I have endorsed Measure AA.

Let me make my position absolutely clear:

I support Measure AA.

But the more I research how Culver City finances its priorities, the more I believe we need to have a second conversation at the same time:

If our schools are important enough to ask property owners for additional taxes, shouldn't they also be important enough to receive a meaningful and continuing share of the City's financial resources?

That question became even more important to me when I started looking at the $42.7 million in lease-revenue bonds Culver City's new Public Finance Authority sold this year.

And there is a fascinating part of that story involving CCUSD.

Public Education Changed My Life

This issue is personal to me.

I came to the United States from Caracas, Venezuela, when I was 16 years old.

I attended Santa Monica High School.

I was an immigrant teenager learning a new language, culture and educational system. I benefited from programs such as English as a Second Language (ESL) and from the opportunities available in a strong public school system.

Those programs mattered.

I eventually earned two doctoral degrees and became a clinical and forensic psychologist.

There are many reasons I was able to accomplish that, but public education was unquestionably one of them.

Someone invested in me.

I haven't forgotten it.

And I want Culver City to make that same investment in the children growing up here today.

Why I Support Measure AA

Measure AA is expected to generate approximately $18 million annually for 10 years for CCUSD.

Our schools need stable funding.

Teachers need resources.

Students need programs.

Families need confidence in their public schools.

So, yes:

I support Measure AA.

But supporting a tax doesn't mean that we should stop asking where government's existing resources are going.

That's where this gets interesting.

CCUSD Already Asked the City for Help

In 2025, CCUSD was facing serious financial problems and approached the City for assistance.

The District presented funding possibilities ranging from approximately:

$2.5 million per year for three years

to

$7.5 million per year for three years.

The City Council ultimately approved $2.5 million.

That was meaningful assistance, and the City deserves credit for providing it.

But it wasn't $2.5 million every year.

It was a one-time contribution.

And one of the conditions of that assistance was that CCUSD pursue a parcel tax for ongoing revenue.

That sequence matters.

CCUSD needed continuing money.

The City provided temporary money.

Property owners were then asked to provide the continuing money.

And now we have Measure AA.

Then Culver City Found Another Way to Raise Tens of Millions of Dollars

This is the part I think Culver City voters really need to understand.

In 2026, Culver City created the Culver City Public Finance Authority.

The Authority was created in part so the City could issue lease-revenue bonds and finance major expenditures over time.

And then something very significant happened.

The City sold approximately:

$42.7 MILLION IN BONDS.

The final financing carried an interest rate of approximately 5.35% and received an AA- rating from S&P.

That is a lot of money.

But remember: this isn't free money.

These are bonds.

The money was borrowed.

And the City's General Fund will ultimately be responsible for the lease payments supporting the debt service. The City's April staff report estimated annual debt service of approximately $2.65 million under the financing scenario then being considered.

So taxpayers aren't simply receiving $42.7 million.

We are borrowing money today that will have to be repaid over time.

Here's What Really Caught My Attention: CCUSD Was Originally Part of the Bond Discussion

When City staff presented the Public Finance Authority financing to the Council on April 27, the official staff report specifically said that taxable bond proceeds were proposed for several purposes, including:

• reimbursing the City for its Jubilo Village loan,

• other affordable-housing initiatives,

• administrative expenses, and

• financial assistance to the Culver City Unified School District.

The same report went even further. Its description of the projects potentially financed by the bonds specifically included “financial assistance for the Culver City Unified School District.”

That's extremely important.

CCUSD wasn't an idea somebody introduced after the bonds were sold.

Our schools were expressly contemplated as one of the potential uses while the financing was being designed.

So What Happened?

By April, the Council was directing approximately $39 million in anticipated net bond proceeds toward priorities including affordable housing, infrastructure, parks and recreation, trees, sidewalks, streets, alleys and deferred maintenance.

The final bond sale closed at approximately $42.7 million, and the City's June 22 summary says the financing funded the approved budget items.

Here's what I find troubling:

The City's own early financing documents expressly contemplated using bond proceeds to provide financial assistance to CCUSD. Yet I have not found a new, substantial CCUSD allocation from the final $42.7 million bond financing comparable to the millions allocated to the City's other priorities.

That distinction is important.

I am not claiming that every dollar could legally have been redirected to CCUSD. Tax-exempt bond proceeds in particular have restrictions, and the City's own documents said their uses were subject to tax-counsel review.

But the City's own staff report contemplated taxable proceeds for CCUSD assistance.

So I think voters are entitled to ask:

What happened to that idea?

Look at What We Chose to Finance

The bond financing supports or reimburses expenditures associated with things such as:

Affordable housing.

Jubilo Village.

Streets.

Sidewalks.

Alleys.

Parks.

Tree canopy improvements.

Deferred maintenance.

Other capital improvements.

The City's proposed budget presentation also identified a $12 million repayment to the Contingency Reserve associated with Jubilo Village as part of the Public Finance Authority strategy.

I'm not saying those things don't matter.

They do.

I want good sidewalks.

I want safe streets.

I want parks maintained.

I support affordable housing.

But here's my question:

Where are our schools on that priority list?

If Culver City can borrow tens of millions of dollars for its priorities—and if CCUSD assistance was explicitly contemplated when the financing was being developed—why isn't substantially more of the City's financial capacity being directed toward our schools?

That's a fair question.

And There Is Another Cost Voters Should Understand

The bond proceeds also aren't being spent exclusively on physical projects.

For example, the FY 2026–27 budget allocated $1 million of bond proceeds for administrative expenses, including development of a comprehensive financial plan and reserve analysis.

The City subsequently approved increasing its Ernst & Young agreement for that financial planning and reserve work by $665,000, bringing that contract's aggregate maximum to approximately $714,500.

Again, perhaps that analysis is worthwhile.

But these are choices.

Every budget is a collection of choices.

And every dollar tells voters something about what government considers important.

Now Put the Two Stories Together

This is what I want voters to think about.

When CCUSD needed continuing assistance, the City provided $2.5 million once.

CCUSD was directed toward a parcel tax for continuing revenue.

Now property owners are being asked through Measure AA to generate approximately $18 million every year.

Meanwhile, Culver City created a financing authority and sold $42.7 million in bonds to advance a long list of City priorities.

And, remarkably, financial assistance to CCUSD had actually been contemplated as one of the potential uses of those bond proceeds.

That's why I don't think the conversation should simply be:

Do you support Measure AA—yes or no?

My answer to that question is yes.

But I have another question:

How much is the City itself willing to invest in our schools?

I'm a Property Owner and a Landlord. I Understand Both Sides.

This matters to me from another perspective.

I am both a homeowner and a landlord.

So I understand why parents, teachers and students want more resources.

I want them too.

But I also understand what happens every time government says:

Let's put another charge on the property-tax bill.

Property owners don't experience a school bond, parcel tax, assessment, insurance increase, repair bill and property tax separately.

They experience the total cost of owning property.

Landlords experience those costs too.

Those expenses become part of the economics of providing rental housing.

And that's why we need to be consistent when we talk about affordability.

We cannot spend enormous amounts of time worrying about housing affordability while pretending that the increasing cost of owning and maintaining housing doesn't matter.

Both sides are real.

Good public policy recognizes both.

Should Culver City Pay the Entire $18 Million?

No.

That's not what I'm proposing.

The City has enormous responsibilities of its own.

Police.

Fire.

Streets.

Sidewalks.

Parks.

Employees.

Pensions.

Infrastructure.

Homelessness.

Housing.

And many others.

I am not proposing that Culver City simply replace Measure AA.

Nor am I proposing that we raid the City's reserves or write CCUSD a blank check.

I am saying something much simpler:

Our schools should compete for City resources just like our other major priorities do.

Maybe the appropriate contribution is $1 million annually.

Maybe it's $2.5 million.

Maybe it's more during particularly strong financial years.

Maybe the City directly finances specific programs that benefit CCUSD students.

Those numbers should be determined through an open budget process.

But zero additional ongoing financial participation should not automatically be the starting point.

What I Will Change If I Am Elected

If I am elected to the Culver City City Council, I am 100% committed to making financial support for CCUSD a major City priority.

I want the City and CCUSD to develop an ongoing financial partnership.

Every year, when we prepare Culver City's budget, I want one of the questions before the Council to be:

What can Culver City responsibly invest in its public schools this year?

I want CCUSD to explain what it needs.

I want City staff to explain what we can afford.

I want measurable goals.

I want accountability.

I want residents to know exactly where the money goes.

And when Culver City considers another major financing package, I want our schools sitting at that table from the beginning and still there when the final allocations are made.

The City and School District Are Separate. Our Community Isn't.

Yes, CCUSD and the City of Culver City are legally separate governments.

They have separate budgets.

Separate elected officials.

Separate responsibilities.

I understand that.

But the child sitting in a CCUSD classroom doesn't become less important because of an organizational chart.

That child is part of Culver City.

Our teachers are part of Culver City.

Our schools affect our neighborhoods.

They affect property values.

They attract families.

They affect businesses.

They affect whether young people have opportunities.

And ultimately they affect what Culver City will look like 20 years from now.

Someone Once Invested in Me

When I arrived in this country at 16, I wasn't a psychologist.

I wasn't a homeowner.

I wasn't a landlord.

I didn't have two doctoral degrees.

I didn't have political influence.

I was an immigrant kid who needed an education.

Santa Monica High School and its public programs—including ESL—helped give me an opportunity.

The taxpayers who paid for those programs didn't know me.

They didn't know what I would eventually accomplish.

They simply believed that educating a young person was worth the investment.

I was that young person.

I have never forgotten that.

Measure AA Should Be the Beginning, Not the End

I support Measure AA.

But if it passes, I don't want the reaction at City Hall to be:

“Great. Property owners took care of the schools.”

No.

Measure AA should be part of the solution.

CCUSD has responsibilities.

The State of California has responsibilities.

Property owners are being asked to contribute.

Culver City government should have a responsibility too.

And the City's recent $42.7 million bond financing makes the question even more important because CCUSD assistance was contemplated in the City's own financing documents.

If we're willing to borrow for affordable housing, streets, sidewalks, parks, trees and other City priorities, then I'm willing to ask:

What are we willing to do for our schools?

My position is straightforward.

I support Measure AA.

I support responsible CCUSD financial management.

I understand the burden taxes place on homeowners and landlords.

I support the City investing more of its own resources in our public schools.

And if I am elected, I will work to make CCUSD a continuing City budget priority—not merely an emergency contribution when the District is already in trouble.

Public education helped change my life.

Now I want Culver City to help provide that same opportunity to the next generation.

Strong schools. A stronger Culver City.

Welcome to The Strange World of Politics.

— Dr. Franklin Carvajal
Candidate for Culver City City Council