1 David Yakobson
From: Matt Goldenberg D.O. <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2026 7:29 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Oliver Chi; Jenny Rogers; Micah Akerson; Tony Lopez; Christopher Dishlip; Recreation and Arts Department; John Smith; Barry Rosenbaum; [email protected]; Karen Melick; Maryanne LaGuardia; Steven Johnson; Sonam Makker; Bradley Ewing Subject: Support for Parks and Recreation: 7A Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement Program Budget
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, I am writing in advance of Tuesday's budget discussion to express appreciation for this council's commitment to Santa Monica's parks, and to share a few thoughts on the opportunity this budget cycle presents.
What this council has accomplished deserves to be memorialized. In January you voted 7-0 to adopt the Parks and Recreation Vision Plan, banned new artificial turf on city-owned land, and set Memorial Park on a path to construction. On May 9, thousands of Santa Monicans spread blankets on the grass at Tongva Park for the first full-scale concert ever held there, proof that the vision of parks as living civic spaces is already becoming reality. Douglas Park's ribbon cutting delivered our fifth universally accessible playground, and Tony Lopez, recently honored as Employee of the Year, deserves recognition for work that is thoughtful, community-centered, and built to last. You accomplished all of this while navigating a $29.6 million General Fund operating deficit.
Before turning to what more this council can accomplish, I want to gently flag one item in the proposed CIP: the Airport Park synthetic turf replacement. Given January's unanimous ban, I encourage the council to ensure that project is consistent with the Vision Plan's direction. The ban was a statement of values. I wonder if this project might be an opportunity for the council to ask staff to explore natural alternatives.
The proposed budget includes no dedicated parks land acquisition capacity for the communities most in need of green space. Mid-City alone has over 17,000 residents and is nearly 80% renters, families without yards, without private green space, and without a park within walking distance. Memorial Park is moving toward construction and Virginia Avenue Park Phase III continues the city's commitment to equity in the Pico Neighborhood. However, the communities north of Memorial Park, where thousands of new family-sized units are on the horizon, have no equivalent investment in green-space forthcoming.
The Joint Use Agreement with SMMUSD expires in 2027. This week the SMMUSD Board passed a resolution committing to keep school fields open to the community even after expiration. That resolution, paired with the recently extended Measure YY/GS Facilities Agreement, creates the conditions for what the Recreation and Parks Department has proposed: folding the expiring agreement into the already-extended YY/GS agreement, securing community field access in a confirmed written Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
2 contract. I encourage this council to support that approach. With access secured, the approximately $12 million annually freed from the General Fund can continue benefiting Santa Monica's children through parks, fields, and green space.
Please also consider directing staff to use LA County Measure A funds, which previously supported Douglas Park's shade structure improvements, to acquire smaller parcels in our most park-poor neighborhoods for passive park use. A pocket park serves a community immediately and can grow over time. And as FIFA, Super Bowl, and Olympic licensing revenues materialize beyond the $6.8 million already conservatively held off-budget, any surplus represents another opportunity to seed a parks acquisition reserve for these underserved neighborhoods.
The Vision Plan is the roadmap. The Airport Conversion is the horizon. The tools are available right now.
Thank you for your service, your vision, and the genuine progress this budget represents.
Best,
Matt Goldenberg, NOMA Co-Chair (sent in my personal capacity) Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: Matt Goldenberg D.O. <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2026 7:32 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Oliver Chi; Jenny Rogers; Micah Akerson; Tony Lopez; Christopher Dishlip; Recreation and Arts Department; John Smith; Barry Rosenbaum; [email protected]; Karen Melick; Maryanne LaGuardia; Steven Johnson; Sonam Makker; Bradley Ewing Subject: Re: Support for Parks and Recreation: 7A Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-28 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement Program Budget
EXTERNAL
"Recreation and Parks Department" was in error and should have read: "Recreation and Parks Commission".
I apologize for any confusion.
Matt G.
On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 7:29 PM Matt Goldenberg D.O. <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mayor Torosis and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, I am writing in advance of Tuesday's budget discussion to express appreciation for this council's commitment to Santa Monica's parks, and to share a few thoughts on the opportunity this budget cycle presents.
What this council has accomplished deserves to be memorialized. In January you voted 7-0 to adopt the Parks and Recreation Vision Plan, banned new artificial turf on city-owned land, and set Memorial Park on a path to construction. On May 9, thousands of Santa Monicans spread blankets on the grass at Tongva Park for the first full-scale concert ever held there, proof that the vision of parks as living civic spaces is already becoming reality. Douglas Park's ribbon cutting delivered our fifth universally accessible playground, and Tony Lopez, recently honored as Employee of the Year, deserves recognition for work that is thoughtful, community-centered, and built to last. You accomplished all of this while navigating a $29.6 million General Fund operating deficit.
Before turning to what more this council can accomplish, I want to gently flag one item in the proposed CIP: the Airport Park synthetic turf replacement. Given January's unanimous ban, I encourage the council to ensure that project is consistent with the Vision Plan's direction. The ban was a statement of values. I wonder if this project might be an opportunity for the council to ask staff to explore natural alternatives.
The proposed budget includes no dedicated parks land acquisition capacity for the communities most in need of green space. Mid-City alone has over 17,000 residents and is nearly 80% renters, families without yards, without private green space, and without a park within walking distance. Memorial Park is Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
4 moving toward construction and Virginia Avenue Park Phase III continues the city's commitment to equity in the Pico Neighborhood. However, the communities north of Memorial Park, where thousands of new family-sized units are on the horizon, have no equivalent investment in green-space forthcoming.
The Joint Use Agreement with SMMUSD expires in 2027. This week the SMMUSD Board passed a resolution committing to keep school fields open to the community even after expiration. That resolution, paired with the recently extended Measure YY/GS Facilities Agreement, creates the conditions for what the Recreation and Parks Department has proposed: folding the expiring agreement into the already-extended YY/GS agreement, securing community field access in a confirmed written contract. I encourage this council to support that approach. With access secured, the approximately $12 million annually freed from the General Fund can continue benefiting Santa Monica's children through parks, fields, and green space.
Please also consider directing staff to use LA County Measure A funds, which previously supported Douglas Park's shade structure improvements, to acquire smaller parcels in our most park-poor neighborhoods for passive park use. A pocket park serves a community immediately and can grow over time. And as FIFA, Super Bowl, and Olympic licensing revenues materialize beyond the $6.8 million already conservatively held off-budget, any surplus represents another opportunity to seed a parks acquisition reserve for these underserved neighborhoods.
The Vision Plan is the roadmap. The Airport Conversion is the horizon. The tools are available right now.
Thank you for your service, your vision, and the genuine progress this budget represents.
Best,
Matt Goldenberg, NOMA Co-Chair (sent in my personal capacity) Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
5 David Yakobson
From: Karen Melick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2026 12:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Oliver Chi; Jenny Rogers; Micah Akerson; Joelle Simmons
Cc: Clay Evans; Kathryn [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Item 7A - Fee Study - Please don’t raise the aquatics adult permit group fees
EXTERNAL
Hello,
Adult Swimming Program - SCAQ
I am the Vice Chair of the Recreation and Parks Commission but I’m writing this email on behalf of myself and SCAQ, an adult swimming program that started here in Santa Monica 47 years ago that I’ve been swimming with for 38 years. About 30% of our swimmers at the Swim Center are seniors like me. The community benefit of this program is high as swimming is one of the best if not the best exercises for seniors. The comradery of the team and the goals of competing are inspiring. I’m looking forward to next year when I turn 70 so I’ll be the youngster in the 70 to 74 age group and hopefully be able to win a national title like I did 3 years ago.
Oppose the Fee Study Increases for Adult Aquatics Permit fees I’m glad to see that the fee increases for Community Recreation are modest, from zero to 9%. There’s no explanation as to why the aquatics permit groups fees are being raised by the highest percentage 8 to 9%. The City’s aquatics programs have no proposed increases.
Adult Aquatics Permit Groups Have a High Cost Recovery Rate The cost recovery rate for the aquatics permit groups including youth and adult programs, is 76%. The City Aquatics programs recovery rate is 28% and SMC, which is supposed to be paying full cost, is only 32% recovery rate. The permit group recovery rate is a combined rate between the youth permit groups that pay half the fee that the adult permit groups pay. So, the adult permit groups are paying a cost recovery rate of much higher than 76%. This year’s User Fee Summary Sheet only shows the roll up of aquatic permit fee revenues, not the separate lines for youth permit groups and adult permit groups like the previous years so I can’t determine the exact cost recovery but it’s already probably close to 100%.
Santa Monica Aquatics Adult Permit Fees are Much Higher than Comparable Cities The fee comparison part of the fee study has a line for Swim Permits but it has the Santa Monica fee listed as $30 which doesn’t match any current Santa Monica aquatics permit group fee. In the listings for the comparable Cities, it mostly mentions the event rental rates. The two Cities that have permit group rates (per lane per hour) are Culver City and West Hollywood. Both are significantly less than Santa Monica’s adult rates. Neither City (nor any other city I know) has a youth permit group rate. Their rates are $6 to $12 and $8 to $14 respectively compared to Santa Monica’s current rates of $11 to $46 per lane hour for adult groups. The range is due to lower fees for non-profit organizations and resident groups.
Past Fee Increases Did Not Significantly Increase Revenues The past three aquatics fee increases that raised fees cumulatively from 2013 by 38% to 100% did not significantly increase aquatics revenues. Revenues were $1,304,618 in 2013-14 and $1,370,099 in 2023-24, only a 5% increase. Raising the already high aquatics fees does not significantly increase revenues, it suppresses use.
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
6 Please Do Not Increase the Adult Permit Group Rates
The adult permit group rates are already much higher than the comparable cities, the cost recovery rate is high and increasing already high fees does not result in increased revenues. The adult permit fees should not be increased.
Approve the Parks CIP Budget Plan
I ask that you approve all of the proposed Parks and Recreation CIP programs. It’s particularly great to see the Memorial Park expansion finally being funded for construction.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Karen Melick
Sunset Park
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
7 David Yakobson
From: Steven Johnson
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2026 2:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell
Cc: Oliver Chi; Jenny Rogers; Micah Akerson; Eric Johnson; Christopher Dishlip; Tony Lopez; Amelia Feichtner; Linda Cogswell; Federico Bianchi; ASA; Susan Jain Subject: Item 7.a - Rec & Parks Commission Support for Parks-Related CIP Budget Priorities Attachments: 0525-RPC-CIP-Letter.pdf
RE: Item 7.a CIP Budget Priorities for Parks
Dear Mayor Torosis and Esteemed City Councilmembers,
The Recreation and Parks Commission met last Thursday and was given a preview presentation of the parksrelated CIP budget priorities you'll see tomorrow night, Tuesday, May 26.
The Commission strongly and unanimously supports staff recommendations, especially noting funding for two long-deferred projects:
1) Memorial Park Expansion
2) Airport Park Sports Field Replacement
3) Virginia Avenue Playground
4) Camera Obscura
5) Tongva, Gandara and other park repair improvement projects 6) Beach and Pier Vision Plan
Memorial Park Expansion
In 2004, the City of Santa Monica purchased the former Fischer Lumber Yard site for the expansion of Memorial Park. After more than 20 years of planning, community engagement and delays, this latest plan is the most workable and achievable. The smart inclusion of a 1.5 million gallon stormwater capture facility demonstrates Santa Monica's commitment to sustainability, but also leverages alternate funding to support the overall park plan. Additional support comes from commitments by SMC and SMMUSD, plus designated Santa Monica City Parks Impact fees and County Measure A grant funding, reducing General Fund impact dramatically. The current project plan is phased in a practical way that mitigates downtime. The final design increases accessibility, as well as the number of diamonds that can be used at the same time. The new fields support championship play for both softball and baseball.
Airport Park Sport Field Replacement
In 2000, Santa Monica Airport Park became the City's first and only dedicated soccer field (until the opening of Belmar in 2021). Supporting more than 2,700 hours of use per year, 7 days a week, the original playing surface at Airport Park is now long past due for replacement, and is at risk of being shut down entirely for being unsafe. Losing Airport Park will have a devastating impact on soccer, lacrosse and rugby, for youth and adults.
This critical field replacement project has been passed over for several cycles, but cannot wait another two years. Per Council direction, a study will be conducted to evaluate the feasibility of replacement with natural grass or turf. The urgent need is to move quickly in order to maintain our current level of play, ideally with work commencing during the off-season.
Virgina Avenue Park Playground Replacement
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
8 Eligible for federal CDBG grant funding, the time to move on Virginia Avenue Park Playground replacement is now, especially as the current Administration in Washington continues its efforts to end the program. Following on the success of Douglas Park, which was largely funded by County Measure A, the VAP project demonstrates the resourcefulness of our Public Works Department in combining funding sources, grants and thoughtful planning to lower costs to the General Fund.
Camera Obscura
A long-neglected historic landmark in our world-famous Palisades Park, Camera Obscura is a great investment for the City as a flexible event location and arts venue, while activation improves public safety. Though highlighted for 2028 Olympics use, the community benefits will be enjoyed long into the future.
Tongva, Gandara and other Parks Improvements
Our City parks require a variety of functional, aesthetic and safety improvements, ranging from restoring the water feature at Tongva parks to lighting, court resurfacing, furnishings, etc., across our network of facilities.
The remaining CIP budget proposal items address needs prioritized in the recent comprehensive Parks Conditions Assessment, with funding coming from a mix of General Fund, Parks Impact Fees, Measure A, CDBG funding and applied-for grants as they become available.
In summary, the Recreation and Parks Commission feels that these CIP budget priorities, as presented, align with long-standing community goals, and ask that you enthusiastically support the thoughtful efforts of Public Works and the Recreation & Arts Department when this comes to vote June 23.
Sincerely,
City of Santa Monica Recreation and Parks Commission
Steven Johnson, Chair
Karen Melick, Vice Chair
Maryanne Laguardia
John Cyrus Smith
Barry Rosenbaum
Sonam Makker
Bradley Ewing
CC: Oliver Chi, Jenny Rogers and team, Chris Dishlip and team, Federico Bianchi (FSAC), Susan Jain (Arts Commission)
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity Monday, May 25, 2026
RE: Item 7.a CIP Budget Priorities for Parks
Dear Mayor Torosis and Esteemed City Councilmembers,
The Recreation and Parks Commission met last Thursday and was given a preview presentation of the parks-related CIP budget priorities you'll see tomorrow night, Tuesday, May 26.
The Commission strongly and unanimously supports staff recommendations, especially noting funding for two long-deferred projects:
1) Memorial Park Expansion
2) Airport Park Sports Field Replacement
3) Virginia Avenue Playground
4) Camera Obscura
5) Tongva, Gandara and other park repair improvement projects 6) Beach and Pier Vision Plan
Memorial Park Expansion
In 2004, the City of Santa Monica purchased the former Fischer Lumber Yard site for the expansion of Memorial Park. After more than 20 years of planning, community engagement and delays, this latest plan is the most workable and achievable. The smart inclusion of a 1.5 million gallon stormwater capture facility demonstrates Santa Monica's commitment to sustainability, but also leverages alternate funding to support the overall park plan. Additional support comes from commitments by SMC and SMMUSD, plus designated Santa Monica City Parks Impact fees and County Measure A grant funding, reducing General Fund impact dramatically. The current project plan is phased in a practical way that mitigates downtime. The final design increases accessibility, as well as the number of diamonds that can be used at the same time. The new fields support championship play for both softball and baseball.
Airport Park Sport Field Replacement
In 2000, Santa Monica Airport Park became the City's first and only dedicated soccer field (until the opening of Belmar in 2021). Supporting more than 2,700 hours of use per year, 7 days a week, the original playing surface at Airport Park is now long past due for replacement, and is at risk of being shut down entirely for being unsafe. Losing Airport Park will have a devastating impact on soccer, lacrosse and rugby, for youth and adults. This critical field replacement project has been passed over for several cycles, but cannot wait another two years. Per Council direction, a study will be conducted to evaluate the feasibility of replacement with natural grass or turf. The urgent need is to move quickly in order to maintain our current level of play, ideally with work commencing during the off-season.
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity Virgina Avenue Park Playground Replacement
Eligible for federal CDBG grant funding, the time to move on Virginia Avenue Park Playground replacement is now, especially as the current Administration in Washington continues its efforts to end the program. Following on the success of Douglas Park, which was largely funded by County Measure A, the VAP project demonstrates the resourcefulness of our Public Works Department in combining funding sources, grants and thoughtful planning to lower costs to the General Fund.
Camera Obscura
A long-neglected historic landmark in our world-famous Palisades Park, Camera Obscura is a great investment for the City as a flexible event location and arts venue, while activation improves public safety. Though highlighted for 2028 Olympics use, the community benefits will be enjoyed long into the future.
Tongva, Gandara and other Parks Improvements
Our City parks require a variety of functional, aesthetic and safety improvements, ranging from restoring the water feature at Tongva parks to lighting, court resurfacing, furnishings, etc., across our network of facilities. The remaining CIP budget proposal items address needs prioritized in the recent comprehensive Parks Conditions Assessment, with funding coming from a mix of General Fund, Parks Impact Fees, Measure A, CDBG funding and applied-for grants as they become available.
In summary, the Recreation and Parks Commission feels that these CIP budget priorities, as presented, align with long-standing community goals, and ask that you enthusiastically support the thoughtful efforts of Public Works and the Recreation & Arts Department when this comes to vote June 23.
Sincerely,
City of Santa Monica Recreation and Parks Commission
Steven Johnson, Chair
Karen Melick, Vice Chair
Maryanne Laguardia
John Cyrus Smith
Barry Rosenbaum
Sonam Makker
Bradley Ewing
CC: Oliver Chi, Jenny Rogers, Chris Dishlip, Federico Bianchi, Susan Jain Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
9 David Yakobson
From: Sam Shapiro-Kline <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2026 8:38 PM
To: Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; councilmtgitems
Subject: Capital Budget - Prioritize Neighborhood Greenways
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
The city should prioritize faster completion of the Michigan and Washington Ave Neighborhood Greenways. Currently in the CIP, the target completion date is 2028-2029.
In particular, Washington Ave was identified as a target bike boulevard in the 2020 Bicycle Action Plan. In 2024, I and other residents began engaging with city staff, who quickly began preparing a grant application with SCAG, for which Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets and Santa Monica Forward submitted letters in support. That grant application was submitted in September 2024, and the grant was received by January 2025 for $875,000. At this time, we expected that implementation of some treatments could begin in summer 2025. In July 2025, city staff communicated that procurement for a consultant would begin shortly, with project kickoff in early 2026. This timeline was designed so changes could be implemented in Summer 2026, before the coming school year.
Now, the project has been further delayed, to begin in 2027-28 and finish as late as 2029, which is deeply disappointing for what could be a simple project. This project is a crucial improvement to safety in our neighborhoods and encouraging students and families to arrive to school without driving.
Please consider expediting the Michigan and Washington greenway projects.
Thanks,
Sam Shapiro-Kline
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Ruthann Lehrer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 11:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Public input on item 7 Study Session
EXTERNAL
City Council Meeting May 26, 2026
Agenda Item 7: Study Session
Number 4: Fee Study Report
Honorable Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
The Santa Monica Conservancy would like to offer our comments on the Fee Study Report, for your consideration regarding the upcoming City budget.
Historic preservation is defined in our LUCE as a core value and as a community benefit, enriching our economy and neighborhoods. Our legal system considers designating and protecting historic places to be a public benefit that serves the public interest by promoting community well-being and shared memories.
The policy for full-cost-recovery for city services that benefit individuals makes sense, regardless of the City’s financial situation. However, the fees charged for historic preservation fail to take into account the significant public benefits resulting from the protection of our historic and cultural resources.
In fact, rather than personally benefiting from landmark status, owners of designated properties take on significant regulatory burdens to conserve the historic value of their properties. Though they are eligible for the Mills Act Property Tax abatement contracts, this contract is costly to obtain and requires them to make significant personal financial investment in the rehabilitation and maintenance of the landmark – which serves the public interest in ensuring that historic structures will continue to convey their significance into the future.
An applicant for landmark designation is charged over $6,000 to pay for an outside professional consultant’s report plus an application fee of approximately $1,200. This far exceeds corresponding fees for any other California city. Many cities charge no fee or a nominal fee in order to encourage community participation in the program, and most conduct evaluations of landmark nominations in-house, with qualified staff, which Santa Monica is not currently staffed for, resulting in the hiring of costly outside consultants.
In recent years, the national cultural heritage spotlight has turned to the historical legacy of communities whose histories had been overlooked. The Santa Monica Landmarks Commission in partnership with the Committee for Racial Justice did a local study on the matter and concluded that both the cost and the procedures surrounding our landmark nomination process discourage people from coming forward to nominate significant but overlooked places. As Santa Monica begins its journey towards restorative justice, identification and protection of places that embody our diverse history should be brought within reach to all community members, particularly those who wish to tell their own stories and not have them told for them.
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
2 Please take another look at the steep application fee for the nomination of landmarks in our historic preservation program, noting that the total cost would not be particularly substantial for the city, and taking into consideration the vital public benefit of this program and its value in helping us address equity issues by giving people an opportunity to safeguard their cultural histories.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ruthann Lehrer and Nina Fresco
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: Steven Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 11:27 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; Jenny Rogers; Micah Akerson; Noe Mendoza; Karen Melick; Maryanne LaGuardia; John Smith; Barry Rosenbaum; Sonam Makker; Bradley Ewing; Federico Bianchi
Subject: Item 7.a - Rec & Parks Commission Additional Concern for Joint Use Attachments: 0526-Joint Use-Letter.pdf
RE: Item 7.a – Additional Concern for the Joint Use Agreement Dear Mayor Torosis and Esteemed City Councilmembers,
Attached under Item 7.a in tonight’s agenda as part of his report, Finance Director Oscar Santiago offers a detailed explanation of the budgetary impact of the City's expiring Joint Use Agreement with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District.
Noted that with the agreement's end date of June 30, 2027, there is a $12 million savings to the General Fund, which appears to be the lynchpin of our balanced budget.
The Recreation and Parks Commission continues to be very concerned about the prospects for continued Joint Use at our current level, and asks that Council direct staff to negotiate now with the school district to add expiring supplemental agreements to the recently renewed YY/GS Master Facilities Use Agreement, safeguarding access regardless of the parcel tax outcome.
What’s At Stake
Missing from the Finance Director’s assessment is that nothing in the parcel tax ballot language secures joint use of district facilities, even if the initiative passes. This is a potential loss of nearly 25,000 hours of Citypermitted use across the middle and elementary schools, and merits Council discussion.
Despite the School Board’s May 19 resolution declaring a commitment to joint use and open campuses, there is significant worry within the sports community and those dependent on City-run programs at the school sites.
In his report, Director Santiago says, "...a citizens’ initiative is currently being advanced such that, if it qualifies for the ballot and is approved by the voters, would establish a parcel tax to provide a new revenue stream for the City." But is it really new revenue for the City?
On the contrary, the parcel tax ballot language reads, "All revenue from this local Parcel Tax will stay in the School District and cannot be taken away by the Federal, State, County, or City government," and later declares "the funds raised herein shall be transferred by the City to the School District, to be spent at the discretion of the School District’s Board of Education." Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
4 Among both supporters and detractors of the parcel tax, there are many who argue that there is no legal requirement to attach joint use or any other obligation to voter-approved taxes for schools. The ballot language reflects this.
This does not sound like a bargaining position for the City. If the tax wins, the District achieves a new permanent funding source for the schools with no strings attached. If the tax loses, we’re back to where we are now.
This was a critical debate when joint use was first launched in 2002, and again when YY/GS were merged in 2018. It is a critical debate now.
There Are Two Joint Use Agreements
It is also important to remember that there are currently two Master Facilities Use Agreements (MFUA) in effect.
In your January 27 Council meeting, you voted to extend the YY/GS agreement with the school district. The MFUA for YY/GS includes joint use for Samohi and Los Amigos Park, assures the annual transfer of ~$18 million of tax dollars to the school district, and was not due to expire until June 2028.
Meanwhile, the more impactful and more longstanding MFUA, that has grown from $4.5 million in 2002 to ~$12 million now, is due to expire in June 2027. This agreement includes middle and elementary schools, playground access and after school programs.
Why proactively extend one agreement 2½ years early, while taking a “wait and see” approach for the other? RPC Suggested Solution
Our Commission sent you a letter on May 4 suggesting that the best course of action would be to resolve the matter well before the parcel tax vote in November. One straightforward solution would be to fold the supplemental agreements from the expiring Joint Use Agreement into the newly renewed YY/GS MFUA, which was extended by Council for 10 years.
Without a secured Joint Use Agreement, this $12 million savings may turn into a devastating cut in recreation for Santa Monica, as the lost field time and programming cannot be made up anywhere else. Please consider acting now to preserve Joint Use.
Thank you again for your consideration of this important matter.
Sincerely,
City of Santa Monica Recreation and Parks Commission
Steven Johnson, Chair
Karen Melick, Vice Chair
Maryanne Laguardia
John Cyrus Smith
Barry Rosenbaum
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
5 Sonam Makker
Bradley Ewing
CC: Oliver Chi, Jenny Rogers, Federico Bianchi (FSAC)
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity Tuesday, May 26, 2026
RE: Item 7.a – Additional Concern for the Joint Use Agreement Dear Mayor Torosis and Esteemed City Councilmembers,
Attached under Item 7.a in tonight’s agenda as part of his report, Finance Director Oscar Santiago offers a detailed explanation of the budgetary impact of the City's expiring Joint Use Agreement with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District.
Noted that with the agreement's end date of June 30, 2027, there is a $12 million savings to the General Fund, which appears to be the lynchpin of our balanced budget.
The Recreation and Parks Commission continues to be very concerned about the prospects for continued Joint Use at our current level, and asks that Council direct staff to negotiate now with the school district to add expiring supplemental agreements to the recently renewed YY/GS Master Facilities Use Agreement, safeguarding access regardless of the parcel tax outcome.
What’s At Stake
Missing from the Finance Director’s assessment is that nothing in the parcel tax ballot language secures joint use of district facilities, even if the initiative passes. This is a potential loss of nearly 25,000 hours of City-permitted use across the middle and elementary schools, and merits Council discussion.
Despite the School Board’s May 19 resolution declaring a commitment to joint use and open campuses, there is significant worry within the sports community and those dependent on City-run programs at the school sites.
In his report, Director Santiago says, "...a citizens’ initiative is currently being advanced such that, if it qualifies for the ballot and is approved by the voters, would establish a parcel tax to provide a new revenue stream for the City." But is it really new revenue for the City?
On the contrary, the parcel tax ballot language reads, "All revenue from this local Parcel Tax will stay in the School District and cannot be taken away by the Federal, State, County, or City government," and later declares "the funds raised herein shall be transferred by the City to the School District, to be spent at the discretion of the School District’s Board of Education."
Among both supporters and detractors of the parcel tax, there are many who argue that there is no legal requirement to attach joint use or any other obligation to voter-approved taxes for schools. The ballot language reflects this.
This does not sound like a bargaining position for the City. If the tax wins, the District achieves a new permanent funding source for the schools with no strings attached. If the tax loses, we’re back to where we are now.
This was a critical debate when joint use was first launched in 2002, and again when YY/GS were merged in 2018. It is a critical debate now.
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity There Are Two Joint Use Agreements
It is also important to remember that there are currently two Master Facilities Use Agreements (MFUA) in effect.
In your January 27 Council meeting, you voted to extend the YY/GS agreement with the school district. The MFUA for YY/GS includes joint use for Samohi and Los Amigos Park, assures the annual transfer of ~$18 million of tax dollars to the school district, and was not due to expire until June 2028.
Meanwhile, the more impactful and more longstanding MFUA, that has grown from $4.5 million in 2002 to ~$12 million now, is due to expire in June 2027. This agreement includes middle and elementary schools, playground access and after school programs.
Why proactively extend one agreement 2½ years early, while taking a “wait and see” approach for the other? RPC Suggested Solution
Our Commission sent you a letter on May 4 suggesting that the best course of action would be to resolve the matter well before the parcel tax vote in November. One straightforward solution would be to fold the supplemental agreements from the expiring Joint Use Agreement into the newly renewed YY/GS MFUA, which was extended by Council for 10 years.
Without a secured Joint Use Agreement, this $12 million savings may turn into a devastating cut in recreation for Santa Monica, as the lost field time and programming cannot be made up anywhere else. Please consider acting now to preserve Joint Use.
Thank you again for your consideration of this important matter.
Sincerely,
City of Santa Monica Recreation and Parks Commission
Steven Johnson, Chair
Karen Melick, Vice Chair
Maryanne Laguardia
John Cyrus Smith
Barry Rosenbaum
Sonam Makker
Bradley Ewing
CC: Oliver Chi, Jenny Rogers, Federico Bianchi (FSAC)
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026
Item 7-A
May 26, 2026