Culver City Observer -

By Lynne Bronstein

Observer Reporter

The critical lack of funds for new low-cost housing surfaced as a topic of discussion at the City Council meeting Monday night but action was delayed as the Council sought “more information” on proposed solutions.

Since the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agencies of California’s cities in 2012, funds for housing have been limited and Culver City’s housing fund is due to run out by mid-2015.

The Housing Division was historically funded primarily with tax increment deposited into the former Redevelopment Agency Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund (Housing Set Aside Funds).

Housing funds provide assistance for low-income families. 54 families in Culver City may be displaced if there is no program to help them. The fund also assists several hundred homeless people who would no longer have access to these services.

Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld noted that there are “alternatives” in funding. There is of course, the federal Section 8 housing program. But “we won’t have the funds to administrate it.” There are also various grants, such as project-based grant funding which has to be project-specific.

Blumenfeld suggested that the Council consider staff’s proposal of a “linkage fee” (a fee levied on new commercial development). He explained that Culver City has experienced an expansion of commercial development over the last five years, which may have increased the number of employed persons qualifying for assistance under the City’s current housing programs. A Linkage Fee can be used to mitigate the increased demand for such programs.

“[A linkage fee] would fluctuate with development but it could provide funds for affordable housing,” Blumenthal concluded.

Andrew Weissman commented that while “the staff report demonstrates how housing programs have been an integral part of the community,” he also thought that it would be difficult to make any assessments without “more information.” He wanted staff to come back with this information so the Council could make a decision “closer to budget time.”

(The fiscal year 2014-2015 ends in June 2015 at which time the next fiscal year’s budget will be delivered).

Mehaul O’ Leary wondered if housing assistance had always been a “finite” type of funding.

Housing Director Tevis Barnes stated that the funding had always been based on “availability.” As a grim reminder of the statistics of need versus availability, she said that when she came aboard as Housing Director in 2001, “there were 9000 people on the Section 8 waiting list.” Because of this, the city’s housing programs were created.

However, the needy were divided between those who were elderly and or disabled, whose needs were administered to without a wait, and those who were not elderly or disabled, who were to be served “within a five-year time frame.”

Under these guidelines, finite funds were likely to run out by the time some people became eligible for assistance.

Council members came to the conclusion that while housing is a constant need, funding is and always has been, finite, based on sources of money. Without the seemingly constant flow of monies from Redevelopment Agency funds, sources are depleted.

City Manager John Nachbar noted that a “linkage fee” is “a type of development impact fee,” requiring a “nexus study.” (This is an independent economic analysis of the impact of the fee). Since the fee would be based on development that fluctuates, it might not be “helpful.”

Nachbar suggested that the city and Council might look into how money from the General Fund might be implemented.

Thirteen people spoke in public comment about the need for housing but a solution at this time is something that will have to wait.