April 25, 2024 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

Outdoor Fitness Coalition: Palisades Park Flat-Fee Higher Than Ever Suggested:

Editor’s Note: This is an open letter to the Santa Monica City Council from the Santa Monica Outdoor Fitness Coalition regarding the council’s vote to implement a one-year pilot program that regulates outdoor fitness classes.

Dear City Council,

The issue of regulating fitness training in Santa Monica city parks has been debated for more than a year, and last week the city council deliberated on an ordinance that would formalize that regulatory and permitting process.

Related: Santa Monica Outdoor Fitness Programs To Be Costly, Restrictive

Related: In The Chair: Santa Monica Outdoor Fitness Coalition’s Erin Dick

The proposed ordinance represented a fair and equitable compromise that would continue to allow training in certain parks while imposing noise, equipment and time restrictions; training zones with caps on the number of groups that can train in each zone; and a limit on group sizes. The ordinance also proposed a use fee structure based on percentage of gross revenues paid by the trainers to the city.

The fees would be 10 percent of annual gross revenues for the use of approved parks, with the exception of Palisades Park where a 50 percent increase would be imposed, making the use fee 15 percent of gross annual revenues.

This fee increase for use of Palisades places a premium on what is unquestionably a very special park.

While some of the proposed restrictions would change the way trainers use the park, the Santa Monica Outdoor Fitness Coalition recognized it as a fair compromise, and supported the proposed regulatory framework.

However, during the final moments of deliberation, and after the public comment period was over, the city council dramatically changed direction on the fee structure going from a percentage based on revenue to a flat-fee structure.

The fees proposed were $1,800 for one-on-one or one-on-two training, $3,600 for small group training (3-10 people), and $5,400 for large group training (10-15 people).

The council also opted to carry over the 50 percent increase for Palisades suggested in the original ordinance. This 50 percent increase is reasonable when applied to a fee structure based on percentage of gross revenues, but when applied to a flat fee structure, it adds thousands to the fees and makes group training in Palisades completely unaffordable for small businesses. This 50 percent increase applied to a flat fee amounts to a backdoor ban on group training in Palisade.

The average trainer makes $40,000 annually. Using the percentage of gross revenues fee structure proposed by staff, 15 percent of that revenue would amount to a use fee of $6,000 to train groups in Palisades. For that same trainer, the flat-fee structure would require a fee of $8,100 – more than 20 percent of a small business’ annual revenues. This percentage is higher than was ever suggested by council or staff, and makes group training in Palisades completely out of reach except among the wealthy.

The fitness professionals who train the groups of moms working out with their babies in strollers and the seniors taking Thai-Chi, they are not in business to get rich. They are offering a needed service to people with modest incomes who can’t afford one-on-one training.

The Coalition is not opposed to a flat fee and recognizes the benefits to the city in fee collection and ease of enforcement. But these trainers will be out of business if required to pay 20 percent of their annual revenues.

We are very close to achieving a victory for our city, community, and small businesses by working together to negotiate a fair compromise. It would be such a loss after all parties have worked so hard, for that fair compromise to turn into heavy-handed overregulation because of a hastily-made decision that didn’t include public comment.

We hope that the council will reconsider the fees proposed, and adjust them to reflect the intent of the staff report and the comments and input of the majority of the public and the personal trainers who offer a needed service to our community.

—Santa Monica Outdoor Fitness Coalition

in Opinion
Related Posts

SM.a.r.t Column: Building Modern Boxes Lacks Identity

April 21, 2024

April 21, 2024

In the relentless pursuit of modernity, cities worldwide have witnessed the rise of so-called architectural marvels in the form of...

SM.a.r.t. Column: Santa Monica Needs Responsible Urban and Architectural Design

April 14, 2024

April 14, 2024

[SMa.r.t. note: Eight years ago, our highly esteemed and recently-passed colleague Ron Goldman documented his thoughts on the need for...

SM.a.r.t. Column: BLINK NOW!

April 7, 2024

April 7, 2024

Nine years ago, I wrote a column for SMa.r.t. titled SANTA MONICA: BEACH TOWN OR ‘DINGBAT’ CITY? (https://smdp.com/2015/05/09/santa-monica-beach-town-dingbat-city/)Here is the...

SM.a.r.t Column: ARB Courage (Part 2 of 2)

March 31, 2024

March 31, 2024

Last week we discussed the numerous flaws of the Gelson’s project as a perfect example of what not to do...

ARB Courage (Part 1 of 2)

March 24, 2024

March 24, 2024

On March 4, 2024, your ARB (Architectural Review Board) ruled in favor of the 521-unit Gelson’s Project at Ocean Park...

SM.a.r.t Column: Can California ARBs Balance Affordable Housing with Community Character in the Face of New Housing Laws?

March 17, 2024

March 17, 2024

By suggestion, I attended the March 4th ARB (Architectural Review Board) meeting that addressed the Gelson Lincoln Boulevard Project.  After...

S.M.a.r.t Column: On the Need for Safety

March 10, 2024

March 10, 2024

Earlier this week, in the dark pre-dawn hours, a pair of thugs covered in masks and hoodies burst into the...

Film Review: The Oscar Landscape 2024

March 7, 2024

March 7, 2024

FILM REVIEWTHE OSCAR LANDSCAPE 2024A Look at the Choices – Academy Awards – March 10, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. on...

S.M.a.r.t Column: Five Saving Historic Santa Monica

March 3, 2024

March 3, 2024

Our beloved City is surrounded by many threats, from sea level rise to homelessness, to housing affordability, to cancerous overdevelopment,...

S.M.a.r.t Column: Gelson’s Looms Large

February 22, 2024

February 22, 2024

Our guest column this week is by SMCLC (the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City). SMCLC is a well-established...

S.M.a.r.t Column: Top Toady Town

February 18, 2024

February 18, 2024

Throughout history, from the ancient Romans and Assyrians to Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, siege warfare has served as an...

S.M.a.r.t Column: The Sunset of Home Ownership

February 11, 2024

February 11, 2024

We are watching the sunset of our historical and cultural American dream of home ownership as we now are crossing...

SMa.r.t. Column: B(U)Y RIGHT

February 4, 2024

February 4, 2024

“By Right” state housing laws that give developers, in certain projects, the ability to ignore codes ‘by right.’ Well, that...

S.M.a.r.t  Column: Serf City

January 28, 2024

January 28, 2024

Homelessness is a problem in California, and nowhere is this more evident than in our fair city, where the unhoused...

S.M.a.r.t  Column: Bond Fatigue

January 22, 2024

January 22, 2024

Last week’s SMart article,  described two critical problems faced by our Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD): the declining...