CREDIT RATINGS
The City will maintain good communication with bond rating agencies about its financial condition. This effort will include providing periodic updates on the City’s general financial condition, coordinating meetings, and presentations in conjunction with a new issuance. The City will continually strive to maintain its bond rating by improving financial policies, budgets, forecasts and the financial health of the City.
Credit enhancements may be used to improve or establish a credit rating on a City debt obligation. Credit enhancements should only be used if cost effective.
FY 2023-25 PROPOSED BIENNIAL BUDGET
APPENDIX - FISCAL POLICIES
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Attachment A - FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 241
REFUNDING DEBT
A debt refunding is a refinance of debt typically done to take advantage of lower interest rates.
Current Refunding
A current refunding is one in which the refunding bonds are issued no more than 90 days before the date upon which the refunded bonds will be redeemed.
Advance Refunding
An advance refunding is one in which the refunding bonds are issued more than 90 days prior to the date upon which the refunded bonds will be redeemed. Advance refundings are used to refinance outstanding debt before the date the outstanding debt becomes due or callable. Internal Revenue Code §149(d)(3) provides that governmental bonds issued after 1985 may only be advanced refunded once over the life of a bond issuance.
Changes to the Federal tax law enacted in 2017 prohibit the issuance of advance refunding bonds after December 31, 2017; however, it is possible this prohibition will be removed in the future.
Unless otherwise justified, such as a desire to remove or change a bond covenant, a debt refunding will require a minimum present value savings of 3%. This savings requirement for a refunding may be waived by the City Treasurer upon a finding that such a refunding is in the City’s overall best financial interest.
DEBT SERVICE RESERVE FUND/SURETY POLICY
In instances where there is no market or credit rating agency requirement to fund a debt service reserve, or where there is an economic cost associated with borrowing to fund a reserve fund, the City will attempt to avoid their use. If a debt service reserve funded by bond proceeds is determined to be necessary or in the City’s best interest, the debt service reserve fund will be held by and available to the Trustee to make principal and interest payments to bondholders in the event that pledged revenues are insufficient to do so. The maximum size of the reserve fund is generally governed by tax law, which permits the lesser of: 1) 10% of par; 2) 125% of average annual debt service; and 3) 100% of maximum annual debt service. Reserve funds are typically equal to approximately one year’s maximum debt service on the bonds. On a case-by-case basis, assuming there is no economic or credit disadvantage, the City may issue bonds with a debt service reserve fund that is sized at a lower level.
The reserve fund requirement may also be satisfied by a surety policy, a form of insurance provided by a bond insurer to satisfy a reserve fund requirement for a bond issuance. Under this arrangement, instead of depositing cash in a reserve fund, the issuer buys a surety policy by paying a one-time premium equal to a percentage of the face amount of the policy. The City may use a surety policy instead of a debt service reserve fund when economically feasible.
The City will not rely on any uncollateralized credit instruments for any reserve requirement unless justified by significant financial advantage.
FY 2023-25 PROPOSED BIENNIAL BUDGET
APPENDIX - FISCAL POLICIES
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Attachment A - FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 242
ARBITRAGE REBATE MONITORING AND REPORTING
The City will, unless otherwise justified, use bond proceeds within the established time frame pursuant to the bond ordinance, contract or other documents to avoid arbitrage rebate. Arbitrage is the interest earned on the investment of the bond proceeds at a rate above the interest rate paid on the debt. If arbitrage occurs, the City may be required to pay the amount of the arbitrage to the Federal Government as required by Internal Revenue Service Regulation 1.148-11. The City will maintain a system of recordkeeping and reporting to meet the arbitrage rebate compliance requirement of the IRS regulation. For each bond issue not used within the established time frame, the recordkeeping shall include tracking investment earnings on bond proceeds, calculating rebate payments, and remitting any rebatable earnings to the federal government in a timely manner in order to preserve the tax-exempt status of the outstanding debt.
TAX CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE
The City will comply with requirements imposed in any tax certificate to maintain the tax-exempt status of the City’s bonds.
COVENANT COMPLIANCE
The City will comply with all covenants stated in the bond ordinance, contract, etc.
DEBT ISSUANCE REPORTING
The City will comply with all state reporting requirements for issuance of debt, including a report to the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC) of any proposed debt issuance no later than 30 days prior to the sale of any debt issue. The report shall include a certification by the issuer that it has adopted local debt policies concerning the use of debt and that the contemplated debt issuance is consistent with these policies.
The City shall also submit a report to CDIAC of final sale no later than 21 days after sale of debt, by any method approved by the CDIAC. The report on final sale shall include a copy of the official statement for the issue or, if there is no official statement, the other disclosure documents and indenture.
ONGOING DISCLOSURE
The City will meet secondary disclosure requirements in a timely and comprehensive manner, as stipulated by the SEC Rule 15c2-12. The City Treasurer shall be responsible for providing ongoing disclosure information to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s (MSRB’s) Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) system, the central depository designated by the SEC for ongoing disclosures by municipal issuers. The City Treasurer is responsible for maintaining compliance with disclosure standards promulgated by state and national regulatory bodies, including the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB), the National Federation of Municipal Analysts, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The City may also employ the services of firms that improve the availability of or supplement the City’s EMMA filings. The City will also complete and file an annual Debt Transparency Report with the California Debt Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC) in compliance with Section 8855 of the Government Code.
FY 2023-25 PROPOSED BIENNIAL BUDGET
APPENDIX - FISCAL POLICIES
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Attachment A - FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 243
INVESTMENT OF BOND PROCEEDS
The proceeds of the bond sales will be invested until used for the intended project in order to maximize utilization of the public funds. The investments will be made to obtain the highest level of safety. The City of Santa Monica Investment Policy and the bond indentures govern objectives and criteria for investment of bond proceeds. The City Treasurer and Assistant City Treasurer, or the bond trustees under the direction of the City Treasurer or Assistant City Treasurer, will invest the bond proceeds in a manner to avoid, if possible, and minimize any potential negative arbitrage over the life of the bond issuance, while complying with arbitrage and tax provisions.
In certain cases, particularly for bond reserve funds, it may be fiscally prudent to invest funds using a forward delivery agreement or some other type of guaranteed investment contract. Such agreements should be obtained under a competitive bid process under consultation with the Financial Advisor.
State and Local Government Securities (SLGS) are the preferred investment option rather than open market securities for escrows for refunded bonds to allow for better matching of settlement dates and fewer arbitrage regulation compliance issues.
INTERNAL CONTROL PROCEDURES
The City Treasurer is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Debt Policy.
The Finance Department will monitor the expenditure of bond proceeds in a manner consistent with its monitoring of other City funds and will ensure that bond proceeds are expended exclusively for their authorized purpose.
Specifically, the City’s Capital Improvement Project budget will include appropriations specifically for the authorized purpose. Disbursement of bond proceeds from the trustee may be made either to reimburse the City for expenditures the City has made to project contractors or directly from the trustee to the contractor. In either case, the Finance Department will prepare the certificate or other required document requesting disbursement of funds by the trustee. Internal control procedures will be reviewed and amended as necessary to ensure compliance.
FY 2023-25 PROPOSED BIENNIAL BUDGET
APPENDIX - FISCAL POLICIES
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Attachment A - FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 244
FY 2023-25 PROPOSED BIENNIAL BUDGET
APPENDIX - DEBT FINANCING SUMMARY
The City of Santa Monica annually adopts a budget for the upcoming fiscal year. Through this budget, City Council establishes public policy by setting funding levels for departments and exercises control over City spending. The budget further serves as a financial planning tool to ensure that the inflow of resources (revenues) is adequate to meet both anticipated and unanticipated needs (expenditures).
LEGAL DEBT LIMIT AND MARGIN (JUNE 30, 2022)
Total Gross Assessed Value.........................................................................................................$45,497,990,000 Debt limit: 10% of total assessed value (1)..............................................................................$4,549,799,000 Amount of debt applicable to debt limit:
Total bonded debt.................................................................................$207,515,000 Less: Assets in debt service funds available for payment bonds................$8,508,208 Total amount of debt applicable to debt limit...........................................................................$199,006,792 Legal debt margin (2)....................................................................................................................$4,350,792,208 (1) Section 607 of the City Charter limits the bonded indebtedness of the City to 10% of the total assessed valuation of taxable properties within the City, exclusive of any indebtedness incurred for the purpose of constructing water supply, sewer or storm drain systems Source: County of Los Angeles and City of Santa Monica Finance Department
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Attachment A - FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 245
FY 2023-25 PROPOSED BIENNIAL BUDGET
APPENDIX - SUMMARY OF LONG-TERM INDEBTEDNESS (JUNE 30, 2022) Date of Issue Original Issue Final Maturity
Date Interest Rates BalanceJune 30, 2022
BONDS SUBJECT TO DEBT LIMIT:
Lease Revenue bonds:
Santa Monica Public Financing Authority Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2021 (City Yards Modernization project) Aug 4, 2021 $64,780,000 July 1, 2051 2.125 - 5.00% $64,780,000 Santa Monica Public Financing Authority Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A May 5, 2021 $17,860,000 July 1, 2031 4.00% $17,860,000 Santa Monica Public Financing Authority Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2021B May 5, 2021 $1,840,000 July 1, 2023 0.30% $1,840,000 Santa Monica Public Finance Authority Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2018 (Downtown Fire Station Project) Jun 6, 2018 $34,220,000 July 1, 2048 3.625 - 5.000% $33,625,000 Santa Monica Public Finance Authority Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2017 (City Services Building Project)(Green Bonds) Sep 14, 2017 $68,565,000 July 1, 2047 3.00 - 5.00% $68,565,000 Santa Monica Public Financing Authority Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2015 (Civic Center Parking Project) July 9, 2015 $26,360,000 July 1, 2033 3.00 - 5.00% $19,785,000 Subtotal - Revenue bonds, governmental activities $206,455,000 General obligation bonds:
City of Santa Monica General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2012 (Library Improvement Project) May 30, 2012 $11,325,000 July 1, 2022 0.20 - 4.00% $1,060,000 Subtotal - General obligation bonds, governmental activities $1,060,000 Subtotal - Bonds Subject to Debt Limit: $207,515,000
Other Debt:
Revenue bonds:
City of Santa Monica Water enterprise revenue bonds, Series 2021 August 25, 2021 $70,525,000 August 1, 2051 2.25 - 5.00% $70,525,000 Subtotal - Revenue bonds: $70,525,000
Loans:
State Water Res Control Bd Installment Sale Agreement Sep 21, 2017 $75,885,903 Dec 31, 2052 1.80% $53,330,029 Subtotal - Loans: $53,330,029
Subtotal - Other Debts: $123,855,029
Total $331,370,029
Management believes it is in compliance with all debt covenants.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Attachment A - FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 246
FY 2023-25 PROPOSED BIENNIAL BUDGET
APPENDIX - DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE
FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25
Bond Descriptions Principal Interest Total Principal Interest Total Santa Monica Public Financing Authority
Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2021 (City Yards
Modernization project)
$1,240,000 $1,097,625 $2,337,625 $1,305,000 $2,133,250 $3,438,250 Santa Monica Public Financing Authority Lease
Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A&B $1,940,000 $675,600 $2,615,600 $2,015,000 $596,500 $2,611,500 Santa Monica Public Financing Authority Lease
Revenue Bonds, Series 2018 (Downtown Fire
Station Project)
$685,000 $1,460,888 $2,145,888 $720,000 $1,426,638 $2,146,638 Santa Monica Public Financing Authority Lease
Revenue Bonds, Series 2017
(City Services Building Project) (Green Bonds)
$1,555,000 $2,845,850 $4,400,850 $1,620,000 $2,799,200 $4,419,200 Santa Monica Public Financing Authority Lease
Revenue Bonds, Series 2015
(Civic Center Parking Project)
$1,420,000 $629,944 $2,049,944 $1,490,000 $558,944 $2,048,944 Total - General Fund $6,840,000 $6,709,906 $13,549,906 $7,150,000 $7,514,531 $14,664,531 City of Santa Monica Water Enterprise Revenue
Bonds, Series 2021 $1,380,000 $2,174,488 $3,554,488 $1,435,000 $2,118,188 $3,553,188 State Water Resources Control Board Installment
Sale Agreement1 $1,828,161 $1,293,946 $3,122,107 $1,861,068 $1,261,039 $3,122,107 Total - Water Fund $3,208,161 $3,468,434 $6,676,595 $3,296,068 $3,379,227 $6,675,295 1 start date for repayment is subject to change based on completion date of the project
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Attachment A - FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 247
FY 2023-25 PROPOSED BIENNIAL BUDGET
APPENDIX - BOND RATINGS
The City’s long-term financial strength is reflected in these ratings. The ratings from all three agencies were reaffirmed. Santa Monica’s consistently high ratings reflect both a strong local economy and the City’s history of strong and proactive financial management. Among the elements of the City’s financial management that credit agencies have highlighted are the following:
• Historically, a very strong and diverse economy;
• Very strong management, with strong financial policies and practices • Very strong budgetary flexibility, with strong reserves • A multi-year financial forecast that is reviewed and revised regularly • In anticipation of anticipated pandemic-induced revenue reductions, the City proactively implemented budget adjustments at the onset of the pandemic to limit the impact on reserves.
DESCRIPTION S&P FITCH MOODY’S
Lease Revenue Bonds
Santa Monica Public Financing Authority Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2021 (City Yards Modernization project) AA+ AA+ N/A
Santa Monica Public Financing Authority Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A&B AA+ AA+ Aa2
Santa Monica Public Finance Authority Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2018 (Downtown Fire Station Project) AA+ AA+ Aa1
Santa Monica Public Finance Authority Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2017 (City Services Building Project) (Green Bonds) AA+ AA+ Aa1 Santa Monica Public Financing Authority Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2015 (Civic Center Parking Project) AA+ AA+ Aa2
Revenue Bonds
City of Santa Monica Wastewater Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2021 AAA N/A N/A The City has issued various bonds, primarily to support construction of City capital projects.
Below is a summary of the current ratings on the City’s outstanding debt.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Attachment A - FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 248
FY 2023-25 PROPOSED BIENNIAL BUDGET
APPENDIX - GLOSSARY
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
A short-term liability account reflecting amounts owed to private persons or organizations for goods and services received by a government.
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
An asset account reflecting amounts due from private persons or organizations for goods and services furnished by a government (but not including amounts due from other funds or other governments).
ACCRUAL BASIS OF ACCOUNTING
A basis of accounting that recognizes the financial effect of transactions, events, and interfund activities when they occur, regardless of when cash transactions occur.
ADOPTED BUDGET
The City Council approved annual budget establishing the legal authority for the expenditure of funds as set forth in the adopting Council budget resolution.
AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT OF 2021 (ARPA)
On March 11, 2021, President Joseph R. Biden signed into law the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, a $1.9 trillion federal aid package designed to help the American people and American economy recover from the prolonged impacts felt from COVID-19. This legislation provides direct payments to eligible individuals, extends federal supplemental unemployment benefits, increases funding for the Paycheck Protection Program, provides funds for housing stabilization and to address homelessness, and provides funds to help schools reopen safely and for COVID-19 testing, vaccination, and treatment, among a number of other provisions that assist local businesses and individuals who have been impacted by the pandemic. The legislation also includes $350 billion in direct financial relief for all state, local, tribal, and territorial governments, $29.3 million of which has been allocated to the City of Santa Monica.
AMORTIZATION
The process of decreasing or allocating a lump sum amount over a period of time, particularly for loans and other forms of finance, including related interest and other finance charges.
ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT (ACFR)
The official annual report of the City’s financial condition at the conclusion of the fiscal year. The report is prepared to conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) for governmental units and presentation of the financial data in conformity with the Adopted Budget.
APPROPRIATION
Legal authorization, as required by the City Charter, granted to the City Manager by the City Council to expend monies, and/or to incur legal obligations for specific departmental purposes. An appropriation is usually limited in amount, as well as to the time when it may be expended.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Attachment A - FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 249
ASSESSED VALUATION
A dollar value placed upon real estate or other property by Los Angeles County as a basis for levying property taxes.
ASSETS
Property owned by a government, which has monetary value.
AUDIT
Prepared by an independent certified public accountant (CPA), the primary objective of an audit is to determine if the City’s financial statements fairly present the City’s financial position and results of operations in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.
AUTHORIZED POSITIONS
Permanent positions authorized in the budget to be employed during the fiscal year.
BASIS OF ACCOUNTING
The timing of recognition, that is, when the effects of transactions or events are recognized for financial reporting or budgeting purposes. The three basis of accounting for governmental agencies are: (1) cash basis (when cash is received or paid), (2) accrual basis (when the underlying transaction or event takes place), and (3) modified accrual basis (revenues are recognized in the accounting period in which they become available and measurable and expenditures are recognized in the accounting period in which the fund liability occurred).
BALANCE SHEET
A statement purporting to present the financial position of an entity by disclosing the value of its assets, liabilities, and equities as of a specific date.
BALANCED BUDGET
When the total of revenues and other financing sources is equal to or greater than the total of expenditures and other financing uses, the budget is balanced.
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE
Fund balance available in a fund from the end of the prior year for use in the following year.
BOND
A city may raise capital by issuing a written promise to pay a specified sum of money, called the face value or principal amount, at a specified date or dates in the future, together with periodic interest at a special rate.
BOND RATING
An evaluation of a bond issuer’s credit quality and perceived ability to pay the principal and interest on time and in full.
FY 2023-25 PROPOSED BIENNIAL BUDGET
APPENDIX - GLOSSARY
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Attachment A - FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 250
BUDGET
A plan of financial and program operation listing an estimate of proposed appropriations or expenses and the proposed means of financing them, for a particular time period. The budget is proposed or preliminary until it has been adopted by the City Council.
BUDGET ADOPTION
Formal action by the City Council, which sets the spending plan for the year.
BUDGET CALENDAR
The schedule of key dates or milestones that a government follows in preparation and adoption of a budget.
BUDGETARY CONTROL
The control or management of a government or enterprise in accordance with an approved budget for the purpose of keeping expenditures within the limitations of available appropriations and revenues.
CALPERS
State of California Public Employees’ Retirement System.
CAPITAL ASSET
A tangible, fixed asset that is long-term in nature, of significant value, and obtained or controlled as a result of past transactions, events or circumstances. Fixed assets include land, buildings, equipment, improvements to buildings, and infrastructure (i.e., streets, highways, bridges, and other immovable assets). A capital asset is defined as an asset with a useful life extending beyond a single accounting period.
CAPITAL BUDGET
A financial plan of proposed capital improvement projects and the means of financing them for a given period of time.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
Improvements that cost over $50,000 and have a useful life of 3 years or more, or involve public works construction. The City may own completed projects, or the City may maintain a legal interest in the completed project. Examples of projects owned by the City include a new park, street resurfacing, modifications to buildings, and construction of water mains. An example of a project in which the City maintains a legal interest is a privately owned housing project with an outstanding promissory note to the City.
CARES ACT
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act is federal legislation signed into law on March 27, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 emergency. Under the CARES Act, emergency assistance via one-time cash payments, increased and expanded unemployment payments, loans, and grants was provided to individuals and families, businesses, public health, local and state governments, and educational institutions.
FY 2023-25 PROPOSED BIENNIAL BUDGET
APPENDIX - GLOSSARY
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Attachment A - FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 251
CASH BASIS OF ACCOUNTING
A basis of accounting that recognizes revenues and expenses when cash is received or disbursed.
CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION (COPS)
This financing technique provides long-term financing through a lease, installment sale agreement or loan agreement. Certificates of Participation (COPs) allow the public to purchase (in $5,000 increments) participation in a stream of lease payments, installment payments or loan payments relating to the acquisition or construction of specific equipment, land or facilities. An example would be COPs sold by the City to finance various Third Street Promenade-related improvements.
CITY CHARTER
Legal authority approved in 1946 by the voters of Santa Monica under the State of California Constitution defining the organization, powers, functions, and essential procedures of the city government. The charter established the current "Council - Manager" form of government.
CITY MANAGER’S MESSAGE
A general discussion of the proposed budget as presented in writing by the City Manager to the City Council. The message contains an explanation of the principal budget items and summarizes the proposed budget relative to the current year adopted budget.
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES
Strategic work objectives that require collaborative action by several City departments and partnerships with other elements of the community.
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX (CPI)
A statistical description of price levels provided by the U.S Department of Labor. The change in this index from year to year is used to measure the cost of living and economic inflation.
CONTINGENCY
A budgetary reserve set aside for emergency or unanticipated expenditures, revenue shortfalls, and/or unknown expenditures.
CERTIFIED UNIFIED PROGRAM AGENCY (CUPA)
Senate Bill 1082, passed in 1993, created the Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program (Unified Program), which requires the administrative consolidation of six hazardous materials and waste programs under one agency, a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA).
DEPARTMENT
An operational and budgetary unit designated by the City Council to define and organize City operations, or a group of related operations within a functional area.
FY 2023-25 PROPOSED BIENNIAL BUDGET
APPENDIX - GLOSSARY
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Attachment A - FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 252
DEBT
An obligation resulting from the borrowing of money or from the purchase of goods and services. Debts of governments include bonds, time warrants, and notes.
DEBT FINANCING
Issuance of bonds and other debt instruments to finance municipal improvements and services.
DEBT SERVICE
Debt service refers to the interest and principal payments on bond issues and Certificate of Participation, and includes the issuance costs related to bond funding.
DEFICIT
The excess of an entity’s liabilities over its assets, or the excess of expenditures or expenses over revenue during a single accounting period.
DEPRECIATION
(1) Expiration in the service life of capital outlay assets attributable to wear and tear, deterioration, action of the physical elements, inadequacy or obsolescence. (2) The portion of the cost of a capital asset that is charged as an expense during a particular period.
DIVISION
An organizational unit consisting of program(s) or activity(ies) within a department which furthers the objectives of the City Council by providing services or a product.
ENCUMBRANCE
Financial commitments related to unperformed contracts for goods or services for which part of an appropriation is reserved. They cease to be encumbrances when the obligations are paid or otherwise terminated.
ENTERPRISE FUND
A type of fund established to account for the total costs of those governmental facilities and services which are operated in a manner similar to private enterprises. These funds are entirely or predominately self-supporting.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR)
An analysis of the environmental implications related to a specific action. For example, the increase in traffic in an area proposed for new development.
EXPENDITURE
The payment made for cost of services rendered, materials, equipment, and capital improvements.
FY 2023-25 PROPOSED BIENNIAL BUDGET
APPENDIX - GLOSSARY
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Attachment A - FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 253
EXPENSE
Charges incurred (whether paid immediately or unpaid) for operations, maintenance, interest, or other charges.
EXPENSE CATEGORY
Two expense object categories: Salaries and Wages; and Supplies and Expenses.
FEE
The payment for direct receipt of a public service by the party who benefits from the service.
FIDUCIARY FUND
A fund type to report assets held in a trustee or agency capacity for others and which therefore cannot be used to support the government’s own programs. The fiduciary fund category includes pension, trust funds, investment trust funds, private-purpose trust funds, and agency funds.
FISCAL YEAR (FY)
A twelve-month accounting period of time to which the budget applies; for Santa Monica, it is July 1 through June
30. FRINGE BENEFITS
Benefits including employee retirement, social security, health, dental, vision, life insurance, workers’ compensation, uniforms, and deferred compensation plans.
FTE
Full Time Equivalent Employee (FTE) Hours per year = 1.0 Full-Time Equivalent position.
FUND
An independent fiscal and accounting entity used to record all financial transactions related to the specific purpose for which the fund was created. There are three major types of fund: Governmental (general, special revenue, debt service, capital projects, and permanent), Proprietary (enterprise and internal service), and Fiduciary (trust and agency).
FUND BALANCE
The amount of financial resources immediately available for use. Generally, this represents the excess of unrestricted current assets over current liabilities.
GANN APPROPRIATION LIMIT
Article XIIIB of the State constitution was amended by Proposition 4 (Gann initiative) in 1979. Article XIIIB limits growth in the spending of tax proceeds to tax proceeds appropriated in the "base year" of 1978-79 times the product of the allowable annual percentage change in a cost-of-living factor and the allowable annual percentage change in a population change factor. The cost-of-living factor is the larger of the annual percentage change in the State per capita personal income or the annual percentage change in the local non-residential assessed FY 2023-25 PROPOSED BIENNIAL BUDGET
APPENDIX - GLOSSARY
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Attachment A - FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 254
valuation due to new construction. The population change factor is the larger of the annual percentage change of the jurisdiction's population or the annual percentage population change of the county in which the jurisdiction is located.
GENERAL FUND
The primary fund of the City used to account for all revenues and expenditures of the City not legally restricted as to use. Examples of departments financed by the General Fund include City Council, Police and Fire Departments.
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND
A type of bond that is backed by the full faith, credit, and taxing power of the City.
GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES (GAAP)
Uniform minimum standards and guidelines for financial accounting and reporting. They govern the form and content of the financial statements of an entity. GAAP encompass the conventions, rules, and procedures necessary to define accepted accounting practice at a particular time. They include not only broad guidelines of general application, but also detailed practices and procedures. GAAP provide a standard by which to measure financial presentations. The primary authoritative body on the application of GAAP to state and local governments is the GASB.
GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING
The composite activity of analyzing, recording, summarizing, reporting, and interpreting the financial transactions of governments.
GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD (GASB)
The authoritative accounting and financial reporting standard-setting body for government entities.
GOVERNMENTAL FUND
A fund type to account for tax-supported activities. There are five different types of governmental funds: the general fund, special revenue funds, debt service funds, capital projects funds, and permanent funds.
GRANT
Contributions or gifts of cash or other assets from another governmental entity to be used or expended for a specific purpose, activity or facility. An example is the Community Development Block Grant awarded by the Federal government.
INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN
The City uses an indirect cost allocation plan to ensure that enterprises and certain special revenue supported operations pay for themselves and are not subsidized by City taxpayers. General fund supported central services costs such as payroll, accounting, data processing, personnel, city management and facilities maintenance are allocated to those funds benefiting from these services based on statistical data reflecting use of these support services.
FY 2023-25 PROPOSED BIENNIAL BUDGET
APPENDIX - GLOSSARY
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Attachment A - FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 255
INFRASTRUCTURE
Facilities on which the continuance and growth of a community depend on such as roads, water lines, sewers, public buildings, parks and airports.
INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS
These budgetary transactions consist of quasi-external transactions which would be treated as revenues and expenditures if they involved organizations external to the governmental unit, reimbursements of expenditures initially made in one fund which are attributable to another fund, and operating transfers where monies are appropriated from one fund to another fund to reimburse expenses which are of benefit to the first fund.
INTERNAL SERVICE FUND
Funds used to account for the financing of goods or services provided by one department or agency to other departments or agencies of a government, on a cost-reimbursement basis.
LEED
The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System® is a voluntary, consensus-based national standard for developing high-performance and sustainable buildings.
LEGAL DEBT LIMIT
Per section 6.07 of the City Charter, bonded indebtedness of the City may not exceed 10% of the total assessed valuation of property within the City, exclusive of any indebtedness incurred for the purpose of water supply or sewers or storm drains.
LIABILITY
Debt or other legal obligations arising out of transactions in the past which must be liquidated, renewed, or refunded at some future date. Note: This term does not include encumbrances.
LINE ITEM DETAIL
A budget that lists detailed expenditure categories (permanent salaries, utilities, travel, training, etc.) separately, along with the amount budgeted for each specified category.
LONG-TERM DEBT
Debt with a maturity of more than one year after the date of issue.
MEASURE CS
On November 8, 2022, voters approved Measure CS, a ballot measure increasing the Transient Occupancy Tax, paid by overnight visitors, by 1% for hotels and motels, and by 3% for homeshares. The tax increase became effective March 1, 2023.
FY 2023-25 PROPOSED BIENNIAL BUDGET
APPENDIX - GLOSSARY
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Attachment A - FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 256
MEASURES GS AND GSH (2016)
Measure GSH, approved by Santa Monica voters in November 2016, increased the City’s transaction and use tax rate by half a percent point. Per the advisory Measure GS (2016), one-half of the proceeds from the increased portion of the tax will be used for affordable housing with the other half paid to the Santa Monica/Malibu Unified School District. The tax increase became effective April 1, 2017.
MEASURE HMP
Measure HMP, approved by Santa Monica voters on November 8, 2022, establishes the Cannabis Business Tax on every licensed cannabis business and retailers of products containing psychoactive cannabinoids, operating within the City. Non-medicinal cannabis retailers are taxed at 3% of gross receipts, medicinal cannabis retailers are taxed at 2%, and other licensed cannabis retailers (involved in distribution, manufacturing, cultivation, or laboratory testing) are taxed at 1%, with a maximum tax rate of 10% at the discretion of City Council. While this tax is currently in effect, there are no recreational cannabis-related retail establishments in Santa Monica.
MEASURE R
Measure R increases the sales tax rate by half a percent point in Los Angeles County for 30 years to provide funding for new transportation projects and programs and accelerate the ones already in the works. Aimed to bring traffic relief and transportation upgrades throughout the County, the ballot measure was approved by voters in November 2006 and went into effect July 1, 2009.
MEASURE SM (2020)/MEASURE GS (2022)
Measure SM, approved by Santa Monica voters in November 2020, added a second tier to the City’s one-time general tax on real estate transfers paid on each sale of property of $5 million or more of $6.00 per $1,000 of transfer value, with affordable housing projects exempt from the increase. Proceeds from the measure are used for essential services including addressing homelessness, parks and beaches, maintenance, public safety, emergency response, senior and tenant protections, libraries, small businesses, food for the hungry, and youth programs. The tax increase became effective March 1, 2021. Measure GS, approved by voters in November 2022, added a third tier to the tax of $56.00 per $1,000 on each sale of property with a transfer value of $8 million and over. This is a special tax with funds from the incremental increase in the tax ($50.00 per $1,000) restricted to homelessness prevention, affordable housing, and schools. The tax increase became effective March 1, 2023.
MEASURE V
The Clean Beaches and Ocean Parcel Tax was approved by Santa Monica voters in November 2006. The tax raises revenue to be used solely for the purpose of implementing the City’s Watershed Management Plan for the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents.
MEASURE Y
Measure Y is a one-half percent transaction and use tax approved by voters in November 2010 which is projected to generate approximately $12 million in new revenue annually for the City.
FY 2023-25 PROPOSED BIENNIAL BUDGET
APPENDIX - GLOSSARY
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Attachment A - FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 257
MEASURE YY
Measure YY was an advisory measure on the use of revenues from the transaction and use tax proposed under Measure Y. Measure YY specifies that if a local transaction and use tax was enacted in the City of Santa Monica, half of its revenue should be used to support school, educational and afterschool programs, and half of its revenue should be used to fund general City services.
MISSION
A description of the basic purpose and responsibility of the division or department.
MODIFIED ACCRUAL BASIS OF ACCOUNTING
A basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized in the accounting period in which they become available and measurable; expenditures are recognized in the accounting period in which the fund liability is incurred (if measurable), except for unmatured interest on general long-term debt and certain similar accrued obligations, which should be recognized when due.
MUNICIPAL CODE
A compilation of City Council approved ordinances currently in effect. The Code defines City policy in various categories, for example, Civil Service rules, traffic regulations, sanitation and health standards, building regulations, and planning and zoning regulations.
OPERATING BUDGET
A financial, programmatic and organizational plan for furthering the goals of the City Council through the departments of the City, which does not include one-time capital improvements projects.
ORDINANCE
A formal legislative enactment by the City Council. It has the full force and effect of law within the City boundaries unless it is in conflict with any higher form of law such as a State statute or constitutional provision. An ordinance has higher legal standing than a resolution.
PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010 and is aimed at increasing the rate of health insurance coverage for Americans and reducing the overall costs of health care. The PPACA is commonly referred to as Obamacare.
PAY-AS-YOU-GO BASIS
A term used to describe a financial policy by which capital outlays are financed from current revenues rather than through borrowing.
PROGRAM
An activity or division within a department which furthers the City’s objectives by providing services or a product.
FY 2023-25 PROPOSED BIENNIAL BUDGET
APPENDIX - GLOSSARY
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Attachment A - FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 258
PROJECT
A temporary, unique action that has a defined beginning and end, with a defined scope and resources. Success is measured by the completion of milestones.
PROPOSITION A AND PROPOSITION C (PROP A & PROP C)
Proposition A and Proposition C programs are two one-half cent sales tax measures approved by Los Angeles County voters to finance a countywide transit development program.
PROPRIETARY FUND
Funds that focus on the determination of operating income, changes in net assets (cost recovery), financial position, and cash flows. There are two types of proprietary funds: Enterprise and Internal Service Funds.
PURCHASE ORDER
A document issued to authorize a vendor to deliver specified merchandise or render a specified service for a stated estimated price. Outstanding purchase orders are called encumbrances.
RE-APPROPRIATION
The amount of money that is budgeted for a project in a prior year but is not spent or encumbered and needs to be appropriated again in the current year in order to continue the program originally intended.
REIMBURSEMENTS
Payments of amounts remitted on behalf of another party, department or fund. They are recorded as expenditures or expenses in the reimbursing fund and as reductions of the expenditure or expense in the fund that is reimbursed (see Interfund Transactions).
RESERVE
An account used to set aside a portion of the fund balance as legally segregated for a specific use.
RESOLUTION
A special order of the City Council which requires less legal formality than an ordinance in terms of public notice and the number of public readings prior to approval. A resolution has lower legal standing than an ordinance.
The adopted City budget is approved by resolution and requires a majority vote of the councilmembers present at budget adoption time. During the fiscal year other budget modifications made by the City Council require a majority plus one vote.
REVENUE
Sources of income used to finance City governmental services.
SALARIES AND WAGES
A budget category which generally accounts for full-time, part-time, and temporary employees’ salaries, overtime costs, and fringe benefits for a particular division or program.
FY 2023-25 PROPOSED BIENNIAL BUDGET
APPENDIX - GLOSSARY
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Attachment A - FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 259
SELF-INSURANCE
A term often used to describe the retention by an entity of a risk of loss arising out of the ownership of property or the activity of the agency.
SERVICES
A grouping of activities with common business goals organized by divisions.
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
A Special Revenue Fund is separately administered because restrictions have been placed on how revenues may be spent by the City Council, the State of California or the Federal government. Two examples are the State of California Gas Tax Fund and Federal government Community Development Block Grant funds.
SUPPLIES AND EXPENSES
A budget category which accounts for all non-personnel expenses. Examples include office supplies, utility costs, legal advertising, equipment maintenance, small tool purchases, building/structure maintenance, and contractual services.
TAXES
Compulsory charges levied by a governmental unit for the purpose of financing services performed for the common benefit. This term does not include charges for services rendered only to those paying such charges, for example refuse collection.
TRUST FUNDS
Types of fiduciary funds which account for assets held by the City in a trustee capacity. The budget does not appropriate fiduciary funds.
VEHICLE LICENSE FEE
Vehicle License Fee (VLF) is an annual fee on the ownership of a registered vehicle in California. It has been assessed on all privately owned registered vehicles in California in place of taxing vehicles as personal property since 1935. The VLF is paid to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) at the time of annual vehicle registration.
A portion of VLF had traditionally been apportioned to cities on a per capita basis. However, effective July 1, 2011, virtually all VLF revenues previously apportioned to cities were shifted to fund law enforcement grants as a part of efforts to solve the State’s chronic budget problems.
FY 2023-25 PROPOSED BIENNIAL BUDGET
APPENDIX - GLOSSARY
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Attachment A - FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 260
AB
Assembly Bill
ARPA
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021
ATMS
Advanced Traffic Management System
AVR
Average Vehicle Ridership
B&S
Building and Safety
CAC
California Arts Council
CALPERS / PERS
California Public Employees’ Retirement System
CAM
Common Area Maintenance
CARES
Coronavirus, Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
of 2020
CBB
Community Broadband
CDBG
Community Development Block Grant
CIP
Capital Improvement Program
COG
Council of Governments
FY 2023-25 PROPOSED BIENNIAL BUDGET
APPENDIX - ACRONYMS
COLA
Cost of Living Adjustment
COPS
Citizens’ Option for Public Safety
CPI
Consumer Price Index
CRD
Community Recreation Division
CREST
Childcare Recreation Enrichment Sports Together
CUPA
Certified Unified Program Agency
EIR
Environmental Impact Report
EOC
Emergency Operations Center
ERAF
Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FTE
Full Time Equivalent
GAP
Grant Acceleration Program
GAAP
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Attachment A - FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 261
GASB
Governmental Accounting Standards Board
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GFOA
Government Finance Officers Association
GIS
Geographical Information Systems
HHW
Household Hazardous Waste
HHSD
Housing and Human Services Division
HLP
Homeless Liaison Program
HMG
Hazardous Mitigation Grants
HMRRP
Haz-Mat Response and Reporting Program
HUD
Department of Housing and Urban Development
HOME
Federal Home Investment Partnership Program
LACMTA
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority
LAEDC
Los Angeles County Economic Development
Corporation
LEED
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LLEBG
Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program
MOE
Maintenance of Effort
MOU
Memorandum of Understanding
MTA
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
MWD
Metropolitan Water District
OEM
Office of Emergency Management
OSE
Office of Sustainability and the Environment
OTS
California Office of Traffic Safety
PAL
Police Activities League
PEG
Public, Educational, and Government
PNA
Pico Neighborhood Association
PPACA
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Frequently
referred to as Obamacare.
FY 2023-25 PROPOSED BIENNIAL BUDGET
APPENDIX - ACRONYMS
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Attachment A - FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 262
PROP A & PROP C
Proposition A and Proposition C.
RA
Recreation and Arts
RDA
Redevelopment Agency
SA
Successor Agency
SB
Senate Bill
SCAQMD
South Coast Air Quality Management District
SMMUSD
Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District
SMURRF
Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility
TEA
Transportation Equity Act
TDA
Transportation Development Act
TDM
Traffic Demand Management
TMP
Transportation Management Program
TORCA
Tenant Ownership Rights Charter Amendment
VLF Vehicle License Fee
FY 2023-25 PROPOSED BIENNIAL BUDGET
APPENDIX - ACRONYMS
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Attachment A - FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 263
FY 2023-25 PROPOSED BIENNIAL BUDGET
APPENDIX - GFOA AWARD
The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) presented a Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to City of Santa Monica, California for its biennial budget for the biennium beginning July 1, 2021. In order to receive this award, a government unit must publish a budget document that meets program criteria as a policy document, as an operations guide, as a financial plan, and as a communications device.
This award is valid for a period of two years only. We believe our current budget continues to conform to program requirements, and we are submitting it to GFOA to determine its eligibility for the biennium beginning July 1, 2023.
PRESENTED TO
City of Santa Monica
California
For the Biennium Beginning
July 01, 2021
Executive Director
GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
Distinguished
Budget Presentation
Award
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Attachment A - FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) Revisions to Fee Schedules FY2023-24
Category Description Current Fee
FY 2022-23 Current Fee Unit Revised or Proposed Fee FY 2023-24 Proposed Fee Unit Comments Planning Fees Architectural Review Board – Administrative Design Approval (New Construction) $ 4,942.56
Planning Fees SB 9 Conformance Review $ 1,360.00
Pier Fees
Santa Monica Pier Carousel Rental Rate Schedule: Private Events Held After Regular Operating Hours: 1-99 Guests $ 250.00 Per hour $ 300.00 Per hour 20% Discount given to midweek and off-season parties.
30% Discount given to midweek alcohol-free parties hosted by nonprofit groups. Only nonprofit groups with documented tax-exempt status shall be eligible for discount.
Pier Fees Santa Monica Pier Carousel Rental Rate Schedule: Private Events Held After Regular Operating Hours: 100-199 Guests $ 350.00 Per hour $ 420.00 Per hour 20% Discount given to midweek and off-season parties.
30% Discount given to midweek alcohol-free parties hosted by nonprofit groups. Only nonprofit groups with documented tax-exempt status shall be eligible for discount.
Pier Fees Santa Monica Pier Carousel Rental Rate Schedule: Private Events Held After Regular Operating Hours: 200-299 Guests $ 400.00 Per hour $ 480.00 Per hour 20% Discount given to midweek and off-season parties.
30% Discount given to midweek alcohol-free parties hosted by nonprofit groups. Only nonprofit groups with documented tax-exempt status shall be eligible for discount.
Pier Fees Santa Monica Pier Carousel Rental Rate Schedule: Private Events Held After Regular Operating Hours: 300-350 Guests $ 450.00 Per hour $ 540.00 Per hour 20% Discount given to midweek and off-season parties.
30% Discount given to midweek alcohol-free parties hosted by nonprofit groups. Only nonprofit groups with documented tax-exempt status shall be eligible for discount.
Pier Fees Santa Monica Pier Carousel Rental Rate Schedule: Private Events Held After Regular Operating Hours: East Deck - Half $ 65.00 Per hour $ 80.00 Per hour 20% Discount given to midweek and off-season parties.
30% Discount given to midweek alcohol-free parties hosted by nonprofit groups. Only nonprofit groups with documented tax-exempt status shall be eligible for discount.
Pier Fees Santa Monica Pier Carousel Rental Rate Schedule: Private Events Held After Regular Operating Hours: East Deck - Full $ 100.00 Per hour $ 120.00 Per hour 20% Discount given to midweek and off-season parties.
30% Discount given to midweek alcohol-free parties hosted by nonprofit groups. Only nonprofit groups with documented tax-exempt status shall be eligible for discount.
Pier Fees Santa Monica Pier Carousel Rental Rate Schedule: Private Events Held During Regular Operating Hours: 1-99 Guests $ 600.00 Per hour $ 700.00 Per hour Pier Fees Santa Monica Pier Carousel Rental Rate Schedule: Private Events Held During Regular Operating Hours: 100-199 Guests $ 800.00 Per hour $ 940.00 Per hour Pier Fees Santa Monica Pier Carousel Rental Rate Schedule: Private Events Held During Regular Operating Hours: 200-299 Guests $ 900.00 Per hour $ 1,060.00 Per hour Pier Fees Santa Monica Pier Carousel Rental Rate Schedule: Private Events Held During Regular Operating Hours: 300-350 Guests $ 1,000.00 Per hour $ 1,180.00 Per hour Pier Fees Santa Monica Pier Carousel Rental Rate Schedule: Semi-Private Event: 1-99 Guests $ 75.00 Per hour $ 56.00 Per hour 25% Discount given to nonprofit groups and to mid-week parties. Only nonprofit groups with documented tax-exempt status shall be eligible for discount Pier Fees Santa Monica Pier Carousel Rental Rate Schedule: Semi-Private Event: 100-199 Guests $ 100.00 Per hour $ 120.00 Per hour 25% Discount given to nonprofit groups and to mid-week parties. Only nonprofit groups with documented tax-exempt status shall be eligible for discount Pier Fees Santa Monica Pier Carousel Rental Rate Schedule: Semi-Private Event: 200-299 Guests $ 125.00 Per hour $ 150.00 Per hour 25% Discount given to nonprofit groups and to mid-week parties. Only nonprofit groups with documented tax-exempt status shall be eligible for discount Pier Fees Santa Monica Pier Carousel Rental Rate Schedule: Children's Party Specials (SemiPrivate - Flat Rate {3 hours}): Up to 30 Guests $ 250.00 $5 per additional person $ 300.00 $6 per additional person Pier Fees Santa Monica Pier Carousel Rental Rate Schedule: Children's Party Specials (SemiPrivate - Flat Rate {3 hours}): Up to 60 Guests $ 350.00 $5 per additional person $ 425.00 $6 per additional person Pier Fees Santa Monica Pier Carousel Rental Rate Schedule: Children's Party Specials (SemiPrivate - Flat Rate {3 hours}): Up to 90 Guests $ 550.00 $ 675.00 Pier Fees Santa Monica Pier Carousel Rental Rate Schedule: Children's Party Specials (SemiPrivate - Flat Rate {3 hours}): Additional half-hour $ 25.00 $ 30.00 Pier Fees Santa Monica Pier Carousel Rental Rate Schedule: Filming: Commercial Film (per hour) $ 400.00 Per hour $ 475.00 Per hour 35% Discount given to nonprofit and student groups. Only nonprofit groups with documented tax-exempt status shall be eligible for discount.
Pier Fees Santa Monica Pier Carousel Rental Rate Schedule: Filming: Commercial Stills (per hour) $ 300.00 Per hour $ 375.00 Per hour 35% Discount given to nonprofit and student groups. Only nonprofit groups with documented tax-exempt status shall be eligible for discount.
Community Services
Updated Hourly Rates Swim Instructor/Lifeguard $ 19.40 $ 21.69 Community Services
Updated Hourly Rates Chief Pool Lifeguard $ 25.23 $ 26.37 1 of 4
Attachment C
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Attachment C - Revisions to Fee Schedules FY 23-24 FINAL (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Revisions to Fee Schedules FY2023-24
Category Description Current Fee
FY 2022-23 Current Fee Unit Revised or Proposed Fee FY 2023-24 Proposed Fee Unit Comments Community Services
Updated Hourly Rates Guest Services Assistant $ 23.08 $ 24.12 Community Services
Updated Hourly Rates Aquatics Program Coordinator $ 31.56 $ 32.98 Beach House Volleyball - Youth (Series) $ 120.00 4 Sessions Beach House Volleyball - Adult (Series) $ 120.00 4 Sessions Beach House Yoga (Series) $ 100.00 5 Sessions
Beach House Bounce (Series) $ 320.00 8 Sessions
Beach House Volleyball - Youth $ 40.00 Single Session/Drop-In-Rate Beach House Volleyball - Adult $ 40.00 Single Session/Drop-In-Rate Beach House Elite Volleyball Camp $ 70.00 Single Session/Drop-In-Rate Beach House Yoga $ 20.00 Single Session/Drop-In-Rate
Beach House Bounce $ 40.00 Single Session/Drop-In-Rate
Beach House Semi-Private Swim Lessons $ 110.00 2 Weeks $ 110.00 4 Sessions Beach House Elite Volleyball Camp (Series) $ 350.00 5 Sessions Department of
Transportation Traffic Engineer $ 297.76 per hour $ 313.88 per hour Department of
Transportation Traffic Painter Crew Leader $ 186.65 per hour Department of
Transportation Traffic Painter $ 151.41 per hour
Department of
Transportation Traffic Operations Supervisor $ 234.14 per hour Department of
Transportation Lead Traffic Signal Technician $ 212.79 per hour Department of
Transportation Traffic Signal Technician $ 193.46 per hour Department of
Transportation Principal Traffic Engineer $ 372.58 per hour Department of
Transportation Parking Meter Pole Removal and or Installation $ 662.24 Department of
Transportation Parking Meter Head Removal and or Installation $ 399.76 Pedicab Fee Pedicab Beach Bike Path Decal $ 18.29 Per item Library Rentals Martin Luther King, (MLK) Jr. Auditorium Rental (2 Hour Minimum) $ 240.00 $ 160.00 Library Rentals Multipurpose Room Rental (2 Hour Minimum) $ 180.00 $ 120.00 Library Rentals Rental (2 Hour Minimum) $ 90.00 $ 60.00 Library Rentals Fairview Branch Comm Room Rental (2 Hour Minimum) $ 90.00 $ 60.00 Library Rentals Montana Ave Branch Comm Room Rental (2 Hour Minimum) $ 90.00 $ 60.00 Library Rentals Ocean Park Branch Comm Room Rental (2 Hour Minimum) $ 90.00 $ 60.00 Cemetery Fees Arbor View - Outdoor Niches: Marble $ 2,219.02 Cemetery Fees Hope: Marble $ 2,219.02
2 of 4
Attachment C
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Attachment C - Revisions to Fee Schedules FY 23-24 FINAL (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Revisions to Fee Schedules FY2023-24
Category Description Current Fee
FY 2022-23 Current Fee Unit Revised or Proposed Fee FY 2023-24 Proposed Fee Unit Comments Cemetery Fees Library of Living Memories: Small Glass - 11"L x 11.5"W x 7"H $ 3,135.65 Cemetery Fees Library of Living Memories: Medium Glass - 11"L x 11.5"W x 15"H $ 6,062.30 Cemetery Fees Library of Living Memories: Medium-Large Glass - 17"L x 11.5"W x 15"H $ 7,177.21 Cemetery Fees Library of Living Memories: Large Glass - 22.5"L x 11.5"W x 15"H $ 8,292.11 Cemetery Fees Library of Living Memories: Extra Large Glass - 35"L x 11.5"W x 15"H $ 22,845.35 Cemetery Fees Heavenly Gate: Marble $ 2,144.04 $ 2,219.02 Cemetery Fees Precious/Cherish: Small Glass - 14"L x 11.5"W x 7"H $ 3,135.65 Cemetery Fees Precious/Cherish: Medium Glass - 12"L x 11.5"W x 14"H $ 6,062.30 Cemetery Fees Precious/Cherish: Medium Glass - 14.5"L x 11.5"W x 14"H $ 6,271.30 Cemetery Fees Precious/Cherish: Large Glass - 24.5"L x 11.5"W x 14"H $ 8,292.11 Cemetery Fees Precious/Cherish: Extra Large Glass - 30"L x 11.5"W x 14"H $ 19,581.73 Cemetery Fees (Mausoleum P Niches): Small Marble $ 1,672.36 Cemetery Fees (Mausoleum P Niches): Marble $ 2,219.02
Cemetery Fees (Mausoleum U Niches): Small Marble $ 1,672.36 Cemetery Fees (Mausoleum U Niches): Marble $ 2,219.02
Cemetery Fees (Mausoleum U Niches): Large Marble $ 4,438.04 Cemetery Fees (Mausoleum U Niches): Small Glass - 11.25"L x 11.75"W x 6.25"H $ 3,135.65 Cemetery Fees (Mausoleum U Niches): Medium Glass - 11.25"L x 11.75"W x 13.75"H $ 6,062.30 Cemetery Fees (Mausoleum U Niches): Large Glass - 23.5"L x 11.75"W x 13.75"H $ 8,292.11 Cemetery Fees (Mausoleum V Niches): Small Marble Niche $ 1,672.36 Cemetery Fees (Mausoleum V Niches): Marble Niche $ 2,219.02 Cemetery Fees (Mausoleum W Niches): Small Marble Niche $ 1,672.36 Cemetery Fees (Mausoleum W Niches): Marble Niche $ 2,219.02 Cemetery Fees (Mausoleum W Niches): Large Marble Niche $ 4,438.04 Cemetery Fees (Mausoleum W Niches): Small Glass - 11.25"L x 11.75"W x 6.25"H $ 3,135.65 Cemetery Fees (Mausoleum W Niches): Medium Glass - 11.25"L x 11.75"W x 13.75"H $ 6,062.30 Cemetery Fees (Mausoleum W Niches): Large Glass - 23.5"L x 11.75"W x 13.75"H $ 8,292.11 EV User Fees EV User Fee (Summer: June 1 - September 30) $ 0.30 per kWh $ 0.35 per kWh EV User Fees EV User Fee (Winter: October 1 - May 31) $ 0.30 per kWh $ 0.31 per kWh Election Fees Initiative Fee $ 200.00
Election Fees Candidate Statement Fee: City Council and Rent Control Board $ 1,100.00 3 of 4
Attachment C
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Attachment C - Revisions to Fee Schedules FY 23-24 FINAL (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Revisions to Fee Schedules FY2023-24
Category Description Current Fee
FY 2022-23 Current Fee Unit Revised or Proposed Fee FY 2023-24 Proposed Fee Unit Comments Election Fees Candidate Statement Fee: College and School Board $ 1,200.00 Development Fee Urban Runoff In Lieu Fee $ 7.61 per gallon $ 12.27 per gallon 4 of 4
Attachment C
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Attachment C - Revisions to Fee Schedules FY 23-24 FINAL (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial 2023-25 ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT PROGRAM (OSP)
GRANTS FOR ARTS AND CULTURE NONPROFITS
Attachment D
The OSP Program
The City has a long history of investing in artists and cultural organizations with the goal of ensuring that residents have an exciting and stimulating array of arts and heritage programs and services in which to participate. Santa Monica residents share a vision for their community that weaves the arts, cultural activities, education, and an understanding of history through their daily lives, work, cityscape, and neighborhoods. This vision has been documented extensively in the City’s cultural plan, Creative Capital, adopted by Council in 2007, and in subsequent community assessments and marketing studies. Sustainable access to arts and heritage programming has been shown to contribute to a sense of connectedness and to promote mental health by broadly enriching a community’s emotional and intellectual capacities, improving children’s school performance, facilitating the ability to acquire new skills, and encouraging creativity in every aspect of life.
The Organizational Support Program (OSP) was created by City Council in 1997 to support resident arts and heritage organizations with multi-year grants aimed at operational expenses.
Operational grants assist nonprofits in the achievement of their artistic and administrative goals.
The City of Santa Monica funds both large and small arts and heritage organizations, recognizing the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion in meeting the community’s cultural needs.
During the 2020 budget cuts, staff prioritized the retention of the OSP grant funding, keeping the program whole while making some unfortunately necessary cuts to the Community Access and Participation (CAP) and Artist Fellowship grant programs. The City’s ability to sustain OSP funding during the challenges of two-and-a-half years of mandated closures due to the pandemic – while real estate prices continued to heavily gentrify – has been central to the survival of the City’s cultural sector.
Community Assessment Recommendations and Responses
In the fall of 2022, in preparation for the 2023-25 application process, a community assessment was completed which is attached to the end of this document. The following recommendations from the report were addressed by staff in the current OSP application process. • Recommendation: Prioritize support for those who strategized and tried new ways to reach audiences, fundraise and make an impact within their communities.
Response: Staff reversed the long-standing selection criteria order and made Community Engagement the top consideration for jury review. Artistic Excellence is now second for review, though it remains a key value. The intention was to ensure that organizations that can
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Attachment D - OSP 2023-25 (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) demonstrate their community impact are recognized, including their responses to the paradigm shifting dialogues that have occurred nationally in the wakes of both the George Floyd murder and the pandemic.
• Recommendation: Broaden and loosen requirements around “serving Santa Monica audiences.” Response: the OSP eligibility rules now allow performing arts groups that are based in Santa Monica but spend a substantial portion of their seasons touring to qualify for the program.
• Recommendation: to address key equity goals, the total OSP budget allocation would need to increase by approximately 25-30 percent. If that is not a reality, the City may find itself either delaying equitable funding to the smaller organizations or notifying the historic grantees that they should expect to receive significantly smaller grants. Response: Staff has worked to balance the mandates of equity with the needs of the larger, more established institutions. OSP funding is intended to provide a stable level of support for grantees year over year; the goal is to provide funding amounts that do not fluctuate wildly. Due to an anticipated flat budget for the program, staff recommends that new applicants begin with “starter grants,” while those who were new in the last cycle receive a slight increase based on the panel scoring, which will step them up toward the more traditional funding levels. Staff will also recommend flat funding for long-term organizations.
Grant Application Process
The OSP application process re-opened this year for the first time since 2019. Proposals were solicited for the grant period FY2023-25. A request for applications was distributed widely on December 16, 2022; the City received 27 eligible submittals by the January 31 deadline.
Applications were reviewed by a diverse jury of arts professionals, including regional experts in each of the artistic/cultural disciplines represented in the applicant pool. The jury process was designed to be rigorous and objective, with each application reviewed by the entire group.
Cultural Affairs staff reviewed applications for eligibility only; staff did not score applications.
Jurors included regional experts in the areas of music, theater, dance, visual arts, cultural heritage, nonprofit management, and community arts organizations. Applications were scored on a 100-point scale. 21 organizations are being recommended for funding in this cycle, one more than in the previous cycle in 2019.
Jurors for 2023-25
o Olga Garay-English, former Cultural Affairs Manager for the City of Los Angeles o Rick Noguchi, President and CEO of California Humanities, former Chief Operations Officer for the Japanese American National Museum o Artist Mark Steven Greenfield
o Elizabeth Kennedy, former official of the Music Center of Los Angeles County, Vice President of the Autry National Center, and Vice President of Occidental College
OSP Program Goals
• Increase and sustain world-class artistic production and exhibition in Santa Monica.
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Attachment D - OSP 2023-25 (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) • Deliver opportunities for creativity, artistic participation and the understanding of cultural heritage to diverse components of the community.
• Promote high standards of organizational management in Santa Monica’s arts and • culture ecosystem.
• Highlight the City as an international creative center. • Open avenues of discourse to broad topics of human creativity and learning among the general public.
2023-24 Grant Recommendations
Guide to Grant Amounts
Grant amounts are determined by a combination of jury score, previous grant award, and the City’s available resources. Organizational budget size is defined as very large ($10+ million), large ($2+ million), midsize ($500,000-$1,999,999), and small ($1-$499,999). In addition, due to limitations in City resources, a reduced scale of grant levels is being recommended for applicants who are new to the program. This approach allows the City to bring a greater number of organizations into the program.
Proposed Grant Amounts
The following grants are being recommended for approval. (New applicants recommended for funding are noted with an asterisk.)
Very Large Organizations ($10 million+):
Applicant
Organizational
Budget Recommended Grant
KCRW Foundation, Inc.* $22,018,583.00 $6,000
Large Organizations ($2 mil - $9,999,999):
Applicant
Organizational
Budget Recommended Grant
Madison Project dba
BroadStage $2,121,096 $70,400
Midsize Organizations ($500,000 - $1,999,999):
Applicant
Organizational
Budget Recommended Grant
18th Street Arts Complex $1,203,684 $65,150
Jewish Women's Theatre $600,145 $23,690
Jacob Jonas The Company* $527,368 $5,350
Elemental Music $608,919 $28,055
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Attachment D - OSP 2023-25 (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) Small Organizations ($1 - $499,999):
Applicant
Organizational
Budget
Recommended
Grant
Highways, Inc. $465,135 $26,000
Santa Monica Symphony Assoc $148,711 $15,700
SOL-LA Music Academy* $346,051 $5,350
Santa Monica Youth Orchestra $327,602 $8,920
Aresis Ensemble dba City Garage $193,690 $11,300
Dancessence, Inc. $50,690 $1,970
Santa Monica Conservancy $262,292 $13,300
Building Bridges Art Foundation $94,731 $4,060
California Heritage Museum $164,261 $15,950
Westside Ballet of Santa Monica $362,879 $12,970
Santa Monica Theatre Guild dba
Morgan-Wixson Theatre $334,720 $8,000
Santa Monica History Museum $429,371 $30,500
Jacaranda Music $320,998 $24,650
Orchestra Santa Monica Assoc $204,390 $5,040
Ruskin Group Theatre $161,200 $19,570
Verdi Chorus $101,690 $8,000
*New grantee recommended at a corresponding entry grant level.
Not recommended for funding:
Applicant Budget
ShareWell dba Cayton Children's Museum $3,876,607
Human Family Educational and Cultural Institute $574,416 Santa Monica Repertory Theater $18,254
Theatre for a Small Space $14,770
Santa Monica Playhouse $357,646
ATTACHED: COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT REPORT
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Attachment D - OSP 2023-25 (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 2023
Organizational
Support Program
Community
Assessment &
Recommendations
Attachment D
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Attachment D - OSP 2023 Community Assessment Report FINAL (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) Table of Contents
01 Introduction
02 About the Assessment Process
03 Assessments &
Recommendations
04 Conclusion
Attachment D
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Attachment D - OSP 2023 Community Assessment Report FINAL (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) Introduction
The Cultural Affairs Division’s Organizational Support Program (OSP) has cemented itself as a key source of funding and continued growth of Santa Monica-based arts organizations. As detailed in the Creative Capital cultural plan adopted by City Council in 2007, OSP grantees are eligible to receive up to ten percent of their overall annual budget as unrestricted funds. In a funding landscape where most grants are awarded for specific programs versus operations, the OSP program is notable in that it understands and responds to the very real and timely needs of the arts community.
Based on the 2021 grant guidelines, OSP grantees are expected to:
Increase and sustain world-class artistic productions and exhibitions in Santa Monica.
Deliver opportunities for creativity, artistic participation, and the understanding of cultural heritage to diverse components of the community.
Promote high standards of organizational management in Santa Monica’ arts and culture ecosystem.
Highlight the city as an international creative center.
Open avenues of discourse to broad topics of human creativity and learning among the general public.
In addition, eligibility is based on compliance with all updated municipal standards, keeping clear fiscal records that are updated in their DataArts Cultural Data Project (CDP) profiles, and more. In the past, selection criteria was based on:
Artistic achievement
Managerial, Governance and Fiscal Performance
Community, Engagement, Collaboration, Partnerships and Future Aspirations.
In recent years, City staff has also been very responsive in ensuring that diversity, equity, and inclusion are at the forefront of OSP’s evolution. The last application was thoroughly updated and amended with DEI as a priority, granting eight new arts organizations that otherwise would not have met previous, often exclusionary, application requirements.
Attachment D
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Attachment D - OSP 2023 Community Assessment Report FINAL (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) About the
Assessment Process
The assessment process began in early November,
kicking off with a review of past applications
(application structure, questions, and responses),
past DataArts reports, and the most recent
assessments provided by the Aspire Group in 2018
and Jerry Yoshitomi in 2014.
On Tuesday, November 22nd, a 90-minute virtual
feedback session was held with past grantees and
applicants. Local arts leaders discussed their
experiences and views on the OSP application
process and the state of local arts and funding
challenges in general. A total of 17 former grantees
participated, including representatives from the
Santa Monica Conservancy, Santa Monica Youth
Orchestra, Westside Ballet, Highways Performance
Space, and more.
A survey was crafted and sent to past grantees
who could not attend the virtual session, which
garnered an additional six responses. A copy of the
survey, which mirrored the questions asked during
our virtual feedback session, can be found as an
appendix to this report.
This assessment and recommendations document
has been prepared based on information gleaned
during the assessment process described above.
“Emergency
funding helped
us survive- but
what’s next?”
-Donna
Sternberg,
Dancessence
Attachment D
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Attachment D - OSP 2023 Community Assessment Report FINAL (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) Assessments &
Recommendations
01. The Pandemic Still Looms Large
The Pandemic has deeply damaged the strength and outlook of our arts organizations, and many are still grappling with what to do next.
What we heard:
Not only have audiences not quite returned to prepandemic levels but many organizations find that, with almost three years of irregular business, it’s difficult to predict tickets sales and participation levels.
Organizations are grateful for the one-time grants that they received to keep them afloat during shutdowns. But most of those emergency funding programs have come to an end.
Arts organizations are now returning to traditional forms of fundraising: individual donors, ticket sales, etc., all of which shrank during the pandemic.
Many arts organizations are now severely understaffed
after pandemic-era downsizing. F unding has not been
available to bring them back to capacity.
How OSP can help:
Artistic Excellence has always been a key criterion in juried grant processes. A new lens may be applied this year that pairs artistic excellence with an organization's ability to adapt, innovate, and continue operation in whatever way they could through and post pandemic. This granting cycle,
organizations should be rewarded for their resilience, tenacity, and experimentation— even if at times, the end result was not up to the organization’s regular scale or artistic standards.
The program should prioritize support for those who
strategized and tried new ways to reach audiences,
fundraise and make an impact within their communities.
The pandemic made planning ahead harder—many of
these arts organizations have not had the space and time to think about what they want to achieve over the next 1-3 years. This application can help organizations explore and reopen those questions for their organization. Example
question: “How do you hope your organization evolves and rebuilds over the next 3 years?”
Attachment D
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Attachment D - OSP 2023 Community Assessment Report FINAL (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) Assessments &
Recommendations
02. There is More to Do, with Less
Arts organizations are struggling to keep up with new state and municipal requirements.
What we heard:
California Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), which extends employee classification status to some gig workers, continues to be a very challenging hurdle, especially for the smaller arts organizations. Many have had to reduce programming and services to afford compliance to AB5.
Arts organizations serving youth are now required to obtain Harassment Insurance, which is prohibitively expensive.
Overall, small arts organizations have seen an approx. 30% - 40% increase in fixed, non-negotiable operational costs since 2019. With ticket sale uncertainty, fundraising strains, and dwindling affordable spaces to rehearse and perform in, the challenges have pushed many arts organizations to dramatically reduce or completely close their operations.
The DataArts form is time consuming and sometimes misaligned with how small organizations are able to gather data on their audiences.
Though the DataArts application is an important tool in helping determine the readiness and eligibility of these organizations to take on grants, it’s important to recognize the time- consuming process and heavy lift for many of our smaller organizations to complete the process. Staff should share any resources that could aid in this process.
How OSP can help:
City Staff can help educate decision makers on the full breadth, cost, and impact of these requirements.
We can broaden and loosen requirements around “serving Santa Monica audiences.” Many of these organizations have had to tour their productions around the region, increase their online presence and offerings, and more in order to survive and grow their organizations.
They should be rewarded for representing Santa Monica outside of the city as well as their service to locals within the city.
Attachment D
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Attachment D - OSP 2023 Community Assessment Report FINAL (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) Assessments &
Recommendations
03. These Organizations Need The OSP
We heard from nearly everyone surveyed that OSP is critical to the health and, in some cases, survival, of the City’s arts organizations.
What we heard:
If the OSP were to be downsized, or worse, taken away, most would have an extremely challenging time making up the funding.
Arts organizations feel that the city staff have been responsive to their needs and care about their well-being. Most expressed deep gratitude for the program.
The OSP is integral to a wide breadth of Santa Monica arts organizations - the application, especially now through its reworked DEI lens, has been able to serve organizations big and small, and serve a variety of communities.
How OSP can help:
In 2019, eight new organizations were awarded grants due to much-needed adjustments that made the selection process more just and equitable. It’ s important that this progress not be seen as a one-time initiative but as an ongoing commitment to the community. If the overall budget for OSP is restricted, these organizations should not be the first to feel it.
It’s clear that if all eligible OSP grantees were to receive funding at an equitable level then the overall OSP budget allocation would need to increase by approximately 25-30 percent. If that is not a reality, the City may find itself either delaying. equitable funding to the smaller organizations for another two years or notifying the historic grantees that they should expect to receive significantly smaller grants. In either scenario, City staff and Council should be prepared for community feedback
Attachment D
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Attachment D - OSP 2023 Community Assessment Report FINAL (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) Conclusion
OSP serves as a symbol of the City of Santa
Monica’s commitment to maintaining a healthy arts
ecosystem that serves the community by providing
equitable access for Santa Monicans to experience
art and culture and lead expressive lives.
As we look back on the darkest moments of the
pandemic shutdowns, many of these organizations
showed up to bring light to our community through
their art, making space for residents and visitors
alike to experience joy, catharsis, and most
importantly, togetherness in times of isolation. It’s
important that we honor that work and continue
investing in one of Santa Monica’s greatest
resources: its artist community.
Attachment D
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Attachment D - OSP 2023 Community Assessment Report FINAL (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) “We’re talking to organizations we’ve
never partnered with before.” Donna
Sternberg, Danceessence
“Visitors who take part in the culture
of the city contribute more to the
economy.” Carol Lemlein,
Santa Monica Conservancy
“[OSP is] one of the very few grants
that support Highways Performance
Space. Project support is much easier
to find, but operational support is
critical.” Leo Garcia,
Highways Performance Space
“Post pandemic, we have a more
engaged audience that wants to
heal-not the same audience/visitors
who wanted to just view. Now they
want to fully engage and come with
the entire family.” Marisa Caichiolo,
Building Bridges Art Exchange
Attachment D
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Attachment D - OSP 2023 Community Assessment Report FINAL (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Carol Lemlein <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2023 4:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: May 23, 2023 Agenda Item 7A Five-Year Financial Forecast Update, FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget….
Attachments: 2023-05-23 Council Item 7 A 2023-2027 Budget.pdf
EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete and Council Members, Please see the attached letter regarding the FY 2023-2035 Biennial Budget from the Board of Directors of the Santa Monica Conservancy.
Thank you,
Carol Lemlein
Vice President
Santa Monica Conservancy
[email protected]
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) P.O. BOX 653
SANTA MONICA, CA 90406
310-496-3146
www.smconservancy.org
1 May 18, 2023
Via email to [email protected]
Re: May 23, 2023 Agenda Item 7A Five-Year Financial Forecast Update, FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget….
Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete and Council Members, Our city’s once admirable Historic Preservation Program has been virtually shut down by budget cuts of the past three years. In spite of laws and policies of our LUCE, Historic Preservation Element, and Zoning Ordinance, the purview of the quasi-judicial Landmarks Commission has been stripped down causing months-long delays in application processing, and astronomically high fees have discouraged new applications. We recognize that the City’s financial resources are under great stress, but at the same time intense development pressures including the state-mandated Housing Element threaten big changes in our built environment. Historic preservation can provide a balance with new development in ways that ensures preservation of the authenticity that makes Santa Monica such an attractive place to live, work and visit. When a historic resource is lost, it is lost forever.
Historic preservation activity has dropped to
ZERO due to:
• highest filing fees for historic designation
applications in California
• limitations on staff time due to workload
resulting in processing delays
• six or fewer Landmarks Commission meetings
per year resulting in loss of program
stewardship
• reduction of Landmarks Commission purview
eliminating review of demolition permits
A two-phase process could restore the effectiveness of our Landmarks Ordinance and Historic Preservation program and offset the damage done by the budget cuts of the past three years.
Phase I: budget neutral optimization to reduce the cost burden on applicants.
The following adjustments to the program could be implemented in the coming fiscal year:
• Restore monthly meetings of the Landmarks Commission, resuming discussions that ensure city-wide stewardship of historic resources.
• Reduce the cost of Landmark Applications by streamlining consultant and staff reports to focus exclusively on the analysis necessary to meet the City’s criteria for designation. • Reduce Certificate of Appropriateness analysis for proposed changes to a landmark to simply address conformance to the standards.
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 2 • Return Demolition Review to the Landmarks Commission using the process devised by the City Attorney to pass legal scrutiny and defined in the November 2018 Interim Zoning Ordinance.
Phase II: restoration of the Preservation Planner position which was approved by City Council in 2019.
A Preservation Planner with professional credentials in planning and historic preservation can take the lead on assessing applications, assisting property owners in understanding how preservation works, policy recommendations, permit review and processing, and Mills Act applications, with less need for consultants, and free other members of the overburdened planning Staff from interruptions to support the Historic Preservation Program:
• Landmark Application Analysis would be conducted in house by the Preservation Planner just as all other discretionary building permits are evaluated, reducing or eliminating the need to hire costly outside consultants and streamlining the process.
• Further reduce Landmark Application Fees by the elimination of outside consultants in many cases. • Restoring the fee waiver for applications from nonprofit organizations (application and consultant fees) would have minimal impact on the City budget but would greatly advance access to landmarking for groups reflecting our cultural diversity.
• Improve Applicant Awareness of Incentives during processing of Certificate of Appropriateness and Architectural Review Board applications involving Historic Resource Inventory properties. The Preservation Planner can encourage the use of the State Historic Building Code and Zoning Ordinance exceptions to help achieve owners’ programmatic goals while preserving historic features.
The budget cuts have had unintended consequences. Historic Preservation is a tool for social justice education, but recognition of important histories that honor all people remains out of reach to those who still struggle to be seen. Cost increases have put participation in Historic Preservation out of reach for all but the wealthy - at a time when preservation organizations from the National Trust to municipalities nationwide have broadened their efforts to increase access to preservation to “tell all the stories” of their diverse communities.
A robust preservation program with a broad emphasis on our heritage can create jobs and business opportunities. A recent publication by the National Advisory Council on Historic Preservation states “A high percentage of domestic and international travelers participate in cultural and/or heritage activities while traveling, and those that do stay longer, spend more, and travel more often.” Tourism is a major component of our local economy and the opportunities created by expanding heritage tourism are amplified by the approaching 150th Anniversary of the city’s founding and the 2028 Olympics. The Conservancy looks forward to being an active partner in this effort as we revitalize our tour programs.
Revitalization of our Historic Preservation Program will address the unintended inequities now embedded in the program, contribute to the city’s economic recovery, and ensure that the significant places that tell our city’s story are recognized and preserved.
We urge you to make these recommendations part of your direction to staff for the fiscal budget of 2023-2025.
Sincerely,
Carol Lemlein
Vice President, Santa Monica Conservancy Board of Directors ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Gloria Garvin <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2023 10:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: May 23, 2023, Agenda Item 7A Five-Year Financial Forecast Update, FY 2023-2025 Proposed Biennial Budget
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete and Council Members, In the past several years, the Santa Monica Landmarks Commission has been radically diminished and will require Council action to restore it back to health.
Historic preservation activity has dropped to near zero in the past year due to:
(A) Extremely high filing fees for historic designation applications (B) Processing delays due to limitations of staff time
(C) Six or fewer meetings per year of the Landmarks Commission (D) Elimination of Landmarks Commission review of demolition permits The Santa Monica Conservancy has recommended a two-phase process that could restore the effectiveness of our Landmarks Ordinance and Historic Preservation program and offset the damage done by the budget cuts of the past three years. I agree with their recommendations.
The following adjustments to the program could be implemented in the coming fiscal year:
Phase I:
(1) Restore monthly meetings of the Landmarks Commission, resuming discussions that ensure city-wide stewardship of historic resources.
(2) Reduce the cost of Landmark Applications by streamlining consultant and staff reports to focus exclusively on the analysis necessary to meet the City’s criteria for designation. (3) Reduce Certificate of Appropriateness analysis for proposed changes to a landmark to simply address conformance to the standards.
(4) Return Demolition Review to the Landmarks Commission using the process devised by the City Attorney to pass legal scrutiny.
Phase II:
(1) Restoration of the Preservation Planner position which was approved by City Council in 2019. This would reduce or eliminate the need to hire costly outside consultants and would streamline the process. (2) Restore the fee waiver for applications from nonprofit organizations. This would have minimal impact on the City budget, but would greatly advance access to landmarking for groups reflecting our cultural diversity.
Our city's budget cuts have had unintended consequences that we must now reverse. Historic Preservation is not only a tool for social justice and education, but a way to recognize important histories that honor all people. Cost increases have put participation in Historic Preservation out of reach for all but the wealthy. We urge you to make these recommendations part of your direction to staff for the fiscal budget of 2023-2025.
Sincerely,
Gloria Garvin, PhD
Santa Monica resident
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Randall Klarin <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2023 9:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: May 23, 2023 Agenda Item 7A Five-Year Financial Forecast Update, FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget
EXTERNAL
Landmark applications are in sharp decline and Santa Monica may already be losing significant historic resources that we can never get back.
What’s Going Wrong?
Landmark applications cost $6,000-$7,000 to file, the most in California! Timelines for landmark nominations see untenable delays of nine months or more.
Owners have little incentive to consider landmarking without reinstatement of planning division fee waivers and reasonable timelines.
Relying on the public to review demolition permits is not sustainable; Landmarks Commission review of demolition permits for buildings 40-years or older must be reinstated! Without a timely and affordable process, we cannot seek out and recognize resources significant to historically marginalized and underrepresented groups that will contribute to the city’s stated commitment to social justice.
RW Klarin
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Katharine Dreyfuss <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2023 8:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please restore the Santa Monica Historic Preservation Program
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I strongly urge you to adopt the two-phased plan proposed by the Santa Monica Conservancy.
Restore the Preservation Program in 2 Phases
Phase I: budget neutral optimization to reduce the cost burden on applicants right away Restore monthly meetings of the Landmarks Commission to ensure city-wide historic resources.
Return Demolition Review to the Landmarks Commission. Reduce the cost of Landmark Applications by streamlining consultant and staff reports. Streamline Certificate of Appropriateness analysis to focus on conformance with the standards.
Phase II: restoration of the Preservation Planner position in 2024 Landmark Application Analysis by Preservation Planner credentialed in preservation and planning with skills in historical research and analysis, eliminating costly outside consultants, and shortening processing time.
Applicant Awareness of Incentives by Preservation Planner who supports use of the State Historic Building.
Code and Zoning Ordinance exceptions to achieve programmatic goals while preserving historic features.
Restore fee waivers for nonprofit organizations to ensure equitable access to the program.
Sincerely,
Katharine R. Dreyfuss
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Geoffry White <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2023 8:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Anne Rimer
Subject: Preserve the Preservation Program
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I strongly urge the City Council to adopt the two-phased plan proposed by the Santa Monica Conservancy.
Restore the Preservation Program in 2 Phases
Phase I: budget neutral optimization to reduce the cost burden on applicants right away Restore monthly meetings of the Landmarks Commission to ensure city-wide of historic resources.
Return Demolition Review to the Landmarks Commission. Reduce the cost of Landmark Applications by streamlining consultant and staff reports. Streamline Certificate of Appropriateness analysis to focus on conformance with the standards.
Phase II: restoration of the Preservation Planner position in 2024 Landmark Application Analysis by Preservation Planner credentialed in preservation and planning with skills in
historical research and analysis, eliminates costly outside consultants, and shortens processing time.
Applicant Awareness of Incentives by Preservation Planner who supports use of the State Historic Building
Code and Zoning Ordinance exceptions to achieve programmatic goals while preserving historic features.
Restore fee waivers for nonprofit organizations to ensure equitable access to the program.
Sincerely,
Geoffry D. White, Ph.D.
1425 Stanford St. #9
Santa Monica, CA 90404
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Geoffry White <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2023 9:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Anne Rimer
Subject: Preservation Program Restoration (Follow up letter.)
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
My family and I have been residents of Santa Monica for 50 years. Our kids went through their entire K-12 education in our school system here. We walked them to school and took them to all sorts of activities across and back over the beautiful and welcoming city. Part of what we enjoyed were the monuments, historical homes and landmarks that are special and characterize our fair city.
I was shocked and dismayed when I learned what was gradually happening to those structures mentioned above. This may seem like an extreme example, but hear me out. When I was doing humanitarian work in the Balkans during the Bosnia war and genocide, it was pointed out to me that genocide is more than killing people. It is also destroyed the cultural landscape that expresses and describes the identity of a people.
Thats what was done in Europe during the Holocaust, in Turkey during the Armenian genocide and in Bosnia as I mentioned. It's not a luxury to preserve landmarks, architecture and monuments. It's protecting culture from extinction.
I strongly urge the City Council to adopt the two-phased plan proposed by the Santa Monica Conservancy.
Restore the Preservation Program in 2 Phases
Phase I: budget neutral optimization to reduce the cost burden on applicants right away Restore monthly meetings of the Landmarks Commission to ensure city-wide of historic resources.
Return Demolition Review to the Landmarks Commission. Reduce the cost of Landmark Applications by streamlining consultant and staff reports. Streamline Certificate of Appropriateness analysis to focus on conformance with the standards.
Phase II: restoration of the Preservation Planner position in 2024 Landmark Application Analysis by Preservation Planner credentialed in preservation and planning with skills in
historical research and analysis, eliminates costly outside consultants, and shortens processing time.
Applicant Awareness of Incentives by Preservation Planner who supports use of the State Historic Building
Code and Zoning Ordinance exceptions to achieve programmatic goals while preserving historic features.
Restore fee waivers for nonprofit organizations to ensure equitable access to the program.
Sincerely,
Geoffry D. White, Ph.D.
1425 Stanford St. #9
Santa Monica, CA 90404
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Ruth Punt <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 4:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Preservation Program
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I strongly urge the City Council to adopt the two-phased plan proposed by the Santa Monica Conservancy.
Restore the Preservation Program in 2 Phases
Phase I: budget neutral optimization to reduce the cost burden on applicants right away Restore monthly meetings of the Landmarks Commission to ensure city-wide of historic resources.
Return Demolition Review to the Landmarks Commission. Reduce the cost of Landmark Applications by streamlining consultant and staff reports. Streamline Certificate of Appropriateness analysis to focus on conformance with the standards.
Phase II: restoration of the Preservation Planner position in 2024 Landmark Application Analysis by Preservation Planner credentialed in preservation and planning with skills in
historical research and analysis, eliminates costly outside consultants, and shortens processing time.
Applicant Awareness of Incentives by Preservation Planner who supports use of the State Historic Building
Code and Zoning Ordinance exceptions to achieve programmatic goals while preserving historic features.
Restore fee waivers for nonprofit organizations to ensure equitable access to the program.
Sincerely,
Ruth Punt
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Isabelle Edwards <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 10:56 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Santa Monica Historic Preservation Program
EXTERNAL
Hello,
I am writing in support of City Council to restore Santa Monica’s Historic Preservation Program by, among other things, re-establishing monthly Landmarks Commission meetings, returning demolition review to the Landmarks Commission, reducing the cost of landmark applications, and restoring the Preservation Planner position to the Planning Department.
I have grown up in Santa Monica and am a current resident of the city, which cares about it maintaining its integrity and history. Beautiful old historic buildings should continue to be landmarked and that process is important to generations going forward. The great character of this city is bundled into many of these beautiful buildings, please restore the Santa Monica Historic Preservation Program.
Many thanks,
Isabelle Edwards
Santa Monica resident
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Billy Nistico <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 11:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Restore the land marking process
EXTERNAL
Hello, I’m writing today to show my support in restoring Santa Monica’s Landmarking process. Re establishing monthly Landmarks Commission meetings, returning demolition review to the Landmarks Commission, reducing the cost of landmark applications, and restoring the Preservation Planner position to the Planning Department is imperative in preserving the balance in our amazing city between being responsible stewards of the past and embracing the future including development and planning.
Thank you. Billy Nistico
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Kara Fox <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 11:07 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please restore our landmarking process...
EXTERNAL
It’s so sad that developers who don’t even live here are doing their best to ruin our besautiful city for their own personal gain. Please try to stop this. Kara Fox 14 th st
kara fox
_________________________
Glamourproject.org
[email protected]
Instagram: @infinitelyolive
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Laurie Harmon <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 11:18 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: restore Santa Monica Preservation Program
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I urge you to adopt the 2 phase plan proposed by the Santa Monica Conservancy.
Phase 1 - budget neutral optimization to reduce the cost burden on applicants right away. restore monthly meetings of the Landmark Commission
return Demolition review of the Landmark Commission
reduce the cost of Landmark applications
streamline Certificate of Appropriateness anakysis
Phase 2 - restoration of theAnakysis Preservation Planner position in 2024.
Landmark Application Analysis
Applicant awareness of Incentive
Code and Zoning Ordinance exceptions
restore fee waivers for non profit organizations
Sincerely,
Laurie Harmon
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Joan Goldsmith Gurfield <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 12:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Preserving historic buildings
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
I urge you to reconsider the importance of preserving historical buildings in our city. They are part of the heritage we should pass on to future generations. In our (understandable) haste to provide more housing, let's not neglect the important and often beautiful structures that are signs of our past.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joan Gurfield
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Beth Greulich <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 2:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please restore landmarking process!
EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern, PLEASE restore the Santa Monica landmarking process. Preserving history is extremely important!
Beth and Geoff Greulich
620 12th St
Santa Monica 90402
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: April Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 2:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Restore Santa Monia's Historica Preservation!
EXTERNAL
Nothing is more essential to the character of a city than its architectural history. Ours is eroded every day. Landmarking homes and commercial structures is an enduring way of honoring the folks who built this town and those who are farsighted and generous enough to pass that history on to future generations as well as a statement of our values as a community. We own one of three houses on Seventh Street built in the 1920s, each in a different historical style. I am also lucky to have an office in an historic medical building on Second Street that is once again in danger of being destroyed by redevelopment. Priceless.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
April Smith
427 7th Street
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Elizabeth Lerer <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 3:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Budget to Protect Our History
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
We’re losing it. The city’s historic preservation process has been insanely deprioritized. Please protect our history:
- Return the Landmarks Commission to regular monthly meetings and restore their ability to review demolitions. - Reduce the costs associated with attaining a historic designation. - Resume efforts to hire an experienced preservation planner.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Karen Melick <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 3:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Clare Thomas; [email protected]; Joelle Simmons; Arati Desai Wagabaza; Jeanette Gant; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Zina Josephs; Clay Evans; Kathryn Iannucci; Albin Gielicz; Maryanne LaGuardia; Steven Johnson; Lori Brown; Andrew Gomez; John Smith; David White
Subject: Item 7.A Input for 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget - Recreation and Arts Director positions
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council members,
My name is Karen Melick and I have been a resident in Santa Monica for 41 years. I am the chairperson of the Santa Monica Aquatics Advisory Committee, an advisory group to the Recreation and Parks Committee. My wife, Clare Thomas, is the president of the Friends of Sunset Park neighborhood group. We raised our son here who attended the SMMUSD schools and participated in a variety of City run youth programs including CREST, sports leagues and swim lessons. We are writing this letter as individuals, not as the position of our groups as this topic has not been discussed with those groups.
We whole-heartedly support elevating the importance of Recreation and Arts in our city, but adding 3 new permanent executive positions of a Director of Recreation and Arts, an Executive Administrative Assistant and an Administrative Services Officer, at a new cost of approximately $600,000 a year including benefits, is not the way to do it.
The previous directors of the Community Services department, Andy Agle and Karen Ginsberg, have come out against this proposal. With my MBA and 42 years of work experience including at the director level, I agree with Andy and Karen that adding these 3 high level positions is not necessary and a wasteful use of scarce budget resources. The resources needed are for front-line workers, not more managers, assistants and administrators. Also, in this day and age, a director should not need two full time assistants.
The existing Community Recreation manager is the person who is responsible for the direction and support of recreation programs in the city. The new director of Recreation and Arts seems like they would have significant overlapping responsibilities with this position. The Recreation department already has many management and administrator positions. Of the current 24.6 FTE permanent employees, 10 employees are manager, supervisor or coordinator positions. Another 4 are staff assistants or administrators. That leaves only 10.6 as front-line workers directly providing services to the community. With 26.4 FTE temporary staff members in 2022-2023, this is already a very top-heavy department.
While the permanent staffing level is what it was pre-COVID, the number of swim instructor/lifeguard temporary FTE has not returned to the pre-COVID number. Because of that, the Swim Center hours and programming are less than preCOVID. There is no plan in the 2023-2024 budget to increase the Swim Center hours and programming.
Drowning is the #1 cause of unintentional injury-related deaths in children ages 1-4. Santa Monica, as a beach town, should have an obligation to ensure our youth are water safe. Currently, youth swim classes fill up in about 2 minutes after enrollment opens, so many children are unable to learn this critical life-saving skill. We need to do better.
As seniors, we know that swimming is one of the best exercises for seniors. More hours and programming at the Swim Center are needed to service our city’s youth and seniors. The $600,000 for the new director and their two staff members ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 2 could instead be used to hire about 12 swim instructors/lifeguards to significantly expanded services to the citizens of Santa Monica.
Recommendation
Instead of hiring these 3 new positions, elevate the Community Recreation manager’s position to be the Recreation and Arts director. Have the Cultural Affairs (6.7 FTE) and Beach House (13.3 FTE) groups report into that upgraded position along with the current groups, the Aquatics Programs (13 permanent FTE) and Community Services (10.6 permanent FTE). Existing assistant and administrative support should be used. Or just don't split the current Community Services department into two departments. Then the $600,000 can be spent on front-line workers to expand services.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Karen Melick and Clare Thomas
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Barbara Wallace <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 4:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Building preservatio
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
As a resident of this city, I urge you to re-establish the Preservation Council to protect historically significant buildings from demolition. There needs to be a voice for protecting these structures. The pressure for obtaining space to build high density housing will make it difficult to protect these older buildings. We need to have a voice that advocates for their preservation.
Thank you,
Barbara Wallace
Ocean Park Neighborhood Resident
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Margaret Bach <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 4:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: May 23, 2023 Agenda Item 7A Five-Year Financial Forecast Update, FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget
EXTERNAL
To the honorable City Council,
Recognizing the current budget constraints of the city, I nonetheless urge you to restore Santa Monica's historic preservation program in a manner that would optimize scarce budget resources while returning the City's preservation program to a more robust and responsive initiative.
For priority action, I urge:
Return Landmarks Commission meetings to a monthly schedule, to ensure effective review and management of historic resources and preservation opportunities.
Streamlining consultant and staff reports, thereby reducing the cost of Landmark application. Streamlining Certificate of Appropriateness applications and review. Demolition Review -- restoring that review function to the Landmarks Commission. This review process has served the city well in the past, ensuring that potential resources up for demolition receive a timely review.
With the various pressures on our existing built environment, the City must strengthen its tools to protect and celebrate the historic resources in our diverse neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Margaret Bach
Former member, Landmarks Commission
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Libby Pachares <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 6:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: May 23, 2023 Agenda Item 7A Five-Year Financial Forecast Update, FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget
EXTERNAL
Honorable Council Members,
I am writing to urge you to implement those actions to revitalize the City’s Historic Preservation Program recommended by The Santa Monica Conservancy in its May 16 letter to you As a long-time resident of Santa Monica, I appreciate all that the City has done to preserve our diverse and amazing history, while I also am saddened that so much has been lost. While I do acknowledge the many challenges posed by the recent budget crisis, I am hopeful that as we reemerge from the pandemic (hopefully on more solid financial footing), Council will prioritize restoring funding for our Preservation Program.
Sincerely,
Libby Pachares
414 16th Street,
Santa Monica, CA. 90402
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Julie Cantor <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 7:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Protect Santa Monica Landmarks
EXTERNAL
Hello —
I am a longtime Santa Monica resident and fan, and I write to urge the City Counsel to restore our city’s Historic Preservation Program by, among other things, re-establishing monthly Landmarks Commission meetings, returning demolition review to the Landmarks Commission, reducing the cost of landmark applications, and restoring the Preservation Planner position to the Planning Department.
Thank you!
Julie D. Cantor MD | JD
Attorney
J. Cantor Law
The information contained in this communication is confidential and should be considered to be attorney work product and/or attorney-client privileged. This communication is the property of J. Cantor Law and is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender, delete the message, and note that any distribution or copying of this message is prohibited. Any discussion of tax matters contained herein is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed under federal tax laws.
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Julie Cantor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 12:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: Please Protect Santa Monica Landmarks
EXTERNAL
Correcting an autocorrect error — City *Council*
Thank you!
On May 21, 2023, at 7:26 PM, Julie Cantor <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello —
I am a longtime Santa Monica resident and fan, and I write to urge the City Counsel to restore our city’s Historic Preservation Program by, among other things, re-establishing monthly Landmarks Commission meetings, returning demolition review to the Landmarks Commission, reducing the cost of landmark applications, and restoring the Preservation Planner position to the Planning Department.
Thank you!
Julie D. Cantor MD | JD
Attorney
J. Cantor Law
The information contained in this communication is confidential and should be considered to be attorney work product and/or attorney-client privileged. This communication is the property of J. Cantor Law and is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender, delete the message, and note that any distribution or copying of this message is prohibited. Any discussion of tax matters contained herein is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed under federal tax laws.
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Susan hires <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 8:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Restore Historic preservation program.
EXTERNAL
Thank you for all your hard work. Please please please restore Santa Monica’s Historic Preservation Program. We are doing what we can to maintain and preserve our 60 year old condo building, Oceanaire on Ocean Ave. Your future efforts toward preservation will pay big dividends by restoring iconic structures of Santa Monica as an attractive place to live, work and play. Thank you.
An appreciative resident owner, Susan Hires.
Sent from iPhone 812-343-5182
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Ryan Olson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 8:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: May 23, 2023 Agenda Item 7A Five-Year Financial Forecast Update, FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget
EXTERNAL
I understand that this year's budget is considering funding for the Landmarks Commission. I would like to respectfully request that council further reduce funding for the Landmarks Commission. In a time of fiscal cutbacks, this is absolutely not where the city should be spending its dwindling finances. Further, in my opinion, the commission has shown questionable judgement in what buildings they protect. I try not to be cynical, but it seems to me that the commission is more concerned with their power to stop development than with any good faith effort to preserve truly historic buildings.
I submit as evidence 1655 Appian Way:
This building was an absolute blight on our city, yet was designated historic by the Landmarks Commission. I am heartened that City Council overturned this terrible decision on the part of the Landmarks Commission, but I think this goes a long way to show how fundamentally unserious the commission is. Please do not restore their funding or take any actions to make it easier for this process to be abused like this in the future.
Ryan Olson
1021 Pine St.
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Noma Boardmember <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 9:51 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: Please Protect Santa Monica Landmarks
EXTERNAL
Thank you!
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
smnoma.org
[email protected]
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 7:26 PM Julie Cantor <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello —
I am a longtime Santa Monica resident and fan, and I write to urge the City Counsel to restore our city’s Historic Preservation Program by, among other things, re-establishing monthly Landmarks Commission meetings, returning demolition review to the Landmarks Commission, reducing the cost of landmark applications, and restoring the Preservation Planner position to the Planning Department.
Thank you!
Julie D. Cantor MD | JD
Attorney
J. Cantor Law
The information contained in this communication is confidential and should be considered to be attorney work product and/or attorney-client privileged. This communication is the property of J. Cantor Law and is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender, delete the message, and note that any distribution or copying of this message is prohibited. Any discussion of tax matters contained herein is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed under federal tax laws.
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Noma Boardmember <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 10:25 AM
To: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; [email protected]; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]; Oscar de la Torre
Cc: David Martin; David White; [email protected] Subject: Subject: Budget and Landmarks Commission items
EXTERNAL
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
Mayor Davis and Council Members,
Think of any great city in the world and the first thing that comes to mind are its historic landmarks: Paris’s Eiffel Tower, London’s Big Ben, Rome’s Colosseum. Or closer to home, the Griffith Observatory, and our own Santa Monica Pier.
These landmarks exist because past generations ensured that they survived.
As previous generations have done for us, so too must we be responsible stewards of our past. In a rapidly changing city like Santa Monica -- under constant development pressure -- preserving our diverse and historic architecture (from early Craftsman homes, to historic bungalows, to sleek mid-century buildings) is vital to preserving the character of our city.
Unfortunately, at a time when the pipeline is about to be flooded with new housing projects, our preservation program has been cut back so far as to be non-functional.
Our City has made landmarking increasingly difficult. The result has been the number of landmarked buildings in Santa Monica have decreased from about 5.8 designations per year through 2020, to under two designations in 2022, to zero designations so far this year. Zero.
The problem: processing times have increased from 60-days to months and months. The cost to applicants have skyrocketed. Demolition review has been delegated to the Santa Monica Conservancy which struggles under the burden of taking over so much of the Landmarks Commission work, while the Landmarks Commission barely meets (they have only met twice this year, so far).
NOMA is joining with other groups to encourage our City Council to restore Santa Monica’s Historic Preservation Program by, among other things, re-establishing monthly Landmarks Commission meetings, returning demolition review to the Landmarks Commission, reducing the cost of landmark applications, and restoring the Preservation Planner position to the Planning Department.
The NOMA Board
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 2 smnoma.org
[email protected]
Nancy Coleman - Chair
Danilo Bach - Vice-Chair
Victor Fresco - Treasurer
Jeff Brecht
Phillis Dudick
Sue Edwards
Jeff Gordon
Ann Greenspun
Todd James
Evelyn Lauchenauer
Bruce Leddy
Elizabeth Lerer
Steve Lissik
Sonya Fox Sultan
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 10:57 AM
To: David White; [email protected] Cc: councilmtgitems; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Subject: 05-23-23 Council Meeting - Item 7.A. - Proposed Biennial Budget Study Session - Thank you!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mr. White, Ms. Decavalles-Hughes, & all other relevant City Staff members - I just want to say thank you for all the work that's clearly gone into the financial forecasting and preparation of the proposed budgets for Council consideration tomorrow night.
You've obviously worked incredibly hard to address both Council's priorities and community requests for restored fundamental services like additional hours at the libraries and youth afterschool programs like Playground Club (formerly the long-standing Playground Access afterschool free play).
These are the sorts of basic community services that dramatically enhance and support the lives and well-being of our seniors, our working families, and our young people.
So, again, thank you!
Sincerely,
Ann Bowman
Resident, 26+ years
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Peter Altschuler <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 12:12 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: May 23, 2023 Agenda Item 7A Five-Year Financial Forecast Update, FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget
EXTERNAL
The character of Santa Monica has been eroding for years, but preserving its landmarks and architecturally notable structures can ensure that the things that made the city desirable don’t vanish.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation recognizes the importance of the built environment that helped define cities and towns across America. The Landmarks Preservation Commission in New York has protected countless irreplaceable buildings that connect the present with the past. Our own Landmarks Commission was doing the same… and needs to do so again.
Funding for the Santa Monica Landmarks Commission needs to be restored. Fees for designated structures as landmarks need to be affordable for average homeowners and non-profit organizations. Oversight of demolition needs to be reviewed by Landmarks to prevent the destruction of noteworthy buildings and structures.
It’s convenient to think, in the digital age, that nothing valuable occurred more than 20 minutes ago or that history began on the birthday of a Millennial. Yet, just as people who don’t know history are doomed to repeat its mistakes, people who do know history can help retain what worked so that others can apply its lessons today.
The City Council has a role to play in ensuring that the past has a future. p
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Roxanne Tanemori
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 2:12 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Cc: councilmtgitems; Jim Ries; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Planning Commission's Recommendation for Council Budget Study Session - Item 7A Attachments: Planning Commission to Council 2023-05-23 Budget Recommendations-signed.pdf Dear Council Members,
Please find the aƩached leƩer from the Planning Commission with their recommendaƟons for consideraƟon during your May 23rd FY 2023-25 biennial budget study session.
Thank you,
Roxanne Tanemori
Roxanne Tanemori, AICP
Acting Planning Manager
(310) 458-2201 ext. 8202
[email protected]
santamonica.gov
Reach the City Planning team anytime at 311!
Zoning Code | Applications & Forms | Plans & Projects
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main St,
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: City Council Meeting May 23, 2023; Agenda Item No. 7A regarding the City budget.
Honorable Councilmembers,
Item 7A on your agenda is a discussion regarding the City’s budget for the next fiscal term.
Given the City’s numerous priorities and limited resources, we understand that finalizing this City’s budget will be no simple task. However, it is essential for this City to provide the Planning Department the resources it needs to help us all build a stronger future for all residents.
The Planning Commission discussed and voted on recommendations which include the following priorities:
Right size the Planning Department: The City Planning Department needs a stable and appropriately sized workforce to complete its significant workload. This workload includes creating critical land use planning documents such as the Local Coastal Program (LCP). The successful approval of the LCP will claw back some local land use control, while also streamlining the permit process. Speaking of Santa Monica’s economic recovery, the Planning Commission also recommends the retention of a full time economic development administrator. This position will focus on supporting existing and new businesses in the City and facilitate and coordinate opportunities for both public and private stakeholders to support the City’s ongoing economic recovery.
The end goal of both of these positions is to promote economic development urgently needed.
Promote public participation by allowing for remote public testimony: The pandemic presented numerous challenges for City governments. However, one positive aspect was the creation of remote public hearings. This allowed a new, and for some easier, ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity format for constituents to interact with City government. As we move past the pandemic, we should hold on to these good government practices which promote public participation and enhance the transparency of the planning process. We urge the Council to approve a budget that permits in person City Planning Commission meetings at City Hall while also accommodating remote testimony.
Landmarks Commission: The Planning Commission requests that the City Council reestablish the City of Santa Monica’s commitment to historic preservation. A key to that is to allow the Landmarks Commission to re-engage in the land use development process. Consistent with written recommendations provided to us at our public hearing by current Landmarks Commissioners, we urge the City to adopt a budget that allows for the following: (1) a return to monthly Landmarks Commission meetings; (2) restore Landmarks Commission authority to conduct preliminary reviews of demolition applications for structures over 40 years old; (3) retention of an experienced professional preservation planner; (4) provide fee subsidizes for landmark designation applicants; and (5) provide fee waivers to encourage designations by property owners (in particular, we urge the City Council to approve fee waivers for not-for-profit organizations).
We appreciate this opportunity to provide our recommendations and urge you to consider them closely.
Sincerely,
Jim Ries
Planning Commission, Chair
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Michelle Jonas Sroka <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 2:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7.A Input for 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget - Recreation and Arts Director positions
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council members,
My name is Mimi Sroka and I have been a resident in Santa Monica for 12 years. I am a member of the Santa Monica Aquatics Advisory Committee, an advisory group to the Recreation and Parks Committee. I am also on the upcoming executive board for Franklin Elementary's PTA. I have two children who attended the SMMUSD schools and participated in a variety of City run youth programs including CREST, sports leagues and swim lessons. I am are writing this letter as an individual, not from the position of my groups as this topic has not been discussed with those groups.
I whole-heartedly support elevating the importance of Recreation and Arts in our city, but adding 3 new permanent executive positions of a Director of Recreation and Arts, an Executive Administrative Assistant and an Administrative Services Officer, at a new cost of approximately $600,000 a year including benefits, is not the way to do it.
The previous directors of the Community Services department, Andy Agle and Karen Ginsberg, have come out against this proposal. I agree with Andy and Karen that adding these 3 high level positions is not necessary and a wasteful use of scarce budget resources. The resources needed are for front-line workers, not more managers, assistants and administrators. Personally, in this day and age, a director should not need two fulltime assistants.
The existing Community Recreation manager is the person who is responsible for the direction and support of recreation programs in the city. The new director of Recreation and Arts seems like they would have significant overlapping responsibilities with this position. The Recreation department already has many management and administrator positions. Of the current 24.6 FTE permanent employees, 10 employees are manager, supervisor or coordinator positions. Another 4 are staff assistants or administrators. That leaves only 10.6 as front-line workers directly providing services to the community. With 26.4 FTE temporary staff members in 2022-2023, this is already a very top-heavy department.
While the permanent staffing level is what it was pre-COVID, the number of swim instructor/lifeguard temporary FTE has not returned to the pre-COVID number. Because of that, the Swim Center hours and programming are less than pre-COVID. There is no plan in the 2023-2024 budget to increase the Swim Center hours and programming.
Drowning is the #1 cause of unintentional injury-related deaths in children ages 1-4. Santa Monica, as a beach town, should have an obligation to ensure our youth are water safe. From first-hand experience, I know youth swim classes fill up in about 2 minutes after enrollment opens online, so many children are unable to learn this critical life-saving skill. We need to do better.
More hours and programming at the Swim Center are needed to service our city’s youth and seniors. The $600,000 for the new director and their two staff members could instead be used to hire about 12 swim instructors/lifeguards to significantly expanded services to the citizens of Santa Monica.
Recommendation
Instead of hiring these 3 new positions, elevate the Community Recreation manager’s position to be the Recreation and Arts director. Have the Cultural Affairs (6.7 FTE) and Beach House (13.3 FTE) groups report ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 2 into that upgraded position along with the current groups, the Aquatics Programs (13 permanent FTE) and Community Services (10.6 permanent FTE). Existing assistant and administrative support should be used. Or just don't split the current Community Services department into two departments. Then the $600,000 can be spent on front-line workers to expand services.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Mimi Sroka
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Ted Winterer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 2:32 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: nicole faries; David White; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7, 5/23/23 Council agenda
Attachments: CEPS letter to Council for retreat.docx
EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis and Honorable Councilmembers,
We at Community for Excellent Public Schools (CEPS) are grateful that you agreed with the principles in our letter sent prior to your retreat (see attached) and that you made youth programs and services a priority for the FY 23/24 municipal budget.
We look forward to the City's use of deferred pension liability paydown dollars to fund investments in our children.
Thank you,
Nicole Faries
Ted Winterer
CEPS Co-Chairs
--
Ted Winterer
Realtor @Compass, 2115 Main Street Santa Monica
DRE #02047989
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) Mayor Davis and Honorable Councilmembers,
Community for Excellent Pubic Schools (CEPS) is very aware of the challenges you face in approving a balanced budget by June 2023, and we are sympathetic to the tradeoffs you will have make given the demands of multiple interest groups. After all, CEPS was founded to help SMMUSD with its chronic budget shortfalls, a predicament for the District which continues to this day with 5% annual cuts required over the next two years.
We believe that the potential purchase by SMMUSD of either the Civic Auditorium or the acquisition of the Civic and the nearby sports field (our preference) presents a remarkable opportunity to create one-time funds for the City’s staggering legal liabilities while expediting the completion of the Santa Monica High campus upgrade. We encourage you to explore this option vigorously, as it would benefit both public agencies.
As for funding the City’s operational budget, we urge you to preserve your long term commitment to municipal funding for education and youth services. Too often when public agencies have to trim their budgets, items such as parks and kids bear the brunt of cuts while expenditures backed by more organized and influential lobbying are spared the chopping block. Yet what better commitment is there to a diverse and equitable city than an investment in our children and their future? In fact, we believe the Council should adopt an additional budget priority: Youth Services and Lifelong Education.
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) Consequently, we urge you to postpone the pension liability pay down in your new budget and to use those funds for the continuation of Playground Club and youth sports at our schools and for the restoration of other youth programs and services, including those at Virginia Avenue Park.
Please make funding for our children your top priority in our budget priorities.
Thank you,
Nicole and Ted
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) Mayor Davis and Honorable Councilmembers,
Community for Excellent Pubic Schools (CEPS) is very aware of the challenges you face in approving a balanced budget by June 2023, and we are sympathetic to the tradeoffs you will have make given the demands of multiple interest groups. After all, CEPS was founded to help SMMUSD with its chronic budget shortfalls, a predicament for the District which continues to this day with 5% annual cuts required over the next two years.
We believe that the potential purchase by SMMUSD of either the Civic Auditorium or the acquisition of the Civic and the nearby sports field (our preference) presents a remarkable opportunity to create one-time funds for the City’s staggering legal liabilities while expediting the completion of the Santa Monica High campus upgrade. We encourage you to explore this option vigorously, as it would benefit both public agencies.
As for funding the City’s operational budget, we urge you to preserve your long term commitment to municipal funding for education and youth services. Too often when public agencies have to trim their budgets, items such as parks and kids bear the brunt of cuts while expenditures backed by more organized and influential lobbying are spared the chopping block. Yet what better commitment is there to a diverse and equitable city than an investment in our children and their future? In fact, we believe the Council should adopt an additional budget priority: Youth Services and Lifelong Education.
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) Consequently, we urge you to postpone the pension liability pay down in your new budget and to use those funds for the continuation of Playground Club and youth sports at our schools and for the restoration of other youth programs and services, including those at Virginia Avenue Park.
Please make funding for our children your top priority in our budget priorities.
Thank you,
Nicole and Ted
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Mike Bonney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 3:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: “May 23, 2023 Agenda Item 7A Five-Year Financial Forecast Update, FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget”
EXTERNAL
HiThis historic preservation group is a joke, I don’t want money going to whatever it is that they do. I want this on the record. ThanksMike Bonney
2503 28th st #4
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Ted Winterer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 6:08 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Jesse Zwick; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Phil Brock
Cc: David White; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7, 5/23/23 agenda, SM Conservancy concerns
EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis and Honorable Councilmembers,
I am aware of the Conservancy's concerns about budgeting and staffing for the City's historic preservation initiatives, which I believe have never been a priority compared to the other elements of our LUCE.
We can reasonably expect significant changes to our built environment in upcoming years due to the zoning changes implemented by the Housing Element update. I believe as new buildings are constructed we can also honor the most outstanding architecture of the past -- let's seek diversity in our built environment as well as in our population.
So I offer these suggestions for your consideration:
1. Given the current high cost of a landmark application, if it's legal you could allocate Council discretionary dollars to the Conservancy to defray these costs in the short term -- perhaps as a match to the Conservancy's private fundraising. If not legal for some reason, there may be another entity which can accept and utilize such funds in the same manner.
2. My recollection is that the Woodys case (https://www.law.com/therecorder/almID/1202716654543/) may make it challenging for the Landmarks Commission to review demolition permits and then rule on landmark designations.
However, I urge you to consult with the City Attorney to find some way for demolition permit applications to be reviewed in a public forum, whether it's the Landmarks Commission or another body (Planning Commission?). The public deserves the chance to opine on the future of structures on the Historic Resources Inventory.
3. While the City's fiscal health is not sound, surely there is a way in the short term to reduce some of the costs associated with applications for landmark status and Certificates of Appropriateness.
4. As the City's revenues recover, consider in future budgets restoring the preservation planner position in place before the COVID budget crisis.
Let's build the new housing so desperately needed for the future of our region, but at the same time let's respect and value the iconic design of the past.
Regards,
Ted Winterer
--
Ted Winterer
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 2 Realtor @Compass, 2115 Main Street Santa Monica
DRE #02047989
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Annspun <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 7:51 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please restore the SM Historic Preservation Program.......from Ann Greenspun/SM resident
EXTERNAL
Good evening City Council Members,
If you have ever gone to a meeting or function of the SM Conservancy, it is easy to recognize the unmistakable passion and respect so many of us residents have for our cultural and architectural history. Many mightily passed these gifts on to us.
Our responsibility is to pass that on to our posterity.
It takes dedicated volunteer work and cooperation with the city for us have these elements preserved and enjoyed by our future generations.
I am hoping each of you adopts the two-phased, recommended plan below to save and protect the Santa Monica Historic Preservation Program.
While planning for our future, please continue heartily to respect the past, and work hand in hand to preserve the elements that continue to make Santa Monica special and loved by each of us.
Below is the proposal taken from the Santa Monica Conservancy's suggestions.
I strongly urge the City Council to adopt it.
With respect,
Ann Greenspun
46 years of being an involved SM resident
Restore the Preservation Program in 2 Phases
Phase I: budget neutral optimization to reduce the cost burden on applicants right away
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 2 Restore monthly meetings of the Landmarks Commission to ensure city-wide of historic resources.
Return Demolition Review to the Landmarks Commission. Reduce the cost of Landmark Applications by streamlining consultant and staff reports.
Streamline Certificate of Appropriateness analysis to focus on conformance with the standards.
Phase II: restoration of the Preservation Planner position in 2024 Landmark Application Analysis by Preservation Planner credentialed in preservation and planning with skills in
historical research and analysis, eliminates costly outside consultants, and shortens processing time.
Applicant Awareness of Incentives by Preservation Planner who supports use of the State Historic Building
Code and Zoning Ordinance exceptions to achieve programmatic goals while preserving historic features.
Restore fee waivers for nonprofit organizations to ensure equitable access to the program.
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Heather Staves <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 7:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Restoration of the Preservation Program in 2 Phases
EXTERNAL
Please support the Santa Monica Conservancy plan to restore the Landmarks Program, including streamlining processing and hiring a trained preservation professional.
--
Heather
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Alexandra Sundell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 8:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Landmarks Program restoration
EXTERNAL
Please adopt the restoration of the Santa Monica Landmarks Program.
Thank you,
Alexandra Sundell
90405
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Mike Layton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 9:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item: Pickleball & Budget Meeting 5.23.23
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
As many of you may know, Santa Monica racquet/paddle sports have been facing significant challenges caused by a shortage of available "court" space. Please review the suggestions below, which I believe are reasonable steps to support pickleball and the other "court" sports involved. "Courts Advisory Committee": I endorse the proposal put forth by the Santa Monica Parks and Recreation Commission to establish a Committee for Court Facilities. This committee would be responsible for devising strategies and solutions aimed at supporting sports such as tennis, pickleball, volleyball, and basketball—sports that rely on court facilities.
Valid Santa Monica Resident Pickleball Player Information: It is important to note that the data regarding pickleball participants from Santa Monica residents has yet to undergo current thorough verification and processing by the city.
The Santa Monica Pickleball Club, a private organization, has presented their estimate of Santa Monica resident pickleball involvement (*Approx: 470) during a meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commission on March 16, 2023.
However, it is necessary for the city to obtain precise participant data through their established verification and screening procedures, such as ID verification and utility bill confirmation. This process should mirror the approach used for collecting participant data in other sports within the city. Consequently, the actual number of Santa Monica residents who actively enroll and engage in pickleball within the city remains unknown. - While not explicitly mentioned in the recommendations put forth by the Parks and Recreation Commission, this is a crucial aspect missing from the overall pickleball process. It is highly significant and warrants further consideration.
City Controlled Pickleball: I stand behind the efforts of pickleball enthusiasts to locate suitable and equitable venues for their sport. The Parks and Recreation Commission has proposed that the city resumes its oversight of pickleball programs offered by the municipality. This measure aims to address disparities, eliminate confusion, and establish a more organized framework. For instance, the management of public "open play" pickleball should be entrusted to the city rather than a private entity, as is presently the case.
Thank you for acknowledging this email, and I am hopeful we can discover fair and balanced solutions for racquet and paddle sports which benefit all players involved.
Warm Regards,
Mike Layton
Santa Monica Resident
Santa Monica Small Business Owner
PTM Ambassador
USPTA Elite Professional
USPTA Examiner (former)
Coach of #1 ITF USA Junior (former)
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Soloff, Michael <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 11:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; Santa Monica Democratic Club; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Caroline Torosis; David White; Douglas Sloan
Subject: 5.23.2023 SM CC Meeting Agenda Item 7A-Joint SMRR and SMDC Letter Opposing Diversion of Affordable Housing Funds .pdf;
Attachments: 5.23.2023 SM CC Meeting Agenda Item 7A-Joint SMRR and SMDC Letter Opposing Diversion of Affordable Housing Funds .pdf
EXTERNAL
Please find attached a joint letter from Santa Monicans For Renters’ Rights and the Santa Monica Democratic Club regarding Agenda Item 7A for the May 23, 2023 City Council meeting.
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 May 22, 2023
Re: Agenda Item 7.A for May 23, 2023 City Council Meeting (Budget Study Session) – Opposition to Proposed Diversions of Housing Trust Funds Without Concrete and Binding Plans for Prompt Repayment
Dear Councilmembers:
Both Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights (“SMRR”) and the Santa Monica Democratic Club (“SMDC”) urge you to act immediately to revise Staff’s proposed ongoing diversions—without any concrete and binding plan for prompt repayment—of Housing Trust Fund (“HTF”) monies, including the GSH sales tax revenues that more than 70% of Santa Monica voters stated should be used equally for funding affordable housing programs for lower and moderate income households and for funding the public schools. As explained in detail below, not only are the proposed diversions of HTF monies therefore contrary to the democratic intent of the voters, as well as contrary to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.90.30(e) (a provision which the voters added in 2022 through new Measure GS), the proposed diversions also are wholly inconsistent with the City and this Council’s claimed intentions to promote racial justice, equity, and social diversity, to comply with the approved Housing Element, and to comply with City Charter Section 630.
The specific Staff proposals at issue are the following.
First, based upon SMRR and SMDC’s reviews of the Staff report for this budget study session and the supporting materials, it appears that no provision is being made for the previously promised repayment of the $5.3 million in GSH sales tax revenues diverted from the HTF to other uses in FY 2020-2021 in response to the City’s pandemic-induced fiscal emergency.
In particular, at its April 13, 2021 meeting, when considering how to use American Rescue Plan funds, the City Council—including Mayor Davis and Councilmembers Brock, de la Torre, and Parra—voted unanimously both to reject any further diversions of GSH sales tax revenues from the HTF during the upcoming FY 2021-2022 fiscal year, and to repay as soon as possible the GSH sales tax revenues diverted from the HTF during FY 2020-2021. Accordingly, the Staff Report for the FY 2021-2022 budget study session held on May 25, 2021 stated on page 11 that “[t]he [five-year] forecast also includes payments, over three years, of the deferred FY 2020-21 ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 2 Measure GSH Housing Trust Fund allocation beginning in FY 2023-24.” (emphasis added). But there is no evidence in the materials for this study session that this promised repayment will occur.
Second, at the April 25, 2023 City Council meeting, the City Attorney announced Council’s approval of a new $122.5 million settlement to resolve pending lawsuits alleging child molestation by Eric Uller. The City Manager spoke briefly about how the settlement would be funded. As he stated at that time, and as confirmed in an email to the NOMA Board by the City's Director of Finance, the City plans to finance the settlement include—in addition to drawing down reserves in the General Fund, borrowing "from" the general fund portion of the workers compensation fund, and borrowing "from" the Water Fund—both (1) "[s]uspending a substantial portion of contributions of Measure GSH (2016) funds to affordable housing for FY 2022-23 and FY 2023-24," and (2) borrowing "against" the general fund portion of the Housing Trust Fund.
No plan for the repayment of these HTF fund diversions was provided, let alone a binding and concrete plan for prompt repayment. And no plan appears in the materials for this budget study session.
Based on a unanimous vote of SMRR’s Steering Committee, and on the unanimous vote of the SMDC Political Action Committee and the SMDC Executive Committee, it is SMRR and SMDC’s positions that:
1. The City must honor its prior commitment to repay the Measures GS/GSH funds that it diverted from the Housing Trust Fund in the first year of the pandemic.
2. No funds should be taken from the Housing Trust Fund, and no sales tax revenues that would have been placed in the Housing Trust Fund should be diverted, to pay for the Uller settlement without a concrete plan and binding commitment to promptly repay those funds from future insurance recoveries, litigation recoveries, or other general funds.
Here are the reasons why you, our City Council, should vote to adopt these same positions.
First, diverting monies from the HTF and using them for purposes other than affordable housing programs for lower and moderate income households is anti-democratic and contrary to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.90.30(e).1
In 2016, more than 70% of Santa Monica voters—
by passing measure GS—stated that one-half of the Measure GSH sales tax revenues should go to affordable housing programs and one-half to the public schools. Then, in 2022, Santa Monica voters confirmed their 2016 choice when they approved the new Measure GS, including the provisions stating that the transfer tax funds raised for affordable housing programs and for the schools by the new GS are in addition to and not in replacement of the existing funding for these programs and for the schools, including funding provided in accordance with prior advisory measures. These provisions—now found at Santa Monica Municipal Code Sections
1 SMRR and SMDC are political organizations, and therefore take no position regarding the legal consequences to the City should it violate Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.90.30(e).
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 3 4.90.20(c)2 and 4.90.30(e)3—were expressly called out by the City Attorney in both the Ballot Title and Summary appearing on the first page of each signature petition, and in the Impartial Analysis of Measure GS found in the November 2022 General Election Official Sample Ballot voter pamphlet: “The School Fund and the Homelessness and Affordable Housing Fund are intended to provide additional support and not replace any existing funding under current agreements or prior advisory measures.” (emphasis added).
At the same 2022 election, the voters had the option to pass Measures DT/DTS in order to provide funding for a different set of priorities as described in Measure DTS. But more than 65% of Santa Monica voters rejected this option.
In short, in 2021 the City Council—including Mayor Davis and Councilmembers Brock, de la Torre and Parra—recognized the importance of honoring the voters’ will regarding the use of GSH funds, including by voting to direct repayment as soon as possible of the GSH sales tax revenues diverted from the HTF during the first year of the pandemic. The City Council should continue to respect the will of the voters, rather than renege on the promised repayment to the HTF of the diverted FY 2020-2021 GSH sales tax revenues and/or authorize the further diversion of HTF funds and GSH sales tax revenues for the Uller settlement in the absence of a concrete and binding plan for their prompt repayment.
Second, diverting monies from the HTF and using them for purposes other than affordable housing programs for lower and moderate income households is wholly inconsistent with the City and this Council’s claimed intentions to promote racial justice, equity, and social diversity, and to comply with the approved Housing Element.
There is no doubt that maximally available affordable housing funding is necessary to promote racial justice, equity, and social diversity in Santa Monica.
The City—together with SMCC and SMMUSD—invited Heather McGhee (author of The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together) to be the keynote speaker last Thursday evening at the John Adams Middle School Performing Arts Center.
Mayor Davis introduced Ms. McGhee, and Councilmember Brock was announced as one of the V.I.P.’s in attendance. As Ms. McGhee states in her book:
2 “In enacting this Initiative, it is the intent of the voters that any funds allocated to the SMMUSD or any future school district pursuant to this Section should be additional to, and not a replacement of, any funds the City otherwise provides to the school district, including any funds provided according to existing agreements or in accordance with prior advisory measures regarding City funding for public education.”
3 “In enacting this Initiative, it is the intent of the voters that any funds allocated to the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund should be additional to, and not a replacement of, any funds the City otherwise provides for the purposes described above, including any funds provided in accordance with prior advisory measures regarding City funding for affordable housing.”
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 4 Because of our deliberately constructed racial wealth gap, most black and brown families can't afford to rent or buy in places where white families are, and when white families bring their wealth into black and brown neighborhoods, it more often leads to gentrification and displacement than enduring integration. The solution is more housing in more places that people can afford on the average incomes of workers of color. What gets in the way is objections about costs--to real estate developers, to public budgets, and to existing property owners. (emphasis added).
In Santa Monica, "places that people can afford on the average incomes of workers of color" means deed-restricted or rent-subsidized housing for lower and moderate income households.
The Los Angeles Almanac, using 2017-2021 American Community Survey data from the Census Bureau, reports the following regarding median household income by race in Los Angeles County and in Santa Monica:
City/Community All White Alone Asian Hispanic/ Black/
(not Hispanic) Latino African American
LA County $77,456 $95,193 $90,444 $66,929 $51,841
Santa Monica $99,847 $107,112 $117,500 $69,681 $45,613
While Santa Monica has a long way to go to help undo systemic racism and to more fully integrate our community, it is not a coincidence that the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law found each of the following in its 4/1/20 report entitled ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING City of Santa Monica (emphasis added):
1. “The City of Santa Monica has enacted numerous policies to prevent displacement and increase the supply of affordable housing, including rent control, just-cause eviction, anti-tenant harassment laws, source of income protections, and anti-discrimination laws that afford protections beyond the federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Santa Monica has also enacted mandatory inclusionary housing and spends significant local resources on affordable housing creation and rental subsidies.
Santa Monica also has among the highest [Section 8 voucher] exception payment standards in the country, and is undoubtedly implementing more programs to address its fair housing needs than other actors in the region. These actions have resulted in a drastically expanded [affordable] housing stock in the City.”
2. “The City of Santa Monica provides most of the affordable housing in the West Los Angeles area.”
3. "Since 1990, segregation has decreased in Santa Monica at a faster rate than within the greater region."
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 5 There also is no doubt that maximally available affordable housing funding is necessary to comply with the approved Housing Element. The Housing Element is replete with affordable housing programs and policies for which the City states a need to locate funding. See, e.g., Program 2B (right of first refusal ordinance for non-profit affordable housing providers); Program 2E (commit to the production of affordable housing on City-owned/publicly-owned land); Program 3C (facilitate the conservation of restricted and non-restricted at-risk housing); Program 3D (maintain an acquisition and rehabilitation program); Program 6B (seek funding sources to support rental assistance for vulnerable individuals and households at-risk of displacement); Program 6C (maintain and expand the preserving our diversity (POD) program).
Moreover, the RHNA allocation to Santa Monica called for the creation 6,158 deed-restricted affordable housing units, 69% of the total RHNA allocation. The Housing Element cites lack of available funding as the reason for setting its quantified objectives for these deed-restricted affordable units at just 2,249 (just 36.5% of the RHNA allocation).
Finally, there is no doubt that maximally available affordable housing funding is necessary for the City Council to comply with Section 630 of the City Charter. That provision, added by the voters of Santa Monica in 1990 through Proposition R, provides:
The City Council by ordinance shall at all times require that not less than thirty percent (30%) of all multifamily-residential housing newly constructed in the City on an annual basis is permanently affordable to and occupied by low and moderate income households. For purposes of this Section, “low income household” means a household with an income not exceeding sixty percent (60%) of the Los Angeles County median income, adjusted by family size, as published from time to time by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, and “moderate income household” means a household with an income not exceeding one hundred percent (100%) of the Los Angeles County median income, adjusted by family size, as published from time to time by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. At least fifty percent (50%) of the newly constructed units required to be permanently affordable by this Section shall be affordable to and occupied by low income households.
(emphasis added). This provision reflects the desire of Santa Monicans to live in an economically diverse community, rather than an economically-gated community like Beverly Hills, Brentwood, or Pacific Palisades.
Given the Council’s recent establishment of a uniform inclusionary zoning requirement of 15%, and the fact that the State Density Bonus Law effectively reduces that inclusionary zoning requirement to just 11% as demonstrated by the recent Gelson’s project, it is patent that maximally available funding is needed for Council to meet its obligations under Section 630 of the Charter.
In short, the Housing Element states: “The City Council has prioritized funding and land use policies to develop affordable housing.” In order to stay true to its stated priorities and legal responsibilities, City Council must continue to do so, rather than renege on the promised ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 6 repayment to the HTF of the diverted FY 2020-2021 GSH sales tax revenues and/or authorize the further diversion of HTF funds and GSH sales tax revenues for the Uller settlement in the absence of a concrete and binding plan for their prompt repayment. * * *
In conclusion, SMRR and SMDC appreciate the problems created by Eric Uller, and does not challenge the wisdom of settling the pending Uller-related lawsuits. But that cannot excuse taking HTF funds to pay that settlement without some concrete and binding plan to promptly repay those HTF funds from insurance recoveries, litigation recoveries, or other general revenues of the City that are not subject to specific voter direction. Nor can it excuse the City reneging on it prior promise to repay as soon as possible the GSH sales tax revenues diverted from the HTF fund during the first year of the pandemic. Please do not do permit such inexcusable diversions of desperately needed affordable housing funds.
Thank you for considering SMRR and SMDC’s views on this important subject.
Sincerely,
Denny Zane Jon Katz
Co-Chair, Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights President, Santa Monica Democratic Club Mike Soloff
Co-Chair, Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Debbie Mahdessian <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 9:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: May 23 Meeting Item-Fiscal Year 2023-25 biennial budget (Pickleball)
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I am writing in support of the recommendation from Recreation and Parks Commission recommendation to approve reinstating a modified and revenue-supported City-run pickleball program that is staffed with City staff, gives priority access to residents, and charges nominal fees for high-demand open-play session time.
As a Santa Monica resident, business owner, homeowner, parent of 5 and USTA NJTL Youth non-profit organization I strongly urge council to approve this in the budget for the following reasons:
EQUITY-To create equity between the two sports that are sharing tennis courts, both sports and their users (residents, instructors and organizations) should be subject to the same oversight and rules for access. Currently, tennis users are overseen by City rules and fees, pickleball users are overseen by an outside, private organization that is permitted on a monthly basis by the city. There are no rules currently governing the permit holder regarding what hours instruction and clinics are allowed(unlike tennis). This discrepancy in governance is a large contributor to unnecessary friction between the two sports sharing the tennis courts. There is no other sport in the City that is conducted in the manner pickleball currently is. FINANCIAL-The cost of creating and hiring personelle to staff the oversight will be recouped through reservation card fees, court fees and city run programming through community class pickleball (which is currently not offered)
DATA-Gathering current and accurate data on the number and proportion of resident and non resident pickleball players (as the city has on teens through reservation cards and community class registrations) as well as the age demographics of the player. The City has accurate data on the number and ages of tennis players, but has no reliable or verifiable data on pickleball. Without accurate data, informed decisions on allotment of financial and space resources for the sports.
I support the growth of BOTH pickleball and tennis in our community, proportional to the demand by residents based on accurate data. Creating this position in the budget will allow this and alleviate much of the friction that has unfortunately defined the relationship between the two sports in our common city.
I welcome any questions and would love to be a part of the solution.
Sincerely,
Debbie Mahdessian
310-430-1962
Website
Instagram
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 2 ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 11:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7A, biennial budget review
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The current staffing level for the city library services is 60% of pre-pandemic level. This next budget only increases it to 65% of pre-pandemic level.
These cuts are particularly critical to lower income, youth, and senior citizens of our city. Please prioritize more resources to restore these library services.
Thank you,
Clare Thomas
2602 25th St
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Kathy Knight <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 11:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: May 23, 2023 Agenda Item 7A Five-Year Financial Forecast Update, FY 2023-25 Proposed Biennial Budget”
EXTERNAL
May 23, 2023
To: Santa Monica City Council
From: Kathy Knight
Sunset Park resident for 30 years
[email protected]
(310) 613-1175
Dear City Council Members:
Please support the request by the Santa Monica Conservancy to lower the costs of landmarking our precious resources here in Santa Monica that are so important for the enjoyment of our City life.
PLEASE SUPPORT THIS REQUEST so that we can have monthly Landmarks Commission meetings again, give the commission more responsibilities to protect our landmarks, and lower the cost of designation applications, so that not only the rich can apply for landmark protections.
Our landmarks are so important to preserve, for us and future generations, and they make our City more attractive for tourists and business - which helps our economy over all.
I know many people that are getting very unhappy with places being torn down and huge Mega buildings being put up that are not that attractive to tourists and local residents.
Most residents cannot afford to live in them.
PLEASE RESTORE THE BUDGET FOR OUR HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM.
Thank you.
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
MAY 23, 2023
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Written Comments (5797 : FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget Study Session)