Seal Beach council directs $2 million toward lifeguard headquarters design, asks staff for funding plan

Seal Beach — The City Council gave staff direction on May 5 to move forward with the early phase of replacing the city’s aging lifeguard headquarters, directing $2 million in proposed capital‑improvement deferrals to begin design and permitting work.

The decision follows Finance Director Barbara Aronado’s presentation of the proposed fiscal year 2026–27 budget and a months‑long discussion about priorities, funding sources and project trade‑offs. "This building has served the community for decades. It's far beyond its useful life," Marine Safety Chief Bailey told the council, detailing mold remediation, a past electrical fire and cramped locker and garage space that he said no longer meets operational needs.

The lifeguard headquarters sits above the pier and also houses a small police substation. Public‑safety leaders described operational limitations — undersized vehicle storage, inadequate locker rooms and space constraints for training and patient care — and urged a replacement to improve response and crew safety.

Public Works Director Iris Lee presented two budget scenarios intended to create funding capacity for the project: a more aggressive $2 million package of CIP deferrals and a moderate $1 million option. "We're approaching this with a scalpel and not a knife," she told the council, describing criteria used to identify deferrable projects (unstarted projects, uncommitted funding and projects not tied to external grants).

Councilmembers and members of the public argued both for urgency and prudence. Several councilmembers said they supported moving the project forward and discussed financing approaches including debt, grants, public‑private partnerships and a municipal foundation to solicit private support. Staff noted the city already has approximately $4 million identified for the project in carryover and an additional set of possible sources — roughly $1.8 million in insurance/peer reimbursements and other one‑time funds — that could be applied if council so chooses.

Staff cautioned that many carryover dollars are already encumbered for ongoing projects and that only a portion of the budgeted transfer‑out amounts can be reallocated without pausing work already in progress. Finance Director Aronado also urged caution about using contingency reserves set aside for fiscal stability.

Councilmembers made an apparent motion and second to pursue the $2 million deferral option as guidance to staff. The council’s direction was recorded as guidance to be incorporated into the adopted budget rather than a final construction authorization; staff said they will bring back a detailed funding plan, scope and timeline for the design and permitting phase prior to beginning work. Director Lee estimated roughly two years for design, permitting and environmental review, followed by about 18 months of construction depending on scope and approvals.

What happens next: Staff will return with options showing how the $2 million would be allocated, refined cost estimates for design and permitting, and an implementation timeline. The council scheduled final budget adoption in June, where staff expects to present the funding plan for formal approval.

The council’s direction does not itself obligate construction funds; any final decision about construction financing will follow additional council reviews, community outreach and identification of long‑term funding sources.