but um it um you know it it in times like this, um, it might be necessary.

Um so I think um yeah, there's more discussion on um how how we would go about looking at those older projects and and being fair and equitable to the people um that put so much work into those projects.

Uh likewise, I think if we're going to go back in time and look at those legacy projects, please could we have a process and even a script to go back to the original presenter?

I always thought that's where it has to go back to the original presenter to either defend their project or or listen to their their you know concerns.

So please, you know, consider that because it's probably going to fall on the representatives to go back to the submitters.

So I'd I'd like a script.

I'd like us all to be on the same page singing the same same from the same choir book.

So I can I ask another quick follow-up to that.

Is the idea in what you're meeting with the script is as the as an NCIP or alternate rep for your neighborhood that you would go back to the um project proposal proposers in your neighborhood or have them come to the NCIP committee as part of the process in a public meeting.

That's to be determined, but in the past, if a change was made to a project, it would go back to the submitter to you know agree or or defend the their original proposal.

So I would think that we would still follow those guidelines.

Okay.

If I had to choose right now over the devil in the deep blue sea, I would have to probably personally I go with number two, because at least if we defunded those projects would be approved and we would be able to move forward.

I think at this time, I also think that we need to have our NCP back to us.

Let us work on getting our stuff turned around so that we can move forward and that we can get back on another regular schedule like we used to be.

Right now, we haven't even looked at any of the public weigh in on any of our projects and stuff that we're looking at for the new ones.

So let us have our thing back.

We're the ones in the neighborhood that are representing our neighborhood and the citizens.

We know uh how to work the NCP NCIP.

We know we have to go back to original submitters, but let us have our team back so that we can start doing what we know to do.

Thank you.

So having gone through defunding with the pandemic, a lot of those projects when we defunded them, came back to NCP in CIP, and we refunded them through the vote of the NCIP through the submitters coming and telling us that that.

So by saying they're frozen, that can that same process can happen and they're not going away.

They still can come back in the next year, two years, three years, and can be refunded.

Also a little bit of what Jamie said, either we do option two or we do option one, just take the whole thing away and we'll reconvene next year with a new set of funding, and we'll move on and keep the other ones funded.

So it's kind of up to the council, but I would like to see if you decide option two that it comes back to the NCIP committee, and we are the ones that kind of figure out which ones should be defunded with uh input from staff.

The city has many programs and a big budget, but I think I feel a division between NCIP and the regular uh budgets from the city.

We are part of the same thing.

We are all part of the city.

We are only difference is that we work individually with our neighborhood.

And our neighborhoods are part of the city, and the projects are from our neighborhoods.

It's just to make a more cooperation.

We the people of the city, and I feel a division between NCIP and the city, and we are not separate.

So we need to keep us together, and yeah, let us work on our projects, but still we are part of the city.

The comment that was um more meaningful than others to me was that of those projects not yet started, they're already old.

So if we freeze them and put them on ice, maybe for a year or two, it's really not going to make that much difference, and they can come back to life.

So that gave me some hope that you know we can we can move forward in a collaborative way while freezing a lot of that 7.5 million, knowing that they'll come back to life, you know, be reanimated in the in the future.

So I am for option two, but on the other hand, if the hybrid, if the critical infrastructure projects don't eat up that entire six million, maybe there's some room there for additional money.

As someone who is a public servant for over 25 years, I am not in favor of any option that will result in staff layoff or letting go of staff personnel.

Um as I prepared for this meeting, I read through the agenda and I kept seeing the word collaborative.

And I really do think option two, alternative two is the most collaborative of the all the options presented.

It's the one that seems closest to a win-win solution for our neighbor, our individual neighborhoods as well as the city in general.

Um I don't think it's fair to skip a cycle for all the people who took the time and effort to submit projects.

If we had decided that before we went out to our neighborhoods and our neighbors asking them to really examine what they wanted in our in their neighborhoods or in the city as a whole, we should have done that before we did this project submittals.

If um if that is an option in the future, we need to do it before we go out and ask our neighbors to submit something.

It's false advertising if we've asked them to submit a project, and then we just say, Oh, never mind, we can't do it.

So I do think alternative two is probably the best solution.

Um, it's the one I'm in favor for for all the reasons that Dennis and Shanneri and Kurt and the other people have said, I think it's really the most collaborative of all of them.

And if that's the whole goal, which I think this is this year's cycle has been very collaborative with city council, it would continue that effort.

Um, yeah, I'm I'm afraid I'm gonna be in actually I I really believe that um option three is better, and I want to speak for Hans because I'm the alternate, and I know he um had perhaps a different view, although it wasn't option two, but I'm not gonna speak for him.

Um, he can speak for himself later.

Um I'm not sure that anyone who hasn't lived through the uh pandemic coming and going of projects quite grox the amount of um extra stuff that gets put in the environment by acting like this, like it's okay just to call back money, people will understand, they'll have another chance.

What happens in actuality is people get really discouraged, and all of us lose our credibility.

Um people now, you know, walk by my house in the uh now Sam Burnaby, and they'll say, Oh, and these are not people that were in the original group that signed off on it, these are walkers will say, Hey, how's that project?

And I'll go, well, there's a little blitch again this year.

And it's like, oh, oh yeah, you know, and so I I don't know if other communities experience that or if it's this one project because it's a long path through our neighborhood, but it really has the effect of people thinking NCIP and and the city around NCIP don't have things together.

And I think that's sad.

I too spent 40 years in San Jose, and I know their government very well.

I worked for it, and you would never see this level of community.

You see a lot, they actually are really quite quite and open to that, but not at this level.

I mean, this is something really special, and I think it's easy when a budget comes and it's like, oh my god, what are we gonna do?

I've been there, I've done that myself too, to go.

Well, we'll just take this back.

And I I don't think it's really that easy um when it flows out to all the constituents that now I'm gonna go back to and say, well, you know, it's gonna get frozen, probably, you know, because our project only got the plan developed.

We didn't get the actual construction approved.

So I'm gonna have to explain that.

And the the damage I think is big.

I mean, so I personally would vote for number three as well, because I think you do less damage when you don't say you're gonna do projects, but rather you say, you know, this is a really hard time for the city, and we really need to back them up and we need to put the money where the need is, and next year we will return and we will have uh bring our projects back up.

And meanwhile, I do think that the NCIP has a huge responsibility to meet, not to avoid meeting, and to really walk through those projects and to look at project by project, bring in the people that have put it and evaluate are they doable?

Do the people still want them?

Um, and it will be time consuming, but it's really important if we're going to get to the point of having to cut to have done that and to know that we have built that collaboration with the community.

Mike I'm on the fence between um two and three.

I think that we're all doing what we can to you know work towards a common goal.

I feel like number two, it's gonna be a sticking point between what projects um are going to go through, which ones are going to be frozen, and I feel like it just creates even more of a headache um to think about and more time and trouble, and everybody's already done a lot of work.

I think skipping a cycle is probably the cleanest.

I think that it's easy to just kind of button it up and move on, so to speak, but I don't know.

That's um my opinion.

Um I'm gonna be a little bit of an oddball here and propose the the fourth option.

Um, it's really it maybe I misinterpreted, but the hybrid option to provides the most flexibility.

And in my eyes, I think the flexibility is needed uh to be able to, you know, work together collectively to find the right solution here.

Um, you know, to balance um to Gary's point, to balance, you know, projects from the past versus like a future funded project, you know, that the equity in saying that you know a project that we have yet to decide on recommending to council is valued more than one that we're taking away from the past, um, kind of leads me to this point to recommend path four.

Um, but I you know, I hear that you know, it is a lot of time to go through a funding cycle, and so I understand that as a viable option too.

And you know, I know that option or I guess that was option three, and then option two seems like a you know good solution too, but you know, taking the strengths of both option four seems in my opinion to be the best just to provide the most flexibility.

Okay, um, I'm gonna ask a quick thing just to make sure that we have a better sense before the council at the end here.

So I'm gonna just by a show of hands do a little bit of a straw poll for the NCIP amongst options, options one, two, three, and four.

So option one status quote, option two is um is the freeze three is um skip the cycle, and four is the hybrid.

Did you have a thought?

So my question is can we vote more than once?

I think this is just an I think this is initial straw poll.

And then maybe what we can do is after the council engages in a discussion, maybe we can loop back around and see if if we do it again.

Does that sound fair?

Okay, yes, sir.

Give me one second.

Can I throw it in a clarification?

Yes.

Um on option two, it is my intent that we go back to the public, that we have public testimony on the projects, etc.

We have that time because we don't have to yield our recommendation to city council until April 7th, according to our schedule.

I would pass to staff as far as urgency around, I don't know what the timeline looks like for every single point.

Yeah, there's nothing.

If we had all that public testimony and so on, if we were done by the end of February, I think we would have enough time to have an appropriate recommendation to city council.

That's why my recommendation was remand to NCIP a given dollar amount that you want us to go find.

That's sound good to staff from staff perspective.

Yes, I I think that if we um and I don't want to speak for Rafella, but feel free if uh we had an amount that we were gonna target, then um, yes, we would have time for the process, knowing that we could give um the finance director a target.

Okay, so let's really quit just do a quick straw poll.

Who's in favor of option one?

Um and see if I had a comment before you you did it.

Um I want to just offer that they might not be ready for it.

No, I understand, and that's why Shinery asked, we'll come back to it after the council.

Yes, and this isn't I'm not holding anybody to this.

This is just trying to get a a poll, a sense of where folks are.

So we're not holding anybody to anything, it's just trying to get a sense because I've I've heard some mixed things, and I think it'd just be helpful to have some clarity around it.

So this isn't a vote.

This is just a kind of kind of getting a sense of where folks are residing in this moment of time.

If they're willing to do that, yeah.

Okay, so who would be in favor of option one at this point?

All right, option, and and and when I ask this, it's for the primaries or the alternate if you're here in place of the primary.

Who's in favor of option two?

So I see one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and three.

And four.

I see one.

You were alone on that.

You were right.

Oh my gosh.

Okay, let's open it up to the thank you for entertaining that.

We'll circle back around maybe after the council has discussion here and see if things have changed.

Who wants to lead us off?

Please.

Okay.

Thank you again for um sharing your thoughts, sharing um your your experiences.

Um, and and uh and sharing a little bit of context and background in terms of um what each of you have done.

Um yeah, as uh members of NCIP.

Um I I was getting and thank you, uh Mayor, for for doing that uh quick poll because I was getting the sense that there's uh there's uh uh a larger number of folks who um are leaning towards um freezing projects.

So option number two, and that's that's a little bit where I was leaning also.

I was also torn between uh two and and uh three.

Um but then also getting the uh the clear clarification from staff about option option three, the the purpose that why we're having this conversation is to find a way that uh we can address uh part of the deficit and and like uh staff put it, it's finding the the item that gives us the bigger bang for our buck.

So and that sounds like it's it's option two.

Uh I'll share this uh quick story uh because it it also plays into why I think option two for me is important.

Uh this past weekend, yesterday, actually, I um uh had the opportunity and the privilege to um be with um folks from the uh uh Laguna Grande Neighborhood uh Association picnic and um beautiful day to hang out.

Uh NAD was there.

Um and um and just uh you know interact with with our neighbors while I was there.

Um I took a moment to go to the brand new sidewalk that was just built.

It's about uh I don't know, I would say I'm not really good at measuring maybe 50 feet worth of uh sidewalk.

I don't know, maybe staff knows uh the exact number, but let's just say it's 50.

Uh it's a long stretch of sidewalk um where before it was just uh a lot of dirt, very loose dirt.

Um so if folks wanted to to walk in an area that wasn't there, they'd have to go on the street.

So uh as I was um admiring the nice uh uh stretch of sidewalk, I noticed that two of our neighbors, a couple, um uh and and uh the lady who uh was walking, uh, she was using a walker.

And and they both, it's a beautiful day, lots of sun.

They both were just strolling down that brand new sidewalk.

Um it just for me, uh it once again reminded me of the importance of the work that each of you do to push these projects forward.

I had the opportunity to ask uh the lady as well.

What do you think about the sidewalk?

And she just couldn't find words to describe it.

She was just big smile on her face.

Oh, this is beautiful, it's the best thing ever.

It's a great neighborhood.

Um, so those are really the the reasons, right?

Why we're all here and to bring it back to the conversation.

That's why for me it's important to try to figure out how we can continue uh with the great work that you all do, um, but also in trying to figure out how can we address this issue, this financial issue.

Um, that if we don't address it, we're all going to be impacted by it.

So looking at all that, looking at at um, you know, the the wonderful experience that this couple had this past weekend.

Um, I think um the second option sounds to me like like the best option and also confirmed by most of the uh the uh comments that were made by you folks.

So thank you so much for sharing your experience to help me really inform my decision.

That's her verb.

Uh yes, I also agree and uh appreciate everyone's feedback.

Um to me, I think it's important uh and uh heard this from some of the people here already and some of the people online.

I think it is important for us to understand that it's our city together, right?

So it's not it's our money, your money is that you know, it it and some um some of the other public commenters talked about that.

And I think it's important for us to understand this is our city that we want to make sure that we are viable and that we continue to be um economically sound.

And just to the gentleman's point that was talking about what what kind of plans for uh going through the future, I I appreciate that because you're right.

That's why our director finance finance director talked about the five-year plan and what that looks like, but it's a combination because NCIP is only a portion of the big picture of how we solve it.

So it's not like, oh, we're coming to you for everything.

It's the bits and pieces, even though you hear, oh, this six million out of the 10 million, but it's not just it's not just 10 million now, it's structurally.

So when you say structurally, that's something that's ongoing.

So that you have to be able to address it that way.

So that's why we're addressing many different options and many different puzzle pieces to be able to get the big teacher to fix it.

So I appreciate you talking about the sustainability of the economic.

And I think that's important.

I think by getting there, by having number two, it is a collaborative effort.

I think that's what we need because it's our city that we're moving and working together on because the dollars that the city get, you know, NCIP is a program.

It's a program like many other programs we have within the city that we give dollars to.

And that those dollars come from a TOT, which are hospitality, which are the tour.

Tourism.

That's the as the tourists that come in.

So all of this is it it comes full circle so that we can be able to take care of our city, which is beautiful.

So I think doing two and having NCIP go back and be able to talk to the submitters.

I I totally agree with uh NCIP being able to talk to submitters because if I submitted one, I would want to know about it that okay, you're gonna defund it, or it's not going to be uh uh feasible or viable at that time, and that's fine.

But for them to understand why and what that looks like, and then you have a better idea of what which ones are going to be able to not be viable at that time that you can be able to move forward on.

So I appreciate all the work that you do.

Thank you.

I'll go next.

Um the great part is we're really listening to each other and we're really talking, and I really uh appreciate that for the council for NCIP and the public and staff staff.

So I think this is uh a unique night, and I'm not sure where we're gonna end up.

So I hope it works out, but I don't I don't see the path right now.

Um I think we need to keep perspective that there were 22, 24 other suggestions from staff on how to save money.

So I'm a little uncomfortable with the first big bite of the apple being NCIP because I've loved NCIP for a long time.

Um keep in mind that we have the sales tax, 4.5 million.

Um, I'm for the aquarium 5% admission tax, which would be 3.3 million.

We all love the aquarium, but so far this year, our police department has gone 459 times to the aquarium.

Last year, the police department went 369 times and the fire department 65 times.

They use our roads, they use our ambulance service.

So that 3.3 million of a of a sales tax sounds appropriate to me.

Sure, it would raise their admission $10.

To me, they're getting a great service from the city of Monterey.

Um, there's the parking tax on private lots for half a million.

There's possible transfer real property tax, there's a first responder fee for 0.7 of a million of a million, 700,000 with a good Samaritan.

Um let go.

If you don't have the money, you don't get billed.

Uh, we've we can optimize the veterans park.

We're putting the stormwater fees back on the billing cycle.

So we have a lot of things.

The things I mentioned just now were are over 10 million.

So there are options other than to go on to the NCIP, and I think it's important that we all remember that.

We know the NCIP money is hard at work.

Um before I leave those ideas, there's also the attrition.

We have 50 more positions available than are filled.

Um, some of the comments about not laying off sparked my my brain.

No, nobody wants layoffs.

No, absolutely nobody wants layoffs.

Um, to me though, attrition is a is a position that has become empty or has been those 50 positions, and I'm not saying attrition on 50, but we have 50 that haven't been filled for a long, long time.

So if part of those came off and were rebalanced for the budget, that would cause some savings.

Um so I think there's a lot we can do without just thinking huge, huge dollars from NCIP.

Um to me, you're taking it from one pocket, putting it in another, and I'm I'm not sure that's gonna get us where we want to go.

We understand that projects from last year include now 3.15 million for the fire stations, hilltop renovations of a million, forest management for a million.

We know it's doing good work, so I'm not sure how shifting it around is really gonna pay off going forward.

There's a project for $2 million for fuel reduction.

That's because this community doesn't want a fire, and they're they're committed to doing everything they can do.

Fuel reduction, supporting the firefighters, keeping keeping the infrastructure up.

So I'm not I'm not sure that skipping a year is gonna work.

So I want to be collaborative, but if it's coming out of one pocket or the other, what are we really talking about?

To me, there is some issue of control, and I I'm not sure the council's gonna do it better than NCIP.

I think NCIP will do a great job.

There already is a um policy in the procedure book for uh deappropriating.

We can go back to NCIP representatives, and you decide what are old stale projects.

They get to the appropriate, you recommend deappropriation back to NCIP.

There's a procedure for this.

So again, I'm not sure I have any answers.

It takes a lot of collaboration to get the projects going.

You have to work with the neighborhood.

You have to work with the proponent.

You have to get support.

And then to reverse all this in COVID, people understood, but it was very difficult.

And then we had to resubmit them some one year, some the second year.

So it's very painful on the community.

We've had other things that have been difficult.

An attempt to take two million dollars.

Um, you know, a ballot suggestion taking 16%.

All these were coming from the top.

It was hard to hear them on the NCIP committee.

So I think the threat to the to the NCIP is real and and okay, wasn't matter.

We're all in it together.

But NCIP is developing leadership.

You're coming out of the neighborhood organizations, the neighborhood associations.

You are producing leaders, you are our leaders, you will be our district council people because you're coming up from the community.

So it's real important to maintain this program with as much integrity as we can muster.

Um, so I I would like to see things stay as intact as they can.

Um if I'm gonna wait till Ed talks, but maybe there's some creativity.

I love the seven percent.

I loved your math, uh, Dennis and the contribution.

And I wonder if we could allow the committee to to reopen one project this year if we all agreed, and then you folks could come back with a contribution for a new project for CIP and and give us CIP, but that still doesn't solve it.

See, that's still CIP money, that's still capital improvement money.

It's not gonna be salaries, but it to me, it shouldn't be salaries.

We NCIP should not have been saddled with the expectation that they're gonna pay the firefighters.

I mean, you know, that's that's that's that's not fair.

That's not fair.

So um somehow maybe we can get this going.

I'm done for a minute.

Well, it's not it's not done.

It's good stuff.

Um, yeah, I I appreciate all your efforts, and I know that you've had pre-meetings, you've all looked at spreadsheets, probably more than we've looked at because you all know the projects.

We don't really know the projects until it gets in front of us when we're examining and then voting on our council night, but you know the projects better than we know the projects, and you probably know the projects that are kind of in your mind that you're saying there wouldn't be a harm if we didn't do this and you paused it.

So I've heard some comments there.

I resonated with several of your comments, and all of you um had great ideas and and forming public policy, there isn't a wrong answer in this room.

These are just lots of choices, and whenever you you're faced with budget constraints, there's never any good choice, especially when you're talking about 10 million dollars.

So I appreciate your patience and willingness to to go through this with us because I think this is the epitome of a community that works together to land on the right answers that will work for the majority of the people.

And I think somebody even said there may be some people that will not be happy, there will be some disagreement, but hopefully there's more than understand.

And if we communicate it and we all understand the decisions that you're all gonna recommend to us that those that are not happy will at least understand that there was a process that that was valued and everything was considered before there was any hard direction from a council.

Um so about public policy and how do I how do I see this?

Um, I want to say I appreciated what Steve where are you at, Steve?

Did he leave?

He might have left.

Um Steve talked about fixing it.

And I think many of you said it in your own ways in terms of your ideas.

That you you want to see some clarity from the council and decisions.

And I think what Gene ran through were our options will enable us to get there.

Um, and this council, I think, is committed to continue to give the direction to staff to be able to fix this in ongoing years.

Um, so it's it should not be looked at as we're going to fix it now and we're done and we move on.

There's lots more things to do.

I did some rough math, and I was trying to figure out okay, if I had the choice of how I build a $10 or $10 million, God, I wish it was $10.

A $10 million uh deficit, I start with at the end of the year, what do we have in salary savings?

What will we get with a um a tax initiative that gives us the small amount of the tax three remains that we're legally able to get to, and I believe it was 0.375%.

Um, and and I'm willing to work on that campaign to make sure the public knows why we're going to be asking for that.

Um, maybe a little bit of reserves, maybe a little bit of stuff that the city staff decides that they just have to set aside and not do it.

So I come up with about two and a half million to three million dollars still short to get to the 10.

Um now we still have a lot more work to do because Hans gave us a whole lot of items that we can decide that we want to do that maybe saves us some money.

But there's still this big piece, it's between two and three million dollars that is a gap.

And so I like the fact that you all explored um options two and three and four, and but nobody said option one is the best one, which is do nothing.

And that's that's heartening to know that you all recognize that doing nothing is not an option.

Um I was hesitant to even have it full.

And the reason I wanted to stop that was because I'm not sure that you all have had enough time.

You haven't had a meeting, you haven't really explored, and there's several options that you talked about with okay.

If you if we freeze some projects that we've already approved, then what's the procedure of how we reactivate it in the future?

What do you tell the association?

What's the time frame of when that comes back?

So there's some mechanics to work out with option two.

Option four was kind of a hybrid, but maybe more work, but there was some sense that that might be the way to go.

I came here tonight believing that I don't want to tell you what you should do, that I don't have an option that fits better for my need.

I think it should go back to you, and you help us land on something that will work for you that allows you to have an NCIP process that preserves the most that you need to believe that needs to be preserved, and that you figure out what those projects are that are still there that don't make sense to spend the money on and figure out what that contribution should be back to balance to help the city balance some of this budget.

I think you know more than we know, and I think you know the projects that we should not move ahead with.

I don't like the idea of a total defund, or a I'm sorry, a total skip the cycle for next year.

I I really can't support that because fundamentally um this is a 10 million dollar deficit, but it's not like it's an emergency that we had with COVID.

This is different.

This is important, but we're not without options.

And I think the options give us a very clear path that we will be will be able to take, but it's unlike anything we had before, where we had to say if we're declaring a fiscal emergency because we really did have a fiscal emergency.

I want to preserve ever skipping a cycle in an NCIP process for the time when we do have that dramatic emergency that may come in the future years.

I don't think this is that fiscal emergency that's worthy of enough to cancel outright an entire year.

And I know that the process that you'll probably land on is going to have some difficulties in setting some parameters and deciding, but I think you're all capable of being able to do that and giving the city council some guidance and coming up with some internal NCIP, you know, fixes that preserves what should be preserved, but we we pause the ones that we know that we don't need to get to right now.

And I think that there's excess.

Well, excess is the wrong word.

I think there is enough projects that are sitting there that you'll be able to find the right number that will help the city.

And I'm and I'm preserving saying I heard option two, option three, option four, and good merits in all of them.

And I think Dennis proposed asking for us give you direction to go back and meet and come come with something.

Uh my hint on the dollars is probably between two and three million dollars.

But honestly, whatever the NCIP came back with that's frozen projects, so we're not going to go forward.

I've got confidence that you'll land on the right thing.

And I don't want to tell you what you should do.

I think you should work this through your own process.

And I would respect what your recommendation comes back to.

That's it for me.

Um so I first want to start off by thanking the NCIP um for what you all do in the neighborhood associations.

Um I think it's been repeated several times by my colleagues, but I think it's important to reiterate.

Um, you all are out there doing the work, and um there's been a lot of process y changes, um, taking funding, um, particularly since since the pandemic, um, there's been a lot of disruption.

And us as human beings, we operate on certainty and having some comfort with that.

So I completely hear Gina's comments, um, Elizabeth's comments around the concern that exists on the long-term impacts of community engagement as it relates to the NCIP.

I know that I would feel some type of way if I submitted a project that it got approved, and now all of a sudden it's been put on ice.

Like, am I going to continue to submit projects?

So I think there's some deeper structural things there, though I would offer this issue, this conversation was going to need to be had eventually, and we still need to have it about how do we address this for the long term.

When I got on to the council, there were in 2018, so this is pre-pandemic, there were projects that were sitting um on the NCIP list that were 15 plus years old.

Um, so the problem isn't new.

This isn't something that all of a sudden started happening.

And I think there's a piece of that that we're trying to work through and figure out.

And I feel confident in our ability to be able to work through that.

So I just wanted to start off by just giving gratitude and appreciation for you all sticking this out and being partners with the city as part of the city and advancing the priorities for our community.

Um, and and my hope is that when we're going out and having these conversations, um, I my hope is that we can all find a way of spinning this out as a positive, right?

There are some issues that exist, like we're we're gonna work through those.

And and I feel confident with the folks in the room that we we will solve it and we'll move forward in a positive direction.

It's not helpful though, when we're going out and being part of the conversation, like I don't know what the city's up to, right?

Like I just, if we can all work together to move this ball forward, because I feel it, and I hope you all feel it too, that we are all in this together and that we all do want to advance these issues.

We wouldn't be here if these were easy discussions, if these were easy decisions.

We're here because we have to do the hard work.

Um, and so I I again just wanted to start off with some gratitude and appreciation.

Um I hear um your your approach that you you you present, Ed.

Um I think it is important for us.

I think one of the things that I'm hearing from NCIP is give us some direction.

Um we need some, we need some left and right limits around how to proceed with this.

Um, and so I think it's important that the council take some leadership here and give them a charge that they can walk away with and feel confident and comfortable in that whatever it is that they do is gonna allow them to get back to the table and do the work that they have in front of them because there's a whole cycle that they have to to discuss.

And you all are busy and have things with your own time.

So um I think it's important that we walk away tonight with the council giving some clear parameters, and and uh AJ, I I think I'm gonna agree with you.

I think I'm comfortable with four.

I feel like let's empower the NCIP to consider what's on y'all's plate.

And you all figure that out in regards to what it is.

I think where the direction might be helpful from the council is a dollar figure.

And I imagine that might be a challenging thing to do, given the conversation, what I hear from my colleagues.

Um, and so perhaps what would be helpful is what I was kind of actually hoping, suggesting in in prepping for today's meeting is to do somewhat of an exercise that we did as a council when we started this 10 million dollar structural budget deficit discussion, which is we had the cards and we organize them and we put them in the priority order and put them in the buckets that we we wanted, we didn't want.

Um, and so I would almost offer that and allow that to be a guide to um identifying most important to least important.

And that's not to say that none of them are important.

I would even offer to the least important one.

I think these are all good things, but it allows some flexibility for the council so that when it gets back to us, we can have a deeper discussion in regards to where that cutoff amount really should be.

Um, and the reason why I offer that is I struggle with uh, and I hear both Ed's and Jean's comment, but there's a lot of assumptions there.

So one of the assumptions is we're gonna have this extra money left over from vacant positions.

Well, I'm hearing that because of the furlough with the federal government right now, we're utilizing some of those dollars to help keep some of our employees employed.

Um, and then a lot of the funding options that um Gene, you brought up were things that aren't going to help us in the short term.

And so um, I think that those are all helpful, relevant on the table.

And how so, how do we address this 10 million dollar piece now?

And then as funding comes in and there's more certainty in regards to what other buckets look like in the long term, we can adjust.

And again, I think how it's being presented is a freeze so that we could talk about how do we start looping back in some of these projects so that we can get these dumb in a time timely manner.

Um that's that's that's my thought process on it.

Um, I I have a question, please.

Are we on agenda item one or on agenda item two?

We're on one.

We're on one.

And and a lot it it it a lot of it blends.

So the reason why agenda two is there because we're gonna need to do a vote and give direction.

And I'm I'm opening it up because I want to be able to have this conversation with NCIP.

So I want to open it back up to the NCIP committee, but then we will adjourn to the council meeting and then we'll go for a vote.

So to me, the if you can imagine the conversations are are blended together here.

Um, no kidding.

That's why we're here today.

So I got that.

This is just a discussion.

No, this is the second one.

Yes, no, I understand that.

I just wanted to clarify because it, you know, the first one is a discussion, the second one is when we make a recommendation.

That's correct.

Yep.

And I haven't made that recommendation yet.

Okay, I just I heard you allude to I think it was like three.

I gave some hints.

Yeah, no, I have to go so let me just open it back up to the NCIP committee real quick.

I I don't want to have us, I think we've exhausted this conversation in a lot of ways.

And I don't want to keep beating a dead horse, but I just wanted to check in any last minute comments from the NCIP before we close this out, please.

I've got that part.

You mean your meeting is gonna require a breakfast.

Okay.

Any last minute comments from the council?

All right.

Thank you all for this.

Uh, I I know that this is um this is a lot.

Um in the discussion as we loop to the next thing.

I think part of the reason why I think it'd be helpful to kind of do a little bit of racking and stacking here is as we have a charge for the council once it comes back once the NCIP direct direction comes recommendation comes back to the council.

I think what would also be helpful is to get from staff in regards to what are those positions that we would potentially be um putting on ice.

And I think having the council weigh those cuts um from positions with um a dollar figure from NCIP, I think is helpful for for and informative for our discussion.

So can we sort of wrap that?

Yeah, the way I understood the city manager's process was um it's vibrant, there's a lot of moving parts, but he can't move forward to a budget process until he has the certainty of where the dollars come from.

How long do we keep all of the salary savings from frozen positions or positions that are vacant?

So all of that is and it's difficult to go through the process because there is ambiguity.

And that means we have not only decisions tonight, but many other decisions that we'll be working through in the coming months before we get to the final of the budget.

Well said.

Not even a Monere Five.

We're going to be back at eight forty, so please do adjustments if folks need to head out.

Please make that transition.

If you're still engaged in a conversation, I'm just going to ask you to step out of the chamber so we can go ahead and start.

We're going to go ahead and start up again.

Okay, here we skip the presentation.

These are difficult and challenging times that we're in, and uh happy to answer any questions that you have.

So for folks on Zoom, you can use a raise hand function.

Anybody in the chamber wishes to speak on this item.

And there's nobody on Zoom, so we'll go ahead and do three minutes each.

Thank you.

Um interesting conversation.

Uh I would just suggest that the council give the NAP committee some really clear guidance on what you think the dollar amount should be.

And then let them be creative and figure out how best to do it.

All these alternatives you discussed are fine.

They might come up with an alternative five.

Who knows?

You know, let them be creative.

They're all smart people.

You give them the guidance they need, though.

On we think we need X number of dollars to get us through this next fiscal year, and then let them do their good work.

Personally, I'm a little I started thinking about the alternative two and freezing earlier in the day.

And I thought, well, that sounds pretty good to me.

But the more I thought about it, the more I'm souring on it because it was a pretty tortured process going back through those from the uh from the 2020 period.

And as other speakers have said, and council members have said, that that really does kind of pull the rug out from under the public's feet.

They think they've they've run the gauntlet, they've got this project on the books.

You know, they can finally, you know, breathe easy, knowing that their projects are going to get billed at some point.

They don't know when.

And then all of a sudden there's a knock on the door and says, Well, not so fast.

You know, your projects being pulled.

Uh, what do you think about that idea?

So I think it's it's probably easier.

Uh it's less heartburn to just ask the NIP committee to come up with so many dollars.

I personally would probably say, well, it might be two million dollars or three million, whatever the number ends up being.

And then you just defund or you just do you appropriate that money into the general fund, whatever the proper technical term is for that.

Um as much as an advocate I am for the NIP committee, I just think that's the cleanest, easiest way to do it and and not get people's feelings uh heard about it.

I have a number of projects in the running for this round of uh discussions, and I would concede that you know some of my projects may not make it if it's only three million dollars instead of six million, and I'm fine with that.

I think that's a better compromise than going backwards and telling people that there's there's aren't going to be built.

Thank you.

And now for the alternative point of view.

Uh I would like the number of one and a half million with matching funds from the economic uncertainty contingency, so that it would be a three million dollar number that would help with the budget shortfall.

That to me will be a more palpitable program for us to work with the public and looking at these projects to say, well, I'm gonna freeze your project.

I don't see this project working, and we're working together in partnership on matching funds with the city.

It's not just NCIP taking a hit.

We are working together in the out years, the taxes that we looked at in the voting cards would raise 13 million.

You got a 10 million dollar shortfall two years from now, three years from now, we can rebuild the economic contingency with that extra three million dollars or expand staff or whatever.

So if you took it out of the economic contingency with matching funds for what comes from the NCIP after they do their due diligence to see what we can offer, I think that would be uh the best way to go.

And that's my thought.

And the NCIP will do its best to come up with ideas very much like it did with the EOC, which city council wasn't in favor of, but I think we still use it.

So we do come up with some good projects for the city, and we do look out for the benefit of the city, and I think cooperative with matching on the economic uncertainty would be the best way to go.

Thank you.

And with that, we'll go ahead and close general uh public comment and bring it back to the council for motion and deliberation.

Like to kick us off.

Okay.

So I think uh we've heard some good alternatives from the speakers.

The prior session and just now.

Um I think I was trying to give some hints, but I've heard sufficiently from NCIP that they they want a clear motion and direction so that they know what they're gonna be meeting about.

Um I like alternative two that gives them the flexibility to go to go back and uh determine the the right projects that that should be uh held for this year.

Um, I think the figure is somewhere around one and a half to two million.

Uh I like the idea of the matching because when I do the calculations, I think we're gonna have to turn to some of the um ready day funds to close the gap.

Uh, but I'm hoping it's going to be a small amount and that we can we can do this together with all the other decisions we're going to be making.

So I like alternative two and I like the the direction in the ask that NCIP is asking for um I'm in I'm in the dollar amount between two and three million dollars.

Uh but I I think anything that the NCIP could come up with through the projects um being paused, I think would help to address the problem and I would be okay with it.

I'll make this short and sweet.

Um I I believe I already kind of alluded to this already in my comments.

I agree with number two for the reasons I already say it.

Uh and I I would like to have um NCIP to come back and give us that recommendation of those projects that they would uh recommend.

And I'm looking at right at three million.

Go ahead.

I'll go uh so uh this um actually I this uh this idea of tapping into economic uncertain uncertainty fund um toying with it, not necessarily uh a fan of it, but uh uh considering it.

And I I wonder if I could ask a question from staff what that tapping into that fund, what kind of impact we would see by doing that in I don't know, whatever things maybe that I'm not considering the we've had a conversation and Rafael can add uh to uh our thoughts on tapping into the fund for economic uncertainty.

Uh over the past several years, uh council's been very mindful of setting it at 20% of expenditures.

And I think that's important because we've we intend to use the fund for economic uncertainty when we have a major recession.

We aren't in that yet.

It might come in the future.

We may also run into an issue if in the future, if there's a major earthquake, for example, or uh tsunami, there have been reports of uh whether Hayward fault and other faults uh that might come down, impact us happens again.

Uh that's that's what we're gonna be leaning into because we don't, that's our reserves or our true reserves in an emergency.

So once we dig into that, that's less money we can lean on for those uh those emergency uh items.

And um, it's one of the reasons why when we uh look at uh the government finance officers association GFOA standards and best practices, they they recommend that 20% minimum uh as a more of a standard uh practice.

And uh some cities, cities that have uh triple A bond rating, for example, Moody's and standards enforced.

They use reserves as a way to rate cities is one of the mechanisms.

And the triple A bond-rated cities have 35% or higher reserves.

So we're we're just at 20%.

Um and that's one of the reasons why our city manager and our team uh we don't we don't recommend utilizing that uh because then if if something catastrophic happens, we we don't have funds to lean on.

Yeah, thank you.

And exactly the reason why um I I appreciate the uh the creative thought around it and and um how um potentially it could work its way into this process, but I I would feel really I would be very uncomfortable tapping into it because we just don't know what could happen.

Um so and and uh I think I kind of just come back to um the uh the question that I had um uh a few meetings ago in trying to uh understand what has been that pattern over the 10 the past 10 years in terms of how much funding has actually been spent on building projects annually.

And if I remember correctly, that averaged out to about three and a half uh million, if if I remember correctly.

So if I'm remembering correctly, um I think that's the figure that I'm kind of looking at.

Three, three and a half.

No, nothing.

Thanks.

Um I don't uh it's very uncomfortable thinking about NCIP trying to figure out calling back projects.

A lot of them don't believe in it.

Um I think it's detrimental, which leaves me with potentially deappropriating from the future year.

But I'm going in smaller amounts, and and I I do think it's fair to go into the economic economic surety account because I think there needs to be a real message that we are in it together, that there's going to be an impact on the city, and I think dollar for dollar, I think that's fair.

So I could support deappropriating a million from next year's NCIP fund with a million dollar contribution from the economic reserves.

That's two million dollars.

And we work really hard as a city to find the other eight million from the 24 other suggestions from staff.

Can I ask a third question?

Maybe I could jump in with my comments and then I'll pass it back around here.

Um I'm I'm a little bit confused in regards to the math here.

Um from everybody on the council.

Like how are we getting to the 10 million?

I guess I'm a little bit confused in regards to I I think I've heard three million from everybody except for Gene, who offered one million two million.

Well, one million from and so I'm talking about specifically NCIP.

Okay.

Um I guess I ask all of you to help me understand how do we get to the 10 million?

I'll share up front that I'm not in favor of using the reserve um for the very reasons that staff just articulated.

Um there's a lot of uncertainty with the economy right now.

Um and in fact, a report just came out with the Fed reducing its targets over the next year.

So because of all the uncertainty, and um, and if something were to happen after we move forward with this process, are we gonna then go back to NCIP and say, okay, well, let's play this game again?

I'd rather aim high, and if we don't need it, we can we can work with NCIP to figure it out, but to cut ourselves short to just kind of seem like we're like we're playing nice.

I nobody's here to be mean.

We're not we're not trying to take advantage of anybody, we're trying to run the city and make sure that it runs effectively.

So I guess my question to my colleagues here is where is that other seven million dollars coming from?

Um and if if I'm alone on a vote in regards to the economic uncertainty, I guess so be it.

Yeah, if you're gonna just share my logic here.

Um the way that I'm I'm digesting all this information is that if the council requested uh a higher amount from NCIP, then how does that differentiate the approach of um skipping a cycle?

So that's that's the way that I'm looking at it.

Does that make sense?

So if we're skipping a cycle, I mean, we're basically if we're requesting a higher amount from NCIP, then in essence, wouldn't be wouldn't we be skipping a cycle?

I I'm not I don't understand that.

Closer, closer and closer.

I just don't understand, I don't understand.

I I'm not comprehending what the idea is.

I'm just connecting it to the um the options that staff presented earlier.

Yeah.

So I mean, if we're skipping a cycle, which I think we heard from the public is not something that they really would support.

Um that means taking the funding from NCIP for that one cycle.

So I for me, it's trying to find that balance, right?

Where we still are able to uh push forward some projects, but still trying to address um the deficit.

Um, and and I guess uh a point for me to clarify in my mind is if we are taking or requesting um what the whatever that figure is, let's say it's 10 million from NCIP.

So then what about those um critical projects that were mentioned earlier?

Like how would how would we pay for them or how would they get moved forward?

Does that make sense?

Am I that's the problem?

Yeah, yeah.

That that is the next dilemma.

Um right.

So and and I mean, I think that NCIP I'm I'm also trying to allow some space there for NCIP to make the the decision and the recommendation that they see best.

Right.

Um understanding that not everybody's gonna agree.

So that's to share a little bit of my logic.

I guess I'm still not understanding the first part.

So it maybe I can't I can't, I can't even articulate because I don't I don't uh maybe it's just me.

No, um sure.

Do you want to I mean I'll I can answer your question.

Yeah, yeah.

All right.

So I'm sorry, answering my question is really to Gino's comments or my initial question.

No, how are we gonna get to 10 million?

I want to get to Gino's part first because I just want to make sure I understand where he's coming from before um can I take an approach at this?

Because I I got what um helped me understand Gino's okay, okay.

So what I heard Gino say was he was contrasting take it all the next year's cycle versus option two, which we were talking about, contrasting those two, what would be the difference?

I think he was he was outlining that option two sends it back to NCIP for them to do their recommendation, which is kind of what he's aligning with, I believe what he said, but to advance it to take the larger amount of money was what it sounded like you were you were trying to understand why would we take the larger amount of money, but he was contrasting the two the lower amount and the higher amount cancel the whole cycle, higher amount, send it back the NCIP, it's a lower amount.

I think he was just contrasting those two.

And I guess maybe that's also a question for uh for clarification.

I mean, is that in part what staff staff's intention was to um not necessarily to uh uh uh advocate in a certain way for the amount, but just uh you know delineate each of the options very separately that way.

We were trying to provide uh a list of four different options, recognizing there's two different types of NCIP funding approaches, one being existing year project six million and then existing project 17 plus million, and then how do we get to the goal to fix the deficit for next year, which is anywhere between you know we we're saying if we if we keep the frozen positions that we have frozen, that's uh just over two million dollars in savings.

So that brings us to say eight million dollars, which is why on the staff recommendation is is to target eight million to ten.

If there's frozen positions that we want to bring back and and fill homeless navigators, one of them, there's community service officers another, then we're looking closer to the 10 million versus the eight million to balance the budget for next year.

And and so I want to connect the the question you had, right?

How do we get to 10?

Yeah, real quick.

So I know Gene wanted to go first, but I just kind of wanted to yeah, I also want to target drill down so I I fully comprehend.

Um so I guess what I'm understanding you say is if we're to get to the 10 million, it would require us to dip into next year's appropriations of NCIP funding.

Right.

And so the three million number that you speak to, where does that come from?

Future years or or the freezing idea or both potentially well, potentially both.

Okay.

And then getting to the question, I guess, where I'm really concerned about is where does the other seven million come from in your mind as far as so we're not so three million.

If we get NCIP to do that and we get right supermajority of the council to approve that, where do we where does the city find this other seven million?

Right.

Can I answer that?

That's a good question.

That's I want each of you to answer that.

And I'm just what I'm trying to get to with Gina since he's uh on the so my thought, my my logic here is you've identified the uh the details around NCIP.

The additional seven would be coming from the other options that we're looking at that we're considering, right?

What which other options?

The whole stack of cards.

So but remember when we did that exercise last time, staff was like, all these things that you guys are talking about, that doesn't do anything about the media, so it doesn't do anything towards the budget deficit.

And that's why I was saying when Jean was speaking earlier, she was talking about the um the point three seven five percent uh sales tax, the parking tax, the at admissions fee, all those would require an issue to go on to the ballot.

That's not enough for staff to budget the balance the budget because we haven't even approved those yet, and those have to go on the ballot, and they wouldn't be approved in time for us to finalize the budget.

So I guess that's kind of where I'm left with like my concern around us trying to find a smaller dollar amount.

Why not bigger so that we can then play with the numbers later, as opposed to then going back to NCIP later and saying, well, it looks like we're not gonna have all the funding, so let's play that out here.

I don't know.

That's okay.

No, thank you for that, because that that amplifies my the context that I had in my mind.

Um and and I mean it's a good point thinking about uh the the timeline of this, right?

Because yeah, you're right.

I mean, if we can only come up with three million, what does that leave us next year?

I completely get it.

I and I mean uh yeah, I I don't have an answer, so uh I'm eager to hear what the rest of the council has to say.

Well, I see your point that there'd be a lull before the budget is approved.

We well, before we have to taxes are approved, right?

So that will take time, but if we get them on the spring ballot, and a couple are approved, that would go into the 26-27 fiscal year.

Right, but we don't have certainty on that today.

No, we don't.

So we don't make decisions, and and I'm trying to give the clearest direction to the NCIP as possible today, so we don't have to come back and do this again later.

Right.

I I think we can all agree.

Nobody's trying to take money from NCIP.

We're trying to limit that as much as possible.

So I think if we go into that charge, how do we make a business decision today so that we don't have to be back here again?

I I would have ended this meeting probably an hour ago if I could have, but I I think it's worth spending a little extra time on drilling down on this so that we can give a good charge moving forward.

Well, the attrition of the positions, which I hope again is not interpreted as a layoff.

It's not, is it?

Can I can I ask staff a question around that?

Can how does layoff uh attritions help us with addressing the 10 million dollar budget deficit?

It's a it's a good question.

So the position attrition, and we'll call it the attrition and freezing physicians card has a value of 3.1 million dollars.

2.1 to 2.2 million is existing frozen.

I'm I'm confused already.

When you say freezing, we're talking about salary positions, right?

That's right.

Current positions use another one, absolutely freezing.

So these are current positions that are budgeted.

And if we do not fill those positions, those budgeted positions, then that results in salary savings.

Okay.

And so there are a number of positions.

For example, use one example.

We had a management analyst in parks and recreation who left us for Salinas.

We're we're disappointed that she left, but our plan is not to fill that position.

So there's it's a vacant position that we are not going to fill.

It's a management decision not to fill that position, and we're keeping it vacant.

That all adds up to two point two million dollars.

Well, and then and then this is why I said earlier.

Oh, then I'll let you jump in here.

Yeah, this is why I was saying earlier.

I would like to charge staff to come back to the council with that list of positions because I think it's going to be important for us to consider what those positions are before we make that decision.

And I think we I think we asked that, and I was expecting that it would come back in a future meeting.

Yep.

And we'll be talking about it in more detail next week, of course, as part of our discussion of the rest of these cards.

Right, Rafella.

So I just wanted to make a quick correction.

The positions on that list for the ones that we froze, TL before the flexibility, they are still on the PCL, but they are not budget, they're not funded.

So that's how we came up with the 2.1 in order to actually have that savings calcul um to help with the deficit this year.

So they're not funded.

So part of the moving forward, if you say if you decide that list, or even if you swap other positions on the list, you know, in and out.

And that's really why the list never went out because we wanted the flexibility.

So if somebody left here, we could add here, or we can swap some things.

But as far as the so this list, if you decided let's keep the this list or whatever other positions frozen, then you're not funding that.

So that's another that's 2.0.1 million.

That's that the attrition is a guesstimate because the attrition is people leaving.

I left for another job, I retired, but you never know, you don't know what that is because some people have said I'm retiring and oops, I changed my mind, or decide they're that number is a guesstimate.

So and then part of that too, if they are retiring, um, depending on the length of time that they've been they've been gone, it's like how long you keep that position vacant or not, they all have um buyouts, vacation buyouts that pay us.

So that's not going to be safe.

They're gone for six months.

You may they may have three months worth of vacation time on the books that we still have to pay out.

It's complicated.

So basically, it it is.

It's it's not just uh a one for one.

So there's things that all go into those those calculations and those numbers to come up with that.

So attrition is a guessing game, but we could probably estimate 500 to a million dollars, 500,000 to a million for that.

The ones that are actually frozen um or not funded this year, that's that's 2.1, 2.2.

And we've been trying to keep that number at that point, and that's where that three million.

And it's not that every position that leaves, we just automatically say we're not going to fill.

I mean, there's some critical positions right now.

Our police department is at absolute minimum staffing.

So if a police officer leaves, it's not like we're going to say let's and what I would offer is that the city has been ever since I've been on the council, the city's been doing this.

It's not something new.

And and what I found is that usually the biggest reason why we've always been in um in a surplus has been because of because of that um behavior, the action by um city management.

So for us to just put that on the table as as a way to address the structural deficit, I just worry what that does to get us more on the other side when we've been staying really good at staying in a surplus.

So I guess I would stay concerned about leaning on that too much.

And again, I would want to see the list in regards to positions that we would freeze before we make that decision.

So let me let um Ed go because I know he's been burning and then I'll let you go, Dr.

Barber.

Yeah, I'm fine tonight.

Um part of the figure in my head that we're gonna, the 10 million dollar deficit, if that's the target, is the conversation we just have with salary savings.

There may be some positions that we deem that uh that we don't fill.

Then there's the attrition that Raphaela just talked about contribution from NCI fee.

And I am in favor of a small amount of reserves being used because I felt for a while.

Well, when I came on the council, our reserve amount was somewhere around 10 to 11.

Then we went to 13, then we went to 16, and now we're at 20.

We've rapidly been putting money away, which has been a great attitude to have.

But we're in a good position because we have the flexibility to be able to draw back, you know, 250 from this account, 500 from that account, maybe 750 from that account.

We're in a position where we can patch the difference.

And then I'm counting that we're gonna have the sales tax initiative.

And the reason I say that is if we were to take the position, and I don't think there's a four-fifths vote to just cancel the cycle next year and take all that money.

If we did that, I don't think the salary of the sales tax initiative would pass.

I think they're connected.

I think they're connected with the public education that we need to be able to be in a position to say that we're doing the right things to balance our budget, and we're not taking from NCIP.

And I am not in favor of canceling the cycle for next year and taking all of the funds from NCIP.

So my vote's not there.

I think patching this together, it's kind of clear in my mind.

This is the first step.

The next step is to have the conversation next week and we come together and drill down on those other options and give direction to the city staff that we go out, ask the public for the additional sales tax piece because that was how much four million?

Yes, the uh five 4.5 million uh for ongoing, and if it does pass in June, it would for fiscal year 2627 bring 3.375 million.

So that's uh that's how much right we would uh we would receive.

And so I envision that yes, we will be making decisions, not yet knowing if the sales tax passes, but that's why we have the flexibility, and if it does not pass, then we have harder decisions that has everything to do with staffing and services, and then there's still the reserves, but I think that's gonna pass.

And I'm I'm feeling like this is a balancing act, and we're working in ambiguity, and that's the most difficult because it's not there's several things that are not certain.

I think the most certain thing is I can trust NCIP to come up with recommendations of projects that gets us to somewhere between two and three million dollars.

I think that's the first decision.

I think the next decision, we're gonna have some more next week.

And then the next decision is gonna be the tax initiative, and then we're gonna just keep rolling them out the next four or five months.

And so I think that's how we get to that 10 million dollars.

Salary savings, so sales tax.

Could you just give me dollar amounts to the breakdown of how you got to the 10 million?

Yeah.

So if we start with we are at 10 million right now, and we have a salary savings, and the figure was 2 million dollars, wasn't it, Nat?

So that's off the 10th.

That's right.

Yeah, point one for uh current salary savings.

If we take 10, we did two, we're at eight.

If we ask NCIP, and I'll I'll just say it's three.

And I I like the matching.

So three from NCIP, three from uh the rainy day fund.

And what number are you at now?

Eight, eight.

And then we have several other decisions that Hans was recommending that we can close the gap with those two.

Nat, could you it's not on the spreadsheet anymore?

I don't know why, but could you remind us of the immediate funding projects that were on those cards?

What were the other ones outside of NCIP?

Yes.

So uh in terms of the immediate, we have uh position attrition, which is the two million, which is the three million, it's three point one, and that includes both looking at current freezing and as Rafael mentioned, additional positions potentially with countries.

Yeah, if you call it three million, it's the fund it's defunding the position because your real savings is you don't hire a body, you don't have workers comp, you don't have insurance.

And so that's why that number is higher.

That's right.

So there are certain positions in there that we may we may deem that um that we just don't need, and that's $700,000.

So there's there's some work to be done there.

That's right.

Um the other one was Mills Act contract, but there was no support from council on that recommendation, card 12, card 19 was partnerships and contracts, and there's no hard dollar value or figure uh for that, but we are working hard to establish partnerships and uh contract opportunities where possible.

And that's in terms of direct uh benefits and direct uh ways to address the deficit, those are those are it.

Um, was that last one that you said after partnerships and contracts?

The partnerships and contracts, and then uh that's that's it.

I mean, certainly we have pilots is one option, the payment in lieu of taxes, which we can't depend on at this point.

We can't, but we are we are working with as many uh groups as possible.

So we have NCIP Mills Act and partnerships and contracts that we have to play with as far as immediate million dollars.

That's that's immediate correct.

Okay.

But didn't we have also NAF that we we have parking parking assessment or parking fees?

But those would have all have to that's right.

So if those get passed, then that gives us some more option, the parking tax 450,000 for every five percent tax.

Right.

And if we go to 15%, you can triple that dollar amount.

We estimate that with the taxes.

If we put parking tax on the ballot in June, let's say we also put the sales tax in June, we would get half, roughly half of those dollars in the fiscal year because it does take time for it to be collected and for us to receive it.

So right, October would be the earliest collection date for those taxes.

Um and then the first responder fee, which council member rash uh mentioned to me.

We are running into a slight hurdle with that.

We've uh done some research more to share next week with the first responder fee.

That may not be a 26-27 revenue option.

It's uh an item that we just learned last week.

Uh we're running into some some hurdles with that, and we can share more details next week.

So I that one we were hoping to begin next year.

That was a 700,000 dollar card.

And we'll share more next week.

Okay.

All you good to go?

I'm good.

Okay.

Dr.

Barber.

Thank you.

Um so for me, um, I'm looking at the projects that are not yet started.

You got 7.5 million there.

I'm looking at basically trying to do half of that because if you have projects that are not started, you have inactive projects.

Um you have a pretty decent amount to pull from some really from this the project's not started.

I'm looking at about half, even though they'd be around more at 3.5, I said three.

So I'd be okay with the 3.5, but that's what I'm looking at.

Um other ways that of getting it out.

Um, I see for salary saves the nutrition, uh, for uh the NCIP also defunding any of the projects that they may see even after the three, they may see something that as they review that doesn't even need to be on there anymore.

But that's something that NCIP would have to come up with.

But also pilots with payments in lieu of taxes, that's another one.

Um, that I see it's part of a possible benefit of paying it as well.

Um, and so for me, I I've I'm not in favor of using the reserve for this right now.

Um it may come uh a time later on when we have to do that, but I don't I don't I'm not in favor of reserves to be used for something like that.

I I look at COVID and tsunamis and things that are you know, economic um, you know, upheaval, you know, different things that that are really um um not anticipated that that come forth to be able to use for it.

And right now in these times, I think it's just too much volatility to be able to go into the reserve.

That's that's where I'm coming from.

Okay.

Um I mean, I I echo that last sentiment that that you make there.

And I think just to lean into that more.

Um I I just want to state it for the record that we have a decision to make tonight, and if we make a decision that's on the wrong side of this, in my opinion, I'm to me that's not an excuse to then reach into the economic reserve.

Um, I disagree that we've been too aggressive in setting funding aside.

In fact, I think that that's the very thing that's allowing this city to stay stable.

Um, and the moment that we dip into it, what happens if the next day the economy tanks and we're now in a position of having to navigate a true um emergency.

So I I I'm just gonna put it on the record now that I'm I'm I'm not in support of utilizing the the fund for economic reserves.

In fact, um, and if anybody's been paying attention to these conversations, I've been asking us to lean in and and put more aside.

Um because two months worth of funding the city is just not sufficient.

And when we're going out to try to seek bonds, it doesn't boat us well for a rate um when we have the low amount of reserves as we currently have them.

Um, and I would just offer this fiscal year, we've already been dipping into the reserves.

So um, you know, we're are we gonna keep doing this every time?

And we saw that slide earlier.

So I think I don't want to belabor the point, not in favor of that.

And and short of that, we're not coming up with the 10 million still.

So I haven't heard from anybody on the council in regards to how we get to the 10 million based off of what we know today.

There's a lot of assumptions that are made around things getting approved or even getting on the ballot in the first place.

Um I don't think that that's clear enough direction to help create efficiency through this process.

So for whatever it's worth, I would offer that we stick to staff's recommendation of charging the NCIP the eight to 10 million so that they can rack and stack.

And if we're somehow able to have assurance around some other source of revenue coming in, then we make it a priority.

I'm stating it publicly.

Um we can state it publicly as a council that the priority for that funding is to allow these frozen projects to come back.

Um, I think it's a good business decision, and I think anything short of that is um not setting this the future of the city up for success.

So I want to ask a question.

When you said the city's recommendation, staff's recommendation staff recommendation.

Yep.

Okay, the staff recommendation in item number two doesn't say that.

Um it does.

I'm looking at I'm sorry, I was looking at number one staff number staff work number two.

Let me go to it.

It's that page 14.

So I'm reading on the recommendations, item number two that the city council determine arrange on the dollar amount of NCIP funds to appropriate into the general fund to assist the NCIP with developing its recommendation for the city council on which the NCIP projects to defund put on fold to address the $10 million structural deficit in the next fiscal year.

So the recommendation at the end of the staff report says staff recommended the city council encouraged the NCIP committee to consider coming up with a range of eight million dollars to 10 million dollars in funding for next fiscal year.

It's in the staff report.

I just read it.

Okay, and and that's their recommendation that I can't agree with.

Um I'll just restate my position.

Um, and we're ultimately gonna have to get to some kind of a vote here.

Um I don't want to viscerate the NCIP program.

I'm not about trying to recover eight million dollars uh completely out of the NCIP, anticipating a 10 million dollar deficit where we have solutions that are in front of us.

Those solutions we're gonna talk more about next week.

We're also further along in the decisions of what those will be.

And we also went through the card exercise and identified a lot of those options.

I think that it's not right to expect that NCIP fixes this.

And I think we lose the ability to have a collaborative working group with the NCIP where they've already basically identified that alternative two was their favor, but they're ready to go back to work to figure out what project to be set aside and come up with some monetary amount that's you know, two three million dollars.

I don't know what it is, but I believe that they're gonna expect that the city match that they're gonna be upset and they're not gonna be in agreement.

And if you're trying to get six million dollars, what you're proposing then is to look ahead to declare an emergency and ask for a four-fifths vote to completely cancel the cycle of next year.

Is that what you're proposing?

I I disagree with you that us making this ask the NCIP would lead to a failure of the sales tax measure, but that's just my opinion.

I mean, we're all making opinions at this point.

Well, we need their votes.

So that's that's all I'm saying.

Sure, we need it to pass.

Sure.

So my ask is, well, where are you trying to get the eight million dollars from?

If you're in agreement with what staff is written on the last page of this staff work, it says eight and a half million dollars.

Where do you want that to come from?

Your proposal is to take it from NCIP.

Okay, so you agree you want that to come from NCIP.

I don't see I'm all so I'll just say this.

I'm very open to ideas and solutions.

I I obviously don't want to take funding from anything, but short of that, what what is the alternative?

We take out of a reserve.

My sense is this is what I hear.

We take out our reserves, we reduce staffing, which it's not clear in regards to what those positions are.

So there's some ambiguity there in regards to what that actually means.

Um or refer low employees.

Is there another solution out there that I'm missing that's been put on the table?

Sales tax, our reserves, what was it?

Sales tax, our reserves, and the fundamental thing that government should do is if we can't afford what we're doing, we have to cut services or personnel.

Every governmental agency will teach that that if you have a deficit, you have to look at what your most expensive costs are.

If we can't close the gap, we may ultimately have to reduce the services and reduce personnel.

I I already stated that.

What about pilot?

There's no certain there's no pilots re it requires an organization to voluntarily give us money.

So it's um it's a payment in lieu of taxes.

So there's conversation that the city's having right now with the aquarium with montage around them participating in that.

I don't know what that looks like.

So there's not a lot of certainty around that.

Um, and I've had conversations with both those entities, and they're both tapped.

I mean, look at what the state's doing right now in the federal government, it's the actually led with by the federal government, but with montage um in the position that they're in now.

Um it's a tough situation.

And and we've had conversations with the aquarium and and they've expressed their own issues with um sales.

Um so I I don't know the I I don't see a lot of certainty with those, so I wouldn't lean on that too hard.

Um let's try it, let's try a motion.

What about the rent on the aquarium lease?

That so the lease isn't up until yeah, and and that's that's actually one item that we'll be discussing next next week on Tuesday in closed session.

And uh I know the aquarium's given their feedback, we'll have that conversation in closed session uh regarding uh item that rely on that for and and that doesn't that's correct.

It doesn't fix the general fund uh deficit, it will help us with our needs in the Tidelands fund, which is where those lease revenues go.

You know, I this is a challenge.

We we're trying to identify how to balance the budget and it's well council's been doing amazing work looking at all the different strategies.

It's it's hard.

Uh can I ask the the council a question?

What's what is the what is the problem?

What is the concern with asking the NCIP to do the exercise for more than what you think you would be comfortable with approving, given that giving us more time to have more certainty around how some of this is moving forward, and assuming that like the motion be made in the context of if we're able to figure out some of these other pieces, then we the priority would be to reduce that amount in kind, which is kind of why I said if it's racked and stacked, so that way if it is if it comes in at five million, we can just cut from that list wherever it's at, or if it's three million or for it's one million, we just cut the bottom bottom projects and we go from there, as opposed to potentially having to be back in this space again.

To figure all this out, they have to go back to the the neighborhoods, they got to go back to the proponents.

They have to spend a lot of time evaluating aren't they doing that exercise anyways to determine any amount, right?

Like for them to engage in the conversation.

Approved and no, no, no.

My point is if they if we are charging them, if we walk away from here today, charging them with two or three million dollars to figure out how they're gonna cut, they're gonna have to go through that entire process anyways to figure out where's the cutoff of that three million.

So they're already engaging in the process.

Why are we cutting ourselves short today when we could allow ourselves, allow them to just rack and stack and then the council can figure this out later?

Let's not worry about figuring this out today.

Let's just tell them eight or ten million, whatever it is to go and charge and do it, and then we can figure this out later.

Like we're trying to solve everything today, and we just don't have enough information to figure this all out.

Yeah, may I ask a point of clarification?

Uh mayor.

So are you suggesting that there be up to a certain dollar amount?

Say eight to ten, and then, but if at the end of the day we get closer to the budget and we know we don't need that full amount, more tax revenue comes in than we anticipated, there's uh additional revenue.

We come up with montage health decides they're gonna give us three million dollars tomorrow.

We can then reduce the amount that is taken from NCIP.

Is that recommending?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Interesting.

Um from the personnel side, I I would like to share, and you know, Hans and I have talked about uh this, and I know we've we've talked about it with uh Rafela and with uh Andre and the whole team.

It's there's a nervousness among our city staff about potential layoffs and impacts.

If the policy decision, and this is the council's policy decision uh and not not staff decision to make, we're we're not recommending it.

But if the decision is to preserve NCIP and reduce staffing, then they would like to know a little sooner than later because we do have a process to go through with meet and confer, notifying folks that there may be layoffs and reductions in in staffing.

So that's just I'm throwing that out there because I know you know Hans asked me to specifically share that with all of you, and it's it's a consideration, just but if the decision is we we we're gonna look at all options but that, then that's also helpful to know from a staff perspective sooner than later.

Okay, I'm gonna allow the council to go by one more time, and then I'm gonna call for a motion.

I I just need clarification on sure.

So uh attrition is one thing taking budgeted physicians out is another.

To me, layoffs is an entirely new area.

Am I right?

A layoff is Raphael is sitting there with a job, and we tell her we don't need you.

That's a layoff.

Correct.

Yeah, nobody we have lots of options before we would get to.

That's that's absolutely I mean, I would come.

If we're talking about layoffs, I would come back and we dissolve NCIP or whatever, you know.

We aren't valid.

That's great to hear.

I think that's we aren't talking about layoffs.

And that's very helpful, Councilmember Ash.

And I think that's that's helpful when we look at the reduction amounts, the position attrition uh salary savings, which I appreciate.

I think that's great.

We uh we're staff recommending that.

That gives us up to 3.1 million.

So if we take if there's a let's say 10 million dollars minus the 3.1, we're closer to 7 million, which is good.

And then if we take three from NCIP from the seven, then we're left with a four million dollar gap.

So we're still a little short, right?

And four million.

So that's just we'll talk about it more next week, but yeah, because we don't have a lot of information to make those decisions, like what positions are they?

Any yeah, last minute.

Yeah, I just would say that um I I don't want to go to a specific um high number and ask NCIP to go back and battle through that.

I I just think that's an unreasonable ask.

I just think a reasonable ask is something between two and three million, and I just don't think we can um expect if they're gonna put their hearts into really working to this to get a greater number.

Um, I just disagree that the the staff recommendation of 8.5 million dollars um is too great of an ask because there's so many other things that we need to decide before that, and we can do to bring that number way down.

Um preserving staff physicians is important as well.

And I can't promise future decisions, but that is the absolute last thing I would want to do is eliminate positions and service.

But we're a long ways away from that.

Um, I look forward to next week, but the immediate side is we need a motion tonight to the task NCIP to go back together to figure out what projects shouldn't be funded.

Dr.

Mark, I'd like to make a motion um to go with number two with the staff recommendation, what the amount being um if a compromise four million dollars could be in the middle um to compromise it um go forward for today for the uh NCFP to come back and let us know what project they are recommending.

Is there a second on the motion?

Okay, the motion does may I make a uh another motion?

Let's let we is everybody gathered.

Yeah, let's finish.

Do you have anything to add?

Yeah, yeah, thank you.

What comes to mind is that this is the I think part of the uh the struggle, the internal struggle that I'm having.

I I can't imagine NCIP having uh uh robust um healthy uh fund and continue building like that uh sidewalk that I shared earlier while the city is struggling, maybe even to retain its staff.

So I mean, I shared my logic earlier.

I've learned that there were some gaps in that logic.

Um and to be frank, I missed the uh recommendation that was on the very last page of this document.

So uh I I mean I would recommend that those recommendations get stated at the very front.

I think that's very helpful.

Um but completing and this is what the conversation is about, right?

Or or not completing, but rather filling in those gaps.

Um now I can see I think uh a more complete picture of uh what we're trying to accomplish here, and I think also that timeline or the uh the uh filling of the uh of the of my gap there in terms of the timeline also is is coming back to me.

So I yeah, uh I'm leaning now more towards supporting staff recommendation.

Um yeah, okay.

I um I'm I'm actually gonna try a motion here.

Um which is taking a combination of let me just start off by saying um I appreciate the work that staff is doing.

There's been many hours spent in trying to get something that's not just throwing mud at the wall and seeing what sticks, but really taking the time to digest and figure out what's going to be palatable for the public.

So um I appreciate the investment that we as a community make into hiring people to be experts in this field to provide us a source.

Now it doesn't mean we just take it, right?

But I'm listening to it, I hear it.

Um I think trying to find a space of maybe not saying the full amount, which if I'm I'm clearly seeing that that's not palatable for the majority of the council, but if we take the projects that haven't been started yet and the inactive projects, that brings us to 8.6 million.

Um so I would recommend or make a motion to um have the NCIP um rack and stack projects that equate to 8.6 million, and I would ask that it be done in a way that it's a card exercise.

So there's 44 projects there if my math is correct.

So they get 44 cards, they do their homework before they go to the meeting, and it should be a relatively smooth thing, similarly to what we did for the council.

Um and allow that to be presented to the council does not mean that that's the number that we're going with in cuts.

It's just more information for council to be able to make the decision moving forward.

Um part of that motion is I'm I know I'm saying a lot, so I'll reiterate the motion here at the end, but is to is as we solve some of these other funding gap issues, and we identify those solutions that those will be prioritized towards reducing the amount that the council inevitably ends up pulling from NCIP.

So I'll just reiterate the motion is to take the projects net yet started and the inactive projects balances um give that to NCIP to rack and stack with the card exercise, and the council will reduce that amount based on any other alternative um taken.

And that could include uh is that too much?

Well, I would just say just end it at the dollar amount because there hasn't even been a decision yet to take any funds from the NCIP.

That will come back later, and so that could be a subsequent minus yeah, minus that part.

Thank you.

So can you restate the motion as you understand it from it, right?

I got a little confused with Chrissy's addition.

So are we take we're taking out the whole mention of 8.6 million?

That's the okay.

The part about the card project isn't staying.

So we just removed the part about it sounds good.

Oh, oh, that okay, got it.

Thank you.

So basically the motion.

Oh, well, let that means I can do it so that we're all clear on the record.

Yeah, so I'm taking out the part about as other solutions are identified.

Okay, so the um the projects not yet started and inactive project balances, I believe it was um of totaling 8.6 million that the NCIP would work together to find projects that would equal that amount.

Uh using a card exercise with one card per project.

That's what I've got.

Sounds about right.

Second.

There's a motion and a second.

Any discussion on the motion?

Yeah, I'm I'm can't support it because um, in all honesty, I I felt like we came tonight with uh willing NCIP partners who are willing to go through the projects and identify projects that should not be acted on.

I don't think anybody in here ever really expected a high number of eight million dollars plus uh to to come out of the NCIP.

I think that's a too great of an ask.

I think they're willing and could certainly come back with something more reasonable.

And I just think that um if this motion passes, it's getting out front before we've even had our meeting next week, where we have where we're gonna drill down on several other options.

I think the high number of eight million is premature, and I think that the appropriate way to do it is to let them go back with two or three million, and then we proceed next week to get into the details because um if this passes and actually that money does transfer, then all the other things we're gonna suggest, we could put ourselves in a position of a great surplus.

So we're taking from one and we're creating a surplus.

I think that's inappropriate.

I think we're doing it out of order, so I can't support it.

Anybody else?

Any discussion on the motion?

Right.

I won't be supporting it.

I I do think we're and I mentioned it at the beginning.

I think we haven't given the time to the 23 other suggestions from staff.

I I think this is too preliminary.

I won't be supporting it.

Any other discussion?

Um I think the motion is not to take this funding from the NCIP, it's to allow them to do the exercise.

So to make an assumption that we're gonna be enough in a surplus, we haven't made that vote yet.

We haven't taken that vote.

That that's not what this motion is.

So you were talking about dollars north of eight million dollars to have the them do an exercise.

And if if if we need to, we could do it, but that would be a future vote that we would do.

We would we're not that's not the vote tonight.

The vote is to allow them to do the exercise so that we can have we can be armed with information so that at a future council meeting we can make a decision on what we do.

But it sounds like you're doing so many conditions on the directions, they're gonna go back and say the city council wants eight million dollars.

So this is what we need to do.

And they're gonna go through that and they're gonna come in and they're gonna they're either gonna make that recommendation or come back and say we can't do that.

I I think it's being pretty clear.

We have the chair and the vice chair sitting here right now.

They can help translate that message that it's not clear in regards to whether they're gonna take this whole thing, it's just us doing the exercise so we can figure out how we're gonna proceed.

I'm very confused by what you're stating.

You're you were stating in your motion eight million dollars for them to do the exercise.

You just like you and Jean just articulated we don't have enough information.

So I think maybe we're just speaking differently.

Um we're absolutely speaking, yeah, we're absolutely not understanding each other.

If your motion is to direct the NCIP to get together and figure out how to come back with eight million of cuts, and then they're then they're gonna come back with that, and then yes, we're gonna vote on that.

That's the ultimate vote, but the direction you're giving seems to be incongruent with the spirit of what we had tonight, and is also already exposing what you really want.

You want eight million dollars.

Okay.

Yeah.

So that's that's why I can't support the motion because I think it's unreasonable to ask the NCIP to do such a high amount.

Okay.

Any other discussion on the motion?

All right.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

I no.

Okay.

Is there another motion on I didn't catch which way you voted, Dr.

Barbara?

She didn't know.

No, okay, thank you.

I I'll make a motion.

I make a motion that we take one and a half million dollars from the next cycle.

And one and a half million dollars from the contingency 24 million.

That will be total three million.

And we leave NCIP to do their projects and we and do the next year with 5.5 minus one with so I don't think we can take contingency.

That's not on the agenda.

It's only NCIP discussion.

Is that what you were going to say?

It was what I was going to say.

All right.

I make a motion that we deappropriate 1.5 million from the next fiscal NCIP year.

The um I I apologize.

It's also not agendized tonight for the actual taking of the money and to give direction back to the NCIP to use a dollar amount to come up with the projects that they would recommend for deappropriation.

Yeah, so they would go through all the projects that have already been approved but not acted on, not built yet.

I think you could do that.

So can I offer that um I think they're ready to go to work on going through the projects that have not yet been executed?

I would suggest that we give them the task to go examine the projects that are currently in this year that have been approved and determine what they believe and what they would recommend could be um frozen.

I think that was the term we were using.

Frozen, which then enables us to come up with a dollar amount that they recommend.

I'm listening.

Um are we able to ask the chair and vice chair between those options, which they we'd have to open it up for public comment again.

Well, they did recommend um option two.

Eight of them did and they did um the the chair and the vice chair did indicate that they were ready to go back and have a meeting and and determine which projects could be frozen.

So I think we already had the communications from uh the leadership of NCIP.

Can I can I try something out real quick?

Um I asked the quick clear if this is take three votes or four votes.

Three three.

Yep, go ahead.

Okay, so Dr.

Barber made a motion to try to meet in the middle.

I think it was four million, was it?

She didn't get a second.

So I hear half one and a half million here.

I heard three million from you.

Is there somewhere where y'all can figure out a number?

So would let me ask Dr.

Barber if we had a motion that said we ask NCIP to go back, meet, identify what can be frozen somewhere between three and four million dollars, would be the ask of the council.

Is that something that you would support?

Yeah.

Would a three or four million dollar ask be something that would be a motion that you could second.

No.

Okay.

I have I have trouble with declaw, you know, clawing back these projects.

I mean, I've been through it, it's health.

Yeah.

I I don't think anybody disagrees with you there, though.

Nobody do nobody disagrees with that statement.

We nobody likes this.

Right.

Nobody wants to be going through this.

I would take it forward.

And I and I I understand that might not be the majority opinion of NCIP, but I would take it forward if I'm forced to.

Okay, what do you mean you would take it forward?

Take it from the next fiscal year and not and not put NCIP through the process of doing the process.

Yeah.

So and how and you're you but your limit is a min a million and a half, is what you're saying.

Yeah.

I hear you're saying that you're comfortable with getting to be two three to four million.

Yeah, but so that I keep my goal.

Given that my motion failed, I'm trying to get us to move forward here.

So Dr.

Barber, do you want to put your motion back on the table?

And then we can try this again.

Yes, I would like to make a motion.

Um to be able to give direction to NCIP to go back to look for three to four million dollars worth of project.

Um for them to come back with a recommendation to the council.

That's my I'll second that.

Okay.

like to make a motion um to be able to give direction to nc to go back to look for three to four million dollars worth of project make sure i'm thinking uh conveyed it correctly um and for them to come back with a recommendation to the council that's on i'll second that okay can i make a friendly amendment that we attach the racking and stacking exercise so that way if it's not the full four million we know where to cut it off and it's really clear i just want to make sure that we're creating efficiency in the process um i don't i think staff is at something that's doable for them and not going to be cumbersome for them seeing a head nod from our public works director we do it with this my second yeah yeah i'm I'm good with that friendly amendment okay all right so uh like i iterated i am gonna support the um the the motion given our inability as a council to to get to where i i i think is is needed and appropriate um but for sake of us moving forward i i i'm gonna go ahead and support the motion any last minute comments on the motion before we move just to comment that um i think we're gonna have much more detail that we are looking for next week that will help get that clarity in our head where we we close the gap on that 10 and understand more of the options next week um so look forward to that i'm gonna jump in yeah we'll be we'll be ready thank you okay for your direction any last comments on this side all right all those in favor aye any opposed opposed so there's four one thank you for entertaining that um uh obviously we know that the these are are are hard discussions so i i appreciate everybody's patience i know that this is really uncomfortable um with that we're gonna go ahead and adjourn thank you everybody thank you thank you