SR 06-14-2022 13G 13.G
June 14, 2022
Council Meeting: June 14, 2022 Santa Monica, California
1 of 1
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE - MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records & Elections Services
Department
Date: June 14, 2022
13.G Request of Councilmembers Negrete and Parra and Mayor Pro Tem
McCowan that the City Manager prepare a report pursuant to Section 9212
of the California Elections Code on an initiative with the following title
prepared by the City Attorney that is seeking to qualify and be placed on
the November 8, 2022 ballot: AN INITIATIVE MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
ADDED FUNDING FOR HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION, AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, AND SCHOOLS BY AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL
CODE CHAPTER 6.96 TO PROVIDE A THIRD TIER TRANSFER TAX RATE
FOR PROPERTY TRANSFERS OF $8,000,000 OR MORE WITH AN ELEVEN
MEMBER RESIDENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE The report prepared
pursuant to Section 9212 of the California Elections Code shall be
presented to City Council as soon as possible, but not later than July 26,
2022.
13.G
Packet Pg. 1925
BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY
PREPARED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
AN INITIATIVE MEASURE TO ESTABLISH ADDED FUNDING FOR HOMELESSNESS
PREVENTION, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND SCHOOLS BY AMENDING SANTA
MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 6.96 TO PROVIDE A THIRD TIER TRANSFER
TAX RATE FOR PROPERTY TRANSFERS OF $8,000,000 OR MORE WITH AN ELEVEN-
MEMBER RESIDENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.96 sets the City’s real estate transfer tax. Currently,
there are two tax rates. The First Tier Tax Rate ($3.00 per $1000 of value transferred) applies to
transfers under $5,000,000. The Second Tier Tax Rate ($6.00 per $1000 of value transferred)
applies to transfers of $5,000,000 or more. This measure would amend Santa Monica Municipal
Code Chapter 6.96 to establish a new Third Tier Tax Rate for transfers of $8,000,000 or more.
The proposed Third Tier Tax Rate would be $56.00 per $1000 of value transferred.
This measure would add Chapter 4.90 to the Santa Monica Municipal Code to establish: (1) a
Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund; and (2) a new School Fund. These
funds would be funded by the Third Tier Tax Rate. Out of the Third Tier Tax rate of 5.6%, 5%
would be allocated to the School Fund and the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable
Housing Fund (“Allocated Funds”) and the remaining .6% would go to the General Fund.
The measure contains a specific annual distribution of the Allocated Funds. The first
$10,000,000 of Allocated Funds must be deposited into the School Fund. The next $40,000,000
of Allocated Funds collected each year must be deposited into the Homelessness Prevention and
Affordable Housing Fund. Any Allocated Funds collected above $50,000,000 each year would
be deposited 20% into the School Fund and 80% into the Homelessness Prevention and
Affordable Housing Fund.
The measure would require the City to provide the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District
the Allocated Funds in the School Fund each year. In the event of a unification of Malibu
schools, the school district serving residents of Santa Monica would be entitled to receive the
School Funds. Any school district that is located outside of Santa Monica would not be entitled
to any of the School Funds.
The measure allows the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund to be used to
provide ongoing or emergency income assistance, acquire and rehabilitate existing rental
properties as deed-restricted affordable housing, create new deed-restricted housing, and fund
programs and services designed to preserve and improve affordable housing for lower income
households.
The measure would establish an eleven-member Resident Oversight Committee to provide
recommendations to the City Council regarding guidelines for eligible expenditures, local
priorities and preferences, award procedures, budgeting, program evaluation, and public
reporting procedures. The City’s auditors will audit the Homelessness Prevention and
13.G.a
Packet Pg. 1926 Attachment: BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY (5187 : 30-day Report)
Affordable Housing Fund annually and publicly provide the results to the Resident Oversight
Committee and the Audit Subcommittee.
The School Fund and the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund are intended
to provide additional support and not replace any existing funding under current agreements or
prior advisory measures.
13.G.a
Packet Pg. 1927 Attachment: BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.bPacket Pg. 1928Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.bPacket Pg. 1929Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.bPacket Pg. 1930Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.bPacket Pg. 1931Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.bPacket Pg. 1932Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.bPacket Pg. 1933Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.bPacket Pg. 1934Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.bPacket Pg. 1935Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.bPacket Pg. 1936Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.bPacket Pg. 1937Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.bPacket Pg. 1938Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.bPacket Pg. 1939Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.bPacket Pg. 1940Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.bPacket Pg. 1941Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.bPacket Pg. 1942Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.bPacket Pg. 1943Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.bPacket Pg. 1944Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.bPacket Pg. 1945Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.bPacket Pg. 1946Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.bPacket Pg. 1947Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.bPacket Pg. 1948Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.bPacket Pg. 1949Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.bPacket Pg. 1950Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.bPacket Pg. 1951Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.bPacket Pg. 1952Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
6/9/22, 6:19 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=ELEC&division=9.&title=&part=&chapter=3.&article=1.1/3
Code:Select Code Section:1 or 2 or 1001 Search
9200.
9201.
9202.
9202.5.
9203.
9204.
9205.
Up^Add To My Favorites
ELECTIONS CODE - ELEC
DIVISION 9. MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS [9000 - 9610] ( Division 9 enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2. )
CHAPTER 3. Municipal Elections [9200 - 9295] ( Chapter 3 enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2. )
ARTICLE 1. Initiative [9200 - 9226] ( Article 1 enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2. )
Ordinances may be enacted by and for any incorporated city pursuant to this article.
(Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
Any proposed ordinance may be submitted to the legislative body of the city by a petition filed with the elections official of the legislative body, in the
manner hereinafter prescribed, after being signed by not less than the number of voters specified in this article. The petition may be in separate sections,
providing that the petition complies with this article. The first page of each section shall contain the title of the petition and the text of the measure. The petition
sections shall be designated in the manner set forth in Section 9020.
(Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
(a) Before circulating an initiative petition in any city, the proponents of the matter shall file with the elections official a notice of intention to do so, which
shall be accompanied by the written text of the initiative and may be accompanied by a written statement not in excess of 500 words, setting forth the reasons for
the proposed petition. The notice shall be signed by at least one, but not more than three, proponents and shall be in substantially the following form:
Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition
Notice is hereby given by the persons whose names appear hereon of their intention to circulate the petition within the City of ____ for the purpose of ____. A
statement of the reasons of the proposed action as contemplated in the petition is as follows:
(b) Any person filing a notice of intent with the elections official shall pay a fee to be established by the legislative body not to exceed two hundred dollars ($200)
to be refunded to the filer if, within one year of the date of filing the notice of intent, the elections official certifies the sufficiency of the petition.
(Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
From the time materials pertaining to an initiative petition are filed pursuant to Section 9202 until the day after the elections official determines that the
initiative petition does not contain the minimum number of signatures required, the day after the election at which the initiative measure is put before the voters,
or the day after the proposed ordinance is adopted by the legislative body of the city after being submitted to the legislative body of the city pursuant to Section
9201, as applicable, the elections official shall do both of the following:
(a) Keep on file at his or her office the notice of intention, written text of the initiative, and written statement setting forth the reasons for the proposed petition, if
any, that the proponents of the initiative measure filed with the elections official pursuant to Section 9202.
(b) Furnish copies of the materials he or she is required to keep on file pursuant to subdivision (a) to any person upon request. The elections official may charge a
fee to a person obtaining copies pursuant to this subdivision. The fee may not exceed the actual cost incurred by the elections official in providing the copies.
(Added by Stats. 2012, Ch. 240, Sec. 2. (AB 1851) Effective January 1, 2013.)
(a) Any person who is interested in any proposed measure shall file a copy of the proposed measure with the elections official with a request that a ballot
title and summary be prepared. This request shall be accompanied by the address of the person proposing the measure. The elections official shall immediately
transmit a copy of the proposed measure to the city attorney. Within 15 days after the proposed measure is filed, the city attorney shall provide and return to the
city elections official a ballot title for and summary of the proposed measure. The ballot title may differ from any other title of the proposed measure and shall
express in 500 words or less the purpose of the proposed measure. In providing the ballot title, the city attorney shall give a true and impartial statement of the
purpose of the proposed measure in such language that the ballot title shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed
measure.
(b) The elections official shall furnish a copy of the ballot title and summary to the person filing the proposed measure. The person proposing the measure shall,
prior to its circulation, place upon each section of the petition, above the text of the proposed measure and across the top of each page of the petition on which
signatures are to appear, in roman boldface type not smaller than 11 point, the ballot title prepared by the city attorney. The text of the measure shall be printed
in type not smaller than 8 point. The heading of the proposed measure shall be in a boldface type in substantially the following form:
INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS
The city attorney has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure:
(Here set forth the title and summary prepared by the city attorney. This title and summary must also be printed across the top of each page of the petition
whereon signatures are to appear.)
(Amended by Stats. 2019, Ch. 563, Sec. 7. (SB 47) Effective January 1, 2020.)
Any elector of the city may seek a writ of mandate requiring the ballot title or summary prepared by the city attorney to be amended. The court shall
expedite hearing on the writ. A peremptory writ of mandate shall be issued only upon clear and convincing proof that the ballot title or summary is false,
misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of Section 9203.
(Amended by Stats. 2002, Ch. 237, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 2003.)
A notice of intention and the title and summary of the proposed measure shall be published or posted or both as follows:
(a) If there is a newspaper of general circulation, as described in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 6000) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code,
adjudicated as such, the notice, title, and summary shall be published therein at least once.
(b) If the petition is to be circulated in a city in which there is no adjudicated newspaper of general circulation, the notice, title, and summary shall be published at
least once, in a newspaper circulated within the city and adjudicated as being of general circulation within the county in which the city is located and the notice,
Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites
13.G.c
Packet Pg. 1953 Attachment: EC 9200 (5187 : 30-day Report)
6/9/22, 6:19 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=ELEC&division=9.&title=&part=&chapter=3.&article=1.2/3
9206.
9207.
9208.
9209.
9210.
9211.
9212.
9213.
title, and summary shall be posted in three (3) public places within the city, which public places shall be those utilized for the purpose of posting ordinances as
required in Section 36933 of the Government Code.
(c) If the petition is to be circulated in a city in which there is no adjudicated newspaper of general circulation, and there is no newspaper of general circulation
adjudicated as such within the county, circulated within the city, then the notice, title, and summary shall be posted in the manner described in subdivision (b).
This section does not require the publication or posting of the text of the proposed measure.
(Amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 248, Sec. 1. (SB 327) Effective January 1, 2012.)
Within 10 days after the date of publication or posting, or both, of the notice of intention and title and summary, the proponents shall file a copy of the
notice and title and summary as published or posted together with an affidavit made by a representative of the newspaper in which the notice was published or, if
the notice was posted, by a voter of the city, certifying to the fact of publication or posting.
If the notice and title and summary are both published and posted pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 9205, the proponents shall file affidavits as required by
this section made by a representative of the newspaper in which the notice was published certifying to the fact that the notice was published and by a voter of the
city certifying to the fact that the notice was posted.
These affidavits, together with a copy of the notice of intention and title and summary, shall be filed with the elections official of the legislative body of the city in
his or her office during normal office hours as posted.
(Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
The proponents may commence to circulate the petitions among the voters of the city for signatures by any registered voter of the city after publication or
posting, or both, as required by Section 9205, of the title and summary prepared by the city attorney. Each section of the petition shall bear a copy of the notice of
intention and the title and summary prepared by the city attorney.
(Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
Signatures upon petitions and sections of petitions shall be secured, and the petition, together with all sections of the petition, shall be filed within 180 days
from the date of receipt of the title and summary, or after termination of any action for a writ of mandate pursuant to Section 9204, and, if applicable, after receipt
of an amended title or summary or both, whichever occurs later. Petitions and sections thereof shall be filed in the office of the elections official during normal
office hours as posted. If the petitions are not filed within the time permitted by this section, the petitions shall be void for all purposes.
(Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
Each section shall have attached thereto the declaration of the person soliciting the signatures. This declaration shall be substantially in the same form as
set forth in Section 9022.
(Amended by Stats. 2013, Ch. 278, Sec. 20. (SB 213) Effective January 1, 2014.)
The petition shall be filed by the proponents or by a person or persons authorized in writing by the proponents. All sections of the petition shall be filed at
one time. Once filed, a petition section shall not be amended except by order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
When the petition is presented for filing, the elections official shall do all of the following:
(a) Ascertain the number of registered voters of the city last reported by the county elections official to the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 2187 effective
at the time the notice specified in Section 9202 was published.
(b) Determine the total number of signatures affixed to the petition. If, from this examination, the elections official determines that the number of signatures,
prima facie, equals or is in excess of the minimum number of signatures required, he or she shall accept the petition for filing. The petition shall be deemed as
filed on that date. If, from this examination, the elections official determines that the number of signatures, prima facie, does not equal or exceed the minimum
number of signatures required, the official shall not take further action.
(Amended by Stats. 2018, Ch. 58, Sec. 10. (AB 3259) Effective January 1, 2019.)
After the petition has been filed, as herein provided, the elections official shall examine the petition in the same manner as are county petitions in
accordance with Sections 9114 and 9115, except that for the purposes of this section, references to the board of supervisors shall be treated as references to the
legislative body of the city.
(Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
(a) During the circulation of the petition, or before taking either action described in subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 9215, the legislative body may refer9215
the proposed initiative measure to a city agency or agencies for a report on any or all of the following:
(1) Its fiscal impact.
(2) Its effect on the internal consistency of the city’s general and specific plans, including the housing element, the consistency between planning and zoning, and
the limitations on city actions under Section 65008 of the Government Code and Chapters 4.2 (commencing with Section 65913) and 4.3 (commencing with
Section 65915) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code.
(3) Its effect on the use of land, the impact on the availability and location of housing, and the ability of the city to meet its regional housing needs.
(4) Its impact on funding for infrastructure of all types, including, but not limited to, transportation, schools, parks, and open space. The report may also discuss
whether the measure would be likely to result in increased infrastructure costs or savings, including the costs of infrastructure maintenance, to current residents
and businesses.
(5) Its impact on the community’s ability to attract and retain business and employment.
(6) Its impact on the uses of vacant parcels of land.
(7) Its impact on agricultural lands, open space, traffic congestion, existing business districts, and developed areas designated for revitalization.
(8) Any other matters the legislative body requests to be in the report.
(b) The report shall be presented to the legislative body within the time prescribed by the legislative body, but no later than 30 days after the elections official
certifies to the legislative body the sufficiency of the petition.
(Amended by Stats. 2017, Ch. 748, Sec. 5. (AB 765) Effective January 1, 2018.)
On or before April 1 of each odd-numbered year, the elections official of each legislative body shall file a report with the Secretary of State containing the
following information:
(a) The number of municipal initiative petitions circulated during the preceding two calendar years which did not qualify for the ballot, and the number of these
proposed initiatives for which reports were prepared pursuant to Section 9212.
13.G.c
Packet Pg. 1954 Attachment: EC 9200 (5187 : 30-day Report)
6/9/22, 6:19 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=ELEC&division=9.&title=&part=&chapter=3.&article=1.3/3
9215.9215
9215.5.9215
9216.
9217.
9218.
9221.
9222.
9223.
9224.
9226.
(b) With respect to municipal initiative measures that qualified for the ballot in the preceding two calendar years, the number that were approved by the voters,
and the number of these ballot measures for which reports were prepared pursuant to Section 9212.
(c) With respect to municipal initiative measures that qualified for the ballot in the preceding two calendar years, the number that were not approved by the
voters, and the number of these ballot measures for which reports were prepared pursuant to Section 9212.
(Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
If the initiative petition is signed by not less than 10 percent of the voters of the city, according to the last report of registration by the county elections
official to the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 2187, effective at the time the notice specified in Section 9202 was published, or, in a city with 1,000 or less
registered voters, by 25 percent of the voters or 100 voters of the city, whichever is the lesser number, the legislative body shall do one of the following:
(a) Adopt the ordinance, without alteration, at the regular meeting at which the certification of the petition is presented, or within 10 days after it is presented.
(b) Submit the ordinance, without alteration, to the voters pursuant to Section 1405.
(c) Order a report pursuant to Section 9212 at the regular meeting at which the certification of the petition is presented. When the report is presented to the
legislative body, the legislative body shall either adopt the ordinance within 10 days or order an election pursuant to subdivision (b).
(Amended by Stats. 2017, Ch. 748, Sec. 7. (AB 765) Effective January 1, 2018.)
The proponent of an initiative may withdraw the initiative at any time before the 88th day before the election, whether or not the petition has already been
found sufficient by the elections official.
(Added by Stats. 2018, Ch. 155, Sec. 2. (SB 1153) Effective January 1, 2019.)
In cities having a mayor, or like officer, with the veto power, when the passage of an ordinance petitioned for by the voters is vetoed, the failure of the
legislative body to pass the ordinance over the veto shall be deemed a refusal of the legislative body to pass the ordinance within the meaning of this article.
(Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
If a majority of the voters voting on a proposed ordinance vote in its favor, the ordinance shall become a valid and binding ordinance of the city. The
ordinance shall be considered as adopted upon the date that the vote is declared by the legislative body, and shall go into effect 10 days after that date. No
ordinance that is either proposed by initiative petition and adopted by the vote of the legislative body of the city without submission to the voters, or adopted by
the voters, shall be repealed or amended except by a vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in the original ordinance.
(Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
Any number of proposed ordinances may be voted upon at the same election, but the same subject matter shall not be voted upon twice within any 12-
month period at a special election under the provisions of this article.
(Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
If the provisions of two or more ordinances adopted at the same election conflict, the ordinance receiving the highest number of affirmative votes shall
control.
(Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
The legislative body of the city may submit to the voters, without a petition therefor, a proposition for the repeal, amendment, or enactment of any
ordinance, to be voted upon at any succeeding regular or special city election, and if the proposition submitted receives a majority of the votes cast on it at the
election, the ordinance shall be repealed, amended, or enacted accordingly. A proposition may be submitted, or a special election may be called for the purpose of
voting on a proposition, by ordinance or resolution. The election shall be held not less than 88 days after the date of the order of election.
(Amended by Stats. 2002, Ch. 371, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2003.)
Whenever any ordinance or measure is required by this article to be submitted to the voters of a city at any election, the elections official of the legislative
body shall cause the ordinance or measure to be printed. A copy of the ordinance or measure shall be made available to any voter upon request.
(Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
The enacting clause of an ordinance submitted to the voters of a city shall be substantially in the following form:
“The people of the City of ________ do ordain as follows:”.
(Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
This article does not apply to any statewide initiative measure.
(Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
13.G.c
Packet Pg. 1955 Attachment: EC 9200 (5187 : 30-day Report)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:ml.verville@verizon.net
Sent:Tuesday, June 14, 2022 11:10 AM
To:Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre
Cc:Sue Himmelrich; councilmtgitems
Subject:Please PASS the motion to create an alternative measure advanced by Councilmember Brock for the
November ballot - Zane Letter Rebuttal
EXTERNAL
Mayor Pro Temp Kristen McCowan, Members, Santa Monica City
Council
Re: Denny Zane Objection to Councilmember Brock’s motion
I take strong issue with Mr. Zane’s spurious attack on Councilmember Brock’s real
estate transfer tax (RETT) proposal as well as his superficial and uninformed
defense of the competing Himmelrich RETT proposal in his June 2, 2022 letter to
Council.
Spurious Need for More Santa Monica Revenue
Mr. Zane’s entire economic argument about the need for the funds is entirely
spurious. Resources for all of Mr. Zane’s listed “needs” are already present and
sufficient. In pointing out that Santa Monica would rank in the top 10 of 121
major cities nationwide in revenue per capita and it would be ranked #4 among
major and smaller wealthy cities in California. Santa Monica does not have a
revenue problem. The draft FY23 budget indicates the City is within 5% of the its
historic pre‐pandemic high revenue. It would be the City’s 2nd highest budget
ever! It has a spending control and resource effectiveness problem.
When the spending effectiveness issue was directly raised with Ms. Himmelrich in
the June 2, 2022 North of Montana Association (NOMA) meeting, Ms. Himmelrich
concurred that inefficient City spending was a key issue. She noted that she had
“tried” to address it during her tenure on the Council and that it predated her
election to the Council.
Item 13.G 06/14/22
1 of 6 Item 13.G 06/14/22
13.G.d
Packet Pg. 1956 Attachment: Written Comments (5187 : 30-day Report)
2
School Funding
As to the schools, total Santa Monica‐Malibu unified School District (SMMUSD)
funding per enrolled K‐12 student is 29% above the state average, roughly on par
with #8 Massachusetts (California is #18). SMMUSD spends over 200% of the
amount spent in Arizona or Nevada. Moreover, SMMUSD has been singled out in
a 2019 Standard & Poors credit report as being highly unusual in the amount of
supplemental revenue funding it receives on top of standard funding from the high
levels of property taxes in the City. Like the City, the school district is extremely
well funded. Also like the City, it too has a significant spending control problem.
Consequently, the $10 million allocated to SMMUSD by the Himmelrich proposal
can only be interpreted as an attempt to use public funds to buy political support
for a private initiative.
Reliable Housing and Community Development Spending
The City has spent $1.4 billion since 2004 on housing and community development
(HCD). In the 5 years preceding the FY21, the HCD spend has reliably averaged $60
million per year under the current City funding structure. With the City budget on
the verge of breaking all‐time records in the following couple of years, there will
be no problem in maintaining, and increasing, these spends, as well as their
effectiveness, with existing funding sources.
Housing Assistance Priorities
In fact, the Himmelrich proposal is marketed primarily as a policy response to “rent
burdened” households in the City. BUT it subordinates that issue to the high‐cost
acquisition of existing units for conversion to affordable, and the building of new
high‐cost affordable housing projects that benefit non‐residents. This bait‐and‐
switch language obscures the fact that affordable housing projects provide
benefits to the smallest number of primarily non‐Santa Monica residents due to
their cost.
Item 13.G 06/14/22
2 of 6 Item 13.G 06/14/22
13.G.d
Packet Pg. 1957 Attachment: Written Comments (5187 : 30-day Report)
3
As to affordable housing, the City has done more than its fair share, building more
than 4,000 affordable units since the 1980s. This represents roughly 10% of the
City’s entire multi‐family housing unit inventory!
Moreover, the City could reprioritize rental assistance TODAY with the resources
within the spend of the City’s existing HCD average annual spend to benefit a
much larger group of Santa Monica residents rather than focusing on building new
(very expensive) projects that do not benefit existing residents.
Santa Monica’s historically balanced approach must be maintained for the sake of
all its residents.
State “Mandate” as an Excuse
Mr. Zane’s use of the current unfunded state mandates is as unreasonable and
entirely unsupported as the mandates themselves. They place an entirely
disproportionate burden on Santa Monica. Los Angeles has located almost its
entire Affordable Housing Overlay in the San Fernando Valley, leaving Santa
Monica alone on the Westside. This is entirely unacceptable. Prior City councils
had plenty of opportunity to object to this outlandish state bullying and chose not
to do so. Continuation of this bad policy is not an option for the City.
Mr. Zane’s use of the unsupportable (in both theory and execution) state
mandates is completely self‐serving support for his organization’s political agenda.
Disingenuous (and Uninformed) Justification of the Scope of the
Himmelrich Tax
Mr. Zane tries to justify the Himmelrich tax as a luxury tax impacting a small
number of people. His complete lack of understanding (or intentional
misdirection) about the implication of this nefarious concept is nothing short of
astounding. By providing a massive incentive for legal avoidance of sale transfer
recording (which the Himmelrich proposal explicitly endorses with the §6.96.080
Partnerships clause) of the highest value properties in the City, the Himmelrich
proposal guarantees that property tax reassessments, which are also triggered by
Item 13.G 06/14/22
3 of 6 Item 13.G 06/14/22
13.G.d
Packet Pg. 1958 Attachment: Written Comments (5187 : 30-day Report)
4
sale transfer recordings will decline. That is a key source for schools and the City
itself. the question must be asked as to why such a provision was included to
begin with.
And, Mr. Zane fails to mention that exclusion of the highest value properties was
political, intended to mute opposition to the tax by big investors in the City and
discriminate against resident homeowners, who are less able to mount any
resistance. And, as there is no inflation indexing, more properties each year would
get ensnared in this tax, regardless of how long the property was
owned. Residents that use their homes for shelter will not be able to avoid the tax
while commercial properties can structure ownership around it.
Moreover, by moving towards direct taxation of the residents, the Himmelrich Tax
disincentivizes the City from fixing it’s destroyed downtown economic engine that
is incurring tax revenue opportunity costs of between $25 million and $40 million
per year, just about the same revenues as the Himmelrich Tax assumes.
Mr. Zane fails to point out that the Himmelrich Tax would make Santa Monica the
highest RETT taxed City ion the state up to $25 million and just below San
Francisco above that. Santa Monica is currently #14 in the state with its existing
RETT.
The Brock RETT Proposal’s Inclusion of Resident Values
To be clear, Councilmember Brock’s proposal does address the absolute key
priorities THE TAXPAYING RESIDENTS have demanded through their elected
representatives:
• Reducing crime
• Enhancing public safety
o Traffic safety improvements around schools including crossing guards
• Making public areas safer cleaner
• Addressing problems created by our homeless population that we need to try
and solve by giving them more help
o Police department homeless liaison team
Item 13.G 06/14/22
4 of 6 Item 13.G 06/14/22
13.G.d
Packet Pg. 1959 Attachment: Written Comments (5187 : 30-day Report)
5
o Fire department's crisis response unit
o Funding for transitional housing and shelters within our City
• Restoring library services
• Enhancing after‐school programs
The Brock proposal is a funding stopgap until the City gets its financial house in
order. That needs to happen very soon. It is currently a municipal
embarrassment, acknowledged by Mayor Himmelrich. His proposal therefore also
needs a sunset date.
Mr. Zane’s note must be recognized for what it is, an entirely political‐driven
attempt to further Ms. Himmelrich’s personal initiative, which will place the City
on a destructive path impacting the quality of life of all residents, almost entirely
at the expense of homeowners.
Ms. Himmelrich has repeatedly professed to desperately want to avoid created an
economically walled off City of the very rich and everyone else. Yet that is
EXACTLY what her tax proposal sets the City on course to do with the shift to direct
taxation of residents, especially homeowners.
This divisive war on homeowners must stop, immediately. It is exacerbating the
profound disunity in this City, which is the opposite of the lip service provided by
Ms. Himmelrich, and is obviously endorsed by Mr. Zane and his organization.
The Himmelrich initiative is being marketed as reflecting the City’s values, but the
proposal entirely shields the resulting cash flow from the City’s elected
representatives’ spending priorities, which negates the democratic expression of
the City’s values. That is a cost no one in the City can afford.
I strongly urge the Council to direct City staff to complete its preparation of the
Brock initiative as a council sponsored measure for the November general
election.
Respectfully,
Item 13.G 06/14/22
5 of 6 Item 13.G 06/14/22
13.G.d
Packet Pg. 1960 Attachment: Written Comments (5187 : 30-day Report)
6
Marc L. Verville
Sunset Park, Santa Monica
Reference:
https://smmirror.com/2022/04/sma‐r‐t‐column‐new‐city‐financial‐plan‐the‐
resident‐homeowner‐bank‐part‐ii‐who‐pays‐the‐proposed‐transfer‐tax‐and‐
where‐does‐the‐money‐go/
Item 13.G 06/14/22
6 of 6 Item 13.G 06/14/22
13.G.d
Packet Pg. 1961 Attachment: Written Comments (5187 : 30-day Report)