Council Clarifies Its Direction for the Neighborhood Association Grant Program

Date:

(Damien Newton contributed background information for this article.)

The city council moved Tuesday night to ensure its direction to staff is better reflected in the workings of the Neighborhood Grant Program, specifically, requirements in the grant application that had befuddled potential applicants. 

The debate over the grant program—and the need for clarification at this week’s special meeting—stems from a pair of controversial decisions the Santa Monica City Council made last fall that tied neighborhood group funding to broader housing policy.

In October, the council approved reforms to how neighborhood associations receive city funding, adding new rules aimed at limiting political activity, including restrictions on candidate endorsements tied to receiving public dollars. The changes came after concerns that publicly funded neighborhood groups were taking positions that blurred the line between community engagement and electoral advocacy. 

A follow-up decision allowed those groups to continue receiving city support, but only if they agreed not to endorse candidates—an attempt to balance continued civic participation with clearer guardrails on the use of taxpayer funds.

Three different neighborhood groups declined to take part in the program, all of which announced their decisions with letters to the city that also found their way to the Lookout. You can read the Lookout’s coverage of the decision not to participate made by North of Montana Neighborhood AssociationFriends of Sunset Park,  and Northeast Neighbors at these links.

Only the Ocean Park Association has publicly stated it would take part in the new grant program, an announcement made in a recent newsletter.

All three groups cited the restrictions on political endorsements to qualify for the bank program and rules that required groups to report demographic information on their membership.

The special meeting called this week was aimed at clarifying those rules, particularly how they apply to neighborhood organizations navigating land use debates that are inherently political but central to their mission.

The public wasn’t shy about sharing its views.

Andrew Hoyer, President of Mid-City Neighbors, said, “If you limit us to sending mailers only to our members, you are inferring you do not want all the residents in our territory to know that our meetings even exist.” He added, “If you just added the word ‘community’ in front of members, that would solve the problem.”

Clare Thomas, President of Friends of Sunset Park, expressed appreciation for several council members’ acknowledgment that the new guidelines do not align with the council’s unanimous vote last September. But she raised several questions, including why neighborhood groups now seemingly need to be tied to grant money to be recognized as legitimate. 

“Nowhere in the September city council discussion of the neighborhood organization grants were they tied to recognition. When did that change?” asked Thomas.

“This has not been your finest hour,” said John C. Smith of the WilMont Neighborhood Association. “It’s really easy for a city council to be punitive,” he added, “I think real leadership sometimes calls for a lighter touch, and that was not used in this respect.” He then went on to outline the back and forth the city council participated in, first threatening to kill the grant program, then resurrecting it, and then adding a series of conditions. “I feel you have punished all seven groups for the actions of one or two.”

WilMont’s Chair, Elizabeth Van Denburgh, objected to the implication that neighborhood groups had misused funds. She reminded the council that they submit a financial report every year and that it is audited by the city. 

Mayor Caroline Torosis stated that she added this as a special agenda item after she was informed on Sunday that “Some of the requirements in the neighborhood association grant application appeared in discrepancy with the original intent and guidance that was given unanimously by council.” She added that community members were right to question how that guidance was reflected in the grant application. 

She said that nothing about last fall’s direction has changed, and that the application will now also include a Frequently Asked Questions section and answers to those questions to further assist applicants. 

Torosis then underscored what she believed were the major tenets for clarification: 

  • Neighborhood grant funds cannot be used for political advocacy regarding candidates
  • They are allowed to host candidates for discussions, so long as the atmosphere is neutral and in an informational manner
  • They can conduct activities and share information around ballot measures provided that they are informational in nature
  • Mass mailers are not appropriate for “list building,” but are perfectly acceptable to send to non-member residents of a neighborhood zone to educate them about events and programs in the neighborhood
  • Neighborhood groups must submit an annual budget at the beginning of the grant program period, but are not required to seek approval for each line item in the budget
  • Submitting demographic information on an association’s membership is voluntary, not required
  • The application period, which is currently closed, will be reopened with these clarifications so that neighborhood groups that passed during the last cycle can reconsider applying

“I apologize that this process has been less than clear for folks, and we would direct that the application be further refined.”

“This is on me,” said City Manager Oliver Chi, who took responsibility for not catching some of the wording in the application.

Councilmember Dan Hall asked Chi what would happen to the remaining funds, among the $49,000 allocated for the neighborhood grant program, if some groups still pass on requesting their $7,000 worth. Would the remaining money be divided up among the groups that did apply, or other newly forming community groups?

Chi affirmed that they could open up remaining funds to do that. 

On a voice vote, the council reaffirmed its direction, 6-1, with Councilmember Lana Negrete voting no. 

Author

About The Author

Share post:

More like this
Related

Santa Monica Approves Slate of “Business-Friendly Initiatives”

The City gives its official update on the Realignment...

John Adams Middle School Named 2026 California Distinguished School

The following is a submission from SMMUSD. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified...

Why Santa Monica Needs More “Agile” Streets

If you drive, walk, or bike around Santa Monica,...

City Touts Success of Realignment Plan on Safety, Infrastructure. Calls for Renewed Economic Focus

The Santa Monica City Council is touting measurable progress...