Good afternoon and welcome to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors Personnel Administration and Legislation Committee for Monday, December the 1st, 2025.

May I have a roll call, please?

Supervisor Fortunato Pass.

Presence.

Supervisor TAM.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Since we're using MS teams, do you want to go over the participation rules?

Public participation is allowed in person and online via Microsoft Teams.

For all participants, please state your name for the record prior to your comment.

If you wish to speak on a matter not on the agenda, please wait until supervisor and committee chair, Lena Tam calls for public input on non-agendized items.

Only matters within the committee's jurisdiction may be addressed.

To notify the clerk that you wish to speak, please listen closely to the following.

For in-person participants, please fill out a speaker card at the front of the room and hand it to the clerk.

The clerk will call your name to allow you to speak at the podium.

For online participants, please use the raise hand function at the bottom of the screen.

The clerk will call your name and allow you to unmute when it is your turn.

For dialed in participants, please dial star five to raise and or lower your hand.

The clerk will allow you to unmute when it is your turn.

If you no longer wish to speak, lower your hand on Microsoft Teams or simply notify the clerk that you longer wish to speak when it is your turn.

Thank you.

We will start with the federal legislation update from CJ Lake.

Thank you, Supervisor.

And I just want to make sure that Emily is also elevated to presenter on Teams because I think she's having some technical issues.

She's been made a presenter.

Thank you.

Perfect.

Well, I'm happy to go ahead and get started just the same.

Just in terms of the schedule, of course, the House and Senate are back in session this week following the Thanksgiving recess last week.

They will be in session for 13 days for the House over the next three weeks, and the Senate will be in session for 12 days over the next three weeks.

At least, first and foremost, will be the ongoing debate over the future of FY 2026 appropriations.

As we've stated in previous meetings, the Senate continues its discussion on the potential of a subsequent minibus package that could include defense, labor, age, transportation, HUD, CJS, potentially interior.

This could also include energy water and maybe this Senate foreign ops bill as well.

Energy water was released the day before Thanksgiving.

On that Tuesday, rather, this, of course, funds the Department of Energy and the Army Corps of Engineers.

Appropriators are evaluating what combination of bills can be packaged together to maintain progress towards full year funding package ahead of the January 30th deadline.

House leadership has indicated that they will wait for Senate action before moving on to their own packages.

And as we stated in previous weeks, the House is looking to pass a much smaller package than that of the Senate.

So this is just a call for objections for unanimous consent agreements on the Senate side.

The House doesn't do this.

And so far, they still have about four objections on the hotline for a minibus package and Senate Democrats have still not issued a hotline.

They're still waiting on Republicans to kind of get their house in order before they move on to a full year appropriations package.

In addition to the ongoing debate going on on the appropriations side, of course, uh Congress still has to deal with the potential uh expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits under the Affordable Care Act, which uh expire on December 31st.

The Senate is expected to hold a vote next week, though members have not reached a consensus on whether to pursue a clean extension or make targeted changes to the credits.

There are multiple proposals that are circulating in both chambers, and negotiations uh remain ongoing as lawmakers determine a path forward before the deadline.

Um, of course, for the copy uh complicating this path.

House leadership is not committed to holding a vote, even if the Senate does want to pass an extension, essentially leaving uh the Congress rudderless with the movement forward.

There could be a show vote, but um the possibility of an extension remains fairly low.

Um, additionally, in the Senate, the Senate Health Committee will hold a hearing on Wednesday to discuss ways to make health care more affordable for individuals and families outside of the tax credit conversation.

Um the Senate Health Committee has jurisdiction over HHS and other health-related agencies, but of course does not have jurisdiction of the tax writing uh committee that falls under Senate finance.

Um we expect that Chair Cassidy will discuss his legislative proposal to provide cash transfers into health savings account or HSAs as a way for Americans to lower the health uh the cost of certain health expenses.

This would broadly fall out of the health insurance conversation and into other health related expenses such as medical devices.

Um this would be done in lieu of extending the Affordable Care Act's enhanced premium tax credits conversation, which of course provides subsidies to health insurance premiums.

Um, and additionally, the White House planned, I believe we discussed this last week, but it bears repeating because um there's been no meaningful updates, but the White House planned to release a framework to extend the tax credits for two years, but that plan was shelved last week after significant pushback from the Hill uh last Monday, and still the White House has not yet released a plan for Congress to take up uh a potential extension, um, significantly diminishing the likelihood of a breakthrough before the end of the year.

Um, and I will hand it over to Emily uh to finish out the remainder of our report.

Sure.

Um one thing I want to talk about is LIHEAP funding because I know we spent uh some time talking about LIHEAP a couple weeks ago.

Um, and HHS released about 3.6 billion uh on Friday to states and tribes.

This is according to the National Energy Assistance Directors Association.

Again, as we've talked about, states typically receive their allocations at the beginning of November.

Of course, that didn't happen because of the shutdown, but it seems like now the state of California um should have received uh their allocation.

So just want to note that.

And then just briefly, um, you know, one of the bills that is kind of a must pass every year is the National Defense Authorization Act.

And uh it's always bipartisan.

Uh, we expect that to be the case this year as well.

Or I should say it's traditionally bipartisan.

We expect that to be um the case this year as well with the final text.

Um we could see that text uh later this week.

And um the the two the House and Senate bills did differ.

The Senate authorized nearly 925 billion while the House aligned with the White House 883 billion request.

So the Senate uh request for defense was higher.

But you know, once the conference agreement is finalized, the bill will proceed through both chambers for passage, and then to uh the president for signature.

You know, that also sets um the levels for defense appropriations.

And one thing I want to add just to uh John's discussion about a future mini bus, you know, one of the kind of the sticking points in the Senate is if defense moves, then um Democrats in the Senate are saying you've got to move labor H with that.

And so those would kind of anchor this next uh mini bus if they can reach agreement.

Um, and then as John said, there would be some other bills uh that would tag along to include Transportation HUD, which I know.

Um, you know, we are tracking uh the HUD portion of that closely.

So just wanted to make that uh mention that one piece on a probe.

So um that is our update for this week and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for that update.

Uh Supervisor Fortunatas.

Questions, comments?

Um, good news that the LIHEAP funding was released.

Thank you.

Um, the Medical situation is really frustrating.

Um, as we all know.

Do we happen to know in California or even in the county, how many people will be impacted without that extension?

So the enhanced premium tax credits is under covered California, not under the Medi-Calm.

So we would have to understand how many people receive the current enhanced premium tax credit under the covered California plans.

And that should give you a good number of how many people could be impacted.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Um, along those lines, so I I know there's this tension between if you um make some modifications to HR one, especially on the health year tax credits and subsidies.

There's going to be a fiscal impact, and it would have to come from somewhere.

Do you have a sense of how much we're talking about overall with these um subsidies?

Off the top of my head, I think it's a 280 billion dollar extension uh nationally, depending on the length of the tax credit and whether or not there are income and or other caps that are included.

A straight extension for a year, I think is I think it's 280 billion dollars, but I can go back.

The problem is that's kind of the calculus that they're doing right now is how expensive Congress wants or how much Congress money, how much money Congress could spend on extending the tax credit and who that would impact, you know, a straight extension under the inflation reduction act numbers, which is where this enhanced premium tax credit came from, is going to be significantly more expensive than a tax credit extension that has certain income caps.

Um so it's tough to say what the overall impact is going to be without those parameters being attached to it.

Um, Emily, I don't I don't know if you remember how much an extension is going to cost off the top of your head.

I I don't, but to your point, it depends on the length, and that's one of the issues that they're batting around.

And again, the income limit.

So we just don't know quite yet if what they will vote on in December or later this month.

Um, but we could probably pull some figures.

We can we can look and see what they what they were estimating for kind of the different proposals that were out there.

Yeah, and we can include that in the notes as well.

Okay, thank you.

Um that'd be helpful just to get a sense of the magnitude because I understand that once many of the legislators returned to their districts, they they are getting pressure from their constituents.

Uh, and so they're looking at even you know a one-year extension.

So that would be helpful.

Um, so I have no other comments or questions from the board.

Are there any public comments on the federal legislative update?

There is an online speaker.

Michelle, sorry, I was muted.

Um, I'm wondering around the HUD stuff.

I saw something recently, like over the weekend that said that the section eight vouchers were all on the cutting block again, and that potentially December vouchers were not going to be unfunded.

Have you heard anything along those lines?

And if so, can you help look for that?

Help me look for that.

I I have not heard that.

I can look.

I mean, I'm sure I'm I'm guessing they're referring to potentially the House T-HUD bill um versus the Senate, but December doesn't seem to make sense.

John, do you have any ideas?

Um, we can do some research, Michelle, but that doesn't um December timeline doesn't seem correct.

Yeah, I don't know if that's a reference to the president's budget request versus what Senate and House THUD had proposed from my recollection.

Both the Senate and the House committee bills fully funded the Section A programs in terms of all of the vouchers that are currently provided are paid for.

When THUD writes their bill, they they often will see how much money their allocation is from the get-go and then fund the Section A part of it first, and then kind of go from there.

So I would be I don't I don't know kind of where that information is coming from.

Maybe there could be a rule that's coming out from HUD that's going to make some changes to the Section A program, but in terms of my understanding of where things are on the appropriate side of things, that um those vouchers are still funded.

Um, I'll also note that under a continuing resolution, the section eight housing voucher program is just funded under current levels, which is FY24.

Um, which of course, you know, is a bit of a but because of inflation is a cut um overall.

So there might be some implications there.

But I'm curious kind of where that comes from.

I'll look for it and send it again, but I appreciate that update since um you know the Section 8 program is the largest program coming into the county from a housing perspective.

And I think we've got close to 40,000, 35,000 people on.

Well, I'm not exactly sure right now, but it's a lot of people on those on those vouchers.

So thank you.

Yeah, that'd be great.

Another comments or speakers.

Thank you.

Um, let's move to the state legislative update from Full One Strategies.

Good afternoon.

Uh, just pivoting off of the previous conversation with my federal colleagues.

Um, I would note that Cover California, after last year's open enrollment, reported out that about 1.9 million Californians are on the exchange in some way, shape, or form.

Uh, I'd have to take a click down to see how many of those are receiving the subsidy, but I think it's important to note that in the entirety of the country, California actually has experienced the biggest drop in uninsurance rates after the passage of ACA.

So, our marketplace obviously is really big, and I would hazard a guess that many of the people um get some some sort of subsidy.

So it could be quite impactful.

Uh, with that, I'm gonna switch gears and talk a little bit about the gubernatorial race.

Uh last week, billionaire Steven Klubeck dropped out of the race.

He endorsed Congressman Eric Swalwell, adding to an already ballooning field of democratic candidates fighting to succeed um the term limited Governor Newsom and leaving political operatives stunned at how open the race is, one of the more open uh gubernatorial races in modern history.

Swalwell is well known for his anti-Trump stance in Congress and his brief 2020 presidential bid, and he launched his campaign on Jimmy Kimmel Live, uh saying California needs a fighter and a protector.

His entry came just a short while after billionaire Tom Steyer announced another uh 2020 presidential contender in his own regard, and a progressive environmental advocate announced his uh his own campaign, highlighting his history of investing millions in state clauses, including the recently passed proposition 50 redistricting effort.

So more to come, but clearly at this point a very crowded field.

Um we've talked a lot on in our previous PAL committee meetings about uh the Medi-Cal cuts and what um some revenue measures might be or other ways that the state is contemplating um offsetting some of those cuts.

California leaders have formed the Future of Medical Commission to craft a 10-year plan to stabilize and modernize the program, which right now covers uh close to 15 million low-income Californians.

The 29-member group funded by major foundations and led by former state officials Mark Galley and Anna Leary will explore new financing options and behavioral health improvements with recommendations from the group expected in early 2027.

Meanwhile, healthcare industry leaders and activist groups are strategizing over how to capture new corporate gains from HR1 with a tax on large employers whose workers rely on public benefits emerging as a leading idea backed by SEIU.

This idea was also put forward verbally by uh the Senate during this past year's budget negotiations.

SCIU UHW is also pushing a separate ballot measure, a one-time 5% tax on Californians worth 1 billion or more, which they project would raise 100 billion dollars across five years that would partially offset Medicaid losses, SNAP losses, and other losses under HR1.

SEIU leaders cast the proposal as an emergency measure to prevent millions from losing coverage with 90% of the funds dedicated to health care and 10% to education.

A few weeks ago, we reported on the changes made by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the funding requirements for the 2025 Continuum of Care.

Specifically, the federal government applied a cap on permanent housing, restricting COCs to using only 30% of funds for permanent supportive housing and rapid rehousing.

In response, the governor and attorney general Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit on November 25th as part of a multi-state coalition.

The lawsuit argues that the changes are illegal because they alter funding eligibility without authorization by Congress and are not supported by evidence or reason.

The changes made by HUD are projected to result in a loss of more than 250 to 300 million annually for permanent supportive housing and rapid rehousing in California and undermine the goals of the California Statewide Action Plan.

On the eve of Thanksgiving, uh Attorney General Bonta uh entered another suit against the Trump administration.

As we discussed last week, the attorney general had submitted a letter regarding USDA interpretation of HR1.

Attorney General Rob Bonta, alongside 21 other states announced a lawsuit against the USDA for their guidance that restricts eligibility for SNAP, known here as CalFresh.

This formal legal action follows that recently submitted letter that we discussed last week, which challenged the SNAP guidance.

The core of the lawsuit is the claim that the USDA's guidelines for implementing the Big Beautiful bill illegally restrict certain lawful permanent residents from receiving benefits that Congress intended for them.

So this now marks uh the 48th lawsuit this year that the state of California has entered into against the federal government.

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

Thank you.

Uh Supervisor Fortunatabas.

Questions, comments.

Thank you, Amy.

I appreciate all of that information, including the revenue measures.

Will you be sharing more information or share it?

Will you be sharing that information regarding the various revenue measures in your email update to us?

Yes, we will.

It will be coming off an article that appeared in Politico.

If helpful, we can also put together a table of the various measures as you can imagine through the initiative process.

There's a few that are floating around, and it remains to be seen.

You know, some are I think taken being taken a little bit more seriously than others, but there's quite a few initiatives and various forms of circulation made now.

That would be terrific.

Thank you.

Happy to do that.

Thank you.

Just to follow up on the SEIU, the billionaires tax, uh I had uh met earlier this morning with assembly member Ortega, and she had mentioned that uh they're experiencing uh opposition uh from other legislators, primarily those from the Central Valley.

Do you have a sense?

But the Bay Area delegation is obviously united and supportive.

Do you have a sense of uh what we can do or what CSAC can do?

One of the issues that has arisen, and I would note that this particular initiative was amended uh late last week.

Um, and so there is a new version that was just um submitted um right before the holiday.

Um, one of the controversies regarding this particular measure is that it circumvents certain constitutional requirements and budgeting, notably proposition 98 funding.

So, although the initiative does provide 10%, it doesn't actually flow through the formula.

And so there's been a question about whether or not the teachers association would support this particular revenue measure.

Oh, see, okay, that's helpful.

Um, on the issue with uh HUD, um, I guess it was only last week, but um Jonathan had mentioned to us that the combination of the cap on the housing and also uh our DEI programs and our gender identity programs and harm reduction and that collectively, the county could see a loss of 33 to 60 million dollars in funding because of those programs.

So the lawsuit that um you mentioned that the attorney general has filed, is it is it that's only challenging it based on um on immigration status, or is it collectively uh challenging the validity of some of these cuts?

It's it's a little bit of both.

I mean, one of the the tenets of the lawsuit is that um they are illegal because they're changing the eligibility funding without explicit authorization by Congress.

And so we've seen this in a couple other lawsuits between the state, and it has to do with kind of the legal question about the power of the purse in Congress and kind of Congress's authority to appropriate funding for programs and the eligibility that's passed as part of that legislation.

So it really is uh a process question about whether or not the administration can unilaterally do this without congressional approval.

Okay, that's very helpful.

So I'm more optimistic with the lawsuit now, so I appreciate that.

Um I don't have any other questions.

Are there any comments or questions online?

There are no speakers.

Thank you.

Um normally at this point I would ask people to identify themselves to appreciate them for participating online, but I understand that MS Teams makes that challenging.

No, last meeting, no one raised their hand to want to be recognized.

Oh, they didn't want to be recognized.

Yes.

Okay.

Does anybody want to be recognized this time?

Hannah.

Hi, uh good afternoon.

This is Hanna Hamilton with Alameda County Social Services Agency.

Elvia.

Jessica Blake Moore.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Jessica Blake Moore, Alameda County Health.

Jessica Montez.

Good afternoon, Jessica Montes with Alameda County Community Food Bank.

Thank you.

Diana Garcia.

Good afternoon.

This is Deanna Garcia with First Five Alameda County.

Appreciate the update.

Valerie Arkin.

Thank you.

Michelle Starrett.

Michelle Starrett, Helmut County Housing Director, thank you.

Serena Chen.

Serena Chen from Supervisor Dana Temp's office, who can't figure out how to unmute herself.

All right, that's all.

Thank you all very much for your participation.

And it's a good test of teams.

This meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.