1 David Yakobson
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2026 3:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Oliver Chi; Peter James; Susan Cline; Heidi von Tongeln; Susan Cola; Jenny Rogers; Steven Johnson; Karen Melick; Maryanne LaGuardia; Sonam Makker; Barry Rosenbaum; Christopher Dishlip; Amber Richane; Tony Lopez
Subject: September 8, 2026 Council Meeting - Item 16.G. - Negotiations regarding the MFUA, etc.
Attachments: map 24x18 (1).pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmember Hall, and Councilmembers - Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for getting out in front of this issue and agendizing it for various discussions, investigation, and actions to be undertaken by the City Manager and city staff team.
The MFUA or a similar agreement must continue, with the goal of the City continuing to be able to access and program school facilities during non-school hours for the benefit of our entire community. Thousands and thousands of hours of valuable and essential city recreation programming depends on this.
A few quick thoughts and recommendations -
School campuses, which are public spaces owned by the public and expected to be run and maintained by taxing the public, are a de facto part of our parks system and seriously help to augment it, see attached image. The district is not a private corporation; it exists to serve the common good in a public way. Sometimes you hear school campuses described as "belonging to the District"; they do not. They belong to the people. So the public must always be able to use these facilities and the City is the appropriate entity to provide much or all of that non-school hours access, which is customary and historic despite the more recent creation of the MFUA; the point here is to provide access to publicly-owned amenities, not to make a profit, which some in the community fear is a prime motivator for the School District wanting to end the MFUA, i.e., so they can take control of and monetize these spaces. A good example of this is TSM's extensive use (private swim club) of the new pool at Samohi, despite the new pool being paid for with public bond $$ and there being strong community demand for access to additional swim space. One option is to simply reach an agreement to renew and extend the existing MFUA . As a former transactional attorney, I can tell you that any legal agreement can be extended, Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
2 renewed, or restated by an amendment, so long as the parties agree to it, and the MFUA is no different, no matter what some folks may tell you or want you to believe (i.e., that the existing MFUA cannot be extended, that it expires by its terms). I do, however, recommend that the availability to the City and the community of the facilities, playgrounds, and open spaces it covers be reviewed and be detailed in an extensive Amendment (or new agreement) because over time the school district has closed or diminished facilities covered under the original MFUA. The Lincoln Middle School swimming pool is a good example of a facility that is closed and no longer available either to students or the public because the district alleges that it cannot be repaired. Similarly, the School District's aggressive school facilities construction activities are diminishing open spaces and/or restricting public access on many of our elementary campuses - see e.g. the "improvements" at Will Rogers and the back field construction currently underway at Franklin Elementary School.
Please involve both the RAD team and the Recreation and Parks Commission in this Item
16.G. work as significant expertise and knowledge for you, our Council, in this area lies within both. Let's please leverage that brain trust!
Best of luck with this and thank you again for initiating this item. It is very important work to do and get sorted asap on behalf of our entire city and all who use our parks and school campus playgrounds, green open spaces, and recreational facilities.
All the best,
Ann Bowman
Former RPC commissioner, 2023-2025
Santa Monica resident, 30 years
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Matt Goldenberg D.O. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 9:14 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Oliver Chi; Recreation and Arts Department; John Smith; Barry Rosenbaum; [email protected]; Karen Melick; Maryanne LaGuardia; Steven Johnson; Jenny Rogers; Micah Akerson; Sonam Makker; Noe Mendoza; Eric Johnson; Jazzmyne Urquiza
Subject: SUPPORT for Item 16.G, Master Facilities Use Agreement
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, Councilmember Hall, and Councilmembers, I'm writing in strong support of Item 16.G, and to thank you for bringing it forward. Directing the City Manager to negotiate a successor to the Master Facilities Use Agreement is exactly the kind of proactive step this issue needs. In case it's useful as you take this up, here are a few points that underscore why the stakes are high, and why the city is on firm ground in acting.
The city's own adopted policy already calls for this. The 2025 Parks and Recreation Vision Plan:
States that "school facilities functionally and essentially are part of the city's parks network," formally recognized to "memorialize community access to these public spaces." Directs the city to "review existing joint-use agreements in an effort to expand" them (Action 3.2.3) and to "identify future joint-use agreements with public and private schools" (Action 3.2.4). In short: Item 16.G advances a commitment the city has already made to itself.
The legal and institutional footing is solid.
California's Civic Center Act (Education Code 38130) establishes that public school facilities, built with public dollars, are meant to serve the broader community beyond the school day. This past May, the SMMUSD Board unanimously affirmed community access to its fields, gyms, and play areas. Both the city and the District are already on record.
The stakes are real, and they reach the entire city.
Santa Monica averages just 1.55 park acres per 1,000 residents, and playing-field space is especially scarce citywide.
In my experience scheduling youth sports here, there are essentially no city playing fields north of Memorial Park, the fields families rely on in much of the city are the elementary and middle school sites the MFUA covers.
That scarcity hits our park-poorest neighborhoods hardest, but it's felt across the city, north and south. This isn't one neighborhood's issue; it's everyone's.
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
2 Thousands of hours of youth sports and community recreation depend on continued access to these fields.
Two constructive suggestions as the work begins:
It would be worth having the negotiation take stock of what's actually still available under the current agreement, since access to some covered facilities has diminished over the years. The city's RAD staff hold deep operational expertise on how these facilities are programmed and permitted, involving them closely would strengthen the outcome.
Thank you again for initiating this. It's important work, and I'm grateful to see it moving forward! Respectfully,
Santa Monica resident, in my personal capacity
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 8:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: September 8, 2026 Council Meeting - Item 16.G. - Negotiations regarding the MFUA, etc. are ESSENTIAL to WILMONT neighborhood with 12,500 residences and very few back- or front-yards
EXTERNAL
My apologies. I forgot to add Council Mtg item email.
Thanks
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 8:47 AM
Subject: September 8, 2026 Council Meeting - Item 16.G. - Negotiations regarding the MFUA, etc. are ESSENTIAL to WILMONT neighborhood with 12,500 residences and very few back- or front-yards To: Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>, Lana Negrete <[email protected]>, Barry Snell <[email protected]>, Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>, Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>, Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>, Dan Hall <[email protected]> Cc: Oliver Chi <[email protected]>, Peter James <[email protected]>, Susan Cline <[email protected]>, Heidi Von Tongeln <[email protected]>, Susan Cola <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, SM STEVE JOHNSON <[email protected]>, Karen Melick <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Christopher Dishlip <[email protected]>, Richane Amber <[email protected]>, Tony Lopez <[email protected]> Mayor Torosis and City Councilmembers,
The Wilmont neighborhood has 12,500 residences with very few front- or back-yards. Wilmont goes from Ocean to 21st Street and from Wilshire to Montana. The one true park accessible to this neighborhood is Reed with a small, grassy patch that, as you know, is under constant demand across all aspects of the city's population.
For residents, families, children, nature lovers, runners, teams, kick-ball advocates and my role as Chair of this neighborhood, the city amid the increasing housing density must address the MFUA. And in my opinion, forfeited its responsibility of this important asset to residents when it didn't address it for continuation years ago. It makes no sense to me why the Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
2 agreement was not addressed for the long-term before this effort before you tonight.
The MFUA or a similar agreement must continue, with the goal of the City continuing to be able to access and program school facilities during non-school hours for the benefit of our entire community. Thousands and thousands of hours of valuable and essential city recreation programming depends on this.
School campuses, which are public spaces owned by the public and expected to be run and maintained by taxing the public, are a de facto part of our parks system and seriously help to augment it. The district is not a private corporation; it exists to serve the common good in a public way. Sometimes you hear school campuses described as "belonging to the District"; they do not. They belong to the people.
So the public must always be able to use these facilities and the City is the appropriate entity to provide much or all of that nonschool hours access, which is customary and historic despite the more recent creation of the MFUA; the point here is to provide access to publicly-owned amenities, not to make a profit, which some in the community fear is a prime motivator for the School District wanting to end the MFUA, i.e., so they can take control of and monetize these spaces. A good example of this is TSM's extensive use (private swim club) of the new pool at Samohi, despite the new pool being paid for with public bond $$ and there being strong community demand for access to additional swim space.
One option is to simply reach an agreement to renew and extend the existing MFUA . As a former transactional attorney, I can tell you that any legal agreement can be extended, renewed, or restated by an amendment, so long as the parties agree to it, and the MFUA is no different, no matter what some folks may tell you or want you to believe (i.e., that the existing MFUA cannot be extended, that it expires by its terms).
It is recommended that the availability to the City and the community of the facilities, playgrounds, and open spaces it covers be reviewed and be detailed in an extensive
Amendment (or new agreement) because over time the school district has closed or diminished facilities covered under the original MFUA. The Lincoln Middle School swimming pool is a good example of a facility that is closed and no longer available either to students or the public because the district alleges that it cannot be repaired. Similarly, the School District's aggressive school facilities construction activities are diminishing open spaces and/or restricting public access on many of our elementary campuses - see e.g. the "improvements" at Will Rogers and the back field construction currently underway at Franklin Elementary School.
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
3 Please involve both the RAD team and the Recreation and Parks Commission in this Item 16.G. work as significant expertise and knowledge for you, our Council, in this area lies within both. Let's please leverage that brain trust!
The MFUA is very important to residents and should have been and should now get sorted asap on behalf of our entire city and all who use our parks and school campus playgrounds, green open spaces, and recreational facilities.
Many thanks,
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
Wilmont Chair
Santa Monica resident, 45 years
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
From: Karen Melick
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln; Barry Snell Subject: Item 16G MFUA negotiations should start immediately Date: Saturday, September 5, 2026 3:07:24 PM
EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis, City Council Members, and City Manager Chi, I support the City beginning immediate negotiations with the School District for a successor agreement to the current Master Facilities Use Agreement (MFUA) that expires next June.
The Santa Monica Recreation and Parks Commission discussed this last April and sent a letter on May 4, 2026, to the Mayor and City Councilmembers, copying the City Manager, urging immediate negotiations for a supplemental addendum to the YY/GS MFUA, which the Council voted to extend for 10 years, to include the agreements from the expiring MFUA. This letter is attached.
There are issues with the current agreement that should be modified, including adding penalties for noncompliance with the terms of the MFUA, which should also be addressed before the agreement is signed.
The agreements for Playground Partnership (Elementary Schools), JAMS, Lincoln Middle School, and CREST programs should be negotiated into the YY/GS Master Facilities Use Agreement at no additional cost to the City.
The City should not end up paying the District for the access provided by the expiring MFUA. That would be wrong to have the residents to replace the funding that provides access to the schools and then turn around and charge the City for the access.
We recommended immediate negotiations because, if the Parcel Tax passes, it removes the primary financial incentive for the District to share its facilities with the City, thereby removing the City’s leverage for negotiations. Both sides should be motivated to resolve this issue before the election to take this issue off the table as a concern when voters vote on Measure ES.
Thank you.
Karen Melick
Vice-Chair of the Santa Monica Recreation and Parks Commission speaking for myself Sunset Park
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 11:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: July 8 City Council Agenda Item 16G - MFUA Extension Attachments: 2022-05-05 SB Joint Use Agreement.pdf; 2022 Extension Master Facilities Use Agreement_Apr 2022.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council -
The appropriate response to this item is, "DUH." Of course the MFUA should be extended. The city needs access to school district facilities to maintain programs for residents and visitors, as we have had since 2002, and cancelling the MFUA to save money should never have been on the table.
The MFUA must be extended, which will require payment by the city. Accordingly, as many of us said since the Realignment Plan was presented, the Parcel Tax must be pulled from the ballot. Residents shouldn't bear the cost of the city's access, and we also shouldn't have to pay twice - once for the tax and again for a renegotiated MFUA.
It should be noted that prior to 2022 each time the MFUA term end was approaching, the agreement was amended to reset the term and the extension period so there could never be a termination like we are facing now. In 2022, the MFUA was inexplicably amended to terminate it in 2027 with no public hearing before city council or the school board. My PRAs for documents relating to this have been stalled out by the city and not responded to by the school district. "Termination of the MFUA" was disingenuously used as an excuse for the Parcel Tax when all this city and school board had to do at any point since 2022 is amend the MFUA to change the dates.
This council enters into and amends contracts, dozens at a time on this agenda alone, but it has acted like the termination of the MFUA is intractable.
It's only now that the Parcel Tax is polling so poorly, and it failed to get endorsed by the Dem Club even with Caroline Torosis presenting the argument in favor - proving it is a CITY TAX DISGUISED AS A SCHOOL TAX - that this is coming forward. Caroline is desperately trying to give the impression the loss of school facilities - a problem she created with the Realignment Plan and Parcel Tax - is being handled, but it's not.
This item kicks the can down the road on action that should have been taken at any point in the last year instead of wasting time pushing a tax.
The MFUA must be extended, with adjustments to account for changes in facilities and also requirements that the school district maintain open space, real grass, and facilities instead of demolishing and overbuilding our campuses with declining enrollment.
Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Sunset Park Resident
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
5/3/22, 11:49 PM Print Item
https://simbli.eboardsolutions.com/Meetings/PrintItem.aspx?S=36030435&MID=11599&IID=486858&AB=true&RC=true&t=i 1/1 Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District
Printed : 5/3/2022 11:49 PM PT
Format A in SM
05/05/2022 05:30 PM
District Office and Zoom
1651 16th St., Santa Monica, CA 90404
ITEM : II.K.3. Extension of the Master Facilities Use Agreement with the City of Santa Monica Rationale
This is to inform the Board of Education that: 1) the Master Facilities Use Agreement with the City of Santa Monica is coming to the end of its term on June 30, 2022; 2) the agreement allows for the Agreement to be extended for an additional term of five years to June 30, 2027; 3) the Superintendent and City Manager have signed the First Modification of the Master Facilities Agreement.
The agreement authorized on May 8, 2012 states that a five-year extension will be executed unless there have been material changes to either party’s financial position and a finding of nonrenewal is provided with three year’s notice. Given that the City has maintained its support of the District through its budget crisis and restructuring, demand for park and recreational amenities increased during the pandemic and remains high, and three-year notice of nonrenewal was not made, the City Manager and SMMUSD Superintendent will execute a First Modification of the Master Facilities Use Agreement to extend the term to June 30, 2027. All other terms and conditions of the agreements remain in effect.
No action or discussion is needed by the Board at this time.
Comments
Over the years, Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) and the City of Santa Monica (City) have built a collaborative partnership to support exceptional educational, cultural, and recreational achievements at the public schools. SMMUSD has supported residents by maintaining high-caliber classroom education as well as facilities used by students and residents alike. The relationship is codified in the Master Facilities Use Agreement and its supplements, which enable community members to use elementary and middle school playfields, recreational facilities, and buildings that are under-utilized during non-school hours. The Agreement provides unrestricted revenue to the School District in return for use of District facilities. The School District has used City funds to support the District’s educational mission.
The initial Master Facilities Use Agreement and related supplemental agreements were approved in April 2005. In April 2009, SMMUSD and the City authorized the first renewal option, thus amending and extending the Agreement by three years, through April 2012. In May 2012, SMMUSD and the City authorized a new Master Facilities Use Agreement and related supplemental agreements for an initial term of 10 years (through June 30, 2022) with an option to extend for an additional five years to June 30, 2027.
Separately, in 2010 and 2016, the voters passed local tax increases with accompanying advisory measures recommending that portions of the revenues be dedicated to improving and maintaining school facilities and support school programs. In March 2018, SMMUSD and the City approved a new agreement to combine terms and conditions for the allocation of the revenues from the two recent tax measures (YY and GS) into a single agreement with supplemental agreements regarding recreational use of school and park facilities. In August 2020, SMMUSD and the City approved a second modification to a supplemental agreement to reflect programmatic and operational changes on school playgrounds.
The March 2018 and August 2020 actions did not change the term of the agreement.
Supporting Documents
Master Facilities Use Agreement 050522
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
1 FIRST MODIFICATION OF
MASTER FACILITIES USE AGREEMENT NO. 9589 (CCS)
This First Modification of the Master Facilities Use Agreement Number 9589 (CCS) (“First Modification”), entered into as of ________, 2022 (“Execution Date”), by and between the City of Santa Monica, a municipal corporation (“City”), and SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (“District”) is made with reference to the following:
RECITALS
A. On or about July 1 2012, the City and District entered into a Master Facilities Use Agreement Number 9589 to permit City and community use of school facilities within the City to meet certain recreational and other needs during hours when the facilities are available for such use, allowing the District to benefit from such use of the facilities through the generation of revenue for the maintenance of the District’s education programs (“Master Facilities Use Agreement”).
B. The City and the District desire to extend the term of the Master Facilities Use Agreement for an additional five-year term.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Now, therefore, the undersigned parties do hereby mutually agree to modify the Master Facilities Use Agreement as follows:
1. Section 1 of the Master Facilities Use Agreement entitled “Term” shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following paragraph:
Term. This Agreement begins on July 1, 2012 and terminates on June 30, 2027, unless terminated earlier as set forth in this Agreement.
2. Execution in Counterparts. This First Modification may be executed in counterparts with the same effect as if both parties hereto had executed the same document. All counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute a single modification. Any signature to this First Modification transmitted electronically through DocuSign or PDF shall be deemed an original signature and be binding upon the parties hereto (it being agreed that such electronic signature shall have the same force and effect as an original signature).
DocuSign Envelope ID: D34FDB6F-C93C-4AB1-898F-3A1195566A26 4/29/2022
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
2 3. Except as expressly modified by this First Modification, all other terms and conditions of the Master Facilities Use Agreement shall be and remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Modification as of the date and year first written above.
ATTEST:
______________________________
DENISE ANDERSON-WARREN
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
LANE DILG
City Attorney
CITY OF SANTA MONICA,
a municipal corporation
By: ______________________________
RICK COLE
City Manager
SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
ABC Corporation
#VENDOR
By: _______________________________
DocuSign Envelope ID: D34FDB6F-C93C-4AB1-898F-3A1195566A26 4/29/2022
Susan Cola
Interim City Attorney
Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District
Superintendent at Santa Monica - Malibu Unified
Dr. Ben Drati
4/29/2022
City Manager
4/29/2022
Denise Anderson-Warren David White
City Clerk
4/29/2022
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026
Item 16-G
September 8, 2026