Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Voting System Ncip topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
NCIP committee adopts January schedule, debates online voting tool and how to prioritize projects
Summary
City staff demonstrated a digital, neighborhood‑by‑neighborhood voting tool and the committee approved Jan. 14, Jan. 21 (discussion/public comment) and Jan. 28 (voting) for a prioritization exercise; members raised concerns about transparency, conflict‑of‑interest procedures and whether the council could take both proposed FY27 funds and freeze projects.
The Neighborhood/Community Improvement Program advisory committee voted to adopt three January meeting dates to review and prioritize prior‑year NCIP projects, but members raised significant concerns about an online voting form, conflict‑of‑interest rules and how the committee’s prioritization recommendations will be considered by the city council.
Staff demonstrated a web‑based survey that would present projects grouped by neighborhood, require a name and neighborhood to submit, and allow conflicted members to skip particular projects (staff said conflicted items could be marked as not required and that an Excel spreadsheet of results would be used to vet any irregularities). Staff offered two administrative options: a single consolidated ballot or individualized ballots tailored to each representative; they said a test run would be provided before voting night.
Several committee members warned the online process could blunt public engagement. "Public comments are just this annoying thing that has to be done," one resident‑member (speaker 7) said rhetorically while urging neighborhood‑by‑neighborhood voting so submitters can present neighborhood‑level evidence. Another member said the new system risks removing the iterative rounds of discussion that previously allowed projects to be reprioritized after initial voting.
Committee discussion also focused on conflict rules for representatives within 500–1,000 feet of a project. Staff noted city attorney guidance recommending members avoid voting when within 500 feet and potentially within 1,000 feet; staff said members should consult the city attorney for specific cases and described administrative checks (spelling‑standardized neighborhood fields and a post‑vote spreadsheet review) to reduce errors.
On a procedural motion, the committee (motion moved by speaker 12 and seconded by the Chair) adopted the schedule: Jan. 14 and Jan. 21 for project review and public comment, and Jan. 28 for voting/prioritization. The roll call recorded a majority of 'Aye' votes from participating neighborhood representatives and the motion passed. Staff said the January packets will list the 32 inactive/prior‑year projects (roughly $7M–$8M in total) and will include funding details, contingency balances and project histories to inform the committee.
