1 David Yakobson
From: Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 11:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11-B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
EXTERNAL
Dear Hon. Councilmembers:
I am writing to join in the insightful comments submitted by the Community for Excellent Public Schools. I will not repeat or reiterate those comments here, but it bears emphasis that our city has a long and proud history of supporting our schools through the Master Facilities Use Agreement, and we should not reverse course.
If we truly care about our students’ future success, we must continue to make meaningful material contributions to educational success through the Master Facilities Use Agreement.
Best,
Ellis Raskin
Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
2 David Yakobson
From: Soloff, Michael <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 10:52 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; [email protected]; councilmtgitems
Cc: '[email protected]'; Jon Katz; SM Renters Rights Subject: RE: Michael Soloff et al. Comments on Item 11-B on City Council Agenda for 2.27.24 Meeting
Attachments: Mike Soloff Letter to Council on Item 11-B on City Council 2.27.24 Agenda.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
EXTERNAL
Please find attached my comments on Item 11-B on tonight’s agenda. Fellow 2022 Measure GS official proponents Sue Himmelrich and Jon Katz, as well as the SMRR Executive Committee, join in these comments.
Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
February 27, 2024
To: Santa Monica City Council
Re: Item 11-B on 2/27/24 Agenda: Financial Status Update and FY 2023-24 Midyear Budget Dear Councilmembers:
I am writing in both my individual capacity as an official proponent of 2022 Measure GS, and in my capacity as co-chair of Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights. I am authorized to advise you that the other official proponents of 2022 Measure GS (Sue Himmelrich and Jon Katz), my SMRR Co-Chair (Denny Zane), and the entire SMRR Executive Committee concur in the views expressed below.
Each Member Of The City Council Should Commit Tonight To Extending The Master Facilities Use Agreement Funding To SMMUSD (Or To Any Santa Monica-Only Successor District) Past 2027
The Staff Report for Item 11-B provides five year revenue and expenditure projections under both the assumption that the City’s Master Facilities Use Agreement with SMMUSD (“the Agreement”) is not renewed when it expires in 2027, and on the assumption it is renewed.
It is essential that each member of the City Council commit tonight to extending the funding provided to SMMUSD pursuant the Agreement past its expiration in 2027.
First, a failure to maintain the transfer of City funds to SMMUSD (or to any successor Santa Monica-only district) would violate Santa Monica Municipal Code Subsection 4.90.20(c), which was adopted by the voters as part of 2022 Measure GS. That subsection provides:
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.
As the plain language of this subsection demonstrates, it was the intent of the proponents and the will of the voters that all existing transfers to the schools continue after the passage of 2022 Measure GS—not just those pursuant to prior voter advisory measures—and that 2022 Measure GS funding for the schools constitute an increase in those transfers. That intent and will is not advisory—it is part of the Municipal Code and cannot be changed except by the voters. See Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.90.060 (“The provisions of this Chapter 4.90 may not be amended absent a vote of the people of the City of Santa Monica.”).
Second, the withdrawal of existing City funding for our schools pursuant to the Agreement would constitute terrible public policy.
The importance of quality public education to both our community’s children and to our community as a whole should be self-evident. Indeed, public education is so important that the founders of Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
California placed a guarantee of free public education into the State Constitution, and the California Supreme Court has decreed that this is a fundamental right entitled to special legal protection. The voters of our community have repeatedly expressed their willingness to increase taxes to support our schools, and our schools have consistently been ranked as among the best in the State and the Nation.
The quality of our public schools has been transformative for many of our community’s children and—while work clearly remains to be done to close the achievement gap—reducing funding for the schools will not help and likely will hurt efforts to close that gap. Preparing our community’s children to be productive members of society benefits the entire community, and the quality of our schools undoubtedly is one of the factors supporting the high property values that in turn support the property tax revenues on which our City depends.
In 2022, the five members of the current Council who then served on the Council all voted to put Measure DT on the ballot, which provided no additional funding for the schools and increased funding to restore City services. Only 34% of the voters supported Measure DT, while 53.5% voted for Measure GS. The voters are entitled to know whether this Council intends to respect the will of the voters, or instead intends to try to subvert that will. And the voters are entitled to know each Councilmember’s intentions right now, in advance of the 2024 and 2026 elections that will take place before the Agreement expires, so they can assure a Council is in place in 2027 that will respect the voters will. Please vote tonight to commit to maintaining the current levels of City funding for our schools pursuant to all existing agreements, including the Agreement.
The City Council Should Ask Staff To Provide Updated Projections On When The City’s Housing Trust Fund Will Receive The Promised Repayment Of Diverted Funds 2022 Measure GS also requires the City to repay the funds diverted from the Housing Trust Fund.
Pursuant to that Measure, Santa Monica Municipal Code Subsection 4.90.030(c) provides:
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.
Subsequent to the voters’ adoption of this provision of the Municipal Code, this Council authorized the City to take funds from the Housing Trust Fund to pay a settlement of Euler claims against the City—and to postpone a promised repayment of funds diverted from the Housing Trust Fund at the beginning of the Pandemic—pursuant to a promise to repay those funds in a timely manner. In October 2023 the Council adopted the Staff’s proposal of how to effectuate that repayment promise.
The Staff Report for this budget item provides no report of whether any of these diverted funds have been repaid to date, nor any projections of when they will be repaid. We request that Council direct Staff to provide this information. It is essential to monitor the repayment plan to make certain it will fulfill this Council’s promise and the City’s obligation under 2022 Measure GS to repay the diverted Housing Trust Fund monies.
Sincerely,
Michael Soloff
Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
3 David Yakobson
From: Kelly Wine <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 9:34 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item - 11.B, Attachment B
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to convince the Santa Monica City Council to vote NO on the enormous salary increases being put forward in tonights agenda (Section 11.B, Attachement B) for the Assistant City Manager, Deputy City Manager, and Community Broadband Administrator.
The early years of the Pandemic led to sweeping cuts of hundreds of jobs for permanent and parttime city employees and the shuttering of many city funded public services (such as library services). Many of these services have not returned in full. Many of the permanent and part-time employees of Santa Monica have not had their jobs reinstated due to city budget issues. Yet, citizens of Santa Monica still fund these services and jobs with their tax dollars and reap nothing in return.
There are other items I would like the City Council Members to consider.
The former Santa Monica City Manager (Rick Cole), resigned in 2020 during the difficult early days of the Pandemic. The City Council approved a 7 month severance package upon his resignation amounting to approximately $200,000.00.
The City of Santa Monica has paid out approximately $230 million to resolve child molestation lawsuits brought against Eric Uller who volunteered for the city's Police Activities League (PAL). This was after numerous warning signs and Eric Uller's inappropriate behavior with children being reported by officers to higher ranking Santa Monica Police personnel.
I implore that NO salary increases be agreed to by the Santa Monica City Council until ALL city funded services cut during Covid are returned in full, and all full and part-time city employees whose jobs were cut are reinstated to their original position.
When the City of Santa Monica can get their "house in order" and fix what they poorly managed during the Pandemic, only then should pay increases of this magnitude be considered appropriate.
Thank you.
Mr. Kelly Wine
Santa Monica Resident for 23 years
Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
1 David Yakobson
From: Sidney Baker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2024 6:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: Council Meeting February 27, 2024, Item 11. B., PUBLIC COMMENT
EXTERNAL
I have been told that Gleam Davis will NOT term out this year. I looked at her years of service on the Council and the Charter, and if I made a mistake I sincerely apologize.
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
On Monday, February 26, 2024, 1:36 PM, Sidney Baker <[email protected]> wrote:
SPRINGTIME IN VIENNA FOR COUNCIL MEMBER GLEAM DAVIS AT
TAXPAYER EXPENSE
Gleam Davis will term out on the City Council this year. Why are Santa Monica taxpayers paying to send a lame duck Council Member to Vienna, Austria for a week in April for a housing conference?
____ Nobody else could go? But the City is already sending Council Member Torosis.
Is Caroline’s attendance not adequate? Why are two people from the City, neither of whom is employed in city planning or housing, jetting off to Vienna at taxpayer expense for a housing conference? Anyone notice all the new residential housing currently being constructed in Santa Monica without sending City Council Members abroad to study how to do it?
____ Because Santa Monica has excess funds? The City has unfunded pension liabilities in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The City will be further tapping into its declining reserves and reducing expenditures on important social programs to balance its operating budget. Crime and homelessness far from under control. Important City programs are not adequately funded.The City is paying $229.8 million to settle a lawsuit for sexual abuse by one of its employees. The City can’t even afford to control the hundreds of ground squirrels running wild at Palisades Park. Gleam’s trip to Vienna is so important that it justifies diverting funds away from other City programs? ____ Because Gleam can’t afford to pay her own way? Gleam is a wealthy Harvard Law School graduate employed as senior counsel for AT&T. Her husband is a wealthy consultant. Public records show they sold the home, a short walk from the Brentwood Mart, for a whopping $8,315,000, which they purchased in 2019 for $3,500,000. Do the Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
2 math. How many of you can even afford a home? Or a trip to Vienna? Many of you live paycheck to paycheck and have to pay for Gleam’s European international travel? ____ Because Gleam made a successful motion to reimburse her expenses? Gleam is no stranger to conflicts of interest. She thought it appropriate to vote on a project at the Miramar Hotel on which her husband was employed and Gleam would profit. She did not want to recuse herself despite knowing she had a personal financial interest in the project, even after her secret became public. It took the California Fair Political Practices Commission in a letter to Gleam, the experienced lawyer, in October 2020 to school her on how her participation in votes because of her personal financial conflict of interest would violate the law.
(https://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/documents/advice-letters/1995- 2015/2020/Final A-20-117.pdf. The Santa Monica City Attorney, also reached the wrong conclusion. Could it be because their employment and compensation are determined by Gleam and the City Council?) Gleam (and Caroline) had a financial conflict of interest and should have recused themselves on a vote to send themselves on an expensive European escapade. Was this legal (don’t ask the City Attorney)? ____ Because the City Council approved Gleam’s motion? None of the other Council Members can explain why it is an appropriate expense to send even one Council Member - Caroline Torosis - over 6,000 miles to a housing conference in a socialist foreign country with very high taxes that can pay for superior public housing policies. Or why Gleam’s attendance will in any way supplement Caroline’s participation at the same conference or contribute in any way to local housing policies in her short time remaining on the Council. (Look at all the housing currently being built locally without lessons from Vienna.) Especially when there are highly educated and experienced housing experts at nearby world class universities, in federal, state and local government, in private firms, and in Santa Monica’s own planning and housing departments.
2024
____ Will the City Council cancel Gleam’s trip? We all make mistakes. Many can be forgiven if acknowledged and steps taken to correct them. The City Council approved Gleam’s trip only two weeks ago. They are reviewing the budget now. They can change their mind and cancel Gleam’s trip to Vienna if not Caroline’s too. Why when reviewing the budget won’t at least one Council Member show some spine and integrity and make a motion to cancel the expenditure? Could it be that Council Members have lost all idealism of their youth and are cynically looking forward to benefitting financially from similar trips to European capitals and other unwarranted expenditures of taxpayer funds in the future?
__X__ NONE OF THE ABOVE.
Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
3 David Yakobson
From: Edith Karmes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2024 5:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Public Comment, Item 11B, 2/27/2024 City Council Mtg.
EXTERNAL
You have to be kidding me with a European trip for 2 council members at public expense. I incorporate the following article in my comment - please post the article in full. Thank you. https://www.smobserved.com/story/2024/02/26/opinion/springtime-in-vienna-for-council-member-gleam-davis-attaxpayer-expense/8132.html Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
1 David Yakobson
From: Ann Bowman
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2024 4:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White; Susan Cline
Subject: February 27, 2024 Council Meeting - Item 11.B. (Midyear Budget) - SUPPORT Recreation and Arts Department Restorations
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mayor Brock and Esteemed Councilmembers:
I write in full and enthusiastic support for Staff's recommendation to you of position restorations within the City's Recreation and Arts Department (RAD). The entire Community and Cultural Services (CCS) Department was eliminated during COVID budget cutting and I am so heartened to see that now, in addition to the rebirth of CCS as RAD, the City is serious about continuing to rebuild the breadth and scope of services to what the community once enjoyed.
Thank you in advance for your support of these important position restorations! Sincerely,
Ann Bowman
Recreation and Parks Commissioner
Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
2 David Yakobson
From: Sidney Baker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2024 3:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council Meeting February 27, 2024, Item 11. B., PUBLIC COMMENT Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
EXTERNAL
SPRINGTIME IN VIENNA FOR COUNCIL MEMBER GLEAM DAVIS AT TAXPAYER
EXPENSE
Gleam Davis will term out on the City Council this year. Why are Santa Monica taxpayers paying to send a lame duck Council Member to Vienna, Austria for a week in April for a housing conference? ____ Nobody else could go? But the City is already sending Council Member Torosis. Is Caroline’s attendance not adequate? Why are two people from the City, neither of whom is employed in city planning or housing, jetting off to Vienna at taxpayer expense for a housing conference? Anyone notice all the new residential housing currently being constructed in Santa Monica without sending City Council Members abroad to study how to do it?
____ Because Santa Monica has excess funds? The City has unfunded pension liabilities in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The City will be further tapping into its declining reserves and reducing expenditures on important social programs to balance its operating budget. Crime and homelessness far from under control. Important City programs are not adequately funded.The City is paying $229.8 million to settle a lawsuit for sexual abuse by one of its employees. The City can’t even afford to control the hundreds of ground squirrels running wild at Palisades Park. Gleam’s trip to Vienna is so important that it justifies diverting funds away from other City programs? ____ Because Gleam can’t afford to pay her own way? Gleam is a wealthy Harvard Law School graduate employed as senior counsel for AT&T. Her husband is a wealthy consultant. Public records show they sold the home, a short walk from the Brentwood Mart, for a whopping $8,315,000, which they purchased in 2019 for $3,500,000. Do the math. How many of you can even afford a home? Or a trip to Vienna? Many of you live paycheck to paycheck and have to pay for Gleam’s European international travel?
____ Because Gleam made a successful motion to reimburse her expenses? Gleam is no stranger to conflicts of interest. She thought it appropriate to vote on a project at the Miramar Hotel on which her husband was employed and Gleam would profit. She did not want to recuse herself despite knowing she had a personal financial interest in the project, even after her secret became public. It took the California Fair Political Practices Commission in a letter to Gleam, the experienced lawyer, in Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
3 October 2020 to school her on how her participation in votes because of her personal financial conflict of interest would violate the law.
(https://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/documents/advice-letters/1995-2015/2020/Final A-20- 117.pdf. The Santa Monica City Attorney, also reached the wrong conclusion. Could it be because their employment and compensation are determined by Gleam and the City Council?) Gleam (and Caroline) had a financial conflict of interest and should have recused themselves on a vote to send themselves on an expensive European escapade. Was this legal (don’t ask the City Attorney)? ____ Because the City Council approved Gleam’s motion? None of the other Council Members can explain why it is an appropriate expense to send even one Council Member - Caroline Torosis - over 6,000 miles to a housing conference in a socialist foreign country with very high taxes that can pay for superior public housing policies. Or why Gleam’s attendance will in any way supplement Caroline’s participation at the same conference or contribute in any way to local housing policies in her short time remaining on the Council. (Look at all the housing currently being built locally without lessons from Vienna.) Especially when there are highly educated and experienced housing experts at nearby world class universities, in federal, state and local government, in private firms, and in Santa Monica’s own planning and housing departments.
2024
____ Will the City Council cancel Gleam’s trip? We all make mistakes. Many can be forgiven if acknowledged and steps taken to correct them. The City Council approved Gleam’s trip only two weeks ago. They are reviewing the budget now. They can change their mind and cancel Gleam’s trip to Vienna if not Caroline’s too. Why when reviewing the budget won’t at least one Council Member show some spine and integrity and make a motion to cancel the expenditure? Could it be that Council Members have lost all idealism of their youth and are cynically looking forward to benefitting financially from similar trips to European capitals and other unwarranted expenditures of taxpayer funds in the future?
__X__ NONE OF THE ABOVE.
Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
1 David Yakobson
From: Kevin McKeown <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2024 12:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Jesse Zwick; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: 11-B -- managing overtime
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
EXTERNAL
As you review the budget (item 11-B on your agenda), I hope you can get some informaƟon from staff about police overƟme. Pages 20 through 22 of the staff report detail general fund changes to numerous departments, but SMPD is not one of them.
For many years, going back over many Chiefs, the Council has been told that police overƟme was necessary because we did not have enough police officers. In fact, the case was made that paying overƟme actually saved residents money because it was cheaper than hiring new personnel with aƩendant training, salaries, and benefits.
We have now added significantly to our police force. While training, salaries, and benefits will impact the general fund, I see no menƟon of reduced overƟme. If the reason repeatedly given to Council jusƟfying overƟme was valid, there should now be considerably less need. Can you get staff to clarify this, and how much overƟme money might now be available for other purposes?
Thanks,
Kevin
————————————
K e v I n M c K e o w n
hƩps://urldefense.com/v3/__hƩp://www.mckeown.net__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!oNA_X_059FXAAz8hMOwvADUlEUFPIDV6kN1aUlH7JrBdwbg27K7h04foICjZ356_J6o-g774JyzV18ucK3LhnDIJD8$ Choose to be conscious
————————————
Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
2 David Yakobson
From: Ted Winterer <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2024 12:40 PM
To: Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; nicole faries; Shari Davis; Debbie Mulvaney; Chris Harding; Sirinya Matute; Kean, Jon; Smith, Jennifer; Maria Leon-Vazquez; Alicia Mignano; Tahvildaran-Jesswein, Richard; Lieberman, Laurie; [email protected]; Shelton, Antonio
Subject: Item 11-B, 2/27/24 Council agenda
Attachments: CEPS Ltr to CC 2024.02.23.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
We are writing to express our profound concerns about your staff report contemplating the elimination of the Master Facilities Use Agreement (MFUA) between the City and SMMUSD in 2027.
Community for Excellent Public Schools (CEPS) was founded two decades ago to seek additional funding for our cashstrapped school district. At that time we gathered 15,000 signatures for a ballot measure to allocate City funds to SMMUSD. The Council in 2004 chose to negotiate the MFUA agreement, instead of facing the prospect of an initiative which would have allocated even more funding for our public schools than has been generated by the MFUA.
So we are, of course, profoundly disturbed by a budget projection that contemplates an abrogation of this compact between the City and its residents.
We are further troubled by the implication in your staff report that the monies from Measure GS which will soon flow to SMMUSD are a justification for eliminating the MFUA. Please note that Measure GS specifically provides that these dollars will not replace existing City funding for our schools -- doing so would violate the expressed will of the voters of Santa Monica.
The decades-long partnership between the City and SMMUSD has yielded benefits to both parties. Now is not the time to create a rift in that partnership, so we urge you on Tuesday night to unequivocally reject the prospect of not extending the MFUA in 2027.
Please see the attached letter for more details on our position.
Regards,
Nicole Faries
Ted Winterer
CEPS Co-Chairs
--
Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
3 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 11-B
February 27, 2024
Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
Community for Excellent Public Schools
2532 Wilshire Blvd., #288
Santa Monica, CA 90403
www.excellentpublicschools.org
February 23, 2024
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Financial Status Update and FY 2023-24 Midyear Budget Hearing Date: February 27, 2024
Agenda Item No. 11.B
Dear Councilmembers:
We are writing as co-chairs of Community for Excellent Public Schools (“CEPS”) with respect to the Staff Report on Agenda Item No. 11-B (Financial Status Update and FY 2023-24 Midyear Budget) as it relates to the City’s Master Facilities Use Agreement (“MFUA”) with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (“SMMUSD”).
CEPS is very troubled by the Staff Report insofar as it raises the prospect of the MFUA potentially expiring in 2027. The purpose of the MFUA is to provide reliable long-term funding for our schools. The MFUA has a long history, beginning in 2004 (not 2012 as misstated in the Staff Report). And the Staff Report ignores the context in which the MFUA originated: in response to a potential ballot measure sponsored by CEPS that would have provided stable, long-term funding for our schools at a much higher level than the MFUA. After CEPS collected about 15,000 voter signatures on a charter amendment ballot measure (many more than required to qualify for the ballot), the City and SMMUSD entered the MFUA.
The MFUA is a critical part of a larger strategic partnership between SMMUSD and the City, a partnership that has been mutually beneficial for both the City and SMMUSD. This partnership has resulted in many millions of dollars in annual City tax revenue that funds City services, generated primarily through the volunteer efforts of the school community. The City should be looking for ways to build on this partnership, not place it in jeopardy.
In 2022, Santa Monica’s voters approved Measure GS (increasing the real estate transfer tax), which directed the first $10 million of its annual tax revenue to SMMUSD. Measure GS specifically provides that this funding will not replace existing City funding for our schools. Measure GS states, in what is codified in Santa Monica Municipal Code section 4.90.020(c):
Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
Community for Excellent Public Schools
2532 Wilshire Blvd., #288
Santa Monica, CA 90403
www.excellentpublicschools.org
“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.” (Emphasis added.)
Thus, Santa Monica’s voters approved MFUA funding for our schools when they approved Measure GS in 2022. By referencing GS funding in the context of potentially allowing the MFUA to expire, the Staff Report threatens to violate both the letter and spirit of GS.
In closing, CEPS urges each of you to commit in principle to extending the MFUA with no reduction in school funding. Such City Council direction will provide both City Staff and SMMUSD with the clarity they need to engage in responsible long-term budget planning. And such direction will assure the school community (including students, parents and teachers) and the general public that the City will continue its financial commitment to our public schools, which is critical to the overall health and well-being of our community.
Sincerely,
Ted Winterer Nicole Faries
cc: David White
CEPS Executive Committee
CEPS Steering Committee
SMMUSD Board of Education
Dr. Antonio Shelton
Item 11-B
February 27, 2024
Item 11-B
February 27, 2024