How do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a hug I'm sorry.

All right.

Go ahead and start and five, four, three, two, one.

Recording in progress.

Beautiful.

All right, everybody.

Hello.

Welcome to our afternoon session of today's council meeting.

It's February 17th, 2026.

Go ahead and call the meeting to order, and we'll pass it to Erica, who we have the pleasure of uh filling in for Clementine today to do roll call and to share announcements with the public.

Sure.

I'll start with roll call.

Councilmember Barber.

Present.

Councilmember Garcia.

Here.

Councilmember Rash here.

Councilmember Smith, I heard will be here for the evening, but not for the afternoon.

And Mayor Williamson.

And with us today from the city staff, we have our interim city manager, assistant city manager, city attorney, finance director, community development director, police chief, fire chief, public works director, property manager, planning manager, housing manager, and recording secretary.

Um information on public comment and participation is provided on this meeting's agenda, which is online at monterey.gov forward slash agendas.

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

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.

Thank you, Erica.

With that, we'll go to general public comments.

So how this and the rest of the public comment periods work is that we identify those that want to speak for public comment at the beginning of the public comment period.

Once those folks are identified, then and only then those folks will be able to speak.

So if you don't raise your hand or identify yourself at the beginning of the public comment period, you won't be able to speak on that item.

So we'll start with folks on Zoom.

You can use the raise hand function as you're navigating your way there.

I'll check in the chamber.

Anybody in the chamber wish to speak for general public comment?

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

So what I'll do is ask if you can if you're able and willing to stand up to the left of the podium, that makes it a little bit easier to kind of see who there is.

If um if you prefer to stay seated, just hold tight for a second.

I'll I'll ask for your hands raised again in a second.

Okay, so let's check again.

Anybody still seating that wants to speak for general public comment?

We have the three in the front row, four in the front row.

Anybody else?

All right.

So we have seven total in the chamber.

We're gonna go ahead and cut it off to those folks.

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

How many do we have?

There's one hand raised.

There's one.

All right, we're gonna go ahead and leave it to two minutes for general public comments.

We'll go ahead and start in the chamber.

So what we do is um typically we leave general public comments to fifteen minutes.

Um and so if there's more than five speakers, then we usually cut it to to two minutes just for for sake of time.

And we do have a heavy agenda today, so we'll wanna make sure that we get through this pretty um pretty quickly.

Please.

Yes, sir.

Um, good afternoon.

My name is Dan Turner.

I live in Fisherman's Flats.

And what I have to say will probably take more than two minutes, so I'll come back in two weeks to finish up.

Um two doors up from me on VISOL or the main street of fishermen's flats.

The sidewalk's all broken up.

It's raised about this much.

Tree roots and all that.

So about two years ago, I went over to uh public works.

And I told them about it, and they said, we'll get right on it.

And they did.

Within just, I don't know, a week or two or something like that, there was some nice orange paint on the broken up sidewalk.

Six months later, the paint was kind of.

Oh, let me preface my remarks by saying that I know and I understand that the city has serious financial problems, understaffed, and probably the people who are on the staff are overworked.

I understand that.

So I went back after about six months and I said nothing's happened.

And the folks say they were very nice, everybody's been very nice.

These are folks in the front office up there at public works.

They said, Well, it's complicated.

You gotta do this, gotta do that, gotta do the other thing.

They said we'll send someone back out there.

They said, it's gonna take three, four months.

So about six months later, when nothing in Madonna went back, and they said, Well, the procedure changed, and we we have to give them more time, but you know, it'll so about six months after that.

When I went back, I said, maybe I need to speak to Mr.

Big.

And they said, that would be Mr.

I think Esterling.

Estherline today, the city uh engineer.

So I called him up last August, and I spoke to him and he said to me, Well, it's complicated.

We gotta do this, we gotta do that, we gotta do the other thing, you know.

It'll take some time.

And I'll pick up next time.

Wait, my name is Ufo Grobeck, I'm from Monterey.

Um I'm gonna have to cut this way down because you cut me down, so but you saw my email, I hope I sent you over the weekend.

So I'm just gonna start round.

Council um council members, from the public perspective, Monterey's neighborhood associations have lost accountability and effectiveness already some time ago.

NCIP, that's not related to the budget.

Okay, it's not a related to budget.

There's an item on the agenda today.

There's an item on today's agenda that's related to NCIP.

And if it relates to the comments that you submitted, it is related to the item that's on today's agenda.

So because it's an agendized item, you can speak to it when that agenda item comes up on the agenda.

Two minutes or three.

It depends on what.

Thank you.

You said enough.

I appreciate it.

You're welcome.

Hi, Charlie Chell.

I'll stick to the two minutes.

Not a problem.

Um, I'm speaking today as the president of the Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association.

Um, thanks for that.

So for people that don't know, Monterey Vista is one of the 16 or so neighborhoods in the area.

Uh it has an association which is quite uh active, about 450 members, uh website, um, next door presence, all that stuff.

We do regular meetings, of course, like all the rest of them.

Um, and we publish the agenda out beforehand.

So our January meeting was about um about power resiliency.

And uh we had some very long discussion about that.

Uh Mayor Williamson was kind enough to come, you were come.

Um, and um one thing led to another, and we talked about the tree ordinance a little bit.

Now that led to a discussion by the MVA group in February at our February meeting, take a little bit of a deep dive into the tree ordinance.

Now I know that the you know the city's done a lot in terms of outreach, in terms of the open sessions last year.

Um we felt that we could do something as part of the association, and so we, in our February meeting, we got together, we talked about subjects that we thought were key as that should be covered by the ordinance.

And that turned into a survey, uh, which we have results from.

And I brought copies for council here, and uh also the city clerk has a copy of it.

Um the uh the survey covers a number of topics.

It covers uh forest renewal, planning, fire hazard, housing development, the role of arborists, uh assistance programs, uh replacement planting.

Um, and I think that the results are very indicative of how uh the neighborhood feels, and I think as probably many of the other neighborhoods.

Uh, MBA, of course, is one of the ones that has the most trees.

Um, so it's something which is um which is something that's all on everybody's mind there.

So with that, I'll go ahead and uh give this um survey to people, and you can look at it at your leisure.

Thanks, and thank you for the update.

All right, we'll go ahead and go to our speakers on the front row there.

Hello, how are you?

Uh thank you for hearing us and acting on the subject before the rest of the the next law really because the spring, summer, and fall are a huge part of reaching our whole fiscal goals.

Like any business, we can all foresee and predictable events, the cost of sales.

Tourist citizen is our time to raise sales as a buffer.

Uh, 10 by 10 is the industry standard for vendors who run spaces affairs because it's not profitable for every party to go bigger or smaller, given the average spacing of at least 48 inches, with about four to six feet apart being the industry norm.

Most vendors display uh a lot of merchandise because it's geared towards a lot of buyers, and the more you show, the more you sell, because not everybody's looking for the same thing.

Uh, this is why a minimum of the 10 by 10 space is the industry standard.

The small table cramp with products looks bad as well.

You can see it on the pictures.

And people don't like that.

They don't buy enough.

Uh, this is likely causing us to lose sales to visual appeal in any retail setting is a must.

As you can see in window displays or stores everywhere across the retail industry, we too take pride in our storefronts.

My wife and I are struggling to come out with the funds we need to prepare for upcoming events this spring because we can get ahead.

This is a very restrictive space.

We are barely paying or living expenses at this point.

We have already had a decline of major events and tune another one if it doesn't change.

No one here is asking for a handout, just a hand up.

This is sort of livelihood.

Don't take it from us.

Please have compassion for those of us who just want to make a living on the wrong.

It's a small business.

Thank you for listening.

Good afternoon, city council.

My name is Athena Zenisa.

My husband and I have done our best to make the 8x4 space work, attempting different sounds of Senate for over five months now, and have determined 8 by 4 is overly restrictive, not just for our merchandise, but also for the customers who must awkwardly position themselves to try and look at our items to turn people from our products.

And the picture show how restrictive and challenging it is to determine what items to sell each time we set up.

Every item we saw is important to our bottom line, which is no different than any retail establishment.

And we're going to do this, we need a minimum of 10 by 10 as established by the industry standard.

Our business has been downsized to the extent of not being able to pay for upcoming events this year, which help us to promote our business and meet our financial goals.

I am aware and I understand that I am able to acquire my own permit.

However, I need certain accommodations met, as does my husband.

I also want to ask counsel as I have been to the planning department.

Why is the fee still 293 when SP 635 went into effect January 1st, 2026?

Being on fixed incomes is terrifying and challenging.

I'm not asking for a handout, but for support and consideration to allow us the opportunity to make a living using the skills and talents Scott has given us.

Thank you.

Wonder show.

Yep.

It's not very loud.

I'll just be louder.

Um, there you go.

Thank you.

My name is Nova.

This is my vendor experience, and the reason I am here supporting this coalition, there are a handful of disrespectful vendors who have produced a hostile environment with their personal views spilling over into the workspace of other vendors who are there to make a drama-free living.

These few vendors have made it impossible for this coalition of vendors to be heard.

Meeting behind closed doors with lawyers resulted in them being shut out completely from the negotiations, which has been called up by our mayor as unable to reach an agreement.

We are here to build bridges, not burn them.

Anyone here doing otherwise is doing so independently.

We come together tonight to make this right.

As the next lottery is around the corner with no hope that vendors who have not been drawn will have a chance when vendors can get picked twice in a row.

These vendors need answers, not more questions, and certainly no more silence.

The proof is in the pudding.

Since the city took control of these rogue vendors, have ceased selling here, and the calm, no drama environment is clearly visible.

As for the wharf association's concerns, vendors are not their competition that already exists on the wharf between businesses.

The vendors actually help navigate visitors to the whale and fishing trips and recommend their favorite restaurants.

The wharf businesses are the big draw, not the street vendors.

We look forward to implementing the pretty plaza project, as you can see on the screen, submitted in fall of 2025 to the city before summer to beautify the plaza for everyone to enjoy.

Let's start new and make this plaza look the way it should.

Have a great 2026.

Thanks for hearing us.

We appreciate your support.

And we can do this volunteer.

If the city doesn't have money, I'll I'll be the head.

I'll sit in front of stores, I'll get free plants, I'll get free the Girl Scouts, senior groups, volunteers, yeah.

Community project.

Okay, let's get together.

Let's do this.

We have a beautiful plaza.

Oh, that's the weeds, by the way.

Sorry, uh, your time is expired.

Thank you.

Thank you for your public comments.

All pretty.

Good afternoon.

My name is Eli, and I play the piano at the wharf.

Um, I've been enjoying that for the past couple uh years now.

Um, I started early or late 2024.

Um, I'm here on behalf of the um vendors.

Uh the the wharf used to be kind of a place more lively and energetic than now.

Um, and people would come from all over the world, you know, to come and see these vendors to come and see the wharf.

Um, because, you know, they got to explore handmade um unique arts and music uh and conversation with people of Monterey.

Um, that attracted locals as well, and um I would just like to say that I had more fun just the other year than I've had in a while, you know, doing what I love, and you've kind of taken that away from most of the vendors, uh, especially the fact that most of them had a large amount of their income, if not all of it coming from uh that uh particular part of Monterey.

Um taking that from them took most of their livelihood away.

Um so they are now having trouble, you know, kind of providing for their families and for themselves even.

Um, so yeah, I just want to say uh that was really fun part of my life, and now it's kind of kind of gone.

So yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

And just as a reminder before we switch over to the last caller on Zoom, um, we don't engage uh the council doesn't engage with public comment during general public comment period um because it's not they're not agendized items.

So it might seem a little bit um like that we're being silent, but it's it's intentional, it's built into the process to make sure that we're treating everybody's issues fairly and equitably.

Um, so with that, we'll go ahead and go to our last caller on Zoom.

I'll go ahead and allow online caller Justin to unmute.

Okay, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

My name is Justin Loza.

I'm a board member of the Del Monte Grove Laguna Grand Neighborhood Association.

Uh my core message right now is simple.

Uh, before Laguna Grand Park moves forward with additional improvements, the city council should prioritize formally resolving the city border issue.

And just to support that, uh, first, are we comfortable continuing park development when the jurisdictional boundary is still unclear?

The reason I ask is because unclear boundaries create unclear responsibility.

The border has been jagged and unresolved for many years, and that has led to ongoing confusion about which city is responsible for what.

Second, the current border situation create is creating a real impact on for residents living along the edge of the park from what has been raised by community members.

There's this unclear boundary has contributed to inconsistent maintenance issues, including overgrowth behind homes and uncertainty about who is responsible for addressing it.

And third, uh, could this unclear border create risk for public safety and emergency response?

When the jurisdiction is not clearly defined, there can be unnecessary confusion in emergency situation about whether Monterey or Seaside Police should and fire should respond.

Um when you put those three questions together, the conclusion is straightforward.

If the border issue remains unresolved, it will continue to create confusion and efficiency and avoidable risk, and we will make future park improvements harder than need to be.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Loza.

Um, as you may be aware, uh Council McGarcia is the city's rep on the JPA.

So if you have a chance, I might recommend connecting with him on the issues that you rose there.

Um with that, we'll go ahead and close general public comment, move on to the next item on consent.

I'm sorry, George.

Um we had to capture folks at the beginning of the public comment period.

Um, so only those folks were are able to speak for general public comment.

All right.

Um, yes, you can come back at thank you, Chrissy.

Um, you can come back at seven.

We will open it back up again because we know that you love hanging out at the Monterey City Council meetings.

Thank you, George.

All right.

With that, we'll move on to our consent agenda.

Um, staff, has there been anything requested to be pulled?

I'm not seeing anything.

Council, anything?

Wishing to pull 10, five.

Anything else?

All right.

All right, at this time, we'll bring it out to the public.

This is an opportunity to speak on any of the consent items or request to pull a consent item.

So I'll start with folks on Zoom.

You can use the raise hand function.

Anybody in the chamber wish to speak on consent or wish to pull something from consent outside of five and 10.

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

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

There are no hands raised.

There's nobody on Zoom, so we'll go ahead and bring it back to the council for motion and deliberation.

Move to approve uh with the exception of items five and sorry, what was the other one?

10.

10.

Second.

Alright, so moved and seconded.

Any other discussion?

All right.

All those in favor, aye.

Any opposed?

Motion passes unanimously.

With that, we'll move on to item five, amend resolution 25-062 to authorize the allocation of $67,100 in undisputed.

Permanent local housing allocation grant funds awarded in FY2526 to gathering for women Monterey and Community Human Services to assist persons experiencing homelessness.

Who was it you that pulled this?

Yeah, did you want to just jump in?

Yeah.

Thank you.

And I don't I don't need a presentation.

I just wanted to um share uh some information about this, and also I had a question about uh the um I guess reallocation that's uh being uh requested here.

So um I serve on the board for community human services and CHS does great work throughout the uh the county um and and uh great um services that are being offered also for our residents here in the city of Monterey.

Um the question that I had was um, and uh I think staff is present.

Um so I'm wondering if the amount that's being reallocated, if it could uh be reallocated to prevention, so items that uh city of Monterey specifically is um uh owns or manages.

Could that funding be reallocated?

I'm thinking specifically um like the program that we have where uh city of Monterey purchases properties to resell uh to families who are of low income or lower income brackets.

So would that be a possibility?

So council member, if I understand you correctly, you at this point we have a deadline with the state where we need to get the resolution by the end of this month.

Um, and initially, council authorized this funding for homeless services, um, so we wouldn't be able to, we would have to come through with a whole new five-year plan.

We would have to amend the five-year plan to make that work, um, and we wouldn't be able to do it by the deadline, we would lose the funding.

Got it.

Okay, and and just to add a little bit of context here, the reason that we're reallocating, right?

Is because one of the agencies is no longer in existence.

Is that correct?

That's correct, council member.

Um, we had uh downtown streets team go out of business in October statewide.

So they were going to come to the city, work with our police department m dot team, and they had to back out of all of that.

So we need to redistribute the funding so that is utilized and not lost within the city.

Right.

And so it's being reallocated specifically for homeless services.

Right, which is part of the five-year PLHA plan that we have.

Got it.

Okay, that's all I needed to know.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the council?

All right, we'll take it out to the public.

Thank you, Anastasia.

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

Anybody in the chamber wish to 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.

There are no hands raised.

All right.

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

I make a motion to amend the resolution 25-062 to authorize the allocation of 67,100 in undistributed state of California Department of Housing and Community Development Permanent Local Housing Allocation Grant Funds.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Any other discussion?

All right.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion passes unanimously.

With that, move on to item 10.

Amend the professional services agreement with ZFA structural engineers for the Fire Station 12 renovation geotechnical and structural analysis to increase the not to exceed amount of 74,950,000 74,950 to 122,145 effective August 5th, 2025.

And with that, I'll turn to my colleague here.

Are you good with uh jumping in with what your questions are?

Yeah, yeah.

Yes, I don't need a presentation.

Um so I just had some um clarification questions.

So the increase from the 74950 to the 122145.

Um, I understand was an administrative oversight.

Is that correct?

Uh that's maybe not how I would characterize it.

Uh we came back to council uh, I believe in December and we discussed uh some additional scope.

Uh one thing we added was a seismic analysis.

Uh we have hired a consultant PMC, our project manager, construction manager consultant who has uh is overseeing these uh contracts with other consultants, and the other consultants took that recommendation from the council as their green light to go and they started working on uh some of these additional services.

Staff, we've been clear that that is extra work that we have not entered into a new contract or a contract amendment for, and they were working at risk.

So they are aware they stopped work once they realized that, and now we are recommending the approval of the additional scope of work so that we can compensate them for that work and so that we can utilize that.

This work is necessary to the overall project.

So this is the additional geotechnical analysis for the the subgrade that's under the slab and the structural the seismic analysis that was requested by council.

Okay, so basically the approved um extra work is just being codified in and making sure it's in the contract now.

That's correct.

We are getting it under contract through an amendment.

Uh and so that's what we're doing uh with this action.

Okay, thank you.

I just needed clarification.

Any other questions?

All right.

With that, thank you, Andrew.

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

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

Um meanwhile, while you're navigating your way there, I'll check in the chamber.

Anybody in the chamber wish to speak on this item?

You want to speak on this item, Mr.

Reeves?

Are you wanting to speak on this item?

Okay, anybody else in the chamber wish to speak on this item?

All right.

So we'll cut it off to the one speaker.

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

There are no hands raised.

All right.

With that, we'll take our one speaker.

I just wanted to have make a clarification or here a clarification.

Um, is that additional $50,000 in the budget, or is that gonna because there was a budget amendment of something like a half a million dollars back a few months ago for fire stations 12 and 13?

So is this additional funding already part of that?

Because I thought what I remembered hearing back then was that the seismic evaluation was sort of done as part of what was already budgeted.

Thank you.

Awesome, thank you for your question.

With that, I will go ahead and bring it back to the council and see if we can get staff to respond to that question.

Right, happy to respond to that one.

So, uh, this these fonts have already been appropriated into the CIP budget.

So it's already budgeted.

This action isn't an appropriation of additional funds.

This is already within the uh existing CIP budget.

Thank you for that.

All right, with that, back to the council for motion and deliberation.

All right, a move that we uh approve the amendment uh for the structural engineers for the fire station 12 renovation, GR technical and structural analysis to increase from 74,950 to 122,145, which is already allocated in the budget.

Second, okay, it's been moved and seconded.

Any other discussion?

All right, all those in favor, aye.

Any opposed?

Motion passes unanimously.

With that, we'll move to our public hearing items.

Number 14 on our agenda is to approve a general plan map amendment at five Manville Court from medium density residential to employment to correct a clerical error.

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

Thank you.

Good evening, honorable mayor, council members.

Um, this item is uh, if you will, a minor amendment to our general plan land use for designation of five mandaville court, and uh to change it from medium density uh to employment.

It's basically correction of a uh clerical error, and Mr.

Levi Hill here is this evening to give a presentation on this item.

Thank you, Lou.

Uh good evening, Mayor and Council.

Uh as city manager mentioned, this is generally a housekeeping cleanup of a clerical mapping error.

Uh essentially, it's uh as mentioned, this would be a land use designation change from medium uh density residential to employment to align with the uh existing commercial use of the property as well as the surrounding commercial uses of the uh properties in the area.

Uh no uh physical changes or development as proposed with this uh application or amendment, I should say.

And on January 27th, the planning commission voted to recommend that the city council approve the amendment.

And with that, staff's also recommending approval of the general plan map amendment for five manibelt court.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for the presentation, Levi.

Any questions from the council?

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

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

Anybody in the chamber wish to speak on this item?

All right, seeing none, cut it off in the chamber and I'll check in with folks on Zoom.

Uh, do it count down to five, four, three, two, one.

There are no hands raised.

All right.

With that, I'll bring it back to the council for motion and deliberation.

All right, it's been moved and seconded.

Any other discussion?

All those in favor, aye.

Any opposed?

Motion passes unanimously.

With that, we're gonna move on to our public appearance item.

Uh item 15 on the agenda is receive public testimony on the proposal to modify the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District Management District plan to add the city of San City to the district.

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

If you may recall, uh as you may recall, um your council did go through a process uh with the and uh to approve the tourism improvement district.

There were some noticing errors, so we are in fact um reconducting that process, and this is part of that process to include San City in the TID, if you will.

And uh this evening we're asking for uh your council to hear public testimony and then we'll come back later in the year for a full public hearing on this matter.

You can do it all that we're good, okay.

With that, bring it to the council.

Any questions?

Any questions from the council?

All right, seeing none, we'll go ahead and go out for public comment.

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

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

Anybody in the chamber wishes to speak on this item?

All righty.

Why don't you step right on up, Mr.

O'Keefe?

Anyone else?

I just have the one speaker in the chamber.

All right, we'll cut it off to the one speaker in the chamber.

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

I see no hands raised.

All right, and with that, we'll go to our one people on our first and only speaker.

Uh, thank you, Mayor.

Council members, appreciate the time.

I'm a little extra nervous tonight.

I brought my uh daughter, my youngest daughter with me to chamber to see how it all comes together, see the magic.

So she's back there watching.

That's why I'm nervous.

Um, no, very briefly.

I just want to thank uh I want to acknowledge and thank city staff.

Um, this is a process that has many, many, many moving parts and due diligence, absolute due diligence is essential.

And that we're going through this again and putting you through this again is is uh from a process standpoint, it's something I've taken responsibility for, but I appreciate ushering it through and uh and this time and working closely with city staff to make sure that it's it's a flawless process.

And um, I just want to express my appreciation to you to you all and to city staff.

Mr.

O'Keefe, and uh I have to say it was a pleasure meeting your daughter.

I think was that last week or the week before?

Uh so um and thank you for bringing her to the council meeting.

This is what democracy is all about.

So exactly, exactly.

All right.

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

I move that we approve the recommendation from the staff to the city council receive public testimony on the proposal to modify.

So do we actually have to approve this?

Because we're just receiving public testimony, right?

Um yes, because we're we're agreeing to adding San City to the MCTID.

So we're doing that like again.

Okay, so I move to approve the recommendation that we receive that public testimony to add San City as if it's proposed to modify the MCTID management district plan.

Second.

Moved and seconded.

Any other discussion?

And if it helps, I just want to maybe for process for the council.

If if you are just approving staff recommendation and there's no changes to the motion, you could just say approved staff recommendation just to save time.

Um it's a lot of words.

But but if you want to talk, I you mean it's your motion.

I just offer that.

Um, but I I will um recognize the fact that we're moving quite swimmingly tonight.

So um I you know, might go downhill from here.

I'm just saying, gotta appreciate it while we have the moment.

Um, all right.

Any other discussion on the oh, was there a second?

I'm sorry.

Yes, okay.

With uh any other discussion on the motion, all right.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Um, any opposed?

All right, motion pass unanimously.

Actually, do see a note that there wasn't a vote needed, but it's okay.

We'll keep moving with it.

All right, 16.

It's gonna come back.

Um item 16 on the agenda is to authorize mayor to sign comment letter on a project application submitted to the county of Monterey for 7-Eleven Viejo Road that proposes construction of a 386,510 square foot multifamily residential building consisting of 239 dwelling units, 191 market rate, and 48 low income in the unincorporated area of the monarch of the county of Monterey.

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

Thank you.

Uh Mayor and Council members.

Um, this project is not in the city, uh, is the title indicates.

This is in the unincorporated area of uh Monterey County.

It is adjacent to the city.

And this project, um, we were notified by the county that this is what they call a builder's remedy project.

And as you may be aware, the county has not completed the housing element and under state law and case law, a developer can come forward and propose a project that is um outside of the normal zoning regulations of the jurisdiction.

Uh so this process, this project came to our attention, and staff has developed a letter for your consideration that would incorporate all the myriad of of potential impacts that this project should it be approved by the county, would um have on the city of Monterey.

So we have staff here tonight to give additional detail, and we're asking for your council's authorization to send this letter in response to the proposed development.

Um thank you for that introduction.

Um, I think that's a great overview of why we're here this evening, is to um authorize the mayor to sign a comment letter to the county of Monterey on a proposed development project at our boundaries.

And if you can please bring up the graphic.

Um the proposed building um is significant, it's 380 um 6,000 square feet.

Um it's 11 stories with three levels underground.

Um, in terms of comparison, it's basically the height of the Marriott or embassy suites.

Um it's located on Viejo Road, which is just north of highway One.

This gives you a good graphic.

This is the elevation facing highway One.

Um this is a section drawing, and what it's showing is you can see sort of the normal stories, but underneath, underground, that will be partially exposed, is a basement area at the very lowest level, and then two levels of parking, and then there's actually ground level parking as well.

This is how it would sit on the lot.

It's a very steep lot, and what you're seeing there is the slope.

Over 85% of the slope is or 85% of the property has slopes in excess of 25%.

25% is one of those key factors that planners look at as being fairly significant in terms of geography.

This is the basement, it's fairly small.

These are the under the first level of parking, the second level of parking.

Then you start to get into the residential units with that grade parking, and then the multiple stories above.

As the city manager indicated, the county of Monterey does not have a certified housing element.

As a result, there's a provision in state law called the Builder's Remedy that may actually prevent the county from denying certain housing development projects since the county's housing element is not certified.

The projects are still subject to CEQA, and an environmental impact report will be required.

The county right now has nine builder remedy applications.

Three of them are just on this particular site.

So they really have six in the works.

I think it raises a number of health and safety issues that are outlined in the proposed letter.

The first is obviously water supply.

The region is under a cease and assist order.

The applicant is um has not identified a water supply for this project yet.

Number two, the project proposes an on-site wastewater treatment facility for such a large development located on a slope.

The county's environmental health staff has identified a number of issues, geotechnical reports, a lot of information that's needed in order to make to even evaluate if that's a viable alternative, and the applicant is refusing to submit that information.

I think that's a very serious concern, water supply and your sewer to the site.

Also looking at traffic in the scenic highway, the county's letter recommended a series or analysis recommended a series of intersections.

We included those in your proposed letter, but we also expanded that to three additional intersections: Soledad Munras, Barnett Siegel Viejo Road, and Soledad Highway One southbound on ramp.

We're also requesting a VMT analysis and impacts to the CNIC Highway.

As you're well aware, that side of Highway One, particularly is in its native state in most cases.

The project will have significant impacts on tree on trees and various biological species that need to be evaluated.

Fire services, the project is located adjacent to Monterey and will be served by the Cyprus Fire Protection District.

It's in a very high severity hazard zone where we really shouldn't be constructing large amounts of housing.

Automatic aid would be provided by Monterey, and this project would increase the demand on city services without any commitment to plan or fund additional fire service needs.

Evacuation routes, as part of our general plan update, we did an exhaustive study of our evacuation routes and where and how we place development.

That has not been done for this proposed development.

And last but certainly not least, police services, automatic aid to emergency calls.

There would be no funding or response plan currently provided by the developer.

It's staff's recommendation that you submit this letter or authorize the mayor to submit this letter to the county of Monterey.

Thank you for the presentation, Kim.

Open up to the council for questions.

Please.

So with this, if I'm understanding correctly, the county not having a certified housing element, and we do have a certified housing element.

Are we able to bring this to the attention of HCD as well in the comment letter to be able to get, I guess, to get a little bit more teeth in it?

I'm just curious about that since we do have one and they don't at this time.

Um I don't see that that's going to be a particular remedy with this application because the state housing law is what affords the developer the right to pursue this builder's remedy.

Really, our ability to oppose this project, request additional information to make sure it's transparent on the its environmental impacts is through CEQA and through the processing that the county through the CEQA part.

So I guess that's why I'm trying to understand.

So I'm understanding that because they don't because the county does not have a certified housing element, they don't have the authority to deny in this case.

But I was curious as to since we do have one, would that give us more I guess opportunity to be able to bring that forth in the comment letter of our concern that we have with this, even if it's I know Sequel going through those processes?

Yeah, we would have the ability in our city to deny projects that don't meet our regulations, but the impacts not so much, not through HCD.

Because wouldn't couldn't we show that that impact could actually um actually have a negative um you know outcome for our housing element and impact our housing element?

Yeah, I'm not really seeing that, but maybe our city manager has an opportunity.

I appreciate those comments.

The uh builders' remedy uh again allows a developer in a jurisdiction to not comply with local zoning height, density, uh, floor area ratios, things as such.

So your council and your staff through diligent work did approve your housing element, and it was quite quite a task.

There was um the peninsula cities had very, very high numbers as well as the county.

Um the way that the state law works is though each jurisdiction um can only control housing within its jurisdictional boundaries.

So unfortunately, um despite the good work that your staff has done, um the county uh jurisdiction is subject to this remedy.

So despite the good work um that we've done, it is no of no import to development within the county jurisdiction.

But to your point, um this comment letter will point out to the uh jurisdictions and potential litigation in the future that this does have significant impacts to the city of Monterey.

Thank you.

Could could you comment on that?

I mean, under any circumstances, under build builder's remedy in this day and age.

So that will be subject to the county's rules and regulations.

So what you see through the comment letters the county has um given the developer, they're asking for all the technical reports, and I believe they'll it'll be very challenging if not impossible to obtain the septic permit that they need to provide service to that um development.

Okay, so TBD.

Um, you mentioned that the developer was not responding.

Are there time limits that we're aware of that he has to meet that?

Yeah, so based on the correspondence that I'm reading between the county and the developer, the developer is refusing to submit what we usually call incomplete items.

They're technical items you need to submit with your development application.

Um, and so they're invoking a certain section of um the law saying that basically under builder's remedy and and the various laws that they don't have to submit that information and their application should be able to proceed.

Okay, that's a policy.

Sure.

What is your take on their argument as it relates to that?

Well, I'll just, you know, I I don't really want to opine on the legal arguments.

I will say when you look statewide in the state of California, which we're seeing, especially like in Santa Monica's, you have developers coming in, proposing developments that are clearly inappropriate for the area, and then ultimately selling those plans and um getting to a smaller project, which is what they really wanted to begin with.

So this is clearly a chess play, if you will, by the developer, trying to um push the county in a specific direction.

And I think our role is to look at the environmental impacts and assess it for what is being proposed.

But but in regards to that list of items that they say that they don't need to respond to.

Um I think for a competent planning review that it absolutely we need to know water supply, sewer supply.

They may, they're arguing a technicality on submittal requirements that is going to be challenging for the county right now.

Okay.

I'll let you finish, Gene.

Sorry for.

Oh, no, that's fine.

Um, so part of part of the strategy, um, I guess I'm just asking your opinion on my guess, is that they're just going to overwhelm county staff.

That and then politically place the board of supervisors in a position under state housing law that they're going to be reviewing something that's clearly inappropriate for the site in terms of scale mass.

There's some interesting articles I can share with you that um out of the city of Santa Monica that might provide you some interesting perspective on what's occurring.

Thank you.

Um thank you.

Uh a little bit of a follow-up to uh a comment you just made about uh I think it was that case in Santa Monica where they drew out something bigger to ultimately end up with a smaller project.

Um what gives you the sense that that's what's happening here?

I don't know for sure.

Um what they're proposing is very challenging to build on that on that type of lot.

I mean, we're talking a slope, you know, a project or site with very steep slopes, um, very expensive to construct, not no water supply, no adequate approach to septics and all of the basic services for the site.

So they're proposing uh a very large project on a site that it'll be very difficult to accommodate.

And I think it's also interesting that they filed two other applications that are smaller.

One is for 75 housing units, and there was another one that was slightly smaller.

So it'll be interesting as this proceeds through to see if it follows what occurred in Santa Monica or whether they truly are allowed to build such a large building.

And um, in your in your opinion, in your sense, what is the benefit of pushing a project that potentially is not viable?

That's the part I'm um having clearly invested money, they've purchased the lot, they've invested in construction documents.

The developer is seeing some sort of economic return on their investment.

But it yeah, I was just gonna say maybe I can help set shed some light on this.

So we don't know the intricacies of the legal position of the county and uh unfortunately in some jurisdictions, the builder's remedy has been successful, and so what we're asking tonight is for um the comments to be made on the city's concerns with regard to this project, and those comments and factors might be put in the record and help the county at the end of the day with whatever position they take on this.

So, um, by sharing your concerns and that being included in the minutes and in the comment letter, that's helping build on a public record of our community's concerns with this proposal.

And it may ultimately be a benefit to the county, but it's too hard for us to sit and speculate, you know, what what is the chest plane or legal maneuvering?

We just we're not in the in the weeds on that.

So no, thank you for that.

And and I get that part, but it kind of feels like there is some speculation in terms of why such a big project, right?

Because for me, that's important to inform my decision because uh I'm not saying here that I'm supporting 11 stories, but would I support six?

I don't know, right?

So I don't necessarily I guess I'm trying to understand better really what we're talking about here, so that I can make a decision that uh communicates more my intent, right?

I would I would view just what's in front of you, which is a giant building application.

That's what's in front of uh the county, that's what might potentially be built under this remedy.

So that would be the highest priority to address that.

Um I know this council wants housing and and other things, but we can't speculate on the developers' motivations um or if they are willing to negotiate a smaller project.

We have to assume they're not going to, and we're asking for a comment letter to address the large project that's before the county right now.

Well, just to tangent to what I think is part of what you're asking.

I mean, there's part of me that says, well, maybe maybe call their bluff.

If it can't be built, if it's not doable, um, do we use a lot of energy fighting it?

Um so it's not up to us to fight it.

It's it's between the county and the developer and whether or not a court is going to impose the builder's remedy.

I can say other jurisdictions fighting the builder's remedy have not been successful.

So if there's any um if you like the project, then I would vote against signing this letter.

If you have concerns with this project, I would act as if it's going to be constructed and flush out a record and we'll share that with the county um as it may enable them to better um situate themselves in a in a future uh action.

Got it.

Well, I'll add one more concern.

Go ahead.

Don't get because I I said the same same thing when we were talking about expanding the SB uh nine to um to six units.

If if we're in a high fire district, and um we make these accommodations, we're still at huge risk for fires in all our in all our um Calfire very high zones.

So that concerns me, and that they can make modifications to override the very high fire district requirements, such as you know, sprinklers on the roof, and then the the fire walls that will sprinkle, and then the layout of the landscape.

They can meet those higher standards of fire safety, and yet still put all of us at great risk for for fire because our forests are still so dense, especially back there.

Um, so that concerns me.

I'm also very concerned about the the animal corridor.

So that is a um a renowned corridor, even on on the other side through my neighborhood, we know that there are mountain lions that go up from the PGE from the end of Via Castaneda up through the PGE transmission corridors all the way to the back of the hospital and then around and into the Del Mani Forest.

So that's that's um, that's almost synchrosanct to to the people from there.

And during COVID, we watched all the animals come back.

We had bobcats in my backyard, and and it was really a whole lot of fun.

So when I think of that massive of a development going in that wildlife corridor, uh I'm very very concerned for that.

Did you have anything else?

Um I guess I'm a little bit confused on the um the three proposals.

Um, because when I look at the table that's provided in the staff report in regards to all the county builder builder builders' remedy proposals, I didn't see where those equated to the 191 market rate and the 48 low income.

So there's only one proposal in front of you.

There's three that have been submitted to the county, but the city has only received formal public notice on one of them.

And it says in the chart 200 units, and then you hear me describe this as 239.

So the county's website on what was originally submitted was 200, and now it's the 239 units were formally referred to us.

So I see the first one shows 96 market rate, 24 low income.

The second one shows 75 single family dwelling units, which of 15 of those are low income, and then the third one shows 200.

So that's the one that was ultimately referred to the city, but between the initial application where that's where it was defined and is on the county's site for builder remedy project, the actual description that was forwarded to us for comment that evolved from 200 housing units to that 239.

Okay, all right.

Thank you for that clarification.

Um I'm this part of this is a little bit educational for me in regards to how builders' remedy works.

So if they submit a project, if anybody submits a project and they don't have water allocated to the project, can builders' remedy allow them to move forward with developing the project without water.

Well, they're clearly going to have to disclose that in the environmental document, the CEQA document, and that's what we're we're trying to inform is what are the impacts.

Whether or not the county will ultimately approve the project without water, I don't know.

I mean, no, the county's not going to approve this project without water.

That's that's silly.

I don't um I I guess I'm just I'm trying to find value in why we would have that in the letter.

If the project's gonna be required to have water, I guess I'm I'm confused why that so, for example, they could approve the project.

This county can.

The can't the county could approve it, maybe put it on a waiting list.

They could entitle the project and wait for water to be available at some future date.

So we're trying to get the scope of the environmental document.

Um, and say our and if it may not be your concern as a city council, but um, if it is, the project should have an adequate water supply to provide residents water.

And then I guess I would say the same about the on-site water treatment system.

Um aren't those things like required?

Can build can builders' remedy allow them to develop the project without having those studies done to determine adequacy of the OTWS.

I guess what I'll just say there's a fairly long record where the counties requested that information over three incomplete letters right now, and the developer is refusing to submit the information, invoking a separate section of the government code, and then enabling us a 60-day period to comment on our concerns.

So I'll just go back to what the city attorney previously expressed.

This is our opportunity to help the county potentially or provide our perspective on the issues that need to be resolved before this project goes forward.

Water supply, adequate waste handling seem like two basic health and safety issues that shouldn't that need to be addressed.

And so far the developers refusing to address them.

I guess I'm I'm I'm still struggling, and I apologize.

No, I'm making this too complicated.

I'm I'm struggling to understand what value it adds for the city of Monterey to submit something that the county is not going to approve this project without the water in the sewer.

So what value is it adding the city saying something in a letter?

I guess I'm struggling with that.

If I may, mayor, very good questions.

And the builder's remedy, I think, with this uh you know recent round from the state has really become a pressing issue for jurisdictions up and down the state.

Um, nevertheless, should the county even if they were to uh identify a water source and a wastewater treatment source, there still would be impacts in terms of emergency response.

Um, because it's really adjacent to the city, there would be uh an obligation for the city to respond and provide services.

The traffic from the development would come down into the Del Monte area.

So there's a number of of effects that would impact the city.

And this evening we're asking that your council enumerate those, that information would go to the county, and they would include that in their consideration of impacts not only to their jurisdiction, but to the adjacent jurisdiction being the city of Monterey.

So I I appreciate that, Lou.

Um, I just for everybody's um just so that we're all on the same page to to talk through the letter.

There are five main elements to our letter.

So there's water supply, so the water, the septic, which is the um the OWTS, there's traffic scenic highway, um, tree and biotic impacts and uh public services, so fire police and and other.

Frankly, three to five makes sense to me.

Um they're directly related to safety.

There's there's there is added, I can see added value there, right?

And in three for the traffic and scenic highway, we're saying, hey, county, we think you should include these additional intersections in your request for review of traffic impacts.

Makes sense.

Four is tree in um biotic impacts, that makes sense.

And and um Jean uh had just raised this in regards to um the the animals and and and the impact to that.

So absolutely we should look at that.

And and trees are beloved in our region.

So we should absolutely have that standard expectation.

We're adding that to what's already what the county is already looking at, and then public services, police fire.

I've talked to staff about this um in preparation for um this item coming to the agenda.

So I appreciate this being added.

Um it absolutely makes sense, just like any county juris any county uh builder builders' remedy project or any project that's developed on county property that's adjacent to the city of Monterey, um, they're gonna absolutely depend on our public safety services.

So I want to know how we're gonna be appropriately compensated for that so that our services aren't an undue burden on Monterey residents, and and those that are um that would be living in those potential units, um, pay their fair share.

So three to five makes sense to me, and in and that's what you spoke to.

I'm struggling with one and two of where the added value is with that.

If the county is already going back and forth with the developer on saying, where where are you getting the water, where where is the study, what what does us having that in our letter do?

I'm I'm I can probably be comfortable with maybe two being in there, but one, I I guess I just have some heightened sensitivity around it because here we are saying, like, we've had plenty of conversations around water in the chamber, and I think most folks know how I feel about that.

Um, so for us to then turn around and say, Well, you guys don't have your water, I don't see the project getting developed if they don't have water.

So I I I don't see where that's added value in being in the letter, and I'm and I'm not really hearing anything from staff in regards to where the added value is i i think that they're suggesting that a very savvy developer will push this through as far as they can and then put it on hold for 20 years till we have the diesel uh plant so so that it's an investment a long-term investment way into the future that would make them have all sorts of but but the argument that we're using by adding this in there is saying you don't have the water so if they approve the project when they get water that's not what we're saying you know so it's so that's so I don't see the added value.

Yeah um maybe I'm I'll just try to phrase it a different way when you're um ultimately in court and you're trying to defend yourself you might have seven really good arguments maybe only five of the seven are outstanding and two are weaker but you still put them forward because you never know what's gonna stick and so why not include what you might view as a weaker argument with regard to the water when it is an issue it's not gonna hurt anything to keep it in there.

But if you take it off the table then it doesn't help the county either um so there's no harm in it I guess I'm not understanding the um if this was any other project which I I am as most folks know very supportive of housing being constructed um I wouldn't want to I I would do everything I can to avoid an argument that talks about water being an issue especially if the project isn't gonna be developed again it's not gonna be developed unless there's water there.

Well we have to assume this project is going to be developed and that they will prevail on a builder's remedy and so what this letter will do is help um build a record submitted to the court that the county can use to um make these arguments we don't know what's ultimately going to happen but so when Kim was speaking to this piece earlier she was saying that maybe they the county decides to approve it um and then but the condition on if and when they get water so why are we making an argument about them we want the environmental impact studied and if the county wants to make that argument maybe this helps them but you don't have to include it there doesn't need to be any letter sent to the county for that matter we're we're just trying to um again and this isn't policy as a lawyer if I have arguments I that have I can stay with a straight face and stand on two feet and make and that might be successful I'm going to include them.

Whether the county chooses to build on that or not is up to them but I wouldn't um sell ourselves short and take things off the table if they are concerns.

Yeah.

Okay I'm I think I'm good with my questions for now and um I I'll just um communicate that uh I I I want to be I I recognize the legal piece of this um but there are political implications associated with this as well and I want to make sure that we're not sending the wrong message around um housing so for me to be supportive of the letter I would want to have something articulated in the letter that clearly speaks to that.

So something along the lines of hey we support housing we act we approved our our our housing element with you know six times increase from the last cycle we support it we just have some concerns here so something along those lines I think would be um important for me in order to to approve and just wanted to share that because I'm also interested in hearing the public comment in regards to how the council moves forward any other questions from the council at this time all right seeing none we'll go ahead and open it up for public comment so for folks on Zoom you can use the raise hand function.

In the meantime um I asked folks in the chamber if you wouldn't mind standing up to the left of the um the mic um or if um or if you prefer to stay seated I'll ask for hands here in a second so one two three four five six we have six seven standing two four six seven two four six seven yeah we have seven standing we have one hand raise anybody else in the chamber that's still sitting that would like to speak on this item so we have eight in the chamber we'll go ahead and cut it off to those eight and I'll do a countdown for folks on zoom to five four three two one there are six hands raised there's six hands raised um okay we're gonna keep it to two minutes here so we'll go ahead and start in the chamber thank you Tom Reeves um the problems with HCD in Sacramento and as you stated Mayor this is a political issue and I'll guarantee you it'll be a political issue during this council campaign you seem to be falling all over yourselves to approve housing even though it includes just a minor amount of affordable housing this project proposal is a monstrosity it does not fit into the character of Monterey whatsoever the building is not actually uh a hundred and fifty feet high as staff said it's when you measure it from ground level it's 190 feet high above the ground level at the northerly end that's much higher than the embassy switch which which is a hundred and forty feet three other 475 dwelling units all told in this combined project fit on 4.7 acres a lot's been said about the septic system but what about the storm drain system as a registered civil engineer I can tell you about the tension basins they may reduce the peak flows going downstream but they don't eliminate the flows they'll reduce the rate at which the flows go down but right now with a virgin forest a lot of that water soaks into the ground and is evaporated.

So with this development you're gonna get a lot more water going down the Dondavi drainage which is the creek that runs right in front of Del Monte shopping center and ultimately ends up in Lake El Estero.

There's no guarantee that these units aren't going to be second houses either so there's a good chance that a lot of these will be people who want to come to town to visit which is going to add even more traffic to our that's the fallacy of the whole state's housing system.

A lot of us don't want to have four houses coming up springing up next door to us and our single family actually six can come up in a 2400 square foot lot in any one of our neighborhoods all for the sake of additional housing.

Thank you.

Good afternoon mayor Williams or members of the city council um just wanted to say a couple of things um about this issue here um one related to water just to give you a little peace of mind the county when they adopted the general plan in 2010 after 10 years putting a policy as Dr.

Bauman may recall that requires the so-called project specific hydrogeologic report that's a very very technical issue that is required for any subdued any project which includes the subdivision which I suppose this is so they're gonna have to do that either either that or rely on Calam water and we know calam water there's none so the the other issue is um through the environmental impact report you can analyze economic impacts and what I'm thinking about is this issue of the jobs housing balance what are these people going to do that are going to use these units are they just gonna be Airbnbs or what?

And I think that could be included in your letter what is the economic impact of this project of this nature in the peninsula what are these people going to do where are the jobs because otherwise you know the whole notion of planning is just thrown out the window and I think suppose that some of what is happening is that these people that are using the the builder's remedy are abusing the law or lag thereof.

That's what's happening there this is a very ill conceived project there's there's nothing good about it for environmental and social and economic issues.

We talk about affordable housing.

Yeah.

So, you know, there's 91 unions, they're gonna sell them at what, two million dollars.

And then the other affordable units are going to be what nine hundred thousand dollars thank you.

Hi, good afternoon.

I didn't plan to speak this afternoon, but I wanted to thank the council and the city of Monterey for pushing back on this project.

I would like to agree with the city attorney too.

It's it's best to put as many issues on the table as possible because you can't withdraw them.

And you never know which issue is going to be the most salient and the most that will that will prohibit this uh project from moving forward.

So I thank you for your efforts.

Hi, thank you for your time.

Um I'm uh resident of Viejo Road and a member of the APOA, and we just really wanted to encourage you to authorize this letter.

Having a neighboring jurisdiction also express its concerns, provides extra support in our efforts to convince the county that this needs to be responded to in a firm and fast manner.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon.

Uh, my name is Daniel Alvarez, I represent Carpenters on the Monterey County.

Whether this project is uh approved for now, we believe it is important to have strong labor standards on every project.

We should work with responsible contractors.

Responsible contractors don't just build projects, they invest in their workers, they provide apprenticeship programs to train local workers, they offer good health care and fair wages.

They make sure their workers have a retirement plan.

When we support a possible contractor, we support good jobs, save work sites, and the strong communities.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council members.

I'm Amy Treadwell, speaking for the Aguajito Property Owners Association, representing homeowners in our low density, five-acre zoned neighborhood, south and east of the proposed 711 Viejo High Density project.

Item 16 on today's agenda.

This parcel APN 103 01101500 lies on our western edge, directly facing Monterey and Monta Vista.

We fully recognize the state's builders' remedy legislation compels action when housing elements fall short, but this extreme density proposal is fundamentally unsafe and unsustainable here for several reasons.

There are severe fire and evacuation risks.

The entire surrounding area is designated high or very high fire hazard severity, confirmed confirmed by Calfire maps, making added density catastrophic in this already fire-prone scenic zone.

Roads like Viejo and Aguajito suffer frequent storm-related washouts and multi-point tree falls blocking access.

The recent gas line rupture was another red flag warning for us.

There is seismic danger, a known earthquake fault runs straight through the property, the proposal property.

There would be infrastructure overload and it would strain Monterey's water, sewage, police, and fire services.

Expenses largely largely falling on our city, though the site is on county land.

Irreversible harm beyond visual blight damaging our tourism economy, potential archaeological fines, e.g.

Native American remains could cause major delays.

And these are not minor issues.

They threaten public safety, emergency response, and our community's character.

Builders' remedy does not override objective health safety standards, especially in high-hazard zones like ours.

We strongly urge the city to oppose this project vigorously, and please formally convey your concerns to Monterey County.

Thank you for protecting our residents.

Good evening, and thanks for taking the time.

My name is Denver Dale.

I'm also on the Aguajero Property Owners Association Board.

I'm a former president of the Cypress Fire Protection District for many years.

I want to point out a couple of things, in addition.

This particular developer has uh or is currently engaged in uh multiple other projects in California in a similar way with a similar uh objective, and I believe is currently in litigation on a number of those.

Um it has been pointed out in the press that this potentially is some kind of litigation strategy where um this particular developer is proposing um kind of out of the ordinary uh projects like this enormous project uh here across across Highway One with a view to settling later on for some either something minor or um settling uh a litigation.

Um I should also note, and you folks might know this, but this chap has been recently uh disboded by the California Bar Association.

Um, and if it's possible, I might like to enter a letter that we'd sent to the mayor into the record tonight.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I'm speaking as a resident of the uh Arguajito property association.

Um we get that builders' remedy legislation pushes for housing when when plans lag, but this extreme density doesn't work here.

There's just too many issues that are involved here with it, especially the the cowfire issue, the public safety issues are all a big issue.

These aren't small gripes, these are real threats to safety and though in our way of life.

Builders' remedy does not trump basic health and basic safety rules.

And so we need to really need to consider those going forward.

We can't let it be run by someone who doesn't actually understand the situation.

Thank you very much.

Uh Mayor Mayor Council, I like to echo the gentleman before him that um this appears to be a developer that's come to this area who's probably going to try to um strong arm to have the county buy them out of the land to so that they won't do this thing.

It's uh if if you do the economics of it, it's impossible for them to build 238 units there, go 11 stories, and not have units that aren't going to be asking seven, eight thousand dollars per unit.

They're not gonna have a market for it.

There's not gonna be a bank that's gonna loan on it.

I just I just don't see this project.

And I I'm with this the gentleman that was before me, that this seems to be uh a developer that's either looking for two things to get bought out for a higher price, or two to have you guys agree to a smaller development, maybe 150 units, 200 units, uh, or 75 or 80 units there.

We don't know.

But at this point, he's gone through the process of getting this development at this number.

And yes, you should you should have that protest letter because I don't think anybody in Monterey City, and I'm I'm I'm I'm pro development as you, and I just see it completely out of the out of the marketplace for what it can do.

I mean, I I'm looking, these are San Francisco prices or here in Monterey.

I just I just don't I'm I wouldn't get too excited about ever seeing it happen, not in my lifetime or my grandchildren's lifetime.

Thank you.

But that will go to our colors on Zoom.

Thank you.

Uh I'll go ahead and ask Esther to unmute.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Um, this seems to be a trend uh that's going on probably nationally.

Uh there are millionaires and billionaires buying up whatever property are available.

Um, and they're going to use it however they decide they want to because they can afford to wait decades to build it.

Um I believe that this is a Trojan horse, and coming in under the builders' remedy in this state in particular, where everybody wants to live, and few of us are going to be able to afford to stay here, other than those types that I just mentioned, are going to hold on to properties like this and just wait it out and then come in and buy and and build McMansions on them.

There's another project out there on 68.

I forget the name of it, um, that touted all these trees that they were going to keep there.

And it's also it's completely geared to the top one percent and California is becoming a state that is only going to be inhabited by billionaires if we continue but this is a Trojan horse in my opinion.

I would suggest everybody who's commenting there tonight make sure to comment at board of supervisor meetings and continue the pressure and support the county on opposing this as well as um one last point referring to um the attorney's uh suggestion of throwing everything you can at it and see what sticks if I'm not mistaken mountain lions were just declared endangered species and that might be something that would also block uh that kind of development there just like we have frogs and prairie dogs and other small rodents that block other projects that are much more viable than this.

So I do think that this is um a Trojan horse and that it will eventually end up being McMansion's if allowed.

Thank you.

Lori you can go ahead and unmute yes uh thank you guys um okay I agree with other folks um and I've got a few questions I don't know if you'll be able to answer them but maybe staff can and maybe help also give some guidance um like many people I don't have the bandwidth to be attending the county meetings on top of these so I didn't realize they didn't have their housing element done so listen at the end of the day we shouldn't be having the burden of um having to even have this discussion or having this placed on our city so um I say leave the letters is and I agree with uh the attorney and and Kim Cole uh if anything that letter was too polite I'd be more more direct throw everything you can in it um and go with every expert you can whatever arena also agree with Esther Mount Lions whatever we need any ESA listed species throw it in there um you know and I I understand the mayor's worried about optics and appearing like he's anti-housing but I think in this case it doesn't apply everyone knows where you stand and where we most people stand on the housing topic here that's not appropriate project for Monterey and no one's going to fault the mayor or anyone else for fighting against this on all cylinders.

So as some other folks um mentioned in there this this guy was an attorney who's disbarred and he has got projects going in wealthy areas he's built he's sitting there waiting for counties like this that didn't do their job to jump on it.

Santa Barbara Carpenteria Los Gados they're all fighting him right now with these same kind of monstrosities that don't fit the area so Monterey County has left us vulnerable to bear the burden the cost of fighting this so what can we do um other than write letters to the county do we know is the county close to having their arena plan done and certified or how much longer are we vulnerable to these applications?

We need to get this stopped so we don't have to fight it anymore because Monterey County will be one that people like that go after thank you.

Thank you we'll go ahead and move to telephone caller ending in 902.

Good evening Mrs.

Nina Beattie please send a full and complete letter that puts as many problems as exist into the letter even if it the problem is obvious so that Monterey has exhausted its administrative remedies or else you the city wouldn't have standing on that particular issue.

Water and septic here's why it's a problem aquifers down the hill provide some of the city's drinking water, including to Merrill Gardens.

That was part of the approval and other properties in this area.

If this project draws water into its system, it could cause salt water intrusion up the canyon.

And that would be there would be could be up to a thousand people in this project using water plus any sprinkler systems.

Um also, and we don't have water supply um for for all the uses for that project, potable water, fire services, exterior sprinklers, any septic field accidents would contaminate the watershed and the water systems of Merrill Gardens and the Creek by the Elmani Shopping Center.

If the three projects planned for the site have all built, they total about 395 units or four more 400 more than 400.

It's it's unclear if the second permit for single-family homes is for rentals.

Um, and with the subdivision into lots, each of those lots would be available since they want to uh divide each into a lot.

Would it be available for set uh SB9 densification to four units per lot if the lot size is large enough?

So that's up to 300 units total for that one proposal.

If the developer doesn't comply with application requirements, why isn't the county denying the project?

They have not submitted docs from the beginning.

If an application is not complete, why is the county still humoring this?

Why wasn't this written into the county codes, Mr.

Bowman?

That should have been, and that should be part of the letter.

There's no developer name on the project that's on the documents I've seen, and it's the contact is an anonymous mailbox, international mailbox and full-ton, like a UPS store.

Regarding comments on the applicant, 88 lawsuits have happened for cash payouts with any increased access.

So is this a scam authorized by Sacramento?

These are apartments, not secure.

I'm sorry you've reached your time.

We'll move to virtual attendee Rick.

Go ahead and unmute.

Thank you.

This is required.

Uh the focus on this ultimately is going to be on the EIR.

They have the ability to go beyond density and a lot of the other things because of the builder's remedy, but they still need to go through the CEQA process.

The more issues you can raise that could have to be addressed in the EIR, the more ammo you give the county when they're looking at whether or not they're going to certify the EIR and what mitigations have to happen.

So the more you put in the letter, the better, and it's critical the city does a letter, but it's also critical everyone continues to be involved in it.

But the focus is the EIR now at this point, because the county can't do anything until they have that to work with potentially to turn it down.

Because if they turn it down now for other reasons without being able to have a legal backup from CEPA or others, it's a lawsuit guaranteed, and they probably would not win it.

So the focus is on the EIR, and that has to include everything, including water, including septic.

Everything that's been brought up tonight and more.

The more the better because it all has to be addressed when it's raised and it's in that scoping process for the EIR.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll go ahead and move to Peter.

Yes, can you hear me?

Yes.

Hi, this is Peter Kaiser.

I live in a neighboring city, but we've had issues there too.

So we have to be very careful.

This this huge 400, almost 400 square foot old 11-story building is totally inappropriate in the forest area near the Del Monte shopping center.

And uh for a lot of reasons, of course, and this should not be allowed.

Uh if this person uh who may live in LA or San Jose wants to build something there, they're they're fine to do that, but not bring inappropriate sized buildings without uh appropriate water and septic and all these other issues that and safety and fire and um city services.

Uh this obviously would not be allowed in the city limits of of Monterey and it should not be allowed a few feet east of the city limits.

And by the way, um you notice that none of the supervisors on the board of supervisors live within miles of this project.

But if they lived right next door, I don't think they would be voting in favor of this huge project.

So please put all your what you can into that letter and allow the the board of supervisors some clear thinking to deny this and not misuse this builder's remedy to gym inappropriate projects.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

And we'll move to our last um caller, Charles.

I would like to note that some hands did go up after you closed public comment.

Yes, I'm I'm Chip Bates.

I live on Gahill Road.

Um thank you, Honorable Mayor and Council members.

Um I'd like to first start off by saying I encourage you to read the official APOA position letter on this issue.

Uh I am a board member along with several others who spoke, and I want to reiterate that I agree with their statements.

I'd like to expand on that very briefly and suggest that it would be extraordinarily useful for any and all of you to actually walk Viejo Road.

This is a sliver of land for which this project is proposed.

The visual impact, the real impact can be garnered in part through all the IR reports.

But boy, when you walk up there and you just see what's going on there, I think it will shape your opinion.

I also want to say that that those of us in the APOA have had a wonderful relationship with the city.

In fact, I might argue that our relationship with the city has been closer and warmer and better than it has been with the county.

We we all go to your schools, we we use your services.

So we feel very bonded to you.

And the APOA board, of which I'm now a member, will offer any and all services we have available to help you in your endeavor to block this.

So please submit the letter.

We have meager funds, but we will use them if they're needed.

Um thanks all for your time.

Um, I'm gonna do one last check.

Um, on the public comments.

Um, anybody else in the chamber wish to speak on this item?

Mayor, I understand our supervisor Kate Daniels just missed the cutoff.

So I think uh uh your attorney indicated if you open public comment again to everyone that she could be included.

That's correct.

Yep, yep.

Um, so I just I didn't see any takers in the chamber, so I'll cut it off in the chamber and I'll do a countdown for folks on Zoom to five, four, three, two, one.

There are two hands raised, including Kate.

I can go ahead and allow Kate to speak.

Thank you for it.

Hi there.

Thank you so much.

I really appreciate the opportunity.

Can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Wonderful.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Dr.

Bauman.

Thank you all.

I appreciate the opportunity.

I got just a heads up about today's today's item, and I got in late and just want to say I appreciate very much the comments that have been made and the conversation and deliberation that I did hear from the council members.

I do think it's very important that you send a letter.

Um, one of the things I I also want to be very clear about is I believe it will be difficult for the county to oppose a builder's remedy project, but that does not mean that this project does not have to go through proper environmental analysis.

And I know that the county will be very thorough in the analysis under our scope, such as septic, environmental health, water supply.

But I would really encourage the city to address all of the impacts to the city thoroughly.

Um, you are in a unique position to talk about both the uh the impacts to public safety services, the economic impacts.

There's been so many great examples that have been made in public comment about um wildland corridors, um, all of the things that have been discussed today.

Please do send that letter, because even though it's a builder's remedy project, it will be subject to CEQA and to environmental analysis, and you and the city can do a letter that's very unique and different from what the county will write because you can specifically address the impacts that will face the city of Monterey.

So I encourage it.

I'm glad I got to listen today.

It's a very unfortunate situation that the county is um facing, and the the housing element needs to get done, and we're hopeful it will be done soon.

So thank you very much.

Thank you, Nicole.

You can go ahead and unmute.

All right, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, great.

Um, I'm Nicole and um I live right across the street from the the proposal, the proposal from the developer.

And um, I just wanted to say briefly, I agree with most of the people that have spoken um tonight.

Chip had said if you if you're not familiar with the area, you should take a walk over here.

We welcome anyone to come over here because anyone could see that.

Um, like when I first saw this and they sent me the letter, the county, I was like laughing because I'm like, there's no way this that could happen over here.

Um it's not feasible as far as the infrastructure.

It wouldn't be safe.

There's a fire hazard, people could get blocked in.

It could be another paradise, California situation, which is like I don't even want to think about it, gives you nightmares.

So I just wanted to let everybody know.

Like, I know this guy is trying to do this in many different counties in California, and he has no idea.

I mean, he has an idea what he's doing, but I think he's either out for money or whatever he wants to do.

But we need to do anything in our power to stop him from this doing this project because I would welcome a single family home any day across the street from me.

Um, you know, we don't have many neighbors over here, but I do not would never in my imag, could ever imagine something like that um being built over here.

Just couldn't happen.

But thank you so much for your time and I appreciate everybody.

Thank you.

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

I'd like to make a motion.

Okay, um, I'd like to make a motion to approve uh item number 16, um, but also add economic impact in wildland corridors is part of the um um pushback in the actual letter.

Is there a second?

I would second it with the um some amendments, some additions to the what are your to the great list that you're making.

Um I would like to react to um Amy's great ideas.

We need to mention the evacuation routes.

I mean, we talked about streets, but it doesn't really say evacuation concerns.

I'd like that in there.

Earthquake, Amy mentioned, um, the Native American artifacts, um, and and the two that you mentioned, um, council member Barber.

I'm okay with that.

What were the two that you mentioned, Dr.

Berber?

Um, economic impact and wildland corridors.

I'm okay with that amendment.

Can I ask really quick what you what do you have in mind in terms of economic impact?

Uh, the economic impact of all of the pieces that they're talking about, not just um the economic impact of what it would be for the city, because I think there's an economic impact that the city would actually do because it's our taxpayers, they're paying for the services for fire and all of that.

So that would have to be um a burden so that more taxpayers would have to possibly increase taxes.

So you're talking about that, but you're also talking about maybe even economic impact for jobs that are being brought in from somewhere else and not actually utilizing the people that are here because we don't know it's not enough that's coming in from this developer and letting us know how that the project is going to be handled.

Um we have a motion on the table.

Any other discussion on the motion?

Um we have a motion to fix.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, okay.

Just I I was asking for discussion on the motion.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Before we vote.

Um so I'll jump in.

Could I do a friendly amendment and ask that we move items three to five to one to three?

And the reason why I asked that and maybe the just kind of general flow of the letter, it might be helpful to focus on things that are specific to the city of Monterey first so that it's focused on what the impacts of the city are as opposed to kind of more broad regional impacts.

So you're adding, let me make sure I understand.

So you're adding number three and five to one and three.

What I'm saying is basically move one and two to the end okay and move three to five up because those are more focused on the city of Monterey.

I'm fine, you're fine with that.

I'm fine with that.

Um and then I also think it's important to include a statement around um the importance of housing to the city of Monterey.

I think the concern that I have is I and I appreciate those that are paying attention in the public commenters recognition that myself and the council and the city are supportive of housing, but the folks that are paying attention are engaged, you're paying attention.

This and this might get picked up by the media and it might get spun in a certain way.

And I think it's important to send a message that we in Monterey stand for um affordable housing projects.

Um and so somehow we need to just wordsmith a little bit is my hope.

Um, so um I I would ask the motion maker and the secondary if that's okay to have staff work on work that language in.

Um, I mean, I'm fine to work the language in as long as it doesn't take away from the gut of what we're trying to do.

You know what I mean?

I don't want it to be used against us as the, you know, okay.

But this is an affordable housing project.

So you're actually saying that you are um supporting this.

I would just want to make sure that it's we're I understand what you're saying, because we are we are in uh you know in favor for uh affordable housing, but I just want to make sure it doesn't take away from them taking it as supporting this project.

100%.

And if the uh proponent of the motion is happy, I would be happy.

Okay, okay, all right.

Any other discussion on the motion?

Will it will it come back to us for final approval or is it is it approved contingent on the wordsmithing of staff?

Can I can I make a suggestion perhaps uh that we begin the letter this way, that the city of Monterey supports affordable housing and has adopted its housing element and supports orderly development that can sustain and support its constituency.

Nevertheless, due to the location and density of the subject project, the city has significant and health and safety concerns about the project.

That worked for me.

Works for me.

Okay, okay, and and actually I had it in my notes here.

Um would it be helpful to include the the gentleman that just walked out was with the carpenters union, and I don't know if it's helpful to indicate or allude to something in regards to um uh labor in in the letter.

If that is helpful, I mean we're throwing out everything in the kitchen sink here.

I don't know, don't know if that would be helpful to include some type of labor agreement associated with it.

You certainly certainly could add that in addition, um the city supports projects that uh facilitate project labor agreements and similar protections for uh contractors involved in development.

I mean, that's fine.

I just don't want to give it too too burdensome.

Fine with me.

Okay, but I would stop there.

Um I'm just gonna say make one last comment.

Um, which is um, it's really disappointing that somebody is taking advantage of a system that's meant to do good.

Um it's good to have housing, and and and I'm seeing a lot of head nods that people recognize and appreciate that.

Um the reason why we're in this position in the state of California with as it relates to housing, is because people are uncomfortable with housing in their communities and they push back for a long time.

Um, and we're we're still experiencing and seeing that.

And I can recognize and I respect and appreciate people, maybe even in the room, may have a different perspective than I do on this topic.

Um, which is why it's such a sensitive topic for me.

Um, because I the last thing I want to do is make it appear as if the city of Monterey is um is anti-development, anti-growth.

Um, we need housing.

People are struggling to live in our communities, um, born and raised here, or maybe they moved here as as an adult, but they're part of our community now, and we need to take care of every single person.

But it's it this doesn't help.

This makes the situation worse when somebody tries to come in and take advantage of a of a of a system um to line their own pockets.

It's disgusting.

And so um I I appreciate staff putting the letter together.

I appreciate the council offering some support to the county to get this across the finish line.

Um, are we good?

Staff feel comfortable with what the motion, what's all included in the motion?

I think we can go back and listen to yes, um, I'm so glad you thank the staff because we really appreciate you being on top of it, Kim.

Great job.

Um, you put together a real nice letter.

Um, and your advocacy and protecting us is noticed and appreciated, and good job.

Thank you.

All right, well said.

Any last comments from the council?

All right, call the question.

All those in favor, aye, any opposed?

Motion passes unanimously.

Thanks again for everybody.

Your public feedback was really helpful.

All right.

With that, we're gonna move on to our next item on the agenda.

We're gonna keep moving here.

Item 17 is to and feel free to transition if you do not want to say no no pressure.

Um, 17 on the agenda is to amend resolution 25-05A authorizing changes to fiscal year 25 26.

Actually, is uh kind of want to push this to the evening.

Um I feel like this is gonna take a second.

Is there a reason why we need to do this now versus going into closed session?

Because we're kind of already over.

I think staff is fine with that.

Okay.

So let's table um 17 to the evening session.

Um with that, we're gonna go to public.

Oh, is council okay with that?

Yeah, I'm unilateral.

Um, public comments on closed session agenda items.

So um closed session 18 is closed session conference with real property negotiators pursuant to government code section 5495 six TAC 8, which is regarding property 177, Mystical Wharf number two.

Closed session item number 19 is conference of legal counsel existing litigation pursuant to government code section 5495 TAC 9d1.

Shy and Mira Nissim versus City of Monterey and closed session item 20 is conference of legal counsel deciding whether to initiate litigation pursuant to government code 5495 six TAC9D4.

It's one case.

With that, I'll open 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?

We have one taker.

Anybody else?

So we'll cut it off in the chamber to the one speaker.

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

There are no hands raised.

No hands.

We'll go to Rob.

Hello, good sir.

How are you today?

Very well, thank you.

And uh, long I never been in council that long, so I learned a lot tonight, by the way.

So don't let that stuff happen on the hill.

Don't actually it was good for the business that I'm in because it'll draw people into the restaurants.

But anyway, I just want to say thank you very much for uh going over my new lease and another five years of uh being on the wharf and hopefully get the wharf back in shape to uh draw more tourists down that way and come on down sometime.

Absolutely like to have the city council.

I don't know if you know where I'm at, Robbie's ocean, fresh.

Done on wharf number two.

Come on down again.

Thank you very much for the new lease and I appreciate you guys.

And thank you, Mrs.

Aldreddy.

Also appreciate you.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Robbie.

Thanks for what you do.

Um, with that, we'll go ahead and close uh public comment on close session.

Closed session agenda items.

I can't speak today.

We're gonna go ahead and recess and um we'll reconvene at approximately seven o'clock.

Thank you, everybody.

How do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a hug Welcome everybody to our evening session of our council meeting today.

It's February seventeenth, twenty twenty-six.

I'll ask Council Member Garcia to kick us off with the Pledge of Allegiance.

One nation under God.

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

So these are for non-agendized matters.

Just to reiterate as during the afternoon session, what we do is we identify those that want to speak during public comment at the beginning of the public comment period.

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

So if you try to raise your hand after that first capture, you won't be able to speak.

No hands were raised.

No hands.

So with that, we'll go ahead and do announcements from closed session.

Or I'm sorry, yeah, item number nineteen, which was heard next.

Uh this is conference with legal counsel, Shea and Miranism, the city of Monterey, and no report, no, no uh reportable action was uh taken on this item.

Thank you.

Thanks, Nat.

With that, we'll go to our presentation.

Uh oh, um, do you have a preference towards doing the budget adjustment first or after?

After okay, all right.

So with that, we'll go to our presentation item 21.

Receive a presentation on the neighborhood and community improvement program committees priority voting results identifying between three million to four million of prior year projects for defunding pursuant to the city council's request.

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

Thank you, Mayor's council members.

I think we'll just turn it right over to uh our public work staff.

Okay, good evening, everyone.

Uh I have a brief presentation.

Um, I'm in between parties actually.

So this is the party.

No, I'm happy to be here.

Thank you.

Um, so are you gonna uh well just uh I'll give you a kind of a brief um background before while uh Nat's pulling up the presentation, but um as you all know, we had uh quite a lengthy process um to go over the um roughly 40 projects that uh that the committee voted on um to rank um and by lengthy.

I mean, I think we had uh over the course of six different meetings we discussed in one fashion or another um the projects and the um and the um process on how we were gonna do the ranking and so on.

So um I guess to go back or now we have the presentation up.

So this all started back in um September of 25, where we um there was this idea of um, you know, kind of where we came to came to terms with the uh budget deficit.

And then in October, October 13th, there was a special joint meeting with the uh city council and the NCIP committee uh here in the chambers, and as a result of that meeting, uh the council gave the NCIP committee a charge to identify three to four million dollars worth of um projects uh at the lowest priority that could be defunded um and that funding put back into the general fund with the the guidance to use the um procedure process that the council did on September 2nd, which was the cards and kind of rank um the options.

Or so the next.

I guess I could do it here.

Um it's not updating.

So the next slide will show you kind of what the example card was.

Okay, so here you could see we had the example card, and on that card, we identified several different um categories that the NCIP committee specifically wanted.

Um, so I mean, we had the general information on what budget was available, the fiscal year that the project came up uh in front of the committee.

People were very interested in the number of votes and the ranking that the project received, and then the committee members wanted to know the complexity.

So when you see complexity, we rated three different levels low, medium, and high, low meaning something that was very straightforward, simple, relatively like order some equipment, install the equipment, medium had some different uh higher level of complexity.

Could have been something along the lines of maybe we need some permitting CEQA review.

High was things like it needed um coastal permit, coastal commission, um, or it was um, you know, much more complex, like we had some like water uh storm drain projects or storm drainage projects, far more complex, that sort of a thing.

Um, and then we had a project description.

Um, and then one of the other things you'll see in the project description box was whether or not it was defunded previously in 2020, which was another uh question that the committee members had.

And then on uh January 28th, we had the vote.

Um, and then you can't see it here, but these are the scores, the rankings um for the projects, and what we did was we we made the effort to keep it traditional in that 10 was high, one was low.

So we voted with the ranking of 10, was that it was a desirable or most desirable project, you wanted to keep it.

One was a was low ranking.

Um, so what you have here is kind of reverse order.

So the number one project on this list had the lowest ranking.

Um, and in the agenda packet, you have those results from the vote uh for all those that are interested.

Um that's that's an attachment to the to the packet tonight.

And um I think that that's I can take questions, but I think that's it.

Thanks, Reggie.

Thanks for the presentation.

Any questions from the council?

Please.

Thank you, Reggie.

I have a couple questions specific to um projects, just because of the the way that they're falling into the ranking.

Um projects um 2532 and 2525 via Del Mani Um Phase 1 and Phase 2.

Do those need to happen.

If those projects move forward, did those need to happen simultaneously?

Oh, I'm sorry, council member.

Can you give me like the ranking number?

Oh, yeah.

So, I don't know that I can.

If it was in the on the far left hand side, or oh, the black?

Yes.

Um, the Bill of Del Monte traffic calming?

Correct.

So no, those are independent projects.

They don't have to happen together or dependently.

They could happen independently.

So yeah, yes, the way those those projects were pulled from the um traffic calming study that was done for the neighborhood.

Uh-huh.

And um they're at independent intersections, and they can happen separately.

Okay.

That's what I thought.

Thank you for confirming.

Um, and then the next one uh the ranking number three, uh, all the way down 2513, the Casanova.

Um, the Melway Circle.

No, the gap project, the two 250,000.

Yes, yes, yes.

Could you speak a little bit to the mechanics of that?

Like how how do those uh matching funds actually work?

Like I'm gonna I'm gonna pass that.

Perfect, thank you.

And and really what I'm I'm getting at is um there have been uh comments that I've heard around these matching funds making the applications more competitive.

Which I mean, I think we've had these matching funds always included in the applications, and we still don't have grants, right?

So, so like if you could speak a little bit to the mechanics of of matching funds and how they could support um this project.

So absolutely for the North Fremont Gap Project, we've been applying for many different grants, and what we do is a lot of times, depending on a grant, you can upfront matching some of the grants, ATP, it's a set amount of matching funds that you have to have.

And others, the more matching funds you have, the higher you do score for the project.

So we like to have these um matching funds already in place sometimes to make us more competitive.

So for the next grant that we're gonna apply for is the Regional Surface Transportation Program.

And so it it does make us more competitive to have matching funds already.

And if they're not gonna be in CIP matching funds, uh, we will try to find other funds that can be used, such as MeasureX.

And I guess to follow up on that.

How critical is it to have NCIP matching funds versus funds from other sources?

So the difference between having NCIP matching funds and funds from other sources is that it shows community support.

So every time you have community support and the citizens and the neighborhoods voted for matching funds, it shows that everybody's on board and the community strongly supports the project.

So that's the difference.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

Um, not seeing any.

Um, the other thing I would point out, just because I did as a general comment before going out to public comment, um, is the NCIP committee has requested that um their priority or preference would be to take funding out of the next year's um NCIP allocation as opposed to um dipping into project funding that's already been allocated.

So I just wanted to throw that out as a recognition um in the staff report from the NCIP um committee meetings and um, and so we'll be considering that throughout the process.

I and the last point that I would communicate is um I don't think the objective tonight is to come to a decision.

Um, really, it's just to receive a presentation, and I think hearing more of um what the budget situation looks like when we get ready to um look at the the end of the year of this fiscal year and going into next fiscal year.

So um, I think that information will be helpful, and this discussion tonight will be helpful towards us trying to figure out how do we come up with a balanced budget.

Um, but just wanted to consider this as a beginning of a conversation as opposed to some ultimate decision that's gonna be made tonight.

Um thanks again, Reggie, for the presentation.

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

You can use a raise hand function.

Anybody in the chamber wishes to speak on this item, just ask that you stay up to the left of the podium or identify yourself by raising your hand.

I see four takers in the chamber, five takers, six takers, two, four, six.

Anybody that's not standing, want to speak, seven takers.

Anyone else?

Last call.

We have seven folks in the chamber.

Okay, cut it off to those seven in the chamber.

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

There are five hands raised.

There's five hands raised.

We're gonna go into two minutes.

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

Mr.

Mayor, members of the council, the name's require.

Um, speaking as a former member of NCIP who went through the last time you all defunded projects, that time it was because of the pandemic.

And what ends up happening afterwards when now you have all these projects that were approved and now they're coming back.

Now you're having to figure out how to deal with them and the mess it creates.

You're asking that to happen all over again, which is to be perfectly honest, kind of crazy.

The easier thing to do that does not disfranchise all the people who went through the whole process with these projects is to do the alternative that NCIP suggested you do.

You take it out of funds from the next year or whatever fiscal year it is that has not been allocated, has not been voted on yet or anything else.

So you're not disenfranchising anything, buddy, when you're taking it away, and it still solves your issue that you need to find money for the budget without creating a whole list of however many projects now that you've talked about.

Well, we'll freeze, we'll unfreeze them at some point.

God knows how that's actually gonna work in practice.

You have a much simpler approach to meet the exact goal that you had, which is what the NCIP is suggesting is the second alternative.

Thank you.

Mayor, City Council members, Pat Benza, Monterey Vista.

I agree with Rick completely.

I find this exercise in a dive in identifying past approved NCIP project so counterproductive.

The reason for this exercise is because the city is short on funds, but this exercise only used up more funds, in addition to losing the respect of NCIP submitters who in good faith were told that if a project was approved, that funds would be used to complete those projects.

The NCIP committee has offered up three to four million from next year's income from the TOT tax.

That money is a straight shot from the tax to the general fund.

What you are asking for here is costing the city so much more.

The money came in, staff worked the numbers, and over the years got the amount of the amounts to NCIP committee.

The residents submitted the projects in good faith, and the review and funding was done.

Residents were told that their project would be funded.

Now you are saying that all that was for naught.

You have a budget issue, but it is okay to have wasted all this time in following the NCIP process.

It would be one thing if there was no other way to get the three or four million, but that isn't the case.

Take it from next year's NCIP TOT allocation.

Stop wasting the city's money doing this exercise.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor Williamson and Council members.

I'm opposed to the city declaring a financial emergency in efforts to appropriate approximately $4 million from NCIP.

I would hope that the council will honor the hot time and hard work of the NCIP committee and follow their recommendations.

All NCIP funds are used for various citywide infrastructure projects that benefit all our neighborhoods.

Many of these important projects would never move forward without the efforts of NCIP.

I realize that it would be easy for the council to skim down the list of possible NCIP deappropriations and see a single $2.25 million project for undergrounding, I think.

This is the answer to our fiscal emergency.

However, even the NCIP committee feels that this undergrounding project should remain funded funded.

You, as the city council, have the final say.

The Monterey Undergrounding Committee has been working to secure this multi-million dollar funding for the last eight years.

If the council removes this appropriation, Monterey will lose the opportunity to receive a 4.7 million dollar credit from PGE for undergrounding.

I appreciate staff reviewing the city budget to look for options to reduce the 10 million dollar deficit.

However, defunding some NCIP projects provides only a one-time financial assist and does nothing to reduce the city's structural deficit in the long term.

I'm confused as to why the council could vote to add almost a million dollars to the economic uncertainty reserve, but at the same time, you want to remove funding from NCIP projects.

This is like asking our neighborhoods to make a deposit to the city's bank account that the city can then stash away for the emergency of their city's own choosing.

If there is additional funding available for a reserve, then this is not a financial emergency.

Instead of removing funding for projects already approved by the NCIP committee, please consider the alternative proposal and appropriate appropriate future 2027 NCIP funds.

Thank you.

Hello.

I'm Ray Myers from uh and I'm the chairman of Monterey Undergrounding.

Uh our group has been composed of members in multiple districts throughout Monterey.

We've been meeting since 2018.

Um, I'd like to tell you a little bit about this project.

Um Fremont Street Project was started back in 2017 and was to utilize the accrued $4.7 million that came to us by way of Rule 20A.

Um tax credit.

It is um, it's a unique program that can be applied to all costs, including the cost to establish connections to the from the street to the buildings.

However, recently PGEs come about with a new estimate and a new time frame.

This was about a year ago.

They told us that it was going to cost nearly twice as much, and it won't be started until 2035.

Our group got together, we started to negotiate, and we set up meetings that ultimately resulted in PG agreeing with us that this project should be prioritized, and that they brought it all the way down to current.

So this year, 2026, they're going to start design.

And so that means the clock is ticking.

It's going to be two to three years, and they'll be finished with this design.

And you'll need to have the difference between what this new estimate is and what the credits are, that 4.7 million dollars.

So the NCIP committee heard all of these facts and they voted to prioritize undergrounding projects for that.

We're very extremely grateful and also to the citizens for their support over the years for our projects.

It's extremely important as it will serve to establish a model for future undergrounding projects.

The opportunity to utilize PGE's 4.7 million will not happen again as this program has now ended.

So street by street, we can do this.

Thank you.

Hello.

So my name's Shanneria Bone.

I'm the NCIP chair.

I did write a letter with the vice chair that we submitted for public comment.

So hopefully you guys will get a chance to look at that.

And just echoing what everyone has said, and the NCIP has unanimously unanimous unanimously decided that we would prefer to recommend that the funding be from next year's cycle instead of this year's cycle, as we felt that all the projects were worth funding.

And I also wanted to just share my personal experience.

I started off in NCIP 2020 and 2021.

So it was right after COVID.

The projects were defunded because of the financial emergency.

And there was understanding of why that needed to happen.

However, when I was going to neighborhood association meetings, there was a lot of anger, a lot of frustration.

Attending the meetings as an alternate at that time, there's a lot of confusion about what to do with these projects that have been defunded.

Are they going to go into the next cycle?

Do they take priority?

There really wasn't a clear pathway for how these projects would be refunded if money were taken away.

And again, that led to a lot of anger, frustration, disappointment, resentment.

And those were really the things that I was feeling at our NCIP meetings in January when project submitters were coming up and defending the projects that they submitted and again expressing those same emotions.

So it kind of feels like, you know, we can get into a situation where it was a repeat of what happened right after COVID.

And that really I think was a negative impact on the community and the trust that the community has in the NCIP committee as well as the city council.

So I just wanted to bring that up as something to consider.

If you know the decision is to uh choose some projects to defund or freeze, I would ask that the city council come up with a very clear pathway for how those projects would be refunded.

Thank you.

Good evening, council.

I'm Hans Yanish.

Um the remaining Hans, I guess.

Um, but no, I would like to point out that um defunding funding projects is much more expensive than you might think.

Many of these projects are actually like are part of phase projects where like phase one has been the design.

So a lot of work has been done on designing a project, on getting uh sign-offs from residents and everything else.

These projects are shovel ready for now, phase two to actually build them.

And by putting those on hold, you're basically backtracking on a lot of the work that has been done.

So it's I think it's um really important that uh most of these projects do continue, and I do, like other people have said, highly recommend you take the alternative that NCIP has suggested and take um necessary funds out of next year's money.

It's also, I think, important for just the morale in the city to uh keep the support uh to keep the open communications between residents and uh and you guys open and trustworthy.

And so with that said, I hope you guys will end up choosing ladies and ladies and gentlemen will end up choosing the alternative that NCIP recommended.

Thank you very much.

So I think the uh appropriation of next year's funds matches the period in which the city has the problem, taking it from the back projects, takes it from a period that doesn't jibe with where the budget problem is.

It seemed fairer to me to take money from allocations that haven't been given to projects next year's when it matches where the city has the opportunity or need for the money next year, and that's why we pushed through this proposal to take three and a half million out of next year's funding.

Will we have needs in the city where NCIP will need to help, like the 400,000 for the fire department or the 500,000 for the police department or the ADA?

Very likely.

So if you could go lighter than three and a half, wonderful, we can then help support the city in other wise.

But if you need two, three and a half, the committee is unanimously said, please take it from here.

Okay.

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

Sure, in order of hands raised, Esther, go ahead and unmute, please.

Good evening, everybody.

Um, first I want to thank everybody on the NCIP and staff.

There have been countless hours put into all of this, and nobody is happy about any of this, as well as the city council's not happy about having to even consider this.

Um, to do no quote of their own.

This deficit that we have was a long time in the making, and unfortunately, previous administrations did not take care of reserves or anything else, and that's why we're in this predicament.

That said, um I would like to agree with a lot of what was said as far as um not taking money from the uh this cycle and taking money from next cycle.

But my question, and I still haven't heard anybody suggest where is the balance of the money that the city is short going to come from?

So we are still waiting to confirm that it is 10 million, but we're not sure.

And even if it's less, I don't think it's going to be tremendously less.

And where are we going to get the balance needed?

Because what we need is now, and taxes and all these other things that are on the ballot coming up, aren't going to be have coming into the city in time to help us out of this crisis.

So I'm looking forward to hearing anybody come up with an alternative to how we're going to come up with the balance.

Um, I do think that we should absolutely stop taking projects, new projects, and eventually fund what's already in the pipeline.

I also want to echo an earlier public comment regarding Laguna Grande Park project.

Um that project was grossly underfunded, and it also needs the border situation between Seaside and Monterey to be addressed before we even really go forward at all.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Next caller, Kurt Tipton.

Um there we go.

I think I unmuted that time.

We can hear you hear you here.

All right, good.

So I'm Kurt Tipton.

I'm the downtown representative.

And I hope the council members have listened, or at least listened to part of our meetings that we've had with the public and heard the public's comments about defunding these projects.

I think Shanneri said it quite well.

There was anger and distrust or mistrust with the committee and the council.

Understand that we as the committee support the idea that you need the money.

We understand that.

And what we're asking is keep the projects that we currently have and take the money from next year.

The public outcry that we heard, and I hopefully you're hearing it, is quite heavy.

And so please take the money from next year's budget and leave these projects alone.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next caller, Gina.

Um, good evening.

Um, thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I'm addressing the NCIP funding as well.

Um, it was very refreshing to hear the NCIP come forward with the recommendation they did.

Um, I um am taking the opportunity to provide some alternate solutions that do uh more um fully than what is being suggested by the city council um to continue the integrity of the NCIP processes.

Um so I heard saying once that no is a decision and yes is a commitment.

And so the commit the approach to dealing with the current situation should be primarily to maintain commitments, not make new commitments that can't be held, and to um move forward with that direction.

So there are other options for for um addressing funding that I've spoken to at the NCIP meetings.

One is to um sweep the uncommitted money from the existing projects, another is to limit the amount of next year's projects, the 2625-26 projects, and then of course the best alternative being the one that's being presented today.

Um so I hope you seriously consider um not undoing commitments that are made to your residents of your community, and you look at these other options that do exist and are very um uh reasonable solutions compared to starting to defund projects that you've already approved.

Um, I also think that this points to the question of strategic planning for the NCIP, and I think it should be a city priority to um really look at how the projects fit into the community um well-being in general.

So thank you very much considering those.

Thank you.

Next caller, Tom Reeves.

Uh thank you.

Um it's clear that the spirit intent of the city charters to take money from the unallocated uh reserves in the fund if it's needed to fund the ordinary necessary services of the city.

I know the city attorney has said that you can legally take money out of existing projects.

I I'm not gonna challenge that at all.

I'm not in a position to.

I would say though that the spirit and and intent of the charter are very clear that it's to come from the funds to be allocated.

Now it's too bad the item number 17 wasn't discussed prior to this one, and I was told by Nat that it would be because 17 sets the stage for this discussion.

And when I read the staff report for item 17, you know, the city has always been able to pull the iron out of the fire, and they've been able to balance the budget.

And as a matter of fact, the projections in item 17 looking forward look like things are gonna actually, the deficit's gonna decrease, meaning things are improving.

So let me use a quick analogy.

You're sitting outside the supermarket, somebody asked you for 20 bucks because they don't have enough money to buy food for their children.

They need milk, eggs, cereal, bread.

You go into the store, the person comes out, you come out, and then you see them in their bag of groceries, and they've got a beautiful expensive cut of steak, a $30 bottle of wine, and a bouquet of flowers, and yeah, they've got the carton of eggs and the milk like they told you to, that like they told you they were gonna buy.

But wouldn't you feel a little deceived by that?

This is a little bit like that.

You you haven't yet proven that you need this money for the ordinary and necessary services of the city.

That should be the preamble to having this conversation about taking money out of the NIP.

Um, and without that, I think it's really premature to be talking about what amount, because who knows you're saying 10 million dollars, but item 17 shows like it's going to be less than 10 million.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And uh our last caller, I would like to know a hand did go up after you close public comment, but our last caller is Lori.

Good evening.

I think I'll keep mine short, but I agree with Tom Reeves.

I expected number 17 to be first.

I'll speak on that whenever we get to that.

Hate when these are rearranged, messes up my night.

Um, but uh it's important to note that in this report itself, it acknowledges that a backlog tied to engineering staffing shortages, not lack of community need.

Um, the neighborhood improvement funds were created for neighborhood improvements and not to sit in a queue waiting for staff availability and then be taken back to solve an unrelated structural operating deficit.

The council directed the committee to you know look for those three to four million dollars, as we know, in projects to defund, but the committee itself suggested a different approach, which I agree with, and I agree with most of the other comments tonight, which is using the future funding rather than canceling already approved neighborhood project, and that um distinction matters because the residents follow a process, the projects are approved, expectations are set, delays are caused by internal staffing constraints, and that should not now become the justification for removing those projects entirely.

The neighborhood fund should be managed responsibly, but also used for the purpose in which they were created for, which are is the community projects.

So I'm really looking forward to the day when this council starts addressing the structural deficit.

I have yet to see any skin come off of the back of the city before the residents are being taken from, whether it's in the form of the taxes we're going to be discussing later tonight, and that we'll see on the ballot or our neighborhood community funds.

So there's got to be some give and take there.

And so far, I see that we're just all being taken from, and I want to see what the city's going to do in response.

So I look forward to those discussions and when you're going to have them.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

That's me.

Sorry.

Um, bringing it back to the council um for discussion.

Who wants to start us off?

Uh a couple of questions.

Um, this one's a legal question from uh Chrissy.

In terms of one of the options that's discussed in the staff recommendation, and echoed by an unanimous vote by the NCIP, is to look to the future year budget year 26-27 to take the 3.5 million dollars from that budget year.

So as far as the legal parameters of our charter and guidelines, does that create any limitations?

If we were to do that, challenges.

Any challenges?

Any any challenges to taking it from future years?

From the next year?

Uh no, it does not.

Very succinct, thank you.

Um, so I wanted to go through Ed, can I can I follow up on that just to maybe ask the question in a different way?

So if the council was ready to make a decision tonight, which we're not going to do, but hypothetically, and we decided to take 3.5 million from next year's NCIP allocation.

There's no issue with the council making that decision.

Okay, okay.

And that was actually my next area that I wanted to cover because I know the staff report is uh to receive a report in a presentation.

Um tonight, and and I'm sorry, I was not here for the afternoon session, so 17 is rolled over.

We're gonna discuss it at the end, but we're gonna do 17.

So I wanted to make sure that we, if at all possible, this council could be in a position to make the decision that's recommended by the NCIP uh 3.5 million, because I I just think that it's time for the decisions, and and I just think that if we if we thoroughly cover it tonight, and we have no limitations on the legal front, we have a recommendation from NCIP, and if the council is comfortable, I would suggest that we move ahead with that, and and let's on to the fact that we we want to relieve the stress that our NCIP members are holding on to, because if we delay this another two weeks, then that means that we've got another two weeks where folks just are still in limbo.

And I think the council needs to be declaring steps that are important and signaling to the NCIP that we're that we're not asking them to go back and grind through and unanimously accept it and move to a vote where we can say we make our first decision of 3.5 million dollars towards the deficit off of 26 and 27.

So um Ed, real quick, I think uh uh Chrissy just has a couple of I yeah, I apologize, council member Smith.

I I construed your question as to whether or not legally money could be taken from future budget years, and the answer to that question is yes.

The answer to the question of whether that could be done tonight is unfortunately no, because it's agendized just as a presentation.

So I think you were asking if if you could vote on that tonight.

Yeah, I think that was your question too, right?

No, my question was the the first question that she answered, which affirms I I didn't actually understand your question being what it actually was, which is making a decision tonight, but right.

So no, you're saying because we did not publish it as a correct as a vote for the council.

Correct.

It can be done, but it would have to happen at a different meeting.

Okay.

With an agenda is I think if it helps though, I think we can maybe gain some consensus from the council and maybe gear us up for a discussion uh and and not a decision, a final decision, but just kind of an indication of where the council is so that we can well they um so that we can get this ready to go for a future agenda item.

I gotcha.

We'll see what the lawyer's gonna say.

We're not making a decision today, but well there's nothing that precludes each of us from stating where we currently stand on the topic as it relates to the presentation.

Typically that's correct, and we do include um and provide direction to staff based on the presentation, but that was um intentionally, uh not put on the title, and so if you all deliberate and reach a consensus, that's really no different than so we can't deliberate and reach a consensus under this title.

It's just to receive a presentation, it's not to um have a back and forth or discussion.

Um I apologize for saying that.

And um, this isn't to you, it's I I don't like to box the council in like that, but that was all right.

Let's let Ed finish his thoughts and let's get through this item because we still have a lot of stuff on the agenda.

Yeah, and I I think I've shared all of my thoughts.

Um, since we can't take a vote tonight, I I hear NCIP, I've met with many.

Um, as all the council has received information from our NCIP members, you care so much and you want to get this right, and we understand how difficult it is, and my preference would be that on a future date, we will see this in front of the council where we would be able to do this from a 26-27 budget year and not have to go back and require the arduous journey of multiple meetings, undoing what's already been done.

I'll pass for now.

Thanks said.

Who wants to go next?

Question for Chrissy, then um, what would be helpful for council to offer to staff tonight?

Or is receive the presentation and that's it.

Call it a day.

Just listen.

Don't talk.

And one item that I prepared for.

I don't think that it's outside of uh the realm of the agenda item, though, for you to be able to share your piece on the topic, because that could help inform whatever potentially comes back to the council.

So feel free to I'll keep it a little bit more broad because I I did have some comments that were a little bit more general as well.

Um I do want to make sure that um, at least from my end, uh expressing gratitude for all the work that's gone into uh this process.

I um watched the recordings of the NCIP meetings, and I know that there was um uh some back and forth and and really uh um uh thoughtful uh deliberation by by um you know um the the representatives.

Uh I really appreciate um most representatives who um did think about it thoroughly, thought about the projects and and not only the impact to their neighborhoods, but also citywide um and and refrain from just giving tens to all um projects or once or whatever that that number may have been.

Um because it it is a process that impacts all of us.

It is a process that, as I've stated before, um, you know, we we're all in this together, and and it's not uh a comfortable com conversation.

Um, but I I think we're all putting in the work to make sure that we all walk away from this, possibly feeling not like we've gotten 100% of what we want, but we can all live with what we have.

So wanted to express that that appreciation.

Um and also I think for me, what I'd like to have um staff remind me of and the public is what are the repercussions or or the um the impacts that we would feel if we uh instead of freezing projects this current fiscal year, we took funding from next fiscal year.

So if somebody could remind me of that, I'd actually be interested in hearing if staff has any thoughts on that because we when you when you ask that um the thing that comes to my mind is and it has to do with our reserve the reserve topic around utilizing our reserves as well, like what happens if the the implications if we go into a recession, um that's less funding for us to be able to tap into if we're taking that now.

Um so I I don't know if staff has any additional thoughts as it relates to the question that Gino poses there.

Mayor, council members, um thank you for your comments and um just to point out that you do all you have your senior staff here, and we hear loud and clear uh what the NCIP committee members are saying, and we hear clearly what your council is saying.

Um our intent is to develop a structurally sound budget that will survive next year and we'll set your city up for the following year and the year thereafter.

It will be painful.

It may result in removal of positions that are badly needed to provide levels of service within the city.

But uh, Mr.

Mayor, as you pointed out, drawing down from reserves is a very um poor uh budget policy.

And as you indicated, um, those funds are needed for reserves.

They are needed to fund infrastructure.

In addition to a budget deficit, there's a tremendous infrastructure deficit in the city.

And I think you've seen that in terms of the costs uh to rehabilitate the wharves, our streets still have, although they're in comparatively good condition.

There's still um a budget deficit there, therefore.

So we have a lot of hard work ahead of us.

If you take comments tonight, we heard them loud and clear.

Is we return to you with budget recommendations.

We will take that into consideration and provide the opportunity for your council to give us specific direction and in regard to use of NCIP funds, which year and in what amount.

Thanks, Lou.

Who would like to get?

Dr.

Barber.

So you echo as far as the appreciation for NCIP committee and for um the applicants because it does take a lot of time to put that in.

Um I was listening to um the public comments and um one of the things that came forfeit, uh, I think it was somebody on it was on Zoom was talking about the strategic planning of NCIP.

And I do think that even if we look at next year's and taking the 3.5 million, that we still need to look at the strategic planning pieces of it because when we look at some of the parts of almost like 41% of the projects being um completed within a three year span, I think that's something that we need to look at.

And then I think the the thing the caller said something about uh it's because of the engineers and the lack of the engineers and not having that that resource, and that's correct, but also that impacts structural deficit by adding more engineers.

So it's a it's a it's a it's a vicious cycle.

So we have to make sure that we're aware of that as well, so that we can come up with a better strategic plan for the future, not just for what we do for um for next year.

So that's kind of where I'm coming from.

Well, um, you know, everyone knows how I felt I didn't vote for the deappropriations uh from the beginning and am not supportive of reversing all the work of NCIP.

Um really glad to hear that we will get some ideas for a true structural rearrangement because we can nibble at NCIP, and I'm realizing we can even take some of the frozen positions, but until we get something that balances out year to year, we can't keep doing it this way.

We can't take from reserves, we can't keep taking from NCIP.

We we can only freeze so many positions, and then that bow is out of the quiver.

So um it's looking more and more to me like what council member Smith said a month or two or three ago that we we really have to come up with with a budget that can sustain itself, and I'm looking forward to hearing that.

I'm and I'm realizing I'm looking forward to staff saying what the way we expected NCIP to say what they would give up, it will be refreshing to hear from staff what they think they can give up position wise in each department because we've got to get a better answer for this.

We just can't keep doing this every year.

We can't put NCIP through this every year, we can't take reserves every year.

So we've got to do the hard work.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, thank you to the council um to staff um and to the NCIP committee.

Um I know that there has been a lot of frustration, and and I've sat through a lot of the NCIP committee meetings, and if I wasn't there, I went back and listened to them.

So I've um been engaged with the entire process.

Um, and and the one thing that sticks out to me in regards to the work that the NCIP committee has been doing around this, is you all were looking at evaluating the projects that were submitted this year while the council was trying to give direction in regards to how to deal with the budget deficit.

So you all have had a lot of meetings I've talked to some of the members of the NCIP and I know that it's been really hard on you all.

So I just want to acknowledge that and give gratitude towards the work that you all are doing.

I've heard from at least one of you around um what the feeling is as it relates to your wanting to even continue on the NCIP committee and you all are are volunteering your time.

So I I recognize that I appreciate that um we hear you and uh I look forward to finding a pathway forward that um strikes a the right balance um I just want to say a few more comments this has been brought up tonight but I've heard it a lot in the past too as it relates to the commitment that we make to project submitters um maybe there is maybe we should have an expectation in regards to what we're communicating to project submitters so that there's some level of transparency because it may not be this council maybe a council in the future that goes through this process again and what I hear is that folks are getting frustrated and upset and sometimes you can't do anything about that but there's also some times where we may not have any other choice.

We may have another pandemic where we might need to take that funding and so how do we not uh how do we help mitigate that as best as possible by being clear with project submitters that have projects approved um that yes this project is approved it is public funding and it might be taken for some future need but I'm just trying to find some ways of helping to mitigate that tension that exists through the process that we went through during the pandemic or that we just went through this year.

So how do we help better set expectations um is I think the only point that that I would make because we're here it happened before so I just how do we help cushion ourselves here a little bit um the there was a the comment that was also made around commitments and um in saying yes to something that we've already said yes to um and I I appreciate that comment.

I think it's important and I think Dr.

Barber was kind of alluding to this too in her comments um the city is committed to a lot of things um everything that's in our budget is something that we've committed to and so if we're having to address our structural deficit and find things to cut there's a program similar to the NCIP that funding has been allocated towards and we're gonna have to find a way of rearranging that funding and so I I just I think it's important to look at this from a big picture perspective and not be too myopic as it relates to uh a certain program.

And I can respect and appreciate folks that are advocates and and find great value in certain programs.

But I think at the end of the day we have to look at all the programs and and make sure that we're balancing the budget in the best way possible.

And obviously your feedback in these conversations is helpful and important.

Dr.

Robert also pointed out Lori's comment that she made around the shortage of engineers and that is very much a reality as part of this conversation and I know that the city has made um good faith efforts in being creative um around trying to recruit and retain um engineers and it's still not enough we've we've lost another engineer since.

And so there's there's problems that are persisting in this space.

And it's not just related to NCIP, it's related to public works projects that exist throughout the city.

Um and that kind of links to another point that that I would raise, which is I think just kind of overall uh uh a concern that I have, and it's a little bit unrelated to this topic, but since we're talking about NCIP, I think it's important to be said.

It continues to bother me how we've allocated, we've we've been set in a space.

There's been a culture set in the city where we've allocated more funding to uh a committee of neighborhood of neighborhood residents that represent their their neighborhoods, but we hire these engineers that we're talking about not being able to recruit because it's been a challenge.

Um, they get paid really good money or pretty decent money.

Um to come up with a capital improvement plan, and we don't allocate enough to that.

So we there's more allocated to NCIP committee, which does great work, but we have hired engineers that are finding citywide projects that need work um to help mitigate the whole reason why the NCIP was created, the impacts of of tourism in our communities.

Um, two million dollars is what we allocate out of our general fund.

It's that's just not enough.

Um, when if you all looked at it, um, was it 300 million some odd?

I think it's over 300 million over the next 30 years, 30 years or so.

Um, and then when we compare it ourselves to comparable agencies, we're the lowest that are is allocating to our capital improvement needs.

Um, again, we have to look at things from the citywide perspective, and just as Dennis pointed out earlier, um, the NCIP ends up kind of being there in the background to try to throw money to the city to try to help meet its needs.

And it's like we shouldn't be in that position.

And we've talked about this before with the NCIP.

Um the NCIP shouldn't be a big a piggy bank or something that the city should run to when our our needs need to be met.

We need to be able to meet our needs, and the city should be able to survive on its own.

Um, and then the last thing I I'll throw out for now is um there was a comment made around us not making efforts towards addressing our deficit, and I would suggest or offer to folks that it's important to think about things that we have actually made a decision on.

Um, you ask the staff of AMP if the city hasn't taken an action towards addressing our deficit.

Um the council had to make make a really hard decision at our last meeting to move from the 30-year relationship that we've had with AMP as a nonprofit organization and providing the recordings of our um council meetings in all of the boards and commissioning committee meetings um to go to a more affordable option.

That proposal came out of the efforts, one of the projects that we evaluated to determine how we address the structural deficit.

And there are gonna be more discussions as it relates to that.

When you go back to that card exercise, I'm just gonna throw out a few that we still have to loop back around to, but that's park campground, um, pausing some programs, um, property maintenance, the mills act contract.

Um, so I'm not gonna read them all, but there's a few more that we're going through.

And so to say that the city hasn't done anything, I think is um a mischaracterization of the situation.

And I appreciate Lou and the team for working in the background on trying to get the budget ready.

There's gonna be more discussion tonight around the budget.

Um, but it this is all hands on deck, and I think we just have to be careful not to um throw each other under the bus here.

We all have to work together towards addressing these really difficult and challenging um issues.

And I think I have confidence that we're gonna get through this.

So um look forward to the discussion coming back.

And I think with that, we'll move on to the next item.

Um, so report received.

Check.

Yeah, that's what we need, right?

Okay, um, next we'll go on to our public appearance items 22 on the agenda is to declare a fiscal emergency pursuant to California Constitution uh article, and I do not know my Roman numerals.

What number is that?

Do we know?

Sorry, we're gonna come back at the end.

Um, it's okay.

I don't need somebody.

If you have the agenda, you know uh 13 13.

Uh section two B to submit general tax measures to the voters at the June 2nd 2026 election to address imminent financial risk, but that'll pass it to Lou for staff presentation.

That's correct.

So um, Mayor, members of the council tonight.

Your um finance director Ms.

King will provide a presentation on this item as well as the remaining items on your agenda this evening.

We're gonna have some fun with our finance director tonight.

Good evening, mayor and council.

For the next two items, I didn't prepare uh PowerPoint, just wanted to briefly just touch on the need for the fiscal emergency.

Um in order for us to, as you know, for the last six, seven, eight months, we've been talking about the structural deficit and our need um to have additional revenue as well as controlling our expenses.

Um, one of the items that are we're looking at is putting um an item on the ballot for the June 2nd.

It will be too late to do not too late, but it'll be detrimental to wait until the November.

So what we need to do is to declare a fiscal emergency in order to put this item on the June um ballot for the 0.375 um nine-year measure, tax measure sales tax.

All right, thank you for the presentation.

Any questions from the council?

Um, just a question.

Um, for those maybe that didn't see the last couple of council meetings, the council gave direction to staff to move forward with the ballot measure language for a.375 sales tax increase.

Correct.

And so the companion piece of that is what you're presenting tonight is we have to declare the fiscal emergency.

Correct.

Okay.

Um, and so when do we anticipate we would see the ballot language that would come back to the council?

Do we have any idea when that would come back?

Oh, okay.

I haven't looked ahead.

Item 23 is the point three seven five ballot language.

Okay, thank you very much.

I'll retract that question then.

Just ask it in a minute.

Okay, thanks.

Um any other questions.

Umil to where council member Smith, I think is going.

I would like reassurance that in declaring the fiscal emergency.

I'm doing so within the context of wanting to put the 0.375% increase in sales tax on the ballot.

That is correct.

And nothing else.

Not tonight.

And nothing else.

And I appreciate the clarification.

Also, as an aside, we did talk about last time.

This is tangential, but that the what happens at the meetings is not what we see on the video, but what the minutes say.

But a lot of our minutes do not say what each council member said.

It'll it will say council said and the topics and and they're and it's written well, but it's never Gene Rash says.

So I would love it to say Gene Rash asked that it's understood that a vote for the fiscal emergency is within the context of only this discussion.

Thank you.

I was like, I'm gonna get this one.

Can I can I just can I just add um because there's some historical reference as it relates to that?

Great.

So and you might be able to speak to this better than I can because you've been on the council for for longer than any of us.

Um, but when I got on to the council, that's actually what the um city clerk's office did was like they would spend a lot of time because it's not just capturing it in the moment, they're going back and listening to the video, and it's it takes a lot of time for staff to do that.

Um, and so as a way to help mitigate time management and staff's time, um there was at some point there was some agreement to allow more of a summation of the comments as opposed to like this person said this, and then this person said this, because there was a recognition that people, if they wanted to know, they could go back and listen to the tapes.

So it was a way to try to help manage staff workload.

And what I would offer is, and as much as I appreciate the level of transparency that's associated with that, um, you know, we've we've been increasing um, I think a lot of demands on staff lately overall, but particularly in um the city clerk's office with the changes that we made with the the interview process.

And so I think it's just a balance is kind of where we ended up with that.

And and if there's just acknowledgement that we do go back to the videos to look at what we what the real actions of the council were, I'd feel better.

So kind of put something in the minutes you're saying.

Maybe, maybe when we feel strongly, like like I just did, and I would appreciate seeing it in writing that that I asked the question and then I was reassured that the fiscal emergency is defined within the context of getting this.375 on the ballot, then then maybe I'll call it out each time.

How often is it gonna happen?

Three times a year.

Maybe that's the answer to the problem.

The other answer is no, we do validate the videos.

I mean, this is a national discussion, right?

You know, what did happen?

So just an awareness of it.

No, no, it's a good point.

Yeah, yeah.

And I think it's important that real quick, yeah.

Oh, well, go ahead, go ahead.

I'll make it I'll let you make the point on this one.

Yeah, so if you look at the agendas, we do have the summary, but then we do have the voting record.

So you would see, you know, the majority of the vote or who did not vote.

Yeah, and who would maybe not was absent.

Um, but I concur it is from time to time a significant um statement vote that we don't want to take and we don't want to just kind of get lost in the discussion and the wash.

And maybe the the answer to that is that we don't want to impact the clerk's office, but at the same time, when there's something of significance, that's a one-liner, that could be noted, and we turn to the clerk and we say, please note in the minutes my position.

And I don't think there's anything.

And I'm comfortable with that.

Yeah, like that's the way to do it.

I like it.

If I could um interject, sorry, the finance director just no the finance director just brought something to my attention.

So this does contemplate that there might be more than just one ballot measure.

There's one before you tonight.

There might be an additional general tax type measure.

And so it isn't isolated just to the actions tonight.

There might be there will be additional requests of the council to consider an additional parking tax, ballot tax.

Correct.

So just to make sure that that's got it clear.

Which you did say that.

You said tonight.

I did that's exactly what I said there, right?

Can I can I just I think it's a valid point.

And I think what we're doing here is we're collaborating together with the community to solve our collective problem.

And and my mindset tells me, until we have it solved, until I get to July one, I have an emergency, and I have an emergency looking ahead to the next year until I know that July one of this bus budget year is cast and balanced, and we make decisions that impact the years beyond that for the structural deficit.

So I'm still in the mode of we have a fiscal emergency, and I'm okay with saying that because I'm looking ahead that if we don't do the right decisions like we're doing now, the deficit will be 12 next year and 14 the year after, and maybe even more.

So I have a mindset that I believe we're in an emergency, and I'm okay saying that because we have significant decisions still to make.

And this year doesn't mean we solved them all.

The following year is going to be rationing it up even further, because we know insurance will continue to go up.

We know workers' comp goes up, we know salaries are coming, and we know we have unfunded liability.

So it goes on and on and on.

And so that all sounds very stressful.

It is, but it's opportunities to be able to make appropriate decisions where we manage our service levels and our income and are outgoing.

And that's what city government is supposed to do.

And it's not real smooth all the time.

Matter of fact, it's hardly ever easy or smooth.

So I appreciate staff's hard work right now.

And I really appreciate the fact that we have citizens that are participating and watching and suggesting and helping and holding us accountable to get this right.

So I'm okay with saying it's an emergency because it is.

Were you done with your?

Yes.

Okay.

Who has it?

Did you you're good?

And you okay, okay.

Um that's it.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Public comment.

Thank you, Raphael, for the presentation.

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

Anybody in the chamber wishes to speak on this item?

I see one, two takers.

Anyone else?

All right.

So we'll cut it off to the two in the chamber.

And Rick, why don't you come on step right up so we're ready to go?

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

There are two hands raised.

There's two on Zoom, but we're going to start in the chamber for three minutes.

Mr.

Mayor members of the council, I'm Eric Hoyer.

I'm president of the Monetary Peninsula Taxpayers Association.

I agree.

You have a financial emergency.

Because you guys haven't been cutting your expenses enough over the past years or dealt with your deficits ever, really.

So it's time to actually deal with the problem you're spending too much money.

Back in March of 2020, in order to keep this from ever happening again, we had a half cent sales tax on the measure, followed by November, a 2% increase in TOT to keep it from ever happening again.

The deficits at that time were two to three percent projected potentially up to eight.

Your deficits have ballooned because your spending has ballooned.

Yes, there's a lot of reasons and a lot of things for it.

Costs go up, but you haven't addressed the issue of you're spending too much.

What guarantee do we have if we support this sales tax that we're not gonna be right back here in two years?

That's what's said the last time.

So until you show the good effort of really reining in the costs, I for one am not about to vote for any sales tax.

In fact, I will be running a campaign against the sales tax, because you have to solve your spending addiction as a city.

It's great that you're saving money on AMP.

Congratulations.

You need the comprehensive plan that's gonna take it all away.

I just saw lunches being wheeled out here.

Why don't you brag ground bag your dinners during your meetings?

It's not much money, but it's money being spent.

That's taxpayer money to feed the council.

Didn't use two years ago, even when the money was there feeding the council.

You got to get your spending intact, and until you do, you have zero credibility with the public because they look at what all you've been doing in spending, and you can't keep running a ballooning deficit.

And actually, it gets confusing also when you see the item 17 saying that actually the deficits will be going down without doing anything.

So it's it's confusing.

What really is the deficit and what really is the money being spent on, I guess is an open question.

Thank you.

I've never talked to him before about the subject, but I'm gonna just read you what I wrote and I cut it down to make it within two minutes.

Could you have to read move that microphone up?

Because you're a channel.

Okay, thanks.

The $10 million dollar, and I think rising budget deficit does to my understanding not include two and a half million dollars for capital improvements, nor the $5 million dollars which are supposed to go into reserves each year.

In addition, or recent years, previous reserves have been depleted.

We don't have a one-time emergency cost of Monterey.

What we have is a spending problem.

If taxes are increased to balance the budget this year, but makes you think another short one would not reoccur next year again.

I urge council not to approve such emergency election, but go through the city expenses and open frozen positions and the pension plans first.

With approximately 77% of the general fund being allocated to personal wages and benefits, we you would think that it would be a priority to look at that first before taking back four million dollars from neighborhoods or raising any taxes for the citizen.

So my question is by how much can you reduce 77%?

Just reducing 10% of wages and benefits, which will present over $9 million in savings.

Thank you.

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

Sure.

Uh Lori, you may go ahead and unmute.

Sorry, you he was so fast I wasn't ready.

Uh so I'm speaking on items 22 and 23, so I'll just combine it, or maybe I'll come back and read it again.

Um, so the city staff reports show that Monterey's structural deficit has been forecast for more than a decade.

As Rick and you both pointed out, this means this is not a sudden emergency, it's a long-known structural imbalance that's grown and not been addressed.

The current budget was balanced using one-time solutions like unfunded positions and temporary savings.

That confirms the issue is ongoing spending structure, not an unexpected crisis.

This isn't a pandemic.

Declaring a fiscal emergency now appears procedural, allowing the city to rust this tax measure on the June ballot instead of the normal cycle election.

And residents, myself included, are also concerned about the implications for NCIP neighborhood funds.

And I think this might be a little bit of where Gene was going.

I'm not sure, but I want clarity for myself.

When viewed together, the sequence appears very straightforward to me.

Number one, oh, you run the sky's falling, a structural deficit is identified.

Number two, an emergency is declared.

That's where we are now.

Number three, normal operations are labeled ordinary and necessary services.

Number four, then that classification can open the door to reallocating voter approved neighborhood funds.

So before I close my comments, I would like clarification.

I don't know if that's from the city attorney or the staff, probably city attorney.

Can declaring a fiscal emergency today later be cited as supporting justification for classifying general fund operations as ordinary and necessary services for the purposes of appropriating NCIP funds.

Residents simply just want assurance that tonight's action will not be used to redirect voter approved neighborhood funding.

We've already heard that tonight it may mean more tax measures, but I want to make sure it doesn't mean that this emergency declaration structural deficit identified is going to be tagged on to um NCIP redirection of their funds.

Fiscal stability requires fixing the structural first, not asking taxpayers to cover it.

And I'm with uh Rick Oire.

Normally I vote for taxes that are reasonable, but we are getting stretched to the wire here.

PGE just added $300 a year to all of our bills.

Yeah, I'm not gonna be voting for it.

Hopefully, you guys aren't gonna be counting on it because it may not come to pass.

So thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Next caller, Tom.

Uh, as I said earlier, it's too bad that item 17 wasn't discussed first, because that really does set the table for these other conversations.

I don't know what a fiscal emergency is, and I'd like to hear from staff if there's some real like legal definition of what constitutes a fiscal emergency.

When I look at item 17 staff report, what it shows me is that in 24 25 and projected for 2526, the budget will balance.

And then when I look at 2627, it's not a 10 million dollar deficit that's being projected, it's an 8.5 million dollar deficit that's being projected.

So I I sympathize, I empathize.

I've been I've been there, I've created budgets, I've been on staff, I get it.

But this does to the outside world appear to be a little bit like the boy crying wolf.

And so I understand why some people are saying I'm not going to vote for this, because in my opinion, even I don't think you've to use a uh a term from a movie.

You haven't shown me the money.

You haven't shown why it is that this is a fiscal emergency.

If you've been able to pass the budget every other year in the past, and it looks like we're projecting a lesser deficit in 2627.

I think a logical question is why would 2627 not also balance if you didn't have additional tax revenue?

And I like the other speakers, I generally speak for tax measures, and I probably will vote for this.

But I'll say this though, it doesn't.

I think, especially when you look at item number 17.

You gotta to present this to the voters, you're gonna have to make a very compelling argument for that you've you've turned over every single stone, you've cut to the bone, you really need this money.

And I don't see it.

I honestly don't see it.

Um, getting back to the NIP when you when you consider that it has to be for the ordinary necessary services, using my earlier analogy of the person in the grocery store giving somebody 20 bucks to buy some essentials and then see them come out of the store with more than what you thought they were gonna buy.

That doesn't go well towards one's credibility.

So I I think you're gonna have an uphill battle with this, but but I do support it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think that was it, correct?

Okay, so with that, we'll bring it back to the council for motion and deliberation.

Who wants to start us off?

Can I just make one quick?

Oh, sorry, there's questions and then I'll go to you.

Um, I just wanted to get these um answered by staff.

So Lori had asked the question around the idea of the fiscal emergency and what that means as it relates to a fiscal emergency in the context of NCIP funding.

And then Tom asked the legal definition of fiscal emergency.

So those are two questions that I heard come out.

I'm not sure if staff is prepared to answer those questions.

Okay, okay, sure.

Um the language fiscal emergency is used in the California constitution.

It doesn't have a specific definition.

I will say that a fiscal emergency from a legal standard is a um more critical, dire situation than the legal standard required to um remove funding from the neighborhood and community improvement program.

Uh so an inability to pay for ordinary and necessary expenses does not necessarily equate to a fiscal emergency.

A fiscal emergency is worse.

Um does that answer the question?

I think that does.

Did you what?

And in regard to the NCIP and attorney can confirm, but I believe the charter provides that your council has a discretion to reallocate those funds.

Right.

And in the past, um the reallocation of those funds has been used as um support for declaration of a fiscal emergency.

It was done in reverse order.

Um, here.

That hasn't happened yet.

But um, I'll also state that in the past uh it was a fiscal emergency was declared with a $2.5 million dollar uh projected deficit.

And here we have um, you know, 10 million or more.

So uh the situation is uh worthy of a fiscal emergency.

I think it meets the legal standard.

I'll put it that way.

And to reiterate, I think maybe part of what I hear you saying is any action as it relates to declaring a fiscal emergency in the context of NCIP funding would require a separate decision to be made.

It's it's separate, and I will note that for this fiscal emergency declaration, it needs a unanimous vote to um take money from the NCIP.

It's a um four-fifths vote, so different different legal standards, different um altogether, really.

Awesome.

Awesome.

Thank you both for um uh answering those questions.

Um, yeah, two things.

Um it it kind of appears that some things look like they're out of order uh in addressing the topics in the fiscal deficit, preparing for budget moving forward.

We went through a card exercise, we've gone through joint meeting with uh NCIP.

We've been doing a lot of organizing and identifying and teeing things up for decisions.

Uh tonight is one more decision.

Um, and what's in front of us tonight is the point 375 ballot measure.

So that's one of several decisions.

You know, we are constrained by the requirement of if there's going to be a ballot measure, there are deadlines where we have to fulfill the deadline to have the ballot language ready, the declaration of emergency, and and so if we did it like our logical head would tell us, we would have probably made other decisions that are gonna likely be made as the city manager is brought to our attention.

There are more decisions coming, and we are going to be facing decisions about the control list that we have, because as we've talked in previous meetings, we know we have about 62 funded positions that are unfilled, so we're gonna have to be addressing programs, services against the available funds to support the services and those employees that's coming.

We have to do what we're doing tonight in an unusual order because we are constrained by statute, by ballot deadlines, and we're getting to all of it, but there's still some unknown, and there's still some things that look like they're in the world of ambiguity, but that's okay.

We can function in ambiguity because we went through that card exercise, and so we've all been educated because we know what's coming, and we know some decisions that there's five individuals here that are gonna vote in terms of what their preferences are to get us to the point of a structurally sound city budget that makes sure we are healthy, moving forward, and still providing the top service our community demands.

But there are tough choices coming because it's all constrained by the available resources we have that come in.

So we're not done tonight.

We got many more meetings between now and budget year, and I think it just it kind of feels like we're not addressing some things that are still left left done, and we are going to be addressing those, but we have to declare fiscal emergency tonight.

The other thing I want to say is on the NCIP, it does require four-fifths vote, and I have said before in front of this council, and I'll just say it again.

The vote that we'll take in a couple of weeks about $3.5 million from NCIP, is the only vote that I will vote for, taking of funds, and there will not be my vote to contribute to take more than what's been recommended by the NCIP.

So I don't know how I can be any more clear, and I've had emails and phone calls and meetings.

This is the only take from the NCIP that this individual is willing to do.

And I think the council's heard me say that before.

So I just want to get that on record that that's one of those decisions that gets us a long way towards helping us balance our budget with the partnership of our community and NCIP.

But I'm not intending to come and reach further and go beyond one nickel past 3.5 million dollars.

Thank you, Mayor.

Dr.

Barbara.

And so uh talking about what's on the agenda for us right now, dealing with the emergency, um, the fiscal emergency, I would definitely concur that it is an emergency.

And the attorney just really um made it very plain that's in the past it's already been approved in the past by another council of um pre um previous to us of 2.5 million.

So if we are well past that at 10 million, even if it's a little less than that tonight, at uh number 17, we still see that we're definitely in fiscal emergency.

And it didn't just happen because the lunch is rolling in and out.

Um, those things that are happening there, those things happen with uh lots of years coming even before us, and it's happening because of the cost of living that we as even families are even feeling.

Gas prices going up, insurance is going up, uh, calipers going up, utilities going up.

Yes, they are.

And so if you if you're not feeling it yet, just wait.

But you the cities are feeling it, and other cities around are feeling it as well.

And so it's not just us.

So that's the first thing is to make sure and understand it's not just us, it's other cities too that are feeling this because I've talked to them.

And uh for us to be able to see those things that are going to impact our budget, yes, but a lot of things have been rolling and have been building.

So to come to this point of where we're willing to roll up our sleeves and do the work, just like my colleague just talked about, we are we've been doing the work now and moving forward how we can work together to be able to balance the budget.

And so I think that is a fiscal emergency when we're looking at things increasing, and and they're not going to go down, they're gonna constantly continue to go up.

So, yeah, we have to look at some spending and see how those things need to be uh changed, but it still brings us back to how a lot of this has been handed to us and it's been growing, and with the increase that's already coming, not only for this city, but for every city, that we have to be able to make those changes, and we're willing to do the work.

Uh, not much to add here to this item.

I think my colleagues have uh verbalized uh the all the the points that I also have.

Uh so I support this item and I think it's time to make a decision and um yes, support it.

I can come in and support um because it gives us and gives the people the most choice.

Ultimately, the choice is in the voters' hands.

It's we're just allowing this to go on to a ballot.

So um that's the small piece.

The big piece is whether the people will support it, and and we will find out.

So for that goal of finding the most choice to address our budget deficit, I will be supporting it.

Um, just a few quick remarks.

Um, like how we got here, um, definitely didn't happen overnight.

Um, some of the big things that I think about are is PERS.

This isn't something that's unique to the city of Monterey.

A lot of public agencies throughout the state of California are dealing with this.

Um, because we've addressed PERS, um, it'll it'll be addressed more.

We'll see that more in the outer years.

Um, but as we see um, what is the traditional PERS?

Classic.

Classic, thank you.

Um, as those that were on classic and and pardon me for like not having a better way of saying this, but as those retirees die off, right?

There's less of a burden on our pension system, and that burden on the city will decrease.

So we we know that we anticipate that.

Um, and that's one of the biggest um impacts to our our increasing deficit.

And that was something that we talked about when I first got on the council.

I remember that being a discussion.

We expected it, and I can't remember um Rafaela.

What is the year more or less that we expect it to kind of peak out before it starts going down again?

More or less.

It's like 2030 somewhere.

Yeah, somewhere around 2030, I think is kind of when it peaks out.

So there's some stuff there that will be um addressed, but the fact of the matter is is that there's a lot of things, and and Dr.

Barber, you just laid this out, it's insurance, it's it's utilities, it's um all the costs are going up, and it's not something that's unique to the city of Monterey.

We just happen to be out front and addressing it and talking about it very loudly and for a long period of time here.

Um, and I think that we have made some moves towards getting that direction, but to Rick's uh require's point that he he shared earlier.

Um, I agree.

I think that there needs to be a deeper in-depth conversation around how do we kind of nip at the edges here.

Um I may not agree with the in all of us, I would argue wouldn't agree on exactly what all those programs would look like, which is part of what makes this so complicated and and why we've had a lot of back and forth in the council about this.

But um, I will reiterate this again.

It's why I've supported the idea of us having some type of committee that dives into this a little bit more and has a conversation around um what's in the budget, kind of more or less going line item by line item and having uh a more public engaged process around what that looks like.

And I think that that could help with the public trust piece, um, allowing the public to come in, have that conversation, speak during public comments during the committee meeting.

I think can go a long way towards giving affirmation around some of the programs that we already have, um, and providing input into where some of the solutions could be.

And then the council having that recommendation from that committee, um, I think can make it easier for the council to make those hard decisions because there was a bit uh uh uh transparent process.

So if the council is willing to entertain that, I I just throw that out there again.

Um and so with that, I'll go ahead and make the motion to approve staff recommendation.

Second.

Any other discussion?

All right, all those in favor?

Aye, any opposed?

Motion passed unanimously.

With that, we'll move on to item 23.

Call a special election to ask the voters to approve a supplemental transactions and use tax at the rate of 0.375% for nine years, and request that the board of supervisors of the county of Monterey consolidate the election with the election to be held on June 2nd, 2026, and to conduct the election on city's behalf.

And with that, I'll pass it to Lou or should we just pass it back back to Raphael?

Yeah, I'll be quick.

I just um mayor and council members, um, once again, our finance director will be presenting, but I did want to um a special gratitude to your attorney's office.

A lot of work to put this together in very short order, and they're working on the other proposed ballot measure.

So they really want uh above and beyond to get this before your council in a timely manner.

So 100%.

We're very very grateful.

Yeah, and uh the that goes to our finance team as well.

A lot of work put together to to make this happen.

If I could just expand on that, because I I've had conversations with um our our attorney about this, and and you're absolutely right, Lou.

Um, there has been a lot of back and forth, and we're using outside consultants to help um do some of this work, but our attorney's office isn't just taking what they're presenting to us and giving it to the council, they're going through and validating and making sure that it meets the standards that we expect in Monterey.

So kudos to our um city attorney's office for the due diligence around this.

And so with that, we will pass it to Raphaela.

I'm back.

Okay, so this item.

Well, first of all, we needed, as you know, the fiscal emergency approved unanimously, which we just did in order to put this.

So this item um calls for the special election for the 3.75.375% sales tax um to be placed on the June 2nd um ballot.

The language for the um can be found in the agenda package in the reso.

Um, if I'll allow me the um, I'm just gonna read it.

Um, if I can make it.

It says um preserve essential city service magic measure measure.

Shall the measure to protect the city of Monterey's financial stability, quality of life by maintaining services such as police, fire, 911 emergency response preparedness, and other unrestricted general fund expenditures by enacting a point three seven five percent sales tax that expires in nine years with all funds locally controlled with public reports, independent audits, providing approximately 4.5 million annually be adopted, and yes or no.

So that is the language for the ballot measure.

And if I may, I just want to say this one really quickly.

Um in this report, there is um a lot of information regarding the five-year forecast operating deficit, which could have gone in both reports and number 17 and this one as well.

So what I should have put it in both, but I didn't.

So at any point in time, if anyone wants to go back and look and see why those numbers for the deficits projections are going down, they'll go back and read this and it'll show you how what's not included from year one to year five, which shows why it's going down, like reduction in CIP, um, reduction in COLA increases and the like.

So just it is considered, um, but that's why.

And with that, um, staff recommends that we the council approve the call for special election.

Thank you, Raphael.

Any questions from the council?

Um, just one question.

Um the ballot measure, and I know our city attorney's office worked on this.

This was um also reviewed by our outside consultants.

Okay, and when will this actually leave this city and go to the county?

And what is the deadline that the county must receive it by?

Uh let me look at that.

I think I think it's yeah.

That's that's right.

So the last day to um for us to submit the local measures to election officials at the county is on February 27th.

And uh the last day to request is February 27th is to submit local uh uh measures and then March 6 is the last day to request the consolidation.

March 12th last day to file official ballot arguments and then uh March 16th for the rebuttal arguments and then June 2nd is election day.

Is that accurate because I because what about the parking measure?

We're gonna have to have that meeting next week, yeah.

No, uh let me see.

Oh, we can't do it during the no, we actually I'm sorry, the um, so maybe I'm looking at a this is based on an email.

I'm I'm looking at a an old one here.

We actually do the March 3rd is the last uh the last time we will be taking the the uh parking tax to council.

Yeah, but the rest of the dates uh appear to be accurate.

I'm looking at a an old email.

Okay, and so we voted on this only one time.

This does not have to come back to us for second vote.

No, this one time vote for the time.

Okay, okay.

And so if you could um provide the city council with the dates and interested in the advocacy when we as individual citizens might be able to jump into the education phase and the campaigning phase, and I think that would be helpful for the council to hear the precepts of what we are allowed to do and what we are not allowed to do.

Right.

So if the council votes to put this measure on the ballot, the city um cannot campaign in favor of it or against it.

We wouldn't campaign against it, but um so you can't use city resources, the copy machine stamps, envelopes, um, website materials, things like that cannot advocate expressly for the passage of the measure.

Uh, the city can provide information to voters with factual details on the effect of the measure and um how the funds might be used, although that is fair to give information to people, and then of course um individual council members can do their own, you know, campaigning apart from the city's position.

Okay, big signs at least 10 feet apart.

That was good and wow, you are on fire tonight.

Y'all missed it because he was doing this throughout the closed session, too.

So um I have I do have one more legitimate question too.

Um so with the outside consultant and the previous comments that we've heard about um who really spends most of the money in town and who actually generates most of the revenue in previous years.

I've heard a figure of sixty-four to sixty-six percent of the money raised from a sales tax is actually from visitors to the city of Monterey.

So is there any current number that we can be provided?

I I Nat might have that number from the polling company.

Um I've heard that as well, but at that point that's right.

I mean, last last we checked the um the data was 62 percent roughly, but that was uh that information is about four years old.

Uh we uh don't have more recent numbers, but those are the numbers that we we hang our hat on uh based on the uh HDL analysis of of uh outside um uh non-residents uh and the data that we've we've shared before.

Okay.

So we have one more ballot measure that would be coming to us, and that is on the parking.

Correct.

Is there a way to get a quick read on the HDL with current numbers of sales tax expenditure, or would that cost us money?

It would cost us money to get to uh to go through and get a new update uh specifically for Monterey.

Okay, okay, and that the timing uh would likely uh not yield that result in time.

Okay.

But but I would guess that it's probably not changed from four years ago with the spending patterns, but you believe it was about sixty-two percent of the sales tax collected was spent by paid by visitors to the city of Monterey.

That's correct.

We we say non-resonants because that's visitors, including those from adjacent areas, Carmel, C Sighting May Shop at Del Mani Center or other areas in the city.

Exactly.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you very much.

Okay, seeing that there's no other questions, we will take it out to public comment.

Folks on Zoom can use a raise hand function.

Anybody in the chamber wish to speak on this item?

All right, seeing none in the chamber, I'll do a countdown for folks on Zoom to five, four, three, two, one.

Uh there are no hands raised.

No hands raised, but go ahead and bring it back to the council.

I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve staff recommendation.

Second.

Any other discussion?

All those in favor, aye, any opposed, motion passes unanimously.

And with that, we're gonna go back to item 17, which is also another um public appearance item.

17 is to amend resolution 25-058 authorizing changes to the fiscal year 2526 budget to increase revenues and expenditures in the general fund and other funds, designate funds into the economic uncertainty reserve and update the position control list.

That'll pass to Lou for staff presentation.

Thank you.

And uh I believe this is the last item of the evening.

And uh once again, our our finance director gets to present this.

Um, let me just say that um, that the budget process is is a bit complicated, but uh of course, your budget is is your financial plan for the year ahead.

And then at the end of that year, you do a uh annual comprehensive financial report that tells you how you how you did in that prior year, and then you would have an uh uh unassigned fund balance, so to speak, of how well did you manage within that budget and what available funds um are available for the coming fiscal year, and generally those are put into reserves for the most part.

Um tonight's presentation is a mid-year tune up.

It isn't your final budget, and um it is a bit confusing in that regard because you kind of have the past year and the upcoming year, but once again, um the important work will be when we come forward with the final budget for the for the upcoming year, and that's where the tax measures and the decisions between the level of services that can be provided with the with the funds available.

So with that, I'll turn it over to your finance director and Marfella.

Thank you for that uh presentation.

Okay, back again.

All right, so we started.

So I want to start.

Um, we're breaking this down and then three separate parts of do a fy 24-25 financial summary, um, 2526 are year-to-day financial summary, and then the 2526 proposed mid-year adjustments.

Um, so overall um our 24, 25 are amended, amended budget, um, revenues.

We had 100 um 108 million expenditures at 115 million, um, which gave us a $7 million shortfall.

We had transfers in 7, 778,000, transfers out of 3.7 million, which gave us a net use um for transfers of 2.9 million.

So that's where our projected 24, 25 um budget um deficit projected was.

So as we closed out 24, 25 are actuals, our revenue came in at 112 million, expenditures were down to 104 million, which gave us um 7.3 million dollars in revenue over expenses, transfers in a 755,000 transfers out of 6 million, which was more than what we projected.

Most of that due to timing, which actually gave us uh 2425 unassigned fund balance.

And that's um differences really based on all the hard work that the staff has been doing for a controlling expenses and looking at and trying to increase revenues in every way that we could.

Raphael, could um could you could you go back to that last slide real quick and just ask clarifying question that might um help clarify what this actually is for for folks in a way that maybe doesn't it's probably if you let me do the next two slides is probably give you more answer.

Well, let me just let me just try real so the two million that we see in the bottom right.

This is from when we ended last fiscal year to now, once we did as Lou introduced in his presentation, we verified everything and we come out to find that there was actually um a net positive more than what we where we ended last year, what we thought we ended with.

Correct.

Thank you.

So some of the highlights for our revenue, so our fees and charges, they totaled up we came in 100 at 108% of budget numbers, so they equal to 1.6 million above what we projected, our sales tax totaled 102%, which is 359,000 above projected, property taxes was at 102%.

That was 319,000 above, and then our TOT came in at 101, 101%, equaling 336 above.

So those are the major ones, revenue increases for our expenditures, our salaries and benefits total 94%, which is about 4.9 million under services and supplies 83%, equaling 3.2 million under expenditures, internal services totaled 95%.

It's about 544,000 under projected, and this is largely due to savings from vehicle rental charges throughout the city, um, because the city's use of vehicles was less than anticipated.

Um, one of the things um revenues exceeding projections and expenditures coming in lower it's a net positive for the city although we did anticipate those and kind of used it well we used it to incorporate in the 2526 in order to budget those budget plans and so far for our 2526 our adopted budget as of June 3rd 2025 we adopted revenue as 110 million adopted expenditures what 120.7 million and we use projected salary savings we froze some um certain positions we decreased department services and supplies accounts to balance the budget so those are all the one time expenses including reducing the I did say that we reduced reduced the reserves um the salary savings freezing positions we also did supplies and service supplies and services citywide we did 7% decrease for every department as of December 31st of 2025 um our revenues were at 56.6 million which is 51 percent of the projected revenue so we're right on target with the revenues coming in expenditures are 53.3 million which is 44 percent of the projected expenses but don't get excited because our billing and invoices they lag typically about 60 to 90 days as in you do work in June I mean in July the invoice does not come in until August it doesn't get paid out until September so there is a lag between when the money goes out the door so it's probably um closer to being on track with the revenues as projected and can I ask a question yes ma'am um in in those numbers we adjusted the reserves to be 50 percent of our goal is that right that is correct for the 2024 24 25 and 2526 so that's also part of that yes so for our 2526 our mid year adjustments so we started with our process in January 25 we sent out um revenue projections expenditure revenue and expenditure reports to all of the departments with guidance to kind of track what their current budget was and if let us know if there was any necessary adjustments that needed to be made to the current year's budget initially departments requested a total of 1.6 million a net increase of 1.2 because there was also 400 000 worth of um revenues included and additional spending but staff work with each of the departments to identify areas where there's underspending and other like line items or solutions um city staff we recommended adjusting general fund budget so after we went through those exercises with all the departments sometimes it was um salary savings from as opposed to contractual services so kind of moving line items or moving things from one department or one division to another in order to kind of not spend new money but kind of repurpose some money that was already allocated.

So with that we're recommending that the budget for expenditures is increased by 8300 and the revenue is increased by 41800 for a net increase for mid year at 412.

So these adjustments are made across the city they include the city manager's office human resources police department fire and public works.

So this mid-year budget adjustment table kind of shows um the progression from when we adopted the budget up until tonight where we're asking for amended budget.

So that first column will show you where the 10.4 million dollar structural deficit was it's gonna be a little confusing if you look at that last column at the bottom, the 2526 estimated savings.

If you count up that's, I mean 112 it's about 10.8, 10.9 million, which basically how we balanced our budget with one-time expenditures and increases and revenues and things that we thought we're gonna end up at 2526, which would have made this 2526 unassigned projected budget about 400,000.

So between my confusing anybody, okay.

So the amendments between July and December, um, these are one time that comes in on staff reports.

We've had an increase of revenues, 2.1 million.

We have had um a request 3.7 million of increases for expenditures, which left us with a net 1.6 million increase in expenditures through June through December 31st.

So now at mid year we're proposing 418, which we just said 418,000 increase in revenues, 830 increase in expenditures and net of 410, 412 increase.

And if you look at the last column now, you'll see what those totals are for each.

So that gives us what the 25, 26 um net operating budget of 12.4 deficit.

However, again, using those numbers that we were projecting to have those one-time things that we did during the beginning of the year to balance the budget, it takes us down to a net of unassigned balance that we're looking at of about negative 1.5, which by the time this comes in at the end of the year, I'm sure we'll come out to a positive number.

So, that's right, that's right.

That's the right attitude.

Okay, so just to show you what this looks like, where the increases for um the revenue, um, the only increases that are revenue base are all from fire departments intergovernmental at 340,000 on fees and charges, 77,000 for that's the total where the revenue is 418,000.

All of that is um from services that are from the fire department.

So that's how you the increase and the revenue is from one point 112.3 to 112.7 in revenue is the increase for the expenditures, um middle column, the 10 million dollars, 10,000 from human resources.

They would love that.

Okay.

If you notice that that 418 from fire will mirror the 418 in revenue.

So basically that is a wash.

Um, 151,000 public works, 31,000 non-departmental.

So that is the total expenses of increase.

It takes you from 124 to 125.

Additionally, a reserve for economic uncertainty in order to maintain the 20%, we are actually asking for um increase of 925,000 at mid-year, um, to maintain the 20% in economic uncertainty.

Um, as you we noted earlier, it was $2 million in overage that we started with, so that's where that additional the 925 would come from.

Where does that come from though?

The 925,000.

So as of how this is calculated is we take our expenditures, what our budget expenditures are in this case for 2526 originally 120 million.

So of that 120 million, we say what is 20% of that number.

20% of that number is 24.

So now we're saying that um 24%, yeah.

So now we're saying at 25.26, we're asking for at mid-year that 120 is now 125.

So that would be 25 million that's sitting, you know, that needs to be into the economic uncertainty.

And so the difference between what we started at at 24 million to where it should be now, 25 million, that difference is the 925,000.

Okay.

So, yeah.

So but a meeting or two ago, we talked about that economic reserve number actually is finalized at the end of each fiscal year.

Right.

This 925 is still somewhat hypothetical still.

No, this 925 would come from the two million dollars that we had at the beginning of the well, showed you at the beginning of the slide, which is from 2425 closeout basically.

So we do the economic uncertainty is the only one that we do twice a year.

We do it at the beginning when we adopt the budget, and when we come back in mid year, so that the amount that changes is not five million dollars, like is not a huge amount, it's a manageable amount.

Right.

And that extra 2 million was the end of 2425.

Exactly.

All right, so it's sitting there over a whole full fiscal year really until it gets rearranged.

Assigned, yeah, it's in an unassigned fund balance.

So okay.

Right.

So once we assign it, yes, otherwise it sits there.

Okay.

Good job explaining that.

Okay.

So can I make a question or read a question?

Um, I don't know that it's acceptable language, but it seems like the adjustment once we know what the true expenditures are, causes the reserves to go up because we're fulfilling a 20% reserve.

Correct.

So now that we know we're 125 million, did you adjust that?

So that's akin to a true up.

Correct.

So internally we have a policy that we true up at benchmarks at certain times of year.

Exactly.

And so this is this time of year that we're doing it.

Exactly.

Okay.

Just want to make sure I'm understanding that.

Yeah.

We are hoping.

That when we present the adopted budget in April, when adopted, I'm predating when we present the budget the at the primary in April, that the expenditures is less.

So after we do our do the work of actually looking at our services and our staffing and all those things and come to a number, we're hoping that that 125 or whatever we're projecting now is going to be less, which means if it's less than what we have here, then that 20% is less, and we don't have to add additional money into the economic uncertainty.

Right.

And from a past life that I had, you look at April, you go April, May, June, end of year, and you really kind of have a feel for what invoices are gonna be outstanding because those are executed off of contracts, vendors internally, the city the departments pretty much know what's expecting.

So is there a way in April that you're able to glean that information from the departments that gives you a level of confidence that there's no surprises coming?

Yes, and no.

We actually have a process that we do is our closeout.

So in April, we start the process with all the departments.

We find out what are your purchase orders that are still open.

We ask them are these things that are still needed, are the projects complete?

Um, and we basically pull back.

We also put in using the last six weeks um a freeze on expenditures that aren't necessary or not essential to kind of so that we can look at what those numbers are.

If we're looking at and I'm looking at we're about 50%, or let's just say that we are at 90%, and it's April, then that gives me pause.

And so now I'm looking at departments and we're looking so okay, where can we cut or what are you expecting to your point contracts, those things we know?

Some other things that we're looking at.

What did you budget for that you did not get to may not get to before the end of the year, or that can wait and be pushed to the two and be budgeted for the next year?

So we look at all those things.

Um we asked department has a really good at participating in when we're trying to um streamline those numbers.

So um at that point, usually the spending is on stuff that absolutely has to be done.

So we get in a better, we have a better idea um in April.

So that's why when we come in the end of April, we pretty much know it's like a this Friday and next Friday we get the projections for all the revenue and next Friday the projections for all the expenditures for next week.

We also have a meeting with all the department heads next week as well to start talking about how we all can collectively look at our budget items and our deficit and where we can we where we can maybe kind of restructure our departments in order to make the city um balance that budget.

So we we have a better idea in April, which is why we wait till April to bring it.

Okay, thanks.

Okay.

So our last you did you have a question?

I'm sorry, at the end.

Okay, of course, I'm almost done.

No rush.

Let me get through.

It's fine.

So I'm doing great.

Speaker of truth, Rafael.

Okay, so our last one is our um change to the PCL, which is just to remove um an assistant urban um forester and add the urban forester um to the position.

It's an um net increase of 25,000, but between the two positions, um, because I believe one is vacant, it will the salary will be absorbed with the vacant um position by what's in the salary.

Yes, sir.

I'm gonna ask questions as we go through these because I figured it might be easier because I have questions on probably each each of these.

So I I apologize in advance.

Um could we understand more of the reason of the for the switch?

For the assistant urban.

So we're supposed to have an urban forester.

There had been some, I think one had retired, and then we had an assistant, and there we're doing underfilling positions and now on the right size it because we're supposed to have an urban forest forester that we make sure that we're correcting and we're in line with what we're supposed to be doing.

Sorry, I mean, okay.

So I think this this is not quite explaining it because it's actually a savings of 25,000.

Is that correct?

No, no, it's a cost.

Okay, so we remove the assistant.

And the forester right.

If I'm not mistaken, the or um the urban forester position is required by charter.

No, I understand, but we're saying we're removing the removing the assistant first.

We're removing.

Right, and then we're adding okay, but you're removing an assistant urban forester.

Oh, I see, and you're elevating it to the requ required position of urban forest.

Exactly.

So, say is paid more.

Yes, right.

How did we end up in this position?

I think you articulated, but I might have missed it.

There was um a couple of years ago while we were doing um there, I think there was a vacancy, and then there was filling and underfilling of positions, and this position basically got left off and it eliminated when it shouldn't have been eliminated because the um the assistant was there, and so I think that's what it was, and that's where the bodies are.

And then my next question is might be a question for Chrissy, but what happens if we don't authorize the switch?

Because we've been it's been it's like this currently, so if we don't approve it.

So that's um if you give me a few minutes I can look into that.

I I know that um assistant city attorney Karen Cratley worked with you guys on this issue, right?

I think so, right?

Yeah.

Oh, okay.

So I I just need to double check some things.

It's it's not in the charter, but it is in the city code, and so I just need to double check that.

It might require a bunch of city code amendments.

I'm not saying that's impossible to do, but let me just have a few minutes to okay.

That's fine to check.

And and and I I should have preferenced my statement when you finish this slide with the fact that um the reason why I'm questioning all these is because we're talking about this 10 million dollar budget deficit.

And so here we are asking for an increase in expenditures, even though there is some increase in revenue, it doesn't equate um or cancel out.

I would be more disturbed if you didn't ask questions.

So I'm gonna so so I'm asking because if there's in my opinion, if there's space for the council to consider not accepting some or all of these right now, um, then maybe we should consider that until we kind of figure out what's going on here with the deficit.

So that's that's where where I'm at with it.

And maybe we can bookmark this one until um Chrissy's ready to come back with maybe some potential additional information.

No pressure.

All right, let's didn't it have something to do with um who had that licensure.

There's some uh Arborist certification that was essential to decision making, and we we wanted that.

Yeah, we can come back to this.

Um I'm connecting with our parks operations manager and should have some more information too.

I know Chrissy has the background as well, I'm sure.

Perfect.

Okay, we we can move on from this one for now and then appreciate the the effort though.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

I'll let the council ask questions first before I finish with mine.

Are there questions from the council before?

Um right, we're to the end of your presentation.

We are all right.

She's like, if you just let me finish.

I didn't say that at all.

I do, I do have a question.

Um on uh on the investment portfolio that went up 300%.

So was it just was it at 2% and then you got six percent or what on investment?

What's the name of the who invests our money and how did it go up?

We go with um Chandler investments, they do our investments.

Um we ask them as part of our budget process every year.

Like we just got a projection for next year's um interest interim that we're gonna get.

It's it's investments, it's interest is however the market flows.

So um sometimes we're spot on, sometimes we get a good surprise.

Of the last several years, we've gotten very good surprises.

Our investments have done very well.

And can I can I presume that those are modulated investments?

I mean, they aren't super risky.

No, we have an investment policy.

We and we bring it, we'll bring it back in for an update in June when we bring all the other finance stuff.

Um so we updated, we follow state laws for government agencies about what we can and what we can't invest in.

So no, we're not.

And it'll still swing as far as 300% increase.

That's that's interesting.

All right.

Um what's the difference between projected salary savings and savings from unfunded positions?

So every year we know that because of the vacancies between, you know, 5060 vacancies, we know that we're gonna have some form of salary savings.

We projected that amount is gonna be um for this year about 7.8 million.

The last one for this for is unfilled positions, is the those basically those frozen positions.

So while they're included in the one in the 125, we took we took it out.

What does that equate to?

So that one million is about that is what we think that that you know brings us back as far as revenue.

So these were those one time um numbers that would help us get to a balanced budget.

So the so the projections are you are what you planned going forward that you saw coming, and I think I heard 7 million, which is what I recall.

Yeah, the projections are we're looking at we don't fill all the positions.

We have about 60 vacancies.

We tabulate about what that would be.

And and again, I'm sorry, um, savings from unfunded, unfilled positions.

Yeah, it's on just unfilled.

They randomly aside from the projection of a free salary savings.

Yeah, these are the ones that we actually froze for the thank you.

And if I could maybe think about it in a different way too, the 7.2 part, we're maybe currently trying to recruit, or there's an active recruitment process for, but between the time that that position is vacant and actually getting filled, that salary savings exists.

Got it.

Right.

If it's okay, I could speak briefly to the city forester.

Are we still talking about that?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Uh so um there's not a mandate that we have a city forester.

The city forester is referenced throughout the code, but it could be amended to refer to a department head or designee.

So there could be some changes made.

The implications and consequences of that I can't really speak to because I do think the position has some specialty knowledge with tree appeals in particular.

Um, but uh it's the it's not a legal mandate that you have a city forester on the on the roster.

If I may, mayor, just in light of the uh pending tree ordinance and the importance of forestry to our community.

I think this is an important position.

Yeah, I'll I'll chime in just a little bit more too from uh our uh parks operations manager Tys Norton, who shared that the urban forester is supposed to be the the leader of the forestry unit, which as our city manager mentioned is leading our tree ordinance, but also our overall forest management and the classification of assistant forester is only supposed to be assisting in those types of matters and serving uh other uh needs, such as the Presidio of Monterey about 50% of the time.

So it becomes a classification uh challenge if we uh don't have an a forester and then we we only have the two assistant foresters, but we we we're happy to share more information.

I'm sorry we don't have uh more more details to share uh tonight.

Is the so is the 25,000 additional expenditure associated with going to the full city forester position?

It are there potentially some savings there associated with our presidio contract.

I don't have that uh information.

I I think we already have some there's cost recovery with the existing positions, but I don't believe there will be additional cost savings with this move.

The 25,000, I believe is the net uh increase after all the expenses and savings from uh the shipwork position because it is a higher classification.

Okay, okay.

Um let's let uh unless it's on the forester position, it's on the forester.

Yeah, please.

Is there any downside to waiting a couple of weeks on this and giving staff a little bit more time?

I'd be open to hear the explanation.

I think it's a legitimate question, but we're also gonna be looking at other controlled position controlled positions that staff's gonna come back and we're gonna talk about that in the city managers.

Alluded to that.

So maybe that's the time that we should make that decision.

Collectively, we're all talking about the position control list, staff would have more time to present more details about the necessity of a forester versus trying to save $25,000 when in just a few short weeks, we're probably gonna be looking at trying to save four or five million dollars on position control.

So it seems like we ought to just wait for the bigger fish, put this together with that.

Absolutely.

That sounds very reasonable, and we're prepared to bring that forward in two weeks.

Two weeks.

Okay.

So let's uh let maybe um council member Rash finish her.

I'm done.

Thank you.

Oh, okay.

Please.

I had a question about the um uh the table that shows the projections.

Um the bottom row of that table.

It's on page package page 219.

Um with table is it with table numbers?

I don't think there's a number.

The five-year forecasts, yeah.

I don't know, I don't see.

Well, there's uh there's a row at the bottom with the uh operating surplus and deficit.

The first figure there is 10.5, and then it goes all the way down to 873.

Mm-hmm.

Is there a place in in the report here where I could see the uh assumptions?

This is what I was talking about earlier, where I put it in the last report for item 23, but I apparently didn't put the uh assumptions in here in this one.

So basically those assumptions would be um for transfers out.

Um so the first half of the the top half of 2425 when we adopt it, um, those numbers, the transfers out included like um it has 3.6 million, included 2.5 of CIP.

The next um year included 500,000, and then for the following years, um I think it was still 500,000 for 2526.

Um it didn't include any CIP at all going out.

So I guess it's not like a list of items, it's just like sounds like just a couple of assumptions as you project forward.

There, we have a list of assumptions.

We just don't include that in the table.

Um I put it in the narrative like again of the other report.

Got it.

Okay, not here.

So like some, and some of the reasons why we don't include that is it's just we're looking when we did this, we're saying, how can we bring this budget in line?

So we're like kind of projecting moving forward.

It's like, okay, in order to um, what are things that we knew?

How do we cut some expenses?

How do we cut um transfers in and transfers out?

So certain things we can't cut, like um transfers out, a lot of those include um debt service.

We can't change that.

Um, but we also had some years with debt service.

We paid off some bills so we could take those out.

Um some things in order to bring this down, the deficit down so that we could be more manageable.

It's like, well, what are things in there?

The CIP were things that are in there that was transferred out.

There's some other um assumptions as far as expenditures.

Say we have still a year left on our contracts at 4% increase.

So we looked at, okay.

Well, what if the next year we reduced it to maybe two percent or 2% for two years and then zero for another couple of years?

So those are the kind of assumptions that we put in.

Um they're different.

Is there's no, I'm gonna say it right, Marie.

There's no um it has to be this.

There's no absolute here.

But trying to find out what are some options that we have.

This gives us options.

So it's not gonna be, oh, we send spending 2.5 million every year in CIP.

So if we did that, those numbers would not go down.

Um, it would actually increase.

So it's how do we find other avenues?

So maybe there's other funding sources in the CIP or other things that we can do, um, make assumptions.

Maybe we don't have to increase um beyond a contract coalist to the same rate that we've been doing for the last five years.

So those kind of things that we put into the assumptions.

Yeah, no, thank you for that.

And and what you just described is is precisely the reason why I was asking for the assumptions to think about what what are those items and and maybe how those could be tweaked, altered or or changed and and that kind of thing.

If you say they're listed, I'll go and and check those out.

Uh, there are more examples.

I can actually provide you with an actual list of the assumptions.

That'd be great.

Yep.

Awesome.

Thank you.

That's fine.

So the assumptions that are included in the other staff reports is not a complete list, is what you're saying.

There, the scenario.

Okay.

Yeah.

If he could provide the list, that'd be great.

Thank you.

That's all.

Can I just ask a quick follow-on question regarding that while we're on this um table?

It looks like the numbers from the 24-25 forecast are somewhat similar to the 25-26 forecast overall over the course of the five years, um, but it's distributed differently.

Is there a reason why when you look at the assumptions that are used?

Why that was kind of it looks like maybe more front loaded in the 25-26 forecast.

Because the 24 25, they it's like they almost get bigger in the out years as opposed to the 24 uh to the current year.

So 2425 still has CIP in the in those years.

2520 um 25-26 does not.

So that's the first thing that's just that'll reduce it.

Um so that wouldn't be apples to apples if you're looking from that.

So I'll give you the list of assumptions so that you can actually see the difference that we did for each year.

And again, it also is looking at us trying to work through and say, how can we, you know, get this deficit down?

Because again, I thought it was important to list that.

I went back to all of the years back to 2013 and noticed that every year um that we presented adopted the budget that there's always been in the forecast, you know, a deficit projected.

Now that deficit has increased over time, you know, I can say from 300,000 to 10 million.

So at 10 million is we you know, we could always manage to use salary savings or reduce expenses at the last six weeks in order to to make it work, um, but at 10 million, that's the time.

You know, at that point, it's like we need to do something.

And so, which is why we've kind of rang the bell this year and say, okay, it's not changing, is it's getting worse.

So, what can we do?

I was about to say, as a family as a city, what can we do to actually kind of to bring those numbers in line with um with our revenues?

Uh question on as an example, and I'm on that same chart, the five year forecast that Gina was just referring to under projected 26-27.

If we go all the way down to the bottom, it's operating surplus or deficit.

The number that shows of a deficit for 2627 is five million and seventy-three thousand.

So that's a projected deficit for 26, 27.

Okay, I'm on the wrong chart, which targeting the line.

But five five-year forecast restated.

Okay.

Looking at the 26, 27 down at the bottom, got it.

I was in the wrong column.

Got it.

Okay.

Operating surplus, five million seventy-three thousand.

27 million.

26, 27.

2627 is 8.5.

Well, the chart I'm looking at is okay.

I'm I'm looking at 2627.

Oh, no, because that it's adjusts.

So this is 2627, that's 2728.

Okay, so I'm I'm sorry.

I so I'm looking at the the adjusted 2728, is a deficit of five.

Okay.

Um, so the question is on that 2728 adjusted and projected, is that factoring in uh a sales tax increase?

No.

Is it is it factoring in the same position control list that we currently have?

It is factoring the same position control list that we have.

It includes the 4% from the um the year before, and it includes a 2% for that particular year.

I'm sorry, 2% for what for the 27-28 year okay, which is not under contract, so it's just a very modest growth.

Right, right, okay.

Um it does not include um any CIP um going out.

So um, and it's about a two to three percent increase in expenditures overall, just keeping up with inflation.

Okay, and so if you start with the year 25 and 26, it did not include a CIP.

Is that correct?

I think we did.

So in revenue, so did we include a CIP for 25 and 26?

I think 25-26, we had a small amount.

Okay.

Okay, and then looking ahead to 2627, you're projecting how much for CIP?

None.

None.

Okay, so the the downside of that is we do have capital improvement.

Right.

We do need to earmark capital improvement.

Agreed.

So should we be talking about how we budget that in so we get a real projection of what our need is gonna be?

Yep.

So why do we have the projections without CIP?

So when we do this, we're looking at all different types of how can we shrink this deficit?

Um, and typically we've since I've been here, the amount that we're gonna put in CIP has always been about two, two five two point five three million.

You know, we want to do more, but we start looking at what are those top line revenue and expense numbers, and so um it's like low hand.

No, it's okay.

It's what you're trying, you've got a complex matrix and you're trying to get to the projections that can match the revenue, right?

And so you're looking for baselines, right?

So I I get that, and part of it with CIP, we know that there are although there's not a lot of funding that we've been putting in from the general fund, there is funding from other sources.

So while we're trying to um to balance and look ahead of how where the areas um and to everyone's point, uh any business, your top line or your most your expenses always gonna be personnel, it's just as that's your your most expensive part of running any organization, and so that's the part that we actually have to look at as well and and be able to make some the hard decisions, right?

And I just want to add, and although it's not on the chart, but an asterisk could be worthy of marking this, that the way we address CIP is we have private enterprise funds or selected funds that are not part of the general fund, right?

The marina fund, the parking fund, and you could rattle them off, but so it's not that we are without resources to address some of our capital improvement needs, exactly, but we don't have anything designated for WARF two as an example, other than Tide Lands funds, right?

So it's it's it's when you read this and you look at it, I know from the institutional piece that there's really this this other this whole other column that needs to have some accounting that we we really do have other revenue in accounts that are gonna address most of our CIP.

Right, but we always have surprises every year.

Exactly.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Could I ask a follow up question?

You had mentioned two percent.

It's a made up number.

For sure, but is is that two percent um our made up number used to determine increases in expenditures, or is that specific to do with salaries?

Specific for salaries.

Okay.

But the other expenditures we about three percent with everything else.

Okay, okay.

Thank you for that.

Dr.

Barber, did you have anything?

Um okay.

Let me try to work my way through here.

Um if I if I just add to the CIP conversation just very briefly.

I know last year when we've talked about uh contributions of general fund to CIP.

This is, you know, I know Andreas made made the comment, and we've talked about how an average city in California typically allocates anywhere between 10 to 20 percent of general fund to CIPs, uh to a CIP.

And for us, if we're just looking at it at 15% CIP contribution, that's a $16 million contribution from general fund when we weren't able to make a contribution of general fund last year.

So I agree with you know, Councilmember Smith's point, we should have a general fund allocation to uh to the CIP, but the question is how much and that we can easily say 15% of general fund goes to CIP because we have that need.

We have that need citywide in a variety of areas, and we know special funds only goes to a certain percentage of uh of uh infrastructure needs uh in Harbor as an example.

Uh the question is, are we willing to show a $60 million deficit on top of the 10 million?

And how do we how do we show that and balance that out from a budgetary standpoint?

Yeah, it's kind of why I chuckled a little bit when the question was asked because it's like, well, we can't even address the 10 million at this point.

So how are we even going to be trying to loop in a discussion around meeting our CIP?

Um, and I mean it's it's a well-made point.

I and it to further it, I would almost offer like we talked about the 300 million dollars over the 300 million dollars for the next 30 years that we can anticipate for our capital needs, and we're not even really cracking the surface or beginning to address that.

And so I almost asked the question how does that compound to this issue of kicking the can down the road and increasing costs because of the deferred maintenance and that increased cost associated with our infrastructure falling apart because now we're trying to band-aid things as opposed to actually fixing the issues.

So I'm with you 100%.

Um but one of the ways we can address that is in the budget process, you'll probably be talking about our balances of the designated funds, and we get a pick a good picture of those designated funds, those balances, and we start talking about we do have those allocations.

So I know other cities might say 20%.

I would say um, no, not 20% for us, but what is the figure that we do have?

If we look at those allocated funds sources, what is the percentage that we are doing through those funding sources?

Is that already at seven percent?

Is it eight percent?

That then gives us an interesting policy examination to say, well, if we know we have eight with these allocated funds, we should be at 10.

And then we say, what's that figure?

We plug it in, and as we advance our years, that's one more of those policies that we address in small increments to say that we're adding to the CIP to augment what we're already collecting in harbor, marina, and uh the various funds that we do have.

So it's kind of it's off the grid, it's off the map for a council.

So I think that's one of those policy opportunities.

Can I also also just add in the remember that for the reserves, we also did a facilities we've our reserve.

We also have the um garage parking garages and um um we have the the five percent that we use for sports center for those.

So we do have we're still putting money aside, so we do have other places, so sometimes this year there were um uses that came from some of the reserves that we did to go into to pay for some of the um infrastructure problems or issues that we had this year so we did have so it's because CIP is missing here it's it's not alarming me because institutionally I know we have the other funds right it all comes out in the wash as long as we have cleaned the wash and we put it on a piece of paper.

And I know it will be in the in the final budget.

Yeah.

Um okay I'm gonna try to I'm gonna try to get through these so some of these um is more of a question of like we almost don't have a choice maybe because we've already allocated the funding so that so the the question in these circumstances are why was the budget adjustment not done before we executed the commitment towards the funding so for for an example the city manager's office section was around FM3 we've already unless the some of the funding hasn't been expended yet we've already had them go through the process of doing the polling we've already made the commitment so why is the council now in a position to say increase the allocation is it because that limit that's been allocated towards that funding source that account has been reached and we're not going to be able to make it through the end of the fiscal year without increasing it or is it specifically for the funds associated with the the language that's in the staff report it's two things it is um first the dollar amount for the threshold um was under the amount that needed to come to council for approval first but we had to do a redo for one of the for that second time second round so when we had originally planned for FM3 we had the um December and the June um we didn't plan for an additional one so that took it over the limit that needed to come to council for approval and so before we do the June we need to make sure that that's approved.

I don't know if I'm the only one that is thinking in this way so maybe I'm completely off but if we know when there's action that the city is going to take that we that we can do the math and find that it's gonna throw us off that is going to require a budget adjustment by the council I feel like that's something that we probably should have come in front of the council prior to the action occurring because now we're in a position to where would it what's the implications if we don't authorize that the increase.

Then we won't do the June right we won't do the June we won't do the June polling for the for the we're under a contract we from what I recall and I would need to go back and not sure if this is a true up uh but we did go to council with the FM3 contract and part of that fiscal implication was allocating and committing dollars to it my understanding and I could be wrong if I can clarify is that this mid year budget adjustment was to reconcile that uh council action already taken to approve that contract I guess I guess part of what I'm saying is like it to me doesn't it doesn't make sense to do an action I can see if it was an emergency but to do an action after the fact it just kind of seems to be um like we're not we don't have much of a choice but if it's kind of more what you're saying Rafaela where it's like the funding was available it was within the city manager's authority um and it precludes us from doing a further action even still I would have said I would have said like we could have looked back and known that it was going to cause us to not like when we when the council asked to do the second polling, we could have said, Hey, this red flag, this is going to throw us over the allocation and we're gonna have to do a budget adjustment.

I would have I think systemically, shouldn't we be putting ourselves in a position to do that budget adjustment prior to taking action?

Again, unless it's an emergency where it's like, okay, yeah, let's go ahead and move forward with this, but let's get it on the next agenda to where we do this budget adjustment so that's everything is is in alignment.

Is that something that's that's typically what we do?

Okay, that's typically we already had money in our non-operational for the contract.

We didn't well, we didn't find we didn't know that it was gonna cost more and take us over the limit.

So that's why we came back when we did.

So to your point, if we knew that the dollar amount was going to be that, we could have brought it back.

I think I can't remember if they were at the second meeting or the first meeting in December.

I mean, not December.

Well, yeah, December.

So we would have had to bring it back the exact second meeting in December in order for us to make that increase at that point in time.

Okay, and then I think the same um question I have for like the human resources department one, the argument, the the statement that's used in the staff report is related to the executive search and hiring Bob Murray and associates, like this happened months ago, and so now we're coming and asking for a budget adjustment for something that we knew.

So I guess again, the same question I have is like what if we said no to this?

What what's gonna what are the what is the implications associated with it?

So with this one, the dollar amount, of course, was a little bit more.

What we did was we scrubbed the HR's budget places where um they had money budgeted in order to say where can you pull from?

And after we looked at it, and there's there's other things in their budget that um they're not gonna know.

So if they have um attorney fees and those kind of things, so all those things they're not going to know what that is, what will run them over.

So this was like basically the tip of the iceberg, and we were still able to reduce the ask down to $10,000 to um forward that because Bob Murray was more than 10,000, but we're just trying to find a way of making it work, yeah.

And so I guess the question still applies though.

If we don't approve the additional 10,000, what what's what's gonna happen in HR?

What's not gonna happen?

I can't speak for what they won't do, but I think overall, because as we I think overall it will be fine.

We'll we'll make it work.

So, and I just say that because um if we're looking at the expenses, especially when we get down to like the last six weeks and we start looking at all of the all the expenses in April and start saying, Hey, where are you?

And um basically slow your spending.

$10,000 actually for most departments is not a huge amount for them to cut um from their budgets.

Not all, but okay, and then I'm gonna try to move a little bit faster.

Um the police department, the radio situation.

In my mind, we've been operating with the radio system the way that we had it.

Um, it is the 220,000 addition, is that like updating all of our radios to be um chief helped me, but hold on, hold on, let me no, no, no, no.

But wait, I know, but we're ready.

But wait, so the county chief has been in my ear for the last six months about this and last six weeks, so I think I got this.

Um, basically the radios that they have, the county updated their their system with the radios and for them to be operable, operable with the county, they need to have different radios.

The cost of the radios is about 320,000.

We moved around and shifted and found extra money or or did not do some things, but the balance of that is 220.

And so um there's something that has to be done.

Because trust, I gave everybody a hard time.

So, what are the implications if it if it doesn't mean mayor, counsel, Dave Hober, your chief of police?

Um, these radios are also at end of life.

So these are Harris radios.

Everybody has updated the Motorola radios.

These radios are over 12 years old, they're purchased before I came here.

End of life means that when we ask for support, they aren't supported anymore.

This is something that we actually serviced at the beginning of the year for our budget.

But in trying to look at the money stuff, we were asked, well, wait till about mid-year and let's see where we are.

And in doing that, we are actually able to save some, not to say, but instead of having the whole amount put in for these radios, we're finding other places that we've saved in our budget that covers some of that 330,000.

If we don't do this, it's an operational issue.

So with radios, they get to end a life and you have to replace.

So the the it's only the car radios.

The mobile radios that we're wearing, those were updated about uh eight or nine years ago.

And there will be a time in the near future when we're gonna need to replace cells.

But our car radios are, I believe, about 13 or 14 years old, they're at end of life, and they don't they are not gonna work appropriately on this radio system.

Can you give me an example of if we don't replace it, like what what operationally, what happens with if we keep the radios that we have?

So if we keep the radios that we have right now, one of them breaks and they don't they're at end of life, then Harris, the company cannot fix it because they don't have parts and those kinds of things, which are past that end of life.

If they're on this radio system, I don't understand all the technologies, but they're things that they won't do on the radio system.

So we have to buy these radios.

Um, and it's been something that that we've needed for a while.

Um, and so it's it's an operational issue for our police officers.

Okay.

Okay, thank you, Chief.

Um, uh moving on to the next one, fire department.

Um, this thing I think this is a thing with training, and I think this is kind of like almost the same thing with the city manager and human resources one, where it's like it seems like the funding has already been allocated.

So with fire, if you notice that their revenue they have the exact amount of revenue as they do with the expenses, it's a wash.

So they're being reimbursed.

So we increase the revenues um at this with the same dollar amount for the expenses because they're being reimbursed by another agency.

Revenue adjustment of 10,000 and expenditure adjustment of 40,000.

You said fire, right?

Yep.

So there is some, there is some it mostly makes up itself, right?

But there's some increase in expenditure.

So for fire, it's 418,271 increase in expenses.

And if you look at the um sheet before, the total amount uh increase in revenue is 418,272.

Okay, I'm maybe I'm missing that.

I'm not gonna belabor the point.

If it I believe you, um, and then public works was the last thing, and what was oh, the mural.

Um what kind of what I see in this one is staff's gonna make some efforts on doing grants.

I wonder if there are folks that we can reach out to.

And I don't know what this looks like in regards to receiving contributions from the public, like, you know, a friends of um, you know, the Monterey mural.

Um, but I'm just throwing out I I kind of I appreciate everybody entertaining uh my questions here.

I I'm almost wondering if we it doesn't seem like there's anything urgent burning that we need to approve today that has to happen, particularly in light of us still needing to figure out um the deficit.

And so I I appreciate the conversation and it's helpful to kind of go through some of these things that um are happening, but I think it's important that we take a little bit of a deeper look, you know, a a bigger microscope on on some of these things.

Am I wrong to say that there's nothing on here that's an emergency where we have to make the decision today?

I and I and I appreciate I I think the probably the strongest argument actually out of all these is from the police chief in regards to the radio, but it it seems like the request has been in for at least a year now, and it and and and it's gotten pushed off this far.

I don't see why pushing off maybe a couple of more months while we're figuring out this deficit issue would hurt us.

Mayor, if we may speak to the mural.

Um, they are do you mind if if public works comes in and speaks to that matter?

Thank you.

So the mural is um sorry, bulging and tiles are falling.

So and even if we don't um have the money to put the mural back, we need to be able to pay a consultant or somebody who is capable of being careful and logging the tiles to take them out and storm so they don't get further damaged.

So with the weather, we've done what we can.

There's some plywood, we're trying to hold it, but it is at the risk of it falling down and the tile is breaking.

How can it fall down if we have the um plywood holding it up?

So right now it's pushing against the plywood and it's bulging, so it's it's one big piece, it's kind of hard to explain without showing it there.

But it it's it's cracking in different places, and we don't really understand what is happening and what happened because we need a test with the material the grout that they used, but right now it's pushing out.

So what we have is very temporary.

And if I may, mayor and council members, this is uh really a centerpiece to the city.

It's on the back of the conference center.

It's a beautiful historic piece, and I think there would be some um unintended consequences of not having that as we move into our visitor serving period with the auto show and so forth, to have the back of the conference center have plywood and uh you know wooden supports.

So um, you know, we believe that um this is a good investment, infrastructure investment.

Otherwise, we we leave it and ultimately um we will bear the costs of repairing that.

Otherwise, we would just simply have to remove that and paint the wall.

And there's not 30 so it's 31,000, right?

Specifically that we're asking for 120,000.

Suppose one twenty, thirty was for the pool chemicals.

Right, right.

Um can I can I offer an opinion, please.

I I think that the in the spirit of what I think the whole council is trying to do is to try and find ways so we can make suggestions where we don't spend money where we shouldn't spend money and in all things of balance.

When I look at this list, many of these things are things this council authorized as an example, HR.

Um there are things that if we don't act on, it will delay as an example.

Uh my experiences in the radios, these are digital radios.

You have to put out the bid, you have to make the order.

So a delay of any kind at this time of the year can delay effectively getting the appropriate radios and then it's a matter of getting the radios into the cars.

You might have additional cars that are coming coming to the fleet, and you want to time the radios to be here so they're married up with the fleet as new cars come.

So I I don't want to delay, although I I see that these are all justifiable expenses within what we need to stretch in terms of the budget.

Um, but I don't see anything in this list that I would be ready to say I want to delay on because a delay in a lot of things will be a cost.

Chemicals for the pool.

How do we delay that?

How do we delay um catching the tiles and the mural and getting that promptly repaired?

Otherwise, we're gonna be looking at trying to support and hold up tile that's not gonna be held up for much long longer, and we're gonna be looking at two or three months, and then we risk having more damage to the tiles.

Um, so as hard as it is, I think these are things that are appropriately to to act on tonight.

I I agree.

I and I know that staff has put a lot of work into having conversations, being thoughtful around the fact that we are in a budget deficit that we're trying to work through, but we seem to be agreeable to delaying the conversation around the um forester position, right?

So yeah, that was $25,000.

And that's and that's a position that we're talking about.

Do we add the position and staff wasn't here to really give the answers on the forester position?

And it was $25,000, and it's not gonna delay any recruitment.

And so combining that with the conversation about personnel was the intent of that suggestion.

These are executable projects, purchases, fixes that by risking the delay could actually cost more.

And for every day you wait on making a purchase of an advertised price for radio.

We know how valuable time is, and we're talking about components that are impacted with tariffs.

Um, it's important to strike at the technology in the top of technology as early as you can to get the best price because technology goes up about every Friday.

So I think I think we should act on these tonight.

Okay.

Um, did we go out for public comment on this one yet?

No, we have not.

Let's let's take a moment and do that.

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

Anybody in the chamber wishes speak on this item?

All right, not seeing any takers in the chamber.

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

There are three hands raised.

All right, we'll go ahead and allow Lori to unmute.

Okay, um, so this is yeah, definitely out of order.

Would have been good to do this earlier.

What do we have three minutes?

Yes.

Okay.

Um, okay, so I got a I got a couple other notes here.

So uh in general, I think mayor, I'm very happy to see how fiscally responsible you're being tonight and questioning every single one of these charges.

But I'll just say, and it may shock you.

I think all of these, with the exception of the reserves, which I'll get into, should be approved because these are things that are necessary.

Um I would even say the forester position, it's only $25,000.

We do need a forester.