Committee presses for clearer Measure A spending plan, approves oversight and reporting motions

A City Council homelessness committee on March 5 discussed draft spending recommendations for Measure A, approved several procedural motions and directed staff to produce reports and a short‑term oversight structure to improve coordination and contracting for homelessness services.

The committee’s discussion focused on how the county’s proposed distribution of Measure A funds could reduce local funding for prevention, outreach and navigation services even as allocations for interim and permanent housing rise. Committee members and county representatives warned those shifts could make it harder to reach the measure’s goals without improved data, contracting changes and stronger coordination between the city and the county.

Committee member Monica Rodríguez introduced a motion asking the City Administrative Officer (CLA), with assistance from the chief operating officer and the Department of Housing, to report on how the city could directly contract with service providers now funded through LAHSA and other regional agreements. The committee approved that request in a voice/roll call vote: three in favor, zero opposed, two absent.

The committee also approved a separate motion to establish a time‑limited performance office inside the Department of Housing to monitor outcomes, coordinate cross‑agency data and speed placements into housing. The motion advanced after members cited vacancy rates and long fill times for units, and it passed on a 3–0 vote with two absences.

Item 8 — a request to use Proposition 1 funds for mental‑health beds — was modified during the meeting. The amendment changed the original request (which referenced 48 beds) to a smaller option (16 beds) based on a waiver or availability issue; the committee approved the item as modified, 3–0, two absent.

Votes at a glance - Consent: Items 2, 3, 4 and 5 — Approved by consent (3–0; two members absent). - Item 6: Request CLA report on direct contracting with providers and analysis of current LASHA/contracting arrangements — Approved (3–0; two absent). - Item 7: Establish a time‑limited performance office within the Department of Housing to monitor contracts and placement outcomes — Approved (3–0; two absent). - Item 8: Modify Proposition 1 funding request (originally 48 beds) to an option of 16 beds; approve as modified — Approved (3–0; two absent).

Why it matters Measure A is the new regional funding stream intended to support homeless response and housing production; committee members said the city faces about a $35 million reduction in available funding year over year and that some proposals shift money away from prevention, outreach and navigation toward housing production. Members repeatedly stressed that the city and county must align metrics, contracting and data sharing if they are to meet Measure A’s ambitious targets.

Details and committee concerns City staff and the county representative said the county’s draft plan targets a larger share of funds to interim and permanent housing and reduces, or reallocates, certain outreach and prevention buckets. Shery, identified at the meeting as a representative of the county homelessness initiative, told the committee the county is balancing a shortfall of roughly $35 million in projected revenues and described tradeoffs between sustaining outreach services and ramping up housing production.

City staff noted that as many as 20 percent of beds are vacant on any given day and that newly opened permanent units can take well over 90 days to fill. Committee members and staff said those performance gaps justify the proposed short‑term office to track placements, vacancy rates and provider performance, and to convene city and county partners regularly.

Contracting, accountability and data Councilmember Monica Rodríguez, who brought forward the request for a CLA report, said frustration with LAHSA contracting processes and delays had motivated the motion. John Wickham, identified in the meeting as CLA staff working on contracting and procurement, was named to lead the analysis. The requested report will examine opportunities and risks of having the city contract directly with service providers now under regional or LAHSA contracts; the motion asked that the report describe possible losses or gains from shifting contracting authority.

County and city officials asked for more time and coordination to complete the data analysis before firm recommendations are finalized. County and city presenters said multiple funding sources and one‑time state or federal dollars complicate a single, consolidated picture of total resources for camp resolution and other services. The county representative said some camp resolution funding comes from sources outside Measure A and that a full accounting appears in the county’s materials.

Public comment Several public speakers urged faster action on services and criticized the city’s response to unhoused residents. Comments included calls for on‑site hearings at shelters and requests for more prevention resources; some public comments were disruptive and used profanity. Committee leadership reminded speakers to stay on topic and enforce time limits.

What the motions require next The CLA report (item 6) and the performance‑office plan (item 7) will return to the committee for further review. Committee members asked for coordination with the county and for the CLA and county initiative staff to present updated analyses and recommended metrics in coming weeks so that the executive committee and supervisors can consider final funding allocations before March 25, the county’s stated timeline for its recommendations.

No final funding allocations for Measure A were adopted by the committee at this meeting; the session produced direction, a request for staff analysis and a temporary oversight structure to guide next steps.