Committee probes FY25–26 homeless-services budget as city, LASA and county funding shift

Los Angeles City Council budget committee members spent several hours reviewing the mayor’s proposed FY25–26 budget for homelessness response, pressing city budget analysts and the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LASA) on bed counts, county reimbursements and administrative capacity. The committee heard that the city is counting newly established motel and program beds toward obligations set by the Alliance settlement but that the city will still carry the up‑front costs and faces a shortfall in administrative staffing.

Committee members said the item matters because the city’s approach affects how many people are housed, how quickly beds and services appear, and which city and county dollars will cover ongoing costs. Councilmember Roman, chair of the council’s homelessness committee, framed the discussion: “Tenemos 5 áreas principales de respuesta” — prevention, short‑term shelter including portfolio hotels, permanent housing, subsidized units and hygiene services — and asked how the proposed budget would preserve capacity across those areas.

City budget staff told the committee the homeless‑services budget rests on large general‑fund support plus multiple other revenue lines. The administration said the proposed FY25–26 package includes roughly $300 million in general‑fund support for homelessness programs and relies on a mix of 20–25 additional sources (grants, special funds and anticipated county reimbursements). Staff reported the city is counting about 13,140 beds against the Alliance obligation; of 12,900 beds the city considers in its obligation pool, roughly 11,000 are currently open or in service and about 3,100 fall under the county reimbursement cap cited by staff.

Officials cautioned that counting motel and reserved‑room agreements as Alliance‑eligible reduces the city’s projected net cost only when reimbursements arrive. As one presenter explained to the committee, “pagamos por adelantado los servicios y basándonos en nuestros informes trimestrales presentados al tribunal, nosotros seríamos reembolsados por un total de 259000000 de dólares,” and the city expects an initial flow of reimbursements but also expects a six‑month lag between spending and county reimbursement.

Council members pressed for detail on three recurring and intersecting problems: (1) bed accounting and the Alliance deadline in mid‑2027, (2) which beds and services are eligible for county reimbursement and when those dollars will arrive, and (3) reductions in staffing and contracted outreach tied to proposed cuts. Members asked for written memoranda and line‑item reports showing which specific motel, hotel and permanent units are being counted, the projected reimbursement timeline, and the administration’s plan to avoid interruptions in services.

Key program details discussed - Bed counts and Alliance compliance: Staff said the budget treats a set of motel reservations, Insight Safe placements and newly funded motel acquisitions as part of the city’s Alliance compliance portfolio. Staff reported roughly 11,000 beds currently open/occupiable, with about 3,100 beds counted against the county reimbursement cap. City accounting assumes the city will pay up‑front and seek county reimbursements; staff noted the city expects roughly $39 million in county reimbursements for FY25–26 but warned those reimbursements will lag actual spending. - Insight Safe and Mayfair: Committee members discussed Insight Safe operations, Mayfair management and the proposal to move some operating costs from one funding line into the general fund while continuing to treat the site operationally as part of Insight Safe. Committee members asked for a budget memorandum that shows the FY24–25 carryover, the FY25–26 proposed amount for Insight Safe, and how Mayfair operating costs are allocated across funding sources. - Motel and acquisition beds: Staff said Highland Gardens (72 rooms) and a site called Maryville are included in the count, and that roughly 500 additional beds were “in progress” at the time of the presentation. Members asked for a bed‑by‑bed appendix identifying county‑reimbursable beds vs. city‑only beds. - Outreach and hygiene services staffing: Councilmembers noted proposed reductions to outreach positions and hygiene staffing. The administration confirmed reductions to several outreach teams (Care/Outreach teams and some “roadmap” teams), and LASA and city staff warned reduced outreach capacity would slow placements into available beds.

LASA and county transition The committee also heard from LASA leadership about an accelerating county‑to‑city funding transition. LASA’s representatives said they are engaging in transition planning because Measure A and other county actions have moved some program funding and operations back toward county control. LASA told the committee it receives many different funding streams and that an estimated administrative funding gap would emerge when county responsibilities and funds shift. LASA and councilmembers requested several follow‑up documents: a breakdown of LASA administrative costs, an explanation of how Measure A and other county funding will be applied to LASA functions, and a list of positions at LASA that are funded by county vs. city or grant sources.

What the committee directed staff to produce Committee members asked for multiple memoranda and reports before any final budget vote. Requests included: a detailed, itemized bed inventory showing which beds are counted toward Alliance obligations and which are county‑reimbursable; a timeline and dollar schedule for expected county reimbursements; a breakdown of Insight Safe and Mayfair operating costs and how they map to general fund, ERF or Insight Safe budget lines; a list of outreach and hygiene positions proposed for reduction with an assessment of service impacts by council district; and an analysis of LASA administrative funding needs and the effects of the county’s funding shift.

Why this matters to residents The committee’s questions reflect three civic risks: 1) timing risk — the city must fund beds now and wait months for county reimbursements; 2) service‑continuity risk — cuts to outreach, hygiene and contract monitoring could slow placements from street outreach into available beds; and 3) fiscal risk — counting beds as Alliance‑compliant reduces projected net cost only if reimbursement rules and the county’s commitments hold. Committee members repeatedly returned to the practical question of how many beds will be available to people living on the street, and how quickly staff can place people into them.

What’s next The committee left the hearing with staff and LASA committed to provide several detailed memoranda and data tables. Members asked that those materials be delivered quickly so the council can evaluate adjustments before adopting final budget language. No formal votes on budget amendments were taken at the hearing.

Ending note Councilmembers praised staff and LASA for the volume of work and for improving bed‑availability reporting, while emphasizing that administrative capacity, staffing and clear, auditable bed lists will determine whether the budget as proposed achieves the city’s Alliance obligations and provides stable services to people experiencing homelessness.