Memorandum
Date: May 20, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Odis Jones, City Manager (CEO)
Subject: BUDGET PROGRESS & COMMUNITY INPUT FEEDBACK
I wanted to provide a brief update on two items impacting the Proposed FY26-27 Budget I submitted on May 11, 2026.
Mobile Crisis Team Expansion
At the meeting that evening, I promised the City Council that I would add funding for the two additional positions to expand the Mobile Crisis Team to the supplemental and final budget to be adopted on June 8, 2026.
To accomplish this, I have amended the FY26-27 Proposed Budget to fund two previously “frozen” positions, a Mental Health Specialist and a Mental Health Clinician . This will add $346,185 to the budget. These funds will be taken from the proposed operating reserve.
Preliminary Community Input Feedback
The responses received through the “Let’s Talk Budget, Culver City” community meetings, as well as the budget survey forms submitted to the City online have provided a useful snapshot of community input as we continue our Fiscal Year 2026–2027 budget process.
As of this memo, the City received 148 responses from residents, employees, business and property owners, and other community members. The form will remain open and continue to be shared with the public for participation until June 1, 2026. We will then close the form and compile the latest data.
Overall, the feedback reinforces the importance of the City’s current back -to-basics budget approach. Respondents consistently emphasized the value of core services, visible infrastructure improvements, fiscal discipline, and continued transparency in how budget decisions are made. While individual responses reflected a range of viewpoints, several clear themes emerged across the data.
A strong majority of respondents identified public safety as one of the most important City services, with 102 respondents selecting Police, Fire, and emergency preparedness. This was followed by street repair and sidewalk maintenance, selected by 71 respondents, and both parks, recreation, and community programs and traffic and mobility improvements, each selected by 52 respondents. These responses suggest that community members continue to place high value on services that directly affect daily quality of life, neighborhood safety, and the condition of public spaces.
When asked where the City should prioritize investments if additional funding becomes available, respondents most frequently selected street and infrastructure improvements, with 76 responses, followed by public safety services with 65 responses, and parks and recreation facilities with 50 responses. Small business support and economic development also
BUDGET PROGRESS & COMMUNITY INPUT FEEDBACK
May 20, 2026
ranked highly, with 3 7 responses, reflecting continued interest in maintaining Culver City’s economic vitality and supporting local businesses, as well as affordable housing programs with 30 responses and youth and senior services with 27 responses.
The responses also show that community members are thinking seriously about tradeoffs. When asked where the City should prioritize cost savings if reductions are needed, the most common response was contracted services and consultants, selected by 68 respondents. This was followed by new programs and initiatives with 50 responses and administrative costs with 45 responses. At the same time, 30 respondents selected “do not reduce services,” indicating that while many residents support fiscal restraint, there is also concern about preserving the services people rely on.
On the question of how the City should address future budget shortfalls, respondents favored a blended approach. Eighty-three respondents selected reducing spending, while 79 respondents selected identifying new revenue sources . Fifty -one selected delaying capital projects . This suggests that the community does not view the solution as solely revenue- based or solely reduction-based but instead expects the City to pursue a balanced strategy that includes cost control, revenue enhancement, and careful prioritization.
Satisfaction with City services was generally positive. Ninety-three respondents reported being either “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied” with current City services. However, the open- ended responses also point to areas where residents want improvement, particularly infrastructure maintenance, traffic and mobility, fiscal accountability, homelessness and housing affordability, and communication about City priorities.
The open- ended responses provide additional context behind the quantitative data. Many participants called for continued investment in basic infrastructure, including streets, sidewalks, alleys, lighting, park maintenance, and community facilities. Several comments specifically emphasized sidewalk safety, pothole repairs, street lighting, and improvements to fields and recreation spaces such as Bill Botts.
Others emphasized public safety, fiscal responsibility, housing affordability, homelessness response, workforce support, and the need to support local businesses. Respondents also raised questions about spending discipline, transparency, and whether certai n programs or projects are financially sustainable.
Mobility and transportation remained an area of mixed views. Some respondents supported improved bike access, connected bike and bus routes, and transit improvements, while others expressed concerns about traffic flow, lane reductions, parking, traffic cal ming, and the cost or effectiveness of transportation-related projects.
Taken together, the feedback is broadly consistent with the priorities previously identified by the City Council: strengthening long- term financial sustainability, investing in public infrastructure and community spaces, and addressing housing, affordability, and homelessness. The data also supports the City’s continued focus on transparency, measurable outcomes, and meaningful public engagement.
We also heard questions regarding the budget from attendees at the most recent
BUDGET PROGRESS & COMMUNITY INPUT FEEDBACK
May 20, 2026
Community Conversations, including questions about how priorities are set, how tradeoffs are evaluated, and how community input will be used.
This input should be understood as one component of the broader budget engagement process.
It does not represent a statistically valid survey of the entire community, but it does provide valuable insight into the views of residents and stakeholders who chose to participate. The feedback helps clarify what many community members want the City to prioritize: maintaining the basics, spend it carefully, preserving essential services, investing in visible improvements, and continuing to communicate clearly about budget decisions and tradeoffs.
As the City moves forward, these responses will help inform budget deliberations, future community engagement, and implementation of a priority -based budgeting approach. The feedback also reinforces the importance of reporting back to the community on how input is being used and how progress will be measured over time.
I would like to note, that given my recent arrival in December. The budget process this year was a bifurcated priority -based and community engagement process over the last three months where we have successfully addressed the City deficit. The process for next year’s Fiscal Year budget will be much more robust with scientific survey data, expanded KPI results from our Process Improvement team, as well as input from the Civic Assembly.
I look forward to our continued collaborative efforts on the budget and I would like to encourage you to consider offsets as you deliberate should you choose to add additional cost items to the budget in an effort to maintain fiscal discipline and keep the balanced nature of the budget intact.
Finally, the statistics mentioned in this memo are hereby attached in Exhibit A.
Respectfully,
Odis Jones
City Manager (CEO)
City of Culver City
Attachment:
1. Exhibit A – Culver City Budget Survey Chart Responses - Graphs 0 20 40 60 80 100
Number of Responses
Student
Business owner
Other
Property owner
Employee in Culver City
Resident
0 1
11 12
34 90
Let's T alk Budget, Culver City
What Best Describes You?
T otal responses: 148
Exhibit A
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Number of Responses
Environmental sustainability programs
Other
Arts and cultural programming
Homelessness programs
Housing programs
Customer service and city operations
Economic development/business support
Parks, recreation, and community
programs
Traffic and mobility improvements
Street repair and sidewalk maintenance
Public safety (Police/Fire/Emergency
preparedness)
7 12
13 17
22 23
29 52
52 71
102
Let's T alk Budget, Culver City
Which City Services Are Most Important to You? (Select up to 3) T otal responses: 148 | Multiple selections allowed
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Number of Responses
Sustainability/environmental
initiatives
T echnology/customer service
improvements
Other
Community engagement programs
Homelessness programs
Youth/senior services
Affordable housing programs
Small business support/economic
development
Parks and recreation facilities
Public safety services
Street and infrastructure improvements
11 17
17 19
20 27
30 37
50 65
76 Let's T alk Budget, Culver City
If Additional Funding Becomes Available, Where Should the City Prioritize Investments? (Select up to 3) T otal responses: 148 | Multiple selections allowed
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Number of Responses
Recreation programming subsidies
Increase fees instead of reducing
services
Delay capital projects
Reduce staffing through
attrition/vacancies
Special events
Do not reduce services
Administrative costs
New programs/initiatives
Contracted services/consultants
8 14
16 16
22 30
45 50
68 Let's T alk Budget, Culver City
If the City Needs to Reduce Spending to Remain Financially Stable, Which Areas Should Be Prioritized for Cost Savings? (Select up to 2) T otal responses: 148 | Multiple selections allowed
0 20 40 60 80
Number of Responses
Use reserve funds temporarily
Increase fees for certain services
Delay capital projects
Identify new revenue sources
Reduce spending
23 27
51 79
83 Let's T alk Budget, Culver City
How Would You Prefer the City Address Future Budget Shortfalls? (Pick T wo) T otal responses: 148 | Multiple selections allowed
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Neutral Somewhat
dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Other
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80Number of Responses25
68 19 18
14 4
Let's T alk Budget, Culver City
How Satisfied Are You With the Services the City Currently Provides? T otal responses: 148