Council approves 12‑month extensions for HOPWA contracts after public criticism and controller audit concerns
Loading...
Summary
The Los Angeles City Council approved a 12‑month extension of three HOPWA contracts and related funding after public commenters and the city controller’s audit criticized program management and alleged conflicts of interest; staff described funding levels and proposed a management assessment steering committee.
The Los Angeles City Council on May 1999 approved a motion to extend three Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) contracts for 12 months and continue associated services, a measure supporters said would avoid service disruption for program clients.
Councilmember Hernandez and other members moved the item after extended public comment accusing the HOPWA administration of poor transparency and possible conflicts. The council approved the motion in a roll-call vote (clerk announced 12 ayes). Gary Penny, called to address questions, told the council the three contract extensions would provide short‑term rent subsidies and supportive services for the next year. “These 3 contracts would extend the services for a year,” Penny said, listing a proposed short‑term rent total of “$5,100,000.0” and supportive‑services funding of “$3,100,000.”
Why it matters: HOPWA funds assist people with AIDS who are at risk of homelessness; public speakers argued the program’s management problems had worsened housing instability for a vulnerable population and that a city controller audit raised questions about conflicts of interest.
During public comment Morris Kite and another speaker pressed the council to take the controller’s audit seriously. The public commenter summarized the critique: “We found out 2 years ago there were $16,000,000 unspent. We now have something like $17,000,000 unspent,” and said repeated requests for basic financial reports had gone unanswered. That commenter also said the quarterly requalification cited by the department was a city policy rather than a HUD requirement.
City staff responded that the earlier three‑month extensions required agencies to resubmit budgets and caused a one‑day disruption while budgets were adjusted; staff said the year extension provides certainty to contracted agencies and to clients. Martie Lehi, who identified herself as the HOPWA coordinator, told the council the three‑month verification requires clients to complete a one‑page form verifying residence and aiding case management, and she stated explicitly that “It is not a HUD requirement. It is a city contractual requirement.”
Councilmember Wax said he was concerned by the criticisms raised and urged an independent assessment rather than simply accepting the status quo. City staff proposed using $200,000 becoming available in July to fund a management assessment and evaluation and to form a steering committee that would include the City Administrative Officer, controller, Housing Department, and community representatives so findings would be available before the council takes further action.
The council approved the extension forthwith. Next steps noted in the meeting record: staff will develop the proposed management assessment and steering committee and return with a detailed plan and community input before further policy changes are enacted.
