Good afternoon and welcome to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors Personnel Administration and Legislation Committee meeting from Monday, November the 20th, excuse me, November the 17th, 2025.

May I have roll call, please.

Supervisor Coordinato pass.

Present.

Supervisor Town.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

The clerk want to make some special announcement about our new format.

For remote participation, please continue to use the raise hand function and the clerk will unmute you when it's your turn to speak for in-person participation.

Please fill out a speaker card in the front and hand it to the clerk.

Thank you.

And we are using MS team, not Zoom as our platform today.

So let's start with the federal legislation update, and the government is reopened, right?

Government is reopened.

Good afternoon.

You've got Emily Bachetasilva here and John Assini.

Yes, uh the House and Senate are both back in session.

The Senate will be in Tuesday through Thursday this week, and the House will be in session uh this evening through Friday.

And then of course they'll both recess um for Thanksgiving, but they're both back this week.

Um, and again, I mean, you all know it was the longest government shutdown in US history.

Um, came to an end last Wednesday night.

Um, you know, I think kind of the the big news associated with it is um, you know, the CR runs through January 30th, uh, but it also uh contained a three-bill minibus providing uh full year appropriations for agriculture, uh, military construction, veterans' affairs, and the legislative branch, um, and a guaranteed Senate vote in December on legislation to extend ACA premium subsidies.

You know, on the Agaprobes front, I know we talked about this last week, but you know, it does include uh a full year of funding for both SNAP and WIC nutrition programs.

Um, you know, one of the things that we talked about kind of throughout the shutdown was that we kept hearing that there was this desire to get kind of the full year FY26 appropriations bills done once they got out of the shutdown.

And um the Senate really does seem to be focused on that.

And so I'll turn it to John now, who can kind of talk about what the Senate is going to be focused on, but they're already trying to tee up kind of the next what they're calling a minibus of appropriations bills that can move through the Senate to kind of force the House to negotiate and really kind of take those Senate bills.

But I'll turn it over to John to talk about kind of those those next bills.

Sure.

Uh so the Senate did pass the three-bill minibus uh to Emily's point.

And now Senate Republicans in particular are looking to continue the momentum on four or five additional bills.

This is the remainder of the appropriations bills that pass out of the appropriations committee full committee level.

Um, all five of these pass with wide bipartisan margins, and this is seen as kind of a response to the action that has been taken on the House level.

Um, of course, the House bills um fund agencies in a significantly lower level with the exception of defense to that of the Senate.

So this is kind of their attempt um to combat the lower funding levels that were established by the House.

So the next five bills that we could see action are defense, labor age, THUD, CJS, and interior environment.

Um now the House or the Senate rather, Republicans sent a hotline to get unanimous consent on their side.

Um that would allow for quick consideration of this five-bill minibus.

Um, they have not yet done this on the Democratic side.

Democrats, by and large, or I won't say by and large, there's a handful of Democrats that are going to oppose the hotline or likely to oppose the hotline to get action on this um sometime this week because they're still annoyed by the eight Senate Democrats that voted to reopen the government last week.

So in sort of this intra-party fight, they are withholding their support for unanimous consent agreement to move forward on the five-bill minibus.

Um so we likely won't see action on that this week.

Of course, they're out next week, so um action on the minibus could take place in December at the earliest.

But also the government is open until January 30th.

So there is a bit of time to get action on the FY26 bills before they move on to other pieces of legislation.

The other piece of the other bill that has not yet seen action on the Senate level is of course the SFOPS, which is a Senate foreign-ops bill that has not passed on the committee level, the Homeland Security Bill, which funds ICE and CBP that has not seen action at the committee level and the energy and water bill, which funds the Army Corps piece of the Army Corps projects.

So those three bills will likely see action last.

But there's still ongoing conversations about passing a Senate bill for those initial five pieces of legislation that will also include ear likely earmarks for those five bills, but only the Senate earmarks.

If they do want to pass sort of the total five-year bills, they will have to ultimately be conference at an informal or formal level, but the House that will incorporate both the Senate earmarks and the House earmarks, very similar to what we saw with the three bill minibus that passed along with the CR last week.

And one thing I want to mention as far as the labor H bill, I mean again, in terms of kind of our priorities, we're focused on getting Transportation HUD and Labor H, you know, across the finish line.

I know one of the programs, I mean there are many, but one of the programs we have talked about is LIHEAP.

And again, there was no funding to states.

Normally it goes out in November, but because of the shutdown, that funding did not flow.

So just one quick note for you guys as far as LIHEAP, there's a bipartisan group of senators that sent a letter to HHS Secretary Kennedy on Friday requesting that the department quickly release kind of the highest amount of LIHEAP funding available.

And then as far as the actual House and Senate FY26 bills, they both have an increase in funding over current levels.

So I believe the House bill was at uh just a little bit north of $4 billion, and the Senate, well, the same.

The Senate was $4,045,000, and the uh the House, I believe, was $4,035.

So right about the same levels.

Um I know that there was some concern because the president's budget request would have zeroed out that program.

Just want you guys to know that both bills uh have even a slight increase over current levels.

And if they can get um if they can get the bill done, that funding would go into effect.

In the meantime, we're just under kind of current levels under the CR.

So wanted to make that note for you.

And then um one last note, um, this Wednesday, the Senate Finance Committee will hold uh a hearing on the rising cost of health care.

Uh, you know, kind of as a um because of what happened with the CR.

So uh the Senate is is holding that hearing and then later that day um House Ways and Means Umcommittee on Health uh has a hearing plan that will give tax writers in that chamber um a chance to debate um the the premium tax credit uh as well.

So um more than 30 House members between the two parties uh wrote to Senate leaders last week, urging them to include the House chamber in any negotiations on a Senate deal so that it can clear Congress and go to the president's desk.

We are a long way from any sort of deal, but um at least Senate finance and ways and means will be holding hearings this week.

So just wanted to make a note on that.

Um, and that's our report.

Thank you very much.

That was very informative.

Uh Supervisor fortunately balance questions, comments?

Um, thank you for the report.

Just a quick clarification on potential LIHEAP funding.

If that were to um be reinstated and increased, would that potentially be retroactive or would it just be forward facing so john correct me if i'm wrong but basically right now they're under a CR so it's current level funding so that funding should get pushed out and then at whatever point you know when Congress does pass the FY26 bill let's say it's before January 30th there would be just a slight increase and so that would go out to states at some point um once it's once it's signed so it's not like it would be retroactive but it would increase if that if that makes sense.

Yeah so LIHEAP is a is a formula program.

So each state is allocated a certain amount based on the percentage determined by the LIHEAP formula those payments typically go out to states in November so right before it gets cold in most of the US to remember that like LIHEAP is a program that's really designed for the northeastern states and the you know Wisconsin's and the Michigans of the world um so California doesn't do as well as it probably should um because it is kind of a cold winter month uh funding allocation really for um propane and heating oil um but that funding goes out in November for the most part so that states are ready to provide um resources to individuals that need that energy subsidy before it starts to get cold um that won't be interrupted because the government has been reopened they have been provided um a continuing resolution level which is level funding from previous years um and the funding should go out as planned the reason why that isn't the letter is because they want to make sure that members want to make sure that funding does get distributed to the states and then ultimately to um the other agencies that provide that funding at the state level to individuals as quickly as possible because uh speaking from the east coast right now it's already getting cold um it's starting to get down to frost level so that is that it's happening at the DC level and it's definitely happening you know up in Massachusetts and other places in New England um as it's getting colder so um if and when Congress does pass uh a full year labor H allocation um we will likely see a very small increase in light heap funding um that is even below you know what inflation is from FY24.

Okay thank you um let me just follow up on that as well um because tomorrow on our board agenda there's an item to um look at providing uh funding for spectrum which is uh seeking to administer the lie heap uh program from the California Department of Community Services and so they are concerned because of the government shutdown that the payment for November was missed so you're saying it's it's from month to month so whenever the current levels you know before the the increase happens um the earliest that could happen uh well because we're we're already two weeks away from December so when would they likely get that funding because it goes to the state and through the the individual organizations right that administer it.

I mean I don't I don't think we have a definite answer for you other than these bipartisan senators are urging HHS to push the money out as quickly as possible.

But I I mean we I don't think John or I can tell you how quickly that will be um but I mean it should happen in the next I would think couple weeks I mean I I imagine it has to go out soon just like they're able to get SNAP out.

I imagine it will go out pretty quickly.

And then, you know, the state government will have an understanding of when they expect to receive that payment from from HHS.

And I defer it to Amy Costa on this to see if there's been any sort of state-level conversations between uh, you know, the governor's office and HHS as to when they expect to receive that funding so that the local NPOs can start distributing those resources to individuals in need.

Okay, I appreciate that.

The as you mentioned, uh the winters in California may not be as bitterly cold as in like Michigan or Buffalo, New York or something like that.

But it's at the same time, um, there are concerns about being able to get the resources in enough time to those in need, especially the seniors that are relying on some of this funding.

So um it it sounds like there's not really a retroactivity component, right?

Because it's it starts from the month in which uh the approval happens.

Well, normally it flows in November, because normally, you know, we haven't had a shutdown in a while that would impact labor age.

So normally those law heap funds, even if we're in a CR or we have a full year bill, that funding goes out to states in November.

Again, to John's point, California gets such a small kind of sliver of it.

Um, and there is a formula.

And so, you know, if and when Congress passes the full year appropriations, there will be kind of a slight bump, and I assume that money will just flow to the state, um, and then kind of go from there.

Uh, but it's not like it it, so to your point, I mean, uh the money will get there.

It'll just be it could be in January, um, you know, when it gets to folks, the slight increase.

Okay.

I appreciate that.

Uh, that's a helpful uh clarification, which we'll we'll have that conversation, I'm sure, tomorrow at the board meeting.

Um, I don't have any further questions.

Um, but that was a good report.

Are there any public comments on the federal legislation update?

There are no speakers.

Thank you.

Uh let's move this to the state legislation update with full moon strategies.

Good afternoon, Amy Costa with full moon strategies with the state legislative advocacy report.

Uh today is a historic day.

Senator uh Lamone officially takes over as uh the duties of the president pro tempore of the Senate uh for Senator McGuire.

Uh her uh she officially starts today.

We do anticipate that uh in short order she may announce a few key leadership positions, namely the budget chair, the majority leader, and the appropriations committee chair.

Uh we think that uh later policy committee um chairmanships will be decided after uh the first house deadline early in 2026.

Uh we'll be monitoring uh those developments and report out as they occur.

Um we've talked quite a bit about proposition 50 in California's redistricting uh initiative.

Uh last week the U.S.

Department of Justice joined the Republican-led lawsuit to block California's new congressional map, arguing arguing that it violates the constitution and civil rights laws.

Um Attorney General Pam Bondi called the plan a brazen power grab, alleging it unlawfully factors race into district lines to favor Hispanic voters.

The governor uh defended the maps as a r response to GOP redistricting efforts in state like Texas, while his spokesperson said they are confident that the plan will withstand court challenges.

So more to come on that.

There were a number of hearings, and we won't include full notes in our PAL notes, um, but uh on Thursday, uh the Senate Health Services Committee chaired by Senator Argyen held an informational hearing on the impacts of federal actions, including the recent government shutdown and the impacts of HR1 and California's CalFresh program, known federally as SNAP.

Uh it serves over 5.5 million residents and injects about 1.1 billion uh monthly into the state's economy.

The senator warned that federal changes could result in billions of dollars in economic losses and tens of thousands of job reductions, highlighting Alameda County's historic $16.5 million dollar allocation to maintain food assistance during this shutdown during the hearing.

HR1 obviously imposes stricter work requirements, narrows immigrant eligibility, reduces benefits through changes to the Thrifty Food Plan and utility allowances, and increases both state and county financial responsibilities, potentially affecting hundreds of thousands of recipients.

HR1 also emphasizes federal payment error rates with penalties for inaccuracies that could cost California up to $2 billion annually, creating pressure to improve eligibility verification, data management, and quality assurance without limiting access to benefits.

In addition to the Senate Committee on Human Services, there was another Senate budget subcommittee number three, an informational hearing specifically on forecasts and estimates crafting the budget for California's health programs.

On Friday, the Senate budget and fiscal review subcommittee number three met and held an informational hearing focused on the evolving challenges facing California's Medi-Cal program amid tightening state finances and significant fiscal policy changes from the feds introduced through HR1.

The LAO presented a detailed overview of how these changes, particularly new work requirements and modifications to provider taxes known as MCO, are expected to impact Medi-Cal funding eligibility and enrollment.

A key takeaway from the hearing was the anticipated loss of coverage for nearly one million beneficiaries, primarily due to stricter eligibility rules.

The discussion also emphasized the increased fiscal burdens uh for counties, which have long been a part of the Medi-Cal program.

Counties that operate indigent health programs or serve as Medi-Cal providers, such as those with county-run hospitals, could face higher uncompensated care costs as more people lose coverage and become uninsured.

Already financially strained counties will need to adapt to new eligibility verification processes while potentially absorbing additional costs for those who are ultimately disenrolled from the Medi-Cal.

I also wanted to provide a brief update on carrier of last resort or Kohler.

We talked a bit about this several months ago.

The carrier of last resort issue in California centers on a long-standing mandate requiring telecommunication firms, primarily AT<unk>T, to provide basic traditional copper wire landline phone services to anyone who requests it within their service territory.

Then in its most recent form, the county actually moved its position to neutral, but originally it would have allowed AT<unk>T to pull all the copper lines out of open spaces and what they defined as well-served areas.

The bill failed to pass out of the Senate Appropriations Committee in August and was declared a two-year bill at that point.

Now California utility regulators may end up deciding the future of Kohler obligations if the bill is not passed quickly.

The California Public Utilities Commission is currently in a rulemaking process and they are seeking to determine key factors for last resort service, such as provider responsibility, adequate coverage standards, and conditions for discontinuing the service obligation, all of which were addressed initially in the McKinner bill.

So more to come on that, but it could be that ultimately this issue is decided through the regulatory process versus the legislative process.

With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Amy.

Thank you for the report.

I don't have any questions at the moment.

I appreciate that report.

So last week, Senator Aragin and Assembly Members Bonta and Ortega had convened a round table on health matters, and one of the issues that came up was the potential to develop essentially a billionaire's tax revenue measure to help offset some of the major uh shortfalls that might be happening next year with the federal cuts, as we have learned from besides the impacts on the economy from HR1.

Has there been any traction or discussion about that in any of the other committees at the state level?

So there are a number of revenue measures that are under consideration.

As I mentioned, the managed care organization tax or the MCO tax, it would be significantly altered under HR1.

It's worth upwards of 12 billion dollars annually for California.

I think that came up in one of the hearings last week as a uh revenue source that we currently have that will need to be backfilled.

Additionally, we already have a tax on high income earners.

Uh it was originally passed as Prop 30, it was extended as Prop 55.

That's set to expire.

Um, and some on the outside are putting forward that initiative.

Lastly, as you mentioned, supervisor, there has been an effort underway to collect signatures for a millionaire tax.

I think a lot of people are questioning kind of the number of revenue measures that can appear on one ballot and the timing, with most people thinking that uh with next year being an election year, it may be difficult to get a revenue measure like that passed.

Um, but I believe it's in circulation right now and it has not qualified as of yet.

Okay, thank you very much for that update.

Um I have no other questions.

Are there any public comments on the state legislative update?

There are no speakers.

Thank you.

Uh, there's been a request from Supervisor Miley's office to uh move forward a recommendation to support AB 225 from Assemblymember Bonta.

This would enable state hospitals that collects essentially uh benefit funds from patients to also support the welfare of patients beyond like mental health care uh treatments, but like clothes and other comfort items.

Um, so um we are um asking to see if we can get a support.

So we have a motion.

I support it.

Okay.

Uh Supervisor Cortonata Bass is moving to support.

I will second, and um we have concurrence, and this will move forward to the full board with a recommendation of support.

Do we have any public comments on AB 225?

There are no speakers.

Thank you.

Uh, do we have any public comments on items that are not on today's agenda?

That's within the purview of PAL.

There are no public comment speakers.

Okay, and will those online with this new format um identify yourself so we can appreciate your participation.

Uh good afternoon, Valerie Arkin from Supervisor Miley's office.

Good afternoon, Jessica Blakemore, Alameda County Health.

Hi, good afternoon.

This is Hanna Hamilton joining from Alameda County Social Services Agency.

Thanks.

This is uh Serena Chan from District 3 Office.

Hi, good afternoon.

This is Deanna Garcia, the first 5 Alameda County.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Jessica Montes with Alameda County Community Food Bank.

That's all.

Thank you all for your participation and the good news update for the most part.

This meeting is journal.

Thank you.

Thank you.