Loading...
09-09-19 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 09,2019 1. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Mirsch at 7:03p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. 2. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Mayor Mirsch, Pieper, Dieringer, and Wilson. Councilmembers Absent: Black Others Present: Elaine Jeng, P.E., City Manager. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director Yohana Coronel, City Clerk Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Alfred Visco, 15 Cinchring Sue Breiholz, 6 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road David McKinney, President of RHCA 3. OPEN AGENDA- PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME Alfred Visco, resident of 15 Cinchring gave an update on his contacts with Ranch Palos Verdes and the Land conservancy. He stated that a fire fuel reduction and modifications plan would be presented to the Rancho Palos Verdes Board on September 17, 2019 by RPV staff. He urged the Council and the Rolling Hills Community Association to attend the meeting for this item. Mr. Visco also gave a review of the land conservancy ongoing projects and suggested that the Council agendize this item for further discussion. Mayor Mirsch thanked Mr. Visco for his comments and ongoing efforts. Mayor Mirsch reminded Mr. Visco of the time constraints Council faces daily with their schedules but also assured Mr. Visco that Council continues to have an open line of communication with Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, ongoing conversations with the land conservancy and discussions with the Rolling Hills Community Association. Mrs. Breiholz, 6 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road, requested more lighting outside of City Hall. She also requested an update on the dead vegetation ordinance. She stated that she is concerned over the enormous amount of dead vegetation around the city and requested that this item be agendized for a future meeting. Mayor Mirsch agreed to agendize the item and asked City Manager Elaine Jeng for a brief update. City Manager Jeng stated Council receives a quarterly report about code enforcement cases relating to dead vegetation. The last report submitted was a couple of meetings ago and it covered the months of June,July and August. City Manager Jeng informed Mrs. Breiholz that the City has data listing all the dead vegetation cases and the outcome. She stated that generally most residents are compliant but some have challenged the city on whether or not a plant is dead. In those cases, an arborist was called to give an opinion. For the most part, residents follow suggestions from staff and become compliant. City Manager Jeng noted that the current Code Enforcement Officer increased her hours from 12 hours to 19 hours per week. Once the recruitment is done to hire a full time code enforcement officer,the hours will increase to 40 hours a week. Mrs. Breiholz suggested asking residents to report on dead vegetation and asked if more publicity and reminders could be sent out to residents about the importance of addressing dead vegetation. City Manager Jeng reported that the city will continue to publish information regarding dead vegetation in the blue newsletter, ask the Block Captains to spread information about the matter to their designated zones and ask the Rolling Hills Community Association to help spread the -1- information. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. A. MINUTES —REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE AS PRESENTED B. PAYMENT OF BILLS. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE AS PRESENTED C. REVIEW AND APPROVE PLANNING/TRAFFIC COMMISSIONS RECRUITMENT/APPOINTMENT SCHEDULE FOR TERMS EXPIRING IN JANUARY 2020. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE AS PRESENTED Councilmember Dieringer requested pulling item 4A to make corrections. City Manager Jeng requested adding the date and time of October 30, 2019, 6PM to the calendar of events for item 4C. Councilmember Dieringer moved to pull item 4A, and bring back for approval with corrections and have the City Council approve the consent items as presented along with corrections noted to item 4C. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion and the motion carried without objection by a voice vote as follows: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mirsch, Pieper, Dieringer, and Wilson NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Black ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. 5. COMMISSION ITEMS NONE. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE. 7. OLD BUSINESS A. CONSIDER AMENDING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION TO COST SHARE DESIGN FEES ASSOCIATED WITH ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PROJECTS AND TO INCLUDE OTHER CONSULTING FEES. City Manager Jeng noted that this item has been brought to the Council many times before and reminded the Council of the approved decisions made on March 11, 2019 with regard to policies for contributing funds for undergrounding projects. After several discussions it was decided on May 29, 2019 that the City Council would cost share the design fee with the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) and the residents by paying a third of the design fee. During those discussions it was brought to Council as to whether they wanted to contribute to design fees while also contributing to assessment engineer fees and bond counsel fees. Feedback to staff from the Council was no. The Council wanted to limit their contribution to the design fee only since that was a critical part of getting the project started. Since then, the MOU has been executed between the City and the Rolling Hills Community Association specifically sharing the costs of the design fees only. City Manager Jeng pointed out to the Council the presence of the President David McKinnie of the Rolling Hills Community Association in the audience. In a recent coordination meeting Minutes City Council Meeting 09-09-19 -2- between the Mayor and the RI-ICA President, Mr. McKinnie stated that he did not notice that the MOU only included design fees and did not include other consulting fees. Once he realized the MOU only included design fees, the Board President then requested the City to agendize this item for further discussion. He stated that the Board held a meeting on Thursday September 5th, 2019 and requested that the MOU be amended to include the other costs. He noted that if the City Council were not interested in amending the MOU, the Association would withdraw from the MOU. City Manager Jeng deferred to President McKinney to further articulate the request of the Association. Mr. McKinnie gave a brief background of the undergrouding projects. He stated that the Eastfield project goes back five years with Marcia and Mike Schoettle being one of the first people to look at a large scale, multi-home undergrounding project. They started off with 35 homes but have dropped off to 12 homes. Details of their initial definition for the project were approved by Council back in November 2016 and since then multiple discussions have happened with information gathered by the City Manager. The initial discussion was to set up a policy for the City and the Association to help support starting an undergrounding process in which the City and the Association help contribute a third of the front end cost which was assumed to be the cost which gets the project to a vote as to whether the project will go forward or not. All of those costs were generally considered to be utility, assessment engineer, construction, and bond counsel. It was his understanding that less than 100% of the fee for a bond counsel is needed upfront, prior to a vote from the homeowners, so that homeowners can be informed as to what they are voting on. Therefore, the assessment engineering needs to complete all of their work, making this the basis for the front-end cost, not just the engineering assessment. He furthered stressed that this has always been the case with projects he has worked on. Mr. McKinnie proceeded to highlight his top two concerns, 1) making sure all frontend costs are covered and 2)making sure homeowners understand the additional monies needed. Mr. McKinnie stated that when the MOU was approved by the Association, he made an oversight and stated he did not focus on engineering only and was not aware of the discussion Council had about not including some of what he thought was part of the front end cost. Mr. McKinnie said that it was then discussed by the Association at a prior meeting as to what the Rolling Hills Community Association Boardmembers understood when they voted on cost sharing. Mr. McKinney claimed that the Boardmembers believed this cost sharing included ALL of the front end cost, which they understood to be utility,assessment engineer,construction,and bond counsel.President McKinney also stated that this was the agreement that he talked about with the previous City Manager, Ray Cruz, and it is what he understood and what he defined to the homeowners. Councilmember Dieringer pointed out that looking at the MOU signed by President McKinnie on June 13, it clearly specifies that the only cost to be shared with the homeowners is the preliminary design for each assessment district and this is the only cost sharing that the Council had been discussing. Mr. McKinnie responded that this limitation was not what was originally talked about and it is not the basis for the Eastfield group cost sharing. Councilmember Dieringer stated that she did not recall the Council approving more than a city share for the preliminary design cost. Mayor Mirsch stated that the Council had apparently approved more than just the design fee in the past for Eastfield but she did not realize they were doing so when they voted. She also stated that she does not recall any bond counsel fee, and any assessment district fees being included in design fees approved by the Council. If the Council would have had a discussion about it, she would have voted against it and it may or may not have passed. Councilmember Dieringer asked if she could be shown a copy of the past paper work. City Manager Jeng pointed out that the staff reports presented to Council on November 14, 2016 details the engineering design cost for each utility provider along with a rough estimate of a benefits study from the assessment district consultant. Minutes City Council Meeting 09-09-19 -3- Councilmember Dieringer asked if this benefit study was part of the engineering design cost. City Manager Jeng and Mayor Mirsch both answered no. Mr. McKinnie pointed out that the terminology is one of the problems he found troublesome. Councilmember Dieringer stated that her intent and her understanding of the Council approval as to the Eastfield project was the same as the Mayors intent; this approval only included design cost and any other cost would be up to the homeowners. Mr. McKinnie stated that Councilmember Dieringer could define the terms however she saw fit, but that has not always been the case. Councilmember Dieringer answered that the terms were always clear when Council discussed it. Mayor Mirsch stated that she understood how the terminology caused a misunderstanding. Mr. McKinnie stated that one of the directors on the Association board directed him to be clear about the terms going forward. Councilmember Dieringer asked Mr. McKinnie for clarification on the board's vote. Did the board vote to contribute 1/3 of the cost for additional items -the benefit study and the bond counsel fees - with the condition that the Council would pay for 1/3 of those two additional costs along with 1/3 of the design fees. Mr. McKinnie answered yes. He pointed out that it was stated at the bottom of his document that he drafted and submitted to Council and that he represented was the decision approved by the Association. Councilmember Dieringer stated that her understanding from speaking with the City Manager, was, that Mr. McKinnie had stated that the Rolling Hills Community Association had discussed that if the City Council did not agree to pay for 1/3 of these additional costs, the Association was not going to pay for 1/3 of the design study. She asked if this was correct. Mr. McKinnie answered, no. The Association Board stated that they were willing to stand by the commitment to contribute 1/3 of the pre-vote cost but felt that the MOU did not clearly state the cost. If the City Council did not agree to it,the Board was going to exercise its right to pull out of the MOU. Discussion ensued among Council and staff about the cost of the overall project and how much money the Council agreed to spend on projects. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper commented that the Council wanted something that was predictable and reminded everyone of the cap of$50,000 for any one project. He also stated that he would like to really understand the cost for these type of projects and not knowing what the cost is does not bring him comfort. Mr. McKinnie suggested that Council take no action on the item because more information may need to be reviewed. Mayor Pro Tern Pieper stated that he feared the budget will get out of control and therefore a cap needed to be set. He stated that his other fear is that the project will not be completed. He gave the example of the Eastfield Project. Eastfield started with 30 houses and is currently down to 12. He understood the confusion with the MOU and suggested shelving this item until the numbers for the Eastfield project come in to see what the cost will be. Mayor Pro Tern Pieper stated that he felt that Council does not have enough information to alter the MOU and felt more information is needed. Mr. McKinnie suggested looking at the Eastfield Project closely to have a better definition about what the cost will be for assessment engineering. Minutes City Council Meeting 09-09-19 -4- Mayor Pro Tem Pieper pointed out that when the memo for the Eastfield Project was presented, it included 35 houses. Since then, the project has lost 2/3 of the homes, bringing the total to 12 houses. He also stated that if they can complete the project for a third of$75,000, that is money well spent in his eyes. He would like for the Council to understand the project a little better and he is willing to spend the money, but once the project reaches a vote, he would like a clear definition of what "all in" means because he felt no one really understood what was meant by that. He suggested shelving the item until everyone understands what it all means. Councilmember Wilson asked what percentage is the additional cost going to be. Mr. McKinnie stated that he put a model together but does not trust his memory of what the numbers are. He does not know what the bond counsel or engineering cost is going to be. City Manager Jeng pointed out that the engineering numbers are in and included in the staff report in item 8A. She highlighted that the additional $28,000 needed in addition to the design money was already collected and explained that the bond counsel numbers would not be available until Edison goes out to bid. City Manager Jeng gave a brief overview of how bond counsel and the assessment engineering fee worked and briefly explained that bond counsel base their cost on the size of the bond, which will not be known until the bids are in, whereas assessment engineering bases their cost on the size of the assessment district. Mayor Mirsch thanked the City Manager for her brief explanation and stated that it was helpful not only for herself but also for others that are not familiar with how bond counsel and assessment engineering work. Mr. McKinnie asked the City Manager if she had a fee from the bond counsel and continued to state that he believed that the bond counsel fee might come in two parts. He again suggested trying to "nail down" the front end cost so that the homeowners are fully informed of the estimate cost, and then letting the Association and the City determine how to split the cost. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper suggested tabling the MOU for now and informed Mr. McKinney that the Association is free to undo the agreement. He would like to see an undergrounding project to the end to better understand the cost. He also stated that if the Council spends the money that they are spending on the Eastfield project and the project does not come through to completion then the Council needs to revisit their whole philosophy on its approach to these projects. Councilmember Dieringer agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Pieper about tabling the MOU for now because she also felt that she did not fully understand that there was a separate cost called an assessment engineering fee.Now knowing that the assessment engineering fee depends on the size of the district, she is against paying for all these pieces, for example, design, assessment engineering and bond counsel fees with no curtailment regarding how much the ultimate amount is. She pointed out that what Council does for one project, they would do for all projects. She pointed out that the Eastfield Project is a different entity and that the Council has another pot of money i.e. Rule 20A monies that can be used to contribute to Eastfield. All other projects that do not qualify as a major city thoroughfare are limited to cost sharing from only the city's undergrounding fund and for such projects the Council needs to from make sure that there is enough undergrounding money for everyone. Mr. McKinnie stated that the Council adopted a policy but the Association's understanding of this policy was different than the Council's definition. He admitted that the Association missed some of the details and assumed some things were there. He proceeded to state that homeowners should expect that policies are set up to be followed consistently by both agencies. He asked the Council to set a policy, make a commitment and live by it. Councilmember Dieringer stated that she felt that the MOU was clear regarding the undergrounding fees that the Council was willing to cost share. Mr. McKinnie admitted that he misrepresented the MOU to the Association and missed details in the MOU. He admitted that it was his fault and that it is why he took the MOU back to the Board and asked them what their understanding of it was. The Board reported to him that they understood before the vote, that everything was to be included. Mr. McKinney stated that this was what he Minutes City Council Meeting 09-09-19 -5- recalled in his mind and missed the meetings that happened in March,April and May of 2019. He pointed out that the Council had some misunderstandings as well. Mayor Mirsch explained that this was the purpose of the MOU. When the Eastfield Project came before the Council, they realized that they did not have a memorialized policy. The MOU was to help the Council memorialize a policy so, going forward, the Council could be consistent with all projects. Mayor Mirsch added that the Council is worlds ahead of understanding the process since City Manager Jeng has come on board and brought her wealth of knowledge. She proceeded to clarify that the purpose of tonight's discussion was to focus on what she understood to be the issue and it was to amend the MOU. She stated at this time there was no motion to amend the MOU. She asked for a motion from Council and/or to provide staff with directions. Councilmember Dieringer moved that the City Council table the item to some future date when more information is available to revisit the issue. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper seconded the motion and the motion carried without objection by a voice vote as follows: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mirsch, Pieper, Dieringer, and Wilson NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Black ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. CONSIDER ENGAGING NV5 TO PREPARE PETITION PACKAGE AND PROVIDE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FORMATION SERVICES AND POST FORMATION SERVICES FOR THE EASTFIELD UNDERGROUNDING PROJECT (FROM INTERSECTION OF OUTRIDER ROAD AND EASTFIELD DRIVE TO SOUTH OF CHUCKWAGON ROAD, ALONG EASTFIELD DRIVE) City Manager Jeng stated that given the last item discussed, she felt that enough information has been provided and proceeded to give a brief summary of the difficulties staff encountered in engaging an assessment engineer,as it is a specialty. City Manager Jeng informed the Council that she looked at neighboring cities like Newport Beach and Manhattan Beach because those two cities are very aggressive in completing projects. Jeff Cooper from NV5 submitted a proposal which she felt answered a lot of questions that have come up tonight. For example, what does an assessment engineer do? What do they produce and how are they involved? City Manager Jeng asked the Council to refer to pages 21 and 23 of the staff report. Pages 21 and 23 of the staff report detailed the workflow of district formation and fee schedule for assessment engineering work for the Eastfield project. Mayor Pro Tern Pieper asked if the $28,000 plus the $77,000 is the entire cost of the project. City Manager Jeng answered yes, it is all the monies needed to get to the vote. She then proceeded to explain that a bond counsel could also serve to to put a petition together, so we can either pay the assessment engineer or the bond counsel to do the petition. Although the City Manager admitted that she is not clear if the assessment engineer performs the petition work if there is some legal document that is needed. She also pointed out that there may be some left over piece from bond counsel work that may enter into this front end cost. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper asked if the numbers presented to them were the final numbers. City Manager Jeng stated the actual number the City started with was $75,200. She pointed out that it has gone over by $15,000. The original numbers submitted by Frontier dramatically increased from $800.00 to $16,000.00. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper asked if monies have been paid out. His understanding is that the Council has committed to paying $25,066, which is a third of the $75,200, which he is fine with. But he inquired if Council had to approve paying a third of the $15,000 and a third of the $28,000. Minutes City Council Meeting 09-09-19 -6- City Manager Jeng answered, saying that, of the $75,200 that was collected from all three parties, the City has$4,700 left in the escrow account. She pointed out that it is insufficient to pay for NV5 assessment cost of$28,000 plus. Mayor Pro Tern Pieper asked about the $15,000 overrun. City Manager Jeng responded that it was paid for out of the funds that had been already collected and ate into the monies allocated for the benefit study. Planning Director Yolanta Schwartz clarified that the$75,000 allocated did include the costs of an engineer to do a cost benefit assessment, but not the cost of a bond counsel. This amount only included the engineering cost by utility companies, plus $28,000 of the benefit analysis from the engineer and nothing past that. She went on to explain that when Frontier came back with$16,000 up-front fee for their engineering we took that money from the$75,000 that included the additional $28,000pp and gave it to the three utility companies,which left the City with $46,000. Mayor Pro Tern Pieper again stated that he is still all in,and really wants to see the Eastfield Project all the way through to the end. He felt that seeing the project through would give the Council a better idea of what is going on moving forward. He is aware that it is going to cost more money but is willing to do it anyways.He also stated that if he were expected to make a motion to approve paying a third more then he would like to know what that third is. He then asked City Manager Jeng to confirm the total number. City Manager Jeng responded that if that was approved, then the Council continues with a 1/3 contribution, the amount is $8,100. Mayor Mirsch asked for clarification on what is being voted on. City Manager Jeng explained that she was operating under the premise that the contribution policy discussed earlier this year remains consistent in that Council would only contribute to design fees and NOT contribute to assessment engineer or bond counsel fees. The action being asked by the Council is to approve that the city engage NV5 based on their proposal and then engage the assessment district group to collect the necessary funds to pay for NV5. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper asked if the Council agrees to pay for 1/3 would that cover everything except for the bond counsel part. If Council continues to pay for 1/3 of it all, this would get them all the way through at $8,100 additional funds. He stated that he feels confident that the Eastfield Project is their best shot and therefore he is willing to make a motion to approve that the Council uses this company because they are properly bonded and they have all the right paperwork. 1ST Motion Mayor Pro Tern Pieper moved that the City Council approve to use NV5. Councilmember Dieringer seconded the motion and the motion carried without objection by a voice vote as follows: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mirsch, Pieper, Dieringer, and Wilson NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Black ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. Mayor Mirsch asked Mayor Pro Tem Pieper if he was sure he was comfortable making a motion to agree to pay for services when the amount of the bond counsel is still unknown with no discussion. Mayor Pro Tem Piper answered yes,he was comfortable as he can be. 2nd Motion Mayor Pro Tem Pieper moved that the City Council approve to pay 1/3 up to $9,000 for the assessment engineer. Councilmember Dieringer seconded the motion and the motion carried without objection by a voice vote as follows: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mirsch, Pieper, Dieringer, and Wilson Minutes City Council Meeting 09-09-19 -7- NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Black ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. A. REPORT ON THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA) METHODOLOGY AND DETERMINATION BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (HCD) OF THE PROJECTED HOUSING NEED FOR THE 6TH CYCLE OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT FOR THE SCAG REGION. Planning Director Schwartz gave a PowerPoint presentation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment methodology. She proceeded to walk Council through what is being asked of the City of Rolling Hills by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. City Manager Jeng gave clarification of what COG and SCAG mean to the state. When the state describes the SCAG region it is referring to the Councils of Governments. This describes regions of California, which include Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, Imperial County, San Bernardino County and Ventura County. Our SCAG region includes these six counties described by the Planning Director in the PowerPoint presentation.It is not to be confused with South Bay COG or the Westside COG. City Manager Jeng mentioned that the staff used SCAG's toolbox to run the city's population numbers, and entered the statistics from other cities' populations to display the Housing Units Allocation slide presented tonight. She wanted to clarify that the numbers being shown on the PowerPoint presentation slide are not produced and/or approved by SCAG. She also answered Councilmember Dieringer's question earlier about where the information the Planning Director referred to came from. The information came from the SCAG 6TH RHNA Cycle book. Councilmember Dieringer stated that given that the Council is being asked to pick either door one, two or three, she felt that the Council should have been given the raw data that the housing department used to make their determination and not the conclusions drawn from the data. She also pointed out that thirty days is not enough time for the Council to review all this information. She expressed that the Council would be able to respond if they had the raw data and received an extension of the deadline to comment. Councilmember Wilson asked about the average income of LA County and whether it was $60,000. City Manager Jeng and Planning Director Schwartz answered yes. Planning Director Schwartz explained a factor called the housing burden: if a person puts 30% of their income or more into rent or mortgage, you are considered burdened. Councilmember Dieringer expressed that the numbers for"vacant"were questionable because she felt that it is one thing to refer to a vacant apartment building with vacant units that could be filled, but "vacant" should not describe homes in Rolling Hills when a Rolling Hills resident is sharing time between their Rolling Hills community and their home within another community. She felt that these are the sorts of issues that have affected the numbers for Rolling Hills. Mayor Mirsch expressed that she shares Councilmember Dieringer's concerns and that the Council can take positions on how things were calculated and argue about the calculations but those are State issues. She pointed out that the purpose of the staff report was to be informational. Mayor Mirsch asked if the Council had the ability to act on Councilmember Dieringer's suggestions by requesting additional time to respond. City Manager Jeng responded that the staff would make this request. Discussion ensued among the Council about the data presented to them by Planning Director Schwartz,the deadline of September 13, 2019 and how to respond. Mayor Mirsch asked for public comment. Minutes City Council Meeting 09-09-19 -8- Mr. Visco agreed and supports the Council sending a letter to request more time and to focus on zoning capacity. Mayor Mirsch thanked Mr. Visco for his comments Mayor Mirsch asked the Council if there was interest in forming an Ad Hoc Committee of the Council, and whether the Council could decide among themselves who would serve on the committee or whether she should come up with a method. Mayor Pro Tern Pieper stated that he owned apartment buildings and looks at this sort of data all day long. He felt confident in processing the information. Councilmember Wilson expressed that he had the ability and the time to dedicate to the committee. Councilmember Dieringer stated that she is very familiar with the housing issues from her participation on the Legislative Committees of the League and Contract Cities. She stated that she was interested in serving on this committee as well. Mayor Pro Tern Pieper responded that he had been interested in serving again on the Personnel Committee but had allowed Councilmember Dieringer to serve on that committee instead of himself. Mayor Pro Tern Pieper moved that the City Council approve to appoint Councilmember Wilson and himself to an Ad Hoc Committee of the Council. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion and the motion carried without objection by a voice vote as follows: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mirsch, Pieper, Dieringer, and Wilson NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Black ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. 9. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE ' PORTS NONE 10. MATTERS FROM STAFF NONE. 11. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Mirsch adjourned the meeting at 9:10p.m. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, September 23,2019 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall,2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, Yohal C'oronel, MBA City Clerk Approved, Leah Mirsch Mayor Minutes City Council Meeting 09-09-19 -9-