[1:29] Okay, ready? Thank you all for

[1:32] your patience and welcome to

[1:35] our meeting of the Housing and

[1:36] Homelessness Committee. Today

[1:37] is August 5th. I'm joined by my

[1:40] colleagues, council members

[1:42] Blumenfield, McCosker and Hutt.

[1:44] If you could call the roll,

[1:45] Miss Jen. Yes, madam chair.

[1:49] Madam chair Raman, I am here.

[1:55] Madam, Council member

[1:57] Blumenfield present, Council

[2:00] member Hutt here. Council

[2:03] member McCosker here. Four

[2:06] members present and a quorum.

[2:08] Madam chair. Great. And welcome

[2:11] to Miss Girardeau as well. Here.

[2:15] Great. Thank you so much. So,

[2:18] thank you everyone. Today we

[2:20] have 12 items to consider on

[2:22] the agenda, but it should. Okay.

[2:27] I just wanted to, I know

[2:29] there's going to be a change in

[2:31] this committee. There was a

[2:32] motion put forward in city

[2:33] council which will bifurcate

[2:35] this committee again, one

[2:36] focused on housing and the

[2:37] other on homelessness and

[2:39] health, which is similar to the

[2:41] structure that was there before,

[2:45] 2022. I'm not sure of all the

[2:48] changes and who's going to be

[2:49] on what committee, but I really

[2:51] did want to take an opportunity

[2:52] to thank every member of this

[2:54] committee for all the work that

[2:56] we've done over the last few

[2:57] years. It's really been a lot.

[3:01] Councilmember Blumenfield and I

[3:02] have been on this committee

[3:03] longest, but all of you have

[3:04] been on board for some really,

[3:06] really big changes, including

[3:07] passing some really big tenant

[3:10] protections in the city,

[3:12] changing how much our rent

[3:15] stabilized units can increase

[3:17] their rent. We've streamlined

[3:20] mixed income and affordable

[3:21] housing development. We've put

[3:23] forward lots of money for

[3:25] eviction, defense and

[3:25] affordable housing and

[3:27] preservation. And on the

[3:28] homelessness front, for the

[3:29] very first time here in the

[3:31] city of Los Angeles, we

[3:32] actually have brought greater

[3:33] accountability and data

[3:35] transparency. So a question

[3:36] that was asked over and over

[3:38] again, which is where is our

[3:39] money going and what is it

[3:41] doing? And using that data,

[3:42] which is now available for

[3:43] every month, repeated. And it

[3:47] is overseen by the Cao and the

[3:51] Homeless strategy Committee and

[3:53] used to actually make our

[3:54] system better. We've filled

[3:57] hundreds of empty beds,

[3:59] bringing our shelter beds from

[4:00] being, empty to now being only

[4:04] 6% empty, 94% full. On any

[4:06] given night, we've filled

[4:08] permanent supportive housing

[4:09] units that we were building

[4:10] through H.h.h. They used to be

[4:13] 72% full. Now they're over 90.

[4:16] We've made sure every Eehv

[4:19] voucher was used that we got

[4:20] from the Biden administration

[4:23] and housed thousands of people

[4:25] when we had fallen far behind

[4:27] on using those vouchers. And we

[4:29] ensured that people who were

[4:31] housed and dealing with

[4:33] potentially enormous funding

[4:34] clips during a really, really

[4:37] unpredictable environment,

[4:38] we're able to stay housed,

[4:40] including people who lost time

[4:41] limited subsidy vouchers. This

[4:44] committee's work actually

[4:45] ensured that they were able to

[4:46] stay housed. So I really want

[4:47] to lift up the work that we've

[4:49] done. I know there's a lot more

[4:51] to do. And I look forward to

[4:54] seeing how this council takes

[4:55] it on over the coming years.

[4:57] The agenda items today are

[5:00] fairly straightforward. We have

[5:01] a number of reappointments of

[5:03] people to the rent adjustment.

[5:05] That's items one through four.

[5:08] Item five is an agreement with

[5:11] a provider, to give us real

[5:14] estate and property ownership

[5:16] data for, for the housing

[5:19] department. And that's to

[5:22] essentially implement the Scap,

[5:24] the so and just cause ordinance

[5:27] program, among others. Item six

[5:29] is amending loan agreements for

[5:31] the Avalon Terrace and Nicolet

[5:34] Apartments. We're going to be

[5:35] able to use this change to keep

[5:38] those units affordable into the

[5:39] future, which is very exciting.

[5:41] Item seven is a temporary

[5:43] staffing services contract for

[5:45] enforcement operations under

[5:47] the. So Just Cause and Tenant

[5:50] anti-harassment ordinance,

[5:51] housing codes. Because there

[5:53] are still some vacancies at the

[5:54] housing department. Item eight

[5:56] is a motion from Councilmember

[5:59] Gerardo about Careplus

[6:01] operations during areas during

[6:03] times of environmental

[6:05] emergencies. Item nine is

[6:07] another motion from Council

[6:09] member Colorado, reporting on

[6:11] the handiwork or program that

[6:12] can provide support for senior

[6:14] citizens, with smoke, dealing

[6:17] with smoke remediation issues.

[6:18] Item ten is a motion from

[6:22] Council Member Rodriguez and

[6:24] Councilmember Blumenfield to

[6:25] report on the impacts of the

[6:27] county's Department of Homeless

[6:28] Services and Housing, becoming

[6:30] the lead of the region's

[6:31] continuum of care and Rs. In

[6:34] item 11 is a verbal update

[6:36] about the Emergency Housing

[6:37] Voucher program, which was

[6:40] about to see a funding cliff.

[6:42] We've managed to make sure that

[6:43] people who have those vouchers

[6:44] are able to stay housed, so

[6:46] we're just providing a positive

[6:48] update here. And finally, a

[6:51] discussion item about the

[6:52] continuum of care Nofo and some

[6:55] changes from HUD that will

[6:56] impact our city's ability to

[6:58] get funds potentially. And an

[7:00] update from our partners at

[7:01] LAHSA, the CLA and others

[7:03] across the city on that. So

[7:04] with that, we can move to

[7:06] public comment. So if you'd

[7:08] like to provide us our

[7:10] instructions, we have our

[7:11] Spanish interpreter here. Hello.

[7:14] And to members of the public,

[7:16] you'll be provided your

[7:18] guidance to members of the

[7:20] public. When it is your turn to

[7:21] speak, please state the name

[7:23] you signed up under. Which of

[7:24] the agenda items you would like

[7:26] to speak on, and or whether you

[7:28] would like to provide general

[7:29] public comment. You have one

[7:31] minute per item, up to two

[7:33] minutes total for items on the

[7:35] agenda and one minute for

[7:36] general public comment. If you

[7:38] wish for a maximum speaking

[7:40] time of up to three minutes per

[7:42] person, please speak to the

[7:44] agenda items before beginning.

[7:46] General public comment. We will

[7:48] inform you when your time is up.

[7:50] When speaking on the agenda

[7:52] items, you must be on topic.

[7:53] When providing general public

[7:55] comment. You must only speak on

[7:57] items that are under the

[7:58] subject matter jurisdiction of

[8:00] this committee. Our goal is to

[8:02] get through as many speakers as

[8:03] we can. If you are not speaking

[8:05] on topic or if we cannot tell

[8:07] whether you are on topic,

[8:08] you'll get one brief warning

[8:10] from me or from the committee

[8:11] chair. If you do not

[8:13] immediately get clearly on

[8:14] topic, or if you stray off

[8:15] topic, you will forfeit the

[8:17] rest of your time. And we will.

[8:19] And we will move on to the next

[8:21] speaker. Thank you. Great. So

[8:23] if anyone wants to make public

[8:25] comment, please move to the

[8:27] left hand side of the chambers.

[8:29] And Sergeant will direct you to

[8:32] the podium. So my name is

[8:38] Kenneth Michael. Sorry, your,

[8:41] what items are you speaking on

[8:42] today? The homeless,

[8:44] everything's relevant. And, I

[8:48] don't understand why you,

[8:50] deleted my one on 711. You gave

[8:53] me no warning, so it

[8:55] contradicts. So go ahead. You

[8:56] have two minutes. Okay, well,

[9:03] 7-Eleven. You deleted my

[9:04] statement, which tells me you

[9:06] don't work for the people, but

[9:07] the hierarchy of your system

[9:10] that screams communism. There

[9:12] are dangerous times we are

[9:14] living in. And if you can't

[9:16] even research without being

[9:18] attacked, like myself, because

[9:20] I got a punch and I fell on a

[9:23] fence, almost. Excuse me.

[9:25] Speaker, please stay on topic

[9:27] to what this committee deals

[9:28] with homelessness and housing.

[9:29] I'm trying to expose your lies.

[9:35] Without being attacked, by your

[9:38] cartel, the police, all you,

[9:41] your smith-mundt act is the

[9:43] only thing that saves you. And

[9:46] the news you spread and

[9:49] misinformation. Because I see

[9:50] police bus covering up, things

[9:54] that you're trying to hide out

[9:56] in a community that's trying to

[9:58] survive and working together

[10:01] because you left us on the side

[10:03] of the road, and you just look

[10:05] and drive past us every minute.

[10:08] Like ultimate, 1 billion, $700,

[10:15] and, it goes to the mayor's

[10:18] fund, $1 billion, 700 million.

[10:23] And that goes to a spa, a

[10:26] different spa. AM I speaking on

[10:28] subject? Your your police cover

[10:32] up? I say you are incompetent.

[10:38] You need to leave now. Call the

[10:41] National Guard. You do not know

[10:43] what you're doing. Your system,

[10:45] your AI systems. I went through

[10:48] epic Eleanor through the

[10:51] healthcare system. And, I, last,

[10:56] statement I did on 711. I like

[10:59] to, I can, I, can I finish. I'm

[11:04] sorry, speaker, we have to move

[11:06] on to the next well, Tory said.

[11:11] Thank you, speaker, if there's

[11:13] any other speakers, if you can

[11:15] make your way to the left side

[11:17] of the chambers. Going once.

[11:27] Going twice. Okay. I think we

[11:29] can close public comment. And.

[11:37] I was going to recommend that

[11:39] we take items one through ten

[11:42] on consent, unless members have

[11:45] comments or questions, Madam

[11:47] Chair. Oh, sure. Yes.

[11:49] Councilmember Hutt, go ahead. I

[11:50] would like to call item seven

[11:53] for separate vote item seven.

[11:58] For a separate vote. Okay,

[12:02] great. Any other. Yes.

[12:04] Councilmember Blumenfield go

[12:05] ahead, call ten special for an

[12:08] amendment item ten special for

[12:09] an amendment. Okay, so let's do

[12:12] items one through six, eight

[12:16] and nine on consent unless

[12:19] there's any issues. Okay. Miss

[12:23] Jan, if you could call the roll

[12:25] on those items. Yes, madam

[12:27] chair, shall I, read the agenda

[12:31] descriptions for one items one

[12:33] through six, as well as eight

[12:34] and nine before calling the

[12:36] roll if or. Okay, well, if

[12:40] you'd like to, yes, I can

[12:43] summarize real quick. Items one

[12:46] through four are commission

[12:49] reappointments to the Rent

[12:50] Adjustment Commission. Item

[12:52] number one is for Doctor

[12:54] Loraine Lundquist. Item two is

[12:57] for, Mr. Gerard Gunzburg. Item

[13:02] three is for, miss Carol

[13:05] Brogdon. Item four is for miss

[13:09] Dash stellaris, and item number

[13:12] five is a city administrative

[13:15] officer report, for an

[13:18] agreement with first Data.

[13:20] First American Data Tree, LLC,

[13:24] item six. Is a Los Angeles

[13:29] Housing Department report, and

[13:31] this is amending loan

[13:33] agreements for the Avalon

[13:36] Terrace and Nicolet Apartments

[13:37] in council districts ten and 15.

[13:42] Item number eight is motion

[13:44] head Otto Hernandez. And that

[13:47] is, regarding care plus

[13:51] operations. And item nine is

[13:54] motion had Otto Lee. And that

[13:57] is regarding instructing the

[13:59] Los Angeles Housing department,

[14:02] with the community investment

[14:04] department to report back on

[14:07] the handy worker program

[14:10] funding. And those are those

[14:12] items. So it's one through six,

[14:14] eight through nine. And I shall

[14:16] call the roll, Madam Chair

[14:19] Gerardo, I mean, Madam Chair

[14:21] Raman. Yes. Council member Otto

[14:26] here. Yes. Council member Blum.

[14:29] Blumenfield Blumenfield. Aye.

[14:31] Council member hut! Aye.

[14:34] Council member Mcosker. Yes.

[14:37] Five. Aye. Items one through

[14:40] six, eight and nine are

[14:41] approved. Okay, let's do item

[14:43] seven then. Item seven. For the

[14:47] record, let me just describe it

[14:49] real quick. Item seven is a

[14:55] city administrative officer

[14:57] report relative to a contract

[15:01] for temporary staffing services

[15:03] for the Los Angeles Housing

[15:05] Department rent division. And

[15:07] I'll call the role now, Madam

[15:10] Chair Raman. Yes, Madam Chair,

[15:14] I mean, Council member Hurtado.

[15:17] Yes. Council member.

[15:20] Blumenfield. Aye! Council

[15:22] member. Hut! No. Council member.

[15:26] Mcosker. Yes. Four ayes one. No.

[15:31] Item seven is approved. Great.

[15:34] Thank you very much. Let's move

[15:35] on to item ten. I don't think

[15:37] there's a discussion, just an

[15:38] amendment. So if you want to

[15:40] write. What's that. Did you

[15:41] want a discussion on item ten.

[15:43] I just wanna make a few

[15:44] comments and then I'll tell you

[15:46] what the amendment is. And I

[15:47] mean, great, let's, let's, we

[15:49] can read item ten into the

[15:50] record and then yeah. Miss Jen.

[15:54] Yes. So item ten. Item ten is

[16:07] motion Rodriguez aye

[16:09] Blumenfield relative to the

[16:10] chief Legislative analyst, with

[16:12] the assistance of the city

[16:14] administrative Officer, Los

[16:15] Angeles Housing Department, and

[16:17] the Los Angeles Homeless

[16:19] Services Authority to report on

[16:21] the impacts of the county's

[16:22] Department of Homeless Services

[16:24] and Housing, becoming the lead

[16:27] of the region's continuum of

[16:29] care and the coordinated entry

[16:33] system. Okay, Councilmember

[16:35] Blumenfield, this is actually

[16:37] your your motion, is that

[16:40] correct? I'm second on the

[16:42] motion. Okay, great. Maybe I

[16:43] could. Yeah, please, please go

[16:46] ahead. So part of this is

[16:48] understanding how much funding

[16:49] the city will potentially lose

[16:51] if the county becomes the lead

[16:52] for the LA region and trying to

[16:54] get information to understand

[16:55] that, good, bad, indifferent.

[16:58] We want to know the realities.

[16:59] It's we know there's going to

[17:00] be administrative efficiencies,

[17:03] because the county contracts

[17:04] with the same providers that we

[17:05] do in the city and the LA COC

[17:08] and the county has measure a

[17:09] funding for staffing to

[17:11] administer contracts. But we

[17:13] need to hear from the service

[17:15] providers, although it may be

[17:15] unlikely that they're going to

[17:17] share their concerns so clearly

[17:19] because, they're also their,

[17:23] their funding depends on, on,

[17:24] on this. So I wanted to just, I

[17:28] have a report back to get a

[17:30] little bit more in depth on

[17:31] some of the questions that we

[17:33] need to know. It's, you know,

[17:34] often whoever controls the

[17:35] money controls the beds. When

[17:36] it comes to the regional, the

[17:40] region. I mean, I just

[17:41] experienced this this weekend.

[17:42] There was somebody I was trying

[17:43] to get into housing, right,

[17:45] right near my house who was out.

[17:46] And, we wanted to put them in

[17:48] the bridge home that we, we

[17:50] spent money on as a city and

[17:51] partnered with the county for,

[17:53] but we were informed that now

[17:55] because of the changes, now

[17:57] LAHSA is no longer matching.

[17:59] It's now the county that does

[18:00] the direct matching. So all of

[18:02] a sudden we don't have control

[18:04] over who can go into the bridge

[18:07] home that we've been using for

[18:08] years. And that we as a city

[18:10] put a lot of money into. So in

[18:13] order for the LA to respond to

[18:15] this motion and the governance

[18:16] issues in general, we need as a

[18:18] council to establish goals,

[18:20] that we want to achieve, which

[18:21] gives us a framework to

[18:22] negotiate with the county on a

[18:24] future MOU or JPA. So for me,

[18:26] there's critical things

[18:27] accessing PSH beds built in the

[18:31] city, sometimes with city money

[18:32] not being locked out of those

[18:34] beds because the county funds

[18:35] the Icms dealing with the SES

[18:38] policy set by the city and the

[18:40] county. Getting an assessment

[18:42] tool for PSH that is

[18:43] established by the city and the

[18:45] county. Co-equal status with

[18:46] the county and decision making,

[18:49] city involvement in the

[18:50] development of the nofo and

[18:51] selection city, access to data.

[18:55] And if the county does take

[18:56] over LA COC, does it make sense

[18:59] for the city to also access

[19:01] champ and other county data

[19:02] sources from an accountability

[19:04] standpoint? So in order to help

[19:06] get it, all of that I have

[19:07] asking for an amendment which

[19:09] will include a report back that

[19:11] specifically includes, but not

[19:13] limited to the impacts to

[19:15] funding and the city's direct

[19:16] access to that funding.

[19:18] Accessing PSH beds built in the

[19:20] city, report back also on the

[19:23] co-equal status board

[19:24] representation between the city

[19:25] and the county and also a

[19:27] report back on, on as part of

[19:29] that, the shared decision

[19:30] making in establishing the

[19:32] assessment tool for PSH, the

[19:34] SES policy nofo and selection

[19:36] process and the data sharing

[19:38] policy. Again, this is all

[19:39] report backs. It's just to

[19:41] flesh a little bit more out on

[19:42] what we want to get answered.

[19:44] Council member Blumenfield, I

[19:45] believe you're the amendment

[19:46] that you shared here also

[19:47] includes referrals to interim

[19:49] sites. Yes. Okay. Which is I

[19:52] don't think that was on this

[19:53] note, but definitely because

[19:54] that that's what just came up

[19:55] recently. Yes. Adding that in

[19:57] there. Thank you. Great. So

[19:58] I'll second that amendment. And

[20:00] unless there's any other, I

[20:01] think this is a really

[20:03] important motion and really

[20:06] important questions that you're

[20:08] asking. And, we have been

[20:13] realizing over the past few

[20:14] weeks that as we've kind of

[20:15] dealt with the city's

[20:16] administration of shelter beds

[20:17] in our own district, that

[20:19] suddenly matching is just no

[20:21] longer with LAHSA. And we were

[20:23] just informed of that. We

[20:24] weren't after we were asking

[20:26] about specific individuals and

[20:29] changes and things like that.

[20:30] We weren't proactively informed

[20:31] about that. So I think this

[20:33] kind of, motion is going to be

[20:35] really important to help us

[20:36] make sure that we're best

[20:37] positioned to manage the system.

[20:39] So with that, I'd like to call

[20:41] the roll. Madam chair. Raman.

[20:47] Yes. Council member Hirano yes.

[20:51] Council member. Blumenfield.

[20:52] Aye. Council member. HUD. Aye.

[20:56] Council member. Mcosker. Yes.

[20:59] Five ayes. Item ten is approved

[21:03] as amended. Okay, great. Let's

[21:07] move on to item 11. If you want

[21:10] to read that into the record,

[21:11] Miss Jen. Yes. Item 11 is a

[21:14] verbal update from HR and A

[21:18] advisors and the Housing

[21:20] Authority of the City of Los

[21:22] Angeles regarding identifying

[21:24] funding solutions to ensure

[21:26] that families and individuals

[21:29] housed can remain housed, and

[21:31] the feasibility of implementing

[21:34] a local subsidy program that

[21:36] does not rely on federal

[21:39] funding sources to keep

[21:41] individuals. House colleagues.

[21:44] I wanted to bring this to the

[21:45] committee because this is

[21:47] another moment in which the

[21:48] kind of the advanced work done

[21:50] by both the departments and

[21:52] this committee was able to

[21:54] allow us to have some good news,

[21:57] just like people who lost time,

[21:59] limited subsidy funding. LAHSA.

[22:03] Hacla, and the housing

[22:06] department, CLA cao were all

[22:08] able to work with our providers

[22:10] to make sure that those time

[22:11] limited subsidy reductions did

[22:14] not result in people moving

[22:15] back to the streets. It

[22:16] actually ended up resulting in

[22:18] people moving into permanent

[22:19] housing or into

[22:21] self-sufficiency. In a

[22:22] coordinated effort. We were

[22:23] able to plan for that and do

[22:24] that. And I'm really, really

[22:26] excited about that. This is

[22:27] another instance where we have

[22:28] some good news, which is that

[22:30] our emergency housing vouchers

[22:32] program, a Covid era program

[22:34] that was about to run out of

[22:36] money and potentially leave

[22:37] 3000 plus people in the city,

[22:39] 7000 people across the entire

[22:41] county without funding for

[22:43] housing that they had moved

[22:44] into. That crisis has been

[22:46] averted. So I just wanted to

[22:47] make sure Hecla was able to

[22:49] report back, since that was

[22:50] something that this committee

[22:51] had asked about. This

[22:53] presentation will be brief. But

[22:56] I just, you know, I think it's

[22:58] important to close the loop on

[22:59] these questions. So take it

[23:02] away. Hacla and HR, a great.

[23:06] Thank you. Good afternoon,

[23:07] Madam Chair and council members.

[23:09] My name is Marcy Vega. I am the

[23:11] director of the assisted

[23:12] housing programs for the

[23:14] Housing Authority of the City

[23:15] of Los Angeles. And I'm here

[23:18] today with my I was going to

[23:21] say colleague, but friend,

[23:23] Sarah Salon from HR and a

[23:24] advisors to provide an update

[23:26] regarding our emergency housing

[23:28] voucher program and what is the

[23:31] status with respect to items

[23:32] that have been discussed here

[23:34] previously. So we have a brief

[23:36] slide presentation that we can

[23:37] walk through with you. And so I

[23:40] think first what I'd like to do

[23:41] is just kind of take us all

[23:43] back, and just kind of frame

[23:45] the challenge. So Hacla

[23:49] administers the second largest

[23:51] emergency housing voucher

[23:54] program that supports

[23:55] approximately 2700 families

[23:58] households, which includes over

[24:01] 4300 individuals. And as you

[24:03] all are well aware, federal

[24:05] funding for this program was

[24:06] set to expire this year. It

[24:09] would have cost our agency

[24:12] approximately $57 million to

[24:15] continue rental assistance for

[24:17] these households once this

[24:18] funding expired and without

[24:21] intervention again, this group

[24:22] of individuals would have

[24:26] essentially faced eviction and

[24:28] return to homelessness. Next

[24:31] slide please. What was our

[24:34] response? And I really want to

[24:35] lift up this work that was

[24:37] carried out by our leadership.

[24:38] Our Chief Executive Officer,

[24:41] Lourdes Castro Ramirez, and our

[24:43] chief programs officer,

[24:44] Margarita Lara's. Immediately,

[24:47] our Board of commissioners

[24:49] promptly determined that

[24:51] addressing the needs of our ihv

[24:53] households would be a key

[24:54] priority for the agency. I

[24:57] joined Hacla on February 2nd,

[24:59] and on that day, chair CEO

[25:02] Castro Ramirez sat with me and

[25:04] gave me what my top five items.

[25:07] And this was one of them. In

[25:08] fact, it was number one to find

[25:10] a solution for our Ihv families.

[25:13] Following this, on July 1st,

[25:16] the City Council adopted a

[25:18] motion that directed Hacla to

[25:21] collaborate with local partners

[25:23] to explore and assess financial

[25:26] or other alternative financial

[25:28] solutions and options. Hacla

[25:30] also raised awareness with La

[25:32] Casa and as well as the

[25:34] leadership table of the

[25:35] regional impact of the number

[25:36] of individuals, not just for

[25:39] Hacla but for other housing

[25:40] authorities in the county that

[25:42] would be faced with eviction

[25:43] and a return to homelessness.

[25:45] As a result of these

[25:47] discussions and our work, we

[25:48] were very fortunate that La

[25:50] Casa granted 5000 $500,000 to

[25:54] HRA and associates to assist

[25:56] Hacla and other housing

[25:58] authorities in LA County region

[26:00] to develop a transition plan to

[26:03] support impacted households in

[26:06] stabilizing, enrolling in

[26:08] benefits and accessing services.

[26:11] Our leadership continued to

[26:13] aggressively advocate across

[26:15] federal, state and local

[26:17] government levels, as well as

[26:18] at a national level, with the

[26:21] U.S. Conference of Mayors,

[26:23] where our our mayor led a

[26:26] discussion on the Ihv program,

[26:28] as well as through our National

[26:29] Housing Authority advocacy

[26:32] organizations. And lastly, I

[26:33] want to highlight that during

[26:35] this period of real uncertainty

[26:37] for families, we were very

[26:40] fortunate that we were able to

[26:42] utilize our AmeriCorps

[26:44] volunteers who began their time

[26:47] with Hacla at the beginning of

[26:48] this year to provide ongoing

[26:51] direct support, to the

[26:54] households during this period

[26:55] of uncertainty. And if you

[26:57] would allow me to have the

[26:59] AmeriCorps volunteer stand up.

[27:01] Wow. If you are familiar with

[27:09] AmeriCorps, these are young

[27:11] individuals who are this is

[27:13] their first opportunity in

[27:15] public service. And so these

[27:17] are all individuals that really

[27:19] had the direct connection.

[27:22] Taking the phone calls from Ihv

[27:24] clients, meeting them in the

[27:26] lobby, doing all that work to

[27:29] assure Ihv household members

[27:31] that we were going to find a

[27:33] solution. They were essentially

[27:35] issuing, sending out

[27:37] newsletters, directing them to

[27:38] other resources, groceries.

[27:41] Here's another housing

[27:42] authority that can assist you

[27:43] doing a lot of that direct

[27:45] client work that our advisors

[27:47] at times do not have that time

[27:48] to do and, and do that high

[27:49] level of engagement. Thank you

[27:52] so much to our AmeriCorps

[27:53] volunteers, AmeriCorps team.

[27:56] I'm really, really grateful for

[27:57] you. I knew about your work

[27:58] when it was happening, from

[28:01] Hacla. And, we're just, we're

[28:05] very, very proud to have had

[28:06] you as part of this process. So

[28:08] thank you very much. Thank you

[28:09] so much. And I think only

[28:12] through their efforts, we were

[28:13] able to stay in close contact

[28:16] with our ahv households. You

[28:17] know, the work of addressing

[28:20] homelessness and providing

[28:21] housing to individuals who are

[28:24] cycling through homelessness.

[28:26] Oftentimes, individuals become

[28:28] disengaged from the program.

[28:29] And I think with our AmeriCorps

[28:31] volunteers, we were able to

[28:32] keep our households

[28:35] overwhelmingly engaged with

[28:36] Hacla. And so it meant that as

[28:38] we are transitioning, we are

[28:40] able to account for everyone

[28:42] because of the work that our

[28:44] AmeriCorps volunteers did. So

[28:45] thank you for allowing me to

[28:48] recognize them. And for many,

[28:49] this is probably their first

[28:50] time here in this setting. So

[28:52] thank you. Next slide please.

[28:55] So, with all of that, pleased

[28:57] to announce, and I think you

[28:59] already are well aware that,

[29:01] our agencies funding shortfall

[29:03] has ended. HUD officially

[29:06] determined that we are no

[29:07] longer in a funding shortfall

[29:10] due to higher than anticipated,

[29:13] appropriation levels and HUD

[29:15] funding for our tenant based

[29:16] renewals. Therefore, with that,

[29:20] that equaled a 976 million that

[29:23] we are set to receive this

[29:24] calendar year. Based on our

[29:27] calculations, we are able to

[29:29] transition all eehv households

[29:32] into our regular tenant based

[29:34] housing choice voucher program.

[29:37] Therefore, we are keeping

[29:38] families stably housed. That

[29:40] work began this week. We are

[29:43] able to essentially capture all

[29:45] of the eehv households, and we

[29:47] are now in the process of doing

[29:49] the administrative work to

[29:50] bring them into the hacla,

[29:54] portfolio. I'm also pleased to

[29:56] announce that our partner, LA

[29:58] County Development Authority,

[29:59] is able to do the same. So

[30:01] between the city and the county,

[30:03] we are able to provide housing

[30:05] stability for thousands of eehv

[30:08] households. I also just want to

[30:12] call out to that as a result of

[30:14] our shortfall in 2025, we

[30:17] unfortunately had to suspend

[30:18] application processing for 3000

[30:21] individuals who had come off of

[30:22] our waiting list. And I'm also

[30:24] pleased to announce that we are

[30:26] also restarting the application

[30:27] review for these individuals as

[30:29] well. Right now the big lift is

[30:32] moving all of the eehv

[30:35] households into the tenant

[30:36] based program. And right now we

[30:38] are designing the plans on how

[30:39] we're going to now restart

[30:41] application processing for

[30:42] these 3000 applicants. Next

[30:46] slide please. I think I also

[30:49] just want to call out that the

[30:51] work of transitioning our eehv

[30:54] households was made largely in

[30:56] part by the funding, but also,

[30:59] by the work that HUD did to

[31:03] make the process very easy for

[31:05] both the recipient and for the

[31:07] housing authority. I'm pleased

[31:09] to announce that with its

[31:11] guidance, HUD essentially

[31:13] allowed Eehv household members

[31:15] who are going to remain in

[31:17] place not to really essentially

[31:19] do anything. In other words, we

[31:21] are able to do a couple of

[31:23] clicks of the, of our,

[31:26] processing, but the families

[31:27] will not need to undergo an

[31:30] inspection, will not need to

[31:32] reverify their income. They

[31:34] will not need to go through

[31:35] background screening. The

[31:37] contract with the owner will

[31:38] remain the same. And so that

[31:40] type of flexibility makes it

[31:43] extremely, extremely, easy for

[31:46] the housing authority to

[31:48] complete this task and relieves

[31:50] our eehv families of a burden

[31:52] of having to provide additional

[31:54] paperwork and become reverified

[31:56] all over again. I also want to

[31:59] say, lastly, that those eehv

[32:02] households that are perhaps

[32:03] still trying to get some

[32:05] paperwork in or are delinquent,

[32:07] our AmeriCorps volunteers are

[32:08] on the phone with those

[32:10] families, trying to get them

[32:11] and encourage them to come in,

[32:13] get your papers corrected, get

[32:14] in good standing so that you

[32:16] can become part of Hackley's

[32:18] HCV program. This is just a

[32:21] point of information in terms

[32:23] of the impact to each of the

[32:26] council districts, in terms of

[32:27] the number of eehv households

[32:30] who are going to remain stably

[32:32] housed. I think many of you

[32:33] have seen other iterations of

[32:35] this when it was the opposite,

[32:37] right? The potential impact of

[32:39] families in your respective

[32:41] council districts that were

[32:42] going to become homeless? Well,

[32:44] this is a reverse. These are

[32:46] individuals who are going to

[32:47] remain stably housed as a

[32:48] result of the work that we're

[32:50] currently doing. Lastly, I'm

[32:55] going to turn it over to, Sarah

[32:58] Salon to provide a brief update

[33:00] on exactly who it is that we

[33:02] are helping based on the work

[33:04] that HR conducted with Hacla

[33:06] during this effort. Thank you

[33:08] so much, Marcy, and good

[33:10] afternoon, council members. So

[33:12] as part of the technical

[33:14] assistance that we have been

[33:15] doing to support Hacla, during

[33:17] this moment, we were able to

[33:18] learn a lot more about this

[33:20] population. Part of what we

[33:21] were trying to do was

[33:23] understand, their income, their

[33:24] likely ongoing housing needs,

[33:26] their ongoing service needs in

[33:28] order to, begin to build plans

[33:31] for them to possibly transition

[33:33] to other housing opportunities

[33:35] in the event that they were

[33:36] displaced, if there was no

[33:38] funding. So what we learned is

[33:41] that, these households

[33:44] currently supported by

[33:45] emergency housing vouchers are

[33:46] some of LA's most vulnerable

[33:48] renters. So nearly all

[33:50] households are 96% meet the

[33:52] criteria for low income or very

[33:53] low income, with 73% relying on

[33:56] a fixed income. A significant

[33:59] portion over a third include a

[34:01] person with a disability. Most

[34:04] of these households include

[34:05] just one adult, but seven, but

[34:07] about a quarter include more

[34:09] than one family member. And

[34:11] there are over a thousand

[34:13] children who are being

[34:14] supported through this program

[34:15] right now housed through this

[34:16] program. We also learned that

[34:20] nearly 75% of households

[34:22] currently supported by we were

[34:24] experiencing homelessness at

[34:25] the time of their program

[34:27] admission into the eehv system.

[34:30] And that when they were

[34:33] enrolled in an Eehv in the Eehv

[34:35] program, 50% had been assessed

[34:37] and were eligible for permanent

[34:39] supportive housing, meaning

[34:40] that they had high acuity

[34:41] service needs. So this is just,

[34:43] I think, a really helpful

[34:45] picture of how vulnerable this

[34:47] population is, how wonderful it

[34:49] is that Hacla is able to

[34:51] sustain housing for them, and

[34:54] by implication, how difficult

[34:55] it would have been in our

[34:57] current system to be able to

[34:58] find, other existing

[35:00] opportunities for these, these

[35:01] families to remain housed. And

[35:04] I'll just close by saying, I

[35:05] think our work with Hacla is

[35:07] ongoing. We're hoping to be

[35:08] able to, after these households

[35:11] transition over to, to hcbs to

[35:14] be able to help with some

[35:16] stability, some benefit

[35:17] enrollment, some service

[35:19] connection. And also now

[35:21] helping Hacla think about how

[35:23] they might be able to prepare

[35:24] for any other households that

[35:26] could be displaced by, federal

[35:28] funding or other housing

[35:30] changes. So we think we're

[35:31] developing a little bit of a

[35:33] replicable model here to deal

[35:34] with, shortfalls when we, when

[35:37] we know that they're coming.

[35:38] Thank you, thank you. That

[35:41] concludes our report. Thank you

[35:42] so much. And, are there

[35:46] questions from. Yes. So lots of

[35:48] questions. Great. Councilmember

[35:51] McCosker, go ahead. Thanks.

[35:53] Thank you very much for this.

[35:55] So with the probably two

[35:58] grossly simplified version of

[35:59] this, be that under the

[36:01] American Rescue Plan, we have

[36:02] the emergency vouchers. The

[36:04] vouchers were ending early

[36:05] because of the bad stuff

[36:08] happening 3000 miles away or.

[36:10] And we converted emergency

[36:13] vouchers into housing

[36:14] assistance. And so we we. The.

[36:17] So the 500 grand that came from

[36:19] the Casa was to advocate for

[36:23] allowing us to take the pot of

[36:25] money that we get for housing

[36:27] assistance and use that pot of

[36:29] money, which was maybe larger

[36:30] than we expected to do to

[36:32] convert folks from emergency

[36:34] vouchers under the under the

[36:37] former Program to Housing

[36:39] Assistance program. I'll go

[36:42] I'll go ahead and address the

[36:43] first part. What, the funding

[36:45] that we received from the Casa

[36:47] for the technical assistance

[36:49] was exactly to actually help us

[36:50] draw up the plan B in the event

[36:54] that we did not receive enough

[36:56] funding to convert Ahv

[36:59] households to our regular HCV

[37:02] program. And we engaged in that

[37:04] work because of the delay in

[37:08] appropriations, we had several

[37:09] continuing resolutions. And

[37:11] then even after passage of that

[37:14] appropriations bill, HUD took

[37:16] longer than usual to provide

[37:18] housing authorities with any

[37:19] idea of what their funding was

[37:21] going to was going to be. And

[37:23] so we felt that we were

[37:24] essentially running out of time.

[37:26] And so La Casa was helping us

[37:28] develop what was going to be

[37:29] that other off ramp for

[37:31] families in the event that we

[37:33] could not support them to

[37:34] transition over to our program.

[37:36] Yeah. I wasn't questioning the

[37:37] value of LAHSA and what they

[37:38] did that I will quite often,

[37:41] but I'm not right now. But the

[37:44] short version is that the

[37:45] American Rescue Plan got

[37:47] depleted fast. Yes. And we put

[37:50] ourselves in a position where

[37:51] the $900 million for the Hap

[37:54] program allowed us to convert

[37:56] emergency vouchers to Hap. That

[37:58] is correct. Program dollars.

[38:00] Okay. Thanks. Great. Yeah. And

[38:05] I think the when we when the

[38:07] motion was first introduced in

[38:10] 2025, we were looking at

[38:11] potentially these, individuals

[38:16] not having the ability to

[38:17] sustain their housing or really

[38:19] working with them. Another

[38:21] place where this did happen was

[38:23] the TLS funding cliff. So we

[38:24] had like two buckets of

[38:26] individuals that were about to

[38:28] lose funding. The TLS funding.

[38:29] Cliff did happen. We lost that

[38:31] money from Hap and from was it

[38:35] Hap money that was gone? All

[38:37] kinds. Yeah. We there was a

[38:39] number of vouchers that were

[38:40] lost for a tranche of TLS folks

[38:44] that and now I can't remember

[38:47] which committee that was

[38:48] reported back in, whether that

[38:49] was HCC and whether it came

[38:51] here or not. But these were the

[38:52] two kind of groups of people

[38:54] that we were worried about in

[38:56] this committee last year around

[38:58] this time, one is one group

[39:00] ended up getting the money from

[39:02] the federal government to be

[39:03] able to stay housed, which was

[39:04] great for the other group. Our

[39:07] city departments, as well as

[39:11] LAHSA, worked with the service

[39:13] providers to ensure that people

[39:15] who were losing their time

[39:15] limited subsidy vouchers, about

[39:17] 50% of them moved to. We did

[39:19] have a brief update on this,

[39:20] right, but 50% of them ended up

[39:22] moving into self-sufficiency.

[39:24] And about half of them ended up

[39:26] moving to other forms of

[39:27] housing, including PSA and

[39:30] other affordable units to be

[39:31] able to stay housed. And we

[39:32] basically work to ensure that

[39:33] those people didn't fall back

[39:35] into homelessness. So sometimes

[39:36] we talk about these funding

[39:38] cliffs, which feel very

[39:40] abstract and far away. But what

[39:43] has happened over the past year

[39:45] and a half or so is that there

[39:47] has been real work done to

[39:48] ensure that, these funding

[39:51] cliffs didn't come to pass and

[39:53] that people weren't, weren't

[39:54] left homeless, which is good. I

[39:55] mean, we, we have a lot of work

[39:57] to do on this system, but this

[39:59] is one of one this and the

[40:01] other instance where we

[40:02] prepared early and we were able

[40:03] to do some work. Council Member.

[40:05] Blumenfield. Great, thanks. And

[40:06] I was trying to get the same

[40:08] kind of clarification. So it

[40:09] sounds like a crisis was

[40:10] averted. So thank you. And that

[40:12] that's awesome. And it sounds

[40:14] like it was, basically one, one

[40:16] pot of federal money was, was

[40:18] swapped for another pot of

[40:19] federal money. At the end of

[40:20] the day is how we made it

[40:22] happen was the, if you compare,

[40:24] you said it would have, it

[40:25] would have cost us 57 million

[40:27] if we had just had to replace

[40:29] the vouchers straight out. Yeah.

[40:31] Was it more or less when, when

[40:34] we did the swap with the other

[40:36] federal money to make everybody

[40:38] whole, did that end up costing

[40:40] us more than the 57 million or

[40:42] less than the 57 million? Or

[40:43] was it an even swap? It was.

[40:45] Yeah, it was the same because

[40:47] Hap is continuous for the

[40:49] families. So what we pay out in

[40:51] housing assistance will not

[40:53] change. And so it was, it was

[40:55] an even swap of one, one one

[40:57] pot of federal money for the

[40:59] other pot of federal money. And

[41:01] fortunately, I guess because

[41:02] that other pot was growing, we

[41:03] didn't have to cut anybody else.

[41:06] That's correct. Because as a

[41:08] shortfall agency, we were very

[41:10] diligent in following the

[41:12] shortfall action plan. And so

[41:14] by the time we did see our

[41:16] calendar year 26 Hap renewal

[41:18] amount, because of essentially

[41:20] the savings we achieved because

[41:22] we were following that plan, we

[41:24] were able to subsume the Hap

[41:27] that we were paying for ihv

[41:29] into roll it into our regular

[41:31] tenant based renewals. Right.

[41:34] But it's still vouchers. It's

[41:36] still a voucher. Yeah, it is

[41:37] still a voucher. Okay. And then

[41:40] you said, I think I heard you

[41:41] say the county was able to do

[41:43] the same thing. Correct. The

[41:44] county is doing the exact same

[41:46] thing and transitioning their

[41:47] Ihv voucher holders to their

[41:50] regular tenant based voucher

[41:51] program as well. Great. And is

[41:52] there any long term implication

[41:54] for all this? That's a good

[41:56] question. I think we will be

[41:57] assessing this as we go along.

[41:59] We do. We are aware that there

[42:01] are other housing authorities

[42:02] that are not as fortunate, who

[42:05] continue to be in a shortfall

[42:06] funding situation even after

[42:08] receiving their federal,

[42:10] calendar calendar year 26

[42:11] funding. And so these agencies

[42:13] are still in a position of

[42:15] trying to find a solution. And

[42:17] so it was uneven. And so we

[42:19] actually are speaking with

[42:21] other agencies, sharing what we

[42:24] are experience, trying to see

[42:27] where we can provide some type

[42:28] of assistance, but it is, it is

[42:32] unfortunate that there are

[42:33] still agencies here locally as

[42:35] well as in the state that may

[42:37] not have a plan for their

[42:39] families. Right. And then the

[42:40] federal money that we did get,

[42:41] is that also under threat for

[42:43] this next year? That remains to

[42:45] be seen. Right now we're

[42:46] following it closely. Okay.

[42:48] Thank you. Great. Thank you so

[42:53] much for being here and barring

[42:54] any other questions. Thank you

[42:56] again to our AmeriCorps. Are

[42:58] they volunteers or what's the

[43:00] what's the word volunteers.

[43:03] Okay, awesome. Thank you again

[43:04] to our AmeriCorps volunteers

[43:05] for your hard work in this. And

[43:07] thank you to Hacla and HR for

[43:09] the update. About one thing

[43:12] that we didn't have to worry

[43:13] about quite as much as we did

[43:15] worry about last year. So thank

[43:16] you. Let's move on to item 12,

[43:19] which is our last item today.

[43:22] Item item 12 is a verbal update

[43:25] from the Los Angeles Homeless

[43:27] Services Authority regarding

[43:28] the United States Department of

[43:31] Housing and Urban Development

[43:34] Year 2026 continuum Care Notice

[43:38] of funding. Opportunity. Okay,

[43:42] great. And we have Paul

[43:44] Rubenstein here from LAHSA and

[43:46] Meg Barkley from the CIO, to

[43:48] provide us more context around

[43:49] the city's response to HUD's

[43:51] actions around the COC Nofo

[43:54] this is a discussion item only.

[43:57] And just on background, HUD

[44:01] announced it would suspend

[44:02] funding to LAHSA on June 11th

[44:04] of this year, I believe. Is

[44:06] that right? There's about

[44:08] 11,000 people who are currently

[44:10] sheltered, housed or receiving

[44:12] outreach with these funds.

[44:15] Since HUD's announcement, this

[44:16] council passed a resolution

[44:18] opposing the federal

[44:19] government's decision to

[44:20] withhold funding. And, and then

[44:25] there has been other

[44:27] developments that have taken

[44:28] place, including actions by the

[44:31] county. The mayor and council

[44:33] president writing a letter to

[44:34] the COC board, and a court

[44:37] hearing tomorrow. So I just

[44:38] thought it would be useful for

[44:39] this committee to hear about

[44:40] what is going on in a

[44:42] consolidated manner. Have your

[44:43] questions answered, and just

[44:47] allow for committee members to

[44:48] stay up to date on the C, O, C

[44:50] and, and any changes to it. So

[44:53] take it away. Paul and Meg.

[44:56] Sure. Paul Rubenstein Chief of

[44:58] Staff at LAHSA. So I wanted to

[45:00] start with just a quick

[45:01] overview of where the 2026COC

[45:05] nofo process stands right now.

[45:09] Despite the notice of

[45:11] suspension from HUD, which, as

[45:13] Councilmember Raman noted,

[45:14] LAHSA is contesting in court.

[45:18] We have been proceeding with

[45:21] the local COC nofo competition

[45:24] process as we do every year.

[45:28] The deadline for that

[45:29] submission is coming up on

[45:32] August 26th. And at this point,

[45:34] the, the county, the city of La

[45:37] LAHSA and the COC have sent

[45:39] multiple joint communications

[45:41] to providers, encouraging them

[45:43] to continue with the local

[45:46] competition process, for

[45:48] multiple reasons, primarily no

[45:51] matter what happens, the work

[45:53] that they're doing will be used.

[45:55] Even if in the scenario that

[45:57] HUD has outlined that providers

[45:59] would submit individual

[46:01] applications, the work that

[46:02] they're putting together now

[46:03] would still be used. And then

[46:07] importantly, by putting

[46:08] together a local competition

[46:10] package, we maintain our own

[46:12] local control over

[46:14] prioritization of projects as

[46:16] opposed to if it does end up

[46:17] going to direct application to

[46:19] HUD. Then HUD would be the one

[46:21] making the decisions about

[46:22] which projects are funded. The

[46:25] critical thing there is that

[46:27] under the terms of the 26 Nofo

[46:29] that HUD outlined, only 60% of

[46:34] funding is what's called the

[46:35] protected tier, which is

[46:36] basically almost guaranteed

[46:38] renewal. In the past, that has

[46:40] been 90% of the renewal funding.

[46:43] So it's a significant reduction,

[46:46] which would leave, people that

[46:49] are currently housed with COC

[46:52] dollars without a form of

[46:54] subsidy, which is obviously

[46:56] deeply concerning. I also want

[46:59] to note that while LAHSA has

[47:02] taken action legally, here,

[47:05] there are also two national

[47:07] lawsuits that are contesting

[47:09] the entire 2026 Nofo. There's

[47:13] one that is a coalition of

[47:15] states which the state of

[47:16] California is part of. And then

[47:18] there's one that the National

[47:19] Alliance to End Homelessness

[47:20] and other nonprofit, advocacy

[47:24] groups and local entities are,

[47:29] participating in, it's been

[47:30] filed in Rhode Island before

[47:31] the same judge that ruled

[47:32] against HUD, regarding the 2025

[47:36] Nofo. And they are essentially,

[47:41] making similar arguments they

[47:43] had made against the 2025 Nofo

[47:46] against the 2026 Nofo in terms

[47:47] of its legality and the funding

[47:50] shifts that it's trying to put

[47:52] forward. So there is really a

[47:53] lot in play. We are, like I

[47:58] said, currently engaged in the

[48:01] local competition process. We

[48:03] have received applications. The

[48:06] COC board forwarded a ranking

[48:12] methodology proposal to the

[48:14] LAHSA commission, which is

[48:15] actually discussing that right

[48:17] now. And then there will be

[48:20] subsequent meetings of the COC

[48:21] board. I know Meg serves on the

[48:23] board, so I'm sure she can

[48:25] speak to it a little bit as

[48:26] well. But there will be

[48:28] subsequent meetings between now

[48:29] and the, submission to HUD to

[48:33] finalize those rankings. And

[48:36] then it's worth also noting

[48:39] that HUD has not actually

[48:40] released the application yet.

[48:42] And not just to us, but to, to

[48:44] anyone. And this is typically

[48:46] something that the narratives

[48:48] and the, all the pieces that

[48:49] have to be put together, that

[48:51] there are at least a couple

[48:52] months to work on. And at this

[48:54] point, you know, with the

[48:55] stated deadline of the 26th,

[48:57] we're looking at more like

[48:58] weeks to put everything

[48:59] together and not just us, but

[49:00] really Cox around the country.

[49:02] So there will be a significant

[49:04] time crunch. But obviously a

[49:06] lot will ride on what happens

[49:07] in court tomorrow. Just because

[49:10] it is pending litigation, we

[49:12] don't want to get into it too

[49:14] much. But I'll note a few

[49:16] things that, a after we filed,

[49:21] Judge Carter ordered the

[49:24] parties, the parties to the

[49:25] alliance lawsuit to appear as

[49:27] well. So, we'll see them

[49:32] tomorrow, including you

[49:34] technically. And then also at

[49:36] the end of last week, the COC

[49:40] filed to join the case as a

[49:42] plaintiff. And so the judge

[49:46] also, without ruling on adding

[49:48] them as a plaintiff, he did

[49:50] order them to appear as well

[49:52] tomorrow. Meg, do you want to

[49:57] provide an update? Thank you.

[49:58] Paul, just on how the city has

[50:00] been engaging in this process

[50:01] and how it impacts us. Sure.

[50:05] Shortly after the first letter

[50:09] on June 11th, the city of the

[50:12] county and LAHSA entered into a

[50:14] letter of common interest and

[50:16] discussed, to so that the city

[50:19] was able to discuss losses

[50:21] strategy around the, the

[50:24] lawsuit while being all jointly

[50:26] protected by privilege, that

[50:28] that letter is still in effect.

[50:31] Also a declaration in support

[50:34] of the lawsuit was filed, by,

[50:38] or a declaration by Matt Zabo

[50:40] that the city administrative

[50:41] officer was filed also in

[50:43] support at, as authorized by

[50:46] counsel. And so that showing

[50:49] the city's report, support for

[50:51] the lawsuit, the County of Los

[50:53] Angeles also filed a

[50:55] declaration in support at that

[50:56] time. So we are not a party to

[50:59] the lawsuit, but have been

[51:01] remaining up to date on the

[51:04] status of the various filings

[51:06] since, since it was initiated.

[51:09] And how does this impact? I

[51:11] know that there's been some

[51:13] discussions and at least a

[51:14] letter back and forth related

[51:16] to this and kind of, ownership

[51:19] of data. And I think I just

[51:21] want to make sure that this

[51:23] committee is aware of changes

[51:24] that are happening. So we have,

[51:28] potentially a movement of

[51:32] measure H to another location.

[51:34] And I just, you know, I like,

[51:36] we find it hard to get access

[51:37] to our data at the city. We did

[51:39] a lot of work to finally get

[51:41] access to it through LAHSA. And

[51:43] we're grateful for LAHSA

[51:44] partnership. Now it's being

[51:45] regularly reported. Council

[51:46] offices have access to it, but

[51:48] now there's a potential for

[51:49] that to move again. So I just

[51:51] want to make sure committee

[51:52] members are aware of that

[51:53] because it impacts our ability

[51:55] to manage our shelters, manage

[51:57] our street homelessness and

[51:59] Council Member Blumenfield, to

[52:00] your point earlier, it also

[52:01] impacts our ability to move

[52:03] people through our shelter

[52:04] system effectively. So I wanted

[52:06] to make sure committee members

[52:07] knew about this because I do

[52:08] think it's really important.

[52:10] Sure, I can talk a little bit

[52:11] about that too. So thank you

[52:13] for a little closer to you.

[52:15] Sure. Thank you for, for

[52:18] clarifying that. I can

[52:18] definitely talk about that. The,

[52:21] there was a letter on June 18th

[52:23] that was sent to the chair of

[52:24] the Continuum of Care Board,

[52:27] notifying them that they were

[52:28] out of compliance because the

[52:30] collaborative applicant for the

[52:31] Continuum of Care application

[52:34] had been declared or suspended

[52:37] by HUD. And therefore HUD is

[52:40] authorized to take remedial

[52:42] actions against the COC board.

[52:44] The COC board is an

[52:47] organization formed under a

[52:49] charter that represents a

[52:51] broader COC, which is basically

[52:54] any stakeholder within the

[52:55] boundaries of the continuum of

[52:56] care that has an interest in

[52:59] addressing and solving

[53:00] homelessness. So there's a

[53:02] smaller board of 21

[53:04] representatives that are,

[53:06] sourced based on different

[53:08] representation, whether it's

[53:09] spar by spar service planning

[53:12] area within the COC or at large.

[53:16] There are at large participants,

[53:18] there are participants from the

[53:21] city administrative officers

[53:22] office. I sit on the board,

[53:25] representing the CIO. There's

[53:26] also a representative from

[53:27] Hacla. And from the county side,

[53:30] there is a county HSH

[53:32] representative and a

[53:33] representative from LAC, d a

[53:36] the continuum of Care board,

[53:40] has been, is, is the

[53:42] organization that sets the

[53:45] prioritization policy that the

[53:46] LAHSA commission is, reviewing

[53:49] right now. And would also

[53:53] ultimately recommend to the

[53:55] broader COC membership, not

[53:57] only the collaborative

[53:58] applicant, but the H S and CES

[54:01] leads for the continuum of care.

[54:03] And this is all established

[54:05] according to, statute and

[54:07] regulation that are

[54:08] administered by HUD. So when

[54:12] the administration notified

[54:14] when HUD notified the COC board

[54:16] that they were out of

[54:17] compliance, they noted they

[54:19] have sort of two options. And

[54:20] that is to take remedial action.

[54:22] One would be to designate an

[54:24] alternate collaborative

[54:25] applicant, and another would be

[54:27] to require or allow all

[54:30] eligible applicants within the

[54:32] continuum to apply directly to

[54:33] HUD. And that's what Paul was

[54:34] referring to. Local

[54:37] prioritization flies out the

[54:38] window. At that point, all of

[54:39] the decisions about what to

[54:41] fund come, directly from HUD,

[54:44] and that's within the 60% that

[54:46] would normally be that is would

[54:47] be protected as renewals and

[54:49] the 40% that's under the

[54:51] national competition. So HUD

[54:54] took the latter, option of

[54:57] allowing eligible applicants to

[54:59] apply directly. And, in that

[55:02] situation, if that stands, if

[55:05] the court does not intervene.

[55:07] And, both reverse LAHSA

[55:11] suspension and require, require

[55:14] HUD to lift the remedial

[55:17] actions against the COC board,

[55:19] then the COC will need to make

[55:22] the COC board will need to make

[55:24] a recommendation. And the COC

[55:26] itself will need to vote to

[55:30] establish a new collaborative

[55:31] applicant, a new measure H lead,

[55:32] a new SES lead. And so the

[55:36] County of Los Angeles sent a

[55:37] letter about a week and a half

[55:40] ago, almost two weeks ago, to

[55:42] the COC board offering to, take

[55:46] on having the la CDA the Los

[55:51] Angeles County Development

[55:53] Authority. Did I get that right?

[55:55] To serve as the collaborative

[55:56] applicant and the housing or

[55:59] homeless services and housing.

[56:01] Did I get that right? I think

[56:03] HHSH at the county to serve as

[56:06] the, my s and SES lead. They

[56:09] did note that that would be on

[56:11] an interim basis for a year

[56:13] only was the offer that they

[56:14] were making that the COC board

[56:16] could then make a decision for

[56:18] a longer term after that year.

[56:21] That would also require HUD to

[56:24] accept a collaborative

[56:25] applicant for this nofo, which

[56:27] they've sort of already

[56:28] indicated that they're not

[56:29] going to do because they stated

[56:32] they have two options and they

[56:33] didn't take that option. So

[56:34] it's unclear whether even if

[56:36] the COC board were to recommend

[56:38] an alternate collaborative

[56:40] applicant, whether HUD would

[56:41] accept that and allow the

[56:43] application to move forward

[56:44] under this alternative

[56:45] applicant. I know this is a lot

[56:47] and I'm talking really fast,

[56:49] able to apply, since most of

[56:51] the COC funding that the city

[56:53] gets is for, vouchers. Yes. Or

[56:57] operational funds would apply

[56:59] directly for those funds to be

[57:01] able to do that. Yes. Do they

[57:02] have the capacity to. So why

[57:04] are we preparing for that? Yeah.

[57:06] Hecla is preparing to apply

[57:07] directly. And it actually with

[57:09] the, local competition that

[57:13] LAHSA has been administering,

[57:16] they've already prepared a lot

[57:17] of that application in

[57:20] responding to the local, the

[57:21] normal process that we would

[57:23] follow locally of having a

[57:24] local competition and local

[57:26] ranking applied to those

[57:28] applications. Those

[57:29] applications have, I believe

[57:30] they are entered into snaps and

[57:33] then reviewed and prioritized

[57:36] by, the collaborative applicant,

[57:39] and that those results are

[57:41] required to be announced in

[57:42] this nofo cycle by August 11th,

[57:44] I believe. So next Tuesday. And

[57:48] so that is happening. Hackley's

[57:50] applications are in and are

[57:52] subject now to the Ranking

[57:53] policy that was approved by the

[57:55] COC board yesterday that does

[58:00] prioritize project based rental

[58:03] subsidies. And, the HAC is

[58:06] expected to do pretty well

[58:08] within that 60%. It is the Nofo

[58:11] itself is very problematic even

[58:13] without the issues that we're

[58:15] facing with HUD. And the HUD

[58:17] situation is just creating a

[58:18] lot more uncertainty. And the

[58:20] court case tomorrow could make

[58:21] it so that Judge Carter decides

[58:24] that there's a collaborative

[58:25] applicant and it or like it

[58:26] could stop HUD's actions

[58:28] entirely. Is that right? It's

[58:30] possible that he could order

[58:31] HUD to lift the suspension, I

[58:33] believe, but I'm not privy to

[58:36] like what his legal options are

[58:38] as since I'm not a lawyer, I

[58:39] don't really know exactly what

[58:41] he could or could not do. But

[58:42] that is what LAHSA has been

[58:44] asked, has asked the court to

[58:45] do. Okay, so colleagues, I

[58:47] don't know if you guys had

[58:48] questions. I know this is a lot,

[58:50] but I did think it was

[58:51] important for everyone to be

[58:53] aware of what was happening, in

[58:54] case you weren't already. I

[58:55] will just want I want to state

[58:57] for the record that, you know,

[58:59] I'm, I'm, I'm hope I'm glad

[59:00] that Hacla is stepping up and

[59:02] can apply on their own. I think

[59:03] building up that capacity and

[59:05] being ready to do that is

[59:06] really important. I have

[59:07] serious concerns about losses

[59:09] to other buckets of funding. So

[59:11] I think coming back to this

[59:12] committee, with how much money

[59:13] is expected to be lost in

[59:15] interim shelter and outreach,

[59:17] and also for us to be able to

[59:18] maximize interim shelter

[59:21] applications. And who will

[59:22] apply for that within the city

[59:24] in case the city has to go. It

[59:25] alone is really important to be

[59:27] able to do, and I'm looking to

[59:29] the Cao and lead to do that and

[59:31] prepare for that, so that as

[59:33] many shelter beds as possible

[59:34] can be covered by these dollars.

[59:36] If if that's open to us, we

[59:37] should apply for it. The second

[59:39] thing I did want to say is I

[59:41] have had the opportunity to sit

[59:43] with the county on shared

[59:45] boards. And they have provided

[59:47] us more access to data than

[59:48] they have in the past. But I

[59:50] will say that the county is a

[59:52] closed book in many, many

[59:53] instances in terms of what's

[59:55] going on there. They have a

[59:57] process through which people

[59:58] are supposed to go from interim

[59:59] shelter beds to high acuity

[1:00:00] mental health beds and to rehab

[1:00:02] beds. We're supposed to have a

[1:00:04] seat at that table. And I don't

[1:00:07] know who's advocating for us. I

[1:00:09] don't, but very few people from

[1:00:10] our shelters ever move to high

[1:00:12] acuity beds. Very few. And when

[1:00:16] we ask for data on mental

[1:00:18] health support, how many people

[1:00:20] are getting it, it's very hard

[1:00:21] to get it when we ask for data

[1:00:23] on any anything from the county.

[1:00:25] It's very hard to get. I know

[1:00:26] they're in the process of

[1:00:28] improving that, but handing

[1:00:29] over control of HMIS and, to

[1:00:32] the county, without real checks

[1:00:35] and balances in place and to

[1:00:37] make sure that we're able to

[1:00:39] access at least as much as

[1:00:40] we're able to access now, but

[1:00:42] ideally even more, I think, you

[1:00:43] know, we need to be able to

[1:00:45] make sure that we have real

[1:00:47] safeguards in place if that's

[1:00:48] what's happening, even if it's

[1:00:49] just for an interim year. And

[1:00:51] I'm grateful that the county

[1:00:52] has the capacity to stand up

[1:00:54] and do this. But like, you know,

[1:00:56] we just need to be able to make

[1:00:57] sure that we're fighting for

[1:00:59] every bed, for every person to

[1:01:00] get access to the resources

[1:01:01] that they deserve, because

[1:01:02] right now they're not getting

[1:01:04] it. And I'm afraid that that in

[1:01:05] access will deepen further.

[1:01:06] Committee member. Oh, sorry. I

[1:01:08] will just just to clarify,

[1:01:09] because I didn't talk about the

[1:01:10] city letter. So the city did

[1:01:12] send also a letter requesting

[1:01:13] joint administration of

[1:01:15] HMISNCES for those exact

[1:01:17] reasons. And I as a member of

[1:01:20] the board in place right now.

[1:01:21] Right, right. No it's not, but

[1:01:23] that looking forward, if that

[1:01:25] were the the case and as a

[1:01:27] member of the COC board, that

[1:01:29] is that is my very vocal,

[1:01:32] suggestion that any

[1:01:34] administration of this go

[1:01:35] forward has to be done in

[1:01:38] collaboration and with a, an

[1:01:40] agreement in place between the

[1:01:41] city and the county about

[1:01:43] access to data, how data will

[1:01:44] be not just provided, but also

[1:01:46] presented. And I would I would

[1:01:48] underscore that we cannot move

[1:01:49] forward without that agreement

[1:01:50] in place. Like, I just don't

[1:01:52] know how we would ethically for,

[1:01:54] for the people that we are

[1:01:55] caring for in our shelters,

[1:01:57] members, any council member.

[1:01:59] And then Councilmember Mcosker.

[1:02:01] Thank you. So it seems that can

[1:02:04] you her her mic is not on. Okay.

[1:02:07] It seems like the data that we

[1:02:09] use that LAHSA owns at the

[1:02:11] moment and has ownership of for

[1:02:12] my data is at risk of being

[1:02:15] lost to either HUD, the county.

[1:02:20] So I don't think the data would

[1:02:22] be lost to HUD. I think what

[1:02:25] would have to happen is the COC

[1:02:27] would have to vote to designate

[1:02:29] a new HMIS lead. And so that's

[1:02:33] HUD would not serve in that

[1:02:35] role. But the options on the

[1:02:37] table, at least, that have been

[1:02:38] presented so far to the COC

[1:02:40] board are the letters from the

[1:02:42] city and the county. So either

[1:02:43] the county doing it solely as

[1:02:45] their letter suggested, or as

[1:02:46] the city's letter suggested,

[1:02:48] creating some sort of a joint

[1:02:50] administration joint or

[1:02:53] separate. I know the county is

[1:02:54] trying to also do it maybe on

[1:02:56] their own. And so my my thought

[1:02:59] is or my big question is, we've

[1:03:02] spent so much time in this

[1:03:04] committee developing data and

[1:03:06] metrics to create outcomes

[1:03:09] based on the existing owner of

[1:03:12] the HMIS data for like two

[1:03:15] years. And now if it's owned by

[1:03:18] someone else, where we're going

[1:03:19] to have less visibility. Do we

[1:03:22] what use is those metrics when

[1:03:25] we go through the process all

[1:03:26] over again? Do we does it just

[1:03:31] mean we start this is exactly

[1:03:33] we have to start from scratch

[1:03:34] all over again. And for. Maybe

[1:03:36] if the county becomes the owner

[1:03:38] to Councilmember Raman point,

[1:03:39] we'll have no visibility. I

[1:03:42] will say from a technical

[1:03:44] standpoint, assuming that the

[1:03:45] HMS platform didn't change, all

[1:03:47] of those pathways would still

[1:03:49] be in my S, so I don't think it

[1:03:51] would be entirely starting from

[1:03:52] scratch. But to Meg's point, I

[1:03:54] think that a a very clear

[1:03:58] agreement between the city and

[1:04:00] whoever ended up being the data

[1:04:02] administrator, either partially

[1:04:03] or completely, would be really

[1:04:05] important to ensuring because,

[1:04:07] you know, another the alliance

[1:04:08] reporting as well relies on.

[1:04:10] HMAS right. So it's all the

[1:04:11] work that this committee and

[1:04:12] other council members have done,

[1:04:14] but it's also part of the legal

[1:04:16] agreements. And so all of that

[1:04:17] would really need to be very

[1:04:19] clearly spelled out in an

[1:04:20] agreement. I hear you, Mr.

[1:04:22] Rubenstein. We had a joint

[1:04:23] powers authority with the

[1:04:25] county and the nonprofit that

[1:04:27] you're part of are LAHSA. And

[1:04:29] even then, it was a struggle to

[1:04:31] get data and clear answers. And

[1:04:34] for the past two years, we're

[1:04:35] trying to get metrics to drive

[1:04:37] better outcomes. And now you're

[1:04:39] saying that as long as we have

[1:04:41] strong legal contracts that are

[1:04:42] in place to share that

[1:04:44] information, then we should be

[1:04:45] able to get it. And just from

[1:04:48] experience, from my short time

[1:04:49] here, that's not promising,

[1:04:52] considering it may be with a

[1:04:53] new party and it's starting the

[1:04:55] relationship all over again.

[1:04:57] And even though we may have

[1:04:58] this baseline, it really makes

[1:05:00] the work that has been done

[1:05:01] null and void and really having

[1:05:03] to build it up again. So that's

[1:05:06] just really disappointing to

[1:05:07] hear, and I wish we could have

[1:05:10] figured out how these metrics

[1:05:11] maybe could have gotten us to a

[1:05:13] better COC system sooner,

[1:05:16] because the fact that we have

[1:05:17] to start over or may have to

[1:05:19] start over at this time, when

[1:05:21] we are not in a great fiscal

[1:05:24] situation and political

[1:05:26] circumstances, obviously is

[1:05:28] just not opportune. But I just

[1:05:30] that's what I'm hearing right

[1:05:31] now. And it's really concerning.

[1:05:34] I think that's another reason

[1:05:35] why, at least in the very near

[1:05:37] term, are our hope is that

[1:05:42] LAHSA lawsuit is successful

[1:05:44] because at least we have the

[1:05:46] status quo for a period of time

[1:05:49] for the city and the county to

[1:05:50] be very deliberative about

[1:05:52] whatever changes are happening

[1:05:53] instead of them happening under

[1:05:56] duress. I appreciate that, but

[1:05:59] I also know that the federal

[1:06:01] government like this comes as

[1:06:02] no surprise what they did. It

[1:06:05] was about the timing and when.

[1:06:07] And so to not have prepared for

[1:06:08] this moment sooner feels I just

[1:06:14] you know, I get I get mad. But

[1:06:17] anyways, I one thing I wanted

[1:06:18] to say before I leave the mic

[1:06:20] is that, the AmeriCorps

[1:06:22] students, thank you for your

[1:06:24] participation. Don't forget,

[1:06:25] when you apply for grad school

[1:06:27] and undergrad, you qualify for

[1:06:29] fee waivers as long as you show

[1:06:31] that you're in the AmeriCorps

[1:06:33] program. So make sure that you

[1:06:35] keep your acceptance letter in

[1:06:36] an email as a PDF, okay?

[1:06:39] Because you don't want to go

[1:06:40] back to your email and try to

[1:06:42] look for it and realize your

[1:06:43] old embarrassing email you

[1:06:44] don't have access to, because

[1:06:46] you'll need that when you apply

[1:06:48] to undergrad, and especially if

[1:06:50] you go to law school, okay, you

[1:06:52] get a fee waiver. And also you

[1:06:54] can get a scholarship at some

[1:06:56] of the schools for like 1000 or

[1:06:58] $2000, which is good. Thank you.

[1:07:02] Councilmember. And I just

[1:07:04] wanted to say before everyone

[1:07:05] ran off at the end that we were

[1:07:07] hoping to take a picture with

[1:07:08] the AmeriCorps volunteers

[1:07:09] before everyone left. So please

[1:07:10] don't run off after this

[1:07:11] meeting. Councilmember McCosker,

[1:07:12] go ahead. I'm going to let that

[1:07:16] inspirational speech hang in

[1:07:17] the air. There's nothing I

[1:07:18] could ask, most of which I know

[1:07:21] the answers to that would be

[1:07:23] helpful to the situation. We'll

[1:07:24] just watch for the federal case.

[1:07:26] I do take exception to the

[1:07:28] statement which you say and

[1:07:29] kindness that the county has

[1:07:30] the ability to stand this up.

[1:07:32] They do not. The county does

[1:07:35] not have the capacity to

[1:07:37] fulfill the false promise that

[1:07:38] they put in that letter.

[1:07:40] Looking forward to the feds

[1:07:41] response. But in my district,

[1:07:44] we're already experiencing

[1:07:45] folks in the field making calls

[1:07:48] to shelter outside the city,

[1:07:50] where the answer from the

[1:07:52] administrators of the shelter

[1:07:53] is that the county has told us

[1:07:55] no city clients, no city

[1:07:59] clients. And think of what CD

[1:08:01] 15 is. We house

[1:08:04] disproportionately more and

[1:08:05] shelter. We shelter

[1:08:06] disproportionately more than

[1:08:08] the folks that we have on the

[1:08:09] street. And when we are full

[1:08:11] and we make calls to shelter

[1:08:14] outside of the city of Los

[1:08:15] Angeles, the answer is the

[1:08:17] county has told us, take no

[1:08:20] customers from the city. So we

[1:08:24] may say that Donald Trump and

[1:08:25] the federal government is

[1:08:27] attacking us. At least they're

[1:08:30] morons. We have the county

[1:08:32] attacking us in the same way,

[1:08:34] with no regard for taking care

[1:08:37] of homelessness. They have some

[1:08:40] other agenda, and they're a

[1:08:43] little bit smarter than Donald

[1:08:44] Trump. I hope we have some time

[1:08:47] to talk about that after this.

[1:08:49] I would like to get more

[1:08:50] details on that. Yeah, you'll

[1:08:51] get it. I'll get you names and

[1:08:53] numbers. Perfect. Thank you.

[1:08:54] Because we have we have a a

[1:08:57] county agency that has declared

[1:08:59] war on homeless people. Those

[1:09:02] are the folks getting punished.

[1:09:04] They think they're hurting the

[1:09:05] city. Well, what they are doing

[1:09:08] is missing their mission. Thank

[1:09:12] you, Councilmember Mcosker. And

[1:09:14] that, why I am fixated on data

[1:09:19] ownership is because if we're

[1:09:22] in a circumstance where, you

[1:09:27] know, we have less control over

[1:09:29] that data, we don't that is the

[1:09:31] only pathway to accountability

[1:09:32] is through data. Right? And

[1:09:35] we've fought and clawed our way

[1:09:37] to filling beds that we fund.

[1:09:40] And if we lose access to even

[1:09:42] that information, then we will

[1:09:45] be worse off than we were

[1:09:46] before. So I'm, you know, I

[1:09:47] just want to be very, very

[1:09:49] cautious about how we move

[1:09:50] forward here. Councilmember

[1:09:51] Blumenfield, did you have any

[1:09:52] questions? I thought I saw, you

[1:09:54] know, I I'm on the same page.

[1:09:55] Yeah, great. I just wanted to

[1:09:57] make sure everyone on this

[1:09:58] committee was aware of, of

[1:10:00] changes because I know it's

[1:10:01] complicated. I know you're all

[1:10:02] reading news articles, but I

[1:10:03] just want to make sure we all

[1:10:05] had the same information and we

[1:10:07] know who to go to in the city

[1:10:09] if we want updates. Meg is an

[1:10:13] enormous wealth of, resources

[1:10:17] and historical knowledge as

[1:10:18] well. So I'm really grateful

[1:10:20] that, That you're on the case.

[1:10:25] Thank you. And that we can, we

[1:10:26] can move forward here. And, I

[1:10:30] think we have a lot of work to

[1:10:32] do and we'll see what happens

[1:10:34] tomorrow. So and barring any

[1:10:35] other councilmember, I don't

[1:10:37] know if you had any comments.

[1:10:38] Okay. Thank you so much to both

[1:10:41] of you for being here. We look

[1:10:42] forward to getting an update

[1:10:44] from the court hearing tomorrow.

[1:10:46] And, Miss Jen, are we all set

[1:10:48] with our agenda? Yes, madam

[1:10:51] chair, the desk is clear. The

[1:10:53] desk is clear. But if I could

[1:10:54] make a request that we keep the

[1:10:56] lights on in the council

[1:10:58] chambers, just for a few

[1:10:58] moments while we take a picture,

[1:11:00] we can adjourn. And, guys,

[1:11:03] thank you all. This has been so

[1:11:05] exciting. It's our last meeting

[1:11:08] of the Housing and Homelessness

[1:11:10] Committee. As a combined

[1:11:11] meeting. This committee was

[1:11:12] created in the aftermath of the

[1:11:15] tape's leaking. There were not

[1:11:17] enough members on that on the

[1:11:19] council at the time to chair

[1:11:20] all the committees. And this

[1:11:22] seemed like a natural

[1:11:24] intersection of issues. And

[1:11:26] I've been been very fortunate

[1:11:27] to chair it in all its

[1:11:29] iterations for, for a couple of

[1:11:30] years. So thank you all so much.

[1:11:32] It's been really a pleasure.

[1:11:34] And look forward to working

[1:11:36] with you all on these issues as

[1:11:38] we move forward. So thank you.

[1:11:39] Thank you for sharing it. Thank

[1:11:40] you. Are you all right? You

[1:11:44] want to come up? Yeah.

Housing and Homelessness Committee - 8/5/26

Transcript