CITY OF HERMOSA BEACHCITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING (STUDY SESSION) MINUTESTuesday, June 10, 2025Closed Session - 4:00 PM and Budget Study Session - 5:00 PMCouncil Chambers1315 Valley DriveHermosa Beach, CA 90254Members Present:Mayor Rob Saemann, Mayor Pro Tem Mike Detoy, Councilmember Ray Jackson, Councilmember Michael D. Keegan, and Councilmember Dean Francois Staff Present:Interim City Attorney Todd Leishman, Interim City Manager Steve Napolitano, Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker, City Clerk Myra Maravilla, Community Development Director Alison Becker, Community Resources Director Lisa Nichols, Deputy City Clerk Reanna Guzman, Public Works Director Joe SanClemente, Police Chief Landon Phillips, and Planning Manager Alexis Oropeza 1.CLOSED SESSION—CALL TO ORDER 4:00 PM Public Comments: Mayor Saemann called the Special Meeting to order at 4:04 p.m.2.ROLL CALL Public Comments: City Clerk Myra Maravilla announced a quorum. Councilmember Jackson attended the meeting virtually at the Island Palms Best Western, 2051 Shelter Island Drive, San Diego, CA 92106. This location was posted on the agenda.3.PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE CLOSED SESSION AGENDA Attachments | Public Comments1.SUPPLEMENTAL Public Comment for Closed Session.pdfThis Public Comment period is limited to Closed Session agenda items only. Public comment is limited to three (3) minutes per speaker.Mayor Saemann opened Public Comment. No public comment was provided.4.RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION Public Comments: The City Council recessed to Closed Session at 4:04 p.m.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: Mayor Saemann called the Budget Study Session to order at 5:22 p.m.6.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Public Comments: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Maurice Wright.7.ROLL CALL Public Comments: City Clerk Myra Maravilla announced a quorum. 8.PUBLIC COMMENT Attachments | Public Comments1.SUPPLEMENTAL Emailed Comments for Item 8.pdf2.SUPPLEMENTAL Emailed Comments for Item 8. POST DEADLINEpdf.pdfHoward 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.Mayor Saemann opened Public Comment. No public comment was provided.9.OPENING REMARKS Public Comments: Interim City Manager Steven Napolitano provided opening remarks.10.STUDY SESSION TOPIC Public Comments: 10.aOVERVIEW OF 2025-2026 BUDGET Attachments | Public Comments1.SUPPLEMENTAL PowerPoint for Item 10a.pdf(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)Link to Online Budget: 2025-2026 BUDGETAdministrative Services Director Brandon Walker provided a presentation.11.COUNCIL QUESTIONS Public Comments: Mayor Saemann provided comments. Interim City Manager Napolitano provided comments. Mayor Pro Tem Detoy provided comments and asked various questions. Director Walker provided information. Councilmember Francois asked various questions. Public Works Director SanClemente provided information. Police Chief Phillips provided information. Interim City Manager Napolitano provided information. Councilmember Keegan asked various questions. Director Walker provided information.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.In Person Public Comment: David Grethen John Burry 13.COUNCIL DISCUSSION Public Comments: Director Walker provided information. Councilmember Jackson provided comments. Councilmember Francois asked various questions.14.ADJOURNMENT Public Comments: The meeting was adjourned at 6:14 p.m. The City Council recessed before the start of the regular meeting scheduled at 6:00 p.m.No Item Selected Attachments (0) | Public Comments (0)This item has no attachments.1.SUPPLEMENTAL Emailed Comments for Item 8.pdf2.SUPPLEMENTAL Emailed Comments for Item 8. POST DEADLINEpdf.pdf1.SUPPLEMENTAL PowerPoint for Item 10a.pdf1.SUPPLEMENTAL Public Comment for Closed Session.pdfThis 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.