City committee warns HAP‑6 shortfall could force cuts to access centers; votes to include housing department in planning

The Los Angeles City Council committee on Homelessness and Housing voted June 1 to instruct city staff to include the Department of Housing (LHD) in planning for the state HAP/hub 6 grant and to pursue measures to address cash‑flow and service continuity concerns after staff briefed members on an uncertain funding outlook and low utilization at several access centers.

The committee action followed extended questioning from Councilmembers about whether LASA and contracted providers have sufficient staff and whether the city should advance cash to cover services pending county or state reimbursements. Committee members flagged several access centers with unusually low recorded contacts and asked staff to develop a plan that balances data, community need and provider stability.

Why it matters: Staff and LASA testified that the city faces an uncertain HAP‑6 allocation and reimbursement timeline; without additional funds or a county agreement to advance cash, the city could be asked to reduce or end time‑limited supports that currently fund access centers, interim beds and rental subsidies. Several councilmembers warned those cuts would reduce on‑the‑ground help and could increase street homelessness.

City staff told the committee that the county and the city continue negotiations about using Measure A funds to help bridge cash‑flow gaps. LASA staff said submissions for county reimbursement are complex and require ledger and invoice details that have slowed processing. Staff also said the county has offered a smaller advance than earlier discussed and that the total county/city funding package under negotiation has declined in recent rounds.

Committee debate and staff answers

Councilmember Bloomenfield repeatedly pressed staff on utilization numbers for access centers and said the figures as presented were alarming. He described examples from the presentation and from providers: "We are paying full salaries to keep sites open and, basically, throwing money away" (Councilmember Bloomenfield). He asked why some access centers showed averages of fewer than 10 client contacts per month despite having funded staff positions.

LASA and city staff answered that reporting problems and enrollment practices can hide the full volume of service‑level contacts. LASA noted that many people who visit access centers do not consent to having their data recorded in the central system (HMS), so counts understate actual foot traffic and informal service connections. LASA also acknowledged multi‑year staff shortages at some sites and COVID‑era hiring challenges that depressed recorded activity.

Staff presented options for tightening contracts, offering six‑month bridge funding, or modifying hours of operation, and said they will meet with individual providers starting the first week of July to develop site‑specific transition plans. Councilmember Jurado urged caution about abrupt closures: "Several of the programs in my district are critical — these centers are part of the pathway out of homelessness" (Councilmember Jurado).

Cash flow and reimbursements

City staff said the city has not yet received full reimbursements for prior years and that the total of potentially eligible reimbursements stands at roughly $32.6 million, citing the quarterly report. Staff said 1,682 interim beds were open at the time of the report (540 hotel reservation agreements, 653 occupancy agreements, and 489 other interim units) and that the city has billed for a portion of those but is still working with LASA and county partners to reconcile ledgers.

Staff explained a current county offer would reduce the earlier proposed advance; the committee heard that proposed advances had decreased in successive negotiations (an initial larger proposal, later reduced to a smaller figure, and further adjustments under discussion). The city is evaluating whether to provide a limited short‑term cash advance to LASA pending county payments, but members repeatedly warned that an advance carries fiscal and programmatic risk unless accompanied by clearer county commitments and stronger data controls.

Committee action and next steps

The committee voted to capture and implement a set of instructions discussed during the meeting, including: formally including LHD in HAP‑6/hub 6 planning; directing staff to work with providers on six‑month transition plans where needed; and returning to the committee with a proposal that responds to both provider continuity and fiscal risk concerns. The roll call recorded three affirmative votes (Member Romen, Councilmember Jurado and Councilmember Bloomenfield) and the item passed.

Staff said they will produce a written package that summarizes provider‑level utilization data, proposed contract terms for any ramp‑down and the city’s options for advancing cash while seeking county reimbursement timelines. LASA and the city said they will also collaborate on a joint public message for providers and clients about service continuity.

Public comment and context

Public commenters included providers and residents who highlighted the importance of access centers and interim beds and urged the committee to avoid abrupt closures. A Downtown Women’s Center representative, Thea, thanked the city for a separate grant and urged support for emergency voucher work: "Nationally, 75 percent of people who receive these vouchers are women ... these vouchers help people with complex needs" (Thea, Downtown Women’s Center). Several commenters described on‑the‑ground impacts of service loss in Spanish.

What the committee did not decide: The committee did not approve a city cash advance amount at this meeting; members asked staff to return with a more detailed plan that addresses accounting, county commitments and provider impacts.

Ending: Staff scheduled follow‑up meetings with providers starting the first week of July and said a written recommendation for next committee action will be returned soon.