I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm afternoon and welcome to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, personnel, administration, and legislation committee. May I may have a call please. Supervisor Fortinato Bass. President? Supervisor Tan. President, thank you. A couple of announcements. Items, Roman 2. Item B. Roman 2. AB 715. And item 4, SB 63 are withdrawn from today's agenda. Okay, may we start with the legislative updates from the federal side? Good afternoon, it's Emily Bocket, itolver here with CJ Lake. I know when we spoke last week, the various house committees were taking up their portions of the reconciliation bill. And then on Friday, the House Budget Committee was tasked with basically putting all of the bills together. The Budget Committee cannot amend any of the portions from the various committees. So basically they package it and then they pass it and send it over to the Rules Committee and then it goes to the full floor for a vote. And it failed in the House Budget Committee on Friday. It was a vote of 16 to 21. There were five Republicans that voted against. And of those five, they all felt like it just didn't go far enough in terms of cuts. And so Republicans regrouped over the weekend. They held the budget markup again last night. I believe at 10 p.m. And four of those five Republicans simply voted present in order to get the bill out of the committee and to the rules committee. This point, the rules committee is supposed to meet tomorrow night. I want to say at 1 a.m. So going into Wednesday morning, they are trying to get this done and off the house floor before the house adjourns for Memorial Day recess, which it's scheduled to do, I believe on Friday, actually it's supposed to be Thursday, but I'm sure they can stay in if they need to. The speaker has threatened to cancel the memorial day recess if they're unable to pass the bill and because so many members have plans, I'm sure they're gonna try and get it done. I think the big issue and it's been the same issue from the start. There are, you know, physical conservatives and those from the Freedom Caucus who say that the cuts don't go far enough. There are the moderates who are saying you cannot touch Medicaid. In any way the speaker tries to move, if he moves to trying to piece the conservatives, the moderates are going to say no. And if he goes the other way, the conservatives are going to say no. So it is unclear at this point kind of how they're going to do all this and clearly they're negotiating behind the scenes. So that's where things stand. And again, it still has to go to the Senate. And the Senate has been saying, you know, it's going to be, I think, watered down from whatever the House passes because There are a number of Senate Republicans who've already said they are not comfortable with what the House Energy and Commerce Committee has done as far as Medicaid. So that's kind of the big state of play. At the same time, the appropriations committees are holding budget hearings. I think we told you guys last week, it's hard to hold a budget hearing when you don't have a budget. So again, members are asking secretaries, very specific questions, which secretaries just cannot answer. We're expecting the administration to put forward a budget request in June. That's the latest. Again, all they have released is a 40 page document. And usually it's hundreds and hundreds of pages long. So that's where things currently stand. Again, it's it's all reconciliation on the house side this week. And then of course, assuming they pass something, you know, the Senate will start to take up the bill to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the and stalemate for a little while. We do have a request from our Alameda County Health Department to essentially oppose the proposed president's budget with the Department of Health and Human Services because it's calling for, as far as we know, for now, a 26% reduction from the prior year and I'm not quite sure how far that's going to go at the moment in the present discussions. I certainly think we should go on record and oppose. Again, part of that is through the annual appropriations process and its discretionary spending. So we should certainly go on record opposing those potential cuts for when Congress does take up those appropriations bills. Okay, I appreciate it. Are there any comments or questions from the public on this item? I have no speakers. Thank you very much Emily. Let move to the state and I had to see Amy joining us last week after the governor's may revise We were all shell shocked. That's why we asked no questions Yeah, so I'll talk a little bit more about that today supervisor, but was certainly great to see everybody last week This This week we approach another key deadline in the California legislature, which is the fiscal policy deadline this Friday, May 23rd, or suspense day. Both the assembly and Senate appropriations committees will hold hearings to announce which bills on their suspense files. Those with significant fiscal impacts will move forward or be held on the file. Given the state's budget situation, there are a lot of rumors in Sacramento, including that leadership in both houses are advising that any bill that have a fiscal cost of over a million dollars will not get off of their respective suspense files. We've also heard that the administration has instructed agencies and departments to request vetoes on any bills that exceed that same threshold of a million dollars. Just by way of refresher on the Senate side, you're eligible for suspense file if the bills projected cost is $50,000 or above for general fund or $150,000 or above if it's special fund. The assembly doesn't distinguish between the fund source and it's anything that is over $150,000. Bills that are released from the suspense file would advance to the floor for debate. Bills held in the appropriations committees are effectively dead for the remainder of the session. These hearings are very fast paced with no public testimony and we will of course be monitoring and we'll report out on the folders of later this week. As noted by the supervisor on May 14th, the governor did release his May revise. And as expected, they are projecting a $12 billion budget deficit and not as primarily attributable to kind of the disintegration of the revenues ruled by some of the federal changes Emily was discussing as well as rising expenditures notably in the medical program. Part of what's happening with the tariff impacts is that the state revenues specifically in capital gains, corporate profits, wages and income tax collections are seeing some depression. The economic outlook, mourns of a growth recession with slower GDP growth, higher unemployment, and risks tied to the federal policy changes. However, it's important to note that even with this deficit, the May-Ray-Evised does not take into account the full impact of the proposed federal actions, including proposed Medicaid cuts, nor does it recognize the full impact of the tariffs. To close the budget gap, the governor makes a number of proposals. He proposes approximately five billion in spending cuts, focused mostly on the health and human services side of the house on medical benefits, health provider payments, and caps on in-home supportive services hours. They also propose about 5.3 billion in new revenues or internal borrowing. The budget also includes 1.7 billion in fund shifts, notably moving about 1.5 billion in Cal Fire operations from the State General Fund to the Greenhouse Gas Production Fund. key program reductions, including freeze on medical expansion for undocumented adults and the elimination of certain long-term care and dental benefits as well as cuts to behavioral health services. Additionally, some of the K-12 education funding is deferred and supplemental payments under the recently passed Proposition 56 are reduced. The May revise also includes a $7.1 billion with draw from the state's reserves while maintaining a total reserve balance of about 1.7 billion for 2026. We note also that there weren't many new funding proposals included in the May Revise and they do not allocate any funding for homelessness and the May Revise and more Proposition 36. The LAO came out with their brief analysis and they will be continuing to release their documents. But largely, they recommend that the legislature adopt a similar approach to the governor and pursue a mix of solutions such as targeting programs to reduce ongoing spending, adjusting reductions and balancing spending cuts with potentially alternative revenue options. There were a couple of note-worthy comments from the governor during his presentation of the May revise. He made some strong comments regarding local governments in particular. He was outspoken about his views that cities and counties aren't doing enough to address homelessness, highlighting the state's accountability website, which we previewed for you a couple weeks ago, which tracks local jurisdictions progress on homelessness and housing. He specifically called out mirrors and county supervisors who back Proposition 36 saying this is their opportunity to step up and fund it. He emphasized that funding and implementation responsibilities lie with local leadership. He also mentioned during his comments towards the end of the presentation that he would be supportive of a housing bond and there is one moving its way through the legislature. We also saw late last week before the May revise was presented around one of Proposition One funds were awarded a total of 3.3 billion in grant funds in Alamedamedic County that represented four specific projects, which will include in our report. Last week, we also had the little Hoover Commission meet on the governor's proposed reorganization plan, which aims to consolidate housing and homelessness programs under a single agency. The commission must produce its report by June 4th with the legislature deciding whether to reject or approve his plan by July 4th. The majority of the commissioners supported or were indifferent to supporting the governor's reorganization plan. This resulted in the commission deciding to move forward with an overall supportive stance in their report, noting a few recommended changes. I would note the several of the commissioners expressed a bit of skepticism that the reward wouldn't cost the state additional dollars, but overall they did remain supportive of the plan's goals. I also reported recently about a controversy on the Assembly floor regarding AB 379 by Assemblywoman Maggie C Crell in a pretty rare show of defiance in the legislature. As a freshman member, she led a successful push to strengthen penalties for soliciting sex from 16 and 17 year olds and was able to draw support from more moderate Democrats and Republicans, exposing some divisions within the caucus. And the move came after leaders stripped her name from the bill and a long debate. Following a week long of negotiation with Assembly leadership, the amended measure was passed late last week, unanimously on the assembly floor with no no votes. We also have in our notes a couple of joint hearings that took place late last week, one again on the assembly joint hearing and business and professions committee regarding the governor's reorganization plan. And then late on Thursday there also was a joint hearing of the Public Safety and Senate Budget Subcommittee regarding proposition 36 implementation and we'll have the full notes for those and our power port with that I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Surprise for fortune out about. Thank you chair. Tam, thank you Amy for the report. Yes, the governor's proposed budget is incredibly alarming. There are deep cuts to healthcare, including to immigrants, to low-income individuals, including seniors. And that means that counties like ours will only bear more of the brunt in terms of pressures on exacerbating health disparities, worsening health outcomes, and putting pressure as well on emergency rooms. So that part of the budget is particularly alarming to me. I am curious if you could explain what the roadmap looks like in terms of the budget. I do want to note that our East Bay assembly members, our members of the Progressive Caucus, they put out a statement expressing their disappointment. Can you share a little bit of what you foresee over the next few weeks as we move forward in terms of process? Yeah, so the state will have to meet their Constitution and statutory requirements regarding passing the budget. Traditionally what's happened is the legislature has put forward and passed their legislative plan for the budget around June 15th, which is the constitutional deadline. In recent years, we've seen more of the three-party deal that between the legislature and the governor emerged closer to July 1st, the start of the fiscal year. And I think we anticipate that this year too, given the complexities as you've laid out. I do think many in Sacramento are embracing for this not being a one and done budget for us having to come back several times to make adjustments. As I noted, there's some key factors that are not included in this budget, including the full realization of the impact of the tariffs, which many many are thinking will have an outsized impact on California, given that we are a port state. We have several major ports, including Port of Oakland, that are going to be impacted by that. And I would say, I think some are concerned that in the modeling that both the legislative analysts office and the Department of Finance use, they typically look at past economic factors to project forward. And candidly, I don't think there's anything on record in recent history that could help them project for the full impact of the tariffs, especially given that it's kind of up down in sideways as far as what the policies are. a lot of people are expecting that some of the revenue projections may be off on it was something similar that happened during COVID in which the models couldn't accurately kind of look back on how a pandemic might impact state revenues. There's been talk the governor can always call a special session, but I do think folks are anticipating they may have to come back into the fall to make other adjustments to the budget as more information is known. Thank you for that. It's a big challenge to be in this holding pattern for both the state and the federal budget in terms of our planning, but I think we all know that tomorrow we do have a work session where we'll talk about the budget as well as local and state homelessness policy. And I do look forward to that conversation. I think there's, there's a lot that I think our cities and our counties probably have to say in terms of the challenges of solving homelessness and the resources and level of coordination needed. So I hope that over the next few weeks there'll be a more robust public conversation about how we need to be all in together to solve the homelessness and affordable housing crisis in particular. Thank you. Thank you. Can you help me just understand more about the housing bond that you said was moving forward and then eventually it sounds like there's there's some agreement about forming this housing and homeless agency. Would they be potentially administering the bond or what coordinating effort would they provide? Yeah, let me start with the bond. Actually, one of our own delegation members assembly woman, Wix has a proposed housing bond. And yeah, and she's joined by Senator Cobaldon of Yolo County, AB 736 and SB417. So those are moving through the policy process right now, and so it was interesting to note that the governor expressed his support for housing bond. He didn't say which vehicle, but just in general that he would support a bond. And they both authorize around $10 billion in general obligation bonds for affordable housing. And I'm sorry Supervisor, can you run me if you're second question? Oh, it was on the reorg. So it's interesting, there's a very kind of unique process when the governor puts forward a reorganization plan. And so it's crude by the little Hoover Commission. And they put forward their recommendations to the legislature. The legislature has had their own hearings as well. And the idea is to create kind of a more specialized entity around housing and homelessness. Right now it's part of a larger agency that oversees consumer affairs, including licensing for things like cognitive, barbers, et cetera. And so the proposal was really to move everything involved with housing and homelessness out of that agency and sort of into its own entity. And I think conceptually people really like it. But there has been some question about whether or not that's going to cost money. And light of the deficits the state is facing and whether or not now is the right time to do that. I'll also say in the legislative hearings there's been a little bit of frustration expressed by legislators that it doesn't feel like they have quite enough time and that it seems like a lot to contemplate this reorgan edition to all the other policy proposals and potential cuts they have to weigh. I appreciate that clarification and update. The reason I was asking is because you have mentioned, and it has been in the news that the governor has been fairly critical of local governments in terms of our approach and our ability and willingness and funding sources to address frankly the housing crisis and homelessness. So it's not clear what this agency would necessarily do if the governor has been expecting that to come from local governments. That's all. Some of the bills on Wallsmoving HCD over there. So theoretically if a bomb were to pass, that that would be under this new entity. If it were to go forward and be approved by voters. Okay. Thank you so much. Are there any questions or public comments on the legislative update from the state? I have no speakers. Thank you. So we have a request from our social service agency to support AB 346 in terms of providing in-home support services professional certification. There's been a request also to support AB 871. That's mandated, mandated reporters of suspected financial abuse of elder and dependent adults. And there's many requests by Supervisor Miley to support a state budget request, which is about $30 million for the Bay Area Housing financing authority as they look forward to developing a bond in 2028. I'm supportive of all these recommendations. We have concurrence on that. Yes, we certainly do. I've personally signed on to the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority bond. So definitely look forward to the full board signing on. And I just want to briefly mention that for items 2 AB 715 and item 4 SB 63, those bills are on my watch list and they were inadvertently moved forward. So thank you for withdrawing them. Are there any public comments or questions on these pieces of legislation that we're advancing to the full board or recommended positions of support? I have no speakers. Okay, thank you. Is there any public comment on items that are not on today's agenda. No speakers for public comment. Thank you for those that are online. May we know who you are? So we can thank you for your participation. Good afternoon. Valerie Arkin from Supervisoriley's office. Good afternoon. This is Leon Fernando from Child Support Services. Good afternoon. Jessica Blakemore, Alameda County Health. El Veciroga, Alameda County House. El Veccaroga, Alameda County Tax Collector's Office. Thank you all today for your participation, meeting the adjourn. Thank you. Thank you. you you you you you you you you you you