CITY OF HERMOSA BEACHCITY COUNCILSPECIAL MEETING—STUDY SESSION AGENDA—REVISEDCall and Notice of Special Meeting:CLOSED SESSION & FY 2025-2026 BUDGET STUDY SESSIONTuesday, June 10, 2025Closed Session - 4:00 PM and Budget Study Session - 5:00 PMCouncil Chambers1315 Valley DriveHermosa Beach, CA 90254Councilmember Jackson Teleconference Location:Island Palms Best Western2051 Shelter Island DriveSan Diego, CA 92106 CITY COUNCILRob Saemann, MayorMike Detoy, Mayor Pro Tem Ray Jackson, Councilmember Michael D. Keegan, Councilmember Dean Francois, CouncilmemberDavid Pedersen, City Treasurer APPOINTED OFFICIALSSteve Napolitano, Interim City Manager Todd Leishman, Interim City Attorney EXECUTIVE TEAMBrandon Walker, Administrative Services DirectorMyra Maravilla, City ClerkAlison Becker, Community Development DirectorLisa Nichols, Community Resources DirectorLandon Phillips, Police Chief Joe SanClemente, Public Works Director AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices (ALD) are available for check out at the meeting. If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, you must call or submit your request in writing to the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or at [email protected] at least 48 hours before the meeting. PARTICIPATION AND VIEWING OPTIONS Hermosa Beach City Council meetings are open to the public and are being held in person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 and via teleconference/Zoom at the Businesses Center at the Island Palms Best Western at 2051 Shelter Island Drive, San Diego, CA 92106. Public comment is only guaranteed to be taken in person at City Hall during the meeting or prior to the meeting by submitting an eComment for an item on the agenda. As a courtesy only, the public may view and participate on action items listed on the agenda via the following: Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89968207828? pwd=bXZmWS83dmxHWDZLbWRTK2RVaUxaUT092 Phone: Toll Free: (833) 548 0276; Meeting ID: 899 6820 7828, then #; Passcode: 472825 eComment: Submit an eComment no later than three (3) hours before the meeting start time. Supplemental Email: Supplemental emails are available for agenda items only and must be sent to [email protected]. Supplemental emails should indicate the agenda item and meeting date in the subject line and must be received no later than three (3) hours before the meeting start time. Emails received after the deadline but before the meeting ends will be posted to the agenda the next business day. Emails received after the deadline but before the meeting ends will be posted to the agenda the next business day. Writings distributed to all, or majority of all, of the City Council after the agenda has been posted shall be available for inspection at the City Clerk's Office located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 during regular business hours. Please be advised that while the City will endeavor to ensure these remote participation methods are available, the City does not guarantee that they will be technically feasible or work all the time. Further, the City reserves the right to terminate these remote participation methods (subject to Brown Act restrictions) at any time and for whatever reason. Please attend in person or by submitting an eComment to ensure your public participation. Similarly, as a courtesy, the City will also plan to broadcast the meeting via the following listed mediums. However, these are done as a courtesy only and not guaranteed to be technically feasible. Thus, in order to guarantee live time viewing and/or public participation, members of the public shall attend in Council Chambers. Cable TV: Spectrum Channel 8 and Frontier Channel 31 in Hermosa Beach YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CityofHermosaBeach90254 Live Stream: www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda Cablecast App: Available on supported devices and smart TVs If you experience technical difficulties while viewing a meeting on any of our digital platforms, please try another viewing option.PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach has called a Special Meeting of the City Council to take place at 4:00 PM on June 10, 2025, to consider and take action on only those matters set forth on the agenda below.1.CLOSED SESSION—CALL TO ORDER 4:00 PM Public Comments: 2.ROLL CALL Public Comments: 3.PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE CLOSED SESSION AGENDA Public Comments: This Public Comment period is limited to Closed Session agenda items only. Public comment is limited to three (3) minutes per speaker.4.RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION Public Comments: 4.aApproval of Closed Session Minutes of May 27, 2025 Public Comments: 4.bCONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: Workers Comp Litigation Public Comments: Existing Litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)The City finds, based on advice from legal counsel, that discussion in open session will prejudice the position of the City in the litigation.Name of Case: Matthew Rushton vs City of Hermosa Beach, administered by Athens AdministratorsWCAB Case Number(s): ADJ not yet assignedAthens Claim Number(s): 24021514D.O.I.: 1/1/20244.cCONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Public Comments: Government Code Section 54957.6City Negotiator: Cynthia Stafford, Human ResourcesEmployee Organizations: Hermosa Beach Police Officers' Association and Professional and Administrative Employee Group4.dCONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION Public Comments: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Council on the advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City.Number of Cases: 1 (claim from A. Lindgren)5.CALL TO ORDER—STUDY SESSION Public Comments: 6.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Public Comments: 7.ROLL CALL Public Comments: 8.PUBLIC COMMENT Public CommentsHoward LeeWith re: to Civic Meetings being televised on the Hermosa Beach Public Access Spectrum Ch-8, vis-a-vis the budget, please tap on this comment and then tap on the UPDATED attachment for my eComment. Thank You.The public is invited to attend and provide public comment on the Study Session topic only. No general public comment will be taken during the Study Session. Public comments are limited to three minutes per speaker. The time allotted per speaker may be modified due to time constraints at the discretion of the Mayor or City Council. Another period is reserved for public comment on the Study Session topic only during item 12. No action will be taken on matters raised during public comment, except that the Council may take action to schedule issues raised during public comment for a future agenda. Speakers with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are encouraged to submit those comments directly to the City Manager.9.OPENING REMARKS Public Comments: 10.STUDY SESSION TOPIC Public Comments: 10.aOVERVIEW OF 2025-2026 BUDGET Public Comments: (Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)Link to Online Budget: 2025-2026 BUDGET11.COUNCIL QUESTIONS Public Comments: 12.PUBLIC COMMENT Public CommentsNancy SchwappachThis relates to CIP 114, Greenwich Village North Undergrounding District. Council may or may not be aware that we are at a critical point in this matter. The City has obtained bids for the civil work, which have come in over budget, even though the budget had a 40% contingency for construction costs. However, there is still a path forward with these bids, and getting ahead of the infrastructure work in the fire devastated areas, so long as the City Council approves issuing assessment bonds at its July 22, 2025 meeting, in order to get the assessments on the tax roll next year, saving $180,000 in capitalized interest and reserves on the bonds. Critical items to make this work include the City: i) swiftly qualifying the low bidder on the civil work; ii) swiftly obtaining from the utilities confirmation of their construction invoices/estimates; iii) issuing a Notice to Proceed for construction management and inspection to the firm which has been involved in this project from the beginning and is qualified with an "on call" contract with the City; iv) fully and quickly cooperating with its financial advisor to get the bond issuance on the July 22 agenda and preparing a staff report; and v) agreeing not to charge an adminstrative fee which if removed from the budget makes another $100,000 available for construction costs in excess of the budgeted amount. The engineering firm is prepared to undertake CM&I for a not to exceed amount which will help the budget. We do not understand why the City at this late date would solicit RFPs for the work, causing delays and likely insignificant, if any, savings. The financial advisor says they can prepare a staff report in a few days, once dollar amounts are finalized. We believe the City should not charge an administrative fee for at least the following reasons: i) The City has a stated policy to support undergrounding utility lines, which has become a higher priority given the need to hard infrastructure in the face of the devasting fires; ii) This project will likely fail with the current bids if the City insists on an administrative fee, this would require balloting a supplemental assessment from the property owners, getting new bids for the civil work and utilities, a delay of at least 6 months, and likely increased costs as the project would be closer in time to competing for resources with fire recovery efforts; and iii) it has been almost 5 years since the residents voted to establish this district. It should not have taken this long to get plans finalized and bids. The delays are do to lack of priority at the City, changing staff, former staff not being familiar with these projects and requiring outside consultants (paid for by property owners), and other delays entirely attributable to the City. These delays have undoubtedly added hundreds of thousands of dollars to the costs, all of which is paid by residents. In sum, I request Council direct staff to put utmost priority to getting this assessment bond on the July 22 Council agenda and waive any administrative fee. Thank you.Anthony HigginsThis ecomment should be posted under the general participation section of the open session. The resident in his ecomment below has chosen to trivialize the importance of the city speaking out against ICE for not identifying themselves when making arrests, throwing people into unmarked vans, not informing relatives where the are, denying them legal representation and shipping them out of state or country without due process. This is nothing short of US govt kidnapping and is not a laughing matter. Mr Shapiro's obscene comments in the ecomment below trivialize this behavior and do not reflect the views of this resident. Leonard ShapiroWhat are we doing to make sure ICE doesn’t affect our community? I’ve heard rumors that some Hermosa residents like Kent Allen and Matt McCool have offered to give dry HJs and BJs to all ICE officers.The public is invited to attend and provide public comment on the Study Session topic only. No general public comment will be taken during the Study Session. Public comments are limited to three minutes per speaker. The time allotted per speaker may be modified due to time constraints at the discretion of the Mayor or City Council. Another period is reserved for public comment on the Study Session topic only. No action will be taken on matters raised during public comment, except that the Council may take action to schedule issues raised during public comment for a future agenda. Speakers with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are encouraged to submit those comments directly to the City Manager.13.COUNCIL DISCUSSION Public Comments: 14.ADJOURNMENT Public Comments: No Item Selected Attachments (0) | Public Comments (0)This item has no attachments.This item has no public commentNancy Schwappach (No Position)This relates to CIP 114, Greenwich Village North Undergrounding District. Council may or may not be aware that we are at a critical point in this matter. The City has obtained bids for the civil work, which have come in over budget, even though the budget had a 40% contingency for construction costs. However, there is still a path forward with these bids, and getting ahead of the infrastructure work in the fire devastated areas, so long as the City Council approves issuing assessment bonds at its July 22, 2025 meeting, in order to get the assessments on the tax roll next year, saving $180,000 in capitalized interest and reserves on the bonds. Critical items to make this work include the City: i) swiftly qualifying the low bidder on the civil work; ii) swiftly obtaining from the utilities confirmation of their construction invoices/estimates; iii) issuing a Notice to Proceed for construction management and inspection to the firm which has been involved in this project from the beginning and is qualified with an "on call" contract with the City; iv) fully and quickly cooperating with its financial advisor to get the bond issuance on the July 22 agenda and preparing a staff report; and v) agreeing not to charge an adminstrative fee which if removed from the budget makes another $100,000 available for construction costs in excess of the budgeted amount. The engineering firm is prepared to undertake CM&I for a not to exceed amount which will help the budget. We do not understand why the City at this late date would solicit RFPs for the work, causing delays and likely insignificant, if any, savings. The financial advisor says they can prepare a staff report in a few days, once dollar amounts are finalized. We believe the City should not charge an administrative fee for at least the following reasons: i) The City has a stated policy to support undergrounding utility lines, which has become a higher priority given the need to hard infrastructure in the face of the devasting fires; ii) This project will likely fail with the current bids if the City insists on an administrative fee, this would require balloting a supplemental assessment from the property owners, getting new bids for the civil work and utilities, a delay of at least 6 months, and likely increased costs as the project would be closer in time to competing for resources with fire recovery efforts; and iii) it has been almost 5 years since the residents voted to establish this district. It should not have taken this long to get plans finalized and bids. The delays are do to lack of priority at the City, changing staff, former staff not being familiar with these projects and requiring outside consultants (paid for by property owners), and other delays entirely attributable to the City. These delays have undoubtedly added hundreds of thousands of dollars to the costs, all of which is paid by residents. In sum, I request Council direct staff to put utmost priority to getting this assessment bond on the July 22 Council agenda and waive any administrative fee. Thank you.Anthony Higgins (No Position)This ecomment should be posted under the general participation section of the open session. The resident in his ecomment below has chosen to trivialize the importance of the city speaking out against ICE for not identifying themselves when making arrests, throwing people into unmarked vans, not informing relatives where the are, denying them legal representation and shipping them out of state or country without due process. This is nothing short of US govt kidnapping and is not a laughing matter. Mr Shapiro's obscene comments in the ecomment below trivialize this behavior and do not reflect the views of this resident. Leonard Shapiro (-)What are we doing to make sure ICE doesn’t affect our community? I’ve heard rumors that some Hermosa residents like Kent Allen and Matt McCool have offered to give dry HJs and BJs to all ICE officers.Howard Lee (For)With re: to Civic Meetings being televised on the Hermosa Beach Public Access Spectrum Ch-8, vis-a-vis the budget, please tap on this comment and then tap on the UPDATED attachment for my eComment. Thank You.