Everybody, this is the City of Beverly Hills City Council study session. It is August 20th, 2024, a little after 230. And we will start with public comment. First of all, if anybody in the chambers who would like to speak on any item, not on the agenda, we will start with that. Having seen anyone, we will go to electronic means. We do not have any public comment for non-agenda items. Okay, so we'll move on. We'll close public comment on non-agenda items and go to item number A1 recommendation by the Audit and Finance Committee regarding cost reductions and revenue enhancement opportunities. And we have Jeff Mure, who's going to present on that. Good afternoon, Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Members. We're here this afternoon to seek concurrence and some further direction on the recommendations from the Audit and Finance Committee regarding cost reduction and revenue enhancement opportunities. I'll be summarizing the written staff report. So as a reminder, on March 18th, the City Council was presented a mid-year financial update that included a 10-year general fund forecast which surfaced projected deficits in some of the coming years up through 2028-29. This was also the meeting where the Blue Ribbon Committee recommendations were first presented. In May, the proposed budget was brought forward, which included an updated five-year general fund forecast, continuing to show some significant potential deficits in those fiscal years through 2829. And while there are some significant one-time funds coming the city's way, there would still be deficits in some of those years if it were used and it is not a best practice to use one-time funding towards ongoing expenses. So the budget was approved with the understanding that measures to reduce spending or expand our revenue base would be needed. And the mayor directed that the process be coordinated through the Audit and Finance Committee as measures and strategies were identified for further exploration or analysis. The appropriate City Council liaisons or ad hoc would be leveraged for discussion and direction for items falling in their purview So as a reminder the 24 25 budget in anticipated a two million dollar deficit if you Kind of pay attention to this line here. This is sort of the projected total before the one-time public benefit contributions are taken into account. Council did authorize up to the 2 million to balance the budget for this year, but clearly further action is required. That's why we're here today to begin talking about addressing some of those out year projected deficits. your deficit, projected deficits. On July 9, the Audit and Finance Committee met to discuss and provide feedback on cost reduction and revenue enhancement opportunities. The graph here just summarizes the forecast from the previous page that pink line showing the forecasted deficits without one time revenues being taken into account. During the meeting it was recommended that some of the major expenditure areas like contractual services, travel and training, supplies and overtime be reviewed. Additionally, there were a number of both structural and ongoing budget reductions as well as short-term or one-time options that were considered or put forth for consideration. Those are summarized on this slide. This is in the staff report. I'm not planning to read it, line by line, but happy to come back and review any of it. Staff also provided some proposals, most of which are things that were mentioned on that previous slide for respective city council liaisons and ad hoc discussions, which could result in improved efficiencies and in some cases possible expenditure reductions. Again, this was in the staff report. And then finally, we at that audit and finance committee meeting, we just re-summarized some of the recommendations, most of which were revenue related that came out of the Blue Ribbon Committee. So as summarized on this slide, the committee provided direction. These things were also listed in the staff report summarized on the slide. There was also an attachment to the staff report which provided a tentative timeline. Today staff is seeking concurrence from the full City Council on the recommendations as well as any other recommendations, the city council may wish to provide. And that concludes my presentation. Staff is available for questions and direction. Okay, so with that, we will go to public comment. If there's anybody in chambers who has any public comment on this item will take that at this time Not seeing any we will go to our city clerk for any electronic means There are no public comments for this item Okay, so In terms of the liaison report just pretty much given where we're at in terms of the liaison report, just pretty much given where we're at in terms of establishing the future course in terms of a combination of both revenue enhancement and looking at expenditures to make sure that we have the efficiencies that we expect to have by looking at this more carefully. This is really just a work plan in terms of getting city councils input as to both enhancements and potential reductions. We want to bring it to everyone. The summary has been provided to us in both written form and on our screens. Anything you wanted to add, council member Wilson? No, just I would reiterate, as Jeff said, when we first came on in April as a new council in May and in June we finally approved the budget for this fiscal year which is 2425. So we're at the beginning of the cycle of looking at 2526 and I think that it's nice that we are having this focus now where we can identify the areas we want to focus on in terms of looking for reductions and expenses or if there's inefficiencies so by department or with our, you know, within our contracts and over time as well as potentially looking at zero-based budgeting. I think that we really covered a broad scope of, you know, the budget in different areas where our expenses are including CIP. So I appreciate having this early start and having a schedule for us to be moving forward on. Ideally, we'll be able to look at that. We really focused mostly on expenses at this point. And then aligning that with the priorities for the council and with the mayor for the following year, I think it's going to be a nice new improvement in this new way of doing it. It's not entirely new, but in a different way. Okay, so with that, we'll go to councilmember questions and starting with councilmember Wells if you have any further questions. I do not. Thank you. We'll move on to councilmember Corbyn. Thank you. Thank you, Jeff, for the comprehensive report. It's sounded interesting. I have one question. Looking at the blue ribbon suggestions, when we're talking about parking revenue recapture, it mentions that in 2011, the voters in Beverly Hills past measure 2P, 2R Free Parking Initiative, which made 2Rhour free parking mandatory at most the non-meter parking loss owned by the city. So does that mean that if we wanted to change the two-hour parking, not that we do, but if we wanted to change the two-hour parking program, would we have to go back to the voters? No. Okay. I was looking at the wrong person. I was looking at the wrong person. No. When that measure, we had initially prevailed in the trial court before that measure is even on the ballot to get that measure from, keep that measure off the ballot because it was not a proper measure to put on the ballot. The Court of Appeal eventually issued a temporary stay in, I want to say, December of that year, allowing it to go on the ballot. So the trial court said it shouldn't go on the ballot. The Court of Appeal issued a temporary stay indicating that it could proceed on the ballot or staying the trial court sort of to keep it off the ballot. So it went to election. It passed at the election. We then filed a lawsuit saying this is not a valid measure. And we ended up settling that lawsuit. Part of the settlement was that we agreed to keep to our free parking in the lot on Bedford, I believe, until 2017. That has since expired. So we are not at this point. Oh, and then that was a settlement. We were entitled to continue that lawsuit without opposition to invalidate that measure. It was invalidated. So we are not bound by the measure. But in the settlement agreement, we agreed, as I just mentioned, a minute ago, to keep to our free parking through 2017 at the Bedford Lot. And of course now it's post 2017. So we are free of any obligations with regard to the two out of free parking. All right, that was a basic my question. Thanks. Okay, Council Member Mirish. Just echoing Council Member Cormam, this eros, these suggestions eros from the Blue Ribbon Committees. The work, correct? Yes, these summarized on the slide, yes, correct. Was it discussed at all? The notion of maybe the city becoming a charter city which would give more latitude to do things like documentary transfer taxes and other things. Did that subject come up? I think I would say it came up in conversation but there was no recommendation or. It came up in the ad hoc or it came up in the blue ribbon during the blue ribbon committee just didn't come up in the ad hoc. What as far as you know was discussed. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay, vice mayor. Thank you very much. Thank you to the liaisons and to staff for establishing this. I just want some clarity right now. We're just looking at basic suggestions right now, right? This is an actual recommendation that are going to be taken into effect, right? Yes, this is really just establishing a framework to the general framework, the timeline, and not we're not making any specific recommendations today. Right. And once the timeline is established and perhaps like when, uh, what whoever's on the liaison, when the liaison starts to look at these things, how often is it going to be brought to council just to make sure that we're all on the same page as we move forward? Is there a plan in place for that yet? So I think our time, so yes, ish. I think our timeline calls for the liaison work to be done by, I think it's sort of, I think it's sort of October-ish. Let me look here. Yes. So our early liaison work would be done. Thank you. Around October 2nd. If there are sort of major decision points along the way, we could certainly bring those, you know, to counsel in between. But the idea would be by October 2nd to kind of wrap up all of the recommendations and then bring them forward as a package. Around that same time, we're hoping to bring our priority setting so that those will hopefully kind of dovetail with each other. So that hopefully kind of dovetail with each other. So that's kind of the rough timeline, but if there's a major question or maybe there's one liaison member that fills one way, one that fills another, obviously we could bring that to council and have discussion sooner. I guess depending on how many liaison meetings are going to be held, I would just want to see this come to council as often as possible just to make sure that we're all working towards the same goals of what we're looking at. When you say zero-based budgeting options, is that based on the entire budget? Are you looking at only for the carryovers? What portion of our budget are you looking to do the zero-based budgeting on? Well. So let me start and Jeff can correct me. So the liaison's talked about zero-based budgeting. You know, the concept behind zero- based budgeting, which I know the council knows, but just in case there are folks watching that down, is basically in whatever area you're looking at, you say, essentially, we're going to start from zero. And we're going to build up from zero based on the program of service or the operation that we're looking for. So conceptually, it's pretty compelling approach. In practice, I think it can get pretty challenging in some areas of the operation. So I'll just pick on the police department. The majority of any department in the city is personnel, right? And so unless we're willing to say we'll live with fewer than 150 police officers, that's already built in, right? So why go through the brain damage of building up the budget from zero to 150 officers? So what the liaison spoke about and please jump in if I am not characterizing it correctly was looking at particular areas of the budget over the course of time. So not biting off the whole city in one year, not necessarily looking at every operation starting from zero and going forward. What we could do is look at areas like the CIP, so capital improvement program, as councils aware, the way we do the CIP right now is we start, we have kind of a five year program that we lay out. But we do carry over quite a bit of money every year, right? So, projects sometimes don't complete on time. They come in under budget. Some of the funds we have are just in case funds. If something breaks, we have funding available to fix it. You could take a zero-based budget approach at least to some of the, you know, maybe the general fund area of the CIP and say, okay, we're not going to carry over money. We're going to build up the CIP from zero and make sure that all of the funding that's in there is what we want for the projects we want. I wouldn't necessarily do that for the enterprise funds and things like that where they already have a long range. So we talked about there being particular areas where we could go through the zero-based budgeting exercise over the course of time and really make sure that we are building up a budget that we know that we're interested in. From what I've read, it would be very challenging to do an overall database budgeting from scratch. Okay, I have some suggestions, but I'll wait until we go around again. Thank you very much. Okay, so in terms of, and I have no other question. Well, I have one of the questions how much is free parking actually cost well right I think I forget we were assuming like a one or two dollar fixed charge no I'm talking about how much does it cost right now it's's in a couple million dollars a year. $2.7 million. So free parking is free parking, but it's costing all of us our budget, $2.7 million right now from general funds. Well, it's the, I got a nod in it's the parking fund, but ultimately backstopped by the general funds. So and those are the kinds of things I think that we need to you know to look at I'm not I'm not saying that that it should go away it should stay but when we look holistically at all of our expenditures I think we need to make sure that we are allocating funds in the correct way so that it is the most beneficial to our residents. And I think that's really the goal that we all have here. So in terms of the direction, I don't know if you're, you're going to want it as a package. Are these things that the entire council agrees should be looked at. So basically all of the items on this slide down except for the final one were kind of the recommendations that came out of the Audit and Finance Committee. We're looking for general concurrence. We just want to make sure we're marching forward on the same page as the full council and with that concurrence we'll continue, we'll follow the draft schedule, we'll begin having these discussions, but we did want to provide if there are any other recommendations or things council members would like to put forward, this would also be an opportunity to do that. Okay, so with that in mind, shall we go around then? I just have one other question pertaining to the grid, if I may. Sure. I think what would be really helpful with regard to the options that are being provided is if there were actual numbers associated with it, even if it was ballpark numbers. Are we talking about a $20,000 savings or a $2 million savings? What are the numbers that we're looking at? And I think that would also make it a little more helpful to know, is that a direction we want to go in or we really don't want to waste half time in visiting that perhaps we can look at some of the larger items first and then go to the smaller things, you know. So I think we could have some more conversation around that. You know, I'll give you my personal opinion and then maybe that's something we could ask the Audit and Finance Committee to take a look at. Certainly, I would like to get us to a point where we at least have zeroes in our, you know, outgoing gears instead of parentheses around the numbers. I would really like to get to that point. I would really love to get away from using one-time funds to balance our budget, the sort of one-time development fees that are coming in. My the Big Audacious goal would be that we set our goals and maybe over time they become pretty big goals and we build some capacity in the budget where we can dedicate some money toward those goals. We are leaders in so many areas, you know, as a municipal government, and maybe we can become leaders in even other areas by setting our goals, focusing funding toward those things. So I guess that would be sort of my hierarchy. Let's get to zero. Let's try not to use one time funding and actually build some capacity so we can do amazing things. Great. Thank you very much. Okay, so let's go around and we'll start with customer wheels. Well, I obviously support the recommendations. I think to answer the question also, until we start to look at this and get into it, well we know what those range of those numbers look like. They're certainly focusing on the areas first where you think there is the greatest improvement or an area that needs to be looked at or hasn't been looked out for a while, but certainly not every single thing is at the same level. But I think the process is going to be an important process and as we go through it we'll start to see what that is and we're doing it now at this time which is great. So I really supported and I do. I think that not using the one-time funds and relying on that and building that capacity so that we can really look to the future of where we want the city to be and where we can be and allowing us to provide a focus in terms of the goals and as well as where the you know the resources will come from to be able to achieve those goals. I think is exciting for us as a city and we'll move us forward as well as addressing finding those zeros instead of being at a deficit. Okay thank you council member corpsman. Thank you so I mean I think it's important to stress that we're not deciding anything today other than you know engaging in a process to figure out where we can cut costs and potentially increase revenues. That said, I completely support this exercise. I'm very nervous about the deficits going forward. I note that you did a 10-year forecast, Jeff, back in March, and between March and June, some of the future years, the deficit's got even larger. So, I think this is something we need to get a handle on sooner rather than later. And I agree with respect to the potential cost savings areas to be looked at. I agree with all the options on page three of our report. The only one that I'm not sure I agree with would be the reconsider future metro security staff and substations. I think we have a commitment to security I'm not sure I agree with that would be the reconsider future metro security staff and substations. I think we have a commitment to security and we're mindful as we go forward, we want to keep those costs down as much as possible. So I'm not sure that needs to be looked at in the context of this exercise. I agree that the ultimate goal is not to use one time public benefits or even reserves to plug budget holes in an annual base. I think it's a bad idea. It hamstrings us from doing all sorts of good things going forward, including property acquisitions and creating new services for the community. So I do think this is a very important exercise. I think we should move forward with it. And again, we're not deciding anything. We're just deciding to look at these different issues and determine whether on the cost side, whether potentially the cost savings merit doing something. Maybe they don't. Maybe we're going to find out the cost savings are so little in some of these areas that we shouldn't touch it. And by the same token with revenues, we may decide some of the potential revenue sources aren't that great that we don't want to do it, or maybe they are. And I think that's the way to find that out is to engage in the exercise of staff is suggesting. I think we should do it and I approve the timeline also that staff is proposed. I just add one thing. Good. I think when I was thinking, when this was on from Metro, when we were talking about Metro, we were talking more about how the contracts, whether it's the arm guards are, what that composition looks like, and above ground, below ground. So it's not to try and cut anything because I agree and we all agree that our security in Metro is a number one priority. It's about, is this the most efficient way now that we are more focused about how we're approaching it? Councilmember. Thank you. we are more focused about how we're approaching it. Councilor Emerson. Thank you. And I think this exercise is excellent. It's based on fiscal responsibility. We should not be using one-time funds for filling holes unless we're just doing it as a temporary stopgap solution because we have a longer term solution. And so we're looking at a number of things and it all adds up. That's the whole point is we can do a number of things. We don't have to use a hatchet when in some cases we can use a scalpel to be more efficient and provide better value for money. I really think that concept is not something that government at any level is known for, value for money. I really think that concept is not something that government at any level is known for, value for money, but that should be at the forefront of our thoughts. And anything that we're doing, as I suggested, I think we should look at the potential of becoming a charter city. There are other advantages as well. There may be some disadvantages, but it certainly gives more flexibility when looking at certain kinds of revenue. And again, not all taxes are equal. I mean, I think we love our hotel tax because it's not paid for by the residents. That, to me, is the best tax. And, you know, we don't want to go to the well too often or to push it too far. But as said, there may be other potential taxes that are available to us as a charter city. When it comes to parking, yes, I was around with that whole, that was about free parking for basically medical, those owners have moved on. And also we were at a very different time. That was a time where you, I think the century city mall had three hours of free parking. The Beverly connection, the Beverly center had three hours of free parking. None of them have free parking now. And the notion of charging a buck in hour or something, clearly they've seen that that doesn't stop the volume of people that they have there. Jeff, how much if we charge a buck in hour for the first three hours, how much revenue would that alone provide us? I think our estimate was around two to three million. We can do a better refined look at that. But well, two to three million is clearly a significant amount. And again, it all adds up. So from my perspective, as much as I supported and like the idea if we can afford it a free parking, I don't like it if it means that we're not going to be able to provide other services. And I certainly do not want to see any reduction in security. I think that is something that everybody who's sitting here agrees with. Again, it doesn't mean that we need to be wasteful when it comes to spending, but getting that value for money. As to the last point in the, I guess in that chart about the second chart, which would have been about recouping additional development costs. So I've mentioned before and I think we should be looking at an exit study and doing exit studies. I think market rate, new development needs to pay its way. And I think you will probably find that we are subsidizing. And that's a problem. Now, I get it. Developers, we heard Dave actually wrote an article. So if anyone's interested, I guess I'm allowed to say this. It's a public meeting, correct? In City Watch LA about the need for nexus studies and what we could do. But Dave ran when he was here, said, oh, there are three kinds of lies, lies down lies in Nexus studies. Well, on the one hand, you have market rate developers who tell us about how expensive it is to develop. And no question it is. But I guess my mantra in the article and my mantra here, and also I mentioned this at the ICA conference recently as is, and this is something all of us here know. It's not cheap to run a city, especially if you want to do a good job, especially if you want to provide services, especially if we want to provide our residents with the services they deserve. It's not cheap to run a city. And so an exit study by law, we're not allowed to charge more than it actually costs us. So we're not allowed to gouge. We have to be able to show that there is a direct relation between what we are charging to the impacts of a project. But I think we need to do that. And I think you'll find that we are seriously subsidizing some of these projects. Now again, I say market rate if we're talking about affordable housing and things that are of a benefit to the community. In other ways, that's a different situation. But I think the time has not only come for us as I wrote, but for all cities to look at nexus studies as ways of covering costs. And those costs can include increased services. You have more people, you probably need more services and more people to provide those services. And in some cases increased capacity of infrastructure. Again, some of these costs are the result of decisions that we don't make ourselves that are made by Sacramento politicians. In many cases for special interest groups. But one thing they make very clear is that we know that under Article 13, B Section 6, unfunded mandates from the state are not allowed. And their way out of that is to say, well, this isn't an unfunded mandate because you can charge fees to cover your costs. Well, in lieu of Sacramento actually paying for our additional costs, I think that's the root that we have to go. And if they feel that the fees are too onerous, then Sacramento can gladly help us make up the difference and make us whole. So I definitely think that we should look at that. Aside from that, I'm in agreement with the timeline. I'm in agreement with all of looking at all of these things. Again, it builds on the Blue Ribbon Committees work and there may be other ideas that come to us and we should be open to looking at whatever that is. Obviously, you know, I'd say low hanging fruit kind of is parking because times have changed and we heard that the commitment of the city expired in 2017, that's seven years ago. And it's great to be able to provide free parking. It really is, but as said, the world around us has changed. And also I think we're probably significantly losing revenue. A police would maybe have to tell us because of disabled placard abuse, where you have people parking on the streets, who are staying there all day or for a long period of time and not paying in the meter spaces which should provide revenue. Anyway, I thank the subcommittee for its work and onward. Thank you. Vice Mayor Nazarian. Yes, thank you very much. I agree. I appreciate the work of the Liaisons or subcommittee and I think that this is this is we're going to have to start making some tough decisions. We're going to have to start getting deep into ways to support our budget again without tapping into our one time funds or public benefits and or to tap into our Reserves because really those are saved for emergencies and this isn't an emergency in my case COVID wasn't on an emergency This is something that we need to do a better job of just managing our finances and I'm very confident that We will be able to get there. I appreciate that we're starting earlier. I really think that's going to be key. There's so many aspects of our budget that we look at once decisions have already been made. We look at events once they've already spoken to their event hosts and made decisions and then we're told this is it and we really don't have a say in in in altering anything because they say but we've already done all the work so I think that this is going to be um the recommendations that are here are great I I support all of them uh with regard to the zero base budgeting. As I mentioned, I would support not all of our departments at once, but as it was suggested that it would be in segments or perhaps we start with the carryovers. That's probably as mentioned, low hanging fruit. With regard to, I think that one area that we really haven't looked at is with regard to some of the plans that we have, the federal government is now including millions of dollars with their homeless initiatives that they have. And I think that it's time for us to look at some of that. It would be helpful to look at the funds that we're putting aside. And are there things that we're doing to comply with the old laws? Or that have good value. I mean, we may want to keep a lot of them in place, but I think that now that some of those federal laws have changed as far as the unhoused and what we need to provide as a city, perhaps that's an area of great benefit that we can start to look at to also revisit. And other than that I appreciate the committee's work and I think that they're going to have some hard work ahead but I'm confident that they'll be able to do it. Thank you. Okay so obviously I believe that these are the items that we need to look at. This is not going to be pretty. I mean, you know, cutting services or some sort of benefits, whoever is going to be the most effective is not going to be pleased if we have to increase revenue sources. People are not going to be pleased. We're going to have to do it surgically with a scalpel, as was mentioned. But it's going to hurt. It's not going to, it's not just going to come easy. And I think we all have to be prepared for that. People are just going to have to have the buy-in eventually as to whatever the overall plan is. We'll need to hear about it. In terms of development in the city of Beverly Hills, I think that's something that we need to have our eyes wide open about. I think that those are potential sources of additional revenue. The, we have to make sure that when we do things that we don't further discourage development in the city of Beverly Hills, I think we have enough discouragement that is going on right now. I hear from people who want to build things that they follow all the rules and they still are blocked in some way, shape, or form from converting their dream development into a reality. So I think that we need to be careful in looking at all of those things that we don't suppress potential avenues of revenue. And that we also, if we have to increase revenues in some way that we don't suppress, let's say, sales that are going on in our community. I think we're all going to look at all of that when we come up with whatever the final plan is. But in terms of looking at it surgically, I think this is the beginning. We just wanted to have a check-in to make sure that we were on the right path. It looks like at least with the ideas we're on the right path, we'll see with the execution as we get along. Okay, so with that, we will move on to number two. Discussion of- Thank you, Joe. Discussion of free speech zones at special events hosted by the City of Beverly Hills and our city manager looks like she's going to be presenting on this item. Okay, good afternoon. Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. Today we are here to start the conversation about creating free speech zones at events that are hosted by the city. So what is a free speech zone you might ask? So what we are thinking about is we have had more frequently individuals who are interested in expressing their ideas at some of the city hosted events, whether it be the art show or concours or different forums. Sometimes when these individuals express their opinions or their ideas, it can be very disruptive to the flow of the event. Sometimes our events are very, very crowded. If you think about the Concord, Daelagons, it can be very, very crowded. And further it generates complaints. People are wondering why this activity is taking place, and it's not compatible with the event that's going on. So we are presenting the concept of creating a free speech zone, which would be basically a location, which would allow individuals to, where individuals could express their rights to the freedom of speech, and the substantial government interest in public safety at events. So it would balance the ability to practice free speech, but it would also provide a safe place where people can pass and do activities that are compatible with the event. So this own would be an area where individuals would be permitted to solicit other individuals about their political and non-political causes at city-hosted events. As councils are aware, we are able to set some reasonable time place and manner restrictions, which allow for the free flow of pedestrian traffic and promote safety. But it's also intended to give individuals a place where they can express their ideas without interrupting the scheduled event that's taking place. I think that for our discussion today, it might be useful to talk about city events and then farmers market us two separate things. So let's just talk about events first. So the idea would be for every event that we hold in the city, so everything from concerts on Canon to the art show to Concours. We would establish a free speech zone, which would be available throughout the duration of the event. Depending on the number of people who are interested, we would have a space that would be designated, a limited space that would be available for members of the public. The number of spaces would be determined based on the event space. So if it's a smaller venue, then maybe a few chairs and a table. For a larger venue, it could be a couple of tables and multiple chairs. The idea would be that the zone would be available on a first-come, first-served basis. So it would be based on sort of who gets their first. Individuals would be allowed to use this space once a month unless no one else is using this space at that time and then the person could reuse the zone. So let's think about concerts on Canon as an example. I need to express my views on, you know, something. And so I would be able to go to the free speech zone once each month during the summer. Express my views. If no one else is using the zone on the other weeks, I could then use it. Individuals would not be permitted to use sound amplifying devices, bull horns, that sort of thing, or devices that may obstruct the event. So again, if you think about concerts on Canon, someone using a bull horn could be very disruptive to a concert. And so in the free speech zone, individuals would be able to interact with concert goers, share their views, but they would not be permitted to use sound appleifying devices. I guess we can talk about the farmer's market separately from that. So the farmer's market separately from that. So the farmer's market, unlike our events, have sort of rules that are established for the market. So if people are interested in engaging in activities that involve free speech, they are allowed to do it on the perimeter of the market. So the outside of the market kind of where you enter there in the parking lot, that sort of thing. Those rules are already in place. We could continue with those rules. We have had some pushback about that. People wanting to express themselves in the market, whether it's political views or religious views, that sort of thing. We could additionally, for the farmers market, set up a free speech zone in the market. But we would continue to allow people to practice their free speech on the perimeter of the market as well. So we are asking that the City Council provide some direction on pursuing the possibility of an ordinance to establish and implement a free speech zone asking that the City Council provide some direction on pursuing the possibility of an ordinance to establish and implement a free speech zone during events hosted by the city. If you are so inclined to move in this direction, we can bring an ordinance to you at an upcoming meeting and forward from there. So with that, we're happy to answer any questions. Okay, we will go to public comment on this item. If there's anybody in chambers who would like to speak on this item, now would be the time. Not seeing any, we will go to electronic means with our city clerk. We do not have any comments for this item. And with that we will go, we will close public comment on the item and go to councilmember comments and direction. I'm sorry, questions, comments and direction. Okay. Thank you. I have a couple questions about the once a month how that could be monitored. So you're going to have to put staff or someone that's monitoring when individuals are in that zone. So they have to provide their name or something that you know, how are you going to control that or manage that. And there will be staff time I'm sure that will get allocated to that as opposed to we do need more staff because of that and also that would be my first question. Oh, it's a great question. So we talked preliminarily about that issue. At almost all of our events, if not all of our events, we do generally have a staff table or an information booth or something of that nature that is available. So the thought was we could keep, I mean, real low tech, literally keep a clipboard at the information booth or at the staff table and have spaces if there's four chairs, there would be four spots and people could sign up in that way. And it's not an issue from a free speech standpoint to ask people for their name to sign up to be able to be in that space. I will turn to our student. And what if they don't want to give their name? They would need to give something as an identification. I can't think of what they'd give other than their name, but in order to use the free speech stone, they would have to give something that would indicate who they are. So we could keep track of who has participated in the past. Right. So you can control how many people are in the space. Can you control how long they're in the space? So say I'm in there for 20 minutes, and I leave, and I want to come back in, and I'm kind of in and out the whole time. Is, you know, how do you manage that if then other people are there? Like, it's once a month for the whole time you want or it's once a month when you walk out, it's now available for others. I just think those types of questions logistically, one, can you control that and can you legally control all of those parameters and how will you do so so that it's effective? That would be just a thought about that. You don't have to answer that question right now. The other thought that I had about that was if the space, say they say it's full and they can't go in, where do they go? Say they're there for free to actually for that reason and there's no space. What does that mean? Do you tell them they, I just don't know how you handle that logistically. And I'm curious what we would do in that regard. I guess you could expand this space or I don't know. But just from a logistic standpoint, it seems like that could be potentially logistically challenging. And then the other thing is really that there's gotta be some impact to it. And I just kind of dovetailing off of our discussion around budgeting and how we manage our expenses and make decisions. There, you know, I know that you may have stuff there that could go check, but I just think from a setting it up, creating the space, depending how big it is, managing that space. I think there is time and also just setting things up and I know that gets generally absorbed in the overhead or the soft cost but I think it's important that we try and put some estimate to how much time we think that is or just some sort of numbers around that because it is time and focus. So if that person wasn't managing that area, what's that? What do we lose because that person now was doing that? Because I know that they would be there because it would be important. It would be staffed appropriately. So if they're not doing that, what were they doing in lieu of that? And what would we lose on those events? I think it is important for the events because we put so much investment into those events and we want to keep them enjoyable for everybody. So I like the idea, but I'm a little challenged with how we'll execute in that way. Yes. And I'll maybe check off a few questions and I think it's good food for thought so that when we come back we can have a more informed approach. I think how we envisioned it as we would set up time slots. So, you know, conchora is of six hours, maybe six hours long. So maybe you would have, because it's a longer event, maybe we would have one hour slots and you would sign up for your one hour slot. I do think it's a good question of, like, who's timekeeping and who's checking and all of those kinds of things. So that's a point very well taken. and who's checking and all of those kinds of things. So that's a point very well taken. If the zone is full, I believe the direction could be very similar to the farmer's market, which is we are full to capacity in the free speech zone. However, you are welcome to go to the edge of the event space on the sidewalk or somewhere similar and you can certainly express your views there. You can't set up a table in chairs and all of that kind of thing, but you are welcome to go to the perimeter of the vent and conduct your speech activities there. I don't think we fully answered all of your questions and so I think when we come back we can more broadly address them. Thank you. I like the idea of it. Thanks. Thank you. So you're looking for direction, the direction to move forward and then we will look at it at that time. Okay. Councillor Mouricorme. Thank you. So, obviously we've seen instances and some of our events, there's been some disruptive behavior. So this type of program I think could be desirable. But obviously when you talk about a free-speed zone, you're talking about an area that people who want to speak are being limited to and then outside that zone if there's a speech prohibition. And we do have the ability to have time, place, and manner restrictions on speech in public areas. But as you also know, the first moment there are limitations to those restrictions. So a few questions, one. Have there been similar ordinances adopted by any other cities in California? That's a good question. I don't know whether any other city has adopted a similar ordinance. I haven't done that research. No city that I'm aware of in the local area has but I haven't looked beyond that. So next you've given a few details in the type of program we might be interested in. With respect to each of those details, is that sort of a wish list detail or is that a detail that has been analyzed with respect to the existing First Amendment law? I think I'm answering your question and if I'm not, please get me back on track. So we've been working closely with somebody from Richard's Watson-Nenggershon that has some training and expertise in First Amendment and I believe she's kind of walked with us hand in hand through this to try to ensure that the measures that are laid out here would meet the criteria for First Amendment. I'm not sure if I answered that. Yeah, no, that's right. Okay. So basically these are, it sounds like these are ideas the staff is generated and then they've sort of been run by an attorney to give an idea whether they'd be feasible. Yes. So, understanding that, I mean, I'm supportive of the concept if it's doable. What I would like is before it comes back to the council for a formal or study session, I'd like to have the next meeting on this at a closed session to talk about the potential, if it's possible, talk about potential provisions and the legal background for each provision. So when we come forward with an ordinance, we're all comfortable that the law supports it, if that's doable. I don't believe that that's doable in a closed session. However, I'm happy to discuss, give you a memo and discuss the legal issues in public or with council members individually. So I mean, I just, I think I would be, I mean, going forward, I would feel more comfortable once we see what the parameters are, what the laws and what case law supports us and potentially doesn't support us so I could make an informed decision whether I think this is going to work or not because it's all well and good if we like the program we adopt but if it leaves the litigation and ultimately losing litigation that doesn't serve anybody any good. So, as again, I'm supportive with the idea, it would be desirable to the extent we can do it. I like to do it, but I just need to feel comfortable we can do whatever we're talking about doing before we actually approve it. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Murray. Thank you. And I agree with that assessment that the notion of is the notion of, is it legal to it, to, you know, maybe it is at an event like that. And that's separate that maybe you have to have different rules for the concerts and for the parks and that sort of thing. As to the farmer's market, we should talk about specifics of that as well. I know that we have banned electioneering there. I think that's good. On the other hand, I know approaching people or if, you know, for commercial purposes, that shouldn't be allowed. But I've seen, for example, Rabbi Kuhn in there and he, people will see him and they'll say, hey, can I, you know, wrap to fill in? And I know there was an issue with that and I don't think there should be when it comes to something. As assuming he's not blocking anything, we need to talk about specifics about that. So, but in principle, assuming it's all legal, I would be supportive too. Thank you. Vice Mayor Nussarra. Yes, thank you very much. Thank you for the report. I too believe that this is an area that we need to look at, but I do think that we still need a lot of work to get to a place where we're going to feel comfortable with it. The last thing that I would want to do is to punish free speech or to be punitive or to restrict it in a way that wouldn't allow people to have their, that would invoke in their rights. And when I read some of this, it seems like there's a lot. There's a lot that is going to involve staff time. There's a lot that's going to involve details. And then what does that bring to us? Then that brings how are we going to enforce it? Somebody doesn't do what you just said. That's what that's the part we really need to start thinking about more than anything because then our hands are tied. So we don't want to, you know, we are a small community and we want to encourage community interaction. What comes to mind for me and I'll use it as an example, perhaps you guys could think about it when you're thinking about the details for this the next time we go about, we have 11 candidates that are running. 11 candidates want to be able to utilize the farmers market to be able to speak to our residents who come through the farmers market. I don't personally see a problem with that. We don't allow people to campaign in farmer's market, so we want them to have a specific area. There's only six weeks before election time. We're only allowing one person per zone. So then we're not giving every candidate a fair chance at being able to present in the desired location. These are little things that may not really be relevant, but I think they're important for us to think about. You know, it says that it's a first come first serve. You know, some people may understand the system better than somebody else. So that may be limiting. Sometimes people were concerned about know those laws better than anybody else. When we say no megaphone, bull horns are amplified. So is that including the Beverly Hills sign? There's oftentimes people who stand there who are using those items. How again, what is enforcement going to look like? Are we going to be consistent with everyone to say that those items cannot be used? And this issue was brought up and I wrote it down as well. Who's going to be monitoring? Who will keep track? This is a lot of staff time. And also about religious activities that was also a concern that I had that I share with council member Marish. Again, we want if somebody's coming to prostitutize and ask people to change that may be a different scenario than somebody who says, oh, I want to rept fill in. That's something that I want to do and to allow them. And I'm happy to let you speak to that. But also the last thing is tables, chairs. Again, do we need all the tables and chairs? And I understand if it's at the desk, but do we want those people to come at the desk and stand next to our staff and talk about whatever? Then it looks like it's a city-funded resource. So again, that feels uncomfortable to me. I wouldn't want somebody wanting to run for whatever, standing next to it. Then it looks like we're endorsing someone. So these are all little things that I think are really important for us to be mindful of, and to look at, and also to be fair to everyone who would want to be able to be participating in it. So I completely, there are a lot of things to think through without a question. I think that those are the comments that we're hearing. And you know, it's a difficult issue, you know, allowing people to express their free speech rights is, you know, it's the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It's one of the highest values we have as a country. And so it's mostly trying to find a way to accommodate the free speech, but allowing an efficient and safe program to move forward. I do think the other thing we have to keep in mind is, as unsavory as it could be, that if you allow certain types of speech, you have to allow those types of speech regardless of the perspective. And so, you know, I don't wanna, let's say that we feel comfortable having a priest from Good Shepherd come and give blessings to people at the farmer's market. I think we have to also feel comfortable allowing and mom from a Muslim mosque come and and similarly, you know, do the same and you know, kind of on and on the the I don't know satanic whatever, whatever, of the whatever, you know. And so, so that's why I'm saying, I think these are all things that we need to kind of iron out. I'm not saying it should be one way or the other. But I think that it's something that we need to be proactive and think about so that we are prepared. I really appreciate that you are being proactive and thinking about it. I think this, the next few months are going to be quite interesting. What is, it's punishable by Title I, Chapter 3 of the Municipal Code. Can you tell us exactly what that is and how that's enforced? I can tell you. Thank you. So that's where the penalties for the municipal code violations are located. So there are three potential penalties for violation of the municipal code. There's a misdemeanor, which is the most severe penalty. There's an infraction, which is second most severe. And then there's an administrative citation. I'd be happy to go into what the penalties are for misdemeanors and fractions administrative citations if you would want. But that's essentially what chapter three of Title I has. And as a city, would we be able to make, not just for this issue, I'm just wondering with regard to the penalties that are in place, would we be able to create additional penalties? Like we're just, this is about free speech, but let's say somebody pops up a tent somewhere. And would we be able to put additional penalties in place as a municipality to be able to restrict some of those things or no? With very, very rare exceptions, no. That's where we are. The maximum penalty that we can impose for a violation of the municipal code is a misdemeanor. If you're thinking of more substantial penalties. And that's something that we could prosecute obviously. It would go well, no, we can prosecute. Well, we can prosecute violations of the municipal code. And again, that is, and we do prosecute violations of municipal code, up to misdemeanors. If you get into state law violations, which have greater penalties, that we have to use the DA for. It's almost better than- Currently, currently as the law stands right now. Okay, great. Those are my questions. I think you, where I'm going with it. Thank you very much. So also just to be clear here in favor of the direction of coming back to council with some form of suggestion as to pursuing an adoption of an ordinance? Thank you for asking. I think that it needs to really be cleaned up into, but definitely think through to make sure that it's fair and not too limiting so that we don't inference on people's rights. I think this is going to take a lot of work. But it's really a matter of just going down that road. You don't have a problem going down the road to see where we wind up. Right. To explore. OK. Thank you. OK. Right. To explore. Okay. Thank you. Okay. If I can ask Larry, in terms of municipal code citations, are we limited in what penalties can be assessed for municipal code violation? Yes. And is that by state law? Yes. You can have Mr. Wiener. You can have first violation, second violation, third violation, correct? Yes, when it comes to infractions, there are, well, and administrative citations, we do do different penalties depending on whether it's a first citation for a particular offense or a second citation or a third citation. Misdemeanors, there is one overall penalty. It doesn't really matter whether it's a first citation or a first violation or a second violation of the municipal code. So yes, there is a possibility to do if you wanted to do graded penalties. So I think where this whole issue came about is that people have the right of free speech, free expression. But when it infringes upon those people who also have a right to quiet enjoyment, that's where we have the clash. And I think that is really where this is coming from is a person's free speech right significantly impacting a person's quiet enjoyment. The only area where I have seen a free speech zone is and was at in West Hollywood during the parade there. And there was a group of people who are always there who are anti-gay and they set up a bullpen area and those people are pretty much okay staying in the bullpen area. They know that's their area and that seems to have worked. I think that we need to do this in a very limited manner at least initially. I think that we need to do this in a very limited manner at least initially. I think that we need to not try and solve all of our issues because if we try and solve all of our issues, I think we're going to have some of those dreaded unintended consequences that we always see. So my feeling on this is and I think I expressed it. I want to go down the road, but I think we need to do it very carefully, very surgically, perhaps not try and resolve all of the issues that we see, try and resolve the major issues, see how that works, and then move on. So I think that's really the feeling of all of us, and with that, I think we should go down the road and see where we wind up. I'd also like to make a request. I think that it's really important for us to know what breast practices are with other municipalities, especially those around us. And so if that could be a part of the reports that we receive, just what other cities are doing, what they do similarly or what they don't do, I think that would be really helpful in a sense so that we don't have to always reinvent the wheel. Of course, we always want to be leaders, but it's also important to have some of the information so that we can make our decisions according to that as well. Thank you. Okay. Direction is clear enough. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So that would be the end of our A items, I believe that Vice Mayor Nazarian would like to have some further information presented to the entire council on item number four. Yes, please. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. At our last liaison meeting for our legislative group, in light of recent insurance coverage issues and cancellations, especially in the hills and in the hills, and in the hills, and we had discussed it at previous meetings. I thought that this item would be important to just bring it as a form of public announcement. And so we asked Cindy to prepare and thank you for getting it done. I know that was quick, so we appreciate that. And I thought that we could just give her a couple minutes to make a brief presentation so that we are aware and the public is that are in place. And I might add, if I may, that the insurance crisis is creeping down. It's not just cruise day and the hillside, it is in the flats now and it is spreading. Yeah, I apologize. I don't mean that that's, but that's where it originated from. With the fire issues, but now I just thought that this would be important for us to be more and more about. I just want to emphasize that. Thank you, yes. Well, good afternoon mayor and the city council. It is my pleasure to bring this before you today as an informational report and also to make our residents aware of what our insurance commissioners trying to do To help protect the insurance rates here in California as we're aware there's been several wildfires That have devastated California throughout the state and several people have lost their homes several cities lost entire Blocks and or entire cities to wildfires. And so it's been some devastating impacts on the residents here. And the insurance companies then have to pay to rebuild those homes and those communities. And so we've seen this migration of insurance companies leaving the state because they feel that they can't recover their cost. And so there was initially a move by the state legislature specifically, Governor Newsom, to try to move some legislation forward to encourage insurance companies to stay in the state. And that happened in May of this year. He proposed some legislation and he could not get a single member of the state legislature to introduce it. So insurance commissioner Laura, under under his authority as insurance commissioner and as granted to him under Proposition 103 went ahead and released a bulletin. And he released the bulletin on August 9 as to what he intends to do to encourage insurance companies to stay in the state and offer affordable rates to homeowners here in the state. So that bulletin is an attachment to your report that outlines in essence the same thing that Newsom had proposed in his legislation. And some of the things they're trying to do is keep rates reasonable and guarantee to the insurance companies a timely review of their insurance increases so that they're reviewed to make sure that they're not making too much of a profit, but yet they're still not being overly onerous on the homeowner. And so anything over a 7% increases what really triggers this review by the insurance commission and they take a look at all of the data before deciding whether or not those insurance companies can increase their rates or not. Some of the problems with the reviews, they were taking 90 days or longer, but that was due to the insurance companies not submitting necessarily complete information or working with a third party and that third party causing delays. And so this bullet really kind of outlines the steps that they want to see taken to prevent the companies from fleeing the state and to also provide more affordable rates. Go ahead, that's cool. So I just wanted to say that I had the opportunity to meet with Commissioner Lara almost a year ago. It was at contract cities and he is well aware of the fact that insurance companies are fleeing the state and wants to do whatever he can to keep in there. The corollary to that is that what the insurance companies want is to be able, and making this probably more simple than it really is, they want to be able to model for disasters that occur in the future and based their rates on that modeling as opposed to experience. And that's kind of where the friction is right now is obviously rates will go up in modeling for the future as opposed to basing it on what has occurred in the past. But the question about that though. So let's say they modeled for it and it doesn't happen. They just pocket tremendous profits. There, you know, is that what happens? I am just saying what the challenge is. I'm asking, I don't know what the result would be. I believe the answer would be yes. I believe it would be too. Because... But in any event, if they're not covering their risk, if they're saying that the risk is greater than it actually is, that's a scam and there should be ways to protect against it. But yes, and I guess the difficulty arises because how do you monitor that? Because if there was an actual risk that occurred, then they have to have the coverage. So it's a very difficult. And then you bet, that seems to be the folkroom point as to where there is a problem. And I don't know, do you have anything to add on that point at all Cindy? Not coming straight from the commissioner's office. No, I do know Sacramento is just trying to look more into this. We've seen the fire season this year has also been devastating to several communities and we're not done yet. It's it's only the end of August. We still have September and October to go. We have Santa Ana wins that can come anytime September, October, November. And as the California Department of Fire and Forest would like to say there is no fire season. Fire season is now year round. It's 12 months a year. So we don't know what we'll see. And that's why future modeling may also not be a good indicator. With all the laws they're passing to make homes more fire hardened, are we really going to have devastating fires with proposals to do more vegetation trim back and the forest cut down on overwhelming fires? We'll see. Are they doing regulations for power safety shutoffs and high winds to stop the electrical lines from sparking fires? There's so many things that can be done to mitigate this. And so predicating a model in the future can be pretty difficult right now. I just say, I mean, I'm really grateful to hear that there's some movement on this in a focus. So, I know when we met last May and we talked about it when we were setting the priorities and identifying which legislation priorities that as a council we would want to be watching. I'm happy to see that this is a focus. I don't think they have a solution yet and I think as we've already started to discuss it's not an easy solution but I'm happy that there is discussion and there's movement so it's good news on that level. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments? If not, we will go on. Thank you very much for bringing us to our attention and Cindy for your report. Let me just also comment that and we have chief Barton here. If every city had the type of preparedness that Chief Barton's Department exhibits in our community, I think we would have a lot less concern about fire damage. We're very lucky in our community. Unfortunately, it doesn't translate to the insurance companies. Insurance companies just feel that they are overexposed in certain areas and it's not even overexposed. They've been thinning down their ranks but now they're just leaving certain areas period. And that's what we're seeing right now is a wholesale exodus by a couple of carriers. Well, it's already occurred and certain carriers will not write in California period. They're just leaving California and Florida, by the way. It's interesting. Okay, anyway, with that we'll go on to our closed session. We're going to do roll call for our closed session item. Yes, for a closed session, Council Member Wells. Here. Council Member Cormin. Here. Council Member Mirish, here. Vice Mayor Nazarian, here. And Mayor Friedman. Here. One roll call. Okay. And that will... That was the only roll call for this evening. And I do have one public comment. Okay. And we'll go to public comment. Mr. Steve Mayer sent a detailed and lengthy your public comment which has been forwarded to the City Council and will remain as part of the record. However, he did provide a summary of his comment for us to read right now. This agenda item is about the potential purchase of a building at 9012 to 9020 Olympic Boulevard from Etcohomes. Mr. Mayor identifies ten areas that he believes the city should examine prior to any further negotiations with Etko homes. The areas range from quote, quality of construction and quote a quote down real estate market and how the seller previously engaged in play to what's his play to play. Mr. Mayor believes that any one of the areas would disqualify further consideration of the purchase. And that ends public comment. Okay, so thank you. So with that, we will adjourn to those matters on the closed session agenda, and we will reconvey VIN at approximately seven o'clock for our formal session. Thank you all.