Council approves replacement motion to bridge LASA funding gap amid state delays

The Los Angeles City Council voted to approve a replacement motion on agenda item 16 to provide temporary city funding so homeless services providers can be paid while state HUB funds are delayed.

Council members raised concerns that Los Angeles Service Agency (LASA) has operated ahead of scheduled state disbursements and that the city now faces a timing gap. A councilmember described the measure as an attempt to limit the city's exposure while preserving vital services, and asked staff to identify safeguards to ensure the city is reimbursed when state payments arrive. The council voted 11–0 to approve the replacement motion with the circulated modification.

City staff told members the state schedule means some HUB funds will not arrive until December 2025 or January 2026 and that the city is being asked to advance roughly $9,000,000 for an October 1 payment. According to staff, the city and county previously agreed to divide responsibility for part of that payment; the motion adopted uses a mix of the city’s general and special funds to cover the immediate obligation and directs follow-up accounting to reconcile reimbursements from LASA or state sources.

Members pressed for a timeline and written protections. The motion as adopted calls for a staff report detailing repayment plans and protections; councilmembers discussed 30- and 60-day reporting options during debate and asked the chief administrative officer to return with a plan so the council could monitor reimbursements and avoid repeated exposure.

The discussion distinguished between discussion and formal action: councilmembers repeatedly described the vote as a short-term financing step, not a change in long-term program eligibility. No ordinance or budget amendment language was enacted beyond the adopted replacement motion; staff were directed to supply the financial follow-up documentation and repayment plan in the timeframe the council requested.

Concerns voiced during debate included the fiscal strain on city reserves, uncertainty about final state allocations, and provider stability if advanced payments were not made. The council’s approval enabled immediate provider payments while directing staff to pursue written repayment guarantees and to return with a timeline for restoring reserve funds.

Ending: The council did not change program eligibility in this vote; it approved a temporary funding mechanism and instructed city staff to return with repayment protections and a schedule. The council recorded the vote on the replacement motion as 11 in favor, 0 opposed.