Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Emergency Communications topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council declines immediate participation in Peninsula emergency AM radio, asks staff for more information

Rolling Hills City Council · April 27, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After a staff presentation on a low‑power AM emergency radio operated by Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV), Rolling Hills councilors voted to take no action now and not to incur legal fees to research FCC rules until RPV’s implementation and costs are clearer.

The Rolling Hills City Council heard a staff presentation on an RPV-developed low‑power AM emergency radio and voted to defer joining the program, citing unanswered cost, content-control and licensing questions.

Staff described the station as an always‑on AM signal intended for emergency redundancy that RPV has tested at roughly 95% peninsula coverage. Staff said the transmitter would sit at Ridgecrest Intermediate School and noted RPV estimates “the total installation cost will be approximately $32,000.” Council members asked whether that 95% was peninsula‑wide (staff: yes) and what the city’s ability would be to provide Rolling Hills–specific messages if it joined (staff: RPV would drive the content and neighboring cities could request messaging subject to RPV review and the MOU). A member of the public, Judith Hainal of East Phillip Drive, asked directly: “Can you just clarify what's what the cost is for Rolling Hills?”

After public comment and follow-up questions about FCC licensing and who would control programming, councilors approved a motion directing staff to take no action at this time and to avoid incurring legal fees to research FCC requirements until more information is available. The council’s action leaves the door open to revisit participation if RPV provides clearer cost‑share proposals and implementation details.