Welcome to our afternoon session for this council meeting today.

It's December 16th, 2025.

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

In-person attendees, please keep your electronic devices muted to prevent audio interference.

And consistent with the First Amendment and the Brown Act, individuals have the right to speak at public meetings, which includes the right to criticize or support city policies or actions.

The city encourages your uninhibited and robust feedback on public issues affecting the city.

Thank you for participating.

Awesome.

Thank you, Clementine.

And with that, we will go into our presentation item for this afternoon.

Item one on the agenda is to congratulate Fire Chief Andrew Miller on his retirement and recognize his 35 years of service to the fire profession in Monterey County in tenure as the 11th and 13th Fire Chief to lead the Monterey Fire Department.

And before I pass it to Hans, I just have to say that working with Chief Miller has been one of the greatest pleasures of my time in public service.

And I'm really thankful that he came back and uh took on the job at a tough time and turned things around in an amazing way.

And I hope I'm not stealing too much of your thunder here, Hans.

Um and who knows?

A third time's a charm.

You don't have to respond to that.

In fact, I don't want you to.

We'll talk, we'll talk.

Um, but you know, I could go on and on.

I just wanted to give you a little bit of love and uh and I'm sure we'll still be in touch um after you leave.

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

Yeah, thank you, Mayor, and thank you, council.

Uh I wanted to take this opportunity to um come back to sit here today and to take the opportunity to uh say a few words about our fire chief uh Andrew Miller.

Um as the mayor already pointed out, Andrew has been uh fire chief twice.

Uh so I think that's that's something unique.

And um also Andrew um has been instrumental in so many so many ways for the city of Monterey.

The first time Andrew came uh to the city of Monterey, um, he uh took a voluntary demotion from fire chief in Pacific Grove uh to become assistant fire chief here in the city of Monterey.

And and that alone by itself uh speaks highly uh about his character, speaks highly about also that he has a vision that he sees uh things that others cannot see, because the thing that he was seeing uh together with the city manager at that time was that we need to collaborate in fire services and collaboration and fire services uh bring uh bringing a lot of uh advantages uh to us and also having a lot of um economic benefits.

Uh, you have just one firehouse administration, you have just one fire chief, you have just one assistant fire chief, etc.

etc.

One training plan.

And also uh all of a sudden, if you uh uh coordinate your forces with uh with other cities, uh you really create uh a force uh that uh has to be reckoned with when it comes to to fire uh protection and fire fighting as well.

And so when when uh the chief came here the first time around, we were all uh staffers a little bit uh uh astonished that here is a chief who will become an assistant chief.

And um then uh after fire chief Masa retired, uh uh I think you then took over as the fire chief and uh let this department um until you retired the very first time.

And I still remember uh when we had the uh change of command ceremony, and uh uh and I also uh very uh much remember how much you had meant to the city of Monterey at that time because while we were struggling in public works to deal with the Great Recession, um you you came up with budget savings ideas that helped um uh us and public works to keep some more employees on payroll uh than we had to do.

Uh then then we actually planned in in having because the Great Recession uh really ripped a hole into our city coffers.

Um you you were instrumental in uh putting together the collaboration between Pacific Grove, uh City of Carmel by the sea, followed, and then um you left, and I was the one who was allowed to go to the air for airport and uh uh welcome the airport firefighters.

I still remember standing there saying a few words to those um firefighters that they are now wearing the the city of Monterey badge.

And um uh it was it was a great ceremony, but it was also your doing to combine or call connect us with with the airport district.

And then um fast forward, um about exactly uh around this time two years ago, um we we experienced something of of uh small larger crisis, and uh while I was working through this uh through the crisis also that that uh involved uh talking to to various groups uh in your fire department, uh it became clear that um that it would be very uh very much help for us um once uh the the position as fire chief was vacated that you could return to us.

And uh I gave you a call and and we met almost immediately.

And uh uh that was as I always say December 19th, and you always have a different date in mind, so it's it's all fair.

Uh we will never agree on that, but we agree.

Um we agree that that we wanted to collaborate.

And uh you you did a phenomenal job with the fire department.

Uh you put again together um the the the strike force as one team, a homogeneous group of people, um, and that couldn't have been done without somebody of of your leadership skills and leadership abilities.

And since you are a visionary who always wants to see something else and always wants to put things together and is always chasing the next big large thing that um others cannot see, um you just quickly put together the paramedic program that was also lingering around with the city of Carmel and put us into the ambulance service there.

And um aside from uh working uh with the fire department, setting uh new goals, short-term, mid-term, long-term goals, um, restructuring the the leadership team and uh uh at the end uh with a selection also uh with uh uh Chief Moore, uh putting the the fire department on a solid course that we both know uh when we sit on that famous bench, um that it will be in in good hands.

Uh we will we know that and and uh I think we we can relax and uh uh and watch Pat Moore uh uh continue to grow and and hopefully not screw up too much.

Um so uh I know I know also uh that yeah and and you indicated that to me, really not in in any uh not in a lot of words, but I also knew that your private life uh took uh took a uh step back, so to speak.

You um you you you were not uh as present as you wanted to be.

And I also uh want to thank your wife Carol very much for allowing uh the chief to be two years the chief.

That's a very uh demanding job.

Um you know that of course uh because you are also a professional in in the fire services, but um uh when somebody is already at home, um I think uh life has changed.

Not to say maybe you enjoyed it that you were alone for a while.

Um I can share with you that that um uh I always felt he knew that he had to come back sooner than later.

So and then so I'm happy that that um that uh this is the time now for him to do his second retirement.

And um I I'm so um happy that you helped me, that you helped the city.

Uh your um uh your time here in the city of Monterey twice um was really marked with a lot of successes.

And uh we started uh together another thing with the Presidio of Monterey, and it looks like that is coming together as well outside of our watch.

But I think uh also that that shows very good um uh progress here right now.

So with that, uh Chief Miller, uh you were a great player in our executive management team as always, and uh you you kept it straight with everyone in in in the team.

I know our team will miss you as well.

Um and uh most importantly, Chief Hober will will miss uh the the little digs here and there.

Um but I think Pat is a potential good candidate for for the next round.

So with that, uh thank you so much.

Hi Jennifer, and um thank you so much uh for for your service.

And uh you know where I live, I know where you live, and um let's keep watch uh for for the city and keep watch over our uh our fire deep fire department as well.

Thank you so much for your service, Chief Miller.

Why don't we why don't we do a photo?

And then and then maybe we can have you come up and do some remarks.

There you go.

I can't there we go.

There we go.

Perfect.

Somebody else get a better fire.

You good?

You want me in?

Nope, no, do you want to take a pleasure?

Oh, that's okay.

I got too much.

I said a lot of power.

You can have a few.

We have a lot.

Yeah, you don't you don't want to open the mic to me for too long, so I'll be up here a long time.

Well, first of all, thank you, Hans very much for those kind words.

I I really appreciate that.

I know when Hans called me two years ago, um, and he asked me if I'd be willing to come back to lead the department again through some difficult times.

Um, you know, I I I told him and I told him this just the day that I'd have to be fully empowered to do the work and I'd have to probably spend some money.

Thank you.

And um, and I will say that Hans uh lived up to his word, and from then till today, he's been 100% supportive of the work that we've been doing in the fire department as we went through a pretty uh major overhaul of a lot of issues that needed to be resolved.

So Hans, thank you for that.

Thank you for coming in on your day off to speak on my behalf.

I really appreciate it.

Um I just put a couple uh thoughts down uh last night.

I was trying to kind of think what I was gonna say.

So I'm gonna kind of read what I had written, and then I just had a few other words.

So it is with great gratitude, reflection, and a touch of sadness that I retire as fire chief of the Monterey Fire Department of December 30th, 2025.

When I accepted this role, I committed to serving for two years.

That chapter is now coming to a close, and is the right time to step aside and allow the next generation of leadership to guide this remarkable department forward.

Serving as your fire chief for the second time has been the greatest honor of my career.

Every day I have been inspired by the professionalism, dedication, compassion, and deep sense of purpose that define the department.

Monterey Fire Department is not just a workplace, it's a family, and I'm profoundly grateful to be a part of it.

Together, we have continued a legacy of excellence and emergency response and community service.

But what I treasure most, however, are the relationships we've built, the mutual respect we've shared, and the meaningful work we've accomplished together.

These experiences will stay with me for a lifetime.

The department is strong, highly capable, resilient, and well positioned for the future.

We are extremely fortunate to have Chief Moore, an exceptional command staff, administrative team, chief officers, and local 3707 executive board, all leaders, all of them are leaders who are committed to the integrity, collaboration and focused on advancing the mission of the Monterey Fire Department.

I have complete confidence in their ability to successfully carry out this this organization forward.

Although I'm stepping away from the role of fire chief, I remain deeply committed to the Monterey Fire Department and will continue to support its success however I can.

Today I'm profoundly proud to state that together, all of us together, we have made that vision a reality.

With that said, just a few more comments.

You know, when I first got back, I I knew the formula for success was already here.

It was really simple in my mind.

It was the people, right?

It's people make the organization.

Um they were all here before I ever arrived.

So the same group of people were here who helped me propel this organization back to where it needed to be.

It wasn't me.

I just was able to come in and provide the leadership, give them the tools and the resources, look out for their health, safety, their wellness, and to empower them to do great things because they're all extremely smart, professional, highly trained, compassionate, motivated people.

It's like the perfect formula for success.

So I was just able to provide that leadership.

But as I step aside, all those people are still here.

So please never forget, you know, the past and where we came from, but just embrace this this new future of the Monterey Fire Services and Chief Moore step up as a fire chief because I think they're going to do great things.

And I'll be watching from the sidelines.

Um with that said, the last thing I want to do is a couple thank yous.

Uh, I want to I also want to thank my wife Carol.

Uh, she's my best friend, and she's also been there for me.

As Han said, she was a retired, she was a chief officer in Santa Clara County Fire Services.

And she understood the important work that I had to do.

She understood the commitment and the amount of time and focus that I would have to put in, you know, the late nights, the long days, the weekends, whatever it took.

Because when I started working, I came down the track like a locomotive, and I put this executive team and the command staff and everybody, you know, I pushed super hard.

Um, and that took a lot.

And I if it wasn't for Carol standing by my side, I don't know if I would have had if I didn't have that support system at home.

I don't know if I could have been all in like I was.

So I really appreciate that.

I want to thank every member of the Monterey Fire Department from our uh part-time defensible space inspectors to our chief officers to our CERT members.

Everybody played a part in our success.

Every single person in that organization played a part at some level, make a made sacrifice, made contributions that were significant.

And without the entire team together, uh, we couldn't have gotten it done.

Um the executive team, uh, I got to go to lunch with them the other day.

It was really nice.

I got to recognize and thank each one of them because I want the council to know and the community that we have an outstanding executive team.

Uh, they are professional, uh they're compassionate about their work, they're they're dedicated to their work, and they really love the city of Monterey and they love the people that they work with and the people that they serve.

And that's very fortunate for Monterey as a city, because that's not always the case.

City manager's office as well, uh, has been just outstanding.

Hans already thanked you.

Thank you so much.

Um, and last but not least, uh mayor and city council, uh, I want to thank all of you, you know, for your policy direction for giving us the fiscal resources that we need, but also for taking the deep dive to really try to understand that's extremely important work that we do.

We would not have been able to do this without your support, because it's the leader from the top, you know, that really supports us to be able to engage.

And our success is just as much yours as it is ours.

And with that, I just have a little small uh token here for you.

It's traditional in the fire service and in the military and law enforcement when you know somebody does a good job or or just you know, job well done, you know, the chief uh will give them a challenge coin, and and challenge coins uh are given to recognize that work.

So this challenge point that I'm gonna be presenting to you, uh it states on there honor the past and embrace the future.

So, you know, as Hans and I both step away, you know, we're now part of the past, but embrace the future and please just keep the focus.

Going from good to great is extremely difficult.

It was probably the hardest work that I've ever done, and I know my staff in the last two years, but staying there is even harder.

We can't become complacent.

You have to keep your eye on the ball as well.

And as long as we all just realize and support that work, and it's not just myself, it's all the executives, you know, law enforcement, it's everybody.

Um, we will continue to do great things as a city.

With that, I just want to give you each one of our new uh comments.

Thank you.

Yeah, we'll just say thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

And with that, I'm going to step aside and from now on, anybody standing up here representing the fire department will be Chief Moore or his staff.

So thank you all.

It's really been the honor of a lifetime.

I appreciate it.

Thanks.

Thank you, Chief.

All right, with that, I will open it up to the council.

Who wants to kick us off?

Dr.

Barber, please.

I don't even know where to begin.

And I'm not going to go too deep into it because I'm not going to cry.

Okay.

Um, I really he really does uh hold a special place um with me because of all the things he did from day one.

You could tell his heart and his soul was and what he was doing when he came.

And he was so open to being able to have conversations and working with everyone.

And I think that that is so important.

And I had the privilege to speak with and meet his wife and have those conversations and thanking her for allowing him to be with us.

And I say thank you again to both of you, but just know that what you have done is not in vain, that it will grow and go further because of the thing that you did and the sacrifices that you meant.

Please.

Um thank you very much, Chief.

Uh, I think that we all felt the uh um the the challenges that um you know were present in the in the department.

And um I I know personally I felt uh also the uh the shift when you came on board.

Um it was it was a very uh swift shift that came um as you began implementing you know your strategies, your plan.

Um and uh I think that that for me is spoke a lot about you know you coming in with the the good intention and also the uh leadership to make sure that things were uh running back on track as they um were supposed to.

So I I really appreciate you coming in and um putting us back on track and uh providing for us all the opportunity to enjoy the uh the great services that the fire department offers our residents.

So thank you so much.

All that that Dr.

Barber said and council member Garcia.

I also want to convey you may not feel it every day because it's your profession, but the sense of security that you and Chief Hobart and Chief Moore provide this city is imbued in every one of us, and I thank you for that because it's so valuable, all of you who are serving us, so important, and and that's what I most appreciate is that I feel we all of us are so secure in your hands, and that is such an attribute, and thank you for having such a wonderful husband.

Thank you, Chief.

Uh so on your walks in the neighborhood, I'm sure you're gonna find a way to get to uh drop by the Usler residents, and I'm sure there'll be a sign out front that's Usler Way, and there'll be a bench in the backyard and you'd be able to talk about we remember when um you know so the retirement piece is really uh it's always difficult for public safety because it it doesn't feel right, but you have deserved it for a long time.

Congratulations, Carol.

You get your husband back.

Thank you for the coin.

It's uh much appreciated.

Um, you know, so you you use the phrase good to great, and you're probably referring to a well-known book by Jim Collins that we all we all know that there's parts of that that we use for our our leadership.

So congratulations for being able to say you recognize the need, you came back at the right time.

Your your rank and file welcomed you back, and we heard that very loud and clear, I think instantaneously, as Gina was said, and as Dr.

Barber has indicated, the the value that you brought back.

Um we all recognize that right away.

We have a distinct separation, and you all know this, you know this.

He's the boss, the city manager makes the choices for the department heads.

The community spoke.

We heard, we knew, but we had to wait.

And one of the things I've learned as a council member is it's very, very difficult for me to be patient.

Because when I see it, I know what I want to do, but it's not me that gets to do it.

It's the five of us having to wait and our city manager making the great choices, like bringing Andrew Miller back to the city of Monterey.

Congratulations.

Enjoy it.

Please return the calls from Pat when he calls you.

Because we know that you'll be on speed dial for a while.

Okay.

Um, the fire department is now in great hands.

Uh, you have done the significant worth work of probably 10 years and two years.

And now it's time to take a rest.

Enjoy the holidays.

And again, congratulations, Carol.

You're getting the back with all the parts intact.

And the biggest challenge is you failed retirement once.

You can fail retirement again.

And join the club of failed retirements because I failed it twice.

And then I got on the council.

And what the heck is wrong with me?

It's difficult to retire because you took an oath, and the oath will always be there with you.

Congratulations.

Job well done.

I I kind of made some remarks at the beginning, so I won't uh belabor the point, but um you're truly a special human being.

Um we talk about a full package.

Uh that's you.

The ability to have those technical skills and being able to pick up a hose or an axe or whatever it is needed to get the job done.

Um you have that skill set, but you also know how to relate and connect to people.

And you shared it in your remarks, and you made sure that the entire fire team um knows that they were front and center from the moment that you accepted to come back until the moment that you left.

Um, and I can't thank you enough for um just you being you.

So thank you for for your service.

And um again, I'm I'm I'm anticipating a third, a third run around here.

So no, I'm just kidding.

I'm just kidding.

Thank you for your service.

Um, with that, we'll go ahead and open it up for public comments.

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

So we'll ask you to identify yourself.

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

So I'm gonna start on Zoom.

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

Meanwhile, while they're navigating their way there, I'll check in the chamber.

If you want to speak on this item, I just ask that you stand up to the left of the podium.

If you choose to remain seated, um, just identify yourself by raising your hand.

Okay, so we have one, two, three, four, five, six in the chamber.

Anyone else that's not sitting up to the right or is it left over here that wants to speak?

Okay, so we'll cut it off to the six that are standing, and then I'll do a countdown for folks on Zoom to five, four, three, two, one.

We have one on Zoom.

I'm gonna go ahead and leave it to two minutes.

We'll go ahead and start in the chamber.

Hi.

Am I on?

You are.

My name is Tamil Ulver, and I'm a volunteer at the Moderate The Aquarium with the education programs and with the public.

And when I heard that you might be considering taxing admission to the aquarium as a source of revenue.

Sorry, this is this um, I should have cleared that.

I apologize.

This is public comment solely on the retirement of our fire.

I am so sorry.

Thank you.

I apologize for the confusion on that.

Let me let me let me redo this process because I I can see where that created confusion.

This is not general public comment.

This is public comment specifically on the retirement of the fire chief.

So I'm gonna go ahead and give everybody a moment to reset here for a second.

Um, I'm gonna do a countdown.

Well, let me come back to Zoom.

Um so we have four in the chamber.

Um, okay, so we'll cut it off to the four.

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

And we saw that one.

Okay, so we'll go ahead and start in the chamber.

Oh, Mr.

Bellasary.

So, mayor, council, chief, chief, city manager.

On behalf of SurSide and Key Road, we just want to thank you, Chief, for all your service and keeping our town very safe and comfortable.

And with that being said, we wish you well.

And you too, Hans.

Happy retirement.

This might be the last time in the chamber we see you both.

I'll be here a while, but thanks so much, both of you.

Good afternoon, Esther Malcolm, president of the Laguna Grande Neighborhood Association.

And I just wanted to say a couple of words.

It looks like I'm the only resident that's going to speak.

So I'll I'm pretty sure I'm going to have everybody's sentiment agreeing with what I'm going to say.

And all the support that the council gives them and that this the community gives them.

I can say from personal experience that any time that I reached out to both chiefs, because now we get to say chief in the plural.

They're so well organized that they can just take care of something so quickly.

And I just want to thank them and you know the chief, the first chief, um, to give you, you know, to lay the groundwork because I'm really sure that it's going to continue.

I look forward to not more just taking the the helm, and it'll be seamless, pretty much.

So thank you for everything.

And I think that um all of us are going to benefit from all the work that you did by coming back.

And we really do appreciate it as residents.

The compassion that you have demonstrated and the willingness to meet with everybody that wants to talk to you has will really be appreciated for a long time.

Thanks.

This only says two minutes.

Should be five.

I very much appreciate as council and others have stated that you do always put people first, and that's why you're successful.

Um I I also want to say that sometimes we think about legacy and the legacy is in all of the folks in the back of the room and in this young man who come behind you and all of the things you train them.

So we're very excited for this young man to uh take over.

Twice.

Twice.

Oh, there'll be some barbs.

I gotta be nice to them right now.

But Andrew, thank you very much.

Soften them up.

Well, that's a first.

Uh young man.

Um I just want to come up here and and thank Chief Miller for uh setting the standard.

I know I have some really big shoes to fill.

Um his leadership and his commitment to the department is uh well acknowledged and very much appreciated.

But for me personally, you know, I knew I've known Chief Miller since 1995.

I walked as a volunteer firefighter, um, City Pacific Grove, and he got my me started in the fire service.

So I wouldn't be standing before you today if it weren't for him and his friendship and his leadership and mentorship.

So I really appreciate that.

Um, he has set a standard that I fully recognize, and I fully intend to uh continue on that path.

Um, just to give you a quick story.

Um, I can sit up here and list all the things we've accomplished in the past two years, but you can look at our annual report and you can you can read all that.

But one thing I'll say is that we had an all hands meeting in the beginning part of November.

And it's when all the department comes together, we'll get a chance to hear from leadership, ask questions, chance to get together.

Mutual aid partners cover all of our um on-duty crews to come.

We had almost 80 members of our organization there.

Um, I've been here 26 years.

I've never seen that kind of attendance from the fire department.

I think that is a testament to Chief Miller and his leadership.

You know, in that day, he got a chance to talk about his vision, uh, where we've been and where we're going.

But in essence, he gave us back our fire department that day.

So I'll always be a grateful for that, and thank you very much.

Awesome.

All right, with that, we'll go to our public comment here on Zoom.

Yes, this is a telephone caller.

And um, they can unmute by dialing star six and then can go ahead.

My name is Demetrius Castros, and I'm calling to talk about the city uh budget deficit that's currently occurring.

Um, I know there's a lot of mixed emotions and so forth, but I don't feel that it is fair to put the burden of this pause you for a second.

I I apologize.

This is not general public comment.

This is public comment specifically on the retirement of Chief Miller.

So if you want, I I'd encourage you to go ahead and raise your hand um during general public comment to provide comments at that time.

Apologies for the confusion there.

All right.

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

Um thank you again.

Um I know there's gonna be a little bit of a transition here, so why don't we go ahead and just take a quick Monterey five to let the transition occur, and then we'll go ahead and pick up the rest of the council meeting.

Thanks, everybody.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

To the Republic, which is hands.

One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Gino.

And with that, we'll now do general public comment.

So this is for items that are not on today's uh agenda, non-agendized items.

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

I will open it up to the folks in the chamber if you wouldn't mind standing to the left of the podium or identifying yourself by raising your hand.

So I see five standing.

There's two seating that I've acknowledged.

So we have seven in the chamber.

We'll go ahead and cut it off to those seven.

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

And we have one on Zoom.

We'll go ahead and leave it to two minutes.

Mayor Council, um, my name is Nelson Bega.

And I I'm I'm I'm questioning um fees.

I recently um started uh a project on a house I bought in Monterey, and the fees to get a single car garage and a garage that's already there converted into a master bedroom.

Just just the plan check fee was five thousand dollars.

Your fee structure is out of line with the amount of work that's required to do it, and you're not allowed as a city or any government to charge more than what the cost is.

The plan was I think 10 pages long.

In 1980, I built my whole house in Zide, it's still standing today, and it was only four pages.

And I'm just stunned that uh government doesn't understand that you are the cost of why housing is going so high.

And you guys need to do something about these fees.

I pulled my plan because I refused to pay 1415,000 in fees for a plan check and a permit that probably takes maybe six to seven hours of of your time.

It's outrageous, and that is part of the cost, and that's a small part.

I'm just the the canary in the coal mine, and I have other projects that I've had that I've pulled because of some of the other things that you guys have done that have made them just completely outrageous.

And I just I I look back when I started, I started before probably three of you were even born.

I've been doing this.

So I speak from experience.

Government is a reason housing has gone up, and then you want to punish landlords.

Thank you for your time.

I'll keep it short.

I just want to say happy holidays.

And thank you very much for all you do for the community, both you on the council, the staff.

Uh I really do appreciate all your efforts.

I know it's kind of a thankless job that you spent all these hours here, but I'm thanking you.

So please have a good holiday and relax a bit.

Merry Christmas time.

Hi, my name is uh Tamil Olver, and when I heard that you had considered or might be considering taxing admission to the aquarium for um a revenue source uh as a volunteer there and a supporter of nonprofits locally, I wanted to raise some concerns.

And my first is precedent.

I'm very concerned that the rationale behind the decision would be lost over time, and all that would remain is the precedent.

And I think it's a dangerous one.

My second has to do with how much the aquarium has already contributed to economic vitality as I compare Cantery Row 40 years ago to now, and wondering if it's fair to go back to an institution that it continues to do so much one more time for something more.

But my third one has to do with just the intrinsic value of a nonprofit aquarium that takes the benefits of its success and plows them back into the programs in the mission.

Over 200,000 people of low income have visited free of admission already this year through our outreach program.

Uh tens of thousands of school kids get a free classroom or free field trip and thousands of them get a free classroom program.

We have free teacher institutes, free um summer camps.

Um just as you consider where you're going to look for revenue, please think about whether going to our nonprofit aquarium is your best option.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor, uh council staff, uh Vince Ballastro with Surfside Enterprises.

Um tonight you'll be considering a lease renew for the Surfside Enterprises on Wharf Two.

Um because it's on the agenda.

We'll take public funds on because it's on the agenda, we'll take the public comment during the closed session.

Pre preceding the closed session.

Preceding the closed I'll be back for a third time.

Third time's a job.

It's a theme tonight.

As long as you're not retiring.

Thanks, Vinny.

Merry Christmas.

Mayor, City Council, Christine.

Um, I uh got to say that the city always does a great job.

I'm not one to criticize much.

You're never gonna please all of us, obviously.

And that's one of the difficulties.

You're running a major business here.

The city is something that's got a lot of diversity and requirements and needs and spending.

Um with that, you also got to balance that with your governance of doing what's best for the people.

Since operating a business since I'm 15 years of age, I've got a lot of experience and just even running smaller operations, maybe just a few million, but uh nothing like what you're doing.

Um, but the difficulty comes down to how do you do fairness, how do you keep things balanced?

You do a pretty good job of that.

But I want to speak towards something that hits me personally, and everyone's got their own personal input, is what they like and don't.

Is the parking issue on Canary Row?

Um, I was a little, I was always wondering why the city was so low on their fees and their parking garage.

Um that's an expensive structure to maintain.

And with those kind of numbers, I always wonder how is it they could possibly maintain that?

And I learned it was really depressed because they're fearful of raising it too much over what the um coastal commission might allow.

Now we're looking at also charging us a fee of 10, 15% to our customers.

When I start charging them two, three dollars extra in taxation, it really makes them hard to park.

Uh, we get a lot of our people from Central Coast, and now this extra cost, it's not like an unlimited thing that these people are just going to spend money.

So we have to be cautious and balanced.

I know we want to keep the local businesses happy with keeping the numbers down, but there's great inflation.

Will we ever have enough money to really cover the maintenance that's going to be required on that garage someday?

And I'm being pressured now by paying 20, 25 an hour to employees to work.

I'm being pressured by the city getting another $3 out of there.

And I look what other cities are doing, and it's a much higher rate.

Um, so just ask that you consider that the business operations are not just an endless pit.

We have to battle with the elasticity of the customers, what they're willing to pay.

So thank you for your time.

Hi, Ellen Martin.

I'm the executive director of First Night Monterey.

Good evening, Mayor, Councilmember staff, and everybody that's here today, and uh to our police and our our fire department who always helped first night uh on New Year's Eve.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak right now.

And I sincerely want to thank the City of Monterey for more than 30 years of support for our event.

This long-standing partnership has helped create a tradition that generations of families, artists, visitors have come to really value deeply.

We're just 15 days away from first night, and we're so excited.

Um early in November, we put up our website, we put up the buttons on for sale.

We did not advertise it yet, and three people within the first hour bought uh buttons.

And today I looked and um who was buying online, and we had 3% that was from Europe, uh, 6% from Mexico, and then the the rest was from um North Bay, South Bay, Bay Area, then across the United States.

But it's so great to see that people are coming into Monterey and gonna spend their money, stay here and have a great safe New Year's Eve.

Um, you know, it's really clear to me that there's a real organic um demand at home.

On the first day that we put our buttons out at Safeway, one of the volunteers was putting the poster up outside at Safeway, and a gentleman came and said, Oh, are they on sale?

And she said yes.

And he said, I've been going 20 years.

My children and now my grandchildren go with me.

So that kind of response uh speaks to a really deep community trust and truly a multi-generational uh event.

But I also want to let you know that the money that uh the city of Monterey invests in first night stays at the New Year's Eve event, that it's only used to pay local artists, performers, marketing, and to keep our buttons affordable.

So thank you so much and happy new year.

Have a really great one.

Thank you.

That button.

See you on the 31st.

Hello, mayor, city, council members, public.

Um two items.

One, the area between the old fisherman's wharf and the Harbor Master's office.

Um the trailway near the boats is less than 10 feet wide, and there's a continuous problem of bicycle on mostly on busy days.

There's a continuous problem with multiple bicycles, people, and that area is so narrow.

I I believe a city should post up on no bicycle area.

It's too dangerous.

It's too close to um too much going on at one time, and this is a center of the plaza area between the wharf and the parking lot.

And this is not as described.

This is not a part of the wharf, or neither is it the mouth of the wharf.

It's about 150 yards away from the wharf.

And I believe this area is big enough that it should be um named.

It should have a title or name because it's just described all the time, and so many people in the description do not have a um a clear understanding of the area.

And uh and I suggested to Levi to um have the city name it.

I just came from his office, and he refused to even look at the idea of naming that plaza.

And it's important to the community because last summer and it will continue to be a destination point, and it's a big enough and and uh used enough area um in a description, it's just um coordinates, and it should be more than a coordinates.

It's it's the first plaza um for the first state capital in the Americas um west of the Mississippi, and it does deserve some type of um name or title, and also probably an address.

Leave I said it couldn't happen, but I believe the city can work on naming it.

Thank you.

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

Good evening, council and mayor.

My name is Demetrius Castros.

I think most of you know me.

I work with the sort of programmer here in Monterey.

I want to comment on the $10 million deficit that we currently are looking at, all of us as taxpayers.

We have some opportunities to close this deficit without putting the onus back on the citizen property owner taxpayers.

There's been some comment tonight about the aquarium.

I think we need to keep in mind that the aquarium pays no property tax.

The aquarium is a good asset for our community, but it's a partnership that needs to be two-sided.

They also pay nothing to maintain parking for their visitors.

The city of Monterey built the parking garage as a partnership when the aquarium opened.

All this being suggested is a $2 addition to a $65 existing ticket.

I don't, I'm quite sure that adding $2 to the cost of a $65 ticket to get into the aquarium is not going to change anything the aquarium does.

And they have other abilities to raise money, like giving a t-shirt to Taylor Swift and getting $2 million in donations.

So that alone, that admissions tax alone would raise approximately $4 million, which would get us 40% of the way through the deficit.

We can close the additional 30% with carefully looking at additional positions that can be frozen through attrition without layoffs, and also to look at other things.

We have some pretty significant overtime costs in the department.

Um we bring in interim city managers, we bring in interim fire chiefs.

Perhaps we can bring in interim personnel to help with some of those overtime costs.

As a retired fire uh battalion chief of Melpedis, I went back two years after I retired as an interim line battalion chief to help them with the significant overtime issue they had.

And then I was there, which was about four months.

I say those 60,000.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

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

And with that, we will move to consent agenda.

Council, any desire to pull anything from consent.

All right, I'm not seeing any takers.

Uh staff, any changes to that from the public?

Okay.

But this will go ahead and open it up for public comment and an opportunity for the public to pull items from the consent agenda.

So we'll check with folks on Zoom.

You can use the raise hand function.

Anybody in the chamber wishes to speak on anything on the consent agenda.

All right, seeing none, we'll close it off in the chamber.

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

And there's nobody on Zoom.

This is weird.

Um, okay.

Let's bring it back to the council.

I'll make a motion to approve the agenda.

It's been moved.

Second.

Seconded.

Any other discussion?

All right.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion passes unanimously.

With that, we'll go to our public appearance items.

Number 13 on the agenda is to authorize the mayor to sign.

Actually, yeah, I'm sorry.

I was going to try to do something.

Um, authorize the mayor to sign a letter in support of the proposed how house resolution lower presidio National Historic Park Study Act.

With that, pass it to Nat for staff presentation.

Fantastic.

Thank you very much, Mayor and Council.

Good afternoon.

Uh today, this afternoon, we are asking you to authorize the mayor to support the proposed House Resolution for Lower Presidio National Historic Park Study Act.

As uh council may know, the history of the Lower Presidio of Monterey goes back hundreds of years.

Uh, since 1847, the Army has owned the land that's known as Lower Presidio and its rich history dates back to the Rumson Alone First Peoples, the arrival of the Spanish in 1602, and then later Mexican and early American development.

Uh it was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1971 because of its importance both to Native peoples as well as to the military history of our of our country.

And in the early 1980s, the Army actually proposed to sell 123 acres of lower presidio, as well as 81 acres of Huckleberry Hill to developers.

And back at that time, Congressman Leon Panetta advocated against it in 1984.

The city was involved in that process.

There were discussions about are there other public agencies that might be able to take on ownership and management of lower presidio.

There was discussion about California State Parks as an option, the federal government.

And then it landed on the city of Monterey.

We stepped up and we said, let's take on a long-term lease.

So in 1986, discussions began.

And in 1996, the City of Monterey, we secured a 50-year lease with the Army to develop Lower Presidio Historic Park.

And that was done in collaboration with community partners, organizations that included the old Monterey Foundation and other groups.

And as you may know, uh the demands on the city for ongoing maintenance and operations continue to increase over the years.

Earlier this year, uh back in March, all of you, our city council approved a public engagement approach that allows us to identify what is the future of lower presidious look like when it comes to both programming services, but also getting some initial feedback on uh maintenance.

What does that look like as well?

It's important, and what we've heard from the public is it's critical to have lower Presidio Historic Park continue to be open to the public.

But what does that look like?

Does it have to be the city of Monterey as an example?

And some of the initial survey feedback shows that 83.87% of the public believe that the condition and maintenance of the park is good or excellent.

But there's also support, majority support for another public entity to maintain this public space that we have.

And in the recent survey, 51% of respondents would support another qualified public entity to maintain and provide public access to Lower Presidio Historic Park, other than the city of Monterey, provided that the park is maintained at a high level.

And there were 29% who were neutral and then 19% who disagreed.

But certainly we also heard that over 80% of respondents support community-led volunteer efforts to maintain and improve the park as well.

Over the past several months, we've had discussions with our representative in Congress, Congressman Panetta, Congressman Jimmy Panetta, who has and uh does support creation of uh national historic park at that site.

And uh one of the things we've learned is there's a multiple step process to in order to achieve that.

The first step as part of this process is to conduct a special resource study.

And it's a process that can take up to three years to implement.

And that three year process requires members of uh the US Congress to support a bill to then require the US Department of the Interior, essentially the National Park Service to undergo this special resource study that would determine what is the national significance of this area.

It would require them to uh engage with the Native American uh tribes, local tribes, and also identify what future funding source and how this park would be maintained by the National Park Service.

So this is just the first of multiple steps.

But uh as staff, because we would like to explore this as an option.

This is not a permanent commitment to this this option, but it is certainly step one in uh multiple steps to begin the process to assess whether Lower Presidio Historic Park uh could be maintained and managed by the National Park Service.

And so uh with this, we're recommending to uh all of you that uh the mayor sign a letter of support for this proposed House resolution.

Uh we uh our team along with uh our uh library and museums director, Brian Edwards, who's in the back.

We've uh been working very closely with Congressman Panetta's staff.

And in fact, uh the draft House resolution is in your agenda packet as well for uh for review.

And uh we're very glad to have his support, and we would be glad to have uh council support on this as well.

Um, if this moves forward, Congressman Panetta does plan to introduce this bill in the next two weeks in Congress, which would then be considered as part of this current congressional session and uh and if supported uh would allow us to have this special resource study.

Awesome.

Thank you for the presentation that you any questions from the council.

All right, seeing none, we will go ahead and open it up for public comment for folks on Zoom.

You can use the raise hand function.

Anybody in the chamber wish to speak on this item?

See two, three.

Okay.

Anybody else?

Alrighty, we'll go ahead and cut it off to those three, and I'll do a countdown for folks on Zoom to five, four, three, two, one.

And there's nobody on Zoom.

We'll go ahead and start in the chamber, please, Bob.

Hello, mayor, city council, staff, and everyone again.

Um, my name is Bob Paulis.

I'm uh developing there in Cantery Row.

We have that big historic section and that historic building there itself.

One of my big driving points is Monterey is such an amazing town filled with history stories, you just can't believe.

And we have a harder time, it seems, getting the public to be aware of them, getting them out there.

And it's something I would like to see happen even more.

I'd like to see more students from around the country come here to learn of some of the important history that we have between San Diego and ourselves.

We were the foundational point really of the West Coast and a lot of things that have gone on.

Um, we will have a tendency to repeat ourselves if we don't follow that history and learn it.

And we seem to see that in America today.

We don't have a real good foundation of history, mathematics, and other things in schools that I think we really need to focus on.

I think something like this is a great opportunity that we can highlight it, try to get some more funding in, and figure out a platform that we can better present.

A lot of the things I find about the history in Monterey, they're not out there as an exposed, and I got to sort of look for them.

So really appreciate you writing the letter, having that go forward and try to make Monterey really be seen by everyone as how important we are as a city and uh and the foundation of the West Coast.

Thank you.

Alan Martin, and I'm on the old Monterey Foundation's board.

I'm the vice chair, and I've written many grants for the projects, raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the projects that we've done at the park, um, including the sign, uh, the trails, uh, the fencing, the wayward signs, and we would love to do more.

We've just been waiting to see what's going to happen with the site, the city of Monterey.

We strongly support this, and we hope that the council will go forward with it.

And we hope that the council will go forward with it.

And with that, then I think that we can raise some more funds.

It is the most historically it's the most historic spot in the West Coast in Monterey.

It means so much to not only those that came here, but those that were here.

And you know, the stables were torn down in uh during COVID.

We had a mock-up of uh building that we wanted to put that would look like the stables and be community rooms.

I was ready to write some grants, but that was put back because we're in limbo.

Um, but um it's so important to the city, to um California, to the West Coast to Unit United States that we really strongly um want you to do this.

And we've worked with uh Panetta's office, and um it's such a beautiful spot and anything that we can do to get more people up there.

I've written grants where we've brought um uh children um and done um tours and would like to keep doing that, but we've just been on hold.

So thank you for supporting this project.

Thank you again for letting me speak.

Um the city has so many different properties, it has so many different avenues that have been set aside for state set aside for so many different functions.

And um I hope that the city can um consider not giving away every piece of land from the community to um once again, the state controls a lot of it and a majority of it belongs to the people.

And um, it's kind of the city's looking for spaces to grow and expand and for housing and stuff.

And um when you uh sign off all the properties to different um the state, the the government um what is left for the city of Monterey because it's been diced up pretty small.

Are you gonna leave one little small gray area that you can probably put?

Well, actually, it won't meet the qualifications for the standards, but I mean, when you chop everything up and you leave nothing for the city of Monterey, you just have to be careful on what you're giving away because there's a lot of um stored value in the property you have here available.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, with that, we'll go ahead and close public comments.

Um, I I would just clarify this is not city-owned land.

This is owned by um the army.

Um, and we're leasing it from them for public access.

And this is uh a great proposal.

I I'm I'm I'm I think I can speak on behalf of the council that we're appreciative of uh Congressmember uh Panetta for uh putting this legislation forward.

We don't know how it's gonna go.

We're we're optimistic, but this is a really great opportunity to help preserve public access to this space long term into the future.

And so with that, I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion uh to approve this recommendation.

Second.

All right, any other discussion?

Uh yeah, I'm gonna support this.

And I just want to call out in um Congressmember Panetta's letter.

Um that there is um at the very end, uh the results of the study are to be done within three years.

And so a lot of things have to happen in that three years, and one of them is gonna be the public outreach and the piece of, you know, and so this is exactly where we the council gave feedback back to staff, which is where we want it to be.

So we realized it's a treasure.

There's a lot of options, there's a lot of things floating around out there, but we really won't land on something until we actually get into what could we do and having this uh house uh bill put forward gives us the structure to be able to see something to actually start.

Recently went to Boston, and they claim to be one of the first cities.

Uh well, King James III actually owned that city until later in 1776.

We actually began in 1770.

So I agree with you, Ellen Ellen, is that we need to continue to put ourselves on the map for our residents and recognition and the value of the history and the visitors that want to come to Monterey.

And that is uh a treasure that's kind of hidden and off the map, off the grid, that we need to be able to be in a position to highlight uh Sloats Landing and the and the early American um occupants of Monterey.

So fully support it.

Anyone else?

All right, called a question.

All those in favor, aye aye.

Any oppose?

Motion passed unanimously.

With that, we'll move to item four.

Thank you, staff for that.

Um item 14, appoint council representatives to outside agencies and city boards and committees for 2026.

Um Nat, I'll pass it to you for any quick remarks here on that one.

Excellent.

Thank you.

And presenting Clementine Bonner Klein, our city clerk.

Good afternoon, council, mayor and council.

Um, as you are aware, in addition to your duties on the council, our charter allows that you serve on the bodies of other um public agencies in the area.

And every year we ask for you to make the appointments for the coming calendar year.

So I've just put in the packet what we currently have as far as representatives and alternates to these outside agencies, and would just ask that you consider whether you would like to consider continue in those roles, switch it up.

Um, there are some bodies that uh don't have an alternate currently, and you may wish to consider having an alternate.

And um, one that I'd like to make sure that you put a representative on for us, the Monterey Conference Center Advisory Board, which is a city board uh and currently has an alternate but no representative.

And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay.

Any questions from the council?

Uh no.

Well, it's not really a question, but I I agree with you, Clementine, that um I'm on the AMVEC, and we need an alternate.

I think we need an alternate on AMPAG because I've not been able to attend, and I've reached out to Ed and he's graciously done it, but we should probably make it formal.

Okay.

Um so just so I understand the comment uh by uh Ms.

Rash on Ambag.

Um we don't have an alternate council member, but we just have a staff, but they couldn't vote.

Um and then also the other open question from the clerk was that we need to consider having where it's marked yellow on our staff work, the Monterey Conference Center bi-monthly Wednesday as scheduled at 8 30 in the morning.

Um and then Mayor, you're the alternate.

So you're you're not looking to take that as a regular, but you you could be in stay in the alternate, but we need a regular to be plugged in there.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

And and again, that schedule is every other month on a Wednesday.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay, and I have a conflict with that because of TAMSY, so I would not be able to do that.

So let's wait to discuss how we want to move forward with all this.

At this time, let's just focus on questions.

Are there any other questions at this point?

All right, let's open it for public comment.

Folks on Zoom, you can use the raise hand function.

Anybody in the chamber wishes speak on this item?

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

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

Nobody on Zoom, so we'll bring it back.

Anyone interested in the conference center advisory board?

Uh yeah, go ahead.

Well, it's every other month.

Let's see, I have a Wednesday.

And I'm wondering why we don't or haven't.

I don't think that there's a formal role that plays that requires um it to be included on this, but nothing precludes council or a council member from attending.

And I I think we'd all appreciate hearing updates if if somebody had the capacity to do that.

Um but as far as a formal role, my understanding there there is none that exists um as it relates to the the agenda item.

Uh Council Garcia, I saw your hand go up as well.

Thank you.

I was just going to uh put out a request.

Um, Mr.

Mayer, if uh unless you uh prefer to stay in the uh um primary role for the Monterey County fairgrounds.

It's yours.

All right.

Done.

It's it's it's in your it's in your district.

It makes sense that you do it as the council representative for it.

So by all means, um, we'll make that switch.

And thank you for your willingness to step up for that.

Would you stay as an alternate?

I would be happy to.

Okay.

Yeah, it makes perfect sense.

I should just say I totally um yield and understand that you want to be the representative to three CE.

And um, I know we rotate with the two other cities, so having even a representative is rare.

But if there's ever an alternate position on that, I would enjoy.

I go to a lot of them anyway.

Actually, I thought I was the alternate.

So I think that the all what my understanding is because this came up during the last three CE meeting.

Um Tina Rao, council member from Pacific Grove is the alternate for the three agencies that are combined together that share this seat.

Right.

Um and so if if I weren't able to attend, she would, but if things change, I will be sure to communicate.

I know your interest, and I appreciate you being present there at those meetings as well.

And that's what I'm saying.

I get it that it goes to Tina and then it'll go to Carmel.

And I I get that rotation, but um, it's interesting.

It I mean, it's fascinating.

Absolutely.

And and can I ask a question about three CE?

Please, do you know when that rotation um goes away from Monterey and then comes to be another city?

Yeah, we have to lead.

Next year.

So basically when we do this again next year, yeah, we won't be we won't have a seat.

Okay.

So we're two years.

Yep, yeah, that's correct.

Okay.

And it's their bylaws that make it rotate.

That's correct.

Well, it's it's our MOU with the two other agencies that that structure that.

And then Clementine, did you have something else to add?

I was just going to share the same thing you did about our uh our contracted rotation.

So I'm sorry, when does it come around to us again?

Next.

Oh, well, so at the end of next year, the city of Monterey will go away as a representative, and then it'll be four more years.

Okay.

After that.

Yep.

The long haul.

Um, anything else outside of the conference center that we need to discuss?

Okay.

Do we need to make that decision tonight?

Can we get clear?

Do we have clarity?

I do have clarification.

So uh typically those meetings are for the Monterey Conference Center Advisory Board is all held on the second Wednesday of each month.

Say again.

That takes you out.

Yeah.

Okay.

So Ed, are you good with that?

Uh they serve donuts with coffee.

Ha ha no, it's uh it's 8:30.

I think it's probably um pretty convenient for me to go.

All righty.

So slide so I'll go ahead and make a motion to bump me to alternate for um fairgrounds, make Gino primary, and then um elevate Ed to the representative for the Monterey Conference Center.

So that's my motion.

And you're and you're still the alternate.

And I'm still the alternate.

Yeah.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Any other discussion.

All right.

All those in favor, aye, any opposed.

Motion passes unanimously.

And with that, we will move on to item number 15 to receive an update and pro.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, did we do an alternate on AMBEG?

Oh, oh, I apologize.

Let's I I didn't know whether it would have been wrapped in.

So can let me let's I'm gonna come.

You could just make any motion.

I cannot I'll make a motion to make Ed the alternate for Ambag.

Uh I'll second that.

Okay.

Any other discussion?

All those in favor?

I any opposed, motion passes unanimously.

And if we can if we can lump that all into one, if that makes it cleaner.

Okay.

Um no breaking flaws here.

No breaking laws.

We don't do that here.

Um 15.

Receive an update and provide direction to staff on the development of a first responder fee program.

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

Thank you so much.

Um again, good afternoon again, Mayor and Council.

Today, our assistant fire chief, Pat Moore, he will present information to you about the potential first responder fee program.

As uh some of you may have read in the Monterey Herald, uh, they erroneously used the term ambulance in the article.

This is a first responder fee focused on the city fire department's provision of paramedic service.

And uh Chief Moore will share what we've learned so far.

Um, I will uh state and uh clarify this is the index card that I have on the screen uh that we shared with all of you about this potential deficit reduction strategy.

And the reason we brought this forward to you uh several months ago, back in uh August was looking at various revenue generating measures that might not uh require, and in this case, does not require voter approval.

And uh when we initially presented that uh to you was based on financial estimates and a process that was established in San Jose, which has this fee that will go into effect on January 1.

There's a few new highlights that we're going to be sharing with you today.

And uh the estimated uh dollar is slightly below what we expected.

Um, but the the main shift and the main difference is that initially when we brought this forward to you, the thought was insurance companies would actually pay the full cost or the majority of of uh of the fee directly when they're billed.

Uh, what we've learned is that that's not necessarily the case, except for certain insurance providers, such as Kaiser.

So uh that that is uh one factor uh that has shifted a little bit based on our research and uh and not the case here on the Monterey Peninsula.

But uh the fact does remain that we do have a 10 million dollar structural budget deficit, and this is and remains an option for council to consider as a potential cost recovery model and uh revenue generating model.

Um Pat will go through the details on what the options look like, and uh we also wanted to be very uh clear and transparent that we have not yet engaged in any community outreach regarding this potential fee.

So uh we look forward to hearing your feedback.

And at this time, my pleasure to introduce our assistant fire chief Pat Moore.

Good afternoon again.

Um, what is the first responder fee?

So the first responder fee is a fee that shape that's uh charged by municipalities or districts for EMS services provided by the fire department.

It's separate from any ambulance or hospital hospital charges.

So I just wanted to kind of clarify what it actually is.

It's typically charged uh two different ways option one and option two.

Option one being that's through insurance companies, then option two, some plays some cities um will charge insurance companies and then pass the cost on to the patients if the insurance companies don't pay.

So, how is it calculated?

So the information um I got from cities that actually have the first responder fee, use a formula that's presented in the accounts agenda.

So, what I did is we calculated based on the fully burdened cost of a three-person engine company who would respond to a call, the OES reimbursement rate that we charge or from the OES charges for an engine, and we multiply that times our average on-seam time for a medical call.

Um, I also added uh EMS supplies based on our budget and a 16% admin fee, which was um we hired a consultant Baker Tilly years ago to uh give us an idea what we should be charging administration fee.

So that's where the 16% came from.

So who is charged the fee?

So, you know, you can make those determinations, but typically what people do is so if we get called for an EMS call and we go and just provide first aid to a patient, or patient decides like, hey, I want to drive myself, I don't want to be transported.

They typically do not get charged.

If we um provide any type of invasive care and they get transported, those people would typically get the bill.

So that's how that works.

How does that how does this fee kind of get generated?

So when we go on calls on emergency calls, medical calls, we gather patient information, demographics, history allergies, meds, and treatment that we provide to the patient.

We gather the information, and that information is transferred with the patient all the way to the hospital.

So we give it to the ambulance, they take it, they add to it, and then goes to the hospital, and and that's how then they add to that information as well.

We come back and we have reporting guidelines that we have to do.

So we generate a medical report.

So that medical report would be taken by a third-party billing agency.

Um initially go to an insurance company and and so on.

So we'll we'll talk about that in a minute.

Um, the third-party billing agency is typically um gets hired.

It could be a private company like Whitman and uh Enterprises, or it can be for the ambulance provider.

Solano County has an ambulance provider, does the billing.

We have AMR in our county, and counties that have AMR typically go through Whitman and enterprises.

I'll go more into that in just a second.

And they bill by incident.

Since the rate of return is so low typically on these fees, they bill by the incident.

So we we're paying for that service, whether we get the collection or not.

There's also uh a compassionate billing component on that, which would be for option two, which you read, and we can go further into that, but that would be based on uh city code requirements for fees.

So if you go into our city code, there's um compassionate billing for uh fees that we charge for the city.

So just so you know, the information I got regarding this was taken from several fire departments that actually generate the fee using option one and option two.

Some of them have been charging this fee for 10 years, um, some for five years.

I've talked to people to actually respond the calls all the way to the fire chief.

Um, I also spoke with Whitman Enterprises, who's the they've they collect, they're the third-party billing agency that represents most departments in California, and they've been doing the collecting fees for up to 15 years.

So that's where I got all the information.

They gave me information like on rates of return and how insurance companies are interacting with them for billing.

So that's where I got my information from the report that you have today.

So just touch basically uh basically on the options.

Option one, which would be billing just the insurance companies.

So the challenges with that is that insurance companies typically are not paying this fee for a couple different reasons.

One is they're not required to, and two is there's really no billing code for it.

So what billing companies do is they'll they'll generate a code that most closely resembles a first responder fee and then add notes and send it along.

So they typically will try two or three times and they don't get um any type of payment.

They they kind of let it go.

United Healthcare, Blue Cross, and Aetna typically do not pay on these fees.

Kaiser is the only one that that would typically pay, and Medicare, Medical do not pay for this fee.

Option two.

So option two is that you go to the uh insurance company first.

There are several agencies that do this, and then when they don't get collection from the insurance company, they'll pass it on to the actual patients.

This one has a higher rate of return.

Um, option one, um, as you can see in the report, typically our net return, what I'm estimating is about like a one percent.

Um, five percent is pretty typical gross.

Um, option two, 40, I use 45%, and then 42% for a net return once we pay for the third-party um billing agency.

The challenges with option two is that it's typically it takes a lot of public outreach and education.

Um, so everyone understands kind of what we're doing.

Um, it requires additional administrative staff.

Um, anecdotally, I've talked to departments, they said that up to 20% of their time administratively is used on recovering this fee, and we do not have the capacity currently to do that.

Um why that is is there has to be data reconciliation.

So just because we give data to a billing agency doesn't mean it's clean, and so they we have to come back and reconcile it.

Um, compassionate billing waivers that requires a lot of time and energy because you have to generate them, give them to the public, public has to fill them out, and whatever we decide for the requirements, we collect data.

Um, and then we have to store the information, we have to track them so that if we get questions or you know, you get questions about it, we can give educated answers on why someone gets billed and not.

Um, and then also public questions, you know, people coming in, calling and whatnot.

Um, also with option number two, um, you know, a lot of citizens have questions.

And since our firefighters are the tip of the spear, we're out delivering that service.

A lot of times we get questions and pushback from the community.

So that's coming at some of the the challenges with option two.

So if you decide um that this is something you like to move forward with, um, our recommendation would be option two.

Option one does not seem financially feasible.

If this is something you like to pursue, option two is makes the most sense.

Um, but there's also a lot of challenges with it.

Um, also, just so you know, this is just the first step.

Um, if you did decide this something you want to do, there's a tremendous amount of work that needs to be going on moving forward.

We also develop an ordinance, um, fee schedules updated.

We do RFP for third-party billing, train the firefighters, how we collect information, public outreach and education, criteria for compassionate billing, and um just to name a few of uh challenges with it.

So anyway, that's kind of just an overall of the first responder fee, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you, Chief.

Yeah.

Any questions from the council?

Uh yeah, thank you, Chief.

Um, on the staff report, it indicates that there was approximately 3,716 calls per year.

Yes.

Is that the calls that you believe are first responder medical related?

Yeah.

And you've segregated out fire alarm calls.

Yes.

Vehicle fires, everything else.

So these are medical calls related to what potentially would be uh potentially fall into this category if we chose to do it tonight.

Correct.

So we run about 10,000 calls for service a year.

Pacific Grove and Carmel, who we cover would not, they would have to develop their own fees.

This is just for the for Monterey.

So we extrapolated the data for medical emergency calls that would fall under this criteria for Monterey.

And that's where we got the 3700 calls basically.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Yep.

Dr.

Burr.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chief.

Just had a question.

With the EMS system special tax of Monterey County, how does that play into this?

And does the city get part of that?

And can part of that money that is being collected be used for which what you're looking for tonight?

No, that's that's separate from what I was looking into.

This is just strictly a fee that is charged by municipalities for specific services from the fire department.

As far as the EMS tax go, that that did not play into this at all.

So I'm uh so my question is um does the city get this EMS system special tax from Monterey County?

Because it's supposed to be like $12 for a parcel with property.

And so I'm wondering if we get it, how much do we get and where does it go?

Um, that's a great question.

Um, I do not have the information, but I'm happy to get it back to get the information get back to you.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Uh thank you, Chief, for the uh information.

My question is um might be getting a little bit into the weeds and completely understand if you don't have this set of data, but I'd be interested in seeing um information um from the various cities that were used in in researching this.

Um was there um an impact seen pre and post implementation of the fee in terms of maybe hospital visits or like an increase in I don't know, chronic illness or or something like that associated potentially with the implementation of a fee.

So if I kind of understand, do we see any impact on uh the use of the 911 system if the fee was initiated?

Exactly.

Yeah, um, so I talked to a lot of, like I said, I talked to many departments about it.

I don't have any, they didn't have any specific data on that.

Um, but I can just say that um, you know, from a public servant standpoint, like we're here to provide service to the public.

If there's anything that would potentially quite have someone question, you know, that that you know, we would rather be needed, not need or be there and not needed than vice versa.

So um I can look into it some more, but I don't have any specific data.

No one really could tell, say, yes, we saw a drop in 911 calls or um, you know, the calls of service that we are all feeling continually are going up because of the demands of our public for a lot of different reasons.

Um, and there has not been any substantial decrease, but I can follow up with you with that if you like.

Yeah, thank you.

I mean, that's to me that's uh an important question that would motivate how I decide on this item because um the last thing I would want is for a fee to deter somebody from calling, right?

I agree with you 100%.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um Chief, when you imagine option one and option two.

Yes.

And when I let me let me start with when I imagine them, I'm imagining that the firefighter is it has to obtain the same amount of information for the billing under either option.

Yes.

So yeah, so the information we collect, you know, we typically do not collect insurance information on medical calls.

So that would be something that we have to start collecting.

And then also department or uh agencies that just bill insurance companies have a form that they can sell to send to residents and third-party billing agencies will say, like, this is not a bill, but we need your insurance information, and then residents can send that back.

So, but it does add a little cog, a little delay in the process.

Um, because obviously uh patient information can be difficult to obtain sometimes based on emergency.

So um, you know, that is something we'll have to work through for sure.

Yeah.

And um, you answered a lot of my questions with your presentation.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Um it seemed, I think there was a statement that staff recommended option two.

And and I want to ask you personally, um, is it that option two is the better of the two, or how do the firefighters really feel about this?

You mentioned a 20% impact on administrative need.

Um the the hassle with getting an insurance card.

Right.

And um, what I'm asking is, does your team support this or not?

I mean, we're we're receiving it from staff.

We have 25 different ideas that we're looking at.

That's great.

Of course.

So I'm not going to speak for everybody, but I can just tell you personally, I do have some concerns.

I mean, there's a lot of impacts potentially to the fire department, you know, but ultimately we're we're public servants.

And if we're gonna direction from counsel that this is what we will do, then we will find a way to make it happen.

Um, but there are some challenges and there are some concerns from our standpoint.

Okay, that's what I wanted to know.

And I'll make statements later, but okay.

Thank you.

Um in regards, I'm assuming we have the ability to be able to create exemptions um with the program.

But when it comes to like income level, I'm I guess I just wonder how much control do we have over determining what level of income could be exempted from it.

So could we say family households that make under 400,000 dollars a year as an example?

I'm I guess that's my question.

Yeah, so I I just took what we have in the city code for exemptions.

We can create whatever exemptions we want for compassionate billing.

The challenges become as people fill out these forms is what are we going to require for proof?

And that takes time and effort to we're gonna ask them to bring their their W-2s in, or you know, what tax returns.

I I don't know what that is.

So we'll have to develop that and generate what the requirements are, and then we're gonna have to verify it, and then we'll have to store that information and track it.

And so you see that there is a there's a lot of process to it.

The people I talk to, the departments, they actually um that was one of their big challenges is because they're getting overwhelmed with with data and not only providing the right information and sending people away.

I mean, there is uh interaction there that uh administrative staff will have to do, and it is impactful.

I mean, it's it's going to be because not everybody has ability to come down and provide that information or send it or um you know, or give us that proper information, and it can be frustrating for for the people too that that would have to do it, I can imagine.

But but to answer your question, we can set whatever parameters we would like to.

Just to just to add on to that, what we modeled after for the city attorney's office for appeal fee waivers was what the court system uses to give a filing fee waiver, and then we added to that that if you owned pro if you owned real property, you were also not going to be eligible for a fee waiver.

Um, and and it hasn't proven very difficult to um administer that.

I realize the volume here is probably very different, but I wouldn't let that part hold up.

Um it's not that much of a concern that can't be addressed, I don't think, and it can be streamlined.

Um to meet the needs of the department.

Okay, thank you.

So I wanted to go back to what Gino was talking a little bit about is um the fee is charged not for the response but for the treatment.

So if you let's just hypothetically action down the street, someone sees an accident, they call 911, the sirens, the units come, police ambulance and a fire rig.

By the response of the fire rig, is it charged if they just show up?

And by the time you get there, everybody says we're good, right?

We're cleared, right?

Code four in the language, yes, and you go back to the barn.

Is that a chargeable event?

Right.

So that's what kind of was talking about the at the very beginning.

Um, typically departments will only charge if there's an there's treatment given and they get transported.

So our reporting system is coded, there's certain codes for it.

It's a 321, which is a medical emergency with treatment and transport.

So what happens is a third-party billing will take whatever code we give them, we're gonna charge, and then they'll upload that, and that's what generate the bill.

So I would suggest that it's only for patients that we actually give treatment to and get transported.

Yeah, and I want to stack this on to the next scenario, which is the response.

Now you get out, now it's an EMT and paramedics.

The bags come out, treatment's done, the clock is ticking, right?

It's tabulated, goes into the firefighter's report at the end of the shift after you go back to the station and gets inputted.

Very similar to what currently happens with law enforcement side from the dispatch with what's called the computer aided dispatch pad.

Yes.

So you together with what you have on firecom and you will then marry up to the field reporting to upload and have that available to your administrator to take it from there.

Correct.

Okay.

So the patient can always decline treatment.

Correct.

And they frequently do.

Yeah, there.

So patients, unless they are altered or minor, can decline treatment.

And we always give them that option.

You know, if but you know, we recommend if somebody deserves or we think they need to go to the hospital, we'll recommend that.

But if somebody is of right mind, it can make the and as adult can make those decisions.

That's up to them.

You know, but when they sign waivers um indicating that, yeah.

Yeah.

And and back to this initial call, it's a raw number, but it doesn't mean that all of those were treated patients.

Not necessarily, but that's what those coded the 321, like I said, that's what is coded.

Um, and generally those are when we do more invasive um interjections into the patient.

So yeah.

And one last question about the paramedics program now.

Um, when do you believe that it went fully where we can say we have adequate paramedics on every rig?

That process I know started probably six years ago.

Correct.

Uh, and then now it's like it's at a complete stage where we can say, well, we not only just have EMTs, we have firefighters, paramedics.

Correct.

So we have um on all three engines in Monterey, um, Pacific Grove, we are almost there with Carmel.

The airport still does not have 247 um ALS, and we're working towards that.

Um, and the truck um does as well, but the truck wheel staff with the medic if there's one on there that day.

So, but all the engines for all of response zones in the city of Monterey do have a paramedic.

And that was I think we finished that um probably about three years ago or so, three or four years ago.

And I think that that is a significant benchmark to understand the process of where the elevation of ALS and all of the required training institutionally in all of the stations for all the personnel has moved from you know regular response with EMT to advanced life support 100%.

Right.

And I'll have comments about that after.

Thank you.

Any other questions at this time?

Um, I just one clarifying question off of uh of council member um Smith's question.

Um if somebody does call um on the on behalf of somebody else, yes, is that patient that gets the care still billed if they didn't make the call?

Yeah, I mean, if they're receiving treatment, yes, we still would because a lot of times we won't document who called for that patient.

So we arrive on scene, we see a patient there that needs assistance.

You know, a lot of times if they're incapacitated, someone has to call for them.

Um, so you know, I don't know how we differentiate between we're not going to build them because someone else called for them because they're too incapacitated to call for themselves.

Um, but yes, we would still, if we provided treatment to that patient, we would we I mean, that's that's what other agencies typically do.

So, like I said, we can develop this how we want to.

Um, but from what I was given information, that's what that's what thank you for that.

Yeah, council ration.

Were you surprised personally that the return on option one was only six percent when you went into the deeper dive?

Yeah, you know, I was initially because um, you know, I just read some basic information about it, but I started talking to agencies and it became pretty obvious that that's um that's not uncommon.

So it maybe initially it did, but as I started to reinforce it with everyone I talked to and the billing agency, it became very clear that it just was not the case.

Like agents uh insurance agents.

I mean, we've all had uh dealings with insurance companies.

We get denied claims all the time.

Um, they're not just gonna voluntarily pay a fee if they don't have to, and there's nothing that compels them to have to do it.

And do you think then that if more jurisdictions were to start something like option one, would that influence?

I know the answer to this.

Would that influence more insurance companies to cover it?

Or did you get the real clear message?

The insurance companies aren't going there, forget it.

It's yeah, I didn't necessarily get any indication that they're that they're looking to pay that fee.

Yeah, thank you.

And and I can't speak, you know, maybe something uh legislatively from the state perspective, maybe would would require them to do it.

But as of now, that there's nothing that I have found that ties them to yes, we have to pay the fee.

Uh Kaiser does it because they have some different philosophies on on patient care and and pre-hospital treatment, but um that you know, we that's an areas where it has Kaiser.

Thank you.

Yeah.

If I could shed some additional light on uh this insurance issue, I think this is the biggest uh gap that we have from what we initially thought and where we are today when we conducted research, we found out there is no standard industry code for the actual paramedic treatment separate from transport.

Insurance will pay for transport, but not for the actual treatment from made by our firefighters, right?

Uh firefighter paramedics.

So with with that shift, uh, we're looking into is there a legislative path long-term forward for us to have an option where there's a requirement for insurers in California to pay for the paramedic fees for those cities that have that fee.

Uh right now, Kaiser does it because for Kaiser and our research shows uh because they're an HMO, they'd rather have fire departments provide that service if it prevents individuals from going into the hospitals and then create more demand in the emergency department.

So because of that, they they are supporting paying that fee.

But for other insurance providers, whether that's Anthem Blue Cross or others, they're not at this time, and they're not required to do so.

So uh we've we've just started having conversations with the League of California Cities about is there a path forward to maybe introduce introduce and pass legislation that amends the California insurance code.

The Illinois model is one that uh exists now where they actually have a separate billing code for transport and a separate billing code for uh for the actual paramedic service.

So if we can get there, I I do see uh more cities implementing the fee and then us having more cost recovery under the option one model.

And I would just like to add, you know, this fee has been around for about 15 years now from what what I've seen.

And um, you know, just based on information, the only people that have had any success are billing patients, unfortunately.

That's that's just what I've found.

Okay.

All right.

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

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

Thank you, Chief, for the presentation.

And for those in the chamber, specifically for the paramedic services item.

Um if you wouldn't mind standing to the left of the podium or identify yourself by raising your hand.

This is the last one, and then we'll get there.

Okay, so we have two, three in the chamber that are standing.

Anyone else in the chamber that wishes to speak on this item?

So we'll go ahead and cut it off to the three in the chamber.

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

And there's one on Zoom.

We'll go ahead and start in the chamber.

Hello again, I'm Bob Fallis, uh resident of Monterey.

Um, obviously never complain about the city much.

Um, you have a difficult task, as I said before.

Um, I look at this though, as there are basic services that we're taxed for as a general community that I feel should be supplied by the general community from those taxations.

Um, this is a taxation that just doesn't seem fair.

Um we might look at first of all, where does all the expense come from these people that get the services?

Probably here.

I guess there's probably no real data, but um with the nationally, I think it is you have a 14% greater chance of being required emergency medical if you're homeless.

Um going to the actual emergency room, the number was 20%.

I don't know what the numbers here are, but we're looking at a very high percentage of homeless people.

Um I'm not saying we shouldn't take care of them.

We certainly should.

But then we look at a group of people that have high insurance premiums, our insurance rates are going crazy.

You're spending 2,000, 2500, $3,000 a month in insurance bills that you need to cover and pay, and you expect your health care to be covered with that.

But those insurance companies, they're not paying out on something like this.

Um this concept of insurance and concept of insurance, everyone pays into a pool and it averages out to everyone.

Here we're looking at what some 10,000 calls, I think, um, per year on this, which is um probably about 15% of the total population is utilizing the service, whatever that fee is.

It's better off if we we spread that out with the other 85% and be covered.

Um, right now, if you're a homeowner, you're getting a detriment that why should I have different representation than the guy who's homeless than the guy who's got low income.

Many people don't even have $5,000 a save.

And there's probably a national, I think it was like 50% of the people are operating month to month.

What happens when I have this illness?

I call the paramedics or someone calls them for me.

My tendency is gonna be I don't have money to pay anything further.

No, I don't want service, I'll drive myself there.

I crash on the way to the hospital.

I have a further heart attack on the way to the hospital, and I'm not really cured.

I pay taxes to be covered, and I think the city should cover it, and uh, we shouldn't tax.

This is another form of taxation that I think is unfair.

Okay, engineers version of this.

Um I'm generally in favor of option number two, with of course the compassionate exceptions to that.

I I don't want to see anybody stressed out economically or financially about this.

This little graphic I made up just to kind of clear my mind and get it straightened.

So, what you're looking at here are all is a stack diagram of all the revenue sources going in the general fund.

I put property tax at the bottom because that's something you can't really you can't really change that.

These other ones above property tax, you have some ability to change.

So, what we're really mic on, I'm sorry.

Yeah, sorry.

Um what we're really talking about is the green block there, and that would I take it include all kinds of fees from what we're talking about today to a Zumba class at the sport.

So I look at it a little bit differently.

A Zumba class at the sports center, you should pay full freight for that.

But when it comes to something like we're talking about here today, that's where I got into this maniacal spreadsheet that I said to all of you.

Um, which is my attempt to say that I calculated out what I think is the total cost of a call, which on this is over a thousand dollars.

And the reason I say that is because we've been hearing the term fully burdened cost.

Well, years ago, we did something called the MSI study where we looked at the absolute fully burdened cost, the lights that are on, the amortization of this building, the toilet paper, everything that it takes to run it's it's a business.

So that is the business model we're following.

That's how I came up with this large number here.

However, I don't think we should be billing that amount.

I think what we should be billing, going back to this, is the way I see it is that this up here, which is the gap, is about 9% of the overall.

So if each one of these blocks gain 9%, in theory, it would elevate the rest of the stack up to where that green area goes away.

So that's why I say take 9% of that big number, and that's what the charge is, and it ends up being 200 some odd dollars.

And that's once you multiply it by two, because I'm saying, well, 50% aren't going to pay the other 50%, have got to cover that.

So my number is a little bit lower than what the staff is saying, but it it also covers what I think is the fully burdened cost.

Another little nugget of information I found out along the way, though, is that in Orange County, which is where I have the most familiarity with the subject, because that's where my mother-in-law lived, and we called the ambulance numerous times.

They actually have what I would call like an insurance program that you can buy for the modest sum of 84 a year.

And with that, there's no charges.

You're covered.

So obviously, it's a decision that each resident would have to make as to whether or not it's worthwhile for them to pay this premium.

So thank you.

So I'm just gonna speak about um a couple of points.

First of all, I completely understand, probably more than most that don't attend or have the time to familiarize themselves with the budget situation that you guys are in.

And so, given that, I know we need to generate some more income.

There's no fault of this council.

This is a problem that's previous councils burden on you guys.

The presentation that staff gave you guys when you had a budget presentation, had a number of different items that you could potentially look at to review to generate some income.

I don't see any of that having been presented yet.

But this was the one that council member Ash brought up first more than once.

And I I don't understand how without looking at other possible ways of getting getting income, that something like this that affects the health and well-being of residents of this city would be considered first.

That makes no sense to me.

The presentation shows that it's probably not going to be worth it.

I mean, do we really want our firefighters having to deal with all this extra stuff under the strain that they already are under?

Um, with what their high anxiety job is to begin with, to have to deal with you know details like this.

I'm pretty sure it's not going to make sense to do, and even if it generates a couple of hundred thousand dollars.

But that said, after everything is said and done, and all the other options have been analyzed.

If this is the only option that will help the city's revenue problem, I might be able to consider it.

But without having any idea what else is available to this council to figure out this budget problem, to look at this first item that basically is happening at a time where people are losing their their health insurance.

They're having their health insurance costs double, triple, whatever.

And those are just the those are the people that can that actually have it.

I just find it appalling that we would consider first and foremost something that basically would determine on your financial status whether you would be able to pay for this.

And that will make people hesitate.

People hesitate to go to the emergency room now.

Now they're going to hesitate to even call it for paramedics.

So I I just would like to see the rest of the options that you guys have, and I think you should too before deciding on this personal.

You can go ahead.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

This is Monique Caldi calling in from Zoom land.

On this issue, I do just want to bring attention to the fact that I have not heard anything about auto insurance payments being in here.

And if we look at our policies, we will see something called medical payments.

And that's exactly what this is for.

So this is for that auto um collision or even a single vehicle accident where someone's injured.

That's a claim that you make to your insurance company that you've already been paying a premium for.

So there's money out there.

And while I understand the previous speakers' vision of looking at indigency and how do we not tax people more because of their socioeconomic status, we do need to look at cutting expenses in the city's budget.

And for now, this is a free service that's just being given away.

So we do need to look at how to monetize this and how to recuperate the costs that insurance carriers are already giving coverage for, and we are already paying premiums for.

So we need to recuperate that money back into our budget that is failing and is having serious consequences.

So please do consider this and look at it in the best way that we can gain the revenue for our fire department without taxing more property owners, higher amounts, and just continuing to raise the cost of living.

Our emergency services department is not a triage for the ER.

We need them to be available for what's truly truly important and truly emergency.

So please consider this as a way to stop the flooding of money going out of our budget and to help our citizens also recuperate services that they've been paying for.

Thank you.

With that, we'll go in close public comment, bring it back to the council for some sense.

Oh did you have more comments there?

Okay.

Um bring it back to the council for motion and deliberation.

Um a couple of comments first.

Um, let me see if I could frame this right.

Um good speakers all have great opinions.

And I'm struck by the fact that we are responding with paramedics, and that is a fully burdened discipline that we uh that we requested that we wanted that that we were able to execute through our uh fire department through our our leadership.

And I think that's a good thing to have um advanced life support and having paramedics get to the scene as fast as possible.

That requires an extra burden of a different type of an employee, more training, more experience, more city liability.

Um, so we're providing that service, but it seems like we we are in a position where we're saying now that we've went into this and it's a good thing, but we also are looking at full cost recovery is short.

So we are not covering everything that we need to cover on the item of the response of the fire department for that advanced life support.

I know the difficulties of taking another cost and talking about it in December.

And I know that the concept now is everybody is looking at affordability and trying to figure out how to how to hedge the advances.

But if we want to continue to provide advanced life support through the system of the paramedics, if we don't augment the shortfall by something like this to a measured amount, where else in the line item of finance of the city is it is the cut going to come from?

Either the cut or raising.

So I I see this as one of the things that we wanted to learn more about tonight.

I look forward to hearing the other questions or or comments from the council members.

Um but I do support advancing this to some level, certainly a lot of details to worked out.

There are other cities that are doing this in the state of California.

I think it will be a growing measure throughout the state of California.

And I think the the number to land on is the right effect because the insurance should be responsible for paying for it.

And as one of the callers pointed out, we're probably talking about the medical portion of our auto insurance, which is different than the hospitalization portion.

But on option two, if we look at the total amount projected to recover, even if we lower that estimate of um Chief Moore's estimate in option two of a return of 47% with a revenue gain annually of 400 571,000.

And also the other point I would say is that this is not the first thing that we have considered in all of the things to consider.

Uh we've already talked about tax measure.

We've already given instructions to go back for polling.

Uh we have looked at a variety of things.

We're 20% through this decision point.

We're looking at January and February and March and leading into the budget.

NCIP is met and they have some recommendations.

So this is not a one-off.

This is not the only thing.

And there's a lot of things working right now towards addressing the structural deficit.

But I support this in option two with some nuances that I think refines it.

But I I would look to the other council members to get their comments first.

But I I think that we should keep this going as a as a considered option for option two to um gather and gain some revenue that assists with the advanced life support that we encourage our fire department to continue with.

So when we voted on this um before, I was a no and I'm still a no.

Um that has not changed.

Matter of fact, it has um actually been codified because of hearing that the option one with the insurance is really not viable because most insurance aren't going to cover it.

So really it becomes a burden to the patient.

And of course, option two is clearly a burden on the patient.

Um a lot of the um public speakers have talked about and some um brought up about health care is already on the rise.

Very obvious to a lot of people.

And with health care already being on the rise, that becomes an issue because then you're just actually adding on to the stress of the of the people.

And also knowing that owners of a property wouldn't be eligible for fee waiver.

That's an issue, too, because you have some people who own properties that may be going through financial hardships, such as the job layoff.

That's happening and increasing in unemployment all over.

And or medical issues that make this very cumbersome.

So I think there are other ways to look at this.

I mean, with not having all the information, even with the EMS system tax that the special taxes that's already there coming from the county, where is that money?

What's that going for?

I think there are other ways to get there.

Um, we're already looking at other taxes that would be burdening um the citizens already, even for the ballot measures.

So I would still be a no.

So um several layers to consider here.

Uh, but where I'm coming from is um I think about the uh the individual who might be experienced some kind of illness, uh, who's at home.

And and before we even get to the point where that individual calls for service and thinks about um what the expense is going to be relating to that call.

Um, that individual is hesitating, knowing that they need medical service, they hesitate to put out that call because they might already be living paycheck to paycheck.

And there's that question mark about how much am I going to get charged if if I call, and then the repercussions that come along with that decision, uh, which potentially could be fatal.

So I think really more where I'm leaning towards is an option one, but really leaning on our state legislators to push for um that legislation that makes the insurance companies pay attention to what the real needs are and and have that process uh work better for for our residents in terms of um our first responders being able to um uh collect and and and uh bill for those services.

Um that's what I think I would like to see um first with this item, just a development or or a developed idea uh around how we can we can shift that burden from um from the actual patients.

I I just I don't want folks to feel like they can't call or they shouldn't call because there's that doubt about where that's gonna put them financially.

Well, we mentioned that August was when we started this discussion, and I think that was before the shutdown.

And it's um very impactful what has happened to health insurance so quickly in the interim.

Uh supervisor um ask you, put out her bulletin and reminded us that three million people are gonna lose their MediCal in California.

And we know that 20 million people are on um the affordable care act, and that the subsidies appear to be ending.

So we know we're in a huge health care crisis that accelerated so dramatically since we even began this discussion.

So that is important and um dramatic and has altered the terrain.

I too like council member Garcia and concerned that people might not call for care.

Um Elizabeth Yanish mentioned that in her excellent letter that she sent to us as a trained registered nurse, and I received many comments from residents concerned about this.

Um I have to admit, I have not received even one comment in support of either one or two.

I also have um some thoughts that maybe under Chiefs Moore's direction, we can down the line look at more regional consolidation and cost savings and really have a study session on um what the ambulance people do, what the EMS does, what the fire company does, um, and and maybe affect some cost savings there.

Um that's down the line, but I I would love to see that happen.

I also have some vested interest in hoping that we can get a safety building supported by the community.

And I would like to not see the community upset by a dramatic change in our billing process, and then have it kicked back against the fire department or the city or our emergency services, and lose the support that I hope over the next few years we can gain toward um getting the safety building that we need and that all of us deserve.

But that's gonna take that's gonna take a concerted effort, a lot of leadership, a lot of attention to all of us cost saving.

And we aren't there yet.

We've got to get through this crisis.

We got to prove that we can take care of dollars.

And um, so I'm I'm carrying that hope that we can get a public safety building done.

And um that's it.

Thank you.

Um you I think I hit the nail on on the head.

I know of two different individuals.

Um one is a sibling of mine, and and another is a person that comes to our meetings regularly around housing related items, um, who've shared with me um their participation in um covered California, and with the loss of the subsidy that they will not continue to be insured.

Um, so this is a real thing that's that's playing out and affecting people's lives.

Um, and of course, the last thing we want to do is prevent somebody from seeking the care that they need, um, which could even be preventative, um, which usually you don't call 911 for preventative care, but everybody's life circumstances are different.

And um, and frankly, when I did my ride along with the with the fire department two weekends ago, um a lot of the calls um, I feel like the the reason why people called could have maybe been handled a different way, right?

If people were better educated and knew how to respond to different life events that are occurring.

Um if that's what they need to do to get the care that they need, like 100%, we need to make sure that that we create that space for them.

Um so I'm leaning more towards option one, though I don't know how much energy we want to put towards going down that pathway when we have all these other things that could create more opportunity for us.

And and I I appreciate uh Councilmember Garcia's um comments in regards to our focus on pushing the legislature to to pass something that can allow this to be more viable as we discuss this more in the future.

Um as I said during the first discussion that we had around our our deficit with the card activity.

For me, all cards are on the table.

Um, so I don't want to lose sight of of where we can gain the opportunity.

Um I'm hearing the council loud and clear in regards to the hasn't hesitancy around this.

Um, and so I'm I'm open to finding something creative, innovative that could make this work, but I just don't, I'm not seeing it at this point.

And that's why I asked that question earlier too.

Around could we cap it at, you know, those that are making over 400 that, you know, whatever that is that we really um because even the court model that we use for some of those other fees, I mean, those income levels are so low that it doesn't really allow those that don't make a enough to really afford the cost of to live here um to be able to pay a fee like this and and not have some type of impact.

So, anyways, those are my quick thoughts.

Please so a suggestion.

I I think obviously it's a difficult one, and and I can appreciate all the comments from the council.

If option one is the process to proceed with, I mean, I I think that there's an opportunity for staff to look at a model that we would then learn would work for the compassionate relief that we are talking about.

And I don't know what the number is, but if a household is making over 300,000, then I wouldn't say that they're going to probably need that.

But maybe there needs to be a model that we are more familiar with that comes to the council that we can embrace that's not just the the lowest of low income that's an exception, but there are some other bracketed exceptions.

The other part, too, is there's still a question out here in the table is what is the Monterey County EMS fee for what happens to it?

Do we get a portion of it?

It's coming off our property tax.

We're all kind of jilted by seeing our property tax in December.

Uh it's due in December 10th.

We saw it several months ago.

And also our Calium water went up because there's phase two of W1.

And so we're we're Christmas time is never a great time to have to look at financial stuff, but we all do this.

I don't think tonight sounds like there's going to be a decision, but I think that the door should still be open for um option one to be able to drill down on.

What would be the financial relief model?

Even if it was a successful program under option one, where we went to the billing of the insurance companies on emergency responses.

Maybe we we carve out the pieces that are the responses for the home care piece that we have.

I mean, we have a large number of responses, the fire departments reported tonight.

I'd be interested to know.

Well, they go to accidents as well.

They go into the field for of a variety of things or advanced life support, um, where they sometimes are transported to the hospital by AMR and many times they're not transported.

They seek their own medical aid, but they get a service that our fire department is providing.

So I'd like to see this come back with is there an option where we we rule out charging for the responses for those cases where it's a home response, um, where we concentrate on the emergency response in the field.

What would that number look like?

If we were able to capture 100,000 off of that, that's 100,000 that we don't currently have to offset the expense of training paramedics and the response that the paramedics are doing now.

So I'd like to keep the door open and maybe explore option one, send it back to staff, see if there's a model for compassion relief, see if there's a carve out for the particular types of calls instead of all calls.

We we dial that back to uh specific emergency responses where it truly is an emergency and not just a medical call at one o'clock in the morning where um your grandmother fell out of bed.

Um so I I concur that there's got to be some model that makes sense, and it's not one system for all that applies the same rule to everyone because every circumstance is different.

But um, if we if we go past this and we do go to option one, send it back and we study a little bit and we see it again in the future.

I concur that there needs to be League of California Cities efforts and see if there's some percolation out there at a uh a statewide level where this becomes something that is a uh statutory state level that supports municipalities to be able to collect the emergency services because this the response costs are not gonna go down for our police and fire.

Um in some measure the police already does do some cost recovery for particular arrests.

They have a criminal collection point on citations arrest that comes back through the Department of Justice.

So there is cost recovery to a small degree on the police side.

Uh, but so this would be the first cost recovery for fire response.

So I think we should look at options for the future.

The other thing I was gonna say is that um the cost that we also bear as part of our budget is that we pay for Monterey County emergency communications, the 911 system, and that's a fully borne cost to the budget.

And I don't remember the fee annually, but it's large.

And that's for taking of the two of the 911 calls, taking the non-emergency calls and the radio dispatching to police and fire.

And that's a huge cost.

So we have to keep in mind if we pass up opportunities to collect, there's gonna be a time in the very near months that we have to answer the question what other programs and what other vacant positions are we willing to cut so that we can continue to balance the structural deficit.

So it's just in the back of my mind in the forefront of my mind is I don't want to go through seven or eight options and then all of them are no.

And then we're still left with there's things on the table that we still have hard choices.

They're all going to be hard choices.

This is a hard choice tonight.

We'll have many more hard choices, but we have to get to the point where we have some reductions in the deficit long term.

And this might be a long-term answer if we get the state to help support what we would like to do, which is make it statutory, make the collections from the insurance companies a little more sustainable.

Sorry, I'm so long, but that's my thoughts.

Anyone else?

I I love that longer term vision.

Um, starting with your suggestion, council member Garcia, that we work with the legislature, the city, League of Cities that we get um put pressure on that their codes be added to the DSM manual on billing.

Um, these are things that can be done that we keep our minds open for option one, which my interpretation is there's no pressure on the client at all on the patient at all.

They don't they don't know the whole thing is happening, it's just a third party uh vendor who's billing.

Again, that's why I asked the question.

The firefighters are gonna have to get some information to that vendor, but if it's not too problematic, we could have a future there, maybe anybody else?

So can I ask what staff might need?

Do we want a motion to send back to staff to continue with option one with some format, but we still need some answers to come back?

How does the staff feel that they need to hear from the council tonight?

I feel that uh we have the direction and the feedback looked at uh legislative paths more long term and uh and come back with uh maybe identification of other best case scenarios or other uh agencies, fire agencies that have successfully implemented option one, but have a strong rate of return as well.

That's that's the feedback uh we hear, and we we're happy to come back on this item.

So no no motion needed.

I think there's consensus, unless legally we need more motion.

I think we have strong direction from all of you and consensus from the group.

Can I answer one comment that I think uh Chief Moore addressed as well?

But you brought it up is the data collection in the field.

They already do patient contact.

They already gather witnesses to a degree of well, what happened and what's the condition on the medical side?

Frequently, police are present at the scene as well.

And so the police department gathers much more information if it's an accident, if it's a fall, if it's an assault.

Names are exchanged, there's driver's license and all that stuff.

Um, I think the fire department probably needs a little bit of time to figure out what's the what's the form that changes.

Do they work off of a laptop in the field where they're able to quickly can they scan a driver's license?

Can they scan an insurance card?

Are there any technology opportunities that might cut down the wait time for the firefighter and paramedic in the field as they're gonna have to gather a little bit more information?

Name, address, phone number, date of birth.

I know they get that now, and then they go into the patient care uh information, a little bit more information on top of that, like insurance carrier and um mailing address versus resonance address.

You know, those are basic things that I don't think are too much of a leap to add, but I don't want to speak for the fire department.

I think a little bit more time to allow them to internally figure out what's gonna work for them.

Any other comments?

Uh I'm just gonna end with two quick thoughts.

First is I think this is an opportunity for this council and future councils to be more prudent when we take on new programs and be more thoughtful because it can kind of almost feel like a switcheroo when we took on the paramedic services within our fire.

We we the council agreed to that um with no expectation for a fee.

And then all of a sudden we're gonna go out to our residents and in and ask for them to pay for the service.

So just it just something for us to think through harder as we're adding services.

What are the implications associated with that on our budget and then on our residents when we might make an ask similar to this?

And then the last thought is this issue is really in a lot of ways outside of our control.

I mean, it's an issue that is pervasive throughout the healthcare industry in the United States.

And I'm just saying it because it needs to be said, but this is why we need a single payers system.

People should not have to worry about getting the care that they need to take care of themselves and their loved ones.

Um, and we're sitting here having conversations around people's economic situations.

This we can't, we we have little control over that in the city of Monterey.

So, anyways, I'm gonna leave it.

We're gonna move on.

Appreciate the discussion.

Thank you, staff for for leading the process here.

With that, we will jump to council comments.

Um, I'm gonna just say merry Christmas.

I won't see the public, and we won't be here on the Zoom in front of our Monterey residents until after the holidays.

So wish everyone um happy holidays, Merry Christmas, be safe.

Join us on December 31st for first night.

And uh, I don't know about all of you, but I'm about partyed out and lunch luncheon days.

So if they've all been fun, but it's time to get home and wrap gifts and uh and get on to a Christmas morning and uh some good Christmas movies.

So Merry Christmas to all of you and to you and anybody else.

Um just to follow up.

Um those of us who can afford what would be similar to the fee for care from our um firefighters when we get we receive that care and we can write a check.

Maybe we should just be writing a check to the fire department.

Happy holidays, feliz Navidad prospero año nuevo and see you in 2026.

Let's be safe.

I actually understood what you said.

Happy holidays, everyone.

Be safe.

Ho ho ho.

Um I I speaking of the last three CE board meeting that happened last week.

Um, I just wanted to share this, and I and I think I've shared this before, but I kind of want to share a quick update.

This is important for for all of us to know.

So, as you are aware, 3CE was established as a JPA nonprofit JPA joint powers authority.

So the board is made up of representatives from all the local jurisdictions that involve the service area.

Um they took they took over um the ownership of our power, but the power is transmitted through PGE.

When we transition to 3CE, as we may all know, you had the opportunity to opt out, which I hope you didn't, because 3CE actually is more cost effective.

So when we talk about economics, it's it's better for your your budget.

It really was a lot more uh of a cost savings when we first started, but the CPUC um had some proceedings where they made the determination in order to cover the cost that is being lost by the private sector utilities that we're now paying a fee to help stabise their costs.

Yeah, I know it sounds crazy because it is crazy.

So this is called resource adequacy obligations.

So now the the organizations like 3CE, we're having to bear that cost.

And there's a lot of conversation going on in um Sacramento right now regards to how to handle this.

Um so I'm gonna be sending a letter um to our state legislatures um in support of three CE's plans and goals to um help right side this a little bit.

But the fact of the matter is is that even as crazy as it sounds, there is an issue with um power economics overall if they don't address this because they can't do anything, they can't just let the the for-profit companies flounder because there's people still getting power um from them, and not every area of California is covered um by an organization like three CE.

So, anyways, that's the big thing.

Um, I could go deeper into this, but it it it's can make people fall asleep, and I'm not trying to do that at this point.

So just be aware of that resource adequacy obligations.

I would encourage you to look it up, check it out, just pay attention to what's going on there.

It's really important.

Um will the letter come back uh our next council meeting.

So maybe we can see it, or is there a time?

Um I think there might be a time, but if I can get it to come back to the council by the next meeting, I will.

Yeah.

And I'd support that because I understand what's going on.

It's sustainability for the companies to continue to be able to service the delivery.

100%.

That's it for me.

Um, so with that, we will transition to city manager reports.

I'll pass it to Nat.

All right.

Well, I'll keep it brief, but uh all holiday uh themed for us.

So we had a great donuts with Santa Photo op on December 6th.

That took place at Fire Station 13, located at Montecito and Del Avena Avenues.

We had over 600 attendees, 215 children, and uh great collaboration as always between our recreation team, police, and fire who were all there to support the family friendly event.

This past uh weekend, both on Friday and Saturday night.

We had Christmas in the Adobe's.

We opened up Colton Hall to uh many and uh that was from 5 to 9 p.m.

on both days.

We ran out of hot ran out of hot cider on Friday night.

So if any of you tried to go to Trader Joe's to get hot cider, it we bought it.

We bought out the whole store.

So and uh and apparently the back of the the store also.

So uh we had over 1,874 people uh on both days combined and a record, even pre-pandemic record for Christmas in the Adobe.

So great, great event.

We saw quite a few staff there and others.

So it was it was really nice to see the community come out for that.

Coming up uh this Friday, the Monterey Firefighters Community Foundation and the Pacific Grove Kawanis Club.

They're hosting the toy drive and wrap party.

So uh donations for new and unwrapped toys can still be made through the end of day on Thursday this week.

So drop off uh new toys at fire stations 11 through 15.

And then the rap party is at the Monterey High School Gym on Friday at five for those who like to join.

W R-A-P.

W-R-A-P.

W-R-A-P.

Yes.

Yes, not the R A P but the W R A P.

That's right.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

That's member Smith for that.

And uh, and then last but not least, uh, annual Monterey Police Department's toy giveaway is taking place tomorrow.

So it's a great uh a great uh great program.

Uh I know some of you are familiar with, and uh, they're looking forward to providing toys to those in need.

And uh last but not least, on behalf of our entire city staff, thank you for your leadership and your support for our team this year.

We're looking forward to a great 2026 and wish all of you a very happy holiday season and thank you.

Thanks, Nat.

Well said.

Thank you.

Okay, now Vince.

Uh now we'll get to public comments on closed session agenda items.

I'm gonna quickly read through all of our closed session agenda items so folks have awareness.

We have closed session conference with real property negotiator pursuant to government code section 54956 TAC 8 for 256 Figaro Street, and that's regarding the surf uh side enterprise.

We have closed session conference with real property negotiator pursuant to government code section 54956 tech eight for nine wharf two sandbar and grill.

We have conference closed session conference with real property negotiators pursuant to government code section 54956 TAC eight for 560 through 570 Moon Ross Av, which is Trader Joe's shopping center.

We have conference with legal council, existing litigation pursuant to government code section 54956 TAC 91 for stronghold engineering inc versus city of Monterey.

And last closed session item is conference at legal council existing litigation pursuant to government code section 54956 Tech 91.

And there's a lot.

I'm just gonna say that.

I'm not gonna read them all.

There's nine cases that we're gonna be talking about.

And you can look at the agenda report that's available online or in the chamber if you like to.

So with that, I'll open up for uh public.

Oh, thank you.

Sorry, and then 21 conference at legal council existing litigation present to government code section 54956 TAC 92, Rubikash versus City of Monterey workers' compensation and appeals board case.

So open up for public comment for folks on Zoom.

You can use a raise hand function.

Anybody in the chamber, I see three speakers, anybody else?

I'll close it off in the chamber.

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

Nobody on Zoom, we'll go ahead and start in the chamber.

Before we retire, good evening.

Uh mayor, council, and staff.

Uh Vince Ballastro with Surfside Enterprise.

Uh, you will be looking at a lease renewal option this evening.

And um, surfside built that building in 1963 and has been a partner and a tenant with the city of Monterey ever since.

Um we have recently improved the building quite a bit.

Uh the backsteps, a new ADA lift on the front, those nice LED blue lights and constantly maintaining a building on the ocean front is no easy task.

And constantly maintaining a building on the ocean front is no easy task.

City's indemnified in this contract, so you know all the burden falls on us, as well as if there's a uh empty space falls on us as well.

Um so really it's a win-win situation.

I want to thank uh Ms.

Aldretti for all the effort.

She is a good representative of the city, and she was a strong but fair negotiator.

So you're in good hands.

Um and just with that note, thank you all and appreciate it.

Thank you.

Appreciate you sticking out with us tonight.

We'll wrap gifts.

Mayor, city council, Saf.

Um, I just want to say as you do these negotiations again, it comes down to the business acumen.

Um sometimes with the easy thing is charge taxes, do this.

Maybe it's cut spending instead.

Um, raise fees for our renters.

Again, these are businesses.

There's a bottom line, it's all dollars and cents to them.

Um different drive than what we have as a city government.

But I do like look at something like scales.

So what a shame that was to be vacant for so long.

As a business guy, and when I lease properties, I worry about I want my tenant to be there a long time.

I want them to succeed.

Sometimes if I squeeze the juice too much out of that lemon, they don't succeed, and then next thing you know, I've got a vacant property for a long period of time.

So just try to get you know balance that out.

That's a very hard balance to do sometimes.

Um, but in the end, we need a thriving city, thriving businesses, and we just can't squeeze them down so much that they just can't succeed.

They can't spend money other places.

That's all I want to say.

But great job otherwise, guys.

Thank you.

This is for item 20-3.

Um let me see here.

Hello.

Um there's been a little bit of a problem with the paperwork with the write-up of this whole um street vending permitted items.

Um, it was kind of authored partially by I guess these groups appear on the board.

And doing so, there was a rush to create items.

Um, I believe that the wharf is about 150 yards away from the plaza area.

And as I mentioned earlier, a recommendation to change the name of the which now has no name, just a um labeled by a coordinates location.

The reason one good reason would be this area.

This is Rory, our our instructor for violations.

He's standing his toes at uh state property, his toe is touching the state property.

According to the ticket.

It says the location is fisherman's war.

Now, it is against state law.

It is actually out of Rory's jurisdiction to be representing the fisherman's wharf.

Um, he is not a state worker.

He is a city worker.

He's running tickets representing, or I don't know the exact reason why it's labeled Fishman's Wharf.

I do not work on Fishman's Work Wharf.

That would be a state violation.

This area.

Excuse me.

This area, um, right here, once again, toes on the state line property line.

The guidelines for the marked out cement um cement painting area um is on state property.

I believe that the city encroached on state property from that point 10 feet over is an Xbox, which is again misaligned.

I believe the city needs to look at realigning, reassessing, and remarking the entire um vendor area.

Based on these facts, I believe all tickets written since the start of this program should be removed.

Because once again, I received a ticket, and people have been receiving tickets for Rory representing the state.

Um, which is the warfare.

And with that, we'll go ahead and close public comment and we will adjourn to closed session.