Good afternoon and welcome to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, personnel, administration, and legislation committee meeting of April the 28th. May I have a roll call please? Supervisor Fortinotto Bass. President. Supervisor Tam. President. Thank you and let's start with the legislative update from the federal side. Good afternoon. you've got Emily Baccate Asolva and John Asini here with C.J. Lake. Congress is back this week from their recess and they are now focused on reconciliation. So it's the title of the reconciliation package is the renewing the American DreamHack. During the last two weeks when they were in recess, congressional staffers were largely focused on prepping committees to draft the provisions of the reconciliation package. And again, there are several markup scheduled this week. You know, the one that we have been focused on in particular, you know, for the county and any impacts to Medicaid, Energy and Commerce Committee, they will mark up next Wednesday, May 7th, or at least that's the schedule right now. Armed services, ed and workforce, financial services, oversight, transportation, and I believe judiciary are all going this week. In our notes, we have kind of a table that shows the dates, and then what the instructions are to either cut or spend. At this point, the Senate has not, the Senate has been very quiet. They have not set any markups. So we're waiting to see when they plan to act. Speaker Johnson has said he wants to get a bill to the president's desk by Memorial Day recess, which is about a month away. That's, you know, I think it's impossible. I hate to even say that, but it seems impossible. I think the goal now is just for the house to finish up their markups and potentially get something off of the house floor by the memorial day recess. Next up, kind of the Congressional Review Act, that's one another issue that will be happening this week on the House floor. The CRA, as it's known, is a federal law enabling Congress to review and overturn new regulations issued by federal agencies before they take effect. Members have a 60-day window based on days Congress is in session to introduce a joint resolution, disapproving a rule that has been published and sent to Congress. And if both chambers pass the resolution before the deadline and the president signs it, the rule is invalidated and agencies become restricted from issuing a similar rule in the future. And so the House is planning to take up five CRA resolutions this week, targeting several Biden administration regulatory actions. One is blocking the state of California's mandate for zero mission trucks. Another is overturning California's ban on gas powered cars by 2025. Another related to California is targeting California's nitrogen oxide emission standards. There's also one repealing endangered species protections for the long-thin smelt and then repealing off-road vehicle restrictions in the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Those are the five we can get you more details if you'd like on the three related to California and I'll turn it over to John who can talk about what we're hearing as far as rescissions and more EOs that are coming. Thanks, Emily. So the White House is expected to transmit a formal rescissions package to Capitol Hill this week, totaling approximately $9.3 billion in proposed spending cuts to programs that were previously funded by Congress. The last time that a rescission's package was sent to Congress was during the first Trump administration in 2018. The majority, roughly $8 billion, will be focused on foreign aid with additional reductions targeting the State Department National Public Radio and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting or PBS. White House officials have briefed Republican aides in both chambers ahead of the submission and House Republican leaders are tentatively planning a floor vote on the package during next week, framing this as a broader push for reducing federal spending. They're also adding this congressional or decisions package in order to codify many of the cuts that are made by Doge, which provide additional legal backing through all of these court cases that are challenging Doge's authority. If Congress is able to pass this rescission package, which is a privilege resolution, which means that it only requires a simple majority in both chambers in order to pass. It will provide substantially more legal footing for the cuts that were undertaken by the Trump administration and DOGE. In addition to the decisions package that the White House is expected to release. President Trump is expected to sign an executive order relating today that would direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to identify within a month cities and states that are not complying with federal immigration laws and designate them as sanctuary jurisdictions. So we will be looking for the text of that executive order and of course subsequent reports issued by the attorney general after it's completed. We'll pause there to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you for that update. Surprise or fortune out of us. Any questions or comments? I appreciate the update. We're looking very closely at what the impacts will be to Medicaid as you mentioned and a number of other things as we're meeting with our health partners and looking at our budget. So do you appreciate sharing as soon as possible any information regarding some of those larger impacts to our county services. And in terms of the sanctuary city issues, I know that there is litigation that San Francisco, San Jose, other cities and counties are leading. I assume that you're also following the status of that litigation so that we have a sense what might happen. Although I have heard that it's possible that rather than whatever the result of that litigation being for whatever the result of that litigation, it may only cover certain cities versus a broader group of cities and counties. Are you hearing anything in terms of the direction of what might happen? John, do you have anything? Not in terms of the litigation. We have not been following the litigation super closely. More so on the legislative front. Thank you. I believe our strong council is also following legal issues related to things that impact the county. That is very true. I want to just follow up on some of the report out from essentially the DOJ activity and then you will see in our next set of action items a request for federal ad because you see on the Head Start program because a lot of the Head Start programs were informed in our area that their funding was going to be delayed. But you mentioned that there are certain efforts underway for lack of better term, kind of put in place some of those funding reductions that will coming out of the EOs, the executive orders. Are you seeing that to be the case on Head Start, for example? As it stands right now, we're not sure if Head Start will be part of the decisions package or or if it'll just be zeroed out in the FY26 budget request. There is a likely inclusion of that program being zeroed out in the budget request, but that would have to also be accepted by the Congress through the regular appropriations process. Head Start was appropriated through the CR, but they have since withheld the funding to Headstart programs grantees like the ones where you've been hearing from into county. But it's unclear whether or not the Headstart program delay will be part of the recessions package that should be released later this week. But we'll be keeping an eye out on Headstart in the future of that program. I will also note that we do expect it to be included in the FY26 budget to be zeroed out. But then it has to be up to Congress ultimately, if it gets funded in FY26, which expires in September of this year. Emily, I don't know if you have any other info on that. I would just add that in the first Trump admin, and I can't remember which year it was, but in one of their budget requests that they sent to Congress, they did zero out head start and Congress said no, and appropriated the funds for it. So at least there's some precedent there. Do you expect that to be the case? I'm not asking a projection. Yeah, I mean, this is one program that's important to a number of members. And I think they'll be hearing from their constituents. And so I think this is one that it would be difficult to zero out in the appropriations process by members of Congress, because then they would have to answer to their constituents. It could be wrong, but kind of my initial thought is I think it's going to be tough to zero it out. That's very encouraging. Thank you. So let's move to that next item on the Federal Legislation Update. So we do have a request for your team to help us with the advocacy for the Head Start program and also to support HR4 1464 to essentially modernized the women, infant and children act of 2025. And on the first item, is there anything more that you think we can do to help assure that head start program modes in the direction that Emily, you were talking about. You know, I think it's doing what we're doing and I think like letting our members know, if it were cut, this is how many kids would be impacted. This, you know, kind of giving them the numbers so that they can go down to the floor and advocate, or even in the approach process, you know, can advocate for it. So again, you know, we always talk about data if we can share data. I think that's the best tool for our members right now. Okay. We have that data and survivor Fortune out of Ass who who's our representative on first five Her office can work very closely with whatever you need to get that information out there so I'm fully supportive of both requests Do we have any I'm sorry? I Want to make sure you're fully supportive as well. Yes. Thank you chair Tam I am supportive of both requests and brought forward the head start advocacy Letter together with supervisor Miley. I did also want to share That first five as well as my office and I believe other supervisors offices are in direct contact with a number of the service providers who are being impacted and could be even more impacted so I didn't want to just state that for the public we are trying to be very proactive to ensure these services continue. You know this this program serves over 3,000 kids and families and so it is very important to us. And if I may, Chair Tam, before we wrap up the federal legislative update, I did just want to note, as a point of information, there were some interesting news reports over the past couple days about polling regarding Trump's potential rolling back of Medicaid and a lot of activity that is happening across the state as well as across the nation. So I just wanted to mention that obviously it's outside of the scope of the Board of Supervisors, but I do think it's promising to hear that in many places, including among people who supported the current president, that there is concern and even opposition to some of these cuts to Medicaid and other vital programs. Thank you. Thank you for that feedback. Are there any comments or public input on this item? I have no speakers for this item. Okay, thank you. So we will move forward with those two legislative positions and shift over to the state legislation update. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Amy Costa with full moon strategies with your state legislative advocacy report. Normally I get to offer some good news after my federal compatriot school. I have a little bit more doward news. And we're garing up, obviously, for the release of the Governor's May revise, which he must release by May 14th. The Department of Finance released their latest bulletin in April 2025, Finance Bulletin. And the General Fund revenues were $144 million below the governor's budget forecast in March and 4.4 million above the fiscal year-to-date estimates. And so all of this sounds good, but I would remind folks that we're still looking at the returns as they come in really for the current year and there were many rumors swirling last week that caucus members were notified that the budget year could see a budget deficit of between 15 and 20 billion dollars. This can grow in the fall to over 25 billion as the federal tariffs take full effect. And so there is a little bit of a lag that we're going to start seeing the revenue with people, you know, trying to predict, you know, what the overall tariff impact may be on our revenue sources. As we've talked about before, given that the federal deliberations and decisions don't necessarily align with our state's constitutional budget deadlines, it seems very possible that the state may go ahead and pass their budget as required. Now, later than the beginning of the fiscal year in July 1, but they may have to come back to make adjustments for federal decisions. Again, the next big milestone in this conversation is the main revise which we're expecting in the coming weeks. Last year, policymakers, and our last week, the governor announced that California has actually jumped to the fourth largest economy in the world. He noted that California's nominal GDP reached 4.1 trillion, which led us to last in Japan, placing California behind only the United States, China, and Germany in rankings. We'll see if that holds after what I just said, and certainly in the main revise. We're barreling towards our first major legislative deadlines as well. Policy Committee deadline is next week. And so we are starting to see several amendments coming out of those committee hearings. A note is AB 470. This came forward from the committee to the full board. And this has to do with an 18T proposal regarding their obligation as a carrier of last resort. The bill was significantly amended this past week to include some clarifications and more specifics on the proposed process. We've shared our analysis of those amendments with the CAO's office, and we believe that likely the county's previous concerns will still stand. Even in the amended version, the bill lacks details on the standard of comparatively priced for consumers looking for an alternative service. The complaints that impacted consumers can raise are limited to whether or not the area is well served, versus standards such as comparatively priced services. And lastly, although there is a provision for impacted companies to provide funding,'s no standard in the bill for the amount of funding provided in the bill and I would note that the funds flow through the state versus the impacted local jurisdictions. The bill will be heard later this week on April 30th on the Assembly Communications and Convants Committee. Another bill that we've been monitoring closely for the county is SB 16 by Senator Blake Spear. Recent amendments have removed a previously proposed requirement that counties contribute at least 50% of the cost for city-operated homelessness projects as a condition of regional participation in the state signing for the homeless housing assistance and prevention program or HAAP. The revised amendments now focus on defining governmental responsibilities and ensuring a reliable comprehensive plan to end un-shouldered homelessness within 10 years in the state, promoting the more collaborative and flexible approaches to addressing homelessness without any of the specific financial obligations for counties. And our hearings last week, we did have a budget subcommittee hearing on the Department of Child Support Services. We have full notes on that in our power port, which we will send out. There was also an assembly budget subcommittee on an issue that we along with others in the county family are following closely. And it was a hearing reviewing the impact of AB 218, a local government. AB 218 became a law in 2019 and it eliminated many of the statue of limitation periods for claims of childhood sexual assault and abuse against public entities. The fiscal crisis and management assistance team was tasked with analyzing the fiscal impacts of the law and reporting this to the legislature. They presented that report in the subcommittee. And it also included a panelist from the County of Los Angeles who noted that the county is concerned about the fiscal impacts because they and Alameda in Los Angeles County are facing a $4.4 billion settlement directly related to the claims that came out of this law. I would know that they're hearing it in the budget committee but there are a number of bills also addressing this issue, most notably SB 577 by Senator Laird. So we will continue to to monitor the progress on that particular item. With that, oh, and lastly, we have our sponsor, Dill SB 617. It is scheduled to be heard also this week on April 30th. So more to come on that. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Amy. Surprise or fortune out of house? Yes, thank you Amy. I had a hard time hearing everything that you said regarding the homelessness funding. Do you mind repeating that please? Absolutely supervisor. There was a bill by Senator Lake spear SB 16. That we had been monitoring and the county had a imposed position on it. When it was originally presented the bill would have required that counties provide at least 50% of the cost for any city operated homelessness projects as a condition of the receipt of the homeless housing assistance and prevention program funding. However, the bill was amended last week and those provisions were deleted. Now the bill focuses on defining government responsibilities kind of across entities and it directs the state to develop a comprehensive plan to end unsheltered homelessness within 10 years, promoting a more collaborative and flexible approach. And so it's a fairly substantial amendment that took place last week as the bill moved through the Policy Committee. Thank you so much. Appreciate that update. Just to follow up on that question, in our request for a state legislative position, you saw that we are asking for maintenance of funding for the housing and homeless program with a letter to specifically show that there has been positive results from a lot of the funded programs like Bringing Framie's home home save the CalWORKS housing support and the housing and Disposalty disability advocacy program. How does that request fit in with your Description of I think of is it SB 16? 15 to 25 billion is what we're hearing. Okay, we're only asking for 300 and 9 million. And I do think we'll know more supervisor when the May revise is released. I can't say from my experience when you're in those dollar amounts, you're really looking at potential cuts to existing programs and services. And so obviously policymakers will need to look at things like homelessness funding and other items that have been funded in the last couple of years to see, you know, at the state can, you know, continue to fund those or not. And I think, you know, as we've talked about, I think the MediCal program in particular is a big variable in this question. And certainly folks will be looking to see what happens at the federal level to help inform what the state will need to do. Right, on that part, I think we heard from our federal lobbyist that the timing is more like next Wednesday possibly in terms of looking at the markups on how it might affect the Medicaid contribution and our May revise is set for May 14th. Will we have enough information for the May revise or will there be adjustments? Emily shaking her head so she's saying no. Yeah, I mean, I don't think so because that would simply be just the House Committee marking up. No inputs from the Senate. I think it could change dramatically from what we may see next Wednesday. So that's why I say no. Okay. That's fair. I mean, so it will continue to be a big unknown for the state budget process. It sounds like. And they say generally folks are thinking we likely will have to go back potentially to revisit the budget again after we've reached the constitutional deadline. Maybe that people have to come back in the fall to make adjustments based on federal action. Okay. Thank you so much for that update. We do have several requests for a legislative position with AB 315. It's the MediCal home and community based alternative waiver program with a request for a support position from Alameda County Health. We also have a request to increase the infant supplement to support parenting foster youth with AB 349, a request for support from social services, a request to oppose AB 396 from Alameda County Health on the needle and syringe exchange services. It's basically an unfunded mandate for us. With AB 543, there's a request to support the street medicine program under MediCal. Under SB 404, there's a request to oppose the hazardous materials, metal shredding facilities bill that basically takes away local oversight. Do we have concurrence with the department's request along with the state budget request for maintaining funding for housing and homelessness programs? Yes. So we will move that forward with the recommendations to the full board. Are there any public comments on item two of the state legislation, either the update or the legislative positions? I have no speakers. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you both for your updates. Very helpful to know at this point. Let's move to the public comment on items that are not on today's agenda. Do we have any public comment? Kathy Rodriguez and then Bo Young. Here you can give me a minute. I'm an advocate and an activist. The reason why we're here today is because East the Walling Boulevard is being unlawfully seized by the Department of Public Works. We have reached out to them many times to know they'll, they continue to destroy our property, destroy our land. We have proof that it's our property, we have our plate, we have our plot mats, and there's liability concerns. Here's the property right here. So from sidewalk to the curb is 66 feet. That's within the public right away. There's a next or three feet, eight inches that actually belongs to these property owners. And there's a sidewalk, an old sidewalk that's on it right now. This orange line right here is where they're taken away everybody's property. And they manipulated each and every one of us. They had to sign a document stating that if we don't sign it, that we're going to have to pay for the money to do the work. And I kind of thought about it. And I started doing my investigating work. And I asked them for legal documents to prove what they're saying. And they have not provided those documents. So I went on their website and I got their surveillance map of Isle-Welling Boulevard. And right here is the 66 feet of right away that they claim that they're only gonna be working within that right away, but yet they're taken away. First they said they're only gonna take away three feet of the front of the property because they own it. They do not own it. That's our land, that's our property. This is my property line. This is booze property line. This is my neighbors. I'm really concerned because it's causing a lot of stress, a lot of turmoil, and we want something done. If I have to, I'm gonna get take legal action because you can't steal homeowner's property just because you're an authority. It's a small hill, the middle of my parkingway. try to take a point of fire feet of my parking space. Even on this. And I revoked. The boundary line is so clear. And the existing decades, every neighborhood is same. We didn't build it. The country built it decades ago. And my title map and the zoning of this map all showing 113.5 match in this line. And after I revoke, they already finished the west side of the west side of the Paradise Boulevard. East side of the Paradise Bolivar. East side of the Paradise Bolivar is my house block. They build perfect flat, nothing higher than driveway at the west side of the Paradise Bolivar. So flat, nothing block, Same height with the driveway. But after I revoke my permission, they start to build the east side of the paradise boulevard. And they raise the height, purposely, unnecessary. And even the sidewalk, in in a sidewalk is higher than outside work. Not only they raise the base, they even build this side higher than this side. I tried to make it very high. And they tell me they need this piece at the edge of the land. That's why they take a and 0.5 feet to connect with my driveway. So they form the small pond in front of the house at my block, other neighborhood. If they raise, why they raise from this side to this side, make it higher, and it's very unsafe for the pedestrian. And they use this to push me and threaten me. If you don't give me this piece of the eight and a five feet land, the difference will be very high. You have to fix responsibility for the height. And all the I just pond, so many ponds were formed in front of same block of my house. Thank you, your Johnson. Yes I'm going to be happy. They can do the venture, so they probably will try to find a way. I think folks look. Because this is public comment and items that are not on the agenda, we typically don't interact and respond, but I do want to point out that Wednesday, May 28th, at 6 p.m. at the San Lorenzo Library, the issue is about the Loweling Boulevard sidewalk issue will be part of the agenda and there will be a more in-depth discussion. It's going to be something that hopefully we can discuss on the 28th. Thank you for your comments. Are there participants online that would like to identify themselves. Good afternoon, Valerie Yarkin from Supervisor Myles Office. Hi there, Mona Bargapson from Alameda County Assessor's Office. Thank you. Good afternoon, ma'am. Jessica Blakemore, Alameda County Health. Anna. Good afternoon, Denise Thompson from Social Services Agency. Good afternoon, Cynthia Munoz-Ramos-Woods, the Provider and Niki for Tuna Tabas. Thank you. That's all the speakers. Thank you very much. I saw many of you at the Women's Hall of Fame this past weekend. It was great to see a name, the face, at the event. So this meeting is adjourned. Thank you all for your participation.