Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
12.A.t
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 4] (6035 : Adoption & Approval of 2nd Year FY23-25 Biennial Budget, 1st & 2nd Year FY24-26 Biennial Therefore, the proposed $13 million giveaway is a discretionary decision by the City Council, not an FAA order. Scott Lewis, the City’s outside counsel, explains this in detail in his letter to aviation1.
C. Staff’s Giveaway Proposal is Premature and the Urgency to Approve It is Fake The $13 million giveaway proposal “jumps the gun” and ignores two more key points.
1. The FAA has only directed the City to recalculate its 11-year-old rates to reflect (a) the current aeronautical costs and (b) the current aeronautical operation activity levels at SMO.
2. The FAA has only stated that accumulating aeronautical surplus may warrant an inquiry, which is a long way from challenging and invalidating the Consent Decree. The City can simply reduce its aeronautical surplus by spending the funds.
D. Staff’s Proposal is Inconsistent and Conflicts with Staff’s Prior 2018 Legal Declarations Aeronautical landing fees can be calculated by dividing the airfield total costs by the airfield users’ operations and activity levels. Staff and its consultants (WJA Advisors) all consistently stated in their 2018 legal declarations under penalty of perjury that (a) airfield costs (the numerator) have increased over time, and (b) aircraft operations and activity (the denominator) have declined over time, especially due to the runway shortening in 2017. The City won this court case preserving the landing fee methodology2. They clearly stated that any updated calculation of the airport landing fee (numerator divided by the denominator) would necessarily calculate to a landing fee that is greater than before, not less3. SMO operations have continued to decline through the present day.
Stelios Makrides is the SMO Airport Director.
3 2018 Declaration of WJA, Stelios Makrides, Martin Pastucha, and Stephanie Manglaras. 2 Santa Monica Daily Press News Article on the 2018 Landing Fee Litigation and Decision (link). 1 Scott Lewis, May 30, 2024 [Santa Monica Outside Counsel Letter to Private Aviation Counsel, page 3, paragraph 1 and 2] (link)
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
12.A.t
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 4] (6035 : Adoption & Approval of 2nd Year FY23-25 Biennial Budget, 1st & 2nd Year FY24-26 Biennial Martin Pastucha is the former Director of Public Works.
Warren Adams has been an aviation management consultant with 35 years experience.
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
12.A.t
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 4] (6035 : Adoption & Approval of 2nd Year FY23-25 Biennial Budget, 1st & 2nd Year FY24-26 Biennial SMO operations have consistently declined.
E. Foreseeable Aeronautical Expenses and Alternative Uses Not Presented Staff’s proposal railroads their planned $13 million giveaway, overlooks foreseeable aeronautical expenses over the next four years, and fails to present alternative uses of the surplus aeronautical funds. Staff simply concludes it has no aeronautical use for the funds.
The assumption that the aeronautical surplus must be zero by a certain deadline of December 31, 2028, is unverified, especially given the significant anticipated aeronautical expenses for airport decommissioning (after aircraft operations cease but before airport closure). Regardless of timing, it makes no sense that the only solution to bring the aeronautical surplus to zero is a $13 million giveaway, and that the decision must be made urgently.
A common-sense approach would be to identify, plan, and budget for spending the aeronautical surplus over the next four years on bona fide capital expenses, operations and maintenance, decommissioning, environmental remediation, and legal expenses. Potential alternative uses include, but are not limited to:
Environmental Work and Remediation: Staff currently budgets for environmental assessments, but assumes zero environmental remediation expenses. This makes no sense given that remediation costs have already identified by the 12-Acre Airport Park Expansion EIR4. The City can anticipate more significant environmental remediation costs for both the Airport Park Expansion and the remaining airport land. Allocating aeronautical surplus funds for environmental remediation is allowed per the FAA Policy on Rates and Charges, and will help fund present and future expenses and ensure compliance with environmental regulations5.
5 FAA Policy on Rates and Charges (link)
4 12-acre Airport Park Expansion Final EIR and Appendices (link)
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
12.A.t
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 4] (6035 : Adoption & Approval of 2nd Year FY23-25 Biennial Budget, 1st & 2nd Year FY24-26 Biennial The Airport Park Expansion EIR reports existing environmental issues requiring remediation.
The FAA Policy on Rates and Charges say that environmental work and remediation are aeronautical expenses.
Underground Fuel Tank Removal: Atlantic Aviation has both a tank “recapture clause” allowing the City to remove the tanks and an “environmental remediation clause” in their lease agreement. So the surplus aeronautical funds could be used to pay for and commence tank removal with only 30 days notice per the lease agreement starting today. This would address potential environmental hazards and
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
12.A.t
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 4] (6035 : Adoption & Approval of 2nd Year FY23-25 Biennial Budget, 1st & 2nd Year FY24-26 Biennial costs that must be paid mostly by the City, while also ensuring the City and the tenant to fulfill lease obligations6.
Atlantic Aviation’s lease contains a fuel farm recapture clause allowing for the tanks to be removed.
Atlantic Aviation’s lease contains clauses on environmental remediation.
Infrastructure Improvements: Pilots have requested both new bathrooms and a community center at the airport. These facilities and perhaps others could be designed for later adaptive reuse, serving park users in the future once the airport is fully closed.
Decommissioning Costs: Airport decommissioning costs may be a proper use of aeronautical funds.
These costs are neither planned nor funded yet. These cost include:
1. Infrastructure Removal: The costs associated with decommissioning runways, airfield equipment, lighting, and other structures and equipment.
2. Site Restoration: Restoring the land to a natural state or preparing it for future use, which may involve civil engineering work, or other site repairs and restoration.
3. Disposal Costs: Proper disposal of materials, including hazardous waste and equipment will be necessary.
4. Labor and Equipment: The cost of hiring skilled labor and renting or purchasing equipment for the decommissioning process.
5. Regulatory Compliance: Ensuring compliance with local, state, and federal regulations, which may involve additional permitting and fees.
6 Atlantic Aviation Lease Agreement (link)
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
12.A.t
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 4] (6035 : Adoption & Approval of 2nd Year FY23-25 Biennial Budget, 1st & 2nd Year FY24-26 Biennial
6. Planning and Project Management: Costs associated with planning, managing, and overseeing the decommissioning project.
Litigation and Settlement Costs: There are anticipated litigation and settlement costs, particularly as aviation users are expected to leave in 2028. Past experiences, such as the $450,000 paid to Justice Aviation, illustrate the future financial burdens of expected legal challenges7.
Proper Due Diligence and Spending
The City should NOT simply claim it has no use for the $13 million aeronautical surplus and simply give these public funds to private aviation users and tenants. This would set a bad precedent and appear as an admission of guilt. Instead, the City should responsibly evaluate and allocate these public dollars to address legitimate pending needs and future obligations, ensuring financial preparedness for upcoming expenses.
Please consider the broader implications and opportunities for utilizing the $13 million aeronautical surplus more effectively. By rejecting the proposed giveaway and exploring these alternative expenditures, the City can ensure the best use of public funds and address current and future needs.
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.
Sincerely,
B e n W a n g
Sunset Park
7 Santa Monica Lookout News Article on $450,000 Paid to Justice Aviation (link)
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
12.A.t
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 4] (6035 : Adoption & Approval of 2nd Year FY23-25 Biennial Budget, 1st & 2nd Year FY24-26 Biennial City Council – June 25, 2024
FY 2024-25 Budget Adoption
12.A.u
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6035 : Adoption & Approval of 2nd Year FY23-25 Tonight’s Actions
2 • Adopt FY 2024-25 Operating and Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) Budget & approve FY 2025-26 CIP Budget Plan • Adopt Resolutions
• Accept grant awards and renewals
• Direction on Cannabis tax rates
• Council allocation of Discretionary Funds
12.A.u
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6035 : Adoption & Approval of 2nd Year FY23-25 FY 2023-25
Operating Budget
The Biennial Budget
Adopt Year 2: FY 2024-25
3 FY 2024-26
Capital Budget
Adopt Year 1: FY 2024-25
• Approve Year 2: FY 2025-26
12.A.u
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6035 : Adoption & Approval of 2nd Year FY23-25 The Budget is the result of collaboration between the community, City Departments led by the City Manager’s Office, and the City Council June 2023
Public Hearing and
Adoption of the 1st
year of the Biennial
Budget and 2nd year
of the Biennial CIP
Budget
October 2023
Staff reports on
FY 2022-23 year-end
budget performance,
proposes
adjustments
February 2024
Staff reports on
midyear budget
performance,
updated forecast,
proposes
adjustments
May 28, 2024
Proposed FY 2024-25
Operating Budget and
FY 2024-26 biennial CIP
Budget presented to
City Council
June 25, 2024
Public Hearing and
Adoption of the 2nd
year of the Biennial
Budget and 1st year of
the Biennial CIP Budget
Santa Monica's Budget Process
March 2023
Council Priority
Setting for the FY
2023-25 Biennial
Budget
4 12.A.u
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6035 : Adoption & Approval of 2nd Year FY23-25 5 Reserve Levels & Safeguarding Fiscal Stability
Ongoing Strategies
• Continue to seek compensation from
excess insurance providers
• Sale of city-owned properties
• CIP Funding Deferral
• Suspend Housing Trust Fund payments
– suspend payment over two years,
excluding payments that cover
Preserving Our Diversity (POD)
Program and staffing costs
• Other initiatives – Existing partner
agreements and/or Bonds
General Fund Reserves
12.A.u
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6035 : Adoption & Approval of 2nd Year FY23-25 6 *Citywide expenditures are net of reimbursements and transfers between funds Proposed Budget Overview – FY 2024-25
$92.2
$13.4
$673.1
$449.9
$765.3
$463.3
$-
$100.0
$200.0
$300.0
$400.0
$500.0
$600.0
$700.0
$800.0
$900.0
Citywide* General Fund
Operating
Capital
Citywide Expenditures (in millions) - $765.3 million*
• Total FTEs:
• 2,036.8 Permanent
• 85.0 As-needed
General Fund - $463.3 million
• Total FTEs:
• 1,280.3 Permanent
• 76.0 As-needed
Final Changes
• +$1.8 million
o $424,920 Operating - General Fund
o $370,000 Capital - General Fund
o $957,850 Operating - Other Funds
12.A.u
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6035 : Adoption & Approval of 2nd Year FY23-25 7 • Waive Outdoor Dining Fee on
the Promenade for 1 year and
reduce rate
Invest in
Economic Recovery
• Add 4 Police Officers
• CCTV Security Camera
Program
• Quick Build Enhancements at
Unsignalized Intersections
Invest in
Public Safety
Final Changes - General Fund
12.A.u
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6035 : Adoption & Approval of 2nd Year FY23-25 8 Annual lease revenue for new
agreement with Pacific Park
~ $195,000 Revenue Increase
Pier Fund
Housing Authority Fund
• Continuum of Care Program
~ $908,000
Misc. Grants Fund
• STEP Court Program
$50,000
Grants
Final Changes - Other Funds
12.A.u
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6035 : Adoption & Approval of 2nd Year FY23-25 Cannabis Business Tax Rate
9 Current Status
• Santa Monica business tax rate set at 2% for medicinal sales and 3% for adult-use sales • Average regional rate is 6.3%
Items for consideration
• Wait until cannabis program is more formed
• Collect a full year of tax revenue data before making changes • Complete analysis to determine the appropriate rate for the Santa Monica market Need Council direction on rate changes
12.A.u
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6035 : Adoption & Approval of 2nd Year FY23-25 Council Discretionary Funds
10 Council Discretionary Funds Available as of July 1, 2024: $127,653 Typical Annual Allocations 3-Year Average
4th of July Parade $ 15,000
Business Improvement Districts $ 29,000
Pico Youth and Family Center Car Show $ 6,000
Santa Monica High School Latina/o Graduation $ 6,000
Westside Coalition for Martin Luther King Jr. Celebration $ 9,000 Total Annual Average $65,000
Potential Additional Annual Allocations Previous Amount Memorial Day (funded once previously) $ 5,000
Santa Monica Pride (funded two years previously) $ 10,000 Santa Monica High School Grad Nite (funded three years previously) between $ 10k -$20k
12.A.u
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6035 : Adoption & Approval of 2nd Year FY23-25 1 through 3 – City Council, Housing Authority & Parking Authority • Adopt the FY 2024-25 Operating Budget, adopt the first year and approve the second year of the FY 2024-25 Biennial Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget 4 through 11 – City Council Adopt Resolutions
• Fees, fines, and parking rates
• Gann Appropriations limit
• Approve allocation of SB-1 Gas Tax funding
• Salary Rates and Approve Position and Classification Changes • Confidential Unrepresented Employee (CUE) Pay Plan
12 – Provide Direction on Cannabis rates adjustments and Adopt Resolution, if rates are adjusted
13 & 14 – City Council Accept grant awards and renewals 15 & 16 – City Council Adopt CEQA finding 11
Recommended Actions (5 motions)
12.A.u
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6035 : Adoption & Approval of 2nd Year FY23-25 Housing Authority
Parking Authority
Report
City Council Meeting: June 25, 2024
Agenda Item: 12.B
1 of 1
To: Housing Authority, Parking Authority
From: Nikima Newsome, Interim City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Approval of minutes for the Parking Authority
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the Parking Authority approve the minutes for the April 11, 2023, April 25, 2023, and June 27, 2023 Parking Authority meetings.
Prepared By: Maria Dacanay, Acting Assistant City Clerk Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. April 11, 2023 Parking Authority Minutes
B. April 25, 2023 Parking Authority Minutes
C. June 27, 2023 Parking Authority
12.B
Packet Pg. 583
1 April 11, 2023
(NOT APPROVED)
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PARKING AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 11, 2023
A special meeting of the Santa Monica Parking Authority was called to order by Chair Davis at 10:30 p.m., on Tuesday, April 11, 2023, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street.
Roll Call: Present: Chair Gleam Davis
Chair Pro Tem Lana Negrete
Agency Member Phil Brock
Agency Member Oscar de la Torre
Agency Member Caroline Torosis
Agency Member Jesse Zwick
Absent: Agency Member Christine Parra
Also Present: Executive Director David White
Agency Attorney Douglas Sloan
Acting Agency Secretary Maria Dacanay
CONVENE On order of the Chair, the Parking Authority convened to a joint meeting with the City Council and Housing Authority at 10:30 p.m., with all members present except Agency Member Parra.
REPORT ON MEETING
COMPENSATION
Pursuant to State law, Acting Agency Secretary Maria Dacanay announced that the members will receive $50 compensation for meeting as the Parking Authority.
STAFF
ADMINISTRATIVE
ITEMS:
BUDGET
11.A. Fiscal Year 2022-23 Midyear Budget, was presented.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council, Housing Authority and Parking Authority:
1. Appropriate FY 2022-23 midyear revenue and expenditure budget adjustments (Attachment A).
Staff also recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 11519 (CCS) entitled “A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
ESTABLISHING NEW CLASSIFICATIONS AND ADOPTING
SALARY RATES FOR THE FOLLOWING NEW OR EXISTING
CLASSIFICATIONS: BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION
OFFICER, FLEET MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT,
12.B.a
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Parking Authority Minutes (6145 : Parking Authority Minutes) 2 April 11, 2023
FLEET
MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR, GIS TECHNICIAN,
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPECIALIST, INFORMATION
SECURITY ANALYST, INVESTIGATIVE SPECIALIST, LEAD
TRANSIT MECHANIC, MECHANIC I, MECHANIC II, MOTOR
COACH
OPERATOR TRAINEE, SENIOR MECHANIC, SWIM
INSTRUCTOR/POOL LIFEGUARD, TRANSIT MECHANIC I,
TRANSIT MECHANIC II, TRANSIT MECHANIC
SUPERVISOR, TRANSIT VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
SUPERINTENDENT,
WASTEWATER COLLECTION WORKER III, WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR-IN-TRAINING,
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR I, AND
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR II”;
2. Approve the position and classification changes (Attachment C);
3. Adopt attached Resolution No. 11520 (CCS) entitled “A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF GRANT FUNDS FOR
THE SANTA MONICA CITY YARDS MODERNIZATION,
MICROGRID PROJECT”;
4. Adopt attached Resolution No. 11521 (CCS) entitled “A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF ADMINISTERING
AGENCY-STATE MASTER AGREEMENTS FOR STATE AND
FEDERAL-AID FUNDED PROJECTS”;
5. Authorize the City Manager to accept a grant award in the amount of $51,173 from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) for implementation of the JAG 2022 Project “Overtime Operations to Keep Neighborhoods Safe” and execute all necessary documents to accept the grant and all grant renewals;
6. Authorize the City Manager to accept a grant award in the amount of $34,497 from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Assistance 2022 Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) Grant to support the replacement of bulletproof vests and execute all necessary documents to accept the grant and all grant renewals;
7. Authorize staff to amend the City’s Fiscal Policy to allow for the suspension of the accelerated paydown of the City’s unfunded pension liability from FY 2022-23 to FY 2027-28 or later, pending restoration of City services and maintenance budgets and reserves; and,
8. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
12.B.a
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Parking Authority Minutes (6145 : Parking Authority Minutes) 3 April 11, 2023
Questions asked and answered of staff included but was not limited to:
staffing and program plans for the Childcare Recreation Enrichment Sports Together (CREST) program; budget and funding for the Direct Action Response Team (DART) program; copper wire thefts from streetlights, costs for replacement and police response; status and occurrence of the tenant counseling services pilot-program; City and State funding for the Lincoln Neighborhood Corridor Streetscape LiNC Project; maintenance of the Summer Lunch Program at Virginia Avenue Park (VAP); and staffing and a reopening date for the Police Activities League (PAL) Fitness Center.
Motion by Authority/Councilmember Torosis, seconded by
Authority/Councilmember Brock, to adopt the staff recommendation for the City Council, Housing Authority and Parking Authority. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Authority member Cochran, Authority/Councilmembers Zwick, Brock, Torosis, de la Torre, Vice-Chair/Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, Chair/Mayor Davis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Authority/Councilmember Parra
Motion by Councilmember Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to adopt the eight staff recommendations for the City Council. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Torosis, Brock, Zwick, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, Mayor Davis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Parra
MINUTES 11.B. Approval of minutes for Housing Authority and Parking Authority meetings, were presented.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the Parking Authority and Housing Authority approve the minutes for the following:
1. February 8, 2022 Parking Authority meeting; and
2. April 12, 2022 and September 13, 2022 Housing Authority meetings.
Motion by Authority/Councilmember Torosis, seconded by
Authority/Councilmember Zwick, to approve the minutes. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:
12.B.a
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Parking Authority Minutes (6145 : Parking Authority Minutes) 4 April 11, 2023
AYES: Authority member Cochran, Authority/Councilmembers Zwick, Brock, de la Torre, Torosis, Vice-Chair/Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, Chair/Mayor Davis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Authority/Councilmember Parra
ADJOURNMENT: On order of the Chair, the special Parking Authority meeting was adjourned at 10:52 p.m., with all members present except Agency Member Parra.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Maria Dacanay Gleam Davis
Acting Authority Clerk Chair
12.B.a
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Parking Authority Minutes (6145 : Parking Authority Minutes) 1 April 25, 2023
(NOT APPROVED)
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 25, 2023
A special meeting of the Santa Monica Housing Authority was called to order by Chair Davis at 5:32 p.m., on Tuesday, April 25, 2023, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street.
Roll Call: Present: Chair Gleam Davis
Commissioner Phil Brock
Commissioner Oscar de la Torre
Commissioner Christine Parra
Commissioner Caroline Torosis
Commissioner Jesse Zwick
HAB Tenant Representative Elizabeth Cochran
Absent: Vice Chair Lana Negrete
Also Present: Authority Secretary David White
Authority Attorney Douglas Sloan
Authority Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren
CONVENE On order of the Chair, the Housing Authority convened at 5:53 p.m., with Vice Chair Negrete absent and with Housing Authority Board member Cochran present.
REPORT ON MEETING
COMPENSATION
Pursuant to State law, Authority Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren announced that the members will receive $50 compensation for meeting as the Housing Authority during Closed Sessions.
CLOSED SESSIONS 3.H. Conferences with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation - Gov.
Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): 1144 12th Street, LP v. City of Santa Monica, LASC Case No. 22STCP03496
The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.
The City Attorney reported out two matters from the April 11, 2023, meeting that settled:
Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): Zachary Thomas Hoevet v. City of Santa Monica; LASC Case No. 21STCV30547
12.B.b
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: April 25, 2023 Parking Authority Minutes [Revision 1] (6145 : Parking Authority Minutes) 2 April 25, 2023
The City Attorney reported approval of Settlement No. 11389 (CCS) in the amount of $122,500. The motion was approved by a 7-0 vote, with Commissioner/Councilmember Negrete absent.
Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): Mavis Soloway v. City of Santa Monica, et al.; LASC Case No. 20STCV47478
The City Attorney reported approval of Settlement No. 11390 (CCS) in the amount of $800,000. The motion was approved by a 7-0 vote, with Commissioner/Councilmember Negrete absent.
ADJOURNMENT: On order of the Chair, the special Housing Authority meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Denise Anderson-Warren Gleam Davis
Authority Clerk Chair
12.B.b
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: April 25, 2023 Parking Authority Minutes [Revision 1] (6145 : Parking Authority Minutes) 1 June 27, 2023
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PARKING AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 27, 2023
A special meeting of the Santa Monica Parking Authority was called to order by Chair Davis at 7:34 p.m., on Tuesday, June 27, 2023, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA, and Gran Via de les Corts Catalanes, 605 08007 Barcelona Spain.
Roll Call: Present: Chair Gleam Davis
Chair Pro Tem Lana Negrete
Agency Member Phil Brock
Agency Member Oscar De La Torre (via telephone)
Agency Member Christine Parra
Agency Member Caroline Torosis
Agency Member Jesse Zwick
Also Present: Executive Director David White
Agency Attorney Douglas Sloan
Agency Secretary Denise Anderson-Warren
REPORT ON
MEETING
COMPENSATION
Pursuant to State law, Agency Secretary Denise Anderson-Warren announced that Council will receive $50 for meeting as the Parking Authority.
CONVENE On order of the Chair, the Parking Authority convened to a joint meeting with the City Council and Housing Authority at 7:34 p.m., with all members present.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
BUDGET
12.A. Adoption of the First Year and Approval of the Second Year of the FY 2023-25 Biennial Budget Adoption, was presented.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council, Housing Authority and Parking Authority:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 11533 (CCS) entitled: “A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
ADOPTING THE FIRST YEAR (FISCAL YEAR 2023-24) AND
APPROVING THE SECOND YEAR (FISCAL YEAR 2024-25)
OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-25 BIENNIAL BUDGET AND
ADOPTING ITS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-24, Attachment A, as
amended by Final Changes described in this report;
2. 12.B.c
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: June 27, 2023 Parking Authority (6145 : Parking Authority Minutes) 2 June 27, 2023
3. Adopt Resolution No. 98 (HAS) entitled: “A RESOLUTION OF
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA ADOPTING THE FIRST YEAR (FISCAL YEAR
2023-24) AND APPROVING THE SECOND YEAR (FISCAL
YEAR 2024-25) OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-25 BIENNIAL
BUDGET AND ADOPTING ITS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-24” at
Attachment B, as amended by Final Changes described in this report; and
4. Adopt Resolution No. 263 (PAS) entitled: “A RESOLUTION OF
THE PARKING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA ADOPTING THE FIRST YEAR (FISCAL YEAR
2023-24) AND APPROVING THE SECOND YEAR (FISCAL
YEAR 2024-25) OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-25 BIENNIAL
BUDGET AND ADOPTING ITS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-24” at
Attachment C, as amended by Final Changes described in this report.
5. Staff also recommends that the City Council:
4. Adopt Resolution No. 11534 (CCS) entitled: “A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
ESTABLISHING NEW CLASSIFICATIONS AND ADOPTING
SALARY RATES FOR THE FOLLOWING NEW OR EXISTING
CLASSIFICATIONS: ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE,
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERN, ADMINISTRATIVE INTERN II,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HOUSING AND HUMAN
SERVICES, COMMUNITY & CULTURAL SERVICES
ASSISTANT, COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAM
COORDINATOR, CROSSING GUARD, DIRECTOR OF
HOUSING AND HUMAN SERVICES, DIRECTOR OF
RECREATION AND ARTS, ENTERPRISE ARCHITECT AND
DIGITAL DEVELOPMENT MANAGER, FACILITIES
ATTENDANT, FIRE EQUIPMENT SPECIALIST, FIRE
FACILITIES AND MAINTENANCE COORDINATOR,
HUMAN SERVICES MANAGER, JUNIOR POOL
LIFEGUARD, LABORER TRAINEE, LIBRARY PAGE,
MARKETING MANAGER, MOTOR COACH CLEANER
SUPERVISOR, POLICE CADET, POLICE CHIEF,
PRODUCTION ASSISTANT, PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCH
ADMINISTRATOR, PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCH
SUPERVISOR, PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHER, PUBLIC
SERVICES OFFICER, RECYCLING ASSISTANT, SENIOR
HOUSING SPECIALIST, STUDENT WORKER, TRADES
INTERN, VIDEO INTERN, VIDEO STUDENT INTERN,
12.B.c
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: June 27, 2023 Parking Authority (6145 : Parking Authority Minutes) 3 June 27, 2023
VIDEO TECHNICIAN I, AND VIDEO TECHNICIAN II”
(Attachment D) and approve the position and classification changes (Attachment E);
5. Adopt Resolution No. 11535 (CCS) entitled: “A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
REVISING THE CITY'S MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO
ESTABLISH AND REVISE CERTAIN PERMIT AND USER
FEES AND CHARGES IN THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT, RECREATION AND ARTS, AND HOUSING
AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENTS; DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION; FINANCE, LIBRARY, POLICE, AND
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS; AND RECORDS AND
ELECTIONS SERVICES” (Attachment F);
6. Adopt Resolution No. 11536 (CCS) entitled: “A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
SETTING FORTH THE ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION
SCHEDULE OF FINES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS OF THE
SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE, SETTING CIVIL
PENALTIES FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS AND FOR THE
LATE PAYMENT OF PENALTIES, SETTING FINES FOR
POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSES TO
EXCESSIVE FALSE ALARMS, AND SETTING FINES FOR
THE SANTA MONICA PUBLIC LIBRARY” (Attachment G);
7. Adopt Resolution No. 11537 (CCS) entitled: “A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Santa Monica Establishing Parking Rates And Permit Fees For All City Parking Facilities And Resources”(Attachment H);
8. Adopt Resolution No. 11538 (CCS) entitled: A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
ESTABLISHING THE RUNOFF REDUCTION FEE FOR
FISCAL YEARS 2023/24 THROUGH 2027/28 IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 7.10.090(U) OF THE URBAN
RUNOFF POLLUTION ORDINANCE” (Attachment I);
9. Adopt Resolution No. 11539 (CCS) entitled: “RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
ESTABLISHING THE GANN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-24” (Attachment J);
10. Adopt Resolution No. 11532 (CCS) entitled: “A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Santa Monica Adopting Project For Fiscal Year 2023-24 Funded By SB 1: The Road Repair And Accountability Act Of 2017” (Attachment K);
11. Authorize the City Manager to accept a grant award in the amount of $1,500,000 from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA) to support the behavioral health needs
12.B.c
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: June 27, 2023 Parking Authority (6145 : Parking Authority Minutes) 4 June 27, 2023
of vulnerable residents and people experiencing homelessness, and to execute all necessary documents to accept the grant and all grant renewals;
12. Authorize the City Manager to accept a grant award in the amount of $1,500,000 from the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to support the behavioral health needs of vulnerable residents and people experiencing homelessness, and to execute all necessary documents to accept the grant and all grant renewals;
13. Authorize the City Manager to accept a grant award in the amount of $373,125 from the Westside Cities Council of Governments (WSCCOG) to advance Los Angeles County Homeless Initiatives and execute all necessary documents to accept the grant and all grant renewals;
14. Authorize the City Manager to accept a grant award in the amount of $4,447,586 from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Continuum of Care Grant Program to serve the homeless and disabled populations with housing subsidies and execute all necessary documents to accept the grant and all grant renewals;
15. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Agreement No. 11424 (CCS) with Salvation Army to support the City’s 311 Outreach efforts and provide street team assistance to the Homeless Liaison Program. This award is made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to SMMC Section 2.24.250 (i) and is for a term of 2 years at a total amount not-to-exceed $446,250, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval;
16. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Memorandum of Understanding No. 11425 (CCS) with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District for two years with three one-year options to renew that will provide $500,000 annually to the School District, not to exceed $2,500,000 total over a five year period, for the operation of the Playground Club Program;
17. Award RFP# 350 to Berry Dunn McNeil & Parker, LLC
(BerryDunn) and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Agreement No. 11426 (CCS) with BerryDunn for strategic planning services to develop a Homelessness Strategic Plan in an amount not to exceed $200,000, including a 25% contingency, for one year, with one additional one-year renewal option in the amount of $200,000, including a 25% contingency, on the same terms and conditions for a total amount not to exceed $400,000 over a two-year period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval;
18. Provide direction to staff on allocation of discretionary funds
12.B.c
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: June 27, 2023 Parking Authority (6145 : Parking Authority Minutes) 5 June 27, 2023
(Attachment L); and
19. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
Members of the public Derek Devermont, Dr. Anna Rogers, Denise Barton, Lucky Basseri, and Janet McLaughlin spoke to the recommended action.
Questions asked and answered of staff included: what is the Homeless strategic plan going to look like and include; is the intention of the strategic plan to make a dent in homelessness; is the position being recommended being fully funded through transportation, or is some of it coming from the general fund; the Reed Park dog park, is that being funded through this budget; what is the kiosk project; for the opioid settlement, are there any requirements on how that money is used; what will the additional multi-disciplinary teams be doing; is Barry Dunn going to evaluate the efficacy of the different efforts the city has going on now; can Barry Dunn build off of Moss Adams audit to propose tangible, clear metrics for us to track as a community beyond just the number of folks that are housed and unhoused to tell the story of who is homeless in our community and how we’re potentially making an impact in the homeless crowd; what is the go-live date for the two new departments; without the funding from the City Manager’s Office, how are we planning on renegotiating our MOU with LA28; is that Admin position also assisting with getting grant funding partnerships for LA28; how is the Art of recovery supporting Economic recovery in the city; are the Urban pollution mitigation fee a new fee, and is that being phased in over the next several years; is this fee being increased every year for the next five years; why was this fee singled out for increase; how were the SB9 fee and ARB fees devised; what does the SB9 fee cover; can the survey be expedited, does it really need to take another year to complete it, since an audit has already been completed; what is the projected cost to reopen the Miles Playhouse; are there any ideas on how the Montana Library could reopen for a few hours a week to hold community meetings within this budget; is there a way to reallocate money within the budget to add an additional officer to the street team to provide better coverage addressing the homeless crisis; what else can be done to improve the safety in the city; what can be explained to residence the highlights in this budget as it relates to equity, diversity and inclusion; what is the approach to assess what other cities are doing regarding homelessness regionally; is it true that we do not ask individuals what city they come from as part of the homeless count; what would need to happen to get a more point-in-time demographics on homelessness; what can residents expect from the Salvation Army to address and provide outreach for homelessness; are grant funding conditions about reporting, metrics and
12.B.c
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: June 27, 2023 Parking Authority (6145 : Parking Authority Minutes) 6 June 27, 2023
outcomes being included in the current contracts with grantees; who is responsible for paying for the new parking meter removal fees, and who pays to have the meters put back in; who pays for the news stand removals; how were the parklet fine fees devised; what is the workplace development plan; how many full time positions are being added to the budget this year; does the request for a drone include an operator in that request; and, what does the technology grant being submitted to the state entail.
Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to:
expanding the hours at Montana Library three times a month to allow community groups to meet; citywide security is a huge concern whether or not the Police department has adequate funding; concerns about end of the line safety on the Metro, and bigger concern about the transition from the Sheriff to using Metro internal security on Metro; and, the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Committee proposal of additional funding to provide Brazilian Jiu Jitsu training for officers.
Motion by Authority/Councilmember Torosis, seconded by
Authority/Councilmember Zwick, to adopt a Resolution of the City Council, Housing Authority, and Parking Authority of the City of Santa Monica adopting the first year and approving the second year of the FY 2023-25 Biennial Budget and adopting the second year of the FY 2022-24 Biennial Capital Improvement Program Budget at Attachment A, Attachment B, and Attachment C, as amended by Final Changes described in this report.
Authority/Councilmember Brock proposed an amendment to fund the $1,300 to keep the Montana Library open for the neighborhood groups for three meetings a month in total. That money would be transferred from the Council’s discretionary fund. The City Manager reported that the Library will absorb this cost in their budget. The amendment was withdrawn.
Authority/Councilmember Brock proposed a friendly amendment to allocate more money to the Police Department in the amount of $500,000 for tech or officers to improve overall public safety throughout the city.
After hearing from the Chief, the amendment was withdrawn.
Chair/Mayor Davis proposed a friendly amendment since the Police department is applying for large grant dollars for technology policing, to instead move the $85,000 that was given to the Police Department for technology to now be used to provide funding to the Animal Shelter for animal care attendants. The amendment was considered friendly by the maker and seconder.
Authority/Councilmember de la Torre proposed an additional friendly
12.B.c
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: June 27, 2023 Parking Authority (6145 : Parking Authority Minutes) 7 June 27, 2023
amendment to dedicate $20,000 of the $85,000 to provide Brazilian Jiu Jitsu training for officers, and the remaining $65,000 would go to the Animal Shelters. The amendment was not considered friendly by the maker.
The motion, with amendments was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Authority/Councilmembers de la Torre, Torosis, Brock, Parra, Zwick, Chair/Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, Chair/Mayor Davis
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to adopt the staff recommendations 4 through 17 and 19, reading resolutions by title only and waiving further reading thereof.
Councilmember de la Torre proposed a friendly amendment to recommendation 17, the Homeless Strategic Plan to give direction to staff when they engage with the Barry Dunn Group that they look at ways to leverage municipal funds and partnerships to expand regional services ensuring other cities and jurisdictions do more to lessen the burden on the City of Santa Monica. The amendment was considered friendly by the maker and seconder.
The motion, with an amendment was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Zwick, Parra, Brock, Torosis, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, Mayor Davis
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Councilmember Torosis, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, to provide direction to staff on allocation of discretionary funds to include allocating funds for FY 2023/24 in the amount of $29,000 to BIDS Main Street Merchants, Montana Merchants and the Pico Improvement Organization and $15,000 to the Ocean Park Association for the 4th of July Parade.
The motion, with amendments was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Torosis, Brock, Parra, Zwick, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, Mayor Davis
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
12.B.c
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: June 27, 2023 Parking Authority (6145 : Parking Authority Minutes) 8 June 27, 2023
ADJOURNMENT: On order of the Chair, the special Parking Authority meeting was adjourned at 10:27 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Denise Anderson-Warren Gleam Davis
Agency Secretary Chair
12.B.c
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: June 27, 2023 Parking Authority (6145 : Parking Authority Minutes) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 25, 2024
Agenda Item: 14.A
1 of 19
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oscar Santiago, Director, Finance Department, Revenue Subject: Proposed Ballot Measures for the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a Resolution to place a measure on the November 5, 2024, General Municipal Election Ballot which modernizes the applicable sections of Article 6 Business Professions and Trades per prior Council direction (Attachment A);
2. Identify Council Members, if any, who wish to prepare arguments for or against the Business License Tax Modernization measure;
3. Adopt a Resolution to place a measure on the November 5, 2024, General Municipal Election Ballot to increase the City’s Parking Facility Tax rate by 8% and exempt City-owned lots and structures from the tax increase (Attachment B);
4. Identify Council Members, if any, who wish to prepare arguments for or against the Parking Facility Tax measure;
5. Review Council Compensation Comparison report and direct the City Attorney and City Manager to return to Council with additional information necessary for City Council to place a measure on the November 5, 2024, or future, General Municipal Election Ballot to amend the Santa Monica City Charter Section 602 to increase Council Member compensation; and
6. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
Summary
While Santa Monica’s economy continues to recover, the City also continues to navigate various challenges, ranging from economic uncertainty resulting from inflation and high interest rates, increased costs, the need to address deferred infrastructure and equipment maintenance, and contingent liabilities. This has hindered the City’s ability to expand services to levels that meet the community’s needs and expectations. It is in this
14.A
Packet Pg. 598
2 of 19
environment, that Council directed staff to evaluate two potential tax measures for the November 2024 ballot: Business License Tax Modernization and an increase to the Parking Facility Tax. Apart from the tax measures, Council has also raised the issue of the level of compensation provided to members of the Council, which could be addressed via a Charter Amendment on the 2024 ballot.
This report summarizes staff’s efforts to date and highlights key insights gathered from polls that were conducted to gauge sentiment around the two potential tax measures, as well as provides suggested ballot language should Council decide to place the tax measures on the ballot. Additionally, the report provides information requested by Council in consideration of placing a Charter Amendment on the ballot.
Discussion
Business License Tax Modernization
On April 9, 2024 (Attachment C), staff presented to Council a comprehensive review of the existing business license tax ordinance, the findings of that work, and a draft proposal to modernize the business license tax, including key changes intended to reduce barriers on small and local businesses while prioritizing equity and fairness in the process. Table 1 below summarizes the proposed tax changes that address deficiencies in the ordinance, including the number of businesses impacted, and the estimated revenue impact associated with the proposed changes.
Table 1 - Proposal presented to Council at its April 9, 2024 meeting Proposed Change Description # Of Businesses
Impacted
Revenue Impact
Range in Millions
Increase the Small Business Tax Exemption threshold from $40,000 to $100,000.
7,000-8,000 $(0.7) - $(0.8)
revenue decrease
Reduce Penalty Schedule maximum from 100% to 50% 200-300 $(0.2) revenue decrease
Remove the back tax calculation related to the application year on the first renewal submission
300-400 $(0.3) - $(0.4)
revenue decrease
Residential Rental 3 Unit or Less Rate Reduction from
$3.00/$1,000 to $1.25/$1,000
400-500 $(0.02)
revenue decrease
14.A
Packet Pg. 599
3 of 19
Proposed Change Description # Of Businesses
Impacted
Revenue Impact
Range in Millions
Rate Reduction from $1.25/$1,000 to $1.15/$1,000 for
Retailers/Restaurants generating under $5 Million in gross receipts annually
1,800-1,900 $(0.1) - $(0.12)
revenue decrease
Auto Dealers will pay business license tax on their total gross receipts at a rate of $1.25/$1,000 for sales and a rate of $3.00/$1,000 for the auto repair operations with no maximum tax
13-16 $0.9 - $1.3
revenue increase
Increase tax rate on Corporate/Administrative Headquarters from $1.25/$1,000 to $2.50/$1,000
110-120 $2.1 - $3.1
revenue increase
A processing fee initially set at 100% of the BL Unit's costs.
The fee would be approximately $40
22,000-23,000 $0.8 - $0.85
revenue increase
Estimated Revenue Impact Range $2.25 - $3.93
revenue increase
Council was in support of the changes presented and directed staff to 1) move forward with drafting a modernized business license tax ordinance, 2) consider a phased approach to the business license tax rate increases while remaining fiscally prudent, 3) consider potential business license tax incentives for businesses that require their employees to return to the Santa Monica offices and 4) to conduct a statistical survey of Santa Monica voters to gauge support for business license tax rate changes, should it be placed on the November 2024 ballot.
Changes to modernize the business license tax ordinance Along with the proposed business license tax rate changes, staff proposes revisions to Article 6 of the City’s Municipal Code to modernize the ordinance language. Table 2 below provides the material administrative changes required to the ordinance. The changes would make it easier for businesses to understand and comply with the business license program and simplify administration. Additionally, the changes would also remove inconsistencies in terminology, contradictory sections, clarify and modernize key definitions, eliminate provisions that are no longer applicable, and ensure that code sections that reference other sections align throughout. If the voters approve the proposed ballot measure, the updated ordinance language and the proposed rate changes would go into effect January 1, 2025.
14.A
Packet Pg. 600
4 of 19
Table 2 - Revisions to Article 6 of the City’s Municipal Code Municipal Code Section Content Change
6.04.005 Purpose • New section that provides the purpose of the applicable chapters
6.04.010 Definitions • Added definitions such as administrative regulations, assessments, business license tax, business license certificate. • Updated definitions for business, engaging in business, gross receipts, independent contractor
6.04.025 Exemptions • New section that centralizes all exemptions including the Gross Receipts Exemption of $100,000 or less (not to exceed $125,000 after CPI adjustments), nonprofit business exemption, community event exemption.
• Elimination of Civic Center and Civic Center parking structure exemption
6.04.045 through 6.04.046
Administrate Regulations and
Finance Director Authority
• New section that provides authority for administrative rules and regulations, provides the Finance Director with the ability to delegate his or her authority.
6.04.185 Statute of Limitations • New section that provides statute of limitations for the collection of delinquent business license taxes, penalties, applicable assessments, and fees
6.04.250 Apportionment • Clarify the apportionment guideline process
6.04.260 Revocation,
Suspension or Denial
• Clarify the City ability to revoke, suspend or deny a business license and any applicable regulatory permits.
All revisions are reflected in Attachment A.
Phased approach to business license tax rate increases
At the direction of Council, staff proposes a three-year phased approach to ease impacts of tax increases on affected businesses, while incrementally increasing business license tax revenue sufficiently to cover the tax reductions that are being proposed and continue to protect funding that supports essential services. The changes are related to the Auto Dealer Cap Removal and Service Repair Rate and the Corporate/Administrative Headquarters Rate, as reflected in Table 3.
Table 3 – Changes to proposal presented to Council at its April 9, 2024 meeting Proposed Change Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Auto Dealer Cap Removal
and Service Repair Rate
Remove Cap tax all
receipts at $1.25 per
$1,000
Same as 1st year Remove Cap add
service at $3.00
per $1,000
14.A
Packet Pg. 601
5 of 19
The impact of phasing-in the tax increases would result in a revised estimated revenue range between $1.1- $2.3 million in the first year, which would be approximately $1.2 - $1.6 million less than the original proposal. The full impact of the modernization estimated at $2.25-$3.9 million, as reflected in Table 1, would not be realized until year 3.
Return to Work Incentives
Council also directed staff to consider potential incentives, as part of this effort, that could be provided to businesses that require their employees to return to the Santa Monica offices. The incentives would seek to encourage businesses to increase the number of employees working in Santa Monica with the assumption that it would stimulate economic activity. There are a number of concerns and considerations associated with incorporating such incentives into the Business License Tax program, including:
• Business license tax incentives are not sufficient to offset reduced real estate costs from smaller office footprints and other savings realized through telework. • Many companies are still evaluating hybrid and telework practices and therefore their policies may evolve.
• This would introduce an inequity in the proposed tax structure as telework does not apply to all businesses.
• Business license tax is self-reporting and there is no current mechanism to track daily employee attendance. Attempts to create a tracking system would create additional administrative and compliance burdens for the City and taxpayers.
Consequently, staff recommends that to the extent any incentive program is implemented, it be done separate and apart from the proposed Business License Modernization.
Proposed Change Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Corporate/Administrative
Headquarters Rate Increase
Increase rate to
$2.00 per $1,000
Increase rate to
$2.25 per $1,000
Increase rate to
$2.50 per $1,000
14.A
Packet Pg. 602
6 of 19
Moreover, the City’s Economic Development Division (EDD) continues to encourage business development and offers extensive support to local businesses, including but not limited to:
• Buy Local Santa Monica, a free marketing program to help support all Santa Monica businesses and raise awareness of the associated economic, environmental and community benefits, established in 2010 in partnership with the City, Santa Monica Chamber, Santa Monica Travel + Tourism and the Business Improvement Districts. Over 1,500 Santa Monica businesses are actively involved.
• Close partnerships with regional, State and Federal Economic Development partners to help our businesses access support and resources including grants, loans, marketing, workforce development and business advisory services. • Assistance in accessing California Competes grants and tax credits, working closely with Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC) and GoBIZ which provide income tax credits to businesses that want to move, stay and expand in California. This funding has helped several of our larger SM businesses including SNAP, Headspace, GoodRX and more.
• The City has offered small business grants and fee waivers including 2.5 years of outdoor dining fee waivers during COVID, a COVID Small Business Relief Fund (utilizing Federal ARPA funds) and a new Small Business Economic Recovery Grant + Loan program that will be rolled out in FY2024/25, utilizing federal and local resources.
The City also offers a wide range of rebates and support to assist businesses with sustainability efforts and employee mobility programs including Green Business Certification and GOSAMO. Working closely with utility partners at Southern California Edison (SCE), the City helps businesses access support including SCE Savings by Design and energy efficiency programs, to help businesses reduce operating costs and achieve sustainable goals. In addition, a number of permitting and zoning changes were
14.A
Packet Pg. 603
7 of 19
implemented to help businesses open, expand and operate in Santa Monica. These changes have helped reduce cost and time enabling businesses to open quicker with less expenses.
Polling Results and Ballot Language
To gauge support and public sentiment of the Business License Tax Modernization for potential inclusion on the November 2024 ballot, the City conducted a statistically reliable community survey of Santa Monica voters. The survey was completed by 439 randomly selected Santa Monica voters between April 29th and May 7th and was conducted online and by phone. The survey results demonstrated that the proposed measure is viable with a solid majority in favor of the measures at 58%. Unlike bonds or special taxes, a simple majority of the electorate would be required for approval of this measure.
Staff recommends that the City continue community outreach and planning to place this measure on the November ballot. The recommended ballot language is as follows:
Santa Monica Business License Tax draft ballot language:
To fund essential city services such as 911 emergency response, public safety, and addressing homelessness, shall the measure modernizing the City of Santa Monica’s 1990 business license tax ordinance to improve tax equity and fairness, exempting small businesses from the tax, decreasing tax rates for most retailers and restaurants, raising the corporate headquarters rate to 0.25%, removing auto dealer tax exemptions, and restoring a business license processing fee, generating approximately $3,000,000 annually, until ended by voters, be adopted?
The proposed resolution (Attachment A) includes the recommended ballot language and measure language and authorizes designated City Council members to submit arguments and rebuttals concerning the measure. Finally, the resolution directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to the City Attorney and directs the City
14.A
Packet Pg. 604
8 of 19
Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the effects of the measure on the existing law as well as on the operation of the measure.
Arguments and rebuttals shall be submitted in accordance with State Elections Code Sections 9280-9287 and Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 11.04.125. The Elections Official will set the deadline for submitting arguments as 14 days from the date the election is called on the measure and the deadline for submitting rebuttals to arguments as 10 days after the deadline for submitting arguments on the measure, or the date fixed by the City Clerk, whichever date is later.
Parking Facilities Tax
On December 19, 2023, Council directed staff to evaluate the potential to place a General Tax with an Advisory Measure on the November 2024 ballot to increase the Parking Facility Tax (PFT) with the intent to use the funds generated to reduce traffic congestion and the risk of traffic fatalities and serious injuries in Santa Monica. As a result, staff completed a review of the tax assessed by other jurisdictions, has continued to engage the Coastal Commission on parking rate increases, completed a statistical survey of Santa Monica voters to gauge support for tax rate increase, and has developed proposed ballot language should Council decide to move forward with placing the tax measure on the November 2024 ballot.
Review of tax assessed by other jurisdictions
Most neighboring cities do not have a parking tax including Culver City, West Hollywood, and Beverly Hills. While some other cities use slightly different names for their parking tax, the following cities have parking taxes:
City Name % Tax Title of Tax
Los Angeles 10% Parking Occupancy Tax
Malibu 10% Parking Occupancy Tax
Burbank 12% Transient Parking Tax
Inglewood 10% Parking Tax
San Francisco 25% Parking Tax
14.A
Packet Pg. 605
9 of 19
Efforts to seek approval on rate increases from Coastal Commission Most City-operated parking lots and structures are within the Coastal-zone and require a coastal development permit from the Coastal Commission in order to pass any increased cost to customers. The current parking rates for City-operated parking lots and structures are inclusive of the City’s current 10% parking facilities tax. The Coastal Commission has taken the position that any further increases to the parking rates for City-operated parking lots in the Coastal-zone, including an increase resulting from a voter-approved parking facilities tax increase, will require a coastal development permit before higher City parking rates can be charged in the Coastal Zone. As such, if the proposed tax measure to increase the PFT rate is approved by the voters, staff proposes that the parking rates at all City-owned parking lots and structures remain at the existing rates via a partial exemption from the PFT increase, until the Coastal Commission approves higher overall parking rates. Additionally, the 30- and 90-minute grace periods with free parking at certain City-owned parking structures would not be affected by the parking facilities tax increase.
Staff continues to move forward with efforts to address requirements set forth by the California Coastal Commission for approval of potential future parking rate increases.
At its March 19, 2024 meeting, Council awarded a contract to Walker Parking Consultants/ Engineers to conduct a comprehensive and Citywide parking analysis to evaluate parking supply, demand, operation, management, parking rates, and best practices. In addition, the consultant will help the City with public outreach, public engagement, meeting requirements set forth by the California Coastal Commission, and all other miscellaneous tasks needed to complete the parking study. The consultant will also evaluate the impacts of the requests made by the Coastal Commission for approval of a coastal development permit. The City has not completed a comprehensive parking study in many years, and the last rate study was completed in 2012. Based on the results of the study, the City Council could decide to adjust parking rates and adjust for any approved PFT increase. As noted above, the Coastal Commission has taken the position that any increase to the parking rates in the Coastal-zone, whether related to a higher parking facilities tax rate and/or as supported by the parking study, would be
14.A
Packet Pg. 606
10 of 19
subject to the Coastal Commission’s approval before the higher rates can be passed on to customers.
Polling Results
To assess the feasibility of an increase of 10% to the Parking Facility Tax, the City conducted a statistically reliable community survey of Santa Monica voters. The survey was conducted in English and Spanish and completed by 507 randomly selected Santa Monica voters between March 21st and 26th and was conducted online and by phone.
The results of the March poll determined that the level of support for a 10% increase on the existing parking facilities tax was at 50% based on the ballot language tested.
Lessons learned from the poll results indicate that respondents perceive that a 10% parking facility tax increase as a hit to their wallets and that the ballot language as originally drafted, describing the potential uses of the funds generated, did not align with the areas of greatest urgency to Santa Monica voters.
Staff revised the ballot language based on lessons learned from the March 2024 poll, with the intent to conduct a second poll to gauge support before bringing the final results to Council. The ballot language was revised for the second poll, to lower the proposed tax increase to 8%, clarify that City-owned parking lots and structures (including downtown and the beach) would be exempt from the tax increase and that revenues generated from the tax would focus on areas that are most important to Santa Monica residents. Below is the revised language used in the second poll:
To maintain essential city services, including enhancing public safety, addressing homelessness, creating safe routes to schools, reducing fatal pedestrian and bike accidents, improving city streets and sidewalks, and maintaining clean and safe parks; shall the measure increasing the City of Santa Monica’s Parking Facility Tax by 8%, exempting parking at City-owned parking lots and structures (including downtown and the beach) from the tax increase, generating approximately $6,700,000 annually until ended by voters, with independent audits, be adopted?
14.A
Packet Pg. 607
11 of 19
This time the survey was completed by 350 randomly selected Santa Monica voters between May 15th and 22nd. While the results of the second poll were not statistically different than the March poll, it reinforced that to increase its probability of passing, the measure needs to clarify that there would not be an increase to the cost of parking at City-operated parking facilities and that the use of the funds would be focused on the areas that are most important to residents.
Proposed Ballot Language
Staff estimates that an 8% tax increase would generate approximately $6.7 million in additional annual General Fund revenues. The resolution to place the measure on the November 2024 general election ballot is included in the staff report.
If Council decides to move forward with placing the item on the ballot, the recommended ballot language is as follows:
Parking Facility Tax Increase
To maintain essential city services, including enhancing public safety, creating safe routes to school to protect children, and lowering the risk of fatal traffic accidents, shall the measure increasing the City of Santa Monica Parking Facility Tax by 8% for users including visitors and tourists, causing no additional cost in City-owned lots and structures (including downtown and the beach) because of a partial City exemption, generating approximately $6,700,000 annually until ended by voters, be adopted?
The proposed resolution (Attachment B) includes the recommended ballot language and measure language and authorizes designated City Council members to submit arguments and rebuttals concerning the measure. Finally, the resolution directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to the City Attorney and directs the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the effects of the measure on the existing law as well as on the operation of the measure.
14.A
Packet Pg. 608
12 of 19
Arguments and rebuttals shall be submitted in accordance with State Elections Code Sections 9280-9287 and Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 11.04.125. The Elections Official will set the deadline for submitting arguments as 14 days from the date the election is called on the measure and the deadline for submitting rebuttals to arguments as 10 days after the deadline for submitting arguments on the measure, or the date fixed by the City Clerk, whichever date is later.
If the measure is approved, the increase would go into effect on January 1, 2025.
City Council Compensation Survey
In 1998, voters approved Measure J, which increased Councilmembers’ compensation to $750 per month, set the Mayor’s compensation at $900 per month, included annual cost of living adjustments, and provided medical and other benefits similar to those received by City employees. This was the last time Santa Monica voters have been asked to consider increasing the compensation for the Mayor and City Council. Today, after automatically increasing the compensation limits each year equal to the increase in CPI as prescribed in 1998’s Measure J, the Mayor receives $1,837 per month or $22,044 per year and Councilmembers now receive $1,532 per month or $18,384 per year. In addition to this compensation, all seven members of the City Council receive $400 per month vehicle allowance and $50 for each Special Meeting attended. The $50 Special meeting is not paid if the special meeting runs concurrently with the regular meeting.
At the May 28, 2024 City Council meeting, the City Council directed the City Manager to conduct a survey of cities within the Westside Cities Council of Governments and other charter cities across the state with populations comparable to Santa Monica, comparing City Council compensation and benefits. Council’s intent is to assess whether the current compensation Councilmembers receive allows residents of varying income levels to serve on the City Council. After understanding how Santa Monica compares to other cities, the Council may consider placing an amendment to the City Charter on the ballot for the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election to allow Santa Monica voters to decide.
14.A
Packet Pg. 609
13 of 19
Staff selected 10 cities to study that were similar to Santa Monica’s resident population or a member of the Westside Cities Council of Governments (WCCOG). All cities studied are Charter Cities, which grants each City supreme authority over their city’s “municipal affairs” as defined by Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(a)., except for two: Beverly Hills and West Hollywood. These cities are general law cities and are bound by the state’s general law regardless of whether it is a municipal affair or not. The State of California grants general law cities the authority to set compensation for city councilmembers up to a specific limit shown in the table below but charter cities, as previously stated, have supreme authority over their municipal affairs and the voters ultimately determine the compensation.
State Imposed Limitations of Compensation for General Law Cities Up to 35,000 in population Up to and including $950/month Over 35,000 up to and including 50,000 in population Up to and including $1,275/month Over 50,000 up to and including 75,000 in population Up to and including $1,600/month Over 75,00 up to and including 150,000 in population Up to and including $1,600/month Over 150,000 up to and including 250,000 in population Up to and including $2,550/month Over 250,000 in population Up to and including $3,200/month Cal. Gov. Code § 36516 governs the compensation for general law cities.
The salary of council members may be increased beyond the amount provided in this subdivision by an ordinance or by an amendment to an ordinance, but the amount of the increase shall not exceed the greater of either of the following:
(A) An amount equal to 5 percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary in effect when the ordinance or amendment is enacted. (B) An amount equal to inflation since January 1, 2024, based upon the California Consumer Price Index, which shall not exceed 10 percent for each calendar year. (5) No ordinance shall be enacted or amended to provide automatic future increases in salary. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), at any municipal election, the question of whether city council members shall receive a salary for services, and the amount of that salary, may be submitted to the electors. If a majority of the electors voting at the election favor it, all of the council members shall receive the salary specified in the election call. The salary of council members may be increased beyond the amount provided in this section or decreased below the amount in the same manner.
14.A
Packet Pg. 610
14 of 19
Upon embarking on this survey, the City was provided a copy of a “City of Santa Cruz:
Council Compensation and Staffing Study” (Attachment G) which was finalized in May 2024. The City of Santa Cruz hired a local government consulting firm, Raftelis, to conduct a study and prepare a report doing a comparison of 8 cities to understand the compensation other cities were providing to their city council members and mayor. The City of Santa Monica was one of the cities they looked at in the study. In addition to the 10 cities selected, staff added the data from four cities available in the Santa Cruz report. These additional cities—Berkeley, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz—are highlighted in tan in Table 2, bringing the total to 14 cities reviewed.
The populations of these cities range from about 31,000 to 347,000, with seven cities having populations between 60,000 and 119,000. Santa Monica's population falls in the middle of this range. The cities selected also share some similarities with Santa Monica, such as having seven-member councils, appointed mayors, providing services for the homeless, significant tourism, and working closely with Santa Monica on regional transportation and homelessness issues. Additional data reviewed includes each city's median income and annual budget. Not every city meets all these criteria.
As shown in the table below, each city is unique in terms of population, median income, annual budget, full-time employees, council size, and how they select their mayor.
Overview of Cities
CITY
Approx
Population
2022
Median
Household
Income FY2024 Budget
Total
FY2024
FTEs
Council
Size
Directly
Elected
Mayor
Santa Monica 89,922 $106,797 750.6 million 2,101.4 7 No Anaheim 347,111 $88,538 2.1 billion 2,091.0 7 Yes
Berkeley 118,950 $104,716 726.0 million 1,793.8 9 Yes
Beverly Hills 30,974 $116,771 626.3 million 826.0 5 No
Burbank 102,755 $91,455 849.9 million 1,487.0 5 No
Culver City 39,041 $114,429 177.1 million 757.3 5 No
Huntington Beach 192,129 $114,747 508.0 million 7 No
14.A
Packet Pg. 611
15 of 19
Inglewood 102,991 $67,563 375.4 million >730 5 Yes
Newport Beach 82,637 $149,471 410.7 million 765.0 7 No
Pasadena 133,560 $97,818 1.24 billion 2,356.2 7 No
Redondo Beach 67,749 $134,033 153.8 million 440.0 6 Yes San Luis Obispo 48,341 $65,000 239.8 million 474.5 5 Yes Santa Barbara 86,499 $98,346 635.1 million 1,085.2 7 Yes Santa Cruz 61,501 $105,491 466.6 million 927.7 7 Yes
West Hollywood 34,349 $89,034 211.7 million 247.0 5 No
Data for Table 2 was compiled by reviewing each city’s most recently approved budget, utilizing the United States Census’s 2022 Population Estimates Program, the 2021 Five Year American Community Survey, and the City of Santa Cruz: Council Compensation and Staffing Study; Raftelis, May 2024.
The following table provides a comparison of the compensation for Mayors and Councilmembers of the reviewed cities based on data from the Raftelis report, the State Controller’s Office, and online research. All data is from October 2023 to June 2024.
Compensation includes salaries or stipends, often used interchangeably to describe regular payments to members of City Councils, Boards & Commissions, and vehicle, phone and office supply allowances. Staff did not find any cities where adding office supplies or phone allowances were necessary but those factors may have been added to data pulled from other reports. An example of this would be here in Santa Monica, the monthly compensation for Mayor is $1,837 and Councilmembers is $1,532 each, but also each receive a car allowance of $400 per month, which is reflected in Table 3 below. Not included in any of these figures are travel expense or mileage reimbursements or benefits such as health, dental, vision or even retirement credit as they vary from city to city but appear to all match benefits provided to the employees in that particular City.
14.A
Packet Pg. 612
16 of 19
Mayor and Council Salary Comparison
(Sorted from high to low based on Council Member compensation) CITY Mayor's Annual
Compensation
Mayor Monthly
Compensation
Councilmember
Annual
Compensation
Councilmember
Monthly
Compensation
Berkeley $133,100 $11,092 $83,853 $6,988
Inglewood $111,305 $9,275 $60,660 $5,055
Santa Barbara $75,110 $6,259 $60,088 $5,007
Anaheim $27,000 $2,250 $26,400 $2,200
San Luis Obispo $32,352 $2,696 $25,068 $2,089
Santa Monica $26,844 $2,237 $23,184 $1,932
Burbank $22,800 $1,900 $22,800 $1,900
Pasadena $32,934 $2,744 $21,958 $1,830
Huntington Beach $29,675 $2,473 $21,160 $1,763
Santa Cruz $41,048 $3,421 $20,524 $1,710
Redondo Beach $20,030 $1,669 $20,030 $1,669
Newport Beach $25,368 $2,114 $19,201 $1,600
West Hollywood $18,816 $1,568 $18,816 $1,568
Beverly Hills $9,430 $786 $9,430 $786
Culver City $5,821 $485 $5,821 $485
Based on the table above, there is a wide range of annual compensation levels for Councilmembers (excluding Mayors) from as high as $83,853 down to $5,821. While further research would be necessary to determine whether this theory holds up across the state, it appears that most cities from this limited research, generally follow the state’s limits imposed on general law cities, basing compensation on the population of the city. For those cities that decide not to follow the limits on general law cities, they tend to base their compensation levels in some way to the area median income levels – some matching compensation at 100% of area median income and others assigning compensation at 80% of median income of the local area, For those cities that base their compensation levels on area median income; they often differ in whether they use a 1-person or 3-person median income household. Table 4 below shows how each city, where information was available, determined their compensation levels.
14.A
Packet Pg. 613
17 of 19
Table 4: Method of Increases
CITY
Mayor's
Annual
Compensation
Councilmember
Annual
Compensation
Basis for Establishing Compensation Level
Berkeley $133,100 $83,853
Based on Alameda County median income for 3-person
household (Mayor 100%; Council 63% of Mayor’s
compensation)
Inglewood $111,305 $60,660
This compensation level was put into place in 2010 and
caused controversy and legal issues but ultimately
remained in place and has not increased since. It
should be noted that Inglewood is one of but a handful
of cities with a full time Mayor & Council.
Santa Barbara $75,110 $60,088 Based on the area median income of a 1-person household (Mayor 100%; Council 80%)
Anaheim $27,000 $26,400 See Footnote*
San Luis Obispo $32,352 $25,068
Unable to determine what the amount is based on but is
determined by a Council Compensation Committee that
evaluates Council compensation every two years.
Santa Monica $26,844 $23,184
Burbank $22,800 $22,800 Increases with General Law Cities Pasadena $32,934 $21,958
Unable to determine basis for the amount but is
determined by a Council Compensation Committee that
produces a report recommending compensation. City
Council has the option to act on recommendation or not
but can increase compensation up to the recommended
level by ordinance. Any increase above the level
recommended would require approval of voters.
Huntington Beach $29,675 $21,160 See Footnote*
Santa Cruz $41,048 $20,524 See Footnote*
Redondo Beach $20,030 $20,030 See Footnote*
Newport Beach $25,368 $19,201 See Footnote*
West Hollywood $18,816 $18,816 General Law City – limit determined by population Beverly Hills $9,430 $9,430
General Law City – limit determined by population.
Despite State authorization to increase to $1,275/month, Council has not increased
Culver City $5,821 $5,821
Established by Charter based on General Law
limitations but has never increase compensation since
becoming a Charter City.
[*] Established pursuant to city charter but unknown as to original basis for determining, likely was based on limits established by state for general law cities.
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
04/09/24
(Attachment C)
Business License Tax Modernization
5/25/93
(Attachment D)
Staff Report and Ordinance for Introduction and First
Reading Proposing a Parking Facility Tax
6/01/93 Staff Report and Ordinance 1683 Amending the Santa
14.A
Packet Pg. 614
18 of 19
Meeting Date Description
(Attachment E) Monica Municipal Code to Establish a Parking Facility Tax 2/28/95
(Attachment F)
Ordinance 1789 Modifying Due Dates for Report and Parking Facilities Tax Remittance
Environmental Review
The parking facility tax and Business License Tax modernization are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The proposal is covered by the common sense exemption which states that CEQA does not apply, “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” If enacted, the proposed tax measures would create revenue and promote equity for the City. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that actions would not result in adverse physical impacts on the environment, and as such, is categorically exempt from CEQA.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future as result of approved ballot measures. If voters approve the Business License Modernization measure staff estimates an increase of approximately $1.1 to $2.3 million in FY 2025-26, in the General Fund. If voters approve the Parking Facilities Tax measure, staff estimates an increase of approximately $6.7 million annual in the General Fund.
Prepared By: Stephanie Manglaras, Assistant City Treasurer Approved Forwarded to Council
14.A
Packet Pg. 615
19 of 19
Attachments:
A. Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution B. Attachment B - Parking Facility Tax - Ballot Resolution C. Attachment C - April 9, 2024 Staff Report
D. Attachment D - May 25, 1993 Staff Report for PFT Establishment E. Attachment E - June 1, 1993 Staff Report and Ordinance F. Attachment F - February 28, 1995 Ordinance Changing Reporting G. Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report H. Written Comments
I. PowerPoint Presentation
J. Photo
14.A
Packet Pg. 616
1 City Council Meeting: June 25, 2024 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _____ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA SUBMITTING TO THE VOTERS A MEASURE TO AMEND CHAPTERS 6.04, 6.08,
6.12, AND 6.16 OF THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO MODERNIZE THE CITY’S BUSINESS LICENSE TAX, INCREASING THE EXEMPTIONS FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES, RAISING THE CORPORATE ADMINISTRATIVE
HEADQUARTERS RATE TO .25%, REMOVING AUTO DEALER TAX
EXEMPTIONS, RESTORING A PROCESSING FEE, AND AUTHORIZING CITY
COUNCILMEMBERS TO FILE WRITTEN ARGUMENTS FOR OR AGAINST THE
MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF THE MEASURE
WHEREAS, the City imposes a business license tax on businesses operating within the City (the “Business License Tax”); and
WHEREAS, the Business License Tax is a general tax imposed for general revenue purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Business License Tax is imposed on a business’s gross receipts or the cost of operations depending on the business classification; and WHEREAS, among other things, Chapter 6.04 (Business Licenses), 6.08 (Business Classifications), 6.12 (Schedule of License Fees by Business Classifications and Tax Rate Group), and 6.16 (Appeals) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code relate to the City’s business license tax; and
WHEREAS, the Business License Tax has remained largely unchanged since it was last modified by Ordinance No. 1523 (CCS) on May 8, 1990; and WHEREAS, the number and types of businesses in Santa Monica have evolved, and continue to evolve, since the Business License Tax was amended in 1990; and
ATTACHMENT A
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 2 WHEREAS, the City seeks to support small businesses and microenterprises; and WHEREAS, the City desires to appropriately tax emerging business models; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to develop a taxing system that is competitive with neighboring jurisdictions with similar characteristics; and WHEREAS, the City conducted a survey of over 20,000 businesses about the City’s business license program and hosted virtual focus groups to discuss potential changes to the City’s Business License Tax; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to create a fair, equitable, and simple taxing system that attracts, retains, and encourages business in the City; and WHEREAS, many residents live in the City of Santa Monica because the City invests in community priorities, offers extensive services and programs that substantially enhance the quality of life of its residents; and
WHEREAS, an additional locally-controlled revenue source is needed to restore and enhance Santa Monica’s essential city services; and WHEREAS, increasing a small business exemption in the Business License Tax from $40,000 in annual worldwide receipts to $100,000 improves equity, supports developing businesses, and aligns with neighboring jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, reducing the City’s tax penalties relating to the Business License Tax aligns with other cities and promotes retaining existing businesses in the City; and WHEREAS, eliminating a back tax Business License Tax calculation promotes equity and simplifies compliance for new businesses in the City; and
ATTACHMENT A
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 3 WHEREAS, lowering the Business License Tax rate for small residential property owners with three or less rental units to match the business license tax rate applicable to property owners with more units promotes equity; and
WHEREAS, retailers and restaurant operators have experienced numerous challenges following the pandemic, including declining revenue and increased costs for labor and supplies; and
WHEREAS, reducing the Business License Tax rate from $1.25 to $1.15 per $1,000 for retailers and restaurants with annual gross receipts under $5,000,000 supports local retailers and restaurants and promotes economic recovery; and WHEREAS, since 1990, auto dealers have benefitted from a $25,000 annual cap on the City’s Business License Tax; and
WHEREAS, the auto dealer tax cap has not been increased since 1990; and WHEREAS, no other business tax based on gross receipts in the City enjoys a flat cap on the Business License Tax owed; and
WHEREAS, every auto dealer in the City reaches the $25,000 cap each year; and WHEREAS, neighboring cities do not have similar caps on auto dealers; and WHEREAS, removing the auto dealer tax cap promotes equity and fairness among businesses in the City; and
WHEREAS, removing the auto dealer tax cap allows auto dealers to be taxed on automobile repairs and other auto-related services at the rates generally applicable to these services; and
ATTACHMENT A
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 4 WHEREAS, the City’s corporate administrative headquarters business license tax is based on the cost of operations and the current rate is below neighboring jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, increasing the City’s corporate administrative headquarters tax aligns with other jurisdictions, while allowing the City to retain these type of businesses; and WHEREAS, the City previously charged a processing fee to review business license applications, renewals, and to issue business licenses; and WHEREAS, the City desires to reinstate a processing fee not to exceed $100 for general revenue purposes with the consent of the voters; and WHEREAS, the revenue from the proposed changes to the City’s Business License Tax are estimated to raise an additional $3,000,000 in general fund revenue that may be used to fund general governmental services, such as: addressing homelessness, public safety, mental health services and emergency response teams to address safety issues on City streets and parks, staffing of public libraries, after-school programs for public school children, traffic safety improvements around schools, including crossing guards; and
WHEREAS, under applicable law, the City Council of the City of Santa Monica must present a proposed increase to the Business License Tax to the electorate of the City of Santa Monica for adoption by majority vote of the electorate; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10403, the City Council has previously requested that the County of Los Angeles consent and agree to the consolidation of all aspects of a General Municipal Election with the Statewide General
ATTACHMENT A
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 5 Election scheduled for Tuesday, November 5, 2024, for the purpose of electing members of the Santa Monica City Council, the Santa Monica Rent Control Board, the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, and the Santa Monica College Community College District.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AND PROCLAIM AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. At the General Municipal Election called for November 5, 2024, the following measure shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the City of Santa Monica:
MEASURE " ":
To fund essential city services such as
911 emergency response, public safety,
and addressing homelessness, shall the
measure modernizing the City of Santa
Monica’s 1990 business license tax
ordinance to improve tax equity and
fairness, exempting small businesses
from the tax, decreasing tax rates for
most retailers and restaurants, raising
the corporate headquarters rate to
0.25%, removing auto dealer tax
exemptions, and restoring a business
license processing fee, generating
approximately $3,000,000 annually, until
ended by voters, be adopted?
YES ________
NO _________
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and with the county election department of the County of Los Angeles.
SECTION 3. The vote requirement for the measure to pass is a majority (50%
ATTACHMENT A
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 6 +1) of the votes cast.
SECTION 4. The City of Santa Monica recognizes that additional costs may be incurred by the County by reason of the addition of this measure to the ballot and agrees to reimburse the County for any additional costs.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall transmit to the City Attorney, in accordance with applicable law, a copy of the measure. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, which shall not exceed 500 words in length. The impartial analyses shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments. ln accordance with applicable law, not less than 10 calendar days before the City Clerk submits the official election materials for printing, the City Clerk shall make a copy of all applicable elections materials available for public examination in the City Clerk's office SECTION 6. The City Council authorizes its members, as follows, to file written arguments for or against the measure described above, which is contained in Exhibit 1 (Business License Tax Measure), which is incorporated by reference herein:
FOR:
AGAINST:
All written arguments filed by any person in favor of, or against the measure, including any rebuttal arguments, shall be accompanied by the names and signatures of the persons submitting the argument as required by applicable law, and any names, signatures and arguments may be filed until the time and date fixed by the City Clerk in accordance with applicable law, after which no change may be submitted to the City Clerk unless permitted by law.
SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall cause the text of the measure, which is contained
ATTACHMENT A
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 7 in Exhibit 1 (Business License Tax Measure), together with the City Attorney impartial analyses, and any arguments for or against the measure, as well as any rebuttal, to be mailed to all qualified voters with the sample ballot. In addition to other notices and publications required by law, the City Clerk, not less than forty (40) days and not more than sixty (60) days before the General Municipal Election, shall cause the text of the measure to be published once in the official newspaper and in each edition thereof during the day of publication. The City Clerk is authorized to give such notices and to fix such times and dates as are required by law or which are appropriate to properly conduct the election.
SECTION 8. The provisions of Resolution Numbers 11591 and 11592 are referred to and incorporated into this resolution for more particulars concerning the conduct of the General Municipal Election to be held on November 5, 2024, and in all respects the election shall be held and conducted as provided for by applicable law. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to procure and furnish any official ballots, notices, printed materials and all supplies or equipment that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election.
SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
DOUGLAS T. SLOAN, City Attorney
Exhibit 1 – Text of Business License Tax Measure
ATTACHMENT A
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 1 Exhibit 1 – Business License Tax Measure
WHEREAS, this measure shall be known as the “Business License Tax Modernization Measure” (“Measure”); and
WHEREAS, the City imposes a business license tax on businesses operating within the City (the “Business License Tax”); and
WHEREAS, the Business License Tax is a general tax imposed for general revenue purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Business License Tax is imposed on a business’s gross receipts or the cost of operations depending on the business classification; and WHEREAS, among other things, Chapter 6.04 (Business Licenses), 6.08 (Business Classifications), 6.12 (Schedule of License Fees by Business Classifications and Tax Rate Group), and 6.16 (Appeals) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code relate to the City’s business license tax; and
WHEREAS, the Business License Tax has remained largely unchanged since it was last modified by Ordinance No. 1523 (CCS) on May 8, 1990; and WHEREAS, the number and types of businesses in Santa Monica have evolved, and continue to evolve, since the Business License Tax was amended in 1990; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to support small businesses and microenterprises; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to appropriately tax emerging business models; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to develop a taxing system that is competitive with neighboring jurisdictions with similar characteristics; and
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 2 WHEREAS, the City conducted a survey of over 20,000 businesses about the City’s business license program and hosted virtual focus groups to discuss potential changes to the City’s Business License Tax; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to create a fair, equitable, and simple taxing system that attracts, retains, and encourages business in the City; and WHEREAS, many residents live in the City of Santa Monica because the City invests in community priorities, offers extensive services and programs that substantially enhance the quality of life of its residents; and
WHEREAS, an additional locally-controlled revenue source is needed to restore and enhance Santa Monica’s essential city services; and WHEREAS, increasing a small business exemption in the Business License Tax from $40,000 in annual worldwide receipts to $100,000 improves equity, supports developing businesses, and aligns with neighboring jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, reducing the City’s tax penalties relating to the Business License Tax aligns with other cities and promotes retaining existing businesses in the City; and WHEREAS, eliminating a back tax Business License Tax calculation promotes equity and simplifies compliance for new businesses in the City; and WHEREAS, lowering the Business License Tax rate for small residential property owners with three or less rental units to match the business license tax rate applicable to property owners with more units promotes equity; and WHEREAS, retailers and restaurant operators have experienced numerous challenges following the pandemic, including declining revenue and increased costs for labor and supplies; and
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 3 WHEREAS, reducing the Business License Tax rate from $1.25 to $1.15 per $1,000 for retailers and restaurants with annual gross receipts under $5,000,000 supports local retailers and restaurants and promotes economic recovery; and WHEREAS, since 1990, auto dealers have benefitted from a $25,000 annual cap on the City’s Business License Tax; and
WHEREAS, the auto dealer tax cap has not been increased since 1990; and WHEREAS, no other business tax based on gross receipts in the City enjoys a flat cap on the Business License Tax owed; and
WHEREAS, every auto dealer in the City reaches the $25,000 cap each year; and
WHEREAS, neighboring cities do not have similar caps on auto dealers; and WHEREAS, removing the auto dealer tax cap promotes equity and fairness among businesses in the City; and
WHEREAS, removing the auto dealer tax cap allows auto dealers to be taxed on automobile repairs and other auto-related services at the rates generally applicable to these services; and
WHEREAS, the City’s corporate administrative headquarters business license tax is based on the cost of operations and the current rate is below neighboring jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, increasing the City’s corporate administrative headquarters tax aligns with other jurisdictions, while allowing the City to retain these type of businesses; and
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 4 WHEREAS, the City previously charged a processing fee to review business license applications, renewals, and to issue business licenses; and WHEREAS, the City desires to reinstate a processing fee not to exceed $100 for general revenue purposes with the consent of the voters; and WHEREAS, the revenue from the proposed changes to the City’s Business License Tax are estimated to raise an additional $3,000,000 in general fund revenue that may be used to fund general governmental services, such as: addressing homelessness, public safety, mental health services and emergency response teams to address safety issues on City streets and parks, staffing of public libraries, after-school programs for public school children, traffic safety improvements around schools, including crossing guards.
NOW, THEREFORE:
SECTION 1. As of January 1, 2025 (the “Effective Date”), Chapter 6.04 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is amended to read as follows (new language underlined, proposed deletions in strikethrough):
Chapter 6.04 BUSINESS LICENSES
§ 6.04.005 Purpose
The purpose of Article 6 is to identify businesses, trades and professions conducted and carried on in the City of Santa Monica that require local regulation in order to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare of Santa Monica and its citizens. In addition to the imposition of business license taxes that support general fund services, this article sets forth the specific standards and criteria under which such businesses, trades and professions shall be conducted and regulated within the City
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 5 and, as to those businesses, trades and professions for which a business license certificate is required hereunder, to set forth the procedures and conditions for applying for such a license. Additionally, the purpose of Article 6 is to protect the health, safety, and welfare by:
(a) Providing a method of monitoring all businesses operating within the City; (b) Providing adequate information regarding the ownership and operation of businesses within city limits and facilitating contact between the City and those businesses;
(c) Regulating the operation of certain enumerated businesses to ensure that their operation does not adversely affect the general welfare; (d) Providing for a healthy and stable business community; (e) Collecting statistical information regarding businesses within the City; and (f) Monitoring tax registration and compliance.
§ 6.04.010 Definitions.
The following words or phrases as used in this Article shall have the following meanings:
(a) “Administrative Regulations” means written administrative regulations and instructions that are consistent with and further the terms and requirements set forth within this Chapter.
(b) “Assessments” means business improvement district assessments that are established by resolution and are assessed typically in conjunction with business license taxes.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 6 (c) “Business” means any Any business, commercial enterprise, trade, calling, vocation, profession, occupation, or means of livelihood, whether or not carried on for gain or profit. “Business” shall include operations of any Related Entity or independent entity conducted for the benefit of others and at no profit to themselves, nonprofit businesses, and trade associations.
(d) “Business License Tax” means the tax imposed pursuant to Chapters 6.04,
6.08, and 6.12 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code for the privilege of engaging in a business or occupation in the City. The Business License Tax is a general tax imposed for general governmental purposes.
(e) “Business License Certificate” means a document issued by the City which signifies that the person or entity named on the face of the certificate has fulfilled the requirements of the Santa Monica Municipal Code by registering with the Department of Finance for the purpose of paying business license tax for the classification of business for which the certificate is issued. This document is also a written authorization issued by the City allowing the business to engage in a specific business activity subject to all Required Regulatory Approvals for that business activity. (f) “Business License Certificate Exemption” means businesses that are exempt from procuring a business license certificate under this Chapter. (g) “Business License Tax Exemption” means business activities that the City has exempted under section 6.04.025 or business activities that the City is prohibited from taxing under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or under the Constitution or laws of the State of California.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 7 (h) “Corporate or Administrative Headquarters” means a location that provides administrative or management-related services including, but not limited to, record keeping, data processing, research, public relations, personnel administration, and legal support to other location of the business. Businesses that are in research and development or otherwise providing a service to another location of the business or that are primarily funded by investment money or loans rather than by gross receipts are also classified as an “Corporate or Administrative Headquarters”. (i) “City” means the City of Santa Monica.
(j) “Engaged in Business” means conducting, operating, managing, or carrying on of a business, whether done as owner, or by means of an officer, agent, manager, related entity or employee. A person or entity shall be deemed engaged in business within the City if such entity officer, agent, manager, or employee, among other things:
(1) maintains a fixed place of business within the City for the benefit or partial benefit of such person, or
(2) owns or leases real property within the City for business purposes, or
(3) maintains a stock of tangible personal property in the City for sale in the ordinary course of business, or
(4) conducts solicitation of business or advertises within the City, or (5) performs work or renders services in the City, or
(6) utilizes the streets within the City in connection with the operation of motor vehicles for business purposes, or
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 8 (7) any other evidence of transacting or carrying on business. “Engaged in business” shall be construed as broadly as possible. The foregoing specified activities are non-exhaustive and shall not be construed as a limitation on the meaning of “engaged in business”. Evidence of doing business. “Evidence of doing business” shall include, but not be limited to, a person's or entity's use of signs, circulars, cards, telephone books, newspapers, or trade publications to advertise, hold out or represent that such person or entity is in business in the City, or when any person or entity holds an active license or permit issued by a governmental agency indicating that such person or entity is in business within the City, or when any person or entity gives other evidence of transacting and carrying on business, and such person fails to deny in a sworn statement given to the Director of Finance that such person or entity is not “engaged in business” within the City, after being requested to do so by the Director of Finance, then these facts shall be considered prima facie evidence that such person or entity is conducting a business in the City.
(k) “Fees” means applicable fees that are collected in conjunction with the Business License Tax.
(l) “Gross receipts”:
Unless a different meaning is specifically defined, “gross receipts” shall include:
(1) “Gross receipts” includes”:
(i) The total amount of the sale price of all sales, the total amount charged or received for the performance of any act, service, or employment of whatever nature it may be, whether such service, act, or employment is done as part of or in connection with the sale of goods,
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 9 wares, merchandise or not, for which a charge is made or credit allowed, including, without limitation, all receipts, cash, credits, forfeited or retained deposits of any kind or nature, and property of any kind or nature, in any amount for which credit is allowed by the seller to the purchaser without any deduction therefrom on account of the cost of the property sold, the cost of the materials used, labor or service costs, interest paid or payable, losses or any other expense whatsoever. (ii) The amount of any Federal manufacturers’ or importers’ excise tax included in the price of property sold, even though the manufacturer or importer is also the retailer thereof and whether or not the amount of such tax is stated as a separate charge. (ii) Cost of Operations. For corporate or administrative headquarters, all annual expenses incurred in the operation of the corporate or administrative headquarters located in the City including without limitation all payroll, including all benefits, for employees based in the City, annual fair rent value of all real property in the City, and cost of all utilities for the operation of such corporate or administrative headquarters. (iii) In connection with a person leasing, subleasing, or renting property, all amounts paid by a tenant or subtenant to a lessor or sublessee for the services performed, or materials used, or utilities or facilities furnished by the lessor or sublessor on the premises or in connection with the tenant's or subtenant's use, possession, or the right to possess the property, including, but not limited to, income from laundry facilities on the property; any receipts paid by a tenant or subtenant to a
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 10 lessor or sublessor for the use or possession of land, or the right to use or possess land other than that upon which the building or structure is located but which is used or possessed or is available for use or possession by a tenant or subtenant for purposes related to the tenancy, all amounts paid as prepaid rent, and all amounts paid by a tenant or subtenant for the rental of any furniture, equipment, fixtures, garage, or storage space.
(iv) Receipts of any person received as commissions or fees earned, or charges of any character made or compensation of any character received, for the performance of any service by said person or any of said person's employees and receipt of any person received as partial or full compensation or reimbursement for salaries, payroll taxes, fringe benefits, and any and all similar expenses for persons who are employees of said person and receipts of any person received as partial or full compensation or reimbursement for equipment, supplies, utilities, or other items or services acquired by said person in that person's name and used or consumed in the performance of services.
(2) “Gross Receipts” shall not include:
(i) The amount of any Federal tax imposed on or with respect to retail sales whether imposed upon the retailer or upon the consumer and regardless of whether or not the amount of Federal tax is stated to customers as a separate charge.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 11 (ii) Any California State, city, or city and county sales or use tax required by law to be included in or added to the purchase price and collected from the consumer or purchaser.
(iii) Such part of the sales price of any property previously sold and returned by the purchaser to the seller which is refunded by the seller by way of cash or credit allowances given or taken as part payment on any property so accepted for resale.
(iv) Any refundable deposit which is returned to the depositor. (v) That portion of the receipts of a general building contractor licensed under Section 6.08.060 or 6.08.070, which represents payments to subcontractors, provided such subcontractors are licensed under the provisions of this Chapter and that the general contractor furnishes the Director of Finance with the names and addresses of the subcontractors and the amounts paid to each subcontractor.
(vi) Bad debts taken from gross receipts reported during a prior tax year in accordance with generally acceptable accounting practices. (vii) Anything which the City of Santa Monica may not lawfully include by virtue of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of California.
(viii) Fees for actual costs of governmental requirements (e.g., inspections, plan checks, etc.) paid by a licensee on behalf of a third party.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 12 (ix) Collections for others when the business is acting as an agent, broker, or trustee to the extent that payments are made to those for whom collected.
(m) “Independent contractor” shall have the same meaning as set forth in California Labor Code sections 3353 and 2775, as may be amended from time to time.
Any natural person other than a State licensed building trades contractor, who is engaged to aid in the business of any other person, whether as a professional as defined hereinafter, or whether pursuant to any license, certificate, or registration authorized by the California Business and Professions Code, as the same now exists or as hereafter amended, or whether with regard to any other trade, skill or occupation, and who receives remuneration either through commission, or pursuant to any contract of employment which excludes regular wages or salary, or in any other manner other (n) “Newly Established Business” means a business which was not engaged in business in the City during the immediately preceding business license tax period specified for that kind of business.
(o) “Operate” means to manage, Manage, control or carry on, whether done as an owner, an agent, an employee, or a lessee, or a licensee. (p) “Regulatory Permit” means an annual regulatory permit for the privilege of conducting specific types of business within the City as provided by other chapters of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.
(q) “Related Entity” means a parent, subsidiary and any business, corporation, partnership, limited liability company or other entity in which the company, a parent or a subsidiary holds a substantial ownership interest, directly or indirectly.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 13 (r) “Required Regulatory Approvals” means any required regulatory approval, including, without limitation, the issuance of any license agreement, permit, or any other authorization required by the Santa Monica Municipal Code, state law, or federal law. § 6.04.020 Business License Certificate required.
It shall be unlawful for any person, whether as principal or agent, clerk or employee, either for him or herself or for any other person, or for any body corporate, or as an officer of any corporation, or otherwise, to operate in the City of Santa Monica any business specified in this Code and as herein defined, whether or not such business is carried on for gain or profit, without first having paid the required business license tax and having procured a business license certificate and obtained all Required Regulatory Approvals. from said City so to do and without complying with all other applicable regulatory ordinances now existing or hereafter adopted by the City Council, and without obtaining the permit, certificate of compliance, or other instrument required under the provisions of this Code and complying with all regulations covering such business herein contained; and the carrying on of any business not specifically exempted by law without first having complied with the provisions of this Code shall constitute a separate violation thereof for each and every day that such business is so carried on.
§ 6.04.025 Small business exemption Exemptions.
The provisions of this chapter shall not be deemed or construed to apply to any person transacting and carrying on any business exempt by virtue of the Constitution or applicable statutes of the United States, or of the State of California, or local law, from the payment of such taxes as are prescribed in this chapter. Any person claiming an
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 14 exemption pursuant to the provisions of this section shall file a sworn statement with the Finance Department stating the facts upon which an exemption is claimed, and in the absence of such statement substantiating the claim, such person shall be liable for the payment of the business license taxes imposed by this chapter. (a) World-Wide Gross Receipts of $100,000 or less. The requirements of this Chapter relating to the payment of business license taxes shall not apply to the operator of any small a business if the business operates from a physical location operating within the City and the tax liability of the business would otherwise be calculated based upon gross receipts.
(1)(b) For purposes of this Section, the term "small business" is defined as a business with total taxable and nontaxable annual gross receipts from within and without the City during the preceding calendar year that do not exceed forty one hundred thousand dollars may claim this exemption. Effective July 1, 2026, and every July 1st thereafter, the exemption limit shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (All Urban Consumers) issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor for the Los Angeles, California, area (or any successor to that index) during the preceding calendar year. The maximum annual exemption shall not exceed one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars ($125,000) without City Council approval
(2)(c) Any person claiming exemption from the requirement of paying the business license tax under this Section shall be required to obtain a business license certificate and timely file for exemption and subsequent renewals before
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 15 the delinquency date. The failure to timely file or renew prior to the date the taxes would otherwise have been delinquent pursuant to Section 6.04.160, shall render inapplicable the exemption provided in subsection (b) of this section and shall subject the person to the tax that would otherwise be payable as well as to any interest and penalty applicable thereto. Persons claiming exemption shall also be required to pay the business license fee any applicable assessments, renewal processing fee, all other applicable City fees, and to obtain all permits required for the operation of the business.
(3)(d) Any person claiming exemption under this Section shall submit documentation evidencing the total taxable and nontaxable gross receipts of the applicant in support of its initial exemption registration and the annual exemption renewal. Such documentation shall comply with the requirements established by the Finance Director to ensure the accuracy and validity of the City's determination on the exemption claim.
(b) Disabled persons, exemption. A person who is disabled within the meaning of any Federal or State law may request and be issued a certificate of exemption from the payment of the business license tax for any retail, manufacturing, or wholesaling business in which he or she is engaged if the gross receipts of the business are less than one hundred thousand dollars. Effective July 1, 2026, and every July 1st thereafter, the exemption limit referenced above in paragraph (b) shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (All Urban Consumers) issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor for the Los Angeles, California, area (or any successor to that index) during the preceding calendar
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 16 year. The maximum annual exemption in this section shall not exceed one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars ($125,000) without City Council approval. (c) Nonprofit business Exemption. The provisions of this Chapter shall not require the payment of business license taxes to carry on any business, by any nonprofit corporation or organization which is carried on wholly for the benefit of nonprofit purposes and from which profit is not derived, either directly or indirectly by any person.
(1) Definition of Nonprofit Corporation or Organization. For purposes of this Section, a nonprofit organization is defined as one which is organized not for profit but for the promotion of the welfare of others. A nonprofit corporation is defined as any nonprofit corporation organized under California law for charitable purposes. A nonprofit organization or corporation is one which is exempt from paying Federal income tax by virtue of its nonprofit status. (2) Evidence of Nonprofit Status. Upon request of the Director of Finance, a corporation or organization claiming exemption from the business license fee tax based upon its nonprofit status shall submit documentation satisfactory to City, evidencing the nonprofit status of the organization or corporation.
§ 6.04.026 Business License Certificate Exemptions
The following activities shall be exempt from the business license certificate requirement under this Chapter:
§ 6.04.027
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 17 (a) Community event exemption. Any approved participant, including vendors, in any community event authorized by the City shall not be required to obtain a business license certificate or pay business license taxes solely due to participation in the community event. An approved participant otherwise subject to the requirements of this Chapter shall not exclude any gross receipts attributable to participation in the community event in total gross receipts calculations as required by this Article. (b) No business license certificate or payment of business license tax shall be required for the conducting of any entertainment, concert, exhibition, or lecture on scientific, historical, literary, religious, political, or moral subjects whenever the receipts of any such entertainment, concert, exhibition or lecture are to be appropriated entirely to any nonprofit purpose.
(c) Any business that is exempt from procuring a business license certificate and paying business license tax provided in applicable statutes of the Unites States, the federal or state Constitution, the State of California Civil Code, other state law, or local law.
(d) Upon request of the Director of Finance, a corporation or organization claiming exemption from the business license certificate requirement shall submit documentation satisfactory to City, evidencing the nonprofit status of the organization or corporation. The Director of Finance, or designee, may promulgate administrative regulations to implement the provision of this section. § 6.04.030. Business License Processing Fee
Business license applicants and annual renewals shall pay a fee for processing business license applications and annual renewals. The initial amount of this fee shall
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 18 be forty dollars ($40). The City Council may increase this fee by resolution up to a maximum one hundred dollars ($100).
§ 6.04.040 Issuance of business licenses certificates.
(a) Director of Finance to Issue Business License Certificates. The business licenses certificates required by this Code shall be issued by the Director of Finance and shall state therein the amount thereof, the period of time covered thereby, the name of the person to whom issued, the business licensed and the location or place of business where such business is to be carried on.
(b) Prohibition on Assignment or Transfer. No business license certificate may be granted or issued under provisions of this Code shall be in any manner transferred or assigned. If a person or entity that holds a City business license certificate loans or otherwise allows such City business license certificate to be used by a nonlicensed person or entity, such City business license certificate shall automatically be revoked.
(c) Duplicate Business License Certificate, Permits and Decals. The Director of Finance shall make a charge a fee set by resolution of ten dollars for each duplicate business license certificate, regulatory permit and/or decal issued under the provisions of this Code which has been lost or destroyed. (d) Mistake Not Binding on City. In no case shall any mistake made by the Director of Finance in stating the amount of a business license tax owed prevent or prejudice the collection by the City of the amount actually due from any licensee.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 19 (e) City Clerk References. Whenever in this Article the City Clerk is charged with the responsibility of processing, issuing, or administering a license or permit, the reference to the City Clerk shall be deemed a reference to the Director of Finance. § 6.04.045. Administrative Rules and Regulations
The Director of Finance, or designee, may issue administrative rules and regulations, determinations, and interpretations consistent with Chapters 6.04, 6.08, and
6.12 as may be necessary or appropriate, including without limitation, rules and regulations for the purpose of carrying out and enforcing the payment, collection, remittance of business license taxes, or the conditions or operations of any rules and regulations promulgated by this section. Failure or refusal to comply with any rules and regulations promulgated under this section shall be deemed a violation of the applicable Chapter.
§ 6.04.046. Authority of the Finance Director
The Director of Finance may delegate any authority under this chapter to: (1) any City employee; or (2) any contractor or agent engaged by the City for the purpose of administering the Business License Tax.
§ 6.04.050 Payment of Business license taxes, applicable fees and assessments. (a) All license fees applicable business license tax, fees, and assessments shall be paid in advance in legal money of the United States, at the office of the Director of Finance.
(b) A charge of ten dollars established by resolution shall be assessed for any check, ACH, electronic payment or echeck return due to lack of sufficient funds.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 20 Penalties shall also be assessed pursuant to Section 6.04.160 hereof, unless a new check clears prior to the delinquent date.
§ 6.04.055. Relation to Other Licenses and Required Regulatory Approvals The issuance of a business license certificate or the payment of the applicable business license tax, assessments, and fees for conducting any business shall not relieve any such business from any other Required Regulatory Approval. At all times, a business in receipt of a business license certificate remains subject to the Santa Monica Municipal Code, as may be amended from time to time, and all appliable Required Regulatory Approvals. Revocation, suspension, or denial of any Required Regulatory Approvals may result in the revocation, suspension, or denial of a business license certificate.
§ 6.04.060 Separate business license certificate for each place of business.
Except as otherwise provided in Section 6.08.050 (pertaining to auto dealers), a Except when a business is physically contiguous, a separate business license certificate must be obtained for each branch establishment or separate place of business in which business is conducted. Each license shall authorize the party obtaining it to operate only that business described in such license and only at the location or place of business which is indicated thereby.
§ 6.04.070 Separate business license certificate for each type of business activity.
A separate business license certificate is required for each business activity which comes within any of the business classifications described in Chapter 6.08 of this Article 6.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 21 § 6.04.080 Contractor engaged in business.
(a) Any person holding a California State license shall be considered a contractor and must secure his or her City license.
(b) Any general building contractor or subcontractor holding a contract with the City must secure a City license.
(c) Any person holding a State of California contractor's license will be deemed to be engaged in business if he or she is engaged within the City in work covered by his or her State license and must obtain a City business license, unless he or she is employed by another person who holds the same type of State license and a City business license.
§ 6.04.090 Builder-owners.
This Section applies to persons who build upon property in which they have an ownership interest. Every person who makes an application for a building permit as a builder-owner must file an affidavit that all workers under his or her supervision and direction are employed by the hour, or day, and do not hold a State of California license. § 6.04.100 Requirements for business license certificates City licensing requirements for contractors or owner-builders.
Prior to requesting final approval of any building or project, it shall be the duty of the general contractor or owner-builder to fill out and return the form to be provided by the Building Department listing the names and addresses of all subcontractors or specialty contractors performing work or services upon said structure or project. It shall be the duty of the general building contractor or owner-builder at the time he or she makes any subcontract (written or oral) for the performance of any work by a subcontractor or specialty contractor, and which is to be performed within the City, to
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 22 see that such subcontractor or specialty contractor has obtained the required contractor’s business license certificate City license from the City and he or she shall not permit any such contractor to perform any of the work contemplated in any such subcontract (written or oral) unless and until such required contractor's business license certificate has been first obtained. Final approval for such building shall not be given until all subcontractors or specialty contractors have obtained all necessary business license certificates. City licenses.
§ 6.04.110 Term of business license certificate.
(a) Every daily business license certificate shall expire at midnight on the day during which it was issued.
(b) Every monthly business license certificate shall expire at midnight of the last day of the month during which it was issued.
(c) Every annual business license certificate, whether based on gross receipts, cost of operations or a flat rate, shall expire at midnight on the June 30th next succeeding its issuance unless specified otherwise in this Code. § 6.04.120 Portion of business license certificate period, no proration.
The business license fee tax, applicable assessments and fees for any daily, monthly, or annual business license, or any business license based upon gross receipts, cost of operations or flat fees shall not be reduced or prorated even though a portion of the license period has expired at the time the business license certificate is issued.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 23 § 6.04.130 Reserved.
Bond requirement.
In the event a bond is required, no license shall be issued until said bond has been filed with the Director of Finance.
§ 6.04.140 Determination of date payment made.
(a) The payment of a business license fee taxes, applicable fees and assessments made in person by the licensee or licensee's agent or representative shall be made on or prior to close of City business hours, and will be clocked in as received at the date of delivery, if such personal delivery is made prior to close of City business hours.
(b) If payment is made by United States mail, the payment date will be the: (1) date of cancellation by the United States Postal Service, as reflected on the envelope which contains the payment; or (2) date of receipt by the City for any payment mailed in an envelope which has used a postal meter.
(c) Payments received online, via wire, credit card, or ACH, the payment date shall be the posting date provided by the City’s bank or the payment processor. § 6.04.150 Business License Certificate Renewals.
(a) No renewal of a business license certificate shall be issued until payment in full of all delinquent business license taxes, applicable fees and assessments including accrued interest and applicable penalties thereon is received by City. (b) If a partial payment is made or if a taxpayer owes payment for prior fiscal years, the partial payment will be accepted and applied to the oldest year. The difference between the amount paid by the taxpayer and the total amount due shall be
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 24 treated as a delinquent tax and shall be subject to penalties as set for in Section
6.04.160
(c) It shall be the responsibility of each business licensee to obtain and pay for renewal business license renewal regardless of whether or not such licensee has received a renewal notice from the City. Any failure to receive such notice shall not affect the applicability of penalties for nonpayment or late payment set forth in Section
6.04.160.
(d) All Required Regulatory Approvals must be met prior to the issuance of a business license certificate renewal.
§ 6.04.160 Penalties for late payment and nonpayment.
A penalty of twenty percent of the business license fee taxes and applicable assessments due, in addition to the amount of such license fee, shall be levied on all licensees who fail to pay their yearly annual business license certificate renewal prior to September 1st (“delinquent date”) and on all new businesses operating in the City who fail to secure a business license within thirty days after opening for business. An additional penalty of ten percent of original unpaid business license taxes and applicable assessments license fee due shall be added for each month or portion thereof that said license fee business license taxes and applicable assessments remains unpaid after the delinquent date. In no case, however, shall the penalty exceed one hundred fifty percent (50%) of the original unpaid business license taxes and applicable assessments license fee due.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 25 § 6.04.170 Waiver or refund of penalty and payment plans.
The Director of Finance, or designee, shall have the authority to settle tax, fee or other accounts payable disputes by reducing or waiving amounts due or establishing payment plans, if such payment plans, reduction or waiver serves to promote the City’s fiscal welfare by expeditious payment, enhancing revenue, or otherwise. The Director of Finance, or designee, may promulgate administrative regulations to implement this section.
(a) No penalty assessed pursuant to Section 6.04.160 shall be waived or refunded except as provided for in this Section.
(b) The City Manager or designee may waive or refund a penalty assessed pursuant to this Section upon receiving satisfactory proof that the licensee mailed the business license payment prior to September 1st of the year in which it was due and that the failure of the payment to be postmarked prior to September 1st of the year in which it was due or delivered was based upon operational problems caused by the United States Postal Service.
(c) Satisfactory proof must include documentation from the United States Postal Service that unusual operational problems or natural disasters occurred that created the possibility that the postmark was delayed or the mail lost. In addition, the City Manager may require such other documentation as is necessary to verify the claim, such as bank, checking, and other accounting records that might corroborate the claim that payment was timely deposited in the mail.
(d) No interest shall be paid on any money refunded pursuant to this Section.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 26 (e) The decision of the City Manager shall be final and not subject to additional hearing or review.
§ 6.04.180 Disabled persons, exemption.
A person who is disabled within the meaning of any Federal or State law may request and be issued a certificate of exemption from the payment of the business license fee for any retail, manufacturing, or wholesaling business in which he or she is engaged if the gross receipts of the business are less than sixty thousand dollars. § 6.04.190 Nonprofit business.
(a) Exemption. The provisions of this Chapter shall not require the payment of a license to carry on any business, or require the payment of any license, from any nonprofit corporation or organization which is carried on wholly for the benefit of nonprofit purposes and from which profit is not derived, either directly or indirectly by any person. No license shall be required for the conducting of any entertainment, concert, exhibition, or lecture on scientific, historical, literary, religious, political, or moral subjects whenever the receipts of any such entertainment, concert, exhibition or lecture are to be appropriated entirely to any nonprofit purpose. (b) Definition of Nonprofit Corporation or Organization. For purposes of this Section, a nonprofit organization is defined as one which is organized not for profit but for the promotion of the welfare of others. A nonprofit corporation is defined as any nonprofit corporation organized under California law for charitable purposes. A nonprofit organization or corporation is one which is exempt from paying Federal income tax by virtue of its nonprofit status.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 27 (c) Evidence of Nonprofit Status. Upon request of the Director of Finance, a corporation or organization claiming exemption from the business license fee based upon its nonprofit status shall submit documentation satisfactory to City, evidencing the nonprofit status of the applicant organization or corporation.
6.04.180 Voluntary Disclosure Program
The Voluntary Disclosure Program (VDP) is a program which allows noncompliant taxpayers to enter into a voluntary disclosure arrangement with the City in which eligible taxpayers may file returns and pay taxes, with reduced or waived taxes, penalties, and interest for prior years without risk of imposition of prosecution in exchange for future tax compliance. The Director of Finance, or designee, may promulgate administrative regulations to implement this section.
6.04.190 Statute of Limitations
(a) Subject to subsection (b) below, any action commenced to enforce the payment of any business license tax due, or any other requirement of this article shall be commenced within four years of the accrual of the cause of action. Any person owing any tax under the provision of this article shall be liable in an action brought in the name of the City of Santa Monica in any court of competent jurisdiction for recovery of any such amount.
(b) An action to collect the business tax and any related penalty and interest must be commenced within four years of the date the business tax becomes delinquent.
The statute of limitations on an action by the City to collect unpaid taxes is tolled while the City is unaware of the existence or ongoing activities of a business due to the
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 28 taxpayer’s failure to obtain a business license certificate and pay a business license tax.
The statute of limitations is also tolled while an administrative appeal is pending. § 6.04.200 Refund.
(a) No business license tax fee, applicable assessments or any portion thereof may be refunded after one year from the date of payment thereof. (b) No person or entity shall be entitled to a refund on a business license taxes or applicable assessments after he has engaged in business under the business license.
(c) No person or entity shall be entitled to a refund on a business license taxes or applicable assessments if such person or entity has any delinquent business license fees taxes, applicable assessments or fees , including accrued interest or penalties. Any overpayment of business license fees taxes, applicable assessment and/or fees shall first be applied against any such delinquent fees, interest, or penalties. § 6.04.210 Effect of prosecution.
The conviction and punishment of any person for transacting any business without a business license certificate shall not excuse or exempt such person from the payment of any business license tax due or unpaid at the time of such conviction, and nothing herein shall prevent a criminal prosecution for any violation of the provisions of the Code.
§ 6.04.220 Annual statement of licensee.
(a) Filing of Statement. In all cases where the amount of business license tax to be paid by any person is based upon the amount of gross receipts, cost of operations or upon the unit number or flat fee of vehicles used, such person or entity,
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 29 before obtaining a business license certificate for such business and within sixty days after the beginning of each license period, shall file with the Director of Finance a written statement in the form required by the Director of Finance, supported by such documentation requested by the Director of Finance, showing the total amount of gross receipts or cost of operations during the preceding calendar year, or the unit number of vehicles used at the date of such statement.
(b) Contents of Statement. Any statement filed pursuant to this Section shall be signed and shall contain the following:
I declare, under penalty of making a false declaration under the laws of the State of California, that I am authorized to make this statement and to the best of my knowledge and belief it is a true, correct and complete statement, made in good faith for the period stated.
For making a false statement or declaration the person signing the statement shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(c) Confidentiality as to Gross Receipts, Business License Taxes, Applicable Assessments and Payment. Information filed pursuant to this Section as to the gross receipts, business license tax, applicable assessments, source of income, profit, losses, expenditures, net worth of a particular person or entity shall be confidential in character and shall not be subject to public inspection. It shall be the duty of the Director of Finance to preserve and keep such gross receipts information so that it may not become known except to the persons charged by law with the administration of this Code.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 30 (d) Statement Not Conclusive. No statement filed pursuant to this Section shall be conclusive upon the City or upon any officer thereof as to the matters therein set forth, and the same shall not prejudice the right of the City to recover any amount that may be ascertained to be due from such person in addition to the amount shown by such statement should it be found to be incorrect.
(e) Newly Established Business License Certificate Renewal. In any case where an original business license certificate is to be issued for a newly established business, the minimum business license tax, applicable assessments and fees applicable for that type of business shall be paid for the original initial business license application. At the date of renewal, if such business is subject to a business license tax based upon gross receipts or cost of operations, an additional fee shall be charged, based upon the gross receipts of such business during the prior year, at the tax rate applicable for such business, after deducting from the amount so found to be due the amount paid at the time such original license was issued. (f) Accuracy of Statement Subject to Audit. The correctness of any statement filed pursuant to this Section shall be subject to audit and verification by the Director of Finance, or designee, who is hereby authorized and empowered to inspect and audit the books and records of any and all persons licensed to carry on any business specified in this Code. No person licensed to carry on any business specified in this Code shall refuse or fail to allow the Director of Finance, or designee, to inspect and audit such books and records or shall refuse or fail to provide such additional information as requested by the Director of Finance.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 31 (g) Failure to File Statement. If any person or entity required to file any statement pursuant to this Section shall fail to do so such person shall be guilty of a violation of this Code.
(h) Inspection and Examination of Places of Business. The Director of Finance, or designee, shall have the right to inspect and examine any places of business, including any books and records, of any business subject to the business license tax to ascertain whether the provisions of Article 6 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code have been complied with.
§ 6.04.240 Gross receipts reporting period.
For any business license tax, applicable assessments and fees due on or after July 1st, gross receipts shall be determined based upon gross receipts for the calendar year (January 1st through December 31st) preceding the business license tax period for which the tax is due; EXCEPT that for licensees of newly established businesses that were not in operation during the preceding calendar year, the gross receipts shall be determined based upon gross receipts from the date the business opened through June 30th.
§ 6.04.250 Apportionment.
When, by reason of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of California, the business license tax imposed by this Article cannot be enforced without there being an apportionment according to the amount of business done in the City of Santa Monica, or in the State of California, as the case may be, the Director of Finance, or designee, shall make such rules and regulations for the apportionment of the tax as are necessary or desirable to overcome the constitutional
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 32 objections. Such rules and regulations shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to becoming effective.
apportionment rules shall be established as follows:
(1) The City Council from time to time shall adopt by resolution general guidelines for apportionment.
(2) The Director of Finance with the approval of the City Attorney, may make such rules and regulations for the apportionment of the tax as are necessary and desirable to overcome the constitutional objections and which are consistent with the general apportionment guidelines adopted by resolution of the City Council. The Director of Finance shall publish such rules and regulations once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Santa Monica. Within ten days of the date of publication of such rules and regulations, any interested person may file a request with the City Clerk that the City Council review the rules and regulations so published. The rules and regulations shall be final at the expiration of the period for requesting review in the event no request for review is filed, or in the event of the filing of a request for review when the rules and regulations have been adopted by the City Council. § 6.04.251 Apportionment Agreements Authorized.
The Director of Finance, or designee, is authorized to negotiate and execute agreements with any business setting forth an applicable formula, schedule, or plan for apportioning current and future business activity subject to the business license tax. § 6.04.255. Unlawful businesses not authorized.
The City is not required to issue any business license certificate unless all Required Regulatory Approvals have been received by a business.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 33 The issuance of a business license certificate, or the payment of any required business license tax, shall not be construed as authorizing the conduct, or continuance, of either:
(a) any illegal business; or
(b) a legal business operating in an illegal manner; or (c) a business lacking any Required Regulatory Approvals.
Failure to comply with the provisions of this section shall constitute grounds for the refusal, suspension, or revocation of the business license certificate § 6.04.260 Revocation, Suspension or Denial of a business license certificate and the Applicable Regulatory Permits.
Any business license certificate and applicable regulatory permits issued pursuant to this Code may be suspended, or revoked or denied by the City Manager Director of Finance, or designee, when it shall appear that the business of the person to whom such license was granted has been conducted in a disorderly or improper manner, or in violation of any statute of the State, or ordinance of this City or of this Code, or that the person conducting said business is of an unfit character to conduct the same, or the purpose for which the license has been issued is being abused to the detriment of the public, or is being used for a purpose different from that for which the license was issued. If the business license and applicable regulatory permits of any person shall be so revoked, another such license shall not be granted to such persons within twelve months after the date of such revocation. The Director of Finance, or designee, may promulgate administrative regulations to implement the provision of this section.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 34 § 6.04.265. Administrative closure of business license Any business license certificate and applicable regulatory permits issued may be cancelled by the Director of Finance, or designee, without hearing, if:
(a) The licensee permanently discontinues business operations under the license; or
(b) The licensee requests cancellation; or
(c) The business operated under the license is abandoned for a period more than three (3) months.
Cancellation pursuant to this section shall be made only after an inspection has been ben conducted or a notice of cancellation has been mailed to the licensee, thirty (30) days has elapsed from the date of such mailing and permittee has failed to respond to said notice with a statement setting forth a valid reason why such permit should not be cancelled.
§ 6.04.270 Business License Certificate to be posted.
Every person having a business license certificate under the provisions of this Code and carrying on a business at a fixed place of business shall keep such business license certificate posted and exhibited while in force in some conspicuous part of said place of business. Every person having such a business license certificate and not having a fixed place of business, shall carry such business license certificate with him or her at all times while carrying on the business for which the same was granted. Every person having a business license certificate under the provisions of this Code shall produce and exhibit the same whenever requested to do so by any police officer, any person authorized by City to issue, inspect or collect business licenses certificate, or by
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 35 any person being solicited. Businesses operated without an agent or employee on the premises shall post in a conspicuous place the name, address, and telephone number of the person or persons to be contacted in event of an emergency. § 6.04.280 Business License tax audit program.
(a) The Director of Finance, or designee, shall conduct a program to audit business license tax returns of businesses operating in the City of Santa Monica.
Subject to specific situations covered by section 6.04.285, the The audit shall may be conducted for three (3)the two tax periods preceding in addition to the current tax period.
(b) If, subsequent to the audit, it is determined that the business has been delinquent or has nonreported or under-reported gross receipts, thereby underpaying business license taxes, the licensee shall pay to the City within ten days of notification of the determination; the amount of tax due, interest from the date the tax was due in the amount determined by the Director of Finance or his or her designee based upon the City's actual rate of return on its invested funds, and a penalty up to in the amount of the tax due. Interest shall continue to accrue on the additional tax amount until such amount is paid in full.
(c) No person who fails to pay the tax due as required by this Section shall operate a business in the City of Santa Monica.
(d) The Director of Finance shall issue forms and instructions and take other actions as are needed to implement this Section. The Director of Finance, or designee, may promulgate administrative regulations to implement the provision of this section.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 36 § 6.04.285 Additional time to Audit.
(a) When a business has registered with the City but has failed to obtain a business license certificate as required by this Chapter, the City may initiate an audit within five years of the last day of the tax year for which the business license certificate application should have been filed.
(b) When a business has failed to obtain apply for business license certificate as required by this Chapter and has not registered as a business operating in the City, the City may initiate an audit within ten years of the last day of the tax year for which the business license certificate application should have been filed. § 6.04.290 6.04.300 Operation of 1995 2024 business license tax amendments.
The repeal of code sections set forth in Chapters 6.20 and 6.24 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code shall not in any manner affect the prosecution for violations thereof, if the violations were committed prior to the effective date of the ordinance repealing those Sections, and shall not affect any prosecution or action which may be pending in any court for the violation of these Sections. As to any violation or as to any such prosecution or pending prosecution or actions, the Sections in effect prior to the adoption of this ordinance shall be deemed to continue and be in full force and effect.
The repeal or amendments of these Sections Chapters 6.04, 6.08 and 6.12 shall not in any manner affect the collection of any taxes, applicable assessments, or fees due prior to the January 1, 2025 effective date of this ordinance effective date of this ordinance.
As to the collection of any such tax, applicable assessment or fee, the Sections in effect prior to the January 1, 2025 adoption of this ordinance shall be deemed to continue in full force and effect.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 37 SECTION 2. As of the Effective Date, Chapter 6.08 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is amended to read as follows (new language underlined, proposed deletions in strikethrough):
Chapter 6.08 BUSINESS CLASSIFICATIONS
§ 6.08.010 Scope.
This Chapter enumerates each primary business classification, and the tax rate group applicable to each such classification in calculating the business license fee tax due. Tax rate groups are more particularly described in Chapter 6.12. In addition, specific information relevant to calculation of gross receipts for particular business classifications is described herein.
§ 6.08.020 Determination of business classification.
The Director of Finance or his or her designee shall determine the business license classification for each business in the City. Such determination shall be final and not subject to appeal.
§ 6.08.030 Business taxed on gross receipts.
The business classifications set forth in Sections 6.08.040 through 6.08.160 shall pay a business license fee taxes based upon gross receipts except for 6.08.080 which shall be taxed based on cost of operations.
§ 6.08.040 Agent/broker (Tax Rate Group III).
This business classification is in Tax Rate Group III and applies to a person or entity who, for a fee or commission, engages in the occupation of bringing buyers and sellers together for negotiations, or negotiates or arranges terms and conditions for buyers and sellers for the purpose of effecting a sale of real property or personal
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 38 property (including but not limited to securities, real estate brokers, commodities, travel agents, bond brokers, manufacturer’s representatives, stock brokers and/or insurance) only. For purposes of this business classification, the following criteria shall apply:
(a) Gross receipts for an agent/broker licensee shall include:
(1) All commissions, fees, charges, monies, or compensation of any character, received by such person and/or entity for performing in the capacity described herein.
(2) All other monies received by such person and/or entity in connection with the sale of real or personal property, except those monies received and placed in a segregated account or escrow for the benefit of a third party, and not subject to such person and/or entity's use or control. (b) An agent/broker shall not obtain or retain title to the real or personal property which is the subject of the sales transaction. (c) An agent/broker's unadjusted gross income as reflected on its federal income tax return, shall be considered evidence of such licensee's total gross receipts in addition to apportionment allocations upon which the business license fee is payable.
This business classification shall be limited to real estate brokers, insurance brokers, travel agents or travel agency, stock brokers and bond brokers, commodities brokers and manufacturer's representatives.
§ 6.08.050 Auto dealers (Tax Rate Group II).
(a) This business classification is in Tax Rate Group II and applies to the buying, selling or offering for sale, of new or used automobiles, trucks, vans, trailers,
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 39 house trailers or campers, including parts and accessories. and any maintenance and repair services for such vehicles.
(b) For purposes of this Section, the term “new vehicle dealership” shall have the same meaning as the term “franchise” as that term is defined in Section 331 of the California Vehicle Code; and the term “used vehicle dealership” shall mean a business which sells only used vehicles.
(b)(c) A separate business license is required for each new vehicle dealership regardless of whether it is owned or managed by a person who owns or manages more than one new vehicle dealership. A separate business license is required for each used vehicle dealership. However, a used vehicle dealer who owns and operates more than one location under the same business name or entity may utilize a single license. (c)(d) The gross receipts for each separate new vehicle dealership or used vehicle dealership in the City shall include all sales arising from the dealership regardless of where the product is delivered. The gross receipts from a new vehicle dealership shall include receipts from sales of new and used vehicles, sales of parts, maintenance, repairs and used vehicle activities and all other sales revenue associated with that dealership.; and those activities shall not require a separate business license regardless of their location in the City, so long as they are associated with the dealership.
§ 6.08.060. Contractors (general building and engineering) (Tax Rate Group III).
This business classification is in Tax Rate Group III and applies to a general building contractor whose principal contracting business is in connection with any structure built, or to be built for the support, shelter and enclosure of persons, animals,
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 40 chattels, or movable property of any kind, requiring in its construction the use of more than two unrelated building trades or crafts, or to do or superintend the whole or any part thereof or a general engineering contractor whose principal contracting business is in connection with fixed works requiring specialized engineering knowledge and skill including, but not limited to, irrigation, drainage, water, power, railroads, highways, streets, pipelines, powerhouse plants, industrial plants, land leveling, earth moving, harbors, and concrete surfacing. This Section does not include anyone who merely furnishes material or supplies without fabricating them in the performance of the work of a general building or engineering contractor.
§ 6.08.070 Sub or specialty contractors and building trades (Tax Rate Group III).
This business classification is in Tax Rate Group III and applies to any person or entity engaging in any of the following listed building trades and is not intended to be exhaustive:
(1) Awning.
(2) Boilers, hot water heating, steamfitting.
(3) Burglar alarm.
(4) Cabinet and mill work.
(5) Cement and concrete.
(6) Electrical contractor.
(7) Electric signs.
(8) Elevator installation.
(9) Excavating, grading, trenching, paving, surfacing.
(10) Fire protection engineering.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 41 (11) Floodlight service.
(12) Flooring.
(13) Glazing, glass.
(14) Heating and/or air conditioning.
(15) House and building moving or wrecking.
(16) Insulation.
(17) Landscaping.
(18) Lathing.
(19) Masonry.
(20) Miscellaneous, specialty.
(21) Ornamental metals.
(22) Painting and decorating.
(23) Pest control.
(24) Plastering only.
(25) Plumbing.
(26) Refrigeration.
(27) Roofing.
(28) Screens.
(29) Sewer (five thousand dollar surety bond is required). (30) Sheet metal.
(31) Signs.
(32) Sprinkling.
(33) Steel.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 42 (34) Tile (ceramic and mosaic).
(35) Weather stripping.
(36) Welding.
(37) Well drilling.
Any contractor that lathing and plastering business which holds a State licenses for one or more both and who uses his or her or its own employees to do both may be issued one license covering both businesses activities. § 6.08.080 Corporate or administrative headquarters (Tax Rate Group VIII).
This business classification is in Tax Rate Group I and applies to corporate or administrative headquarters located in the City. Any business in this license classification shall pay a business license tax based upon cost of operations gross receipts as specifically defined herein. “For purposes of this business classification, gross receipts shall be equal to the costs of operation of such corporate or administrative headquarters. “Costs of operation” shall be equal to the total of the following items:
(a) Annual fair rental value of all real property located in the City and used for such corporate or administrative headquarters.
(b) Annual payroll of all employees based in the City.
(c) The cost of all utilities related to the operation of such corporate or administrative headquarters.
§ 6.08.090 Manufacturers (Tax Rate Group I).
This business classification is in Tax Rate Group I and applies to a business which engages in the manufacturing, fabrication, or assembly of goods, wares,
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 43 merchandise, or components. Gross receipts of a business licensed as a manufacturer shall include all gross receipts from products manufactured in the City. In addition, if the product is not sold from the manufacturer's location in the City, an amount equal to the value of all component parts of the product, shall be included in the licensee’s gross receipts.
§ 6.08.100 Professions (Tax Rate Group IV).
This business classification is in Tax Rate Group IV and applies to any person, group, association, partnership, firm, or corporation engaged in a profession, vocation or calling including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Accountant.
(2) Architect.
(3) Attorney at law.
(4) Auditor.
(5) Bacteriologist.
(6) Certified financial planner.
(7) Certified public accountant.
(8) Chemist.
(9) Child, marriage and family counselor.
(10) Chiropodist.
(11) Chiropractor.
(12) Civil engineer.
(13) Dentist.
(14) Doctor - medical.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 44 (15) Electrical engineer.
(16) Electrologist.
(17) Geologist.
(18) Landscape architect.
(19) Mechanical engineer.
(20) Mining engineer.
(21) Optician.
(22) Optometrist.
(23) Osteopath.
(24) Physician.
(25) Psychiatrist.
(26) Psychologist.
(27) Surgeon.
(28) Surveyor.
(29) Tax counselor.
(30) Veterinary.
Whenever a State of California license is required to entitle a person to practice a profession, the Director of Finance may require, before issuing a license pursuant to this Section, that the applicant exhibit an unexpired and unrevoked license entitling said applicant to practice such profession in the State of California. § 6.08.110 Recreation and entertainment (Tax Rate Group I).
This business classification is in Tax Rate Group I and applies to any person or entity engaged in providing recreation, entertainment, or amusement opportunities.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 45 Gross receipts for such classification shall include all receipts from all business locations in the City. Examples of businesses within the recreation and entertainment classification include, but are not limited to, museums, theaters, dance halls, night clubs, golf courses, bowling, billiards, skill games and machines, arcades, rides, shooting galleries, concert venues, and fortune telling. § 6.08.120 Rental of non-residential property (commercial property) (Tax Rate Group I).
This business classification is in Tax Rate Group I and applies to any person, group, association, partnership, firm, corporation or other entity (whether as the owner or an agent for the owner, a lessee, sublessee or licensee) which rents, leases, subleases or has available for rent, lease, sublease or license, any commercial building, industrial building, office or office building, structure, land or vacant lot that may be utilized for commercial, industrial, office or storage uses. Gross receipts for this business classification shall include one hundred percent of gross receipts from the rental, leasing, subleasing or licensing of commercial property located in the City. A separate business license shall be required for each such commercial rental property. § 6.08.130 Rental of residential property (apartment, hotel, motel, rooming house, trailer court, auto court) (Tax Rate Group I).
(a) This business classification is in Tax Rate Group I and applies to any person, group, association, joint venture, partnership, firm, corporation or other entity (whether as the owner, or an agent of the owner), which rents, leases, subleases, licenses or has available for rent, lease, sublease or license, accommodations in more than three units for residential use where such units are located on the same or an adjoining property.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 46 (b) For purposes of this business classification, a living unit for residential use shall include, without limitation, an apartment, hotel or motel room or suite, rooming house, trailer court, auto court or permitted home-share other accommodations. (c) Gross receipts for this business classification shall include one hundred percent of gross receipts from the rental of accommodations in any of the types of property described herein. Gross receipts shall also include: (i) all monies received for the rental of furniture, equipment, appliances, and garages, parking and/or storage space; (ii) all monies received for payment of utility charges attributable to the accommodations; and (iii) all monies received in connection with providing additional amenities, including, but not limited to washer/dryer facilities. § 6.08.140 Retail (Tax Rate Group I).
This business classification is in Tax Rate Group I and applies to the selling of any goods, wares or merchandise at retail, and not otherwise specifically licensed by other provisions of this Code.
§ 6.08.150 Services (Tax Rate Group III).
This business classification is in Tax Rate Group III and applies to the selling or providing for pay any service which is not otherwise specifically licensed by other provisions of this Code. The services referred to herein include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Advertising and marketing.
(2) Alarm.
(3) Ambulance (police permit required).
(4) Animal careleasing.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 47 (5) Appraiser.
(6) Assayer.
(7) Artificial Intelligence Auctioneer (police permit required). (8) Auction house or Auctioneer (police permit required). (9) Auto maintenance, service, repair and auto dealership services. (10) Auto parks (parking) (police permit required).
(11) Auto service station (exclusive of retail sales of gasoline and diesel fuels, and any products, parts or accessories, which are subject to a business license fee for retail sales under Section 6.08.140 above).
(12) Auto wash and detailing.
(13) Auto wrecking (police permit required).
(14) Barbershop, beauty parlor.
(15) Bathhouse or bath treatment (police permit required). (16) Bookkeeping.
(17) Booking or theatrical agent.
(18) Bus sightseeing.
(19) Caterer.
(20) Check cashing.
(21) Cleaning service (janitorial and cleanup for commercial, industrial and residential properties, including window washing).
(22) Cleaning (laundry and dry cleaning).
(23) Collection agency.
(24) Commercial artist.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 48 (25) Consultant.
(26) Credit reporting.
(27) Computer programmers Cutlery grinding.
(28) Data processing.
(29) Decorator.
(30) Dental technician or hygienist.
(31) Designer.
(32) Draftsman.
(33) Drugless practitioner.
(34) Employment bureau and/or business for provision of labor services (whether such employment or labor services are permanent or temporary). (35) ArtFigure studio (police permit required).
(36) Gardening and landscaping.
(37) Hairdressing salon, hairdresser.
(38) Health club, gym, figure salon (police permit required). (39) Herb doctor, herbalist (police permit required).
(40) Hypnotist, hypnotherapist.
(41) Illustrator.
(42) Instructional schools and institutions.
(43) Information Security and Research Letter writing or addressing. (44) Lithographer.
(45) Loans.
(46) Manicurist.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 49 (47) Massage establishment (police permit required). (48) Massage technician (police permit required unless state licensed). (49) Mortuary, mortician.
(50) News bureau.
(51) Odor and/or pest control.
(52) Pawnbroker (police permit required).
(53) Physical therapist.
(54) Private investigation, patrol and/or security services. (55) Public relations, publicity, publicist.
(56) Public stenographic service or certified court reporter. (57) Rental or leasing of vehicles, equipment, or other personal property. (58) Repair service of any type including auto repair and maintenance. (59) Research firm.
(60) Software, Network and Web Development Storage or warehouse facilities. (61) Tailors or dressmakers.
(62) Telephone answering service.
(63) Ticket reservation service.
(64) Tree care.
(65) Transportation and mobility related services (excluding taxi operations) (66) Television, video, and film production
(67) Information technology and cloud services
(68) Distribution centers (excluding cannabis distribution)
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 50 § 6.08.160 Wholesalers (Tax Rate Group I).
This business classification is in Tax Rate Group I and applies to any person or entity engaged in the selling of any goods, ware, or merchandise at wholesale prices.
For purposes of this classification, gross receipts includes all receipts derived from the wholesale selling of any goods, wares, or merchandise.
§ 6.08.170 Utilities (Tax Rate Group I).
This business classification is in Tax Rate Group I and applies to any regulated utility company subject to Article XIII, Section 19 of the Constitution of the State of California. For purposes of this business classification, gross receipts shall include one hundred percent of gross receipts derived from utility services provided within the City of Santa Monica and gross receipts attributable to any other business activity conducted within the City.
§ 6.08.180 Businesses taxed at flat rates.
The business classifications set forth in Sections 6.08.190 through 6.08.210 shall pay a business license tax based upon the flat rate indicated. § 6.08.190 Delivery - Pickup (Tax Rate Group V).
This business classification is in Tax Rate Group V and applies to the running, driving, or operating of any vehicle used for the delivery or pickup of goods, wares, merchandise, or material.
§ 6.08.200 Event planners and promoters for special or community event (Tax Rate Group VI).
(a) This business classification is in Tax Rate Group VI and applies to event planners and promoters of any recreation, entertainment, cultural and educational events and exhibitions which are conducted for limited periods of time. Included in such
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 51 classification without limitation are sporting events/competitions, circuses, carnivals, trade shows, and special sales of goods or services.
(b) For purposes of this classification, event planner or promoter shall mean any person or entity who for hire organizes, sponsors or administers any activity classified in the category of special or community event. (c) All event planners or promoters in a special or community event shall be subject to the business license requirements described in this Chapter regardless of whether the special or community event is carried on for profit or for charitable purposes.
(d) Notwithstanding the above, all events held at the Civic Auditorium, including its adjacent parking lot, shall not be subject to business license taxes fees but shall be required to obtain any other permits required by this Code. § 6.08.205 Vending (Tax Rate Group IX)
This business classification is in Tax Rate Group IX and applies to all vending activities regulated by Chapter 6.36.
§ 6.08.210 Taxicabs (Tax Rate Group VII).
This business classification is in Tax Rate Group VII and applies to the running, driving, or operating of any taxicab when driven by the owner of the taxicab franchisee, or a member, employee or other representative of the taxicab franchisee, or by the person or persons hiring or renting the same at rates per mile, per trip, per hour, per day, per week, or per month; and such vehicle is routed under the direction of such passenger or passengers, or of such persons hiring the same.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 52 SECTION 3. As of the Effective Date, Chapter 6.12 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is amended to read as follows (new language underlined, proposed deletions in strikethrough):
Chapter 6.12
SCHEDULE OF LICENSE FEES BY BUSINESS CLASSIFICATION AND TAX RATE GROUP
§ 6.12.010 Schedule of Business license taxes fees.
The business license fees for business classifications hereinafter described shall be calculated in accordance with the tax rate group in which such business classification is listed below:
(a) Tax Rate Group I. Each person or entity in this group shall pay the sum of seventy-five dollars on the first sixty thousand dollars of gross receipts, plus the sum of one dollar and twenty-five cents for each one thousand dollars or fraction thereof of gross receipts in excess of sixty thousand dollars. Included in this tax rate group are all businesses included within any of the following business classifications:
(1) Corporate or administrative headquarters;
(1)(2) Manufacturers;
(2)(3) Recreation and entertainment;
(3)(4) Rental of nonresidential property;
(4)(5) Rental of residential property;
(5)(6) Retail (excluding retail venders at community events permitted pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 4.68);
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 53 (i) Retailers generating less than $5 million in worldwide gross receipts annually shall pay a sum of seventy-five dollars on the first sixty thousand dollars of gross receipts, plus the sum of one dollar and fifteen cents for each one thousand dollars or fraction thereof of gross receipts in excess of sixty thousand dollars.
(6)(7) Utilities;
(7)(8) Wholesalers.
(b) Tax Rate Group II. Each person or entity in this group shall pay the sum of seventy-five dollars on the first sixty thousand dollars of gross receipts, plus the sum of one dollar and twenty-five cents for each one thousand dollars or fraction thereof of gross receipts in excess of sixty thousand dollars, subject to the maximum caps hereinafter described. This Tax Rate Group applies only to persons or entities within the following business classification:
(1) Auto Dealer. The business license fee tax for each business within Tax Rate Group II shall be subject to the following tax rate:
(i) For fiscal year 2025-26 1990-1991, the business license fee shall be capped at twenty-two thousand five hundred dollars; all gross receipts including sales, service and repair shall be taxed at one dollar and twenty-five cents for each one thousand dollars or fraction thereof of gross receipts.
(ii) For fiscal year 2026-271991-1992, the business license fee shall be capped at twenty-two thousand five hundred dollars; all gross receipts including sales, service and repair shall be taxed at one dollar
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 54 and twenty-five cents for each one thousand dollars or fraction thereof of gross receipts.
(iii) For the fiscal year 2027-281992-1993, and each year thereafter, the business license fee shall be capped at twenty-five thousand dollars. all sales shall be taxed at one dollar and twenty-five cents for each one thousand dollars or fraction thereof of gross receipts.
Auto dealer service, maintenance and repair will be taxed at Tax Rate Group III.
(c) Tax Rate Group III. Each person or entity in this group shall pay the sum of seventy-five dollars on the first sixty thousand dollars of gross receipts, plus the sum of three dollars for each one thousand dollars or fraction thereof of gross receipts in excess of sixty thousand dollars. Included in this tax rate group are all businesses included within any of the following business classifications:
(1) Agent/broker;
(2) Contractors (general building and engineering);
(3) Services;
(4) Sub or specialty contractors.
(d) Tax Rate Group IV. Each person or entity in this group shall pay the sum of seventy-five dollars on the first sixty thousand dollars of gross receipts, plus the sum of five dollars for each one thousand dollars or fraction thereof of gross receipts in excess of sixty thousand dollars. Included in this tax rate group are all businesses included within any of the following business classification:
(1) Professions.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 55 (e) Tax Rate Group V. Each person or entity in this group shall pay the sum of fifty dollars per vehicle per year for each vehicle which is included within the following business classification:
(1) Delivery - Pickup.
(f) Tax Rate Group VI. Each person or entity in this group shall pay the sum of one hundred fifty dollars for each day or fraction of any day in which such licensee conducts business in the City. Included in this tax rate group are all business categories included within the following business classification:
(1) Event planners/promoters for special or community event. (g) Tax Rate Group VII. Each person, entity or franchisee in this group shall pay the sum of two hundred fifty dollars per vehicle per year for each vehicle which is included within the following business classification:
(1) Taxicabs.
(h) Tax Rate Group VIII. Each person or entity in this group shall pay the sum of seventy-five dollars on the first sixty thousand dollars of gross receipts, plus the sum of two dollars and fifty cents for each one thousand dollars or fraction thereof of gross receipts in excess of sixty thousand dollars. This Tax Rate Group applies only to persons or entities within the following business classification:
(1) Corporate or Administrative headquarters. The business license tax for each business within Tax Rate Group VIII shall be subject to the following tax rate:
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 56 (i) For fiscal year 2025-26, cost of operations shall be taxed at two dollars for each one thousand dollars or fraction thereof of cost of operations.
(ii) For fiscal year 2026-27, cost of operations shall be taxed at two dollars and twenty-five cents for each one thousand dollars or fraction thereof of cost of operations;
(iii) For the fiscal year 2027-28, and each year thereafter, cost of operations shall be taxed at two dollars and fifty cents for each one thousand dollars or fraction thereof of cost of operations. (i) Tax Rate Group IX. Each person or entity in this group shall pay the sum of fifty dollars per vehicle or vending operation per year:
(1) Sidewalk vendor
(2) Vehicle vendor
SECTION 4. As of the Effective Date, Chapter 6.16 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is amended to read as follows (new language underlined, proposed deletions in strikethrough):
Chapter 6.16 APPEALS
§ 6.16.010 Right of appeal.
(a) Any person aggrieved by the action of any officer or employee of the City suspending, revoking, or denying any permit or license under Article 6 of this Code may appeal to a Hearing Examiner in accordance with Section 6.16.020. For purposes of this Code, revocation shall include a decision to deny an application to renew a license or
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 57 permit. Any reference in this Code to the License Review Board or License Appeal Board shall be deemed to refer to a Hearing Examiner.
(b) There shall be no right of administrative appeal as to the determination of the amount of any tax, assessments, fee, interest, or penalties due, nor shall there be any right to administrative appeal as to any determination concerning business classification or refunds.
(c) No injunction, writ of mandate, or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit, action, or proceeding in any court against the City or an officer thereof, to prevent or enjoin the collection of taxes assessed pursuant to this Article. (d) No person may commence or maintain any proceeding, or assert any legal or equitable claim of any kind, whether affirmatively or by defense, against the City challenging or disputing in any way the imposition, assessment or collection of any tax, interest, or penalty, unless the person first deposits with the City the full amount of any tax, assessment, interest or penalty imposed or assessed or otherwise challenged or claimed to be in dispute. Only after payment of a tax, including interest and any penalties assessed or imposed, claimed to be illegal or otherwise improper, may a person maintain an action to recover the tax and other amounts paid and in dispute, with interest, in such manner as provided by law.
§ 6.16.020 Void license or permit.
(a) The City shall not be bound by the mistake of any officer or employee of the City in issuing licenses or permits contrary to the terms of this Code or of the terms of any zoning or other ordinance of the City.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 58 (b) Upon a written statement of any officer or employee of the City filed with the City Attorney to the effect that any license or permit has been issued in contravention of this Code or any ordinance of the City, the City Attorney shall fix a date for a Hearing Examiner to determine whether or not the license or permit shall be revoked. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with Section 6.16.030. (c) If, upon such hearing, the Hearing Examiner finds that such license or permit was issued in contravention of this Code or any ordinance of the City, the Hearing Examiner shall order the license or permit revoked. After the revocation, all activity for which such license or permit was required shall be immediately discontinued. § 6.16.030 Appeal procedure.
(a) Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner shall be the City Manager or designee. The Hearing Examiner shall not have had any prior direct involvement with the matter pending before him or her. If no City staff is capable of conducting the hearing, then the City shall contract with the California Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) to conduct the hearing.
(b) Standards. The Hearing Examiner may approve, modify or reject the underlying City decision or action, whenever, in the reasonable judgment of the Hearing Examiner, the City's decision or action is in accordance with any applicable law. The Appellant has the burden of proving, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the City's decision or action is not in compliance with applicable laws. (c) Hearing Request. Any person aggrieved by an action appealable to a Hearing Examiner shall be entitled to a hearing upon filing a written request therefor with the City Clerk. This written request must be filed within ten days of service of notice
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 59 of the City action being appealed. Service is effectuated on the date that the notice is mailed to the recipient, personally served on the recipient, or emailed to the recipient if the recipient has consented in writing to electronic service. (d) Hearing. The Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing not later than sixty days following receipt of the request by the City Clerk, unless an extension of the time is granted by the Hearing Examiner, upon a finding of good cause. If the hearing is to be conducted by OAH, it shall be scheduled as soon as practicable, consistent with OAH's calendar availability.
(1) The applicant shall be given no less than five days’ notice of the time and place of said hearing. The hearing shall be open to the public. Any interested party is entitled to be heard and may be represented by counsel. (2) Any failure to comply with the time limits set forth in this subsection (d) does not deprive the Hearing Examiner of jurisdiction to conduct the hearing or render a binding decision.
(3) The Hearing Examiner shall have the power to issue orders to keep order and decorum during an Administrative Hearing. No person shall fail to comply with any such order.
(e) Decision of Hearing Examiner. The decision of the Hearing Examiner shall be made promptly after the conclusion of the hearing. Notice of the decision shall be mailed to the applicant at his or her last known mailing address. (f) Stay Pending Hearing. The suspension or revocation of any permit or license for which a request for review has been timely filed under this Section, shall be stayed pending decision of the Hearing Examiner if the business activity is a legal
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 60 operation. Business operations that are not compliant with applicable local, state, or federal law are not subject to a stay pending a hearing. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require any officer or employee of the City to issue any permit or license.
(g) Review of Hearing Examiner's Decision. The stay, if applicable, expires ten days after the Hearing Examiner issues the decision. The Hearing Examiner's decision in all cases is final except for judicial review. Such review must be sought by petition under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5, not later than ninety days after the decision is issued.
SECTION 5. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code inconsistent with the provisions of this measure, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this measure.
SECTION 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this measure is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this measure. The City Council hereby declares that it would have placed this measure and the resulting Santa Monica Municipal Code amendment, and the voters declare that they would have adopted this measure and the resulting Santa Monica Municipal Code amendment, and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional, without regard to whether any portion may be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Attachment A - Business License Tax - Ballot Resolution [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 1 City Council Meeting: June 25, 2024 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _____ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA SUBMITTING TO THE VOTERS A MEASURE TO AMEND CHAPTER 6.70 OF THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE CITY’S PARKING FACILITY TAX TO 18%, EXEMPTING CITY-OWNED LOTS AND STRUCTURES FROM THE
ADDITIONAL TAX, AND AUTHORIZING CITY COUNCILMEMBERS TO FILE
WRITTEN ARGUMENTS FOR OR AGAINST THE MEASURE AND DIRECTING
THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF THE
MEASURE
WHEREAS, Chapter 6.70 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code contains the City’s parking facility tax (the “PFT”); and
WHEREAS, the PFT is a general tax imposed for general revenue purposes; and WHEREAS, the PFT is imposed on any Operator that charges an Occupant a Parking Fee in exchange for using a Parking Facility1; and WHEREAS, Santa Monica Municipal Code section 6.70.020 currently sets the PFT rate at 10% of the total Parking Fee charged by an Operator; and WHEREAS, the PFT was last amended in 1995 by Ordinance No. 1789 (CCS); and
WHEREAS, 90% of the parking lots and structures owned by the City are in the Coastal Zone; and
WHEREAS, the parking rates approved by the Coastal Commission are inclusive of the City’s 10% PFT rate; and
WHEREAS, the Coastal Commission has taken the position that the City’s parking 1 Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms used in this resolution shall have the same meaning as in Chapter 6.70 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.
ATTACHMENT B
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Attachment B - Parking Facility Tax - Ballot Resolution (6476 : Ballot Measures) 2 rates in the Coastal Zone are subject to Coastal Commission approval and require a coastal development permit prior to increasing rates; and WHEREAS, the City’s advertised parking rates at City-owned lots and structures are inclusive of the City’s existing PFT rate; and
WHEREAS, with voter approval, the City could increase the PFT rate, while maintaining the existing parking rates in City-owned lots and structures at the existing levels; and
WHEREAS, increasing the PFT rate while maintaining the existing parking rates in City-owned lots and structures would be revenue neutral because any increase in PFT revenue would be offset by an equal decline in parking revenue; and WHEREAS, the City desires to partially exempt City-owned lots and structures from the PFT rate increase proposed by this measure out of administrative convenience and to promote public access to the beach; and
WHEREAS, many residents live in the City of Santa Monica because the City invests in community priorities, offers extensive services and programs that substantially enhance the quality of life of its residents; and
WHEREAS, an additional locally-controlled revenue source is needed to restore and enhance Santa Monica’s essential city services; and WHEREAS, the City desires to raise the PFT rate to 18%; and WHEREAS, the revenue from the increasing the PFT rate is estimated to raise an additional $6,700,000 in general fund revenue that may be used to fund general governmental services, such as: addressing homelessness, enhancing public safety, improving emergency response times, creating safe routes to schools, reducing fatal
ATTACHMENT B
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Attachment B - Parking Facility Tax - Ballot Resolution (6476 : Ballot Measures) 3 pedestrian and bike accidents, improving city streets and sidewalks, and maintaining clean and safe parks; and
WHEREAS, under applicable law, the City Council of the City of Santa Monica must present a proposed increase to the PFT to the electorate of the City of Santa Monica for adoption by majority vote of the electorate; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10403, the City Council has previously requested that the County of Los Angeles consent and agree to the consolidation of all aspects of a General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election scheduled for Tuesday, November 5, 2024, for the purpose of electing members of the Santa Monica City Council, the Santa Monica Rent Control Board, the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, and the Santa Monica College Community College District.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AND PROCLAIM AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. At the General Municipal Election called for November 5, 2024, the following measure shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the City of Santa Monica:
ATTACHMENT B
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Attachment B - Parking Facility Tax - Ballot Resolution (6476 : Ballot Measures) 4 MEASURE " ":
To maintain essential city services,
including enhancing public safety,
creating safe routes to school to protect
children, and lowering the risk of fatal
traffic accidents, shall the measure
increasing the City of Santa Monica
Parking Facility Tax by 8% for users
including visitors and tourists, causing no
additional cost in City-owned lots and
structures (including downtown and the
beach) because of a partial City
exemption, generating approximately
$6,700,000 annually until ended by
voters, be adopted?
YES ________
NO _________
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and with the county election department of the County of Los Angeles.
SECTION 3. The vote requirement for the measure to pass is a majority (50%+1) of the votes cast.
SECTION 4. The City of Santa Monica recognizes that additional costs may be incurred by the County by reason of the addition of this measure to the ballot and agrees to reimburse the County for any additional costs.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall transmit to the City Attorney, in accordance with applicable law, a copy of the measure. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, which shall not exceed 500 words in length. The impartial analyses shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments. ln accordance with applicable law, not less than 10 calendar days before the City Clerk submits the official election materials for printing, the City Clerk shall make a copy of all applicable election
ATTACHMENT B
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Attachment B - Parking Facility Tax - Ballot Resolution (6476 : Ballot Measures) 5 materials available for public examination in the City Clerk's office SECTION 6. The City Council authorizes its members, as follows, to file written arguments for or against the measure described above, which is contained in Exhibit 1 (Parking Facility Tax Measure), which is incorporated by reference herein:
FOR:
AGAINST:
All written arguments filed by any person in favor of, or against the measure, including any rebuttal arguments, shall be accompanied by the names and signatures of the persons submitting the argument as required by applicable law, and any names, signatures and arguments may be filed until the time and date fixed by the City Clerk in accordance with applicable law, after which no change may be submitted to the City Clerk unless permitted by law.
SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall cause the text of the measure, which is contained in Exhibit 1 (Parking Facility Tax Measure), together with the City Attorney impartial analyses, and any arguments for or against the measure, as well as any rebuttal, to be mailed to all qualified voters with the sample ballot. In addition to other notices and publications required by law, the City Clerk, not less than forty (40) days and not more than sixty (60) days before the General Municipal Election, shall cause the text of the measure to be published once in the official newspaper and in each edition thereof during the day of publication. The City Clerk is authorized to give such notices and to fix such times and dates as are required by law or which are appropriate to properly conduct the election.
SECTION 8. The provisions of Resolution Numbers 11591 and 11592 are referred to and incorporated into this resolution for more particulars concerning the conduct of the General Municipal Election to be held on November 5, 2024, and in all respects the election
ATTACHMENT B
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Attachment B - Parking Facility Tax - Ballot Resolution (6476 : Ballot Measures) 6 shall be held and conducted as provided for by applicable law. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to procure and furnish any official ballots, notices, printed materials and all supplies or equipment that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election.
SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
DOUGLAS T. SLOAN, City Attorney
Exhibit 1 – Text of Parking Facility Tax Measure
ATTACHMENT B
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Attachment B - Parking Facility Tax - Ballot Resolution (6476 : Ballot Measures) 1 Exhibit 1 – Parking Facility Tax Measure
WHEREAS, this measure shall be known as the “2024 Parking Facility Tax Measure” (“Measure”); and
WHEREAS, Chapter 6.70 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code contains the City’s parking facility tax (the “PFT”); and
WHEREAS, the PFT is a general tax imposed for general revenue purposes; and WHEREAS, the PFT is imposed on any Operator that charges an Occupant a Parking Fee in exchange for using a Parking Facility; and WHEREAS, Santa Monica Municipal Code section 6.70.020 currently sets the PFT rate at 10% of the total Parking Fee charged by an Operator; and WHEREAS, the PFT was last amended in 1995 by Ordinance No. 1789 (CCS); and
WHEREAS, 90% of the parking lots and structures owned by the City are in the Coastal Zone; and
WHEREAS, the parking rates approved by the Coastal Commission are inclusive of the City’s 10% PFT rate; and
WHEREAS, the Coastal Commission has taken the position that the City’s parking rates in the Coastal Zone are subject to Coastal Commission approval and require a coastal development permit prior to increasing rates; and WHEREAS, the City’s advertised parking rates at City-owned lots and structures are inclusive of the City’s existing PFT rate; and
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Attachment B - Parking Facility Tax - Ballot Resolution (6476 : Ballot Measures) 2 WHEREAS, with voter approval, the City could increase the PFT rate, while maintaining the existing parking rates in City-owned lots and structures at the existing levels; and
WHEREAS, increasing the PFT rate while maintaining the existing parking rates in City-owned lots and structures would be revenue neutral because any increase in PFT revenue would be offset by an equal decline in parking revenue; and WHEREAS, the City desires to partially exempt City-owned lots and structures from the PFT rate increase proposed by this measure out of administrative convenience and to promote public access to the beach; and
WHEREAS, many residents live in the City of Santa Monica because the City invests in community priorities, offers extensive services and programs that substantially enhance the quality of life of its residents; and
WHEREAS, an additional locally-controlled revenue source is needed to restore and enhance Santa Monica’s essential city services; and WHEREAS, the City desires to raise the PFT rate to 18%; and WHEREAS, the revenue from the increasing the PFT rate is estimated to raise an additional $6,700,000 in general fund revenue that may be used to fund general governmental services, such as: addressing homelessness, enhancing public safety, improving emergency response times, creating safe routes to schools, reducing fatal pedestrian and bike accidents, improving city streets and sidewalks, and maintaining clean and safe parks.
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Attachment B - Parking Facility Tax - Ballot Resolution (6476 : Ballot Measures) 3 NOW, THEREFORE:
SECTION 1. As of January 1, 2025 (the “Effective Date”), Chapter 6.70 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is amended to read as follows (new language underlined, proposed deletions in strikethrough):
Chapter 6.70. PARKING FACILITY TAX
§ 6.70.010. Definitions.
Except where the context otherwise requires, the definitions in this Section govern the construction of this Chapter.
City-owned Parking Facility. “City-owned Parking Facility” means a Parking Facility owned by the City of Santa Monica, irrespective of whether the City uses a managing agent, or other designated third party, to operate the Parking Facility.
Motor vehicle. "Motor vehicle" means every self-propelled vehicle operated or suitable for operation on the highway.
Occupancy. "Occupancy" means the use or possession or the right to the use or possession of any space for the parking of a motor vehicle or any other purpose in a parking facility.
Occupant. "Occupant" means a person who, for a consideration, uses, possesses or has the right to use or possess any space for the parking of a motor vehicle in a parking facility under any lease, concession, permit, right of access, license to use or other agreement or otherwise, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. Occupant shall be deemed to include any person required to pay any valet or service labor charge in connection with the parking of motor vehicles on public or private property and any person required to pay
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Attachment B - Parking Facility Tax - Ballot Resolution (6476 : Ballot Measures) 4 a charge for the occupancy of parking space by another person by means of validation or otherwise.
Operator. "Operator" means the person who conducts a parking facility, whether in the capacity of owner, lessee, mortgage in possession, licensee, valet or other service supplier or any other capacity. When the operator performs his or her functions through a managing agent of any type or character other than an employee, the managing agent shall also be deemed an operator for purposes of this Article and shall have the same duties and liabilities as his or her principal. When the managing agent collects parking fees and tax on behalf of his or her principal and deposits the same into the principal's account in a financial institution, such principal shall be responsible for reporting and remitting the tax to the City. It shall be the duty of the managing agent to provide the Director of Finance with the name and address of each principal who will be responsible for reporting and remitting the tax to the City. Compliance with the provisions of this Article by either the principal or the managing agent shall be considered to be compliance by both. A person who qualifies as an operator shall not, by reason of being exempt from the tax imposed in this Article, be exempt from the duties and liabilities of an operator imposed under this Article.
Parking meter. "Parking meter" means any device, which, when the recording device thereof is set in motion, or immediately following the deposit of any coin, shall register the period of time that any motor vehicle may be parked adjacent thereto.
Parking facility. "Parking facility" means any outdoor space or uncovered plot, place, street, lot, parcel, yard or enclosure, or any portion thereof, or any building or structure,
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Attachment B - Parking Facility Tax - Ballot Resolution (6476 : Ballot Measures) 5 or any portion thereof, where or in which a motor vehicle may be parked, stored, housed or kept, for which any charge is made.
Parking fee. "Parking fee" means the consideration charged, whether or not received, for the occupancy or use of space in a parking facility valued in money, whether received in money, goods, labor or otherwise, including all receipts, cash, credits and property and services of any kind or nature, without any deduction therefrom. The parking fee shall be deemed to include the total charges required to be paid by an occupant, including, but not limited to, any valet or service labor charge in connection with the use or occupancy of parking space on public or private property. Nothing shall be construed to mean that a parking fee is charged to the occupant of space in a parking facility for the sale of petroleum products, automobile parts or other tangible personal property, the rendering of services, including car wash services, totally unconnected with the use or occupancy of parking space, or where parking space is provided to the occupant as a compliment from the operator and where no consideration is charged to or received from any other person.
Person. "Person" means any natural person, partnership, joint venture, joint stock company, corporation, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, administrator, executor, assignee, trustee in bankruptcy, firm, company, association, club, syndicate, society, municipal corporation, the State of California, political subdivision of the State of California, the United States, instrumentality of the United States, or any group or combination acting as a unit, whether mutual, cooperative, fraternal, nonprofit or otherwise.
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Attachment B - Parking Facility Tax - Ballot Resolution (6476 : Ballot Measures) 6 § 6.70.020. Parking facility tax.
On or after January 1, 2025 July 1, 1993, there is imposed a tax upon every person in the City who occupies a parking facility or who is obligated to pay a parking fee. Subject to the exemption in section 6.70.025, The the tax imposed by this Chapter shall be at the rate of ten eighteen (18%) percent of the total parking fee charged by the operator for use of the parking facility.
§ 6.70.025. Partial Exemption on City-Owned Parking Facilities On or after January 1, 2025, City-owned Parking Facilities shall be exempt from 8% of the tax imposed by section 6.70.020.
§ 6.70.030. Collection.
(a) On or after the effective date of this Chapter, every operator or person receiving any payment for use of a parking facility shall collect the amount of the tax imposed by this Chapter from the person paying the parking fee or who is obligated to pay the parking fee.
(b) Unless otherwise prohibited by law, every person occupying a parking space in a parking facility shall be required to pay the tax imposed by this Chapter to the operator or the person collecting the parking fee. If the parking fee is paid in installments, or if an amount paid is less than the full amount of the parking fee and tax accrued at the time of payment, a proportionate share of the tax shall be deemed to have been paid with each such partial payment or installment. (c) The taxes required to be collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be deemed to be held in trust by the operator or the person required to collect the tax
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Attachment B - Parking Facility Tax - Ballot Resolution (6476 : Ballot Measures) 7 on behalf of the City until the taxes are remitted to the City as required by this Chapter and shall constitute a debt owed by the operator to the City. § 6.70.040. Reports and tax remittance.
(a) The person or operator collecting or obligated to collect any parking facility tax pursuant to this Chapter shall prepare a report upon a form prescribed by the Director of Finance. The report shall include the amount of parking fees collected and the amount of the tax collected pursuant to this Chapter. Additionally, the report shall include such information as is required by the Director of Finance to carry out the purposes of this Chapter.
(b) The person or operator collecting or obligated to collect any parking facility tax shall remit to the City the parking facility tax together with the report prepared pursuant to subsection (a) of this Section.
(c) The reports and tax remittances of parking facility taxes shall be delinquent if not paid on or before the twenty-fifth day following the end of each reporting quarter as specified herein, and shall cover the reporting quarter just ended. For purposes of this Chapter, the reporting quarters are as follows:
December 1st through February 28th/29th, March 1st through May 31st, June 1st through August 31st, September 1st through November 30th. § 6.70.050. Interest and penalties.
If any person fails or refuses to remit to the Director of Finance the tax required to be collected by this Chapter, there shall be added to such tax a penalty of ten percent of the amount of the tax due for each thirty days that the tax is unpaid. If the tax due remains
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Attachment B - Parking Facility Tax - Ballot Resolution (6476 : Ballot Measures) 8 unpaid for a period of ninety days or longer, in addition to the penalty prescribed by this Section, the person owing the tax shall pay to the City interest on the amount due from the date the tax was due, in the amount determined by the Director of Finance as equal to the City's actual rate of return on its invested funds. § 6.70.060. Failure to collect and report tax.
If any person shall fail or refuse to collect the parking facility tax or to make, within the time provided in this Chapter, any report or remittance required by this Chapter, the Director of Finance shall proceed in such manner as he or she may deem best to obtain facts and information on which to estimate the tax due. As soon as the Director of Finance shall procure such facts and information as he or she is able to obtain upon which to base the assessment of any tax payable by any person who has failed or refused to collect the same and to make such report or remittance, the Director of Finance shall proceed to determine and assess against such person the tax and penalties provided for by this Chapter and shall notify such person by mail sent to his or her last known place of address of the total amount of such tax including interest and penalties, and the total amount thereof shall be payable within ten days from the date of such notice. § 6.70.070. Records.
It shall be the duty of every person liable for the collection and payment to the City of any tax imposed by this Chapter to keep and preserve, for a period of two years, such suitable records as may be necessary to determine the amount of such tax as he or she may have been liable for the collection of and payment to the City, which records the Director of Finance shall have the right to inspect at all reasonable times.
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: Attachment B - Parking Facility Tax - Ballot Resolution (6476 : Ballot Measures) 9 § 6.70.080. Cessation of business.
Whenever any person required to collect and pay to the City a tax under this Chapter shall cease to operate or otherwise dispose of his or her business, any tax payable hereunder to the City shall become immediately due and payable and such person shall immediately make a report and pay the tax due. § 6.70.090. Exceptions.
No tax shall be payable hereunder in any of the following instances:
(a) On the parking fee paid by any federal, State of California, or City of Santa Monica, official or employees when on official business provided that a tax exempt certificate is executed no later that the time when payment of the parking fee is due, on a form to be provided by the Director of Finance. (b) On the parking fee deposited in any parking meter owned or operated by the City.
(c) On the parking fee paid for any City preferential parking permit. (d) On the parking fee paid as part of any residential dwelling unit lease, rental agreement or obligation, including on the parking fee paid as part of any hotel, motel or other lodging facility occupancy, but only when the length of the occupant's stay exceeds thirty consecutive days in the hotel, motel or other lodging facility.
§ 6.70.100. Penalty.
Any person violating or failing to comply with any of the provisions of this Chapter, shall upon conviction thereof, be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, in addition to any jail
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Attachment B - Parking Facility Tax - Ballot Resolution (6476 : Ballot Measures) 10 sentence, be fined not more than five hundred dollars. Each violation of this Chapter shall constitute a separate offense. Any conviction for violation of this Chapter shall not relieve any person from the payment, collection or remittance of the parking facility tax as provided in this Chapter.
§ 6.70.110. Director of Finance - Powers and duties.
It shall be the duty of the Director of Finance to ascertain the name of every person operating a parking facility in the City of Santa Monica, liable for the collection of the tax levied by this Chapter, who fails, refuses or neglects to collect the tax or to make, within the time provided by this Chapter, the reports or remittances required herein. In addition to any other remedy or proceeding, the Director of Finance is authorized to request that the City Attorney commence any proceeding as may be appropriate to obtain payment of any tax, including penalty and interest, as may be due the City under this Chapter.
SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code inconsistent with the provisions of this measure, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this measure.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this measure is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this measure. The City Council hereby declares that it would have placed this measure and the resulting Santa Monica Municipal Code amendment, and the voters declare that they would have adopted this measure and the resulting Santa Monica Municipal Code amendment, and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause,
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Attachment B - Parking Facility Tax - Ballot Resolution (6476 : Ballot Measures) 11 or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional, without regard to whether any portion may be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
14.A.b
Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Attachment B - Parking Facility Tax - Ballot Resolution (6476 : Ballot Measures) r ~
JJ: CMD srintro. pobasLB: br/ word.
Council Meeting: May 25, 1993
fM1 ` '~,^ y
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayar and C~ty Caunc~l
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Ordinances for Introduction and First Reading Proposing a Parking Facility Tax, and Increaszng the Utility
User's Tax Rate and Applying the Increased Utility
User's Tax Rate ta Water Use-Related Charges
Introductian
As directed by the City Council, this repart: pro~ides for Yntroductian and first read~ng ardinances proposing a Parkzng Facility Tax, and increasing the Uti~~ty User's Tax rate and applying the increased rate ta City Water use-related charges; and, pravides information concerning the City's FY 1993-94 General Fund budget.
Background
On April 27, 1993 s~aff presented to Cat~ncil a preliminary status r~port an next fiscal year's
General Fund budget. At that time,
staff indicated that the FY 1993- s94' revenue shortfall, due to the continuing economic slump and the State's taking of City rev~nues, was about $ 11.2 million. However, due to staff and Council budget actions to that date, this shortfall had been reduced to $5.1 million.
To close this remaining budget gap, Council directed staff ta continue to work on reducing the gap, and directed the C~ty Attorney to prepare and submit for its consideration ardinances rs'{ "+ 4 ~ JJ.+
ATTACHMENT D
14.A.d
Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Attachment D - May 25, 1993 Staff Report for PFT Establishment [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) to implement various revenue increase optians se~ected by Council fram an options list prepared by staff.
At this time, staff has reduced the rema~ning budget gap to $3.8 million.
Some members of the Council also requested staff to submit additional information summarizing actians which wauld be recommended in the proposed budget ta eliminate the ~otal budget gap of $11.2 ~illion.
Proposed Ordinances
The ordinance at Attachment A would establish a Parking Facility Tax. The Parking Facility Tax would p~ace a tax of 10~ on all parking sold ta the public in Santa Monica. The ordinance follows the City of Los Angeles Parking Tax which was implemented in 1990, as recently amended. Staff estzmates that this new tax wall yield aba~t $1.1 million annually follawing implementation next fiscal year.
The ordinance at Attachment B would increase the City's Utility User's Tax rate from 9.5% ~0 10.0% and expand the tax base to include the water and wastewater components of the City's utility bill. Increasing the tax rate wauld add about $.88/month to the average hausehold's costs for telephone, gas, electricity, and cable television. Expanding the tax base to include ~ he City's water use-related charges wou~d cost the average hausehold abaut
5. two-78/ month billing period. Staff estimates these actions 2 -
ATTACHMENT D
14.A.d
Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Attachment D - May 25, 1993 Staff Report for PFT Establishment [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) will yield about $ 2.7 million annually following implementation next fiscal year.
If Council approves the Utility User's Tax Ordinance on May 2~, 1993, the Rent Cantrol Board has indicated it will include the resulting cost increases in its FY 1993-94 general rate increase thereby enabling landlords ta pass the cost increases through to tenants.
Additional Information Requested
At this time, General Fund budget recommendations far next fiscal year will reflect $7.4 million in non-public safety related cost savings and cost-covering user fee/fine increase measures thereby reducing the remaining budget gap to $ 3.8 miliion. These measures consist of the fo~ ng { low~in millians}:
11.2 -- Total budget gap
2.8} -- Salary and wages savings reflecting
reorganizations, the elimination of over 30
positions and the absorption of salary step
and health/dental cost increases;
1.6} -- 5upplies and Expense savings reflecting:
reduced professional services and various
other departmental items; the absorption of
cost increases for fuel, gas and telephone
service; and reduced funding for social
service and City-supported nan- tprof~
agencies.
3 -
ATTACHMENT D
14.A.d
Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: Attachment D - May 25, 1993 Staff Report for PFT Establishment [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures)
3.0) -- User fee increases ta be recommended ta the
Cauncil aver the next few months, and fine
increases previously approved by Cauncil to be
sffsctius July l, 1993.
3.8 Remaining budget gap.
In order to maintain the Council's commitment to continue public safety operations at acceptabl~ levels of public service, ~t was necessary, however, to increase Police and Fire allocations by
2.3 million. These increases were necessary to fully fund all po~ice pasitions and to purchase replacement police vehicles, and ta fulZy fund al~ police and fire MOU provisions ( primarily retirement ~ate changes}.
The reorganizatians which will be reflected in the proposed budget znclude: changing the Department of Information 5ystems to a division of the City Manager's
Office thereby eliminating a
department head position; restructuring the Departmenti af Cultural and Recreation Services to focus programs in terms of end users thereby increasing program effectiveness and generating cost savings, and streamZining supervisory control in the General Services Department.
The attached tax change ordinances, if approved, wi~l eliminate this remaining budget gap.
4 -
ATTACHMENT D
14.A.d
Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: Attachment D - May 25, 1993 Staff Report for PFT Establishment [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) Recom~endation
It is recommended that Council introduce far first reading the attached tax change ordinances.
Prepared by: Jahn Jalili, City Manager
Lynne Barrette, Assistant City Manager
Mike Dennis, Director of Finance
5 -
ATTACHMENT D
14.A.d
Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: Attachment D - May 25, 1993 Staff Report for PFT Establishment [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) AT~' CHAIENT P_A
CA: pkgtax. wp51\ df
City Council Meeting
JLD: ord\ pc~
5-9325- Santa Monica, Caiifornia
ORDINANCE NUMBER { CCS)
City Council Seriesy
AN QRDINANCE OF THE CTTY COUNCIL 4F THE
CITY ~F SANTA MONICA ADDING CHAPTER 6.70 TO THE
SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH A
PARKING FACILITY TAX
THE CITY C~UNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ~R~AIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 6.70 is added to the Santa Monica
Municipal Code to read as follows:
SECTION 6. p10. 70 Definitioas.
Except where the context otherwise
requires, the definitions in this Sectian
govern the construction of this Chapter.
a) Motor vehicle. " Motor vehicle"
means every self-propelled vehic~e vperated ar
suitable far operation on the highway.
b) Ocougancy. " Occupancy" means the
use or possession or the right to the use or
possession of any space for the parking af a
motor vehicie ar any other purpose in a
parking facility.
1 ATTACHMENT D
14.A.d
Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Attachment D - May 25, 1993 Staff Report for PFT Establishment [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) c} oaaupant. j~occupant" means a person
wha, for a consideration, uses, possesses or
has the right to use or possess any space for
the parking o~ a motor vehicle in a parking
facility under any lease, concession, permit,
right of access, license to use or other
agreement or otherwise, whether voluntarily or
involuntarily. Occupant shall be deemed to
include any person required to pay any valet
or service labor charge in connection with the
parking ~f motor vehicles an public or private
property and any persan required to pay a
charge for the occupancy of parking space by
another person by means of validation or
atherwise.
d) Operatar. " operator" means the
p~rson who canducts a parking facility,
whether in the capacity o~ owner, lessee,
mortgage ~n possessian, license~, valet or
other service supplier or any other capacity.
When the operator performs his or her
functions through a managing agent of any type
or character other than an employee, the
managing agent shall alsa be deemed an
vperator for purposes of this article and
shall have the same duties and iiabilities as
2 ATTACHMENT D
14.A.d
Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Attachment D - May 25, 1993 Staff Report for PFT Establishment [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) his principal. When the managing agent
c~llects parking fees and tax on behalf af his
ar her principal and deposits the same into
the principal's
account in a financial
institution, such principal shall be
responsible for reporting and remitting the
tax to the City. It shall be the duty of the
managing aqent to provide the Director of
Finance with the name and address of each
principal who will be responsib~e for
reporting and remitting the tax to the City.
Gompliance with the prnvisions af this article
by either the principal ar the managing agent
shall be considered to be compliance by both.
A person who qualifies as an operator shall
not, by reason of being exempt from the tax
imposed in this artic~e, be exernpt from the
duties and liabilities of an operator imposed
under this article.
e) Parkinq Meter. " Parking meter"
means any device which, when the recarding
device thereof is set in motian, ar
immediately follawing the deposit af any coin,
shall register the periad of time that any
motor vehicle may be parked adjacent thereto.
3 ATTACHMENT D
14.A.d
Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: Attachment D - May 25, 1993 Staff Report for PFT Establishment [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) f) Parkinq Facility. " Parking
faciiity" means any outdoor space or uncavered
plot, place, street, lot, parcel, yard or
enclnsure, or an~ partzon thereof, or any
building or structure, or any portion thereof,
where or in which a mator vehicle may be
parked, stored, housed ar kept, for which any
charge is made.
g) Person. " Persan" means any natural
person, partnership, joint venture, joint
stock company, carparatian, estate, trust,
business trust, receiver, administrator,
executor, assignee, trustee in bankruptcy,
firm, company, association, club, syndicate,
society, municipal corporation, the State flf
CaZifornia, political subdivisa.on of the State
of California, the United States,
instrumer~tality of the United States, or any
group or combination acting as a unit, whether
mutual, cQaperative, fraternal, nonprofit or
o~' Wlel^iS e .
h) Parking Fea. " Parking fee" means
the cansidera~ion charged, wh~ther or not
received, for the occupancy or use of space in
a parking facility valued in money, whether
received in money, goads, labor or otherwise,
4 ATTACHMENT D
14.A.d
Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Attachment D - May 25, 1993 Staff Report for PFT Establishment [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) including al~ receipts, cash, eredits and
property and services of any kind ar nature,
without any deduction therefrom. The parking
fee shall ~ e deemed ta include the total
Charges required to be paid by an occupant,
includinq, but not iimited to, any va3et or
service labor charge in connection with the
use or accupancy of parking space on public ar
private property. Nathing shall be construed
to mean that a parking fee is charged to the
occupant of space in a parking facility for
the sale af petroletxm products, automabile
parts ~ro~her tangible personal property, the
rendering of services, including car wash
services, totally unconnected with the use ar
vccupancy ot parking space, or where parking
space is provided ta the occupant as a
comp~iment from the operator and where no
Gonsideration is charged to or received fram
any other person.
Sectian 7. 020. 60 Parkinq Facility Tax.
On ar after July 1, 1993, there is hereby
imposed a tax upon every person in the City
who occupies a parking tacility or who is
obligatad to pay a parking fee. The tax
5 ATTACHMENT D
14.A.d
Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: Attachment D - May 25, 1993 Staff Report for PFT Establishment [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) imposed b~ this Chapter shall be at the rate
of ten percent {10~) of the total parking fee
charged by the vperatar for use of the parking
facility.
Secti~n 6. 030. 70 Colleation.
a) On or after the effective date of
this Chapter, every operator or persan
receaving any payment for use of a parking
facility shall collect the amount of the tax
imposed by this Chapter from the person paying
the parka.ng fee or wha is obligated to pay the
parking fee.
b} Un3ess otherwise prohibited by law,
every person occupying a parking space in a
parking facility shal~ be required to pay the
tax impased by this Chapter to the operator or
the person collecting the parking fee. If the
parking fee is paid in installments, or if an
amaunt paid is less than the full amount of
the parking fee and tax accrued at the time of
payment, a proportionate share of the tax
shall be deemed to have been paid with each
such partial payment or installment.
c) The taxes reqnired to be collected
pursuant to this Chapter shall be deemed ta be
6 ATTACHMENT D
14.A.d
Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: Attachment D - May 25, 1993 Staff Report for PFT Establishment [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) held in trust by the operator ar the person
required to collect the tax on behalf of the
City until the taxes are remitted to the City
as required by this Chapter and shall
constitute a debt owed by the aperator to the
City.
Section 040. 6.70. Reports and Tas
Remittance.
a) The person or operator collecting or
obligated to co~lect any parking facility tax
pursuant ta this Chapter, shall prepare a
report upon such forms and settang f~rth such
informatian as the Director of Finance may
prescribe and require to carry out the
purposes of this Chapter.
bj The person or operator collecting or
obligated ta collect any parking facility tax
shall report the amount af parking fees
collected and, the tax required ta be
co~. lected along with a remittance of the tax.
cj The reports and tax remittances of
parking facility taxes shali be due no later
than the twenty-fifth day following the end af
each calendar quarter and shali cover the just
ended calendar quarter. For purposes of this
7 ATTACHMENT D
14.A.d
Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: Attachment D - May 25, 1993 Staff Report for PFT Establishment [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) Chapter, the calendar quarters begin January
1, April 1, July 1 and October 1 of each year
and end the last day of March, June, Septemb~r
and December of each year.
Section 050. G.70 Interest aad
Peaaities.
If any person fails or refuses to remit
to the Director of Finance the tax required to
be collected by this Chapter~ there shail be
added to such tax a penalty of ten percent
10~) of the amount of the tax due for each
thirty days that the tax is unpaid. If the
tax due remains unpaid for a period of ninety
90} days ar longer, in addition ta the
penalty prescribed by this section, the person
owing the tax shall pay to the City interest
on the amount due frflm the date the tax was
due, in the amount determined by th~ Director
of Finance as equal to the City's actual rate
af return on its invested funds.
Section 6. 060. 72. Failure to Collect and
Report Tax.
If any person shall fail or refuse to
collect the parking facility tax or to make,
8 ATTACHMENT D
14.A.d
Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: Attachment D - May 25, 1993 Staff Report for PFT Establishment [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) within the time provided in this Chapter, any
Xeport or remittance required by this Chapter,
the Director of Finance shall proceed in such
manner as he or she may deeia best to obtain
facts and informatian on which to estimate the
tax due. As soon as the Director of Finance
hall procure such facts and information as h~
or she is able to abtain upon which to base
the assessment of any tax payable by any
person who has failed or refused ta col].ect
the same and to make such report or
remittance, the Director of Finance shall
proceed to determine and assess against such
person the tax and penalties provided for by
this Chapter and shall notify such person by
mai~ sent to his ar her last knawn place of
address of the total amount of such tax
including interest and penaltiES, and the
total amount thereof shall be payabla within
ten days from the date of such notice.
SECtion a70. 6.72 Rscords.
It sha11 be the duty of e~ery person
lialale for the collection and payment to the
City of any tax imposed by this Chapter to
keep and preserve, for a period of two years,
9 ATTACHMENT D
14.A.d
Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: Attachment D - May 25, 1993 Staff Report for PFT Establishment [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) such suitabie records as may be necessary to
determine the amount of such tax as he or she
may have been iiable for the callection of and
payment to the City~ which records the
Director of Finance shall have the right to
inspect at ail reasonable times.
section 080. 6.72 cessatioa ot Business,
Whenever any person required ta collect
and pay to the City a tax under this Chapter
shall cease to operate or otherwise dispose of
his or her business, any tax payable hereunder
to the City shal]. become immediately due and
payable and such person shall immediately make
a
report and pay the tax due.
Section 09Q. 6.72. Egceptions.
No tax shall be payable hereunder in any
of the follow~ng instances:
a) On the parking fee paid by any
federa~, State af Ca~ifornia, or City of Santa
Monica~ official or employees when on official
business provided that a tax exempt
certificate is executed no later than the time
when payment of the parking fee is due, on a
za
ATTACHMENT D
14.A.d
Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: Attachment D - May 25, 1993 Staff Report for PFT Establishment [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) form to be provided by the Director of
Finance.
b) On the parking fee deposited in any
parking meter owned or operated by the City.
c) On the parking fee paid for any City
preferential parking penait.
d) On the parking fee paid as part of
any residential dwelling unit lease, rental
agreement or abligation, including on the
parking fee paid as part of any hotel, matel
or other ~odging facility occupancy, but anly
when the length of the accupant's stay exceeds
thirty ( 30) consecutive days in the hotel,
mate~ ar other lodging facility.
Section 100. 6.72. Penalty.
Any person viaiating or fai~ing to comply
with any of the provisions of this Chapter,
shall upon conviction thereof, be guilty of a
misdemeanor and shall, in addition to any jai].
s~ntence, be fined not more than five hundred
dollars. Each t~iolation of thzs Chapter shall
constitute a separate offense. Any conviction
for vio3ation af this Chapter shall nat
relieve any person from the payment,
Z1
ATTACHMENT D
14.A.d
Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: Attachment D - May 25, 1993 Staff Report for PFT Establishment [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) eollection or remittance of the parking
facilit~ tax as pravided in this Chapter.
Section 6. 110. 72 Director of Finaace--
Po~ers and Duties.
It shall be the duty of the Director vf
Financa to ascertain the name of every person
operating a parking facility in the City of
5anta Monica, liable far the collectian of the
tax ~ evied by this ordxnance, who fails,
refuses or neglects to collect the tax ar to
make, within the time provided by this
ardinance, the reports or remittances required
herein. In addition to any other remedy or
proceed~ng, the DiXector of Fxnance is
authorized to request that the City Attorney
commence any praceeding as may be appropriate
to obtain payment of any tax, including
penaZty and interest, as may be due the City
under this Chapter.
SECTION 2. Any provision af the Santa Monica Municipal
Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the prvvisians of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, are hereby repealed or modified to that e~ent necessary ta affect he provisians af thi.s ordinance.
12 ATTACHMENT D
14.A.d
Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: Attachment D - May 25, 1993 Staff Report for PFT Establishment [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures)
ATTACHMENT D
14.A.d
Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: Attachment D - May 25, 1993 Staff Report for PFT Establishment [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) P- B
CA: JL: jld878/ pc/ ct
City Council Meeting 6- 1- 93
JUN 1
Santa Monica, California
1-
i':~J
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and city council
FROM: city Attorney
SUBJECT: Ordinances Amending the Santa Monica Municipal Code to Increase the utility User Tax and
to Establish a Parking Facility Tax
At its meeting on May 25, 1993, the city Council introduced for first reading two ordinances, one increasing the utility user tax, and the other establishing a parking facility tax. The ordinances are now presented to the city council for adoption.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the accompanying
ordinances be adopted.
PREPARED BY: Joseph Lawrence, Acting City Attorney
B
H !~ j ~
it;i~ 1
F:Jq3
ATTACHMENT E
14.A.e
Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: Attachment E - June 1, 1993 Staff Report and Ordinance [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) CA: JLD: pkgtax. ord\ wp51\ pc\ df
city Council Meeting 6- 1- 93 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER 1683 ( CCS)
City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADDING CHAPTER 6. 70 TO THE
SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH A
PARKING FACILITY TAX
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
9 SECTION 1. Chapter 6. 70 is added to the Santa Monica Municipal Code to read as follows:
SECTION 6. 70. 010. Definitions.
Except where the context otherwise
i
requires, " the definitions in thlS Section
govern the construction of this Chapter.
a) Hotor vehicle. Motor vehicle"
means every self- propelled vehicle operated or
suitable for operation on the highway.
b) occupancy. occupancy" means the
use or possession or the right to the use or
possession of any space for the parking of a
motor vehicle or any other purpose in a
parking facility.
1 ATTACHMENT E
14.A.e
Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: Attachment E - June 1, 1993 Staff Report and Ordinance [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) c) Occupant. " Occupant" means a person
who, for a consideration, uses, possesses or
has the right to use or possess any space for
the parking of a motor vehicle in a parking
facility under any lease, concession, permit,
right of access, license to use or other
agreement or otherwise, whether voluntarily or
involuntarily. occupant shall be deemed to
include any person required to pay any valet
or service-labor charge in connection with the
parking of motor vehicles on public or private
property and any person required to pay a
charge for the occupancy of parking space by
another person by means of validation or
otherwise.
ed) Operator. Operator" means the
person who conducts a parking facility,
whether in the capacity of owner, lessee,
mortgage in possession, licensee, valet or
other service supplier or any other capacity.
When the operator performs his or her
functions through a managing agent of any type
or character other than an employee, the
managing agent shall also be deemed an
operator for purposes of this article and
shall have the same duties and liabilities as
2 ATTACHMENT E
14.A.e
Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: Attachment E - June 1, 1993 Staff Report and Ordinance [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) his principal. When the managing agent
collects parking fees and tax on behalf of his
or her principal and deposits the same into
the principal' s account in a financial
institution, such principal shall be
responsible for reporting and remitting the
tax to the City. It shall be the duty of the
manag ing agent to provide the Director of
Finance with the name and address of each
principal who will be responsible for
reporting\ and remitting the tax to the city.
Compliance with the provisions of this article
by either the principal or the managing agent
shall be considered to be compliance by both.
A person who qualifies as an operator shall
not, by reason of being exempt from the tax
imposed in. this article, be exempt from the
duties and liabilities of an operator imposed
under this article.
e) Parkinq Heter. nparking meter"
means any device which, when the recording
device thereof is set in motion, or
immediately following the deposit of any coin,
shall register the period of time that any
motor vehicle may be parked adjacent thereto.
3 ATTACHMENT E
14.A.e
Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: Attachment E - June 1, 1993 Staff Report and Ordinance [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) f) parkinq Facility. " Parking
facility" means any outdoor space or uncovered
plot, place, street, lot, parcel, yard or
enclosure, or any portion thereof, or any
building or structure, or any portion thereof,
where or in which a motor vehicle may be
parked, stored, housed or kept, for which any
charge is made.
g) Person. " Person" means any natural
person, partnership, joint venture, joint
stock company, corporation, estate, trust,
business trust, receiver, administrator,
executor, assignee, trustee in bankruptcy,
firm, company, association, club, syndicate,
society, municipal corporation, the state of
California, political subdivision of the state
of California, the United states,
instrumentality of the United states, or any
group or combination acting as a unit, whether
mutual, cooperative, fraternal, nonprofit or
otherwise.
h) Parking Fee. " Parking feell means
the consideration charged, whether or not
received, for the occupancy or use of space in
a parking facility valued in money, whether
received in money, goods, labor or otherwise,
4 ATTACHMENT E
14.A.e
Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: Attachment E - June 1, 1993 Staff Report and Ordinance [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) including all receipts, cash, credits and
property and services of any kind or nature,
without any deduction therefrom. The parking
fee shall be deemed to include the total
charges required to be paid by an occupant,
including, but not limited to, any valet or
service labor charge in connection with the
use or occupancy of parking space on public or
private property. Nothing shall be construed
to mean that a parking fee is charged to the
occupant of space in a parking facility for
the sale ' of petroleum products, automobile
parts or other tangible personal property, the
rendering of services, including car wash
services, ~ otally unconnected with the use or
occupancy of parking space, or where parking
space lS provlded to the occupant as a
compliment from the operator and where no
consideration is charged to or received from
any other person.
Section 7. 60. 020. Parking Facility Tax.
On or after July 1, 1993, there is hereby
imposed a tax upon every person in the city
who occupies a parking facility or who is
obligated to pay a parking fee. The tax
5 ATTACHMENT E
14.A.e
Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: Attachment E - June 1, 1993 Staff Report and Ordinance [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) imposed by this Chapter shall be at the rate
of ten percent ( 10%) of the total parking fee
charged by the operator for use of the parking
facility.
section 6. 70. 030. COllection.
a) On or after the effective date of
this Chapter, every operator or person
receiving any payment for use of a parking
facility shall collect the amount of the tax
imposed by this Chapter from the person paying
the parking fee or who is obligated to pay the
parking fee.
b) Unless otherwise prohibited by law,
every person occupying a parking space in a
parking facility shall be required to pay the
tax imposed by this Chapter to the operator or
the person collecting the parking fee. If the
parking fee is paid in installments, or if an
amount paid is less than the full amount of
the parking fee and tax accrued at the time of
payment, a proportionate share of the tax
shall be deemed to have been paid with each
such partial payment or installment.
c) The taxes required to be collected
pursuant to this Chapter shall be deemed to be
6 ATTACHMENT E
14.A.e
Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: Attachment E - June 1, 1993 Staff Report and Ordinance [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) held in trust by the operator or the person
required to collect the tax on behalf of the
City until the taxes are remitted to the city
as required by this Chapter and shall
constitute a debt owed by the operator to the
city.
Section 6. 70. 040. Reports and Tax
Remittance.
a) The person or operator collecting or
obligated ~ o collect any parking facility tax
pursuant to this Chapter, shall prepare a
report upon such forms and setting forth such
information as the Director of Finance may
prescribe and require to carry out the
purposes of this Chapter.
b) The person or operator collecting or
obligated to collect any parking facility tax
shall report the amount of parking fees
collected and, the tax required to be
collected along with a remittance of the tax.
c) The reports and tax remittances of
parking facility taxes shall be due no later
than the twenty- fifth day following the end of
each calendar quarter and shall cover the just
ended calendar quarter. For purposes of this
7 ATTACHMENT E
14.A.e
Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: Attachment E - June 1, 1993 Staff Report and Ordinance [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) Chapter, the calendar quarters begin January
1, April 1, July 1 and October 1 of each year
and end the last day of March, June, September
and December of each year.
Section 6. 70. 050. Interest and
Penalties.
If any person fails or refuses to remit
to the Director of Finance the tax required to
be collected by this Chapter, there shall be
added to such tax a penalty of ten percent
10%) of the amount of the tax due for each
thirty days that the tax is unpaid. If the
tax due remains unpaid for a period of ninety
90) days or longer, in addition to the
penalty prescribed by this section, the person
owing the tax shall pay to the City interest
on the amount due from the date the tax was
due, in the amount determined by the Director
of Finance as equal to the City' s actual rate
of return on its invested funds.
Section 6. 72. 060. Failure to Collect and
Report Tax.
If any person shall fail or refuse to
collect the parking facility tax or to make,
8 ATTACHMENT E
14.A.e
Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: Attachment E - June 1, 1993 Staff Report and Ordinance [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) within the time provided in this Chapter, any
report or remittance required by this Chapter,
the Director of Finance shall proceed in such
manner as he or she may deem best to obtain
facts and information on which to estimate the
tax due. As soon as the Director of Finance
shall procure such facts and information as he
or she is able to obtain upon which to base
the assessment of any tax payable by any
person who has failed or refused to collect
the same and to make such report or
remittance, the Director of Finance shall
proceed to determine and assess against such
person the tax and penalties provided for by
this Chapter and shall notify such person by
mail sent to his or her last known place of
address of the total amount of such tax
including interest and penalties, and the
total amount thereof shall be payable within
ten days from the date of such notice.
Section 6. 72. 070. Records.
It shall be the duty of every person
liable for the collection and payment to the
city of any tax imposed by this Chapter to
keep and preserve, for a period of two years,
9 ATTACHMENT E
14.A.e
Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: Attachment E - June 1, 1993 Staff Report and Ordinance [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) t
such suitable records as may be necessary to
determine the amount of such tax as he or she
may have been liable for the collection of and
payment to the City, which records the
Director of Finance shall have the right to
inspect at all reasonable times.
Section 6. 72. 080. Cessation of Business.
Whenever any person required to collect
and pay to the City a tax under this Chapter
shall cease to operate or otherwise dispose of
his or her business, any tax payable hereunder
to the City shall become immediately due and
payable and such person shall immediately make
a
report and pay the tax due.
Section 6. 72. 090. Exceptions.
No tax shall be payable hereunder in any
of the following instances:
a) On the parking fee paid by any
federal, State of California, or City of Santa
Monica, official or employees when on official
business provided that a tax exempt
certificate is executed no later than the time
when payment of the parking fee is due, on a
lO
ATTACHMENT E
14.A.e
Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: Attachment E - June 1, 1993 Staff Report and Ordinance [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) form to be provided by the Director of
Finance.
b) On the parking fee deposited in any
parking meter owned or operated by the city.
ec) On the parking fee paid for any city
preferential parking permit.
d) On the parking fee paid as part of
any residential dwelling unit lease, rental
agreement or obligation, including on the
parking fee paid as part of any hotel, motel
or other lodging facility occupancy, but only
when the length of the occupant' s stay exceeds
thirty ( 30) consecutive days in the hotel,
motel or other lOdging facility.
Section 6. 72. 100. Penalty.
Any person violating or failing to comply
with any of the provisions of this Chapter,
shall upon conviction thereof, be guilty of a
misdemeanor and shall, in addition to any jail
sentence, be fined not more than five hundred
dollars. Each violation of this Chapter shall
constitute a separate offense. Any conviction
for violation of this Chapter shall not
relieve any person from the payment,
11 ATTACHMENT E
14.A.e
Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: Attachment E - June 1, 1993 Staff Report and Ordinance [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) collection or remittance of the parking
facility tax as provided in this Chapter.
Section 6. 72. 1~ O. Director of Finance--
powers and Duties.
It shall be the duty of the Director of
Finance to ascertain the name of every person
operating a parking facility in the City of
Santa Monica, liable for the collection of the
tax levied by this ordinance, who fails,
refuses or neglects to collect the tax or to
make, within the time provided by this
ordinance, the reports or remittances required
herein. In addition to any other remedy or
proceeding, the Director of Finance is
authorized to request that the city Attorney
commence any proceeding as may be appropriate
to obtain payment of any tax, including
penalty and interest, as may be due the city
under this Chapter.
SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this ordinance.
12 ATTACHMENT E
14.A.e
Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: Attachment E - June 1, 1993 Staff Report and Ordinance [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The city Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Charter section 6l9.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Q~~/ w0-
t1~fEP~ LAW~ ENCE
i~
ing City Attorney
13 ATTACHMENT E
14.A.e
Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: Attachment E - June 1, 1993 Staff Report and Ordinance [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) Adopted and approved th~s 1st day of June, 1993.
o 4k
fi Mayor
I hereby certlfy that the foregoing Ordinance No. 1683 ( CCS) was duly and regularly ~ ntroduced at a meetlng of the City Council on the 25th day of May 1993j that the said Ordinance was thereafter duly adopted at a meeting of the C~ ty Counc~ l on the 1st day of June 1993 by the following Councll vote:
Ayes: CounCllmembers Abdo, Genser, Olsen, Vazquez
Noes- Councllmembers: Greenberg, Holbrook, Rosenstein
Absta~ n: Councllmembers: None
Absent: Councllmernbers None
ATTEST:
j
r.-/ City Clerk
ATTACHMENT E
14.A.e
Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: Attachment E - June 1, 1993 Staff Report and Ordinance [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) e e
CA: f:\ atty\ muni\ laws\ mjm\ facfee
City Council Meeting 2- 28- 95 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER 1789
City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6. 70. 040 TO MODIFY THE
DUE DATES FOR THE REPORTS AND TAX REMITTANCES
REQUIRED BY THE PARKING FACILITY TAXES LAW
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION L Municipal Code section 6. 70. 040 is amended to read as follows:
6. 70. 040. Reports and tax remittance.
a) The person or operator collectl. ng or
obligated to collect any parking facility tax
pursuant to this chapter shall prepare a
report upon a form prescribed by the Director
of Finance. The report shall include the
amount of parking fees collected and the
amount of the tax collected pursuant to thl.s
Chapter. Additionally, the report shall
include such information as is required by the
Director of Fl.nance to carry out the purposes
of this Chapter.
1 ATTACHMENT F
14.A.f
Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: Attachment F - February 28, 1995 Ordinance Changing Reporting [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) e e
b) The person or operator collecting or
obligated to collect any parking facility tax
shall remit to the City the parking facility
tax together with the report prepared pursuant
to Subsection ( a).
c) The reports and tax remittances of
parking facility taxes shall be delinquent if
not paid on or before the twenty- fifth day
following the end of each reporting quarter as
specified hereln, and shall cover the
reporting quarter just ended. For purposes of
this Chapter, the reporting quarters are as
follows: December 1st through February
28th/ 29th, March 1st through May 31st, June
1st through August 31st, September 1st through
November 30th.
SECTION 2. Any provis1on of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ord1nance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent 2 ATTACHMENT F
14.A.f
Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: Attachment F - February 28, 1995 Ordinance Changing Reporting [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures)
ATTACHMENT F
14.A.f
Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: Attachment F - February 28, 1995 Ordinance Changing Reporting [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures)
ATTACHMENT F
14.A.f
Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: Attachment F - February 28, 1995 Ordinance Changing Reporting [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures)
CITY OF
Santa Cruz
Council Compensation and Staffing Study
Final Report / May 2024
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 445 S. Figueroa St. Suite 1925, Los Angeles, CA 90071
www.raftelis.com
May 22, 2024
Laura Schmidt
Assistant City Manager
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Subject: Council Compensation and Staffing Study
Dear Ms. Schmidt:
We are pleased to present the results of our study for the City of Santa Cruz (City) regarding City Council compensation and staffing. This report includes a detailed review of Council compensation and staffing among other California communities, as well as a summary of interviews with members of the City Council. We have also outlined some options for addressing the interests of the Council for increased staff support for key tasks which they noted in their interviews.
The information provided in this report is intended to provide a useful framework for the City to consider its future compensation and staffing strategy as pertains to the City Council.
Thank you for this opportunity to assist the City of Santa Cruz.
Sincerely,
Jan Perkins
Vice President
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures)
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 3 BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY .........................................................3 OVERVIEW OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ .................................................3 BENCHMARKING SUMMARY ............................................................. 5 OVERVIEW OF SURVEY CITIES ....................................................................5 COUNCIL AND MAYOR COMPENSATION ....................................................7 Mayor and Council Compensation Among Survey Cities ............................................. 7 Summary of Data from the California State Controller’s Office ................................... 9 STAFF SUPPORT TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL ......................................9 COUNCIL INTERVIEWS..................................................................... 10 OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION..................................................... 11 MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMPENSATION ..................................................11 STAFF SUPPORT TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL ....................................11 Staffing Needs ................................................................................................................... 11 Options for Staff Support................................................................................................. 12 CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 14
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures)
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY List of Tables
Table 1: Overview of Survey Cities.............................................................................................. 5 Table 2: 2022 Homelessness Count in Survey Cities ............................................................... 6 Table 3: Survey Cities with Universities ..................................................................................... 6 Table 4: Mayor and Council Salary Comparison ....................................................................... 7 Table 5: Automatic Mayor and Council Salary Changes .......................................................... 8 Table 6: Staff Support to Mayor and Council ............................................................................. 9 Table 7: Summary of Estimated Staffing Costs for Mayor and Council Support Positions Under Option 2 ............................................................................................................................. 13 Table 8: Controller’s Office Salary Benchmarking .................................................................. 16 List of Figures
Figure 1: Comparison of Santa Cruz Mayor and Council Salaries to Average and Median Survey Salaries .............................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 2: Comparison of 2022 Mayor and Council Wages, per City Controller Data.......... 18 List of Appendices
APPENDIX A: Controller’s Office Data...................................................................................... 15 APPENDIX B: Staffing and Compensation Survey Questions............................................... 19 APPENDIX C: Staffing and Compensation Survey Responses ............................................. 23
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 1
Executive Summary
In August 2023, the City of Santa Cruz engaged Raftelis to conduct a study of City Council compensation and staffing. As part of this study, the project team worked with the City Manager’s Office to identify appropriate communities against which the City’s current compensation and staffing could be benchmarked. The project team surveyed eight communities, and details on these benchmarking results are provided further in the report.
Additionally, data from the California State Controller’s Office was reviewed and relevant data was analyzed and included in this study.
As part of our information gathering, the project team also interviewed members of the Santa Cruz City Council to understand their perspectives and interests with regards to compensation and staffing for members of the Council.
Generally, there was an interest by members of the Council in increasing compensation and staff support provided to the City Council.
Our overall observations are that the level of staff support provided to the Mayor and Council and how that support is provided is consistent with most of the survey cities. The level and type of support could be increased by either adding new positions or reassigning positions (if available) from other departments to the City Manager’s Office.
Positions could be designated specifically for Council support, with hiring and supervision provided through the City Manager’s Office, consistent with the City Charter’s allocation of responsibilities and authority to the City Manager and the role and responsibilities of the City Council. As an alternative, part-time temporary positions could be added to be supervised by members of the Council. More details are offered in a later section of this report.
The compensation paid to the Mayor and Council is within the overall range as the survey cities, although lower than the average, as noted in the following pages. Some cities pay more and others less, based on local decisions. If desired, increases could be made by the Santa Cruz City Council consistent with City Charter provisions for such increases.
Data Analysis Highlights
Eight cities provided data through Raftelis’ survey on compensation and staffing. Details follow later in this report, including how they were selected. The eight cities are:
• Berkeley
• Davis
• Fremont
• Pleasanton
• San Luis Obispo
• San Rafael
• Santa Barbara
• Santa Monica
Compensation. Santa Cruz pays its Mayor a similar salary to the eight survey cities listed above, at $41,048 per year, compared to a survey average of $43,884. However, Santa Cruz Council Member compensation of $20,524 is lower than the survey average of $31,377. Benefits are comparable. Data from the State Controller’s Office for a larger group of 30 similarly sized California cities shows a lower average salary for both mayor and council members than is paid in Santa Cruz. Appendix A provides detailed information regarding the State Controller’s Office data.
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 2 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
Staff Support. Staff support to the mayor and council varies among the eight survey cities. Five of the eight peers have some form of dedicated staffing support, although only three of those five have positions dedicated entirely to supporting elected officials. Only one survey city, the City of Berkeley, has staff reporting directly to the mayor and council members. Staff in all other communities are supervised by the City Manager’s Office. Berkeley is also an outlier in terms of the level of council staffing. Altogether, 19 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions support the City of Berkeley Mayor and City Council, compared to between one and two FTEs for other survey cities.
Council Interview Highlights
Members of the Santa Cruz Council expressed a range of interests and opinions regarding compensation and staffing.
Common themes were that higher compensation would better reflect the level of effort required, and that paying more aligns with the City’s focus on equity and access and may open opportunities to run for office to people who otherwise could not afford to do so. Members of Council noted that benefits currently provided are generous. Some comments were made that current compensation is adequate.
With regards to staff support to the Mayor and Council, common themes were that City staff are highly responsive and helpful, that there are some tasks that go unmet, and that added staffing would be helpful. Some comments were made that current staff support is adequate. The type of tasks that Council Members would like assistance with are scheduling meetings with constituents or other groups, reviewing and assisting with email, conducting preliminary research on items, preparing talking points for outside meetings, and following up with constituent issues. It was noted by some that the move to Districts is increasing the level of constituent expectations for Council Members.
Some members of Council expressed an interest in having more staff support than is currently provided.
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 3
Introduction
Background and Methodology
During the Spring 2023 budget discussions, the topic of compensation and staffing for the Mayor and Council was raised. The Council directed the City Manager to provide options for the Council’s consideration. To offer a complete perspective on the issues, the City Manager’s Office engaged Raftelis to conduct an independent study of compensation provided to members of city councils in comparable cities, as well as how staff support is provided in those cities.
The primary source of information used by Raftelis for this study was a benchmarking survey administered to other California communities. Eight communities provided detailed input about Council staffing and compensation through a benchmarking survey. Several factors were considered when selecting these cities, including: population size, whether the city provides a full range of services to the community, whether the Council is elected by districts, whether the city is a beach or leisure destination, whether there are one or more universities within the city boundaries, and the city’s homelessness response programming.
Raftelis also reviewed California State Controller’s Office council compensation data for 30 mid-size cities ranging in size from approximately 50,000 residents to approximately 225,000 residents. This information is summarized briefly in the report, with more extensive analysis included as Appendix A.
Overview of the City of Santa Cruz
The City of Santa Cruz operates under a Council/Manager form of government and is a Charter City. The sevenmember Council serves as the legislative body and appoints a City Manager to oversee day-to-day operations. The Council also appoints a City Attorney and City Clerk, as provided in the City Charter.
The City Council consists of six Council Members and a Mayor. The City is transitioning to election by district, and by the November 2024 election all Council Members will be elected by district. The Mayor is elected at-large.
Together, the Council represents a community of approximately 61,800 residents and oversees a City government with a total budget of $467 million as of Fiscal Year 2024. Santa Cruz is home to the University of California/Santa Cruz and is the seat of Santa Cruz County government.
The City Manager is the administrative head of the City government. The City Charter provides the authority to the City Manager to hire, fire, and manage all City staff (other than the City Attorney). The Charter § 806 states: “The City Manager shall … have the power and be required to: … (a) Appoint and remove, subject to the Civil Service provisions of this Charter, and the ordinances, rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, all department heads of the City except as otherwise provided by this Charter, and pass upon and approve all proposed appointments and removals of subordinate employees by department heads.” 1 The City of Santa Cruz is a full-service city, providing a range of services including police and fire protection; construction and maintenance of streets, parks, flood control, and other infrastructure; a wharf facility; and recreational and cultural activities including a performing arts center. It operates four municipal utilities, including water, wastewater, storm water, and refuse collection/landfill operations, as well as enterprise operations for parking 1 Santa Cruz City Charter § 806.
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 4 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
facilities. The water utility provides water service beyond the municipal boundaries and has a total service population of approximately 98,000.
Santa Cruz is addressing a number of challenges and has a Strategic Plan that focuses resources and attention on key goals. The Covid-19 pandemic was particularly difficult for the community given the tourism base and the City has been rebuilding its economy and services since that time. Homelessness has been acute in the community and significant resources are applied to addressing the impacts. Being a beach community adds a degree of uniqueness to Santa Cruz that is an important factor in policies and services.
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 5
Benchmarking Summary
In October 2023, the City of Santa Cruz distributed the survey designed by Raftelis to eight cities to solicit feedback on both council compensation and dedicated council staffing. This section summarizes the results of those survey responses, as well as comparison data on council compensation from the California State Controller’s office.
A copy of the survey is included as Appendix B to this report, and the full responses are included as Appendix C.
Overview of Survey Cities
A range of cities was selected for the survey. No two cities are alike so there are no exact matches. The cities in the survey include some that are full-service like Santa Cruz. They range in population from approximately 50,000 to approximately 225,000, with a similar range of City staff between approximately 380 and 2,100 FTEs. The project team sought to include cities that elect their councils by district and directly elect their mayor, cities with a significant tourism base, cities with a large university population, cities with homelessness response programming, and commonality with the list of cities used for Santa Cruz’s recurring classification and compensation studies. Not every city surveyed matches each of these criteria.
The following table lists the survey cities, along with key indicators about each city’s population and government.
Table 1: Overview of Survey Cities
City Population2
Median
Household
Income3
Total FY2024
Budget (000)
Total FY2024
Authorized
FTEs
Council
Size
Directly
Elected
Mayor?
Council
Elected by
District?
Santa Cruz 61,800 $105,491 $466,569 927.7 7 Yes Yes
Berkeley 118,950 $104,716 $725,973 1,793.8 9 Yes Yes
Davis 67,048 $83,592 $250,554 376.5 5 No Yes
Fremont 223,871 $169,023 $442,787 1,019.7 7 Yes Yes
Pleasanton 76,689 $181,639 $234,412 434.4 5 Yes Yes
San Luis
Obispo 48,341 $65,000 $239,791 474.5 5 Yes No
San Rafael 59,971 $113,839 $171,699 425.8 5 Yes Yes
Santa Barbara 87,533 $98,346 $635,067 1,085.2 7 Yes Yes Santa Monica 89,947 $106,797 $745,034 2,101.4 7 No No
Peer Average 96,544 115,369 430,665 964 6
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
It is important to note that, while benchmarking can be a useful tool for understanding how a city compares to others, each community faces specific circumstances that dictate structure, staffing, and resource decisions. For example, many California cities face challenges relating to homelessness, but the City of Santa Cruz in particular faces a greater challenge than many other cities.
2 All population counts are from the United States Census’s 2022 Population Estimates Program 3 All median incomes are from the United States Census’s 2021 Five Year American Community Survey
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 6 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
The following table compares 2022 point-in-time (PIT) homelessness counts for the City of Santa Cruz and the survey communities. Santa Cruz’s count and percent of total County PIT count were the highest of any survey community, as illustrated below.
Table 2: 2022 Homelessness Count in Survey Cities
City 2022 Homelessness
PIT Count
City PIT as a Percent
of Total County PIT
Santa Cruz 1,439 63%
Berkeley 803 8%
Davis 181 24%
Fremont 1,026 11%
Pleasanton 72 1%
San Luis Obispo 385 27%
San Rafael 348 31%
Santa Barbara 822 42%
Santa Monica 807 1%
Peer Average 556 18%
The City of Santa Cruz, as well as several of the survey cities, are also home to large university populations, as listed in the table below. These students are often not counted as city residents but require city services.
Table 3: Survey Cities with Universities
City University Approximate Student
Population
Santa Cruz University of California
(UC) Santa Cruz 19,0004
Berkeley UC Berkeley 43,0005
Davis UC Davis 41,0006
Fremont Not applicable Not applicable
Pleasanton Not applicable Not applicable
San Luis Obispo Cal Poly 22,0007
San Rafael Not applicable Not applicable
Santa Barbara UC Santa Barbara 25,0008
Santa Monica Not applicable Not applicable
4 “UC Santa Cruz by the Numbers.” UC Santa Cruz, https://admissions.ucsc.edu/posts/statistics. 5 “Berkeley by the Numbers.” UC Berkeley, www.berkeley.edu/about/by-the-numbers. 6 “AggieData.” UC Davis, https://aggiedata.ucdavis.edu. 7 “Facts and Figures.” CalPoly, www.calpoly.edu/about/facts-and-figures. 8 “Facts and Figures.” UC Santa Barbara, www.ucsb.edu/about/facts-and-figures.
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 7
Council and Mayor Compensation
MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMPENSATION AMONG SURVEY CITIES
The survey asked cities to provide details on mayor and council member compensation as of October 2023, including salary, per diems, stipends, and benefits. Benefits varied, but generally the mayor and council members have the same medical and retirement benefits as full-time city staff. Most of the cities surveyed also do not offer any other compensation beyond salary, benefits, and travel expense reimbursement, with the following exceptions:
• The City of Davis provides the Mayor and each Council Member a stipend of $2,500 per year to cover the cost of supplies, conferences, and other work-related materials • The City of Santa Monica provides Mayor and each Council Member with an auto allowance of $400 per month, as well as $50 per special meeting attended
The following table compares mayor and council annual salaries as of October 2023.
Table 4: Mayor and Council Salary Comparison
City Mayor Salary Council Salary Effective Date
Santa Cruz $41,048 $20,524 July 2017
Berkeley $128,500 $80,955 December 2022
Davis $16,392 $16,392 July 2023
Fremont $51,759 $29,133 November 2022
Pleasanton $17,063 $15,863 December 2022
San Luis Obispo $32,352 $25,068 Not provided
San Rafael $8,424 $5,616 January 1990
Santa Barbara $75,110 $60,088 April 2023
Santa Monica $21,468 $17,904 July 2023
Peer Average $43,884 $31,377 Not applicable
Peer Median $26,910 $21,486 Not applicable
Salaries range considerably, from more than $128,000 for the Mayor of the City of Berkeley to less than $6,000 for the City of San Rafael City Council Members. The City of Santa Cruz has lower salaries than the survey average, and higher than the survey median, as illustrated in the figure below.
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 8 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
Figure 1: Comparison of Santa Cruz Mayor and Council Salaries to Average and Median Survey Salaries
Survey cities were also asked about any planned changes to mayor or council compensation. None are planning any specific changes to compensation, but four out of the eight peers have salaries that automatically change based on economic conditions, as shown in the table below.
Table 5: Automatic Mayor and Council Salary Changes
City Frequency Basis for Salary Change
Santa Cruz No automatic change Not applicable
Berkeley Annual County median income9
Fremont Annual Change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI)10 Pleasanton No automatic change Not applicable
San Luis Obispo No automatic change Not applicable
San Rafael No automatic change Not applicable
Santa Barbara Annual County median income11
Santa Monica Annual Change in the CPI12
The Santa Cruz City Charter § 603 currently prohibits the City from enacting automatic salary increases but authorizes the City Council, by ordinance, to increase the Mayor’s or Councilmembers’ compensation by an amount not exceeding 5% per calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment. 9 The Berkeley Mayor’s salary is annually adjusted to equal the median income of a three-person household in Alameda County. Council’s salary is annually adjusted at 63% of the median income. 10 Fremont Council compensation increases annually in an amount equal to the percent change in the CPI over the previous year, although the annual increase may not exceed 4%.
11 The Santa Barbara Mayor’s salary is annually adjusted to equal the median household income in Santa Barbara County.
Council’s salary is annually adjusted at 80% of the median income. 12 Santa Monica Council compensation increases annually in an amount equal to the percent change in the CPI over the previous year.
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
Mayor Salary Council Salary
Comparison of City of Santa Cruz Elected
Official Salaries to Survey Averages
Santa Cruz Peer Average Peer Median
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 9
SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE CONTROLLER’S OFFICE The project team utilized publicly available data from the California State Controller’s website to obtain a broader view of compensation. Appendix A contains this information and Raftelis’ analysis. The most current data is from 2022. Wages vary significantly from city to city. The highest salaries were at the City of Berkeley, with a wage of $108,961 for the Mayor and a maximum wage of $79,608 for Council Members. The lowest salaries were at the City of San Clemente, with wages of $4,800 for both the Mayor and Council Members. On average, however, the Controller’s Office data comparisons show that Santa Cruz’s wages were generally higher than that of the other communities in 2022. An important caveat is that the Controller’s Office reports actual rather than authorized wages.
This means that if certain officials only serve part of the year, their reported wages will be artificially low, and not useful as a basis for comparison.
Staff Support to the Mayor and Council
Survey cities were also asked about staff support for the mayor and council. Five out of the eight cities have some dedicated staff support for the mayor and council, although only three have staff positions dedicated entirely to that purpose. Additionally, only one survey city, the City of Berkeley, has positions that report directly to the Mayor and Council; all others report to individuals within the City Manager’s Office. No survey city indicated any plans to change staffing levels.
The following table summarizes staff support in the survey communities.
Table 6: Staff Support to Mayor and Council
City
Dedicated FTEs
Supporting
Mayor/Council
Dedicated
Entirely to
Mayor/Council?
Staffing Details
Santa Cruz None Not applicable
• The City Manager’s Office provides general
administrative support to the Council through many
positions, but there are no dedicated positions
• The Mayor and Council Members may hire unpaid
interns
Berkeley 19.0 Yes
• Each Council Member supervises 1.5 FTE Legislative
Assistants
• The Mayor supervises 3.0 FTE Assistants to the Mayor
and 4.0 FTE Legislative Assistants (7.0 FTE total)
Davis None Not applicable
• Council Members may hire unpaid interns
• Employees in the City Manager’s Office generally assist with Council Member needs
Fremont 2.0 No
• 1.0 FTE Management Analyst reports to the Deputy City Manager
• 1.0 FTE Executive Assistant to the City Manager reports to the City Manager
Pleasanton 1.0 No • 1.0 FTE Executive Assistant reports to the City Manager San Luis Obispo None Not applicable • Council Members may hire unpaid interns San Rafael None Not applicable
• A Senior Administrative Assistant and other staff in the City Manager’s Office provide some assistance to the
Council
Santa Barbara 1.0 Yes
• 1.0 FTE Administrative Assistant to the Mayor and
Council reports to an Office Supervisor in the City
Administrator’s Office
Santa Monica 2.0 Yes
• 1.0 FTE Council Office and Legislative Affairs Liaison reports to the City Manager
• 1.0 FTE Administrative Staff Assistant reports to the Council Office and Legislative Affairs Liaison
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 10 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
Council Interviews
In order to obtain some understanding of the perspectives about compensation and staff support for the Council, Raftelis conducted individual interviews with each member of the Council. Raftelis endeavored to learn how staff support is currently provided and any unmet needs that may exist. We also sought to understand Council Members’ interests regarding compensation levels.
FEEDBACK FROM MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
Question 1. What is your perspective on compensation provided to the Mayor and Council? Comments received included:
• Higher compensation is needed to recognize the importance of the positions, and to allow members of Council to devote more time to their Council duties.
• Current level of compensation is fair as it is.
• Benefit package is generous and offers health insurance and pension coverage. • Higher salary would allow lower income people to serve and increase the candidate pool. • Significant time is spent on Council work and higher compensation is needed to recognize that.
Question 2. What type of staff assistance do you receive now? Do you experience unmet needs in this assistance? If so, what are those needs?
Council comments on current staff assistance:
• City staff are always helpful and responsive when asked. • Good relationship with City staff.
• City Manager’s Office assists when asked.
• Department heads are always willing to help.
• Regular meetings and agenda reviews with the City Manager are helpful. • Department heads and other City staff have regular jobs, without much time to devote to special requests.
Council comments on unmet needs:
• Policy support for Council Members’ work on regional bodies. • Research assistance.
• Constituent follow up.
• Scheduling meetings with constituents and other groups. • No unmet needs.
• Reviewing and sorting through emails.
• Preparing talking points for outside meetings.
• With Districts, more expectations from constituents for attention from Council Members, requiring more staff assistance.
• Would be helpful to have staff support reporting directly to us.
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 11
Options for Consideration
The Council directed the City Manager to return with options with regards to compensation and staffing.
Mayor and Council Compensation
As pertains to compensation, the City of Santa Cruz Charter sets forth a process for increasing the Council’s compensation. For the purposes of this report, Raftelis has included the section of the City Charter that applies to Mayor and Council salaries. How this is applied is subject to advice from the City Attorney.
The last increase was effective July 1, 2017. Charter § 603 governs City Council salaries and indicates that Council salary may be adjusted through elections or ordinance. Section 603 states:13 At any municipal election, the question of whether City Council Members or the Mayor shall receive compensation for services, and the amount of compensation, may be submitted to the electors… Compensation of Council Members and the Mayor may be increased beyond the amount provided in this Section by an ordinance enacted by the City Council or by an amendment to an ordinance enacted by the City Council but the amount of the increase may not exceed an amount equal to five (5%) percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary in effect when the ordinance or amendment is enacted. No salary ordinance shall be enacted or amended by the City Council which provides for automatic future increases in salary.
If the Council were to increase compensation for the Mayor and/or Council, it would determine the level of increase and follow the requirements set forth in the Charter. An increase beyond the level that may be adjusted by ordinance as specified by Section 603 would require voter approval.
Staff Support to the Mayor and Council
STAFFING NEEDS
A summary of the functions that appear to be of most importance to members of Council are the following:
1. Scheduling. This would be to provide meeting and constituent scheduling assistance to all members of Council who desire this service. Experience will provide the best understanding of what capacity is actually needed.
2. Research assistance. This would provide the desired research requested by the Mayor and individual Council Members on topics of interest to them. Depending on the frequency and complexity of the topics to be researched, this could require a full-time position, at a management analyst level.
3. Talking points and preparing for presentations. This would provide the Mayor and Council Members with support for when they attend meetings or make presentations and need talking points. Experience will show the level of support needed.
13 Santa Cruz City Charter § 603. www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/#!/SantaCruzCH.html#603.
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 12 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
4. Emails. To aid the Mayor and Council Members in reviewing and assisting with emails, including discerning which are requesting meetings and which can be referred to City departments, and other dispositions, a part time support person could be assigned. Experience will show the frequency of need for this service.
OPTIONS FOR STAFF SUPPORT
To provide increased staff support to the Mayor and Council, three options are outlined below. All are consistent with the City Charter and the Council/Manager form of government under which the City of Santa Cruz operates.
Option 1: Reassign existing staff. Determine whether capacity exists within the City structure to reassign staff to provide the needed additional support to the Mayor and Council. If so, those positions could be reassigned, with supervision provided through the City Manager’s Office. No cost estimate is available on this option, nor is its practicality known.
Option 2: Add positions to the City Manager’s Office. The intent would be to provide additional capacity to meet the specific needs of the Mayor and members of Council that are currently unmet. Depending on the tasks, the appropriate level of position would be identified.
Option 2 is most consistent with other cities in Raftelis’ benchmarking who provide staff support to the Mayor and Council, since those cities are also Council/Manager cities. Of the five survey cities with dedicated Mayor/Council support, only one, the City of Berkeley, has staff reporting directly to elected officials. In the other cities staff support is based out of the City Manager’s Office.
For the purposes of this discussion, the estimated workload for the four types of work described above is as follows:
• Scheduling: scheduling is assumed to require a total of 20 hours a week to serve the Mayor and all members of the Council and would be at an administrative level. • Research assistance: research assistance is assumed to require a total of 25 hours a week to serve the Mayor and all members of the Council and would be at a management analyst level. • Talking points and preparing for presentations: this assistance is assumed to require as much as 15 hours a week to serve the Mayor and all members of the Council and would be at a management analyst level. • Emails: email support is assumed to require 20 hours a week to serve all the Mayor and Council Members and would be at an administrative level.
It is important to note that these are estimated staff hours for the various task. The actual workload will not be understood until staff have been hired and the work begins. For that reason, Raftelis recommends a phased approach.
Phase I would be creating a full-time Administrative Assistant III position providing scheduling and other administrative support.
14 Phase II would involve hiring a full-time Management Analyst for research assistance and data analysis.
The following table summarizes the estimated annual costs for each position. 14 A higher-level Administrative Assistant position is recommended due to the discretion required, and the fact that the position will be working with elected officials.
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 13
Table 7: Summary of Estimated Staffing Costs for Mayor and Council Support Positions Under Option 2 Phase Position Estimated Annual Cost
1 Administrative Assistant III $121,654
2 Management Analyst $177,104
Total $298,758
Option 3: Add positions aligned to the Mayor and Council. During Council interviews, an interest was expressed in having staff hired by and reporting directly to them for staff assistance. As mentioned earlier, staff must ultimately report to the City Manager per the Charter but could dotted-line report to the Mayor and Council.
There are two possible vehicles to fulfill this option:
1. Temporary staff hired under the Management Professional and Technical Assistant classification.
Using the temporary staffing model, the Mayor and Council could hire limited-term staff under the City’s temporary bargaining unit parameters with the restriction of 999 hours or less in a fiscal year (approximately 48% full-time equivalency). Utilizing part-time, temporary positions for this work has the potential of being challenging in attracting candidates, and there could also be frequent turnover, resulting in ongoing recruitment and training.
2. Creation of a new classification or classifications that are added under the at-will section of the City’s Human Resources Personnel Rules.
Under a more permanent model, Human Resources would create a new classification or classifications under the appropriate City bargaining unit and, since the incumbents would be aligned to the Mayor or to a respective Council Member, would also need to be added to the at-will positions under the City’s Human Resources Personnel Rules. These changes would go through standard processes to coordinate classification changes with the bargaining units, and the specific at-will change would also need to be adopted by Council via resolution to adjust a personnel rule15.
The cost of this option (under either vehicle) would be determined based on the level of the temporary employee hired or of the created position that is added, as well as the number of hours that are assumed to be provided to the Mayor and each member of Council. If one were to assume 20 hours per week for the Mayor and 10 hours per Council Member per week, for a total of 80 hours per week of support to the Mayor and Council, then City staff could offer a range of costs, depending on where temporary hire or the new classification ended up in the salary scale, with consideration of experience and background of each successful candidate.
Since the City Manager is the sole hiring and supervisory authority for all other City staff (except for the City Attorney’s Office), having a clear set of guidelines would be important for smooth functioning by all parties. If this option were pursued, protocols would need to be put into place pertaining to the role of these part-time staff, and how they interact with the City Manager’s Office and other City staff. 15 Currently, the staff at-will positions in Personnel Rule 2.01 are mostly in the executive area, and the positions would need to be designated under this rule.
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 14 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
Conclusion
Compensation provided to the Mayor and Council of the City of Santa Cruz is lower than the average of the eight survey cities by approximately $3,000 for the Mayor and approximately $11,000 for the Council Members16, and higher than the average of the 30 cities compared utilizing State of California Controller’s Office data. The major issue raised by members of the Council in their interviews regarding compensation pertained to equity and access to the elected positions. The interest is in the potential of encouraging lower income people to run for office and increasing the candidate pool if the City offered a higher level of pay for elected office.
With regards to staff support provided to the Mayor and City Council, Santa Cruz is similar to the survey cities, except for the City of Berkeley. In all but Berkeley, support is provided through the City Manager’s Office and other City departments. Given the Council/Manager form of government, that is not surprising. However, this does not mitigate the concerns raised by members of the Council that there are unmet needs they would like to have addressed.
That could be done through adding staff to the City Manager’s Office, consistent with the City Manager’s hiring authority and responsibility as chief executive of the organization. 16 The averages of the surveyed cities were impacted by outlying salaries in Berkeley - $128,500 for the Mayor, and $80,955 for Council Members.
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 15
APPENDIX A:
Controller’s Office Data
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 16 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
Controller’s Office Data
State law requires the Controller’s Office to collect and publish compensation data on public officials. Cities are required to submit annual data on total wages17 as well as total retirement and health contributions for mayors, council members, and city managers. The Controller’s Office does not collect or publish any information on other benefits or compensation paid to the officials. All information is publicly available on the Government Compensation in California website.
Raftelis collected data from 30 California cities, including the eight survey cities discussed in the report, with populations between approximately 50,000 and 225,000. The upper range was chosen to take into account some unique characteristics of Santa Cruz, such as the UC Santa Cruz student population of approximately 20,000 students.
There are some important caveats to this data:
• Maximum is used, rather than average, because the Controller’s Office reports actual rather than authorized wages. This means that if certain officials only serve part of the year, their reported wages will be artificially low, and not useful as a basis for comparison.
• In some cases, maximum actual council wages are higher than the actual wages earned by the mayor. This may be due to the mayor only serving part of the year (and only earning a portion of the salary they would earn over a full year) or to the council members receiving additional wages, such as stipends for serving on special committees.
• Raftelis did not independently verify the accuracy of this data. • The data received directly from the eight survey cities differs from the data reported on the State Controller’s Office website. This is because the Controller data is from 2022, while the survey data was from 2023, and because the Controller data reflects actual compensation per individual, while the survey data reflects authorized base compensation.
The following table illustrates the 30 cities, their population, and maximum Total Wages18 per mayor and council member, per the Controller’s 2022 records.
Table 8: Controller’s Office Salary Benchmarking
City Population19 Maximum Mayor
Wages 2022
Maximum Council
Wages 2022
Santa Cruz 61,800 $45,581 $27,964
Berkeley 118,950 $108,961 $79,608
Brentwood 66,127 $11,377 $11,377
Daly City 100,007 $26,352 $35,494
17 “Total Wages” is defined by the Controller’s Office as, “Total wages reported by the employer from Box 5 of the W-2, with some exceptions, and Elected Officials who received pay reported on IRS Form 1099. Amounts listed may include regular pay, overtime, cash payments for vacation and sick leave, and bonus payments.” 18 “Total Wages” is defined by the Controller’s Office as, “Total wages reported by the employer from Box 5 of the W-2, with some exceptions, and Elected Officials who received pay reported on IRS Form 1099. Amounts listed may include regular pay, overtime, cash payments for vacation and sick leave, and bonus payments.” 19 All populations are from the United States Census’s 2022 Population Estimates Program
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 17
City Population19 Maximum Mayor
Wages 2022
Maximum Council
Wages 2022
Davis 67,048 $17,172 $17,172
Dublin 72,060 $20,962 $15,421
Encinitas 61,369 $26,604 $27,386
Fremont 223,871 $18,315 $27,008
Gilroy 58,005 $25,603 $19,627
Hayward 156,754 $41,688 $24,975
La Habra 61,978 $6,300 $6,300
La Mesa 60,360 $30,183 $17,850
Livermore 84,701 $17,880 $13,007
Milpitas 77,738 $21,309 $18,592
Monterey Park 58,554 $6,000 $6,000
Mountain View 81,059 $17,910 $15,204
Palo Alto 66,010 $13,802 $15,410
Pico Rivera 59,781 $27,190 $28,390
Pleasanton 76,689 $15,741 $14,541
Redondo Beach 68,918 $28,986 $34,673
Redwood City 80,512 $7,200 $7,200
Salinas 161,020 $18,600 $16,200
San Clemente 63,457 $4,800 $4,800
San Leandro 86,762 $49,860 $21,720
San Luis Obispo 48,341 $30,205 $25,203
San Rafael 59,971 $8,424 $13,960
Santa Barbara 87,533 $75,910 $61,905
Santa Clara 126,930 $31,680 $25,680
Santa Monica 89,947 $25,800 $24,162
Sunnyvale 153,091 $39,216 $33,296
Yorba Linda 67,089 $7,200 $7,200
Peer Average 88,154 $26,041 $22,312
Peer Median 74,375 $21,136 $18,221
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 18 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
The following figure summarizes the results of this comparison.
Figure 2: Comparison of 2022 Mayor and Council Wages, per City Controller Data $0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
$50,000
Maximum Mayor Salary Maximum Council Salary
Comparison of City of Santa Cruz Elected Official
Salaries to Comptroller Office Compensation 2022
Santa Cruz Peer Average Peer Median
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 19
APPENDIX B:
Staffing and Compensation
Survey Questions
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 20 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
City of Santa Cruz
Council Compensation and Staffing Study
October 18, 2023
INTRODUCTION.
The City of Santa Cruz has engaged Raftelis to conduct a study of city council compensation and staffing provided to the mayor and council. As part of this work, Raftelis is seeking information from a select group of comparison cities. Your city has been identified as one for this survey and we would seek your assistance in providing some information. The survey responses will be consolidated and provided to the City of Santa Cruz for their information. If your City would like to receive the results, the City of Santa Cruz will be happy to provide them to you.
Please provide your responses by November 3, 2023 to Claire Pritchard at [email protected].
Background
The City of Santa Cruz operates under a Council/Manager form of government. The City Council is comprised of six Council Members and a Mayor, and the Council is transitioning to election by Council district. The Mayor is elected at large by city voters. At the November 8, 2022 election, Council Members from two districts were directly elected, as well as the Mayor. At the November 5, 2024 election, Council Members from the remaining four districts will be elected, completing the transition to election by districts.
Survey Cities:
• Berkeley
• Davis
• Fremont
• Pleasanton
• San Luis Obispo
• San Rafael
• Santa Barbara
• Santa Monica
Name of individual completing this questionnaire:
Email:
Phone:
Part A: Compensation
We are interested in all forms of compensation your city provides to your Mayor and members of Council (e.g., pay, benefits, other items). Please describe the compensation by filling out the following tables:
1. Compensation for the Mayor:
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary
Benefits
Per diems
Stipends
Other (please be
specific)
*If known
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 21
2. Compensation for members of Council:
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary
Benefits
Per diems
Stipends
Other (please be
specific)
*If known
3. Other comments about Mayor and Council compensation adjustments you would like to add.
Part B: Staff Assistance to Mayor and Council
4. Does your city have dedicated positions to provide staff assistance? Yes ☐ No ☐ • If yes, please tell us what those positions are, to whom they report, and where they are found in the budget.
• If yes, would you change anything about these positions?
5. If there are no dedicated positions, please describe how you provide staff assistance to the Mayor and/or Council.
6. If your city does not currently have staff assigned to the Mayor and/or Council, are you contemplating it? Yes ☐ No ☐
• If you are considering providing staff assistance, please share your decision-making criteria and timing.
7. What other comments do you have about staffing for the Mayor and/or Council?
8. Would you like a copy of these survey results? Yes ☐ No ☐ Thank you for your assistance to the City of Santa Cruz.
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 22 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate two-sided printing.
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 23
APPENDIX C:
Staffing and Compensation
Survey Responses
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 24 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
Council Compensation and
Staffing Survey Responses
Part A: Compensation
COMPENSATION FOR THE MAYOR
City of Berkeley
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary Annual Base Rate 128,500.06 12/25/2022 133,100.00 12/24/2023 Annual Salary adjustment - (Measure JJ) based on
Alameda County median
income for a three-person
household. ($4,599.94)
Benefits 94,331.89 12/25/2022 97,708.71 12/24/2023 Estimated Fringe Benefit Rate – 73.41% (not actual)
Per diems
Stipends
Other (please be
specific)
City of Davis
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary Paid bi-weekly $1366 per
month
2.01.110 Compensation of
council members.
(a) As provided in Section
36516 of the Government
Code, each member of the
city council shall receive a
salary.
(b) Pursuant to the
provisions of Government
Code Section 36516(a)(4),
the compensation of each
member of the city council
shall be increased to a
monthly salary of one
thousand three hundred
sixty-six dollars. This
increase in compensation
shall be effective at the
beginning of the term of
office of the council
members elected at the
general municipal election of
June 2018.
Benefits Health (Medical, Dental,
Vision, 125, Life Ins),
Staff provided an
attachment with details
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 25
Retirement, Retiree
Medical, Workers Comp
Per diems
Stipends Funds available for costs
incurred as Council
Member (supplies,
conferences, etc.).
$2500 per
year
We refer to it as a “stipend”
because it is assigned to a
specific Council Member,
but it is really just a line item
in our budget to reimburse
or charge for eligible
purchases
Other (please be
specific)
City will also provide
travel and payments for
certain conferences and
other meetings if Council
Member attending on
behalf of full Council
Varies
City of Fremont
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary Monthly $4,313.28 11/8/2022 TBD TBD
Benefits 07/1/2023 TBD TBD Staff provided an
attachment with details
Per diems 10/18/2022 TBD TBD Staff provided an
attachment with details
Stipends 10/18/2022 TBD TBD Staff provided an
attachment with details
Other (please be
specific)
Staff provided an
attachment with details
City of Pleasanton
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary salary 1421.92/month Dec 2022 No
Benefits Health, dental, vision 1. $25.00 per month
for Mayor only coverage,
$25.00 per month for
Mayor +1, $50.00 per
month for Family
coverage
2. The difference
between the family rate
of the lowest cost HMO
and the premium of the
more expensive plan
selection
Per diems
Stipends
Other (please be
specific)
CalPERS membership Optional Membership
City of San Luis Obispo
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary Base Wage $32,352
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 26 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
Benefits Life Insurance, Medicare,
Health Flex Allowance
$3,131 This can vary based on
health flex choice (ex: opt
out, employee only,
employee +1)
Per diems
Stipends
Other (please be
specific)
City of San Rafael
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary Monthly salary $702.00 01/01/1990 no
Benefits City contribution of flex
dollar amount for
medical coverage.
City-paid Dental and
Vision coverage at
family level
Varies
depending on
enrollment
selection(s)
City
contributions
for 2024 will
increase for
medical
coverage
Staff provided an
attachment with details
Per diems NA
Stipends NA
Other (please be
specific)
NA
City of Santa Barbara
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary $5007.34 TBD Per Month
Benefits $1731.62 Per Month
Per diems $0 Unless on travel and
dependent on location
City of Santa Monica
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary 21,468.00
annually
July 1 every
year
City Council and Mayor
shall be automatically
increased effective
July 1 of each year, in an
amount equal to the
increase in the Consumer
Price Index (CPI) for the
Twelve-month period
immediately preceding
July 1. As used in this
section, the CPI shall be
the index for All Urban
Consumers for the Los
Angeles, Long Beach,
Anaheim Metropolitan
Area (All items), provided
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 27
by the United States
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Benefits Medical insurance with
EE cost share;
Employer paid Dental,
Vision, Employee
Assistance Program,
$50,000 Basic Life
Insurance, $10,000
AD&D, LTD, Retiree
Health Reimbursement
Plan;
Optional CalPERS
pension membership
See Rate
sheets
1 st of the
month
following 30
days
See Rate
sheets
1/1/2024
Per diems
Stipends
Other (please be
specific)
COMPENSATION FOR THE COUNCIL
City of Berkeley
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary Annual Base Rate 80,954.90 12/25/2022 83,853.00 12/24/2023 Council Members at 63% of the Mayor’s salary, with
annual adjustments based
on adjustments to the area
median income.
($2,898.10)
Benefits 59,428.99 12/25/2022 61,556.49 12/24/2023 Estimated Fringe Benefit Rate – 73.41% (not actual)
Per diems
Stipends
Other (please be
specific)
City of Davis
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary Paid bi-weekly $1366 per
month
2.01.110 Compensation of
council members.
(a) As provided in Section
36516 of the Government
Code, each member of the
city council shall receive a
salary.
(b) Pursuant to the
provisions of Government
Code Section 36516(a)(4),
the compensation of each
member of the city council
shall be increased to a
monthly salary of one
thousand three hundred
sixty-six dollars. This
increase in compensation
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 28 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
shall be effective at the
beginning of the term of
office of the council
members elected at the
general municipal election of
June 2018.
Benefits Health (Medical, Dental,
Vision, 125, Life Ins),
Retirement, Retiree
Medical, Workers Comp
Staff provided an
attachment with details
Per diems
Stipends Funds available for costs
incurred as Council
Member (supplies,
conferences, etc.).
$2500 per
year
We refer to it as a “stipend”
because it is assigned to a
specific Council Member,
but it is really just a line item
in our budget to reimburse
or charge for eligible
purchases
Other (please be
specific)
City will also provide
travel and payments for
certain conferences and
other meetings if Council
Member attending on
behalf of full Council
Varies
City of Fremont
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary Monthly $2,427.76 11/8/2022 TBD TBD
Benefits 07/1/2023 TBD TBD Staff provided an
attachment with details
Per diems 10/18/2022 TBD TBD Staff provided an
attachment with details
Stipends 10/18/2022 TBD TBD Staff provided an
attachment with details
Other (please be
specific)
Staff provided an
attachment with details
City of Pleasanton
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary salary 1321.92/month Dec 2022 No
Benefits Health, dental, vision 1.$25.00 per month for
Council only coverage,
$25.00 per month for
Council +1, $50.00 per
month for Family
coverage
2.The difference between
the family rate of the
lowest cost HMO and
the premium of the more
expensive plan
selection
Per diems
Stipends
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 29
Other (please be
specific)
CalPERS membership Optional Membership
City of San Luis Obispo
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary Base Wage 25,668
Benefits Life Insurance, Medicare,
Health Flex Allowance
5,535 This can vary based on
health flex choice (ex: opt
out, employee only,
employee +1)
Per diems
Stipends
Other (please be
specific)
City of San Rafael
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary Monthly salary $468.00 01/01/1990 no
Benefits City contribution of flex
dollar amount for
medical coverage.
City-paid Dental and
Vision coverage at
family level
Varies
depending on
enrollment
selection(s)
City
contributions
for 2024 will
increase for
medical
coverage
Staff provided an
attachment with details
Per diems NA
Stipends NA
Other (please be
specific)
NA
City of Santa Barbara
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary $5007.34 TBD Per Month
Benefits $1731.62 Per Month
Per diems 0 Unless on travel and
dependent on location
Per Diem Rates | GSA
Stipends 0
Other (please be
specific)
N/A
City of Santa Monica
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary 17,904.00
annually
July 1 every
year
City Council and Mayor
shall be automatically
increased effective
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 30 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
July 1 of each year, in an
amount equal to the
increase in the
Consumer Price Index
(CPI) for the Twelvemonth period
immediately preceding
July 1. As used in this
section, the CPI shall be
the index for All Urban
Consumers for the Los
Angeles, Long Beach,
Anaheim Metropolitan
Area (All items), provided
by the United States
Bureau of Labor
Statistics
Benefits Medical insurance with
EE cost share;
Employer paid Dental,
Vision, Employee
Assistance Program,
$50,000 Basic Life
Insurance, $10,000
AD&D, LTD, Retiree
Health Reimbursement
Plan;
Optional CalPERS
pension membership
See Rate
sheets
1 st of the
month
following 30
days
See Rate
sheets
1/1/2024
Per diems Auto Allowance $400/month
Stipends Special Meeting Pay $50/meeting
Other (please be
specific)
OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENTS City Comments
Berkeley None
Davis None
Fremont
Fremont Municipal Code Section 2.05.060 specifies the salaries of the Council Members and Mayor and establishes a process for reviewing and implementing compensation increases:
“Compensation increases shall be reviewed during each budget cycle and increases shall be considered commensurate with the Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers, San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward in an amount not to exceed 4%. Any increase to the Council Members’ salaries shall become effective only upon commencement of a new Council term of office following adoption of an ordinance authorizing the increase. Any increase to the Mayor’s additional compensation (the amount that exceeds the Council Members’ salary amount) shall become effective as set forth in the ordinance adopting the increase.” Pleasanton
San Luis Obispo
PER CITY CHARTER (Section 410):
The Mayor and each Council Member shall receive compensation for services payable according to the regular City payroll schedule, with the Mayor receiving greater compensation than the other Council Members. Compensation for Mayor and Council Members shall be reviewed biennially in even-numbered years. When warranted, said compensation may be adjusted by Council resolution, to be effective the first full pay period in January of the year following the review. The compensation rate may be revised by the electorate by initiative. Mayor and Council Member expenses incurred for official business shall be reimbursed.
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 31
City Comments
San Rafael
Council Compensation Ordinance - https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/documents/councilcompensation-ord/ Elected Officials Compensation Detail - https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/documents/electedofficials-compensation-detail-summary/ Benefits summary - https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/documents/benefit-summary/ - Last column “Elected City Clerk and City Attorney” EXCEPT Life AD&D = $50k for Council Members.
Santa Barbara
Compensation adjustments for Mayor and Council are impacted by the below:
In accordance with Charter of the City of Santa Barbara, Section 502, Compensation, “… the members of the City Council, except the Mayor, shall receive an annual salary in the sum equal to eighty percent (80%) of the annual Area Median Income and the Mayor shall receive an annual salary equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the Area Median Income.” The Area Median Income is based on the income level for a single person household within Santa Barbara County, as reported by the United States Housing and Urban Development Department. The City is required to make these changes effective on April 1 each year.
Santa Monica None
Part B: Staff Assistance to Mayor and Council
DEDICATED STAFF POSITIONS
City Dedicated Staff
Positions?
Positions, Whom They Report To, Where
They Are in Budget
Change Anything About
Positions?
Berkeley Yes
Council Members have 1.5 FTE Legislative
Assistants per district who report directly to the
council members. The Mayor’s office has 3 FTE
Assistant to the Mayor and 4 FTE Legislative
Assistants. One of the Assistant to the Mayor
positions serves as the Chief of Staff.
Human Resources is currently
crafting Legislative Aide
classification, which will be a
deep class with a broad salary
range. (Currently the title and
range exists, but not a class
spec.)
Davis No Not applicable Not applicable
Fremont Yes
The City Manager’s has two positions that
provide Mayor and Council with assistance.
• Management Analyst (reports to the
Deputy City Manager)
• Executive Assistant to the City
Manager (reports to the City Manager)
The positions can be found in the Department
Budgets | City Manager section of the Fiscal
Year 2023/24 Adopted Operating Budget
N/A
Pleasanton Yes
The City has an executive assistant (1 FTE)
that supports the city manager and the
mayor/city council.
No response
San Luis Obispo No Not applicable Not applicable
San Rafael No Not applicable Not applicable
Santa Barbara Yes
Administrative Assistant to the Mayor and
Council – Full Time position reports to the
Admin Office Supervisor within the City
Administrators Office
Hourly Classifications that may be available
dependent on budget:
• Mayor’s Aide
No response
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 32 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
City Dedicated Staff
Positions?
Positions, Whom They Report To, Where
They Are in Budget
Change Anything About
Positions?
• Council Intern
• Assistant to Council I-III
Santa Monica Yes
Two positions in the Council Office, a division in
the CMO.
1. Council Office And Legislative Affairs
Liaison; reports to ACM
2. Administrative Staff Assistant; reports
to Liaison position above
No
NO DEDICATED STAFF POSITIONS
City Dedicated Staff
Positions? How Staff Assistance is Provided Any Planned Dedicated Positions? Berkeley Yes Not applicable Not applicable
Davis No
We have an Admin Specialist who assists all five
Council Members, (meeting scheduling, travel needs,
office supplies, etc.) but she is also the primary
admin assistance for the City Manager, the Assistant
City Manager and others in the City Manager’s
Office. She is not dedicated to the City Council.
The City Manager, Assistant City Manager,
Communications and Community Engagement
Director, City Clerk and other staff in the City
Manager’s Office all assist with various needs of
Council Member; none are dedicated only for the
Council. While Council Members are welcome to use
City offices for meetings, they do not have dedicated
office space or hold regular office hours at City Hall.
They end up being very self-sufficient.
It is also not uncommon for Council Members to
secure college interns to work with them. They often
have these interns attend community meetings, do
research on subjects of interest, etc. Can work really
well in a college town!
No
Fremont Yes Not applicable Not applicable
Pleasanton Yes Not applicable Not applicable
San Luis Obispo No
The officials of the City of San Luis Obispo shall
consist of a City Manager and a City Attorney. Such
officials shall be appointed by and may be removed
only by the affirmative votes of a majority of the
members of the Council. All other officials and
department heads of the City shall be appointed by
and may be removed by the City Manager. The
budget for these positions are found in the City
Administration Department and the City Attorney
Department budgets.
Under the City’s Charter, no other staff report directly to the Council. Council Members can choose to hire
their own unpaid interns; however, these are not City
employees. Council can use their discretionary
“Office Expenses” budget to buy the interns small gift
cards or other “thank you” items.
No
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 33
City Dedicated Staff
Positions? How Staff Assistance is Provided Any Planned Dedicated Positions? The “City Council” Non-staffing budget is $34,400.
This budget is split between the Council Members
accordingly.
• Print and Reproduction: $400
• Office Expenses: $17,400
• Trips & Meetings: $4,600
• League Convention Budget: $12,000
San Rafael No
The City Manager Office’s Senior Administrative
Assistant provides assistance to Council Members
on meeting planning and organization as part of the
scope of duties, but work is not solely dedicated to
City Council Members. Other staff positions may
work directly with Council Members in course of
duties related to sub-Committees, special projects,
and/or Boards and Commissions.
No
Santa Barbara Yes Not applicable Not applicable
Santa Monica Yes Not applicable Not applicable
OTHER COMMENTS
City Comment
Berkeley No response
Davis
We have had Council Members in the past express interest in having their own dedicated staff, but our budget has limited those opportunities. We have an unwritten rule of thumb for any staff that if a Council Member asks them to do a task that takes more than an hour, the staff person needs permission from higher up. In turn, we train our Council Members to go to City Manager, Asst City Manager or Department Head with requests for any staff work. This usually manages to strike the right balance – Council feels supported and we are able to manage requests and staff workload.
Fremont No response
Pleasanton No response
San Luis Obispo No response
San Rafael No response
Santa Barbara No response
Santa Monica No response
ATTACHMENT G
14.A.g
Packet Pg. 774 Attachment: Attachment G - Santa Cruz Council Compensation Staffing Report [Revision 1] (6476 : Ballot Measures) 1 David Yakobson
From: Bhatnagar, Varun <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 11:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: I support item 14A
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing in strong support of item 14A.
This measure has the potential to significantly benefit our entire community by enhancing the safety of our streets for all residents and visitors.
Currently, our system heavily subsidizes car parking, which encourages both residents and visitors to rely on the least sustainable and least safe mode of transportation. This measure would allocate funds towards programs and infrastructure projects aimed at creating a safer, more sustainable, and more enjoyable Santa Monica for everyone.
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children in the county, and over 2/3 of our city's emissions stem from cars. To achieve a clean and safe Santa Monica, it is crucial that we move away from incentivizing widespread car usage. This measure represents a critical step towards that goal, benefitting all residents and visitors regardless of their mode of transportation.
I urge you to place this measure on the ballot and allow the community to vote on this vital issue.
Please support item 14A.
Thank you,
VARUN Bhatnagar 90403
Sent from my iPhone
******************************************************************* This message was sent from Goodwin Procter LLP and is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. ******************************************************************* Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 2 David Yakobson
From: Sudeepti Bhatnagar <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 11:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: I support item 14A
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing in strong support of item 14A.
This measure has the potential to significantly benefit our entire community by enhancing the safety of our streets for all residents and visitors.
Currently, our system heavily subsidizes car parking, which encourages both residents and visitors to rely on the least sustainable and least safe mode of transportation. This measure would allocate funds towards programs and infrastructure projects aimed at creating a safer, more sustainable, and more enjoyable Santa Monica for everyone.
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children in the county, and over 2/3 of our city's emissions stem from cars. To achieve a clean and safe Santa Monica, it is crucial that we move away from incentivizing widespread car usage. This measure represents a critical step towards that goal, benefitting all residents and visitors regardless of their mode of transportation.
I urge you to place this measure on the ballot and allow the community to vote on this vital issue.
Please support item 14A.
Thank you,
Sudeepti Bhatnagar Rachakonda, 90403
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 3 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Forward <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 10:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Support Item 14-A – Parking Facilities Tax
EXTERNAL
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
June 25, 2024
Subject: Support Item 14-A – Parking Facilities Tax
Dear Mayor Brock and City Councilmembers,
Santa Monica Forward strongly supports the proposed parking facilities tax. Please vote yes on the resolution to place a parking facilities tax to support public safety in Santa Monica. This vital revenue will enhance public safety, creating safe routes to school to protect children, and lower the risk of fatal traffic accidents.
We also wanted to raise our opposition to the proposed parcel tax in 16-e. This feels half-baked at best, and could negatively impact the success of other, more important tax measures on the ballot.
We also should not be directing public money to private security.
Thank you for your consideration,
Brad Ewing and Carl Hansen
Co-Chairs, Santa Monica Forward
--
We are working for a diverse, progressive, sustainable and equitable Santa Monica.
SantaMonicaForward.org
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 4 David Yakobson
From: John Lin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 10:56 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems
Subject: 14A:Support the Safe Streets Parking Tax!
EXTERNAL
Council Members,
I am concerned about street safety in Santa Monica. I work in mid-city Santa Monica. I urge you to vote yes on the resolution to place a parking facilities tax to support public safety in Santa Monica. This vital revenue will enhance public safety, creating safe routes to school to protect children, and lowering the risk of fatal traffic accidents.
Sincerely,
John Lin
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 5 David Yakobson
From: Cynthia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 9:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Christine Parra Cc: David White; Anuj Gupta; [email protected] Subject: Support item 14A: Parking Facilities Tax Measure Attachments: 2024-06 CC Support Item 14A Parking Facilities Tax Measure.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Mayor and City Council:
Please find Santa Monica Spoke and the Santa Monica Safe Street Alliance letter of support attached for placing the Parking Facilities Tax Measure on the November ballot that - if approved - would help fund safer streets in Santa Monica.
Give Santa Monica residents the opportunity to vote on this important measure.
Cynthia Rose and Cris Gutierrez
--
Cynthia Rose
Director
Santa Monica Spoke
SMSpoke.org
I acknowledge with respect and gratitude the Tongva, Kizh, and Chumash Peoples on whose traditional territory I live and work.
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 6 David Yakobson
From: Caro Vilain <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 9:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: I support item 14A
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I am writing in strong support of item 14A.
Considering the city’s financial situation, the climate crisis, and the traffic violence crisis, this measure would truly be a win for our city and greatly help our goal of a clean and safe Santa Monica.
Our heavy parking subsidies encourage residents and visitors alike to heavily rely on the least sustainable and least safe vehicle to get around our city. We can do so much better. We can make our streets inviting for all modes of transportation, allow children to get to school safely using active modes of transportation that benefit their mental and physical health, decrease our emissions, and create a truly safe and welcoming place to live in and visit. This measure could help us reach this goal, if we have the political will.
If you open up SMPD’s call logs, you’ll see that they respond to hit and runs every day, in addition to other traffic collisions, reckless driving, traffic hazards, etc. Whether or not you are concerned by this serious issue of traffic violence, responding to these calls takes up a good amount of time and resources from SMPD that could be used for other things. Traffic violence is preventable, and we know the solutions. It’s up to us whether we’re willing to implement them or not.
Over 10% of households in Santa Monica are car-free, and at least half of the residents walk or bike at some point each day. Many of us simply do not have the option to drive—whether it’s children, the elderly, people with certain health conditions, people who can’t afford to drive, people who choose not to drive for a wide variety of reasons, people who both drive and use other modes of transportation, or people who wish they didn’t have to drive but don’t feel safe using active transportation. You are serving your community, not the car industry, and your community deserves to get around safely, regardless of what mode they choose or have to use.
I urge you to place this measure on the ballot and allow the community to vote on this vital issue.
Please support item 14A.
Thank you,
Caro Vilain, 90404
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 1 David Yakobson
From: Jasper Kok <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 6:58 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; David White; Anuj Gupta; [email protected] Subject: Support Item 14A, Parking Facilities Tax Measure
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
Please support item 14A (attachment B) that places a measure on the November ballot that would help fund safer streets in Santa Monica.
It is time for us to get more serious about reducing incentives to drive and make sure motor vehicle drivers contribute to funding safe streets for everyone.
The leading cause of death for our children in LA County is motor vehicle crashes. Over 2/3 of our city's emissions stem from transportation, particularly motor vehicle use. To achieve a cleaner and safer Santa Monica, it is critical to stop subsidizing and incentivizing car trips. As Santa Monica recovers economically - this measure can create a critical step towards achieving our adopted climate goals and improve safety for everyone who lives in and visits our city regardless of how they travel. It’s been nearly 30 years since parking fees were updated. Let's do this now!
We will never meet our goals to reduce car trips if we continue to subsidize parking that only encourages driving. This measure allocates funding for programs and infrastructure projects aimed at creating a safer, more environmentally sustainable, and joyous Santa Monica for everyone.
Please vote to approve placing this Parking Facilities Tax Measure on the November ballot and give Santa Monica residents the opportunity to vote on this important measure.
Please support item 14A.
Sincerely,
Jasper Kok
1037 16th St.
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 2 David Yakobson
From: Ferris Kawar <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 6:23 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems
Subject: 14A: Support the Safe Streets Parking Tax
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I live and work in Santa Monica and I am asking you to vote yes on the resolution to place a parking facilities tax to support public safety. We need to increase revenue that will go to projects that will make our streets safe for kids, the elderly, and really all users of our public spaces.
Sincerely,
Ferris Kawar
Sunset Park resident
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 3 David Yakobson
From: kent Strumpell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 11:26 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems
Subject: Safe Streets Parking Tax!
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please support the resolution for a parking facilities tax to fund street safety.
I was seriously injured while biking several years ago - right in front of our house on Michigan Ave - by a reckless pizza delivery driver who admitted that he was on his phone. A few years later, the MANGo project was implemented which installed traffic circles in this stretch. Had these been in place, it is unlikely that I would have been hit when that pizza delivery guy and I shared the road. This is the sort of safety improvements that we need citywide and which this proposal would help fund.
Our city is scraping for funding for roadway safety improvements, needed to give people safe mobility options (since many people don’t have cars), for getting our students safely to school and for making our streets more inviting, less intimidating places to go about our daily lives.
This parking fee is a logical source to tap to help fulfill our city's promise to reduce fatalities and severe injuries from traffic.
Thank you,
Kent Strumpell
1211 Michigan Ave
Pico Neighborhood
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 4 David Yakobson
From: Brian Sweeney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 9:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 14A(3): Proposed Ballot Measure to Increase Parking Facilities Tax
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council members,
I am writing in support of Councilmember Zwick's proposed ballot measure to increase the Parking Facilities Tax from 10% to 18%.
As you know all too well, the City's dire financial situation frequently requires making painful trade offs, even when it comes to addressing public safety. While I understand Council's decision to add four new officer positions at your last meeting, this new measure would provide much needed revenue to, for example, repair broken and otherwise damaged sidewalks and alleyways--which, of course, is another way that City residents and visitors can get hurt.
Importantly, directing revenue to infrastructure maintenance not only saves money in the future (these projects only get more expensive the longer we allow our sidewalks and alleyways to fall into disrepair) but also reduces the chance of slip and fall liability. Frankly, the last thing our City needs is more expensive legal costs and settlements.
Thank you all for considering Councilmember Zwick's proposed resolution.
Best wishes,
Brian Sweeney
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 5 David Yakobson
From: Robin Roy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 8:26 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; David White; Anuj Gupta; [email protected] Subject: Support Item 14A, Parking Facilities Tax Measure
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
Please support item 14A (attachment B) that places a measure on the November ballot that would help fund safer streets in Santa Monica.
It is long past time for us to get serious about reducing incentives to drive, and to make motor vehicle drivers contribute to funding safe streets for everyone.
The leading cause of death for our children in LA County is motor vehicle crashes. Over 2/3 of our city's emissions stem from transportation, particularly motor vehicle use. To achieve a cleaner and safer Santa Monica, it is critical to stop subsidizing and incentivizing car trips. As Santa Monica recovers economically - this measure can create a critical step towards achieving our adopted climate goals and improve safety for everyone who lives in and visits our city regardless of how they travel. It’s been nearly 30 years since parking fees were updated. Let's do this now!
We will never meet our goals to reduce car trips if we continue to subsidize parking that only encourages driving. This measure allocates funding for programs and infrastructure projects aimed at creating a safer, more environmentally sustainable, and joyous Santa Monica for everyone.
Please vote to approve placing this Parking Facilities Tax Measure on the November ballot and give Santa Monica residents the opportunity to vote on this important measure.
Please support item 14A.
Sincerely,
Robin Roy
201 Ocean Ave
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 6 David Yakobson
From: Jason Mastbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 8:07 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 14A: Support the Public Safety Parking Tax!
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote yes on the resolution to place a parking facilities tax to support public safety in Santa Monica. This vital revenue will enhance public safety, creating safe routes to school to protect children, and lowering the risk of fatal traffic accidents,
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 7 David Yakobson
From: Eric Weinstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 6:23 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; David White; Anuj Gupta; [email protected] Subject: Support Item 14A, Parking Facilities Tax Measure
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
Please support item 14A (attachment B) that places a measure on the November ballot that would help fund safer streets in Santa Monica.
It is time for us to get more serious about reducing incentives to drive and make sure motor vehicle drivers contribute to funding safe streets for everyone.
The leading cause of death for our children in LA County is motor vehicle crashes. Over 2/3 of our city's emissions stem from transportation, particularly motor vehicle use. To achieve a cleaner and safer Santa Monica, it is critical to stop subsidizing and incentivizing car trips. As Santa Monica recovers economically - this measure can create a critical step towards achieving our adopted climate goals and improve safety for everyone who lives in and visits our city regardless of how they travel. It’s been nearly 30 years since parking fees were updated. Let's do this now!
We will never meet our goals to reduce car trips if we continue to subsidize parking that only encourages driving. This measure allocates funding for programs and infrastructure projects aimed at creating a safer, more environmentally sustainable, and joyous Santa Monica for everyone.
Please vote to approve placing this Parking Facilities Tax Measure on the November ballot and give Santa Monica residents the opportunity to vote on this important measure.
Please support item 14A.
Sincerely,
Eric Weinstein
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 8 David Yakobson
From: MICHAEL KNUE <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 5:17 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; David White; Anuj Gupta; [email protected] Subject: Support Item 14A, Parking Facilities Tax Measure
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
My wife and I are long time residents of Santa Monica. We walk the streets regularly instead of using a car. I bicycle almost daily for exercise and to do the things I need to do. This ability is do our business and enjoy life without needing to get into a car is why we live in this lovely community.
Please support item 14A (attachment B) that places a measure on the November ballot that would help fund safer streets in Santa Monica.
It is time for us to get more serious about reducing incentives to drive and make sure motor vehicle drivers contribute to funding safe streets for everyone.
The leading cause of death for our children in LA County is motor vehicle crashes. Over 2/3 of our city's emissions stem from transportation, particularly motor vehicle use. To achieve a cleaner and safer Santa Monica, it is critical to stop subsidizing and incentivizing car trips. As Santa Monica recovers economically - this measure can create a critical step towards achieving our adopted climate goals and improve safety for everyone who lives in and visits our city regardless of how they travel. It’s been nearly 30 years since parking fees were updated. Let's do this now! We will never meet our goals to reduce car trips if we continue to subsidize parking that only encourages driving. This measure allocates funding for programs and infrastructure projects aimed at creating a safer, more environmentally sustainable, and joyous Santa Monica for everyone.
Please vote to approve placing this Parking Facilities Tax Measure on the November ballot and give Santa Monica residents the opportunity to vote on this important measure.
Please support item 14A.
Sincerely,
Michael Knue
[email protected]
925 14th St. #28
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 9 David Yakobson
From: Ted Winterer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 5:08 PM
To: Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White
Subject: Items 14-A (parking tax section) and 16-E, 6/25/24 Council agenda
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
You have two very different proposed ballot measures to consider to generate sorely needed revenue for the City, both of which would yield a roughly commensurate amount of funding.
Let's compare the two:
1. The parking tax requires 50% voter approval to pass; the parcel tax needs 67%, a much more difficult threshold to attain. You have a greater likelihood of obtaining the needed funds through the parking tax.
2. The parking tax has been studied, revised and polled by staff. The parcel tax has not been vetted at all and in fact is still completely nebulous at this point. Would it be a flat tax per parcel? A tax based on lot square footage? Or based on square footage of developed structures on a parcel? And what would the tax rate per assessed value be? A measure such as this should have been brought forward months ago for additional clarification, analysis and polling.
3. A second tax on properties could undermine the SMMUSD bond measure, leaving our elementary and middle schools without vital modernization efforts for years to come. Our public school kids deserve your support.
4. Resident property owners would have to pay the parcel tax while the parking tax would be largely financed by visitors to Santa Monica.
5. Small businesses under triple net leases would have to pay the parcel tax at a time when the City's economic recovery is still ongoing.
In short, I urge you to set aside whatever differences there may be between you; to vote to put the parking tax and not the parcel tax on the 2024 ballot while contemplating additional revenue enhancements in 2026; and to all lend your full-throated support for the parking tax during the upcoming election season.
Regards,
Ted Winterer
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 10 --
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 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 1 David Yakobson
From: Stassja Sichko <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 4:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: I support item 14A
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing in strong support of item 14A.
This measure has the potential to significantly benefit our entire community by enhancing the safety of our streets for all residents and visitors.
Currently, our system heavily subsidizes car parking, which encourages both residents and visitors to rely on the least sustainable and least safe mode of transportation. This measure would allocate funds towards programs and infrastructure projects aimed at creating a safer, more sustainable, and more enjoyable Santa Monica for everyone.
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children in the county, and over 2/3 of our city's emissions stem from cars. To achieve a clean and safe Santa Monica, it is crucial that we move away from incentivizing widespread car usage. This measure represents a critical step towards that goal, benefitting all residents and visitors regardless of their mode of transportation.
I urge you to place this measure on the ballot and allow the community to vote on this vital issue.
Please support item 14A.
Thank you,
Stassja Sichko, 90405
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 1 David Yakobson
From: Pam O'Connor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 3:35 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; David White; Anuj Gupta Subject: Support Item 14A, Parking Facilities Tax Measure
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
Please support item 14A (attachment B) to put a measure on the November ballot that would help fund safer streets in Santa Monica.
The leading cause of death for our children in LA County is motor vehicle crashes. It is time for us to get serious about road safety and make sure motor vehicle drivers contribute to funding safe streets for everyone.
Please support placing this Parking Facilities Tax Measure on the November ballot and give Santa Monica residents the opportunity to vote on this important measure.
Please support item 14A.
Sincerely,
Pam O’Connor
Former Mayor
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 2 David Yakobson
From: Boris Suchkov <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 3:20 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems
Subject: 14A: Support the Safe Streets Parking Tax!
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I am very concerned about street safety in Santa Monica. I urge you to vote yes on the resolution to place a parking facilities tax to support public safety in Santa Monica. This vital revenue will enhance public safety, creating safe routes to school to protect children, and lowering the risk of fatal traffic accidents.
The city needs a dedicated funding stream for street safety projects. State and federal grants remain an unreliable and insufficient source of such funds.
Sincerely,
Boris Suchkov
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 3 David Yakobson
From: Chasen Daniels <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 3:20 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; David White; Anuj Gupta; [email protected] Subject: Support Item 14A, Parking Facilities Tax Measure
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
Please support item 14A (attachment B) that places a measure on the November ballot that would help fund safer streets in Santa Monica.
It is time for us to get more serious about reducing incentives to drive and make sure motor vehicle drivers contribute to funding safe streets for everyone.
The leading cause of death for our children in LA County is motor vehicle crashes. Over 2/3 of our city's emissions stem from transportation, particularly motor vehicle use. To achieve a cleaner and safer Santa Monica, it is critical to stop subsidizing and incentivizing car trips. As Santa Monica recovers economically - this measure can create a critical step towards achieving our adopted climate goals and improve safety for everyone who lives in and visits our city regardless of how they travel. It’s been nearly 30 years since parking fees were updated. Let's do this now!
We will never meet our goals to reduce car trips if we continue to subsidize parking that only encourages driving. This measure allocates funding for programs and infrastructure projects aimed at creating a safer, more environmentally sustainable, and joyous Santa Monica for everyone.
Please vote to approve placing this Parking Facilities Tax Measure on the November ballot and give Santa Monica residents the opportunity to vote on this important measure.
Please support item 14A.
Sincerely,
Chasen Daniels
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 4 David Yakobson
From: Brenna Lilley <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 3:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: I support item 14A
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing in strong support of item 14A.
This measure has the potential to significantly benefit our entire community by enhancing the safety of our streets for all residents and visitors.
Currently, our system heavily subsidizes car parking, which encourages both residents and visitors to rely on the least sustainable and least safe mode of transportation. This measure would allocate funds towards programs and infrastructure projects aimed at creating a safer, more sustainable, and more enjoyable Santa Monica for everyone.
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children in the county, and over 2/3 of our city's emissions stem from cars. To achieve a clean and safe Santa Monica, it is crucial that we move away from incentivizing widespread car usage. This measure represents a critical step towards that goal, benefitting all residents and visitors regardless of their mode of transportation.
I urge you to place this measure on the ballot and allow the community to vote on this vital issue.
Please support item 14A.
Thank you,
Brenna Lilley, MD
90404
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 5 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 3:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: The City Staff's Inappropriate Recommendations to the City Council Re: the Santa Monica Airport
From: Steven Naftali <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 1:57 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]> Subject: The City Staff's Inappropriate Recommendations to the City Council Re: the Santa Monica Airport
EXTERNAL
Honorable City Council Members:
I am a resident of Santa Monica. My family and I live down the flight path from the SMO. I have observed that the City Staff who works on the SMO has repeatedly showed bias toward the aviation interests at the SMO. Below is the latest example.
The staff failed to ask their expert aviation attorney to help reasonably spend the airport surplus $13,000,000 to:
(a) Remediate any aviation caused contamination. (b) Make needed capital improvements as allowed by the FAA. (c) Take the 45-year-old fuel farm out of commission. (d) Budget for legal fees. (e) To decommission the airport.
Instead, the Staff recommended to return the excess to the aviation users. They justified their inappropriate recommendation on the Consent Decree and potential lawsuits. They know well that nothing can prevent lawsuits. It is false to say that the Consent Decree gives no choice other than giving surplus funds away.
In the last few months staff has used the Consent Decree and possible lawsuits as the reasons to lease the 45- year-old fuel farm, sign a lease to another flight school, sign Atlantic's lease, and now reduce fees. All have been actions to stop the community to rebuild the park that the City bought in 1926.
Thus, I recommend that the City council please stop the 13 Million Dollar give away. Please direct the staff to use the funds for the purposes that I outlined above. Further, if the staff is not willing to work for the community and the Citizens of Santa Monica, as they voted on Measure LC, please find new staff who will.
Regards,
Steve Naftali
[email protected]
The information transmitted is intended only for the person which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 6 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 3:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: PLEASE VOTE IN FAVOR OF Item 14A, Parking Facilities Tax Measure From: Sonya Sones <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 1:37 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Anuj Gupta <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: sonya Sones <[email protected]>
Subject: PLEASE VOTE IN FAVOR OF Item 14A, Parking Facilities Tax Measure
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I have lived in Santa Monica for 51 years. I use my bicycle to do errands and visit friends whenever I can. But I have often felt that I am taking my life in my hands when I venture forth. The recent installation of protected bike lanes in Santa Monica has made me feel SO much safer.
Please support item 14A (attachment B) to put a measure on the November ballot that would help fund safer streets in Santa Monica.
We can't wait any longer. NOW is the time to commit to continue to make Santa Monica a safer place for all pedestrians and bicyclists. Every time I see a white bicycle marking the spot where a cyclist was killed, a chill runs through me. Will I be next?
Please please PLEASE support item 14A.
Thanks for listening,
Sonya Sones
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 797 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 7 David Yakobson
From: stephan corbel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 2:45 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; David White; Anuj Gupta Subject: Support Item 14A, Parking Facilities Tax Measure
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
Please support item 14A (attachment B) that places a measure on the November ballot that would help fund safer streets in Santa Monica.
It is time for us to get more serious about reducing incentives to drive and make sure motor vehicle drivers contribute to funding safe streets for everyone.
The leading cause of death for our children in LA County is motor vehicle crashes. As Santa Monica recovers economically - this measure can create a critical step towards achieving our adopted climate goals and improve safety for everyone who lives in and visits our city regardless of how they travel.
It’s been nearly 30 years since parking fees were updated. Let's do this now!
This measure allocates funding for programs and infrastructure projects aimed at creating a safer, more environmentally sustainable, and joyous Santa Monica for everyone.
Please vote to approve placing this Parking Facilities Tax Measure on the November ballot and give Santa Monica residents the opportunity to vote on this important measure.
Please support item 14A.
Sincerely,
Stephan Corbel
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 798 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 1 David Yakobson
From: laurene <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 2:17 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; David White; Anuj Gupta; [email protected] Subject: Support Item 14A, Parking Facilities Tax Measure
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
Please support item 14A (attachment B) that places a measure on the November ballot that would help fund safer streets in Santa Monica.
It is time for us to get more serious about reducing incentives to drive and make sure motor vehicle drivers contribute to funding safe streets for everyone.
The leading cause of death for our children in LA County is motor vehicle crashes. Over 2/3 of our city's emissions stem from transportation, particularly motor vehicle use. To achieve a cleaner and safer Santa Monica, it is critical to stop subsidizing and incentivizing car trips. As Santa Monica recovers economically - this measure can create a critical step towards achieving our adopted climate goals and improve safety for everyone who lives in and visits our city regardless of how they travel. It’s been nearly 30 years since parking fees were updated. Let's do this now! We will never meet our goals to reduce car trips if we continue to subsidize parking that only encourages driving.
This measure allocates funding for programs and infrastructure projects aimed at creating a safer, more environmentally sustainable, and joyous Santa Monica for everyone.
Please vote to approve placing this Parking Facilities Tax Measure on the November ballot and give Santa Monica residents the opportunity to vote on this important measure.
Please support item 14A.
Sincerely,
Laurene von Klan
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 2 David Yakobson
From: Rick Eastland <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 1:06 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems
Subject: 14A: Support the Safe Streets Parking Tax!
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I am concerned about street safety in Santa Monica. I urge you to vote yes on the resolution to place a parking facilities tax to support public safety in Santa Monica. This vital revenue will enhance public safety, creating safe routes to school to protect children, and lowering the risk of fatal traffic accidents.
Sincerely,
Rick Eastland
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 800 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 3 David Yakobson
From: Adil Minocherhomjee <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 1:04 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Subject: 14A: Support the Safe Streets Parking Tax!
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I am concerned about street safety in Santa Monica. I urge you to vote yes on the resolution to place a parking facilities tax to support public safety in Santa Monica. This vital revenue will enhance public safety, creating safe routes to school to protect children, and lowering the risk of fatal traffic accidents.
Sincerely,
Adil Minocherhomjee
Mobile: +1-630-881-8436
https://www.linkedin.com/in/adilminocherhomjee
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 4 David Yakobson
From: Yan Lhert <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 1:03 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems
Subject: 14A: Support the Safe Streets Parking Tax!
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I am concerned about street safety in Santa Monica. I urge you to vote yes on the resolution to place a parking facilities tax to support public safety in Santa Monica. This vital revenue will enhance public safety, creating safe routes to school to protect children, and lowering the risk of fatal traffic accidents.
Sincerely,
Yan Lhert
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 5 David Yakobson
From: Matthew O'Connor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 1:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Monica Hsu Subject: We support item 14A
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
We are writing in strong support of item 14A.
This measure has the potential to significantly benefit our entire community by enhancing the safety of our streets for all residents and visitors.
Currently, our system heavily subsidizes car parking, which encourages both residents and visitors to rely on the least sustainable and least safe mode of transportation. This measure would allocate funds towards programs and infrastructure projects aimed at creating a safer, more sustainable, and more enjoyable Santa Monica for everyone.
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children in the county, and over 2/3 of our city's emissions stem from cars. To achieve a clean and safe Santa Monica, it is crucial that we move away from incentivizing widespread car usage. This measure represents a critical step towards that goal, benefitting all residents and visitors regardless of their mode of transportation.
We urge you to place this measure on the ballot and allow the community to vote on this vital issue.
Please support item 14A.
Thank you,
Matt O'Connor and Monica Hsu
2628 Kansas Ave Apt 13, Santa Monica, CA 90404
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 6 David Yakobson
From: Sarah Gallagher <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 1:02 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems
Subject: 14A: Support the Safe Streets Parking Tax!
EXTERNAL
Hello Council members,
Thanks for all of the work you are doing for Santa Monica! I'd like to add my voice to all those concerned about street safety in Santa Monica.
Please vote yes on the resolution to place a parking facilities tax to support public safety in Santa Monica. This vital revenue will enhance public safety, creating safe routes to school to protect children, and lowering the risk of fatal traffic accidents.
Thanks,
Sarah
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 7 David Yakobson
From: Vanessa Sorensen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 1:01 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems
Subject: 14A: Support the Safe Streets Parking Tax!
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,I am concerned about street safety in Santa Monica. I urge you to vote yes on the resolution to place a parking facilities tax to support public safety in Santa Monica. This vital revenue will enhance public safety, creating safe routes to school to protect children, and lowering the risk of fatal traffic accidents.Sincerely,
Vanessa Sorensen
[email protected]
(801) 362.7325
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 805 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 8 David Yakobson
From: Adam Remba <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 12:59 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems
Subject: 14A: Support the Safe Streets Parking Tax!
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I am concerned about street safety in Santa Monica. I urge you to vote yes on the resolution to place a parking facilities tax to support public safety in Santa Monica. This vital revenue will enhance public safety, creating safe routes to school to protect children, and lowering the risk of fatal traffic accidents.
Sincerely,
Adam Remba
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 9 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 12:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: I support item 14A
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing in strong support of item 14A.
Over the past two years I've applied for and successfully had stop signs added to two 4-way intersections that previously only had 2 stop signs. The department took ~8 months both times due to budget constraints, we need more funding to make it safer for all those vulnerable pedestrians (elderly, parents pushing strollers, children, dog walkers) and cyclists, and wheelchair users.
Will be rallying the ocean park neighborhood voting block to follow each council members decision on 14A when deciding on who to elect this November.
This measure has the potential to significantly benefit our entire community by enhancing the safety of our streets for all residents and visitors.
Currently, our system heavily subsidizes car parking, which encourages both residents and visitors to rely on the least sustainable and least safe mode of transportation. This measure would allocate funds towards programs and infrastructure projects aimed at creating a safer, more sustainable, and more enjoyable Santa Monica for everyone.
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children in the county, and over 2/3 of our city's emissions stem from cars. To achieve a clean and safe Santa Monica, it is crucial that we move away from incentivizing widespread car usage. This measure represents a critical step towards that goal, benefitting all residents and visitors regardless of their mode of transportation.
I urge you to place this measure on the ballot and allow the community to vote on this vital issue.
Please support item 14A.
Thank you,
Michael Etzel 90405
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 10 David Yakobson
From: Brodsky, Michael <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 12:53 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; David White; Anuj Gupta Subject: Support Item 14A, Parking Facilities Tax Measure
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I support item 14A.
Safe streets are EVERYTHING.
This will provide much needed funding to make our streets safer.
Sincerely,
Michael Brodsky
Santa Monica
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 1 David Yakobson
From: Ed Fraiman <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2024 2:48 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems
Subject: 14A: Support the Public Safety Parking Tax!
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote yes on the resolution to place a parking facilities tax to support public safety in Santa Monica. This vital revenue will enhance public safety, creating safe routes to school to protect children, and lowering the risk of fatal traffic accidents, shall the measure increasing the City.
Sincerely,
Ed Fraiman and Eriko Kobayashi
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 2 David Yakobson
From: Jairo Avalos <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2024 10:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: I support item 14A
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing in strong support of item 14A.
This measure has the potential to significantly benefit our entire community by enhancing the safety of our streets for all residents and visitors.
Currently, our system heavily subsidizes car parking, which encourages both residents and visitors to rely on the least sustainable and least safe mode of transportation. This measure would allocate funds towards programs and infrastructure projects aimed at creating a safer, more sustainable, and more enjoyable Santa Monica for everyone.
Whenever I've biked around town to get to/from work or for fun, I've done so looking over my shoulder and with fear that even if I do nothing wrong I am very likely to be hit by a car on my way to do what I love or meet my friends.
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children in the county, and over 2/3 of our city's emissions stem from cars. To achieve a clean and safe Santa Monica, it is crucial that we move away from incentivizing widespread car usage. This measure represents a critical step towards that goal, benefitting all residents and visitors regardless of their mode of transportation. A Santa Monica that moves away from cars as the default option and gives more safe choices to everyone is a better Santa Monica.
I urge you to place this measure on the ballot and allow the community to vote on this vital issue.
Please support item 14A.
Thank you,
Jairo, 90405
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 3 David Yakobson
From: Mark Yetter <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2024 8:57 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems
Subject: 14A Support the public safety parking tax!
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote yes on the resolution to place a parking facilities tax to support public safety in Santa Monica.
This vital revenue will enhance public safety, creating safe routes to school to protect children, and lowering the risk of fatal traffic accidents, shall the measure increasing the City.
Sincerely,
Mark Yetter
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 4 David Yakobson
From: Fred Chasen <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2024 9:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: Our family’s support for item 14A
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I’m going to do my best to be there in person on Tuesday, but wanted to write in about my support of item 14A.
We recently purchased a home for our family of 4 in Mid-City Santa Monica and a large part of that decision was because of the great work you all have done supporting safe street infrastructure.
The short section of Broadway protected bike lanes allow us to bike to and from daycare everyday and the Wilshire safety improvements allow us to walk to Douglas park without questioning if it would be safer to just drive instead.
I’d really appreciate the chance to vote for this measure on the ballot in November. While the current improvements have been great, this could help fund implementing more of the existing bike action plan and enable a network of routes instead of just patches.
Nearly everything we need is within a few miles of our home and we want to be able to safely walk and bike as a family. As a family with two cars currently, I completely support higher parking prices if that funds programs and infrastructure projects that would allow us to drive less and ideally go down to one car. The savings there would more than make up for any parking expenses and would be living a healthier and more sustainable life.
Lastly, if there are any concerns from businesses owners I can assure you that at-least one family spends way more at locally shops when walking or biking vs driving past.
I urge you to place this measure on the ballot and allow us to vote a very strong yes in November.
Please support item 14A.
Thank you,
Fred Chasen, 90404
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 5 David Yakobson
From: John Farren <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 9:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: I support item 14A
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
Sorry I hit send on my previous message before it was complete. I am writing again in strong support of item 14A.
Cities around the world are realizing the benefits of reorienting their streets towards walking and biking.
Beyond the obvious and manifold safety and climate issues at play, cities that are bikable and walkable are simply much more enjoyable places to live. We spend for too much time trapped in our cars, and I firmly believe if people are given other options they will embrace them, even if there are loud complaints during the transition. Santa Monica has an opportunity to be a leader on these issues in the region, state, and county, so I urge you to move forward with 14a. My wife and I hope to raise our family in Santa Monica, but that will not be possible without the kind of improvements 14a can make possible.
Sincerely,
John Farren
Santa Monica, 90405
310.795.9471
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 6 David Yakobson
From: John Farren <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 9:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: I support item 14A
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing in strong support of item 14A.
This measure has the potential to significantly benefit our entire community by enhancing the safety of our streets for all residents and visitors.
Currently, our system heavily subsidizes car parking, which encourages both residents and visitors to rely on the least sustainable and least safe mode of transportation. This measure would allocate funds towards programs and infrastructure projects aimed at creating a safer, more sustainable, and more enjoyable Santa Monica for everyone.
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children in the county, and over 2/3 of our city's emissions stem from cars. To achieve a clean and safe Santa Monica, it is crucial that we move away from incentivizing widespread car usage. This measure represents a critical step towards that goal, benefitting all residents and visitors regardless of their mode of transportation.
My wife and I recently welcomed our first child, and whether we decide to stay in Santa Monica long term will depend directly on how easy and safe it is for our family to move about the city by walking/biking mass reanstis.
I urge you to place this measure on the ballot and allow the community to vote on this vital issue.
Please support item 14A.
Thank you,
]
John Farren, Santa Monica 90405
310.795.9471
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 7 David Yakobson
From: Caroline G <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 9:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: I support item 14A
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing in strong support of item 14A.
This measure has the potential to significantly benefit our entire community by enhancing the safety of our streets for all residents and visitors.
Currently, our system heavily subsidizes car parking, which encourages both residents and visitors to rely on the least sustainable and least safe mode of transportation. This measure would allocate funds towards programs and infrastructure projects aimed at creating a safer, more sustainable, and more enjoyable Santa Monica for everyone.
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children in the county, and over 2/3 of our city's emissions stem from cars. To achieve a clean and safe Santa Monica, it is crucial that we move away from incentivizing widespread car usage. This measure represents a critical step towards that goal, benefitting all residents and visitors regardless of their mode of transportation.
I urge you to place this measure on the ballot and allow the community to vote on this vital issue.
Please support item 14A.
Thank you,
Caroline Jones, Zip Code 90405
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 8 David Yakobson
From: Leonora <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 1:52 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 14A: Support the Public Safety Parking Tax!
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote yes on the resolution to place a parking facilities tax to support public safety in Santa Monica. This vital revenue will enhance public safety, creating safe routes to school to protect children, and lowering the risk of fatal traffic accidents, shall the measure increasing the City.
Sincerely,
Leonora Camner
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 9 David Yakobson
From: Jacob Wasserman <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 12:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: Item 14A: In Support of the Public Safety Parking Tax
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
As a driver, pedestrian, biker, voter, and parent, I am writing in strong support of item 14A. This vital revenue measure will enhance public safety, creating safe routes to school to protect children, and lowering the risk of fatal traffic accidents.
This measure has the potential to significantly benefit our entire community by enhancing the safety of our streets for all residents and visitors.
Currently, our system heavily subsidizes car parking, which encourages both residents and visitors to rely on the least sustainable and least safe mode of transportation. This measure would allocate funds towards programs and infrastructure projects aimed at creating a safer, more sustainable, and more enjoyable Santa Monica for everyone.
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children in the county, and over two-thirds of our city's emissions stem from cars. To achieve a clean and safe Santa Monica, it is crucial that we move away from incentivizing widespread car usage. This measure represents a critical step towards that goal, benefitting all residents and visitors regardless of their mode of transportation.
I urge you to place this measure on the ballot and allow the community to vote on this vital issue.
Please support item 14A.
Thank you,
Jacob Wasserman
90403
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures) 10 David Yakobson
From: Sam Shapiro-Kline <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 11:48 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 14A: Support the Public Safety Parking Tax!
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote yes on the resolution to place a parking facilities tax to support public safety in Santa Monica. This vital revenue will enhance public safety, creating safe routes to school to protect children, and lowering the risk of fatal traffic accidents, shall the measure increasing the City.
In particular, I support focusing the tax on commercial and hotel parking as opposed to residential buildings if possible. A key goal for our city should be shifting the modes that are used to enter Santa Monica or travel to local businesses.
Sincerely,
Sam Shapiro-Kline
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
Item 14-A
June 25, 2024
14.A.h
Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: Written Comments (6476 : Ballot Measures)
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
NOVEMBER 2024 BALLOT MEASURES
14.A.i
Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6476 : Ballot Measures) BALLOT MEASURES Business License Modernization Increase Parking Facility Tax City Council Member Compensation
14.A.i
Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6476 : Ballot Measures) Staff has incorporated prior Council direction for the Business License Tax Modernization and seeks the following:
• Adopt a resolution to place the measure on the November 2024 ballot
• Identify Council Members who wish to prepare arguments for or against the measure
Business License Modernization Measure
14.A.i
Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6476 : Ballot Measures) Business License Modernization Overview
Purpose:
Modernize the applicable business license code sections Goals:
14.A.i
Packet Pg. 822 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6476 : Ballot Measures) Proposal Description # Of Businesses
Impacted
Revenue Impact
Range in Millions
Increase the Small Business Tax Exemption threshold from $40,000 to $100,000
7,000-8,000 $(0.7) - $(0.8)
revenue decrease
Reduce Penalty Schedule maximum from 100% to 50% 200-300 $(0.2) revenue decrease
Remove the back tax calculation related to the application year on the firstrenewal submission
300-400 $(0.3) - $(0.4)
revenue decrease
Residential Rental 3 Units or Less Rate Reduction from
$3.00/$1,000 to $1.25/$1,000
400-500 $(0.02)
revenue decrease
Rate Reduction from $1.25/$1,000 to $1.15/$1,000 for
Retailers/Restaurants generating under $5 Million in gross receipts annually
1,800-1,900 $(0.1) -$(0.12)
revenue decrease
Auto Dealers will pay business license tax on their total gross receipts at a rate of $1.25/$1,000 for sales and a rate of $3.00/$1,000 for the auto repair operations with no maximum tax 13-16 $0.9 - $1.3
revenue increase
Increase tax rate on Corporate/Administrative Headquarters from $1.25/$1,000 to $2.50/$1,000
110-120 $2.1 - $3.1
revenue increase
A processing fee initially set at 100% of the BL Unit's costs The fee would be approximately $40
22,000-23,000 $0.8 - $0.85
revenue increase
ESTIMATED REVENUE IMPACT RANGE $2.25 - $3.93
revenue increase
April 9th Modernization Proposal
14.A.i
Packet Pg. 823 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6476 : Ballot Measures) 6 Council Direction from April 9th
Consider a phased approach to the business license tax rate increases Staff recommends phasing in tax rate increases over three years • Ease impacts on affected businesses
• Incrementally increasing business license tax revenue while remaining fiscally prudent
Proposal Description Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Auto Dealer Cap Removal
and Service Repair Rate
Remove Cap -
tax allreceipts at
$1.25
Same as Year 1 Retail at $1.25
add service rate
at $3.00
Increase tax rate on
Corporate/ Administrative
Headquarters
Increase rate from
$1.25 to $2.00
Increase rate
from $2.00
to $2.25
Increase rate
from $2.25
to $2.50
14.A.i
Packet Pg. 824 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6476 : Ballot Measures) Consider Return to Work Business License Tax Incentives Current Business Development an Economic Opportunities • Buy Local Santa Monica
• Assistance with California Competes grants and tax credits • Small business grants, fee waivers and range of rebate Staff Recommendation: Return to work incentives should be considered separate from the Business License Tax program • May introduce an inequity in the proposed tax structure • No current mechanism to track daily employee attendance • Additional administrative burden for City staff and businesses Additional Council Direction from April 9th
14.A.i
Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6476 : Ballot Measures)
BUSINESS LICENSE
MODERNIZATION
VOTER SURVEY
Goodwin Simon Strategic Research
May 2024
14.A.i
Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6476 : Ballot Measures)
BUSINESS LICENSE MODERNIZATION BALLOT
LANGUAGE TESTED IN SURVEY
Goodwin Simon Strategic Research
To fund essential city services such as 911 emergency response, public safety, and addressing homelessness, shall the measure modernizing the City of Santa Monica’s 1990 business license tax ordinance to improve tax equity, exempting small businesses from the tax, decreasing tax rates for most retailers and restaurants, raising the corporate headquarters rate to 0.25%, removing auto dealer tax exemptions, and restoring a business license processing fee, generating approximately $3,000,000 annually, until ended by voters, be adopted?
14.A.i
Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6476 : Ballot Measures)
COMMUNITY SURVEY OF SANTA MONICA VOTERS
Goodwin Simon Strategic Research
All
Home
Owners Renters
Bus
Owners
Not Bus
Owners
Def/prob yes 58% 56% 63% 55% 59%
Def/prob no 25% 27% 19% 31% 23%
Not sure 17% 17% 18% 14% 18%
Net yes 33% 29% 44% 24% 36%
Solid majority favor Business License Tax Modernization measure
14.A.i
Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6476 : Ballot Measures) After respondents were exposed to a brief
description of the measure’s purposes and
impacts, support widens to 75%
“Santa Monica’s business license tax has
not been revised since 1990. Passing this
measure would update the tax and make
it more equitable. For example, it would
exempt small businesses and cut rates for
medium-sized businesses including
restaurants and many retail stores. It
would also close loopholes that have
allowed some large corporations to avoid
paying an appropriate share of the tax. In
addition, it would modernize the tax code
to account for businesses that did not exist
in 1990, such as online businesses.”
Goodwin Simon Strategic Research
Q2-Q3
Q2
(ballot
language)
Q3
(after
explanation) Change
Def/prob yes 58% 75% 17%
Def/prob No 24% 17% -7%
Net yes 34% 58% 25%
All not sure 18% 9% -9%
14.A.i
Packet Pg. 829 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6476 : Ballot Measures)
TOP GOALS FOR VOTERS
VERY IMPORTANT
GOAL
Slowing rise in cost of housing in SM 68%
Slowing rise in cost of shopping and eating in SM 66%
Making sure corporate HQs pay fair tax rate 62%
Making the tax fairer and more equitable 60%
Reducing tax burden on small business 59%
Closing loopholes that benefit certain businesses 57%
Encouraging job growth 55%
Making it easier to comply with business tax 55%
Attracting new business 52%
Improving opportunities for women and POC 46%
Modernizing code for new types of businesses 42%
Adding $3m in revenue for city services 41%
Making the tax more progressive 38%
Making tax rate in line with LA 36%
The top goals for voters:
1. Reduce impact of inflation
2. Make the tax ”fairer”
3. Ensure that large businesses
pay more, and small businesses
pay less
4. Increase equity and opportunity
for business owners
14.A.i
Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6476 : Ballot Measures)
DRAFT BUSINESS LICENSE MODERNIZATION
BALLOT LANGUAGE
“To fund essential city services such as 911
emergency response, public safety, and
addressing homelessness, shall the measure
modernizing the City of Santa Monica’s 1990
business license tax ordinance to improve
tax equity and fairness, exempting small
businesses from the tax, decreasing tax
rates for most retailers and restaurants,
raising the corporate headquarters rate to
0.25%, removing auto dealer tax
exemptions, and restoring a business license
processing fee, generating approximately
$3,000,000 annually, until ended by voters,
be adopted?”
14.A.i
Packet Pg. 831 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6476 : Ballot Measures) • Adopt a Resolution to place a measure on the November 5, 2024, General Municipal Election Ballot which modernizes the applicable sections of Article 6 Business Professions and Trades per prior Council direction;
• Identify Council Members, if any, who wish to prepare arguments for or against the Business License Modernization measure
Discussion and Council Actions
14.A.i
Packet Pg. 832 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6476 : Ballot Measures) Council direction on placing the Parking Facility Tax increase on the November 2024 Ballot. If yes, actions required:
• Adopt a Resolution to place the measure on the November 2024 ballot
• Identify Council Members, if any, who wish to prepare arguments for or against the measure
Parking Facility Tax Measure
14.A.i
Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6476 : Ballot Measures)
HISTORY OF PARKING FACILITY TAX
City's 10% Parking Facility Tax established in 1993 Applies to all City-owned and private parking lots and structures in Santa Monica
Except:
• Parking meters • Preferential parking permits • Residential parking in rental agreements • Parking for lodging when occupant’s stay exceeds 30 consecutive days
14.A.i
Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6476 : Ballot Measures)
NEIGHBORING PARKING TAX RATE COMPARISON
City Name % Tax Title of Tax
Santa Monica 10% Parking Facility Tax
Los Angeles 10% Parking Occupancy Tax
Malibu 10% Parking Occupancy Tax
Burbank 12% Transient Parking Tax
Inglewood 10% Parking Tax
San Francisco 25% Parking Tax
14.A.i
Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6476 : Ballot Measures)
PRIVATE LOTS / STRUCTURES
An 8% increase is estimated to increase General
Fund revenue approximately $6.7 million
Private lots / structures self report and each
entity has very different parking fee structures
Difficult to assess the impact to consumers
Largest revenue generators are medical
facilities, hotels, and office centers
City-owned facilities exempted from increase
14.A.i
Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6476 : Ballot Measures)
PARKING FACILITY TAX
VOTER SURVEY
Goodwin Simon Strategic Research
May 2024
14.A.i
Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6476 : Ballot Measures) Results of March and May community surveys of
Santa Monica voters
Tested in March 2024 Survey:
“To reduce traffic congestion in Santa Monica and lower the risk of fatal accidents involving drivers and pedestrians; create safe routes to school to protect children; and provide approximately $8.5 million for street and sidewalk improvements, safe alternatives to driving, crossing guards, public safety, libraries, and other essential city services, shall the City of Santa Monica increase the Parking Facility Tax at parking lots by 10% for users including visitors and tourists, with independent audits and all funds used locally?”
Tested in May 2024 Survey:
To maintain essential city services, including enhancing public safety, addressing homelessness, creating safe routes to schools, reducing fatal pedestrian and bike accidents, improving city streets and sidewalks, and maintaining clean and safe parks; shall the measure increasing the City of Santa Monica’s Parking Facility Tax by 8%, exempting parking at City-owned parking lots and structures (including downtown and the beach) from the tax increase, generating approximately $6,700,000 annually until ended by voters, with independent audits, be adopted?
Goodwin Simon Strategic Research
March May
Yes 50% 45%
No 40% 48%
Net yes 10% -3%
14.A.i
Packet Pg. 838 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6476 : Ballot Measures) The survey shows that voters are concerned about
the personal cost of the parking facility tax increase
Goodwin Simon Strategic Research
March Survey
Results All
Park in city
lots <6
times/mon
th
(60%)
Park in city
lots 6+
times/month
(27%)
Costs me a
lot/some
(30%)
Costs me not
that much
(21%)
Costs me
hardly
any/nothing
(40%)
Def/Prob Yes 50% 54% 40% 40% 53% 62%
All No 40% 38% 52% 52% 37% 34%
Net Def/Prob
Yes - All No 10% 16% -12% -12% 16% 28%
14.A.i
Packet Pg. 839 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6476 : Ballot Measures) Support rose in both polls to 57% when voters saw or
heard in plain language that it would not affect the cost of parking in city lots:
Goodwin Simon Strategic Research
“Passing this measure would only increase the cost to park at privately-owned, paid parking lots in Santa Monica. It would not increase the cost of parking at city-operated parking structures and lots, such as the structures in the downtown area and the lots at the beach. Nor would it affect the cost of parking at free parking lots, for example at supermarkets or drug stores.” March 2024 May 2024
Ballot
language
After
explanation
Ballot
language
After
explanation
Yes 50% 57% 45% 57%
No 40% 36% 48% 37%
Net yes 10% 21% -3% 20%
14.A.i
Packet Pg. 840 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6476 : Ballot Measures)
DRAFT PARKING FACILITY TAX BALLOT LANGUAGE
“To maintain essential city services,
including enhancing public safety,
creating safe routes to school to
protect children, and lowering the risk
of fatal traffic accidents, shall the
measure increasing the City of Santa
Monica Parking Facility Tax by 8% for
users including visitors and tourists,
causing no additional cost in Cityowned lots and structures (including downtown and the beach) because of
a partial City exemption, generating
approximately $6,700,000 annually
until ended by voters, be adopted?”
14.A.i
Packet Pg. 841 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6476 : Ballot Measures) • Adopt a Resolution to place a measure on the November 5, 2024, General Municipal Election Ballot to increase the City’s Parking Facility Tax rate by 8% and exempt City-owned lots and structures from the tax increase;
• Identify Council Members, if any, who wish to prepare arguments for or against the Parking Facility Tax measure; Discussion and Council Actions
14.A.i
Packet Pg. 842 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6476 : Ballot Measures)
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMPENSATION COMPARISON
CITY Approx.
Population
Mayor
Annual
Compensation
Mayor
Monthly
Compensation
Councilmember
Annual
Compensation
Councilmember
Monthly
Compensation
Berkeley 118,950 $133,100 $11,092 $83,853 $6,746
Inglewood* 102,991 $111,305 $9,275 $60,660 $5,055
Santa Barbara 86,499 $75,110 $6,259 $60,088 $5,007
Anaheim 347,111 $27,000 $2,250 $26,400 $2,200
Burbank 102,755 $25,800 $2,150 $25,800 $2,150
San Luis Obispo 48,341 $32,352 $2,696 $25,068 $2,089
Santa Monica 89,922 $26,844 $2,237 $23,184 $1,932
Pasadena 133,560 $32,934 $2,744 $21,958 $1,830
West Hollywood 34,349 $21,816 $1,818 $21,816 $1,818
Huntington Beach 192,129 $29,675 $2,473 $21,160 $1,763
Santa Cruz 61,501 $41,048 $3,421 $20,524 $1,710
Redondo Beach 67,749 $20,030 $1,669 $20,030 $1,669
Newport Beach 82,637 $25,368 $2,114 $19,201 $1,600
Beverly Hills 30,974 $9,430 $786 $9,430 $786
*Inglewood has a full-time Mayor and City Council.
Charter Cities are in bold.
Based on Area Median
Income (AMI)
Based on something
other than AMI, most
likely based on rates
set for General Law
limits and population.
14.A.i
Packet Pg. 843 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6476 : Ballot Measures) • Review Council Compensation Comparison report and
direct City Manager to return to Council with additional information necessary for City Council to place a measure on the November 5, 2024, or future, General Municipal
Election Ballot to amend the Santa Monica City Charter
Section 602 to increase Council Member compensation.
Discussion and Council Action
14.A.i
Packet Pg. 844 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6476 : Ballot Measures)
14.A.j
Packet Pg. 845 Attachment: Photo (6476 : Ballot Measures) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 25, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.A
1 of 2
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, Interim City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Annual Appointments to the following Boards and Commissions:
Board/Commission Number of
Appointments
Term End Date Requirements
Airport Commission 1 6/30/2028 Santa Monica Resident.
Architectural Review
Board
2 6/30/2028 -
Arts Commission 2 6/30/2028 Reside or work in Santa Monica Building & Fire-Life
Safety
1 6/30/2028 Civil or Structural Engineer
1 6/30/2028 California Licensed Building
Contractor
1 6/30/2028 California Certified Access
Specialist
1 6/30/2028 California Registered Fire
Protection Engineer
Commission on
Sustainability,
Environmental Justice
& the Environment
2 6/30/2028 Reside or work in Santa Monica.
Disabilities
Commission
3 6/30/2028 Reside or work in Santa Monica
and self-identify as a person with a
disability.
Downtown Santa
Monica, Inc.
3 6/30/2028 Must reside or be employed, own
property, or hold business license in
Santa Monica.
Housing Commission 1 6/30/2028 Reside in Santa Monica
Human Services
Commission
2 6/30/2028 Reside in Santa Monica.
16.A
Packet Pg. 846
2 of 2
Landmarks
Commission
1 6/30/2028 Reside in Santa Monica and
California Real Estate Licensee.
1 6/30/2028 Reside in Santa Monica and
Licensed Architect.
Metropolitan Water
District
1 6/30/2028 -
Personnel Board 1 6/30/2028 Reside in Santa Monica or is a resident of Los Angeles County that
is employed full-time within the City,
or owns real property in the City, or
has been issued a business license
by the City.
Planning Commission 2 6/30/2028 Reside in Santa Monica.
Public Safety Reform
& Oversight
Commission
2 6/30/2028 Reside in Santa Monica.
Recreation & Parks
Commission
3 6/30/2028 Reside in Santa Monica.
Library Board 1 6/30/2028 Reside in Santa Monica.
Santa Monica Pier
Corporation
3 6/30/2028 Reside, work or do business in
Santa Monica.
Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Boards and Commissions Voluntary Self Identification Form B. Applicant List
C. Written Comments
16.A
Packet Pg. 847
16.A.a
Packet Pg. 848 Attachment: Boards and Commissions Voluntary Self Identification Form (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments)
16.A.a
Packet Pg. 849 Attachment: Boards and Commissions Voluntary Self Identification Form (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments)
16.A.a
Packet Pg. 850 Attachment: Boards and Commissions Voluntary Self Identification Form (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments)
16.A.a
Packet Pg. 851 Attachment: Boards and Commissions Voluntary Self Identification Form (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments)
16.A.a
Packet Pg. 852 Attachment: Boards and Commissions Voluntary Self Identification Form (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments)
16.A.a
Packet Pg. 853 Attachment: Boards and Commissions Voluntary Self Identification Form (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Airport Commission
Name Application Date
Hopkins, David J.
Pertel, Joseph A.
05/28/2024
06/14/2024
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 2
*Incumbent is in green
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 854 Attachment: Applicant List (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Architectural Review Board
Name Application Date
Hamilton, Craig A.
Kaplan, Barbara J.
06/10/2024
05/24/2024
Laks, Howard 06/17/2024
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 3
*Incumbents are in green
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 855 Attachment: Applicant List (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Arts Commission
Name Application Date
Boghosian, Ana
Carrigan, Bryan
06/19/2024
04/04/2024
Fox, Kara K.
Kairala, William R.
Warren, Eric
Yehia, Laurie K.
03/20/2024
02/22/2024
03/20/2024
06/01/2024
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 6
*Incumbent is in green
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 856 Attachment: Applicant List (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Building and Fire-Life Safety Commission
Name Application Date
Calderhead, Blair
George, Tonia
Whitaker, Charles
06/05/2024
12/02/2023
06/18/2024
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 3
*Incumbents are in green
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 857 Attachment: Applicant List (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Commission on Sustainability,
Environmental Justice, and the
Environment
Name Application Date
Abdo, Judy C.
Gold, Mark A.
Lappen, David I.
Newbold, Gerda
Oelsen, Ashley
Walker, Olivia
06/16/2024
05/29/2024
06/05/2024
05/07/2024
05/22/2024
03/08/2024
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 6
*Incumbent in green
*Currently serves on the Clean Beaches & Ocean
Parcel Tax Citizens Oversight Committee.
*Currently serves on the Metropolitan Water District
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 858 Attachment: Applicant List (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Disabilities Commission
Name Application Date
Asaria, Nasreen
Baroff, Anya
Gordon, Nancy
Muntaner, Zoë
Squire, Paul J.
Susman, Matthew B.
05/20/2024
01/18/2024
06/13/2024
05/14/2024
02/05/2024
06/13/2024
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 6
*Incumbent are in green
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 859 Attachment: Applicant List (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.
Name Application Date
Cardiel, Michelle
Farzan, Jon
Gielicz, Albin
06/09/2024
05/25/2024
06/11/2024
Isensee, Kurt
Lesley, Ericka
06/09/2024
06/18/2024
Maudlin, Hudson 06/04/2024
Negari, Berta
Patterson, Hodge
05/30/2024
06/17/2024
Rusler, Natasha
Salerno, Andrea
Trinh, Peter
05/14/2024
06/18/2024
06/18/2024
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 11
*Incumbent is in green
*Serves in the Transient Occupancy Tax Oversight
Committee and is a registered lobbyist
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 860 Attachment: Applicant List (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Housing Commission
Name Application Date
Garcia, Lydia
Gudgel, Timothy W.
10/12/2023
09/15/2023
Ha, Edmund
Hixon, Shane
Rush, Lynda
Wells, Analise M.
10/03/2023
08/22/2023
10/23/2023
06/06/2024
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 6
*Incumbent is in green
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: Applicant List (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Human Services Commission
Name Application Date
Glover, Kevin
Jaffe, Mark
Kagel, Tamara S.
Koza, Maxine R.
06/07/2024
01/26/2024
06/16/2024
05/14/2024
Leddy, Bruce
Muntaner, Zoë
06/18/2024
05/14/2024
Nguyen, Krystina
Susman, Matthew B.
05/19/2024
06/13/2024
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 8
*Incumbents in green
*Currently serves in the Disabilities
Commission
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: Applicant List (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Landmarks Commission
Name Application Date
Keller, Grant E.
Summers, Jodi
08/07/2023
05/07/2024
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 2
*Incumbent is in green
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 863 Attachment: Applicant List (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Metropolitan Water District
Name Application Date
Gold, Mark A. 05/29/2024
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 1
*Currently serves on the Commission on Sustainability,
Environmental Justice and the Environment
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 864 Attachment: Applicant List (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Personnel Board
Name Application Date
Van de Bunt, Dirk 05/24/2024
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 1
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 865 Attachment: Applicant List (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Planning Commission
Name Application Date
Chacko, Peer F.
Dram, Al
Lambert, Leslie C.
08/28/2023
06/05/2024
06/17/2024
Rasking, Ellis
Wasserman, Jacob L.
06/18/2024
06/17/2024
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 5
*Incumbents are in green
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 866 Attachment: Applicant List (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Public Safety Reform & Oversight
Commission
Name Application Date
Banister, Xavier H.
Graber, Stuart B.
Kennedy, James G.
Muntaner, Zoë
06/19/2024
06/17/2024
06/18/2024
05/14/2024
Raman, Manju 05/06/2024
Singer, Donald I. 05/28/2024
Stedge-Stroud, Brian 06/18/2024
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 7
*Incumbents are in green
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 867 Attachment: Applicant List (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Recreation and Parks Commission
Name Application Date
Arreola, Larry M.
Johnson, Steven W.
Kolhoff, Nikki
LaGuardia, Maryanne
Mirhashemi, Jaleh
Morena, Greg
06/07/2024
06/13/2024
06/18/2024
06/18/2024
06/18/2024
05/27/2024
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 6
*Incumbents are in green
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 868 Attachment: Applicant List (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Santa Monica Library Board
Name Application Date
Cody, Daniel
Flaig, Nick
Hugh-Jones, Dan
05/25/2024
05/28/2024
05/28/2024
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 3
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 869 Attachment: Applicant List (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Santa Monica Pier Corporation
Name Application Date
Foster, Christopher
Giner, Julieta
Jarow, Jeff
06/11/2024
06/08/2024
05/06/2024
Morena, Greg
Newberg, David
05/27/2024
05/30/2024
Parent, Randi 06/06/2024
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 6
*Incumbents are in green
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 870 Attachment: Applicant List (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 2 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 11:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta Subject: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Re: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council –
I am writing to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission.
Thank you,
Nancy Hall
[Santa Monica Resident]
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 871 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 3 David Yakobson
From: Cathy Larson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 11:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: June 25 Item 16-A Arts Commission Support Julia Carnahan Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I support the appointment of Julia Carnahan for Arts Commission vacancy.
She has experience in both the Arts and Music world.
Ms. Carnahan is associate director of UCLA’s Boethius IniƟaƟve and has been long collaborator with well-known Director Peter Sellars.
She has worked on projects with LA County Museum of Art, the GeƩy, and Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA).
She is also currently on the Board of Santa Monica Youth Orchestra (SMYO).
Ms. Carnahan would make an excellent Arts Commissioner.
Cathy Larson
Sunset Park Resident
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 872 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 4 David Yakobson
From: Cathy Larson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 11:34 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: June 25 Item 16-A Arts Commission Support Susan Pertel Jain Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I support the appointment of Susan Pertel Jain to the Arts Commission.
Ms. Pertel Jain has extensive experience in the Arts EducaƟon, Theatre, Dance, Asian Music and Art.
She has been acƟve in local youth Music Programs both in the community (Santa Monica Youth Orchestra) and at Santa Monica High School.
Ms. Pertel Jain would be a valuable asset to the Arts Commission.
Cathy Larson
Sunset Park Resident
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 873 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 5 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 11:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Subject: FOSP: City Council 6/25 agenda item 16-A -- Airport Commission Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
June 24, 2024
To: Mayor Brock and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 6/25/24 item 16-A: Appointment to Airport Commission The FOSP Board supports the re-appointment of Joe Pertel to the Airport Commission. He has done an outstanding job since he was appointed in 2022, and we look forward to his continued service on the Commission.
Joe’s dad was a Navy pilot, so he grew up around various Naval Air Stations in Florida, Virginia, Rhode Island, and Maine, where he developed an appreciation for military and civil aviation.
Joe has been a long-time Sunset Park resident and has raised his family here, serving on the SMMUSD Personnel Board and volunteering with various youth sports organizations. This has made him aware of the need for more open space, parks, and recreational facilities in our city.
With his many years of experience as an attorney, he understands FAA regulations, the 2017 Consent Decree, and the history of litigation involving the city and Santa Monica Airport. He is also aware of the safety and pollution impacts of past and current Airport operations on local residents.
Joe views the conversion of Santa Monica Airport to a great park, after the airport closes at the end of 2028, as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. We believe that he will continue do an excellent job of analyzing options and representing community concerns as the planning process goes forward.
Again, the FOSP Board supports the re-appointment of Joe Pertel to the Airport Commission Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 874 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 6 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 11:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Subject: FOSP: City Council 6/25 item 16-A -- Recreation & Parks Commission Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
June 24, 2024
To: Mayor Brock and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 6/25/24 item 16-A: Appointment to Recreation and Parks Commission The FOSP Board supports the appointment of Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission.
Nikki has served on the FOSP Board since 2015, focusing on issues concerning Land Use and Education. With a biology degree from Yale Unversity, a law degree from USC, and professional expertise as a commercial finance lawyer, she excels at reviewing and analyzing complex documentation, assessing the financial impact of agreements and transactions, and looking at both capital and operating budgets.
These skills will be very useful to the Commission with regards to the Parks Needs Assessment, the budgets for creating and maintaining facilities and programs, and in reviewing the jurisdiction of various government agencies over our parks and open space.
With regard to current recreational programs and facilities, Nikki's two children have participated in swim team, Little League, AYSO, club soccer, club volleyball, after school CREST programs, and other community recreation programs.
And finally, we agree with Nikki's vision statement that, "It is essential to identify and protect our recreational and open spaces now, because once these space spaces are developed, they will be lost to resident use forever.
Again, the FOSP Board supports the appointment of Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation and Parks Commission.
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 875 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 7 David Yakobson
From: Shabnam Fasa <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 11:25 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council Agenda Item 16 — Arts Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Colleagues,
I am writing to strongly encourage the appointment of Susan Pertel Jain and Julia Carnahan to the Santa Monica Arts Commission.
Both women serve on the Board of Directors of the non-profit music organization that I lead (Santa Monica Youth Orchestra) and both have strong educational and professional experience in the arts.
I am confident that if elected, they will be strong contributors to the City’s arts programs.
Shabnam Fasa,
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 876 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 8 David Yakobson
From: ME Michaels <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 10:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Highest recommendation for Laurie Yehia - SM Arts Commissioner/applicant Attachments: Laurie Yehia recommendation.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Hello Mayor Brock, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete and City Councilmembers Davis, de la Torre, Parra, Torosis and Zwick,
It is my pleasure to share my highest possible recommendation for Laurie Yehia who has submitted an application for a third term on the Santa Monica Arts Commission (below and attached). Laurie is exceptional and provides critical expertise and experience to the commission. I am grateful she is willing to serve for a third term as she and I partner to develop newer commissioners to take on leadership roles.
I believe you will review the commission openings in the July meeting and not tonight, but am sending this now just in case (and apologize for the lateness if you are reviewing tonight). Thank you all for your service and for appointing commissioners for the various city commissions and boards.
Best,
Mary-Elizabeth
Chair, Santa Monica Arts Commission
June 25, 2024
Dear Mayor Brock, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete and City Councilmembers Davis, de la Torre, Parra, Torosis and Zwick,
I currently serve as Chair of the Santa Monica Arts Commission and am reaching out to provide the highest of recommendations for current Vice Chair Laurie Yehia, who has submitted her application for a third and final term. I have worked with Laurie for the entirety of my time on the commission. From the first meeting I attended, Laurie has been an integral leader on the commission. She always generously shares her insight, unique perspective and level headedness to every conversation -- both on the full commission, as well as in the multiple committees on which she sits. I have worked extra closely with Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 877 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 9 Laurie these past three years while I served as Vice Chair and Chair and Laurie as Committee Chair of the Public Arts Committee and Vice Chair of the commission.
Laurie is that rare individual who has a seemingly perfect balance of left brain/right brain attributes. She is a practicing artist who has also been a practicing attorney, organizational expert and leadership development consultant. Laurie shares her knowledge, is always open to new ideas, is a creative problem solver, a calming influence and just a lovely person to be around who provides all of the above to the commission. I am personally extremely grateful that Laurie has submitted an application for a third term on the commission. As the Arts Commission continues to do its regular work and begins to find its way in reaching out to Santa Monicans and increasing art in the city, Laurie plays a crucial role in maintaining “history” on the commission as a new generation of commissioners get their bearing and build their own experience on the commission. Laurie provides key leadership and I very much appreciate her decision to reapply/remain on the board for another term so she and I can help develop others on the commission to rotate into leadership positions in the next year or two.
I very much hope you vote to reappoint Laurie to a third term on the commission. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Mary-Elizabeth Michaels
Chair, Santa Monica Arts Commission
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 878 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 10 David Yakobson
From: John Murdock <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 10:08 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Nikki Kolhoff
Subject: Recreation & Parks Appointment
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Daer Councilmembers,
Please vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Rec & Parks Commission. I have worked with Nikki on the Board of FOSP and know that she will be a strong Commissioner, attentive to every aspect of the job. I feel we are fortunate to have such talented volunteers for city positions of responsibility.
Thank you for your consideration,
John B. Murdock
1209 Pine Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
tel. (310) 450-1859
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 879 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 11 David Yakobson
From: Lynn Gephart <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 9:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Re: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council –
I am writing to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission.
She has been a tireless advocate for the residents of Santa Monica, and specifically those in Sunset Park.
I cannot think of a resident who has been more thorough with their research on so many issues in Santa Monica.
Thank you,
Lynn Gephart
Sunset Park Homeowner
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 880 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 12 David Yakobson
From: Eden Kusmiersky <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 9:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta Subject: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council,
I am writing to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission. I have known and worked with Ms.Kolhoff for over 10 years on volunteer issues relating to school district and city matters. Ms. Kolhoff is dedicated and very smart. She is a tireless advocate for residents and families of Santa Monica. She is thorough in her research, and clear-minded, balanced and thoughtful in her critical analysis. As an attorney she has a solid and necessary understanding of the business-side of the Commission's work. Additionally, she has specific understanding of community needs for outdoor spaces based on her personal and family experience/interest in a variety of sports. She would be an exceptional addition to the Santa Monica Recreation & Parks Commission.
Thank you very much,
Eden Kusmiersky
Santa Monica Resident
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 881 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 13 David Yakobson
From: yelena sonkin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 9:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council –
I am writing to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission. [Add your reason(s) if you’d like to.]
Thank you.
Yelena Sonkin
[Santa Monica Resident]
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 882 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 14 David Yakobson
From: wendie olshan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 8:47 AM
To: Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta; councilmtgitems; David White Subject: NIKKI KOLHOFF for Recreation & Parks Commissioner Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
PLEASE SUPPORT THE APPOINTMENT OF NIKKI KOLHOFF TO THE
RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION.
Thank you,
W. Olshan
50 yr. + resident & property owner in Santa Monica.
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 883 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 15 David Yakobson
From: Sindy Edward <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 8:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Subject: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council –
I am writing to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission. She cares and I trust her
Thank you.
Sindy Edward
Santa Monica Resident 90404 zip code.
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 884 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 16 David Yakobson
From: Mike <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 2:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Subject: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council,
I am writing to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission. Her professional background and involvement in the community make her perfect for the role.
Thank you.
Michael
Santa Monica Resident
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 885 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 17 David Yakobson
From: si <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 4:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Subject: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council
I am writing to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission.
Thank you.
Stephanie Inouye,
Santa Monica Resident
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 886 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 18 David Yakobson
From: Chong, Yoolie [ETHUS] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 8:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Subject: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council –
I am writing to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission.
Nikki has been a valued member of the Santa Monica community and has been involved with multiple volunteer projects for our City and Schools. I have full confidence that her public and private experience will be an asset to the Recreation and Parks Commission.
Thank you.
Yoolie Chong
Santa Monica Resident
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 887 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 19 David Yakobson
From: Victoria Robinson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 10:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Subject: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council –
I am writing to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission.
I believe Nikki Kolhoff will be an excellent advocate for the residents of SM.
Thank you.
Victoria Robinson
Santa Monica Resident/Local
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 888 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 20 David Yakobson
From: Becky Campbell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 10:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Subject: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council –
I am writing to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission. I have had the pleasure of working with Nikki on the Santa Monica Boys Soccer Parents Association for the past year. Her commitment to enact change to improve the program for players current and future - even as her son was graduating - was unparalleled. Nikki has very detailed knowledge of contracts, policies, and procedures and applies her considerable professional skills to her volunteer work. She donates many hours of her time for the greater good of the community. I have every confidence that she will be a tremendous asset to the Commission.
Thank you.
Rebecca Campbell
Santa Monica Resident (17 years and counting)
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 889 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 21 David Yakobson
From: Katina Metzidakis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 9:51 PM
To: Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Anuj Gupta; Susan Cline; David White Subject: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council –
Hope this email finds you well.
The purpose of this message is to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission. While I do not know Nikki personally, I have been endlessly impressed by her ability to stay on top of seemingly everything happening in Santa Monica and taking the time out of her busy day to help keep fellow residents informed. As a newer resident, I have found her always open to answer questions about the goings-on of the city and while she is strongly opinionated I think that she is also extremely passionate and it would be helpful to have someone like that representing residents.
Thank you for your consideration,
Katina Metzidakis
Santa Monica Resident
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 890 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 22 David Yakobson
From: Cathy Larson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 8:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16-A Airport Commission appointment
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I support the re-appointment of Airport Commissioner Joe Pertel for a full term.
Commissioner Pertel was appointed in Jan 2023 to fill a vacancy for a parƟal term.
He has been an excellent Commissioner with acƟve parƟcipaƟon in Commission discussions, asking meaningful quesƟons of staff/quest presenters, and offering insighƞul commentary.
Cathy Larson
Sunset Park Resident
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 891 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 23 David Yakobson
From: Laura M. Gallant <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 8:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Subject: Re: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council members,
I am writing to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission.
Nikki has extensive experience exploring issues related to the city's resources and community needs. I am confident Nikki can offer a meaningful and relevant perspective regarding our resident's priorities.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Laura Gallant
Santa Monica Resident and Elementary School Parent
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 892 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 24 David Yakobson
From: Brian O'Neil <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 8:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; [email protected] Subject: City Council - Vote to Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Parks and Recreation Commission! Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and Council Members,
We write in strong support of appointing Nikki Kolhoff to the Parks and Recreation Commission.
We have known Nikki for many years, and we know no one who is a stronger advocate for the residents and students of our community. Nikki has been engaged with Santa Monica’s recreational activities, our school and club sports programs, and our music programs for years. She is fair-minded and compassionate. As both a parent and as a neighbor, she will work to ensure that our parks and recreational spaces serve all members of our community. These qualities, combined with her professional expertise as a commercial finance attorney, make Nikki an unparalleled candidate to serve on our Parks and Recreation Commission.
Please vote to appoint Nikki!
Thank you,
Brian O’Neil and Nada Shamonki
Pico Neighborhood Residents
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 893 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 25 David Yakobson
From: Ellen Goldstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 8:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Subject: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council –
I am writing to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission.
Thank you,
Ellen Goldstein, MD
[Santa Monica Resident]
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 894 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 26 David Yakobson
From: leona mason <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 7:46 PM
To: Anuj Gupta; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; councilmtgitems; David White; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Susan Cline Subject: Re: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council –
I am writing to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission.
There is no other parent I can think of who has dedicated more time to the pursuit of excellence for all of Santa Monica's children. As a parent, I know she will advocate for children and families and work hard to ensure the development of Santa Monica thinks of our future generations, our children.
Thank you.
Leona Mason
415-902-1243
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 895 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 27 David Yakobson
From: Deborah Dinsmore <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 5:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Subject: Nikki Kolhoff for Recreation & Parks Commissioner Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and the Council,
Please vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Parks & Recreation Commission. Thank you.
Deborah Dinsmore
Long time Santa Monica Resident
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 896 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 28 David Yakobson
From: Paul Spacey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 5:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Subject: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council –
I am writing to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission.
I’ll be very blunt and direct on why Nikki is the outstanding choice and it comes down to one main reason; accountability.
Nikki does not mess around. She is direct and holds people and organizations accountable for their words and actions. This is exactly what any responsible board or commission should want from its representatives.
Santa Monica is going through a difficult time and we need people like Nikki to advocate for transparency and accountability so that we can get the entire city heading in the right direction again.
Thank you.
Paul Spacey
Santa Monica Resident & Business Owner
Paul Spacey
www.pauljspacey.com
(310) 403-7166
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 897 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 29 David Yakobson
From: Heather Nevell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 3:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta; Niki Kohloff
Subject: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council –
I am writing to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission. Nikki Kohloff is a strong candidate , because of her background in law , her continuous devotion to making Santa Monica the best city , her business acumen, her strength in research , her ability to articulate well and her dedication to whatever she puts her mind to.
Thank you.
Sincerely ,
Heather Nevell
[Santa Monica Resident]
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 898 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 30 David Yakobson
From: Ann Kelly <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 3:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: [email protected]; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta Subject: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council –
I am writing to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission.
There is no other parent I can think of who has dedicated more time to the pursuit of excellence for all of Santa Monica's children. As a parent, I know she will advocate for children and families and work hard to ensure the development of Santa Monica keeps even our youngest, most vulnerable citizens in consideration.
Thank you,
Ann Kelly
Santa Monica Parent and Homeowner
--
Ann Kelly | [email protected] | cell 847.727.2538
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 899 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 31 David Yakobson
From: David Kaplan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 2:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Arts Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilpersons,
I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to serve on the Arts Commission and help develop the growth of Santa Monica as a cultural arts center.
thanks,
David Kaplan
2419 Pier Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310-713-5446
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 900 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 32 David Yakobson
From: amy korndorffer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 2:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Subject: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council –
I am writing to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission. Nikki cares deeply about the Santa Monica community and is well versed in all matters impacting the city, its residents, our schools and our businesses. I trust that she will put our interests first. I strongly support her candidacy.
Thank you.
Amy Daly
938 17th St. #1
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 901 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 33 David Yakobson
From: Eileen Gibson Funke <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 12:03 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Cc: Anuj Gupta; David White; Susan Cline
Subject: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council,
I am writing to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission.
Her experience and dedication make her the perfect person for the role.
Thank you,
Eileen Funke
Santa Monica Resident
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 902 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 34 David Yakobson
From: Marty Mead <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 11:18 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Subject: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council –
We are writing to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission.
We have known Nikki for over a decade, and even in social conversations among her fellow Santa Monica residents, Nikki’s passion for preserving Santa Monica’s open spaces and ensuring that Santa Monica is a livable city have consistently shone through, along with the depth of her intelligent engagement in the issues that impact the city’s future.
We believe Nikki would be a real asset to the Recreation & Parks Commission.
Thank you.
Martin Mead and Rick Cunningham
235 25th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 903 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 35 David Yakobson
From: Brian Guth <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 10:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta; David White Subject: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council –
I am writing to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission. [Add your reason(s) if you’d like to.]
Thank you.
Brian Guth
Santa Monica Resident
Cell - 310-699-7190
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 904 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 36 David Yakobson
From: Caitlin Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 10:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Subject: Re: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council –
I am writing to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission.
Thank you.
Caitlin Moore
Santa Monica Resident
Caitlin Moore
RA, LEED AP
917 716 7827
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 905 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 37 David Yakobson
From: Hindshaw, Ivan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 10:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Subject: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 - Item 16A - Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation and Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council,
I am wriƟng to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the RecreaƟon and Parks Commission.
I have been a Santa Monica resident for over 20 years and have known Nikki for the last 6-7 years. She would bring to the role a passion for the role of Parks and RecreaƟon in our community.
Best regards,
Ivan Hindshaw
This e-mail, including any attachments, contains confidential information of Bain & Company, Inc. ("Bain") and/or its clients. It may be read, copied and used only by the intended recipient. Any use by a person other than its intended recipient, or by the recipient but for purposes other than the intended purpose, is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and then destroy this e-mail. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Bain shall be understood to be neither given nor endorsed by Bain. Any personal information sent over e-mail to Bain will be processed in accordance with our Privacy Policy (https://www.bain.com/privacy).
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 906 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 38 David Yakobson
From: Laura Kachergus <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 10:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Subject: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council –
I am writing to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission.
There is no other parent I can think of who has dedicated more time to the pursuit of excellence for all of Santa Monica's children. As a parent, I know she will advocate for children and families and work hard to ensure the development of Santa Monica keeps even our youngest, most vulnerable citizens in consideration.
Thank you.
Laura Kachergus
Santa Monica Parent and Homeowner
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 907 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 39 David Yakobson
From: elizabeth zapler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 9:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta; David White
Subject: Nikki Kolhoff for Recreation and Parks
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council,
I urge you to vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission.
I have worked with Nikki on school matters from the time our children were just beginning at Grant School. They're now Samohi grads and college kids. Nikki is bright, logical, committed, insightful and the IDEAL person to help our city stay visionary and well governed.
Thank you.
Elizabeth Zapler
Santa Monica resident since 2002
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 908 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 40 David Yakobson
From: Amy Kay <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 9:09 AM
To: Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta; councilmtgitems Subject: Re: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council –
I am writing to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission.
There is no one I know who cares more about our city and the people in it.
Thank you.
Amy Kay
Santa Monica Resident
Amy Hoppenfeld-Kay
310-433-6904
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 909 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 41 David Yakobson
From: Chris Lopata <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 8:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Subject: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council –
I am writing to request that you vote to appoint NIKKI KOLHOFF to the Recreation & Parks Commission.
There is no one more passionate, knowledgeable, or qualified than Nikki Kolhoff for this position.
Thank you.
Chris Lopata
Chris Lopata
2624 29th ST
Santa Monica CA 90405
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 910 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 42 David Yakobson
From: Angela DiGaetano <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 8:08 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Subject: Item 16A: Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission: Meeting 6/25/24 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Greetings Mayor Brock and Santa Monica City Council Members, I am proudly writing to offer my strong recommendation to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission in our wonderful city of Santa Monica. She has proven herself to be a longtime advocate in the promotion of our school system and the children who attend it. She is diligent in her ability to promote and provide concrete steps towards bettering not only our schools, but our city.
She has unprecedented leadership qualities as proven by her roles as VP of Friends of Sunset Park and as an executive member of the Yale Swimming and Diving Association. Nikki is fearless when it comes to standing up for what is right, does not hesitate to bring new and innovative ideas to the table and offers nothing but commitment to preserving, improving and advocating for our beloved city.
We would be a lucky community to have Nikki Kolhoff on this commission and there is not a doubt in my mind she will provide dedication and a fresh perspective to a city which desperately needs people who want change, safety, kindness and a willingness to listen.
As a community member who cares deeply about resident needs, I highly encourage her appointment to this position.
Kind Regards,
Angela DiGaetano
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 911 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 43 David Yakobson
From: Kelli <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 6:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta Subject: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council –
I am writing to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission.
Thank you.
Kelli Urode
SM Resident
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 912 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 44 David Yakobson
From: Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 6:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Subject: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council,
We write you today to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission. As a long time advocate for our open spaces for recreation and sports here in Santa Monica, Nikki will be a great asset to the commission and to the community who relies on this commission to deliver accurate and reliable information about our needs to the City Council.
We look forward to seeing her on this commission.
Thank you,
Ann, Sam and Soren Thanawalla
Wilmont Residents
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 913 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 45 David Yakobson
From: Wendy Dembo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 5:06 AM
To: Anuj Gupta; Christine Parra; David White; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Susan Cline Subject: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council –
I am writing to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission. Because she believes
that we need more parks especially with all the unhinged new construction.
Where will the kids play?
Where will the adults play pickleball?
I know that there are plans to make the airport a park, but it takes me 30 minutes to drive my daughter to practice at Clover Park. We need more parks North of the 10.
Thank you.
Wendy Dembo
Santa Monica Resident and voter
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 914 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 46 David Yakobson
From: Jeanne Laurie <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2024 9:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta; Nikki Kolhoff Subject: Re: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council –
I am writing to request that you vote to appoint Nikki Kolhoff to the Recreation & Parks Commission.
Her accomplishments are many, She works tirelessly for the benefit of numerus causes in Santa Monica, every one of which benefits the residents of Santa Monica.
Thank you.
Jeanne Laurie
Sunset Park
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 915 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 47 David Yakobson
From: Houman Hemmati <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2024 8:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Ellen Goldstein; David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta Subject: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council,
I am writing to offer my enthusiastic support for Nikki Kolhoff's appointment to the Recreation & Parks Commission. As a longtime friend and collaborator, I have had the privilege of working alongside Nikki in various advocacy efforts, particularly in promoting good schools and government transparency. Nikki's dedication, honesty, and unwavering commitment to our community have made her a role model for many, including myself.
Nikki's extensive experience in both city and school district issues is evident in her successful efforts to secure the Civic Center Sports Field and advocate for the 50-meter outdoor pool at Samohi. Her current roles as Vice President of Friends of Sunset Park and executive board member of the Yale Swimming & Diving Association, coupled with her professional expertise as a commercial finance attorney, uniquely qualify her for this commission. Nikki's ability to navigate complex issues and her willingness to tell the hard truth, without sugar-coating, is precisely what we need to restore our parks to their highest potential.
As a father of two children who are avid users of our parks, I have witnessed firsthand the need for dedicated and passionate leadership to ensure our recreational spaces are preserved and enhanced for future generations. Nikki's vision for a comprehensive Parks Needs Assessment, creation of a master plan prioritizing resident needs, establishment of a philanthropic funding mechanism, and restoration of safety in our public spaces aligns perfectly with the goals of the Recreation & Parks Commission.
Nikki's honesty, genuine passion, and deep-rooted commitment to our community make her an invaluable asset to the Recreation & Parks Commission. I urge you to vote in favor of her appointment and am confident that she will bring the same level of dedication and integrity to this role as she has demonstrated throughout her career and community involvement.
Thank you for considering my strong recommendation for Nikki Kolhoff.
Sincerely,
Houman David Hemmati MD PhD
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 916 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 48 David Yakobson
From: Kat Blandino <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2024 9:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellen Goldstein; David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Subject: City Council Meeting 6/25/24 – Item 16A – Appoint Nikki Kolhoff to Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council,
It is now more important than ever for Santa Monica to have the most qualified people appointed to its commissions. People who will bring fresh ideas and perspectives to the table, who posess the right skills and experience.
I request you appoint Nikki Kolhoff a long time resident with years of understanding how the city runs to Recreation and Parks Commission.
Santa Monica is a wonderful city and holds a special place in all our hearts it deserves more people who will work hard for what’s right.
Thank you for all for your time, energy and heart in doing the same.
Sincerely,
Kat Blandino
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 917 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 49 David Yakobson
From: Dan Charn. <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2024 7:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems; [email protected]
Subject: 16.A. Appointments to the Boards & Commissions..
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Please confirm the applicant Annalise Wells
for the full term.
She is a very engaged person with housing
and other related areas and a fresh face amongst us.
She brings experience, energy, smarts and intelligence to the team and will be the youngest person on the commission. That is a good thing.
Thank you,
Danielle Charney
Resident since 4/Fools/1982
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 918 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 50 David Yakobson
From: Dan Charn. <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2024 5:25 PM
To: [email protected]; councilmtgitems; David White; [email protected]
Subject: Item 16.A Appointment to Boards & Commissions 6/25/2024 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
RE: Appointment to the Parks & Recreation Commission
Please appoint Jaleh Mirhashemi to the Recreation Parks 7 Commission..
Jaleh has always been active ..passionate in her engagement to better the lives of kids and adults and see our parks thrive and multiply.
She is also a very nice person..a mensch really.. the best of sorts..
Everyone will love having her a part of the team.
Thank you,
Danielle Charney
Resident since April Fool's Day, 1982
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 919 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 51 David Yakobson
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2024 4:11 PM
To: Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems; David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta Subject: Agenda Item 16.A - NE Neighbors Supports the appointment of Jaleh Mirhashemi to the Recreation & Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
To: City Council
From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
Re: Agenda Item 16.A - Appointments to Boards and Commissions Council meeting of June 25, 2024
Dear Mayor Brock and Councilmembers,
The Board of Northeast Neighbors supports the appointment of Jaleh Mirhashemi to the Recreation and Parks Commission.
Jaleh is actively engaged in our neighborhood association and is a passionate and longstanding champion of youth sports and our parks.
Please appoint Jaleh to the Recreation & Parks Commission.
Thank you.
Tricia Crane
Chair, Northeast Neighbors
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 920 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) 52 David Yakobson
From: Neil Carrey <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2024 3:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Recreation and Parks Commission
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
I am writing this email to support Jaleh Mirhashemi for appointment to the Recreation and Parks Commission. Jaleh is a very involved resident of Santa Monica and is passionate about open space, playing fields and recreation. She was one of the people who in the end was responsible for pushing Belmar Field across the finish line. She is very hard working and would make an excellent addition to this commission. She has worked with the commission over the years so she will be able to hit the ground running.
Neil Carrey
Email: [email protected]
(c) 310-200-5067
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
Item 16-A
June 25, 2024
16.A.e
Packet Pg. 921 Attachment: Written Comments (6405 : Annual B & C Appointments) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 25, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, Interim City Clerk, City Clerk 16 Items Subject: Request of Mayor Brock, Vice Mayor Negrete, and Councilmember Davis that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution for Council consideration that recites that, while the City of Santa Monica is respectful of everyone’s First Amendment rights to free speech, in some instances harm can come from expression that is false and/or counter to the public interest.
The resolution should reflect the Council’s disapproval of signs placed upon a building along the 3rd Street Promenade that falsely state that the City Manager approves of the County’s “free needle and meth pipe” program, as in fact the program is implemented by a contractor of Los Angeles County pursuant to state law, and the City Council and City Manager play no role in authorizing the program. Further, to the extent that there is City policy on the program, the City Council is the source of any such City policy on the subject, not the City Manager. Finally, the signs also may be counter-productive to the community’s stated goal of economic recovery as they may deter people from visiting and shopping in Santa Monica at a time when the City’s retail, travel, and entertainment businesses are still recovering from the pandemic.
Prepared By: Maria Dacanay, Acting Assistant City Clerk Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Written Comments
16.B
Packet Pg. 922
1 David Yakobson
From: Misti Kerns <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 3:03 PM
To: Misti Kerns
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White
Subject: Agenda Item: 16.B
Importance: High
EXTERNAL
Good afternoon. I wish I was there to speak with you tonight, but I am unable to do so. I am reaching out today as a resident of Santa Monica to encourage you to support item 16B. The ongoing blatant ignoring of city ordinance for temporary signage, negative messaging, personal attack of a public employee and untrue statements need to be stopped to fully recover economically and as a community from the pandemic. One thing is for sure it is certainly not helping Santa Monica or DTSM in any way. Please be brave in your work tonight. Thank you for your service to our community! Misti Kerns CDME, CMP
President/CEO
SANTA MONICA TRAVEL & TOURISM
2427 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90405
E. [email protected] P. 310.319.6263 W. santamonica.com Instagram | Facebook | X | LinkedIn | YouTube
Visit our online store to shop for Santa Monica merchandise.
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 923 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 1 David Yakobson
From: David Khedr <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 3:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: reference to the June 25, 2024 City Council Agenda 16B item,
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
The sign placed on the building located at 1333 Third Street Promenade is counter-productive to the community’s and to the visitors, it is a false information by say “Santa Monica is not safe” that does not help the economic recovery as they may deter people from visiting and shopping in Santa Monica specially on the Promenade, at a time when the City’s retail, travel, and entertainment businesses are still recovering from the pandemic.
THAT IS NOT FREEDOM OF SPEECH, that is false and/or counter to the public interest., Further, I believe City sign program policy does not allow any temporary banner hanging on the building more than 30 days, that banner been there since Covid .
As a resident and a business owner in Santa Monica, I Urge you to pass a resolution to remove the banner .
Thank you for your consideration.
David Khedr
Khedr Management Company
Property Management
1242 Third Street Promenade Suite # 206
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 394-6791
This e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and is confidential. If the reader of this message and any attachments is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any examination, distribution, or copying of the material is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender promptly and delete this message and any attachments.
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 924 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 2 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 1:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: City Council Meeting Agenda 16B
From: Faustino Garza <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 10:42 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Cc: David White <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda 16B
EXTERNAL
I strongly oppose the proposal to limit free speech regarding our city manager's cooperation and support for the Needle and Meth Pipe Distribution Program in our City parks and other public places Faustino Garza
Sunset Park
Santa Monica
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 925 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 3 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Rx <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 12:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Oscar de la Torre; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; [email protected]; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis Subject: Agenda Item 16B
EXTERNAL
SM City Council Members:
The Executive Board of Santa Monica Residents Cross-city unanimously joins the SM Coalition, NEN and other groups throughout the city in urging you to withdraw Agenda Item 16B, proposed by Mayor Phil Brock, Vice Mayor Lana Negrete and Councilmember Gleam Davis.
Agenda Item 16B will not only infringe on First Amendment rights to free speech but also attempts to hide the truth from the public and silence opposition to potentially nefarious and illegal acts performed by City Leaders and staff which run counter to the public interest in the health and safety of our community.
On all the aforementioned counts, Mayor Phil Brock, Vice Mayor Lana Negrete and Councilmember Gleam Davis, in proposing Agenda Item 16B, not only make a mockery of the Constitution of the United States of America and the democratic principles for which it stands but also mock the supposedly democratic policies and processes of the government of the city of Santa Monica.
In addition to threatening cardinal principles of democracy which are foundational at all levels of government, do you really want to place our city in this light? Shame.
Sincerely,
Derek Altmann, Secretary
Santa Monica Residents Cross-City (smRx)
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 926 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 4 Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 927 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 1 David Yakobson
From: Jason Mastbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 9:24 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: support 16B 6/25/2024
EXTERNAL
We shouldn't let one fringe property owner tank our economic recovery. It's apparently never occurred to Alle that his tenants might do better business without that sign hanging right next to their doors.
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 928 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 2 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 8:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: in support of Item 16B
EXTERNAL
Hello Council,
This communication is in support of Item 16B - a resolution to express its disapproval of the “Santa Methica” banner displayed at 1335 Third Street Promenade.
It is distressing and causes anxiety to the reader.
Thank you for taking action on this.
Jodi Summers
90405 resident
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 929 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 1 David Yakobson
From: Burt Goldstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 7:30 PM
To: [email protected]; Lana Negrete; [email protected]; Phil Brock; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; [email protected]; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Douglas Sloan; Clerk Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Ramon Batista
Cc: Stanley Rubin; Carol Dickinson
Subject: Re: NE Neighbors - First Amendment concerns raised by Tuesday's City Council Agenda 16B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
EXTERNAL
Dear Phil Brock and Members of the Council,
I strongly urge you to drop any and all actions designed to suppress the sign posted by John Alle, discussed below.
First, I can’t imagine there’s any hope of prevailing in court. The sign’s explicit message simply says “Santa Methica is not safe”.
The sense of safety is highly subjective and if a resident doesn’t feel safe it is certainly well within their civic right to say so.
Democracy in Santa Monica is feeble enough as it is. What percent of the residents do you think are even aware of the major decision you make?
Bringing the heavy apparatus of the Government down on a shopowner posting a vague sign in his window is not fostering community or democracy.
You would have to argue that the little arrow in the sign, on the rightmost icon, is pointing at the endorsement of the needle exchange program, and so you could try to construe Alle’s sign as meaning “needle exchanges are unsafe”.
A long road to travel! The sign, if referring to the policy could simply mean that the particulars of the implementation of the needle program have safety concerns, not that ’needle exchange programs are inherently a net increase in danger to the community.
I have found needle paraphernalia in DOuglas Park. I emailed the City to ask when homeless outreach workers come to Doublas Park. I was told they DO come, but in 30 years I have seen not one, and I live across the street from the park and go their at least once daily with my dog.
It’s not like he is promoting anti0vaccination scare propaganda - mabe look for that and censor it. Far more harmful and false.
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 930 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 2 Leave Alle alone!
Better yet, ask him what concerns he has that might make the program better or safer and pass those concerns on to LA COunty.
Best,
Burt
Burton Goldstein - Composer
cell: 310-422-8497
fax: 310-829-5923
email:[email protected]
website:www.burtgoldstein.com
concert music:
www.burtgoldstein.com
On Jun 24, 2024, at 4:57 PM, Tricia Crane <[email protected]> wrote:
<image.png>tr
This is the sign that is at issue in Tuesday's City Council agenda 16.B. It's posted on the front of the Third Street Promenade shop owned by John Alle, a founding board member of the Santa Monica Coalition.
https://thesantamonicacoalition.org/
Dear Northeast Neighbors and friends,
Below is the full text of Councilmember Item 16.B on this Tuesday’s City Council Agenda (6/25) and some of the questions it has generated from concerned community members. Also posted here is the response to 16.B from Santa Monica Coalition founding members John Alle and Jessica Rogers. The Coalition directly challenges the City, presenting links to "joint statements" released by County of Los Angeles Public Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 931 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 3 Health and the City of Santa Monica about the "harm reduction" needle distribution program in our city.
Tricia
<image.png>
##
https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1404
16.B
Request of Mayor Brock, Vice Mayor Negrete, and Councilmember Davis that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution for Council consideration that recites that, while the City of Santa Monica is respectful of everyone’s First Amendment rights to free speech, in some instances harm can come from expression that is false and/or counter to the public interest. The resolution should reflect the Council’s disapproval of signs placed upon a building along the 3rd Street Promenade that falsely state that the City Manager approves of the County’s “free needle and meth pipe” program, as in fact the program is implemented by a contractor of Los Angeles County pursuant to state law, and the City Council and City Manager play no role in authorizing the program. Further, to the extent that there is City policy on the program, the City Council is the source of any such City policy on the subject, not the City Manager. Finally, the signs also may be counter-productive to the community’s stated goal of economic recovery as they may deter people from visiting and shopping in Santa Monica at a time when the City’s retail, travel, and entertainment businesses are still recovering from the pandemic.
Questions from community members about 16.B:
1. How is the sign “false”?
2. How is a sign placed by the owner of a local business on his own storefront on the 3rd Street Promenade “counter to the public interest”?
3. Does the City Manager have a stated position on the County needle distribution program?
4. Does the Council have a stated position on the County needle distribution program?
5. Do the three Councilmembers promoting 16.D take the same position on the needle distribution program, i.e. that it serves as "harm reduction"? Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 932 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 4 6. Has the City Council as an entity voted to support needle distribution in Santa Monica?
7. Does the City Attorney have anything to say to the three elected officials who authored 16.B about the possibility that it violates the First Amendment protection of free speech?
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: The Santa Monica Coalition <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 12:08 AM
Subject: June 25 2024 City Council Agenda 16B item
To: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Phil Brock <[email protected]>, Phil Brock <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, cc:
[email protected] <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>, Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>, Christine Parra <[email protected]>, Douglas Sloan
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, councilmtgitems <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Lana,
It was a great opportunity to run into you at a political function today. Per your request, we have taken the time to locate some key documents that will help you recognize the deep connections the City of Santa Monica developed with the Los Angeles Department of Public Health in planning joint efforts to collaborate with the LA County Harm Reduction Program operated by the Venice Family Clinic and other vendors.
We have attached a selection of emails between City Manager David White and Dr.
Gary Tsai, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Harm Reduction Program Director, so that we can put to rest the accusations, made by city employees and city council members, that The Santa Monica Coalition and John Alle are making up stories in regards to City Manager David White and the City of Santa Monica's involvement and support of the Needle and Glass Pipe Distribution Program in Santa Monica.
To start, on May 26, 2023, David White forwarded an email from the Santa Monica Coalition to Gary Tsai. In that email, the Santa Monica Coalition was addressing a timeline of events regarding the discovery of the Needle and Glass Pipe Distribution program and the involvement of the City of Santa Monica. We included that email Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 933 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 5 because it was in direct response to that email that Tsai and White decided they would co-author a joint statement to be released to the public. Their desire was to gain more support from the public and counter any potential negative impact caused by the information that was shared by The Santa Monica Coalition.
The second email from Gary Tsai to David White on May 28, 2023 discusses the process of writing the statement with an invitation to use Santa Monica letterhead for the statement.
The third email page shows two emails dated June 2, 2023 from City of Santa Monica employee Delana Gbenekama and David White. Ms. Gbenekama's email shares the City of Santa Monica logo. David White's email tells Gary Tsai that Santa Monica has finished with their "marked up version that reflects input and review from the team". Notice all the City of Santa Monica employees copied on the email, including Police Chief Batista, Fire Chief Alvarez and Assistant City Managers.
The last email is from Gary Tsai to David White and "team". It is an invitation from Gary Tsai for David White to sign his name to the document alongside Barbara Ferrer. Tsai also suggested they bypass a press release to avoid "scrutiny/unwanted attention".
Please note below the three different versions of the joint statement, that we have downloaded, copied and time stamped. It's important you know that there is no reason to attempt to make them disappear from the internet, as two of them already have, because we have everything we need to keep them in existence.
The joint statement was also discussed in several local newspapers including the SMDP. It is no longer available on the site. We have not gone through our archives to grab the articles for you, but the Patch article is still readily available online for your browsing, see the link below.
In reference to the June 25, 2024 City Council Agenda 16B item, we strongly encourage you to remove the item from the agenda and table it for good. Regarding the concern about The Santa Monica Coalition's message on the 3rd Street Promenade that makes a statement about David White's support of the Needle and Glass Pipe Distribution Program, the only entities who have committed a potentially harmful "expression that is false and/or counter to the public interest" are the Santa Monica City Council leaders who sponsored Agenda Item 16B, Mayor Phil Brock, Vice Mayor Lana Negrete and Councilmember Gleam Davis, former Mayor. You are not only infringing on our First Amendment right but you are also attempting to hide the truth from the public and silencing any opposition to potentially nefarious and illegal acts performed by City Leaders and staff. The statements on the banner are true and accurate and were not made with malice or reckless disregard for the truth.
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 934 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 6 Link to the Original LADPH - City of Santa Monica Joint Statement June 2023:
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/sapc/docs/public/overdose-prevention/DPH-SantaMonica-Harm-Reduction-Joint-Statement.pdf?hb Link to the Revised LADPH - City of Santa Monica Statement February 2024 (notice City of Santa Monica logo disappears):
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/sapc/docs/public/overdose-prevention/DPH-Statementon-Harm-Reduction-Services-in-Santa-Monica-City.pdf June 9, 2023 - Link to the Patch Article on the City of Santa Monica and LA County Department of Public Health Joint Statement over the Harm Reduction Program in Santa Monica:
https://patch.com/california/santamonica/city-responds-concerns-controversial-harmreduction-services?utm_source=sharedemail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share We hope these city and county documents, that you all have access to, end this conversation for good. Regardless of your actions in the next City Council meeting, The Santa Monica Coalition has no intention of removing its messaging. Rather than attacking free speech, the City should focus on restoring safety in our streets.
Respectfully,
Jessica Rogers
John Alle
Santa Monica Coalition Co-Founders
<City of SM and LADPH response to TSMC.jpg><G Tsai Joint Statement Signatures.jpg><SM Logo for LADPH.jpg><City of SM and LADPH Joint Statement Collaboration.jpg><June 7 2023 Joint Statement City of SM and LADPH.pdf> Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 935 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 1 David Yakobson
From: DEBORAH SCOTT-TOUX <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 9:34 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White
Subject: Opposition to June 25 2024 Santa Monica Council Meeting
EXTERNAL
To Whom It May Concern:
I dearly Love Santa Monica. I was born and raised there, and currently am a property owner. I am very aware of the degradation of what once was a safe, delightful home community and tourist attraction.
Now when I visit, I am shocked by what I see from the boarded up establishments to drug addicted homeless sleeping on the streets. Recently friends planned a family trip to Santa Monica. Right away they were concerned about walking the streets or even leaving items in their car. Within the first day they cancelled their hotel reservations and returned home.
I do not support the needle and meth pip distribution program. I do support the Right to Free Speech and Santa Monica Coalition’s efforts to bring awareness and effect positive change for Santa Monica. I agree with the following statement:
Sincerely,
Deborah Scott Toux
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 936 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 2 The City Council's refusal to address this issue and pay attention to the collaboration between Santa Monica City Manager David White and Barbara Ferrer's Department of Public Health team contributed to the growing number of transient addicts 24-7 in the parks and in our City, decline of business and tourism, and rise in retail theft and violent crime in Downtown Santa Monica and all areas of the City.
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 937 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 3 Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 938 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 4 Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 939 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 5 am not able to attend the meting but do agree with the Santa Monica Coalition and quote a paragraph here”
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 940 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 6 Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 941 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 7 Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 942 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 1 David Yakobson
From: Cynthia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 11:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Christine Parra Cc: David White; [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Items: Support 10A, 10B, 16B, 16D -- Oppose Item 16E Attachments: 2024-06 CC Agenda Items 10A-10B-16B-16D-16E .pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
June 25th Council Meeting Agenda items
Support items 10A, 10 B, 16B, 16D
Oppose Item 16E
Dear Santa Monica Mayor and City Council:
Please see our attached comments in support or opposition to items on the June 25th Council Meeting Agenda items:
- Support items 10A, 10B, 16B, 16D
- Oppose Item 16E
Cynthia Rose and Cris Gutierrez
--
Cynthia Rose
Director
Santa Monica Spoke
SMSpoke.org
I acknowledge with respect and gratitude the Tongva, Kizh, and Chumash Peoples on whose traditional territory I live and work.
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 943 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) A community group dedicated
to biking and walking in Santa Monica.
Working to make the
City of Santa Monica a
more sustainable,
bikeable & walkable place to live,
work and play.
June 25, 2024
Subject: June 25th Council Meeting Agenda items
Support items 10A, 10 B, 16B, 16D
Oppose Item 16E
Dear Santa Monica Mayor and City Council:
Support Item 10A and 10B
A. Support adoption of an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.53 to Align the City’s Transportation Demand Management Ordinance with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (AQMD) Rule 2202
B. Support Adoption of an Ordinance that Supports Electric Vehicle Charging Access by Adopting Local Amendments to the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code.
Support Item 16B:
Santa Monica Spoke and the Santa Monica Safe Street Alliance fully support the Council item 16B to direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution that addresses the false and harmful signs on the 3rd Street Promenade disparaging our City Manager and the City at large, also conjuring lies about the LA County needle-exchange program. Those signs abuse our First Amendment free speech rights, threatening personal and public safety, the City’s reputation and the City’s economic recovery.
Please approve item 16B expeditiously so that Santa Monica can be proud of our civility and the potentially kind way that we treat others in Santa Monica and to enjoy the amenities and business on the 3rd Street Promenade that contribute to a clean and safe community and to our potentially vibrant economy.
Support Item 16D:
Our full support also applies to Item 16D to expand the Preserving our Diversity Program (POD) with clear considerations of elderly residents in the Pico Neighborhood experiencing poverty. The specifications identified to assist elderly Pico neighbors who qualify for POD are important requirements to fulfill our City’s and community’s expectations and aspirations to protect the vulnerable in our midst. Sometimes, it is too easy to miss something to help keep us attentive. Item 16D calls out new ways to assist POD applicants and to determine fair decisions about who receives POD aid.
Opposed Item 16E:
Finally, we oppose Agenda Item 16E to add a parcel tax measure to the November ballot. At this time, an unpolled measure, particularly for a parcel tax that is usually used for schools, is not a wise choice.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Rose
Director, Santa Monica Spoke Cris Gutierrez
Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Street Alliance Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance SMSpoke.org
SaMoSafeStreets.org
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 944 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 1 David Yakobson
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 12:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: Agenda item 16B
EXTERNAL
>
> I am writing to support John Alle’s freedom of speech declaration on > his building…SMCC does not have the power to censor the free speech of > anyone. It is time for transparency and SMCC and staff do not provide > an avenue for residents to express their concerns... If David White is > innocent of the charges, then let him prove that…I am a huge supporter of Phil Brock and believe he is truly trying to save the city, fighting for the hiring of police officers, being a real presence on the street…But this time I respectfully disagree…Santa Monica residents need to have a strong voice and our government needs much greater transparency.
> Let’s make the street safe by hiring more police officers. Staff > members who are stopping this from happening are to blame for John Alle’s ned to post his sign. >
> Recently I tried to file
> an ethics complaint against a Planning Commission staff person who > called armed policemen on peaceful residents attending an ARB meeting. > It was terrifying. I was very concerned that this staff person was > acting irrationally, had anger management issues that needed to be addressed, also that she had blatantly lied during proceedings and also announced the results of a vote before it was Taken. I went to the city website to the page where residents could file ethical complaints, 24/7…I called the number. It was disconnected. > I went to the link to a page to file the complaint. The link actually > takes you to a page that states this page is dangerous and may be trying to steal your personal and financial data. This is a city gov page on the city gov site…I wrote many letters to city officials that were ignored. > Clearly SM Gov and staff do not seem interested in residents > expressing concerns about ethical violations…I understand why John > Alle was forced to put his objection on a sign because he got no response from the city. I request you reopen the ethical violations hotline and perhaps residents won’t be forced to post signs. > I also feel he is doing an important social service for tourists - who > are told SM is safe and fun - when in fact they need to be very careful on our streets. We have a serious problem with mental health issues and addiction issues on our streets. Let’s be open about them. > Sincerely, KAREN CRONER
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 945 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 2 David Yakobson
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 11:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda item regarding John Alle's sign
EXTERNAL
I am writing to support John Alle’s freedom of speech declaration on his building…SMCC does not have the power to censor the free speech of anyone. It is time for transparency and SMCC and staff do not provide an avenue for residents to express their concerns... If David White is innocent of the charges, then let him prove that…I am a huge supporter of Phil Brock and believe he is truly trying to save the city, fighting for the hiring of police officers, being a real presence on the street…But this time I respectfully disagree…Santa Monica residents need to have a strong voice and our government needs much greater transparency.
Let’s make the street safe by hiring more police officers. Staff members who are stopping this from happening are to blame for John Alle’s ned to post his sign.
Recently I tried to file
an ethics complaint against a Planning Commission staff person who called armed policemen on peaceful residents attending an ARB meeting. It was terrifying. I was very concerned that this staff person was acting irrationally, had anger management issues that needed to be addressed, also that she had blatantly lied during proceedings and also announced the results of a vote before it was Taken. I went to the city website to the page where residents could file ethical complaints, 24/7…I called the number. It was disconnected.
I went to the link to a page to file the complaint. The link actually takes you to a page that states this page is dangerous and may be trying to steal your personal and financial data. This is a city gov page on the city gov site…I wrote many letters to city officials that were ignored.
Clearly SM Gov and staff do not seem interested in residents expressing concerns about ethical violations…I understand why John Alle was forced to put his objection on a sign because he got no response from the city. I request you reopen the ethical violations hotline and perhaps residents won’t be forced to post signs.
I also feel he is doing an important social service for tourists - who are told SM is safe and fun - when in fact they need to be very careful on our streets. We have a serious problem with mental health issues and addiction issues on our streets. Let’s be open about them.
Sincerely, KAREN CRONER
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 946 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 3 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Democratic Club <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 11:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 16B - SUPPORT
EXTERNAL
Thank you to Mayor Brock, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and Councilmember Davis for bringing forward this item which condemns the inappropriate banner hanging on the Third Street Promenade on John Alle's building. The Santa Monica Democratic Club has been on the record in opposition of this disgusting sign since it first went up.
Nothing could go more against Santa Monica Values than this sign which includes outright falsehoods about our City Manager's position on the harm reduction programs which take place in our community and suggests a conspiracy that the City Manager is enacting policy on this matter without the input of City Council.
It is unfortunate that four of our City Councilmembers attended John Alle's rally at Reed Park last month, at which they expressed support for this message. It is further unfortunate that the same four Councilmembers voted to send a meaningless resolution to the LA County Department of Health stating their opposition to the harm reduction program which has been scientifically proven to be effective at reducing death and is the official policy supported by the Biden White House.
Regardless of our differences of opinion on the underlying policy matter, we are heartened to see that Mayor Brock and Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete agree with our Club that John Alle's sign is inappropriate and out of touch with the reality in our community. We hope that this leads to Alle removing the sign altogether.
Jon Katz
President, Santa Monica Democratic Club
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 947 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 4 David Yakobson
From: Steven Dye <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 11:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: David White
Subject: Opposition to June 25, 2024 Santa Monica council meeting agenda item 16B
EXTERNAL
Keep the sign, people need to know the truth and how it has made our city a worse and dangerous place.
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 948 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 5 David Yakobson
From: John Murdock <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 11:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Santa Monica Daily Press; Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City; [email protected]; Nikki Kolhoff; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; Jessica Rogers Rogers
Subject: Item 16B is a Terrible Resolution
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers;
In my opinion, Item 16B, a proposed resolution about signs on the Promenade, is a terrible idea. When a problem is raised by a critic of the city, the city should take the time to confront the problem openly, not try to suppress the critic and paper over the problem. Critics, right or wrong, have their First Amendment rights, and any distortions in expression thereof should be left to the law of defamation, not political suppression. While our country is in turmoil over how to handle powerful media misinformation and fake news, this resolution directed at an old-fashioned sign on a building, is completely Orwellian in nature, big brother in action. As stewards of the city coffers (my tax dollars), you should not openly invite needless Federal litigation from your critics by trying to silence them. Instead, I ask you to focus on the reasons for the criticism, create a dialogue, and then solve the problem. The proponent/instigator of the signs obviously has a clear interest on the economic vitality of retail outlets on the Promenade, and surely wants economic vibrancy as much as anyone on the Council, so it is laughable to cite the city's interest in promoting economics as justification for the Resolution. The city's critics have definite ideas about the problems killing economic vibrancy. They may be right, they may be wrong, but you should work with them instead of trying to suppress the criticism.
Thank you,
John B. Murdock
Attorney at Law
1209 Pine Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
tel. (310) 450-1859
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 949 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 6 David Yakobson
From: Cynthia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 11:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Christine Parra Cc: David White; [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Items: Support 10A, 10B, 16B, 16D -- Oppose Item 16E Attachments: 2024-06 CC Agenda Items 10A-10B-16B-16D-16E .pdf
EXTERNAL
June 25th Council Meeting Agenda items
Support items 10A, 10 B, 16B, 16D
Oppose Item 16E
Dear Santa Monica Mayor and City Council:
Please see our attached comments in support or opposition to items on the June 25th Council Meeting Agenda items:
- Support items 10A, 10B, 16B, 16D
- Oppose Item 16E
Cynthia Rose and Cris Gutierrez
--
Cynthia Rose
Director
Santa Monica Spoke
SMSpoke.org
I acknowledge with respect and gratitude the Tongva, Kizh, and Chumash Peoples on whose traditional territory I live and work.
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 950 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 7 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 10:08 AM
To: councilmtgitems; David White
Subject: Opposition to June 25 2024 Santa Monica Council Meeting Agenda Item 16 B
EXTERNAL
Please stop Agenda Item 16 B on June 25 2024 meeting.
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 951 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 8 David Yakobson
From: Sarah Peterson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 10:03 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White
Subject: Opposition to June 25 2024 Santa Monica Council Meeting Agenda Item 16 B
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members and City Leaders,
I write today to submit my opposition to the proposed council resolution June 25 2024 Santa Monica Council Meeting Agenda Item 16 B and in support of all of our First Amendment Rights. The public should be able to speak without having our most fundamental Constitutional right curtailed. If anyone disagrees with an assertion made by a person or group, she, too, can speak unfettered and under the First Amendment and dispel what she believes to be inaccurate. This is the most essential principle of our country.
Related, I urge you to stop passing policies that enable drug use and vagrancy. It is the opposite of empathy to let people live in the pain of addiction and makes the city unsafe for us and our children. Thank you for taking the time to listen and read this email.
Sincerely,
Sarah Peterson
--
"Always stand on principle, even if you stand alone." -John Adams Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 952 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 9 David Yakobson
From: Caro Vilain <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 9:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: I support item 16B
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I support item 16B.
This sign is misleading (and ugly) and counterproductive to the activation of the promenade, in addition to John Alle’s very questionable practices as a landlord on such a vital corridor to the city’s economic recovery.
The sign is disturbing and full of misinformation, and it makes no sense that we allow it to be displayed at one of the top destinations in the city.
Please support item 16B,
Caro Vilain, 90404
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 953 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 10:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Attachments: text_0.txt
EXTERNAL
Put an end agenda 16B!!!!!!!!
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 954 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 2 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 10:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Attachments: text_0.txt
EXTERNAL
End B16 !!!!!
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 955 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 1 David Yakobson
From: Paul Berman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 5:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: My suggestion regarding Santa Methica
EXTERNAL
It would be a shame to waste city money on attorney fees in order to have the Santa Methica sign removed. My suggestion is that you meet with the person who posted the sign and find out what they would like you to do in order to have them remove the sign. Then, if the requirements are reasonable, go ahead and do what they are asking you to do. Let them win and let the city win too.
Sincerely,
Paul Berman
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 956 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 1 David Yakobson
From: Cris Gutierrez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 6:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra
Cc: David White
Subject: 6/25/24 Council Agenda Item 16 B: In support
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council Members:
As a Santa Monica resident, youth advocate and former educator, and as an honest member of our community, I strongly support Agenda Item 16B, directing the City Attorney to prepare a resolution for Council's approval to remove the false and derisive sign on the 3rd Street Promenade that lies about our City Manager regarding needle exchange. It is about time that all of us, led by our Council, reject the sign's hate-mongering and dangerous language that aim to generate destructive behaviors against City personnel as well as threaten personal and public safety.
The posting of the threatening sign clearly abuses First Amendment Rights. Where is the responsibility that those rights confer? An imperative lesson for all of our children and youth and a habit for everyone to follow is to use our free speech rights responsibly in a constructive, community-building and safe manner.
I trust the Council to pass Item 16B with a firm and positive direction.
With respect,
꼩꼪꼫꼭꼬Cris Gutierrez
Santa Monica Resident
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 957 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 2 David Yakobson
From: Kaarina Mononen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 10:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: End of 16B
EXTERNAL
Please vote end of 16 B!!!!뛴뛵뛶뛷뛸뛹뜆뛺뛻뛼뛽뛾뛿뜀뜁뜂뜃뜄뜅뜇
Thank you,
Karina
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 958 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 3 David Yakobson
From: Avi Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 9:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; David White
Subject: Opposition to June 25 2024 Santa Monica Council Meeting Agenda Item 16 B
EXTERNAL
Drop 16B. Rather than attacking free speech, the City should focus on improving the city to the point where citizens would no longer see a reason to have that sign up.
Thank you
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 959 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 4 David Yakobson
From: Burt Goldstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 7:30 PM
To: [email protected]; Lana Negrete; [email protected]; Phil Brock; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; [email protected]; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Douglas Sloan; Clerk Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Ramon Batista
Cc: Stanley Rubin; Carol Dickinson
Subject: Re: NE Neighbors - First Amendment concerns raised by Tuesday's City Council Agenda 16B
EXTERNAL
Dear Phil Brock and Members of the Council,
I strongly urge you to drop any and all actions designed to suppress the sign posted by John Alle, discussed below.
First, I can’t imagine there’s any hope of prevailing in court. The sign’s explicit message simply says “Santa Methica is not safe”.
The sense of safety is highly subjective and if a resident doesn’t feel safe it is certainly well within their civic right to say so.
Democracy in Santa Monica is feeble enough as it is. What percent of the residents do you think are even aware of the major decision you make?
Bringing the heavy apparatus of the Government down on a shopowner posting a vague sign in his window is not fostering community or democracy.
You would have to argue that the little arrow in the sign, on the rightmost icon, is pointing at the endorsement of the needle exchange program, and so you could try to construe Alle’s sign as meaning “needle exchanges are unsafe”.
A long road to travel! The sign, if referring to the policy could simply mean that the particulars of the implementation of the needle program have safety concerns, not that ’needle exchange programs are inherently a net increase in danger to the community.
I have found needle paraphernalia in DOuglas Park. I emailed the City to ask when homeless outreach workers come to Doublas Park. I was told they DO come, but in 30 years I have seen not one, and I live across the street from the park and go their at least once daily with my dog.
It’s not like he is promoting anti0vaccination scare propaganda - mabe look for that and censor it. Far more harmful and false.
Leave Alle alone!
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 960 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 5 Better yet, ask him what concerns he has that might make the program better or safer and pass those concerns on to LA COunty.
Best,
Burt
Burton Goldstein - Composer
cell: 310-422-8497
fax: 310-829-5923
email:[email protected]
website:www.burtgoldstein.com
concert music:
www.burtgoldstein.com
On Jun 24, 2024, at 4:57 PM, Tricia Crane <[email protected]> wrote:
<image.png>tr
This is the sign that is at issue in Tuesday's City Council agenda 16.B. It's posted on the front of the Third Street Promenade shop owned by John Alle, a founding board member of the Santa Monica Coalition.
https://thesantamonicacoalition.org/
Dear Northeast Neighbors and friends,
Below is the full text of Councilmember Item 16.B on this Tuesday’s City Council Agenda (6/25) and some of the questions it has generated from concerned community members. Also posted here is the response to 16.B from Santa Monica Coalition founding members John Alle and Jessica Rogers. The Coalition directly challenges the City, presenting links to "joint statements" released by County of Los Angeles Public Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 961 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 6 Health and the City of Santa Monica about the "harm reduction" needle distribution program in our city.
Tricia
<image.png>
##
https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1404
16.B
Request of Mayor Brock, Vice Mayor Negrete, and Councilmember Davis that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution for Council consideration that recites that, while the City of Santa Monica is respectful of everyone’s First Amendment rights to free speech, in some instances harm can come from expression that is false and/or counter to the public interest. The resolution should reflect the Council’s disapproval of signs placed upon a building along the 3rd Street Promenade that falsely state that the City Manager approves of the County’s “free needle and meth pipe” program, as in fact the program is implemented by a contractor of Los Angeles County pursuant to state law, and the City Council and City Manager play no role in authorizing the program. Further, to the extent that there is City policy on the program, the City Council is the source of any such City policy on the subject, not the City Manager. Finally, the signs also may be counter-productive to the community’s stated goal of economic recovery as they may deter people from visiting and shopping in Santa Monica at a time when the City’s retail, travel, and entertainment businesses are still recovering from the pandemic.
Questions from community members about 16.B:
1. How is the sign “false”?
2. How is a sign placed by the owner of a local business on his own storefront on the 3rd Street Promenade “counter to the public interest”?
3. Does the City Manager have a stated position on the County needle distribution program?
4. Does the Council have a stated position on the County needle distribution program?
5. Do the three Councilmembers promoting 16.D take the same position on the needle distribution program, i.e. that it serves as "harm reduction"? Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 962 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 7 6. Has the City Council as an entity voted to support needle distribution in Santa Monica?
7. Does the City Attorney have anything to say to the three elected officials who authored 16.B about the possibility that it violates the First Amendment protection of free speech?
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: The Santa Monica Coalition <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 12:08 AM
Subject: June 25 2024 City Council Agenda 16B item
To: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Phil Brock <[email protected]>, Phil Brock <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, cc:
[email protected] <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>, Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>, Christine Parra <[email protected]>, Douglas Sloan
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, councilmtgitems <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Lana,
It was a great opportunity to run into you at a political function today. Per your request, we have taken the time to locate some key documents that will help you recognize the deep connections the City of Santa Monica developed with the Los Angeles Department of Public Health in planning joint efforts to collaborate with the LA County Harm Reduction Program operated by the Venice Family Clinic and other vendors.
We have attached a selection of emails between City Manager David White and Dr.
Gary Tsai, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Harm Reduction Program Director, so that we can put to rest the accusations, made by city employees and city council members, that The Santa Monica Coalition and John Alle are making up stories in regards to City Manager David White and the City of Santa Monica's involvement and support of the Needle and Glass Pipe Distribution Program in Santa Monica.
To start, on May 26, 2023, David White forwarded an email from the Santa Monica Coalition to Gary Tsai. In that email, the Santa Monica Coalition was addressing a timeline of events regarding the discovery of the Needle and Glass Pipe Distribution program and the involvement of the City of Santa Monica. We included that email Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 963 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 8 because it was in direct response to that email that Tsai and White decided they would co-author a joint statement to be released to the public. Their desire was to gain more support from the public and counter any potential negative impact caused by the information that was shared by The Santa Monica Coalition.
The second email from Gary Tsai to David White on May 28, 2023 discusses the process of writing the statement with an invitation to use Santa Monica letterhead for the statement.
The third email page shows two emails dated June 2, 2023 from City of Santa Monica employee Delana Gbenekama and David White. Ms. Gbenekama's email shares the City of Santa Monica logo. David White's email tells Gary Tsai that Santa Monica has finished with their "marked up version that reflects input and review from the team". Notice all the City of Santa Monica employees copied on the email, including Police Chief Batista, Fire Chief Alvarez and Assistant City Managers.
The last email is from Gary Tsai to David White and "team". It is an invitation from Gary Tsai for David White to sign his name to the document alongside Barbara Ferrer. Tsai also suggested they bypass a press release to avoid "scrutiny/unwanted attention".
Please note below the three different versions of the joint statement, that we have downloaded, copied and time stamped. It's important you know that there is no reason to attempt to make them disappear from the internet, as two of them already have, because we have everything we need to keep them in existence.
The joint statement was also discussed in several local newspapers including the SMDP. It is no longer available on the site. We have not gone through our archives to grab the articles for you, but the Patch article is still readily available online for your browsing, see the link below.
In reference to the June 25, 2024 City Council Agenda 16B item, we strongly encourage you to remove the item from the agenda and table it for good. Regarding the concern about The Santa Monica Coalition's message on the 3rd Street Promenade that makes a statement about David White's support of the Needle and Glass Pipe Distribution Program, the only entities who have committed a potentially harmful "expression that is false and/or counter to the public interest" are the Santa Monica City Council leaders who sponsored Agenda Item 16B, Mayor Phil Brock, Vice Mayor Lana Negrete and Councilmember Gleam Davis, former Mayor. You are not only infringing on our First Amendment right but you are also attempting to hide the truth from the public and silencing any opposition to potentially nefarious and illegal acts performed by City Leaders and staff. The statements on the banner are true and accurate and were not made with malice or reckless disregard for the truth.
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 964 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 9 Link to the Original LADPH - City of Santa Monica Joint Statement June 2023:
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/sapc/docs/public/overdose-prevention/DPH-SantaMonica-Harm-Reduction-Joint-Statement.pdf?hb Link to the Revised LADPH - City of Santa Monica Statement February 2024 (notice City of Santa Monica logo disappears):
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/sapc/docs/public/overdose-prevention/DPH-Statementon-Harm-Reduction-Services-in-Santa-Monica-City.pdf June 9, 2023 - Link to the Patch Article on the City of Santa Monica and LA County Department of Public Health Joint Statement over the Harm Reduction Program in Santa Monica:
https://patch.com/california/santamonica/city-responds-concerns-controversial-harmreduction-services?utm_source=sharedemail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share We hope these city and county documents, that you all have access to, end this conversation for good. Regardless of your actions in the next City Council meeting, The Santa Monica Coalition has no intention of removing its messaging. Rather than attacking free speech, the City should focus on restoring safety in our streets.
Respectfully,
Jessica Rogers
John Alle
Santa Monica Coalition Co-Founders
<City of SM and LADPH response to TSMC.jpg><G Tsai Joint Statement Signatures.jpg><SM Logo for LADPH.jpg><City of SM and LADPH Joint Statement Collaboration.jpg><June 7 2023 Joint Statement City of SM and LADPH.pdf> Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 965 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 10 David Yakobson
From: Lynn Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 7:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White
Subject: Opposition to June 25 2024 Santa Monica Council Meeting Agenda Item 16 B
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
Your agenda item 16B ignores the crux of the issue: Santa Monica facilitates the distribution of needles and pipes for drug use in public parks and spaces. End of story. It’s inconsequential whether it’s the City Council that approves this policy or the City Manager; the true fact is that the drug paraphernalia distribution is condoned by the City of Santa Monica governing bodies.
Maybe your resolution should ask for the City Manager to be taken off, but the rest of it is true. But if you don’t want to hear it from residents or the Coaltion, here are two Trip Advisor reviews of Santa Monica:
Quest10789530418
1 contribution
0 Disgusting
Jun 2024 • Friends
There are cracked out homeless people everywhere and I felt very unsafe. People were sleeping in the middle of the sidewalks, swatting at imaginary bugs, harassing people for money, and even saw a lady taking a dump in the middle of the sidewalk. We drove down south to Huntington Beach and it was MUCH nicer.
Written June 11, 2024
This review is the subjective opinion of a Tripadvisor member and not of Tripadvisor LLC. Tripadvisor performs checks on reviews as part of our industry-leading trust & safety standards. Read our transparency report to learn more.
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 966 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 11 koebe
Edmonton, Canada105 contributions
1 Disappointed
Apr 2024 • Family
Did not feel safe here. Lots of homeless and high/drunk. Did not feel safe to walk on my own. One evening a fight broke out and 6 cop cars came. Garbage all the way along the beach.
Forcibly removing these signs will do nothing for your economic recovery goal. They will, however, at least point out that there is a problem and people are finally speaking up.
Sincerely,
Lynn Miller
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 967 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 12 David Yakobson
From: Dan Charn. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 5:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems; [email protected]
Cc: David White; [email protected]
Subject: Item 16.B OPPOSE IN A BIG WAY
EXTERNAL
Esteemed Council,
With all due respect, this is censorship no matter the spin, and definitely a violation of First Amendment rights..no getting around that one.
It is not a secret that you, our esteemed City Council recently voted to end these programs in the parks and outdoor public spaces, yet they are still going on. Our CM - David White appears to be enabling this. He recently attended an online community meeting when our very much liked Chief Bautista was a guest. I believe it is just to intimidate him from telling the truth about this, why we do not have more officers, as well as other issues. Not hiring more officers is not so much due to budget deficits as we are repeatedly told. He has no problem spending money to hire other staff. He does not listen to us the residents about our repeated need for safety, but
rather caters to the servicing of the ruling developers and tech companies.
I am sorry, but there is no way this is okay ..what is holding back the health of our downtown is not a sign that points out the obvious, it is our leaders refusal to do what is necessary to protect the safety and ambiance of the area. Taking the sign down will not stop anyone Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 968 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 13 from seeing it..it is all over. Will you tell us that we cannot trust our lying eyes?
To pass this neo- fascist Item is to invite a lawsuit from not only local individuals, but I bet the ACLU will be inspired to do so as well. So, then we can waste more money hiring more lawyers or spend big $$$ farming work out to more pet law firms. This is not a good idea. Find another way to fix the problems downtown and that sign will come down .. no one would love to remove it more than those who installed it. Until this sign went up and the Coalition sued the City- it a lot of talk, money wasted and unaccounted for while not much was done to change things and address this problem. It seems to take a lawsuit to get anything done here. I believe that is by design. Ignoring us until we give up.
Danielle Charney
Resident Since Fool's Day of 1982
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 969 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 14 David Yakobson
From: Jonathan Upham <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 5:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Santa Monica City Council Item 16B
EXTERNAL
Hello,
As a business owner and tax payer of Santa Monica, I believe you should take item 16b off the agenda and preserve our First Amendment rights. I also believe that the "free needle and meth pipe" program should not be conducted in public spaces like Reed Park. In the words of former Mayor Sue Himmelrich, we need to "immediately [move] this program to a service rich environment (preferably indoors) where individuals in need of substance abuse, mental health, and other services can coordinate and work directly with service providers.”
From,
Jonathan Upham
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 970 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 15 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 5:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16.B
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
While I agree with the idea the sign is probably harming the economic recovery of the mall, I think the city manager has other options if the information stated is true. He can file with the courts to have the sign taken down by some means of a restraining order or injunction. I am not sure what the particular procedure in CA.
Also rather than give the city the power to limit free speech, if the information is materially false and harmful as stated, then he should be able to sue for defamation of character.
Thanks.. Hope you consider these better options before challenging free speech rights which will likely end up in an expensive protracted legal case.
Joe DiRosa
16.B. Request of Mayor Brock, Vice Mayor Negrete, and Councilmember Davis that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution for Council consideration that recites that, while the City of Santa Monica is respectful of everyone’s First Amendment rights to free speech, in some instances harm can come from expression that is false and/or counter to the public interest. The resolution should reflect the Council’s disapproval of signs placed upon a building along the 3rd Street Promenade that falsely state that the City Manager approves of the County’s “free needle and meth pipe” program, as in fact the program is implemented by a contractor of Los Angeles County pursuant to state law, and the City Council and City Manager play no role in authorizing the program. Further, to the extent that there is City policy on the program, the City Council is the source of any such City policy on the subject, not the City Manager. Finally, the signs also may be counter-productive to the community’s stated goal of economic recovery as they may deter people from visiting and shopping in Santa Monica at a time when the City’s retail, travel, and entertainment businesse Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 971 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 16 Joe DiRosa
Founder, CEO | Seedlings Inc.
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Photo
M: (310) 770-5171
E: [email protected]
A: Seedlings.vc
The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 972 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 1 David Yakobson
From: kim, sb <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 3:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; David White
Subject: Opposition to June 25 2024 Santa Monica Council Meeting Agenda Item 16 B
EXTERNAL
Dear Council members and city mgr,
I strongly appose to the Needle and Meth Pipe Distribution Program in the parks.
Seungbum Kim
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 973 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 1 David Yakobson
From: Peter SteenOlsen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 3:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems; councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White
Subject: Opposition to June 25 2024 Santa Monica Council Meeting Agenda Item 16 B
EXTERNAL
Dear Elected Representatives,
Your actions would be a fine example of adding insult to injury if this matter were only a schoolyard disagreement - but this is not.
This blatant attempt to intimidate, silence and defame a group of local and vocal residents to promote a poisonous agenda and support the spread of the disease that is addiction should cease and desist forth with. Wrongthink can not be codified into a crime or misdemeanor by your bureaucratic agreement.
Human rights and freedom of speech are the foundation of any democratic republic. Any elected official serving to advance the self interests and misguided dictates of overpaid outside bureaucrats that cause lasting damage by harming and killing this city’s constituents is shameful and unconstitutional. The community at large is not only aware that your bought and paid for “City Attorney” may charge thousands of dollars to parse the term “woman” or question what the definition of “is” is, but if you as a group succeed in your vain attempt to pass this silencing law that said law firm can potentially reap millions in fees defending such a disgraceful act.
I would advise you to consult additional legal counsel.
Finally, in trying to silence your political opponents you most certainly will soon suffer from the Streisand effect.
Withdraw this motion and stop supporting the institutional spreading of death and disease.
Kind Regards,
Peter J. SteenOlsen
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 974 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 1 David Yakobson
From: InHavenPro <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 1:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: No to needles and drugs in public spaces!!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear SM City personnel,
I am writing in support of the Santa Monica Coalition, to express my grave concern in regards to the distribution of needles and drugs in parks and public spaces around town.
This absolutely needs to stop in order to shield our community from all sorts of atrocious outcomes directly related to these issues.
Best Regards,
FILIP KOJIC
Estate Security Advisor
c: 424.537.9048
e: [email protected]
This e-mail, including any attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed. The reader, or his/her authorized agent, is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately.
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 975 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 1 David Yakobson
From: Spencer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 2:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda items
EXTERNAL
Hi,
I’m a local resident living off Arizona St, please put an end to agenda item 16B.
Thank you
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 976 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 2 David Yakobson
From: Jeanne Laurie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 1:35 PM
To: Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems; Phil Brock
Cc: David White
Subject: Item 16 B
EXTERNAL
This is America. Freedom of Speech
Even if you don't like what someone is saying, doesn't mean you trample on 1st amendment rights.
If you don't like what someone is saying, prove that the statement is false. You don't shoot the messenger.
This country is already turning into a fascist country. Don't contribute to the fascism.
Jeanne Laurie
Sunset Park
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 977 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 3 David Yakobson
From: Cathie Lamm <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 1:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Opposition to June 25 2024 Santa Monica Council Meeting Agenda Item 16 B
EXTERNAL
Hi.
We all know how much you are despised by the tax paying, law abiding community here in Santa Monica, the city you have intentionally destroyed.
If you move forward by blocking our first amendment right to do what is correct and necessary, you will be further devastating this once livable city, which has become a dangerous garbage dump.
Somehow please find your conscience in your blackened souls which has been fueled by greed and monstrosity.
C a t h i e L y n n L a m m
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 978 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 4 David Yakobson
From: Ellen Sevy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 1:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White
Subject: Re 16B
EXTERNAL
I am for 16B. I dont want needles and drugs distributed in our parks, beaches, streets sanctioned by the city or Barbara Ferrer.
We who live here are desperate for out city to die safe and cleaned up. many places have recovered and vibrant shopping districts in California.
The only way to get people off the street and well is stop their drug addiction first.
Thank you
Ellen Sevy
Homeowner Santa Monica
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 979 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 5 David Yakobson
From: Sara Rashka Heidingsfeld <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 1:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; David White; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OPPOSITION TO ITEM 16B
EXTERNAL
City manager White has misrepresented the residents for too long.
Instead of doing his job as a public servant, he has acted in his own best interest.
Please remove or oppose this bill
Sincerely
Sara h
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 980 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 6 David Yakobson
From: CHAIM AARON LEVIN <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 12:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 16B Agenda item
EXTERNAL
I oppose the proposed council resolution and support everyone's First Amendment Rights to let the public know who in government supports the needle give away programs in our city. I am not against needle give away programs. I am against them out in the open. If an addict wants a clean needle, they should have to go to a city office inside a city building to obtain it.
C Levin
703 18th Street, S Monica, CA 90402
Tel (310)394-2600 Fax (310)319-2061
This message may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to act on behalf of the intended recipient) of this message, you may not disclose, forward, distribute, copy, or use this message or its contents. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete the original message from your e-mail system.
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 981 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 1 David Yakobson
From: Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 7:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: June 25 2024 City Council Agenda 16B item - KILL IT FOR GOOD and make Staff Accountable for LYING to the PUBLIC
EXTERNAL
Shame, Shame, Shame on our City Staff and Council who promote lies to cover up INTENTIONALLY TERRORIZING the community with a FAKE and UNPROVEN, NON_DATA DRIVEN KILLER DRUG ENABLING PROGRAM in order to RELOCATE the communities by FORCING US TO MOVE! Shame on you, GLEAM DAVIS & PHIL BROCK for failing to read the proof the deception found in the FIOA documents and the LEGALLY BINDING, decades old ENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT between the City of Santa Monica and the LACDPH which clearly PREVENTED your chosen City Manager from conspiring and collaborating with the County in order to SUBJECT the CITIZENRY to the SHAM PROGRAM - an open air deadly drug den - ABSENT ALL PUBLIC PROCESS.
This is another fine example which illustrates Santa Monica's MOCKERY OF DEMOCRACY! You are both ridiculous and reckless! Each of you will be held personally liable if something happens to me, my family, or anyone else we know as a result of your prolonged arrogance and ill will against the residents.
Please pull the item and bury it SIX FEET DEEP while simultaneously adding an item to the agenda that upholds our City's agreement with the LACDPH and require pulling the plug on their hoax unless and until we the people have a fully vetted public process that includes proof positive that Meth and Fentanyl addicts lives are improving from it because the county's only data is decades old and based on far less deadly drugs.
Sincerely,
Ann Thanawalla
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." - Albert Einstein Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 982 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 4 David Yakobson
From: Houman Hemmati <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2024 4:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Ellen Goldstein; David White; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis Cc: Ben Pouladian
Subject: Council Item 16B: Anti Free Speech Resolution
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock, Vice Mayor Negrete, and esteemed, honorable members of the Santa Monica City Council,
Many of us, locally and nationally, are appalled that an unconstitutional resolution directly violating the free speech of a citizen is on your upcoming agenda.
Below is a message I sent to local residents and want you to read it. You will badly regret putting this on the agenda. It is made an even greater mockery of your entire body, as well as your alleged leader ship.
By trying to shoot the messenger rather than acknowledging that he is actually right and addressing your failures and asking for help, you were attacking the person who is pointing out The problems that you have caused. You do understand that, correct?
People who visit the promenade are not offended by the sign, they are offended by the smell of urine, by the homeless people attacking them and sleeping in front of stores, and by witnessing smash and grab robberies happening right before their eyes with zero police presence and response. They are offended by open air drug use, by the fact that there’s no place to sit because the homeless or occupying every seat on the promenade.
Here’s my post: The City Council’s Proposed Resolution: A Masterclass in Hypocrisy and First Amendment Violation
Ladies and gentlemen of Santa Monica, let’s talk about the latest farce being peddled by our City Council. On June 25, 2024, Mayor Brock, Vice Mayor Negrete, and Councilmember Davis want to pass a resolution to “disapprove” of signs on the 3rd Street Promenade. These signs, placed by a concerned local business owner, John Alle, and The Santa Monica Coalition, dare to speak the truth about our city’s mismanagement.
The signs claim that our City Manager approves of the County’s “free needle and meth pipe” program.
Oh, the horror! How dare someone tell it like it is? The city wants to argue semantics and technicalities instead of addressing the real issues plaguing our community. They are not just being dishonest; they are attempting to violate the First Amendment by stifling free political speech.
Let’s get real here. While they claim to support free speech, their actions speak louder. They are trying to silence a resident who has seen people dying in our streets and parks, victims of the city’s inaction. This resident has also seen his business destroyed, looted, and vandalized. The City Council wants to muzzle Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 983 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 2 Let’s get real here. While they claim to support free speech, their actions speak louder. They are trying to silence a resident who has seen people dying in our streets and parks, victims of the city’s inaction. This resident has also seen his business destroyed, looted, and vandalized. The City Council wants to muzzle him instead of dealing with the rampant crime, homelessness, and drug distribution happening under their watch.
Rather than attacking free speech, the city should be addressing these material issues. The truth is that drug paraphernalia is being illegally and harmfully distributed to addicts who should be in mandatory rehabilitation. The city refuses to deploy sufficient police or instruct them to arrest and charge criminals to the fullest extent of the law. This inaction has led to an epidemic of crime and homelessness, forcing countless businesses to shut down. Unlike neighboring cities that manage these issues effectively, Santa Monica is sinking into chaos.
This proposed resolution is a joke. It’s not the signs that are damaging our economic recovery—it’s the City Council’s lack of action. They should be condemning their own failures rather than trying to silence a resident who is holding them accountable.
Mayor Brock, Vice Mayor Negrete, Councilmember Davis, and City Manager White—here’s a thought:
Instead of drafting resolutions to stifle free speech, why not draft resolutions to increase police presence, enforce laws, and clean up our streets? Why not focus on the real issues that have turned Santa Monica into a haven for crime and homelessness?
Santa Monica residents, it’s time to stand up and demand accountability. Share this post if you believe in free speech and want real change in our city. Let’s show the City Council that we won’t be silenced, and we won’t let them off the hook for their failures.
I posted about this on X and my post has garnered a lot of attention: https://x.com/houmanhemmati/status/1804375636502552925?s=46 Why don’t you do the right thing and remove this from your agenda before it blows up even further in your own faces? This behavior is something directly from a communist dictatorship, and you are earning the name People’s Republic of Santa Monica or Soviet Monica, which many have called our blessed city. You should also issue a written apology to Mr. Alle and read it aloud at the next council meeting. If you don’t, you can sure as hell bet that video of your discussion and votes at the council meeting will become national news.
Censorship and bullying are NEVER correct. It’s worse when a man who has been physically and economically victimized by your beloved, drug-addicted “unhoused neighbors” points out the source of the problem yet he’s censored, bullied, and shamed by the government that was allegedly elected to represent the interests of the people.
On an unrelated note, you will soon be receiving another email from me relating to the proposed parcel tax measure. Let me be extremely clear: this parcel tax will not end up on the ballot. You will not move forward with this and you will withdraw this attempt to further taxes. You have not done anything to try to cut $10 million from the budget, which can easily be done. Has you tried and failed because it is impossible, I would say at least you can consider an additional tax. But in this case, given the fact that you have not even bothered considering a $10 million budget cut, it is absolutely inappropriate to tax the people in California, who are already the highest tax in the state to pay even more all due to your failures Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 984 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 3 to control spending. I have spent the last month, not doing much work, but rather conducting an exhaustive analysis of your city budget, over 600 pages of it, line by line, and will soon be releasing a very feasible and detailed and equitable plan to cut the budget by at least $10 million. I urge you to pass my plan and it’s entirety and stop trying to text people more. My plan will require some cuts, but all of them will be to nonessential programs. My plan will call for us to outsource some city services that are currently performed at great expense by city staff, but we have no choice. At this point, you have a fiduciary duty to the citizens, to responsibly spend our money, not to treat us as an unlimited ATM, coming back to cash even more money out of us anytime you run out.
Again, I will be releasing that plan to you soon, as it is taking a long time for me to put it together and verify the numbers, and once I do, I will give you an opportunity to review and respond before making it public. It will be in a form that you could pretty much directly vote on it and implement the changes rapidly. you were forgetting that I, along with many other citizens, have business experience, and we have actual experience, unlike any of you, managing tends and hundreds of millions of dollars of other peoples money, and doing so responsibly. Why don’t you come to us for help rather than trying to do an amateur job and wasting more money? It is not a sign of weakness to ask for help, but rather it is a sign of strength. Use your own people. We are offering to volunteer our time to help you. We are not your enemies, we are friends. We’re on the same side.
Thank you,
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 985 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 4 Houman
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 986 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 5 Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 987 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 9 David Yakobson
From: Peter DiChellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2024 2:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Council Item16B: Anti Free Speech Resolution
EXTERNAL
TO: City Council,
PUH-LEEZE!
We respect First Amendment rights to free speech . . . as long as such speech does not criticize a government official or policy? What is this, the Vladimir Putin resolution? STRONGLY OPPOSE.
Sincerely,
Peter DiChellis
Santa Monica
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 988 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 1 David Yakobson
From: The Santa Monica Coalition <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 12:08 AM
To: Lana Negrete; [email protected]; Phil Brock; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; [email protected]; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Douglas Sloan; Clerk Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Ramon Batista Subject: June 25 2024 City Council Agenda 16B item
Attachments: City of SM and LADPH response to TSMC.jpg; G Tsai Joint Statement Signatures.jpg; SM Logo for LADPH.jpg; City of SM and LADPH Joint Statement Collaboration.jpg; June 7 2023 Joint Statement City of SM and LADPH.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Lana,
It was a great opportunity to run into you at a political function today. Per your request, we have taken the time to locate some key documents that will help you recognize the deep connections the City of Santa Monica developed with the Los Angeles Department of Public Health in planning joint efforts to collaborate with the LA County Harm Reduction Program operated by the Venice Family Clinic and other vendors.
We have attached a selection of emails between City Manager David White and Dr. Gary Tsai, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Harm Reduction Program Director, so that we can put to rest the accusations, made by city employees and city council members, that The Santa Monica Coalition and John Alle are making up stories in regards to City Manager David White and the City of Santa Monica's involvement and support of the Needle and Glass Pipe Distribution Program in Santa Monica.
To start, on May 26, 2023, David White forwarded an email from the Santa Monica Coalition to Gary Tsai.
In that email, the Santa Monica Coalition was addressing a timeline of events regarding the discovery of the Needle and Glass Pipe Distribution program and the involvement of the City of Santa Monica. We included that email because it was in direct response to that email that Tsai and White decided they would co-author a joint statement to be released to the public. Their desire was to gain more support from the public and counter any potential negative impact caused by the information that was shared by The Santa Monica Coalition.
The second email from Gary Tsai to David White on May 28, 2023 discusses the process of writing the statement with an invitation to use Santa Monica letterhead for the statement.
The third email page shows two emails dated June 2, 2023 from City of Santa Monica employee Delana Gbenekama and David White. Ms. Gbenekama's email shares the City of Santa Monica logo. David White's email tells Gary Tsai that Santa Monica has finished with their "marked up version that reflects input and review from the team". Notice all the City of Santa Monica employees copied on the email, including Police Chief Batista, Fire Chief Alvarez and Assistant City Managers.
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 989 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) 2 The last email is from Gary Tsai to David White and "team". It is an invitation from Gary Tsai for David White to sign his name to the document alongside Barbara Ferrer. Tsai also suggested they bypass a press release to avoid "scrutiny/unwanted attention".
Please note below the three different versions of the joint statement, that we have downloaded, copied and time stamped. It's important you know that there is no reason to attempt to make them disappear from the internet, as two of them already have, because we have everything we need to keep them in existence.
The joint statement was also discussed in several local newspapers including the SMDP. It is no longer available on the site. We have not gone through our archives to grab the articles for you, but the Patch article is still readily available online for your browsing, see the link below.
In reference to the June 25, 2024 City Council Agenda 16B item, we strongly encourage you to remove the item from the agenda and table it for good. Regarding the concern about The Santa Monica Coalition's message on the 3rd Street Promenade that makes a statement about David White's support of the Needle and Glass Pipe Distribution Program, the only entities who have committed a potentially harmful "expression that is false and/or counter to the public interest" are the Santa Monica City Council leaders who sponsored Agenda Item 16B, Mayor Phil Brock, Vice Mayor Lana Negrete and Councilmember Gleam Davis, former Mayor. You are not only infringing on our First Amendment right but you are also attempting to hide the truth from the public and silencing any opposition to potentially nefarious and illegal acts performed by City Leaders and staff. The statements on the banner are true and accurate and were not made with malice or reckless disregard for the truth.
Link to the Original LADPH - City of Santa Monica Joint Statement June 2023:
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/sapc/docs/public/overdose-prevention/DPH-Santa-Monica-HarmReduction-Joint-Statement.pdf?hb Link to the Revised LADPH - City of Santa Monica Statement February 2024 (notice City of Santa Monica logo disappears):
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/sapc/docs/public/overdose-prevention/DPH-Statement-on-HarmReduction-Services-in-Santa-Monica-City.pdf June 9, 2023 - Link to the Patch Article on the City of Santa Monica and LA County Department of Public Health Joint Statement over the Harm Reduction Program in Santa Monica:
https://patch.com/california/santamonica/city-responds-concerns-controversial-harm-reduction-services?utm_source=sharedemail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share We hope these city and county documents, that you all have access to, end this conversation for good. Regardless of your actions in the next City Council meeting, The Santa Monica Coalition has no intention of removing its messaging. Rather than attacking free speech, the City should focus on restoring safety in our streets.
Respectfully,
Jessica Rogers - 562 881 3047
John Alle - 310 990 7124
Santa Monica Coalition Co-Founders
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 990 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 991 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 992 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 993 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 994 Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 995
Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 996
Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
Item 16-B
June 25, 2024
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 997
Attachment: Written Comments (6493 : Signage on Promenade) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 25, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.C
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, Interim City Clerk, City Clerk 16 Items Subject: Request by Councilmember Parra and Mayor Brock to direct the City Manager and City Attorney to return with amendments to the Municipal Code, including a potential interim zoning ordinance, to allow in R2, R3, and R4 zone districts only front fence, wall, and hedge heights to be limited to 72” in height in the front setback, address measurements that may include retaining walls, and suspend enforcement and pending applications until the ordinance becomes effective in R2, R3, and R4 for those that would comply with that standard.
Prepared By: Maria Dacanay, Acting Assistant City Clerk Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Written Comments
16.C
Packet Pg. 998
1 David Yakobson
From: Sharyl Beebe <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 1:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16-C on 6/25/24 Meeting
EXTERNAL
I fully support the moƟon brought forth by members Parra and Brock.
Security is of prime concern with all the crime and mentally ill and drug addicts running around stealing, raping, burning, assaulƟng, murdering, etc. the members of our communiƟes. I live right on the Venice/SAMO border and consider Santa Monica home too. 42” high solid walls don’t do a darn thing to deter criminals. Higher fences, walls, hedges should be allowed in the front yard. 72” should be automaƟc and not require a variance. Personally I think they should be allowed in the R-1 district too.
It is a person’s consƟtuƟonal right to protect and secure their property if the government won’t keep the people safe. In my building, we end up with tons of crazy people and criminals in the courtyard because of the silly 42” in front yard issue so puƫng in a gate doesn’t work. These people have stabbed us, shot at us, stolen anything not bolted down, broken in to apartments. I’ve personally scared off at least 10 and chased away. The neighbor boys have had to get out bats and other items to combat the violent ones who threaten us women. If we could put a 6 foot solid wall in front and put the gate there, then we wouldn’t have these problems.
Raising the height to 72” by right would result in this:
1. Safer consƟtuents
2. Happier consƟtuents
3. Less burglary and robberies
4. Less police problems to deal with as if the ill-wishing could not access our properƟes then the cops would have so much to respond to.
5. It is economically a good idea as the fiscal impacts can only be posiƟve.
I hope that you all will support the moƟon put forth in Item 16-C tonight.
Sharyl Beebe
Item 16-C
June 25, 2024
Item 16-C
June 25, 2024
16.C.a
Packet Pg. 999 Attachment: Written Comments (6494 : Interim Zoning Ordinance for Fences) 1 David Yakobson
From: Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 11:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Clerk Mailbox; Douglas Sloan; David White; David Martin; [email protected]; Nina Fresco; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Agenda Item 16.C
Attachments: 2024-06-25 Letter re Agenda Item 16.C.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Hon. Mayor Brock & Hon. Councilmembers,
Nina Fresco and I respectfully submit the attached letter regarding Agenda Item 16.C. Please let us know if you have any questions.
Best,
Nina Fresco and Ellis Raskin
Item 16-C
June 25, 2024
Item 16-C
June 25, 2024
16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1000 Attachment: Written Comments (6494 : Interim Zoning Ordinance for Fences) June 25, 2024
Via email to [email protected]
Santa Monica City Council
City Hall Council Chambers
1685 Main Street, Room 250
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: Agenda Item 16.C (potential interim zoning ordinance to increase fence, wall, and hedge height limits in R2, R3, and R4 districts)
Dear Hon. Mayor Brock and Hon. Councilmembers,
This letter is being jointly submitted to you by Nina Fresco and Ellis Raskin, in our individual capacities. However, it bears emphasis that our work on the Planning Commission, and our professional and volunteer work in various planning activities, has given us a unique perspective on the efficacy of our existing fence, wall, and hedge height limits.
In Santa Monica, front yard fences, walls, and hedges have been limited to a height of 42 inches since 1948. There are good reasons for this policy. It is well understood that tall fences, walls, and hedges make neighborhoods more dangerous by providing cover for criminals. Moreover, tall walls and hedges are a physical manifestation of a built environment that discriminates against historically marginalized members of our community. To quote one author, hedges draw a literal and metaphorical dividing line between “[t]he ones who go on vacation to Hawaii live on one side, and the ones who never go on vacation live on the other.” 1 We understand that some members of our community may have missed a valuable opportunity to register nonconforming fences, walls, or hedges when our local ordinances were updated nearly two decades ago. We also understand that language barriers and other accessibility issues may have affected the registration process in the mid-2000s. To ensure that all members of our community have a meaningful opportunity to register nonconforming hedges, we propose the following solution:
Rather than change the underlying height standards for fences, walls, and hedges in the R2, R3, and R4 zones, we should instead provide a new six-month window of time to allow property owners or their heirs who have continuously held parcels since 2006 but missed the initial opportunity, to register nonconforming fences, walls, and hedges that existed in 2006.
This compromise will allow long-time property owners to resolve any ongoing code enforcement issues while also promoting equity and ensuring that our neighborhoods do not become further segregated by large fences, walls, or hedges.
Respectfully,
Nina Fresco and Ellis Raskin
1 A. Salmon (2016) “The Hedges And What They Really Mean.” Odyssey. Available at:
https://www.theodysseyonline.com/hedges
Item 16-C
June 25, 2024
Item 16-C
June 25, 2024
16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1001 Attachment: Written Comments (6494 : Interim Zoning Ordinance for Fences) 1 David Yakobson
From: howard cornin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 3:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Submission of a comment on item 16-c for the 6/25/24 Council Meeting
EXTERNAL
Good Evening,
As a resident and home owner in the Pico district of Santa Monica, living in the 1900 block of 18th street, I’ve had FAR MORE THAN my fair share of run ins such as package theft from my front door, feces thrown at my door and numerous suspicious characters casing my home and ringing the door bell, with the hopes of no one being home to likely conduct criminal activity. In addition, the unhoused on many occasions have loitered at my front door or along my 42 inch block wall. For a wife and mother-in-law who are home alone while I work 12 to 13 hour shifts at my job, their fear at times is at a fever pitch. All this activity has been documented via personal incident reports or police reports that have been filed over the past three years.
We filed for a height variance recently to take our block wall in our the front yard setback up a couple feet higher via view permeable fence to give my family an added sense of security.
We wholeheartedly support the proposal being brought forth by Council Person Parra and Mayor Brock.
We enjoy all that Santa Monica has to offer and this is change that is very much in need for the safety of our community.
-Howard Cornin, a concerned resident
Item 16-C
June 25, 2024
Item 16-C
June 25, 2024
16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1002 Attachment: Written Comments (6494 : Interim Zoning Ordinance for Fences) 2 David Yakobson
From: Brian Stedge-Stroud <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 5:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16C & 16D - Support
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my support for:
16C – Please support this item to suspend enforcement until the City Manager and City Attorney can craft a fair and transparent process .
16D – Please support the expansion of POD in the Pico neighborhood. POD is vital to keeping our most vulnerable in their homes and out of homelessness. An investment in POD is money saved by the City on homelessness programs.
Thank you!
Brian Stedge-Stroud
90404
Item 16-C
June 25, 2024
Item 16-C
June 25, 2024
16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1003 Attachment: Written Comments (6494 : Interim Zoning Ordinance for Fences) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 25, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.D
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, Interim City Clerk, City Clerk 16 Items Subject: Request of Councilmembers Zwick and Torosis that, upon the expansion of Santa Monica’s Preserving Our Diversity (POD) program, the City Manager take steps to address historic underrepresentation of Pico Neighborhood residents in the program relative to the community’s percentage of residents over 65 experiencing poverty. Specifically, this should include:
1. Enhancing the Housing and Human Service Department’s outreach plan through partnerships with local faith- based and community-serving organizations including but not limited to Familias Latinas Unidas, St. Anne’s, Calvary Baptist, The Venice Family Clinic on Pico, the Pico Neighborhood Association, and the senior programming and food pantry at Virginia Avenue Park.
2. Offering direct technical assistance with filling out the POD program application at Virginia Avenue Park.
3. Assessing the Jan 1, 2000 habitation requirement as well as other eligibility criteria, with the authority to make the program more flexible and expansive.
4. Give preference to applications from census tracts designated as “disadvantaged” by the state under SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities, subject to any limitations imposed by state and federal fair housing laws, in consultation with the City Attorney’s Office.
5. Authorizing up to 5% of newly designated program resources to be spent on enhanced outreach and technical assistance in the Pico Neighborhood, if necessary.
Prepared By: Maria Dacanay, Acting Assistant City Clerk Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Written Comments
16.D
Packet Pg. 1004
1 David Yakobson
From: Cynthia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 11:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Christine Parra Cc: David White; [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Items: Support 10A, 10B, 16B, 16D -- Oppose Item 16E Attachments: 2024-06 CC Agenda Items 10A-10B-16B-16D-16E .pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed