Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness Emergency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City Council approves amendment to homelessness emergency instructions and moves to continue emergency status
Summary
The Los Angeles City Council voted to approve an amendment (22A) adding deadlines and reporting requirements tied to the city's homelessness emergency and voted to continue the emergency declaration; the debate focused on what changes, if any, would be required if the emergency expired.
The Los Angeles City Council on May 27 approved an amendment to a motion tied to the city's homelessness emergency and voted to continue the emergency declaration, with the council recording a 13-1 vote in favor of the amended motion.
Councilmember Bob Bloomenfield presided over a long discussion about whether the council should end the emergency status or instead adopt changes to ensure services and payments would continue if the declaration expired. Councilmember McCusker led calls for a fuller review of the budget memoranda describing what would change if the emergency ended and pressed staff to explain the operational implications for city departments.
The amendment approved as "22A" (introduced during debate) instructs the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA) and the City Administrative Officer (CAO) to provide specified recommendations and timeline information (the authors asked for responses within 30 days), and adds reporting steps the council said are necessary before any termination of the emergency. John Wickham of the CLA addressed the council and summarized the legal framework, saying the administrative code permits the council to end the emergency at any time but that staff reports would clarify the operational and payment implications.
Supporters of the amendment, including Councilmembers Padilla and Raman, said the change was intended to reduce unintended consequences if the emergency ended, such as delays in paying motel providers and the need to seek approvals from other boards to continue using city sites for interim shelter. Critics, including Councilmember McCusker, said that after more than two years of emergency extensions the council should consider whether the city's regular operations have absorbed emergency work and whether the council could resume a non-emergency governance posture; McCusker said he would vote against extending the emergency even as he supported the narrower amendment.
Councilmembers repeatedly asked staff to identify differences in procurement, payment timelines and approvals for use of park and recreation property under an active emergency versus routine operations. Councilmembers noted the renewal cycle runs on 90-day intervals and that 22A adds a 30-day reporting/instruction path to produce information before the next renewal deadline.
The vote to approve the amendment and to continue the city's homelessness emergency was recorded as 13 in favor and 1 opposed. Councilmembers emphasized that the amendment was designed to create clearer, time-bound reporting and mitigate risks to interim shelter operations if the council later decided to end the emergency.
The action returns staff-level tasks to the CLA and CAO for short-term reports and positions the council to revisit the emergency at future votes as required by the administrative code.
The council moved next to other items on the agenda, including a related package of motions and amendments that were also considered during the same session.
