Good afternoon and welcome to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, Personnel Administration and Legislation Committee of Monday, December the 15th, 2025.

May I have roll call, please?

Supervisor Portonato Pass.

Present.

Supervisor TAM present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

And uh could you provide instructions on online participation?

Thank you.

Of course.

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

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And we will go to the federal legislation update from CJ Lake.

And this is the last hearing for the congressional term, isn't it?

For the year.

This is the this is the last week that Congress will be in session for 2025.

Yes.

So good afternoon, everyone.

And congratulations on making it to Congress's final week.

The House and Senate are back in session this week, and they will be out of session starting December 19th, and they won't come back to DC until the first week of January, which is January 5th and 6th.

I'm sure many of you have already heard, but the major focus for this week will, of course, be the ongoing uh health care affordability crisis.

The House is expected to vote this week on a proposal drafted by uh House leadership dubbed the Lower Health Care Premiums for All Americans Act.

Um, this is intended to address the sharp rise in health care premium set to take effect at the start of next year, but of course, does not extend uh the expiring Affordable Care Act uh enhanced premium tax credits.

Last week, the leadership team met with top Republican leaders to discuss whether to allow an amendment process on the House floor for this health care bill.

Um, this is an effort to try to garner um additional support or at least to provide an off-ramp for a group of moderate Republicans that are seeking uh to support a discharge petition that would extend the ACA enhanced premium tax credits uh for one year and two years respectively.

Currently, there are two discharge petitions that have been filed on this issue.

One uh led by Brian Fitzpatrick that would extend the enhanced premium tax credits with um some additional eligibility requirements for two years, and another um by uh Jen Kiggins from Virginia, also a Republican for one year again with also eligibility requirements.

Um negotiations were ongoing over the weekend uh about a potential amendment vote um for these two measures, or at least one of these two measures, either on the floor or in the rules committee.

Um those broke down this morning when uh House leadership insisted that Fitzpatrick in particular, which is again the two-year extension, provide a budgetary offset in order to pay for the extension of the enhanced premium tax credits.

This was not a part of the negotiation up until this morning, but seen rather as a way from the leadership to quash any ability uh for Fitzpatrick to bring this to the floor.

Um, they are still, the moderates are still planning uh on filing their bills as amendments in the rules committee.

Um, but the rules committee is at least on the Republican side, stacked with very conservative members that are opposed to extending the enhanced premium tax credits at all.

It's also interesting that uh Republican leadership would use uh the need to find budgetary offsets as a reason for to add this as an additional requirement, considering that under the uh OBBBA, they use the uh current policy baseline, which means if you remember back to June and July, that existing tax credits that are on the books do not count towards the deficit as the current policy baseline, but instead they went back to previous policies saying that these tax credits in particular do add to the deficit and they do need to find offsets.

So this reversal in policy was used to basically quash uh the ability for Brian Fitzpatrick to build it to bring this to the floor.

Um so without an agreement in hand, the moderates plan to offer their bill again as an amendment, which we do expect will fail.

Um, but there are a few options left, uh, but it's unclear kind of where they go next.

In addition to the two discharge petitions that are currently available to the Republicans, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has his own discharge petition on a bill that would extend the uh the ACA credits for three years.

This is consistent with the approach taken by the Senate Democrats uh that uh had a vote on this in the Senate last week, which of course um failed uh by on partisan lines.

Uh in the Senate last week, um, they also rejected the Republican approach, which was a bill that was introduced uh by Senators Cassidy and Crapo.

Um that would provide $1,000 to health savings accounts for certain people that enroll in bronze level plans and a whole host of other items that do not include extending the enhanced premium tax credits under the ACA.

Um, so with very few days left uh in the in the year on the legislative calendar, um we're pretty much in the same place that we were last week uh on the ACA enhanced premium tax credits, which is getting nowhere fast.

Um, and we do anticipate that uh the premium increases will likely hit starting 2026 uh and Republicans will not have a policy or a plan um in the beginning of uh of the year.

In addition to that, uh the White House has been out to lunch on this as well.

They did not have an additional plan uh in order to allow uh the extension of these credits.

Um they had this kind of outstanding proposal um that collapsed a couple weeks ago, and they have not uh returned to uh Congress with an updated plan.

Um so I'll stop there.

And of course, Emily, if you have any additional um tidbits that you'd like to weigh in on, um floor is yours.

No, I mean, no, I would just say, and I know we had this kind of back and forth um last week uh during our call, but the bottom line is Congress is not going to address this.

Um they're not gonna reach a deal.

And so the question is if not now, when and I don't think anyone can say that they will be able to get anything done.

It would have to be retroactive in any event, but it's just it's not happening before the end of the year, which I know is very frustrating.

But so there's all this kind of motion happening on the House side, but to what end?

Because it's it's not happening.

The Senate's gonna leave here.

Um, without taking up anything, even if the House is able to pass something, which I don't think we feel like they will.

So that's all I have.

Just more depressing.

Thank you.

Appreciate that update.

Uh Supervisor Fortune of House.

Questions or comments?

No, I think um none of that is unfortunately surprising.

That's where we are, and incredibly disappointing and unfortunate.

Um I share that same sentiment.

Uh, in terms of the mechanics, um, what does this mean for the um the consumers that have been relying on these subsidies uh with the affordable care act?

When would they be hit with this huge health care bill?

To my knowledge, the tax credits are set to go into or what if they were extended, would set to go into effect in January of 2026, um, after the closure of open enrollment and the new calendar year.

So it's my understanding that those would hit when the premium increases would go into effect, which would be the beginning of next year.

Emily, can you confirm that?

Uh I I mean, I would need to double check, but that's my understanding as well, John.

I mean, now, you know, they'd be feeling it shortly.

Yeah, like next month.

Yeah.

Okay.

I mean, it's it's possible that once they see this, they could inundate their state and their local representatives with their deep concerns.

We hope.

Okay.

I mean, there are a lot of states that are going to be impacted, you know, in addition to California, but um Georgia is very heavily leveraged.

Uh, they're all in in the um the SCA marketplace.

There are a lot of people that are enrolled in there.

Um, they could see increases of you know 700% in some of these uh locations where healthcare uh premiums are already high.

Um, so I think that it's something that is going to become more salient.

Um, you know, there are some people that are plugged in and watching this debate and knowing what the effect is going to be.

And then there's a lot that are not uh and are going to be hit with a sticker shock come next year once um these tax credits expire.

Thank you.

I wish they have a good holiday when they get back home, but it may not happen.

Appreciate the update very much.

Um, okay, so are do we have any public comments on the federal legislative update?

And we have a couple more items to bring up as well.

That was just the the first segment.

So we can finish if if um you want to hear them.

Okay.

Um, so in addition to uh the health care debate, uh, which will start in earnest on Tuesday, the House is also going to take up a number of items uh related to energy permitting and NEPA reform.

Um, the big bill that they are going to be doing a rule vote on tonight uh at the rules committee, and then likely on the floor later this week is the Speed Act, which would amend the National Environmental Policy Act, also known as NEPA, and set up uh a streamlined process for certain projects to get NEPA approval and also um to expedite um the approval of those and change kind of the way that litigation is handled.

Um, this is a bill that went through the Natural Resources Committee in the House.

Um so it handles primarily on federal land with a slightly bipartisan vote.

Um, there were two uh Democrats that did support this um Republican bill.

Um it is kind of going through a bit of an amendment process um with a number of Republicans that want to see additional um uh uh restrictions on this environmental review expedited process for offshore wind.

Um and then additionally, the White House has weighed in on the Republican side to see if they can claw back some of the authorities that this bill addresses to cancel projects that have been granted permits already.

Um the White House in particular and the Department of the Interior has indicated that it would like to revoke permits on federal land to certain renewable projects that they feel need to go through additional NEPA review.

This bill seeks to amend that process.

Um at the rules committee, there are a number of amendments that have been filed by both Republicans and Democrats.

Uh Democrats have offered an amendment um to uh to ensure that all renewable or all energy um types, so renewable, non-renewable, wind, onshore, offshore, um, are provided uh the same sort of expedited process as fossil fuels.

Uh, we expect that amendment to fail.

Um, but it's currently unclear how much support the Speed Act will get um in the House, um, particularly from the Democrats.

And then it's also interesting to see how much support it will get from some of the hard right Republicans, um, who see it as too soft on renewable energies, if you can believe that.

Um, in the Senate, uh, the three uh top members of the energy and the environment committees in the Senate have already indicated their opposition to the Speed Act.

Um, and generally we do not see a time um where the both sides will be able to come together, especially in the energy and natural resources committee uh on the Senate, which is the natural resources um corollary um in the upper chamber, uh currently Mr.

Heinrich, who is the ranking member from New Mexico, and Mr.

Lee, who is the Republican um from Utah, do not see eye to eye on nearly any issue.

The committee has found it very difficult to work um in a in a bipartisan basis at all.

The down diet is members on the flip side.

Uh they uh they are working kind of together but quietly and around the committee.

Um so despite the fact that permitting reform is something that is a very hot issue on the Hill, um the committees of jurisdiction have not really been able to find uh any sort of agreement on a package that they feel come forth.

Um, but I'll hand it off to Emily to round us out on two more issues.

Yeah, just two more quick things.

I mean, appropriations.

I know January 30th is coming fast.

I'll just say we were hoping that the Senate would reach uh a deal on a minibus to move.

That's clearly not the case right now.

Um there are still a number of kind of um conservative Republican holdouts uh who think that the bills are just too expensive, but um, you know, when they get back uh the week of January 6th, they're gonna try and and get at least some of these bills moving.

No one is talking about another shutdown yet, but you know, they get back on the sixth.

Um the CR expires the 30th, and the House is supposed to be in recess the week of the 26th.

So that gives you kind of three weeks to to get things going.

We could see another CR.

Um, but I think some, you know, we were hopeful that they may be able to pass some of these full year appropriations bills.

So just wanted to give a quick update there.

And then I know we talked about um NDAA last week, National Defense Authorization Act, which passed the House last week, uh strong bipartisan vote.

It now heads the Senate this week, and that'll be the big Senate action they'll take up and pass that bill before they get out of here at the end of this week.

And then one other thing, um, Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

I know in last week's call you talked, or you mentioned uh Senator Schiff's uh housing boom act that he had introduced, and uh Congresswoman Simon uh plans to introduce kind of the companion bill on the house side, and just wanted to um let you know that I was with her a little bit earlier today, and I think they may make some tweaks to the legislation before they introduce.

So I have a call with or meeting with her staffer later this week to um kind of get the details.

So I'll let we'll let you all know um once we hear that and get a sense of what their timing may be for introduction.

Um so that's all I have for this week.

Um thank you.

Um supervisor fortunate bass, do you have any questions or comments on these additional items?

Um I don't um and thank you, Emily, for that update.

We do have the Mac on our agenda next.

Um, so good to hear that you're talking with um our Congresswoman staff.

So um Emily, do you recommend that we take a position at this point or should we wait till the tweaks that uh have been in discussion?

Because the bill technically hasn't been introduced yet.

It's been introduced on the Senate side, but not on the House side.

So Senator Shift were just taking it on the Senate side, yes, the Senate bill.

Is there tweaks that will be needed on the Senate side as well?

I no, it's already been introduced, so I think it's fine to um, you know, take the support position, and then when um the congresswoman introduces her bill, I'm sure we'll support that one as well, and we can support that House bill as well.

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

Do we have any public comments on the federal legislative update?

There are no speakers for the federal legislation update.

Um, so we have uh the housing boom uh on the Senate side uh that Emily mentioned as a request for action and position, as well as uh two of the notice of proposed rulemaking.

I know Michelle uh Sterrett from uh community development had asked if she could speak first on one of the items, uh, which is the housing boom, which we can hear an update from Michelle on.

Yeah, so can you hear me?

This is Michelle.

Oh, we can hear my camera on now.

Great.

Thank you so much.

I just want to highlight a couple of key things within the provisions is the expansion of the low-income housing tax credit.

And for the last 25 to 30 years, the tax credit program has really been the key way that um local government has increased its affordable housing.

So an expansion to that is a really important part of this bill.

Uh we currently in Alameda County have 90 projects in line waiting for state and uh federal tax credits.

So that's a huge amount of housing that literally without a funding source.

So if this was to happen, one of the most important parts of this bill is the expansion of the low-income housing tax credit.

I also wanted to let you know that um I met with uh uh St.

Mary Center Executive Director Sharon Corney.

We had a conversation about how this bill could assist with the homeless crisis, and another really important aspect of this is the increase of um uh basically rental assistance through the Section 8 voucher program.

So that has also been underfunded for many, many years.

So that will actually give access to rental assistance to more households.

How much, not sure.

Um, we haven't really seen how it would flow down to local governments in dollar amounts yet, but just to let you know that those two programs are really really critical.

Um there is also a new program.

They're talking about creating a new uh office within HUD that would deal with fair housing and venture protections.

Uh that's really right now there is a fair housing uh division that has been underfunded for probably 30 or 40 years, um, but they're talking about an expansion of that to actually protect tenants and provide the framework uh that could flow down to local governments.

So those are some of the really important things.

There's a lot of other great stuff in this bill, if it was to move forward, uh, which of course um in this climate is very uncertain.

Um there's a lot to support here and a lot to be excited and happy about if if it was to go forward.

Thank you for that um briefing and for um closing the loop with St.

Mary's.

I think that was important.

Uh, Supervisor President of Mass, any questions or comments on Michelle's report?

Thank you, Michelle.

Um, and um there was a meeting that Senator Schiff had, which he invited a number of electeds to and a number of our board members were there.

So we had an opportunity to hear directly from him about this bill as well as um speak with Senator.

I'm sorry, uh Congresswoman Simon.

Um I am supportive of um I'm supportive of uh having a support position on this bill.

Also heard that it was introduced uh recently from our Congresswoman staff.

Um I would just request that we also monitor what happens on the house side, um, so that we can be informed about um any additional items that she might want to add to this package.

Um I know she's having a number of conversations with stakeholders across the district, so um hopeful about this, but obviously this is a tough environment right now, but we have to build the momentum as we can.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Um yeah, I I'm also very supportive of the bill.

I wanted to uh underscore the fact that there are provisions for um rental assistance that has always been sorely lacking uh in some of our programming because the need has been consistently greater than what was available.

So, yes, I um support this bill, and we'll look forward to seeing um the enhancement that might come from the um the house side of the bill with our representative Latifah Simon.

Um, do we have any public comments on the housing boom?

No, there are no comments.

Okay.

Uh so there's a recommendation um to support the housing boom, the building occupancy opportunities for millions act that uh Senator Schiff um had put forth.

And there's also a request from the Alameda County Social Service Agency and Alameda County Health to take a opposed position on the proposed rulemaking regarding public charge ground of inadmissibility.

Basically, they're making adjustments to the language from the past that would make it vague on whether or not uh people would continue, especially um immigrants would be continued to be to be eligible for many of our public assistance and social service programs.

Um I am supportive of the staff recommendation as well as the notice of proposed rulemaking um regarding PFAS and toxic substance control in terms of the data reporting and record keeping.

There's also requests for an opposed position.

Um, Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Do you concur and have comments?

Yes, um, certainly.

Uh, for the comment letter opposing the public charge um proposals, I am certainly in support of this.

Uh, really glad that we'll be able to get this in before the deadline at the end of the week.

Um, I think that um the data here is very clear, and we also know from Trump 1.0 that there um will be real fear um if this moves forward in terms of access to services and real um dangerous consequences in terms of people's health and safety.

And I also support um the comment letter opposing the changes to PFAS, it was pretty shocking to see um the number of substances uh that would uh be reduced from over a hundred thirty-one thousand to just two hundred and fifty-five.

So I'm not really sure how that could um that's it's just kind of shocking to see that change.

Um, so yes, I support this.

Thank you.

So we have concurrence, and we will uh forward both to the full board or all three to the full board with the recommended positions.

Are there any public comments on the rulemaking um request?

There are no comments.

Okay, thank you.

So the action that the board has taken, I should probably put this in a motion.

Um from Supervisor Fortunately asked to move forward to the full board with the recommended positions on the comment letters as well as the act.

Yes, I'll second that.

Okay, I'll second.

Um we should probably do a formal roll call vote.

There's only two of us, I know.

Just to be clear, Supervisor Bordano Bass seconded the motion, or did she?

I'll make the motion uh that we forward items uh one, two, and three under our requested legislation positions to the full board.

I'll second.

Supervisor Portonado Bass.

Supervisor Pam.

Aye.

Motion passed.

Thank you.

Uh, let's move to the state legislative update from full moon strategies.

Good afternoon, Amy Costa with full moon strategies with your weekly state legislative updates.

Uh we saw September's California jobs report released recently, and it points to some modest weakening in the state's labor market, marking a fourth straight month of net job losses in California.

The business survey shows a loss of 4,500 jobs in September, while August was revised sharply downward.

Uh they initially had a gain of 4,000 and it's now at a loss of a little over 10,000.

Meanwhile, the household survey suggests slowing momentum since June, with employment declining and unemployment rising.

From July through September, employment fell by 15,000 as the labor force grew, pushing the unemployment rate from 5.4% to 5.6%.

And although this month-to-month data can be volatile, the recent trend represents a clear shift from a stronger labor market conditions that we saw earlier this year.

So we have a link to the LAL report and the PAL report that shows some of this data.

As is often the case, I provide updates about the latest lawsuit on the California has entered against the federal government, and this week is no exception.

Our attorney general Robata joined a coalition of 20 other attorneys general and has filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's unlawful imposition of a 100,000 fee on new H1B visa petitions, arguing that it violates federal law as well as the United States Constitution.

The lawsuit contends that the Department of Homeland Security exceeded its authority by imposing a massive fee not authorized by Congress, bypassing required rulemaking procedures under the Administrative Procedures Act and undermining the purpose of the H1B program, which helps employers address critical labor shortages.

We've also talked about the next topic a bit, and this has to do with Bay Area Transit funding.

Late last week, California Senate budget chair, Senator Scott Weiner criticized the Newsom administration for proposing uh to use funds earmarked for long-term Bay Area transit projects to cover short-term operating deficits.

The senator called the approach disappointing and concerning.

The plan put forward by the Department of Finance after lawmakers failed to finalize a $750 million state general fund loan would allow the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to issue short-term loans backed by existing project funds.

The Senator warned that the proposal could undermine planned construction and force agencies into tighter repayment timelines as several transit systems such as Bart Muni and Caltrain face severe budget shortfalls and the risk of some major service cuts in 2026.

While a voter approved sales tax could provide stable funding starting in 2027, the senator emphasized that a stopgap solution must be reached by January to prevent some of the near-term transit cuts.

Lastly, we reported earlier this year that the state has announced the launch of the Public Health Network Innovation Exchange.

And earlier this morning, the governor has announced that the state is bringing on uh several former uh federal officials, including CDC Director Dr.

Susan Monares, as well as the CDC Chief Medical Officer and an epidemic epidemiologist to assist with this California-led initiative, which is aimed at modernizing public health infrastructure and strengthening science-based decision making, aimed at what Governor Newsom and other state leaders have described as a federal retreat from evidence-driven policy.

The initiative positions California as a national and global leader in public health coordination, data modernization, and community engagement, ensuring stronger preparedness and more reliable health information for Californians and others.

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

Thank you, Amy.

Supervisor Fortunatabas.

Questions?

Comments?

Thank you, Amy.

I appreciate those updates.

Um, one question since you mentioned litigation, um, there is a lawsuit that I believe the AGE is a part of that is seeking to prevent the Trump administration from arresting people during ICE check-ins and inside our courthouses.

I believe the judge uh was supposed to be making a ruling any day now.

Have you heard any news on that one?

I have not, supervisor, but I am more than happy to check in with the attorney general's office and get an update and report out with our PAL report.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Um, I don't have any questions on your report, but I appreciate the update.

Um I know that we have signed on to a number of Amica's briefs, and we've also uh asked our um county council's office to use their discretion in signing on when uh we're when we're not in session.

So if there are opportunities that come about uh as tomorrow will be the last meeting for the board for the year, but if there are other opportunities, I'm sure they'll let you know as well.

Appreciate uh you letting us know of opportunities.

So thank you for that.

Um, so the next item is a request for a legislative position on SB 684.

Um I know we have public speakers on this item, and um I was wondering it might be helpful if either Amy or um Jessica from Alameda County Health can kind of give us a brief update on the request for a support position, and also uh to for if Amy has some more intelligence about the status of the bill, uh, because I know it's now a two-year bill, and that would be helpful as well.

Jessica, you're able to unmute.

Oh, great.

Hi everyone, Jessica Blake Moore, interim policy director with Alameda County Health.

Um, I'll just give a brief overview of the bill and then invite Amy to talk about um the status of it.

Um so this um bill was brought to us by our public health department.

Um it essentially would require major oil and gas companies to pay into a statewide fund that covers climate-related damages and resilience projects.

Um, as we understand it, the bill is modeled on similar laws that were passed in New York and Vermont.

Um, I think there is also a companion bill in the assembly.

Um, so really it's targeting the largest fossil fuel polluters, um, creating a climate superfund that you know local jurisdictions would be eligible to receive um funding through, um, really trying to shift the responsibility of financial responsibility from taxpayers to companies that have profited from these activities that have contributed to climate change.

Thanks, Jessica.

That was a great overview.

Um, I would note um because this is a two-year bill supervisor.

Um, there are different deadlines.

Um, and and Jessica's absolutely right.

There is a companion assembly bill as well, carried by assembly member Addis.

Um two-year bills must pass their house of origin by January 31st of the second year.

I would note that late last week there was um an announcement um by um the authors that they likely would not move the bill forward.

Um, however, what I might suggest is we proceed with um putting the bill forward um to the full board, because as you mentioned, um you guys are getting ready to break for the holidays, and then we can check back in with health care in January.

Uh that way, should the bill move, should the authors decide um to move it forward, we'll have the official position and can submit a letter at that time.

Thank you for that update.

I know that uh the supporters are listed here, and many of them are the environmental organizations, including the coalition for clean air and the Sierra Club and the work West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs.

But on the other side, a lot of the labor unions like the Building Trades Council and the Teamsters have list have been listed as opponents.

Uh, are those still pretty um consistent with what we might be seeing moving forward?

Yes, I believe so, Supervisor.

Those were the positions.

This bill was a double referral.

Um, and so it sits in its second committee assignment in both houses, which is judiciary.

And so those positions were noted when the bills were first occurred in their environmental committees, and I would expect it to be similar going forward.

Okay, thank you.

Is that supervisor for the bass?

Any questions or comments?

Yes.

Um thank you, Jessica and Amy for sharing that information.

So Amy, um, could you just walk me through again what the process would be for this two-year bill?

So this would have to pass the Senate by January 31st in order to move forward for this next legislative cycle.

That's correct, supervisor.

Um, and then the same would hold true for the assembly vehicle.

Uh it would also have to pass its house of origin.

I will say the bills are not, there's the very same bill, both in the assembly and the Senate.

So they don't necessarily need each other to pass.

Um, they're really twin measures in each house.

I see.

And um the information you have at least as of today from the authors, meaning the Senate author, is that it may not move forward?

Is that correct?

Yes, Supervisor.

There was a news article, I believe in Politico late last week in which um it was announced they would not be proceeding.

Okay, and that could change, obviously.

When is uh the legislature back in session?

They'll be back the first week of January.

Um, they officially begin on the fifth.

Okay.

Um, well, I will say for myself, I haven't had a chance to um spend a lot of time looking at this legislation given what a busy year it's been for us here at the board with all of Trump's attacks on our safety net and such.

Um I did get outreach from a coalition wanting to meet on this bill, and I was gonna schedule them in January actually, so um, I mean, I would prefer to have that uh meeting with that coalition and perhaps any other constituents that want to meet with me before deciding, as well as potentially waiting until um the beginning of the year to get a sense of where this might go from the authors.

Um so that's where I stand, but I also know the time is kind of short with our meeting schedule, so um yeah, I I just heard for the first time this has to pass the House of Origin by the 31st, and just given my schedule, I'm not gonna be able to do meetings with my constituents until the second week in January to hear from them.

So we would have to go on record supporting, um, presumably it's supporting because that's the recommendation prior to this.

Well, I mean, we could support it any time if it moves forward actually, but I presume it's it's helpful before the 31st if there's lobbying and other things happening.

I'm just trying to work out the timeline given my interest in meeting with my constituents and the tight timeline this is moving.

Uh if we table this to the uh the PAL meeting in January, um, would that give you enough time to meet with some of your coalition groups and then um also the meet the January 31st time frame?

I think so.

I think we also just need to look at what board meeting this will potentially go to so we can work backwards.

And I think we only have two board meetings between being off on the sixth and MLK week.

Thank you.

Amy Schregel is going to help us with our scheduling.

So it looks like we have PAL on the 5th, but you wouldn't be able to meet with folks before then.

Um we will have PAL on the 12th, and then this could come to the board.

Potentially, I have not seen the final schedule yet, but it looks like we have a work session on the 27th and no meeting on the 20th.

So we could try to do a um, we could look at doing a very fast turnaround on this and try to have it on the 13th agenda.

Or potentially the first meeting in February for the board.

Okay.

I know we have some public speakers on this item, so let's hear from them as well, and then uh we'll figure out our schedules.

Thank you.

All right.

Joan Cordalino and then Lynn Griffith, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak.

Um my name is Joan Cardalino.

I am a volunteer member with Indivisible East Bay.

We have been a member of the statewide Make Polluters Pay coalition that has I think something like 150 organizations throughout the state that have been working on this bill, uh developing support for this bill for the entire calendar year of 2025.

Um while it isn't a hundred percent certain, as you just noticed, what will be happening with the bill.

Um we are very much committed to having the coalition move forward because all of the principles that are embedded in this bill are so crucial to our our housing, our health, our economy.

Um we are committed to moving forward with it, and I don't just have very short time, but I wanted just to put this in some specific terms.

The bill would uh create a very large amount of money if it were to move forward with the rough estimates that were put together by one of our coalition members, it would generate at least 150 billion dollars over the next 20 years.

So that works out to roughly 7.5 billion dollars a year.

And if that were just simply to be divided equally among each of California's counties, Alameda County, like every other county would then be looking at 130 million dollars a year for 20 years.

Now, of course, Alameda County would get more time's up.

Okay.

So you get the picture.

It's a significant amount of money that would come into the county every year.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Lynn Griffith.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Um if you take a look at the near the end of the request form, the known supporters and known opposition.

I noticed that the organizations opposing the SB 684 represent um represent a subset of people who may think that their incomes could be jeopardized by this measure.

Um those supporting it represent the whole of the people, not a subset, but all of us, um, because we will all suffer health impacts or loss of housing enduring disasters.

I encourage you to have the courage to support all the people in this measure.

And support SB 864.

Thank you.

Next we'll take an online speaker, Kate Harrison.

Kate, you're able to unmute now.

Thank you.

Kate Harrison.

All right, we're going to move on to Heather McLead and then Rod Fujita.

Hello, my name is Heather McLeod.

I'm in your district.

And I went on that ride along with you with Genesis, so I know of your commitment to transportation and met with you with the youth in Alameda.

I'm representing Youth Power Climate Action.

And the youth in Alameda helped pass a resolution supporting this Make Polluters Pay.

And youth at San Leandro High, James Logan High in Union City, Washington High and Fremont and Livermore High, who are all working to pass resolutions in their cities.

They are taking finals right now.

So they're working hard.

And they're very happy that you're considering agendizing this.

These students are taking environmental science classes, many of them, so they know a lot about how real climate change is.

From their perspective, which is still colored by the rules of childhood.

Supporting this is obvious.

If you make a mess, it's your job to clean it up.

It's a little baffling to them that the state legislatures haven't passed it yet.

They're looking to us to help figure out how to sway state legislatures who are blocking the bill.

Their hope is that the that these legis legislators will listen to you, the Board of Supervisors, when you pass a resolution.

Ms.

Costa's report addressed the need for money for transit.

This would provide more than 100 million dollars per year for 20 years for each for each county.

The 20 years of funding from this bill will create jobs that will be good for the health of people and the environment.

And Mr.

Asani's report highlighted the importance of doing what we can do in the states right now while nothing's happening in the federal government for the environment.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

I'm Rod Fujita.

I'm a climate scientist with Indivisible East Bay.

I live in Oakland, and I'm also here to urge you to support a resolution in support of the May Polluters Pay Act, even though there's uncertainty about whether it will be introduced.

This is not the first time.

It's stalled out, and it was a huge public uh outcry.

People in the streets, people attending uh committee meetings and testifying in support in Sacramento that pushed it through both of the environment committees uh in the assembly and the Senate.

And uh we need to keep that momentum going.

So a resolution support by Alameda County, along with all the other nine or ten or twelve cities that have passed residents in support of this bill, would be extremely important in advance of January 31st so we can uh carry that momentum into those committees and get it out of judiciary, get it onto the floor for a vote.

I just want to also um point out that according to your own very robust um climate action plan and vulnerability assessment that you commissioned.

This county is especially vulnerable to climate change.

We're already experiencing extreme heat days, sea level-rise induced erosion, flooding, and we're at risk of higher and more intense wildfires.

This bill would go a long way to support projects to build the resilience of the county, to improve the well-being of all our citizens, and partly because 40% of the $150 billion dollars that would be generated is going to be earmarked for vulnerable communities like the ones here in the county.

Thank you.

Kate Harrison, please unmute if you'd like to speak.

I'll give you.

Thank you very much.

And thank you, members of the Board of Supervisors.

It's very good to see you today.

I'm a former member of the Berkeley City Council where we are already planning to build a seawall because of climate change.

And we know that this is going to happen in Alameda and low-lying parts of the rest of the county.

We also have huge health disparities that need to be addressed, brought to us by climate.

The impact on asthma of child and children because of climate damage is enormous.

We saw those dark orange skies a couple of years ago, and I don't want to return to those times.

As a former office holder, I think you'll understand how impactful these events are to your your public.

I'm really looking forward to the fact that this bill sets aside 40% of the money for disadvantaged communities, which is where the focus needs to be.

I can afford to do a lot on climate mitigation for myself and my family, but many of your constituents simply cannot without your help.

So I'm looking forward to your support of this bill.

I'm looking forward to meeting with Supervisor Boss at an appropriate time, and thank you very much for considering this today.

Next, we have Steve.

Good afternoon.

And just want to lift up a couple things that might be related to the conversation that just happened around the timing of this and whether or not it should uh happen if it can't happen before it's voted on again.

Um I think it's good to mention that over 20 jurisdictions have already passed resolutions of support previous to uh this consideration with the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, including um the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors.

So there's there's actually a very uh existing trend of cities across California who really believe that this is the right thing to do.

Um, I just want to just ask a question if um around if the sentiment is actually to support the spirit of this legislation, whether it is reintroduced or not, um I think it would still be a great um step forward for Alameda County to pass the resolution now and go on record with all the other cities.

Um so I just wanted to say that.

And I also realized uh or saw recently that polling uh in California, there's uh three quarters of the population that was surveyed are in support of this concept of a climate superfund.

Thank you.

There are no other no other speakers.

Thank you.

Thank you uh for all your comments.

Um, Supervisor Fortune Ada Bass.

Did you want to move forward with a recommendation?

Yes, thank you, Chair Tam, and thank you to our health agency as well as to all of the public speakers.

Um, and I certainly note that three of the five cities in my district, Oakland, Berkeley, and Albany, who's not on the report, but Albany also passed a resolution in support.

So I do want to go through my own process and meet with um at least the one coalition that has reached out to me the week of the 12th and have this come back to us on the 19th and then move it forward to the board or whatever action we end up taking.

Um that would just allow me to make sure um I do my due diligence and meet with my constituents.

So if that's amenable to you, that's what I propose.

Okay, I'm I'm amenable to that.

Um, I support the spirit of the resolution and have been um pretty consistent in making sure that we at the county can secure uh funding to address a lot of the mitigation that's required from um the adaptation that is needed with climate change, and um we based on our schedule, we will have sufficient time to um bring this to the full board because as a committee we we move forward um a recommendation for the full board's consideration before the county officially takes a position.

So uh we will have supervisor Fortunato Bass afford that opportunity to meet with her coalition and bring it to the next um personnel administration and legislation committee for the recommendation to the full board.

So thank you very much for your uh consideration and your comments today.

So um at this time um we will have public comment on items that are not on today's agenda but within the jurisdiction of the PAL committee.

There are no speakers for public comment.

Thank you.

Um will those online identify themselves so we can appreciate your participation.

Valerie.

Yes, good afternoon, Valerie Arkin, um, Supervisor Miley's office.

Elvia.

Steve.

Just a question.

Um the chat was turned up, and I I know that other people were attending this through uh the remote access and uh wonder if it could be open so that folks could express support for the resolution.

Sorry, I only um allowed for mics to be enabled so that people can um be recognized for attending the meeting.

See, uh, we'll move on to Cynthia.

If you'd like to identify yourself to have recognition that you attended the meeting, that seems to be all the people that would like to be identified.

Okay, um Laura Calvert.

Hi, it's Laura Calvert with Spectrum Community Services.

Thank you, Jessica Montez.

Good afternoon.

Thank you, Jessica Montes with Alameda County Community Food Bank.

No one else.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, everyone, for your participation and hope you enjoy your holidays.

Take care.

Thank you.

Happy holidays.

This is the last PAL meeting of the year.