[3:04] >> thank you, we will now convene

[3:07] into open session and I will turn the

[3:09] floor over to our assistant city

[3:12] attorney for the announcement.

[3:14] >> thank you, madam mayor pro tem, the

[3:16] city council met in closed session,

[3:17] discussed the item on the closed

[3:20] session agenda and took no reportable

[3:21] action.

[3:22] >> thank you.

[3:23] this meeting is adjourned.

[3:27] >> that was funny.

[3:36] >> it's been a while since I've been

[3:39] in a time out.

[3:41] welcome to the city council regular

[3:44] meeting for august 18, 2026.

[3:47] we're going to start off with the

[3:51] pledge of allegiance, just follow

[3:55] mayor pro tem.

[3:58] >> ready, begin.

[3:59] >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of

[4:00] the united states of america and to

[4:01] the republic for which it stands one

[4:02] nation under god, indivisible, with

[4:03] liberty and justice for all.

[4:13] >> thank you.

[4:16] may we have the roll call?

[4:19] >> councilmember charelian?

[4:20] >> here.

[4:21] >> councilmember howorth?

[4:22] >> present.

[4:23] >> councilmember lesser?

[4:24] >> here.

[4:27] >> mayor pro tem tarnay?

[4:28] >> here.

[4:30] >> mayor franklin?

[4:31] >> here.

[4:32] so, we move to item d, the

[4:35] ceremonial calendar which is a

[4:41] presentation of a certificate of

[4:43] recognition to manhattan beach police,

[4:47] we'll bring down chief johnson.

[4:48] >> this is officer david gibbons, he's

[5:09] a longstanding member of our police

[5:11] department and this year as he has for

[5:16] the 12 years, he received the

[5:18] award for making 70 dui arrests,

[5:26] this is david's 12 years in a row,

[5:29] it's 25 arrests or more in a calendar

[5:32] year that are made for dui and david'

[5:35] done that for a cozen -- dozen years

[5:42] which is really impressive.

[5:46] david does that work because he take

[5:48] it seriously.

[5:50] this year we were able to go with him

[5:52] again to be recognized for his 70

[5:55] arrests in calendar year 2025.

[5:57] david, did you want to take a moment

[6:00] why it's important to you and why you

[6:03] continue to prioritize dui arrests.

[6:13] >> well, first of all, thank you for

[6:15] having me, and I happen to come across

[6:20] a lot of them.

[6:22] it's not the easiest arrest to the

[6:24] make, there's a lot of paperwork, a

[6:26] lot of court time for dui arrests but

[6:29] it's one of the arrests has you don't

[6:32] really see in true fashion, the

[6:34] difference that you make, but in the

[6:36] long run, I think the number of lives

[6:39] you save from making a dui arrest is

[6:43] not really countable or paper but it

[6:45] makes a difference and something I

[6:46] enjoy doing.

[6:48] >> also give david a round of

[6:51] applause, congratulations.

[6:55] [applause].

[6:56] david, as you know, it means a lot to

[6:57] the department and this community, the

[6:59] work you continue to do with impaired

[7:03] drivers and you're also a drug

[7:06] recognition expert so he's able to

[7:08] mentor and help other officers with

[7:09] their arrests as well.

[7:10] we're proud of you and wrathful for

[7:12] you and your work and we thank you.

[7:17] I'll turn it over to the mayor.

[7:20] >> thank you, can we have your team

[7:21] down here and join us in the photos,

[7:23] it would be the safest place in

[7:26] manhattan beach.

[7:29] >> he has to hold the certificate.

[7:34] >> we'll get to it.

[7:38] >> yeah, these moe of the guys that

[7:41] work graveyard with me, they're a lot

[7:44] that stop the drunk drivers and call

[7:47] me over to make the arrest, they're an

[7:50] integral part of it, we have officer

[7:57] rellis, officer yeps, officer acuna,

[8:03] officer sanchez and officer white.

[8:05] >> we are pleased to present you with

[8:07] a certificate of recognition for you

[8:09] and all your team has done to keep

[8:11] manhattan beach safe.

[8:12] we'll get each of you the pins but

[8:16] there's an american 250 commemoration

[8:19] pin, we'll get one for each one, and

[8:23] let's just remind our residents that

[8:25] no good things happen after midnight.

[8:30] and let's give them a big round of

[8:33] applause since we owe them so much.

[8:39] [applause].

[8:52] >> thank you.

[9:20] >> okay.

[9:24] at this time, I would like to recognize

[9:29] and honor all active duty military

[9:31] and veterans in the audience, whether

[9:32] you are a national guard a reservist

[9:36] or on active duty, please stand and be

[9:40] recognized.

[9:42] [applause].

[9:47] >> and then there's a reminder, we're

[9:49] not going to be meeting in the middle

[9:51] of september, so I wanted to put in

[9:53] this reminder of attending the special

[9:59] memorial 9/11 memorial ceremony, it's

[10:01] poignant because it's 25 years since

[10:04] this tragic event happened and I think

[10:08] like many event within our lives, we

[10:11] remember where we barer and we

[10:13] remember the anxieties and we're

[10:15] thinking so much about our families

[10:18] but also about other families of the

[10:20] firefighters and the police.

[10:22] the most poignant thing to me was

[10:24] seeing all the people coming down the

[10:28] staircase and our brave star, so that was very

[10:30] poignant, they run, the firefighters and

[10:32] police were going up to

[10:42] danger, this is going to be held from

[10:49] 9-10 a.m. At the southwest corner of

[10:50] 15th street and valley drive and I

[10:51] hope you can make it, so thank you.

[10:55] we'll move on to -- so item e, approval

[11:03] of agenda and waiver of full reading

[11:06] of ordinances.

[11:10] so we have a motion to accept by

[11:14] councilmember howorth and seconded by

[11:16] mayor pro tem tarnay.

[11:19] call for the vote.

[11:26] >> motion passes 5-0.

[11:28] >> okay.

[11:33] city council and community

[11:34] organization announcements of upcoming

[11:37] events, one minute per person.

[11:46] >> hello, honorable city

[11:48] councilmembers, I'm john robert from

[11:51] the roundhouse aquarium, I know most

[11:53] of you already, we're sponsoring a

[11:56] free public lecture by david bader,

[12:03] the title of the talk is hope on

[12:07] horizon, protecting marine mammal in a

[12:09] changing world.

[12:10] the talk will be wednesday september

[12:12] 2, 2026 from 6-7 p.m. In the manhattan

[12:16] beach public library next door.

[12:17] it should be a very interesting talk,

[12:20] david will describe the challenges

[12:22] that are accessing the local marine

[12:24] mammals and how the marine mammal care

[12:28] center is addressing those channel.

[12:29] this is timely because we're

[12:31] transitioning into an el nino event

[12:34] that is threatening to be strong and

[12:36] this will have profound effects on the

[12:39] local marine life and the marine

[12:45] mammals so it should be a very

[12:46] interesting talk and I look forward

[12:48] to it myself, it's wednesday september

[12:51] 2 from 6-7 p.m. In the library just

[12:53] next door.

[12:54] >> thank you.

[13:00] >> good evening, honorable mayor,

[13:02] mayor pro tem and city councilmembers,

[13:05] I'm janet jones and I'm the founder

[13:07] and director of the single mom

[13:11] project which was home grown here in

[13:13] manhattan beach.

[13:15] we provide thousand dollar grants to

[13:17] low income, hardworking moms in

[13:19] hawthorne, lawn dale, inglewood,

[13:22] compton, watts to help them get on

[13:24] steadier financial if the footing and

[13:26] I'm thrilled to announce that tuesday

[13:28] september 8 will be single mom

[13:33] project day here in manhattan beach.

[13:36] we've had astounding support from the

[13:40] business community, we ever had a

[13:43] couple dozen restaurants and stores

[13:45] that have signed in to give a portion

[13:47] of their proceeds that day, whatever

[13:48] they want to give, to the single mom

[13:51] project.

[13:52] we want the city to come out and

[13:54] support families that live just 10-12

[13:57] minutes away who could use our support

[13:59] and need our support and we are just

[14:01] thrilled with the response the city

[14:03] has given so far, so thank you.

[14:05] >> thank you.

[14:12] >> honorable mayor, pro tem, city

[14:16] councilmembers, coach bobby, wm,

[14:19] recycling and/organics outreach

[14:20] and education.

[14:21] this is my favorite time of the year,

[14:23] it's back to school, my wife's a

[14:26] teacher so she gets outs of my house,

[14:28] we go to hand out lunchboxes to

[14:32] all the kindergartners, my

[14:34] favorite thing is those faces light up

[14:36] when we get to see them, two of the

[14:41] greenest schools, pacific and

[14:43] grandview did it sunday morning, I

[14:44] didn't get a lot of pictures of the

[14:48] faces because I can't post those on

[14:49] social media.

[14:51] we got three more elementary schools

[14:52] to go, that's all I got.

[14:54] wishing you all god's blessings.

[14:57] >> thank you.

[15:03] >> russ lesser representing the

[15:07] manhattan 10k run on october 3rd this

[15:12] year, the 49th annual running will be

[15:14] done and if you're interested in

[15:16] participate, I suggest you go to

[15:21] mv10k.com soon because it's going to

[15:23] sell out in about two weeks.

[15:25] >> so run over and register.

[15:28] anybody else in council chambers?

[15:29] >> you want to go to zoom first.

[15:33] >> yeah, let's do zoom first and then

[15:36] councilmembers.

[15:37] >> no requests on zoom.

[15:39] >> no one?

[15:40] okay, sorry.

[15:42] >> thank you, mr. Mayor, I just -- I

[15:45] was going to take this opportunity

[15:47] during community announcements to

[15:48] remind us that the manhattan beach

[15:50] public schools go back to school

[15:53] tomorrow, so everybody be aware,

[15:56] there's going to be a lot of kids

[15:58] walk, a lot of parents driving and

[16:01] keep your eyes open.

[16:04] I think when we encourage these kids

[16:06] to walk to school which is great but

[16:08] there will be a lot of those kids out

[16:10] there and some of them may not look

[16:13] both ways even though she should, so

[16:15] be careful when you're driving

[16:17] tomorrow and for the rest of the year,

[16:18] thank you.

[16:20] >> wonderful, anybody else?

[16:24] no, seeing none, we'll move on to g,

[16:26] public comments.

[16:27] you have three minutes per person and

[16:30] just a reminder, if you speak in this

[16:33] segment on an item that's on the

[16:35] agenda, you cannot speak when that

[16:39] item comes up

[16:40] >> I waited for the three minutes

[16:42] because I have some compliments I

[16:43] would like to give and don't want to

[16:45] get cut short on compliments.

[16:47] friday, I was walking home from doing

[16:49] some work on our apartment building on

[16:52] 15th street and my wife and I live at

[16:54] 14th and strand and in the alley a at

[16:57] 14th and ocean, there's about a four

[17:02] to five inch gusher of raw sewage

[17:05] coming up will you the sewer main, now

[17:08] that's not anything any resident wants

[17:13] to see and particularly when you're a

[17:15] the end of the line as low it gets to

[17:18] the city, the strand, you're not

[17:19] excited about a blockage.

[17:23] I called our after hours number, the

[17:29] 545-5466, they got a hold of the

[17:32] public works emergency people.

[17:33] they were out there in almost the

[17:35] blink of an eye even though one of the

[17:38] workers came from downey, pleasant,

[17:41] efficient, got everything taken care

[17:45] of and 100 years a I was on what was

[17:50] called the public works commission

[17:52] here before I came on to council and I

[17:54] think public works is one of those

[17:55] assets we have in this community that

[17:58] we sometimes forget.

[17:59] the sewer mains are below the ground,

[18:02] the water mains are, everything's

[18:05] supposed to go right, you turn on

[18:06] the faucet, you get clean water,

[18:09] you flush, the bad things go away, but

[18:11] we have such a wonderful public works

[18:13] department and I want to give them a

[18:16] shout-out and things like the

[18:19] schedule rotational slurry sealing, it's

[18:22] uncomfortable when you can't driver

[18:23] down your street but that's better than

[18:26] having the street repaved and it goes

[18:27] on and on and on.

[18:30] the replenishment of the dog bags on

[18:34] the strand, the poop pick-up bags,

[18:37] routinely, you don't think anything

[18:38] about it but yet it happens and so

[18:39] those are kind of the unseen warriors

[18:44] in you will, graffiti removal, I'm a

[18:47] demon calling on graffiti and

[18:50] tagging removal and again our public

[18:52] works department is out there almost

[18:53] by the time I hang up and they do a

[18:57] good job and get more lotions and

[18:59] potions on that truck and takes off of

[19:02] various services and so on and like I

[19:05] say, so often people come down and

[19:07] have a little complaint, I have been

[19:09] known to do that, just a little

[19:14] compliment this evening, have a good

[19:15] evening.

[19:16] >> thank you very much, and home in

[19:18] your homes, we know you have a crank

[19:20] telephone in your place, but for

[19:22] anybody who wants to use an app, we

[19:24] have a great app called reach

[19:26] manhattan beach and you can also do --

[19:28] you can report the same things that the

[19:32] esteemed mr. Holmes just spoke about

[19:34] on the app and they will get there in

[19:36] a jiffy as well, thank you for

[19:38] recognizing them, I appreciate it.

[19:43] >> members of city council, first I

[19:44] want to echo and I see that happen as

[19:48] well, I have called for graffiti and

[19:52] it has been taken care of.

[19:53] I want you to report semi-annual on

[19:56] the status of our city's 774 unit rhna

[19:59] obligation as a regularly scheduled

[20:02] business topic, not as a -- but

[20:07] specifically to create a simple rhna

[20:10] dashboard as the example I attached in

[20:14] what I sent in earlier so it can be

[20:16] discussed at the council level and be

[20:17] shared with the residents for

[20:20] transparency.

[20:21] our concern is not whether manhattan

[20:22] beach should meet its legal housing

[20:26] obligation, it should, my concern is

[20:27] that we manage those obligations

[20:29] strategically to minimize unnecessary

[20:31] development impacts on our community.

[20:33] of our 774 units, 487 or 63% are

[20:38] designated very low or low income, yet

[20:40] many proposed projects contain

[20:43] approximately 20% lower income units

[20:45] and 80% market rate units

[20:51] substantially more than 774 total

[20:54] units could be required the to

[20:56] produce the affordable housing called

[20:59] for by rhna.

[21:00] as rod sites are developed, the city

[21:04] must maintain sufficient remaining

[21:06] capacity to accommodate its unmet

[21:08] arena.

[21:09] if development consumes sites without

[21:10] producing the income categories

[21:13] anticipate, the city could potentially

[21:14] be required to identify or rezone

[21:16] additional sites.

[21:18] in my e-mail exchange with adam

[21:20] finestone this past week en, I

[21:22] understand much of this information is

[21:25] tracked by staff for state required

[21:28] annual reporters no net loss

[21:29] monitoring, so this should largely

[21:32] involve presenting existing

[21:33] information in a more useful and

[21:34] transparent format.

[21:35] I ask council to direct staff to

[21:39] evaluate legally valuable policy

[21:40] incentives that could increase the

[21:43] percentage of low, very low to

[21:47] moderate income units produced by

[21:49] future projects, potentially reducing

[21:51] overall build out and the risk that

[21:54] additional sites will be required.

[21:55] this could include hiring a third

[21:57] party consultant with expertise in

[22:00] this a area.

[22:01] I believe understanding this now

[22:03] before additional rod sites are

[22:04] developed is important to protecting

[22:06] our community while meeting our state

[22:08] housing obligations.

[22:09] thank you.

[22:10] >> great, thank you.

[22:16] >> good evening, mayor franklin and

[22:19] city council, I'm kelly stroman, the

[22:22] executive director for downtown

[22:24] manhattan beach business and

[22:25] professional association.

[22:26] I'm here tonight to ask you to direct

[22:28] staff to continue to find a way to

[22:32] modernize manhattan beach's business

[22:34] license tax program.

[22:35] and to keep striving for a formula

[22:38] that is equitable, sustainable and

[22:41] revenue neutral to the city.

[22:43] we recognize this is complicated.

[22:45] we recognize the tremendous amount of

[22:48] time, analysis and thoughtful work our

[22:50] city staff, all of you and many groups

[22:52] and council have already invested.

[22:54] for that, we are very grateful.

[22:57] that work has value and it should not

[22:59] end simply because the most recent

[23:01] proposal did not move forward.

[23:04] the business landscape has changed

[23:06] drastically over the past 50

[23:09] years, we have solo entrepreneurs

[23:12] generating 10 thousand dollars in

[23:14] gross receipts and then we have mega

[23:16] businesses in manhattan beach

[23:19] generating 100 million in gross

[23:22] receipts.

[23:23] an equitable tax structure should and

[23:24] can have parity the across the entire

[23:26] spectrum.

[23:27] we are not asking the city to collect

[23:29] less revenue, we're asking for a

[23:31] better, more equable way to distribute

[23:34] the responsible for generating that

[23:38] revenue.

[23:39] modernization is accomplished

[23:40] perfectly on the first attempt, apples

[23:42] newton didn't have success, apple didn't

[23:46] decide the future wasn't mobile,

[23:50] imagine that.

[23:51] they learned, evolved and created

[23:52] something exponentially better.

[23:53] that is what progress looks like, you

[23:55] listen, you learn, you create, you

[23:59] explore.

[24:00] and then you evolve.

[24:01] since the formula, we considered

[24:04] over the last six to nine months

[24:11] wasn't the right one, let's not

[24:12] abandon the objective, let's improve

[24:13] the formula.

[24:14] the work has given us valuable

[24:16] information, we don't need to go

[24:18] back to square one and we shouldn't

[24:21] simply return indefinitely to a

[24:22] decades old system we already

[24:27] recognize needs modernization, keep

[24:30] modeling, keep refining and keep

[24:31] asking the difficult question.

[24:32] let's find the point where equity for

[24:35] our businesses and revenue neutrality

[24:38] for our city intersect.

[24:39] tonight our request on behalf of the

[24:40] association is simple, please, direct

[24:42] staff to continue this work until we

[24:44] find the best possible formula.

[24:46] one that is revenue neutral to the

[24:49] city, equitable to our business

[24:51] community and creates meaningful party

[24:54] across every level of gross receipts.

[24:56] the first answer doesn't have to be

[24:59] the perfect answer but an imperfect

[25:01] first attempt which we all experienced

[25:03] should never be the reason we stop

[25:05] looking for a better one.

[25:06] thank you.

[25:07] >> thank you, kelly.

[25:17] >> I'm back, russ lesser, and I know

[25:21] representing the manhattan beach 10k

[25:22] run and I know you're going to

[25:25] discuss legacy events later but I'm

[25:29] too old to stay up late so I'm going

[25:31] to speak now.

[25:32] I want to talk about the history of

[25:33] the race, back in 78, I was a newly

[25:37] elected city councilman and running

[25:38] was becoming popular and a bunch of

[25:41] friends said we should have a race

[25:42] in town and I went to the recreation

[25:44] department and said they didn't have

[25:45] the staff to do it.

[25:46] I met with the city council and said

[25:48] we have a bunch of volunteers to put

[25:50] on this race but we need a little

[25:52] public works support and we need

[25:54] police and paramedics on race day and

[25:56] we don't have money because we don't

[25:58] want to get a sponsor because sponsors

[26:01] want to put ads on your shirts and we

[26:04] don't want ads on our shirts so the

[26:07] city council agreed to have a contract

[26:08] with us to provide these services at

[26:10] mo cost and it's worked out quite well.

[26:13] this is our 49th annual race, we've

[26:15] been picked as one of the top 100 race

[26:18] in the country, the only one to our

[26:22] knowledge that does not have a sponsor

[26:26] because of the ad thing and we don't

[26:28] have any paid staff, it has a high

[26:31] participation of local residents,

[26:35] higher than just about any race in the

[26:37] top 100, because we're all volunteers,

[26:40] we've been able donate almost 900

[26:43] thousand dollars back to the community

[26:44] to build exercise equipment such as in

[26:47] polliwog park in manhattan heights, we

[26:51] built the tot lot at live oak park and

[26:54] the exercise facility on strand and we

[26:56] purchased exercise equipment for the

[26:57] police and fire department and donated

[26:59] hundreds of thousands of dollars to

[27:01] the schools with their exercise

[27:03] equipment and their programs and

[27:06] donated a quarter of a million dollars

[27:07] to students to give them scholarships

[27:10] to graduate when they graduate from

[27:11] mira costa.

[27:13] we're asking let's keep that 49 year

[27:16] contract in sxefkt we'll continue

[27:18] exactly how we've done for hopefully

[27:21] another 50 years.

[27:22] >> I got a quick question for russ,

[27:24] how many runners in 1978?

[27:27] >> about 2500, it was incredible, it

[27:29] was all done manually back then, you

[27:31] had to pull and put them on a

[27:37] spindle and put them on the boards, we

[27:40] had awards for every age group,

[27:43] mother, father, mother, daughter,

[27:45] mother, son, daughter and you know, it

[27:49] was a nightmare, now it's a piece of

[27:53] cake.

[27:56] we had to have men chutes and women

[27:57] chutes and we'd fill one up, the first

[27:59] year was a disaster because we ran

[28:01] around the pier and it got so backed

[28:04] up, half way around the pier, you

[28:07] know, before and we were bringing

[28:09] people in, we didn't know what we were

[28:11] doing, we were rookies, but we changed

[28:15] it.

[28:16] if you got time for one quick story,

[28:17] we had to get the permission

[28:18] from the county every year to run

[28:21] around the pier and there was an

[28:23] accident once where somebody was

[28:28] running under the pier and a piece of

[28:29] concrete fell off and hurt them.

[28:31] so I call the county to get permission

[28:33] and they said how many people and I

[28:38] said 4 thousand, and they said the

[28:40] pier can't hold 4 thousand people, you

[28:44] can't have a permit.

[28:47] we have rachel judson and michael wise

[28:49] berg, I was the chairman for the first

[28:52] 25, then rachel took over for about 15

[28:55] and now michael's doing a fantastic

[28:57] job.

[28:58] next year will be our 50th anniversary.

[29:01] there's 27 of us that have run all 48,

[29:03] we're called the pier back which

[29:06] stands for participated in every race.

[29:07] our goal is to make it to 50, so thank

[29:10] you.

[29:11] >> thank you, I appreciate it.

[29:12] >> thank you and your team.

[29:16] okay.

[29:17] any other public comments?

[29:22] one per -- how about --

[29:24] >> yes, I have collin user 1.

[29:35] >> hi, my name is gourd and I want to

[29:40] talk a about an issue of a pricing

[29:43] concern here in manhattan beach,

[29:47] specially the transsexual general

[29:48] abasing it's ruined the quality of

[29:50] life of this city, it's bringing crime

[29:52] and drugs and graffiti to this city,

[29:56] they beat all women in sports, they

[29:58] beat all women in county jail and

[30:01] state prisons and they beat our women

[30:03] in the bathroom and I'm sick and tired

[30:10] of these trans demanding free welfare

[30:12] benefits and free housing.

[30:14] they are destroying manhattan beach

[30:16] and the cops need to start arresting

[30:18] these people.

[30:19] these people are masturbating on the

[30:21] beach and we need to stop --

[30:23] >> thank you, sir.

[30:24] anybody else online?

[30:25] >> no further requests on zoom.

[30:27] >> okay, great.

[30:29] we'll move --

[30:30] >> I apologize, I'm trying to get my

[30:35] button pushed here.

[30:38] no, again, I wanted to take an

[30:41] opportunity to compliment all the

[30:44] staff, public safety, public works,

[30:46] everyone involved, parks and rec,

[30:48] starting last thursday, we had tens of

[30:50] thousands of visitors and residents, a

[30:53] lot of people that really enjoyed

[30:56] volleyball and we had this footprint

[30:58] in town that's pretty incredible, I

[31:01] saw some drone footage, staff knocked

[31:03] it out of the park, I'm talking about

[31:06] the abp manhattan beach open and way

[31:09] to go, hat's off to the staff for

[31:11] pulling that off.

[31:12] and as you're exiting the event,

[31:17] they're strategically bringing it down

[31:18] so it's a minimal impact to everyone

[31:20] around, so congratulations, every year

[31:23] it keeps getting better and better and

[31:24] I don't know how you keep setting the

[31:27] bar that high but you continue to

[31:29] achieve it, so thank you for keeping

[31:31] us safe and all the above.

[31:32] >> great.

[31:33] anybody else?

[31:38] no?

[31:39] okay, so we'll close public comments

[31:41] and we'll go on to h, the consent

[31:46] calendar.

[31:47] going for a motion to approve.

[31:54] we have a motion to approve from

[31:56] councilmember lesser and seconded by

[31:58] mayor pro tem tarnay.

[31:59] call the for the vote, please.

[32:09] >> motion passes 5-0.

[32:11] >> alright, thank you.

[32:16] moving on to item j, public hearings,

[32:21] so number 13, consideration of a

[32:26] resolutions regarding renewal of north

[32:28] manhattan beach business improvement

[32:29] district for fiscal year 2026-2027 and

[32:32] it looks like we have our finance

[32:37] director.

[32:38] >> thank you, good evening, mayor,

[32:40] members of the city council, tonight

[32:41] we are pleased to present for your

[32:44] consideration the renewal of the north

[32:46] manhattan beach business

[32:47] improvement district for fiscal

[32:48] year 26-27.

[32:50] the north manhattan beach business

[32:52] improvement district was

[32:53] established in 2004 in accordance with

[32:55] the parking and business improvement

[32:57] area law of 1989.

[32:59] this state law also requires an annual

[33:01] renewal process and the appointment of

[33:03] an advisory board by the city council.

[33:06] so on july 7, the bid advisory board

[33:08] met to review a proposed activity plan

[33:10] and budget for the fiscal year and

[33:12] they voted affirmatively to recommend

[33:14] the city council approve the items

[33:15] before you tonight.

[33:17] the city council then initiated the

[33:20] annual renewal process on july 21 with

[33:22] the approval of a resolution of

[33:24] intention to renew and levy the

[33:26] assessments which again remain

[33:28] unchanged this year.

[33:30] the north manhattan bid is funded

[33:31] through an 80% surcharge on the annual

[33:35] business license tax up to a maximum

[33:37] of $500 per business.

[33:38] the next step is to hold a public

[33:40] hearing tonight to accept testimony

[33:42] for or against the proposed

[33:45] assessments, approval is based

[33:47] on whether there is a weighted

[33:49] majority protest by businesses that

[33:50] pay 50% or more of the total

[33:54] assessment.

[33:55] all legal requirements for tonight's

[33:57] public hearing have been met including

[33:58] mailing copies of the resolution of

[34:01] intention to all businesses and a

[34:03] notice was published in the beach

[34:05] reporter.

[34:06] I wanted to note in 2025, the north

[34:08] manhattan beach business and

[34:10] professional association was

[34:11] established as a non-profit

[34:13] corporation and the management of the

[34:15] bid activities was transitioned to the

[34:19] newly formed association, so with the

[34:21] transition of activities to the

[34:22] association last year, the bid

[34:24] advisory board is expected to meet

[34:26] less frequently than in prior years

[34:28] similar to what happens with the doub

[34:29] town bid.

[34:31] and so I wanted to note too that the

[34:34] north bid currently has bylaws that

[34:35] require an election process to

[34:37] nominate board members which are then

[34:39] appointed by the city council as

[34:41] required by state law.

[34:42] and the last election was held in

[34:45] december of 2024 and the members were

[34:47] elected to a two year term ending this

[34:50] coming december in 2026.

[34:52] so as noted in the staff report,

[34:55] staff's currently exploring

[34:57] alternative advisory board nomination

[34:58] processes that may be more efficient

[35:00] and cost effective than a an elections

[35:03] process so we're doing that research

[35:04] and then we'll be holding a bid

[35:07] advisory board meeting in the coming

[35:09] months to discuss potential revisions

[35:10] to the governing document which is we

[35:13] would then bring back to the city

[35:14] council for approval at a future

[35:16] meeting.

[35:17] so, I just wanted to note that.

[35:19] so tonight the business improvement

[35:22] district associated assessments and

[35:23] collaboration with the association

[35:25] would continue to remain in place for

[35:27] the upcoming fiscal year with the

[35:30] following actions and consideration by

[35:31] the city council tonight, so one is to

[35:33] hold the public hearing to receive

[35:35] testimony and assuming insufficient

[35:37] protests are received, resolution

[35:39] number 26-0095 must be adopted to

[35:42] authorize the collection of

[35:43] assessments, two, with the adoption of

[35:47] resolution 26-0096, the city manager

[35:49] will be thorpe to enter into the

[35:50] agreement with the north man bath

[35:52] beach business and professional

[35:54] association for the services outlined

[35:55] in the attached activity plan and

[35:58] budget and three, with the

[35:59] appropriation of 90 thousand dollars

[36:00] from the parking fund, the city

[36:03] will disburse a accumulated bid funds

[36:05] to the association for the execution

[36:07] of the services outlined in the

[36:09] activity plan and budget.

[36:11] and after accounting for the estimated

[36:14] assessments and interest earnings in

[36:15] the upcoming year, this would leave

[36:19] approximately 279 thousand dollars in

[36:20] the reserve funds that we hold for the

[36:23] bid.

[36:24] so staff is here to answer any

[36:25] questioners as well as I see the

[36:27] association president and jill lamkin

[36:29] with the chamber of commerce who's

[36:31] also supporting the association and

[36:34] bid.

[36:35] so I'm sure they'd be happy to answer

[36:36] any questions as well.

[36:37] if none, we would recommend opening

[36:39] the public hearing at this time.

[36:41] >> okay, great.

[36:42] councilmembers, questions?

[36:49] okay, councilmember charelian?

[36:50] >> thank you, mayor, thank you for the

[36:52] presentation, libby.

[36:53] quick question on the 278 thousand

[36:56] dollars you mentioned in the reserves,

[36:58] for the bid to draw down on those

[37:01] funds, can you walk me through the

[37:03] process or walk us through the process

[37:05] of how -- because they get a certain

[37:06] budget and then those are in the

[37:08] reserves so if they want to take from

[37:10] the reserves, what's the process?

[37:13] >> so, due to some like timing changes

[37:17] of budget development this year and

[37:18] the formation of the association, the

[37:22] adopted budget for fiscal year 26-27,

[37:26] we missed including an appropriation

[37:29] for the bid activities this year, so

[37:31] that's why we are needing to the

[37:33] appropriate the full 90 thousand which

[37:35] is the amount requested by the

[37:38] association, so that's not in addition

[37:39] to anything that was already in the

[37:43] budget since we -- due to a timing

[37:45] issue, we missed it this year.

[37:47] with the city council's approval

[37:48] tonight, hen we would be disbursing 90

[37:52] thousand dollars from the reserve.

[37:57] the bid traditionally received 25

[38:04] thousand dollars this year, but it's

[38:07] been creeping up and this year we're

[38:11] just under 30 thousand dollars, so

[38:13] they're right around that range and

[38:15] they'll be spending down some of those

[38:16] funds in this the next year.

[38:18] >> anybody else?

[38:20] no?

[38:21] so, we'll go to public comments.

[38:25] anybody in the chamber?

[38:27] don't rush down.

[38:29] okay.

[38:30] and how about online?

[38:31] >> no requests on zoom.

[38:32] >> no requests on zoom, so we'll close

[38:35] public comments.

[38:37] anybody wish to start off the

[38:43] conversation?

[38:44] comments or --

[38:45] >> it's pretty straight forward.

[38:51] >> I would thank the business members

[38:53] for their engagement and their

[38:54] involvement with the north end and

[38:56] what you have created, I'm the

[39:00] alternate member of the bid, I have

[39:03] not attended any meetings in my new

[39:06] role which is an old role I previously

[39:08] served in and I'm so grateful for what

[39:15] for the work that you have been doing

[39:16] for our community.

[39:17] >> thank you, so did you want to speak?

[39:18] >> no, I think that's left over, I

[39:19] apologize.

[39:20] >> so, we -- if there's no more

[39:21] comments and we have a motion to

[39:23] accept by councilmember charelian and

[39:25] that's seconded by councilmember

[39:28] howorth.

[39:29] call if for the vote.

[39:32] we have to read the motion.

[39:34] >> thank you, your honor.

[39:36] so, my motion is to adopt resolution

[39:41] number 26-0095 and 26-0096 and

[39:44] appropriate funds and authorize the

[39:46] disbursement of the reserved bid

[39:48] funds.

[39:49] >> great.

[39:50] and call for the vote, please.

[39:58] >> motion passes 5-0.

[40:02] >> great, thank you, all.

[40:06] so we move on to general business.

[40:11] item k, item number 14, consideration

[40:13] of a resolution approving an exception

[40:15] to the 180 day wait period for calpers

[40:22] retired annuitant and we have human

[40:25] resources director.

[40:26] >> thank you, mayor, I'm lisa jenkins,

[40:29] the city's human resorts director and

[40:32] the item before council this evening

[40:34] is approval of a resolution to make an

[40:37] exception for the 180 day wait period

[40:40] that's normally required for a calpers

[40:42] agency to hire an individual who has

[40:45] retired from a calpers agency.

[40:50] and calpers for those who are not

[40:51] particular is the california public

[40:55] employees' retirement system.

[40:56] the city of manhattan beach and many

[40:58] other public agencies within the state

[40:59] are members of calpers.

[41:02] calpers has various roles governing

[41:04] the appointment of retirees and the

[41:08] ways in which that they can work for

[41:11] calpers agencies.

[41:15] government code 21224 allows for an

[41:17] appointment of a retired annuitant to

[41:20] an extra help assignment in a limited

[41:22] duration capacity provided it meets

[41:24] all of the government code requirements

[41:26] and calpers criteria, in

[41:33] particular, the appointment needs to

[41:34] be an extra help limited duration

[41:35] assignment to help clear backlog, work

[41:36] on a special project or perform work

[41:37] in excess of what existing staff can

[41:39] do.

[41:40] and additionally a retired annuitant

[41:43] cannot work more than 960 hours in a

[41:47] a fiscal year and there's typically a

[41:50] 180 day wait period following

[41:53] someone's retirement unless the

[41:54] governing body approves an exception

[41:56] to this timeframe in accordance with

[41:59] government code 7522.56.

[42:02] mr. Douglas atkinson is the retiree

[42:04] that has been identified to fill a

[42:06] critical need for the community

[42:08] development department.

[42:09] he retired from his position of senior

[42:13] building inspector in june of this

[42:15] year.

[42:16] the city opened up a recruitment to

[42:17] fill that position in may so prior to

[42:21] his retirement date.

[42:22] following the recruitment and

[42:25] selection process, an internal

[42:26] candidate was appointed to the senior

[42:28] building inspector position which is

[42:31] great for career and professional

[42:32] development within the city, however,

[42:35] that means that there was a vacancy

[42:38] that remained at the building

[42:39] inspector level.

[42:41] during the same time period, a second

[42:43] building inspector submitted their

[42:45] resignation, so that resulted in two

[42:49] vacancies at building inspector, the

[42:52] full complement is typically four

[42:54] building inspectors so we're 50% down

[42:56] right now.

[43:01] additionally the community development

[43:04] department has established a service

[43:06] delivery expectation of doing next

[43:08] day building inspections in most cases.

[43:11] this is not something that's required

[43:13] by the municipal code but it is something

[43:19] that differentiates the service that

[43:20] we provide to the construction

[43:21] community to ensure that building

[43:22] inspections move forward timely.

[43:23] so, in the absence that these two

[43:28] vacancies have created, other staff

[43:30] members including the city's business

[43:32] official have had to step in to

[43:34] conduct these building inspections to

[43:35] ensure that next day turn-around time.

[43:39] and this takes them away from other

[43:41] critical duties and is not sustainable.

[43:45] fortunately wringing with calpers and

[43:48] legal counsel, we've identified the

[43:49] the solution of being able to appoint

[43:53] our recent retiree to assist with

[43:54] these next day building inspections.

[43:55] and mr. Atkinson is able to step in

[44:03] immediately due to his years of

[44:05] experience working in this capacity

[44:06] for the city of manhattan beach.

[44:11] the expenditures associated with this

[44:13] limited duration position would

[44:14] otherwise be utilized for those full

[44:17] time salaries and benefits.

[44:19] so, during the recruitment process for

[44:21] building inspector which is currently

[44:24] open, salary savings will be utilized

[44:25] to fund this extra help position.

[44:28] the position is not a net new

[44:30] expenditure but is a creative way to

[44:32] fill in the gaps and ensure service

[44:37] delivery standards are met for a short

[44:38] duration of time.

[44:39] and in accordance with calpers

[44:41] regulations, the hourly rate paid to

[44:43] mr. Atkinson of $62.50 per hour is

[44:46] within the salary range for senior

[44:50] building inspector.

[44:52] calpers requires that an appointment

[44:55] document is approved along with the

[44:57] resolution and the personnel

[45:01] action form fulfills this requirement

[45:03] as mr. Atkinson was a former employee

[45:05] of the city, salary generated on the

[45:09] personal action form was his prior

[45:11] salary and that was before the july

[45:13] cola that applied to those, salary

[45:16] ranges and increases the salary step.

[45:19] the new salary will be populated once

[45:21] the action is finalized and that's

[45:23] pending city council approval tonight.

[45:28] the calpers restriction, mr. Atkinson

[45:31] will not be eligible for any other

[45:34] benefit or exhumation.

[45:35] the limited duration appointment will

[45:38] end after permanent building

[45:40] inspectors are hired and on boarded

[45:45] and will end no later than december

[45:49] 31st of this year.

[45:50] staff recommends that the city council

[45:51] approve the resolution for an 180 day

[45:52] wait period exception under government

[45:54] code sections 7522.56 and 21224.

[45:57] and with that, I'm happy to answer any

[45:59] questions that council has.

[46:00] >> we have councilmember howorth, any

[46:02] questions?

[46:03] >> this building inspector, interim

[46:07] building inspector.

[46:09] >> extra help position.

[46:11] >> will -- we'll still be done 50%

[46:17] >> we currently have two the vacancies

[46:19] in our current complement of full time

[46:24] staffing.

[46:27] >> so, this is an effort to try to

[46:28] keep the inspects and moving along

[46:29] which helps with both residential and

[46:31] commercial, correct?

[46:32] >> that's correct.

[46:33] >> do we have a problem in hiring --

[46:38] is there an issue with the salary?

[46:40] are we -- is our salary range lower

[46:43] than other cities in this regard?

[46:45] >> so, that's a great question and I

[46:48] do know that across cities, building

[46:51] inspector is a very difficult position

[46:54] to hire.

[46:55] we do know that one of our recent

[46:58] resignations was due to the incumbent

[47:01] being able to secure a higher salary

[47:04] elsewhere, so that is potentially a

[47:07] factor in being able to recruit

[47:10] qualified building inspectors.

[47:12] also we work with various contract

[47:16] agencies to also try to fill in the

[47:17] apses when we have vacancies.

[47:22] these other entities are having a

[47:23] difficult time with building

[47:25] inspectors, so it is a difficult to

[47:28] fill position.

[47:29] >> and I would imagine, I mean, we --

[47:33] every city has its own unique codes

[47:37] and requirements and specifications

[47:38] and we must have a series of

[47:42] interesting situations that require a

[47:45] lot of attention.

[47:48] so, that's interesting.

[47:50] I would want us to be sure that we are

[47:53] offering a commensurate salary.

[47:54] I don't know how other people feel

[47:57] about that, but if that's a problem,

[47:59] we don't want to be down 50% with all

[48:01] the building going on in this

[48:02] community.

[48:03] >> one thing I will add on that note,

[48:05] we have the recruitment currently

[48:07] open, I believe it closes later this

[48:09] month and we do have a number of

[48:12] applicants, so we hope to be able to

[48:14] fill the vacant positions from that

[48:16] recruitment process.

[48:17] if there is any challenges in being

[48:20] able to identify qualified individual,

[48:22] we will certainly be working

[48:24] collaboratively with the community

[48:26] development department to determine if

[48:27] if any additional steps need to be

[48:29] taken.

[48:30] >> great, thank you.

[48:32] >> so, I would like to ask a question,

[48:35] you know, since we're in the belly of

[48:38] the beast, calpers, why do we have to

[48:40] go through this process of passing

[48:43] this amendment and then, you know,

[48:50] here -- and look at that 180 days, if

[48:54] you can -- why is an annuitant have to

[48:59] wait for 180 days, I understand

[49:01] there's federal law implications as

[49:03] well.

[49:04] >> that's a great question.

[49:05] the simple answer is calpers putting

[49:08] parameters around appointing retired

[49:10] annuitants because if it's a regular

[49:13] staff position, they would prefer to

[49:15] have an individual in that position

[49:17] who's a member of the calpers system

[49:19] so there's contributions being made on

[49:21] that person's behalf, so appointments

[49:22] that the city makes of retired

[49:26] annuitants, there's no contribution to

[49:28] calpers, the individuals are already

[49:29] receiving their pension from calpers,

[49:31] so calpers puts these guardrails

[49:37] around it because they don't want

[49:38] cities to have retirees filling in for

[49:39] regular staff positions.

[49:40] and the council will recall, we do

[49:43] also take to council appointments

[49:46] under the other government code which

[49:49] is 21221h, that's for interim

[49:51] positions, those are typically at the

[49:53] department director level.

[49:54] for each of these types appointments,

[49:57] calpers through the california

[49:59] government code has requirements for

[50:01] the types of appointments that can be

[50:03] made.

[50:04] in this case in particular, I believe

[50:07] the 180 day period is to

[50:13] prevent retiring and filling right

[50:15] back into their position or in another

[50:17] agency in a similar capacity.

[50:19] in this instance, calpers has advised

[50:21] us this is an appropriate pathway in

[50:24] our limitations right now to guarantee

[50:26] the next day inspections which is

[50:27] something we consider critical in this

[50:29] community for our economic success and

[50:32] for our construction community.

[50:34] >> okay, so I asked there a copy of

[50:36] the code and I see you're following

[50:39] the template here and so the only

[50:40] thing that concerns me is that the

[50:45] very last sentence accordingly, the

[50:46] critical need for mr. Atkinson's

[50:50] appointment will known later than

[50:53] december 31, 2026 and his appointment

[50:55] will end at the same time, so what if

[51:00] we don't find a full time person

[51:04] because we've already been two to

[51:05] three months and this is only

[51:07] extending it for another three to

[51:09] four, the same economic conditions and

[51:11] things like that.

[51:12] >> another great question, and we did

[51:14] attempt on our first draft to leave

[51:16] that a little more open ended so that

[51:18] we would have that flexibility.

[51:22] we asked calpers to review the

[51:24] resolution and they advised that we

[51:25] needed to ensure that it was limited

[51:28] duration.

[51:29] we do have other mechanisms to

[51:34] potentially supplement city staff,

[51:35] there's an individual who is

[51:38] identified through a contract agency

[51:40] who is available after october, so we

[51:43] are continuing to look for other

[51:48] resources to supplement city staffing

[51:50] especially in the event if we're

[51:51] not able to fill the permanent staff.

[51:54] >> okay , great, thank you.

[51:58] and mayor pro tem tarnay?

[51:59] >> thank you, mr. Mayor, I

[52:00] just have a

[52:05] question to the mayor's question,

[52:08] after the december 31 deadline, is

[52:10] there a potential that we can extend

[52:12] or renew, is that a possibility?

[52:15] >> I think we would have to look at

[52:17] that situation at the time to ensure

[52:19] that it meets the calpers requirements.

[52:22] it could be a different set of

[52:25] circumstances that necessitates a

[52:27] retired annuitant hire and we do --

[52:34] the reason council is seeing this item

[52:35] is because of the 180 day issue.

[52:37] typically when we identify a compliant

[52:41] need for special project or extra help

[52:45] support, the city is able to complete

[52:49] that process without approval from the

[52:51] city council, so, one other idea

[52:54] that's come up internally is

[52:56] determining if there's other retirees

[52:58] available for special projects or big

[53:02] community development projects that

[53:05] occur or identifying individuals who

[53:07] have retired from a different

[53:08] retirement system in which case the

[53:11] calpers restrictions don't apply, so I

[53:13] understand the question and the

[53:15] concern and we'll have to re-evaluate

[53:17] that at the time to figure out where

[53:19] we're at and what resources we can

[53:23] bring in, in compliance with all the

[53:24] standards.

[53:25] >> okay, thank you, and I echo

[53:28] councilmember howorth's concern with

[53:30] just our inability to fill very

[53:34] critical roles.

[53:35] for building inspectors, do we

[53:37] typically use contractors to fill

[53:39] those roles?

[53:40] I understand, you know, our codes are

[53:42] in our local building codes are very

[53:46] complicated and that we'd want

[53:48] somebody who's experienced in our

[53:51] local codes to fill these positions.

[53:53] is this something we typically do?

[53:54] >> we do and we have existing

[53:57] contracts that have the possibility

[53:59] for bringing on building inspectors.

[54:01] what our community development

[54:07] department is finding, even these

[54:09] contract agencies are having trouble

[54:11] recruiting qualified building

[54:13] inspectors, right now when we were

[54:15] evaluating options for bringing in

[54:17] extra help, the contract agency didn't

[54:19] have anyone available and the

[54:21] individual that I mentioned who's

[54:23] available after october is a

[54:25] resource that the community

[54:26] development department is planning to

[54:27] bring on board to also supplement the

[54:31] staffing.

[54:32] >> alright, thank you.

[54:34] >> councilmember charelian?

[54:35] >> thank you, mayor, so the cooling

[54:39] off rule, the 180 day requirement,

[54:44] that's a state law government code,

[54:46] but there is an exception to that

[54:49] government code that you're following

[54:51] right now to get it exercised.

[54:54] >> correct.

[54:55] >> and then I guess the only other

[54:59] comment or comment/question I would

[55:00] have, did we look at ut putting not to

[55:03] exceed 960 hours instead of a sunset

[55:07] date in december and just utilize the

[55:10] 960, was that thought about or can you

[55:13] elaborate on that?

[55:15] >> sure, so the parameters for the

[55:19] 21224 appointments are really related

[55:20] to the reason that the person is

[55:22] filling in.

[55:23] calpers the does not want things to be

[55:28] open ended because for the 960, it's

[55:31] per fiscal year.

[55:33] we've had situations for other

[55:35] resolutions where if you just put in

[55:38] 960 and don't specify an end date, it

[55:42] can be viewed as extending it year

[55:44] after year after year.

[55:46] for this one, for the 180 day wait

[55:51] period, they preferred an end date.

[55:52] >> okay.

[55:53] >> and just a quick question about the

[55:55] resolution we pass today, is calpers,

[56:02] does it need approval by calpers

[56:04] because you have already talked with

[56:05] them?

[56:06] >> we sent the resolution to them and

[56:08] with the change of adding the end

[56:11] date, they have approved the

[56:13] resolution.

[56:14] >> okay.

[56:15] >> and we've also had the resolution

[56:18] reviewed by legal counsel so pending

[56:20] city council's approval, we should be

[56:22] good to go.

[56:26] >> great, when mr. Atkinson comes

[56:29] back, we'd be up to three out of four

[56:32] will be our staffing for inspectors?

[56:35] >> well, mr. Atkinson is filling in on

[56:40] an as needed basis to ensure we're

[56:42] meeting that standard for next day

[56:44] building inspections, he won't be

[56:46] working 40 hours per week, he'll be

[56:49] working as needed so we're still

[56:51] slivering to fill in those two vacant

[56:53] positions with full time employees.

[56:55] >> I'm just trying to think what do we

[56:59] say to developers who are waiting for

[57:01] these inspections?

[57:03] >> yeah, and as I mentioned, I think

[57:06] that city staff has been working

[57:08] diligently and outside their normal

[57:10] scope to ensure that those standards

[57:11] are met.

[57:12] I'm not aware there has been a

[57:15] delay thus far and this resolution and

[57:18] bringing mr. Atkinson on board is to

[57:22] ensure that that continues without

[57:27] having detrimental impact on existing

[57:28] city staff.

[57:29] >> okay, great, thank you.

[57:31] alright, so if there's not anymore

[57:34] questions from council, I'll open it

[57:36] up for public comment.

[57:46] >> stefan kampe once again.

[57:57] doug is an excellent inspector, he was

[57:59] easy to work with, very knowledgeable,

[58:02] very efficient so I hope you guys take

[58:04] this opportunity to reemploy him in

[58:06] this role because the city needs it

[58:09] and I think very highly of doug.

[58:12] >> great, thank you.

[58:15] anybody else in chambers?

[58:21] >> no requests on zoom.

[58:25] >> we'll close public comments.

[58:28] council, any discussion, we do have

[58:29] a motion to accept by councilmember

[58:32] howorth and seconded by mayor pro tem

[58:34] tarnay.

[58:35] >> thank you, mr. Mayor, I wanted to

[58:40] comment that, yeah, obviously we need

[58:41] to do this and this is the proper

[58:44] procedure and there's all kinds of

[58:46] rules with callers and as

[58:49] councilmember charelian mentioned,

[58:50] state law, etc., and I think that if

[58:53] we approve this, I know that ryan

[58:58] heise, he's probably out doing an

[59:00] inspection now.

[59:04] masa is ready to do inspections our

[59:06] staff, you undersold how much that

[59:09] staff has been going above and beyond

[59:10] and outside the scope of their duties

[59:12] to make sure these inspections happen

[59:14] and I want everybody both in the

[59:16] business community and residential

[59:17] community to hear that and understand

[59:21] that, so thank you.

[59:25] >> would you do the honors of reading

[59:26] the --

[59:27] >> yes, I made a motion, consideration

[59:30] of a resolution approving an exception

[59:32] to the 180 day wait period for a

[59:37] california employees' retirement

[59:38] system, calpers, retired annuitant

[59:40] under government code sections 7522.56

[59:46] and 21224 to fill a critical need for

[59:49] conducting building inspections in the

[59:51] community development department.

[59:52] there's no budget impact.

[59:54] this is resolution 26-0097.

[59:58] >> great, thank you, call for the

[59:59] vote, please.

[1:00:05] >> motion passes 5-0.

[1:00:06] >> okay.

[1:00:08] how's everybody doing?

[1:00:10] okay?

[1:00:11] >> I could use a quick break, please.

[1:00:14] >> there's one item, I could use a

[1:00:16] break too.

[1:00:18] >> okay, so if we can come back at

[1:00:24] 7:10, 7:15, what would you like?

[1:00:28] >> 7:10.

[1:00:30] >> 7:10 is great.

[1:00:31] >> thank you, mayor.

[1:00:37] ( meeting in recess ).

[1:09:04] >> item 15, consideration of a

[1:09:08] standardized process for evaluating

[1:09:09] administrative legacy special event

[1:09:13] subsidies.

[1:09:16] >> I'm mark leyman, your parks and

[1:09:19] recreation director, I'll hand it over

[1:09:20] to linda.

[1:09:21] >> good evening, honorable

[1:09:25] mayor and city councilmembers.

[1:09:26] the item includes separate

[1:09:33] items, because each requires a

[1:09:35] separate policy or funding decision,

[1:09:37] I'll be presenting them individually

[1:09:39] and pausing after each section for

[1:09:41] council questions, discussion and

[1:09:42] action before moving on to the next

[1:09:45] item.

[1:09:46] we'll begin with the proposed

[1:09:47] community event subsidy program, also

[1:09:50] known as fee waivers, we'll then

[1:09:53] pause for council discussion and action

[1:09:54] before moving on to the north

[1:09:57] manhattan beach holiday stroll road

[1:10:00] closure and subsidy and we'll pause

[1:10:05] again for council action before moving

[1:10:06] on to the holiday subsidy.

[1:10:07] my goal is to keep each decision

[1:10:10] separate.

[1:10:11] so, for some background in 2025, when

[1:10:13] the council approved fee waivers for

[1:10:17] fiscal years 26-27, you directed staff

[1:10:19] to return with criteria used by other

[1:10:21] cities to review fee waivers along with

[1:10:28] an updated met of reviewing to provide

[1:10:29] a more equitable and consistent method

[1:10:33] for evaluating event subsidies over

[1:10:35] the years, the city's approach to

[1:10:39] these subsidies have evolved through a

[1:10:42] series of individual council actions.

[1:10:44] the special events policy was updated

[1:10:46] in 2018.

[1:10:48] council approved the highland avenue

[1:10:50] closure as a pilot.

[1:10:53] each of these decisions addressed a

[1:10:55] particular need at that time.

[1:10:58] we don't currently have is a

[1:11:02] standardized framework for evaluating

[1:11:04] these requests.

[1:11:05] and the proposed process is intended

[1:11:07] to provide that framework.

[1:11:09] so, for our current practice currently

[1:11:11] the city supports 12 legacy events

[1:11:14] through subsidized city services.

[1:11:15] as you can see, these include a wide

[1:11:18] variety of community events, from

[1:11:20] races and school related events to

[1:11:23] hometown fair, the holiday

[1:11:24] holiday stroll, most

[1:11:27] currently we received a 100 subsidy for

[1:11:31] city services, three receive a 75%

[1:11:35] subsidy.

[1:11:36] these subsidy levels have evolved over

[1:11:38] many years through individual council

[1:11:40] actions rather than through a common

[1:11:42] evaluation framework.

[1:11:43] so, in addition to the varying subsidy

[1:11:47] levels, approvals are based on

[1:11:49] estimated costs and those estimates

[1:11:50] can vary from the actual cost once an

[1:11:53] event takes place.

[1:11:54] under our current policy, subsidies

[1:11:57] apply to city only.

[1:11:59] the third party costs per the special

[1:12:02] events policy remain the

[1:12:03] responsibility of the event ozer

[1:12:05] engineer unless the city council has

[1:12:08] specifically approved otherwise.

[1:12:09] so, the proposed program has severe

[1:12:11] objectives, we want to create a fair

[1:12:14] evaluation framework, improver

[1:12:16] transparency, ensure subsidies align

[1:12:21] ed with the community priorities and

[1:12:23] preserve support for valued community

[1:12:25] events.

[1:12:26] we also want to establish clear

[1:12:28] expectations for both the city and

[1:12:31] event organizers regarding the level

[1:12:32] of city funded services that will be

[1:12:35] provided.

[1:12:36] this proposal is about consistency,

[1:12:39] transparency, applicant wills

[1:12:40] understand how their requests are

[1:12:43] evaluated, the council will have

[1:12:45] better information about the value of

[1:12:50] the city's contribution when making

[1:12:51] funding decisions.

[1:12:52] the proposed process would occur

[1:12:53] annually and align with the city's

[1:12:54] budget cycle.

[1:12:56] organizers would submit sudden subsidy

[1:12:58] applications in september.

[1:13:01] previous actual costs as a starting

[1:13:03] point would be seen.

[1:13:06] that timing allows previous subsidies

[1:13:08] to be incorporated into departmental

[1:13:11] budgets through the normal budget

[1:13:13] process.

[1:13:14] each request would be evaluated using

[1:13:17] five criteria, community benefit, why

[1:13:20] is this good for the community, public

[1:13:23] accessibility, can the public enjoy it.

[1:13:28] organizational eligibility, who's

[1:13:29] putting on the event, target audience,

[1:13:31] who does it primarily serve, and city

[1:13:35] resource requirements, how much does

[1:13:36] it cost the city to support.

[1:13:39] these criteria consider both the value

[1:13:41] and event provides the manhattan beach

[1:13:44] community and the level of city

[1:13:46] resources required to support it.

[1:13:48] the intent is to provide an objective

[1:13:50] and consisted tent basis for

[1:13:52] evaluating requests while recognizing

[1:13:54] that every event is unique.

[1:13:56] each application would then be scored

[1:13:57] using the evaluation matrix.

[1:14:00] the matrix provides staff with an

[1:14:03] objective recommendation regarding

[1:14:05] the maximum subsidy for which an event

[1:14:09] is eligible.

[1:14:10] however the scoring matrix is intended

[1:14:12] to guide the discussion, no to replace

[1:14:16] the city's council policy discretion,

[1:14:17] so the city council will continue the

[1:14:19] make the final decisions regarding the

[1:14:21] level of subsidy awarded.

[1:14:24] once a subsidy is approved, the city

[1:14:29] would into an agreement with the event

[1:14:31] or engineer identifying the specific

[1:14:32] services that have been approved and

[1:14:34] establishing a not to exceed amount.

[1:14:36] this establishes clear expectations

[1:14:38] for both city and the organizer, it

[1:14:40] also provides a clear benchmark against

[1:14:47] which staff can track the actual

[1:14:48] services provided and distinguish

[1:14:49] between the subsidy council approved

[1:14:50] and any additional services requested

[1:14:51] by the organizer.

[1:14:52] staff will calculate the estimated

[1:14:57] value of all requested city services

[1:14:58] before council considers each subsidy

[1:14:59] request.

[1:15:00] those estimates include fully burdened

[1:15:02] staff cost, facility rental fees, city

[1:15:05] equipment, parking meter impacts,

[1:15:07] application fees, permit fees and

[1:15:09] other applicable city services.

[1:15:11] presenting the full estimated value of

[1:15:13] the city's contribution allows the

[1:15:14] council to clearly understand the

[1:15:17] financial commitment associated with

[1:15:19] each subsidy request before making a

[1:15:23] decision.

[1:15:32] as part of developing the proposed

[1:15:33] process, staff looked at how

[1:15:34] neighboring cities support community

[1:15:37] events.

[1:15:38] and just note these numbers that

[1:15:39] you're seeing now were updated from

[1:15:41] the original presentation that was

[1:15:44] sent out but you do have the most

[1:15:46] recent version of the presentations

[1:15:48] also available to the public.

[1:15:53] hermosa beach currently provides fee

[1:15:54] waiver grantees of up to $2,500 per

[1:15:57] event from a 5 thousand dollar fund

[1:16:00] pool.

[1:16:01] that fund pool is approved annually by

[1:16:06] the city council and varies from year

[1:16:07] to year.

[1:16:08] those are their smaller ones and it

[1:16:09] also provides support through long

[1:16:10] term agreements totaling approximately

[1:16:12] 240 thousand, those are separate

[1:16:14] agreements.

[1:16:15] the largest one being with the chamber

[1:16:17] of commerce to run the fiesta,

[1:16:20] the larger events.

[1:16:22] redondo beach provides approximately

[1:16:24] 45 thousand dollars in support for 8

[1:16:26] signature events and el segundo

[1:16:29] supports 10 events at approximately

[1:16:31] 100 thousand dollars.

[1:16:33] both hermosa and el segundo use

[1:16:36] similar criteria to what is being

[1:16:38] prosed tonight when evaluating fee

[1:16:41] waivers.

[1:16:42] each city structures calculates its

[1:16:44] support differently.

[1:16:46] so these aren't intended to be direct

[1:16:47] comparisons but they do provide some

[1:16:49] perspective on different ways

[1:16:52] cities support community events and

[1:16:54] finally looking at manhattan beach, we

[1:16:56] currently support 12 events and when

[1:17:00] we calculate the city support using

[1:17:02] all those items previously

[1:17:06] mentioned, in 2025, the value was

[1:17:11] approximately 717 thousand dollars.

[1:17:14] so, that brings us to the first

[1:17:17] decision before council tonight, staff

[1:17:19] recommend it is city council approve

[1:17:21] the standardized process for

[1:17:23] evaluating and administering legacy

[1:17:26] special events subsidies and at this

[1:17:32] point, I'll stop the presentation,

[1:17:33] staff is available to answer questions

[1:17:35] regarding the proposed program and

[1:17:38] then following council discussion and

[1:17:40] action, I'll resume the presentation

[1:17:41] with the north manhattan beach holiday

[1:17:45] stroll.

[1:17:46] >> okay, thank you.

[1:17:48] and councilmember lesser?

[1:17:49] >> thank you, linda, I wanted to go

[1:17:51] back to the last slide and confirm the

[1:17:54] amount of city subsidies at present.

[1:17:56] it's a pretty large number.

[1:18:00] can you show that slide.

[1:18:05] the 717 thousand and some change, that

[1:18:09] does not include what's also under

[1:18:11] consideration that we're about to talk

[1:18:13] about that is the additional 10

[1:18:15] thousand dollars proposed for the

[1:18:16] fireworks as well as the additional 9

[1:18:19] thousand that's requested for the

[1:18:21] holiday stroll and the north manhattan

[1:18:22] beach?

[1:18:23] >> this is the amount of -- for all of

[1:18:26] the events that occurred in 2025.

[1:18:28] >> in 2025, so in other words as

[1:18:35] projected for 2026, this number will

[1:18:36] be higher?

[1:18:37] >> it will be higher.

[1:18:38] >> any rough order of the magnitude of

[1:18:41] how much?

[1:18:43] >> most of the increase will be due to

[1:18:45] the mou salary increases, so if

[1:18:48] everything's going up 2.5%, you would

[1:18:50] add on, the staffing levels are not

[1:18:53] expected to change.

[1:18:54] >> I appreciate the criteria that's

[1:18:57] being presented for council to

[1:18:58] consider as it approaches subsidies

[1:19:00] going forward but I'm trying to

[1:19:02] understand how that might impact these

[1:19:04] costs, these aspens?

[1:19:06] you indicated it's going to be a

[1:19:07] policy decision for the council even

[1:19:10] after staff goes through applying

[1:19:13] these criteria but particularly if

[1:19:15] multiple events of these 12 can meet

[1:19:19] criteria, I'm wondering how does this

[1:19:22] help us?

[1:19:23] >> well, it's more to help guide your

[1:19:29] decision.

[1:19:30] so, if you want to compare two events

[1:19:35] where one might be raising funds and

[1:19:39] have not as much of a financial need

[1:19:44] than another, it's more of a way that

[1:19:45] you can kind of see that on paper

[1:19:48] where if an event is free and open to

[1:19:51] the public and is run by volunteers,

[1:19:54] there's likely to be -- they may not

[1:19:55] be able to have the event if they're

[1:19:59] not subsidized.

[1:20:00] >> I'm sorry, are these criteria used

[1:20:03] in other communities?

[1:20:04] >> yes.

[1:20:12] [inaudible].

[1:20:17] the

[1:20:22] -- communities want to know can which

[1:20:24] events are most accessible to the

[1:20:25] community and most valued by the

[1:20:27] community.

[1:20:28] >> thank you.

[1:20:33] >> I think I was next and I had the

[1:20:36] same question about that little sub

[1:20:39] slide that came up can you give us an

[1:20:44] idea of why there's such a disparity

[1:20:47] between our neighbors and us.

[1:20:52] sit their policies, did we take a look

[1:20:54] at their policy and what they're doing.

[1:20:55] I find it hard that redondo beach with

[1:20:59] almost two to lee times our population

[1:21:02] and size and harbor and everything

[1:21:04] like that is only paying -- it's only

[1:21:09] costing them 45 thousand dollars a

[1:21:11] year.

[1:21:12] >> well, the majority of the cities

[1:21:14] that I looked at only waive indirect

[1:21:18] costs and not direct costs.

[1:21:21] so, they charge the events for all of

[1:21:23] the city services but if they have --

[1:21:26] for example, if you have an event in

[1:21:28] hermosa beach and you want to have it

[1:21:29] at the pier plaza, you might pay 12-15

[1:21:33] thousand dollars a day to have the

[1:21:36] event at that location.

[1:21:39] that's an indirect cost, so they might

[1:21:42] waive the location fee.

[1:21:43] we don't have location fees here in

[1:21:46] the city.

[1:21:49] so, these numbers, they're not apples

[1:21:51] to apples.

[1:21:52] if you look at some of the staffing

[1:21:54] levels that they've proposed to cover,

[1:21:58] we tend to staff more, we also have

[1:22:04] some bigger events.

[1:22:06] redondo beach has a couple of larger

[1:22:08] events but I don't think they staff

[1:22:10] them to the levels they could.

[1:22:14] and like the highest subsidy for any

[1:22:18] event that redondo beach has listed

[1:22:20] that I could find was 10 thousand

[1:22:22] dollars and el segundo's events are

[1:22:25] pretty small in comparison to some of

[1:22:27] our events.

[1:22:33] >> councilmember howorth, thank you.

[1:22:34] >> thank you, mr. Mayor.

[1:22:35] so, this is in no way a comment on we

[1:22:40] should or shouldn't support as many as

[1:22:43] we do, but I think it would be

[1:22:45] important for council to have the

[1:22:50] actual numbers of what it costs us,

[1:22:51] like -- and even if it's a total, so

[1:22:54] maybe it's -- I don't want to pick

[1:22:57] on anybody, like the dog races, I

[1:23:03] don't want to say anyone's name out

[1:23:06] loud because they're all going to call

[1:23:07] me.

[1:23:08] if we have the dog races on page 3 of

[1:23:10] the staff report under event subsidies

[1:23:13] and it said 100%, has doesn't tell me

[1:23:16] what's the real budget of that and

[1:23:19] then we may see and you could see, oh,

[1:23:22] for the dog races, we staff it with,

[1:23:26] you know, 100 police officers and then

[1:23:29] we might be able to say, well, why

[1:23:31] are we staffing at that level.

[1:23:35] I think there's -- I think it's great

[1:23:38] to have these criteria, that's a

[1:23:42] different discussion but I think we

[1:23:43] need have a discussion about what are

[1:23:45] the staff levels, is it -- are we

[1:23:49] requiring -- are we doing over

[1:23:55] staffing, not according to what prior

[1:23:56] councils have said but let's study it

[1:24:00] again and I think that -- I think we

[1:24:02] need to see what these different

[1:24:06] things cost because -- and I would

[1:24:13] support them all.

[1:24:14] I'm not trying to cut any of them out,

[1:24:15] but I am a little sick of getting

[1:24:18] attacked for spending all this money

[1:24:20] and yet people keep combining to us

[1:24:22] and say, oh, support our event,

[1:24:25] support our event, and to find out

[1:24:29] that we spend 717 thousand dollars a

[1:24:31] year, subsidizing events, probably

[1:24:38] money well spent, but I want to know

[1:24:40] does it cost this much, does it really

[1:24:43] cost this much?

[1:24:44] maybe it does.

[1:24:45] maybe it costs this much to take out

[1:24:47] the trash and maybe it costs that much

[1:24:50] to have fire marshall or safety.

[1:24:52] but I need the understand that better.

[1:24:55] I'm hoping we'll bring it back.

[1:24:57] I'm still prepared to talk about the

[1:25:00] criteria, I think it's great, but I'm

[1:25:02] hoping my other colleagues understand

[1:25:03] and support that.

[1:25:05] >> that's it.

[1:25:06] >> thank you, and perfect timing for

[1:25:07] me because I do agree with

[1:25:09] councilmember howorth.

[1:25:10] I think we need a little bit more

[1:25:14] detail on these items and I know

[1:25:16] that's not what the discussion here

[1:25:19] tonight is for and maybe I'll ask the

[1:25:23] city manager, is that something we can

[1:25:25] vote on as a future agenda item or

[1:25:29] maybe director leyman, is this

[1:25:31] something coming back already on its

[1:25:32] own because I would like to dive deep

[1:25:35] into this and have specific questions

[1:25:37] on each event and some history,

[1:25:40] background, I want to treat each event

[1:25:42] as a staff report and I want to

[1:25:46] understand those events that were grand

[1:25:52] fathered in, the legacy events, are

[1:25:53] they -- do they fit this criteria and

[1:25:55] I saw a few of them and a few of them

[1:25:57] might not, maybe the dog races.

[1:26:00] again, what's the opportunity?

[1:26:03] >> and so if I understand what

[1:26:06] council's asking for, it would be

[1:26:07] providing a higher level of detail so,

[1:26:09] we could integrate that into the

[1:26:11] process.

[1:26:12] when we bring back all of the

[1:26:13] information from the applicant, we can

[1:26:15] provide a high level detail in terms

[1:26:17] of the staffing, the justification and

[1:26:20] how many -- is that what we're looking

[1:26:22] for?

[1:26:23] >> I want to see it overall.

[1:26:26] >> I want to see it overall, what the

[1:26:30] level of service is, looking at this,

[1:26:32] it's a great presentation but we're --

[1:26:35] and it's not -- again, we have to focus

[1:26:37] on what tonight's item is, it's

[1:26:40] looking at the evaluation process but

[1:26:42] I really would like to see annually

[1:26:44] how much each individual will cost and

[1:26:48] the servicing level, which ones are

[1:26:50] taking the burden -- and it's probably

[1:26:52] that number, the 717, it's probably

[1:26:54] close tore a million when you shake it

[1:26:57] out with hard costs, soft costs and

[1:26:59] some of the stuff that gets done so

[1:27:01] I'm just curious if that's combining

[1:27:04] back because this is the right time

[1:27:05] the look at it, it's the end of summer

[1:27:09] but that's my thought.

[1:27:10] >> that information will be brought

[1:27:12] back, all of those financials, we have

[1:27:15] the track record for all the legacy

[1:27:18] events over many years, my question is

[1:27:21] what level of detail and how would you

[1:27:23] like to see that, other that than the

[1:27:29] numbers itself, would you like to see

[1:27:30] a line item, this is how many staff,

[1:27:31] this is when their shifts are to

[1:27:32] support this event?

[1:27:35] >> that's a really good question.

[1:27:36] I think you bring back as much

[1:27:38] information as you feel necessary.

[1:27:40] I don't want to leave it broad, I

[1:27:41] don't know if we need every single

[1:27:44] line item detailed but maybe police,

[1:27:47] fire, public works, the refuse,

[1:27:51] barricades, sometimes you see the big

[1:27:53] barricades and sometimes the arm

[1:27:55] barricades.

[1:27:56] >> for us to look at it, not just on

[1:27:59] an annual basis but to have our

[1:28:01] opportunity to get our fingerprints as

[1:28:03] this council to see which ones still

[1:28:05] work, maybe which don't work, at what

[1:28:08] level should they be because that is

[1:28:14] sticker shock, 700 thousand, these are

[1:28:17] big time events, especially little

[1:28:20] league opening parade.

[1:28:22] >> I said dog races.

[1:28:24] >> but more importantly, it givers us

[1:28:27] an opportunity to really be

[1:28:29] responsible in the sense of the

[1:28:31] spending and where we should be.

[1:28:33] >> and the community.

[1:28:37] what the community needs to know, yeah.

[1:28:41] >> that's it.

[1:28:42] >> sorry.

[1:28:44] >> that's okay, it's a good tag team.

[1:28:47] >> are you both finished?

[1:28:48] >> thank you, mayor.

[1:28:53] >> mayor pro tem tarnay?

[1:28:55] >> thank you, mr. Mayor, just to help

[1:28:57] me understand what you're asking for

[1:28:59] here, we're just approving a

[1:29:04] process that gets us to the evaluation

[1:29:06] level, this is step one,

[1:29:10] organizers, once we establish the

[1:29:12] process, that's where we have this

[1:29:13] orange sheet that has the flowchart of

[1:29:15] what the next steps are, so we --

[1:29:20] theoretically we'll be seeing

[1:29:22] everything broken down per event so we

[1:29:24] can evaluate as we go forward so that

[1:29:26] for transparency sake, we know how

[1:29:29] much things cost and, linda, I sat

[1:29:34] down with linda and I appreciated the

[1:29:37] process, it's going to be an item

[1:29:39] that's going to be -- we're going to

[1:29:41] be considering shortly but that's what

[1:29:43] was presented in our meeting was just

[1:29:45] the breakdown of the actual cost of

[1:29:47] the barricades, the cost of staffing

[1:29:51] and it really opened up my eyes to

[1:29:54] what goes into an event and how the

[1:30:00] labor costs are calculated so that

[1:30:02] there is a direct nexus between what's

[1:30:05] being charged by the city, subsidized

[1:30:07] by the city and the actual cost to the

[1:30:09] city to pay for those internally.

[1:30:13] so, if that's my understanding, we're

[1:30:16] just approving not of what projects

[1:30:19] are going por ward but the process to

[1:30:23] identify what projects we want to

[1:30:25] subsidize and how much and so that we

[1:30:29] have kind of numbers, transparent

[1:30:31] numbers going forward?

[1:30:32] >> that is correct.

[1:30:33] >> okay, thank you.

[1:30:34] >> okay.

[1:30:37] and I wanted to look at like when I

[1:30:39] saw the little league opening day

[1:30:41] parade and back in the dinosaurs when

[1:30:45] my kids played baseball, it was a big

[1:30:48] deal.

[1:30:49] they closed down the street and things

[1:30:50] like that and it's kind of petered

[1:30:54] away, but I would like to see if it's

[1:30:57] relevant, what is the participation

[1:30:59] rate or numbers as we go along.

[1:31:02] are they falling off, are they

[1:31:05] increasing?

[1:31:06] are they staying the same?

[1:31:07] >> well, in particular with the little

[1:31:09] league parade and that's hard to say

[1:31:11] right now because it didn't happen for

[1:31:13] many years and it just came back this

[1:31:16] year.

[1:31:17] so, it's sort of -- we sort of have to

[1:31:20] start now, my understanding is that

[1:31:22] enrollment in little league is down

[1:31:25] from many years ago, up from recent

[1:31:28] years but down from when we had the

[1:31:30] parade in the past I think.

[1:31:32] so, that is something we would need to

[1:31:36] start tracking from now.

[1:31:37] >> okay.

[1:31:38] and then I'm calling this a spill over

[1:31:43] event, like other events that are --

[1:31:47] gosh, we really do a lot here, don't

[1:31:50] we.

[1:31:51] like the santa sleigh, we

[1:31:55] do provide the police escort and

[1:31:57] things like that, do they pay us back

[1:31:59] for that, is that something we're

[1:32:01] providing?

[1:32:02] >> that is not --

[1:32:03] >> is it worthy of looking at since it

[1:32:05] is an expense.

[1:32:06] >> that is a very good question.

[1:32:07] I would have to find that answer for

[1:32:09] you.

[1:32:10] that has never gone through the

[1:32:12] special event process.

[1:32:16] >> I'm not killing off santa sleigh.

[1:32:22] >> then I put down things like the

[1:32:25] pumpkin race, that's a great event,

[1:32:28] does that come out of the parses and

[1:32:32] rec budget?

[1:32:33] >> yes, the pumpkin race is a city

[1:32:35] event, that is funded out of the

[1:32:38] general fund, but thank you for

[1:32:39] mentioning that because I'm going to

[1:32:42] throw this in.

[1:32:43] starting with this next -- if you

[1:32:51] approve this program, the [inaudible]

[1:32:53] one that is on the same day as the

[1:32:56] pumpkin race and the holiday open

[1:32:58] house that happens in conjunction with

[1:33:01] the pier lighting has nver been

[1:33:03] considered outside special events so we

[1:33:05] haven't really tracked those expenses

[1:33:09] and the support that goes into those

[1:33:13] events has been absorbed by the city

[1:33:16] for the most part, so starting with

[1:33:18] this next one, we will treat those two

[1:33:21] events as special events as well, we

[1:33:24] will be requesting legacy status for

[1:33:26] them just to let you know but that's

[1:33:28] not tonight.

[1:33:33] but those will come into the picture.

[1:33:37] >> and then is there anything else we

[1:33:38] can do?

[1:33:39] because I knower all these

[1:33:41] organizations are going to say, yeah,

[1:33:43] but we do such a great thing and they

[1:33:45] do and we bring people to the city.

[1:33:48] they're eating at the restaurant and

[1:33:49] is staying in the hotels and doing all

[1:33:52] these things.

[1:33:53] should we sort of do an economic

[1:33:56] impact, kind of touch an economic

[1:33:59] impact of these events so that would

[1:34:02] be an offset to -- is that necessary,

[1:34:05] you think, for us to evaluate, counter

[1:34:11] the expense, as we're going to get tot

[1:34:13] going up and things.

[1:34:15] >> we can work with our chamber of

[1:34:18] commerce who manages our placer ai

[1:34:22] contract to see if for some of these

[1:34:25] events they're able to get us any

[1:34:27] information on the number of visitors

[1:34:33] historically to get an idea of what

[1:34:36] that would look like, that's what I

[1:34:38] can think of off the top of my head.

[1:34:39] >> okay.

[1:34:40] alright, great.

[1:34:41] councilmember lesser?

[1:34:45] >> I think mayor pro tem tarnay has it

[1:34:49] first.

[1:34:50] >> thank you.

[1:34:51] >> I wanted to clarify, are we looking

[1:34:54] for approval at this level, or are we

[1:34:56] going to lump everything together and

[1:34:59] ask council for

[1:35:01] >> the council

[1:35:03] wants to bifurcate all the decisions,

[1:35:04] then you have to open for a public

[1:35:06] comment each time and then deliberate

[1:35:08] and make a decision and then we can move

[1:35:10] on to the next topic, otherwise we can

[1:35:12] move on from questions, present the

[1:35:15] remainder of the items, go the

[1:35:17] questions again and then do an all

[1:35:20] inclusive public comment at the end,

[1:35:21] so it's to the council's discretion.

[1:35:25] >> I personally think bifurcating it

[1:35:27] might be easier so we can keep things

[1:35:35] clearer.

[1:35:36] >> can we see if there's consensus?

[1:35:39] >> that's what I'm asking.

[1:35:40] >> is there a consensus amongst us?

[1:35:44] >> that's what I mean.

[1:35:45] >> when you say bifurcate, you're

[1:35:48] talking about can --

[1:35:49] >> no, just the process, right now

[1:35:51] it's to approve the standardized

[1:35:53] process for evaluating and

[1:35:58] administering legacy events before we

[1:35:59] move on to -- the next item is like

[1:36:03] the holiday event.

[1:36:04] >> yeah, let's do that.

[1:36:06] >> so, I really wanted to provide more

[1:36:09] direction because that was the

[1:36:10] question by the director even though

[1:36:12] we haven't heard from the public yet

[1:36:13] on this item which we're going to be

[1:36:19] bifurcating.

[1:36:20] having the printout on the staff

[1:36:23] report, on the estimated, the actual

[1:36:25] costs was helpful because it shows we

[1:36:26] can come up with these estimates

[1:36:29] but often they underestimate what the

[1:36:31] costs are, so I think part of this

[1:36:33] process going forward should include

[1:36:34] the estimate and then just for

[1:36:36] reference at least the past year

[1:36:40] showed what the estimate was and what

[1:36:44] the actual was because there's

[1:36:47] considerable difference.

[1:36:48] it may or may not be relevant, I'm

[1:36:51] thinking out loud, some of these

[1:36:54] events have sponsors because the

[1:36:55] actual full costs of some of these

[1:36:58] larger events are much higher than the

[1:36:59] amounts that are shown here but yet

[1:37:02] sponsors pick up a portion of those

[1:37:05] costs.

[1:37:06] how relevant is that as we look at

[1:37:07] what our city's costs are to support

[1:37:10] it, is that relevant, or is that a

[1:37:14] separate issue?

[1:37:15] I just throw that out there.

[1:37:18] but I support what mayor tarnay is

[1:37:21] suggesting, we can bifurcate, once we

[1:37:23] hear from public comment.

[1:37:25] >> okay, so we'll open up for public

[1:37:28] comments in the chamber.

[1:37:36] >> stefan kampe here once again, great

[1:37:38] topic and I appreciate how it was

[1:37:41] presented, I thought it was great

[1:37:42] material and presentation there.

[1:37:43] one thing as I looked at it and I

[1:37:47] pre-read it, I thought about why are we

[1:37:49] doing this and how does it fit in and

[1:37:52] what's the right budget, I think it'

[1:37:54] good for the city council to take a

[1:37:56] top down view.

[1:37:57] if we spent 717 and our total

[1:38:00] expenditure last year was 101 million

[1:38:02] as a city last year, that's 7% of our

[1:38:05] budget.

[1:38:06] I think our residents love these events

[1:38:09] and it makes our community great.

[1:38:12] what' a reasonable budget?

[1:38:13] .7 sounds good there, maybe 1%, it

[1:38:16] givers you as a city council have a

[1:38:18] budget in mind as you go into it.

[1:38:21] and I think -- I really like this, the

[1:38:25] question on how does this help us.

[1:38:28] I think this givers you fact based

[1:38:29] novembers make a decision on how to

[1:38:31] allocate the funds.

[1:38:32] what I've seen sometimes in city

[1:38:34] council over the past x number of

[1:38:40] years, sometimes I seems there's

[1:38:41] emotional digs being made on dais, if

[1:38:42] you have this information, it takes

[1:38:43] some of that emotion out, givers you

[1:38:46] fact based information on how to go

[1:38:48] forward, I think the process is good,

[1:38:50] I think the criteria is good, I would

[1:38:53] love to see more of the criteria as it

[1:38:56] goes into, I would endorse this.

[1:38:58] I think it's a great idea.

[1:39:00] >> thank you.

[1:39:06] >> jill lamkin, chambers of commerce,

[1:39:09] good evening, everyone.

[1:39:10] I wanted to talk about the general

[1:39:11] process and I totally agree with you,

[1:39:14] nina, it was eye opening when we sat

[1:39:17] down with talyn and libby and went

[1:39:19] through those specific costs but I do

[1:39:21] want you to know they can run that

[1:39:23] report.

[1:39:25] for the firework, it was like 240

[1:39:27] thousand with the city expenses, so --

[1:39:31] and then joe, -- mayor, I wanted to

[1:39:33] answer your question, I'm sorry, about

[1:39:36] the economic development piece of it.

[1:39:38] I can certainly poll the information

[1:39:45] from placer ai with you that givers me

[1:39:46] data on attendance and demographics

[1:39:47] but not economic impact, so it doesn't

[1:39:49] tell me how much they spend anywhere

[1:39:51] or what they're doing during their

[1:39:53] time that they're here.

[1:39:54] I just know who they are and where

[1:39:56] they're from and how long they stay

[1:39:59] here.

[1:40:00] I hope that helps with what you're

[1:40:02] asking.

[1:40:03] >> and how much they spent when they

[1:40:04] stayed here?

[1:40:05] >> we have no way to track that

[1:40:07] information, no.

[1:40:08] >> thank you.

[1:40:17] >> tim ryan, president of the north

[1:40:21] manhattan beach association and going

[1:40:22] to be on one of the agenda items.

[1:40:27] going through, I am in support of

[1:40:29] having a structure in place because

[1:40:33] not having that is difficult in

[1:40:36] planning.

[1:40:37] there's couple of things I noticed on

[1:40:38] the plan that I would put into

[1:40:40] consideration and it goes with

[1:40:44] councilmember lesser is that having a

[1:40:50] budget set particularly for us which

[1:40:51] would be an entire year in advance of

[1:40:56] our event is unrealistic to say, hey,

[1:41:00] it cannot exceed and for any event,

[1:41:03] things can come up within a few weeks

[1:41:06] that may need additional polices

[1:41:10] support, safety, what have you that

[1:41:12] comes in that having a hard amount

[1:41:15] makes it very difficult for the

[1:41:20] planners, parks and rec to say, well,

[1:41:22] where are we going to come up with

[1:41:24] this money if the city is going to

[1:41:26] cover it but we have a hard sealing.

[1:41:29] breaking it down, I mean, I'm shocked

[1:41:33] at 717, I mean, our budget and things

[1:41:38] way small, so it's hard to see where

[1:41:40] everything's coming but breaking it

[1:41:42] down by what the expenses are because

[1:41:44] I know it's difficult, when we got

[1:41:46] this is the estimate from the city

[1:41:50] where it's fees related to parking

[1:41:56] fees and as opposed to what are the

[1:41:57] real hard costs that our event is

[1:42:06] going to occur, these are the

[1:42:07] personnel, these are the hours as

[1:42:08] opposed to those costs that it's not

[1:42:09] necessarily money that the city has

[1:42:10] made or lost, it is just did a car

[1:42:12] park there, would it have parked there

[1:42:14] during that time anyways or not.

[1:42:17] and seeing where does that value and

[1:42:19] see how that compares to the other

[1:42:21] cities.

[1:42:22] thank you.

[1:42:23] >> thank you.

[1:42:26] anybody else in chambers?

[1:42:30] no?

[1:42:32] online?

[1:42:33] >> no requests on zoom.

[1:42:34] >> okay.

[1:42:37] so, we will close public comment and

[1:42:43] councilmembers, hold on, just give me

[1:42:45] a second here.

[1:42:51] anybody ready to make some comments?

[1:42:52] councilmember lesser?

[1:42:56] >> I see a motion.

[1:42:59] would you like to go first,

[1:43:01] councilmember tarnay?

[1:43:02] >> I can make my motion, I have a

[1:43:06] motion to approve a standardized

[1:43:08] process for evaluating and

[1:43:11] administering legacy special event

[1:43:13] subsidies.

[1:43:14] >> for my comment, I will be

[1:43:16] supporting this motion, I appreciate

[1:43:17] staff coming up with these criteria

[1:43:20] but I think the total amount that our

[1:43:23] city spends is something we need to

[1:43:24] look at.

[1:43:26] it was numbing when I reach nodded

[1:43:31] out because it was not directly stated

[1:43:32] in the staff report to better

[1:43:34] understand the totality of what all of

[1:43:36] these costs are to our city.

[1:43:37] I think this council wants to continue

[1:43:41] to have these events, they're

[1:43:42] important to our commune, our

[1:43:44] community members and our businesses

[1:43:45] but we need to figure out a way that

[1:43:48] is economically responsible.

[1:43:49] I think one other factor that was

[1:43:51] important to me, without taking away

[1:43:55] from public safety, are there any

[1:43:57] opportunities the for reducing any of

[1:43:59] the additional costs that the city

[1:44:02] provides?

[1:44:03] that would be another question I would

[1:44:05] have obviously more sponsorships,

[1:44:06] that's going to be a simple sort of

[1:44:08] comment.

[1:44:09] is there something more we should be

[1:44:10] thinking about given how much more we

[1:44:13] spend as a city on our special events

[1:44:16] than other cities?

[1:44:22] >> mayor pro tem, did you want to --

[1:44:25] >> I spoke already.

[1:44:27] >> you spoke, okay.

[1:44:28] so, councilmember howorth?

[1:44:30] >> okay, mr. Mayor.

[1:44:31] >> I'll wait.

[1:44:32] >> okay.

[1:44:34] such a gentleman.

[1:44:39] >> I'll be supporting the process, I

[1:44:41] appreciate the criteria and the

[1:44:43] cringing, I think that's really

[1:44:49] important.

[1:44:50] and it is fair because then everybody

[1:44:51] get it is same sort of process or

[1:44:54] waiting.

[1:44:55] but I do think it's important for us

[1:44:57] as a city to be just really

[1:45:00] transparent and not so we can say no,

[1:45:07] you know, I don't think we would be

[1:45:08] saying no but the public needs to

[1:45:11] understand, again, it's appreciating

[1:45:13] all that, you know, we do to make this

[1:45:17] so much fun and so great but upswing

[1:45:21] what it truly costs is really

[1:45:23] important.

[1:45:24] the transparency is hugely important

[1:45:26] and I would include even though I know

[1:45:30] that these -- I understand the

[1:45:32] difference between a city event like

[1:45:35] the pumpkin races, although that

[1:45:36] wasn't always a city event, right,

[1:45:39] that was something else, I think we

[1:45:41] should talk about things like that and

[1:45:44] the santa float, again, just so we can

[1:45:48] say because sometimes -- it's not just

[1:45:50] police and fire and public works, it's

[1:45:53] parks and rec, it's all these

[1:45:56] different staff members, so, you know,

[1:45:58] again, I want our public to understand

[1:46:05] what we're providing, and I also echo

[1:46:08] what councilmember lesser said,

[1:46:10] perhaps we could look at our staffing

[1:46:14] requirements and again it may have to

[1:46:16] be event by event.

[1:46:17] that you may not be able to come up

[1:46:22] with a chart or graph, it may have to

[1:46:24] go by event but I think we maybe need

[1:46:26] to look at that.

[1:46:33] >> I also am going to support this

[1:46:35] because it's really important for

[1:46:37] these events but then future events

[1:46:39] because some of us have been

[1:46:42] approached by residents and go, I'm

[1:46:46] passionate about this, if we could go

[1:46:47] ahead and take over polliwog park for

[1:46:50] a day or once a year type of thing or

[1:46:55] down at the beach or anything like

[1:46:58] that, but this will give them a guide,

[1:47:02] a road map to get their thoughts

[1:47:05] together and get their sponsorships

[1:47:08] together.

[1:47:09] I would almost like to see a separate

[1:47:12] column for sponsorships, to see -- if

[1:47:14] not the actual sponsor but how much

[1:47:16] are they bringing to the table with

[1:47:22] deferring the cost through the

[1:47:24] sponsorship.

[1:47:25] I had originally asked -- to ask them

[1:47:28] for information about their own

[1:47:31] fundraising but people like to keep

[1:47:34] that proprietary and I can understand

[1:47:35] that but it's important so that we can

[1:47:41] -- staff, you're going to be bringing

[1:47:42] in this much so this is your ask from

[1:47:45] the city, in the city, we're going

[1:47:47] to be singing the police department,

[1:47:49] fire department, parks and rec staff,

[1:47:51] that kind of thing so we can kind of

[1:47:53] do some overall planning so I think

[1:47:58] it's a great start and looking forward

[1:48:00] to be involver with it.

[1:48:02] we do have a motion to accept from

[1:48:04] mayor pro tem tarnay and seconded by

[1:48:07] councilmember charelian.

[1:48:10] so, if you want to read your --

[1:48:14] >> I thought I did already.

[1:48:17] my motion is to approve the

[1:48:20] standardized process for evaluating

[1:48:22] and administering legacy special event

[1:48:25] subsidies.

[1:48:26] >> okay, call for the vote.

[1:48:32] >> motion passes 5-0.

[1:48:37] >> okay.

[1:48:38] so, moving on the section l, city

[1:48:40] council requests and the --

[1:48:41] >> no.

[1:48:43] >> oh, I'm sorry.

[1:48:47] we got more, I'm sorry.

[1:48:52] I have a record I'm trying to

[1:48:54] establish here.

[1:48:55] so, the second part.

[1:48:56] >> I'll get to my -- okay.

[1:48:57] thank you.

[1:49:02] I'll now move on to the second item,

[1:49:05] the north manhattan beach holiday

[1:49:07] stroll.

[1:49:08] this slide provides some important

[1:49:09] context regarding how the city's

[1:49:11] support for this event that changed

[1:49:14] with the highland avenue closure.

[1:49:17] in 2024, before the street closure,

[1:49:19] the value of the city support was

[1:49:22] approximately $5,700.

[1:49:24] in 2025, with the pilot street closure

[1:49:27] that increased to approximately 57

[1:49:29] thousand 700 dollars including city

[1:49:31] services and third party expenses.

[1:49:33] for the 2026 event, the estimated oat

[1:49:35] is 75 thousand, the increase is

[1:49:38] primarily associated with the

[1:49:41] resources necessary to support the

[1:49:43] street closure and not necessarily an

[1:49:44] increase in staffing but more salary

[1:49:49] increases.

[1:49:52] okay, I am -- I somehow managed to

[1:49:55] delete a slide accidentally, so what

[1:49:56] I'm going to talk about does not

[1:50:00] directly relate to this slide.

[1:50:01] last year council approved the closure

[1:50:05] of highland avenue as a pilot for the

[1:50:06] holiday stroll and the pilot was

[1:50:11] successful.

[1:50:12] the chamber is requesting that the

[1:50:13] closure continue as part of the annual

[1:50:15] event.

[1:50:16] because the closure was originally

[1:50:20] approved as a pilot, the additional

[1:50:22] costs associated with the closure were

[1:50:24] not incorporated into the fiscal year

[1:50:26] 2027 budget.

[1:50:28] staff's requesting an additional

[1:50:29] appropriation of 9 thousand dollars to

[1:50:31] cover unbudgeted third party costs for

[1:50:34] the 2026 event, beginning with the

[1:50:37] next subsidy cycle, now using the

[1:50:39] new program, new process, the holiday

[1:50:43] stroll will be evaluated through the

[1:50:45] standardized ro kress we just

[1:50:47] discussed allowing any approved

[1:50:49] subsidy to be incorporated into the

[1:50:51] regular budget.

[1:50:53] I have gone too far.

[1:50:59] okay.

[1:51:00] staff has identified four options for

[1:51:02] council consideration, option 1 could

[1:51:04] approve the road closure and

[1:51:06] appropriate 9 thousand dollars for the

[1:51:08] unbudgeted third party costs with the

[1:51:09] city paying all city services and

[1:51:13] third party expenses.

[1:51:15] option 2 would approve the road

[1:51:19] closure and appropriate 9 thousand

[1:51:21] dollars for unbruised third party

[1:51:24] costs but would require the north

[1:51:26] manhattan beach bid to pay third

[1:51:28] party costs up to 12 thousand 500

[1:51:31] dollars.

[1:51:32] option 3 would approve the road

[1:51:34] closure with no city subsidy by making

[1:51:36] the north manhattan beach bid

[1:51:38] responsible for all city services and

[1:51:40] third party expenses.

[1:51:41] and option 4 would not approve the

[1:51:44] road closure in which case no

[1:51:47] additional appropriations would be

[1:51:48] necessary.

[1:51:49] the decision before council is

[1:51:50] therefore both whether the highland

[1:51:52] avenue closure should continue and

[1:51:53] what level of city subsidy should

[1:51:56] accompany that closure.

[1:51:57] staff is available for questions and

[1:51:59] we're requesting council direction

[1:52:01] regarding both continuation of the

[1:52:02] highland avenue closure and the

[1:52:09] appropriation subsidy for

[1:52:13] the 2026 event.

[1:52:15] >> council member?

[1:52:16] >> thank you, mayor, in option 2, it

[1:52:19] says approve the road closure and

[1:52:21] appropriate 9 thousand dollars for

[1:52:25] unbudgeted third party cost asks then

[1:52:27] it says third party costs up to 12

[1:52:30] thousand 500 dollars to be paid by the

[1:52:32] north manhattan bid but the third

[1:52:34] party costs projected for 2026 is 12

[1:52:39] thousand 500 dollars.

[1:52:41] so, why is there the 9 thousand and

[1:52:43] the 12 thousand 500?

[1:52:44] >> that's a great question.

[1:52:46] 3500 is already included in our budget

[1:52:49] for third party costs so we would need

[1:52:52] 9 thousand more to cover the 12

[1:52:54] thousand 500 so, that was the request

[1:52:57] for the appropriation, but in the end

[1:53:02] we would bill the bid back for the

[1:53:05] entire cost of the --

[1:53:07] >> so, it's a little confusing there.

[1:53:11] so, option 2 is the bid is on

[1:53:20] the hook for 12 thousand 500, the

[1:53:22] third party cost and we're approving

[1:53:27] the road closure, it's not the third

[1:53:29] party cost that we've bunged but it's

[1:53:32] a cost for staff that's represented.

[1:53:34] >> in that larger number, yes.

[1:53:37] >> okay, do we have -- do we know if more

[1:53:45] people attended when the street versus

[1:53:47] closed versus when the street was

[1:53:50] closed?

[1:53:51] >> I would recommend asking our

[1:53:55] representatives.

[1:53:56] >> if I may have jill lamkin, ms.

[1:53:59] lamkin from the chamber and north

[1:54:04] business, I do have questions, did

[1:54:06] more people attend in 2025 with the

[1:54:10] street closure versus 2024?

[1:54:12] >> good evening, jill lamkin, chamber

[1:54:14] of commerce and representing north

[1:54:16] manhattan beach as well.

[1:54:20] yes, 2024, there were 2.2 thousand

[1:54:22] visitors and they stayed for an

[1:54:25] average of 111 minutes and 2025, there

[1:54:30] were 3.5 thousand visitors and they

[1:54:33] stayed for an average of 122 minutes

[1:54:36] so, we had 1300 more people and they

[1:54:39] stayed for longer so that is obviously

[1:54:41] important for the business.

[1:54:45] >> when the mayor asked earlier, does

[1:54:50] this increase revenue, anecdotally, I

[1:54:52] have to believe there was a big

[1:54:54] increase in revenue because people

[1:54:55] were going to the restaurants and --

[1:54:58] >> absolutely, this is the one

[1:55:00] community event they have, so this is

[1:55:02] a big deal for them.

[1:55:04] >> so, how many --

[1:55:06] >> that's the only time the street

[1:55:07] gets closed.

[1:55:08] it is the only time it's ever been

[1:55:11] closed for that event was the one time.

[1:55:13] >> alright, thank you very much.

[1:55:15] >> yes.

[1:55:17] >> I'll come back I'm sure.

[1:55:19] >> jill, will you stay, please.

[1:55:23] >> that didn't take long.

[1:55:26] >> I didn't want her to go up.

[1:55:28] >> I was going to suggest she join us

[1:55:31] on the dais.

[1:55:32] so, mayor pro tem?

[1:55:33] >> thank you, mr. Mayor.

[1:55:36] I know that with the ai date, that we

[1:55:41] can see where the visitors are coming

[1:55:42] from and so can you share with us that

[1:55:46] demographic?

[1:55:47] are they local, are they visitors?

[1:55:49] >> when I go sit down the next time, I

[1:55:51] will pull up the exact percentage, the

[1:55:54] vast majority is local, they're almost

[1:55:56] all neighborhood so it's not a lot of

[1:56:03] driving that's happening, it's al all

[1:56:07] neighbors.

[1:56:08] when I go back and sit down, I'll look

[1:56:09] that up for you.

[1:56:10] >> as a representative for the north

[1:56:13] end, were there complaints about the

[1:56:15] event or were there any issues with

[1:56:17] event at all?

[1:56:19] >> we had one issue very early on,

[1:56:23] lieutenant benjamin and I

[1:56:26] discussed it because there were so

[1:56:27] many people walking from the el porto

[1:56:30] side down to where the street was

[1:56:33] closed that there were people having a

[1:56:35] hard time turning right on rosecrans,

[1:56:38] so she had someone go down and change

[1:56:40] the timing of the lights and that was

[1:56:43] the biggest issue we had was just too

[1:56:46] many pedestrians which is a pretty

[1:56:47] good problem to have.

[1:56:49] >> thank you.

[1:56:50] >> I don't know if this is for you or

[1:56:54] for linda, thereafter slide that

[1:56:55] showed the difference between the

[1:56:57] previous year and then this past year

[1:57:00] with the road closure.

[1:57:07] >> I have a question about that one

[1:57:08] too.

[1:57:09] >> so, the increase with the --

[1:57:12] because I know the 2025 number, it

[1:57:16] says with street closure but it wasn't

[1:57:20] -- no, I'm sorry, I'm looking at 2024,

[1:57:23] with no street closure, so 2025, we

[1:57:27] had 45 thousand and then with 2026,

[1:57:33] we're expecting 14 thousand dollar

[1:57:37] jump in the budget for that.

[1:57:38] can you share with us what accounts

[1:57:42] for that increase?

[1:57:43] >> that is changing the fully burdened

[1:57:46] rate to the current fully burdened

[1:57:48] rate from the previous one.

[1:57:49] >> okay.

[1:57:55] >> there's no -- there may have been

[1:57:57] one officer added to the previous

[1:58:02] year, for the most it is salary

[1:58:04] increases.

[1:58:05] >> and does that include, I understand

[1:58:07] there was the projected cost and the

[1:58:10] actual cost, does that include that

[1:58:12] difference?

[1:58:13] >> we started with the actual costs

[1:58:16] from last year and then hiked the

[1:58:18] fully burdened rate, updated the fully

[1:58:21] burdened rate so it's the same amount

[1:58:23] as staff hours but I think we added

[1:58:25] one more officer.

[1:58:26] >> so it does account for the fully

[1:58:29] burdened rate from last year?

[1:58:31] >> yes, it does.

[1:58:32] >> okay, thank you.

[1:58:33] >> councilmember charelian?

[1:58:34] >> thank you, mayor.

[1:58:36] again, I appreciate you guys bringing

[1:58:38] this forward.

[1:58:41] early enough so you can potentially

[1:58:42] get this done in the next couple of

[1:58:44] months here, it's coming before we

[1:58:46] know it.

[1:58:48] I'm a big proponent of the north bid,

[1:58:51] I've been a representative as prior

[1:58:53] staff as well as council, I liked what

[1:58:55] I saw last year with the road closure

[1:58:58] and the activity for the businesses,

[1:59:00] it was a nice buzz and it wasn't from

[1:59:03] the beer.

[1:59:06] but I wanted to ask the fire chief

[1:59:09] real quick because I was there and one

[1:59:11] of my biggest concerns was the

[1:59:15] thoroughfare for these big box

[1:59:17] ambulances that we have, the

[1:59:23] state of the art.

[1:59:24] I don't know if you had any calls

[1:59:26] between that time in the north end?

[1:59:28] >> I would have to go back and check.

[1:59:30] >> were there any issues because you

[1:59:33] had to redirect -- you weren't going

[1:59:35] down highland anymore.

[1:59:36] >> we planned for that during our plan

[1:59:38] progress, we didn't up staff for

[1:59:42] this event, it was approximately 3500

[1:59:45] people, but that doesn't -- in us

[1:59:47] doing our data analysis, that doesn't

[1:59:49] generate increased staffing for the

[1:59:50] fire department.

[1:59:54] we do sit through the special event

[1:59:57] permitting process, we analyze and

[1:59:58] take a look at all the street closures

[1:59:59] and then we plan with personnel so

[2:00:02] that they can redirect their routes

[2:00:05] for emergency calls but at this time,

[2:00:07] nothing was directed back to me of any

[2:00:09] issues.

[2:00:10] >> no, I appreciate that, and I know

[2:00:11] you guys are watching from it from

[2:00:14] afar, keeping your fingers and pulse

[2:00:18] here and that's really important the

[2:00:20] for that many people.

[2:00:22] linda, for the police, if there was

[2:00:25] any outside of the right turn on

[2:00:28] rosecrans, was there any other

[2:00:30] incidents?

[2:00:31] I don't want to be super broad, did

[2:00:32] the re of it go well?

[2:00:34] you haves only there for a half hour.

[2:00:36] >> there were no incidents that I'm

[2:00:38] aware of and as far as I have heard,

[2:00:42] there weren't complaints either about

[2:00:44] redirecting that traffic down through

[2:00:46] manhattan avenue.

[2:00:48] >> got you, so stay up here, I have a

[2:00:50] couple of more questions, it has to do

[2:00:52] with the budget, you indicated parks

[2:00:54] and rec budgeted 3500 dollars for

[2:00:59] this.

[2:01:00] >> not parks and rec, that 3500 was

[2:01:06] police department for public safety.

[2:01:08] >> for public safety, there's $3,500

[2:01:10] in the budget and then looking at

[2:01:15] slide 17, I was a little confused

[2:01:17] with the 9 thousand and the 12

[2:01:21] thousand the earlier councilmember

[2:01:22] brought up.

[2:01:23] you have that $3,500 and that 9 and 12

[2:01:26] was the variance -- the 3500 dollars

[2:01:29] is still budged in the city's budget,

[2:01:31] so you're asking for 12 thousand 500

[2:01:33] total for this budget.

[2:01:34] >> yes.

[2:01:35] >> okay.

[2:01:39] third question, and I know we jumped

[2:01:41] on the support last year with the 9

[2:01:43] thousand and the closure and it was

[2:01:46] very successful and then you mentioned

[2:01:48] you were going to re-evaluate it

[2:01:51] singing the system that we just

[2:01:54] approved.

[2:01:55] so, is there an opportunity since last

[2:01:58] year, we upped the 9 thousand dollars

[2:02:01] and there's -- I think I heard over

[2:02:02] 258 thousand dollars in the reserves

[2:02:04] for the north bid.

[2:02:06] is there a possibility that we can do

[2:02:09] a split this year?

[2:02:11] we talked about that last year?

[2:02:12] >> is that a question for

[2:02:14] the chamber?

[2:02:18] >> mark, but my point being is those

[2:02:21] are reserves and I asked earlier what

[2:02:23] those reserves would be utilized for

[2:02:26] and I think they're for opportunities

[2:02:28] such as this to be able to tap into --

[2:02:32] those are specifically funded for

[2:02:34] north manhattan beach district.

[2:02:36] >> the option that I have here that

[2:02:37] does share some of the expenses is

[2:02:40] option 2 and that would require the

[2:02:42] bid to pay for all third party costs.

[2:02:46] >> and I'm not -- I want to -- I'm

[2:02:48] supporting like the process here and I

[2:02:52] want to support the north bid and give

[2:02:55] some funds but I'm looking for an

[2:02:58] opportunity to help us because I'm

[2:03:03] being fiscally observant here, you

[2:03:04] know, just trying to see if there's a

[2:03:06] way, help me help you, it's like I

[2:03:08] want to throw in some money but theres

[2:03:11] is there an opportunity to utilize

[2:03:12] their own funds that are specifically

[2:03:14] for the north manhattan -- they're

[2:03:17] collected assessments from years past

[2:03:18] for these type of things going forward.

[2:03:23] >> in the budget that you approved for

[2:03:25] us, we allocated 25 thousand dollars

[2:03:32] of our budget this year specifically

[2:03:33] for supporting of the holiday stroll,

[2:03:35] so we are allocating the vast majority

[2:03:39] of our annual budget to the biggest

[2:03:43] chunk of our single chunk of our

[2:03:45] budget is to support the holiday

[2:03:48] stroll.

[2:03:49] >> yeah, and I'm aware of that.

[2:03:50] I guess my whole thing is your reserve

[2:03:52] is a savings account because we're

[2:03:56] still monitoring how this is going to

[2:03:57] play out with the whole process for

[2:04:03] next year, and last year we opened up

[2:04:06] our wallets and let's do this, a as a

[2:04:12] pilot program.

[2:04:13] this is an opportunity and I'm not

[2:04:14] talking exactly to you as president,

[2:04:17] but generally to staff or whoever,

[2:04:18] maybe the city manager, this is what

[2:04:20] the reserve is for, I'm saying instead

[2:04:23] of asking for 12 thousand 500, why

[2:04:26] don't we dip into reserves.

[2:04:28] we are the policy makers, we could

[2:04:30] utilize those funds for this and we

[2:04:32] have our city attorney here, it's a

[2:04:34] bid and they put in the reserves for

[2:04:36] the bid, so I guess my question is --

[2:04:38] >> to cover the staff and city

[2:04:41] value, I see what you're saying but I

[2:04:43] think -- I got it, okay.

[2:04:45] >> so, I want to talk about that a

[2:04:47] little bit.

[2:04:48] the first thing is the budget that the

[2:04:51] bid gave to the association is mostly

[2:04:57] for marketing purposes.

[2:04:58] the holiday stroll is a negative

[2:05:00] revenue event.

[2:05:01] this is already a loser because -- I

[2:05:03] mean, it would be the same thing if

[2:05:05] you were looking at downtown, we spent

[2:05:10] like 15 thousand dollars on

[2:05:13] entertainment and all of those kinds

[2:05:15] of things which is what draws people

[2:05:17] in, they have to market it and all

[2:05:18] that kind of stuff.

[2:05:20] we also got sponsorships, we're trying

[2:05:25] to do everything but the bid

[2:05:26] specifically said, if we

[2:05:28] cannot make this revenue neutral going

[2:05:31] forward, that the reserve money stops,

[2:05:34] that they're not going to do that, so

[2:05:36] this event is already in the red and

[2:05:40] what we're trying to do with it is

[2:05:42] kind of what has been created for

[2:05:44] downtown with the holiday open house

[2:05:51] where it's like this big thing that

[2:05:52] everybody knows about it and they come

[2:05:53] and eventually hopefully the bid will

[2:05:55] be self-sustaining annually.

[2:05:56] they only bring in 25 I think is what

[2:06:00] libby's most recent estimate was, 25

[2:06:02] thousand dollars a year, if we're

[2:06:04] taking 15 of that, we'll never make

[2:06:07] this event sustainable at this point,

[2:06:08] so -- and part of all of this that's

[2:06:11] sort of confusing to me is why I'm

[2:06:15] happy that we're looking at this whole

[2:06:17] process is when we came in july and we

[2:06:21] asked for the closure of the streets

[2:06:23] and what the staff report and you guys

[2:06:27] approved was 10 thousand 216 dollars

[2:06:29] in third party expenses and that's

[2:06:31] what we budgeted for was for that

[2:06:34] amount and then the first bill that I

[2:06:40] got was for 27 thousand 779 dollars

[2:06:42] which included all kinds of things

[2:06:44] that weren't in there.

[2:06:47] I mean, that weren't intended, they

[2:06:49] were city staff parking meters which

[2:06:51] were bagged at that point, so I don't

[2:06:53] know why we even got that.

[2:06:58] but then they're like, we need to

[2:07:01] revise that, then it came back at 12

[2:07:02] thousand 246 dollars 17 cents which is

[2:07:04] still different than the 10 thousand

[2:07:08] 600, so the best that we can do is

[2:07:10] budget for what we're asked and when

[2:07:12] we were asked for the 10 thousand 216,

[2:07:16] we budgeted for that as a part of the

[2:07:19] loss that we were going to do on that.

[2:07:25] this is in terms of relative expenses

[2:07:27] for other events, this one is not that

[2:07:29] much and it is the only one that

[2:07:31] happens in north manhattan beach and I

[2:07:33] would just ask you, like I said, we're

[2:07:35] going out and finding son sore ships.

[2:07:39] if there's a way to make it a

[2:07:41] co-sponsored city event the way that

[2:07:43] the downtown holiday open house is so

[2:07:46] that extra 10 thousand 200 dollars

[2:07:48] gets covered for us and it's not a

[2:07:50] loss, that would be really outstanding

[2:07:52] because it's so important to these

[2:07:54] businesses and I know you guys are

[2:07:56] getting peppered with a bunch of

[2:07:58] e-mails from residents in that area as

[2:08:00] well because they're all saying, hey,

[2:08:02] this is the one thing we have and

[2:08:06] downtown gets to do a lot of fun stuff

[2:08:07] and if we can do something to

[2:08:09] support the businesses on that end of

[2:08:11] town, I would really appreciate it.

[2:08:13] >> and I don't think -- and I speak

[2:08:18] for myself but I think we're all in

[2:08:20] support of the north end, we want

[2:08:22] north end to thrive, we want you to

[2:08:24] have this one street closure.

[2:08:26] I guess for me, the conservative side,

[2:08:31] and I know this is a loser, there's no

[2:08:34] way you're making enough assessment

[2:08:36] coverage, for example, during our

[2:08:38] budget process, we with had to dig

[2:08:40] deep into our reserves to take care of

[2:08:43] some one time items almost in the tune

[2:08:46] of 10 million dollars, we dug into our

[2:08:49] reserves to do that, that's what the

[2:08:51] reserves are for.

[2:08:53] so, my question is, this is maybe this

[2:08:55] is a finance question.

[2:08:56] >> I guess my point is we're already

[2:09:01] digging 90 thousand into the reserves

[2:09:03] which puts us 60 thousand over what

[2:09:06] we're bringing in this year.

[2:09:08] the methodology behind that as we're

[2:09:10] working hard on getting businesses to

[2:09:12] participate and working on marketing

[2:09:13] and all of those things and it's like

[2:09:15] --

[2:09:16] >> understood.

[2:09:17] >> okay, thank you.

[2:09:18] >> thank you.

[2:09:21] >> thank you, libby bretthauer,

[2:09:24] finance director, so, trying to think

[2:09:26] back to what your question is, a lot

[2:09:28] of time has passed since you asked the

[2:09:31] original question.

[2:09:32] I believe what you're asking is in the

[2:09:34] process, if the bid was willing to

[2:09:38] contribute more funds from the funds

[2:09:40] holding in reserve for them, that would

[2:09:42] need to go back to an agendized

[2:09:44] bid meeting for them to discuss

[2:09:45] because the meeting has was held in

[2:09:47] july that I mentioned the previous

[2:09:50] renewal item or the public hearing,

[2:09:55] they reviewed the proposed

[2:10:05] activity plan and the budget that

[2:10:07] was proposed by the association and

[2:10:09] the bid advisory board approved that

[2:10:11] and then you approved earlier tonight.

[2:10:15] so I believe if we were to

[2:10:19] allocate more funds, we would need to

[2:10:21] schedule another bid advisory board

[2:10:23] meeting.

[2:10:24] we're already planning on having

[2:10:26] another bid advisory board meeting in

[2:10:27] the next two months to discuss the

[2:10:29] election, so we could certainly bring

[2:10:32] this back as another item for

[2:10:35] discussion then to see if they're

[2:10:37] willing to entertain any funds from

[2:10:41] reserves.

[2:10:42] >> no I appreciate it, that's all I

[2:10:44] have.

[2:10:45] >> councilmember lesser?

[2:10:46] >> could I have you address the last

[2:10:48] slide, slide 16 because I'm confused

[2:10:51] on costs.

[2:10:53] what has been allocated in our current

[2:10:58] fiscal year 2026-2027 budget for the

[2:11:01] north end holiday stroll this coming

[2:11:03] december at this point?

[2:11:07] >> I would have to the look this up.

[2:11:10] >> I'm happy to ask linda directly.

[2:11:13] >> she has it at her fingertips then.

[2:11:17] >> it's been allocated already for the

[2:11:19] city for the subsidy for this event.

[2:11:22] >> what is already included in our

[2:11:23] budget out of the 75 thousand 189 is

[2:11:29] 31 thousand 805.

[2:11:30] >> okay.

[2:11:31] so, in our staff report in the

[2:11:33] presentation, there is a reference to

[2:11:35] a need for an additional 9 thousand

[2:11:38] and/or an additional 12 thousand 500.

[2:11:41] there still leaves quite a delta here

[2:11:43] so I'm not tracking this slide with

[2:11:46] the actual costs that the city's

[2:11:48] estimated to expend which would be

[2:11:50] even higher than the amount listed

[2:11:52] here.

[2:11:53] >> so, the difference is staffing and

[2:11:56] there is a difference in the way it's

[2:11:58] estimated and the way it's valued

[2:12:02] which is -- when I'm pulling costs out

[2:12:06] of the budget, I'm pulling staff hours

[2:12:10] as they're budgeted for salary.

[2:12:12] those are not fully burdened

[2:12:17] rates.

[2:12:18] so, sometimes it's not apples to apples

[2:12:20] so that's why I was calling it the

[2:12:22] value of city services is when we

[2:12:27] calculated afterwards we're using this

[2:12:29] fully burdened rate.

[2:12:30] >> so I'm still looking for that delta

[2:12:34] if I could and then I have another

[2:12:36] question.

[2:12:37] >> just to add on to what linda

[2:12:38] was saying because it does get really

[2:12:40] confusing and I think we tend to

[2:12:44] conflate the two -- there's what we

[2:12:46] would charge to external parties using

[2:12:49] the fully burdened rates which

[2:12:51] includes a lot of indirect coasters

[2:12:54] and overhead costs, that's what we're

[2:12:58] billing third parties for our time.

[2:13:00] what we would pay for our employees

[2:13:02] for staffing to the vendors is going

[2:13:04] to be less, so, we've been working on

[2:13:07] how to more clearly present that and I

[2:13:10] think tonight's discussion provers we

[2:13:11] need to do some more work on that for

[2:13:14] future items and we certainly will, so

[2:13:17] -- and then I guess to answer your

[2:13:19] other question a about what that

[2:13:20] delta is, I think what the piece that

[2:13:22] we're not showing is the regular staff

[2:13:26] time, that's not overtime, there's not

[2:13:32] like a very specific line item in our

[2:13:33] budget for the event because we're

[2:13:35] also contributing regular staffing

[2:13:37] costs that's imbedded in the personnel

[2:13:40] budget for salary and benefits.

[2:13:43] >> linda, one final question if I

[2:13:44] could.

[2:13:45] if council is very much supportive of

[2:13:48] holiday stroll but wants to look at

[2:13:50] what might be a lower cost option of

[2:13:53] just not cosigning the street this

[2:13:55] year, there's the cost from 2024, has

[2:13:59] that cost been updated many council

[2:14:02] were to direct there be a holiday

[2:14:04] stroll but not with a street closure?

[2:14:06] >> I did a very quick calculation to

[2:14:09] see what that cost might be with the

[2:14:14] updated fully burdened rates, it would

[2:14:16] be about $7,500.

[2:14:19] >> okay, I have some more thoughts but

[2:14:22] let me wait for the other councilmen

[2:14:25] to ask questions.

[2:14:26] thank you.

[2:14:28] >> so, for my question, are we going

[2:14:31] to be doing this for just this next

[2:14:34] year and then re-evaluate?

[2:14:37] >> so, this that's in front of you

[2:14:38] today is for 2026 event and then the

[2:14:41] 2027 event will be part of the whole

[2:14:44] fee waiver process.

[2:14:45] >> okay.

[2:14:48] and then -- sorry, I'm missing a slide.

[2:15:00] yeah, that -- that's it for now, I

[2:15:04] wanted to make sure it waser going to

[2:15:08] be going on without taking a look at

[2:15:11] other future years.

[2:15:12] mayor pro tem?

[2:15:13] >> thank you, linda, I did have a

[2:15:15] follow-up question, so basically what

[2:15:17] I'm hearing is that we will -- once we

[2:15:20] have to get through this hurdle

[2:15:21] because we didn't have a system in

[2:15:24] place to go through the process of

[2:15:26] analyzing and getting all the numbers

[2:15:29] broken down as you and I and jill and

[2:15:33] a talyn and libby had met to go

[2:15:35] through the actual numbers but going

[2:15:37] forward, if we approve this, this

[2:15:40] event will be going through the same

[2:15:44] process as all the other events so

[2:15:46] we'll have opportunities to weigh

[2:15:48] apples for apples, north manhattan,

[2:15:51] downtown, and really have an

[2:15:52] opportunity to evaluate and not just

[2:15:54] look at just this specific event and

[2:15:57] how we can cut costs on just the north

[2:16:00] side, the only event that the

[2:16:03] north side has and cutting the budget

[2:16:06] for that event but really looking at

[2:16:08] it from a holistic, all of our

[2:16:12] subsidized events, right?

[2:16:13] >> yes, that's correct.

[2:16:14] >> we're trying to get through this

[2:16:17] initial hurdle and going forward,

[2:16:18] we'll be doing this evaluation with

[2:16:20] all the other events?

[2:16:22] >> correct.

[2:16:23] >> alright, thank you.

[2:16:25] >> councilmember howorth?

[2:16:26] >> thank you.

[2:16:27] I have another question, but, I mean,

[2:16:31] yes and no.

[2:16:32] I mean, the evaluation process

[2:16:34] doesn't have anything to do with the

[2:16:36] cost.

[2:16:37] >> yeah.

[2:16:38] >> the evaluation process is just a

[2:16:40] public benefit, is there a fee to

[2:16:42] attend, is there -- so, right, if the

[2:16:46] evaluation criteria is about --

[2:16:48] >> no, I wanted to follow up on that.

[2:16:50] but would costs be included into -- so

[2:16:54] I know that whether something is a

[2:16:56] legacy event and a subsidized event is

[2:16:59] part -- is the overall umbrella but

[2:17:02] part of that will include a breakdown

[2:17:07] of what it costs so --

[2:17:09] >> there's always a breakdown of what

[2:17:10] it costs and that's not how we

[2:17:11] decide whether we're going do it, so

[2:17:12] we always gate breakdown of costs.

[2:17:14] the evaluation criteria was just

[2:17:17] approved is totally different.

[2:17:18] it's about how many points do you get

[2:17:21] if something a public good, I guess

[2:17:25] just to clarify.

[2:17:26] >> yes.

[2:17:30] >> so, what this is, is saying, hey,

[2:17:35] when the city tried to go back to the

[2:17:37] north end and say we said it would

[2:17:40] cost 12 thousand, it's going to cost

[2:17:42] this much, that was a huge shock and

[2:17:44] not able to be absorbed by the north

[2:17:46] end and a lot of it -- then you have

[2:17:49] your third party cost, but then the

[2:17:53] staff cost is -- was the expensive

[2:17:55] thing, and I think that the question

[2:17:58] before us here is which one of these

[2:18:01] options, you know, do we still want to

[2:18:03] do the road closure because -- and if

[2:18:06] so, how do we want to divide up the

[2:18:09] costs, right.

[2:18:10] and one thing I want to point out

[2:18:12] though is the cost that we do when

[2:18:15] we're talking about -- this kind of

[2:18:17] goes to your point, councilmember

[2:18:20] charelian, I understood what you were

[2:18:21] asking about the north manhattan bid's

[2:18:24] reserve funds and how we had to go

[2:18:27] into our reserves but these numbers

[2:18:28] when we talk about the cost to the city,

[2:18:36] often it's not always overtime, right.

[2:18:40] it's an accounting, it's not a charge,

[2:18:42] is that correct?

[2:18:44] I'm looking at the city manager.

[2:18:46] sorry, I don't want to have linda have

[2:18:48] to take this.

[2:18:49] >> it is an accounting, as linda

[2:18:55] mentioned earlier in her presentation,

[2:18:56] for most of a lot of these events, the

[2:18:57] city takes on that cost as it's

[2:19:00] accounted for.

[2:19:01] >> right, so just understand that

[2:19:05] we're not saying you should have to

[2:19:07] pay unless you are and that's okay

[2:19:09] too, we can discuss that, but

[2:19:12] sometimes, I mean, we do have police

[2:19:15] on duty and we're allocating them in

[2:19:17] this area so this is just budgeting,

[2:19:19] this is what it costs uss bah we're

[2:19:21] not charging you this much, correct,

[2:19:23] and again I'm looking at somebody.

[2:19:26] looking over here.

[2:19:27] >> that's correct.

[2:19:29] >> okay, but the third party costs are

[2:19:32] additional costs that we incur, that

[2:19:34] we would not incur if that event

[2:19:37] wasn't happening, so for this, we're

[2:19:39] not talking about any criteria, we're

[2:19:42] talking about how we're going to

[2:19:44] handle the costs and what the event

[2:19:46] will be.

[2:19:47] >> to clarify, the things that -- the

[2:19:53] overtime costs and the third party

[2:19:56] costs are costs that we incur, that we

[2:20:00] would not incur if the event was not

[2:20:02] happening.

[2:20:03] >> right, so the -- okay.

[2:20:06] alright.

[2:20:09] perfect.

[2:20:10] >> mayor, I have a follow-up

[2:20:11] question.

[2:20:12] >> yes.

[2:20:13] >> linda, can I just confirm from a

[2:20:16] process standpoint, is there sometime

[2:20:17] if council's not ready to make a

[2:20:19] decision tonight because we want to

[2:20:20] have these costs laid out and have a

[2:20:22] better understanding of what the bid

[2:20:23] is able to contribute, I think we have

[2:20:25] a general idea, are there any other

[2:20:28] sponsors, is there time given we're

[2:20:30] not going to have a september piser

[2:20:32] meeting for this item to come back

[2:20:34] with sufficient time to plan for the

[2:20:37] holiday stroll event?

[2:20:39] >> well, there's time for staff and I

[2:20:42] think that is a question for --

[2:20:44] >> it would be good to have another

[2:20:48] meeting to confirm what it's willing

[2:20:49] to contribute.

[2:20:50] >> through the mayor, can we have him

[2:20:53] come to the microphone.

[2:20:57] >> it would greatly hamper us, parts

[2:21:00] of last year why we weren't able to

[2:21:03] raise sponsorship and different

[2:21:05] things, we didn't get approval until

[2:21:07] 30 days before the event, so the

[2:21:08] longer that it goes out that we don't

[2:21:13] have any clarification or

[2:21:16] finalization, we cannot do planning

[2:21:17] and so if we have to go back to cover

[2:21:24] a shortfall with the bid approving and

[2:21:26] then the council approve, is it's

[2:21:30] unlikely that funding would get

[2:21:31] approved until november and by then it

[2:21:34] hamstrings our ability to put on the

[2:21:36] best event that we can.

[2:21:37] >> thank you.

[2:21:38] >> okay.

[2:21:39] mayor pro tem?

[2:21:40] >> thank you, mr. Mayor.

[2:21:43] so, sorry, tim, to follow up on that,

[2:21:48] sorry, is there an opportunity, so if

[2:21:50] we were to say move forward with this

[2:21:54] and appropriate funds, as it would be

[2:21:56] helpful to do, an up to amount and

[2:21:58] give you all an opportunity to

[2:22:00] continue to find sponsorship funding

[2:22:04] or other surceases of partnership?

[2:22:07] >> we are looking por sponsorships,

[2:22:10] this event is not making money and is

[2:22:12] losing even with the city's allocation

[2:22:16] because we have our costs that have

[2:22:19] nothing to do with the city and so we

[2:22:23] are trying and actively going after

[2:22:25] sponsors so it becomes a net positive

[2:22:29] event for the association and bid's

[2:22:32] budget because as jill also mentioned,

[2:22:35] we are on a short leash for spending.

[2:22:47] at our current burn rate, we have

[2:22:49] about two and a half to three years of

[2:22:53] total funding reserves at our current

[2:22:55] burn rate so, we have no other choice

[2:22:59] but to either -- is to greatly

[2:23:02] increase revenues for the association

[2:23:05] or greatly reduce costs and so we will

[2:23:13] be actively going to try to get more

[2:23:16] sponsorships and add more events and

[2:23:19] more things that can offset the

[2:23:21] costs and our expenses that we're

[2:23:22] going to put in to promote our

[2:23:24] district.

[2:23:25] >> okay, thank you.

[2:23:27] >> so, what would a sponsor look like?

[2:23:30] who are some prospects?

[2:23:31] you don't have to give names, but --

[2:23:34] >> anyone?

[2:23:37] >> I'm saying --

[2:23:38] >> I am perfectly fine walking around

[2:23:42] like a nascar driver.

[2:23:44] there's -- we are looking for a

[2:23:50] standard for all events, we are trying

[2:23:55] to be very cognizant of our members

[2:24:01] and businesses within, so one way that

[2:24:04] we are gaining revenue is to charge

[2:24:08] for booth space.

[2:24:09] we charge a very low rate for last

[2:24:12] year's stroll and we had great

[2:24:14] feedback from those that paid.

[2:24:17] we do give booth space to everyone of

[2:24:20] the members for free.

[2:24:22] we also limit who can purchase a booth

[2:24:26] because we do not want or limit

[2:24:31] competing businesses, particularly

[2:24:32] businesses from outside of our bid

[2:24:33] that compete with the ones inside of

[2:24:36] our bid.

[2:24:37] we have tried -- we have a whole

[2:24:41] sponsored deck of different levels,

[2:24:43] different types of sponsors.

[2:24:46] the difficult thing on sponsorships

[2:24:49] for everything is we need to start and

[2:24:52] line up with everybody's fiscal year,

[2:24:56] and so we are also behind the

[2:24:59] schedule, so anything smaller

[2:25:03] sponsorships, the 4999 dollars, we can

[2:25:05] get, but if we need that 5 thousand

[2:25:09] plus one, we need to start that

[2:25:11] essentially a year in advance and try

[2:25:13] to lock that in.

[2:25:17] >> okay.

[2:25:19] >> and I'm open if anybody here has a

[2:25:23] checkbook, I will happily or jill will

[2:25:27] happily take it.

[2:25:30] >> thank you.

[2:25:41] alright.

[2:25:42] >> mayor?

[2:25:44] if you may open the public hearing for

[2:25:47] anyone not related to the north end

[2:25:50] bid association.

[2:25:51] >> we have a taker.

[2:25:52] >> okay.

[2:25:59] >> can we go back to that cost slide.

[2:26:02] I'm still confused on how much money

[2:26:04] is being requested to be given here,

[2:26:06] it's just not clear to me.

[2:26:08] it doesn't have to be an exact number,

[2:26:10] are we talking 60 thousand, 30

[2:26:12] thousand, I just don't get it.

[2:26:14] the if someone can summarize that for

[2:26:20] everyone, that would be helpful.

[2:26:23] we have the wave rider program still

[2:26:26] understood way and if we could

[2:26:27] schedule nem to have more than the

[2:26:31] average number of cars, thank you.

[2:26:33] >> okay, anybody else?

[2:26:36] online?

[2:26:37] no, we're clear, we'll close public

[2:26:39] comments.

[2:26:40] proceed with our council discussion.

[2:26:55] mayor pro tem?

[2:26:56] >> thank you, mr. Mayor, I wanted to

[2:26:58] open this up.

[2:27:00] I live on the north side of town and I

[2:27:04] attended last year's event, I attended

[2:27:06] many of the previous year's event and

[2:27:09] is hands-down, it was a hugely popular

[2:27:12] and successful event for the north --

[2:27:14] the residents in the north end.

[2:27:17] as jill pointed out, we don't have

[2:27:20] anything like that on the north side

[2:27:23] of town and many of our businesses

[2:27:26] feel very neglected because all the

[2:27:28] events and the discussions tend to

[2:27:34] center on the businesses in downtown

[2:27:37] manhattan beach, so, you know, as far

[2:27:40] as like building on an event, this is

[2:27:43] a great opportunity for us.

[2:27:44] I know it was a pilot program last

[2:27:47] year and it did prove to be very

[2:27:50] successful and I hope we can

[2:27:52] continue to allow it to grow so that

[2:27:55] at some point, it can hopefully

[2:27:58] self-sustain, but at this point, we

[2:28:00] see the challenge of figuring out what

[2:28:02] the projected cost will be and then

[2:28:04] because it's the first year we're

[2:28:06] doing this, what the actual co-s are,

[2:28:12] so I think from a planning standpoint,

[2:28:13] we have to anticipate that there will

[2:28:16] be times when we're off the mark and

[2:28:19] that we should do what we can to

[2:28:22] ensure that this event can continue on

[2:28:24] and continue to build and continue to

[2:28:29] thrive.

[2:28:30] so, I would love to hear from my

[2:28:32] council colleagues, but I think it's a

[2:28:36] great event and I will be supporting

[2:28:38] it on some level.

[2:28:39] >> okay.

[2:28:40] councilmember howorth?

[2:28:43] >> thank you, mr. Mayor, a couple of

[2:28:47] my colleagues represented that maybe

[2:28:49] they live in the north end or they've

[2:28:51] been in the north end manhattan beach

[2:28:55] council representative and I currently

[2:28:56] am the north manhattan council

[2:29:00] representative and it's been so

[2:29:03] wonderful and I'm so grateful that I

[2:29:05] was appointed to that position mr,

[2:29:09] mayor, because it's been a long time

[2:29:12] since I've had that position.

[2:29:15] I think back when I was a baby, I was

[2:29:19] on and it was a very -- you were

[2:29:23] probably, steve, the staffer, and it

[2:29:25] was a very different organization.

[2:29:27] I don't know if it's jill, I don't

[2:29:30] know if it's tim, I don't know, but

[2:29:33] I'll tell you what, this

[2:29:38] organization is really upping its game

[2:29:40] trying to really professional and make

[2:29:43] the best of what they can and what

[2:29:49] I've come to understand, just

[2:29:56] understanding the variety and beauty

[2:29:57] of the small businesses in north

[2:29:58] manhattan beach has been so much fun.

[2:30:01] also it was represented earlier

[2:30:03] tonight when we do the pier lighting,

[2:30:06] that's when downtown gets to do their

[2:30:09] holiday open house, it's considered a

[2:30:12] city event basically.

[2:30:14] so, they get all the benefit of that

[2:30:18] excitement and energy and people

[2:30:20] coming into their stores without

[2:30:22] having to go through this process and

[2:30:26] it is sort of an unfair advantage and

[2:30:30] so -- and it's such a much smaller

[2:30:34] event in the north end and yet for

[2:30:37] them to support it all would not be

[2:30:40] tenable for them and this is an

[2:30:44] opportunity to help maybe level up the

[2:30:46] playing field a little bit for them.

[2:30:48] I mean, they do feel neglected and I

[2:30:51] was at -- and I don't mean that in a

[2:30:53] victim kind of way, I mean, they are

[2:30:56] working hard to help their area and

[2:30:59] beautify their area and I think we all

[2:31:02] know that.

[2:31:05] I was going to

[2:31:13] say something so profound, I

[2:31:15] really was.

[2:31:16] but this event means so much to them,

[2:31:18] you also have the manhattan downtown

[2:31:21] beach association that has the

[2:31:23] farmers' market, that's how they make

[2:31:24] money to fund their organization and

[2:31:26] put own vents.

[2:31:28] this the north end has nothing like

[2:31:32] thab.

[2:31:33] so, I really hope we can find a way to

[2:31:36] support this.

[2:31:37] the parking lot, this is what I was

[2:31:38] going to mention.

[2:31:40] so, we had a couple of years ago

[2:31:43] parking lot 3 was finally closed,

[2:31:46] condemned and we had a crisis where we

[2:31:49] had to close it, demolish it,

[2:31:51] resurface it, right.

[2:31:53] well, look at parking lot 4 up in the

[2:31:56] north end, reason I bring it up is

[2:31:58] they see all these things happening in

[2:32:02] downtown and if we're really going to

[2:32:07] support small businesses and locally

[2:32:09] owned businesses, I think we have to

[2:32:11] really do the same up in the north

[2:32:14] end, so I'll be supporting this too.

[2:32:19] >> councilmember charelian?

[2:32:20] >> thank you, I'll keep it

[2:32:23] short and brief.

[2:32:24] no one's doubting that last year's

[2:32:26] event wasn't great.

[2:32:27] I think it was wonderful and well put

[2:32:30] together and everyone wants the north

[2:32:33] manhattan beach businesses to succeed

[2:32:37] and campaigning small businesses, yes.

[2:32:39] the last year this was a pilot

[2:32:41] program, it was brought to us and we

[2:32:45] opened our arms and said we'll give

[2:32:47] you the money, we'll bridge that gap,

[2:32:51] not a problem, but whether you come

[2:32:54] back next year, help us find a

[2:32:56] solution to not -- don't make it a

[2:32:58] precedent somewhat.

[2:33:00] and I get it, I get burn rate of the

[2:33:07] reserves that the gentleman brought

[2:33:08] up, up there, and I do support this

[2:33:09] event.

[2:33:10] I'm just trying to be fiscally

[2:33:11] conservative due to the fact that we

[2:33:14] just, you know, times aren't as

[2:33:16] well as they were and revenues for us

[2:33:20] are -- whoever looked at the financial

[2:33:23] report that the finance director put

[2:33:25] out was on consent, it shows the

[2:33:29] revenues and our major core

[2:33:32] revenues, property taxes are down, so

[2:33:35] again, I support everything about

[2:33:38] this, I'm having a hard time wrapping

[2:33:41] my arms around the me too clause with

[2:33:44] the downtown, it's great, I've been

[2:33:46] there, I've been a delegate as an

[2:33:48] employee and as a councilman for many

[2:33:51] years, I'm trying to be fiscally

[2:33:53] conservative, I want to try to get

[2:33:55] there.

[2:33:56] last year we allowed it and paid for

[2:33:58] it and said come up for a solution

[2:34:00] next year and now we're having this

[2:34:06] conversation again, so I'm trying to

[2:34:07] be fiscally conservative and not just

[2:34:08] approving money going out the door.

[2:34:09] but for a great cause.

[2:34:14] >> so, --

[2:34:15] >> mayor, I think the finance director

[2:34:17] is --

[2:34:18] >> if I could jump in, I wanted to

[2:34:20] address one thing on the other end of

[2:34:22] financial reports for june, those are

[2:34:25] preliminary monthly financial reports,

[2:34:26] we have a 60 day accrual period

[2:34:29] where we're still accruing revenue

[2:34:31] back to the prior fiscal year and

[2:34:33] last year in 2025, we changed our

[2:34:37] accrual accounting methodology so that

[2:34:40] is one of the reasons why the -- if

[2:34:43] you're referring to sales tax, tot tax

[2:34:46] and I think business license tax, it

[2:34:48] looks like it's down compared to last

[2:34:50] year, that's because we still have

[2:34:52] more entries that will be accrued back

[2:34:53] to june, so I didn't want to anybody

[2:34:55] hear that statement and be alarmed

[2:34:58] that something was down considerably

[2:35:00] from the prior years but thank you for

[2:35:04] your point so that we are operating on

[2:35:07] a very tight budget this year and

[2:35:08] every penny counts, thank you.

[2:35:09] >> thank you.

[2:35:11] so, I think with a little bit more

[2:35:15] effort that money can be raised among

[2:35:18] the businesses and even private

[2:35:21] parties.

[2:35:22] hey, you had a great time, help pitch

[2:35:28] in.

[2:35:30] you want to see the event again, you

[2:35:31] know, help us out.

[2:35:32] make a certain night of -- at the

[2:35:39] restaurants of the holiday stroll

[2:35:40] night to help fund.

[2:35:41] I mean, really sort of get the

[2:35:42] neighborhood a that hasn't been tapped

[2:35:46] to just give a little extra or to give

[2:35:48] a little bit extra, you can see how

[2:35:51] that could grow to be something

[2:35:53] significant.

[2:35:54] it's going to be a unique programming

[2:35:58] for that area, it's just so much fun,

[2:36:02] full of spirit and I just think with a

[2:36:06] little bit more effort and thought as

[2:36:10] to raising the funds that are needed

[2:36:12] to make up that deficit that the north

[2:36:16] end can do that, so I think we can

[2:36:19] support them to help them on this

[2:36:26] process and can -- because I think

[2:36:28] it's good for all the city.

[2:36:29] >> if I may jump in, mayor, may I jump

[2:36:33] in to address a question that was

[2:36:35] posed earlier?

[2:36:36] >> yes.

[2:36:37] >> I just want to clarify, there are

[2:36:38] two things we need, one is to

[2:36:40] understand if the council wants to

[2:36:42] move forward in 2026 with the closing

[2:36:45] of the street and, two, I wanted to

[2:36:48] clarify that the additional budget

[2:36:50] appropriation that we would need to do

[2:36:53] that for 2026 is 9 thousand dollars,

[2:36:55] all else was budgeted for already.

[2:36:58] it's that the additional third party

[2:37:00] costs, so I want to make sure the

[2:37:02] council understands that to close in

[2:37:05] 2026, we would need an additional 9

[2:37:07] thousand dollar budget appropriation

[2:37:09] and all else was already budgeted.

[2:37:15] >> okay, so 9 thousand, great.

[2:37:17] mayor pro tem?

[2:37:18] >> thank you, mr. Mayor,

[2:37:19] and I do appreciate us being

[2:37:23] fiscally prudent.

[2:37:24] I know they're having to previously

[2:37:26] dip into reserves doesn't feel great.

[2:37:32] however we've heard from the

[2:37:33] representative from the north end,

[2:37:34] we've heard from the manhattan bid,

[2:37:37] they have trying and have been working

[2:37:39] hard and they're doing everything they

[2:37:41] can, so while I want all of us to be

[2:37:46] working so we can bridge this gap, I

[2:37:50] think we're asking them to shoulder

[2:37:52] more of an event that we don't

[2:37:56] currently ask for other similar events

[2:37:58] in other parts of town.

[2:38:01] so, I think going forward, if this is

[2:38:05] our process, then I appreciate going

[2:38:07] through the process for all the other

[2:38:09] events but I do think that it's not as

[2:38:12] fair for the north end if this is

[2:38:15] their only event they've ever held and

[2:38:18] that we're asking more of them than

[2:38:21] we're asking from other event groups.

[2:38:31] so, you know, I hope I -- I implore

[2:38:34] that all of you consider that and as

[2:38:36] jill pointed out, this is an event

[2:38:39] that -- and councilmember howorth

[2:38:43] pointed out is this is tho not unlike

[2:38:47] the downtown open house, so the city

[2:38:52] sponsors that, and so maybe in the

[2:38:54] future, this could be something that

[2:38:57] the city partially sponsors and that

[2:38:59] we can treat the two events in a

[2:39:02] similar fashion.

[2:39:03] thank you.

[2:39:06] >> councilmember lesser?

[2:39:08] >> madam city manager, I'm not polling

[2:39:11] the numbers here, I'm sorry, I know

[2:39:12] I'm sort of belaboring this.

[2:39:14] the staff report indicates that we

[2:39:16] only need to allocate 9 thousand

[2:39:19] dollars but I thought what was

[2:39:23] budgeted was 31 thousand 805, is that

[2:39:26] right, that was the amount that was

[2:39:27] budgeted previously?

[2:39:28] >> so, that is the amount that's budgeted.

[2:39:31] as I was explaining earlier about the

[2:39:35] accounting methodology, that's what we

[2:39:36] budgeted in salaries and for those

[2:39:39] third party expenses but at the end of

[2:39:40] the day when we come back with our

[2:39:43] actual, they're going come back at

[2:39:45] this higher amount because we'll be

[2:39:47] using fully burdened rates so we

[2:39:49] expect that the budget will absorb

[2:39:53] -- it's prepared to absorb any of

[2:39:58] those excess costs but what we haven't

[2:40:01] budgeted for is that excess 9 thousand

[2:40:02] dollars in third party expenses for

[2:40:05] csc.

[2:40:06] >> we're still talking about a

[2:40:09] difference, I'm just doing the math

[2:40:11] here, if we're expecting this to cost

[2:40:16] fully burdened rates 75 thousand 189,

[2:40:19] the difference between 38805 plus 9

[2:40:27] thousand dollars, the adding the fully

[2:40:29] burdened rates is --

[2:40:30] >> I don't have that number at my

[2:40:34] disposal.

[2:40:35] what we're trying to say is that the

[2:40:37] budget can absorb the excess staffing

[2:40:41] costs that are showing on here but what

[2:40:44] we really have not built anywhere in

[2:40:47] the budget is this 9 thousand dollars

[2:40:50] to cover the excess outside expenses.

[2:40:55] >> and to add to that, so, some of

[2:41:00] staffing costs are -- there's not a

[2:41:02] specific line item because of -- it's

[2:41:07] either regular staffing hours for

[2:41:10] salary and benefits and some employees

[2:41:12] choose to use comp time instead of

[2:41:14] overtime as well, that's why it's

[2:41:17] difficult, we do estimates every year,

[2:41:19] sometimes especially this last year,

[2:41:21] we did certainly miss the mark there

[2:41:23] but it was through internal

[2:41:25] discussions with public works, police,

[2:41:27] fire, we did determine we feel that we

[2:41:29] can absorb the costs in what's

[2:41:33] currently budgeted and what we

[2:41:34] currently have in our current adopted

[2:41:36] budget for the staff and city costs.

[2:41:43] >> for my comments, I enjoyed going to

[2:41:46] the holiday stroll with the road

[2:41:47] closure, I had been skeptical when

[2:41:50] council approved it last year.

[2:41:51] I've been to prior holiday strolls

[2:41:53] where the road has not been closed.

[2:41:56] they're not quite as much an event, we

[2:41:59] indicated more people were drawn.

[2:42:00] I'm concerned about the overall cost.

[2:42:03] I'm concerned about it.

[2:42:04] I think we need a better model here

[2:42:09] to make this sustainable and to work

[2:42:10] for our community.

[2:42:11] I want to see an event for the north

[2:42:14] end.

[2:42:15] all these comments that

[2:42:16] have been made the north end not

[2:42:19] having a community gathering like the

[2:42:20] fireworks are true.

[2:42:22] I appreciate all that went into

[2:42:26] creating this but this particular

[2:42:27] model, the total expense are

[2:42:30] problematic for me so I would welcome

[2:42:34] another way to get this number to --

[2:42:39] to achieve it and I'm not sure we can

[2:42:42] do it this year.

[2:42:43] this was a pilot this last year but

[2:42:46] I'm just not seeing it for this year,

[2:42:49] particularly given the amount of time

[2:42:50] that's left and for the bid to have

[2:42:52] another meeting if they would even

[2:42:54] consider another meeting so I'm

[2:42:56] skeptical of moving forward at this

[2:42:58] point with the road closures and would

[2:43:00] be supportive of moving forward with

[2:43:02] the holiday stroll as way it was the

[2:43:04] year before last.

[2:43:07] >> councilmember howorth?

[2:43:08] >> thank you, mr. Mayor.

[2:43:10] so, again though, we're being asked if

[2:43:12] we want to do the road closure, it

[2:43:17] would be appropriating another 9

[2:43:21] thousand dollars and I just think that

[2:43:25] we -- I support that, I think we can

[2:43:27] can absorb that.

[2:43:28] I think one thing to consider is with

[2:43:30] the road closure and I'm going to look

[2:43:32] at the fire chief and you can -- why

[2:43:36] don't you come down here, I was going

[2:43:38] to say blink your eyes if you

[2:43:40] understand and then I was going to

[2:43:42] give that to the public.

[2:43:45] I have to assume that closing off the

[2:43:49] road is a safer way to do this in addition

[2:43:54] to allowing for more room, but doesn't

[2:43:55] that provide a different level of

[2:43:58] safety for folks who are there?

[2:44:00] >> so, if you are going allow people

[2:44:03] on the roadway, absolutely, yes.

[2:44:08] >> alright, but the question is to --

[2:44:11] if you're having people on the

[2:44:13] sidewalks and there's lots of people

[2:44:14] walking around but you have the normal

[2:44:17] traffic going through, it seems like

[2:44:20] --

[2:44:21] >> definitely helps but with that

[2:44:22] style of road closure, you values to

[2:44:27] have the appropriate barriers in

[2:44:29] place, special events that we've seen

[2:44:34] has have sub barriers if place and

[2:44:37] then people drive around them and then

[2:44:40] you see disaster situations that

[2:44:42] you've seen throughout the nation.

[2:44:43] >> not going to happen here.

[2:44:46] >> chief johnson, where is she?

[2:44:49] >> okay, yes, mr. Mayor, can I finish

[2:44:51] comments after we hear from chief

[2:44:53] johnson.

[2:44:54] >> of course, yeah.

[2:44:56] >> good evening from my office, mayor

[2:44:58] franklin and members of the city

[2:45:00] council, I apologize for not being in

[2:45:04] chambers right now, what the fire

[2:45:05] chief was talking about with regard to

[2:45:09] road closures, if you're going to have

[2:45:12] people near the roadways, it's always

[2:45:15] safer to close the road, we've seen

[2:45:21] things like meridian barriers and

[2:45:22] things like that to prevent any

[2:45:23] intrusion into the closed portion of

[2:45:25] the roadway, whether that's someone

[2:45:28] who's just following waze, we take a

[2:45:31] strong posture with closing a roadway

[2:45:34] and making sure it's closed properly

[2:45:36] which require things like meridian

[2:45:39] barriers and people to provide that

[2:45:40] direction as necessary and to mitigate

[2:45:43] any traffic issues as they occur

[2:45:44] around the closure.

[2:45:45] >> thank you, so yeah, given

[2:45:50] everything we've talked about tonight,

[2:45:51] it is a strange thing to say this one

[2:45:53] we're not going to appropriate like

[2:45:55] this 9 thousand dollars.

[2:45:59] we've already appropriated the other

[2:46:01] things they're budgeted for and for

[2:46:02] all the reasons I mentioned and I

[2:46:05] certainly don't want the take anything

[2:46:07] away from the downtown and I'm glad of

[2:46:10] all the support that we give them and

[2:46:12] continue to give them.

[2:46:13] I just think this is more important

[2:46:17] and I realize it now, I think it's more

[2:46:19] important to this area that we do this

[2:46:22] so I have seconded the motion and I

[2:46:26] think what the president mentioned is

[2:46:28] if we approve this, it givers them

[2:46:31] more of a chance to get sponsorships

[2:46:35] whereas if they start now, they can

[2:46:38] advertise, they can do this, they can

[2:46:40] make this happen and maybe they'll be

[2:46:43] able to make enough to cover their

[2:46:47] costs and start contributing to ours.

[2:46:48] but as a city, we are always going to

[2:46:53] make sure that any permitted event

[2:46:56] that's happening is safe.

[2:46:58] we're never going let anything not be

[2:47:00] safe or not live up to our standards

[2:47:03] so we're going to do that regardless

[2:47:06] of what they do.

[2:47:07] anyway, I will be supporting this and

[2:47:10] I'm excited about it.

[2:47:12] >> mayor pro tem?

[2:47:13] >> thank you mr, mayor, and I'm

[2:47:15] listening to my colleagues, I

[2:47:19] understand councilmember lesser's

[2:47:21] concerns, you know, that we did start

[2:47:24] this as pilot program.

[2:47:25] one of measures of the pilot program

[2:47:30] to me, we want the event to be

[2:47:34] self-sustaining, we want -- many of

[2:47:36] our events can't be self-sustaining

[2:47:39] and we have to subsidize.

[2:47:42] one of the thins the manhattan bid is

[2:47:44] asking here, the measure of success

[2:47:46] that I saw was successful, there was

[2:47:50] huge community participation, people

[2:47:51] who lived in the area who were able

[2:47:53] to walk down who didn't have to driver

[2:47:55] down and as someone who has attended

[2:47:59] the many, many years of these events

[2:48:02] in the past with kids in strollers and

[2:48:04] with young kids, I can tell you there

[2:48:08] were years where I have some kids who

[2:48:10] weren't as good listeners as other of

[2:48:12] my kids who I can't take down there

[2:48:16] because there were --

[2:48:17] >> christopher?

[2:48:20] >> yes, sorry.

[2:48:22] good thing he's not listening today.

[2:48:26] so, we couldn't go when he hit a

[2:48:29] certain year because he didn't want to

[2:48:31] hold my hand, he wouldn't sit in the

[2:48:33] stroller and he waned to be walking

[2:48:35] and it is very, very difficult to have

[2:48:39] all those cars congested sidewalks

[2:48:44] with strollers, double strollers and

[2:48:45] if you have more than one kid that

[2:48:47] you're in channeled of, -- charge of,

[2:48:53] it is very did difficult for those

[2:48:55] families to bring their family down to

[2:48:58] the a truly community local event

[2:49:01] without safety measures as we

[2:49:03] mentioned, a closed street is a much

[2:49:05] safer street for families for a

[2:49:08] community event.

[2:49:09] so, I implore you to reconsider that

[2:49:12] and then support that so I do have a

[2:49:16] motion and I know that there are other

[2:49:20] councilmembers who will be speaking

[2:49:22] but my motion is to approve the

[2:49:24] road closure and appropriate 9

[2:49:26] thousand dollars is what it takes for

[2:49:29] this event to continue and I probably

[2:49:32] shouldn't make comments in between my

[2:49:34] motion, for the unbudgeted third party

[2:49:36] costs and third party costs up to 12

[2:49:39] thousand 500 to be paid by the north

[2:49:42] manhattan beach bid.

[2:49:46] >> do you want me to go first so you

[2:49:49] can go last?

[2:49:51] >> no, I'll go now.

[2:49:54] is it possible to have the two the

[2:49:57] business sections work together?

[2:49:58] I mean, it really became -- you know,

[2:50:03] what councilmember howorth said about

[2:50:05] the holiday open house, that is a

[2:50:07] super charged event.

[2:50:09] we got the same thing, we got the road

[2:50:13] closures, we have a great holiday

[2:50:15] spirit, there's just a lot of

[2:50:22] activities, families, things like

[2:50:25] that, if we can get the two presidents

[2:50:28] together and see if the they can help

[2:50:30] each other out.

[2:50:31] I don't think there's overt

[2:50:34] competition among them.

[2:50:35] they're all serving the same purpose.

[2:50:37] I think the downtown has to understand

[2:50:39] that people come from north manhattan

[2:50:41] beach and come into downtown and spend

[2:50:48] money.

[2:50:49] I'm not going say can we track it, but

[2:50:50] maybe just make it more of a -- I

[2:50:51] don't want to say a kumbaya

[2:50:59] movement but sit around the table and

[2:51:00] I'm in favor of approving the 9

[2:51:03] thousand dollars, going forward, I

[2:51:04] think we have to look at it as a

[2:51:08] homogeneous enterprise, it's all

[2:51:12] business in manhattan beach.

[2:51:13] if one area has to help the other, I

[2:51:16] think it's for the good of everybody,

[2:51:20] that's my thought there.

[2:51:21] >> should we call for the question?

[2:51:23] >> can I go now?

[2:51:25] >> sorry.

[2:51:26] >> thank you, mayor, real quick.

[2:51:27] and I agree with the mayor pro tem as

[2:51:30] she indicated.

[2:51:31] it's a lot safer with the streets

[2:51:33] closed.

[2:51:34] I was hesitant to take my kids prior

[2:51:36] to the streets being closed and it's

[2:51:39] no-brainer, you have santa on one side

[2:51:41] and the cot tan -- cotton candy on the

[2:51:46] other side and you have to cross

[2:51:48] highland.

[2:51:49] I do feel supporting the closure of the

[2:51:50] streets and this is an immediate

[2:51:55] infusion during the holiday season to

[2:51:56] north end businesses.

[2:51:57] if each person down head count, I

[2:52:00] think I heard 3 thousand dollars, if

[2:52:02] you take $50, it's 150 thousand

[2:52:04] dollars in revenue for those small

[2:52:06] businesses for one night, simple math,

[2:52:08] it could be less, could be more, being

[2:52:11] conservative as I always typically

[2:52:12] have been, so I do support the road

[2:52:16] closure.

[2:52:17] I think it's important for public

[2:52:18] safety, you heard from the fire chief,

[2:52:21] the police chief, it makes no sense to

[2:52:23] have an event given that public

[2:52:26] safety.

[2:52:27] I think there was a little train, we

[2:52:28] couldn't get on the train, there was

[2:52:31] so many people in line, I support the

[2:52:34] safety aspect and the road closure.

[2:52:37] >> cows member lesser?

[2:52:40] >> I'm trying to get to yes.

[2:52:42] fiscally I'm skeptical, I

[2:52:48] have huge problems, I look at the last

[2:52:50] item we considered in bifurcating the

[2:52:53] whole larger question of subsidies.

[2:52:55] one of the evaluation criteria is

[2:52:57] community benefit.

[2:52:58] we have to put some numbers to that

[2:53:00] and that's what we're doing here, I'm

[2:53:03] hearing the comment about public

[2:53:05] safety.

[2:53:06] I'm troubled by the overall number but

[2:53:07] I'm also hearing that I takes 9

[2:53:11] thousand more.

[2:53:12] I will be off council but I would

[2:53:14] encourage those that follow to really

[2:53:17] be realistic about our overall spend

[2:53:19] on these types of programs.

[2:53:21] I'm willing to support it with regard

[2:53:23] to the public safety comments and the

[2:53:26] public and community benefit angle but

[2:53:28] I think we need to be honest and look

[2:53:30] at the totality of what we're spending

[2:53:33] and really push the ideal particularly

[2:53:35] with this event on the need for more

[2:53:39] support from sponsors as the mayor

[2:53:45] indicated.

[2:53:46] >> no more speakers.

[2:53:49] we have a motion to accept by mayor

[2:53:54] pro tem tarnay and seconded by

[2:53:57] councilmember howorth.

[2:54:05] to approve and appropriate the 9

[2:54:07] thousand dollars.

[2:54:08] >> yes, that's my motion.

[2:54:10] >> keep looking for sponsors.

[2:54:12] >> I think we can all help.

[2:54:16] >> motion passes 5-0.

[2:54:20] >> okay.

[2:54:30] >> moving on to -- okay.

[2:54:39] alright, your final decision I think

[2:54:42] for the night concerns the holiday

[2:54:45] fireworks.

[2:54:46] the chamber of commerce has assumed

[2:54:49] responsibility for organizing they

[2:54:50] vent.

[2:54:51] we appreciate their willingness to

[2:54:52] take on this longstanding community

[2:54:54] tradition.

[2:54:55] the request before council from the

[2:54:56] the chamber is for the city to

[2:54:59] subsidize all city service expenses

[2:55:01] and all third party costs ordered by

[2:55:03] the city.

[2:55:05] for 2026, the estimated value of city

[2:55:08] staff and services is approximately

[2:55:10] 187 thousand dollars, third party

[2:55:12] public safety expenses are estimated

[2:55:14] at approximately 73 thousand dollars

[2:55:17] with another about 8 thousand dollars

[2:55:19] in other third party expenses.

[2:55:22] and those other third party expenses

[2:55:24] are like bicycle fencing and porta

[2:55:30] potties, the chamber's direct expenses

[2:55:32] are approximately 180 thousand dollars

[2:55:34] bringing the total cost to supporting

[2:55:36] the event the to approximately 439

[2:55:39] thousand dollars.

[2:55:40] I think it's important to distinguish

[2:55:42] between those amounts, the chamber is

[2:55:47] responsible for the 180 thousand

[2:55:49] dollars in event production expenses.

[2:55:51] the question before the council

[2:55:52] tonight is how much of the city

[2:55:54] services and third party expenses

[2:55:56] associated with supporting the event

[2:55:58] should be subsidized by the city.

[2:56:01] historically the council has approved

[2:56:02] a 10 thousand cap specifically for

[2:56:06] third party public safety expenses for

[2:56:08] the fireworks so meridian barriers and

[2:56:11] csc staffing.

[2:56:12] the chamber has indicated that given

[2:56:14] the financial and administrative

[2:56:16] responsible associated with producing

[2:56:18] the event, continued management may

[2:56:20] not be feasible if it's required to

[2:56:22] absorb any third party costs, as

[2:56:26] staff has identified three options, is

[2:56:30] asking you to make the decision,

[2:56:31] option 1 would subsidize all city

[2:56:33] services and all third party costs

[2:56:35] with the city responsible for the full

[2:56:41] cost of the event.

[2:56:42] option 2 would subsidize city services

[2:56:43] and maintain the existing 10

[2:56:45] thousand dollar cap specifically for

[2:56:47] third party public safety costs.

[2:56:48] the chamber would be responsible for

[2:56:50] any additional party costs.

[2:56:56] option 3 would subsidize city services

[2:56:57] and establish a 10 thousand cap for

[2:57:00] all third party costs rather than

[2:57:02] limiting that subsidy to public safety

[2:57:05] aspens and staff is requesting council

[2:57:07] direction regarding the appropriate

[2:57:09] subsidy for the holiday fireworks.

[2:57:16] and that concludes my presentation.

[2:57:17] >> okay.

[2:57:26] any questions?

[2:57:30] >> mr. Mayor, I'm sorry, once again,

[2:57:33] the budget packet that councilmen

[2:57:34] received is not tracking the

[2:57:37] presentation, it did not

[2:57:42] include the total numbers.

[2:57:44] linda, can you go back to the slide

[2:57:46] in terms of what the costs have

[2:57:49] already been allocated and what the

[2:57:54] additional ask is.

[2:57:55] >> we are not asking you to a

[2:57:57] appropriate any additional funds for

[2:57:59] the 2026 event, we're simply asking

[2:58:01] what we are supposed to be billing the

[2:58:04] chamber at the end of the event, so

[2:58:07] even though again it's the same

[2:58:09] explanation as with the holiday stroll

[2:58:12] for the estimated expenses, we're not

[2:58:17] changing staffing levels in

[2:58:20] any way, it is expected the budget

[2:58:23] will absorb any excess from last year

[2:58:25] to this year because of the way we

[2:58:29] budgeted, so we've already put in our

[2:58:30] budget all of the third party expenses

[2:58:33] to pay the third party expenses, the

[2:58:35] question is whether we're going to

[2:58:37] bill anything back to the chamber of

[2:58:40] those third party expenses so we can

[2:58:43] do 10 thousand total or 10 thousand

[2:58:46] plus other third party expenses is the

[2:58:53] question before you nor -- now or

[2:59:00] none.

[2:59:02] >> these third party expenses were

[2:59:04] previously held or underwritten by the

[2:59:07] prior promoter of the event?

[2:59:11] >> so, back --

[2:59:12] >> help me understand.

[2:59:13] >> so, a few years back when pete

[2:59:17] moffet was organizing the event, he

[2:59:20] had this side agreement with a sponsor

[2:59:23] and the sponsor with send us money, we

[2:59:25] would cover those other third party

[2:59:27] expenses with that money.

[2:59:29] but then he passed away and that

[2:59:33] responsibility went to his son who was

[2:59:36] then -- we were so appreciative still

[2:59:39] organizing the event and doing his

[2:59:42] best but that agreement kind of

[2:59:45] slipped through the cracks and so now

[2:59:49] according to the special events policy, with

[2:59:52] all third party expenses being the

[2:59:55] responsibility of the organizer, we

[3:00:00] had -- city council did approve a 10

[3:00:03] thousand dollar cap but that was only

[3:00:05] for public safety expenses and while

[3:00:07] you could argue that bicycle fencing

[3:00:09] and porta potties would be for

[3:00:12] the public safety, they were not was

[3:00:16] originally intended in that cap.

[3:00:18] >> thank you.

[3:00:19] >> okay, councilmember howorth?

[3:00:22] >> I mean, it's clear as mud and

[3:00:26] that's okay.

[3:00:27] so, again, I'm just trying to let us

[3:00:34] be or get us to be really transparent,

[3:00:40] right.

[3:00:41] so, it's a total cost of the event no

[3:00:43] matter who's paying for it, it is an

[3:00:46] amazing event that we all love, total

[3:00:49] cost 439 thousand 107?

[3:00:51] >> yes.

[3:00:52] >> okay.

[3:00:57] I mean, so, that's not what's not

[3:01:02] covered by sponsorship, that is the

[3:01:03] total cost to do it?

[3:01:05] >> I was given the 180 thousand dollar

[3:01:09] number by the chamber, that's what

[3:01:14] they were required to cover last year

[3:01:15] to make the event happen.

[3:01:18] >> 180 plus 259, 107 equals 439107.

[3:01:28] one of the options is to just

[3:01:32] approve a subsidy meaning we would

[3:01:35] absorb the 259 thousand dollars, and

[3:01:38] you're saying that's already budgeted?

[3:01:39] >> correct.

[3:01:42] we do staff, because this is a known

[3:01:44] event, we do budget for the staffing

[3:01:46] for this event.

[3:01:47] we also budget for the third party

[3:01:49] expenses because we know it's coming.

[3:01:51] >> got it.

[3:01:52] >> okay.

[3:01:54] so, again, that's important, it's

[3:01:58] important just if people are watching

[3:02:00] a home that we are not needing to --

[3:02:03] this is not a budget adjustment.

[3:02:05] >> no.

[3:02:06] >> it is a philosophical discussion,

[3:02:09] okay.

[3:02:10] alright, thank you.

[3:02:14] >> so, I have a question.

[3:02:17] we appreciate the promoter in the past

[3:02:19] because they made it what this event

[3:02:23] is, it's a regional attraction, we

[3:02:26] know it because we -- what's the

[3:02:32] attendance, 50 thousand plus.

[3:02:35] >> 40, 20?

[3:02:37] >> she says 20 thousand.

[3:02:39] I thought it was more in the past.

[3:02:42] I have been told up to 40 in some

[3:02:45] years, but according to placer, 20 thousand.

[3:02:50] >> so, the promoter was responsible

[3:02:56] for getting sponsors a that paid for

[3:02:58] these expenses.

[3:02:59] >> correct.

[3:03:00] >> the promoter is no longer involved

[3:03:02] so that leaves a gap of trying to get

[3:03:06] sponsors to pay these expenses.

[3:03:08] >> that's what the chamber has taken

[3:03:14] over.

[3:03:15] >> yeah, but the chamber needs to find

[3:03:17] those same sponsors, right?

[3:03:23] no?

[3:03:26] I'm seeing --

[3:03:27] >> this is sounding much more

[3:03:28] complicated than it is, good news on

[3:03:30] this one because I think this one will

[3:03:32] be easier.

[3:03:35] there seems to have some confusion

[3:03:37] about this one line item and it's the

[3:03:41] 8 thousand 164 dollars that's bicycle

[3:03:43] fencing has goes up and down manhattan

[3:03:47] beach boulevard that -- it separates

[3:03:50] people from when an emergency vehicle

[3:03:51] has to go there.

[3:03:55] I was told that at one point chevron

[3:03:58] paid for that and I went back to

[3:04:00] chevron, we've never paid for that, so

[3:04:02] I don't know why that was.

[3:04:03] it was not in the budget that I

[3:04:08] received from the moffits so it's the

[3:04:15] mysterious 8164, I'm raising the 180

[3:04:18] thousand dollars to make this show

[3:04:20] happen, all I'm asking is the 8164

[3:04:23] dollars that's a bicycle fencing, the

[3:04:25] 10 thousand dollars, I didn't budget

[3:04:27] for last year, I would love it if you

[3:04:28] could cover that because that wasn't

[3:04:31] in pete's budget for me to cover so I

[3:04:33] didn't have that and I would end up

[3:04:39] losing money on the fireworks at this

[3:04:43] point but I will have to find another

[3:04:46] 10 thousand dollars this year, I

[3:04:48] understand that in sponsorships, but I

[3:04:51] appreciate that you guys are saying go

[3:04:53] out and get sponsorships.

[3:04:55] if you knew how hard it is so come up

[3:04:59] with 180 thousand dollars worth of

[3:05:01] sponsorships, it is not an easy thing.

[3:05:03] we started it this week and I have

[3:05:07] already had multiple saying I'm

[3:05:08] pulling back on my sponsorship from

[3:05:12] last year, and I'm like, great, that

[3:05:13] means I have to find more.

[3:05:15] this is one of those events when I say

[3:05:17] to somebody that the chamber is

[3:05:20] producing the event, I thought that

[3:05:22] was a city event.

[3:05:28] everyone thinkers so.

[3:05:29] I'm the third party of this is that

[3:05:36] scenario.

[3:05:37] we love it as much aser everybody else

[3:05:39] does, pete did it as a labor of love.

[3:05:41] he didn't make any money off of it,

[3:05:44] tom took it over as his son and he

[3:05:46] said I can't do this because -- he was

[3:05:49] making like 7 thousand dollars on the

[3:05:51] event and he says it takes six months

[3:05:53] to produce it, it doesn't make sense

[3:05:55] for me to do it.

[3:05:56] can we find somebody else to do it.

[3:05:57] we took it on because it's a beloved

[3:06:02] event but with the amount of money

[3:06:03] -- the amount of time and the amount

[3:06:04] of money that it takes to raise it, if

[3:06:07] I now have to cover the ten thousand

[3:06:10] dollars for the public safety piece of

[3:06:12] it plus the 8100 for those fences, I'm

[3:06:16] like I'm in the hole and I just can't

[3:06:19] do that and so that's -- I will budget

[3:06:22] for the ten thousand for next year if

[3:06:24] you can cover the bicycle fences for

[3:06:26] the 8 thousand, that's all I'm asking

[3:06:29] for is an additional 8 thousand.

[3:06:30] >> can I ask a question.

[3:06:32] is there an option to scale it down?

[3:06:36] I mean, it's quite a show.

[3:06:37] I mean, I'm going to be the boomer in

[3:06:40] the room, we just took our kids down,

[3:06:44] we sang there's one guitarist, john

[3:06:47] brown or something, has was on the

[3:06:49] stage, we sang christmas carols and

[3:06:52] then the fireworks went off.

[3:06:54] now it's a production which is fine, I

[3:06:57] understand tastes change and things

[3:06:59] like that, can we reduce that?

[3:07:02] >> I think that that would have to be

[3:07:04] something that maybe the city wants to

[3:07:06] propose to the residents because

[3:07:08] that's the expectation now and so it's

[3:07:11] not -- I mean, we're not making the

[3:07:14] show longer, bigger, I haven't added

[3:07:17] any new entertainment.

[3:07:18] this is just the continuing cost to do

[3:07:21] what it is.

[3:07:22] so, I think if you wanted to change

[3:07:26] that, that -- I mean --

[3:07:28] >> it doesn't have to go to that

[3:07:30] extreme, but I'm not sure the cost

[3:07:32] structure and what the entertainment

[3:07:34] all is.

[3:07:36] everybody's there for the fireworks.

[3:07:39] >> well, I mean, I'll give you a couple

[3:07:41] of things off the top of my head, it

[3:07:44] costs 15 thousand dollars to do the

[3:07:47] environmental cleanup, about 14

[3:07:48] thousand dollars for the over water

[3:07:50] permit, the sound system that goes up

[3:07:52] and down because it's choreographed to

[3:07:56] music that goes all the way up to

[3:07:59] manhattan beach boulevard, that's a

[3:08:00] separate provider.

[3:08:01] I had no idea what it all was either.

[3:08:03] it's not like we're doing anything

[3:08:05] like I'm going, let's add something

[3:08:07] huge and new, I am really just

[3:08:10] sustaining what is there and when -- I

[3:08:13] mean, I know it's a lot more expensive

[3:08:15] than it used to be.

[3:08:17] every year it's getting more expensive

[3:08:18] and it's more sponsorship, so, the

[3:08:22] bicycle fencing was a requirement of

[3:08:25] pd for public safety and so I'm just

[3:08:27] asking for that 8 thousand dollars to

[3:08:29] be considered part of the public safety

[3:08:35] expense instead of a third party

[3:08:36] expense to us, that's it.

[3:08:37] >> that's not 439.

[3:08:42] okay.

[3:08:43] councilmember charelian?

[3:08:44] >> thank you.

[3:08:45] thank you, mr. Mayor.

[3:08:46] and, jill, thank you for clarifying

[3:08:47] that you only needed 8 thousand and

[3:08:50] some change for the -- where are you?

[3:08:55] for the -- just if for the iconic

[3:09:00] manhattan beach fireworks, this is

[3:09:01] beyond a legacy event, 8200 dollars

[3:09:04] for the amount of smiling faces it

[3:09:07] brings, I'm okay with that.

[3:09:11] >> any other comments?

[3:09:15] >> you need public comments.

[3:09:17] >> yeah, public comments.

[3:09:24] so, anybody here in chambers?

[3:09:26] no?

[3:09:27] online?

[3:09:28] >> no.

[3:09:29] >> my dog would like to comment.

[3:09:32] my dog hates the fireworks and says I

[3:09:37] cannot vote for this.

[3:09:39] >> give up a bone.

[3:09:42] okay, so seeing none, closing public

[3:09:45] comments.

[3:09:46] council discussion?

[3:09:47] comments, anybody ?

[3:09:48] councilmember lesser?

[3:09:51] >> I will be supporting this motion, I

[3:09:54] appreciate jill, I appreciate you for all

[3:09:56] the work you're putting into this

[3:09:58] production and more importantly just

[3:10:00] clarifying it.

[3:10:01] that's been part of my objection to

[3:10:03] this.

[3:10:04] I am grateful to city staff to bring

[3:10:06] this -- all these matters to council

[3:10:09] for greater transparency to the our

[3:10:11] public as to what these events are

[3:10:12] costing and for future councils going

[3:10:14] forward, I think this needs to be part

[3:10:16] of the budgetary process to better

[3:10:18] understand what these costs are,

[3:10:23] burden rates as well as the out of

[3:10:25] pocket costs because the community

[3:10:27] wants these events.

[3:10:28] these are a big part of who we are and

[3:10:30] what our community has come to expect

[3:10:32] along with our businesses, so we need

[3:10:34] to come up with a way that's

[3:10:39] sustainable going forward and we

[3:10:40] wouldn't be doing our job unless we

[3:10:41] asked these questions and made sure

[3:10:42] that the overall costs for all of

[3:10:44] these items are something that's

[3:10:46] sustainable, so I will be supporting

[3:10:51] this.

[3:10:52] >> mayor pro tem tarnay?

[3:10:53] >> thank you, mr. Mayor.

[3:10:56] I think everyone in this room would

[3:10:58] agree that this is one of the best

[3:11:02] community events our city does.

[3:11:05] this and the hometown fair, these are

[3:11:08] two huge signature events that is

[3:11:11] really -- we talk about public

[3:11:14] benefit, our whole community, everyone

[3:11:18] goes downtown and to answer -- to

[3:11:21] comment on what jill has said about

[3:11:23] adding more, I haven't seen the

[3:11:25] addition, I have been going for a few

[3:11:27] decades now, I have -- haven't seen

[3:11:32] the growth of it, I have seen more

[3:11:36] people coming because it is such a

[3:11:38] great event.

[3:11:39] when we started going, you could leave

[3:11:41] and start making your way town at 5:00

[3:11:45] and still be able to get a spot.

[3:11:47] now with social media and the growth

[3:11:48] and people knowing more about the

[3:11:51] event, people start posting up like at

[3:11:54] noon, I think people starting getting

[3:11:57] their families down there and it does

[3:11:59] greatly impact the business.

[3:12:01] people eat, they dine, they shop, so

[3:12:04] it brings a lot of activities into our

[3:12:11] downtown area so it's great for the

[3:12:12] businesses and great for the residents

[3:12:17] and seeing what is being asked, that 8164

[3:12:22] dollars, I think it's an easy number to

[3:12:28] justify because it does come down to

[3:12:31] public safety, we have thousands of

[3:12:34] people down there, 20 thousand people,

[3:12:35] and this is something that our pd is

[3:12:38] asking for, so I will be approving

[3:12:41] that amount as well.

[3:12:42] >> great.

[3:12:44] so, I appreciate the clarity, clearing

[3:12:48] up the numbers and alike.

[3:12:51] I'm still going to say, you know, I

[3:12:55] think people would come even if the

[3:12:59] show surrounding it was kind of

[3:13:00] reduced a little bit and I don't know

[3:13:03] how all these things work, whether or

[3:13:05] not you can just get a lower scale

[3:13:07] type of show because the show is the

[3:13:11] fireworks and the sound, I can

[3:13:13] understand that, but we lived without

[3:13:15] that sound for 20 years beforehand

[3:13:19] because again, it was just the

[3:13:20] fireworks you were looking at.

[3:13:24] on our block, we

[3:13:28] gathered up our resources and our

[3:13:32] blankets and a couple of the parents

[3:13:34] went down there to save the space, it

[3:13:35] was a great feeling of community, we

[3:13:37] did go shopping and did use the

[3:13:39] restaurants so I think iet assist --

[3:13:44] it's a great event and let's keep it

[3:13:49] great.

[3:13:50] >> my dog hate still hates it.

[3:13:52] .

[3:13:55] >> if that was the last comment, we

[3:13:57] have a motion to accept .by

[3:13:59] councilmember charelian and seconded

[3:14:00] by mayor pro tem tarnay.

[3:14:02] >> thank you, and I think all I need

[3:14:04] to say is that we'll approve the

[3:14:10] holiday fireworks event and pruned the

[3:14:14] subsidy of $8,164.

[3:14:17] let me know if you need anything else?

[3:14:19] >> can I just clarify, so we're

[3:14:23] looking for a decision moving forward

[3:14:25] on how we want to approve the subsidy,

[3:14:29] so the estimated cost of the subsidy

[3:14:34] would be around the 8 thousand but do

[3:14:35] we want to keep that ten thousand

[3:14:38] dollar cap on only public safety

[3:14:41] expenses and still charge the other

[3:14:44] public safety expenses which is the 8

[3:14:46] thousand something or do we want to

[3:14:48] cap the third party expenses at 10

[3:14:52] thousand dollars total which includes

[3:14:54] the public safe and the porta potties

[3:14:59] and the fencing.

[3:15:00] >> personally making the motion, I

[3:15:02] would like to defer that conversation,

[3:15:05] item a, that we approved the process in

[3:15:11] evaluating and bring that back to us,

[3:15:13] there's a lot of numbers moving aner

[3:15:15] and we had to get clarification a few

[3:15:17] times so I would hate to make a

[3:15:18] decision, that's me, I don't know if

[3:15:20] my colleagues feel the same?

[3:15:22] >> she wants to ask something.

[3:15:25] >> if you don't want to make the

[3:15:27] decision for it going forward, then

[3:15:29] for the 2026 event, would you like to

[3:15:33] the total expenses at 10 thousand

[3:15:35] dollars which would be what jill was

[3:15:38] explaining or do you want to keep it

[3:15:40] at 10 thousand and then we bill for

[3:15:44] the other third party expenses?

[3:15:47] it's either we charge them 18 thousand

[3:15:49] or --

[3:15:51] >> you're saying 18 or 10?

[3:15:52] >> yes.

[3:15:53] >> that's the question.

[3:15:56] >> I'm at a loss for words, so

[3:16:02] you're not looking just for the --

[3:16:04] you're looking for the cap, you're

[3:16:06] looking for 18 thousand?

[3:16:07] >> yes.

[3:16:09] >> 10, sorry, we're looking --

[3:16:13] >> a cap of ten thousand.

[3:16:15] >> a cap of ten thousand, so the

[3:16:18] chamber would pay ten thousand for

[3:16:20] third party costs if you approve

[3:16:23] number 3.

[3:16:27] >> but again all we're on hook for is

[3:16:32] the $8,164?

[3:16:33] >> well, we would be absorbing that 8

[3:16:37] thousand but we are also absorbing a

[3:16:39] significant amount of the other public

[3:16:43] safety costs, yes, but, yes, we would

[3:16:44] be on the hook for the 8 thousand.

[3:16:45] >> how do you want that worded?

[3:16:54] >> honestly, I'm sorry, I didn't press

[3:16:56] my button.

[3:16:57] this could be more clear cut.

[3:17:00] >> the number 3 option explains the

[3:17:04] that we will invoice the chamber for

[3:17:08] ten thousand no matter what the third

[3:17:10] party costs are.

[3:17:11] >> if they're above that, we're still

[3:17:14] only invoicing them ten thousand?

[3:17:16] >> correct.

[3:17:17] >> where did the 18 thousand number

[3:17:19] come from.

[3:17:20] >> it is the 10 thousand dollar cap on

[3:17:23] public safety expenses so we were

[3:17:24] going to charge them 10 thousand, and

[3:17:26] then the 8 thousand 100 was a separate

[3:17:29] third party cost for bicycle fencing

[3:17:33] and the porta potties.

[3:17:36] >> that's what they're asking for?

[3:17:39] because she's trying to raise 180

[3:17:42] thousand dollars in sponsorship that's

[3:17:45] already allocated and we're saying

[3:17:47] the bicycle fencing is the 8164, then

[3:17:50] there's public service that we're

[3:17:52] going to cap at 10 thousand.

[3:17:54] >> yes, that is essentially --

[3:17:56] >> it's 18 thousand 164 dollars.

[3:18:01] >> now we've been raising 190 thousand

[3:18:02] just so you know, if you cap it at 10,

[3:18:08] then I go up, that's what I'm offering.

[3:18:11] there is one other bill that was for

[3:18:13] the fencing and these porta potties

[3:18:16] that had never been billed before that

[3:18:18] was the 8 thousand and that's what I

[3:18:22] said, the 8167, now if that's what it

[3:18:25] was billed last year.

[3:18:27] if that 8 thousand is more this year,

[3:18:29] if it's 9 thousand, then -- am I like

[3:18:32] -- you go.

[3:18:35] >> how about you define the services

[3:18:39] that you want us --

[3:18:41] >> I do want to clarify, this is the

[3:18:42] importance and this is why this

[3:18:43] process is being put in place is so we

[3:18:44] will have the ability to have these

[3:18:45] agreements in place that clearly

[3:18:48] dictate again working with pete and

[3:18:49] tom over the years, this was a

[3:18:51] separate bill that was paid by the

[3:18:53] operator, as things change and

[3:18:55] evolve, this was not in a written

[3:18:57] document and agreement and that is why

[3:18:59] we're having confusion here, moving

[3:19:01] forward, we will not have this

[3:19:02] confusion.

[3:19:03] that is the difference between the 10

[3:19:04] thousand and the 18 thousand because

[3:19:06] in previous years that additional 8

[3:19:07] thousand dollars had been paid by the

[3:19:09] operator and again with the transition

[3:19:11] of leadership, that no longer was

[3:19:14] communicated.

[3:19:17] >> I mean, I would -- I'm sorry, let

[3:19:20] me ypres the button.

[3:19:21] >> yes.

[3:19:22] >> I'm not sure I understand it yet

[3:19:25] but I am trying to make it so that the

[3:19:29] chamber doesn't have to raise 190

[3:19:31] thousand, I am trying to

[3:19:35] say, if the number for this -- I hear

[3:19:38] what you're saying, you're trying to

[3:19:40] create a process moving forward.

[3:19:41] if the number for this year is 18

[3:19:44] thousand, okay, so be it, I'm fine

[3:19:46] with that.

[3:19:47] I think everybody was thinking it was

[3:19:49] 8 thousand, so we all have to consider

[3:19:51] this, but these options that the cap

[3:19:55] is very -- it confuses us, so option

[3:19:58] 1, approve a subsidy for all city

[3:20:01] services and all third party costs.

[3:20:03] so, that means we pay for everything.

[3:20:07] is that the 18 thousand?

[3:20:08] >> yes.

[3:20:10] >> number 2, approve -- I'm sorry, do

[3:20:15] you guys mind if I read this out loud

[3:20:17] because I'm just sorting it out.

[3:20:19] approve a subsidy for city services

[3:20:20] and continue with the reproved 10

[3:20:24] thousand cap on third party public

[3:20:26] safety costs.

[3:20:29] so, that means what, what does that --

[3:20:32] so, the subsidy for city services and

[3:20:39] do we pay above the -- do we charge

[3:20:42] her 10 thousand and we pay above?

[3:20:43] >> yes.

[3:20:44] >> for the barriers and the security

[3:20:47] costs and --

[3:20:49] >> she say's say -- she's saying

[3:20:55] please don't charge me 10 thousand.

[3:20:57] number 3 is approve a subsidy for city

[3:21:00] service --

[3:21:01] >> so number 2 is we charge the 10

[3:21:04] thousand for the third party public

[3:21:07] safety expenses plus the other third

[3:21:09] party costs, so that would be the

[3:21:12] chamber paying 18 thousand, number 2.

[3:21:14] number 3 would be the chamber paying

[3:21:17] 10 thousand and number --

[3:21:21] >> so, 2 is having the chamber pay 18

[3:21:24] thousand, 3 is having the chamber pay

[3:21:26] 10 and us pay 8.

[3:21:29] >> yes, number 3 is the chamber

[3:21:33] pays 10 and we pay all other

[3:21:36] expenses.

[3:21:37] >> okay.

[3:21:41] so, the chamber -- it's either the

[3:21:44] chamber pays the extra, this thing

[3:21:47] that -- what happened is everyone

[3:21:50] figured out wait, no one's paid this

[3:21:52] bill because pete was doing it this

[3:21:55] way, chevron was doing it this way so

[3:21:57] now we have to figure out who is

[3:22:03] paying.

[3:22:04] >> yeah.

[3:22:05] >> to be honest, part of it probably

[3:22:06] was that initially there weren't porta

[3:22:10] potty, they were probably going into

[3:22:12] people's restaurants and shops and

[3:22:14] asking for bathrooms so that's par of

[3:22:16] it is that and the other part is the

[3:22:20] bike fence.

[3:22:22] >> number one is the city's going to

[3:22:25] pay 18 thousand, number 2 is the

[3:22:27] chamber is going to pay it.

[3:22:29] number 3, we pay 8 and the chamber

[3:22:32] pays 10, those are our choices here.

[3:22:34] >> and just so you know, has ten

[3:22:36] thousand because it was nnt the budget

[3:22:37] that I got means I will be raising 190

[3:22:44] now, right.

[3:22:45] so I'm doing my share to raise that

[3:22:48] extra ten thousand this year starting

[3:22:50] this year too.

[3:22:51] >> okay.

[3:22:53] so what's your motion?

[3:22:54] >> my motion is to defer my motion to

[3:22:58] council mayor pro tem tarnay.

[3:23:02] >> no.

[3:23:06] >> what are the options again?

[3:23:08] >> number 3.

[3:23:11] >> number 3.

[3:23:12] >> city pays 8, chamber pays 10.

[3:23:13] >> yes.

[3:23:20] cap.

[3:23:21] >> yeah, sure.

[3:23:22] >> is that appropriate?

[3:23:23] number 3, option number 3, approve a

[3:23:25] subsidy for the city services and a

[3:23:27] ten thousand dollar cap for all third

[3:23:30] party costs and that will be just for

[3:23:32] the 2026 event until we iron this out

[3:23:35] later, correct?

[3:23:36] that's it, that's my motion.

[3:23:39] >> okay, so, we have a motion by

[3:23:42] councilmember charelian, still

[3:23:43] seconding it?

[3:23:44] >> yes.

[3:23:45] >> okay.

[3:23:46] I mean, I'll second it if

[3:23:49] you want me to.

[3:23:50] >> I've been ready to second.

[3:23:52] >> and seconded by mayor pro tem

[3:23:55] tarnay.

[3:23:56] we have the mote.

[3:24:06] >> motion passes 5-0.

[3:24:08] >> well, that was easy.

[3:24:09] >> thank you.

[3:24:13] >> it would help to have everybody

[3:24:14] literally be on the same page.

[3:24:15] >> thank you, linda.

[3:24:16] >> thank you.

[3:24:17] >> okay.

[3:24:23] >> happy birthday, come to council.

[3:24:26] let us turn you around.

[3:24:32] >> there's one more slide about legacy

[3:24:34] status to be requested.

[3:24:38] we're finished with this item?

[3:24:39] >> we're done.

[3:24:42] >> it's clear as mud.

[3:24:44] >> alright, well, then let's get into

[3:24:49] bringing this baby home.

[3:24:52] so, l, city council requests and

[3:24:59] reports including ab 1234 reports.

[3:25:02] any?

[3:25:04] no?

[3:25:05] future -- m, future agenda items?

[3:25:08] >> yeah.

[3:25:09] I pressed my button to speak but it

[3:25:12] died, it went away.

[3:25:13] >> councilmember?

[3:25:16] >> thank you.

[3:25:19] I would like to put on the business

[3:25:25] license tax, the thing that kelly

[3:25:26] asked for that we keep making progress

[3:25:31] and having staff -- I know that --

[3:25:33] well, I would like to ask the city

[3:25:38] manager, what's going on with that, is

[3:25:40] there anything we need to do to bring

[3:25:41] it back and forward.

[3:25:43] >> thank you for the question,

[3:25:45] councilmember.

[3:25:46] the staffer's plan was to continue to

[3:25:47] work with the various interest groups

[3:25:52] and bring back the throughout the

[3:25:54] course of the next year smaller

[3:25:58] discussions about the business license

[3:26:00] tax and we'll piece it all together at

[3:26:01] the end of the year.

[3:26:03] our plan unless council directs us to

[3:26:05] go in a different direction was to

[3:26:07] continue to work on this and bring

[3:26:08] back bits and pieces to the council so

[3:26:12] it's easier to digest and we go out

[3:26:15] and essentially have those discussions

[3:26:16] with those specific groups and then

[3:26:19] come back and share the information

[3:26:20] with the council and continue to keep

[3:26:22] this moving forward while we make

[3:26:24] progress over the course of the next

[3:26:27] year.

[3:26:28] >> I think if -- it's your future

[3:26:32] item, I do agree and I like the actual

[3:26:34] future item but a future item to come

[3:26:37] back and give us a foundation of what

[3:26:40] you just said and allow us an

[3:26:42] opportunity to provide some direction

[3:26:44] and input if we're going out and doing

[3:26:48] these exercises of multiple working

[3:26:51] groups.

[3:26:52] I would love to get some -- I would --

[3:26:56] that's something you -- I would second

[3:26:58] that.

[3:26:59] >> I would say that.

[3:27:00] it doesn't have to come back to us as

[3:27:02] a impish here's what we propose

[3:27:05] because --

[3:27:07] >> allow us to input.

[3:27:08] >> yeah.

[3:27:09] >> and it doesn't have to be --

[3:27:11] obviously we need a third vote.

[3:27:15] >> right, and we're not saying

[3:27:17] -- it's going to take a lot of work,

[3:27:19] yeah.

[3:27:20] >> so, you both have two votes?

[3:27:24] >> it's a two step process, it would

[3:27:25] have to come back next time.

[3:27:27] >> I understand, but you're making

[3:27:30] those two votes?

[3:27:31] >> yes.

[3:27:32] >> I just want the clarify that.

[3:27:34] >> clear as mud.

[3:27:35] >> with that?

[3:27:36] okay.

[3:27:37] >> I have a future item.

[3:27:46] you know, we had resident stuff on

[3:27:49] camera come up at public comment, it

[3:27:52] seemed like hours ago, but again maybe

[3:27:56] the city manager helped, I know we

[3:27:58] have a lot of existing information on

[3:28:01] our website and I heard, you know,

[3:28:06] transparency, rhna dashboard, give

[3:28:07] city council an update every six months

[3:28:10] so the public can kind of hear

[3:28:14] through our meetings with what's going

[3:28:15] on out there.

[3:28:17] at least as frequently as we can that

[3:28:20] it doesn't hinder too much strain on

[3:28:23] staff, but can you help articulate

[3:28:26] what that would look like as far as

[3:28:30] what mr. Kampe said?

[3:28:31] >> yes, I think mr. Kampe mentioned

[3:28:34] that we come back annually and provide

[3:28:37] a report to the council with a clear

[3:28:40] cut chart of what our rhna obligations

[3:28:42] are and how much for each category we

[3:28:46] have met thus far for the whole cycle,

[3:28:53] right, and the community development

[3:28:54] director does have some ideas on what

[3:28:59] additional charts to post on the

[3:29:02] existing website, so we have

[3:29:05] internally been discussing those

[3:29:07] options already so it's up to the

[3:29:08] council if the council would like us

[3:29:12] to come back more than once a year, I

[3:29:15] will say that that once a year update

[3:29:17] that we prepare does take a

[3:29:19] significant amount of work because

[3:29:22] we're essentially having to go through

[3:29:23] all of our building permits to

[3:29:27] understand what housing has been

[3:29:29] produced and in what categories, so it

[3:29:31] does take staff resources, if we were to

[3:29:33] do that twice a year but it's up to

[3:29:36] the council to let us know.

[3:29:37] in terms of making the website

[3:29:40] clearer, we're already discussing

[3:29:44] thousand do that-- how to do that and

[3:29:45] how to improve it.

[3:29:46] >> my request would be as future item

[3:29:48] is maybe bring it once a year, we get

[3:29:51] a lot of input from staff, from our

[3:29:53] constituents and the residents which

[3:29:55] are the same, just is the city doing

[3:29:59] enough and just I think this is one of

[3:30:00] those times we can just bring it and

[3:30:04] be a presentation and do it once a

[3:30:07] year.

[3:30:08] >> we do that already.

[3:30:09] >> so I'm a second for that.

[3:30:15] >> when?

[3:30:16] >> we do that prior to I think it's

[3:30:19] april 4 of every year, we come to the

[3:30:21] council, it's -- we make a

[3:30:23] presentation to the council on where

[3:30:25] we are in regards to our rhna

[3:30:27] obligations for this current cycle and

[3:30:30] we break that down by each income

[3:30:33] category because that's really what

[3:30:35] matters at the end of the day and what

[3:30:37] hcd is looking at.

[3:30:39] we talk to the council about all of

[3:30:41] the progress we've made on the housing

[3:30:44] programs for this particular cycle,

[3:30:47] the numbers, the numbers of permits

[3:30:48] that are issued, number of adu's

[3:30:52] that have been built, all of that gets

[3:30:54] compiled into the annual progress

[3:30:56] report which is state mandated.

[3:30:58] >> I was going to ask if it was state

[3:31:01] mandated.

[3:31:02] >> what you're saying is it comes

[3:31:03] every april.

[3:31:04] >> or before april because we have to

[3:31:06] submit it I think it's by april 4.

[3:31:10] >> I'll withdraw --

[3:31:11] >> then I'll make it, I think it needs

[3:31:14] to be twice a year.

[3:31:16] this is as I mentioned in my mayor

[3:31:19] rotation speech, it's the existential

[3:31:22] threat as to what is manhattan beach.

[3:31:25] we packed the joslyn center about this.

[3:31:29] when was that, back earlier this year

[3:31:32] because people didn't know about it

[3:31:34] and now a lot of people are waking .up

[3:31:37] and they're going to be woken up more

[3:31:40] because they're going to see the

[3:31:41] construction start and so it is going

[3:31:43] to be vital we communicate with them

[3:31:46] on a more frequent basis than once per

[3:31:50] year.

[3:31:51] >> maybe one of the times could be

[3:31:53] less technical because the report that

[3:31:55] you're providing prior to april is

[3:32:01] very specific for the state.

[3:32:03] >> it's very labor intensive.

[3:32:05] >> but this other thing could be less

[3:32:08] technical.

[3:32:09] >> for reference --

[3:32:11] >> to the point, it's the type of

[3:32:14] buildings.

[3:32:15] if you're going to hit a 20% mark with

[3:32:17] a density bonus, it's going to take

[3:32:19] 3500 units to reach 774 and that's

[3:32:25] over 10 thousand of our city.

[3:32:27] >> may I ask a question?

[3:32:31] >> that's going to be to be in density

[3:32:34] >> as we consider whether there's a

[3:32:36] second to advance this, but would

[3:32:39] presenting it twice year, would those

[3:32:43] numbers typically change?

[3:32:45] I know it's very labor intensive, so

[3:32:46] does it move the needle, is it a huge

[3:32:49] change you would see between if you

[3:32:51] report it in march and then you report

[3:32:53] it again six months later?

[3:32:59] >> it depends how many projects are

[3:33:02] being built in that timeframe or how

[3:33:04] many building perms are being issued

[3:33:08] every year.

[3:33:10] it's a little bit different.

[3:33:11] the you look at the progress reports

[3:33:14] for the last -- since the initiation

[3:33:15] of this current sixth cycle, what you

[3:33:19] are going to see is not that much

[3:33:22] movement on the affordable units which

[3:33:24] really is what we're trying to see

[3:33:26] here.

[3:33:29] as typical for most cities, you're

[3:33:34] going to see that number for the

[3:33:35] above market rate units continue to

[3:33:37] increase because that's where we see

[3:33:39] the most growth but what does h -- is

[3:33:49] hcd really looking at?

[3:33:50] >> if I may, mr. Mayor?

[3:33:52] >> the if I can make just one comment

[3:33:55] about defending the twice a year, that

[3:33:58] people wake up to it, if you have the

[3:34:02] ability to talk to them twice a year

[3:34:05] instead of having them to wait.

[3:34:07] they can make decisions about what to

[3:34:09] do about it.

[3:34:10] we have an example of a home that was

[3:34:13] sold adjacent, they lost 400 thousand

[3:34:15] dollars in market value of that home,

[3:34:17] these are big questions our residents

[3:34:20] want answered so as they go along,

[3:34:22] they're learning about it, so I think

[3:34:23] we should have the availability of as

[3:34:27] many meetings as possible to get that

[3:34:30] information.

[3:34:31] >> if I may, I think we previously

[3:34:33] asked for an agenda item to be added,

[3:34:36] a future agenda item of a housing task

[3:34:38] force because I think what we're

[3:34:40] looking for isn't just the reporting

[3:34:42] of information but what can we do with

[3:34:45] that information and how can our city

[3:34:49] work best to -- because I think I'm

[3:34:53] hearing what you're saying is that the

[3:34:55] amount of building that will be

[3:34:58] required doesn't address the actual

[3:34:59] problem of affordability, right,

[3:35:02] because in order to even meet those

[3:35:05] numbers, so I think the reporting of

[3:35:06] it is one thing which annually sounds

[3:35:10] to me like it suffices but we have the

[3:35:15] second ability to see what our city

[3:35:19] can do to act upon those numbers and

[3:35:22] help us guide our policy on what we

[3:35:25] can even do to address that, so it's a

[3:35:30] two segmented, you know, area that I

[3:35:33] say one is the reporting which I think

[3:35:36] is very helpful and stefan e-mailed

[3:35:38] and you say we saw the numbers and

[3:35:40] it is very helpful and that's one

[3:35:43] component of it.

[3:35:44] the other is the what do we do about

[3:35:48] it which is the task force which I

[3:35:50] think we already have as a future

[3:35:52] agenda item.

[3:35:53] >> it's scheduled for october.

[3:35:54] >> the task force, what are they

[3:36:00] going to do, appeal to

[3:36:01] sacramento.

[3:36:03] >> we explore what options we can do

[3:36:05] and whether or not we communicate the

[3:36:07] information which is what you're

[3:36:09] asking and getting the information out

[3:36:11] there, the task force, one of the

[3:36:14] functions may be, hey, how do we

[3:36:16] communicate this to let our residents

[3:36:19] know, so it inverses them more

[3:36:21] flexibility and it's more nimble than

[3:36:25] just a city reporting requirement.

[3:36:28] so I just implore you to consider that

[3:36:30] as a vehicle for doing what we need to

[3:36:33] do versus having staff dedicate a lot

[3:36:35] of time to report out numbers.

[3:36:38] we can get those numbers and then

[3:36:40] with the task force actually work with

[3:36:42] our residents and work with our

[3:36:45] public officials to do something with

[3:36:47] those numbers.

[3:36:48] >> councilmember charelian?

[3:36:49] >> thank you, mayor, and, you know, I

[3:36:53] brought up this item because it's on

[3:36:58] everybody's mind, it's the number one

[3:37:01] thing that is happening in this city

[3:37:04] and the town, it used to be streets,

[3:37:10] [inaudible] budgeters and now it's

[3:37:11] affordable housing and everything else

[3:37:13] that goes along with it.

[3:37:15] I'm for I know it's a complex process

[3:37:17] to get the annual report done, but

[3:37:21] mayor, would you be okay with less of

[3:37:23] a -- to do it twice a year but less of

[3:37:27] a comprehensive report.

[3:37:28] >> yes, just so people can understand

[3:37:30] what's happening.

[3:37:31] >> I think task force is important but

[3:37:33] we have not defined it.

[3:37:35] we are already behind because the

[3:37:38] public wants to know and if they're

[3:37:42] looking for us -- if this is something

[3:37:45] to do to be further transparent and

[3:37:47] give them more information, 180 days

[3:37:50] instead of 360 days, maybe it's a

[3:37:52] lesser approach versus a technical, an

[3:37:55] annual responsibility that we have but

[3:37:59] if you're okay with a --

[3:38:02] >> yeah, less technical is fine.

[3:38:06] >> that's our responsibility.

[3:38:07] >> it's getting the word out, why this

[3:38:11] nine story monstrosity is going to be

[3:38:13] going up next to your house.

[3:38:15] >> you have the --

[3:38:16] >> we have a second, yeah.

[3:38:19] >> who's the second?

[3:38:23] >> [inaudible].

[3:38:24] >> okay.

[3:38:25] >> I think we want the same thing.

[3:38:27] >> I think we have to find a way how

[3:38:30] to best move it forward, okay.

[3:38:32] >> okay, and I got a city manager

[3:38:34] report.

[3:38:35] >> sorry, mr. Mayor, item number

[3:38:37] 17, I think we need a third vote.

[3:38:43] >> that's right, I'm sorry, 17,

[3:38:45] consideration of a request by

[3:38:47] councilmember lesser and councilmember

[3:38:48] howorth to discuss potential code

[3:38:50] amendments to allow a farmers' market

[3:38:52] --

[3:38:53] >> third.

[3:38:54] >> there's your third.

[3:38:55] okay, so noted.

[3:38:57] n, city manager report?

[3:38:59] >> thank you, mayor, I would like to

[3:39:01] remind the council and the public that we

[3:39:03] are going dark on september 1 so there

[3:39:06] will be no council meeting until

[3:39:08] september 15th.

[3:39:12] >> great.

[3:39:13] >> thank you.

[3:39:14] >> city attorney report?

[3:39:22] >> nothing report this evening.

[3:39:24] >> okay, thank you.

[3:39:32] and then, I don't know, it says here

[3:39:34] closed session for q.

[3:39:37] >> only if needed.

[3:39:38] >> no, it was not needed so there is

[3:39:41] no action needed.

[3:39:43] >> so, r, adjournment to -- we will be

[3:39:47] adjourned until september 15th at 4

City Council Regular Meeting - August 18, 2026

Agenda

Transcript