Council Update: ATMs, Performers, Signs and Surplus

By Jorge Casuso

The City Council Tuesday night gave final approval to a ban on ATM surcharges, finalized amendments to the street performers ordinance and heard from business owners who asked the city to back down from actively enforcing a 14-year-old sign ordinance that goes into effect in April.

The council also decided to save $3 million that was the result of a budget surplus until it can decide what to do with the money at next June's budget deliberations. The surplus could be used for unmet needs that include $1.4 million in crosswalk improvements and $240,000 for animal shelter repairs.

The council gave final approval to the ban on ATM surcharges despite legal threats from the banking industry, which vowed to seek an injunction before the law goes into effect in 30 days. The surcharge is imposed on customers who withdraw money from the ATMs of banks where they don't have accounts.

Banking industry representatives contend that federal laws have precedence over local law. The City Attorneys office disagrees.

First Federal Bank, one of two community banks that testified against the ordinance Oct. 5, wrote a letter to the council urging it not to give final approval Tuesday. The smaller banks contend that the ban gives the edge to larger banks that can afford to drop the surcharge. They said that it is the surcharge that allows smaller community banks to keep their ATMs operating at a small profit.

Santa Monica is the first California city to ban ATM surcharges. San Francisco has a similar measure on the ballot next month.

On Tuesday, the council also finalized amendments to its ordinance regulating street performers on the pier and on the Third Street Promenade. Under the amended ordinance, performing without a permit is a misdemeanor, rather than an infraction. The ordinance is the first in the country to require performers to rotate their spots. They must do so every two hours.

In a separate measure, the council heard from business owners concerned the city's sign ordinance will be an economic burden. The ordinance requires that 1,000 of the city's 8,000 business signs be removed or replaced by April because they do not conform to the standards.

The Chamber of Commerce asked the city to drop the deadline and allow the signs to be replaced when a business shuts down or changes ownership. They also contend that signs that fall outside the city's redevelopment districts could be exempt under state codes.

"It would cost me $10,000 to change my signs," said Mike Howell, who owns Santa Monica Lock and Key. The ordinance, he said, "is unfair and poorly timed."

The council directed staff to explore funding to help needy businesses replace their signs.

"There may be things we can do to soften the burden," said Councilman Ken Genser. But he added, "We have to look at this as getting near the end of a long road.

"Some people view this council as anti-business," Genser said. "We have to look at this ordinance as one that was passed 15 years ago. This isn't something that's coming out of the blue."