City committee hears Measure A funding shortfall and asks for deeper county coordination

Council Member Grama convened a March 5 meeting of Los Angeles City Council members and city staff to discuss the County of Los Angeles’ proposed Measure A funding recommendations and how those proposals would affect homelessness services in the city.

City officials and consultants told the committee the county’s proposed Measure A spending plan prioritizes interim and permanent housing but shows a roughly $35 million drop in available spending for the coming fiscal year. Sarah Solon of HR&A Advisors said the proposed plan is “just over $637,000,000,” compared with roughly $672,000,000 in the prior year, and that the difference is driven by lower sales-tax revenue and schedule changes in one-time funds.

Why it matters: committee members said the city needs clearer detail on how county allocations map to services that reach people living outside and in interim housing. Without that clarity, members said, the city cannot reliably advocate for Los Angeles residents or plan complementary investments.

The consultants and county official Sherry Todoroff, director of the County Homeless Initiative, said the proposed plan places the largest share of funding into interim housing and permanent supportive housing. Solon told the committee the region has been moving more people indoors in recent years — “34% of all unsheltered people moved into interim housing in fiscal year ’23–’24” — but that some support services and prevention funding are reduced in the county’s draft allocation.

Todoroff said the county’s draft recommendations include other funding streams and that the apparent reduction in one line item did not equate to an overall cut to encampment-resolution work: “The county’s budget is actually larger,” she told the committee, and some encampment-resolution funding is included on other schedules outside the single line the committee reviewed.

Council members asked for specific, comparable schedules that show which services would increase or decrease and how one-time funds are being used to smooth year-to-year transitions. Council Member Blumenfield said the net effect is troubling: the city faces both a nominal $35 million reduction in this pot and larger “real-dollar” pressures because contract rates and service costs are rising.

Committee members and staff discussed several data points raised in the consultant briefing: that nearly 20% of city-funded shelter beds are vacant on any given night (as reported by city staff’ data review), that vacancy turnaround for permanent supportive housing often exceeds 90 days, and that a recent month’s effort filled 350 permanent supportive housing units compared with a prior monthly average of about 70.

The committee did not vote on Measure A allocations; the item was an informational update. Members directed the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA), City Administrative Officer (CAO) and HR&A to continue working with county staff, La Casa representatives and regional partners and asked the CLA to return with an updated briefing after the county’s ECRA and La Casa meetings.

Ending: the committee asked for clearer schedules showing which services are funded by Measure A versus other county or one-time sources, and for aggregate service-level metrics the city and county can use to coordinate placements and clinical services across interim and permanent housing.