Committee reviews Measure A formulas and $1.04 billion homelessness spending picture; seeks municipal implementation steps

The Los Angeles City Council Homelessness and Housing Committee on Jan. 29 received a county presentation on Measure A implementation options and a city Office of the Chief Operating Officer briefing on homelessness spending and operational capacity.

County staff described Measure A as an annual revenue source projected at roughly $1.07 billion; about 60% of the services category flows to comprehensive services while a portion is set aside for local solutions. "The local solutions fund is estimated at roughly $96 million to allocate across cities and unincorporated areas," said Onyder Williams, a county initiative staffer. County staff presented several allocation formulas (multiyear PET, recent-year PET, student-homelessness proxies and incentive-based variants) and emphasized tradeoffs: formulas that favor larger jurisdictions provide more money to cities such as Los Angeles and Long Beach, while other formulas shift funds toward smaller cities and unincorporated areas.

City staff delivered a high-level fiscal review of homelessness spending across programs: the committee was shown an approximate $1.04 billion total in the FY24-25 homelessness portfolio, which staff broke into roughly $337 million in general funds and $623 million in special or restricted funds. City presenters said the portfolio currently funds three primary categories of interventions: outreach/engagement, interim/temporary housing and permanent housing. The briefing included program-level examples such as Inside Safe hotel/motel agreements, Bridge Home and HomeKey acquisitions.

The city highlighted near-term fiscal and operational constraints: some county funding streams that helped support interim housing will phase down after existing agreements expire, and the city will need to cover operational costs to keep some units open if county reimbursements do not continue. "We are facing a gap in FY25-26 that will require identifying funds or reducing program scale," a city presenter said. Staff also said administrative capacity to monitor performance and evaluate outcomes is limited and recommended creating a more dedicated evaluation and oversight function.

Committee members asked about timing and municipal actions required to participate in Measure A allocations. County staff said jurisdictions need to provide preferences and work with the county on a formula timeline and that the county expects jurisdictions to have baseline metrics in place by April to meet allocation timelines ahead of a July first distribution. "These funds are local and we recommend a multi-year baseline to stabilize planning," county staff said during the presentation.

Members requested additional analysis comparing Measure H and Measure A funding streams, a clearer municipal position on priorities for local-solution dollars, and a plan to shore up the operating costs for beds that may lose county support. City and county staff agreed to continue outreach and to return with more-detailed allocations, implementation timelines and recommended municipal metrics. The committee did not take any final policy votes on Measure A formulas during the meeting.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to continue item 7 (administrative/agenda item): passed 3-0 (yes: Member Romen; Councilmember Bloomenfield; Councilmember Jurado; absent: Councilmember Price; Councilmember Nazarian).