Council Special Meeting

MINUTES SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL AND NCIP COMMITTEE CITY OF MONTEREY Monday, October 13, 2025 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST. MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Councilmembers Present: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson Absent: None NCIP Committee Aguajito Oaks (Purdy), Alta Mesa (Stocker), Casanova Oak Knoll Neighborhoods (Schmidt), Del Monte Beach (Fields), Del Monte Grove-Laguna Grande Present: (Hanson), Downtown (Tipton), Fisherman Flats (Baker), Glenwood (Whitney), Monterey Vista (Sessions), New Monterey (Ogbonna), Oak Grove (Adam), Old Town (Ricketson), Skyline (Duke) Absent: Deer Flats, Villa Del Monte City Staff Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Finance Director, Public Works Present: Director, City Clerk, Assistant Fire Chief, Senior Engineer, Recreation Manager, Administrative Assistant (Public Works Engineering), Street Maintenance Leadworker EVENING SESSION AGENDA Call to Order Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. City Clerk Klein called the roll with the Council and NCIP Committee present as indicated above. Pledge of Allegiance Neighborhood and Community Improvement Committee Chair Ogbonna led the Pledge. Public Appearance (Evening) 1. Joint Meeting of the City Council and Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program Committee (NCIP) to Discuss Potential Appropriation of NCIP Funds into the General Fund to Address the City’s $10 Million Structural Deficit in the Next Fiscal Year’s Budget (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Discussed Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira, Finance Director King, and Public Works Director Renny gave the staff presentation introducing a discussion of potential appropriation of NCIP funds into the general fund to address the City's $10 million structural deficit in the next fiscal year's budget, and answered Councilmembers' and NCIP Committee members' questions with additional information provided by City Attorney Davi and Senior Engineer Paulding. Options presented and discussed were: 1. Status Quo (maintain current cycle funding and current projects); 2. Freeze Select Projects (maintain current cycle and "freeze" specific dollar amount in current projects); 3. Skip a Cycle (maintain current approved projects and re-appropriate FY 25/26 NCIP funding to general fund); and 4. Hybrid Approach (combination of partial re-appropriation of current cycle funding and project freezing).  City Council Minutes October 13, 2025 Mayor Williamson opened public comment, and based on the number of intended speakers, limited speaking time to two minutes per speaker. Public comment was received from: Steve, in favor of Option 2; Marta Kraftzeck, Lori Mazzuca, and Elizabeth Jannasch, all opposed to any of the presented options; Tom Reeves, tentatively in favor of Options 3 or 4; Uwe Grobecker, in favor of Option 4; Christian Schmidt, questioning how much of the City's funding came from the federal government; Ryan Heron of LiUNA Local 792/General Employees of Monterey, who urged the Council to do whatever necessary to avoid staff reduction; Phil Bezouska of L3707/Monterey Firefighters Association, who spoke in favor of appropriating NCIP funds to the general fund but did not specify a preferred option; Marsha Moroh of the Board of Library Trustees, who urged the prioritizing of funding Library repairs; and Esther Malkin, who said that the problem of resolving the budget deficit should be addressed in a community-oriented way. It was asserted by commenters that any NCIP fund appropriation should be done together with solving the problems that led to the deficit, and should include oversight and a termination date to avoid appropriation becoming a regular occurrence. It was stated that the NCIP was not a slush fund and that the City's reserves should be used and programs paused before considering appropriating NCIP funds. It was urged that NCIP rules should be reviewed and updated and that the definition of "capital improvement" should be broadened to include services. It was stressed that there should be no staff cuts. It was stated that NCIP funds should go to priorities and uses that reflect the essential needs of the entire community. Mayor Williamson closed public comment, and on question from the Council, Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira said that very little of the City's funding came from the federal government. The NCIP Committee discussed the matter. Overall, the Committee stressed the importance of public input, trust, and collaboration in the decision-making process. Regarding Option 2: Freeze Select Projects, NCIP Committee comments in favor noted that it would be a compromise that would allow the community to move forward together. It was stated that this was the most collaborative of the options. It was suggested that freezing select projects could support avoiding staff layoffs. It was noted that this option would allow more time for community feedback, because the schedule would allow public testimony on projects prior to reporting back to the Council in early April 2026. On the other hand, comments against Option 2 expressed that it would be a waste of public funds and that freezing projects could discourage community members who had invested time and effort in submitting proposals. Concern was expressed that deferred projects could require reassessment when revisited, leading to wasted time and funds. Concern was expressed that City staff was picking which projects mattered, reducing the autonomy of the NCIP Committee. It was requested that if the Council moved forward with Option 2, that they give the NCIP Committee the opportunity to prioritize the projects to be frozen. Regarding Option 3: Skip a Cycle, NCIP Committee comments in favor asserted that skipping a cycle would save staff and committee member time, by avoiding evaluation of new and old projects simultaneously. On the other hand, concern was expressed that community members who had already submitted proposals would be disappointed. Regarding Option 4: Hybrid Approach, an NCIP Committee comment in favor stressed that it had the most flexibility. On request from the Council, the NCIP Committee conducted a show of hands and it was determined that no members preferred Option 1, eight members preferred Option 2, four members preferred Option 3, and one member preferred Option 4. 2  City Council Minutes October 13, 2025 The Council took up the matter for discussion. The importance of collaboration was highlighted and it was stated that the Council valued continuing the great work of the NCIP while also addressing the fiscal situation that had an impact on the whole City. It was stressed that it was important to remember that everyone was in this challenge together. It was stated that there were other solutions with which to resolve the budget deficit and that NCIP funds should not be the first in consideration. It was stated that NCIP funds were meant to be for capital improvements, not to pay City firefighters. It was asserted that the Council was committed to working with staff to fix the structural issues with the NCIP in the coming years. Regarding Option 2: Freeze Select Projects, the Council noted that this alternative had the most support from the NCIP Committee members and that it could give the Council the biggest "bang for its buck" in addressing the deficit. The importance of NCIP projects on neighborhoods was noted. It was noted that there could be trust and engagement impacts resulting from freezing projects, and it was stressed that there were deeper structural concerns about the NCIP, such as how to address the project backlog for the long term. Regarding Option 3: Skip a Cycle, the Council noted that current NCIP procedures already included a mechanism for deappropriating stale projects. Regarding Option 4: Hybrid Approach, the Council expressed that it might take more work than other methods but could allow the NCIP Committee to go through a process that preserved what the Committee prioritized preserving. The NCIP Committee adjourned from the meeting. The Council recessed at 8:36 p.m. and reconvened at 8:44 p.m. 2. Determine a Range on the Dollar Amount of Neighborhood and Community Improvement Project (NCIP) Funds to Appropriate into the General Fund to Assist the NCIP with Developing its Recommendation to the City Council on Which NCIP Projects to Defund/Put on Hold to Address the City’s $10 Million Structural Deficit in the Next Fiscal Year’s Budget (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Provided direction to the NCIP Committee to review their program using a prioritization exercise similar to the Council's process on September 2, 2025, and return to the City Council with a recommendation for $3-4M worth of projects of the lowest priority to the Committee (4-1, Councilmember Rasch voting no) Public comment was received from: Tom Reeves, who said he had now soured on Option 2, and asked the Council to give the NCIP Committee a dollar amount and let them be creative and figure out how to find the needed funds; and Dennis Duke of the NCIP Committee, who suggested that the NCIP Committee find $1.5M with matching funds from the reserve for economic uncertainty, for a total of $3M. The Council discussed the matter, with preference tending toward Option 2 due to its flexibility. The Council thoroughly discussed the dollar amount that the NCIP Committee should be directed to recommend for freezing, with opinions of the appropriate amount ranging from $1.5-2M to the City staff's recommendation of $8-10M. There was discussion around the potential to tap into the economic uncertainty reserve fund as a match to the NCIP contribution, with comments made both in favor of and against this concept. On question, Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira said that the fund was intended to be used for catastrophic issues such as major recessions or natural emergencies. He said that City staff was 3  City Council Minutes October 13, 2025 nervous about potential layoffs and said that if the policy decision from the Council was to preserve the NCIP and reduce staffing, the City staff would like to know sooner than later and there would be HR processes required. The Council expressed unwillingness to consider staff layoffs as a solution to the budget deficit. The Council discussed non-NCIP solutions that could be used to address the budget deficit, including salary savings and potential tax measures. On question, Finance Director King provided information on salary savings from unfilled positions. Concern was expressed by the Council that the dollar amounts indicated did not sufficiently address the full deficit. An initial motion was introduced by Councilmember Barber to select Option 2: Freeze Select Projects, and direct the NCIP Committee to find $4M and report to Council the projects they recommend freezing. Councilmember Barber’s initial motion died for lack of a second. The Council noted that it was difficult to imagine the NCIP having a robust, healthy fund and continue building great projects while the City was struggling to the extent of possibly not even retaining its staff. A motion was introduced by Mayor Williamson, and seconded by Councilmember Garcia, to direct the NCIP Committee to review a combination of projects not yet started and inactive project balances, and use a project cards prioritization exercise to identify projects of lowest priority totaling $8.6M. The Council discussed Mayor Williamson’s motion. In opposition to the motion, it was stated that $8.6M was too preliminary and too great of an ask of the NCIP Committee and that an amount like $2-3M would be more appropriate while the Council considered other solutions to resolve the budget deficit. Mayor Williamson’s motion failed by the following vote: AYES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia, Williamson NOES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Rasch, Smith Councilmember Rasch began to introduce a motion to deappropriate $1.5M from the next fiscal year of the NCIP, but the motion died during its introduction because City Attorney Davi explained that appropriation was not agendized as an option for this meeting. The Council suggested to direct NCIP to examine the projects currently approved for the present year and determine what projects they would recommend could be frozen. A new motion was introduced by Councilmember Barber, and seconded by Councilmember Smith, to direct the NCIP Committee to review their program and return to the City Council with a recommendation for $3-4M worth of projects of the lowest priority to the Committee. A friendly amendment was introduced by Mayor Williamson to direct that the NCIP Committee use a prioritization exercise similar to the Council's process on September 2, 2025, and the mover and seconder approved the friendly amendment. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Smith, Williamson NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Rasch 4  City Council Minutes October 13, 2025 Adjournment The Council adjourned at 9:56 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson City Clerk Mayor 5