[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