Sign the Petition! 

Stop the $20 Million Giveaway of City Funds to Private Developer!

What's this all about?
​Culver City residents deserve responsible leadership and transparent financial decisions. Right now, the City Council plans to give away a total of $20 million — nearly one-third of our emergency reserves — to a private developer for the Jubilo Village project, with no public ownership, no repayment guarantee, and no priority for Culver City residents to live there. This is happening while the Council has declared a fiscal emergency and is planning a sales tax hike. Our Chief Financial Officer has already warned that the city is unlikely to be repaid. Meanwhile, $250,000 of taxpayer money is also being spent on an unvetted “budget consultant” — a councilmember’s pet project with no accountability. Our emergency funds are meant for real crises like earthquakes, wildfires, or economic downturns — not risky private deals. Sign this petition to demand the City Council remove the $16 million Jubilo Village expenditure from the budget and stop wasting taxpayer dollars.  You can read our full explainer here.
Say NO to Reckless Spending on a Private Development

City Council: We demand you to stop giving away $20 million of our tax dollars to a private developer for the Jubilo Village project. Remove the $16 million Jubilo Village expenditure from our city budget on June 9.

Our city is already running a $14.8 million budget deficit and spending $16 million each year on current homelessness services — yet your Council Majority plans to drain nearly one-third of our emergency savings on this private housing project.

Emergency reserves are our safety net. These funds protect Culver City from disasters like earthquakes, wildfires, or economic downturns. They also help pay for urgent infrastructure repairs and maintenance — including roads, sidewalks, water and sewer systems, and public buildings. Draining nearly one-third of these reserves puts our city’s safety, services, and basic infrastructure at risk.

At the same time, your body has officially declared a FISCAL EMERGENCY and is planning to add a quarter-cent ($0.25) sales tax hike.

How can we trust you to spend new tax revenue wisely when the city’s own Chief Financial Officer warns this $20 million Jubilo “loan” is unlikely to ever be repaid?

This project offers:
  • No public ownership
  • No repayment guarantees
  • No priority or preference for Culver City residents or workers to live there

The more money the City invests in this project, the greater the possibility that the City will have to pay out even more to protect its earlier investments. In other words, the City will be on the hook for project budget shortfalls — just to protect its own money.

Most cities invest $2–4 million in affordable housing projects, with a maximum of $8 million. This $20 million giveaway is fiscally reckless and shows a lack of financial responsibility.

We  demand:
  • Remove the $16 million Jubilo Village funding from the budget
  • Protect Culver City’s emergency reserves
  • Stop reckless spending and restore fiscal accountability​​

LEARN MORE HERE

        

​5.22.2025

Culver City: We Need to Talk About What Just Happened with Our Money

 Council votes to drain reserves for private housing project despite fiscal warnings
On May 20, Councilmembers Bubba Fish, Yasmine-Imani McMorrin, along with Vice Mayor Freddy Puza voted to spend money the city doesn’t have — by draining two-thirds of Culver City’s emergency reserves to fund a private affordable housing development. They did this against direct warnings from the City Manager and Chief Financial Officer, who cautioned that this move could put our city at serious financial risk.

Our emergency reserves are there to protect us — in earthquakes, wildfires, and other real emergencies — not to bankroll speculative development projects.

They also voted to set aside $250,000 for a budgeting consultant to run a vague “community engagement” process, with no clear scope or oversight — in the middle of a budget crisis.

Meanwhile, Culver City is depending on voters to pass a sales tax increase to prevent devastating cuts. If that tax fails, the City Manager says we could lose up to 50 staff positions, drastically impacting essential services like parks, police, and fire. 

Fish, McMorrin, and Puza’s votes are not just irresponsible —they’re reckless. And residents will pay the price.
​-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Can You Do?
​Tell Council to remove the $20 million for the private development project (called Jubilo Village) and the $250,000 budgeting consultant from the budget. It’s the community’s money — and it’s their sworn duty to protect us.

The final budget vote is June 9. Take action ahead of time. There are also meetings on May 27th and June 2nd.
Sign up to speak on the 27th and 2nd for Items NOT on the Agenda, and June 9th for the budget approval action item (the 6/9/25 item number is not yet available). You will be able to sign up on the city’s website: CulverCity.org/City-Hall/Meetings-Agendas
​ This is your money. Your services. Your city. Let’s make sure they hear us — before it’s too late.

























​

Culver City Debt Crisis.

Stop the $20 Million Giveaway of Emergency Funds to Private Developer
​

​Culver City residents deserve responsible leadership and transparent financial decisions. Right now, the City Council plans to give away a total of $20 million — nearly one-third of our emergency reserves — to a private developer for the Jubilo Village project, with no public ownership, no repayment guarantee, and no priority for Culver City residents to live there. This is happening while the Council has declared a fiscal emergency and is planning a sales tax hike. Our Chief Financial Officer has already warned that the city is unlikely to be repaid. Meanwhile, $250,000 of taxpayer money is also being spent on an unvetted “budget consultant” — a councilmember’s pet project with no accountability. Our emergency funds are meant for real crises like earthquakes, wildfires, or economic downturns — not risky private deals. Sign this petition to demand the City Council remove the $16 million Jubilo Village expenditure from the budget and stop wasting taxpayer dollars.
Why We Oppose the $20 Million Giveaway:
  • The city has already given $4 million and is being asked to give an additional $16 million.
  • This costs taxpayers over $850,000 per housing unit — far above local averages.
  • All of Culver City’s HUD Section 8 vouchers for the next 20 years are tied up in this project, leaving no new vouchers for other affordable housing projects currently in planning stages. This means no Section 8 rent assistance for anyone other than at Jubilo for the next 20 years.
  • No guarantee or preference for Culver City residents or workers to live in Jubilo Village.
  • City staff warn this deal risks long-term damage to our budget and emergency funds.
  • The CFO says this $20 million investment is unlikely to ever be repaid to the city.
  • The city is also spending $250,000 on an unvetted budget consultant — a councilmember’s pet project — with no clear accountability, raising serious concerns about fiscal management. They need to remove the $250,000 from the budget, too.
    ​
Emergency Reserves Are Our Safety Net:
These funds protect Culver City from disasters like earthquakes, wildfires, or economic downturns. They also help pay for urgent infrastructure repairs and maintenance — such as roads, sidewalks, water and sewer systems, and public buildings. Draining nearly one-third of these reserves puts our city’s safety, services, and essential infrastructure at risk.
We Want Affordable Housing — Not Financial Irresponsibility:Affordable housing is important. But it should never come at the cost of bankrupting our city or draining our emergency reserves without clear benefits for our community.

Demand Fiscal Responsibility from Our City Leaders!We call on the Culver City Council to:
  • Stop any further funding to Jubilo Village by removing $16 million from the city budget.
  • Remove the $250,000 for the unvetted budget consultant from the budget.
  • Protect our emergency reserves for real emergencies.
  • Prioritize responsible budgeting that serves the needs of all Culver City residents.

Explainer:
What You Need to Know About Jubilo Village and City Finances

What is Jubilo Village?
Jubilo Village is a private housing development planned on church-owned land in Culver City. The city council is considering giving $20 million in public funds to this project — $4 million already granted, with $16 million more requested.

Why is this a problem?
  • The project is a private development with no public ownership or control by the city.
  • There are no guarantees the city will ever get its money back. The CFO has warned the investment is “unlikely to be repaid.”
  • The project ties up all of Culver City’s HUD Section 8 vouchers for the next 20 years, meaning no vouchers will be left for other affordable housing projects currently being planned — cutting off new opportunities for other families and workers in need.

Why are city reserves important?
Culver City maintains emergency reserves — about 30% of the city’s operating budget — as a safety net to cover unforeseen disasters such as earthquakes, wildfires, or economic downturns. These reserves help keep essential services running and avoid drastic budget cuts or layoffs.

What happens if we drain the reserves?
If nearly one-third of our emergency reserves are drained for this project, the city could be left financially vulnerable. It risks cuts to critical services, inability to respond to emergencies, and long-term damage to our budget stability.

Why trust the city council with this spending?
Our city is currently running a $14.8 million budget deficit. Yet, some council members are pushing to invest tens of millions in this private project, ignoring warnings from city staff and the CFO. The city is also wasting $250,000 on an unvetted budget consultant — a councilmember’s pet project — with no clear accountability, raising serious concerns about fiscal management.

Why should you care?
This is your tax money, and this deal threatens the financial health of our city. There is no preference or guarantee that Culver City residents or workers will benefit directly from Jubilo Village housing. We should demand fiscal responsibility and ensure affordable housing investments truly serve our community.

Important Note:
Churches and nonprofits are still considered private entities according to the IRS. This means the Jubilo Village project is a private development, not a public or city-owned housing project.

Why are we calling the $16 million “loan” a giveaway or grant?
The City Council wants to give a $16 million "residual receipts loan" to a developer. While it's officially called a loan, the City's own analysis shows it will likely never be repaid—even after 55 years. The financial report estimates that $45 million could still be outstanding at the end of the loan term. There is no guarantee the City will recover its funds, making this loan functionally a grant or giveaway of taxpayer dollars. Also, any revenue stream from the apartment rentals will go to the church and/or developer, not to Culver City

Source: March 10, 2025 City Council Meeting Staff Report:

No Tenant Requirement for Culver City Residents
“Tenant Selection: There is no guarantee that the project’s tenants will be Culver City residents or come from Upward Bound House or Project Homekey. In 2022, CCSM requested that the City remove a requirement for preference for Culver City residents from the City’s loan commitment letter. The City Council approved removal of this requirement, which means that CCSM does not need to give preference to Culver City residents.”

Operational Cost Risk
“Operating expenses of  Jubilo Village are expected to be approximately $970,698 per year in the first year and are expected to escalate by 3% annually, but this is just an estimate. Should revenues not cover operating expenses, it is likely that the City will be asked to fill the funding gap.”

Fiscal Analysis
“While these forecast scenarios are helpful to analyze different actions the City Council may want to pursue, most of the fiscal impacts rely on conjecture. When considered along with the uncertainty about the project’s construction and operational costs, and other risks described earlier in this report, which will likely result in CCSM making additional funding requests of the City in the future, none of these scenarios suggests that the City can provide the $16 million from the General Fund without a significant negative impact to the City’s fiscal position.”

  • “... it is likely that cost increases will result in the City being asked for additional funding in the future. At this time, there are insufficient funds in the City’s unassigned General Fund balance (from which any potential loan to CCSM would be paid).
  • “To appropriate $16 million for a loan to CCSM, Council would have to use funds from one of the General Fund Committed Reserves”
  • “...in order to move funds into the unassigned reserve balance, the City Council would need to authorize the City Manager to move funds from specific assigned reserves (e.g., Contingency Reserve, Facilities Planning Reserve, Public Safety Equipment Replacement Reserve)....”

Sunk Cost Risk
“The City Council should also carefully consider this project’s major financial risks because they could result in the City making additional payments, potentially for the long-term. If the City makes an additional $16 million financial investment in this development, increasing its commitment to $36 million total, the City may face pressure to remain the financial backstop for this project throughout its lifespan. Should the project’s costs exceed projections, or its revenues fall short of projections, the City may be asked to fund the shortfall in capital costs or ongoing operations. If the City does not provide the funding to fill a shortfall, the City’s $36 million investment in the project (the City’s “sunk cost”) may evaporate if the project fails. If the project faces financial difficulty in the future, the City Council may find it politically difficult to avoid contributing additional City funding, since the alternative at that point might be the failure of the project.”
​

Culver City: We Need to Talk About What Just Happened with Our Money

Council votes to drain reserves for private housing project despite fiscal warnings

On Tuesday, May 20, three Culver City Councilmembers — Yasmine-Imani McMorrin, Bubba Fish, and Vice Mayor Freddy Puza — voted to take $20 million from our city’s funds and emergency reserves and allocate it to a single private affordable housing development.
This was against the direct advice of the city’s Chief Financial Officer and City Manager — the very people tasked with protecting our city’s financial health. They warned that this decision could cause long-term harm. Our emergency reserves exist to protect Culver City during economic downturns, natural disasters, and emergencies. It's our safety net. As the CFO bluntly put it, draining our reserves is especially dangerous for a city located in an earthquake zone.

The private development project, called Jubilo Village, proposes to build 93 affordable units at an estimated cost of $858,000 each, with no priority given to community members. Part of the funds will also support construction of a new church on the property, raising additional concerns about the use of taxpayer dollars and city priorities. Originally proposed as a loan, the CFO warns this $20 million public fund will likely never be repaid, effectively making it a permanent giveaway of money our community urgently needs.

Meanwhile, Culver City is relying on voters to approve a sales tax increase in the upcoming election to avoid massive cuts to essential city services. If the tax measure doesn’t pass, the City Manager warns that up to 50 staff positions could be eliminated, drastically impacting vital services such as parks, police, and fire departments.

And yet, despite these warnings, the Council majority proceeded to drain the emergency reserves we rely on during crises — emergencies like major fires, earthquakes, or acts of terror.

At the same meeting, McMorrin, Fish, and Puza also set aside $250,000 for a budgeting consultant—not to evaluate this housing project or safeguard taxpayer dollars—but to run a vague “community engagement” process around budget decisions. This consultant has not been publicly vetted; there is no clear scope, no transparency, and no accountability for how these funds will be used.

This isn’t just poor governance — it’s reckless.

Councilmembers McMorrin, Fish, and Puza have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of basic financial judgment. You can watch the May 20 city council meeting video for yourself on the city’s website or YouTube channel — prepare to be shocked.

Mayor Dan O’Brien and Councilmember Albert Vera voted responsibly. They stood up for our community’s financial stability and transparency, but they were outvoted. Culver City needs more leadership like theirs — leaders who take stewardship of our resources seriously.
​

What You Can Do About It Before June 9

​Tell Council to remove the $20 million for the private development project (called Jubilo Village) and the $250,000 budgeting consultant from the budget. It’s the community’s money — and it’s their sworn duty to protect us.

The final budget vote is June 9. Take action ahead of time. There are also meetings on May 27th and June 2nd.
Sign up to speak on the 27th and 2nd for Items NOT on the Agenda, and June 9th for the budget approval action item (the 6/9/25 item number is not yet available). You will be able to sign up on the city’s website: CulverCity.org/City-Hall/Meetings-Agendas
 This is your money. Your services. Your city. Let’s make sure they hear us — before it’s too late.

About the Money.

  • ​​Culver City is spending more than it’s bringing in.
    • Revenue: $177 million
    • Expenses: $192 million
    •  = $14.8 million deficit

  • On top of that deficit, the City Council majority — McMorrin, Fish, and Puza — voted to spend $20 million of your money on a single private affordable housing development: Jubilo Village
    • ​​This includes $4 million already given, and an additional $16 million just approved
    • Our own City Manager, CFO, and an outside consultant warned this “loan” will likely never be repaid — meaning it’s a giveaway
      ​
  • Where’s that money coming from?
    • That move drains our contingency fund from $53.4 million to $36.8 million
    • That’s a 31% reduction in our emergency safety net
    • The 2025–2026 budget alone cuts 11% of our reserves in one year
    • ​$16.6 million is being pulled from our emergency reserves — money meant for earthquakes, wildfires, and other disasters
    • The total General Fund is shrinking by $21.7 million
    • $20 million of that is going to just this one project

  • Despite this financial crisis, the Council set aside another $250,000 to hire a consultant for a vague “community engagement” process — with no clear scope or oversigh
  • If the sales tax increase fails, the City Manager warns we could lose 30–50 essential staff including fire, police, and parks


  • Important context:
    • If LA City or County passes a similar tax first, Culver City won’t get that money
    • But you’ll still pay it

What is the Development Project, Jubilo Village?


  • It’s a private affordable housing project that will build 93 apartments.
  • The total cost is $75 million — that’s over $850,000 per apartment.
  • This cost does not include rapidly rising material and labor costs which will push the budget up even higher
  • Fish, McMorrin, and Puza voted to allocate  $20 million to help pay for it, even though the developers couldn’t get money from other sources.
  • Our city leaders were warned that this loan is very likely to never be paid back.
  • About 300 people might live there, but there is no guarantee they will be Culver City residents. One funding source even prohibits prioritizing locals.

Why does this matter to you?
  • The project is on church property on Sepulveda Blvd. The church will collect rent funded largely by Culver City’s HUD housing vouchers and plans to use that money to build a new church building.
  • So, some of your tax dollars may indirectly support the church’s construction.
  • Using $20 million from the budget and emergency savings means less money available to respond to disasters or emergencies.
  • If the sales tax increase doesn’t pass, the city will likely have to cut dozens of important jobs — affecting the services we all rely on.

Bottom line: This decision risks our community’s safety and the future of city services by spending money we don’t have on a project that might not primarily help Culver City residents.

​Culver City Neighbors United
Email us   |  Visit us on Facebook
FPPC# 1439599