This is the City Council Special Study Session. Today is Tuesday, December 10th, 2024 at 130, and we will start our meeting with public comment. If there is any public comment and items not listed on our agenda, now will be the time to bring forth a speaker slip and not seeing any. We will go to any electronic means of communication. There are no public comments. Okay, so we will move right ahead to our study session item number A1. Now we have a fairly complete full study session. So we're going to try and deal with these matters as expeditiously as we can. We have an absolute hard stop of 445 for close session, because our closed session is jam packed also. So hopefully we can finish before 445, but that will be a hard stop. Okay, so we will start a one architectural and design review commission and interview panel update. Thank you, good afternoon mayor and council members. I got the hint, so I am going to go through this presentation as quickly as possible. I'm here this afternoon to provide you with an update in a report regarding the architectural and design review commission interview panel update. The panel consisted of vice mayor Sherona Nazarian, council member Craig Corman, the chair for the commission, which is Evan Myers and the vice chair Rebecca Pynus. They met on Monday, November 25th this year. The panel interviewed six applicants, and it was for one vacancy on the commission, which is for a licensed architect. This is the correction in the report I had written mistakenly that it was a landscape architect. The next recruitment that we're going to do, it will be for a landscape architect in June 20th, for the June 2025 seating. But this one is for licensed architect. After the discussion and careful review, the panel recommended the following person, Mr. Jeffrey Daniels. If the City Council approves, then his term would begin next month, January 1, 2025. It would be an initial two year term, and then he would be upon completion of the two years, he would then be eligible for reappointment to a second term of four years. He is a licensed architect, and he is going to be taking the seat if the council approves for outgoing commissioner James Matzen, who is also a licensed architect. His term concludes this month, December 31st of this year. The panel again is recommending Mr. Jeffrey Daniels. And as per the City Council's requirements, the background check came back for Mr. Daniels and he was cleared. So this is why we are providing you with the information right now. This is an expedited process though though because we've been waiting to interview and to place people on commissions. So if you approve this afternoon, then there is a report for formal consent this evening as well so that we can't seat him in time for January because we do not have any other official meetings scheduled in December at the moment. Other than that, I am here for your questions. Okay, thank you. If we could have perhaps an interview panel report. Yes, sure. I think that Huma summed it up very well. There were six very, very qualified applicants, and we needed a specific position, and we feel confident in the decision that we made with Mr. Daniels. And we just want to encourage all of the other applicants to apply for future commission vacancies. And I'll ask my colleague if he has anything to add. No, that sums it up. We had a lot of really good interviews, and it was not an easy decision. There were a lot of qualifies candidates, and we do want them to come back and reapply. Mr. Daniel stood out partly because he has taught architectural students. We thought he'd be a good fit on the architectural commission as someone who wouldn't impose his ideas, design ideas, but sort of in a socratic method would lead to better designs if that was necessary. The other thing is he's FAAI, which is a nice honor to have. I think he's the first FAAI architect who served on the architectural commission as far as I know. So as I said, they were all very qualified, but Mr. Janels had some skills I thought stood out. So just a quick question. And you don't have to be a Beverly Hills resident for this position. Is Mr. Daniels a Beverly Hills resident? No. Okay. Okay, we'll go, I don't know what to say with that, if anything. Okay, we'll go to council member questions and comments. Starting with council member Wolfe. Thank you, I don't have any questions. I just thank you to James Madsen for his service and as well look forward to having Jeffrey Dan and Yoll's join. It's an important time for our city especially, so it's gonna be wonderful to have him and I support this. Thank you. Thank you and Council Member Cormony, to add. I also like that Mr. Mathson for his service but I support the recommendation. And Council Member Mirch. I'm supportive. I would like to thank Mr. Mathson and welcome Mr. Daniels. This is at a time where the state is basically saying that they don't care about architectural details or historical preservation, so it becomes all the more important to have people who actually do value these things. Thank you. And anything further, Vice-Morning? No, just grateful to Mr. Matson for his service to our community. And I also want to thank Mr. Matson and look forward to honoring him at one of our outgoing meetings. Mr. Madison, as I recall, is also not a resident of Beverly Hills. And it's even more impressive that a professional is giving up of his time, such as Mr. Madison and now Mr. Daniels to preserve the architecture that we have in the city of Beverly Hills. So look forward to seeing Mr. Masin and Mr. Daniels when they're presented and as incoming and outgoing. So with that, I believe we have concurrence. Yes, thank you. Even unanimity. Okay, going on to item number eight two, request from Vanity Fair to host the annual Academy Awards, dinner and post-Oster party, and had a bet and court's going to go to the Okay, Mayor Friedman, Council members. My name is Patty Battencourt with Special Events and Filming Division. I'm also joined by Sarah Marx online with Vanity Fair. City Council feedback and direction is requested for a request from Vanity Fair for approval of street and sidewalk closures, notification letters and fee waivers associated with Vanity Fair Academy Awards dinner and post Oscar party scheduled for Sunday, March 2nd, 2025. In addition, Vanity Fair is looking to request a three year agreement from 2025 through 2028. The yearly event has been held here in Beverly Hills for the last nine years. The event is attended by celebrities, media and other high profile guests, as well as hundreds of others requiring street and sidewalk closures to maintain safety and security for all. Traffic control will monitor all traffic activity in the area and officers will manage a full deployment on event day. Lane and sidewalk closures of the 400 block of North Crescent will begin on Monday, February 17th at 10pm, and would go through Friday, March 7th at 10pm. Surrounding streets and sidewalk closures would be extended on event day only from 2pm to 2am. All residents and businesses will be accessible at all times. Notifications would be a team effort between the city and vanity fair. Notifications will be sent out to all residents and businesses within 1,000 feet of the affected event closure area as a standard for events that include street closures. The city communication team will send out NICSEL alerts, citywide announcements, post on all social media platforms, and will place ads and local papers. City staff will be available to staff a hotline number and answer any questions the community may have. Banity Fair has requested a partial fee waiver for the street closure permit fee for all three years of the requested three year agreement consistent with their previous three year agreement. The street closure permit fee for fiscal year 2425 for street closures of 49 hours or longer is 32,604 for the first 49 hours and 1,282 for each hour thereafter. Vanity Fair is requesting to close the street for 432 hours, resulting in a total permit fee of 523,610. In lieu of this fee, Vanity Fair is requesting to instead pay a street permit fee of 24,453. Flat fee required for a closure of 25 to 30 hours. The resulting amount of the requested fee waiver is 499,157 for the first year. The waived fee amount would vary in the second and third years of the agreement based on the street closure permit fee amounts for fiscal year 2526 and fiscal year 2627 respectively. Vanity Fair is not requesting to waive any other fees. Council feedback and direction is requested for requests from Vanity Fair for approval of the street and sidewalk closures, notification letters, and fee waivers associated with Vanity Fair Academy Awards. Dinner and post party scheduled for Sunday, March 2, 2025, plus a three year agreement from 2025 through 2028. Liaisons have recommended to approve the street and sidewalk closures based on what was proposed, distribute the notification letters to a half mile radius, and approve the fee waiver for street closures and have agreed to a three year agreement. Council can approve based on liaison recommendations or can recommend something different. That concludes my portion. I'm happy to answer any questions and Sarah Marx is also online to answer any questions Let's go to public comment on this item. Is there any public comment in chambers? Not seeing any and the electronically. I don't know if mr. Marx wants to speak at this point We don't have any comments, but she is available if you should have any questions of her. Okay. Well, let me just start off since I was on the liaison if that's okay. And Sarah, I want to ask if as long as you're tuned in, I want to ask a question based on the report. You know, it looks as if the street closure fee that's being waived. This is a significant amount of funds for the city and I'm just not sure what has been done in the past in terms of waiver of that fee. It's been consistent like that since we came to the city of Beverly Hills. It was the first negotiation we made and then with the other events as well as the Oscar party, what we do is try as much as possible, is use all the businesses and the hotels. We have over 300 room nights at one specific hotel in Beverly Hills to bring revenue back into Beverly Hills. Okay. And in terms of this event, is is it an income generating event for vanity fair, or is it really an expenditure event for for it's an expenditure event for vanity fair, although we do have some people that I do activations for on the ad side of it, but on the whole, it's basically us paying for a big event that we've now done for 30 years, nine of which being so far in Beverly Hills. In terms of television rights or anything like that, it's not a televised event in that you're getting revenue for it being televised, is it? No, because the whole media campaign that happens for it is all the press that are actually there on the red carpet. They will send out all the pictures to there. It's why you see all the coverage throughout the evening. And we will have it online on vanityfair.com. They do a recap of everything. Okay, so let me go to council member Wells for at least part of a report and then I'll finish it up. Yes. Yes. I mean, I think that one of the things that we considered when we look at this event is, you know, as a priority for our city, we want to maintain our position as a world class city as a premier city. The Avandity Fair event is one of the premier events for the Oscars and so there's a great alignment here with regards to the two events coming together and being in Beverly Hills. It supports us as a premier city. It supports us with regards to entertainment, with regard to fashion. It really creates, it continues to support and reinforce the image that we and Beverly Hills have established as a priority. When we look at the street closure, because there are the hotel rooms that are being used and supporting our local businesses during that time of the street closure. It's also working within our city and bringing that to our city and Evan Sonke is doing the catering. So there's a lot of alignment and partnership that goes on with this event that reinforces for everyone that this is a premier event in the premier city. And that was the main focus for how we evaluated this. The other thing I would add, sorry, is that all the costs are paid for by Vanity Fair with regard to all the staff and security that goes around this event. There's a lot of security there, but all of these personnel costs are paid for by vanity fair. The only waiver is for the street closure so that they are able to set up this event, which is part of what makes it such a premier event. And let me just reiterate that, that this is not all costs that are associated with it, that is our personnel costs and any infrastructure costs are paid for by vanity fair. The reason that the permit fee would go up as high as it would is that after 49 hours, there's a charge of 1,282 hours for each hour thereafter and to build the structure that is required charge of 1,282 hours for each hour thereafter. And to build the structure that is required takes quite a while, doesn't take as long to take it down, but it takes still an inordinate amount of time to do so. And I've been on the special events liaison for a number of years now, and I remember going through this and dissecting it previously. And I think the analysis is that the coverage that the city of Beverly Hills gets for a premier event, such as the Vanity Fair party would pays off individends to the amount that we could wave the per-hour fee. So it's not a per se, we're not losing money on it other than the fact that we're not gaining money for each hour of the street closure. So, you know, based on the cost benefit analysis, I think it was the liaison's thought that it was an appropriate waiver. I think we're in the second year, if I'm not mistaken, Patty, second year of this agreement, or is it the first year of the agreement? No, 2025 will begin the agreement all over again. It will be 2025 through 2028. Okay, so this is the first year of this agreement. And it's really a repetition of what we have done at least two other times with three year contracts. Exactly. Yeah. This is going to be their third renewal. And it provides security for the city and for vanity fair that they have a three year agreement to go forward. They believe Sarah and you can correct me. I think you have purchased the infrastructure and it is put up or you rented. I don't know. Maybe you can tell us. No, I don't own it because it's very difficult to keep it pristine for that long. So we basically keep the same kind of structure, but we change it slightly each year so that the look is slightly different, but it all comes in sections and we put it together. And then we have, you know, a clean pristine structure every year. So I think it would be fair to say that the perimeter basically stays the same but there's little indentations that change here and there along the way correct? Yes and also if you bring in new rules and regulations in the city of Beverly Hills if the fire department says they want us to change something or the police department wants us to change something then we take that on board and do that. Yeah and as a side benefit the Wallace-Annenberg also is a benefactor of your being there because there is a fee that is paid to the Wallace-Annenberg each year and it helps sustain the Annenberg if I'm not mistaken. Exactly that's taken. Exactly, that's correct. Okay, so with that, there was unanimity among the two of us to continue the contract for another period of time as our recommendation, so we will go now, Mary, anything else you want to add or go straight to Council Member Corman? My questions or comments are both. Both. Okay, thanks. from my recordment. My questions or comments are both. Both. Okay. So first of all, this year you are requesting street closure 432 hours. Greg, Sarah. I hope you don't mind if I could. Yes. I would, no, not at all. But it's really been the same amount of time that we've had each year when we shut it down because it's from the beginning of the build right through till when we give you the street back. So our report indicates that it's actually an additional day this time that a historian has been 400, 8 hours and now it's 432 hours. So it's so yet an extra day. Yes, I snuck that in because it was a very on the last day of the breakdown. We ended up not being quite ready in time So I think we're giving a little buffer to make sure that that everything is back the way it should be Okay, so obviously I was not around at the time this deal was first formulated I was curious how the the permit fee that you do pay was arrived at I gather it's it's tied to the permit fees that we have here in our city For street closures between 25 and 30 hours is that that's been the the fee that you paid all along? Yes, it is and and why was that chosen instead because we have various fee structures We have structures between 16 and I think 24 hours and also between 25 and 48 hours. I go. Well, I, if I went back very, you know, if I go back in time to when we came to Beverly Hills, I think it was an initial look at how we could afford to be in Beverly Hills and do what we did and benefit Beverly Hills and the Annenberg as much as we could during that term. Do you recall what? I'm sorry go ahead I'm sorry go ahead. Do I recall what the first payment I made? Yes, this year is 24,000 in change. You know what it was nine years ago? I'm curious. If you want me to let you know, I could do that tomorrow because I would have to go back in my files because I keep very immaculate records of all the Oscar payments that we've made and I could tell you exactly what we paid to the city of Beverly Hills. I mean, just curious. I asked staff and we did not have that figure readily available. So I was just curious, it was less than 20,000 or probably less than 20,000, nine years ago. I would say so, but I'm not 100% sure, because I think it's been between, I think it started around 15 or 16 and then has gone up each year from there. But I would have, for my edification, go back nine years to look. I appreciate it. That makes sense to me. So as far as the events are obviously, vanity fair is a company that we love doing business with. We love having you here in Beverly Hills. We think it's a very good fit. Everything that Council member Wells said is accurate. And we certainly want to see the relationship continue. I do feel, since I was recently elected, I do feel compelled to just point out that when this deal was initiated nine years ago, the finances were a little different. Number one, the fees that we were waiving were considerably small than half a million dollars. And number two, to be honest, our budgets were in better shape than they are this year and certainly in the next couple of years. So I have to be mindful of that. I have no doubt that Vanity Fair does contribute money to the city during the Oscar week. Obviously, the biggest benefit is to be the four seasons hotel, Beverly Wilshire, because they have 300 nights. That's a sizable amount of people staying there and that's a benefit to the entire community. I talked about- We've seen, go on, sorry to interrupt. But there's a couple of pieces, you know, there's a list of all the places that we use in Beverly Hills. I try very hard to make everyone shop wherever they can. If they need something, I tell them, don't buy your dress till you get there. Go to this restaurant, go to that restaurant. So we really do try and use Beverly Hills, be very centric to Beverly Hills and everything we do. Well, I recognize I saw the list and I appreciate that. And I talked to some people who were on the list and they felt that there was a benefit to having vanity fair here, some hoteliers, some businesses. They felt there was a bump up in business. I don't think quite as much as the four seasons Beverly Wilshire gets. And there's also the question that people have. And that is that some of the people who visit not necessarily in the condae NAS family, but come for the Vanity Fair party might visit some of these other businesses in any event, or they might stay in the hotels in any event. So there's no question you're a benefit of the city and an asset that's a city you want to keep you. I'm just pointing out that when you look at the dollars and cents, you do bring in revenue. But for example, the Beverly Wilshire hotel, from a TOT standpoint, if you're booking 300 nights in a figure at discount of rate of $800 a night, the TOT revenues to the city is about $33,534,000, whatever dollars, and that's quite a bit less than half a million dollars in the fees that we're giving up. So I'm just pointing this out and the other thing that I feel I need to point out is that I have gotten calls from residents, not businesses, because businesses are very supportive of anti-fair. But I have gotten calls from residents saying, gee, it's a real inconvenience to have crescent clothes for three weeks. And gee, we have to do that. And we say, what's important for the city? It brings in revenue. It's important to support our businesses. But there is that undercurrent of feeling among some of the residents. So I'm just pointing that out. What I was thinking, and I, obviously, this is a suggestion I can throw out to everyone, in light of the fact that you're taking an extra day this year, which at our normal rack rates, not saying we would ever charge the rack rates, but that would be about a little over $30,000 for the extra day for the street closure fee. I don't know if you've noticed, but we recently put up some flags in memorial of the victims of the October 7th massacre in our park. Those flags are near and dear to our community, and we are sponsoring the mayor's summit against any semitism beginning tomorrow. And we have, as a council, committed to building a memorial to the October 7 victims here in Beverly Hills, and we're forming a committee, and we are going to put it across the street from our existing 9-11 memorial. And although we have year mark to half million dollars of general fund money, there's no doubt that we're going to have to fund part of the construction of that memorial through charitable solicitations. And the vehicle will probably use is, we have a charitable foundation here in Beverly Hills that people will be contributing to with the idea that the money will go towards the creation of this October 7th memorial. And I know that you can see your way to contributing to perhaps the $30,000 that would be due for the additional day that you want this year could be contributed to our charitable service, our charitable service, and I know that you could see your way to contributing to perhaps the $30,000 that would be due for the additional day that you want this year could be contributed to our charitable service, our charitable service, and additional day that you want this year could be contributed to our charitable foundation for purposes of creating the October 7 Memorial. And I think there would be a win-win on a number of basis. Number one, you'd still be getting a world-class venue at a very good rate, a very affordable rate. Number two, we would show the residents as well as the business that you support what's important to them. And number three, I think that it would also be in keeping with Condi and Assets corporate desire to support worthy causes like the 911 Memorial and our October 7 Memorial. So that would be my request. And I could certainly support going forward with the fee waivers that were being asked as long as Connie and asked would also make every year a $30,000 contribution to our charitable foundation so that we can build the October 7 memorial here in our city. Those are my comments. Okay, took me a little while to push my button. Okay, let's go to Council Member Mirish. Thank you. I heard from Mary that Funke is doing the catering. Does that mean there won't be in and out? No, that's always in and out, John. Okay. Have a change. Good to know. You know, look, this is something that we've been doing in the past and I think it's good for the city. I think it's good for Vanity Fair. I do like Council Member of Cormin's suggestion. I think that would be good. I remember last year we in fact did have the flags installation and we had a projection of the hostages who unfortunately are still now in the 400 and some odd day or we're still not with us. And so while people are celebrating and that sort of thing, it does well to remind us that this is the place where that happens. So I would be supportive of that. I'm obviously supportive of Vanity Fair and hope that we continue to have a long-term relationship. And thank you, Sarah, because you've been there from the very beginning. And it's obviously turned out very, very well. Thank you. I hope everyone considers it a win-win situation for all of us. And Vice Mayor Nazarian. Yes, thank you very much. Thank you to the Liaisons and thank you for bringing Vanity Fair to our city. We're very excited for it. I think it's only becoming when you think about where else you could have a party like that, where else but Beverly Hills. So I support the project and having the event here, I do agree with my colleague that I have also gotten some calls from residents asking about the inconvenience of closing down present. And when I did the calculations, I think in previous years we weren't in the same economic position as we are now. And even when you do the math, even if we were to do it based on the lower amount of not doing it per hour for the 1000, what is the amount? Exactly. What is the amount exactly? There's an hourly cost of, I don't have it off the top of my head right now, but there's a significant difference. And while we do appreciate bringing that business, I think that thank you. 1,282 per hour. You know, even the one day, the 49 hour total is $32,000. It's even lower than that. I mean, $24,000 for an event like this. And while we are covering the hard costs, which I appreciate, there are the impacts on the community. So I think that that would be something fair to ask. It is a 501-C3 arm of the city, so it's not hopefully it won't have as much of an impact, but I think that will be a good way to at least come together and be able to support the community while we're also celebrating this wonderful event in the city of Beverly Hills. Thank you. Okay, so, you know, I also think it's a great idea, Sarah. I don't know if it's probably the first time you're hearing it. And I'm not sure whether or not my colleagues are conditioning it or are making a suggestion. Perhaps I could ask Councilmember Corman. Certainly I we haven't heard from Councilmember Wells in terms of whether or not she would like to see something like this go forward. I would be personally opposed to conditioning it. I would ask that Vanity Fair certainly consider it and run it up the flagpole but it's not something that I would condition but councilmember corpsman. You know I mean I think it's something that I would want to see before I sign off on this because I think the community would like to see it and I don't think it's a big ask I think it's appropriate I think it's a win-win for everyone and I don't think it's a big ask. I think it's appropriate. I think it's a win-win for everyone. And I understand Sarah may not have the authority to this, and we could continue this to our first hearing in January if she needs to run it up the flagpole. But I need to let you know that we really do need to make a decision. I'm sorry to ask you to do this. And yes, I can make decisions if I need to but I need a decision from you because I'm about to sort of finish design, well I'm getting very close to finishing design and putting things into build mode and if you turned around now and said that I can't be in the city of Beverly Hills that doesn't give me a lot of time to find an alternate location. Well I certainly don't want you not to be in the city of Beverly Hills, but I don't think that, as I said, a contribution to our October 7 Memorial, which is very important to our community, and at the amount we're talking about, which is essentially the extra day you're asking for, would be entirely appropriate. So that's what I would like to see. Okay, so may I interpret that as conditional? It's a conditional approval based upon their commitment. Yes. Okay, in a specific amount. Yeah, as you said, $30,000. Okay. What the additional day would be under our street permit fees. Okay, so let's go around then. I've kind of stated my position already, which is that I would like. I would like it. I think it needs to be run up the flag pool, but I'm not in a position where I would condition it. I think Vanity Fair is going to come through. So we'll go to councilmember Wilson. With regard to your ability to make decisions today, I just want to clarify this is Sarah, this is something you would have to run up the flag poll, so to speak. Yes, and I'd like to have an offline conversation about it. But I'd like to think that you're going to make an agreement with me for another three years. I have a thought about how I can do this, but it would be I need to make a phone call to somebody. Okay. I would not make it conditional at this point, but I definitely supported. I think it's a great idea. So thank you for thinking of that and suggesting it. But I wouldn't make it conditional based on where we are at this point in time. But and I appreciate the partnership and I look forward to having a good result from running it up the flag pool or whatever you need to do Sarah. Thank you. Council Member Merrill. I think I just heard from Sarah that she's going to try her best and that's good enough for me. I wouldn't make it conditional. I, you know, this is something that's important to the community. But so is Vanity Fair, I think it would be an extremely nice gesture and an appropriate one too. And as said, I'll leave it to Sarah and trust her. Thank you. And Vice Mayor. Yes, thank you very much. So I think that in the political climate right now, it may be difficult for organizations to make a donation towards an October 7th memorial. But what I would like to propose is that it be given to the 501C3 arm of the city. I think that will be a win-win. And that way the city will have discretion as to how to utilize it. That way I don't know where I was very nice of you to put it like that. Thank you very much. Even though you so might I did see I did see that and I didn't want it to be a factor. I think that making a charitable contribution towards to our city that it will be at the discretion of our city manager and I think we'll be able to go from there. So I don't know you as well as my colleague John does, but if he trusts you then I trust you. Thank you. And we feel confident that I hope that this will be a long partnership. And you know, the 30 is also a suggestion. Many organizations make larger contributions. So please be thoughtful in what we're going through as a city right now as well and be generous and and we look forward to continuing our partnership and as I said I think that as a city we celebrate Vanity Fair and we want to be able to work in partnership with you so so let's let's hope that we are able to support one another in moving forward in the in the future years to come. Can I just hand one thing? Sure. Of course. Yeah, I just want to be clear that I, in seeking a contribution to the 501C3 to support the memorial, I don't view the memorial as a political statement. I don't think it's political to mourn the loss of innocent people's lives. Just as I don't view the 9-11 Memorial in New York or here in Beverly Hills as political statements. So just wanted to be clear that I wasn't suggesting the vanity fair or condin asked make a contribution as part of a political statement or taking a political position on a matter. Thank you. OK, so it's back to me. And I also have worked with Sarah for many, many years and I know that the right thing will be done and I know Vanity Fair and Condi Nass will do the right thing. So as far as I'm concerned, I'm prepared to move forward and assuming best efforts to do whatever Condi Nass and Vanity Fair fair is feels appropriate in terms of any sort of contribution. So I think with that we have direction unless anybody else has anything to say. Sarah we really do value your partnership and really look forward to seeing you and having you in the city of Beverly Hills. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you. So we will go on to item number. Is it 8-3? Which is a request from Dick Clark Produ productions for approval of a partial fee waiver associated with the Golden Globes Awards ceremony a scheduled for Sunday, January 5th, 2025 and Patty Bettenquart. Sorry, just one other item mayor going back to the Vanity Fair. I don't know if that's something that we can bring back to the liaisons to look at a little more closely or if the three-year contract is well, the way I understand it we have approved a three-year contract Cicera said she needed to have it if there's any any They'll come back each year for dates and street closures and all those details But as far as them being here in the contract would be for three years Okay continuing on details but as far as them being here in the contract would be for three years. All right. Okay. Continuing on. Sorry. You're scared. You have help. Pat. Okay. They are Friedman Council members. My name is Patty Banghurt with Special Events and Filming Division. Today I'm being joined by Rick Pizante with Dick Clark Productions. Council feedback and direction is requested. From a request from Dick Clark Productions for proposed fee waivers, requests associated with the 82nd annual Golden Globes Awards ceremony scheduled for Sunday January 5th, 2025. Dick Clark production has proposed three options for fee waivers. Option one, flat fee waiver of $30,000. Option two, salary to employee managerial overtime waiver. Option three, $100,000 flat fee waiver. In exchange for waiving permit fees, Dick Clark productions is offering to highlight the city during a 10-second cold open of the televised award show with voice over mentioning the city of Beverly Hills. City Council has the discretion to recommend to waive fees as follows. Wave one of the partial fees pursuant to one of the proposed options as requested. Two, waive partial fees in a lesser amount. Or three, waive no fees. Based on the fees from last year's event, option three would be equivalent to a fee waiver of about $130,000. In addition, Dick Clark productions has requested to begin lane closures on Sunday, December 29th, at 10 p.m. instead of Monday, January 30th at 6 a.m. To recap, liaisons recommended a fee waiver of up to $45,000 for permit hard cost only instead of any of the three proposed options on its own and not combined. The $45,000 fee waiver would not cover any personnel costs. Liaisons approve the extended lane closure to begin on Sunday, December 29th at 10 p.m. And Council can agree with Liaisons or vote on a different recommendation. That concludes my portion of the report. I welcome Rick to say a few words. Thank you, Patty. Mr. Mayor, City Council members. Since our last meeting, we concluded we've made a commitment to the City of Beverly Hills to engage a community-wide relationship with the Convention on Visitors Bureau, the high school program, and other efforts for good PR, I would say. We concluded our nominations this week, my early Monday morning at the Beverly Hilton, which time we did a play-up and we had the CVB come down. So I think we've already started to engage in that process and show our good faith and relationship with the city. We hope whereas equally as important as the Oscars and Vanity Fair folks. So clearly we are requesting far less from the city in an effort to in exchange for some additional exposure at the top of the show where we were planning a cold open with some verbiage that we can present for approval as well. And we appreciate your consideration. a cold open with some verbiage that we can present for approval as well. And I want to appreciate your consideration. Okay, thank you. One point of clarification if I could and patty, number two, and or number three. And at the lay-as-on, it was kind of iffy as to whether or not one and two were together as one item, and number three was a separate item. What was the interpretation of staff in terms of writing the report? Because we were told at the liaison that one and two were conjoined as one item. And or so it's option one, for option two, for option three. That's how staff, it was presented to staff. And then I'm gonna ask Mr. Pazonte that because that was an issue that we had at the lay-as-on. Mayor, I'm gonna have Mr. Sturling respond. Mayor, yeah, I think this has been a, and Ricky, you can clarify from your point of view, but I believe we interpreted as staff as it was three different options to choose from. But then it was clarified by your team that it was actually option one and two or three. That is my understanding. Okay, and I think that's something that we as layasons wanted to clear up in our consideration of the proposal. And. Correct. In my interpretation was it was not written that way, but we did clarify that at the liaison meeting, if I'm not mistaken, that it was one and two conjoined or number three. That's okay. Are we waiting for something with? Trying to read their requests and nowhere does it say that? Okay and I agree with you. I totally agree with you. It did not say that and and that is why we wanted to have it clarified at the meeting. Look, quite frankly, why would anybody put number one, or number two? I mean, you would have to, you know, reading it, of course you would pick number two if you had to pick one of the three items, and that's why the question was asked is whether or not they were conjoined. So as this is Dick Clark Productions request, perhaps they can definitively state for us what it is that they're requesting from the three. I prefer number three to be honest, but I would say. We have to be. But I think under consideration and we've spoken about this at the at Hawk meeting. I think that I don't want to get too deep into it. I think this year, I know we spoke about a potential three year agreement as well. I'm a little reluctant to enter into that three year agreement, not knowing the specifics of all the construction plans that Cain has with the Hilton and staying on schedule with construction. So I think for this year only we would prefer any of the above. And then next year as we revisit this Over the next several years perhaps we can discuss a three-year agreement at that. Okay, so any of the above means Number one independently number two independently and number three independently or does it mean number one and two? Conjoined or number one and two, Conjoined or number three. And this is what we submitted, right? Okay, well this is our writing so I'm gonna stand by it and say it's or I guess One and two one and two can Well, it's it's not clear in the documentation so I apologize. I'm not I I'm not exactly sure as to what was submitted, but I think for this meeting I would say one and two conjoined or three. So now I'm going to look at the Golden Globes document, which doesn't look like it's our attachment number one. And I believe that this is what was presented to staff. And I would ask that you look at it. And you know, the staff report is an interpretation of what this document said. If you can look at that and see whether or not it clearly is number one, number two, or number three. This is what we submitted. Well, it's clearly not clear. So I don't know what to say other than we will have to be very clear. We cleared it up. One, two, one, two, three. Okay. So we just like we. Yeah, I think we discussed this last week and there was some obviously confusion about this so I Don't know whether it needs to be documented or resubmitted. Hopefully not but one and two or three would be ideal circumstance if you were Willing to do that. Okay, so and the other thing that now came up was the three-year portion of it is are there a If it were one and two conjoined Would Dick Clark productions be prepared to have a three-year commitment? And I think I added a Cola a cost of living adjustment for the city standards to that if it were a three year deal or is that off the table now? I would still prefer to hold on that until we submit, it's an ongoing project. We have a completely redesigned red carpet plan for next year, which will surely create some additional review and logistical planning. So I think for this year to keep it simple, we would prefer to remain with a one year agreement and then revisit this next year. I have something to add, unlessester. It's for clarification. When we talked about a number, I understand that you, it's very clear in the letter and in the South reported was one, three different options, three separate options. It was in the liaison meeting where you clarified that your, what was meant to be communicated was one and two together or three. When we talked about whether it would be a three year based on the number being 45,000, it was also made very clear that that was a reduction in fees for the street closure and in no way had anything to do with personnel cost because we were not willing to entertain any reductions or any negotiations around our personnel costs. So instead of that what we did is we looked at what's the increase in lane closure this year because of the construction that's going on at the Hilton, and we were very specific at looking at the cost for lane closures and that permit cost related to that. No personnel cost, but just the lane closures. So when we looked at that, we looked at the difference was, last year was 55 hours of lane closure. This year, it's 235 hours of lane closures. And so one of the points that declared productions was making repeatedly when we met in the past was that the increase in cost from the lane closures, which is exactly what you're stating now in terms of not knowing what that might look like next year. So we approached it from looking at just the cost and increase this year for the lane closure. And at that time, we had combined the number to be 45, not to represent anything to do with personnel costs, but to apply that to lane closures. But given the situation today, I might revisit that and look at, again, I would suggest that we only provide a discount on the street closure cost, which from last year was 55 hours to this year, 235 hours. Not soldering that total cost because that's not what, and we were suggesting at all, is that we would reduce up by a portion and given the situation, if we're looking at it for one year, perhaps we would want to look at that as, and we could discuss, but I might recommend that, that cost would be a reduction of 30,000, or somewhere between 15 and 30. Clear, this year is not going to be 235. So if their last year was 55, I think this year was about the same and they calculated based on the report. Yes, we were, when we were trying to calculate those fees, we did not have the benefit of patty advising us on that so there I there was some confusion on my part between lane closure and street closure so there are both additional lane closures and street closures and the fees will be higher as a result but the 200 and whatever hours that we came up with all of that is not total street closure it's some of that is lane closures not not full street closures. Okay, so we had calculated 55 hours from last year and this year would set total hours. We in 55 and 65 this year for street closures. I know it's confusing because you have lane closure, you have sidewalk closure and they have street closures. When that changes our information on how we calculated. So, you know, at this point in time, at least I made a recommendation at the liaison based upon what I felt was the intent and what was going to occur in the future. And at this point, I'm not willing to give a recommendation one way or the other. I'm going to withdraw my recommendation, just leave it up to the council tonight. Hey, Grie, I think we have to, because this is new information. So we calculated it based on other information. So I don't know, you know, I'm going to come back to this item. the information. So I don't know. I don't know. I'm going to come back to this item if you all want to go out there and speak and then come back and take one more item in between or we can just continue this discussion right now. At this point in time, everything's up in the air in terms of what the ask was is and how we're going to deal on it. It's not going to be coming with a recommendation from the liaison at this point. So if you want to take some time, we can go on to the next item and then get back to you. If you'd like us to just continue with this at this point, we can do that too. Yes, I'd like to take a few moments if that's possible. Come back. Okay. Can I just ask for one thing? Yes, we're going to come back with some more information. Yeah. If going after council members, Wells comments. So if you could figure out how much the additional permit fees are for the additional lane closures and the additional eight hours of street closures, how much those would be versus last year? And then and are those all attributable to the construction at the Wendell-Berwillie Hills Project? Because that might be a benchmark that we'd be interested in hearing. That's the analysis that you're trying to get. So the difference is with lane closures, you just need staff. Like we could administratively do that. We don't need to go to council for that. It would require TCOs and BHPD out there. For street closure, that's where the fees are. Okay, so that's where the fees are versus. For the extra eight hours, they were not incurred any additional street closure fees. There would just be additional staff time. Yeah, we calculated based on street closure. So the street closure last year, the base cost plus the increase rate for over the, you know, over the certain number of hours and what that total amount was 19,000. This year the original request was 56 hours and then plus an additional 8. So that would be the total street closures. Am I correct that the current rack rate for street closures permits is between 6 and 24 hours is $15,860. Yes. And then the additional was $3. So the total last year was $19,586 for 55 hours. That's correct. And it'll be similar this year with the 3.5 CPI and X. Okay. Well that makes a big difference. Yes. Thank you. We'll come back to this item right after the next one. Mm-hmm. I'm sorry. We'll come back to this item after you have a chance to discuss it. And let's go on to item number four. Recommendations of the City Council Social Services ad hoc committee for the Community Assistance Grant Funding, Current and Future Needs and Recommended Changes. Thank you, good afternoon, Mayor Friedman and members of the City Council. Before you as the Community Assistance Grant Funding, with some suggestions for current and future needs and recommended changes. As many of you know, maintaining a social service safety net is a public service priority stated in the city's general plan. The city's community assistance grant funding enables the city to secure partnerships with local social service agencies to support the quality of life in Beverly Hills residents. The city's CAGF program was created several decades ago and was intended to be a way in which the city can provide funding to organizations to provide a particular social service needed by some members of the community. Many conditions in Beverly Hills and society in general has changed since the CAGF program was first created. Additionally, the CAGF needs have continued to increase, while at the same time the City Council is seeking to reduce costs throughout the organization where appropriate without reducing overall service delivery. So a little bit of background, and yes, we were here in June talking about awarding the 24 25 grants. As the Human Services Division was transferred to the fire department from the Community Services Department in late 2023, staff started looking at community health as a whole and the role that the Community Assistance Grant Fund program plays in delivering social services through community health model. This report was presented to the Council Social Services ad hoc committee, which is comprised of Vice Mayor Nazarian and Council Member Mirish on October 30th of this year. The report sought to discuss and recommend changes to the process as implemented in the current 2425 agreement year, as well as further changes to the program structure going forward, to ensure that costs are controlled, services continue to be delivered to the community, and that services are provided specifically to Beverly Hills residents, and not simply the greater region. So in this slide, you can see just a little background that from 2022 to 23, the grant amounts have steadily increased from a little over 2 million to 2.4 million this current year. This current fiscal year, we have 23 grants that cover a variety of categories from homeless services to senior services as well as cultural enhancement. There is a desire among the council liaisons to ensure that all CAGF funded services are serving residents of the city of Beverly Hills rather than just regional organizations. So to go over briefly, this year we are funding 23 grants in the amount of 1.113 million. Here is a list of these organizations. They are also in your packet under Attachment 1. In addition to the 23 grants, this current fiscal year, we also identified five of the long-term CAGF partners, identifying them as critical partners, providing a critical service, and pop those five organizations out and did a direct contract with them for services rendered in a not-to-excite amount as seen in this column here, which tolls 1.292 million. The chart in the bottom of this slide kind of summarizes how we got to cobbling together all of our funding and the various delineation between the grant funding and the critical service providers. So as I mentioned there are of course have been changes in the community. Prior to 2022, the city's total investment in unhoused services was approximately 320,000. In 2023, city invested, the city and city council invested in services for the unhoused for total of little over 3 million. The big ticket items in that budget is the support of housing program for 1.4 million per year on average. And then all of the outreach, the path shelter, the management of the 24 hour hotline, as well as necessary transportation to the motel or housing program amounts to approximately 1.6 million a year. However, last month we were able to eliminate the transportation costs from this little over $3 million cost, which should result in reducing the annual spending on unhoused services to approximately 2.1 million, which is a sure that we are able to make sure that we are able to make sure that we are able to make sure that we are able to make sure that we are able to make sure that we are able to make sure that we are able to make sure that we are able to make sure that we are able to make sure that we are able to make sure that we are able to make sure that we are able to make sure that we are for the upcoming calendar year, 2526. We still recommend proceeding with contracts for the five critical service providers and not to exceed amounts for the exact same dollar figure as currently contracted this fiscal year. These five contracts will continue to be monitored and administered by the Human Services Division of the Fire Department. On this slide, we see what we're calling Community Service Providers. Not quite as critical as the other five agencies, but still important to the community and provide a valuable service. These seven organizations, we're recommending transition to a Community Service Provider, which is a contract for as needed services in a not to exceed amount as found in this column. These would also be administered by the Human Services Division of the Fire Department. And we also have four organizations that are currently under the category of cultural services. The ad hoc committee recommended that $100,000 of the CAGF fund be allocated towards the community services department to issue these as needed cultural contracts. Now no longer grants, but contracts. These would be administered by the community services department. You'll notice on the chart here, it adds up to 85,000 with our four existing organizations. The ad hoc did recommend $100,000 to make it a nice round number. So that other 15,000 would need to be allocated amongst those four organizations for the upcoming fiscal year, if approved. So, the ad hoc is going to be allocated amongst those four organizations for the upcoming fiscal year, if approved. And then the last piece of this proposal is placing the remaining 13 organizations that are currently receiving funding on a grant funding hiatus. As you can see in this chart, the anticipated reduction in grant expenditures would be about 563,000. One note here on the last one, Westside Food Bank, they are currently under contract for 250,000. The recommendation is to maintain $50,000 of that funding, which is currently going towards a weekly delivery of fresh food and produce to the unhoused, well, formerly unhoused housing program that we have contracted with step up on seconds. That would reduce that to 200,000, but the 15,000 in working with our finance department to untangle the various funding streams, we would deduct 15,000 from the Westside Food Bank. So to kind of summarize everything, what we were looking at in terms of anticipated costs for 2526 would be a anticipated cost savings of approximately 563,000. But in terms of real dollars to the city's budget, because there was a $168,000 operating budget allocation this current year, we'd be looking at a $395,000 anticipated savings. The chart on the bottom shows the allocation for this current fiscal year, as well as the proposal for the next fiscal year. As you can see, we're indicating the hiatus numbers on top at $395, and essentially the same amount according to our department, would be listed in the budget. But there would be potential operating savings and the ability to not use as much as is potentially contracted for with these organizations. So to wrap up the recommendation from the ad hoc committee, it was to place the entire community assistance grant funding program on hiatus for the upcoming fiscal year, as well as placing 12 of the current partners on a contractual and funding hiatus for the upcoming year. Convert seven of the current partners to as needed, not to exceed community service provider contracts for approximately 1.7 million. Reallocate the 100,000 of CAEGF budgeted funds to the community services department for cultural service providers. And hopefully enjoy and anticipate savings of 395,000. I do wanna add one other note, should the City Council approve the recommendations before you? Staff will then send letters to all the organizations currently part of the CAGF program, giving them, letting them know of the determination to put them on hiatus. This would also give these organizations another opportunity as they have been provided the last couple of years to very clearly make a connection between their services and Beverly Hills residents specifically and not just regional benefits to LA County or to our service provider area. Should those justifications seem legitimate, the human services administrator will evaluate and bring those suggestions to the city manager and to the council ad hoc for their direction. Then staff would also work with the 11 organizations that now need to be transitioned to a contract instead of a grant in order for that to be effective come July 1st of 2025. That concludes my report and I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay, so we'll take public comment at this point in time. If there's anybody in chambers who would like to comment on this, now would be the time. Not seeing any will go to any electronic means. We did not have any other comments on this item. And one question I'll have to kick it off. Because I sent you something earlier today. I don't know if you had a chance to look at it from the county regarding a regional coordination. Does that in fact impact anything that you've said today or haven't had enough time really to explore that? I don't think it, excuse me. I don't believe it impacts any of the recommendations here. I know that the county CEO's office as well as the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority which those two larger entities basically created are constantly looking to use the funds they receive from sales tax dollars more appropriately, looking to make sure that all 88 cities in the county are receiving an equitable or at least an amount that they can actually do significant work or significant projects to affect the homeless population. So while I, you know, certainly appreciate the outreach from County CEO and we're working with our cog as well, our Council of Governments, I still think that everything that we're currently doing in terms of providing services to the unhoused would still be in Beverly Hills our cogs as well, our council of governments. I still think that everything that we're currently doing in terms of providing services to the unhoused would still be in Beverly Hills best interest to continue at current levels and current rates. Okay, and essentially the way at least I interpret it was is there's gonna be a renewed effort to coordinate the county services as opposed to being as splintered as it may have been in the past. I think so. And I think that starting to actually happen, they've kind of disseminated those funds to the COG. So our Council of Government, which includes Culver City, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood, we are now sharing a pot of funds from the county CEO's office. So we're actually in year two of receiving those grant fundings from the cog. Okay, so with that, we will go to the council layons with starting with Vice Mayor Nazarian. Yes, thank you very much. So this was a liaison that Council Member Marish and I were on together. And there are a few updates. I mean, you did a great job with covering it all. And I want to start off by saying that we have a fantastic group of individuals that genuinely care deeply for our community and everyone involved. One of the best things I think that we've done right now is to move certain services to the fire department. They're really able to address some of the issues that are on-house and people are having on the streets. We supported the change in the structure to contractualize as opposed to doing a grant process for this because we wanted to make sure that while we care for our unhoused, we want to ensure that the residents are also getting the service and the care that they deserve. And so there were one big critical change that we noticed was the transportation cost that is going to be reducing $930,000 annually from our budget to be able to relocate individuals and assist them with getting to where they need to go. So that is going to be a service that's going to be provided, I believe. Through existing contracted providers at no additional cost. And that's been in place since November 1st of this year. Right, so I thought that that was one important aspect of it. So while it was not indicated in that is a huge cost saving factor that we wanted to cover. In addition to that, there are the 12 contracts that are being provided for services as needed. And so basically what that means when we contract with someone, we pay as we go along based on the services that are provided to our city. And that's going to be a great transition to community service providers. The remaining 13 organizations, as we're mentioned, are grant hiatus. Many of them, when asked how their grants were utilized, they were not necessarily used for any residential services within our city or any residents, were really being able to utilize those services. So we felt that with the budgetary constraints that are happening right now, that would still spending a significant portion of money on our community services. And I would recommend that we look at that again to see if there are ways that we can do some cost saving, especially with the county stepping up and providing additional care. Perhaps there are grants or things that we could use to partner with them as opposed to fronting all of that cost ourselves. And I hope that Councilor Marish would support that as well. So moving on, we also recommended moving four cultural grants to also be contracted. Now when we set 100,000 to me, that meant in addition to other cultural contracts that may come up, not necessarily only for those four groups. So that that would be at the discretion of the city manager, etc. Because I think one, the whole point of this is trying to be more cost effective as opposed to spending more. So that would be something that we supported. Just I just want to make sure that I'm not missing anything. With regard to the 13 organizations that we are putting on height, we were concerned about their needs and making sure that if there was going to be a significant impact to our residents, we wanted to give them an opportunity to be able to reach out. So there are going to be opportunities for them to be able to come to belay zones, the commission, I believe, and also to the staff. Or could you please speak to that? Yeah, absolutely. We're recommending at this point that the communication from these organizations go to the Human Services Administrator who's been administrating the CAGF program for many, many years. They would evaluate it, perhaps try to do some fact checking if possible. And then if there is merit to the justification, they would take that to the city manager and request a reconvening of the ad hoc committee to evaluate those suggestions. Right. And the five, there are going to be five areas that we are keeping that are critical and the sense that they will be providing critical care for the community and those are still going to continue on with our social services providers. And I'm going to turn it over to my colleague, Council Member Marish, and see if he has anything to add to that. Thank you. I mean, I think you've covered most of it. But really, my concern was the hiatus that we were not continuing to fund groups that we'd funded in the past, but I think they're, you discuss what the reasons for that is. We can bring them back. They also have the ability in some cases where, for example, they didn't serve Beverly Hills residents to make the case that they actually did. There were cases where yes, the work that they're doing was good, but it wasn't actually helping our residents. And not just in these times, but in all times we're looking how the expenditure of these funds can actually serve our residents. And so I think that's the reason. And then also as said, the Bain organizations to cut them out because these are ongoing services that we provide and I was open to trying this this year and then seeing how it works out. Okay, thank you. Thank you for an excellent report and we will go to Councilmember questions and comments starting with Councilmember Wilson. Thank you. Well, thank you for doing this work. I appreciate it. I watched the meetings and I understand the thinking. I'm a little confused about the cultural service providers, the five that you pulled off. I think I missed that before. So I guess my, well, first of all, from the year standpoint, didn't we approve these grants I'm not sure if you can see that. I'm not sure if you can see that. I'm not sure if you can see that. I'm not sure if you can see that. I'm not sure if you can see that. I'm not sure if you can see that. I'm not sure if you can see that. in this chart that does include the four cultural ones have all been approved for the current 24, 25 year, which will come to an end on June 30th of 2025. The way the CAGF process has been established over time, it's a six month process that kicks off really bright about now in late December, early January, leading up all the way to council approving the full slate of grantees in June just prior to the start of the fiscal year. So these current organizations will continue to enjoy their grant funding up to and through June 30th, 2025. At that time, the ones recommended for hiatus would go on hiatus and the other three categories the critical The cultural and the community services would all be transitioned to contracts As opposed to grants and and I do let me if I can clarify The community or folks watching from home might be wondering what's the difference grant contract? So the way the grants are structured is when the organization is granted, for example, Beverly Hills Theatre Guild, the way we do it is over the course of the year we divide the payment into, or divide the total amount into four payments. The first payment is issued in July when no work has necessarily been done. Then they're each issued each subsequent quarter skipping the third quarter of the year. So these organizations are basically getting the funds in advance with the expectation that they'll do the work plan based on what they submitted in their application. The big difference between going from a grant to a contract is they are fronting all the expenses. They then will invoices on a monthly or quarterly basis saying, we serve these X amount of residents, this amount of billable hours based on whatever their services, or if it's a theater to put on this performance, they have to actually justify and show what they've spent, and then we would issue payment for that. Okay. I guess my only question with regard to the cultural service providers is that would you in the future open that up for others to perhaps like there's one space right now but because the grant program you would reapply every year. And in this case, you wouldn't be reapplying every year. So they- It would not be recommended that it's a reapplication every year. Because it's a contract. But it would be- Well, there would be conversations that staff would have of all these organizations throughout the year to determine what it is that they would have of all these organizations throughout the year to determine what it is that they're looking to put on for the following year. So if theater 40, for example, is going to put on the manner presentation as they have many years before, they would come to us and say, our cost to put on the manner is 50,000. And they can say, you know, a director costs this much. All of our props costs this much, using the facility costs this much in kind support from the city, park rangers, things like that cost this much. We would work through that with them within this budget to be able to fund that. To put on that specific performance because the community, because the city wants to continue to provide that service to the community. My smear if I may clarify a little bit and just play off of what Mr. Paulson is saying. So let's just give an example. So the $10,000 for the Wallace Annemburg Center for the performing arts is for their... A grow program? A grow program. For, I think it's children with autism. And they learn about acting and put on plays and things. If the Wallace were to decide to no longer have that program, for example, we obviously would not provide the funding to them and we would reallocate that funding to something else in the cultural space. I think over time, you know, I think as Council Member Miresh was saying, this is a good approach for this year. Let's see how it goes. Perhaps after this year we'll bring the ad hoc or the liaison together and then say do we want to sort of just reserve it for these organizations or do we want to more broadly look at it? Are there other programs that we want to do? I think what we realized through the community assistance grant fund program is that these organizations represent the organizations that put in the application, right? But they may not necessarily be the organizations that we need to be doing the work. It's just that they put in the application. And we're obviously vetted and approved and they've done their work plan. And they've responsibly handled the taxpayer dollars and all those things. But I think we should sort of see how it goes this first year. And then sort of have some conversation about if we had $100,000, is this how we would spend it? Are there other organizations that maybe just didn't put in the, you know, the paper previously that are equally worthy? I think we can have those conversations moving forward. But I think for this year, you know, this might be a good plan. Should Council concur? Okay. Thank you. Are you a Zermur? Yeah. Those are my questions. Okay. Great. thank you. Are you, is there more? Yeah, those are my questions. Okay, great, thank you. Councilmember Cormier. Thank you. So I wanna thank staff for their very thorough report. I am supportive of the ad hoc committee's recommendations. I think this is a good first step in trying to get our costs under control. And let's see where it goes. Thank you very much. Councilmember Merch, anything further? No. All right, I too am supportive and I guess we need to... We will move forward as appropriate for those organizations that have contracts that meet the council appropriation levels. We will bring those forward, et cetera. Okay. I would. I mean, I'd like to give the count the mayor an opportunity to give his feedback as well. But. Okay. Thank you. I've obviously read the report also and agree with the recommendations. I do support the fact that those entities that we are choosing to put on hiatus for the next fiscal year, if they have additional information, they should come back to us with that. But it seems like the fiscally appropriate thing to do. And I gather my colleagues were all in support of it too, so it looks like there is unanimity. So thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, I think we're ready to go back to item number three. And if we could have a staff report on item number three and then we can have the rest of the report. Okay many recounts in my repeat sterling deputy city manager joined by Michael Forbes, Patty Benton Court. We had a little summit and we think we're in a better position now to clarify the ask so First we want to clarify As you know, there's there are construction impacts currently at the Beverly Hilton That's a lot of the discussions we've been having over the last several months related The request from Dick Clark as it was presented and Dick Clark admits was a little bit confusing. And we've had a discussion with them and based on the liaison feedback that they received last week, they are amending their request and they are removing options two and three. So they're no longer asking for the $15,000 for person or related costs or the flat fee of $100,000. They're asking now for a fee waiver of $30,000 for permit fees. One thing Councilmember Boiles, we want to clarify is related to the street closure versus lane closure. So there's only a slight increase in full street closures for this proposed globes. However, there are 94 hours of additional lane closures. However, there are not the full street closure fees associated with those 94 hours. So that was the clarification and end staff. We accept that that was confusing to Councilmember Rose. We apologize for that. So the new request is for a $30,000 flat waiver of fees for the gloves this year, which includes, again, access for Beverly Hills television for the school district, as well as RSA on the 10 second cold open that would start the National broadcast on Sunday night. Rick, anything else you want to add? Keith, you didn't mention BH, did you say BHTV also? Okay. And Council Member, I'm sorry, Vice Mayor N Syrian head of question. I'm sorry. Is this a fee waiver of whatever the total fee is 30,000 this counted or is it that they're requesting to pay 30,000 for the whole? It's a it's a requested to that we the estimated cost of what the what the fees would be with 30,000 dollars for permitting This is not Personnel cost they will be paying personnel cost So they're then it's a different request because what you're saying is deducting 30,000 from the total fee, but that's not the case. You're, they're asking to pay 30,000 for whatever the total cost of the fees would be. The fee? The, the, no. No. So we, we are estimating that the total permit fees this year will be around $30,000. That's consistent with our original request to waive $30,000 in permit fees. So basically the council would be waiving up to $30,000 in permit fees only, which we anticipate would cover all of the permit fees at least for this year. If the fees exceeded that amount, they would be responsible for whatever permit fees exceed 30,000. They would still be responsible for the full amount of personnel costs, which will be well over 30,000. All right, thank you very much. Again, apologies for the confusion. Glad we took care of that in the situation room. But in any event, we look to City Council to approve this for this year only. We'd like to revisit everything next year. And with that, I defer to you. Okay, both blitzer will appreciate the reference to the situation room. Okay, so we're starting a new, this was not presented to the liaison, so this is really gonna be the first go around. I mean, obviously stuff was presented to us, but now this is a whole new discussion and we can start with Council member wells for questions and comments. Okay, thank you. I'm a little bit confused. So It's going back to the 24, 2024 last year's costs. The street closure cost was 15,860 and there were extra closure hours, which is for street closure at 3,726 that's the permit cost to close the street from last year Which was 19,000 I'm looking at your attachment that you'd given us in the liaison meeting. It has the total hard cost for 28,821 and of that the street closure costs were 18,19,000, I think 860. And this year's estimated total permit costs are for this year's event is what? About $30,000. And... See the breakdown right here and it's on there too, so it has all the names of the exact hard costs. Right, but that's the that's a 2024 hard cost. So my question is what's the 2025 hard costs? I haven't done it yet. But it'll be 3.5. It'll be 3.5 more. When you say 3.5, what? We're estimating about $30. You're just okay. Okay, so the increase in cost because of the construction, I guess I'm just trying to get it handle on what is the increase in cost because of construction is hours of lane closures as Keith indicated. There is no permit fee associated with that. There is a permit fee in the fee schedule for lane closures, but it is only as for construction. It does not apply to special events like this. So that was part of the misunderstanding that I caused in our earlier discussion. So there is no permit cost associated with those 94 additional hours, but there will be additional personnel costs because traffic control officers will have to staff and monitor those lane closures. So there will be additional staff costs associated with those 94 additional hours. So it's additional 94 hours of the TCO costs. Correct. Essentially. Okay. I would say, you know, as a general world, we don't discount our personnel cost, that all costs that cost the city manpower are not costs that we would consider discounting. And I just want to confirm that that's been our basic practice as a city. We've asked generally true, particularly with, I don't want to see commercial, not nonprofit organizations. For any event permits are filming, it's all over time costs because the officers have to sign up for those special jobs. Right. And as we spoke in the liaison meeting, it wasn't an area where we were willing to consider getting into what we charge for, what the different labor groups and our partner partners are their fees are and what their rates are. So what's more important for us is that we're making sure that we have the right amount of personnel there to make certain that the event goes smoothly and is safe and protects everybody with regard to that. Those are my questions for right now. Well, actually one other thing I just want to confirm. In addition to what we're talking about today, the CVB has agreed to pay $30,000 to decarct productions in return for having access to the red carpet and as well as the different other events like the announcement of the nominees where they're able to bring a crew in and film and as well are they able to interview on the red carpet they are terrific. That's part of the package. So that agreement has been made with the CVB, and so that's for 30,000, so that helps to alleviate some of the costs. Additionally, I think the school district has made an agreement with regard to including KBEV and the students having access to the red carpet as well and behind the scenes. And they're not paying anything for that, but they're also allowing for parking at Elro Deo, I understand. and the and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and as well as Dick Clark productions using the parking. I'm not sure if that's been figured out yet. I think they're giving priority for the MCC use. Certainly not on day of that. That's the police command center, I think. But leading up to that day, I believe so. So they're in lieu of the having access. They're providing parking at Elro Day. Yes, that's my understanding. Okay All right, those are my questions Did you want to give any direction? Do you want to hear what everybody else has to say go around and then okay? Okay, we're gonna do questions Okay, thank you. So Jess. So I'm clear, because I mean, I'm getting confused here. The cost for 20, the 2024 was about 28,000 in change according to attachment to in our report, right? At 28,000, they're in $21. And Michael, a minute ago, said we estimate the cost this year will be around 30,000. I'm sorry, the permit fees. I'm using the wrong terms. I apologize. The permit fees were $28,821. And we anticipate the permit fees this year about 30,000. But earlier, you mentioned that we think there could be up to eight additional hours of street closures. No, main closure. The main closures are a different one. I thought you said there were going to be eight street closures, but more lane closures. It's additional lane closures on Santa Monica. Okay, so no additional street closures. No additional street closures. Okay, so that clarifies that, thank you. So the for, for Dick Clark, I have a question for you because I know you're going to be giving us the 10 second cold intro for them on the broadcast. What would be for our notification? What would be the preferred ad rate on the broadcast for a 30 second spot? So for commercial spots in a prime time event like this, I checked with CBS and they had estimated approximately $350,000 for a 30 second spot. For 30 second spot. So, fractionally less for a 10 second, but the 10 second is in with the body of the program. It's within the body of the program. Right, so okay. In fact, the in-show integration is actually more valuable than the commercial ad time during commercial breaks because it's within the body of the program. So typically we have sponsor integrations that range anywhere from half a million to a million dollars, depending on how much visibility they're getting. I appreciate that. With respect to the program for the high school students, has it been determined how many high school students will be able to participate in that? What they will be able to do as far as being in the background or what facilities they'll be at and they'll have access to? So I'm told it's about approximately 40 students and we will tour them around behind the scenes to allow them to meet the professionals that are in our industry doing the show from a technical perspective during our load-in and things like that. I've offered to speak at the high school or be interviewed as an alumni. So whatever it takes, we're there to support the schools. Will there be any access other than the red carpet during the broadcast time? Real debt just to the only participation I'll have at that point. Yeah, we were focused more on the lead up. There's just a lot going on on show day. Certainly a presence from the City of Beverly Hills Television. And I believe KBEB does have a position with, yes, with, with Beverly Hills TV on the carpet, yes, a platform. Those are my questions, let me think about it some more. Thanks. Okay, Council Member Mersh. I have a question for you. I have a question for you. I have a question for you. I have a question for you. I have a question for you. I have a question for you. I have a question for you. I have a question for you. I have a question for you. I have a question for you. I have a question for you. I have a question for you. I have a question for you wanted to have something else. I just have a couple more clarifying questions. So my understanding previously was K above the students would have red carpet access the day of the event as well as kind of behind the scenes and able to get that footage. Yes, that's correct. I don't think we're able to accommodate 40 of the students on show day, but yes, they will have a position on the red carpet with their media crew. And then in addition, the BHTV will have as well. So BHTV, CVB as well as K-BF. That's correct. And so they'll have access to the red carpet behind the scenes. And CVB will also have access to kind of the other events events which they've already started to participate in that as well. That's correct. And be able to interview. Okay, so the, I guess for me. Wait, these are still questions? That's it. Okay. Wait, one other question. So the CVB has agreed to pay the $30,000. KBEB is going to, this school district working in terms of providing parking at El Rodeo, which is a secured lot and new. It's our new newly opened school. And then for BHTV, their access and having the 10th second mentioned a Beverly Hills and the other thing that we just haven't that's the additional thing that we're now talking about in addition to those two other things. K-Bee and now we're talking about for the city, B-H-T-V, and the 10-second opening. Having that mention and having the footage of Beverly Hills. That's correct. That's correct. Okay. Okay. Continuing with questions. Vice Mayor Nazarian. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you for the report. Thank you for the report. Thank you for being here. Honestly, I think that this is such an iconic event that I'm excited to have you here. And I think that I just have a couple basic questions. Was there any discussion as to the duration of the event and what is one Beverly offering to mitigate the predicament that you're kind of in right now. Because a lot of this really isn't something that the city is. And aren't you kind of. We have added approximately six days to our schedule based on the interruption of allowing access to the international ballroom from Merv Griffin Way and the driveway of the hotel. So we have no real other access points. There is a some loading dock use There's a two-story structure that's being built on the backside of the international ballroom to assist with additional space that we would normally have for our technical operations. So overall, I'd say this year it presented quite a logistical challenge in planning and it's all, you know, we're at the same event site but with different conditions. So we've had to make those necessary adjustments. We've gotten in front of the adjustments that we believe we will need to make next year based on the construction plans with Cain and our review in that process and with the Beverly Hilton working closely with them as well. So I'm sorry, what was your question? I was asking what concessions one Beverly has done to help mitigate this predicament you're in with. So today? The changes you're facing. I don't know that there are any, we have discussed the need of a cable bridge for some, you know, just working around the general conditions of the construction itself. Our video trucks are parking a thousand feet further down Santa Monica Boulevard. We have additional cabling to do. That's a whole additional day of our setup. So I'm not sure that they're in the position to offer us anything other than a long-term tenure in the building, hopefully, when it's all done and beautiful. But we are working closely with those teams to try to figure out ways to make it more painless for everyone, actually. All right, thank you. Those are my questions. OK, and at the risk of repeating, I'm going to do it anyway. In terms of questions, the 94 extra hours of lane closure are completely paid for by the production, correct? By Dick Clark productions or? Correct, that would be paid all by Dick Clark. And that is a personnel cost that is going to be just passed along. Yes, only personnel cost. And that is an additional cost that otherwise would not have been incurred that is the additional lane closure but for the construction. Yes. And although it was asked what the commercial cost was of a, or for a commercial for a 30 second spot, we don't know what a, what the true value is of a 10 second cold open, but we're contrasting it to what a third of a 30 second commercial spot would be, but it's even more valuable is, I think Rick is what you said because it is within the show. That's correct. I would look at more of a more as an integration as opposed to a commercial advertising spot. And as I understand it also, although we don't have, we will have cooperation in terms of what is said during that 10 second cold open. We don't have editorial, I don't know, stamp of approval necessarily, but you're going to work with us in terms of what will be said during that period of time. That's correct, yeah, mutually beneficial. And then of course we've also discussed what the additional benefits are in terms of the concessions that are being provided for BHTV for the school district, etc. Which is really the quid pro quo for the additional up to $30,000 worth of a way for correct. That's correct. So those are my questions and you wanted to, John, you had asked for a liaison recommendation based on this presentation now. Is that okay? I can start that off very unless you want to. Okay, good. Okay, so the analysis that I believe we made initially regarding what we thought was the first ask or wasn't the first ask was really based on the ability of declarke productions to give us something in return. And I think that the value that we are receiving for waving the fee, at least in my mind, is commensurate with the fees that we are giving up. I think one of the things that I have noticed over the years with the Golden Globes is there is a hold your breath. Here comes the Beverly Hilton logo on the screen and then you look quickly and then it's gone. And that was really what the introduction was to the program. It wasn't really highlighting Beverly Hills or the community. It was something I, you know, now from Los Angeles and the Beverly Hilton Hotel and then they moved on. Well, and that was maybe a second or two. I think that the value of promoting the event in Beverly Hills, plus the other concessions that are being provided, certainly in my mind, warrant the fee waiver of up to $30,000. So I don't know if Council Member Wells, if you wanna chime in on a recommendation from Malayazan. Well, I'm a little, I'm struggling a little because, you know, some of this information has come to us now piecemeal and in many ways, you know, it's been all over. As you can see from how this is getting revealed today. So I would say you're looking at the fees of roughly 30,000. And I hear what you're saying, but I'm taking into account as well that the CVB, which we support as a city, is providing 30,000, as well as the school district is providing parking in their secure parking lot. And all of those things have a value to them. And in return, they're having red carpet access. And the city will have red carpet access. What's in addition to that really is the 10 second cold open. And that remains to be defined. It's not a 10 second spot that we would buy. Because if it was a 10 second spot, we would own the creative. We don't, we'd own the messaging. I think we're sharing that 10 second cold open with announcing that it's at the Hilton, that it's, you know, there's other messaging in there besides just Beverly Hills. So it's a very difficult thing to evaluate. What is the, you know, the value of that other than it's great to have Beverly Hills at the forefront and to be mentioned and to show images of Beverly Hills and if that's what that is in that 10 seconds I think there is a value to that it's just a hard thing to value. So if you look at the fees of 30,000 permit fees already there's 30,000 coming from the CVB as well as the ability to have parking. So it's a really a question of how much in addition to that do we want to reduce or provide a discount. And so I actually am more in line with thinking it should be more like 15,000, but I'm open to hear what the other council members think. Okay. Going to council member or going to be all over the board. Okay, going to council member Corman. I'm going to be all over the board. Okay, so first of all, look, I'm supportive of the Golden Globes. I want everyone to know that we're supportive of the Golden Globes. And I don't blame you for asking for a permit fee reduction when you see vanity fee are coming in here and asking for it. And this is the problem with giving permit fee waivers is that, you know, you're giving them based on how much you value the entities asking for the waivers and there's no question we value the golden globes extremely highly and we don't value I think vanity fair more than the golden globes so you're certainly entitled to ask for what you're asking for and I just want to be clear about that. I think the $30,000 fee waiver is reasonable. And the way I come to is a little different. I don't know how much the value the CDB access to the red carpet is. It's good. It's certainly worth something. It's hard for me to put a dollar amount on it. But what I can do, and I recognize that Councillor Mellon Wells is correct, the 10 seconds lead in, we don't have creative controls. It's not quite an ad, but I also recognize your point. It's in the broadcast content, it may be more valuable in that regard. So on the whole, as you consider the wash, if we're paying essentially $30,000 to 10 seconds, that's a discount of about 75%, which means that if you're giving us a discount of 75% we can give you a discount of 75% on our fees. If there are 30,000, I mean, permit fees. If there are 30,000 dollars that gets you to $22,500 of permit fee waiver right there. And then the question is what about the extra $7,500? And then I look at the fact you have a program for 40 students, you know, for access to behind the scenes production, which I think is valuable. You do have the access for CAB on the red carpet. And I'm also mindful that, you know, when we really, when we started this whole process about, not back in October, the liaison committee didn't recommend any fee waiver at all. And when we talked about it briefly at the council level, I think all of us were in agreement. We didn't think we should be waiving any fees. And I gather what's changed is number one, a recognition that we have the additional cost being imposed on you by the construction. And number two, there are these other elements that you are offering and that we find attractive. So on the whole, in concept, although I don't love few waivers, I think you are entitled to them. And I think the $30,000 is reasonable given the discount you're offering on the 10-second lead-in, the access to the students, the access to the CVB. And also, although it's not, we're not waiving hard costs associated with the additional lane closures. Those are costs you are paying, money you are paying. And I think the extra $7,500 recognizes that although you're paying full freight for the costs, we can give you a break on the fees, the permit fees as a result. So I can get to the $30,000 fee waiver for you in this trip. Thank you. I just want to clarify that as well, the CVB is paying $30,000 fee waver for you in this trip. Thank you. I just wanna clarify that as well, the CVB is paying 30,000. Right, and that access. And so if the rack rate of that was, it was a third of $350,000, that's a discount of 75%. That's how I, at some point. I'm not talking about the accent, but the cold lead-in. So if the ad, if the ad place would be $350,000 for 30 seconds, a third of that is $100,000 and $116,000. And 30 over $116,000 is 25%, so we're paying 25% of the ad rate for that 10 second spot. So we're getting a 75% discount, and that's why I'm saying, if that's a valuable thing for us to have, and we all seem to agree it is, then I see no reason not to give you a commensurate 75% discount on the $30,000 fees, which immediately gives you a $22,500 fee waiver, and then the question is to get to 30, where else would we waive $7500 an additional permit fees and I just explain why I think I can get there Okay going on to councilmember Mirish So I hear a split liaison is that right the You're okay with the 30,000 I am okay with the 3,. And Council Member Wells says 15. Council Member Cormons says he's okay with 30. I actually do value the Golden Globes. I'm also okay with 30. Last one to speak on this. All right. So the first thing I want to start off by saying is that we are not Los Angeles. So if it says live from Beverly Hills, that's the first. Live from love Beverly Hills. Yes. So that's the first thing. But I think that this is an important and iconic event. We're honored to be able to celebrate it in our city. And I do think that there are a little bit of growing pains right now with the development that is occurring, but that's all, that's what it takes to be a community and to work and partnership with one another. And so I think that fees and waving fees is something that we as a council need to look at. Perhaps this isn't the right time. That's what I believe liaisons are for to be able to kind of hash out those difficult discussions and see how we can come to agreements. I think that with the concessions that are being offered and with what's happening, with what's being provided, going to the high school as an alumni and speaking and having our students really have this incredible opportunity to be able to even see what's going on is a benefit to our community. And so I appreciate that. The cold open or the lead in, I'm not really in that technical world, whatever the terminology is, I would love to be able to have some opportunity, not because of the 30,000, but because of the partnership. To be able to have some say, for example, something as minor as it's not Los Angeles, it's Beverly Hills. So that people do know the great relationship that the Golden Globes and Beverly Hills have had for so many years. And so I do support the 30,000. And yeah, I mean, I think that there are further discussions about this in the future, but we're excited to be able to celebrate you. And maybe you could have the mayor also come to the event and be able to be recognized as a mayor of Beverly Hills, which is the city that you're going to be in. And one more thing, sorry. Just as a friendly FYI. Am I going to have to bring the in-and-out truck now? No, no, no. Just as a friendly FYI, I'm just kind of putting it out there. We do have a 501C3 arm of the city. And if you do see fit and you do feel comfortable, we would like to invite you to also contribute the same way that we invite advantage fair to do so. Thank you. Yes, sir. I mean, away, I'm just, you gave your number, right? Thank you. So I'm comfortable. For me, 15 was a starting place, and I wanted to hear what everybody had to say. So I'm comfortable if everybody's comfortable there. And again, as said before, we definitely value having the golden glibs and we're happy that we're able to come to some sort of agreement. Okay, so in closing, Rick, I want to thank you and Dick Clark Productions very much for your contributions in the past and in the future. Dick Clark Productions is a Beverly Hills resident. They have their offices in Beverly Hills and I think there is a commitment to the city of Beverly Hills and I hope that we keep that commitment for many, many years to come. Certainly appreciate your willingness to participate in the education of our students. I know that my family personally was the benefactor of not in the production business, but in another area of expertise where my son took advantage of a program and went to college based on that program and got into a really good university because of it. So I think that there is going to be an indirect benefit that some of these students are going to have because of your participation and declarks participation. So I hope that will go on into the future also. I think we're all experiencing growing pains while this multi-billion dollar project is going on at one Beverly Hills. I think that we need to be patient, cognizant, that the fact there are going to be growing pains. When this is all done, we're going to have the number one, number one city. We're already number one, but we're going to be one level above when this is all done. We just got to get through these growing pains. I've already stated my position in terms of the ask. I think it's reasonable. I hope that we start discussions for the following year earlier. Then we did it this time around because I think we all felt that we've been under a lot of pressure to get it done. I'm glad it is done today and I think we have unanimity at this point for up to $30,000 waver. So thank you all very, very much. And it lasts also if I may say, of course, if there are issues with construction problems, they have a very good connection to the owners of the project. So they should be able to work things out all in the family. Yeah, and I think they have been in terms of the length of cabling and the amount of space that they have. And that's family business that they have, and I'm sure they know how to handle that. And Mr. Mayor, this was recommendation to delegate to the city manager, the authority to enter into a contract along the lines that the council has discussed this afternoon and I just wanna make sure that that was. So we have all unanimity on that issue, Mary, Craig, John, sure on and myself, yes. Thank you. Okay. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, going on to item number five. Yes, item number five report by the priority setting, ad hoc regarding proposed draft priorities goals and work plan items for fiscal year 2526. Once again, I will give the caveat that we have up to one hour and 10 minutes on this item because we do have a hard close at 445. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council Nancy Henkhoffey or City Manager. Today we're going to be talking about the recommendation by the priority setting ad hoc regarding proposed draft priorities goals and work plans for fiscal year 2025-26. Before I get started I thought we could talk a little bit about how to roll out the report. I know priorities could become a very big discussion. And so my thought is I can give a little bit of background how we got here. Perhaps the liaison's want to give their report. And then I can walk through some of the items, not every single item on the list, through some of the items, not every single item on the list, but some of the items and provide some context on about them and then we could come together at the end of each priority and try to get questions and comments, that sort of thing. So, if that sounds like an acceptable approach. I think that's fine. Everybody okay with that? Okay, very good. So how did we get here? So at the May 21st study session, there was a C item in your packet that talked about the establishment of an ad hoc to discuss priority setting. The ad hoc is comprised of Vice Mayor Nazarian and Council Member Cormin. The impetus of this came out of some of the budget setting process that we had last year and wanting to really focus our priorities moving forward. We have had a very successful process in the past and you know just trying to do some process improvement moving forward. At that, so the ad hoc committee met on July 9th and their first charge was to sort of establish a framework for the priority setting. Not establish the priorities but a framework for the priorities. That framework was brought back to the City Council on August 6th. And at that point, the City Council concurred with the ad hoc that we wanted to create a hierarchical list of strategic priorities, goals, and work plan items. The priorities, goals, and work plans should be for one to two years. We could have priorities that would take longer than two years. Of course, we have projects that take more than two years, but they would be sort of listed separately. The priorities should be achievable, measurable, and action oriented. And that we changed the timing of the priority setting. It used to take place in April, Mayish, but that we wanted the priority setting to take place in the fall, which is before the budget process kicks off for the city. And then we would check back with the city council around April. So the majority of the priority setting would happen around this time of year before April. So the majority of the priority setting would happen around this time of year before staff gets going on the budget requests. And then before we go through the whole budget process with the City Council, we would check back and make sure we're still on the same track. The Council at that time asked the GAD to further develop the strategic priority areas associated draft goals and possible work plan items for fiscal year 2024 2025 26 and to return to the city council. So basically ask the ad hoc go and draft work with staff draft some priorities goals and work plan items get some of that work done ahead of time and then bring it back to the city council, which is what we're doing today. So along those lines, the ad hoc committee met on October 28th and on November 13th to develop the draft priorities, goals and work plan items that will be presented today for council feedback and direction. As we talked about, the goal is to have the big list, the meaty part of the work be done in the fall as the budget process kicks off internally. They would be reviewed again in the spring, right before the budget process kicks off with the City Council. A couple of notes about the list. We did put in a place holder for mayor initiatives. Those are not always going to be determined in the fall. And so we figured they would be determined by the spring. So they would be folded in in the sort of April made timeline. The list itself, I wanted to make a couple of notes. There are items that are marked with pending City Council direction. In most of the cases where you have that note pending City Council direction, that means that Council hasn't given direction. You may not have even seen the item yet, so it may be new to you. You may not have allocated funding to it. So today maybe the first time that we're talking about it and it's just to try to get a sense of whether this is even a direction that the council's interested in going or not. There are items marked with final city council direction pending. So in these cases, city council has given direction but may not have made the final decision or allocated funding. So for example, the October 7th permanent memorial is marked final city council direction pending. We don't have every single piece of the puzzle put together for the permanent memorial. We know we want to do it. We have some money allocated, but we don't have everything worked out yet. Later on in the list, you'll see a few items that are marked with per the certified housing element those words Those are items that were approved by the city council as part of the adopted housing element So you may look at them and go oh is this here? Well, it's there because it was part of the certified housing element So again, I'm not gonna walk through every single work plan item or every single priority. I have highlighted a few that I'll address. I figured I could go through each goal area, highlight a few things, and then we can pause and council members can ask questions, make comments. So our first strategic priority area we've titled Enhance Community Safety and Health. The first goal area is to prepare for the opening of the metro stations. So I wanted to highlight the fact that we have an assigned agreement with Metro to have a public safety center at the Laossiannega Metro Station. We want to obviously have that built and completed by the time the station opens, which is within fiscal year 2526. This past budget year, the City Council approved BHPD sworn staffing for around the La Siena Ge metro station. So we want to get those folks hired, trained, sent to the Academy. All that needs to be due to bring on additional police officers. and then we will be looking toward the opening of the Beverly station, which will be coming in 2026. We don't know exactly what the security model will look like for the Beverly station. Could be a very similar to La Siena Ge. Could be that Beverly is a bit closer to the police station. Maybe we don't need as heavy a presence. We'll have a better idea of what that will look like as the time moves forward. So the idea is just to build out a security model for the Beverly station. The second goal area is to implement new technologies to support public safety. So here we have something called the Cloud Migration Upgrade and E-Records Management System, RMS Upgrade for BHPD and Beverly Hills Fire Department. What does all of that mean? Well, in the police department we have what's called the CAD RMS system. So the RMS part of it is the records management system. This is the system, it's like the plumbing infrastructure in your house. It's the system that underlies everything that our police department does. And what is happening, you'll see in a few areas here, is that IT infrastructure is moving away from server-based technology, where the servers are here on site. A lot of these technologies are moving to the cloud, and you don't get as much functionality unless you move to the cloud. So this will be a pending City Council direction. This is an area where staff feels it's very important for us to keep up with times, migrate to the cloud and get those extra features that are available in the cloud-based system. Continuing on, this is also pending City Council direction. Expanding drone coverage are our drone currently flies 12 hours a day, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. So we would like to look at expanding that drone coverage to a longer period. This is an example of one of those things that's marked pending City Council direction. You may not have seen this before. We don't have the funding to do this. And so this is something that's on the list that is maybe new to some of you. I'm going to drop down. We know about CCTV cameras and automated license plate readers. I'm going to drop down to expand and enhance public safety technology to include training and digital forensic software. There are two pieces of software here that are examples. One is called force metrics. This is something that we are able to buy through our organized retail theft grant. So this is not something that the city would pay for the upfront costs for. The second one is called Data Miner. This is something that is a budgeted product. So just to give you an example, Data Miner is a service that is what's called a social media crawler. So we can put in keywords into the system and it will crawl through social media and look for things like Beverly Hills, gun, bomb, you know, those kinds of things so that it will really dig through social media and see if there's any sort of fringe people that are posting less than ideal things about Beverly Hills and allow us to prepare appropriately. I'll drop down to the bottom one here, expand use of artificial intelligence, based public safety applications, particularly related to video searching. So, as City Council is aware, we well over 2500 cameras in our city and we have at most two people that are watching those cameras, right? We can go back and look after an event has occurred. We can have staff go back and look at the cameras but at any one time really we have two people look at the cameras. But at any one time, really, we have two people looking at the cameras. So software like the Veritone will allow for some AI-based searching across our cameras to say, look for the red Mustang going eastbound on Wilshire and can comb through that data and help us more quickly track those kinds of things, those kinds of situations so that we can get going on investigations more quickly, get going on incidents that are happening real time. Okay, I'll pop onto the top one here. There's a lot of words there about adhering to National Institute of Standards and Technology Cybersecurity Standards as Council is aware. There are a lot of organizations, even government organizations and security organizations that are hacked. They have ransomware, that sort of thing. I can tell you that at this very moment, there are people that are trying to hack into the Beverly Hills network. It's just a continual threat of cyber security threat. So there's a lot of things that we continue to do or bound this area. One of the things that we've been focusing on over the last year and would like to focus on over this next year is simple things like expanding information technology and inventory management. So what that means is knowing at any one time what devices are hooked onto our network are they up to date with their patches? Because what happens a lot of times is that hackers can take advantage of opportunities where computers haven't been updated. So moving forward into this area to ensure that we're continuing to provide a high level of cybersecurity for our city. I'll drop down to Work Plan Item 1.4.1. This was an item that was added to the list by our ad hoc. There is a concern that there are certain streets in the city where tourists stand in the middle of the street to get that great picture of being in Beverly Hills, but they're not always practicing the safest behavior in doing so. And so wanting to explore additional safety measures to keep those folks safe that are trying to get that great palm tree background. Rounding out the last bit of strategic priority area one, I'll drop down to study the use of non-sworn community service officers for the metro and other locations. So moving forward, I think we're trying to look toward potentially taking advantage of classification that we haven't used recently called community service officers. This is classification that is not sworn, but it's a highly trained position. This position could take on desk duties, taking reports that are not in the moment. So if robbery occurred from pavilions yesterday and they just realized it, going into pavilions and taking the report. Potentially manning the Metro Public Safety Center that we discussed and then other duties as assigned. So trying to take on some of those duties that currently are performed by sworn police officers so that we can get our police officers out in the field doing what they do best. So with the mayor's permission, I'll pause at this point. We've gotten through strategic plan a priority area one. I don't know if there's questions or comments. Okay, so just so I understand this is the format that we're going to go through each of the strategic priorities. That was my thought. Okay. So we have a total of seven altogether. Seven? Yes. Okay. So this is still a relatively high level discussion, not necessarily or or this question, relatively high level, not going into the fine granular portions of it. Is that correct? I would say so. You know, we are staff are still working through the fine details. And in some cases, we don't have a lot of meat on the bones. So yes, I would say it's a more high level discussion area. If there are areas where council goes, oh, we just don't. We're not interested in doing that. It's very helpful for us to know. If there are things that we missed, that would also be very helpful to know. Okay. So with that, I apologize. I meant to pause and I didn't to hear the liaison report. Yes. That's why you were raising your hand. Yes, I apologize. I wasn't trying to get you off your group. So let's go the way it's not a report. Yes, okay. So after the council meeting that we had, we felt that it was important to be able to come together and kind of work out some of the nitty-gritty details of our strategic planning without having to go through too many details of it. And so staff, along with, I think our fire chief, our police chief spoke about the different sections and what is important. And so Council Member Korman and I were served on this liaison. And we felt that there were certain areas that we could hold off on or there was an urgency as it relates to our current budget. So we made some basic recommendations on the red line allowing for the council to come together further. However, as Nancy pointed out, all of the items here are recommendations that were made by our city manager and et cetera. So just because it's not necessarily red lined, I just want to make it clear that it doesn't mean that it's something that we did not agree, that means that we already agreed with it or that there's room for discussion for the council. For that, does that make sense? We just wanted it to be clear. And then as was mentioned, I'll talk to the housing element later on, but these were some of the security issues that we felt were most relevant right now with the current climate of what we're experiencing and with metro coming. So we tried to organize in the sense of what would be first and what would be of most importance in our priority setting. I mean, I have more to say, but I guess we could go to it in each section, but, you know, for example, we always, every year we have mayoral initiatives that are brought in significantly after the priorities are set, and that creates a bit of a challenge for staff as well, because sometimes it completely changes the direction of some of the priorities that council is working on. And so we felt that it would be important to allow a space for that to give room so that whoever is mayor at that time can have a little bit of wiggle room and that could also give staff the understanding of what those priorities would be as it moves forward. And those are my comments for now and I'm sure maybe Councilwoman Corbyn may have more to give, but we could continue on. Okay, so let's, I guess we can go to public comment at this point in time and this would be the time if anybody is in. Chambers of to have public comment on it to please give a speaker's clip to the city clerk. Not seeing any, we will go to electronic means. We do not have comment on this item. Okay. So again, with the thought that this is a high level view, and we're not going to get into very specifics on any one of these that is covered by the area that should suffice. We'll go to councilmember questions and comments noting that we have a limited amount of time for each of these. Okay, thank you. I just have a couple comments to add really hard to change. And one is, first of all, thank you for doing this. And I think that all of these things in terms of safety, it's our number one priority. And it's covering most of everything that we've talked about. And some of these are already happening. Many of them are happening. So it's great to see. This is a small suggestion is that G1.3 and sure safe buildings, I would suggest that that just get moved to the infrastructure where we talk about parking facades, et cetera, because we're really talking more about like public safety things here. So I might suggest moving that out of there. And then for the last point, 1.6 suggests staff needs to respond to community need. I might add, either it's a separate pointer, it's around community need. I might add to also study and the partnership with regard to the business triangle, partnership with the business triangle around arm guards are safety or this may be part of that discussion when it says other locations. So, but I would call it out that we want to partner with the business triangle with regard to adding safety in terms of staffing. It could be this community service officer, it could be the businesses supporting their own security guards on the street or however that works. I know there's been some previous conversations, and I think that should continue as we go forward. And the only other thing I would add maybe, and I think it's from the high levels, it would, we don't need to get that specific, but perhaps when we talk about holidays or high impact times, how you would increase staffing when we know, like right now during the holidays on rodeo drive and areas such as that. So maybe that all falls under that 1.6, because we know that's an issue. And then I think everything else is really covered point six because we know that's an issue. And then I think everything else is really covered in each of these things in terms of expanding our security into our neighborhoods, into the residents, into the business trying to roll around Metro. I'm really happy that we have, we're moving forward with Metro. Those are my comments, thanks. Okay, and we will continue with the liaison report and he gave it to you. I'm sure I have nothing to add to this. I was always very thorough. But any questions, comments? Oh no, no, no, I'm good with it. As they say in the law, a resident's locator. And Council Member Mersh. Okay, I'm in agreement with here and especially when we talk about utilization of the cameras, but I brought up the point that the goal of the Council in the past has been and we have a new Council to have cameras throughout the residential areas. And I know that there are parts of town like in the southeast close to where I live, where there are not cameras. And the residents there are concerned. I mean, again, this is not about people who are concerned that there is an invasion of their privacy. They want cameras there. And I've been asking about when's that part of town going to finally get the cameras that the rest of the city has. And a lot of our residents there are asking that question too. So to me, that would absolutely be a priority would be to have the same level of coverage of cameras in the southeast part of town that we do throughout the rest of the residential areas. And aside from that, I agree obviously with everything else, but that to me is a priority that we should be focusing on. Thank you. OK, it's kind of, I think, covered by WP 1.2.3, where it says to continue to expand number of close circuit TVs. You're just saying that there should be an emphasis on the southern part of the town. On the southeast part of town, because I think we pretty much covered the rest of the city. So residents there are asking, what are we, job liver? And we should, we should expand it to there. And I know that the police sometimes say that, well, we prioritize where there's the most crime and that sort of thing. And that's one reason we've discussed maybe why we don't need to do it in the alleys. But I'm not talking about the alleys. I'm talking about the actual streets and intersections. Okay. Thank you. By the way. Yeah. So I'm in support of everything that has been mentioned. I agree with regard to what the mayor said with regard to our close circuit TVs. The southeast should be looked at as our alleys as well. I think that that was something that we were looking at in utilizing cameras that already exist and pairing that. Is that included in this? Because we are seeing it's high level. So is that something that is included in this? Yes, that's an initiative that we are rolling out this current fiscal year, where people can have their private cameras ingested into our system if they agree and you know sign on the dotted line. So there's more involved in the cameras and I think there's more to come for that. So thank you. Councillor Cormier. Can I just suggest with respect to 1.2.3 you could add to the end equally throughout the city. Well. So I do I do want to have a little bit of caution and we can certainly change our policy direction. To date so that yes there was direction obviously by the City Council to ramp up CCTV cameras. I think I'm just guessing, but on a per capita basis, I'm guessing that Beverly Hills probably has more CCTV cameras than almost anywhere else in the world. Having said that, our approach has been traditionally to have, I think somebody referenced this earlier, PD has been the driver of where cameras are placed, how they're angled. Not only to capture crime, but also to be able to document traffic accidents and you know that sort of thing. And so I hear I understand equally throughout the city. I do, I would recommend that we allow our police department to also have some ability to focus cameras where they feel crime or accidents or that sort of activity does take place. And I certainly agree with that. I think that just quantity is not as important as quality. I think quantity has a place, but I think that there needs to be an objective basis for it, not just a subjective, we have a camera. So somehow working that in, if that's acceptable. Well, Joseph Salin once said quantity has its own quality. Who said that? Joseph Salin. Okay. I think generally this covers everything. I want to look at under G1, a work plan number 1.4.1, investigate additional safety measures on certain streets to protect tourists. The only part I would delete is the who are taking pictures. I think it should be more encompassing than that. I think that we have areas of the city where people are crossing mid-block, especially in the business district, South Beverly Drive, that we need to take additional measures. So I'll just take away that qualifying, but I think it is an important work plan item. Very good. Okay, with going forward, moving right along. Strategic Priority Area 2, practice effective and transparent government. So higher and retain talented employees. So I highlighted work plan item 2.1.1. This is an example of an item that that council likely has not heard about previously, which is why it says pending city council direction. We are looking at fiscal year 2526 here, and I'll note that in 2026, we will be back to the bargaining table with our general non-sworn bargaining groups. We have not done a comprehensive class and compensation study for a number of years. That kind of study can provide data that can be useful to the council and knowing where we stand in relation to other cities or other markets In this case a comprehensive class and comp study could cost anywhere from you know around let's say a couple hundred thousand dollars If council doesn't find that to be, you know, something that you would find useful, we can certainly take it off the list. If you'd like to explore it further, we can prepare a budget enhancement form and bring that forward through the budget process and you can decide at that time. And I will keep marching forward. Here on this page I just highlighted as I said earlier earlier we're folding in the mayor initiatives because of the timing these would be folded into the list to come April once the new mayor is elected by the peers so this was something something that we wanted to highlight. Okay, so item 2.4.4. Again, a lot of words here. Basically, really exploring AI-based software and how it can make government more efficient and effective. The mayor was at a conference and learned about a tool that the City of Reno, Nevada uses that sits on top of City documents and can help with writing staff reports. Whether we want to do that or not I don't know but we are starting to look into how we can make ourselves more efficient by looking at some of these tools. It was important to the ad hoc to note that any use of AI would be reviewed by staff before the information is made available to the public. So for example, if a staff report is written in part by AI, we would want a staff person reviewing it before it's put out to the public. So that's that item. We had, we have a lot of work going on. The City Council's very busy right now. I think we've lost our screens here. We may have gone on to generator. Are you able to see screens up there? No. All right. So I will do my best to you have your lists and I will do my best to work through them. So we are up to work plan item 3.1.6. We are up to 3.1.3. No. Sorry. I'm on the wrong list. Okay, here we are. 2.5.1. We had some discussion about the different committees that the council is working on the ad hawks and the liaison's. One of the groups that is working in a number of different areas is our commission standardization ad hawk. And one of the things that's come out of that ad hoc is the desire to initiate a semi-annual review of commission work plans and ensure that they're aligned with the city council's goals. So that was something that was added at 2.5.1. We're back on street by the way. Thank you. Okay. And then work plan item 2.5.2. To finish out any work related to the commission reconfiguration efforts. As council will remember, for example, the charitable solicitations commission, they will be continuing into next year as the commissioners turn out and then at that time the commission will likely be dissolved based on prior council direction. So with that we are through priority area 2 and I'll turn it back over to council for your questions and comments. Okay, and do you want to, should we do, lay us on report on that? Brief. Brief, very brief. Very brief. Okay, super brief. So, everything that Nancy said. Thank you, just with regard to WP2.4.4. we felt that, you know, there are a lot of organizations that are using scribes to write the reports as opposed to having officers actually sitting in the office and doing office work this way they can be out on the streets and increasing increasing their footbeat. In addition to that, the Commission consolidation and continuing the work a lot of times commissioners are often confused or they try to set their own work plan as opposed to allowing Council to share what is important and what they need assistance with. So we just felt that this way it would help clarify it and make it more streamlined and clear for what expectations are and what workloads need to look like for commissions. And that's it, thank you. Anything, what are you? No, I just thought it might be constructive for liaison committee. The City Council, liaison's to meet regularly with the chair and An vice chair of the commission's just to check in Make sure it was in the same page, you know rather than have them meet arbitrarily or whenever something comes up Okay, okay going to Councilmember questions comments starting with councilmember wills I My only comment about this is really about the commissions and that is as we're looking as the liaison committee is looking at the streamlining and aligning the commissions and as well as how that process goes and how they create their work plans and making that more aligned with the priorities and the budgets of the council. If I jump ahead and I don't mean to jump ahead and go into the details of all of it, but all of the items that are in SP4 and as well I think maybe there's a couple that are in five. With our related to work plans for arts and culture, our human relations, our parks and rack. I would suggest that we move those under that same area. We may not want to discuss those now because that's part of that process and it will get addressed as you address it within the commissions. So you may want to, I would also suggest maybe moving the commission that WP251 and two, the whole thing about the commissions. Maybe that goes under the quality of life. And then all those other sub items kind of fall under that. Because you're really talking about commissions and they're really advising on, they're the ears on the ground about what's going on. One is tied to events and one is tied to just, Nancy, I'll let you speak to it. Sure, yeah, I'm happy to speak to it. So there are items in SP 4 and 5 that we will hopefully get to, particularly related to events. Whether we've had a few events over the last couple of years, I'll pick on wellness. We have the wellness event that takes place at Roxbury. We've had it a couple of years now. Do we want to continue it? Do we want to change it? Do we want to have it where it is? Time of year, that sort of thing. So it is a priority for one of our, or one or more of our commissions. And we have another group of council members that are working on looking at it at the events that we are holding. And whether we want to continue doing those and what they'll look like, et cetera, et cetera. So I do think it makes sense to combine these all together, sort of commission, a chunk of commission. I appreciate that comment. And I think some of those are very detailed and can be folded in here and they will be hopefully worked on by Council Member Wells and the mayor who are on that committee looking at the special events and what we want to hold or change that sort of thing. I agree. Those are my comments. Did you want comments from each of us regarding item WP 2.11 that is conduct the comprehensive class in compensation study. It's up to council. If it stays on the list, we will bring it forward through the budget process as a budget enhancement request and you can decide at that time if you prefer. It's up to you. WP 2.1.1 the conduct Comprehensive Class and Compensation Study. So do you want it, whether there's an interest in doing it or just you're going to bring it as part of the budget process no matter what? If you have a strong feeling, yes or no, it would be helpful to know that now. If you'd like more information, get a more specific cost, find out more about what that involves. We can fold it into the budget process and bring it forward to you in April. The last time we did comprehensive class and conversation study was how long ago? 2012, so it's a little out of date. Okay, so do you have a feeling one way or the other as to whether or not we should consider it at a future time? I feel we should consider it. I mean, obviously it's a cost issue, but I think we definitely based on the date and we're coming up on our negotiations. So we have one we should study. So no, no. In relation to the whole budget. Going down, I agree. I obviously based on the study. I based on the cost of study, but I agree. We should look at it. Okay. Any other comments on SP2? John. In general, yeah, I do think that we can look at a comprehensive cast in compensation study. It's interesting the way we do that sometimes, we did it before compared to other cities and the cities that we picked, and we have to be very smart about it because often in the past it felt like it was an exercise in cherry picking. I would say that in addition to when we talk about transparent governance that we continue to provide access and even better access and information on lobbyists, for example, on paid lobbyists, which I get an email, and a lot of people can sign up, but maybe we need to ensure that the information in the forums is more detailed, so that someone who is getting those emails and looking at it can readily understand what is being asked, what is being done. In some cases, it is fairly vague and it shouldn't be. So that's the only thing I would add. I mean, again, it's all a work in progress. Thank you. Okay. Vice mayor. I have nothing further to add. Okay. And then a new or obviously in favor of at least looking at the comprehensive classes. Yes, everything is based on, of course, what the cost analysis would be. Yes. And I am also in favor of considering it. One comment I wanted to make was about using AI software for report writing in general and then specifically in general I think that it is a good practice. It must be reviewed before it goes out I just in my practice. I just got an AI letter from from a colleague who was an Opponent of mine and it was not read and I called them up and I said what the heck does this all mean and Apologize for it, but it's what AI does maybe good to format It's not necessarily good as a final project In terms of using it in police work. I think that's something that our Attorney's office needs to look at I think that there may be an evidentiary issue with a machine doing something and it's just reviewed by somebody. I think that in terms of court work, I certainly as an attorney would potentially attack that as it being formatted. But I think whatever we can do to get more officers on the street, certainly in favor of that, but I think we need to make sure that it doesn't create any legal problems. Noted, that's important. Okay, going on to. Area three, so the third strategic priority area is ensure financial stability and economically sustainable growth. So one of the items that's been brought forward a few times at our City Council meetings has been considering the development of impact fees. So that is something that has been discussed, particularly in light of the development that we are being asked to do by the state. Another one I wanted to highlight was enhance the charitable foundations role to include soliciting donations and developing a sponsorship program for events and activities. And so part of that process has already kicked off. Council member Wells and the Vice Mayor are Leah Zons to the Charitable Foundation. We're getting that machine up and running and humming. And one of the things we've talked about is obviously even today is doing some fundraising for our October 7th permanent memorial among other things. On this sheet, I wanted to highlight a couple of things. There was some conversation in the ad hoc meeting about telework. Is telework working for the city? Is it providing the level of service that we're looking for? We also talked about how we are at a point as a city where we are having some trouble with recruiting people. Sometimes what we hear is, well, you don't offer telework or you don't offer enough telework. So trying to study our telework program, making sure that it's effective, and then seeing if there are things that we can do to within a controlled environment, use it as a recruitment tool. Another thing that was discussed by the ad hoc added to the list was completing an appraisal of the city's art collection. We have, as you know, a very fine art collection. The last appraisal that was done was in December of 2015. And so that list is almost 10 years old now. It wouldn't include things like the highway, highway, iron route, and things like that that are probably worth millions of dollars at this time. So doing an appraisal. And that was it for Strategic Priority Area 3. We wanna go around questions and comments. So we will start with council member Wells. If there is any comments you have on this on SP3. The thing I would add to this is we have the ad hoc, the liaison committee that's looking at our, you know, our finances and budgeting and how can we reduce expenses and increase our revenues, which is also part of the blue ribbon. So maybe it kind of gets folded into that, which is 3.1.1. It's, you know, it's in addition to that. The other thing is really, and it's kind of along the lines of the asset with the art collection is separate but along the same lines is really evaluating our land asset, our real estate assets and whether maximizing our use of those assets and how we acquire assets in a way that we're maximizing our financial stability and our growth. And it made that real estate one may actually go under where you have under housing kind of the long range. But I think we look at it from there's parking, there's other parts of real estate. There's a city real estate that we use for city purposes. But I just think that we should always be evaluating the use of our assets, our real estate assets, that we're maximizing that. And from a maximizing the asset itself, from financial standpoint or also from a public use standpoint. And this was actually something that the ad hoc discussed the vice mayor brought it forward. And I think maybe what we can do is we do have some information related to that. I'm not sure that it entirely captures what's been discussed. We certainly have sort of asset lists for our insurance purposes and that sort of thing. And so maybe we could have an item that is sort of like explore the highest and best use of city assets or something like that. And we can kind of work through, well this is what we have and this is what we want it to look like. That sort of thing. I mean we do that in many ways in the real estate ad hoc right now. And as each individual thing comes up, but I do think it is looking at it in the bigger picture of our financial picture, what percentages is in real estate, what's our return on that real estate, what's the cost of carrying it, what's the public benefit that we're driving from that? Things of that nature, just kind of in evaluation. I think it's always good to have that as a periodic review. Okay. Okay, Council Member Corbyorman. Nothing yet. And Councilmember Mersh. Well, no surprises to anyone. I've been talking about nexus studies. And I think that we have to look at, if we're looking at economic sustainability, how new development is supposed to pay for itself. We're going to look at our funding. sustainability, how new development is supposed to pay for itself. We're going to look at our funding. We have to look beyond just the Blue Ribbon Commission's suggestions, I think a lot of which were good. But you mentioned before that the state is imposing certain mandates on us and it's up to us and we do as said have the ability to ensure since unfunded mandates are not constitutional about how any of these new developments will actually pay for themselves. And so again, I think it's extremely important for us to do a comprehensive nexus study and to have a plan to make that. So the other point is maybe a, not I don't think it's nitpicky, but it's a linguistic one. We talk about insure financial stability and economically sustainable growth. And I would much prefer that we use the word viability than growth because looking ahead, we have SP7 is talking about to practice environmental stewardship, and it's pretty well known that economic growth itself is incompatible with environmental sustainability. And so, again, we live on a finite planet with finite resources, and to quote the, Kenneth Bolding, anyone who thinks that exponential and infinite growth is possible on a finite planet with limited resources is either a madman or an economist. So I think it would be much better if we could use the word viability. That's what we're looking at. And that, that to me is an important point. But aside from that, I get it. Thank you. Councilor Korman, would Stalin have anything to say on that? Yeah, I don't know. But I do. I recognize what you're saying is true. But I also kept to recognize that we're being forced to grow by Sacramento. And I think that's what that was trying to capture was really just the second-handable growth as required by the state. And Joseph Solomon has something to say about that. But it's not sustainable as the whole point and that's why I think viability is a much better word. I mean, you know, next to studies will allow us to fund it, but either that or let's drop the goals of environmental stewardship because you can't have both. So. Okay, I'm not sure we're going to decide that right now, but I think the concept is out there. So we understand. Yes. Wordsmith is the best we can. Okay vice mayor Okay, and I have nothing further also I think in terms of the direction Hope it's implicit that We all have an Indicated by not saying anything that we are agreeing that the it should be looked. That is the citywide fee study and the development of impact fees. Okay, going on to strategic priority number four. Very good, strategic priority number four, Augment Community Quality of Life. So as Council Member Wells described and it sounded like there was concurrence from the rest of the council for the items related to, for example, work plan item 4.2.2, discuss and evaluate arts and culture, commission work plan items, festival, Beverly Hills. We will put that together with the other commission items. And this is currently this and all of our other events are being discussed by the special event liaison. And further direction will be developed out of that liaison. Okay, I'll drop down to work Plan Item 4.2.5. We discussed with Council not that long ago bringing back a plan to expand our programming around naru's. And the ad hoc felt like, you know, the plans are already kind of out of the gate for this coming March. So we will continue to celebrate now, Ruse, but not in a larger way, but come 2026. We will perhaps partner with Wallace or do a larger scale celebration of Nauru's in 2026. Okay, a few on this page. Again, Human Relations Commission Work Plan continuing day of wellness. This is an event that we can lump in with the commissions and we'll be discussed by the special event liaison. Work Plan Item 4.2.9 prepare for the 2028 Olympics related to security transportation programming. This is a current mayor initiative. As soon as our cam conference wraps up at the end of this week, we will be transitioning to all things Olympics. Recently staff went down to an Olympics round table at SoFi Stadium that was related to safety and preparedness. So we are already and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and evaluated by the special events liaison. And then an item that came forward through the ad hoc process was implementing an annual recognition of October 7th. So we will start looking at what that means. I, you know, again, it says pending City Council direction. We'll have to kind of develop that out and understand what that looks like, but we wanted to note that on our priority list. I don't have any to highlight on this screen. And I'm up to SP5. So with that that provide comments and questions or liaison comment first. Thank you. So I think we're in agreement with all of this. I do have two comments that I don't know how to work that in. The first is being negotiation, begin negotiations of joint power agreement. How long is that in place for and why is that on our work plan? Didn't we just complete that negotiations? While it may feel like you just completed that negotiation, the current JPA expires on June 30th of 2026. And if we are to follow the same pattern as we have before, which is up to the council, we would need to begin negotiations this coming fall if not sooner. Because in part because of the way the funding works for the school district and the way they have to report the funding. So it helps them as well as us to start those discussions sooner rather than later and I do have one one quick comment based on Combining our commissions with this section. I feel that our commissions are not necessarily an event This section is for quality of life and events and our commissions are part of our governing and helping Helping the council with what they need. I don't know if it's appropriate to split them into two, but I think I'd rather see that. It's kind of like the structure and then their workload of events that are tied to it. That's the way I see it. I don't know if you see it the same way. Well, I mean, that's the way we originally organized it. And one's structural, one's organizational, and one's substantive, the actual work product. So that's what we structured this way. That's maybe a campy structure differently, but that's why it was organized. So what we did. So those are, I mean, that's the way I see it. I see that governing, you need structure for it and transparency, and then there's work plans that are involved with specific events. Because commissions aren't only about events, right? We have our public planning commission and planning and that has nothing to do with that component of it. But anyway, that's my two cents on that. So perhaps when we go around, we could give feedback on whether we'd like to have commissions in both in practice, effective and transparent governance and in community quality, community quality of life or if we'd like them in one area, however you'd like it structured. I mean, at the end of the day, it doesn't make any difference. It's all going to be our work plan. So I just I think for clarity it helps me but whatever my colleagues agree with. So just so I understand just staff want a recommendation as to whether it move from four to three or leave it the way it is, or what are we looking for? I believe what I heard earlier was that we should combine all of the commission-related activities together in one area. So that they're lumped together, commissions are together, and they should be placed under augment community quality of life. I've also heard that there is a piece of the commissions that is related to practicing effective and transparent governance. And there is a piece of the commission work that is related to quality of life and they should be in those two separate sections. So we appreciate feedback from the council on that. Okay. should be in those two separate sections. So we appreciate feedback from the council on that. Okay. Let's start with the ad hoc's recommendation on that. Could you guys study it much more than these three of us? I would leave it the way it's in the report. Just the way it is. Okay. Councilmember Wells. Okay. So I feel like I understand the structure of streamlining the commissions but when you talk about reviewing their work plans from a quarterly basis and how those work plans get developed if they have work plans which in many of the cases that are listed here, they're around suggesting based on their, what they feel the community needs to, you know, is missing in the community and what their recommendations are. They seem to fall into this area. So I would put it on the commission to first with staff recommend whether or not for example if you're looking at a wellness event they've done it twice. I would the commission and staff based on how we set our priorities would come back in their group and say we think this is been a great success. We think there's still a need for this. We would recommend to the council that that continues to move forward. I think that I would have that coming from their feedback in terms of how they would recommend whether that were to continue unless we said, you know, our priorities are different and that would be with staff and with looking at the events where it would go through staff to work with the commissions to determine that. So I guess breaking them all out here feels kind of micro compared to the bigger structure. That's really my point about that. I might take them and put them with the commissions. If you, even if you separate your commission to the... But you have other commission work in the other areas. There's other commission work in other areas as it relates. So it's not, it wouldn't be able to be, they wouldn't all be able to be in under quality of life. That's my point. There's different commission work as it relates to the planning commission. You know, there's different work for our commissions. So streamlining that what we want them to do is going to come from council direction as opposed to a lot of the commissions are starting to create their own workload. And that's not the way commissions were originally designed. It was designed at the privy of the council to be able to. I agree with what you're saying. I'm just trying to put them where they collectively. Even if it's a direction from the priorities in the budget, that's how that gets developed versus listing each individual one that's in a commission. It just feels a little micro to me. So I believe, and perhaps it wasn't captured in the priorities, I believe there was a comment by the ad hoc's to sort of look at events in a whole, including because it's the work of the liaisons. So maybe we can keep this under equality of life, but sort of group them together under like a larger work plan, just one work plan that talks about evaluate events, including this commission works and things like that if that's acceptable. I think that might make more sense. You're just putting them closer. They're all very similar and it's a similar process in many ways except for things such as, I think the October 7th is not a commission. I think that would be, that would remain outside of that because that's different. When we talk about something like that, but when we're talking about should we have federal holiday events around that or how do we recognize that? I would think that might be, that might be something with staff that could be brought to commissions to provide their recommendations, to then provide to council, looking at the different holidays. Do they feel there's a need for that? Is there areas that we have now or those acknowledgements could be acknowledged in events that we have? So I just think that would be a great place for that to start. And then it comes to the council. That's why I was recommending it. But there are certain events that stay outside of that which are pretty clear. So I don't think the October itself identify. But when we look at should we have a dog park or should we have, you know, what's the plan with that? I think the commission is going to come with a recommendation for that. And as with staff and then that'll come to the council. I don't think it's going to be the reverse now. I guess that's why. Any of the else? Oh, for me, I'm sorry you one second. I lost my place. I was with regard to the when we're talking about naruse I think that is also one of the things that would go with the commission like an arts and culture and talking about that. So I see that is kind of following along in that same area as well as the holidays as I said. I just see all those things kind of falling into that same structure. Those are my comments. Okay. Councilmember Corman? Nope. Councilmember Mirish. Yeah, just a couple of things I mentioned before. I can hear about events, but I do want to call out. I think we should look into maybe a fourth of July event or parade. Right. Good. And I just, I said, I wanted to highlight that. And also, when we talk about the Olympics, I know that they're not events that we can do here, but we could have the marathon, right? And so I don't know if they have the course set yet, but the LA marathon does come through Beverly Hills. And I think the notion of having world class athletes can compete and running down Rodeo Drive. To me, that's a good idea. I don't know who we should contact, but I think we should maybe go through our friends at the LA Marathon, but we should figure out what those connections are, and I think we should make a case for that, assuming that the rest of the council agrees. Thank you. And vice mayor anything you want to add? And I thought we got a little bit more granular in this section than we had in other sections. And I'm not sure if that can't be more generalized. I mean, I believe everything here is appropriate, whether or not these to individually be called out, but I'm okay with the concepts of everything that's in here. And I certainly agree with Council Member Mersh about putting our stake in for the marathon going through our city. I think that's something that we should, and we'll start looking at very shortly. We crossed out a few things because we agreed with you. It was very specific. It was a little, it was very detailed. I think that's really where I was responding to. It's got very micro. So yes, okay, moving on. Okay, so we're going to see if we can do SP5 in the next seven minutes. Okay. Here we go. So SP 5 is maintaining, develop, infrastructure and facilities. I will go down to Work Plan I had them 5.1.5. one point five. We have our initial look at the, as council will recall, we have a project to look at the upgrading the facades and the seismic infrastructure for our parking structures. We've, I think, maybe got out a little too far over our skis on that one. And so we will be kind of backing up a little bit working with the small business task force, the business, the large business task force to kind of rework that project. So I did want to highlight that one. I do think it will extend into this next year. I don't have anything on this slide. We did the ad hoc recommended that we break out. We had the renovate the sort of community development planning area and the city clerk's office area. The ad hoc wanted to look at reevaluating the plans and the budget to renovate the city clerk's office. I will note that we don't have plans developed out yet for that work, so we will be discussing that as the year moves forward. A couple on this screen. So a few years ago the City Council approved the Connect BH plan which will provide for street escape enhancements on Wilshire and Lossiannigable of Arts including new or enhanced crosswalks, transit shelters and bikeway improvements. A lot not all but a lot of this work particularly around the station areas will be almost entirely funded by Metro. And so the idea is to really kind of not standardize, but to have certain areas of Wil sure that are in alignment. They look similar, they have similar crosswalks and maybe trash cans and bus benches and that sort of thing. So that is essentially what 5.2.2 is and much of it will be paid for by Metro. There's this work plan item 5.2.3. This is another commission work plan item. The Recreation and Parks Commission has been looking at evaluating the construction of a shade structure for the dog park and resurfacing the dog park. I think the ad hack had some reservations about doing that work right now, not about the work itself, the park. I think the ad hack had some reservations about doing that work right now, not about the work itself, but doing that work right now. And that maybe we just wanted to have a little bit more thought around that. And so that's probably something where the liaisons would meet, the council liaisons would meet with the recreation and parks commission liaisons to discuss that further. I don't have anything on the screen. And I believe the last one here is looking at upgrading key IT infrastructure. There's a whole lot of stuff that's listed here. There are items like the access control system, which is our key card system. So we beep into many of our doors, having that system available from a mobile phone so that if you don't have your key card with you, you can still get in. Again, there is a lot of software that's moving to the cloud. So some of this is related to that activity, the finance system moving into the cloud and that sort of thing, that's what that item is about. So I can pause there. Okay, Layzons first. Yeah, there's just a few parts to this that we felt were important. There is work that's going to be done in the area of the dog park, and so we didn't want to kind of Create double the work, so we want we felt that it was important to kind of hold off on that The with regard to connect BH I think that We thought that it would be important to re-evaluate that just to see how it's going as of now and and Make sure that it's going as of now and make sure that it's still meeting the needs of the community and what everybody envisioned it to be and make sure that it's moving along nicely. And the mobile phone access, you know, that's just going to make life a lot easier for many of us. So, um, and that's it. Hey, um, and I'm wondering Nancy, if you just look at it, I said a hard stop at 445. We have two more items to go if I don't, I mean, I know generally what's on the closed session. If you think we can finish this item in the next 15 minutes and we still have time for closed session, I look for your direction. I think we do. I actually could combine strategic plan priority area 6 and 7 together. I only highlight a few items there and then we could take the feedback on those together. Okay. So with that, if we can get through 5, 5, 6 and 7 before 5 o'clock, let's try that as a goal. You okay? Yeah, I am. I don't, you know. I don't. Mary, you have anything on five? I don't have any further comments on five. Thank you. Layers on Joaquay, John. And, John. And I just want to comment on renovate the City Clerk's office. The history of the City of Beverly Hills is contained in the City Clerk's office. And I'm not sure it's as protected an area as I would like to see it. So I just think we need to consider that. And I'll leave it at that comment. Okay, going on. Okay, I will do six and seven together. So strategic priority area six is accomplished city housing goals. Again, a number of these items say purr the certified housing element. So it was a part of that housing element that has already been adopted by the City Council. We had some conversations about the five-acre parcel over by Foothill and Third. The ad hoc recommended that we start taking a look at the Virgin Records Building that is on Foothill there. If we're going to keep the building, it needs a lot of work and it's just deteriorating and so we probably need to determine the next steps with that structure whether we're going to invest in it, put a new roof, waterproof it, etc. or if we want to do something different with it. So that's what that item is. Nothing on this sheet. Nothing on this sheet. And then the last one in strategic priority area six is conduct long-range planning discussions regarding the future character of the city. This is something that was added by the ad hoc's to the list and I think captures some of the conversation that's been taking place at the council level with we need a long term plan with, you know, what's what development in the city and what it's gonna look like. And trying as much as we can within all the restrictions that we have from the state to have some impact on the future character of the city. Continuing on to strategic priority area seven, practicing environmental stewardship. We based on prior council direction have taken a look at ongoing on-demand transit service. A request for proposal was issued in November for a turn key on-demand transit pilot project. The deadline for response is mid-January and after reviewing proposals, we anticipate bringing your recommendation to the Transportation and Parking Commission liaison. So you'll hear more about this moving forward. It doesn't mean that we're going to do it, but we'll certainly have a lot of information for us to discuss. Work plan item 7.1.2. Lot of words here. The liaison's one or the ad hoc one, and to take a look at the complete streets plan. I think particularly in relation to bike lanes, that was a lot of what we heard from the ad hoc. We've done a lot in the complete streets plan. A lot of it's been successful. Maybe it's time to kind of evaluate and see where we're at with that plan. And then lastly, we have Work Plan Item 7.2.2, evaluate the climate action and adaptation plan, the CAP. You have not seen this yet. The CAP is making its way around to the commissions, et cetera. It will likely come to council in the spring of next year. It has a number of recommendations. You may or may not want to do all of those recommendations, but the point here is just to evaluate the plan and see if we want to move forward and understand it. So those are strategic priority areas, six and seven, and we could take questions and comments if it's the main. Okay, so start with the lay-as-on. The only thing I would just highlight is something that Nancy said, and that is that WP 6.3.2 was added. It's very broad, it's very general, but it's very important. There's not a lot of detail there, because I think the details are going to be some things we need to work out. But that's a big placeholder. Okay, very good. Council member Wealth comments, questions on 6 and 7. Okay, thank you. Well, I think first and foremost under our housing goes one of the things that we need to state. I think really clearly is that we want to keep a certified housing element and when the next wave comes up, we're preparing to make certain that we don't fall into a situation where builders remedy is available to developers in the future. So I think that's a priority for us to talk about it often and it's just, we all know, but it's not stated clearly and I think it's worth putting out there as a statement. When we look at long range planning discussions for the future, I think that part of that is including the, you know, part of that is complete streets. It's also looking at an urban forestry plan. I'd like to review that. I'd like to also review the southeast task force recommendations. I think all these things come into play here as well as looking at our city real estate and assets which is part of that fiscal part but it's also looking at that. Utilizing our real estate, what you mentioned, Virgin Records, it's all part of that conversation. I think this is a really big point here and I think it's important to highlight some of those things. I also, when we get to the sustainability and environmental stewardship, as we talk about water resilience, I would also, because we haven't had a review some time review our water enterprise fund and our the water enterprise plan and What you know where we're at? Not the pricing but the goals are for having the water wells Providing our own water and infrastructure what that cost is is, and how far do we want to go? Based on 2015 and 2018, and where we are today, do we still agree with what those assumptions are and where we want to be? That's it. Thank you. Thank you. So I would support the addition of a general goal that you maintain certification over housing element. I mean, I do think that's something we talk about. You'd sort of obvious, but let's put it in. I agree. Yes. Yes. I think it's an assumption, but we might as well put it in writing. Anything else? Councilmember M Mirch. I think I may have missed something on infrastructure and that's, we retrofitted City Hall and we still have the space in the tower. I think we should, you know, it's been done. We spent a lot of money. We should be looking at using that space. And I don't think there's a reason for us to wait. It's just really some TI's and there's some good things that we can be doing with that. So that's already actually paid for us so that was good. I agree with, you know, staying within certification but we might as well then also add that one of the goals is looking to work with Sacramento or lobby Sacramento to have reasonable, reasonable policies and goals. Because I think it's not just us, it's many of them. And even though we may be able to have a certified housing element, it's not just us, many are not going to reach three new goals. And therefore, we will be subject to streamlining. And I think we need to add in their ways to work collaboratively with Sacramento but with other cities to have a realistic goal, especially in a state where we, you know, we talk about sustainability, which to me goes hand in hand with stability. You look at the word stability. It is literally contained within the word and the concept of sustainability where we're not a state that's particularly growing. I mean, we're, and that's not a bad thing. That's actually a good thing. And that brings me to environmental stewardship where I would say that stability and sustainability go hand in hand. I mentioned it before, but economic growth for itself on a finite planet with limited resources, sometimes what we see is an ecological Ponzi scheme. And I don't think we want to fall into that. I would suggest that again this may be something having to do with the infrastructure again, but we mentioned here looking at a shuttle system. I think we at some point want to go back to the idea that we had almost 10 years ago about an autonomous shuttle system, which can provide point to point on demand mobility, which will have the impact of allowing people connectivity first and last mile to those subway stations, but also within the city. And a reason for people to leave cars at home. So with that, I thank you and hopefully we can get done by five. We talk a little bit about Waymo and that sort of thing. Right, but you also just talked about the RFQ that we're going to have. And this to me seems like something. Again, I was at National League of thing. Right, but you also just talked about the RFQ that we're going to have. And this to me seems like something. Again, I was at National League of Cities. Maybe we, this is not for one year, but we need to start thinking. They were talking about, there was a session about mobility drones. So imagine Waymo, and as one of the people said, quoted from back to the future, where we're going, we don't need streets. So you want to talk about complete streets. This is actually though something that, maybe not the next year, but we can start thinking about it. Thank you. As part of that, maybe some sort of cooperation was may waimo regarding first and last mile. But yeah, those are fine details to be worked out. And I want to thank the liaison very much. I think that you made this really a concise operation that we were able to get through. Really, really a good job doing that. I have nothing further to add. I thank you for the presentation. I think the format that we used was an efficient use of time and I'm glad we got it through using that extra 10 minutes. Yes, thank you very much. Okay, so with that we're going to go into closed session if we have a roll call on closed session. Oh and thanks staff for all being here and listening to our comments also. The room is full. We have two rule calls for a closed session. The first one is for City Council. Council member Wells. Here. Council member Korman. Here. Council member Mirish. Here. Vice Mayor Nazarian. Here. And Mayor Friedman. Here. And the next is for the parking authority. Director Wells. Here. Director Korman. Here. Director Mirish. Here. Vice Chair Nazarian. Here. Chair Friedman. Here. And there are no public comments for a closed session. So there being no public comment present or electronically, we will adjourn to those items listed on our closed session agenda.