1 David Yakobson
From: Bonnie Johnstone <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 6, 2025 2:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Bonnie Johnstone
Subject: "fiscal Emergency"
EXTERNAL
Hello All,
Please please whatever you do DO NOT cut out rent control!! You know that (unfortunately) it is essential. It has-kept many people from being homeless! Suggestion: Street cleaning, cut it back to twice a month!. The cutback worked during covid - at least in residential areas.
Hold back on salary on salary increases to "higher echelon" management ? Hopefully library services and park services can be maintained-appreciated services! Thank you for reading this. Bonnie Johnstone,Mid-City area Item 4-S
September 9, 2025
Item 4-S
September 9, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Eve Lopez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 11:46 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 4S - Fiscal Distress (oppose unless modified)
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers:
I respectfully oppose adoption of the proposed Resolution Identifying Local Fiscal Distress. While acknowledging the City’s financial challenges is important, this Resolution raises serious concerns for residents who expect transparency, accountability, and sound governance.
Overbroad Delegation of Authority
The Resolution grants the City Manager authority to “take all necessary steps” to address a fiscal emergency. Unlike the staff report, the Resolution itself contains no language limiting this authority under the Charter. The City Manager is new to our community and has not yet established the trust or familiarity needed for such broad discretion. Oversight is the Council’s responsibility, and concentrating this authority in a single office undermines that role. A simple revision could address this by narrowing the authority to seeking funding sources, such as grants, without expanding powers beyond what is appropriate.
Omission of Voter Rights Case Costs
The Resolution is silent on the millions of dollars spent defending the Voter Rights case, despite these legal costs being a major driver of financial strain. Residents deserve candor about these expenditures and clarity on whether the City intends to pursue settlement to reduce ongoing legal fees. Ignoring this issue appears less like oversight and more like avoidance.
Lack of a Path Forward
The Resolution reviews past financial pressures but offers no plan to address the structural deficit. Declaring a fiscal emergency without meaningful reform is an empty gesture. Residents need to see a transparent strategy for long-term stability, not just a declaration in the hope of outside aid.
I urge the Council to amend the Resolution to limit the City Manager’s authority and to begin an honest conversation with residents and experts about real solutions. Santa Monica deserves fiscal policies that build stability and public trust, not broad delegations of power or incomplete narratives.
Eve Lopez
Santa Monica Resident
Item 4-S
September 9, 2025
Item 4-S
September 9, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 11:06 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin
Subject: September 9, 2025 City Council - Item 4S Resolution of Fiscal Distress - OPPOSE
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council -
I oppose the declaration of "Fiscal Distress".
First, a declaration of fiscal distress is inappropriate to agendize as a Consent item. The fact that such a drastic move was agendized where "All items will be considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion" shows council is failing to take it's fiscal responsibilities seriously. Placing something on the consent calendar means Council and staff have decided it's a matter with no need for presentation of a staff report, clarifying questions from Council, meaningful public comment, or public discussion by Council. A declaration of fiscal distress is a significant step for Council to take and requires a full and transparent discussion.
Second, the "fiscal distress" is Council's own creation, resulting from discretionary expenditures that city council chose to make and continues to make regarding the Uller case.
The resolution states:
"WHEREAS, the City has paid over $229 million in settlements relating to alleged sexual abuse purportedly committed 20 to 30 years ago by a former City employee (the “Settlements”); and WHEREAS, the Settlements have been funded largely by reserves in the general fund and by borrowing over $52 million from various City funds; and WHEREAS, the City’s General Fund reserves are only at 61% of their pre- pandemic levels; and WHEREAS, the City faces additional abuse claims relating to the former employee from over 180 claimants that are seeking several million dollars for their alleged damages, the payment of which will be due in full upon order of the court and/or approval of the settlement".
To be clear, all victims should be compensated. But we don't know who the victims are, and who is entitled to compensation, because the city has settled for lump sums, without question, the entire time. We are told that the city was advised the first batch of $34 million would resolved all claims based on the statute of limitations, so the city paid. That advice turned out to be incorrect, but instead of pushing back on future claims, the city keeps paying.
This is fiscally responsible because:
Item 4-S
September 9, 2025
Item 4-S
September 9, 2025
3 1. While paying a lump sum may result in a lower aggregate amount paid, it hits the city all at once, compromising fiscal solvency and the ability to provide basic services. The city could have paid a higher amount spread over time to avoid the "fiscal distress" they chose.
2. We don't know that all 300+ claims are entitled to $1 million payouts each. If they are legitimate claims, surely that merits a full investigation of how our system failed these children to ensure it never happens again. And if they aren't all legitimate, as city staff and council has been recently vocalizing, then the illegitimate claims shouldn't be paid. Yet the city continues to pay without question. Why? We are left to conclude that the city continues to pay in order to avoid a public investigation of the underlying crimes and also who in the city knew about it and did nothing to protect the children. Uller is dead, so paying out has no impact on him. But paying continues to protect everyone else involved at the time.
The question is who are Council and staff risking city solvency to protect? Council shouldn't continue the ruse by declaring fiscal distress resulting from payments Council chose to make. The residents are entitled to a full investigation of the circumstances that brought us to this precipice, not continued payouts for silence.
Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident
Item 4-S
September 9, 2025
Item 4-S
September 9, 2025
4 David Yakobson
From: Bonnie Johnstone <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 8, 2025 8:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Bonnie Johnstone
Subject: budget revamp
EXTERNAL
Please please do NOT give full power to the (very much new) city manager to revamp the budget!! (Let's not go the way of Wash DC!)
Yes, listen to his ideas, but do not give him too much power! Input from the Council, from department membership and community members is what is essential!! Thank you from Bonnie Johnstone, A Very Concerned Resident Item 4-S
September 9, 2025
Item 4-S
September 9, 2025