I recently came across something that I suspect most Culver City voters have never spent much time thinking about:

The Culver City Public Finance Authority.

I started asking questions.

What is it?

Why does Culver City need it?

Why is Barclays involved?

What are lease revenue bonds?

Why is City property being leased?

Where does the money come from to make the lease payments?

And what happens if Culver City doesn't pay?

Municipal finance can make a relatively understandable transaction sound incredibly complicated. So instead of starting with words like indenture, lease revenue bonds and tax-exempt financing, let's tell a story.

First: What Is the Culver City Public Finance Authority?

The Culver City Public Finance Authority is a governmental financing entity that Culver City can use for certain financing transactions.

In 2026, it became involved in a very substantial one.

On June 8, 2026, the City Council and Public Finance Authority approved documents allowing the Authority to issue Series 2026A and Series 2026B Lease Revenue Bonds, with an authorized combined principal amount not to exceed $48 million.

The documents included a:

Ground Lease

Lease Agreement

Indenture

Purchase Contract

and

Continuing Disclosure Agreement.

That sounds incredibly complicated.

So forget those words for a moment.

Let's tell the story in ordinary English.

Meet the Four Characters

For our simplified story, we need four characters.

1. Culver City

The City wants millions of dollars today to pay for major public projects.

2. Culver City Public Finance Authority

This is the governmental entity used to arrange the financing.

3. Barclays

Barclays is the financial institution that agreed to directly purchase the bonds and provide the money upfront.

4. City Property

City property becomes part of the lease structure supporting the financing.

Now let's put everyone together.

Step 1: Culver City Wants Money Today

Imagine Culver City has a long list of things it wants to accomplish:

Fix infrastructure.

Improve sidewalks.

Repair alleys.

Work on streets.

Improve parks.

Support affordable housing.

These projects cost money.

The City could theoretically wait years while accumulating enough cash to pay for everything.

Or it can borrow money today and repay it over time.

That is essentially what this financing allows Culver City to do.

And this wasn't simply financing for one project.

According to Culver City's own summary of the June 8 meeting, the financing was intended to support priorities including:

• Jubilo Village and other affordable-housing projects

• Infrastructure improvements

• Sidewalks

• Alleys

• Streets and right-of-way improvements

• Parks and recreation improvements

• Other capital projects included in the FY 2026–27 budget

So think of Culver City saying:

"We have a collection of major investments that we want to make now rather than waiting until we accumulate enough cash to pay for all of them."

That's one of the fundamental reasons governments borrow.

Residents can receive the benefit of projects sooner.

But there is another side to that bargain:

Future City budgets inherit the payments.

How Much Money Are We Talking About?

The City authorized an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $48 million.

That does not necessarily mean exactly $48 million was ultimately borrowed.

Shortly afterward, S&P described the planned financing as approximately:

$16 million

Series 2026A — tax-exempt

plus approximately:

$26.6 million

Series 2026B — federally taxable

That's approximately:

$42.6 MILLION

at that stage of the financing process.

S&P assigned the planned bonds an AA- rating with a stable outlook.

Already there is an important lesson for voters:

The amount authorized and the amount ultimately borrowed aren't necessarily the same number.

Step 2: City Property Enters the Story

Here's where municipal finance starts looking strange.

Imagine Culver City already owns a public building.

Let's call it:

CITY PROPERTY A

The City isn't selling City Property A.

But an interest in that property becomes part of the financing structure.

Imagine two boxes:

BOX #1

CITY OF CULVER CITY

BOX #2

CULVER CITY PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY

They are legally distinct entities even though they are closely connected.

The City leases an interest in property to the Public Finance Authority.

Step 3: Then Something Very Strange Happens

The property is leased back to Culver City through the financing arrangement.

A voter might reasonably ask:

"Wait. Culver City already had the property. Why is Culver City now making lease payments involving its own property?"

That confused me too.

The answer is that this isn't an ordinary landlord-tenant relationship.

The lease is part of the borrowing mechanism.

The lease creates the contractual payment structure supporting repayment of the bonds.

Step 4: Barclays Arrives With the Money

Now Barclays enters our story.

The Culver City Public Finance Authority issues bonds.

One of the City's June financing documents specifically described the transaction as:

"Culver City 2026 — Barclays Direct Purchase."

That distinction matters.

This wasn't structured like Culver City putting its newly issued bonds onto Fidelity and asking thousands of investors:

"Franklin, pension funds, investment funds, banks—who wants to buy some Culver City bonds?"

Instead, Barclays was positioned as the direct purchaser.

So follow the money:

BARCLAYS

provides millions of dollars

↓

CULVER CITY PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY

issues the bonds

↓

CULVER CITY

receives the benefit of the financing

↓

JUBILO VILLAGE / AFFORDABLE HOUSING

SIDEWALKS

STREETS

ALLEYS

INFRASTRUCTURE

PARKS AND RECREATION

OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS

can be funded.

That's the attractive part of borrowing.

Culver City gets substantial money today.

But Barclays wants its money back.

Step 5: Where Does Culver City Get the Money to Make the Lease Payments?

This may be the most important part of the story for voters.

The Public Finance Authority doesn't magically create the repayment money.

Barclays doesn't give Culver City money each year so Culver City can repay Barclays.

And the City property involved in the lease doesn't necessarily generate the money.

The money ultimately has to come from legally available City funds budgeted for the lease obligation.

Think of Culver City as having an enormous household budget.

Money comes into the City's financial system from different sources, including things such as:

sales taxes

the City's share of property taxes

business taxes

hotel taxes

fees and charges

permits

and

other governmental revenues.

Not every dollar can necessarily be used for every purpose. Some revenues are legally restricted.

But the basic concept is:

CULVER CITY RECEIVES REVENUE

↓

CITY ADOPTS ITS BUDGET

↓

CITY BUDGETS LEGALLY AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR ITS FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS

↓

CULVER CITY MAKES ITS LEASE PAYMENTS

↓

THOSE PAYMENTS SUPPORT REPAYMENT OF THE BONDS

↓

BARCLAYS RECEIVES WHAT IT IS OWED UNDER THE FINANCING AGREEMENT

Think of It as Money Traveling in Two Directions

This is probably the easiest way to understand the entire transaction.

AT THE BEGINNING:

BARCLAYS

MONEY

↓

PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY

↓

CULVER CITY

↓

PUBLIC PROJECTS

The money is moving toward Culver City.

Then the direction changes.

DURING REPAYMENT:

CULVER CITY BUDGET

MONEY

↓

LEASE PAYMENTS

↓

BOND REPAYMENT STRUCTURE

↓

BARCLAYS

PRINCIPAL + INTEREST

Now money is moving away from Culver City.

And that continues according to the financing documents until the obligation is satisfied.

So Who Really Pays Barclays?

Let's answer that directly.

Culver City does.

That does not necessarily mean Culver City created a new tax specifically to make these payments.

In fact, the City's own June 8 summary described the financing as a way to address community priorities without creating a new tax or voter-approved obligation.

That sounds attractive.

But voters need to understand what that statement does and does not mean.

NO NEW TAX

does not mean

NO COST.

Barclays still expects repayment.

Culver City still has to make the required lease payments.

Those payments still have to come from legally available City funds.

And those payments become obligations affecting future City budgets.

Here's Why That Matters

Imagine Culver City has a certain amount of unrestricted money available in a future year.

There are many competing demands:

Police.

Fire.

Parks.

Trees.

Sidewalks.

Street repairs.

Employees.

Infrastructure.

Programs.

And now:

Debt payments.

If legally available City revenue must be used to satisfy this financing obligation, that money can't simultaneously be spent on some other permissible City purpose.

That's the tradeoff involved in borrowing.

It doesn't make borrowing bad.

A City may borrow money for something that benefits residents for decades.

But:

Borrowing money today means committing future budgets tomorrow.

So What Is the Property Doing in This Story?

Now return to City Property A.

If City revenues ultimately provide the money for the payments, why involve property at all?

Because this is a lease-revenue financing structure.

In simplified form:

CITY PROPERTY

↓

becomes part of the lease financing arrangement

↓

CULVER CITY HAS USE AND BENEFIT OF THE PROPERTY

↓

CULVER CITY AGREES TO MAKE LEASE PAYMENTS

↓

those payments support

↓

REPAYMENT OF THE BONDS

That's why these are called lease revenue bonds.

Is the Property Collateral?

This is where we have to be careful.

A voter might understandably say:

"Okay. Barclays provides the money, Culver City promises to make lease payments, and City property is involved. So if Culver City doesn't pay, Barclays gets the building."

Not automatically.

This shouldn't be thought of exactly like a conventional home mortgage where a homeowner stops paying and the bank eventually forecloses on the house.

The Ground Lease, Lease Agreement, Indenture, Purchase Contract and applicable law establish the rights and remedies available if Culver City fails to perform its obligations.

So don't think:

CULVER CITY MISSES PAYMENT

↓

BARCLAYS GETS CITY PROPERTY

Instead, think:

CULVER CITY HAS CONTRACTUAL PAYMENT OBLIGATIONS

↓

CITY PROPERTY IS PART OF THE LEASE FINANCING STRUCTURE

↓

CULVER CITY DEFAULTS

↓

THE FINANCING DOCUMENTS DETERMINE WHAT LEGAL REMEDIES ARE AVAILABLE

↓

Those remedies may involve enforcement of rights under the lease and related property interests.

That's considerably different from saying Barclays automatically becomes the owner of a City building.

Why Does Barclays Care About the Property and All These Agreements?

Because Barclays isn't providing tens of millions of dollars based on a handshake.

Before providing that money, Barclays wants legally enforceable agreements answering questions such as:

Who owes the money?

When are payments due?

What supports the payments?

What property is involved?

What happens if Culver City doesn't pay?

What legal remedies are available?

That's why a concept that can be summarized as:

"Culver City is borrowing money."

can produce hundreds of pages of legal documents.

What Does "Tax-Exempt" Mean?

Another confusing phrase.

Series 2026A was planned as approximately $16 million of tax-exempt bonds.

Series 2026B was planned as approximately $26.6 million of federally taxable bonds.

Tax-exempt does not mean:

Culver City doesn't pay interest.

The term generally refers to the tax treatment of qualifying interest received by the investor.

That favorable tax treatment can sometimes allow a government borrower to obtain a lower interest rate than an investor would otherwise demand.

So remember:

TAX-EXEMPT

does NOT mean

INTEREST-FREE.

Why Couldn't I Buy Series 2026A on Fidelity?

This question actually helped me understand the transaction.

If Culver City was issuing millions of dollars of municipal bonds, why couldn't I simply log into Fidelity and buy some?

Because this transaction was structured as a direct purchase by Barclays.

A more conventional public offering might look like:

CULVER CITY BONDS

↓

Pension fund buys some

↓

Investment fund buys some

↓

Bank buys some

↓

Individual investor buys some.

This transaction was structured more like:

CULVER CITY PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY

issues bonds

↓

BARCLAYS

directly purchases the bonds.

That's why an ordinary investor shouldn't necessarily expect to have seen the new Series 2026A bonds available for purchase through Fidelity when they were originally issued.

Who Approved All of This?

This is another part voters should know.

The financing wasn't simply arranged by City staff behind the scenes.

It went before the Culver City City Council and Public Finance Authority Board on June 8, 2026.

The bond package passed:

4–1

Voting YES were:

Freddy Puza

Bubba Fish

Yasmine-Imani McMorrin

Dan O'Brien

Voting NO was:

Albert Vera

The Council authorized lease revenue bonds with an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $48 million and approved the major documents necessary for the financing.

According to the City's summary, the Council's discussion included the financing structure, expected debt rating, bond insurance, annual lease payments, administrative costs, affordable housing, infrastructure and the advantages of the Barclays direct purchase.

That vote matters.

Because borrowing money isn't simply a technical financial decision.

It is a policy decision.

Council members are deciding whether receiving money today is worth committing City resources to payments in future years.

Now Explain the Entire Thing to Me in 30 Seconds

Here it is:

CULVER CITY WANTS MONEY TODAY

↓

It uses the Culver City Public Finance Authority to arrange financing.

↓

CITY PROPERTY

becomes part of a lease structure.

↓

The Authority issues bonds.

↓

BARCLAYS

directly purchases the bonds and provides the money.

↓

CULVER CITY

gets financing for:

Jubilo Village and affordable housing

infrastructure

sidewalks

alleys

streets/right-of-way

parks and recreation

other capital projects

↓

Culver City agrees to make lease payments over time.

↓

Those payments must come from legally available City funds budgeted for that obligation.

↓

Those payments support repayment of:

PRINCIPAL + INTEREST

↓

If Culver City defaults, the financing documents determine what legal remedies are available.

↓

Eventually, the financing is paid according to its terms.

That's the basic story.

But There Are Numbers I Still Want

This is where transparency matters.

We know the Council authorized:

UP TO $48 MILLION.

We know S&P subsequently described the planned financing as approximately:

$16 MILLION

Series 2026A tax-exempt

plus

$26.6 MILLION

Series 2026B taxable.

Approximately:

$42.6 MILLION

at that stage.

We know Barclays was the planned direct purchaser.

We know the City approved a Ground Lease, Lease Agreement and Indenture.

We know the financing was intended to support multiple City projects.

And we know the Council approved it 4–1.

But I still want voters to have several additional numbers from the final executed financing:

What was the final amount actually borrowed?

What interest rate did Culver City ultimately agree to?

How much are the annual lease payments?

When is the final payment?

What specific City property is covered by the executed lease?

What exactly happens under the agreements if Culver City defaults?

And perhaps most importantly:

HOW MUCH WILL CULVER CITY ULTIMATELY PAY?

Because if Culver City receives approximately $42.6 million, I don't want voters to know only:

"Culver City borrowed approximately $42.6 million."

I want voters to be able to say:

"Culver City received $X, will make $Y in total payments over Z years, and the difference represents the financing costs associated with getting that money today."

That's how I would want a mortgage explained to me.

That's how I would want a car loan explained to me.

And that's how I think public borrowing should be explained to voters.

The Bigger Lesson

Municipal borrowing isn't automatically good.

It isn't automatically bad.

Borrowing can allow Culver City to build infrastructure today that residents may use for decades.

But every financing involves a basic trade:

MONEY TODAY

in exchange for

PAYMENT OBLIGATIONS TOMORROW.

So the next time Culver City proposes millions of dollars in bonds, don't let words like indenture, ground lease, lease revenue bonds and direct purchase end the conversation.

Ask ordinary questions:

How much are we borrowing?

What are we spending it on?

Who is providing the money?

What interest rate are we paying?

What City property is involved?

How much will we pay each year?

Where will that money come from?

When does the debt end?

What happens if we don't pay?

And finally:

How much will Culver City have paid from beginning to end?

If voters can answer those questions, they understand the economic heart of the transaction.

Everything else is the legal architecture surrounding it.

Welcome to the Strange World of Politics.