FY 2026-2027 Final Community Budget Input Survey Feedback Since the preliminary community input update was provided to the City Council, the “Let’s Talk Budget, Culver City” budget survey has closed with 373 total responses, an increase from the 148 responses included in the previous report. The additional responses expanded the overall sample of community input and generally reinforced the same core themes previously identified: public safety, visible infrastructure improvements, parks and community spaces, fiscal discipline, and continued transparency in how budget decisions are made.
The updated results continue to support the City’s back-to-basics budget approach. Public safety remained the most frequently selected City service, with 257 respondents identifying Police, Fire, and emergency preparedness as one of their top priorities. Street repair and sidewalk maintenance remained the second-highest service priority, with 211 responses. Parks, recreation, and community programs received 157 responses, followed by traƯic and mobility improvements with 113 responses.
When asked where the City should prioritize investments if additional funding becomes available, street and infrastructure improvements remained the top response, increasing from 76 responses in the preliminary report to 214 responses in the final results. A notable shift from the previous report is that parks and recreation facilities moved ahead of public safety as the second-highest investment priority, with 162 responses, compared to 147 responses for public safety services. Small business support and economic development also remained a significant priority, increasing to 93 responses. Youth and senior services received 73 responses, homelessness programs received 70 responses, and aƯordable housing programs received 67 responses.
The updated responses also continue to show that community members are thinking seriously about tradeoƯs. Contracted services and consultants remained the most frequently identified area for potential cost savings, increasing from 68 responses to 188 responses. Administrative costs moved into the second-highest position, with 123 responses, followed by new programs and initiatives with 96 responses. Special events also saw increased attention as a potential area for savings, rising to 73 responses. At the same time, 59 respondents selected “do not reduce services, ” showing that while many respondents support fiscal restraint, there remains concern about preserving the services residents rely on.
On the question of how the City should address future budget shortfalls, the final results continued to favor a blended approach. Reducing spending remained the top response, increasing from 83 to 218 responses. Identifying new revenue sources remained close behind, increasing from 79 to 189 responses. Delaying capital projects also remained a significant option, increasing from 51 to 140 responses. These results suggest that respondents continue to expect the City to pursue a balanced strategy that includes cost control, revenue enhancement, and careful prioritization.
Satisfaction with City services remained generally positive, though the larger response pool reflected a somewhat broader range of views. In the final results, 225 respondents reported being either “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied” with current City services. At the same time, the open-ended responses continued to identify areas where residents want improvement, including infrastructure maintenance, traƯic and mobility, fiscal accountability, homelessness and housing aƯordability, 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.
Others emphasized public safety, fiscal responsibility, housing aƯordability, homelessness response, workforce support, and the need to support local businesses. Respondents also raised questions about spending discipline, transparency, and whether certain 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 traƯic flow, lane reductions, parking, traƯic calming, and the cost or eƯectiveness of transportation-related projects.
Taken together, the final survey results are 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, aƯordability, and homelessness. The additional responses did not substantially change the overall direction of the feedback, but they strengthened the emphasis on infrastructure, parks and recreation, public safety, fiscal discipline, and transparency.
This input should continue to 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 provides 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, spending carefully, preserving essential services, investing in visible improvements, and communicating clearly about budget decisions and tradeoƯs.
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.