At the City Council meeting on the evening of Monday, April 14, Action Item 1 (A1) called for an all-mail election to determine whether a 0.25 percent sales increase should be implemented.
After some comments from the council (though very few from the public), all of the appropriate elements were passed.
Part 1 read, “Adoption of an Ordinance Authorizing the City to Conduct an All-Mail Ballot Election on August 26, 2025.” That passed unanimously, as did part 2: “Adoption of a Resolution Declaring a Fiscal Emergency Pursuant to Article XIII C of the Constitution of the State of California; Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding a Special All-Mail Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, August 26, 2025 for the Purpose of Submitting to the Voters One Ordinance to Enact a Local Transactions and Use Tax (Sales Tax) Measure; and Directing the City Attorney to Prepare an Impartial Analysis of the Ballot Measure.”
Part 3 passed unanimously: “Adoption of a Resolution Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles Render Specified Services Related to the Conduct of Said Election.”
Council Member Yasmine-Imani McMorrin abstained from part 4, though it still passed 4-0. “Discussion and (If Desired) Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing and Giving Priority to the City Council and/or Certain Council Members to Submit Ballot Arguments (Primary and Rebuttal) Regarding the Ballot Measure.” The chosen council members were Mayor Dan O’Brien and Vice Mayor Freddy Puza.
Part 5 wasn’t necessary due to the passing of part 4. Part 6 saw $540,000 appropriated from the general fund for election costs, and that passed unanimously, as did part 7 which approved an agreement with Hart Intercivic for election services. Part 8, which also passed unanimously, authorized the City Manager to approve other election-related agreements.
The sales tax increase will now go on the August ballot as the city attempts to ease the potential economic crisis that it faces.
Action Item 2 called for, “ Consideration of Public Input on the Future Use of the City-owned Property at 11029 Washington Boulevard.”
Members of the public had their say, with many people suggesting that the City should recoup whatever it can by selling the property, again in an attempt to bring in some much needed cash. That was punted for further discussion.
Action Item 3 was a hot topic, calling for “Adoption of an Interim Ordinance Establishing a Tenant Right to Counsel Program for a Period of 12-Months.”
The argument made is that landlords tend to be higher earners than tenants and therefore have more access to legal services in the cases of evictions, and that a Right to Counsel program is appropriate during the state of emergency caused by the recent fires. Some public speakers agreed, while others argued that landlords are often punished simply for wanting rent to be paid.
“Access to safe, secure, and affordable housing is essential to achieving equal access to other fundamental needs,” read the staff note. “A lack of access to legal representation discourages tenants from challenging unlawful evictions and asserting their rights, contributing to the disruption of families and communities, and to homelessness… The purpose of adopting the Tenant Right to Counsel Program is to provide Culver City tenants with access to legal representation in eviction proceedings subject to the availability of funding and annual budget appropriations.”
Perhaps surprisingly, that item failed to pass. The vote went 2-2, with McMorrin and Council Member Bubba Fish voting yes, Mayor O’Brien and Council Member Albert Vera voting no, and Vice Mayor Puza abstaining.