Awesome.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon.

I'm going to go ahead and uh get us started.

Our mayor is uh running a few minutes behind.

He's gonna join us soon.

Um and uh a portion of this meeting will be conducted by teleconference, and then council member barber will request to participate today by teleconference.

Uh but before we go to that, um gonna pass it over to Clementine to take roll and make announcements.

Councilmember Barber.

Present.

Councilmember Rash here.

Councilmember Smith.

Here and Vice Mayor Garcia.

And the record will reflect when Mayor Williamson arrives.

Oh, and public comment and participation information is provided on the meeting's agenda, which is online at Monterey.gov slash agendas.

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

And thank you for participating in your city government.

Thank you, Clementine.

So again, Dr.

Barber uh has requested to participate today by teleconference.

So uh I would like to now request that council member Barber respond to the following questions.

Councilmember Barber, can you hear me well?

Yes.

Were you able to hear our proceedings on this end up until now?

Yes.

Do you have a copy of the agenda for this meeting?

Yes.

What is a brief explanation of your need to participate remotely under the emergency circumstances clause?

There's no need to disclose medical information or disability status.

Medical.

Is anyone aged 18 or over with you in the room?

No.

Uh the Brown Act uh requires that any votes taken during the teleconference portion of this meeting be taken by roll call.

So with that, we're gonna open it up for public comment on specifically on council members' request to participate via teleconference.

So if we have anyone uh here in the chambers who would like to offer public comment again, regarding council members, uh council member barber's participation uh via teleconference.

Please stand uh next to the podium.

In the meantime, we're gonna do a countdown for folks on Zoom if they wish to offer public comment.

Seeing none on Zoom, nobody here in the chambers.

We're gonna go ahead and close public comment.

And we're gonna move right along then uh to uh uh vote to make sure um that um yes.

We're gonna move uh over to uh roll call to approve council members barber uh council member barber's request so can I get a motion to uh have uh council member barber participate via teleconference.

I make the motion.

All right, we have a motion.

We'll have a second second by uh council member rash and roll call.

Uh Vice Mayor Garcia.

Yes, Councilmember Rash.

Yes, Councilmember Smith, yes.

And Councilmember Barber?

Yes.

All right.

So um approval has moved, has been moved.

Uh with that, we'll go ahead and move on to general public comments.

Um so this uh this is for items that are not on today's agenda.

Um for any folks who are interested in offering uh general public comments uh here in the chambers, please uh stand next to the podium.

Um and also for folks on Zoom, we're gonna give a countdown so you can identify yourself again.

This is general public comment for items that are not on today's agenda.

So for folks on Zoom, we're gonna count down five, four, three, two, one.

We have one, and here in the chambers, we have two, three, four, seven.

So we'll give two minutes.

Um, so we have folks standing, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.

Let's go with two minutes, and uh, we'll go ahead and start here in the chambers.

And um, Vice Mayor, if you wouldn't mind, I'm suspecting that a number of the people lined up want to comment on closed session and public comments on the closed session item will occur before adjourning to the closed session.

So if um there's discussion of the sidewalk vending ordinance challenge uh and related topic that would be before adjourning to closed session, not at this time.

Thank you for that.

Um, so again, the these items, the the general public comment is for items that are not on today's agenda.

So go ahead, sir.

Okay, Kurt Chipton.

I'm here to speak about the display boat.

We should all be ashamed of what we allowed happen.

Not once, not twice, three times that boat has been not taken care of and totally falling apart.

I understand that maybe something's going on in the city to try to find another boat, maybe.

But we need to do something.

Council and staff needs to come up with an idea of how we can protect all of our things that are have historic value.

For example, the fish hopper that came to NCBIP, and we have voted for that, depending on what we do about freezing funds, but there are other objects out there that the city isn't paying attention to that are on city property.

So I urge you to have a agenda item where you discuss how you and all of us can keep up creep on all of our properties.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and City City Council.

My name is Mary Nissim.

I've been up here many times, and I would like to speak today.

Um not specifically on the closed session.

Um, however, I would like to give an update on what what working on the wharf has looked like since September.

There has not been more than eight vendors at any one time.

People are really scared, really stressed out.

It's put a huge financial stress on vendors like myself and my husband that have been working there full time for many years.

This has been our workplace.

And just want to remind the council that the Senate bill was put in place to give dignity to the workplace, to give dignity to people who make artisan uh crafts and to give dignity back to the market space in public areas.

It's made to be helpful for people to get a leg up, to have um business to look to look into and to give us a um a way to make to make a living, um, not pocket money, but a real living, and that's been our main living, our main income for the last six years.

And with the ordinance in place, we've seen dramatic loss in sales, and we've also seen that uh the stress level is out of the roof, off the roof.

And just the public records show there was no study done by the city prior to doing this.

Okay, so pardon my interruption, as I described at the beginning of this meeting.

If you're going to comment on the lawsuit which you're doing, um that's not the appropriate time right now to do that.

You need to wait until the evening.

And so I'd ask that you respect the protocol that's in place.

Okay.

And I think now you've used up your time and will not be commenting during that other.

Oh, well, I had 30 more seconds, which have now been taken.

Uh, good afternoon, mayor and council.

Uh, my name is Jason Asmus.

I reside on uh Yerba Buena Court, and I'm following up to an email that I sent all of you on the 15th.

Uh it's regarding a neighbor that has been utilizing city resources to harass all of us.

Uh we've had points where we've all been ticketed on various occasions, had parking fire, um, building inspector, multiple departments coming through.

And what we're really asking for is just a little bit more fairness and balance uh in the way this is being executed and hopefully a dialogue to happen.

Uh it's kind of unsettling.

We never know what's coming when it's coming.

And it's been one particular person that's been the source of all this.

So I just wanted to speak briefly.

Hopefully, I can hear from somebody, have a dialogue.

Uh, we just want to have a little bit of peace.

Thank you.

Testing testing.

Okay, is that working out there?

Okay, I did a public records request, and I want to show that Kim Barber met with Chris Shake, and she never met with sidewalk vendors.

So that was an ex parte violation.

Then I want to say on February 4th.

Here is a dialogue between Tony Lombardo and or secretary and a voicemail to Hans.

They said that they had met last August.

She's working on street vendor issue with Tony and their client to talk about ideas we've come up with and that we'd like to propose.

Okay.

Then we got this one, February 5th, Tony to Hans email scheduling a sidewalk vendor meeting February 24th.

Then we've got this one, which is Lombardo to Hans on April 9th.

Talk about sidewalk vendors.

Okay, this is all number five is April 14th.

Chris Shake to Tyler, the mayor express my sincere gratitude to the city council and city staff.

Then the next page is uh I want restrictions on the number of vendors and display sizes, is what he's asking for.

Then April 15th, Tyler back to Chris Shake, staff proposed policy, achieves what is being asked for.

Then April 21st, we've got Lombardo schedules a meeting with the city manager to discuss street vendor issue.

Then we got May 2nd, the street vendor.

We have public counsel law group representing us, and they sent a stop demand letter saying the ordinance updates failed to comply with SB 946.

They have no legal justification on this page right here under 946 city and unjust and improper forms of harassment.

Then on this one, we got Tony Lombardo again, and he's saying to Hans, send me a copy of that letter.

The city got from the lawyers.

Then we've got letter from city vendor council.

Thank you.

Then we've got when's the next ordinance update?

July 15th.

So that's your time.

That's it.

Um, I'm gonna show a video.

So I guess I have to do it here.

Because there's no sound over there, correct?

There's no sound over here.

No, okay.

All right.

Yes, we don't know.

I'll learn the check for a portion of it if you want.

Um, let's hear that last part again.

Oh, I'll run the check for a portion of it if you want.

We're listening to what appears to be Hans Oosler, the city manager being offered a bribe for harsh enforcement forcement on vendors, including implementing a lottery system, size restrictions, daily enforcement instead of yearly enforcement.

Um, before the bribe was offered, the um enforcement came once a year.

Now they come every day.

Did Hans take the bribe?

I don't know.

You'll have to investigate.

But this was two months ago, and I know it's a felony not to report that you were offered a bribe.

So I assume that Mr.

Usler and law enforcement are all actively investigating this offered bribe.

And I don't want to take anything out of context.

Hans says ours starts there this year already.

The business owner says, Yeah, I'm glad it's over with, and in less than five days, Hans.

No, 30 days, but I'll make sure the enforcement component is there.

So we have a lottery system for at least two months, and the property will be controlled and with support from blue.

Business owner, personally, it's one of the most difficult enforcement in the beginning is gonna be really important.

They got interrupted.

Um, Hans says, Absolutely, they will be there on the weekends and all that business owner says you guys have the funds, because I was gonna say, I'll write a check for a portion of it if you want.

And here we have this is a meeting between a business owner and um the city manager, and he's being offered a check, which I am assuming two months ago.

He did not disclose to anyone.

Also, the lottery system has been implemented, and everything the guy offered to pay for has in the last two months been implemented.

So you tell me.

That's your time.

Thank you.

All righty.

Good evening.

Uh, my name is Eli Mullen.

I'm 14 years old, and I'm here um on behalf of the vendors here.

Um, I actually worked on there myself um at least twice a week.

Um for the first couple of uh months, it was more of or a fun thing for me to do other than finances.

I still don't need uh the money, but it sure has been a little disappointing to see that y'all have not taken care of your uh municipal responsibilities.

Um it it kind of troubles me that people are losing their jobs, no longer making money.

Um about those responsibilities.

Um clear signage, lane markings, and thoughtfully designed public uh places would be awesome to have.

Um blaming the vendors on not only public safety, um, but it's kind of illogical, you know, counterproductive uh business that are y'all are doing.

Um, I think safety for the safety measures.

Um doing that would be very important.

Um it is apparent that certain established business owners additionally um uh on fisherman's wharf are applying pressure to eliminate vendors um under the pretense of safety.

Uh, when in truth it's about protecting their own market share.

That is called economic gatekeeping.

It is not acceptable.

Um sidewalk vending is not a public threat, it is protected.

Uh, it is a legitimate source of um uh form of commerce under California SB 944.

Um, I urge this council to reconsider these overreached uh proposals and focus instead of uh instead on collaborative constructive solutions that serve the entire community, not just a select flu with few with influence.

Um, thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Uh, have a wonderful opportunity.

Thanks for being here today.

It's not too often we get younger folks uh speaking at public comment, and I know it's probably nerve-wracking, but uh thank you for sharing your public comment with us today.

Good evening, guys.

Uh, just I just want to start off with saying uh I voted for uh for all of you guys, and um you know, about a year and a half ago, I I really um I really had a uh a high hope, you know.

Um I'm I'm one of the vendors, and uh it I've been out of work, you know, for a while now.

I've got a little baby girl uh on the way, and um just please uh please let us go back out there to work.

Uh Mary Williamson and Council, my name's George McNeely, and uh I live near the intersection of Casa Verde and Domani up in the Del um Del Monte Beach neighborhood, and just want to share a few comments uh about the neighborhood community improvement uh program and the value that that's brought the city and our communities over the last 30 to 40 years, and uh I speak for a lot of taxpayers and voters.

That that's a really positive program that promotes community involvement in bettering our city and communities, and um I guess I've heard that some of the funding may be removed or taken for other things.

I just have to pause you for a second.

It's this the subject that you're talking about is on the agenda, and so this is general public comments for items that are not on today's agenda.

Okay, so if you'd like to make comments on that, you'd have to wait for our evening session when this item is uh is that seven o'clock.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Um, how about the intersection at Casa Verde and Del Mani?

That's that's coming up.

Is that on that's this session?

That's on their phone side.

Can I talk about that?

Nope.

So we'll we'll do we'll get to that next.

Oh, then I'll wait for that.

Okay, sorry about that.

Sorry for confusion.

I know it can be confusing sometimes.

Okay.

Did we have Zoom callers?

Okay, so we'll go ahead and go to our Zoom caller.

We have one caller, and that is Jeff.

Jeff, you can unmute and go ahead.

Hi, everyone.

Uh my name is Jeffrey Swanson, and I am here to say what's being done to the Monterey vendors ROM.

Um the market is an ancient institution for an important reason.

It is a place that brings together the community and allows for the expression of great diversity and creativity for thousands of years.

People have gathered in markets and have used that space for the exchange of culture, ideas, and a huge variety of goods.

It's also a place people go to share any experience.

The market is the best way to see new ideas expressed.

What is being done to the vendors in the Monterey market goes beyond being unfair?

It is illegal.

The amount of emotional damage that has been inflicted on our beloved vendors is incalculable.

I spent some of the best and most memorable days of my life at the market.

I've met people from around the world, and I know people love the market exactly how it has been.

And there is no ethical reason to destroy something so beautiful.

The law clearly protects vendors from becoming the target of large money hungry businesses.

Unfortunately, that law is being violated due to the greed of a small number of people.

And if the majority of the population was well informed about what was happening, I think there would be public outcries.

That's why I feel the responsibility to speak today.

The vendor community is comprised of some of the most interesting, talented, outgoing, friendly, creative and kind people I have ever known.

The cities, quote unquote, changes are completely unfounded.

I've always felt safe, welcome.

Underline safe, welcome and included when I without the mark.

I beg that everyone listening now, look deep into your heart and remember the market.

We love would not exist without the vendors.

And please stop this destructive process.

Thank you all for your time.

Have a good day.

That's all I have.

Okay.

With that, we'll go ahead and close general public comment and move on to the consent agenda agenda.

There's been a request to pull item three.

And um, based off of the comments earlier, we're we'll also go ahead and pull item number five.

Any other items that the council wishes to pull.

Staff was there.

Oh, please go ahead.

Yeah, two, two, and I just need a summary.

Okay, so we'll pull two, three, and five.

Staff, is there anything else?

Uh I'm not aware of anything else, ma'am.

Okay.

But at this point, we'll go ahead and call for uh public requests to pull any other items on the consent agenda.

Um, for folks on Zoom, you can use a raise hand function.

In the meantime, I'll check with folks in the chamber.

Anybody in the chamber wish to speak on this item?

Okay.

This is consent.

So other than the items that are being pulled, if you want to pull anything else, this is the opportunity to give public comment on that.

All right, so I don't see any in the chamber.

So we'll go and close in the chamber.

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

And there's one person on Zoom.

We'll go ahead and take that caller.

Yes, this is our telephone caller.

Uh, you can unmute and go ahead.

This is Nina Beattie.

I want to comment when you get to pulling um item number two.

Okay, yep, we'll pull that separately.

So we'll let you jump back on at that point.

With that, we'll go ahead and close general public comment.

Bring it back to the council for motion and deliberation.

I'll make a motion that we approve the consent calendar with the exceptions of items pulled.

Second.

Moved and seconded.

Any other discussion?

Right.

Roll call vote, please.

Councilmember Smith.

Yes.

Councilmember uh Garcia.

Yes.

Councilmember Barber.

Yes.

Councilmember Rash.

Yes.

And Mayor Williamson.

That's a yes for me.

Without one to item number two, first reading of an ordinance adopting parts of the 2025 California Building Standards Code, including local amendments and the 2024 International Property Maintenance Code.

Um, maybe we'll check in with Councilmember Smith.

Yeah, just um, I know it's an annual thing we do, but because we have so many things that change from the state, I was wondering if staff has any summary of significant things that are updating in the building codes uh that we're about to accept and uh pass forward.

I have not read the California building standards codes because it's voluminous, and I'm hoping staff might be able to give us a couple of highlights of things that they see might be changing.

And then I know we have a speaker that wants to ask some questions.

Absolutely.

I I think the uh the main um points here are uh aside from the usual uh changes to the building code, which actually happens every three years, if I understand it correctly, is that there were some substantial improvements to the California fire code.

Um and uh part of that was the creation of the new California wide line urban interface code um that that now matches also the fire code.

So um the normal standard of the run of the mill uh improvements to building codes this time around.

Uh there were a few fire code um uh relevant um additions to that.

One of them is the um for sprinklers uh that that are associated also with with wolves uh and uh uh establish also where we need sprinklers now for certain building types.

So uh if that's general comments enough for you, otherwise we have the building officially with the fire chief here who can probably go into greater detail than I can right now.

Yeah, so I guess the main question is some of the people I spoke with this week were wondering about the defensible spaces that we've all talked about that's been published from Calfire.

Uh and that's connected to this, so it's incorporated to adopt the Calfire recommendations of defensible space.

So is there anything else that we need to drill into for the public to learn from our approval tonight of the building codes that we're adopting?

Is there anything else that we would anticipate that we need to have outreach for?

Yeah.

Yeah, I I think our building official uh can earn her money now by helping me out.

I knew we'd see Lori.

Yes, hello.

Um this cycle of the building codes, the California building standards um are relatively minor in uh the bulk of their changes.

There is some current legislation that actually places limits on any new code requirements that impact residential construction.

So unless you are repeating past code amendments that you've already had in place, you are limited into um what you can um amend in the code.

Our the city of Monterey typically has um primarily administrative uh amendments only with regard to the building codes, um, except for the fire code, which I can't really go into much detail on that.

I would mention that the wildland urban interface code that is a new code, is really not um implementing new requirements, but rather it's taking sections out of the residential code, the the fire code and the building code and combining them into one unified code that addresses um those wildland urban interface uh requirements.

Um if there's any um questions specifically that I can uh answer, I'd be happy to.

That answers it.

Thanks, Mayor Okay.

Any other questions from the council?

All right, with that, we'll go ahead and thank you.

With that, we'll go ahead and open it up for public comment on this item for folks on Zoom.

You can use the raise hand function.

In the meantime, I'll check in the chamber.

Anybody in the chamber wishes to speak on this item.

All right, seeing none, go ahead and close it off in the chamber.

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

We have one person on Zoom.

We'll go ahead and take that caller.

Yes, um, we have a telephone caller and it's Ms.

Beattie.

You can go ahead.

Yes, this is Nina Beattie.

Um, I'm asking that you postpone consideration of the first reading of these updates and the city amendments.

That wasn't mentioned.

There's city amendments in here too.

And don't pass something that you haven't had time to read.

These are pages of changes, and with the important items on the rest of the agenda, this needs more time to study what the city would bind the public to do by approving them.

Fire code changes are important to have the public to have time to review as well as you have time to review.

I would note that past building standards have exempted utility meters and those previous um analog electromechanical meters that were that were on all buildings were grounded and had adequate surge protection.

However, however, after California utility companies in 2010, beginning that year, changed ungrounded, quote, smart meters with inadequate surge protection and containing lithium ion batteries.

Building standards did not respond to the fire and electrical hazards they posed.

With the agenda report talks about ignition resistance construction standards, and they likely do not include utility meters in this current version either, which puts monterey residents and businesses in danger.

And that's just not acceptable.

This also contains amendments made by staff.

The saying goes the devils in the details.

And whenever the city corporation adds local rules, they must be carefully studied for the burdens that were put on community members.

And so I ask you to postpone this until the next meeting so that allows the public to read these changes that the city as well as the state wants to impose on Monterey.

And please don't pass this if you haven't had time to read this.

Thank you.

Yeah, we'll go ahead and close comment on the item.

The question for staff, what happens if we don't approve this?

Uh and I think maybe more specifically.

Is it do we already have to comply with it given that the state law?

If you could just jump up to the mic, sorry.

There is a um state requirement that we submit it to the state.

So she'll confirm the deadline on that.

Um we have until January 1st to implement this, and it takes 30 days after the the second um, you know, after council approval and adoption.

Um if we didn't adopt these um amendments, then the state code would go into effect in its unamended form.

And I would mention that the amendments that we have are significantly the same amendments that we've done the last two code cycles.

So, like from 2019 and 2022.

Um, essentially we have no new amendments um from a building code standpoint.

Okay, thank you so much for that.

Please I I would propose that uh if we're ready, I'll make a motion.

We do have the provision that we approve the first reading tonight.

Then we have 30 days.

We'll see this again for the second reading.

And if we have true 30 days, like the cycle is that should be adequate time for the public to be able to dig into this and then come back to us and give us suggestions at the second reading.

So it's not automatic.

We have a chance to be able to hear from the public if they discover something in there that they need to voice.

Well said.

Is there is that I'll make a motion before we just clarify the second reading is in two weeks.

And then after the second reading, uh in 30 days, the ordinance becomes effect.

So you don't have uh as you described 30 days.

You you will see it in two weeks.

Okay, well, the second reading.

So the attorney is looking like she's ready to see.

Oh, just a very nuanced um, so the ordinance will go into effect, but the contents of the ordinance and the application of those laws isn't going to be effective until January 1st.

Okay.

By the provisions of the terms of the ordinance itself.

So it sounds like if um I make a motion, it gives the public two weeks for them to come back before we we go to a second reading.

So I'll make the motion that we approve this tonight uh on its first reading, and we'll see this again as a second reading in two weeks.

And motion is there a second second.

And move and second, any other discussion.

All right, roll call vote, please.

Councilmember Rash.

Yes.

Councilmember Barber?

Yes.

Council Member Garcia?

Yes.

Councilmember Smith?

Yes.

And Mayor Williamson.

Yes.

With that, we'll move on to item number three.

Award a contract in the amount of three million eight hundred and sixty-nine thousand seven hundred and forty dollars to Tyler Technologies Inc.

for an enterprise resource planning system and project management and implementation services.

But that'll pass it to Hans for staff.

Yes, Mr.

Mayor, I will uh provide you with uh with a up uh with a brief summary of this uh report.

Um in essence, uh the the city of Monterey, our staff we are proposing to uh replace our uh existing um financial software system, it's called uh Eden or Tyler Eden, we named it after the mayor.

And um, no, it's not it's title technologies.

Um and um the um that system uh will not be supported by Title Neck Technologies uh in 2027, so we are at the end of life of that system.

Um the um team has budgeted for the replacement of that uh financial software uh system uh over the past two years by uh putting money into the uh IT reserves and dedicating it for the moment that is now in front of you to um basically uh exercise the purchase of that.

The 3.8 million dollars uh is a 10-year cost uh that is spread out as I stated over 10 years.

The initial cost is uh 1.1 million for the uh uh implementation uh plus some uh other cost for for travel.

And um, so going forward for the next 10 years, the oval cost is 3.8 money is set aside in the IT reserve for the initial purchase, and uh it will take us probably two or three years to actually uh uh implement this enterprise-wide system.

Uh it will affect finance, it will also affect HR.

Um, it will affect IT.

So there are there are very various new components there.

And uh again, uh it's a necessity for us to replace the existing software system.

And with that, I leave it uh with that for right now.

Thank you, Hans, for that.

Questions from the council.

All right, seeing none, we'll go ahead and open it up for public comment.

For folks on Zoom, you can use the raise hand function.

Anybody in the chamber wishes speak on this item.

See one person.

Anyone else?

All right.

So go ahead and cut it off to that one speaker in the chamber.

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

There's nobody on Zoom, so go ahead.

Mr.

Mayor, members of the council require speaking on behalf of the Monarchy Peninsula Taxpayers Association.

I asked for the site and be polled because you don't have all the information about it in front of you.

Yes, three million has been put in reserves to pay for the system and the installation, but the staff report also says you're hiring two more people and you have increased part-time staff as well.

What is the total cost of this project?

You don't know and you don't have it at a time when you're now looking at how are we going to fill a fix a structural deficit.

To me, you should have all information in front of you before you make a decision.

This magnitude, and as it is, the optics of spending three million right now when we're looking at taking money from NCIP and other places is questionable.

I think you need this.

You're at end of life.

I know what the ERPs do.

And the other question is will it save you money by being more efficient in doing things?

You really need to have all financial information before you make major financial decisions.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

With that, we'll go ahead and close public comment, bring it back to the council for motion and deliberation.

Um two questions.

Um can you clarify the question being raised around the total cost um associated with this item?

And then what is the impact of us not moving forward?

Well, the the impact of not moving forward is not an option for the city council.

We would be stuck with uh outdated uh software system that um in 27 we will not have um uh system support for anymore.

So if something gets stuck somewhere, or if the uh if we need help to to um identify um uh uh something in in a complex system like a financial system, we will not have support for that.

Um with with respect to um uh Mr.

Hoyer's um uh expression about the two additional positions, that is correct.

They were part of the budget process when we presented it to you, and uh we shared with you that uh those two positions will be used to help us implement that software because um we do not have the in-house uh capacity, and by that I don't mean the knowledge or know-how by that.

I just mean we don't have the resources dedicated uh right now that would be able to keep the normal operation of the finance department and the HR department alive while we are uh using um Tyler technologies uh to implement uh this software.

Uh anyone who has implemented uh an enterprise-wide system uh can attest to to you that um this is um is a is a good solution to bring somebody else into the mix.

It was part of the budget, and without those two resources, we will not be able to uh manage uh uh a timely implementation of the system.

Uh, to what degree the the council would like to be briefed about this as Mr.

Hoyer uh was suggesting that uh it's it's absolutely up to the council's discretion.

But frankly, uh we went through an RFP process.

Uh we we uh had the vendors come over a period of uh uh one to 1.5 to two days showing their system.

We had a cross-departmental team that was uh investigating that and staff did their work.

And um and again, uh I I uh believe that's what we are supposed to do, not to have the the council to get to dive too deep into those um uh technical data points.

Um and last but not least, uh the funding mechanism that Mr.

Hoyer is uh speaking about.

That's part of our very wise uh reserve policy, Mr.

Hoyer, that we have implemented over the past years, and that allows us to not really go uh into the operational accounts uh to do just that.

It allows us to use the reserves that we are putting away in uh in uh good times uh like we did to use wisely now, and I think the taxpayers association should be happy about the wisdom of the council to have those reserves ready right now and not struggling to come up with money uh that basically would burden the taxpayers and the uh residents more by reduction in service levels.

the past years and that allows us to not really go uh into the operational accounts uh to do just that it allows us to use the reserves that we are putting away in uh in uh good times uh like we did to use wisely now and i think the taxpayers association should be happy about the wisdom of the council to have those reserves ready right now and not struggling to come up with the money uh that basically would burden the taxpayers and the uh residents more by reduction in service levels okay any other questions open also to a motion i just have one question uh for city manager how can we stretch out the life anymore you're you're sounding like this is it we can't get four months or six months or uh we're stretching the life all till 2027 so uh the it's not that it starts tomorrow uh we we will have the implementation hopefully done by 2027 it may actually be uh uh realistic that we may exceed uh the the Tyler support by a couple of months if our system is not ready to completely roll out so yes we are at the back back back end of that system right now uh to replace it uh it would be um uh really not then to say let's start that process in 2027 when the system is is dead and we don't have any support and so I think uh at this time uh I think we have done a good job to do um timing wise to bring it forward uh with the ramp up of probably two and a half years that we have worked on that project.

Thank you.

Dr.

Barber uh yes so I understand um the the technical piece and and the timing of it because I've been through this type of transition it does take a while to get the implementation make sure everything is matching and and having someone that has that expertise to come in to run the system to make sure it it it complies makes sense.

I guess my question would be um is there a length of time that we have for that particular position to come in and do this implementation transition training or is this something that's gonna be ongoing?

Yeah uh thank you thank you Dr.

Barbara we are planning of using those two positions for three years and um we will be uh as I said it in a different context uh to the to the city council when we talked about positions like that um we will um be ready to have um uh uh substitute uh for for that position ready in in IT or in HR without uh uh basically adding then two more positions so those positions will time out after two or three years and before that happens we will use uh the the normal attrition that we have to uh uh uh retain those positions okay thank you and with that and if you if I'm able to make a motion mayor yeah you may I make a motion that we approve um uh item number three on the consent is there a second second so moved in seconded any other discussion on the item yeah I I wanted to ask a drill down a little bit um is that one of those examples that we have an opportunity where those two positions might be contracted employees or is that inappropriate where we feel that those two positions need to be city employees and are we having to recruit or is this one of those where we have the personnel here we're moving the personnel to a new assignment so it's not a new person coming on board of the city those are a good question is customer smith uh for us uh the uh goal is to bring in the two staff members who can both on the IT side and then also on the HR side and the reason why we're not recommending and not planning to move forward with the contract model is because of the idea that folks coming on board need to be integrated with our staff and uh and there's a level of expertise that uh the position will have not only working on the ERP implementation uh but also we recognize that some of the employees who are in key leadership roles within HR and IT will also be working on uh this implementation project so the the the it is part of it is security and also the integration of staff um the security needs for this position will require them to have access to sensitive information there's data migration involved and we do have consultants who we actually have on board as part of assisting with implementation but there's a clear segregation of duties in terms of what our city staff are working on and what the consultant will be assisting with when it comes to project management and uh and oversight.

So we are using consultants where we can we have a company called SDI presence they've been part of our team uh working on not only facilitating and assisting with the ERP RFP process but also project management that we have uh on on retainer to allow us to close out the project but after those three years we will no longer need those uh those positions we're we're not planning on uh continuing them and uh uh and we do believe that in-house is is the best approach given the sensitivity and integration with staff.

But after those three years, we will no longer need those uh those positions.

We're we're not planning on uh continuing them and uh uh and we do believe that in-house is is the best approach given the sensitivity and integration with staff.

And just a follow-up question, if I might.

Um, I know this was approved in our budget process uh at the beginning.

So in July 1, we approved the two positions, anticipating that this would happen.

So they're not yet on our payroll.

So then the natural question is as we expand these two employees to take on this special assignment for the next three years.

Those employees need to come on board at some point, and let's say it happens in two months, they come on board.

We've already had salary savings from those two positions hanging there.

So I and I know it gets complicated with uh unfunded positions and you know, the two we might have to recruit the you know, so um I guess the question for the public is they're probably wondering do these two positions impact the already pending deficit in 2026.

The answer is uh is no because I think uh not I think I know the funding comes out of the IT reserves for those positions.

So that was part when we when we did the budget this year.

Uh one of the questions I kept asking, where's the funding come for the I for that um for those two positions?

They they are coming also out of the IT reserve.

Um the other the other part about the salary savings, I I just want to um uh state uh the um when the positions come on board, the project will also start.

So there is not a real salary savings, councilmember Smith, because uh even though we are right now in the process of hiring, I think the person for HR is being hired right now, not for finance yet, or I might have mixed up what we have currently in the pipeline.

But we are in the process of recruiting right now, but we will need them uh for the for the time of of two or three years.

And when I mentioned uh to have that in ho to have that resource in-house, this is a real full-time uh uh eight hours, nine hours, ten hours a day work to get it implemented.

If we uh go uh with the other option that that council member Smith was was thinking about, that is also an option.

But for all the good reasons that um assistant city manager mentioned, in addition, another reason is you want to have a hundred percent dedicated attention to that and not another project that somewhere else uh on the consulting side is out there or with this uh hiring hired consultant is coming and distract from from the uh attention to our product.

And so um in this case, we we we weight different options uh as Ned was pointing out.

We have a uh implementation consultant uh uh as well engaged, but having full attention is very important.

And think about please about the complexity of our accounting system and our invoicing system.

Think about the contracts that we are have with neighboring cities and agencies.

And um, this is not something you you can do with uh uh intuitive uh off the shelf um accounting system.

So yeah.

If I'll add also, I think this this is a project we know there's uh high price tag, but it's uh we've all the we received seven to eight proposals, uh, narrowed it down to only two or three that actually meet our requirements.

And uh this is not only the best product of all the research we we did and the uh deep uh deep dives and several uh meetings and assessments with all the stakeholders internally, all the departments were involved in this uh the feedback and selection process over multiple days and laid it on Tyler Technologies, which which uh uh several uh literally hundreds of cities in in the United States use.

Um also add there's a mindfulness of being as cost efficient as possible on this project.

And it's one of the reasons why our finance director uh has uh decided to try to on at least the finance uh piece rather than hiring a full-time staff member for the next three years, see what we can do with utilizing part-time staff to help supplement the needs.

And that's why there are uh uh there she's gone out to CSGMB and other places to recruit and and when it comes to data entry, that's where we use utilize part-time where we can, and where we have higher level needs security uh issues, we'll we'll use the part the full-time staff and on the HR and uh and IT side.

Okay, thank you.

Um I I have one um last question.

I think Mr.

Hoyer was asking about essentially a cost benefit analysis.

Um maybe just a quick yes or no, does doing this save the city money in the long term?

Does doing this save the city money in the long term?

Maybe it just requires an explanation, but trying to try to move on to the next one is it saves the city money in the long term, and I'll give you an example.

Uh cybersecurity is a thing uh that that we all hear about.

You heard about San Bonito County, uh, where a check was issued and it was had to be grant back.

So um even if our system today uh is slide years behind woodward uh future systems can show us with respect to security, and there will be a huge cost benefit that not someone can just grab a check and walk away with $700,000 or whatever happened in San Benito County.

So yes, yeah.

What I'm hearing is this this is a risk conversation.

Yeah.

So all right, I'm gonna go ahead and call the question.

Um roll call, please.

Councilmember Barber.

Yes.

Councilmember Smith.

Yes.

Councilmember Garcia.

Yes.

Councilmember Rush.

Yes.

And Mayor Williamson.

It's a yes for me.

That move on to item number five, authorized amendments to the professional service agreement with SJ construction management for construction management and resident and engineering services for the Del Monte and Casa Verde Recreation Trail Intersection Improvement Project to increase the not-to-exceed amount from 367,998 and 74 cents to 529,658.40 cents and extend the contract by six months.

Yeah, I I keep it short as well.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, a precision grade uh is the contract on this project.

Uh the project um was to be completed within 150 working dates.

We had expected that the date of completion was April 7, 2025.

Um, unfortunately, the project experienced several delays uh prompting this request to increase the cost and duration of the con city's contract with SJ construction management.

Um the funding for this project comes from uh uh federal grants for grant grant funding, uh if if that's correct, and also from um uh CIP account Measure X.

So with that, um if there are any more questions, uh I'm happy to entertain them.

And our project engineer um is is I see ready to jump to the lectern and explain more in case you have more questions.

Um Mayor Pro Tam, I have a question if I can kick it off.

Um so I guess the natural question is why is it taking so long?

And I know construction is always vulnerable, so it's I think we're gonna get the answer, but um certainly weather construction mistakes, but why additional money and why such a long time?

Uh yeah.

So when you say um the question was asked, uh, what were the unforeseen issues?

And there were some suggestions, um, errors in utility conflicts and um contractor delays.

It's uh really matter of all of the above.

Um so we had material issues.

So the major uh material delay on this project has actually been the traffic signal polls as a federally funded project.

Uh we can only use Buy America steel polls.

Um there was about a six to eight month waiting period, which is above and beyond what we would normally anticipate these polls would take.

Um, so they have to be ordered very far in advance.

You you get yourself in that uh queue and you kind of hope nothing bumps you back um from the supplier.

Um we also have a limited resource where there's only two people in the entire country or two companies in the entire country who manufacture these polls that we can use.

So we're definitely at their back end call.

Um we also had um issues with groundwater.

We had issues with the construction of one of our um signal pole foundations.

Uh we pride ourselves on being a historic city, and that comes with some historic problems in terms of our utility conflicts, where we ran into abandoned storm drained lines and abandon other features that we didn't anticipate to be there.

Um so when you have all these delays, they just pile on top of each other.

And that's one of the and it's the reason why this project has extended for so long.

Um so one thing to kind of separate is so precision grade is the contractor and SJ construction management is the construction management service.

It's a professional service agreement.

And um, some of the questions that were brought up were about the fact that there was only one.

So we did a request for proposals and construction management services for people who are familiar with the federal process, in which if you imagine the amount of paperwork that we have to do, just triple it.

And so you need there's a very very narrow supply of those people with that level of expertise.

And there happens to be a many big projects occurring in the Monterey County area.

And unfortunately, we only had one person submit on this project.

So many of the other construction management, construction contracting, that's going to be with the precision grade.

We do need SJ construction management support because they allow us to stay on top of the contractor, document these issues, make sure that they're protecting the city and protecting the grant funding.

Um, because we if there's any sort of issue, um, we need to make sure that we protect the city and we protect that funding resource, and we don't want it to affect future funding opportunity.

Uh follow-up question, if I might.

Um so I understand the um the contract we're awarding tonight is the additional funds of 161,000 and change, and that goes to SJ construction, or it does not go to the professional services or the or the contractor.

It does not go to the contractor.

This is so uh construction management service, and that's where you get like you have two construction, and so it gets a little confusing, and I think both have construction in their name.

Um, and so construction management is a professional service, kind of like an engineer.

So they're um, so we have on the team an RE, a resident engineer.

So that's actually engineering versus you think with contractors, like you hear uh superintendent, and those are the kinds of positions that you see in the contractor side.

Um, so this money is going to the construction management, which is a professional service.

Okay, and resident engineering services that is a construction management service.

Okay.

And professional services agreement with SJ construction.

And so who were the ones that poured the concrete, got the ranches out, delivered the dirty work.

Who's the construction guy?

That is precision grade.

Precision grade.

Okay.

So the precision grade is not receiving this funds.

No.

And precision grade will still be on the job.

Yes.

And so we have a contract with them to complete by April 2025.

Yes.

So that was the original contract.

So when we bid the project, we um, based on the design, we come up with an estimated working days.

Um, when we issue the con uh we issue the contract, then we issue a notice to proceed, and we put on that notice to proceed what the start date is that they have and when the working days start counting.

And so we, and so it was 150 working days, and that's where we came up with the initial April date.

Um, we have things like rain delays.

That's an incredibly common construction delay.

And so we actually will work with the contractor.

You cannot do certain activities during certain during rain.

Um, we can't pave during certain seasons because we need certain temperatures.

Um, so we will work within reason with the contractor, but there are delays that the city is not responsible for and the contractor is responsible for, and they will have to handle their own delays.

So, but we gave them this time and we're willing to work with them within reason.

And precision grade is located where.

Um, precision grade, I believe believe is based out of saleness.

Oh, sand or no, it's San Juan Rogue.

I think it's on the exterior of Salinas.

So in the county, yes.

All right.

Uh, and is there anything that can allow us in the contract and the oversight of this project that can tie us to know that we have a reasonable date that can be completed in the future?

I think that's what the residents are wondering about.

Yes.

And we're trust how do we trust this construction company to finish the job that they started that was supposed to be done already?

Yes.

And so we actually uh one of the materials that we were waiting for um is arrived on Friday, and then we're waiting for another.

So that's a temporary fix, and we're waiting for the final date.

So the hard part is you can really only look in hindsight on a lot of these things.

So we have to keep moving forward and we try as best we can to give you as many updates as we can.

And so we do have a weekly construction update where we'll tell you what the activity is and where you expect to see the contractor.

Um, so you can expect to see the contractor on site on Friday, standing the last traffic signal poll, which has been an um issue that has stopped the contractor from finishing up the work.

Um, so that is that is kind of we're waiting for all these pieces to fall, and then we can set um a date, but we always hesitate to give you a date where then we know it's continuously pushing because then you lose confidence in us when we're trying to do our best to come up with an accurate date.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

You're doing a great job explaining this.

It doesn't sound easy.

Um, I'm hearing concern from residents about what I'm hearing is a reduction in the number of lanes, turn turn lanes.

Has there been a reduction?

And can you if there has, can you explain why in the theory?

Yes.

So there were uh two reductions in um lanes.

So one is temporary and until they finish um the striping, we can't reopen that lane because we just uh because we we saw an issue happening where um cars were actually running over the brand new curb ramp because we haven't been able to make that striping adjustment.

And so we're trying to protect the curb ramp.

So it's a temporary lane drop.

Um there was also another lane lane drop.

And um we actually did an operational analysis, and that has been in the project since I believe 2016, um, when we were doing the initial NCIP meetings um for because it was started as an NCIP project.

Um, and so that design has not changed at all.

So we actually also added in a right turn lane um to add another operational improvement.

So we kind of took and moved.

Um one of the major operational improvements that you're not going to be able to see until the project is complete is the change to the signal operations where we're adding a protected left turn because the left turn is one of the major movements coming out of um that Demani Beach community.

And so until the new traffic signals come in and we're able to reprogram, you're not gonna see that benefit.

So right now it's definitely more painful than it will be when the project's complete.

But until we get that poll in, we can't switch over to the new system.

Thank you.

Any other questions, please?

Um not necessarily question, but uh more comments.

I uh I'm I'm also hearing from residents about um the frustration around the delays and all that.

And um uh I uh I'm also um hearing uh frustration around um just updates or not getting sufficient updates in terms of when um these delays are happening and why and all that.

You mentioned earlier about the uh uh some construction updates.

Where where can the public go to find that?

Um so it's a really great resource.

We have an I hesitate to give the link because I uh we just had a new website update.

So I don't know exactly where it resides on our website right now.

Um, but if you do type in the search bar of monoray.gov construction updates.

Um, it actually has a posting of all the construction updates that are happening within the city.

And I believe it gives you the opportunity to join via our constant contact.

Um and the construction updates will um so you would be receiving an email with that.

Um and then also we have on several occasions um included it within our Monterey Matters um where we've included pictures, we've had a letter from the public works director.

Um so we do we have had included in our newsletters.

Great, thank you.

And I guess that was a question.

So here's my comment.

Um so I I know the um and following this project, which has taken a long time to get where it is.

Um I also know that these types of projects um take a long time and come with a lot of challenges and and really appreciate the uh patience um that our uh residents are um sharing, right?

Because it is uh a project that I think we all are eager to see completed.

Um, but I also want to uh highlight the work that public works does for our city.

And and I feel very confident in that you all as a team are doing what uh needs to happen in order to move this project forward.

So I just want to make sure that that's also stated because again, it's not an easy project.

It's there's a lot of things, a lot of details that are going on into this project.

And once it's completed, I think it's gonna be uh just an amazing uh intersection.

So thank you for the work that you do.

Okay, any other questions?

All right, with that, we'll go ahead and go to public comment for folks on Zoom.

You can use the raise hand function.

Anybody in the chamber wishes to speak on this item?

So we have the one.

Is there anybody else?

There's two.

Anybody else in the chamber wants to speak on this item?

So go ahead and cut it off in the chamber to the two.

I'll jump back to Zoom real quick to a count down to five, four, three, two, one.

And there's two on Zoom.

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

Okay.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yes, sir.

So again, I'm George Manielle.

I live um very proximal to that intersection of in Del Monte Beach.

So every day, multiple times a day, I go through the intersection and have been for many years.

And so I just want to emphasize for the residents in my community that that this project is really important as we've discussed.

And that's it is a public safety issue because of the the rec trail going by there and the confusion that has been caused, you know, and the intersection and in the prolonged time that this has been going on.

And so um the councilman Harris asks about a guarantee that Smith.

Smith, sorry, um, had asked for a guarantee or what kind of guarantees we have this project will actually be completed and when it's really important because the longer this goes, I I fear that someone may get injured in that intersection, either vehicles uh or cyclists or in anyone else using the wreck trail.

Um yeah, that's the main thing.

This it's really important and that this project comes to completion and that if it's funding, you know, I think most residents would be in favor of funding it as if as needed as requested.

I I don't know if we've got a real great reason why is costing more, but um we would be in favor of funding it and getting it done.

So that's it.

Thank you, sir.

Hello, Mr.

Mayor and Council.

My name is Greg Vincent, and I live in the neighborhood also.

Um I guess what I have to ask is.

Did you say that it was six to eight months to get the polls to begin with?

If it was gonna be six to eight months to get probably the most important part of the project here, why would they have even started when they did?

Now we're sitting here waiting, and they've even taken the sign down that says when it's going to be done because it's not good.

Well, nobody knows.

And the other question is why did they repave all that entranceway before they started the project and now they've chopped it all up and they're gonna have to repatch and repave and redo cement.

That's it, basically.

Thank you.

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

Yes, first we have Laurie.

Hi, I join uh the chorus.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

Um, of my fellow neighborhood, my neighbors that are sitting in the chambers.

Um, I also live in the Del Monte Beach neighborhood.

And I guess where some of the frustration is coming, as some of them have outlined, is the updates and not being told.

I know I feel like I've gotten a run around and the updates may say August, and then it turns into September, and then it's October, and now they're we're just not getting answered.

And um our rep Gino Garcia just had uh a community meeting, and I know a lot of my residents I didn't go because I figured they wouldn't talk about it because it wasn't on the agenda, and I'm just think it's kind of crazy to finally have uh this project and such an important meeting in our community for the first time, and then it's not even on the agenda.

So it seems like nobody wants to talk about this.

Um, but where the frustration comes, and I was in on it, our are the very first uh meeting they had on Zoom was early in 2021.

And at that meeting we talked about it, and we were told by the city, oh, sign up for have your same monterey, you'll get all the updates, we'll keep you informed, you'll be involved, you'll see the design.

And you know, we had a little input in the beginning.

Do we want to put a path over or under or no path or go through the crosswalks?

So that was great.

And then for four years, we there was not a single update, not even to our NCIP rep, not until March of this year when the jackhammers arrived and the lanes were all removed permanently.

That we all what is going on?

And then we had a meeting thrown together with five people on Zoom, and the contractor basically saying, Well, we can't do anything about traffic, so you're just gonna have to live with it.

And um I don't know, it just seems very disrespectful and not really getting the whole story.

And it's now more unsafe than before the project began.

Traffic backs up, as people have said, sight lines are poor.

There's many more close calls between cards, cyclists, and pedestrians.

And now it's gonna sit half it's sat half finished and inactive now for months, and now it's looking like December 2026, if we're lucky.

And there's it's just gonna sit like that.

So I I'm sorry, I'm losing confidence in the city so far.

So I'd like to know when is it going to be done?

What's the latest estimate?

Um, because I hate to think of it sitting there for another one and a half years in this like this dangerous mess that it is, and especially when there were originally bike path uh from the bike path to the lights, there were paths to the intersection.

All we needed to do was block off the bike lanes.

We didn't really even need all of this, and we've lost access really to the only way in and out of our neighborhood.

Anyway, thank you.

We have one more public comment, right?

We have one more.

We did, but uh that person had lowered their hand quite a while ago.

So I believe maybe they had their hand raised on a different item.

Okay.

Okay.

Please.

It might be helpful to clarify the estimated uh date of completion is December 2025.

Not December 2026, the contract.

It gives us a little bit more time.

Thank you.

There was a few other questions.

Um if staff yeah.

Let me let me say first.

Um I use that intersection quite often.

I I'm a cyclist, so I ride my bike through there and I feel the pain just as long with with everybody else.

Um in regards to the experience of the intersection.

Um, I would just offer my own perspective as far as safety.

Um, I'm actually more intentional around slowing down in that intersection right now because of the construction going on.

So I just would encourage everybody to use additional caution as you're going through there.

Obviously, when there's delays, it it causes deeper frustration.

And so um I I think we hear you.

We have a few questions that might be helpful that came from the public.

Um there was a comment in regards to the polls being ordered and taking some time and why starting construction.

And then there was another question in regards to paving and then tearing up.

So hoping that we can get some clarity on that.

Um, yes.

So, in terms of the polls, we actually built that into our schedule of when uh and as long as the contractor order the polls, uh, basically as soon as the contract was executed.

Um, so there's between the time a contract is executed and the time the notice to proceed, there's a two to three week gap where the contractor can already be getting their ducks in a row with their subcontractors.

Um, with traffic signal polls in particular, it's you want to have a specialized electrical contractor.

Um, and so they that contractor needs to be getting all their ducks in a row.

Um, we issue what's called a notice to proceed to tell the contractor, okay, the contract's executed.

Here's all the information that you need on this date, which is normally two weeks from the time we send them the letter.

Um you're good to go.

Like working days are starting, like we'll see you there.

Um, and you have two weeks from that date to start sending us, we're expecting submittals from you.

We're trying to get a pre-construction meeting.

Um, and so that six to six months was built into the schedule.

So as long as everything is ordered promptly, then um, and the polls actually did arrive in, I believe, the end of May.

So and the latest delay has been with an issue with the foundation of a poll.

All the other polls are stood.

There's just one remaining.

Okay.

And then and then um there was a the comment around the the there being a repavement and then that being up.

Yeah.

Um, sorry.

So we actually did coordinate because that was an uh measure PS um resurfacing project.

And so um the only thing that was overlapped was the um was the uh little triangle pork chop to kind of direct traffic because one of the comments that we got when we were designing the project is all the illegal U-turns and near miss head-on collisions from people coming out of the neighborhood.

And so that's how that came into the project.

Um, that's really the only area where there was the overlap, and other than that, we separated the two projects because um we we were working on trying to get the order of operations between our two projects.

Um, we could not combine them because they were different funding sources and it would have been too difficult and uh with that funding where we didn't want to mess anything up.

Um, and so the rest of the pavement limits of work are actually it's at the uh the crosswalk that the trail crossing that'll be removed.

And so that was part of that was where it ended.

So that was the the little triangle is the only thing where there's an overlap.

Okay, all right.

Um, and then could you can we give like an email or something if people have trouble finding where to go to get the updates?

Because there was again public comments even after you described that.

So I'm just hoping that we can connect somebody with uh maybe a human being so that way they can send them the link and make sure that they get directed to the right spot for those updates.

Um we can give the engineering hyphen admin at monterey.gov and you can also find that um email on the engineering uh public works engineering website as well.

Perfect, perfect.

All right, engineering hyphen admin.

Admin at Monterey.gov.

Perfect.

Awesome.

Thank you for the update.

I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion to approve the item.

Second.

Is there any other discussion on this item?

Uh just one quick thing.

I'm reminded of a story at Candlestick Park.

When we were going to candlestick park and there was seven 7,000 people instead of 60,000 people there.

And it was cold and it was foggy, and we all got a button to where proud to be a candlestick fogger.

And so I feel like we need to give the residents that are going past that for over a year some something.

But you know, know that we've been watching it as well.

And tonight we got a lot of questions that I think are very satisfying to hear.

And thank you very much for giving us the engineering perspective.

And so know that we're getting close.

It's good to hear that it's we're talking December 2025.

And that's uh satisfying to know that.

And so we just um we look for always learning best practices from the times when we have failures that it doesn't always work.

And I know our engineering staff does that very well.

So I just wanted to say thank you for staff and thank you for the residents for being so patient with that construction zone for so long.

Well said.

Yeah, I I there's really nothing that can be said for folks that are frustrated with dealing with construct like nothing is gonna satisfy the day-to-day um agony that that's being that that we're going through.

Um, I think the update was helpful to just kind of hear where we were.

Um, and I know that staff is going to do some due diligence in doing a retroactive look back at kind of where there might be opportunities to improve this in the future.

But again, that doesn't do anything towards what folks in the community are dealing with now.

So appreciate everybody's patience.

Appreciate staff for giving the update and working through this as best as possible and dealing with uh complicated multi-layer government uh um issue.

With that, I'm gonna go ahead and call the question.

Roll call, please.

Councilmember Garcia?

Yes.

Councilmember Smith?

Yes.

Councilmember Rash, yes, Councilmember Barber.

Yes.

And Mayor Williamson.

Yes, for me.

And with that, we'll move on to our public hearing item number eight, adopt the planning commission recommendation and approve first reading of an ordinance amending chapter 38, section 38-112 of the Monterey City Code to establish local density incentives for qualifying housing projects.

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

Thank you, Hans.

Good afternoon, Mayor, City Council.

Uh, the item before you is a proposed zoning amendment that would expand the city's local density bonus ordinance.

Uh, this amendment represents the ongoing implementation of the city's housing element.

If you recall in July of 2024, this council adopted the six-cycle housing element.

And then later in December of 2024, we uh the council approved the first wave of implementation programs.

One of those programs that was adopted that uh that wave uh included the city's uh adoption of a local density ordinance.

So under the existing local density bonus ordinance, um projects can receive additional density if they meet one of three scenarios or criteria.

Uh so this is in the existing ordinance to be clear.

Uh projects can consolidate multiple lots into larger lot of at least 0.5 acres.

Projects can have at least 70% of their units be two bedroom or three bedroom units, or projects can provide at least 40% of the units affordable to moderate income levels.

So under any of those three scenarios, and uh development can receive a up to a 10% density bonus.

So again, that's what's allowed today under the current bonus uh ordinance.

Uh the proposed amendment before you today would incorporate one additional scenario or criteria uh that would target 100% affordable housing projects.

Specifically, the proposed incentive would allow for 100% affordable housing projects to receive a 50% density bonus, and that's uh in addition to what's allowed under the state density bonus provisions.

Uh the purpose of the change is to address an incentive gap that we recognize uh that uh could help affordable housing developers maximize the potential of uh affordable units in the city.

So we wanted to address that gap.

Um the amendment was considered and recommended for approval by the planning commission at the September 23rd meeting.

And I think that's all I have right now.

Um, but staff recommends the city council approve the first reading of the proposed zoning amendment.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for the presentation.

Any questions from the council?

No.

I have one.

Um I hope to listen to the the um planning commission, and I didn't, I'll admit it.

Because it seemed to me that finally we have an actual possibility of having 100% affordable housing with with a density bonus.

So I'm perceiving that for one of the few times we're we're really doing what the public is asking us to do, right?

Is that your perception of it?

Uh definitely.

So I think as we know with our RENA allocation, we've received 3,654 units.

About half of those are market rate units that were identified were in need of.

And then the other half was uh uh affordable units at some level, whether that's moderate, low income, or very low income.

And I think this that addresses it at every level and maximizes the potential for getting uh deed restricted affordable units at low and very low income levels in the city.

Thank you.

Sure.

Um what are your thoughts on us lowering the percentage of affordable units in a project for the density bonus?

Like say 75% as opposed to just 100.

And maybe I can give a little bit of an explanation of kind of where my my mind um is going with this.

Um I think first the idea of a lot of 100% affordable housing projects is is low.

Um, I'm not necessarily a big fan of 100% affordable housing projects because it can't create a little bit of a ghetto type of effect, um, where you put all the poor people in one space and they're not integrated with the rest of the community.

Um, and so I think to help incentivize more to increase the number of affordable units so that we can get those low reina, the the lower um lower income Rena units um developed.

Uh what are your what are your thoughts on that?

Sure.

As as I noted, we need units at every affordable affordability level.

I think that would open up um some opportunities for additional developers that maybe aren't looking to do a hundred percent affordable, and maybe it does create some more market feasibility.

Um you're correct.

Most of our 100% affordable uh housing projects are typically uh built and constructed by affordable housing developers that specialize in just that um and uh use pretty sophisticated methods and making those financially feasible projects.

Uh, but I think that perhaps lowering that, um, I don't think staff sees an issue with it in concept.

I will say I think there's some uh modifications to the language and the ordinance that would maybe be necessary because we refer to some provisions of the state density bonus law and how it defines what a hundred percent affordable project is.

So I think there would maybe need to be some language tweaks in the ordinance, but other than that, I think staff would be comfortable with that.

Um if you were to pick a number in regards, if we were to lower it, what would staff think would be a reasonable amount that kind of hits a sweet spot of not too little but enough to help incentivize and get those lower affordable units.

It's uh hard to say off the cuff.

I I mean, I think the 75% that you you mentioned earlier is a pretty reasonable number.

I think the state density bonus, um something to think about.

The state density bonus law actually creates a lot of uh density bonus already.

And there's provisions that were recently adopted, I think in 2024 that came into effect uh this year for what they refer to as a bonus on bonus, which is an additional 50% bonus that projects are allowed to have on top of the uh original state density bonus.

The issue is is that specifically precludes 100% affordable housing projects from receiving that additional bonus, which is why we kind of wanted to bring in this.

So um I think, but I still think that if you're uh projects proposing uh a large share of affordable restricted units, that a density bonus is still probably uh advantageous to the city.

Let me try to ask it one more way.

And I know I know um there may not be an answer you can give me, but what what would staff say would be a percentage of the units that is too low to that might have a counter effect in regards to kind of creating balance in the discussion?

Too low, I would say anything under 50%.

Okay, that's too low.

Okay, okay.

Thank you for that.

Sure.

With that, we'll go ahead and open it up for public comment.

Thank you, Levi, for the answering those questions in the presentation.

Um, for folks on Zoom, you can use the raise hand function.

Uh anybody in the chamber wish to speak on this item.

You have Mr.

Hoyer.

Anybody else in the chamber?

All right.

So go ahead and close it off in the chamber to the one speaker, and I'll do a countdown for folks on Zoom to five, four, three, two, one.

And we have one person on Zoom.

Please, Mr.

Hoyer.

Mr.

Mayor, members of the council, my name's Rick Hoyer and Resident Monterey, and actually a former planning commissioner.

So I've dealt with a lot of these issues.

I think I've got issues with going the 100% route, but understand we need to do it.

The second you start lowering that percentage and but yet grant 50% increase in density of a project, you're now putting a project in a neighborhood someplace that doesn't fit.

If we're going to go to that extreme, at least have it be 100% affordable and ideally at the lower levels.

I agree with you.

We need to be sensitive.

We don't want to have too many of these all together and to create a thing, but we don't have that much land where you're going to have that larger project where you're going to have a getification of it.

I don't, I don't feel I would strongly oppose going below that 100%.

I think at least at that, you're getting something significant that can be helping the city in exchange for a 50% bonus.

That's huge.

And I think you start playing with that below, it's you're gonna have things go up in neighborhoods that are so out of place it's ridiculous.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, we'll go to our caller on Zoom.

Yes, we have our telephone caller.

Um you can go ahead, please.

This is Nina Beattie.

Um, I'm very cautious about the density incentives.

I saw what just took place with the SB9 linked incentives um by the city um that ignore the substantial problems, including public safety and parking.

Um, and I see the density incentives being uh creating problems too that the city will ignore.

Um, in the past, the city's ignored parking problems and allowed building downtown for housing.

Um, the pattern in the city is ignoring problems created by its projects and density.

Um, and uh so I'm I'm leery of seeing giving the go-ahead.

We desperately need affordable housing.

Yet do we have planners and people in place to make decisions that are not going to so they're not gonna ignore the negative effects of putting a lot of units, whatever type they are, in an area.

And I don't know, I have not witnessed the wisdom to be able to do that in the city administration or in most of the city council.

So I'm really leery about let's let's bring in more density incentives and create more problems without even having the wisdom to think about what could be caused and how to mitigate them.

So I I think there needs to be a lot of discussion before something like this needs to be adopted.

And then the city needs to fix the existing problems it's already created with um it's the incentives that it's offering.

Thank you.

Okay, with that, we'll go ahead and close public comment, bring it back to the council for motion and deliberation.

Um, with the 100% bonus density and 100% affordable and 50% bonus density.

Is there height limitation to the entire children?

So every um every project that's requesting uh density bonus through state law receives not only the density bonus, but they'll also, based on the affordability levels, they get a certain number of what's called concessions or incentives, and those are essentially waivers to development standards that the city may have or impose in a certain zone, which includes height.

So to answer that question, they they would have the ability potentially to utilize one of their concessions to go past whatever the maximum height in that zone is in order to achieve that maximum allowed density.

And can you project out for me what that height might be in most of our areas?

Uh so included already in the existing local density bonus uh provisions.

We have uh in the Alvarado district, specifically in our downtown specific plan.

We have allowances that allow for projects to go um one additional story.

So I think now that would be up to six stories in our Alvarado district.

Uh, but most of our other areas are capped at three stories outside of the downtown.

Um, so it would just typically what you see is one to two additional stories in order to max because they can't they have to be able to feasibly show where it's required to reach the density that they're allowed under density bonus.

So thank you.

You're welcome.

Please want to make the point.

Levi, you might want to stay there.

Um, sorry, buddy.

Sure.

Um so just to make it clear, the density bonus that they a builder would be getting is is a bonus that gets them around constraints of zoning of what we may have in in a district.

But they're chasing the dollar because they get money to build and they qualify for lending and maybe state money to help them achieve the build.

And so it's it's a it's a balancing act between the owner of the property, the owner of the development to be able to get as many units as they can, and having it a hundred percent affordable doesn't necessarily guarantee the project is affordable.

Matter of fact, they're fighting that because they're not collecting the whole rents that they need to build it.

The gain on this and the motivation on this is that they're finding alternative financing because they're getting the bonus.

So the question is if we approve this, and we said we we agree in 100% bonus or 100% um uh affordable project, they do get their bonus, and those bonuses are all the way up the line.

Qualification for loans through the state, maybe even you know, sewer fees, water fees, whatever.

Um do those projects come to our planning process, our building approval process.

So we are actively involved in overseeing the project.

So we are aware what the setbacks are, what the height density is.

So we're involved in that process.

We are so it would go through the standard development process.

It doesn't necessarily negate any of the procedural stuff that we take a project through.

They would submit to us uh typically a request for a density bonus, kind of highlighting how much of what their affordability levels are, at what percentage and what concessions or incentives they're requesting and what additional density they're requesting, and all that's provided to city staff through the development review process.

Um, still required to get all the necessary zoning permits that they maybe need, uh, same with building permits.

And so this we're not in an area that is an administrative approval process where we have hands off.

This is application of the building, and and we're participating in terms of do they qualify for the bonus?

And and we're overseeing the mitigations that they're trying to get to the maximum maximized number where it becomes a profitable project.

Sure.

We're we're involved in that process.

We're not allowed to deny a density bonus that uh meets the provisions of the state law.

Um, but we so um, but we are involved in that review.

You you noted and it's not administrative.

We do have areas of the city where we have made changes in the code that does allow for administrative approval of projects, but it still goes through that staff level review where we're confirming that they meet all the standards unless they're requesting some kind of concession out of a standard.

But we're double checking that math, double checking the request for density bonus to make sure everything that is needed to qualify is there.

Yeah.

And one last question.

Um do we currently have any projects where we have an applicant that's waiting for this to be approved, so they were able they are then able to go to pursuing a hundred percent affordable for a project.

We we do have projects throughout the city that would benefit from this change.

One, of course, is being the affordable housing project right behind City Hall, which is the midpen project, but there are other projects that are also uh could benefit from this change as well.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

All the questions I have.

Okay, please.

So just to add um, I I guess maybe uh um an additional point here.

I I can support this item, not necessarily uh also in in full favor of 100%, but I'm interested to see how something like this could unfold in the city of Monterey.

But I think also for me, um just supporting this item to me feels incomplete when we're not um bringing forward um topics around uh workforce development and social services and other um added supports for the folks who would be tenants of of these units.

So I think those conversations need to be happening simultaneously, and I think they are.

Um but I think it's it's really up to us to make sure that uh as these developments develop that we're making those connections with uh programming for tenants.

So just wanted to share that perspective.

Thanks.

Okay, any other comments.

Yeah, it's can I make a comment?

Um I uh, you know, whenever we're talking about areas of concern that we really can't identify it because we don't necessarily know who's gonna come forward with creative designing.

Um I can support 100% affordable because I think that there's more opportunities to get projects going.

But I can't say that we necessarily will always be comfortable with that, as the mayor pointed out.

There may be some occasions where it's too dense, it's creating um the wrong atmosphere and too too many units where it's the mass, the density, all affordable.

We get involved in transportation, we get involved in you know how close they are to the bus routes, how how close they are to downtown, where they get their groceries, all of those things become a factor.

But when I look across the landscape of Monterey, we don't have large land swaths where that's a concern right now, but it doesn't mean it couldn't be a concern in the future.

And it and so as a policymaker, I have to acknowledge that if it's a problem in the future, I will hold the reservation of we might have to change it in the future.

And nothing says that we can't change this to go down to 75% if we're trying to solve a problem.

But for now, I can support it.

And that's kind of the way I analyze this is that um we need units of all kinds and all sizes and all prices.

Um, but I also don't want to create problems in neighborhoods where we have blocks and blocks that's all um tenements, you know, they all look the same.

They're they're not good conditions to see people live in.

I don't think that we're gonna have that.

And if we did, I'd be willing to come back and look at this again.

So that's kind of my position.

Um I would just ask the council is there anybody that's willing to entertain lowering the percentage um or even allowing it for specific areas within the city, say um areas with specific plans um to allow some additional incentive and and leverage of this policy proposal.

Um I would say no, only because it's gone through the planning process, it was unanimous, and also I think it would require us to start over.

And you know, I think that having the threshold of a hundred percent affordable may see us see a quicker response from some development, especially what's behind City Hall.

And it may put people or companies or nonprofits in a position as a um an NGO builder that they can qualify for, more easily qualify for uh funding and get the project going.

So I I'm just not ready to go back and do this over.

Well and and anybody else.

Well, I shared that I'm not entirely in favor of 100%, but um I think really thinking about it in terms of the city of Monterey, and given really how much real estate we have in in our city, um I don't necessarily know first the uh the appetite to build for 100%.

Um, and if there is um like I try to imagine where in our city um something like this could be built and and really would it have that impact that you would see with 100% um uh affordable housing in in other cities, right?

So that's that's where my mind is at.

But I I mean I'm I'm open to hearing a number, but I think also it was shared earlier through your questions, right?

Like what what would be that number that would have enough of an impact to lower it?

So I mean I think um I I obvious I I can appreciate the sensitivity around this and and the concerns, I think to your point.

Um I mean, how many 100% affordable housing projects are we gonna see?

Um, Monterey is, if I recall correctly, the most dense city in the entire county, and I think has historically been so.

Um, it's part of our culture.

Um, when we look back at the fishing industry and um spaghetti hill.

Um I I think it's very much part of who we are.

Um obviously we're talking about one element of a discussion that has multiple avenues.

And and you pointed that out, Councilman Garcia, um, regarding workforce development, there's uh transportation, there's a lot of things that go into that.

And I think that um I can imagine that the city will be prudent in addressing um those those other elements, but unfortunately they're not included in the discussion for the agenda item today.

So I think that there's an opportunity for us to um be bold and um make a decision that will help impact the most vulnerable people in our community.

In fact, I would offer it would help everybody in our community by creating more of a sense of community by allowing folks that work in the city of Monterey to live here.

Um, Dr.

Barber.

Uh so I can definitely appreciate the um perspective of a more equitable type of housing um unit um with several different incomes being addressed and and being um uh provided for.

Uh however, um, with the 100%, I think at this point in time, we we don't have enough information to see whatever that other number would be for tonight for for me to say, yeah, this number or that number.

Uh just listening to Levi, um, we're kind of guessing on some of the the odds and ends of it for me.

Um, I think the 100% is a like great place to start to see where we are.

Um, I think that uh this is the first reading, if I'm not mistaken, correct?

Yes, first reading.

So this would come back to us when two weeks.

Two weeks.

Okay.

And so I I mean, uh my I guess my my thinking is even the wraparound services that were to uh that um that um um council member Garcia was talking about.

I think those wraparound services and things like that, um, a lot of that exists, but it's a matter of collaborating and and and talking about that what that looks like in a and a more structured level.

And I think that's that could be agendized.

I I totally agree with that.

But I think I think this is some a good place to start and seeing that the planning commission did unanimously uh vote for this.

I think this would be a good place for us to start to see to help the most vulnerable uh people in our our committee in our community.

Dr.

Barber, are there is there specific information that for staff to provide that might give you greater clarity in regards to a lower number?

Sure.

So I guess that would be more on a survey level of what uh projects uh developments that are in areas that are similar or in surrounding areas that were either 100% in and what the impacts were of those 100% uh as far as whether it's socially um as far as uh just the culture, um, safety, all those other uh different pieces and see how that impacted the area as opposed to comparison them to comparing them to uh 70% or 80%, whatever the other elements would be, but being able to have something comparable, say this is 100%, this is 70%, that this is 60%, and these were the comparable situations of what we saw the impact were in the communities and being able to see how the impact were for the communities and for the for the the residents there as well to me, then uh then I'm able to kind of compare apples to apples.

Does that make sense to staff?

Um is that helpful?

Sure.

Uh I think we could definitely get some do some more research on affordable uh 100% affordable housing developments, not only in the city, but maybe in some of the surrounding areas.

I think what could also be beneficial is we can look at some numbers as far as what type of density bonuses are uh available to projects that aren't 100% affordable already.

And that may council kind of make this judgment call again.

There's already provisions they've really expanded the state density bonus law a lot for projects.

There's uh, you know, I think you know, a project that's providing 50% affordability levels can get up to a 50% bonus and then an additional 50% bonus.

So that's that 50% just under the state density bonus law.

So you're looking at you know a bonus on bonus already.

So a lot of the that aren't 100% affordable are already qualifying for almost 100% bonuses.

That's kind of why we're proposing this amendment is to fill that gap, because there's really nothing in the state density bonus law that does that for 100% affordable housing projects.

Uh going back to council member uh Garcia's comments, a lot of these uh developments that we see are from affordable housing developers that do specialize in this and do provide that wraparound service and support services like a midpin.

So that that's kind of their bread and butter and what they're comfortable and used to doing.

So if I'm understanding correctly, just to follow up, Aliva, sorry.

Um there are a lot of 50% or more bonuses already existing from the state level for a lot of the less than 100% um what is it, the 100% affordable projects.

Is that what I'm understanding?

That's correct.

That's why we're incorporating this this new uh amendment is to kind of the same bonus or incentive projects are getting to a 100% affordable projects.

Okay, so that's different.

If you're talking, if you're saying that they're already there are already incentives that are similar in percentages that already exist for less than 100% affordable projects, and you're basically filling a gap, a need because it's nothing for 100%.

Is that what I'm understanding?

That is correct.

Okay, thank you.

I think um with just a little bit of information.

We only have a handful of 100% affordable housing projects in the city.

They've all been developed um in partnership um typically with the low-income housing developer.

So we have behind the police station, we have the Van Buren project helps um city sponsored.

We have one um at 420 Estrella that's a um project that the city also it's on City Land, and we um help develop.

Um we have the Portrolla Vista apartments, and we have OCO and Monterey Hotel.

So we only we already know where the 100% affordable projects are in the city.

There aren't any built at 70% or 60% um currently in the city of Monterey.

Um could I get clarity in regards to the density bonuses that already exist?

Um maybe it was my misunderstanding of the conversation before public comment.

Um so let's say we went with a 75% number um for our density bonus.

So would you you're saying that that project wouldn't would qualify for potentially qualify for the double density bonus through the state and then a third through ours?

That's correct.

Okay, okay.

So that was my misunderstanding.

I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion to approve item number eight.

Second.

Any other discussion on this item?

All right, roll call, please.

Councilmember Smith.

Yes.

Councilmember Rash.

Yes, Councilmember Barber, yes.

Council member Garcia?

Yes.

And Mayor Williamson.

Yes.

All right.

And with that, we'll go to our public appearance um item number nine, adopt city council engagement and travel reimbursement and expenditure policy and amend budget resolution 25-058 to increase city council travel allocation by 7200.

Um, I'm gonna propose that we table.

I'm I'm I'm never gonna get this right.

Yes, I I propose with day two.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm mental note that right now.

Let's see if it sticks.

Um, I've received a lot of public comments around concern of our evening discussion item around our budget.

And in this item being on the agenda, um, albeit I think this creates uh policy and and and left and right limits for the council around travel.

I know that the perception um is that it looks like we're increasing um uh the allocation.

So that's I'm I I'm gonna make a motion to table this item.

Can I ask a question before we let's look to see if we can get a second on the motion first and then you can okay?

It's been moved and seconded, please.

So I was actually going to propose that we not increase it, we leave it as it is um because for the same reasons that I think the public has reached out to many of us that we at this time should not be doing anything that impacts uh so in dollars towards number five.

I apologize.

Um I think the motion on the table is to table.

So my question is why table it.

So I think personally, I think that the um the language of the agenda item is a little bit misleading because it's not necessarily about increasing the council allocation for travel.

It's more about passing a policy that creates clear left and right limits for councils that currently don't exist.

So I don't want to really have this conversation today so that we can focus on the most pressing issue, which is our budget.

Um so that's that's where I'm at.

Okay.

Any other questions on this item?

All right, let's open up for public comment for folks on Zoom.

You can use a raise hand function for anybody in the chamber, Mr.

Hoyer.

Anybody else in the chamber?

All right.

So we'll close it off in the chamber.

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

There are three.

My Zoom is frozen.

Sorry.

There's three.

I'm gonna go ahead and leave it to a minute because this is going to come back to us at a later date.

So I'll go ahead and pass it to Mr.

Hoyer.

Mr.

Mayor, members of the council require President of the Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association.

The way I read this, it was an increase.

Uh bad time for it.

And actually, I would propose when it comes back, you actually put on eliminating it since it does non-essential spend in its first place.

Yes, those are great organizations to be a part of and go to, but can you afford to continue going to places when you have a 10 million dollar structural deficit?

So when you come back to debate the policy change, you might also look at eliminating travel reimbursement in its entirety until some future date when you're in better financial situation.

Last thing you want to do is be going out to ask for taxes from folks when you're now considering increasing and even having non-essential spend, all non-essential spend in the city that's not critical, should be eliminated as part of what you're dealing with with the budget.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

All right, we'll go to our Zoom caller.

All right.

First Zoom caller is uh Tom Reese.

Don't well, first, thank you.

I think that's appropriate.

The the the tabling of that's um I agree with Rick Hoyer's comments.

I think you also need to be considering reducing or eliminating some of your spending.

Um, I realize it's an optics issue as much as anything else, but optics are very important, especially when you're talking about wanting to take NIP funds.

So those are my only comments.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Reeves.

We will uh go to next caller here with me.

It's been a while since I've done this.

Okay.

Next uh will be caller last three digits, nine zero two.

This is Nina Beattie.

I this is can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Okay, great.

I don't think the city should be paying for optional trips.

And unfortunately, the League of California Cities and the National League and the Conference of Mayors are currently functioning as lobbying venues for corporations for four or five thousand dollars starting to 25,000 or 50,000 for the National League.

Businesses can buy access to city officials committees and meetings and hawk their goods and services.

Um, the prices are just enough to shut out the public and the brochures are pretty clear.

Build your brand and raise your profile.

The league partner program is a gateway to local elected officials and the local government decision making process in California.

Um they go on and on and support the work of cities while engaging in educational activities, policy making, regional meetings, et cetera, et cetera.

Reach niche audiences like city managers, fire chiefs, city attorneys, city clerks, and fiscal officers, etc.

etc.

And the corporations include Airbnb, Amazon, ATT, Crown Castle, which builds hell towers, BBK, PGE, etc.

The seminars push smart city development, wireless autonomous vehicles.

These are vested interest groups and the association of defense community conferences are conflict of interest lobbying meetings for military agencies and contractors without any counterpoint.

They push uh military expansion in our community for DoD with the result of more super fund sites, more toxic exposures, integrated world peace and no remediation.

So I'm very opposed to funding echo chambers.

My system is working again, and we have Fester as our last speaker.

Yes, hello.

I wanted to just point out we need to really define what optional is going to mean because this council is not the first council that's had to travel.

And somehow I find it curious that it comes up now after decades of proceeding the way that the council has in previous mayors have not uh been questioned about it.

So I'm not opposed to having some kind of policy.

I think it's very much overdue.

And I commend this council for actually wanting to create a policy that should have been created decades ago.

And should be very specific on what optional means because there are some travel um things that council members have to participate in that they wouldn't do it if it was optional.

They kind of have to do it.

So I would recommend that being a priority defining.

Thank you.

All right, with that we'll go ahead and close uh public comment, bring it back to the council.

Um there's a motion on the table.

Any other discussion on the motion?

Oh, is there a tabling is a date uncertain?

That's correct.

And so we'll leave it up to staff to pick a future date.

Yep.

I'll work with I work with uh city manager's office on that.

Okay.

So I I think it's something we don't want to postpone too long.

And I'd like to see it back fairly soon.

Be my preference.

Okay.

Any other discussion?

All right, roll call, please.

Councilmember Barber?

Yes.

Councilmember Garcia?

Yes.

Councilmember Rash?

Yes.

Councilmember Smith?

Yes.

And Mayor Williamson?

Yes, for me.

With that, we're gonna go to public comment on closed session agenda items.

Closed session item 10 is closed session uh conference with real property negotiators pursuant to government code section 54956 TAC 8 and uh regarding 886 Kenry Row and closed session item number 11 is conference with legal counsel existing litigation pursuant to government code section 54956 tech nine two.

Um anybody on Zoom, you can use a raise hand function.

Anybody in the chamber wishes to speak on this item?

All right, so we have one speaker.

Anyone else seeing none?

We'll go ahead and check back in with folks on Zoom and do a countdown to five, four, three, two, one.

We have three on Zoom.

We're going to leave it to two minutes.

Please start in the chamber.

Well, for once you can hear me on the speakers, great.

Good evening, mayor, city council members, chief executive, managers.

Um, for this item number um everything the council does is being scrutinized under a magnifying glass.

Um, it's not too late to change um your ideas for the vending and um I'm sorry, which which item are you speaking to, including number 11.

Okay.

Um Mike, can I speak?

Please, I'm sorry, keep more interruptions.

I usually get interrupted when I speak.

So I'm used to I apologize, please.

Thank you.

Umce again, um, on this issue, because it is going to court.

And um, if there is corruption involved with this um issue, and um it's found to be the corrupt unfair business practices taking place.

Um what type of um repercussions for the maybe uh chief executive or anyone else involved with um creating um the failure of um the item that's being discussed in the back room.

It's an important issue and it affects a lot of people, not just the person that's um creating the um line item issue tonight.

It's an ongoing issue, and um it's it's getting um to be a little bit um for me um a little worrying because it hasn't and it doesn't seem like it's gonna end anytime soon, unless um this council decides to really act on it.

And once again, it's not too late to um make the right decision.

And also it'd be nice if the city would look at reagendizing this issue.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, with that, we'll go to our Zoom callers.

Yes, first we have our telephone caller.

You can go ahead, please.

This is this is Nina Beattie.

This is regarding number 10.

Um, please enact a market rate lease on the Monterey Bay Aquarium.

The aquarium's claims of poverty don't match the 50 million dollar boat it just purchased, nor the constant advertising in local newspapers.

The aquarium is also doing extensive harm to the ocean, which impacts Monterey's brand and reputation.

And the traffic and all the impacts are expenses that to Monterey's budget that are not being put into this equation.

The aquarium's high decibel sonar, now even higher with its new boat, is a hundred million times known lethal levels and above Saturn five decibels.

Sound power and resonance affects shatter or ocean organisms like a wine glass.

MBA claims they can't hear it, they won't harm them.

That's false.

And yet the aquarium continues to do things that are not scientific.

Um in November, the aquarium will destroy the flanks and floor of the canyon near Moss Landing for six days of high decibel sonar blasting to collect topological information.

In addition, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, including veteran Dr.

Mike Murray has implanted hundreds of sea otters with transmitters in their abdomens for years, ignoring the damage the capture surgery and EMF emissions do for the life of the otters, including immune learning and navigation impacts.

How many have died from shock or sepsis?

There's been no public hearings or EIR or sequel review or public process.

The aquarium may soon become a liability to the city if the city doesn't call out the aquarium on its cruelty and destructive practices.

But I hope that at the very minimum the city of Monterey pushes on a market rate lease for the aquarium instead of giving it free ride for all the work, the abuse it does.

Thank you.

Who is this?

I'm sorry.

Hi, this is Mira Nissim.

I was actually interrupted last time, so I should be able to have 30 seconds.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

I just wanted to um say thank you.

I appreciate the time to to speak.

Uh what I wanted to say before I was interrupted was that in my public records um results, I saw that one of the revisions that we had asked to make, which was um uh delineating the bike path that the city had noted on their side by themselves didn't tell us, but um, that you have no impediment to um properly mark the back bypass and our last speaker is Keith.

All right, can you hear me?

Can hear you.

Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and uh second and third with Daniel and Mira here.

I am one of the vendors myself, and I want to speak on uh number eleven there.

Um it's uh it's uh a very real thing.

And uh I just want to say respectfully, uh, like I spoke earlier, uh, there is a lot a lot of evidence between the vendors that have been collecting it.

Um I think that that is not gonna be the only lawsuit that uh is brought against you guys.

Uh I can say that personally for a fact that it won't be.

Um, but I I really urge you guys, you know, I I had a little trouble earlier speaking there because it is a very emotional manner, emotional thing here.

I really really urge you guys to to please lift the uh ordinances and let us go back to work.

We weren't hurting anyone and uh let us be a part of the community.

Let us pay the taxes to you guys.

You know, you guys have a 10 million dollar deficit.

Let us let us be a part of helping out with that.

Let us get back to work here and and you know, please do your jobs and do the right thing.

And like one of the ladies who just called in said, you know, things are not being taken care of, and I want to raise my hand on saying one of the things that has not been taken care of is the rules and regulations that were already set in place for vending.

You know, none of it was taken care of.

The guy came out once a year, maybe twice, and all of a sudden now he's out there every day.

And you know, if you're an inch over the the eight by four feet, you know, you're you're gonna get a ticket.

And it's I I just really urge you guys, like I said, you know, I really had a lot of faith in you guys up there.

Please do not let me down.

I even though I am right now, please make this right.

Because there will continue to be lawsuits will keep coming your way.

All right.

Have a good night.

But that we'll go ahead and close public comment.

And we'll go ahead and recess to close session.

Thank you, everybody,

Everybody, welcome to our evening session of our council meeting today, Tuesday, October twenty first, twenty twenty-five.

Um Gordon reconvene, and I will ask Councilman Garcia to kick us off with the Pledge of Allegiance, please.

Thanks, Juno.

With that, we will do general public uh continuation of our general public comments.

So these are for items that are not on today's agenda.

Um, this is general public comments for things that aren't on today's agenda.

Um so just to for everybody's awareness how public comment works is we identify the individuals that want to speak during public comment at the beginning of the public comment period.

Once those folks are identified, we close it off, and then only those folks will be able to speak.

So I'll start with the Zoom.

For folks on Zoom, you 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 uh general public comments.

So I see the one taker, anybody else, a two, three.

Anyone else?

Okay, so we'll cut it off to those three.

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

We have two on Zoom.

So we'll go ahead and give them three minutes.

What do we do for afternoon session?

Two.

So we'll get two minutes.

So go ahead and start in the chamber.

Whoever wants us to start.

Staff recommended in the City Council unanimously voted to dissolve the architectural review committee.

The ARC cannot be dissolved and must remain in place if for no other reason than to approve non-structural exterior changes and or approve the expansion of visitor accommodation facilities as stated in the charter.

Ultimately, it is the voters that decide if the ARC will be dissolved.

Because if the voters do not approve the charter amendment, transferring the approvals required by the ARC to the Planning Commission, the ARC cannot be dissolved.

Staff should have never recommended to the city council to dissolve the ARC, knowing the city council was violating the charter that states ARC approvals are required for VAFs.

Knowing the city council did not have the legislative power to dissolve the ARC and knowing the right to decide if the ARC should be dissolved, belonged to the voters, and that right was being taken away.

If the ARC had been dissolved, and then the voters did not approve amending the charter, transferring ARC approvals to the Planning Commission.

Was the ARC then going to be whoever likes to go next?

There's only two speakers left in the chamber.

Hi, I'm Karen Brown, resident and former employee of the city.

And I've spoken to you in the past about Dutra Street, and I want to thank you again for the resolution of apology to the people, the indigenous people who lived there and were removed back in the 1950s.

At that time, you all said that you thought we could do more.

We should do more, in fact, I heard you say.

Um that area is about eight feet wide, and there's bicycles now because of the harbor area being cleared out.

There's bicycles going through there, and it's very dangerous, especially for disabled people.

And I want to bring up about uh health and safety um that cause a new structure for the street the street vending.

Um health and safety.

Um the city did not provide one factual bit of information that closed down the old idea of and creating a new amended that violates um the law.

Um there was no um true findings.

There was no study done.

There was no reason why the city used health and safety to change the rules or laws on um the street vending area.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Yes, first we have our telephone caller.

Uh Ms.

Beattie, you can go ahead.

Good evening.

This is Nina Beattie.

In August, I sent a public records request to the city asking for emails and text messages received and sent by staff and council during the public hearing on SB9 densification, August 5th.

Some responsive documents were withheld.

I asked for clarification if all the withheld texts andor emails were staff to staff, or whether any of them were between staff and the mayor or city council members.

The city didn't answer.

And it hasn't answered my subsequent requests again for clarification on these withheld texts.

So it appears in the absence of any information coming from the city that council was conferring with staff or each other during the city council meeting secretly via devices during open public meeting where everything is supposed to be on the record.

And I don't believe that that's lawful.

I also understand that council members are receiving emails and texts from the public during city council meetings circumventing rules on public comment.

I request that the city council bring before it and create rules that eliminate cell phones and communications during the meetings to those outside the meetings or people inside the meetings, but not on the public record.

Thank you.

And our last speaker is Esther.

Good evening, everybody.

I just wanted to give a shout out to staff for um all the work they've put into the first uh city academy that's being um concluded this week.

It was uh very, very educational.

Everybody in the class really enjoyed it.

It was um it had good participation, and I am sure that a lot of people would benefit from continuing to do that.

So I will advocate for this now, just like I have in the past for the community academy, the MPD does.

And um it's a lot of work for staff, and I understand they've been doing it also for city employees, but it's a really good investment in the times so that the public is educated on all the things that the city provides us, the services, the staff, what each department does so that maybe they won't waste a lot of time contacting the wrong departments when they need something.

And um I wanted to also thank council member Garcia for coming to our um neighborhood gathering uh a couple of weekends ago, as well as city manager, assistant city manager and um parks uh operations manager Tys Norton.

Um we had a really nice turnout, and it was good to spend time with the neighbors and um staff outside of official um meetings and whatnot.

And lastly, uh just FYI tomorrow uh the police department and a couple of us are gonna be doing a walk through Laguna Grande Park just to kind of mitigate any encampment activity before it gets out of control.

So um thank you to all of them as well.

Thanks.

Okay, with that, we'll go ahead and close general public comment and do announcements from closed session, please.

On the first uh closed session item number 10 closed session conference with real property negotiators on eight eighty-six cannery row on a unanimous roll call vote, confidential direction was given to real property negotiators on item number 11 12 and three conference with legal counsel existing litigation, Zalinkis versus City of Monterey and two cases NISM versus City of Monterey.

On item number 11 1, 2 and 3 conference with legal counsel existing litigation, Zalincas versus City of Monterey and two cases, NISM versus City of Monterey.

There's no reportable action.

So thank you, Chrissy.

And with that, we'll go to our public appearance item for this evening.

Item 12, provide direction on how to reduce the $6 million budget deficit for FY26-27 in the city's $10 million structural budget deficit.

Before I pass this off to staff, um, I think one of the things that became clear in throughout this process, particularly at the last council meeting, is that there's a lot of confusion in regards to what are we considering, what should be considered this upcoming fiscal year's deficit struct deficit versus the longer term structural deficit conversation.

Um and so I'm I'm gonna ask staff and if my colleagues um agree, I think the conversation tonight should be strictly focused on the immediate deficit for this next fiscal year, and we can pick up the conversation around these other pieces after we get through this immediate conversation.

Um because I think mixing the two is causing a lot is part of what's causing a lot of confusion.

So unless I'm hearing any dissent from my colleagues, I'll go ahead and pass it over to staff.

Just a clarification.

Um I understand what you're saying, and it might be helpful, but I think at times we're gonna have some crossover when we're talking about structural um call recovery for on years because any decisions that are structural addressing the structural deficit are really long-term uh solutions for the future.

So I think the only thing I would say is that we we need to be a little tolerant of where it crosses over on occasion.

Absolutely.

And not be too rigid.

Absolutely.

I I think I think the goal is to just try to help reduce some of the confusion and stay laser focused on the immediate issue at hand here.

Um and and if it does come up, I think hopefully we can just draw some clear distinctions in regards to what's related to 26-27 deficit versus longer term.

So already well, with that, we'll go ahead and pass it to staff for presentation.

All right.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Mayor and Council.

I tried to um to follow your lead there, Mayor uh Williamson.

Um I start with um with a word that is German.

Um and it's household.

So everybody say household, uh household.

And um that is that haunted house.

No, not really.

Uh so household is a German word, and it's it's easy.

It's for household.

So household equals household.

But there's a second meaning in German because the German language is always a little trickier.

And uh it also means budget.

And uh so when you talk about the federal uh budget, it's called the Bundeshaushold.

And so um uh I I start off with the word household because uh the city uh city is a household, but it's also a budget.

And uh when when we look at at the household, uh we um we have to figure out as a family uh how are we balancing uh our structural deficit?

It's it's our household um has so many expenses.

Our household has so much income.

We have so much in savings, and uh we have so much in in additional things that we want to buy and we afford to do, um, that there comes a time when we have to sit around the kitchen table and uh we have to sit down and say, okay, what is important for us, our family uh to quote to exist and what is important for us that we can afford.

And um this year on uh we have balanced the budget uh despite the 10 million dollar deficit uh in the current year.

We we are fine until June 30th.

But for next fiscal year, as as we have stated uh quite a few times over the over a few months, uh for the next uh fiscal year, we are facing uh uh uh currently estimated 10 million dollar budget deficit.

That means uh we are uh having expenses uh projected that will be 10 million dollars higher next year than our incoming revenues.

Um so what are our expenses?

Is it's a good question that that always comes up.

uh for the next uh fiscal year we are facing uh uh uh currently estimated 10 million dollar uh budget deficit that means uh we are uh having expenses uh projected that will be 10 million dollars higher next year than our incoming revenues um so what are our expenses is is a good question that that always comes up uh our expenses are mainly the cost uh for delivering services to our residents uh which uh many uh folks deliver 24 7 365 days and and there's uh still a few of those who who deliver those services uh year round uh around the clock um that brings me back to uh the word uh household and household and budget um many of us uh at home we have uh a checking account uh for our everyday expenses uh we we pay our groceries with that we pay our utility bills with that and uh many also have uh savings account that we use when we need it um if you follow Zusi Orman the financial guru uh you should always have an emergency fund of eight to twelve months of living expenses stored in a separate account that protects you against unexpected events like job loss medical bills and major cat cast catastrophes um we have also that that's our fund for economic uncertainty uh that uh is funded at 20% of the general fund level and it is for unforeseen economic conditions and it is for unforeseen catastrophes um like any other household we also have to house our family members our employees uh they live in they work in buildings providing uh offices uh providing workshops we have fire stations police stations rec centers library etc etc uh we have to provide for our employees uh with respect to uh uh to health care to dental vision expenses we also have to provide for the retirement benefits uh like anyone at home um we have to uh heat the offices we have to light them we have to irrigate our uh parks we have to provide that the roofs are not leaking the windows are possible to open toilets that actually flush when you push them so there there's a lot of uh things that that we have to do and in addition to to a normal household our landscaping and parks beaches forest medians our maintenance of streets etc all those are part of our budget of our household um we have to maintain them we have to keep them safe we have to keep them operational and as as Kurt pointed out uh scurt in the audience no uh as Kurt pointed out earlier also here and there we are lacking maintenance um that that uh uh becomes obvious when you see them in some areas where we really haven't done the job as we are supposed to do um but we have like like uh many people here in the audience and like you the council we have put money aside uh to make sure that one day we can repair or one day we can replace what we own and so like many households and that's why we are here tonight as well we need to know when we have to tighten the belt and we need to know also when we can go on to a vacation when we can afford a vacation so we are in control of our expenses.

If our household costs like insurance gas prices utilities increase more than our paycheck then we have a problem we need to get rid of some of our nice to have dad does not need to have a water ski jet he doesn't need to have a motorcycle and we never really liked our RV and we have to look at our cell phone plans or do we really need all a new iPhone 17 with an overpriced unlimited three year plan.

So what do we do in our households what do households do they eliminate the reduce or reallocate spending patterns and prioritize and so in essence our city is like any other household we have to manage our household by setting priorities we have to adjust our spending patterns to actual income and the following is something that that I have said for quite some time now and it doesn't come to you as a surprise in the city of Monterey we do not have a revenue problem.

In Monterey we do not have a revenue problem but we have a spending problem and as a matter of fact I can report to you that our current revenues come in as projected for the first quarter of the current fiscal year.

So that's July August September hotel tax which is a our number one volatile revenue source comes in actually comes in actually as expected actually a tiny tiny bit higher right now.

And when I say tiny tiny bit higher, I say it's really tiny, but I feel obligated to share this with you.

So again, we do not have a revenue problem, but a spending problem.

And tonight uh we have to talk about how we are balancing revenues with our spending patterns.

Um today is also, I hope, to apply household reasoning in figuring out how we balance our next year.

Uh clearly uh we can manage our expenses.

Uh we have the funds in place, we just spend them in uh a different way that doesn't allow us to balance the budget.

Um we have to learn another German word now, which is Küchentisch, and that's kitchen table.

So uh household, household, kitchen tish, kitchen table.

We have to sit around the kitchen table and have to discuss how can we balance our budget?

Um proven principle that we all do at home, at least I hope so, is that we can only spend what we have as income and what we have in our savings account.

And uh, in order to clarify what I mean by that, um we have developed two scenarios that I want to share with you.

Uh two different households that I will describe, two different families.

Um family uh both families want to build a new deck uh in their garden and they want to include also a barbecue area into their garden.

And uh they have saved $50,000 for that.

That's probably a low-end number when you look at what contractors charge today.

Uh the new deck will certainly enhance the quality of life at their home.

Um, the new barbecue area with built-in appliances will also make the quality of life a lot nicer.

And yes, while they don't think about this, um the deck and the barbecue will need to be maintained, repaired, replaced in many years to come.

So here's scenario number one.

We have uh a family that I call family prudent.

Um if we want to build a new deck and a barbecue area, uh do we take the money from our retirement accounts?

No, no, nobody would do that.

That would be foolish.

Um would we take it out of our emergency savings account?

No.

That would be also not good a good idea.

So would we use other savings accounts for this project?

Uh would we borrow money to add a new deck and buy barbecue?

Maybe, um, but only if we know we can pay it back through income.

So this family saves anything extra for this purpose.

And they save $50,000 and uh uh anything that they could save over the years goes into that uh uh new deck and barbecue project.

They have $50,000, they select a contractor, they get a bid, they are ready to start the project, and boom.

Uh the pineapple express comes across their home and the roof becomes severely damaged to the point that they need to replace it.

So what are they doing?

Do they put a tarp on the roof and continue with the project building a deck and designated barbecue area?

Do they look at the kids' collection uh college tuitions uh and do they look at their medical expenses and say, okay, let's uh cut the college tuition, let's uh go into debt for medical expenses and we want the deck.

No, uh family prudent uses the reasonable person standard, and they would say we shift our funds to the new priority of still paying tuition and medical bills first and use the savings to replace the roof.

Uh it preserves their retirement savings, it preserves the college savings, and uh they use the $50,000 to not have a blue tarp, but uh replace the balloon the blown off roof, and they decided the nice to have can wait.

Uh here's the other family, and you you might be surprised that they will act differently.

Uh I call it the family hedonistic.

Uh the same scenario, roof is gone, same savings they had.

Uh, and uh, but this family thinks slightly differently.

They think about it's all about creating that special space for them uh and a barbecue space and having a new deck.

It's all about creating uh happiness, it's all about creating good feelings.

They really don't like to create pain, and they really don't like to sacrifice uh in search for their uh ideal deck and barbecue place.

They want to spend it all, uh spend the money on the deck and fix the roof, but they realize they cannot do that.

Uh so what they don't have simply the money set aside.

So what can they do?

They stop saving for retirement and for college.

Uh if that was a smart thing to do.

They let medical bills go unpaid.

They might consider having the kids take a private student loan to cover the cost of increased tuition.

Or they keep spending funds on daily expenses, expenses such as dining, coffee shops, wireless plans, and toys.

They use the 50,000 for a new patio and barbecue, and they would put a blue tarp on the house.

It looks funky, but it's all about us, isn't it?

So today we are uh facing the same choices, similar choices.

We have the revenue to fix the structural deficit.

And I'm not proposing to dismantle the cherished NCIP program.

Uh it will remain funded with more than 23 million dollars.

If we um follow the council guidance uh uh sometime, uh there will be still 19 million dollars sitting in the NCIP.

We do, however, say uh again, we're not saying let's dismantle NCIP, but we we do say let's not spend our savings to pay for the funding deficit.

Um we do say let's in the next couple of months think about how we seriously can create a one-year break of funding for the NCIP to help us to get to 2627.

Uh you, the council made it clear last weekend, last week on Monday that you don't want to reduce uh services uh for the residents through layoffs.

You don't want layoffs across all departments.

This is not an option for you.

And we applaud you for that decision.

Uh staff agrees wholeheartedly, and I know also that our bargaining units uh appreciated those comments.

So it's all about uh the next couple of weeks and months how we are tackling the challenges ahead of us.

Um we have created reserves starting in 2014.

Uh those reserves that we created for the fund uh for economic uncertainty started at a real low point when we had less than six million dollars in 2014 in our uh fund for economic uncertainty.

That was less than nine percent, there was less than 10% of our general fund.

Today we are in a better position.

We are fully funded at a 20% level in the fund for economic uncertainty, and that's where this fund should stay.

Um in spring of 2018, we also started to talk to the city council and the community to fund additional reserves.

And today we have those reserves in place to help the economic engine of the city, the conference center, uh, to help them going and to be able to remodel that center by 2030 or 2035.

We have uh more importantly, a strong reserve to weather the pension liabilities.

Uh why is this all important?

Because if we have a callpers challenge, uh we don't have to reduce service uh levels to the residents, we don't have to use layoff scenarios.

We can weather pension uh fluctuations.

We also have reserves for the sports center.

We don't need to go to the NCIP and ask them to help us fund a dehumidifier.

Uh, with the funds that we have in the sports center, we are able to weather most, if not all of the future repairs if we continue funding them.

We started a fund for the library, we have a fund for information technology tonight.

The purchase of the Tyler uh financial system uh goes back to over two years of starting to save for that.

So kudos to the councils from uh 2018 to today that uh had the wisdom of creating those reserves and maintaining maintaining this, these reserves.

This is smart, uh this is fiscally prudent, uh and it is sometimes painful to achieve and to maintain.

And it is sometimes painful to achieve and to maintain.

So with that, I lead over to the introduction of some of the uh topics that we want to discuss.

We we followed the the lead from uh the last meeting when we talked about a few items.

And I think the next slide up is uh our assistant city manager who will share with you um the uh six um topics that we have identified, and clearly we want to talk uh about this just with uh uh as as the mayor and the council suggested uh about the um topic um that um starts us off.

So with that I hand it over to Ned.

Thank you, Hans.

Uh thank you for the story.

And uh as Hans mentioned, uh we uh are uh focused uh here today to talk about the fiscal deficit that we uh currently have based on fiscal year 2026-27.

And we know that it's a $10 million deficit for the uh foreseeable future.

And uh as uh we discussed at the last city council meeting on Monday last week, uh the city council directed uh a target of anywhere between three to four million dollars in existing NCIP funds uh to address next year's deficit and next year's uh deficit uh uh only.

And uh that means that we currently are short six million dollars for this year and then still have more buckets to fill, the $10 million buckets for future years.

But this graphic we wanted to show you because it's also in our agenda report uh that helps uh visually describe uh where we are and and where the gap is, and we'll talk through each of those options.

We also have here, and I'm gonna go to the next slide.

Um that way you can you can see it, and we won't go into this in detail, but um there are other uh sources of deficit reduction, but we know that they're uncertain because uh they rely on voter approval.

And so uh the one uh and and so far the only uh one that council has identified as the uh sales tax that uh will uh if placed on the ballot and also if it's passed by voters uh would uh would reduce that gap.

Uh but we're going to focus a little more on on this.

You know, what are the certain sources of deficit reduction?

And uh we again our target here is 10 million dollars.

And we've got a few a few uh what we like to call bubbles to uh talk about.

Um the first one is what uh council uh chose to do last week, which is target between three to four million, and we'll just say four million dollars to freeze NCIP projects not uh not yet started out of uh potential 18 million dollars of uh projects uh in the works.

Um the other item that we we did talk about very briefly is uh is potential impacts to staff uh in particular in in terms of layoffs and uh the feedback from council, at least from last week was let's avoid that at all costs if we can.

So uh we we won't we won't talk about that, but um it's it's uh it's an option and uh not one that we're looking to pursue.

Um the other one, and we we'll talk about this in greater detail are position freezes and attrition, and that also results in reducing programs.

And Hans will go through and uh and talk through some of the examples of positions that we currently have frozen and what that looks like and the impacts to service delivery across the city, whether that's in parks or other areas.

Another bubble that uh we'll be uh discussing a little bit more.

There was some conversation last week about reserves and debate on do we use reserves, do we not?

What are reserves for?

And we can spend some more time since we have uh that time this evening to discuss the uh the pros and cons of using reserves, some of the challenges, what are in each of the reserve categories and uh what are reserves uh used for, and we'll share that information with you all.

Uh and then and then again uh we uh may not have time to get through uh this at tonight's meeting, but maybe in future meetings.

Some of the other items that are part of the index card exercise, the tax measures that are we we like to uh to say are maybe uncertain or maybe a little bit more speculative because we can't count on that yet until we know that voters have approved those measures in June.

And uh and that's that would require voter approval.

This is the um uh hoping for the best uh kind of scenario, uh, but we're we're really are looking for what are the secured sources of funding that will get us to 10 million, not ones that we can uh we we can only hope uh we we get.

And and that's the focus for today.

And in the sixth uh sixth item that is uh truly is a new item that uh we uh came up with uh la last week.

Here is uh an option to skip next year's NCIP.

And we uh there there is that option as well.

Um there were some comments and questions about uh the challenges with taking and reducing uh significant amounts of current NCIP projects because the NCIP projects went through a very uh long and uh uh deep vetting process from the community from those who proposed projects, those impacts.

There's also a recognition of the work that's been done this year, and uh and this option is is one that um looks at next year's to uh to fix next year's NCIP allocation potentially to help address the deficit since we are looking at next year's fiscal year um budget.

So let's uh let's discuss position freezers in a little bit more detail.

And we have uh one slide here that uh the frozen positions, and Hans will walk through each of these.

Yeah, thank you so much.

So we uh have right now the the council asked uh to have some more understanding where we are.

Uh we have uh a variety of positions frozen uh with the objective to uh accomplish about 2.2 million dollars uh in budget savings.

Um is the homeless navigator in the police department, a police services assistant in the police department.

Uh the deputy fire marshal position uh is frozen since July.

Uh one assistant planner is is is for is not hired.

Uh administrative assistant and community development remains vacant.

Assistant urban forester is vacant.

Uh we have another assistant urban forester on staff, but instead of two, we have only one.

There are several positions in parks, uh ranging from park maintenance crafts worker uh to park crafts worker, uh parks maintenance workers uh vacant.

Uh senior street maintenance worker in streets, a management analyst uh in parks and recreation uh is vacant.

We backfilled that position with the management analyst and the city manager's office.

So uh we should deserve the credit, but who cares?

It's the same fund.

Um we have a custodian uh vacant, uh we have one automomotive mechanic vacant, uh, and uh the risk specialist in in finance is uh also vacant.

Um when when I spoke about uh this uh chilling of positions or freezing of positions to you during the budget cycle in May and June, I explained to you that this will be not um a permanent list, but we need to have uh flexibility in uh using the uh those positions uh as we see other positions become available through attrition.

Uh we we want to add those positions to the list.

Uh and sometimes in lieu of uh uh taking all the savings, we need to backfill positions.

And when you look at the deputy fire marshal position, um that's definitely a position we we need to fill uh uh early next year.

And uh there might there may be another position, one or the other position that we have to fill uh because uh just for for many good reasons, uh we have to be uh responsive.

We have to um uh satisfy service needs.

And when I look at the assistant urban forester, and I know we are going right now through the conversation about a new tree ordinance, and I look at the upcoming winter storms.

I know also that the workload may uh increase sharply then, and we need to bring back an assistant urban forester.

So I wanted to to show the council this uh list of of positions so that you um get uh understand where we are using attrition right now, and I hope also with the those examples that I shared with you that you uh please understand why I ask for the flexibility of moving positions onto the list and off the list as it becomes necessary from our perspective to do just that.

And with that, back to Ned.

All right.

Uh next topic.

This is the other bubble and whether or not we should use uh reserves.

We discussed a little bit pros and cons of uh reserve usage.

And Rafela, our finance director will walk us through the reserve targets and the reserve balances as well.

Thanks, Ned.

Okay.

So we're looking at right now what our target is for each of the different reserve um accounts.

As you know, the reserve for economic uncertainty, that is uh um volatile number is six twenty percent of the general fund operating expenses.

So that one is calculated twice a year.

So when we do regular budget in that mid-year, we true it up to where it's always remains at 20%.

So it's about 2 million is what we project for the year.

Our pension reserve um at the low end at 1 million, we've actually put in the policy that is one to 2.5 million dependent, but 1 million is this um minimum target for our conference center reserve, 750,000 um to put away for the conference center that um Has was talking about earlier, sports center reserve is 500,000.

Our technology infrastructure structure reserve.

Um we're targeting one million.

What we do is try and maintain this account at 3 million.

So as we use it to transfer money over to the technology um account, we basically kind of replenish it, try to keep it at 3 million at all times.

Um sometimes that happens, and so that's why our target is now at 1 million.

Our city facilities reserve, 250,000, public safety facility and maintenance is 250, and then the library facility and maintenance reserve is also at 250.

So we have a total of 600,000, um 6 million, I'm sorry, that we are targeting to put into reserves each year for the next year.

So I'm sure you've seen this um chart a few times.

So this is basically telling you where we started as of July 1, 2024, the contributions that we made for 2025, those are revised because in order to balance the budget for this current fiscal year, we reduce some of those um contributions.

Um then also for um giving us our ending balance for 630 25, beginning balance for this year, and then what our contributions for this fiscal year is.

Again, this is where we reduced by 50% all of the contributions except for in the economic uncertainty reserve, which we maintain at 20%.

So our ending balance.

Um we also this year, uh 25-26, we took some of the reserves that we already have in here to kind of um use it for some of the projects that we know that were coming up.

So um for the pension reserve, we actually pay 1.7 is what was our OPEP bill this year.

So instead of taking it out of the general fund, we took it out of this pension reserve fund so that we didn't tap the general fund any more than it could have to be technology infrastructure, also other projects that we already had um in line.

So we took some of the things that we again, that 3.8 million that you see for 25, 26 uses, that's us not using the general fund money and um not making that deficit higher.

So our ending balances for as of 630 26.

This is where we look at we talk about the 24 million that we'll have in economic uncertainty again, which is 20% of the general fund um operating budget, conference center will be 3.2 million, sports center 1.9, 5.2 for a pension um liability reserve, infrastructure 1.8, city facilities 1.1, and then 500,000 each for a public safety and also our library facilities maintenance reserves.

Excuse me, Raphael, could you say what the balance is on the right hand column?

It's too boring for me to see it.

Total of your for 630 2026.

Yes, 630, 2025 total of those balances projected.

38 million, 526, 960.

Thank you.

And these are all just the general fund ones.

Does not include titans and does not include okay.

So we wanted to give you uh a visual of what the what this actually looks like.

So on the low end, if you see the blue, the blue bubble is the 24 million that we have sitting in economic uncertainty reserve accounts.

So um we wanted to kind of visually demonstrate so three months worth of expenses, so 20% is basically two and a half months of our operating expense.

So at three months, just round it out, there's about 29 million.

Something happens, we have less than three months worth of operating um expenses that are in our economic uncertainty.

So just looking at the size of the blue bubble compared to all the other ones, and if something happens, this is on the low end.

So 150 million of Wharf two, if that collapse for damages, 60 million for fire stations.

I think that's three stations with minor repairs.

Um we've already seen what uh economic uh pandemic will do.

So 40 million, we had when we had the COVID, we lost over 30 million worth of revenue.

Our top revenue earner TOT was basically um just gone.

So we've already seen what that looks like.

Again, this is more than the 24 million that we have set aside already.

We also have 15 million of tunnel emergency repair for small collapses, um, 2.2 million dollars for ladder truck, um, four to eight million for a mud slide, a rock slide, those kind of smaller damages, but they um are costly.

They would eat up the 24 million very soon.

And this is the low answer.

Looking at what this looks like on the higher end, if you notice that those bubbles got really, really bigger.

So um, if you went that wharf to partial collapse, this is what it looks like at 100 million and the tunnel repair at 50 million.

So these numbers um they dwarf that 24 million dollars that we have set aside.

So when we're thinking about whether or not we need to use or we should use our reserves, these are the ideas that are the pictures that we would like for you to actually keep in mind before making decisions.

I'll pass that back to Ned.

All right.

And uh we won't go into uh this one in detail.

Uh and we can cover if you have questions, happy to answer them.

Uh but um some of the voter supported uh taxes that uh aren't aren't secure and um are are uncertain at this time.

And then this this option, uh Hans will talk a little bit more the benefits of skipping next year's NCIP.

Yes, so uh opposite conversation after the conversation we had uh on Monday last week, uh it was clear uh to staff that there was a sentiment also expressed of not uh touching uh this year's uh NCIP funds uh because uh we are in in the process of of defining the new projects, and uh uh there is also a lot of work being done already by the uh folks uh that are proposing the project.

Karen Brown just just uh spoke up about the project that she wants to bring forward, and um the um the idea that that we developed then based on the conversation we had on Monday was okay, uh we we respect that uh opinion.

And we also heard uh uh sentiment expressed that well, next year's NCIP is not being allocated yet.

And um, so our uh agenda report that is in front of you tonight also is is uh putting this option onto the table to um uh help uh rescue the the city expenses or the city services um to uh consider to skip next year's NCIP, which is also about six million dollars.

And I want to just point this out if we are skipping next year's NCIP, and the NCIP is uh providing us with four million dollars as uh ask three to four million dollars as asked by the council.

Um there will be still uh I'm doing the math right now, 19 million dollars left in the NCIP.

Uh and um I think that's still uh an uh a very good number to to be um uh worthy of of um recognition and understanding that we are sitting uh around the kitchen table right now, and uh we are having we have to make the decisions if we want to do things uh as we always did the them, or if we want to make some harder painful decisions, and so um I think that's our last slide.

Is that correct?

Or is that another one?

Yeah, okay.

That's the last slide.

Thank you.

Thank you for the staff presentation.

Um questions please.

Um Mr.

Usler, you listed about 20 jobs in that slide, maybe bring that slide back up.

There are more jobs uh because some positions are two positions or three positions, so yeah.

Well, that's that's my question.

If we have 40 or 50 unfilled jobs, could we learn what the others are?

So uh absolutely, but you need to consider that those positions are also in different funds.

So if you have an unfilled position in the parking fund, which we have two or three right now, they don't help you for the general fund.

So uh for the purpose of this uh conversation tonight, we list all the positions that we are using right now for uh as frozen as shield that have a direct benefit to the general fund.

And uh we can add to that also uh I don't know how many positions the the police chief has vacant right now.

Uh but I would submit to you, we have probably five to eight vacant police officer positions right now that are not on the list because we are not freezing them.

So uh for the purpose of of this exercise, we listed all the positions that we have intentionally frozen that we are not backfilling, and uh that we used to to create budget savings.

Uh when you say we have about 50 unfilled positions, these are positions that are spread out through all the different other um funds in the city and not necessarily general fund.

But there's 12, maybe 13 on the slide, right?

Uh I I don't know.

I haven't counted them, but please keep in mind we have park maintenance worker uh vacant.

These are at least two park maintenance worker.

You don't see them on the list there as uh you see there's one park maintenance crafts worker, but there are two park maintenance worker also on the list.

So you you don't see that unfortunately.

Well, I'd like to see.

Yeah.

Um it was portrayed to us that we could save three million dollars with the reduction of 15 to 20 positions.

And um it seemed more closer to 20.

So I'm trying to understand where those 20 are.

Um, and where there might be more of the 40 or 50.

Um this just seems incomplete.

That yeah.

So can I can I yeah, that maybe uh Ned can explain this.

I'd be happy to share the um detailed spreadsheet.

Just that way, that way you can see and we can uh discuss the uh here.

Let's uh let me do my best here to share screen on this spreadsheet.

So uh the spreadsheet shows every position and the fund, uh the detailed accounts, the salary savings and the count.

As Hans mentioned, as we look at park maintenance uh worker, for example, uh you have uh a parks maintenance worker here.

And it is a combination of different funds.

It's uh split between general fund as well as Alvarado Street Maintenance District and others.

Uh in total of all these positions, and there are uh total of 16 positions listed here.

The total uh dollar amount, the value on those positions is 2.1 million dollars.

Uh but uh what's what might be helpful to know is that some of these come out of parking.

There's one position out of parking, one out of vehicle maintenance.

Uh and then we also have liability and property insurance, which does about 80% of those go back are general fund generated.

Uh but and then the where we got came with the three million dollar range, and that's where the index card comes in, is uh when our finance director mentioned last week on Monday.

If we look at retirements and people leaving and don't fill those positions, but we don't know what those positions are, it could potentially add up to a million, but that's a very generous number.

That's assuming we someone leaves and we don't fill that position.

Could I could I just jump in real quick?

Yeah, I I think it would be helpful for staff to provide us something that we can actually rely upon to get to the 10 million or or the six million, whatever whatever the numbers that we're looking at.

It's it's hard to say how much of this we can actually include to address the 10 million dollar deficit if we don't have the numbers in front of us.

It this feels a little bit squishy.

Um so I I kind of I echo Council Mr Rash's um comments, concerns she she actually got to one of my main questions here.

So I'm not sure if we can do that tonight or or if that might need to be something that comes back.

But I I think part of what we're trying to do is figure out what are the levers that we have in front of us, what are the realistic numbers that we can rely upon.

It doesn't sound like the 3.1 or 3.2 million um mayor, allow me to explain this.

What we are tracking right now is about 2.2 million dollars of savings for the current fiscal year.

That's the list you're looking at right now.

That's the current fiscal year.

In order to get to $3 million, we need more positions between now and July 1st next year to put on the attrition list.

So we we cannot magically create a list right now that goes to $3 million starting with July 1st.

I I understand all that.

I I think that you're you're describing the point that I'm making.

We're trying to do an exercise of figuring out how do we get to 10 million.

Right.

The million of the 3.2 is squishy at best.

The two point two is squishy too.

You're identifying positions that are on that freeze list that we need to potentially take off to fill.

So I don't know what number we can even rely upon as it relates to this card.

So I think having some clarity on that would be helpful.

If if I may try to explain one more time because maybe maybe we are not communicating right now.

So the 2.2 million dollars we're trying to get is part of this year's budget.

We need to keep those positions vacant uh to balance our 24 25 budget.

That's why we are uh looking at every single budget positions or every single of those positions on a four week basis to make sure that we are delivering salary savings at the end of next fiscal year.

So if we want to go to three million dollars for fiscal year 2627 what I shared with you also is that you can count on us that those positions have to be eliminated because we cannot balance a structural structural deficit by just writing attrition we have to look then at vacant positions shovel them all around and have to come up also with something that we discussed for fiscal year 2627 as three million dollars.

So I I hope uh I I don't know if I answered your question exactly but we are we are talking right now about 2526 the two point uh I'm sorry 20 yeah we're in 25 2526 the 2.2 million dollars is part of what we want to accomplish as savings by the end of June 30th 2026.

If we talk about the three million we are talking about fiscal year 2627 and that requires additional positions.

I think when I when I look at the card and when we look at the spreadsheet that's identified on the spreadsheet as immediate so theoretically how I interpret it is the current frozen positions they could technically still maintain be maintained frozen.

You're right it doesn't address the long term structural piece but it could we could keep them frozen for next fiscal year for all intents of purposes to get to the 2.2 for next year's 10 million dollar or 3 million.

Yeah yeah yes um so can I ask a question to dovetail on that again to restate if we stay the course for this fiscal year June 30 with those vacancies we estimate from finance that we have salary savings that will be available to carry over at about two million because they're vacant now.

No we expect the that we we are using the frozen positions right now to provide a current balanced budget.

So we are anticipating to have the 2.2 million dollars that we um have in savings at the end of June 30th to reach our target of the projected ending balance for the current fiscal year 2425.

So this is not the the salary savings that we use as slingshot to get into budget year 2627.

This is one of the tools that we use to have the current budget balanced so now I'm really confused.

So what is on the card for balancing for next year.

Exactly so that's on for the next fiscal year where we will continue to use attrition to come up attrition to to come up with a target that is described on that card which I believe was three million dollars.

Yeah three point one trick on top of the already yes eliminated let's just say the already frozen positions we have you need another million dollars to get to three point one and again the the system allows us right now to have flexibility and that's when I speak about the deputy fire marshal that we bring this position on board but we have to sum offsetting um attrition to to balance it out to come to 2.2 million.

When we go into 3.1 remember what I shared with the council at that time as well we have to look at all departments including public safety.

So it's it is not a simple um uh system in place and on uh what makes it harder is also that uh we have um uh just the general fund to play with and uh all the other special funds that are out there you cannot use a parking maintenance worker and allocate him or her uh towards parking fund if this person doesn't really contribute to the parking fund so you you cannot do those budgetary um shenanigans shall I say can I just ask a clarifying question I just want to make sure I understood uh uh make sure I understand correctly what I thought you said so the positions that are currently frozen in this fiscal year's budget if we keep those frozen into next fiscal year that doesn't do anything towards addressing the 10 million it does something to the next next next year because it will bring you if you continue to freeze the same positions for the next fiscal year it brings you again the same amount of salary savings.

Which is 2.2 which is right now 2.2 so you'd be up to eight back on the change I'm with you okay okay all right all right so now we have two point two.

So now it's not easy can we poll the positions back up again you had identified I think two of the positions that you felt we needed fill at some point relatively soon including the fire marshal and I can't remember what the other one was urban assistance.

Okay.

So if we were to take the cost of those two positions out what are we down now from 2.2 more or less 1.9 we're you're at uh 1.8 1.8 million okay okay but record recognizing that uh and maybe we should take out the parking fund position because that's in the storm trade maintenance positions uh some of these are not general funds so if we can focus on general fund that would be ideal we can keep vehicle maintenance and liability property because that's mostly general funded but one we're really at 1.516 right now for general fund okay so for the purposes of this exercise that the council's about to engage in could we say that if we kept all the positions that you feel like were good to keep frozen into the next fiscal year we're probably at somewhere around 1.5 that we can rely upon for our math no okay so again we we are committed to bring in 2.2 million dollars in uh salary savings out of the chilled position exercise because it's part of balancing the next this year's budget so yes while we are backfilling the deputy fire marshal uh freeze another position say we will freeze other positions as they become available so you're saying 2.2 is on the table for two weeks math 2.2 remains on the table and again this is a flexible list this is a list that that changes as people are trading and as we have an opportunity to figure out that whether we use that position or not as part of attrition there are positions that that like the management analyst we had no idea that a managed and a management analyst was going to leap us for another city and we jumped on that opportunity to then put the management analyst from the city manager's office into the parks and recreation office backfill that position so they had no loss we have that loss but we also have corresponding salary savings of one management analyst so uh mayor and council this is a flexible flexible list we are not freezing it as frozen because the the the fire chief would be completely unhappy if he cannot uh have a deputy fire marshal at one time the police uh uh the police chief will not be happy if if we freeze police officers or if we put uh freeze uh uh a uh PST public uh uh police uh services technician uh especially if that is a female and he needs females to to staff also the jail if we have females in there so this is a very flexible list but I tell you some of those items uh will remain frozen for instance in the park maintenance area um we will uh not uh have park maintenance worker hired um as as as we should and that will result in uh less maintenance in parks and and less uh uh nicely aesthetically looking uh parks so uh we are using those opportunities as they become available and we have to save 2.2 million dollars during this fiscal year this is the list to let to allow you to look into our cards what we are doing right now for this current fiscal year and yes mayor that list can more or less uh as it is looking right now carried into the next fiscal year with additional positions to get to 3.1 million dollars so would a typical attrition rate or or retirement or resignation be around one million dollars every six months I mean is is that typical let me answer differently because I don't know the answer to that uh it is um we have about uh uh a rate of uh what is it 12.5 percent of of turnover

So would a typical attrition rate or or retirement or resignation be around 1 million dollars every six months?

I mean, is that typical?

So uh let me answer differently because I don't know the answer to that.

Uh it is um we have about uh uh a rate of uh what is it 12.5 percent of of turnover annually.

So so that that gives you an idea, but it's not every six months we have a million dollars, right?

So, real quick, um I just I I want to hang on to this.

So, an option for us is to say 2.2 for frozen positions for next year's budget.

I just want to make sure I okay.

Yes, but also remember you had a current where we said uh we can go up to 3.1 million dollars.

Right, but that's we can't is staff comfortable with relying on that?

Because I thought that yes, what if those are those are trish?

What if those are people that say they were going to retire, but then they choose not to retire, or those are a position that's a critical to feel fill.

Do we feel comfortable in saying 3.1 as part of the math to get to the 10 million?

Yes, and it will hurt because you will see those positions also frozen in the police department, and this may be officers because if you want to get to 3.1 and we're not getting to 3.1, um we we have to look across all departments.

And I know he's he's looking mad at me.

He actually did I know I know what did he say this, Hans.

But um the worded German.

And uh so uh yes, yeah, yes, Mayor.

Uh and of course, we understand what the priority of the community and the council is.

It is not necessarily to cut back on public safety because you have a lot of folks who will uh not be happy about that.

But you will have other, we will have other opportunities, but they all come at a price.

If we are not backfilling a principal planner, uh, because that's that's a position that might be available.

It's uh I'm just speculating here.

No principal planner should leave.

But we will jump on that.

That comes with less uh productivity and community development.

So uh we we can keep the positions or we keep can keep the number of positions to reach 3.1 million dollars.

We that can be done.

I think I need to let this idea go for now because I'm I'm spinning on it and I'm still not quite clear.

Dr.

Barber had her hand up.

Yeah, go for her.

Well, I'm not done, but it would segue to a different topic, and maybe we should stay on this one.

Well, let's let's allow you to finish your questions and then we can jump to the next council member.

So if we um skip a NCIP cycle, where would we where do you project that we would get the defueling money that's at the top of the NCIP list every year and is scheduled to be two million dollars next year?

So where do we get that from the NCIP?

You have 19 million dollars in projects there.

Theoretically, you can defund projects for two million dollars to set a new priority for green road fuel reduction.

It's not a good answer, I understand, but but that's where the money is sitting.

But if you're taking the six million that's allocated for next year, there's no allocation and there's no new project on the table.

That's correct.

But you as the council have the authority to defund projects that have not been started, equivalent up to two million dollars for green belt fuel reduction.

So you're you're cutting out the NCIP process, and you're just going right to the council.

No, I'm not because uh councilmember, you have as the council approved those projects, and they are totally within the authority of the council to defund.

You can elect, like councils do to go back to the NCIP and say, hey, we need two million for green belt fuel reduction, give us more projects, but the budget authority lies entirely with you, not with the NCIP.

I okay, I get it.

The good reminder that it lies with council.

I'm not clear on the process.

It's uh it's two million that's anticipated for the upcoming NCIP fiscal year.

They haven't looked at anything yet, but historically, the number one item, which often gets 100% votes 15 communities is the fuel reduction.

So walk me through how we would circumvent that.

Yeah, I work with with your scenario.

If we would um use the six million dollars of next year's um NCIP budget cycle that has not been touched yet, there are no projects decided.

If we use those to put into the general fund for studio 2627, those six million dollars are gone.

Right now, the NCIP has 23 million dollars in the bank.

If we get the three to four million dollars from the NCIP that they are a task by the city council to find in projects, 23 minus 4 is 19 million dollars.

Of those 19 million dollars, right now we have about eight million dollars of projects under construction or in progress or have started.

19 minus 8 is 11 dollars.

11 million dollars.

So there are 11 million dollars in other projects that we have not started that the NCIP has proposed, and the council has approved, and of those 11 million dollars, the city council could elect to pick projects or ask the NCIP again for two million dollars of projects to reshuffle those back into the Greenbelt Fuel Redu.

That leaves the NCIP with $9 million in projects uh not allocated and eight million dollars in ongoing projects.

So, in essence, we would in a way be the be the NCIP really.

Um we would we would take over that that role for a year because it's it and there's other areas that are urgent.

I mean the perception to the community should should not be that this is extra available money, it's not it's it's it's anticipated for essential items like defueling and ADA requirements and projects that are essential.

One thing that's essential is to reap redesignate contingency funds.

We have the fire stations allocated at 2.15 million to 2.25 million.

Everybody was happy with it.

They needed 900,000 more, and they got it through 700,000 in the NCIP contingency and 200 on the balance, extra balance.

So 900,000 came back into the fire station.

Nobody has a problem with that.

That's where it should go.

But now we have 69,000 in contingency fees in NCIP.

We need to put another million dollars back into that contingency fee for when the firefighters need more in station 12 or 13, or we need emergency repairs to the police station and NCIP funds it.

So it's not like this is money that's floating around able to be tapped.

That's that's the problem I have with all of this.

So I want to see the contingency fund of a million.

I want to see defueling of two million.

I'm done, Mayor.

Okay.

Um councilman, uh uh Dr.

Barber.

Uh yeah, so a lot of um of what I was questions I had have been answered as I was waiting, but just so that I can get a uh better understanding.

Um, I want to just clarify.

So if my understanding is correct, the 2.2 million is the possibility for the frozen and attrition of positions, and then according to the bubble that you have um the 3.375 million for sales tax if passed, which would be effective on October 1st, 2026.

Um, and then the three to four million, let's say the 4 million that we um requested for NCIP to find in projects that were not started.

Um that would leave us at uh 425,000 needed for uh 26, 27 fiscal year.

Is that correct?

Uh yes.

Okay.

And so and with that, um would renewing measure G, I know I noticed that it was in the direct strategies uh category.

Uh, would that lessen some of the uh need that we would have for that particular fiscal year as well as some of the ongoing um structural deficit?

Yes, absolutely, because it would add um uh over three million dollars, uh hopefully to the general fund of the voter approve it.

Wait, I'm confused.

Can I can I just clarify that?

Can I click for that?

Because measure G is already baked into our revenue.

So that's why it's in the indirect cards.

It wouldn't add to the it wouldn't add it's under direct strategies on uh in our plan and and what we I have before me uh in what we have uh for the proposals for direct strategies, it says renew measure G continue six million in annual revenue.

So that's why I'm just trying to get clarification.

Yep, I would need to look at the uh agenda report if if that's what it says in the gender report, that is a typo because uh the cards that we uh we presented.

Uh we have measure G is an extension of the existing uh sales tax and would be an indirect strategy.

I see here where uh where it is a typo.

It measure G renewal is an indirect strategy, not a direct strategy, is as you see here on page.

Okay, that's that's what I need clarification because I was I was getting two conflicting information and I needed to get that clarified so I could be able to do to finish the process.

Um Dr.

Robert, though, that is that is a type of uh measure G is uh indirect strategy that we hope to renew.

Okay, um, so that's clarified.

So, but the other part of what Hans that you answered uh after the other uh pieces of attrition and frozen sales tax if passed and NCIP piece that we already have since uh Monday's meeting, it would still just be the 425,000 for fiscal year 2627, correct?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Could I just ask a clarifying question on her math though?

My understanding from the presentation and from the discussion last week is that we can't at this point rely upon the sales tax initiatives that haven't even passed the council that haven't been voted on by the voters at this point.

Yes, okay, yes.

So it I said if passed.

Passed, yes, yes.

Okay, okay, please.

All good stuff.

I want to go back to uh a point we talked about uh salary savings, and I understand the number we're talking about in salary savings is really a future number because we balanced our current budget, knowing that we had positions that were not filled.

When do you know as the finance director as we close in on the end of the year of June 30 2026, the end out of the fiscal?

Is your mic on it?

It is.

I'll talk uh I'll talk into it.

Um so when do you know or anticipate that you would know carry over balances at the end of the 2052 six?

Um, so it's a question of do you get an opportunity to sort of calculate what's remaining, what's left.

Does that happen early part of February, or is it like a later time when you say, okay, we did good, we actually have a carryover anticipated budget of three million dollars.

So when do you know that?

What we do is we during the whole budget process.

So March, April is when we're taking all the numbers and we're looking at um, we're going and looking at where our expenditures are currently, year to date, and we're anticipating there's things that we already know that there's an X percentage of salary savings that's gonna be there that we we already know that, and we're looking at where are we landing at this point for um expenses.

Um this current year, like we did we stopped spending.

So we instructed staff to like normally you'll spend until June 30.

We basically said in the middle of April, stop spending, you know, unless it's you know essential things that has to have to be done, your contracts has to be done.

So all the excess that you haven't spent.

So we looked at at that percentage of expenditures to say, okay, we need we're gonna rely on this as a carryover spark to kind of kind of help balance the budget for the next year.

So it's it's a process.

Um during our budget, our audit process, which we're going through now, is when we kind of chew up what that number actually looks like.

So we're pretty clear on where we landed, but the number that we landed on is because of all the um measures that we took in order to balance the budget.

So looking at the number now, so things like we took out some um restructured some of the um obligations that we have.

We moved it to different funds.

So those things we're we're looking at that, and it we are landed basically exactly where we thought we were gonna be because we're actually looking at everything very closely.

So during the budget process, we have a really decent picture.

Um, before we come back, you know, when we get to your April study session, we pretty much have a solid idea where we're gonna hit.

And if it looks kind of bad, that's when we start making moves to change it to kind of make it match the way that we need it to.

So that that sort of leads into what my question was gonna be, because I'm very familiar with early notices that say, unless it's absolutely statutorily required, there's no travel.

There's a reduction in expenditures by all departments, unless it's been approved, already gone out to budget, already a project that's in the works.

We're not starting anything new, and we're trying to save as much of the general fund as we can.

So I'm very familiar with that process.

So it's good to hear that it's already started.

And you're saying that it actually started this year and started, was it April?

You said yeah, about the middle of April.

It's it's a process that we do every year as going through the budget.

We're kind of look at where we're at this year.

Is um, and we're we usually we usually stop spending around the end of May.

This year we did it earlier, a few weeks earlier.

Okay.

Um, because we knew we needed to balance the budget.

So I'm I'm looking at the next year budget cycle because we know it's gonna start July 1.

And if there's some other things that we should be talking about in terms of making those internal policies that we would say we do this now instead of waiting until April, we you know, we're we're now broadcasting that we need to have some urgency policies that are restricting expenditures for this remaining year, so that we actually push to have some carryover savings.

But your carryover savings you believe will be sometime maybe it's mid year or February for this year's budget.

For for this year's budget, we've already calculated that and and applied it in this year's budget to balance.

But you're talking about the carryover not salary savings.

I'm talking about at the at the end of the year in June.

Regular expenditures, regular expenditures that we have carry over that you saved.

We're looking at April.

They returned from their budgets back to finance.

We're looking in April.

You're looking at April that you we would know.

Yes, have a very good idea.

Okay.

Okay, that that's helpful to understand.

Um I don't want to belabor it, sort of getting late, so I'll turn it back to the mayor.

Just a quick question, just to make sure I'm following.

Um, so what we're talking about here is salary savings 2.2.

Um, we're talking about um what NCIP has been test for four million.

And then possibly next year's NCIP cycle, whatever that number is.

Those are the three figures we're doing.

Absolutely correct.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, let's take it out to public comment.

Folks on Zoom, you can use the raise hand function.

Anybody in the chamber, I just asked that you stand up to the left of the podium.

If you'd like to remain seated, um, feel free to do so.

I will ask for hands after the folks that are standing up get in line.

Yeah, that's it's the current year budget.

Is there anybody that's still seeing sitting that would like to speak for public comment?

So I count nine folks, the nine folks that are standing.

Anybody else that wants to speak in the chamber?

Okay, so we're gonna cut off to those nine.

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

We have six on Zoom.

Go ahead and give three minutes, please.

Yeah.

Mr.

Mayor, members of the council and Rick Hoyer representing Monterey Penso Taxpayers Association.

I think Han said it correctly.

You have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

But I'm gonna take a very different tact telling showing you where that problem is.

In 2024, 62.3% of your employees had a pay package in six figures.

I know of no private sector entity that has 62% of their employees in six figures.

To put make matters worse, that's a 34% increase since 2022.

In two years, it's gone up 34%, and you've had financial issues the whole time.

You definitely have a spending problem.

And it's worse than any other city around you.

The closest one to you is Selena's at 60%, but Carmel's only 40% of their employees making six figures.

So it's something is out of whack.

It's not necessarily people, it's also what we're paying the people potentially as compared to a particular private sector.

You need to start rethinking and re-looking at how you do business.

You also in 2020, you did two tax increases that were to solve this problem.

That's what the public was told.

Right back here years later.

Now a lot of that went into reserves, but still it was to solve the problem.

You haven't solved the problem.

Until you address your spending problem, you're gonna have a hard time getting the public to give you new revenue.

Also, you didn't want to necessarily cover in the sales tax potential because it's not necessarily voted on.

Unless I miss something, you all haven't declared a financial emergency and had a four-fifths vote to take NSCIP formally.

And it's kind of hard to say you have a financial emergency when you're gonna put six million more into reserves in the same year you have a financial emergency.

That's new money in reserves.

That would solve your problem right now.

Still keep what you have in there.

Look at adding it back as you start dealing, but it buys you time without taking it from NCIP.

NCIP fixes a lot of other issues, and you're looking at it as a piggy bank instead of addressing the issue of cutting your costs.

And that may mean layoffs, and maybe you need to say the staff, you need to say four million in salaries somewhere.

You figure out how tell you miss how you're gonna do it, and they'll come back and give you the options.

But the route you're going right now is ludicrous.

You talk about freezing, not freezing.

You're gonna decide what you're gonna pay people moving forward, and you gotta cut your budget substantially permanently because otherwise you're gonna be right back here in a year or two years asking to go out for more taxes.

Good luck getting it this time.

And unless you address some of these things, I can guarantee you one thing.

We will be actively opposing any tax increase.

Actively.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor Williamson and council members.

I understand the deficit the city faces and appreciate the efforts of council and city staff to work towards solutions.

As noted previously, I believe strongly that the NCIP program should remain funded.

These are projects that benefit all city neighborhoods.

I would like to thank the NCIP representatives for the thoughtful considerations they needed to address $4 million in defunded or frozen projects.

I'm hopeful the city places the sales tax measure on the ballot, renews measures G, PNS, and adds an admissions tax.

I am totally opposed to selling any city property.

Once it is gone, it is gone.

Three votes on the council should not be able to sell property that belongs to all Monterey residents.

I also feel that until the city can balance the budget and with no staff reductions, that savings could be found in the salaries of frozen positions.

Although I believe that a new public safety facility is needed.

Residents have recently seen our property taxes increase.

Much of this due to local taxpayers being on the hook for three separate MPUSD school bonds.

If Mayor Williams knew that the city of Monterey was anticipating a public safety bond and had really wanted to rally public support, perhaps he should have held off signing the argument in favor of last year's school bond.

I realize the city's reticence to go into the reserve funds.

However, the agenda states that reserve levels are a dominant factor in determining bond ratings.

Hence, the city's goal in making these reserve funds sacrosanct is obvious.

The reserve funds total close to 43 million dollars.

If the council is going to declare fiscal emergency and appropriate $4 million in NCIP funds, then it seems equitable that a 10% reduction in reserves or $4.3 million could be used for the current fiscal deficit until other options can be developed and approved by voters to address the city's fiscal solvency into the future.

Thank you for your time and careful consideration of the options.

Okay, good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members, and C staff.

My name is Martine Watkins, and I'm here on behalf of the Monterey Bay Aquarium.

I want to thank you for your service as you navigate this difficult fiscal moment.

We recognize the weight of your decision and appreciate your leadership.

The Monterey Bay Aquarium is a nonprofit public trust institution with a mission to inspire conservation of the ocean.

For more than 40 years, we've partnered with the city to strengthen the local economy, attract tourism, support jobs, and provide world-class education for residents and visitors alike.

Recently, our executive director, Julie Packard met with the city leadership and reaffirmed our commitment to respectful solutions-focused partnership that benefits the broader community.

We want to continue building on that strong foundation of partnership.

At the same time, an emissions tax presents significant challenges to our mission, our long-standing relationships with the city.

As a nonprofit, every emission directly supports the aquarium's mission and public benefit worked work, not private profit.

An emissions tax misrepresents our public service educational mission, adds financial pressure to an organization that reinvests revenue into public benefit and risks weakening our four-decade partnership that has helped define Monterey's global presence and leadership and ocean stewardship.

We're so proud of our shared history and commitment to continuing that legacy.

And we are open to future conversations, especially around supporting shared priorities like local coastal resilience.

But to move forward construct constructively, we respectfully urge the council to take the emissions tax off the table so that we can focus on areas of true alignment that best serve the public good and the city of Monterey.

I thank you again for your leadership and for the opportunity to speak this evening.

Well, I was going to have a prepared speech, but I'm going to add a little bit because of what's been said here.

I've got to just go with the flow.

So, Matt, if you could put that up, they can't read it all.

Um, first, I appreciate the introduction by the mayor.

I think what we're looking at for next year is what was termed by one of you as a bridge year.

We're trying to bridge through next year until we see what revenue sources come online, or if they come online and what effect those will have.

So the first thing I'd like to say that given that, then what does a to use Hans's analogy, the household analogy?

What do you do if you've got a problem in your budget and you need to put a roof on the house, but you know your income will backfill that?

You take out a loan.

So why isn't the city borrow the money from the NIP or borrow the money from some other fund to get you through next year until you see where the revenue is coming in, and then you can repay those loans over time as that revenue source comes on.

Nat made a statement about that it was easier to defund the existing projects.

I personally don't agree with that, because you had stated that it's easier to look into the future, or it's it's it's worse to look at the current year that we're working on because there's so much time that's been put into it.

Well, well, all those projects that are on the books had a lot of time too put into them.

They went through the same exact process.

Plus, they went through you in a hearing.

So why would you want to defund an existing project?

Now let me turn your attention to the charter, and I've bolded some of the uh the type there.

First of all, to take the NIP's funds, you have to prove that you need the money because they're insufficient funds to provide for the ordinary necessary services.

That's a high bar to come up to.

This is not just a piggy bank that you can put your fingers into.

It's much like your emergency rainy day funds.

You've got to make those findings.

We haven't heard that yet, and I haven't seen a really clear linear enunciation of why those monies are needed.

I'm convinced that staff can come up with those numbers.

I can empathize with it.

I see that it's it's necessary, but I haven't seen it in writing yet.

I think that skipping next year's NIP might be preferable.

But in the end, don't tell the NIP how to do their work.

Give them the option.

I think you made a mistake at the last meeting by telling them we want you to go through the old project and come up with this amount.

Instead of saying we want you to come up with this amount and you tell us how you'd rather see it arrived at.

Do you want to defund old projects?

Do you want to not fund projects from the list you're currently on?

Give give them the latitude.

Um I don't have the time to finish all my other ones, but I think the the bottom line is you need to make findings that these monies are needed, and it needs to come from the next fiscal year.

It's to be appropriated.

I disagree with Hans.

You can't take money out of the old ones because those have already been appropriated.

So the charter is very clear on that.

I don't think that to be is accidental.

I think the squidlers of this meant to be the future budget.

So the one they're currently working on is great.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Good evening.

I'm sorry, I've got a voice problem.

Um, so I'd like to agree with the prior um speaker, but I'd also like to take a different look at it.

So what we're doing with the NCIP, it seems with the last few years that the NCIP has been managing with some of the deficits, is that we we we approve projects, we put them in a pile that's way too large, we have no capacity to fulfill that.

And then we get worried about how big the balance is.

I hear 20 million dollars now, and then we think, well, let's just take rid of get rid of it then.

There's something really wrong with that thinking, and I think it is structural.

We look we're dealing with all these little process things.

Well, if we do this or that, there's a structural problem with the NCIP.

More money is coming in than we have the ability to spend.

The projects are all good.

They're not like a swimming pool when you can't feed your children.

That's really not the right analogy.

These are structured to be community enhancement for disabilities, for children, for the elderly.

And so we have more money coming in to do that than we have resource to put out.

We don't, I understand the city does not have the capacity to increase that resource.

So my suggestion is that we really think about that and take that back to the to the community and say, look, 1977 or whenever it was created, I wasn't here then.

We thought 16% was great.

That's a lot of money right now.

Why don't we look at what a reasonable percentage of the TOT is that we can actually do and get done and not be in this position to irritate and really annoy our public by saying, well, we're gonna pull that back now.

We just don't have the money.

It's been sitting there for four years or two years or however many, but we just don't have the money.

We've got to spend it somewhere else, and then go out and petition for another set of projects that we know we're not gonna have the money to fund.

There's something really wrong with that.

It's structural.

You need to deal with the structural problem and not continue to do this kind of funny work with the people who spend so much time and energy creating what they believe is real community stuff.

It's not frills, that's real community stuff.

Thank you.

I guess I don't need my full time, mayor city council.

I've spoken up many times about the number of projects on the NCIP list and how deceitful it has been for years to tell residents that they can submit projects to NCIP and if funded, they will see the project completed.

Rather, projects are funded and some are on the list for over 10 years.

Then the pandemic comes along and the list is scrubbed.

I understand that there was legal reasons for that uh because of the city's funding emergency.

I am concerned that the word freeze is being used this time because taking the money is not legal this time around.

If it is frozen, what is the date of the melt?

When are we going to get it back?

Is the word freeze just being used to deceive that NCIP committee and the residents, and that money is never coming back?

Clawing back projects that have already been funded is wrong.

Residents are told how NCIP works.

They in good faith submitted projects.

The NCIP committee in good faith do the job to work the projects and get the best ones funded.

Should more projects be added to the long list?

Absolutely.

From what I understand, the NCIP contingency fund is down to nothing, maybe because of the expenses of the firehouse and other projects.

But a contingency is needed because the projects always cost far more than the original estimates.

If the city can't get the projects off the list faster than one a month, then NCIP is highly funded.

Too highly funded.

Thinking in the long term and lowering the TOT contribution to NCIP from 16%, maybe down to 12 or 14, whatever it would take to get it to a more uh to a level that could be spent each year and not put onto a list that sits there for 10 years, would make far more sense, and the general fund would get a little more money back too.

So lower the number of projects that would be approved, but at least those projects would have a chance of getting completed.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council members and staff.

Our city manager did amazing with his opening comments tonight, and they really went into detail about what my public comments had been.

This is a household, and we need to look at our expenses first and then figure out how we're going to increase revenue if it needs to be increased.

One of the unspoken facts that still wonders in my mind is what is the amount of the compounding interest on our reserve accounts and also on the NCIP fund.

There are millions, tens of millions, that's a lot of zeros sitting out there earning compounding interest.

And how does that get allocated back into our budget?

And can any of that unallocated or unspoken compounding interest be used to cure some of these deficiencies?

That's my question, and I'd love to see that answered if at some point it can be given.

Thank you.

Good evening, council.

Uh staff.

Um, a number keeps getting thrown around 23 million, 19 million of projects that we have in process that we could defund.

There's only 8.5 million that haven't been started.

There's activity going on on those, the rest of that balance.

So the 4 million that we've been asked for is about 50% of the projects that haven't started yet.

If you want us to go take projects, we could take station 12.

I don't think we want to do that.

One of the things that we are focusing the committee on this year is big ticket, ready to build, shovel ready, make it happen.

Station 13, 400,000 more is needed.

We want this cycle so we can get those things done.

We also are looking to help public works with the ADA requirements.

And of course, we always support forestry.

So trying to find 8.5 to 10 million out of only 8.5 million of projects that are haven't been started yet.

And the staff is working on those projects currently.

The numbers aren't as big as they say.

There's a number of projects that are committed that are in process that are important for the city to have.

I think without that 2%, you probably wouldn't have had a TOT.

So I think you need to look at the glass because 84% full rather than saying I need more.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Demetrius Caltras.

I'm a resident and former employee of the city of Monterey.

I worked for the fire department for 26 years.

And I can assure you that the fire department now is running the same staffing that they were running when I came to work in 1976 with 10 times the calls.

I recently had the opportunity to witness a fire crew in action saving the life of my neighbor and friend across the street.

And people say, why did the fire department go to medical emergencies?

They go because they happen fit 5,000 times a year.

And you need those three people on that engine.

If you go to the ER, you don't have one doctor treating you, you have a staff treating you.

So the fire department is working.

The police department is the chief is doing an outstanding job trying to recruit officers, but all police departments are having trouble doing that.

So everything that police is doing is what they have to do to maintain their their level of service that we've enjoyed for a long time.

NIP, and I want to thank Gene for bringing this up.

NIP is not just some money floating around out there.

It's improving fire stations, the police department, sidewalks, drainage, eliminating the firehouses we have in skyline forced.

And that's not just all a mythical thing.

We had a major fire in Pebble Beach that threatened the city of Monterey.

I was in that fire.

Trust me, we're doing a lot and we need to keep doing it.

Um due respect to the representative from the aquarium.

A ticket to the aquarium for one day for an adult is about $65.

I really don't think adding a dollar to that is really going to affect what the aquarium does, but it is going to help a lot in this city meeting their goals of reducing our spending and relying on taxes and things like that.

I think that that admissions tax is something we really should consider.

That one dollar on a 65, I don't think raising it to 66 bucks is really gonna make thousands of people not come to the aquarium.

I just don't think that's gonna happen.

Um I think what we need to do is we need to look at that original list that was presented by staff.

I'm not hearing that discussed very much.

There were some 20 different items on that list about revenue and savings and things that we could do.

I think we need to bring that all into it.

And we need to look at this a little bit longer term, because as it is a fixed structural deficit, we need to look at how are we going to continue to do that.

Was brought up.

If we just let's let's bring another tax in.

We did that.

How many taxes have we brought in?

There's nine additional things on my property tax bill, school districts and everybody.

Oh, let's just bring in another tax.

Maybe once we've done everything possible to bring our spending under control, because that's a real problem.

Thanks very much.

Okay, let's go to our callers on Zoom, please.

First one is our um NCIP chair, Chinieri.

Hello, can you guys hear me?

Okay, great.

Um, so I did want to just respond um to some of the comments made about NCIP.

Uh and I believe the connotation of saying that uh there's a structural problem with NCIP is that there's a problem with the committee.

And I think NCIP does not operate in a vacuum.

NCIP works closely.

The committee works closely with the staff.

So if there's a problem with the NCAP committee or the program, there's a problem with the staff as well.

I also want to note that we already have been making um changes and working more collaboratively with staff.

I think our relationship has definitely improved.

We are already started the process prior to there being a discussion about the budget um of reviewing previously approved projects, um, identifying reasons why these projects cannot move forward, challenges working with staff, working with residents and the submitter uh to get their input on the projects and whether these projects can or cannot be done.

Uh, we have already recommended um some closing out of a few projects as well.

So that is a process that we are starting and hope to continue.

Um and in doing that process, it does take time.

We're right now being tasked with the current cycle, and then now also reviewing past projects and trying to come up with three or four million um to freeze or to defund.

This is a lot of work that's supposed to happen in a very short period of time.

So I don't think there's necessarily an understanding of the process of NCIP and the time it takes to make sure that we are a um community participatory process and not just making decisions on our own.

I also think you know, we elect council members to make hard decisions, and it does feel like there is an unwillingness to make those hard decisions.

Um, what spending can be reduced, what can be considered non-essential, and that could mean a reduction of services, a reduction of programs, a reduction of events that the city sponsors.

Um, I think if you are asking NCIP to go back and look for projects that were previously approved to be defunded, then you should also be willing to consider matching those funds with the reserve.

Um, it looks like 3.8 million uh were of the reserve money was used in the 25 to 26 uh cycle to avoid taking from the general fund.

So it's something that the city has done before.

It doesn't really make sense to have that graph showing the comparisons of natural disasters and other events with what we have in the reserve currently when you've already taken money from the reserve.

Uh and what is proposed is actually going to be less than what was uh taken in 25-26.

So the proposal was about three to four million.

Thank you.

Next speaker is DJ.

Sorry, I clicked on a different person.

It's Greg.

Greg, please go ahead and we'll do DJ next.

Greg, you'll need to click unmute in order to speak.

Okay.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

As far as the spending goes, um somebody said was talking about the six-figure incomes, and they're not just six-figure incomes.

They're there are many incomes that are in the $590,000 range for total compensation.

Um average in departments is our three to four hundred thousand dollar range.

Um for and they're running at anywhere between 50 to 14% higher than the average in the state for similar cities.

Um, let's see what else.

Uh, our city ranks 97th highest in the state as far as paying the how much we pay our employees.

Um Salinas ranks 127th.

Sacramento ranks 162nd, Santa Cruz ranks for 143rd.

These cities are anywhere from two to 30 times bigger than Monterey.

Monterey has a population of 30,000 people.

Um as far as the reserves go, the last person talking talked about the 3.8 million that was already used to bring this year's budget into balance.

So if you're willing to use it for that, why wouldn't you be willing to use it for the next year and the year after that?

It's emergency spending reserves, and this is an emergency because we have consistent overspending for the next three years so far.

And we're going to have to get that under control.

So my deal is you should spend the reserves to get through it, and in the meantime, you can figure out what you're going to do to balance the budget and bring it all back into proportion.

Um the NCIP last three years we've had 105 projects put on or approved for amount of 22 million dollars.

There's 86 projects on the books now for um 17 million dollars.

So we get about 4 million dollars a year with a 16%, four to five million dollars a year.

If you take um 10 million for the next two years, what is to say we ever stop?

You're gonna keep taking it.

That's like the man that was talking about all the good things that they do with NCIP money that go towards doing things that the city should already be doing.

It's not money that's being frivolously spent on like swimming pools and stuff like that.

It's being spent to fix firehouses and things like that that the city should already be able to do within their budget.

And the two main things with a city is they need to provide safety and infrastructure.

And if you can't do that, you shouldn't be doing.

Thank you.

Now we'll take your comments, DJ.

Good evening.

There was a city council meeting a few months ago where the budget presentation included all the projects the city wanted done and funded by NCIP.

What stood out for me was that many of those projects were not necessary for when one is tightening their belt.

Before those NCIP funds are used for those projects, they need more scrutiny.

Examples.

Opening a new community center while the Kona Center remains closed.

Remodeling restrooms that in the presentation just look like they needed maintenance.

Yes, fix a retaining wall, but don't make it more expensive by using NCIP money for making it an art project.

Maybe you don't need four million dollars.

Regarding taking a one-year break for NCIP, let me give you a visual example.

Imagine you are at the Kona neighborhood park.

You are thirsty, and you go up to get a drink from the water fountain.

You get to the fountain and you see two large dogs lapping water directly on the metal faucets on which the water comes out.

It's gross and a public health hazard.

What would you do?

Well, I submitted a project for a new fountain with a dog fountain.

It's a simple project, simple solution.

But with the city's potential plan, it will not come to fruition, and the health hazard will continue.

That's just gross.

My bottom line is any NCIP funds used should be at a minimum matched by reserve funds.

Neither should have to be touched, but until the expenditure belt is tightened more.

That seems to be a fair compromise for taking money that was never intended for the city's main budget.

Last but not least, I believe there has been a misinterpretation about what the voters intended when they approved the charter amendment.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is a telephone caller.

Um you can go ahead and unmute.

This is Nina Beattie.

These deficits weren't a surprise.

City administration knew a structural and budget deficit existed, but it got thrown into our laps as an emergency when a process should have begun last year or even early this year instead of just a few weeks ago.

While the city continued to spend money it didn't have earlier this year and last year.

Why?

A new new economic development director position.

Out of what funds, trips, administrative cost of living increases, the cost to create a new website when the previous site worked well, incentives to the developer of the hotel on Fremont, and an extremely generous new city manager package.

Then there was the improper large expenditure from SP funds on the unapproved street closure of Callio Principal.

Expensive bond measures can be misused by city staff.

Clarity on the general fund and all the different funds is needed.

If there are excesses in other funds, then that money should go back into the general fund.

How much is in the tide lens fund?

Reallocate that fund into general fund with new aquarium leases.

Audit the military monterey model account.

Has the military reimburse the city for all the services and time the city provides?

An independent audit by a citizen oversight committee, not a special interest committee that goes through the budget, the city's books, all the funds and the special funds is a necessary place to start for daylight.

The fuel reduction project also needs to be audited for efficacy and safety.

NCIP is given as the only solution.

NCIP should have been consulted before requests for proposals went out.

The recent comments by NCIP committee members have been impressive.

New proactive leadership is needed to solve the situation.

Why isn't reallocation of property tax on the table for Monterey to get a bigger percentage?

Monterey only gets six cents out of every property tax dollar now.

Monterey must petition the state like the county has done to redistribute property tax revenue.

That's a long-term strategy.

Three city management salaries and see what management level positions are overstaffed at present.

Incentivize hotels to lower their rates to increase the TOT receipts.

Incentivize sales tax generating businesses and protect local small businesses, including a shop local campaign.

Admissions tax on tickets.

The aquarium is subsidized by the public in the city.

All the police and emergency trips to the aquarium, the road impacts, the congestion that impairs emergency response, impairs residents and local business access, expensive computerized signal lights to funnel traffic to the aquarium.

But they just bought a $50 million boat and do expensive advertising while harming ocean life.

Increase the aquarium rent tax rent amount, excuse me, increasing sales tax and TOT is vital, updating real estate transfer fee and the vacancy tax, and don't change our access provider.

AMP media is an media is invaluable and it's about transparency.

All in all, we need more transparency and better leadership in the city to get the situation resolved.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Kurt.

Kurt, if you could unmute, please, and then you could go ahead and speak.

I did.

There.

Yeah, am I unmuted now?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

I enjoy going later because I happen to agree a lot with some of the previous commenters.

It is a spending issue that the city has.

And the council needs to, and the staff needs to look at cutting the spending.

That's one of the things you're talking about raising the city sales tax.

You still have major S and G that need to be passed.

Unless the city can show that they're cutting the budget, those measures are going to be hard to pass, especially if you keep talking about using NCIP funds to take care of the spending issue.

Then your likelihood of those other issues, tax issues passing, become less and less likely.

NCIP spends or funds quite a bit of the city's CIP projects.

And I haven't heard anybody mention that if you take away the NCIP money, are you going to fund the CIP greater so that you can maintain the buildings, can maintain the sports center, can maintain Dennis the Menace Park.

The fire stations, the the Forest Service, all of that is a CIP that the city is not really funding.

So the city needs to, and the council needs to really look at are you going to defund NCIP?

And if you do, are you going to refund CIP?

It's going hand in hand as far as I can see.

So again, it's a spending issue.

And the city needs to show the citizenship that they are cutting the sit the budget.

And maybe I meant somebody mentioned the city uh citizen oversight committee.

It would be great to have citizens actually or the city be more transparent with the budget.

Show us where all the money is being spent and be very upfront and open about the city's budget.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And our last speaker is Laurie.

Good evening, Mayor, Council staff.

Um, and thank you all the speakers before me.

Many of those, I'm gonna probably be a little redundant, but um, and I'm definitely one of those who's on the uh creating a citizens financial advisement committee or oversight committee.

This this city is full of brilliant residents.

Some have already spoken here tonight.

I've already even in my mind assembled one per neighborhood who can maybe help the city make some of the hard decisions that they're not willing to take a look at.

But uh after listening to Hans's how to manage a household budget lecture and hearing multiple times today the same sentence that I've heard him reiterate since at least the state of the city address in February of 2023, that Monterey does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.

We're all probably going to hear that in our sleep tonight.

Um, I'm just having a hard time with why then has there not been a more proactive household budget planning, um, starting all those years ago, rather than executing this campaign to dismantle berate, denigrate the NCIP, its purpose, its committee members, and its budget.

I'm irritated, and I'm gonna curb that, but uh it just gets really tiresome meeting after meeting, defending this.

Um, this is a structural deficit.

We know salaries and pensions are the bulk of the budget.

Why then at this critical time are we hiring a lot of these high dollar vacant positions?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't.

I'm just saying it seems like at this time we should put a hold on it and be talking about it, like the 200,000 plus dollar recreation supervisor that was just announced.

Uh recently I saw a deputy city attorney um and also just a couple days ago.

Yeah, it was a deputy city attorney and maybe an assistant city attorney.

Um maybe all these should be held off until we get our budget squared away and not just those few service jobs that we saw.

We hired an economic advisor to help with marketing recently.

I think that's a pretty hefty salary.

And no one wants to talk about layoffs, but I think we need to start talking about layoffs and or how about adding a card for a discussion that would talk about at least temporarily, like the state did during COVID until this budget is balanced in a year or so, furloughing staff one day a week.

For example, let's just say those making above 85, 85,000 are going to get furloughed one day a week.

What does that look like in terms of dollar savings, at least for a year or two years?

Uh and clearly by the opening statement, NCIP is the savings account to the city to bail out under fiscal mismanagement.

I am just not on board with that.

That's a voter fund.

Uh it's flat out false that in the agenda report, this ordinary necessity services clause was grafted into the NCIP.

That's not what voters voted for.

Thank you and have a good night.

Okay.

Um trying to see there were a few questions that came out.

There's the compounding interest question.

Um that's only what I'm seeing at the top of my list here.

Well, come on, yes, we we have the interest uh as part of our expected revenues.

So the interest is actually already counted in the revenue projections every year, and actually it's every quarter, we get um interest and we allocate that interest based on the cash balance in each fund.

So it's already included, the projections are already included in that base number.

So even if you look at the budget book, which is online, you go into revenue section, there are itemized line items.

You will find the line that says interest revenue is there.

Yeah, yeah.

The dollar amount for this current fiscal year is 2.4 million dollars in interest income.

And as Rafela mentioned, it's a line item, just like forfeiture fees, TOT.

I think to clarify the what I where I think the question might have been going, is that funding goes all to the general fund?

No, it goes to wherever the fund.

So wherever the funding is wherever the cash is, whatever fund it is that has if you have 200 million and I'm making up numbers now.

We don't have 200 million, I'm making up numbers here.

If you have 200 million in the general fund, the portion of the interest that we receives for that 200 million goes there.

It's allocated based on the total cash amount that you have in each fund.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

So I bring it back to the council for motion and deliberation.

Um, let's start with uh Dr.

Barber, since I I want to make sure we don't forget you uh while you're online here.

So why don't we start with you, Dr.

Barber.

Sure.

So I really appreciate everyone uh coming out and I appreciate staff and all the hard work that is being done.

Um I I still feel as we look at 2627 that there are a couple of um possibilities that could happen, but I I still think there's still some information that's needed.

Uh one of the things for sure we had already talked about um from Monday's meeting of the $4 million minus that.

So actually, if you look at the bubble that excuse me, if you look at the bubble that uh I think Nat had had up earlier, it showed basically the six million that would be needed from there.

And of course, now that we uh basically know that the sales tax could could uh actually bring in uh I think was 3.375 million, uh, which would allow us to get to 2.62, but that's not something we could depend on because it's has to be voted on.

So we still look at the six million.

There's still a few things uh with the admissions tax actually being one of them as well.

Um I know that is something that I I did have um hesitancy and and in looking at.

with 3.375 million uh which would allow us that get to 2.62 but that's not something we could depend on because it's has to be voted on so we still look at the six million there's still a few things uh with the missions tax actually being one of them as well um i know that it's something that i i i did have um hesitancy and and in looking at um but especially for the movie part uh i felt like we were if we're already taxing our community and taxing and taxing and taxing that that's just more money that as if they're going to spend uh when they're going out so that that to me that was my um only um hesitation and so as far as uh doing admissions tax for others i would be open to looking at that uh no the vacancy tax was something that i was looking at as well um i know we were we're talking about bringing some other things in that we might not have talked about but also that is uh pending court decision so we can't really depend on that specifically um the attrition of course is definitely one that um i think it's a good thing for us to look at but then you're only looking at basically 2.2 million uh from that so you would still end up if if the sales tax is not utilized you're still looking at about four million um well no i'm yeah well no about three three point three million that you would we would still have to get and if if the vacancy if the vacancy tax pans out that's over two million but if it's not if we look at just the admissions tax the emissions tax was 3.9 so we would we would actually be able to cover that gap with that that so that's my thinking right now okay um i'm gonna go in alphabetical order so uh gina why don't you go next thank you um so um acknowledging again right that uh difficult conversations to have um but i think um a big part of what the council's trying to do here and i know it to be true from my end that we're trying to prevent um our city going into uh making even tougher dish decisions around layoffs and cutting programs um to to make sure that we um meet those financial needs and and i said it before in a previous meeting that i i for me it's very difficult to imagine the city going through a a challenging financial time while still building beautiful projects through the NCIP i i think that's the that to me there's a disconnect there and and um i i hear the uh desires of community to not touch ncip funds but um we're not having a conversation that is typical it's not this this is not a normal time so i i think we do need to have this conversation and and we all need to be really open about really what what can we move around in order uh for this to work for all of us we're in this together the decisions that the council makes impact the community and impact us equally so whatever we decide here yes it'll impact the community but it'll impact each of us sitting up here as well so um i i also want to make sure that when we're talking about ncip the that the the misinformation is not put out there that what we're trying to do is dismantle the and c ip because that's I think farthest from the truth and I think proof of that is the fact that we are having these conversations um the desire to dismantle or the conversation to dismantle NCIP would sound very different.

So I want to make sure that uh that narrative is not pushed uh I've heard it I've seen it on social media that's not that's not true um I think council is is really talking about continued collaboration with NCIP in in a different way that we've seen before so again we need to acknowledge that we're all part of this and we're trying to work together to um uh to find uh a solution that um works best for all of us involved um so in terms of the figures um i mean i try to simplify what i'm hearing as much as possible for for my own benefit because it is a lot to digest um but it also has become more and more apparent for me in having conversations um with residents that it

Um so in terms of the figures, um I mean I try to simplify what I'm hearing as much as possible for for my own benefit because it is a lot to digest.

Um, but it also has become more and more apparent for me in having conversations um with residents that it this is a lot of information that can get very confusing.

So for me um hearing today, and and and I'm curious to see where what council's appetite is.

I think having heard a figure of four million from NCIP, having heard information about the frozen positions, and then hearing about um you know visiting the opportunity for next year's NCIP cycle.

Is that gonna bring us to the figure that where we need to be?

And and that's that's kind of where I'm leaning into um at this point.

So that's all I have.

Thanks.

Councillor Barash.

So the numbers that I like to work with would be the 3.1 million, which is the freezing of the positions and some attrition, the reduced maintenance costs, except I support keeping Kona.

So I made the reduced maintenance costs 130,000, an aquarium admissions tax, and I gave the data on last meeting.

2025 to date police department visits 459, 2024 police department 369 and fire department 65.

So an ambulance visits and use of our roads for an eight uh for an organization that's wonderful, but gives no property tax and is super affluent at this point, very successful.

Kudos to them, but we need help.

If you're watching, so that's 3.3 million parking tax on private lots, 450,000 transfer real property tax, that's 228,000.

The first responder insurance fee.

This is money that would come from insurance companies.

People don't have the money.

Optimized Veterans Park, 125,000.

Returning the storm drain uh storm water fees back onto the city funding 1.2 million, and the sales tax on the spring ballot 4.5.

So when I when I analyze it, I I want residents first.

Every time I get confused, I think about the organizational chart that has the residents at the top, above the council, above the city manager, above the attorney, it's the residents.

So I always return to the residents.

And um I want protection of the NCIP funds for for the valuable work that I'm afraid is not going to be replaced.

Um this year, this past year, it was forest management, hilltop renovation for a million, the fire stations for 3.15, the North Fremont Bike Path grant, 250,000, Veterans Park erosion control.

Hopefully, we can get the San Burnaby Road widening.

Um next year, as I talked about, 2.2 million for fuel reduction, library ADA repairs, 761,000, 88 repairs for the sports center, 514,000, fuel reduction, 2 million, Scholze ADA repairs, 320,000, and at least a million needs to go into the contingency fund.

I'm not hearing how we're gonna replace that.

These are these are critical items.

So um so I gave you 13.73 million in my first list, and um those are my ideas.

Thank you.

Cousin Rush, um, I maybe I'm missing something, but I I think what I understand from all the things that you listed, other than the freezing of positions, wouldn't help us get to the number that oh, we well, we would borrow from reserves until we get all these taxes in line.

That's a nice solution.

Okay.

Yep.

I want to take it a little different direction because we agreed when we started, we'd be talking about the short term.

Uh and how how we how we get us to not spend as much.

If spending is the problem, that's where I want to start.

Um I need to know from the city manager.

What are some of the other programs that he might recommend?

What we have on our card list of pausing or eliminating programs we have not talked about.

I think we should be talking about collapsing and eliminating the rental assistance program.

We should talk about the rental assistance program.

It's 250,000.

And I'd like to know what other programs should we be talking about that are going to be continuing that that we might be able to save some money out of.

They have been vacant for several years.

Um, I don't know if we can get to the 3.1 or 3.2 with all of them because it sounded like the city manager was advocating for some of the essentials that were listed there.

But I need some help from the city manager and staff from the list that's there.

A more firm recommendation of which ones do you recommend in 206-27 that we either eliminate altogether or that we continue freezing.

I think that's where the biggest opportunity is to identify where we're spending the money.

I also want to ask.

We have not yet fulfilled the position of the economic development director that we recruited for, but we have not filled that position yet.

Is that correct?

And we are currently in advertising stage for that.

No, we we we're through with that um uh recruitment.

So um uh we haven't made a decision yet.

Uh, but uh we we advertised, we interviewed candidates.

So we had a decision point right now.

So since we're in a decision point, I would say that this is the time to pause fulfilling and hiring that position.

It doesn't make any sense to me to hire a position like that that's going to cost us what it's going to cost when we're talking about trying to close the gap of a structural deficit.

So we need to be seriously saying it would have been nice to have there would be some long-term residual that would benefit the community, but I don't know that we can afford that position in the position we're in.

So I think we should be talking about not hiring that person.

Um I'm wanting some more information about whether or not there is um council consideration that we eliminate some of the programs that cost us money that we shouldn't repeat in 2026 and 27.

Because if we have to find a way to stop spending money, let's stop spending money by eliminate the programs unless they are absolutely essential.

And I think it's time that we identify the ones that were put on the list and the cards that are there.

And I've already cited them.

That's the rental assistance, and it's also the um the rental registry program, which has employees attached to it.

Uh I went back down through my list of strategy for direct directly addressing the $10 million deficit.

And and I'm gonna go back.

I know we took a vote, I know staff knows what those are.

Um, but I concur with what Jean Rash.

That's part campground, yes.

Um property maintenance, yes.

Uh additional sales tax, yes, admission tax, yes.

Um I need more about this vacancy tax that's on the list.

We haven't really got into that yet.

Um, I need to know more about the streaming tax.

Um property tax or property transfer tax.

I think I understand what that is, but I'd like to know what when staff's gonna come back and talk to us about that.

Um so we've got several things yet that we haven't gone through with great detail.

But somehow our solutions went first to grab money from the NCIP rather than us getting into let's take a vote about what we cut.

That's where I'm at.

I want to I want to start cutting and stop spending and identify the non-essential positions, and I know it's hard, they're essential.

I mean, the department heads have identified them, we authorized them, they're on our position control list, but we need to reanalyze several of those positions to say that it's not urgent that we fill those positions so that that gets us coupled together with the the four million dollars from NCIP that we know that they're gonna work for uh towards making those recommendations to freeze.

But I think that's where the meat of the answer is is identify the essential positions that we should not be filling, identify programs that we should and eliminate, not hire the economic development director, and we need to freeze additional positions to get us towards the next year budget as we have revenue coming in off of the tax position or the tax initiative.

But I've got a question, and I don't think I got an answer from the last times that we've met.

If the new tax measure passed in June, when does that revenue start coming in?

It starts to the collection begins in October, correct?

And then when we receive a chart.

We start to receive it in October.

So it may it'll come back to us and it'll be credited in this in that fiscal year.

Okay.

So starting in October.

So it'll be two thirds of the year.

Okay, so the the percentage we're we're looking at asking for is 0.375.

And the figure that we have listed in the staff work is I'm trying to find um help me out here.

The tax position was three 3.17, but that would be for a full year, correct?

Okay.

So by mid-year of 2026, 27 budget, we would essentially be able to say at mid-year, we've collected at least three million.

Is that correct?

Thank you so much.

We we I apologize.

We um we have collected by February the full amount for October, November, February, uh October, November, December, and then we are getting um what are those payments called advanced payments uh uh for January, February, and then the final payment is in March.

So in February, we have collected uh full the amounts for October, November, December, or January, February, we receive um something, but the full amount for that quarter then ends with March, and then we get what we actually have accumulated.

So it's it's not three million uh so in other words, 26, 27 budget year.

We wouldn't be able to count any of the revenue really until mid year.

And at that point, if we were short in the beginning of July one, we would need to say how much is coming from the reserves to fill that gap.

Yeah.

Or we've made sufficient cuts where we have closed the gap through cuts of positions or programs.

If you allow me, uh mayor, uh to to just respond to Councilmember Smith.

So by by June 30th, 2026, you gotta have a balanced budget for for um uh in front of council and be approved.

So as part of that budget on June 30th, you cannot say we we have the voters coming in because um you you don't know the outcome of the election.

So by June 30th, you could have elected to say we'll take the reserves to balance the budget.

So I think that that's that's I think an answer, and you could say in February, we'll we'll we'll backfill the reserves now at mid-year from the potential that the um uh let's hope for the best bubble, right?

Let's hope for the best bubble comes true, and we have uh uh received uh the voter approval, we have already sales tax received, and you can then backfill the resource.

I think that's what you were trying to say.

I'm looking at the the end, and we're gonna have a shortage, depending on how many positions that we have eliminated from the list that's frozen or through attrition that we don't know until we have a retirement and and these other elimination of programs and a variety of things.

The other question I had is if there was an admissions tax that was on the ballot in June, when would that start collecting and when would that revenue come to the city?

Is that the kind of tax initiative that starts immediately or does it start three months later?

Don't know, uh we don't know, Consulmember Smith.

We will have to find out.

Okay, so I think that would be good to know if that were to pass, when would that revenue be something that we could count on?

Could I say clarification?

Because my sense from when we had the discussion around hiring the consultant to look at the ballot initiatives, it looked like we were trying to prioritize more the sales tax initiative and the parking tax.

Yes.

And we wanted to be careful not to put too much on one ballot.

So just speaking about it out loud, I don't I'm not sure if you have a thought in regards to if we do advance the admissions tax, then what would we be potentially removing to offset that?

And is that is that bringing in more revenue than the other alternatives that we're looking at?

And until we've had the consultant make the presentation, I can't make that decision because if it was a greater number coming from the admissions tax sooner rather than the sales tax.

So I don't know.

I need that, I need the facts from the the consultant that's going to make a presentation.

Um, so let me let me wrap it up.

Um what would be helpful for me to do tonight and come away from tonight would be if there was some support to give the staff recommendation that we um stop the recruitment and not fill the economic director position.

And if there's support that we have a vote tonight where we talk about canceling the rental registry and the rental assistance because those are hard numbers, and I think we we need decisions about how we cut the spending because that's why we're here tonight.

We're here to figure out the money that we don't spend.

I think those are the top priorities for me is to find areas that we can cut the expenses.

Okay.

You're all set.

Um all set, ready to ready to continue.

Um I just want to respond to a few things that were shared during the public comment.

And I have to say that I appreciate the public comment.

Um I think it's important for us, and I I I shared this a little bit at the last council meeting, but it's important for us to all keep in mind that we're all in this together.

I don't think anybody that spoke, I don't think anybody that's on the council, I don't think anybody in staff is doing anything nefarious or is trying to destroy the city.

I think we all have different ideas about how to do it, and that's what creates part of the challenge here.

Um I think it's clear, and we're gonna find this out here in a second too.

It's gonna be even more enlightening.

Umce we go back around with the council here, that it's probably clear that the council doesn't even agree about how to move forward.

Um, so I think it's important to remember that what led us to get to this point has been happening for a long time.

It didn't just all of a sudden happen.

And I appreciate staff getting out in front of this and tackling this early so that we can have time to be transparent, have a lot of community discussion and dialogue.

And really try to go through this process with the fine-tooth comb.

I will share that, and I can't remember if it was last budget cycle or the one before.

I think it was last yeah, it was one of the two because I remember talking to staff about this last fiscal year.

Have that discussion, have a public discussion around maybe line item by line item.

I know that sounds like a lot of work, but I propose that there was no bite.

Nobody in the public said anything, nobody backed it, nobody on the council backed it.

Got some pushback from staff, which I can appreciate and understand from a staff perspective because that's a lot of work.

Um I've heard some appetite for it brought up tonight.

I don't know what that does for us in this fiscal cycle because we're gonna get ready here soon.

I mean, the holidays are coming up, and then we're staff's gonna get ready to start producing a budget.

So I'm open to that if there's support for it.

Um, but that would probably have to be something that we get ready for the 26, 27 fiscal year for the 2728 budget.

Um and it's because cutting programs are hard.

And I know that you're putting things on the table that maybe aren't fully aligned with your values or are less important, um, perhaps.

Um, but my gut is telling me that you're not going to get support for from the the majority of the council.

And I think therein lies the problem.

And I think by giving it to a committee with kind of some parameters around our values and what's important, um, they could give us something back that even that might make us a little bit uncomfortable.

It makes it come it makes it a little bit easier for the council to support some um cuts in expenditure.

Speaking of cuts in expenditure, this idea around um our staff salaries keeps coming up.

And I have to say that in this agency and any other agency that I sit on representing the city of Monterey, um, even nonprofits boards that I sit on.

There's typically a salary survey that's done.

It's a very technical process that we go through.

We look at comparable agencies, we work with the consultant to do that process.

We are well within the comparables to our our comparable agencies.

So people can throw out all the numbers that they want to try to create a narrative around something.

Um, but there is a very clear and strategic pro uh clear um and uh methodical process that the city goes through to identify that.

And you can't compare apples and oranges, Mr.

Hoyer.

I'm talking to you as well, because I know you were one of the ones that made this comment, and I just would appreciate you know, um, we listening to each other.

So um it's really hard to compare apples and oranges when you're talking about other cities.

Some of the other cities that you name don't have the same structure and services that we offer here within the city of Monterey.

So we have the harbor, we have a sports center, we have a full service library, which is the most used library in the city.

We have a fire department that contracts with three other agencies.

Um there's a lot that goes on, and what revenue generation is coming from those services as well.

So you can't just look at it as if those are just expenditures.

There's also programmatic revenue that comes in from some of those.

So um, and not all of that funding comes out of our budget.

So I think I can't remember that Greg, maybe somebody that spoke online brought up something around um like 540,000 or some god-awful number of which I wish I was getting paid that, but I'm not.

Um my assumption is is that's a firefighter.

Um, and and that's a good example to use to say that some of the funding that's used to pay for the salaries aren't coming from the city's budget.

We're getting reimbursed by the state for those firefighters going out and fighting wildfires across the state of California.

Um so we can nitpick at our uh at the staff salaries, but I I would just offer or suggest I don't see that going anywhere.

We have these intimate conversations in closed session when we're discussing um the uh labor contracts, and um this conversation comes up every single time that I've been on the council, and there's an extensive conversation around that.

I don't see that going anywhere, and I would also just caution us to be careful about how we're talking about the work that our city workforce is doing.

Um they take the heat a lot, and yeah, that's what they signed up for.

That's the job that they signed up for, but they should also be appropriately compensated for it, and they're not so outlandish.

If you look at the cost of living here, it's actually arguably not enough.

A lot of our city workforce can't even afford the cost of living here.

I can go on about it, but I'm just laying into a point about our staff salaries.

Um there was a comment made earlier about um if you can if you're declaring a fiscal emergency, then saying that you can't allocate reserves, and I would just disagree with that.

Our reserve program is a program just like any other program.

And so just because we've identified ourselves, and I'm I almost turned to our city attorney a little bit to say I'm assuming we can have we can end up with findings to show that we're in a fiscal emergency, even though we have funding in our reserves.

Um, so I think that's it.

If you think that that has to be that bad for us to find other ways of um addressing our budgetary needs, I just think that that's um I I don't agree with I don't agree with that statement.

Um I do agree with the idea, and I can't remember who said this, but I do agree with the idea of giving the NCIP a little bit of latitude.

So I know that the the um the motion from the council meeting last week was kind of really specific on racking and stacking, and for whatever it's worth, I think we'll take whatever the NCIP is willing to give back to us.

Um I I'm I'm flexible in that space.

So um, so much so to where I know Dennis that there was uh desire to go back to the pro every project proposer and have an at-length conversation.

If that's what you all ultimately decide to do, by all means, I support you all going about that effort.

But I imagine that the group could probably look at some projects and pretty easily identify some that could be put on hold that are kind of bigger ticket and save everybody time and energy.

So just um however the group decides to come up with that, I'm I'm I'm comfortable with um, I do have to say that I I appreciate um Pat and and Gina's comments um regarding the allocation to the NCIP.

There's been a lot of comments tonight made about how the NCIP funds all these capital improvement needs, and there's kind of a reason why that is, and there's kind of a reason why we keep coming back to NCIP as an element of the conversation here, and I think something needs to happen there.

Um is it gonna solve all of our problems?

No, is it gonna prevent the city from coming in and taking the money in the future?

Probably not.

I mean, there's no securing that, but I think when we're talking about uh uh several people tonight said you have a spending they reiterated Han's points.

We you have a spending problem.

So when we're talking about a potential expenditure issue, but not the NCIP.

So it's like you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Um so um so all that being said, I think I'm kind of in alignment with where Gino is going here.

Um we identified the four million from the last week's council meeting.

Um I I'd be interested in seeing staff come back with maybe some options as it relates to attrition um freezing positions, a couple of options for the council to consider so it's easy for us to just clearly understand what those positions are, how much that cost is, maybe a media, a low, medium, high option.

Um but let's just say for the sake of today's conversation, we went with two million.

Um that gets us to six million.

Um, and then in regards to the proposal for next year's NCIP funding.

Um, and it kind of ties to Gene's comments earlier or question around um uh the fuel reduction.

Um I mean, I'm not necessarily trying to do NCIP's job, but as you articulated earlier, NCIP has been fully on board with you know all tens for fuel reduction, like what we there's there needs to be a level of efficiency here.

Um, I think the community is getting burned out, the council's getting burned out, the staff are getting burned out.