Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I appreciate the opportunity to present on AB 1679, which would allow the County of Los Angeles to impose taxes up to 0.5% that exceeds the 2% limit that the state caps at. So, just to refresh, 7.25% is what the state amount is, capped at 2% for any additional revenue. And this would allow us to continue on Measure H. Measure H is the ballot initiative that was passed by the voters of L.A. County to ensure that we had the Wraparound Support Services to address the ever-growing homeless crisis in the County of Los Angeles. But this is necessary in order for us to continue it, to be able to lift the cap, which is what currently the L.A. County has. This measure ends, not this measure. Sorry. Measure H ends in 2027. So this gives us the ability to continue it. Without this, we won't have long-term solutions to address the issue of homelessness. Without this, we won't have the ability to have any of the conversations about reform, or strict oversight or transparency. Without this, the program ends. The reason we need it now, because there's been a lot of chatter about "Can we wait a little bit for this?" The reason we need it now is because L.A. County can't plan long-term services to addressing the issue of homelessness if there's no certainty in the funding. So we have to act now to give the ability for L.A. County and stakeholders to be able to come together, figure out if they're going to do this ballot initiative, and then to choose whether they're going to do it in the 2024 or the 2026 election cycle. Now, I've heard from committee members some frustration about maybe services or allocation of dollars, and of like what I've said to everybody else, I feel some of the same frustrations. But here's the opportunity to fix that, the opportunity to continue Measure H, the opportunity to engage in a conversation now that we have knowledge about what has worked, what could work better, gives us the opportunity to do so. We've included language in there, thanks to the committee and thanks to others who have helped us to do that, to include robust oversight and transparency where that wasn't done before. But I want to set the stage clear that this isn't about going to the voters. This is only about lifting the cap. The previous cap had already been lifted. We want to continue to lift the cap. But to be clear, not from 0.25%, but 0.5%, in order to be able to have that stakeholder conversation to ensure that the services to address the homeless population continue. Just want to remind everybody that, and we do have some stats that we'll go through, but in the interest of time, I'll cut it short, but 350 million is what it was producing last year. It produced 500 million. And we have some stats in terms of how many folks we've been able to help on the Wraparound Support Services. And Mr. Chair, if you'd allow me to, I have two witnesses that would also like to present. Absolutely. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Martha Guerrero, representing the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in support of AB 1679. Earlier this year, the 2023 Homeless Count for the Greater Los Angeles Area was released, and it reflected a 9% increase in Los Angeles County to roughly 75,000 people and a 10% rise in the city of Los Angeles to roughly 46,000 people. So the increase is consistent with the national and regional trends, and it suggests that the ongoing housing crisis and the ending of COVID protections continue to have a negative impact on addressing homelessness. Both the City of Los Angeles County and L.A. City... and L.A. County have declared states of emergencies in their jurisdictions and are coordinating responses to addressing and leveraging resources. And with this unprecedented cooperation amongst the county and city leaders, it's key to ensure that resources are available to help tackle these issues. Unfortunately, one of L.A. County's current funding measures for addressing homelessness crisis, now more commonly known as Measure H, is sunsetting in the near future, as Assemblymember Santiago referenced. And considering this, the county and the city and various regional stakeholders have been in discussions about a funding mechanism to continue to support vital services for our unhoused populations, which you will hear from the next witness on what those resources are. Considering this, the County Board of Supervisors voted in support of AB 1679, as it is an important vehicle to have in place in discussions as the assemblymember to continue to progress and establish consensus built among stakeholders. Several of L.A. County's 88 cities and incorporated cities have expressed a desire for a local return in the measure, and this is not off the table, and decisions on how funds will be dispersed have yet to be made. While no decision has been made on a specific funding mechanism, however, we feel all options must be on the table and AB 1679, as the Assemblymember Santiago references simply provides the framework for more future funding mechanism, and it does not commit the County of Los Angeles or any of its incorporated 88 cities or the state to pursuing attacks. And with that, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning. My name is Christopher Nikhil Bowen, director of policy with L.A. Family Housing, here to speak in strong support of AB 1679. And forgive me, this is the first time I'm doing this, but to give you a bit of background on our organization, L.A. Family Housing is celebrating our 40th anniversary, and there is a lot to celebrate. We help people transition out of homelessness and poverty through a continuum of housing enriched with supportive services. L.A. Family Housing joined with a broad coalition of nonprofit business, homelessness service providers, labor in various advocacy organizations across L.A. to urge the passage of AB 1679. Because Measure H, which passed with 69% of the vote in 2017 and generates over $350 million annually, is set to expire in 2027. Long-term funding commitments are hard to come by in Los Angeles and in Sacramento, but they are critical for the operation of homelessness services. Measure H created the first revenue stream dedicated to addressing and preventing homelessness in the county. If Measure H was not to be renewed, thousands of L.A. Family Housing participants would be impacted, and over 600 of our units. That stat only encompasses our Time-Limited Subsidy, not prevention or PSH. We would lose $18 million, which would include the entire street outreach program that we operate in Spa One and Two. And for folks who are not aware of where Spa One and Two are, they encompass cities like Palmdale, Lancaster, Santa Clarita and Burbank. Measure H would have... the nonrenewal of Measure H would have reverberations felt widely across our agency and the entire county. Simply put, if Measure H expired, the work we do would be severely distressed, and the work we do is extremely important. As was referenced earlier, in 2023 Los Angeles Homeless Count, there were 75,000 people experiencing homelessness on any given night in our county. Unless a new revenue source is approved with a sufficient tax base, the County of Los Angeles will be forced to drastically scale back those services. At a time of Measure H's adoption, six cities in the county were at that 2% sales tax cap, meaning the tax did not take effect in those jurisdictions. Today, 49 cities representing over half the county are impacted. So we are urging a yes vote and we are proud to support the bill that will ensure Los Angeles County has adequate resources to address homelessness. Thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate those comments. Any primary witnesses in opposition to this measure, please come up.

Mr. Chair and committee members. Tobias Wolken of the California Taxpayers Association, in opposition. California already has the highest state-imposed sales tax rate in the country, and districts that are authorized to exceed the cap, including many in Los Angeles County, are among the highest combined sales tax rates in the United States. It's also important to remember that the state does not offer a local exemption for manufacturing and research and development purchases, which makes our ability to compete for these investments harder. We think the cap plays an important role in keeping the state affordable, and especially for low-income Californians and should not be circumvented. Thank you.

Thank you for comments. Any witnesses in support, please come up to the mic.

Morning, Chairman. Members Martin Radosevich, on behalf of United Way Of Greater Los Angeles, in strong support.

Anybody else? Seeing none. Any public comment in opposition to this measure?

Morning chair and members. Erik Turner on behalf of the City of Downey. Appreciate the intent of the bill, respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing nobody else, I'll open it to the committee members. Anybody wants to have questions or make comments?

Thank you, chair. Well, I certainly understand, and we all read and understand the homelessness situation in Los Angeles County, I think we all are concerned, where does the money go? And you can't define that yet or it won't be defined in terms of the allocation to the programs? What assurances can you give me anyway that this isn't just a tax rate that will be regressive to lower-income people and we don't even know if the solutions are working. I mean, it's just more and more and more money to homeless shelter. I mean, we all read the newspapers that say that the average price of building one room homeless for the homeless is almost upwards of $800,000 per unit. In terms of construction costs and how this money is spent, I think it's unknown. Even at the state level, we don't know where the money is going. And just raising more taxes to go into a dark hole of where doing good work. We all know that there needs to be homeless housing. How do we know? You talk about transparency and accountability. Could you talk about how we will measure how you will measure the success of the use of those tax revenues?

Yeah, and I'm glad you asked that question. So let me first off, I know there was a comment on opposition. This bill cannot be amended. All the conversations about stakeholders and outcomes and similar to Measure W, when it went passed, when the counties and the cities did that, that will have to be done after this bill is passed. But you can't get to that conversation unless this is done. And I'm glad you brought those comments up, but this is Measure H, which isn't about the building. Measure HHH, which the city of Los Angeles passed, was about permit supportive housing, emergency shelter and transitional housing. So just want to clear it. This is H, totally different initiative. And Measure H, there are some stats in terms of what has worked, for example, and there is transparency on it, and there is reporting on it. So I want to clarify that right now. And the county is here and we'll answer a little bit more, but about 123 people have been placed into interim housing, and about 90,000 of those people have been put into permanent supportive housing. And it's prevented about 24,000 people from becoming homeless. So this measure that we're debating is not the measure that you asked me about regarding brick-and-mortar. This is about the Wraparound Support Services, the health and human side of it that is being debated. This is not for that. Yeah, it's a totally different measure. Measure HHH is a city of Los Angeles, which is the brick-and-mortar piece. This is Measure H, which is dedicated to the Wraparound Support Services, once a person is placed in the permit supportive housing. That's about as simple as I could put it.

Okay, well, thank you for that clarification. What is the expected revenue if this is passed? And again, if we approve it, then it has to go to the voters.

No, this is just on the cap piece. So this does nothing to bring it to the voters. This is similar to what the legislature has passed in previous years to allow the cap to go up. The only thing I think in the past is that the measure passed by the voters and then the county came to the legislature to lift the cap. The only difference in this particular case is you're coming before the legislature to lift the cap. And then all conversations will continue at the local level to propose an initiative to go to the voters.

So that ultimately will go to the voters under the new cap.

This does not give permission. This is not a ballot initiative. This does not do any of those things. Those things that are required to go to the voters happen independent and outside of this. This only lifts the cap. If the voters pass it. But look, there's been resounding support for it. 69% is what it was approved at last time.

The same percentage?

69% is what was referenced in terms of Measure H passing.

And that was the same cap number or now it's changing?

Yeah, it was 2.5%, but there's a really good reason for it, too. As stated earlier, at the time that Measure H was passed, there was only six cities that didn't meet the cap. That means six cities that weren't paying into it. Today, if you move forward with it, there are I hope I get this right, yes, 49 cities that are capped out. So you would pass a measure with a lot more cities not paying into it, which would decline the revenue significantly. This is more important than ever today because if this is not passed and you go before the voters, you could see a situation where a significant amount of cities are not paying into it because 49% of the cities are already capped the minute this ends.

Okay, but back to the projected revenue. Do we have any visibility on that at this point?

If today 350 million was a projected revenue and last year was about 500 million, at 0.25%, you could see a situation where you could hit between 700 million to 1 billion at 0.5%.

And who manages that?

That would go through L.A. County.

L.A. County would be the administrator of all those funds.

Right.

All right, thank you very much.

Sure. No problem.

Before we go to other committee members, I'd like to know that we reached a quorum. It's still on the record. Any other committee members have questions or comments? I'm sorry.

So I have serious concerns about this bill. I have serious concerns about this bill because there's a couple of my cities that are opposed unless amended, which are cities of Downey, Norwalk and Santa Fe Springs. I think they sent in a letter of concern. But two of my largest cities within my district haven't opposed unless amended. And I understand why they have this position, and that's because we haven't received any of those fundings to these cities. City of Downey received zero funding and it's the largest city within my district. It's also the 10th largest city within L.A. County. And yet Downey is doing everything that they can do with respect to homelessness and providing Wraparound Services, yet received zero funding. So I'm curious to know why this is a gut and amend bill and why we didn't just go through the regular process.

Before you continue, Secretary, could you please call roll for us now that we have a quorum?

Carillo. Present. Carillo present. Dixon. Dixon present. Boerner. Boerner present. Haney. Present. Haney present. Pacheco. Present. Pacheco present. Ramos. Ramos present. Waldron. Wilson. Wilson present.

Mr. Assembly Member, you want to...

And I appreciate the question. Look, let's have an honest conversation. The reason it's a gut and amend is because it was brought to our attention towards the end of session. I mean that's as simplest and the honest answer. If the county brought it to us at the beginning of the year, then we'd be talking about it from the beginning of the year. It was brought to our attention that they needed to get this up for a variety of reasons. Number one, if there was a possibility of putting it up on the November election. Number two, that you couldn't wait as long as 2026, meaning next year to get it done through the Legislature and to go to '26 because you can't plan long-term effectively if you're going to provide services that address the issue of homelessness. In other words, long-range planning. Right. So if you went up in '26 knowing that this ends in '27, you as agencies couldn't prepare long-term plans except the only thing before you was the knowledge that the funds were ending. And so you'd be... not you, but general, you'd be in a situation where agencies are starting to look towards ending Measure H, while at the same time hoping that it passes. So you'd be more than likely not being able to plan long-term. So a more effective approach would be going to the voters in '24. But the simple answer is I was approached at the end. So, I mean, that's the truth.

And is there any kind of urgency in having it passed this year instead of having it passed next year?

Yeah, exactly for what the reason that I explained. That if you don't go to the voters in '24 during a presidential year and if it doesn't pass in '24, you couldn't plan long-term. So for example, if it passes in '24, you now have three years to continue those programming and plan long-term. If you wait till '26, the county has to start potentially shutting down programs because there is no commitment of long-term funding. Could you pass in '26? Yeah, but you would be winding down a program at the same time you're asking voters to increase for. You just can't plan long-term. The better thing to do, and if you didn't pass it in '24, you can always back in '26. But the truth of the matter is, the way it's explained to me, you just can't plan long-term for something that is not there. Waiting till '26 doesn't give you the ability to plan long-term any of these programs.

And how are we assured for local cities that they will receive the funding that they need?

Yeah, I'll let the county answer that because look, I've had this conversation with everybody. I have the same frustration. Look, if the largest percentage of homeless population is in Los Angeles City and we're not receiving the lion's share of dollars, I share the same frustration. So I'm not going to sugarcoat that. Same frustration that you share is the same frustration that I share. The increased accountability, the increased transparency is a frustration that I also share. But I also put that in the bill. Now, you can't write a ballot measure in a bill that is prescriptive, and it would not allow for the stakeholder conversation to happen to get a better product. That's why you can't write it here. And all the things that people want in there probably aren't going to happen in the bill. That is why this allows for a stakeholder process to sit down and then hammer out those differences. But I share the same frustration with you. Absolutely. I'm not going to sugarcoat that piece. No way. Los Angeles City has the largest percentage of homeless population. I'm going to advocate for my city to get the largest percentage of funding, the same way that I expect everybody here in Los Angeles County to advocate for their cities to get the largest portion of funding. But I also want to just be clear that this is about the Wraparound Support Services and not about the brick-and-mortar piece of it. If you have frustration about your city not getting dollars, I will stand with you in that same frustration about my city getting its fair equitable amount of dollars that I'll be with you. But those conversations can't happen if we don't go to the voters. Those conversations can't happen if the cap isn't increased. And I'll let the county answer at that piece. But I share the same frustration as you, and I'll be making sure that those conversations happen.

Assemblymember Pacheco, we welcome your participation in the planning process as we move forward to engage with everybody in determining what the ballot initiative will consist of. So, in seeking to make sure that there's transparency and engagement, we are going to engage with everybody so we have the best measure possible on the ballot and make sure that we want support for this. In taking a look at not only just Measure H funding, we have other resources in the county that the Department of Public Social Services provides in providing either benefits, mental health services and consumer and department... Business and Consumer Department Affairs also provides support for preventing evictions. So there's a number of other county resources that we can sit down with your office and share with you all the resources that are going into your jurisdiction and with the cities so that they're fully aware of, beyond Measure H, what are the resources are needed for the unhoused individuals?

And is there a reason maybe the county can answer the question. Is there a reason why the assemblymember, the author of this bill, was barely informed as to the need now, instead of alerting us sooner as to this urgency and having this bill passed? Because it does give me severe angst that this is a gut and amend and being sent to us at the very last minute.

Yes, we had a planning process to determine which initiative to put forward in the ballot. And taking a look at our options and in discussing it with the state, looking at the Department of Finance and Tax Authority to see what our situation was like, we realized that this is enduring that process. And that's when we alerted the assemblymember's office that we needed to do this in order to consider putting this in the November 2024 ballot, and we needed it passed this year.

I don't know if there's any other comments. I don't know if the opposition wants to say anything. That's what the angst that I'm dealing with. Full disclosure, I did have a conversation with the Executive Director of Contract Cities Marcel Rodarte this morning, and he said conversations were being held. He explained to me that Contract Cities was initially a oppose unless amended, I believe, or support if amended. I can't remember which one Contract Cities was, but he said the conversations have been occurring. He did want to say thanks to Supervisor Horvath. I think she's spearheading this. But I am having severe problems with this, given that I just want to make sure that money is being equally allocated to the cities, because Downey received nothing, Santa Fe received nothing, and that's been my angst. And I represent the cities, and I want to make sure that proper funding is being allocated to these cities for providing the Wraparound Services that they're providing. I know maybe not everybody's doing it, but I know it's being done in Downey, so I just want to make sure that I'm protecting the cities that I represent.

Thank you.

Any other committee member with comments or questions?

Thank you, chair. I share my colleague's concern, but a larger concern I have is... I'm just new here, but I am sitting through so many proposed tax increases that affect the common person on the November 2024 ballot. I believe potentially could be another measure that would reduce the voter requirement from a two-thirds vote to a majority vote. So I think maybe that's part of the haste here. I don't know when all this happened. I'm not trying to be suspicious about anything, but everybody's now, we're going to see a lot of opportunities to increase taxes on the people who can least afford it. How do we know these programs as they're being allocated are the Wraparound Services we've heard about Wraparound Services for? I served on the board of United Way of Los Angeles for 15 years. We talked about Wraparound Services, and we have more homeless than we did, I think the number when I served on the board, which was ten years ago, was maybe 50,000 homeless. What's the homeless now in Los Angeles? The city of Los Angeles? 46,000, hasn't accomplished much. What are these Wraparound Services doing? How much is being spent, and how do we measure their effectiveness for the people who desperately need it? We know that Skid Row is a city upon itself in downtown Los Angeles. Nothing has changed. How are we going to help these people instead of just pouring more money? More money. More money. And the overhead. The overhead. The overhead. How does it touch the people who need help?

Well, number one, this has nothing to do with the measure that was voted on. I think you're referring to a couple of weeks ago in the legislature. This has nothing to do with it and it wouldn't impact that. So I want to clear that up. And then two, I just want to go ahead and reiterate what I said about Measure H and some of the successes. And look, I'm a guy who wants more transparency and robust accountability, which is why we've included in there, page three, section C, that "It is intent of the legislature that any transactions and use tax adopted pursuant to the authority granted in this section include robust oversight and accountabilities provisions." So that when the stakeholders are having these conversations about going to the voters, that that is going to be included. But this doesn't increase the tax. Let's be very clear about it. It doesn't allow it to go to the voters. It lifts a cap.

So they could if they want. You're saying you're not going to submit a measure to the voters to increase the cap?

But this doesn't increase the tax.

This is the vehicle that would allow the city to do that or the county to do that.

Well, the county can also go through do that and then come back. But this is required in order...

I understand. It's just a process step. I get it. How do we know these programs work is my fundamental question.

Yeah, and that's what I answered earlier. Right. Measure H has contributed to the placement of about 123 people in an interim housing.

How much did that cost?

I'll let the county answer that. And about 90,000 people into permanent supportive housing and prevented about 24,000 people from becoming homeless. And she's got a chart next to her that she could explain, if that's okay with the chair. I apologize.

That's okay.

Thank you. For the permanent housing, $270 million, which is 44.3% is the funding. And then for interim housing, and this is for 2023-2024 proposed budget of $609 million total. For interim, this is $182 million. That's 30%. And to answer the question related to the Wraparound Services that we provided for our 22,000 individuals that received permanent supportive housing, they had chronic medical and behavioral health issues. So in order for us to be able to help stabilize them, they were in supportive housing first, getting them access to the resources and also substance abuse treatment. And then once they are stabilized and they have their case management all set and they're able to work collaboratively with the treatment providers, then we can transfer them into rental housing and get them into to be more independent. So that's also providing them with the resources so that they can live independently.

I commend that, of course. I just want to know what kind of impact that's having.

That's 22,000 individuals have received those services.

All right, thank you very much.

Assembly Member Boerner. Yeah, and I think to round out the question, my understanding of this bill is you need this increase in cap in order to let this go to the voters in L.A. County. And if the L.A. County folks want to vote for all these taxes, that is their right under democracy, right? Like, that is their right. That's why we have referendums. That's why we have ballot initiatives. This is their choice. So I'm not in L.A. County. I don't know how I feel if I were in L.A. County, but this is your thing, and you guys have the largest share of homelessness in California, and you need to figure out what you're going to do about it. And there's only so much the state can put in. So we'll support this measure today, and with that, I move the bill.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, can I make a comment?

Quick comment.

Yes, absolutely. No, I'm glad you brought that up, because the dire situation today is actually a little bit more imperative that we pass this. And even when Measure H was passed the first time in 2017, there was six cities that were capped out at the 2%. Today there are 49 cities that are tapped out. So if we go forward with this without this, you're looking at a significant reduced amount of revenue, which means worsening the homeless situation. That's why it's in dire straits today to pass us more than it was before.

Assemblymember Wilson.

Thank you to the author, and thank you to my colleague, Assemblymember Dixon, for bringing up her concerns. And I agree that we do have a lot of taxes on the ballot this year and doing quite a bit. One thing that I can appreciate about this particular bill, it is a district bill, but it also doesn't allow the cap to just be blown through with anything. It's very specific. It allows an exemption to the cap specifically related to housing or providing affordable housing related to, I mean, for homelessness and providing affordable housing or providing affordable housing within the bill. So I think that that is a safety measure, so to speak, in terms of not letting L.A. County be like, oh, I just want to use a general tax to do whatever I want with. But it is specific to homeless and recognizing that the whole point of having the cap statewide is that there was some uniformity amongst all counties or agencies, local agencies within the state. And so this allows an exemption only under one specific circumstance versus it being just. Yeah, not the whole state, but just even in L.A. County, they cannot do just a general tax for some other specific purposes. They can only exceed the cap related to this particular issue, and then it is up to them to make the case to the voters, as was noted from my colleague across the way, to make that case and for them to determine whether they want the tax or not. And then also, if it's not being spent on what it is, or they're finding that it becomes a black hole. Because we all know that we need more accountability in not just homelessness, but also mental health. If it's a black hole, then the voters will do something about that as well. So with that, I don't know if there's been a second, but I second it.

Thank you. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Yep. And I want to thank the committee for having a robust conversation. And I do mean that, because a lot of the frustration that you have said about it is the same conversations that I had with L.A. County when they brought it up to us to talk about the measure, which is you want increased transparency, you want robust accountability, because otherwise we don't get the outcomes that we want. So I don't want to make a defense for that at all. Right. I don't. And I've had many conversations with you folks that I'm going to be engaged as much as I possibly can because I want better outcomes for this. But I also know that if this doesn't happen, we're not going to get that conversation about our outcomes. And this will allow to pass and repeal what you currently have. Because once you pass a new ballot measure, the old one goes away, but it gives us that ability to get into that conversation and say, here's where we'd like it to be, here's how much better it can work and here's the accountability and the transparency that we want. But that doesn't happen if we don't get this. So for everybody's frustration, I get it. I feel it. I am with you on that frustration. And I want to make sure that we get better outcomes and better transparency. And I'm not going to make excuses for cities not getting it. They should get it. The same way that I'm going to be fighting for the areas that I represent is the same way I expect everybody to be fighting for those areas that they represent. But that happens if we can go back to the voters. And that doesn't happen unless this gets out of the legislature. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Santiago. Witnesses in support and witnessing opposition for this conversation. As we've discussed, we all know that California is facing an immense homelessness crisis in Los Angeles County, it's continue to see increases in its homeless population as it was stated earlier today. Measure H did passed in 2017 and has raised between $350 to $500 million a year, as stated also. And since 2017, I believe this reached up to $2 billion since then. Despite this revenue, homelessness has increased with a current homeless population that is 70,000 Angelinos, and I believe that you can concur to that. And something needs to change. We all agreed to that in this discussion we had. As stated by Ms. Pacheco and other ones, the concern is that homeless continues to increase in our local jurisdictions. There are local jurisdictions that have tackled that issue independently on their own. There are jurisdictions that have come up with a homelessness plan, like the City of Palmdale that I represented six years. We did come up with a homeless plan to address this issue. But I just want to reiterate the comments that were made here by some of my colleagues. We need to do something about it, about transparency and about the way that these funds get distributed throughout L.A. County. Recognizing that the City of Los Angeles is the one with the highest homeless population and the biggest population in the county with 3 million people, something needs to change, because when I go to L.A., I see that right away. As you enter the City of Los Angeles. Your smaller jurisdictions, as expressed by Assemblymember Pacheco, the jurisdictions that I represent, Palmdale and Lancaster, we barely get anything. Some in Downey get nothing. I just want to make sure that we have a commitment from L.A. County that there will be inclusive discussions, that there will be transparency and mechanisms to ensure that every local jurisdiction throughout the entire county, throughout the entire county, not only in the city of Los Angeles, so that you can find the support. I recognize that we need to continue to find the sources of funding to address the homelessness situations that we are facing for many, many reasons. We all know that there's not only one reason why we're facing this homelessness population that we have throughout the state, this measure being L.A. County. Again, I want to have a commitment from LA County that we are going to be inclusive. We're going to include every jurisdiction that wants to participate to make sure that every homeless person is eligible to receive this funding. Not only the City of Los Angeles. Also recognizing that the City of Los Angeles is going to be in the eyes of the world, not only in 2028 with the Olympics, but in 2026 with the Soccer World Cup coming to the U.S. We need to make sure that we are well represented. We need to make sure that visitors come and see the potential that the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles has. Do I have that commitment from the county to make sure that we're going to be able to participate and make sure that can you state that on the record?

Yes. You do have our commitment to work with everyone so that we have the best measure moving forward on the 2024 ballot.

Thank you. With that, the motion is that senate amends be concurring this bill. Secretary, please call the roll. You did.

Motion is concurrent. Senate amendments. Carillo. Aye. Carillo aye.Correo aye. Dixon. No. Dixon no. Boerner. Aye. Boerner aye. Pacheco. Not voting. Pacheco not voting. Ramos. Aye. Ramos aye. Waldron. Wilson. Aye. Wilson aye. Haney. I'm so sorry. Haney. Aye. Hayne aye. I am so sorry.

The motion passes five to one. Thank you, everybody. Thank you.