Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Project Home Key topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee presses for 'all‑in' PHK costs and faster tenant placement as Home Key conversions lag
Summary
CEO and CAO staff told the committee many Project Home Key sites still face financing or rehab gaps that delay conversion to permanent supportive housing; members asked for compiled 'all‑in' per-unit costs and for operational changes to reduce an average 60‑day vacancy turnaround.
City staff from the CEO’s and CAO’s offices told the Housing and Homelessness Committee that Project Home Key projects across three rounds face different challenges and that the city will report more complete cost and occupancy figures.
Ed Gibson of the CEO’s office said Home Key 1 projects were largely interim housing that many providers have since worked to convert to permanent supportive housing, Home Key 2 prioritized acquisitions that would go directly to permanent housing, and Home Key 3—administered by the Los Angeles Housing Department—focused on interim housing. He said conversion and financing challenges remain, notably obtaining section 8 project-based vouchers and filling operating‑fund gaps.
Councilmember Blumenfield asked whether a back‑of‑the‑envelope per‑unit calculation he produced—about $169,000 per unit for Home Key 1, roughly $43,000 for Home Key 2 and about $388,000 for Home Key 3—accurately represented ‘all‑in’ costs. Gibson said those figures are not yet compiled as a single authoritative all‑in estimate and that the CAO and the housing department will gather detailed acquisition, rehab and conversion costs and report back.
Committee members also raised operational concerns. Staff said permanent supportive housing units take roughly 60 days on average to fill after a vacancy and described efforts to shorten that time by addressing documentation gaps, improving coordination among providers and expediting procedural bottlenecks in the coordinated entry system. Councilmembers requested a future presentation identifying resolved and remaining procedural barriers and any changes that have demonstrably reduced turnaround times.
Members pressed whether due diligence failures—such as unanticipated ADA, electrical or utility work—are producing recurring budget increases. Staff acknowledged that the scope of rehab can vary widely and that unforeseen remediation can raise project costs; they said HACLA and city departments performed due diligence roles at different points across rounds and that improved coordination has reduced but not eliminated surprise costs. The committee voted to note and file the CAO reports and asked staff to return with consolidated all‑in cost estimates and a clearer accounting of who performs which due diligence steps.
