By BILL
THE CITY BUDGET FOR THE 2007-08 fiscal year, beginning July 1, is scheduled for approval by the City Council, tomorrow night.
Tomorrow night, City Council will consider granting over $3.1 million including $2.8-million in homeless operating funds (up from $2.2-million this fiscal year) and an additional $330,000 in capital funds for homeless services. The 39 percent increase will fund additional case management and housing placement staff for chronically homeless individuals, Homeless Court clients and additional residential beds for substance abusers.
I mentioned in my May 21 column, (SMDP, page 4), that the average number of homeless on Santa Monica streets had gone from 1,192 in the city’s 1999 census to between 2,300 and 3,000 persons per day as estimated by the Urban Institute’s December, 2006 report “Ending Homelessness in Santa Monica.”
In fiscal year 1999/2000 the city spent nearly $1.8-million on homeless services. Funding held steady until the 2005/2006 fiscal year when spending accelerated. In response to public complaints that services were attracting vagrants to Santa Monica, the 1994 Public Safety Act, speci-cally Section 2.69.10(f), was approved and capped homeless expenditures -— at that time (FY 1993/1994), which was about $1.1-million dollars.
The ordinance, authored by City Attorney, Marsha Moutrie was thrown out by the same Marsha Moutrie a few years ago because, after review, she decided the spending cap “illegally” placed restrictions on any future council’s spending authority.
There are many people who think eliminating the cap was a sneaky way for City Hall to increase funding of an unpopular social agenda. Since then, spending on Santa Monica’s failed “Continuum of Care” has skyrocketed and the number of vagrants on our streets and the amount of crime they’re responsible for has mushroomed. (“Murder suspect nabbed,” June 6, page 1) For weeks, the local news has been abuzz about the major budget controversy — withholding a $529,000 increase in the annual facilities agreement the city pays to the Santa Monica/Malibu Unified School District.
City Council withheld approval of the increase that, along with an annual cost of living bump, would give the district over $7.2 million next year. Secrecy agreements by the district imposed on former employees and parents of children in special education programs raised red flags with Mayor Pro-Tem, Herb Katz and councilmen, Bobby Shriver and Robert Holbrook.
Shriver, Katz and Holbrook wanted a district policy restricting secrecy agreements before granting the $529,000 increase. Mayor, Richard Bloom and councilpersons, Ken Genser and Pam O’Connor advocated just handing over the money. With Kevin McKeown, who works for the school district, recusing himself from voting on the increase, the council was deadlocked.
It’s easy to see why Bloom, Genser and O’Connor want to give ‘em the money and move on. They’re supported by the same political organization — Santa Monicans for Renters’Rights — as are six of the seven members on the Board of Education. It would be embarrassing for the SMRR majority on City Council to criticize fellow SMRRs on the school board about poor oversight. Shriver, Katz and Holbrook were not endorsed or supported by SMRR when they ran for office.
School supporters, including some school board members, accused Shriver, Katz and Holbrook of using students as pawns in a clumsy attempt to seize political control over school affairs. What rubbish!
Questions about SMMUSD’s fiscal competence over the years have been ignored by even those district cheerleaders who say that complaining and withholding money hurts our kids. They’ve resorted to accusing those of us who question district policy and school board governance of playing politics and even worse. It’s the lowest form of hypocrisy because ignoring ongoing district management issues is the greatest risk to schools and our children’s education.
At some point, money is going to stop flowing. With the loss of $12.5-million in the utility users taxes looming and a much predicted downturn in business tax revenues, future city funding may be cut. If voters reject proposed new or renewed parcel taxes, the district ship, already floundering on a sea of red ink, will be firmly on the rocks.
Also, tomorrow night, the City Council will hear Item 6A — an appeal of a Landmarks Commission designation of 130-142 San Vicente Boulevard as a city landmark. This appeal deserves to be denied. It is fitting that the virtually intact, 28-unit Teriton Apartments, built in 1949, should be named as a city landmark and the property designated as a landmark parcel.
City Council will ultimately decide on landmarking and what changes, if any to make on next year’s city budget. If you wish to speak out, go to the City Council meeting tomorrow night or phone, fax or E-mail City Council members, ASAP.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on June 11, 2007. Read the original PDF.