Council Regular Meeting

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY OF MONTEREY Tuesday, August 19, 2025 4:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST. MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Councilmembers Present: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson Absent: None City Staff City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Finance Director, Present: Community Development Director, Police Chief, Human Resources Director, Library & Museums Director, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Administrative Analyst/Public Information Officer, Principal Planner, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, Planning Manager, Assistant Human Resources Director, Police Lieutenant, Recreation Manager, Senior Engineer, Associate Civil Engineer AFTERNOON SESSION Call to Order Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. City Clerk Klein called the roll with the Council present as indicated above. General Public Comments Based on the number of people who requested to speak, the Mayor limited speaking time to two minutes per person. Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Judie Henderson, Uwe Grobecker, Marcia Renzullo, Daniel Armendariz, an unidentified man, and Jody Emerson. Consent Agenda Mayor Williamson noted that members of the public had requested to pull Items 3 and 7 from Consent. On a motion by Councilmember Barber, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, the City Council approved the Consent Agenda, except Items 3 and 7: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) Consent: Approval of Minutes 1. August 5, 2025 Regular Meeting (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Approved  City Council Minutes August 19, 2025 Consent: Award of Construction Contracts 2. Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $710,465.06 to Stanley Semmel, an Individual Doing Business as Solex and Applied Solar Energy for POM-B617 Install Solar and Battery Sys (POM 23-035) at Presidio of Monterey ***IGSA*** (Categorically Excluded from NEPA 32 CFR, Part 651, Section II(g)(1); CEQA Not a Project) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-084 C.S. Consent: Ordinances 3. Approve 2nd Reading of Ordinances Amending Chapter 33 and Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code to Implement the Provisions of California Senate Bill 9 and Housing Element Program I-J Allowing for Ministerial Approval of Qualifying Residential Developments and Lot Splits (Not a Project under Division 13, Commencing with Section 21000, of the Public Resources Code) Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Ordinance Nos. 3709 and 3710 C.S. (3-2, Councilmembers Rasch and Smith voting no) and directed staff, in the instance that the ongoing external litigation eventually resulted in a decision that SB 9 did not apply to charter cities, to bring the matter back to the Council to be revisited On the advice of City Manager Uslar, City staff did not make a presentation as the matter had been thoroughly presented on August 5, 2025. Principal Planner Roveri, City Attorney Davi, and Community Development Director Cole answered Councilmembers' questions. Public comments opposing or expressing concern regarding the ordinances: stressed anticipated impacts on infrastructure, water supply, parking, fire safety, decreased property values, increased pollution and noise, and the effects of increased density on R-1 neighborhoods; encouraged the City to undertake or join in on legal action against Senate Bill 9 ("SB 9") and emphasized its impact on R1 neighborhoods; suggested the Council postpone action until external litigation regarding compliance by charter cities was resolved; criticized an alleged lack of public outreach and said the public needed more time to grapple with the issue; encouraged the Council to adopt only the four units per parcel that were mandated by the state, not six; argued that the ordinances would not alleviate the housing crisis; asked how the City would address deed restrictions; objected to there being no provision that residents of SB 9 units be Monterey residents or workers; expressed concern that SB 9 units could be used as vacation rentals; suggested that condominium developments might be more practical; asked City to investigate drainage concerns in Del Monte Beach neighborhood; asked the City to consider joining in on a draft ballot measure to amend the State constitution to protect local decision-making; and was received from: Marta Kraftzeck, Nancy Soulé, Tom Reeves, Uwe Grobecker, Jeannie Ferrara, Tom Haury, Marcia Renzullo, Cecilia Moreno, and Nina Beety. Public comment in favor of the ordinances was received from Esther Malkin, who criticized the public for not opposing SB9 earlier at the State level, and noted that SB 9 units would free up other units for affordable housing, allowing more people to be housed. Daniel Armendariz criticized the idea of restricting who could move into the community, citing the need for inclusivity. On question from the Council, Principal Planner Roveri provided insight into the one-year-plus public outreach that had gone into the development of the Housing Element, including in-person outreach, surveys, and multiple public hearings, and confirmed that the ordinance provisions in question (Program 1J) had been included in the draft Housing Element that had been available for review through the public outreach. She said that anyone desiring to develop their land through the SB9 provisions would need to use existing water credits available to them. Regarding drainage issues, she said that new dwellings must comply with stormwater regulations and submit 2  City Council Minutes August 19, 2025 related reports during the building permitting process to address any drainage concerns. She confirmed that the minimum lot size through a lot split was 1,200 square feet. She said that there was no provision requiring tenants be local aside from the owner residence requirement. She confirmed that the affordable incentive for six units was a City of Monterey proposal, not part of SB9. She said that any SB 9 unit, as with accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs), would be subject to deed restrictions regarding renting for fewer than 30 days. On question from the Council, Planning Manager Hill said that the City's proposal to allow six units was intended to help address the City's Regional Housing Needs Analysis ("RHNA") allocation, noting that the six-unit proposal included affordability requirements. He said that because the State law does not require local preference, in order to be consistent with State law, the City's ordinance would also not be able to require local preference, and that local preference requirements created compliance concerns with relation to fair housing laws. He provided insight into the portion of the City's RHNA allocation that fell into various categories such as inclusionary zoning and local density bonuses. He cautioned the Council that any delay in implementing the Housing Element could lead to Housing and Community Development ("HCD") enforcement actions that could include a loss of permit authority and grant funding. He said that since SB9 was implemented in 2022, there had been about five applications, none of which had broken ground. On question from the Council, City Attorney Davi said that if the appellate court decision says that the bill does not apply to Charter cities, it would open the door for Council to consider potential changes to their policy decisions. She noted that despite allegations by members of the public to the contrary, there had been complete disclosure of, and discussion about, the pending external litigation in the August 5, 2025 agenda materials. On question from the Council, Community Development Director Cole cautioned the Council about required noticing and review periods involved in the Housing Element and possibly revisiting environmental documents, and asked the Council to be aware that taking up any amendments to it would be a lengthy process. The Council discussed the matter. In opposition to the ordinances, it was noted that it was inappropriate overreach for the State to redefine R-1 zoning, noting that this zoning was meant to indicate a property for one family, and that allowing for multiple units on single-family lots would undermine the character of neighborhoods. The importance was stressed of preserving local control for land use matters and it was asserted that the State was abusing its power. It was stated that there was a lack of urgency around the need to implement the ordinance. It was noted that there was a water supply issue in general which would affect the ability to build housing, and that one reason to postpone a decision was that there were recent developments relating to the area's water supply. Also cited as a reason for postponement was the pending court challenges to SB 9, which it was stated would prevail because the bill was unconstitutional. It was stated that the Old Town neighborhood was crowded due to unregulated, unmitigated housing development in the 1940s, which it was stated was undesirable and should be avoided. It was stressed that this issue was about the quality of Monterey neighborhoods, which should be preserved. It was stated that Monterey residents were not fully aware of the potential changes and their implications, but that those in the know overwhelmingly opposed the changes and feared the long-term impact on their neighborhoods. It was asserted that there had been a lack of transparency in the process leading to the ordinance and it was stated that there had been a bait-and-switch in conveying information to the public about the six-unit provision in Section 38-26.1(g)(1)(A). It was stressed that the community currently felt excluded by the process and deserved a deep dive into the issue. It was stated that the matter should be placed on hold until January 2026, but that if it did pass at this 3  City Council Minutes August 19, 2025 meeting, the motion should require that should the charter cities prevail in the courts, the Council would revisit the ordinances. In support of the ordinances, it was asserted that being compliant with State law was a necessary step that would help address the serious housing crisis, which was attributed to decades of local jurisdictions failing to meet housing needs. It was stated that there was an admitted conflict between local control and State rulings but that this proposal presented the City with an opportunity for a controlled increase in housing units in a way that would still maintain the character of its neighborhoods, and importantly that increasing the number of units would help address affordability concerns and the shortage of units. It was acknowledged that the community was feeling fear about increased density but it was stated that the Council believed density would not skyrocket due to the adoption of the ordinances, citing the lack of follow-through with the few applications that had already been received under SB 9. The notion was rejected that supporting the ordinance meant the Council disregarded residents' concerns, noting that the voices that had come forward had been mostly or all homeowners, not renters. The importance was stressed of considering all residents' voices, not just those present at meetings. It was noted that the public often paid the most attention at the City Council phase of a process, and the transparency of the Planning Division's work and outreach on the Housing Element was defended. The importance was stressed of staying compliant with State requirements to avoid financial penalties. It was noted that the ordinances could be revisited if issues arose and/or after external legal challenges to SB 9 had been resolved. A motion was introduced by Councilmember Barber, and seconded by Councilmember Garcia, to adopt Ordinance Nos. 3709 and 3710 C.S., and direct staff, in the instance that the ongoing external litigation eventually resulted in a decision that SB 9 did not apply to charter cities, to bring the matter back to the Council to be revisited. There was a brief discussion about the governance policy's provisions for reconsideration, and it was determined that they would not apply to any Councilmember's potential future change of opinion based on litigation results. Councilmember Rasch suggested a friendly amendment to modify the ordinance language to remove Section 38-26.1(g)(1)(A), the two extra incentivized units. This amendment was not accepted by the mover, citing that the suggested amendment could not be carried out quickly and that it would impact compliance and the City's standings with HCD. On question from Council, City Attorney Davi provided details about civil penalties that could affect the City in the instance of noncompliance, including fines of $10,000 to $50,000 per month, and said that these were factors to consider in addition to the consequences that had been noted by Planning Manager Hill. A substitute motion was introduced by Councilmember Rasch, and seconded by Councilmember Smith, to modify the ordinance language to require that the two extra incentivized units in Section 38-26.1(g)(1)(A) be set aside as very low income housing. It was stated by the Council that the motion could not be supported, citing that it would put the City in a state of noncompliance. On question from the Council, City Manager Uslar confirmed that this amendment would cause the City to become noncompliant with its Housing Element. The substitute motion failed by the following vote: AYES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Rasch, Smith NOES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Williamson 4  City Council Minutes August 19, 2025 The initial motion passed by the following vote: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith, Williamson ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) Consent: Resolutions 4. Approve Participation in the Nationwide Opioid Litigation Settlements with Purdue Pharma L.P., the Sackler Family, Alvogen, Amneal, Apotex, Hikma, Indivior, Mylan, Sun, and Zydus and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Participation and Subdivision Agreements, and Request Direct Payments to the City (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-085 C.S. 5. Approve the Purchase of One Sewer Jet Truck from Vac-Con, Inc. in the Amount of $492,401.34 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-086 C.S. 6. City Council Adopt the Historic Preservation Commission Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to the Mills Act Contract Maintenance Schedule for the Property at 1078 W. Franklin Street (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15331, Class 31) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-087 C.S. 7. Amend and Restate Resolution 25-058, the FY 25/26 Position Control List, to Delete a Deputy City Attorney Classification and Add a New Deputy City Attorney I/II Classification and Amend and Restate Resolution 25-059, the FY 25/26 Salary Schedule, to Establish the Salary (Not a Project Under CEQA, Per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Resolution No. 25-088 C.S. Councilmember Smith left the Chamber at 6:01 p.m. and returned at 6:03 p.m. and Councilmember Barber left the Chamber from 6:03 p.m. to 6:04 p.m. A staff presentation was not made and public comment on the matter was solicited but not received. On question from the Council, City Attorney Davi said that a member of the public had pulled the item believing that the City Charter limited the City Council to having only one attorney, but that she had no concerns with maintaining additional legal staff, which she noted was legal and had been the case for a very long time. On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Rasch, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-088 C.S AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) 5  City Council Minutes August 19, 2025 End of Consent Agenda Afternoon Session Items Public Hearing (Afternoon) 8. Adopt the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Recommendations to Approve 1st Reading of an Ordinance to Rezone 817 Martin Street from R-1-15 to R-1-15-H-2 as a City Historic Resource and Authorize a Mills Act Contract (Property Tax Savings Program for Historic Structures) (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-089 C.S. and passed ordinance to a second reading A staff presentation was not made and public comment was solicited but not received. A motion was introduced by Councilmember Barber, and seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt Resolution No. 25-089 C.S. and pass the ordinance to a second reading. The Council expressed appreciation for the preservation of historic properties but concern over the loss of property tax in the City for properties that may not even be fully compliant with the program. It was requested to hold further discussion about modifying the City's Mills Act program. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) Public Appearance (Afternoon) 9. Appoint Councilmembers as Representative and Alternate to Serve on the Access Media Productions (AMP) Board of Directors (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Appointed Councilmember Rasch as representative and Councilmember Smith as alternate to the AMP Board of Directors City Manager Uslar gave a brief verbal presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions together with Communications Manager Huelga. Public comment was solicited but not received. Councilmember Rasch offered to take the position and Councilmember Smith offered to be the alternate. On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, the City Council appointed Councilmember Rasch as representative and Councilmember Smith as alternate to the AMP Board of Directors: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) 6  City Council Minutes August 19, 2025 Council Comments Councilmember Smith suggested the City consider an ordinance regarding ownership of roosters. He said that there had been some safety incidents on the Recreation Trail near Wharf I and asked staff to take a look and report to Council about what further enforcement and pavement striping opportunities might increase safety in the pedestrian crossing area near the Wharf. Councilmember Rasch echoed the call for a discussion of Recreation Trail safety. City Manager Reports City Manager Uslar announced an upcoming "City Hall in Your Corner" resident outreach event at Hilltop Park, and said that a future one would be held in September at Montecito Park. He reported on the recent Car Week, which he said had generated many traffic stops, citations, arrests, and towings, and shared that the public had expressed many concerns. He said that he would discuss the matter with event hosts the City of Seaside and the Monterey County Fairgrounds. Adjourn to Closed Session Public comment on the closed session was solicited and not received. Council adjourned to closed session at 6:18 p.m. Closed Session (Afternoon) 10. Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1): 1. City of Monterey v. Marianne McNicol (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 23CV001205) 2. City of Monterey v. Leslie J. Flores, Trustee (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 24CV000750) 3. Ashley Ellcessor v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 24CV000649) 4. Francisca Moralez v. City of Monterey et al. (United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 22-CV-07540) 5. Richard Rosendale v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 23CV000879) 6. Ronald Rogers v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 23CV003206) 7. Tammy Ryan v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 25CV002541) 8. Pacific Western Bank v. City and Stronghold Engineering, Inc. (San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. CIVSB2212212; Fourth District Court of Appeal Case No. E082907) 9. Stronghold Engineering, Inc. v. City of Monterey (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 18CV329015) 10. Stronghold Engineering, Inc. v City of Monterey (Riverside County Superior Court Case No. CVR12103427) 11. Save Tarpy Flats v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 24 CV005125) (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: No reportable action taken 7  City Council Minutes August 19, 2025 Recess Reconvene The Council reconvened to open session at 7:07 p.m. EVENING SESSION AGENDA Pledge of Allegiance Councilmember Rasch led the Pledge. Announcements from Closed Session City Attorney Davi reported out from the closed session as indicated in the action recorded for closed session item 10 above. Adjourn to Joint Meeting of the City Council and Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) Committee, and Establish Quorum of the NCIP Committee City Clerk Klein called the roll of the NCIP Committee with members present as follows: NCIP Committee Alta Mesa (Stocker), Casanova Oak Knoll (Schmidt), Deer Flats (Cohick), Neighborhoods Del Monte Beach (Fields), Del Monte Grove - Laguna Grande (Hanson), Present: Downtown (Tipton), Glenwood (Whitney), Monterey Vista (Jannasch), New Monterey (Chair Ogbonna), Old Town (Ricketson), Skyline (Duke) Absent: Aguajito Oaks, Fisherman Flats, Oak Grove, Villa Del Monte Public Appearance (Evening) 11. Joint Meeting of the City Council and Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) to Discuss Project Priorities and Process (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Discussed NCIP project priorities and process City Manager Uslar, Public Works Director Renny, and Senior Engineer Paulding gave a verbal staff presentation sharing recent highlights and numerous challenges and asking for input on: Council priorities for the upcoming cycle, resident engagement, project prioritization after project approval, potential term limits for NCIP Committee members, what perspectives Council could offer the NCIP Committee, how to minimize the NCIP project backlog with regard to limited staff capacity, and the issue of maintenance for NCIP projects being paid by the City's remaining funds instead of the NCIP allotment. Mayor Williamson gave a verbal Council presentation thanking the NCIP Committee for its work and asking how to lessen the impact of tourism on Monterey residents through the NCIP. NCIP Committee Chair Ogbonna gave the NCIP presentation highlighting the work put in by the NCIP Committee over the past year. Public comment was received from: Esther Malkin, who expressed appreciation to Senior Engineer Paulding, Chair Ogbonna, and all of the NCIP Committee representatives for their inclusive approach and welcome new tone. The NCIP Committee discussed the matter. Committee members expressed praise for the NCIP Chair and Vice Chair, as well as City staff, for their leadership and work in setting the new tone. The main priority for the upcoming cycle was determined to be public safety, which it was noted encompassed issues such as fuel reduction to mitigate fire risk, addressing speeding issues in 8  City Council Minutes August 19, 2025 neighborhoods and ensuring the presence of infrastructure like sidewalks. Firehouse projects like the upgrades to Fire Station 12 were highlighted as important for public safety. Regarding resident engagement, it was noted that proposers of NCIP projects conducted proactive outreach in their neighborhoods, through neighborhood associations, emails, surveys, and social media. It was noted that it could be challenging to reach all residents in a neighborhood, particularly if there were residents who were not part of an established homeowners association with its own email list. It was suggested that the City provide resources to help engage residents. City Attorney Davi suggested that outreach could be considered an administrative cost to be funded through NCIP overhead, and City Manager Uslar raised concerns about the precedent this could set for other boards and commissions. Regarding project prioritization after project approval, a strong preference was expressed for prioritizing projects that were feasible and could be completed in a reasonable amount of time. It was stressed that the City's engineers made good choices about how to prioritize and complete projects based on cost and feasibility. Regarding how to minimize the NCIP project backlog with regard to limited staff capacity, support was expressed for defunding projects that were deemed to be unachievable. It was noted that the Committee had reviewed several projects that were not feasible to execute and some had already come to the Council to defund. It was stated that in the interest of reducing the backlog it would be supported to reduce the number of new projects approved, and that if a project were not doable it should be removed from the backlog. It was stated that it was unfair to the public to give the expectation that many projects would be completed, when the truth of the backlog and the staff's capacity did not support this. It was stated that the Committee understood the City's financial challenges and was working to reduce the number of small projects that were added to the program. Regarding the issue of maintenance for NCIP projects, it was stated that maintenance of NCIP projects should be covered by the NCIP somehow, and it was suggested to investigate the means by which this could take place, whether funding it in the initial approval, adding a percentage akin to the 10% contingency on projects, a Charter amendment, or creation of a maintenance replacement capital expenditure fund to address recurring maintenance issues by extending the useful life of initially-NCIP-funded assets without burdening the City's budget. It was stated that the committee would be cooperative in resolving the maintenance issue. On question, City Attorney Davi provided context for the City Charter's provisions on NCIP and project maintenance, clarifying that the Charter provided that the funds were not to be used for ordinary services. She said that prior City Councils had interpreted that to include maintenance as a regular and ordinary service. She said that in the prior year, staff had drafted a proposed Charter amendment that would change and tighten up the definition of a capital project and define "ordinary services." She explained that at that time the City Council had not wished to move forward with it, but that such a ballot measure would be one way to address the matter and clarify the issue. On question, City Manager Uslar explained that qualified engineers were a scarce resource generally, not specific to the City. He said that the City was currently experiencing a $10M deficit. He explained that all new NCIP projects require maintenance dollars and that the City currently did not receive any NCIP funds for that maintenance due to provisions of the Charter, which was a burden on the City budget. He spoke in favor of a Charter amendment to allow the NCIP to pay for project maintenance. The Council discussed the matter. Praise for the NCIP Committee, its leadership, and staff, and the main project priority being public safety, were all enthusiastically echoed by the Council. It was expressed that fuel reduction and Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") Transition Plan work items should be considered to be part of public safety. Regarding resident engagement, it was suggested that perhaps a budgeted NCIP projects could be proposed that would be specific to increasing community engagement. It was noted that participatory budgeting had been discussed in the past and it was suggested that NCIP could use a similar participatory process to work 9  City Council Minutes August 19, 2025 through what projects should be prioritized from both the backlog and new proposed projects. Regarding the ongoing backlog of projects, it was suggested that the City be creative with finding interns to assist the engineering staff. It was suggested that there be an annual cap on projects so as not to increase the backlog. It was stated that the NCIP Committee and Council should figure out what projects were doable, and it was questioned whether 2026 might be a year to give City staff a chance to catch up on projects. Regarding the issue of maintenance for NCIP projects, on question, City Manager Uslar said that there was concern about how to fund maintenance for existing NCIP projects, particularly in light of the City's $10M budget deficit. He provided a robust explanation with examples and noted that both employees and the supplies they used went into ongoing maintenance. He reiterated that the NCIP only presently funded one full-time employee dedicated to the NCIP. On question regarding whether a Charter amendment would truly be necessary or if the matter could be settled through a revised interpretation of existing Charter language, City Attorney Davi said that it would depend and she would need to evaluate specifics of any definition. It was expressed by the Council that there was a need for further legal clarification and clearer definitions to that would distinguish maintenance from capital projects, and would adequately financially cover maintenance of NCIP projects going forward. During the discussion, Mayor Williamson left the Chamber at 8:04 p.m. and returned at 8:06 p.m., Councilmember Smith left the Chamber at 8:16 p.m. and returned at 8:19 p.m., and Councilmember Barber left the Chamber from 8:54 to 8:56 p.m. The Council reiterated that the NCIP Committee members put in a lot of volunteer hours, dedication, thought and conversations to propose a list of projects to the Council, for which the NCIP Committee was praised. It was stressed that when the Council deviated from the project recommendations it was not a result of lack of acknowledgement of the committee's efforts, but because of other factors such as input from other constituents. The NCIP Committee was asked to take on the question of defining neighborhood support, and suggested that it should redefine what was required in terms of community support of a project, so that it was clear whether, or how, a project that would benefit the community at large could move forward without full neighborhood approval. It was stated that if there were one resident blocking a project but the NCIP Committee felt it was a priority, they should bring it forward to the Council while making it clear that it had been the NCIP Committee’s decision to move forward, not City staff's. The Council spoke appreciatively about the positive tone of the meeting and for the important work done by all participants. It was stated that this kind of meeting should happen more often, and stressed that the Council looked forward to working together with the NCIP and getting the issues discussed tonight solved. Adjournment The Council adjourned at 8:57 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson City Clerk Mayor 10