HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.6 Designate New Agency for JTPA �to -
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 22, 1991
SUBJECT: State Application to Designate a New Agency for the
Administration of Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)
6S&(Prepared by: Paul S. Rankin, Assistant City Manager
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1 . Letter dated July 10, 1991 to the City Manager
from the Consultant preparing the Application.
2. Letter dated July 17, 1991 from Consultant.
3 Proposed Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION: � r"Adopt Resolution.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The City of Dublin's contribution will be
proportionate to the City's share of the
population compared to all participating agencies
not to exceed $660.
DESCRIPTION: At the City Council meeting on July 8, 1991 , by a
majority vote, Staff was directed to respond to a request from the Mayor of
Fremont. The request solicited the City of Dublin's participation in the
formation of a new entity to administer JTPA funds. In order for the City
of Dublin to participate, it was indicated that it would also be necessary
for the Cities of Union City, Hayward, and Pleasanton to be participants.
This requirement stems from a State requirement that participating agencies
must be contiguous.
Subsequent to the last City Council meeting, Staff was contacted by Mr.
Robert Bloom, former Executive Director of ACTEB/ACAP. Mr. Bloom has been
hired as a consultant by the City of Fremont to prepare the application for
a new Service Delivery Area. The State Application deadline is August 1 ,
1991 . Mr. Bloom indicated that the application process requires a
Resolution adopted by each participating agency, which authorizes the Mayor
to execute the application. The attached letter (Exhibit 1 ) describes the
process required.
Staff advised Mr. Bloom that the final paragraph of his suggested
resolution is inconsistent with the action taken by the Dublin City Council
on July 8, 1991 . The City Council expressed an interest in proceeding with
the application at this time, however, Staff was directed to provide more
information on the cost of establishing and the structure of the new agency
at an appropriate time. Mr. Bloom acknowledged that the State application
process does not require that the resolution state that the agency will
enter into a joint powers agreement.
The effort to form the new entity is quite dynamic, and additional changes
have been proposed. In a letter dated July 17, 1991 (Exhibit 2) , Mr. Bloom
provided additional information on the expanded effort to seek
participants. The invitation to form a new entity is now being extended to
all of the former members of ACTEB except the City of Berkeley. This would
include Alameda County and would provide for a potential membership of
twelve agencies The options available to the City of Berkeley would be to
join together with Oakland or to request that the Governor designate
Berkeley as its own Service Delivery Area (SDA) .
Staff questioned Mr. Bloom about several apparent discrepancies with this
approach. The requirement for contiguous boundaries with North County
cities and the ability of Berkeley to form its own SDA with less than
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO:
ITEM N0. •
200,000 in population would appear to conflict with the State Law. Mr.
Bloom indicated that the Governor has the authority to waive both
requirements and that the application would need to address the basis for
the action. This type of exemption was made when the original ACTEB
membership included non-contiguous agencies.
Another issue raised in Exhibit 2 is the potential involvement of 12
agencies, in violation of the settlement agreement between ACTEB and the
Federal Department of Labor. This agreement was approved by the City
Council on July 8, 1991 . The terms of the settlement include a prohibition
against reconstituting an organization to administer JTPA programs, in the
event the new entity includes 12 or more of the original ACTEB members.
This restriction applies to a one-year period from the date of execution of
the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement will not be executed
until all agencies take action on the matter. Mr. Bloom has indicated that
there are agencies which have indicated a willingness to wait for
membership, in the event that all potential agencies elect to participate.
Based upon the previous action by the City Council, Staff has modified the
proposed Resolution from the one suggested by Mr. Bloom to reflect only a
commitment to negotiate with the participating agencies. The draft
resolution does include language regarding proceeding with activities
necessary to start-up the organization. It is presumed that if the City
was not successful in negotiating with the agencies, the City would not be
involved in the start-up activities. By participating directly in the
process, the City would have input on the new structure. Another option
for the City would be to indicate an interest, but elect to wait for a
future membership opening. In order to proceed with the inclusion of the
City of Dublin in the application, Staff recommends that the City Council
adopt the proposed resolution.
a:s722jtpa.doc.agenda#5
THE EMPLOYMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
Education • Training • Employment
Management Services and Consulting
July 10 , 1991 ,
TO: Office of the City Manager
Cities of Dublin, Fremont , Hayward, Livermore, Newark,
Pleasanton, San Leandro , and Union City
SUBJECT : Briefing on the Upcoming Application Effort of
Southern/Eastern Alameda County Cities to Receive State
Designation as a Job Training Partnership Act Service
Delivery Area
Dear City Managers :
The City of Fremont is moving ahead on what its leadership has
ascertained is the interest of the southern and eastern portions
of Alameda County to reestablish a consortium form of governance
between cities to administer and operate the federal Job Training
Partnership Act ( JTPA) program. I wish to introduce myself as the
private consultant hired by Fremont to work with the interested
cities and to submit the necessary application packet to be a newly
designated JTPA service delivery area ( SDA) . Of course , my prior
involvement is most evident , having served as Executive Director
for the ACTEB/ACAP agency up until June 30 , 1991 .
This is a written briefing intended to inform you on some upcoming ,
fast-moving events . Time is of the essence insofar as the applica-
tions for new SDA status are due into Sacramento no later than
August 1 , 1991 . There are, however, some continuing issues sur-
rounding the December 1 , 1990., redesignation of the original ACTEB
SDA status to the County of Alameda Social Services Agency . These
continuing issues may affect the final directions to be taken on
reestablishing a city consortium form of governance for the JTPA
program.
The New Application for SDA Redesianation
The following briefing highlights what is now underway in order to
gain approval as a new SDA.
A. At this point , there is preliminary indication that eight (8)
Southern and Eastern County cities wish to participate . These
include the Cities of Dublin , Fremont , Hayward, Livermore,
Newark, Pleasanton, San Leandro, and Union City .
EMG Mission Hills Plaza • 39572 Stevenson Place,
T
BI
elephone (415) 791-8542 1`�'W y *�
.�,�,
Page Two
Office of the City Manager
July 10 , 1991
B . The total 1990 census population for these cities is 575 , 206 ,
thereby easily surpassing the 200 ,000 minimum population
threshold to be an SDA. From my recollection of all SDA
redesignation requests submitted in California during the
seven-year operation of JTPA, this new southern/eastern
consortium request will by far be for the largest population
base .
C . The application requires justification that the geographic
area represents a significant portion of the labor market
area . Unfortunately, California has never established a
definition for "substantial portion" and has somewh-=t
subjectively applied this criterion to screen out , and reject ,
prior redesignation requests . Our application is going to
have to be very sound in this regard.
d. A very conservative estimate on fund availability for a new
southern/eastern consortium based on the existing 1991-1992
allocations coming into Alameda County provides approximately
$2 . 4 million in base entitlement monies . As a very approxi-
mate estimate, perhaps an additional $600 , 000 in discretionary
funds would be available . (Note: This figure is subject to
much variance, depending upon the level of future activities
and successful grantsmanship in response to plant closures
and/or layoffs in Southern/Eastern County . )
e. The application itself is relatively simple and straight-
forward. A five-page maximum rationale statement , some
accompanying statistics on the population and labor market ,
a description of coordination efforts , signatures from the
participating cities , and copies of authorizing city council
resolutions are all that is necessary .
f . The likelihood for application approval is less so related to
the quality of the application packet and more so based or, the
political dynamics of changing the status quo into some new
configuration that makes overall sense . The new southern/
eastern consortium application will likely be assessed in a
broader manner based on what would occur for the County, as
the current SDA, to lose a major segment of its area and on
how administration will take place for the northern cities and
for the unincorporated areas of South/East County (i . e . ,
Ashland, Cherryland, Castro Valley, San Lorenzo, and Sunol ) .
The state will be seeking an overall plan to serve all of
Alameda County and not just acting on the merits of the new
southern/eastern consortium application. This is where some
political advocacy is most important to stress to state
leaders what is best for our local situation.
Page Three
Office of the City Manager
July 10 , 1991
g . The application packet requires copies of resolutions passed
by each participating city and the signatures of the mayors
signifying approval to submit the packet itself . Attached is
a copy of the sample resolution I have prepared and "faxed"
to your City Clerk' s office on July 10 , 1991 . I am especially
needing your assistance to schedule this resolution for city
council approval during the month of July . I realize this
request is coming very late, but the appliation deadline is
firmly set for August 1 , 1991 . Perhaps you can place this as
an emergency item, as appropriate under your council ' s
policies . I will be contacting your office by phone yet this
week to ascertain if and when your council will be able to
take action. Your assistance to send me approved resolutions
at my address would be appreciated . I will personally be
"walking" the application signature page around to the mayors
in order to gain all signatures .
h. The application process will include oral presentations before
the State Job Training Coordinating Council , which is an
advisory body to the Governor . A delegation of local elected
officials , city administrators , employers , and possibly
service providers will be needed for a September 12 , 1991 ,
SJTCC Executive Committee meeting and the full council meeting
on October 10 , 1991 .
i . With approval of a new SDA comes some additional gear-up
obligations . The state' s guidelines remind applicants of the
following required startup activities :
-- Negotiating a joint powers agreement ;
-- Establishing a Private Industry Council (PIC) and
securing state certification for the PIC;
-- Developing an agreement between the PIC and chief elected
officials ;
-- Selecting an administrative entity;
-- Establishing adequate financial and management control
systems ;
-- Passing the state' s pre-award financial and management
systems survey;
-- Drafting, submitting, and securing approval of a Job
Training Plan; and
-- Developing and implementing a Transition Plan from the
current to the new SDA administration.
Page Four
Office of the City Manager
July 10 , 1991
Given the prior ACTEB consortium experience , much care will
no doubt need be taken to carefully construct the joint powers
agreement in terms of membership, terms for withdrawal , voting
structure, rights of a minority, approvals for the Job
Training Plan, etc .
The Unresolved Issues Surrounding Alameda County as the Present and
Future (? ) SDA
The U . S . Department of Labor (DOL) has now issued a formal Initial
Determination finding the State of California in violation of the
JTPA law by virtue of having redesignated the former failed ACTEB
consortium SDA to now be the County of Alameda . The DOL cites that
California has funded an ineligible entity and that all administra-
tive funds expended for the Alameda County SDA from November 1 ,
1991 , until this is resolved will be disallowed against the State .
A series of high-level meetings reportedly is occurring within the
State EDD office in order to seek resolution of this issue and
certainly to attempt to escape from any financial indebtedness due
to disallowances . A delegation of interested mayors from Fremont ,
Piedmont , and San Leandro and the current ACTEB/ACAP Governing
Board chairperson is meeting with the EDD Director on Thursday
afternoon .
All this remaining uncertainty only makes it more difficult to plan
alternatives for city involvement in a new consortium structure .
The question of who is in charge for the current ' 91- ' 92 year needs
to be clarified in order to assess what ' s best for ' 92- ' 93 and
beyond. Meanwhile , I am to continue my efforts for the southern/
eastern consortium application and will provide our eight cities
with an update on any new developments surrounding the Alameda
County role as the current SDA and possible competition for future
SDA status .
I hope this has been of benefit . Please contact me directly if you
have questions . I will be contacting you and your staff to
facilitate the gathering of all necessary materials , most
importantly the resolutions , that must accompany the application.
Sincerely ,
A_ "4—�
Robert L . Bloom
RBL.: ldh
cc : Suzanne Shenfil
SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF
AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION
FOR A CONSORTIUM FORM OF GOVERNANCE BET-
WEEN ALAMEDA COUNTY CITIES TO SERVE AS A
SERVICE DELIVERY AREA FOR THE FEDERAL JOB
TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) of 1982 was enacted by
Congress to establish a new employment and training program to replace the
Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) ; and
WHEREAS, the JTPA legislation provides that local political jurisdictions
desiring to administer job training and employment programs must form local
service delivery areas (SDAs) ; and
WHEREAS, the JTPA legislation provides an opportunity for redesignation
of SDAs on a calendar of every two years; and
WHEREAS, the JTPA program is administered by the various states, and the
Governor od California has identified the State of California Employment
Development Department (EDD) to administer California's JTPA program;and
WHEREAS, California has determined that designated SDAs shall automatically
also serve as designated substate area grantees for purposes of administering
the JTPA plant closure and layoff assistance programs; and
WHEREAS, the California EDD is currently soliciting applications from local
political jurisdictions interested in a redesignation of their SDA and in
serving as part of a ne'r: SDA governance Stru'ctu're; and
WHEREAS, the City of has previously participated as an active,
involved member of a city/county SDA consortium for this area, known as the
Alameda County Training and Employment Board (ACTEB) ; and
WHEREAS, the. State of California has determined it necessary to revoke
SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE
ACTEB's status as the SDA for the balance of Alameda County (aside from the
City of Oakland) and to redesignate the SDA to the County of Alameda Board
of Supervisors, effective December 1, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the City of is committed to administering and operating
the highest quality of educational, training, and employment services for
eligible area residents and believes strongly in maintaining a public/private
partnership with local businesses and employers; and
WHEREAS, the City of is desirous of reestablishing a partnership
with like-minded local city jurisdictions in order to once more administer
and operate a JYPA consortium SDA; and
WHEREAS, a number of contiguous cities in Alameda County are expressing the
intention to form an SDA, and such a configuration shall represent over
575,000 residents, and a major portion of the labor market area, thereby
easilly surpassing the requirement for a population of 200,000 plus; and
WHEREAS, the proposed SDA consortioum will be self-supporting with available
federal entitlement and discretionary funds for administration and operations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of City Council
hereby authorizes the filing of an application for Service Delivery Area desig-
nation with other contiguous Alameda County cities holding the common interest
in serving as a new SDA. Furthermore, the City of commits itself
to negotiating and entering into an acceptable joint powers agreement with the
other consortium members and copleting all necessary start-up activities, should
the SDA redesignation be approved.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of July, 1991.
THE EMPLOYMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
Education • Training • Employment
Management Services and Consulting :�o� X-4-1 I 0
Fax Transmittal
Urgent and Timely
Information
TO: Mayors and City Managers,
Cities of Alameda, Albany, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward
Newark, Piedmont, Pleasanton, San Leandro and Union City
Board of Supervisors President and County Administrator,
County of Alameda
SUBJECT: Expanded Invitation to participate in a new balance of County
Joint Powers Agency to administor the Federal Job Training Partnership
Act Program for 1992 and beyond.
Dear Elected Officials and Administrators
As you are aware, the City of Fremont is continuing to take a lead, coordinative
role to preparing a Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Service Delivery
Area (SDA) redesignation request to Governor Pete Wilson. I am serving
as a consultant to Fretouttt to prepare the actual application which is due
to Sacramento on August 1, 1991.
Update on Proposed Changes
The first prupusal was for a Southern/Eastern Alameda County consortium
(with eight cities) . Discussions between leaders in these cities have
prompted an interest to possibly include those Northern cities which have
previously worked effectively within the prior Alameda County Training
and Employment Board (ACTEB) (which is due to be officially dissolved)
and still remain active within the remaining Associated Community Action
Program (ACAP) consortium. This is to advise you that the newest, current
plait is to create a new Northern/Southern/Eastern consortium.
In order to create such a new consortium and submit the necessary application,
certain criterion must still be met consistent with the negotiated terms
and conditions of the dissolution plan for ACTEB. The U.S. Department
of Labor has accepted a "stand in cost" plan to settle old ACTEB Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act (CETA) audit disallowances, with the added
caveat that ACTEB dissolve and not reestablish itself with 12 or more members
for at least one year from the final date of settlement.
The new Northern/Southern/Eastern Job Training consortium must therefore,
comply with the following:
- cover the total geographical area;
- be composed of eleven or fewer jurisdictions for the period through
summer 1992; and
. �
E I B"I T
2.
-- as a courtesy, leave open an invitation for those political
jurisdictions not first joining to join once the period of membership
limitation passes.
The inclusion of Northern cities does not include the City of Berkeley.
The seven year experience of ACTBB was unsuccessful in terms of melding
the political and administrative goals and objectives of the Agency's 13
other ,jurisdictions with Berkeley. This newest effort to regain a role
for direct city involvement in administering the JTPA program wishes not
to recreate the failures of the prior consortium. With the future possible
reinclusion of all jurisdictions into this new JTPA consortium, the membership
would once more directly coincide with ACAP's.
Requested Action of Interested Jurisdictions
'Time is absolutely of the essence. On behalf of Fremont's leadership I
am requesting the following actions.
1 For those Southern/Eastern Cities which have alread assed
their city council resolutions to join the Southern Eastern
consortium, please review your current willingness to join
this expanded consortium. If you concur, and your prior approved
resolution was "generic" enough to still be applicable, no further
council action is needed. Please let me know in writing or by
direct phone contact of your continued plan to participate.
If your resolution needs to be revised and updated, please have
a new resolution agendized ASAP in July.
2, For those cities that have not yet approved a City Council resolution
please expedite an item here still in July. This especially includes
the four invited Northern cities (Alameda, Albany, Emeryville,
and Piedmont) .
3. Any city desiring to remain a non-member for a period likely
through summer 1992, should please indicate such to me in writing
or via initial phone contact. At this time the maximum invited
participation is 13 (12 cities and the county) . The City of
Livermore has taken a "non action" to join or not join and this
is taker, as non-interest to participate (although the consortium
would still serve Livermore residents) . At minimum one more
Jurisdiction would need to "pass" on this initial invitation to
establish file new job training consortium. The consortium would
still propose to serve the residents of that non-involved jurisdiction.
An invitation to subsequently join in one year would be extended.
1 realize all of this is developing very quickly, especially with the expansion
in invited membership. I will continue as the technician to develop and
finalize the actual application packet that is due on August 1, 1991.
Participating jurisdictions will then perform the necessary continued advocacy
during the coming months in order to gain the necessary Governor's approval
in January 1992. Attached for the benefit of the county and Northern cities
is a sample resolution for usage with your city council or supervisor's
agenda.
Sincerely,
Kobert L. Bloom
cc: Suzanne Shenfil
RESOLUTION NO. - 91
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
***************************
AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION
FOR A CONSORTIUM FORM OF GOVERNANCE
BETWEEN ALAMEDA COUNTY CITIES
TO SERVE AS A SERVICE DELIVERY AREA
FOR THE FEDERAL JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) of 1982 was
enacted by Congress to establish a new employment and training program
to replace the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) ; and
WHEREAS, the JTPA legislation provides that local political
jurisdictions desiring to administer job training and employment
programs must form local Service Delivery Areas (SDAs) ; and
WHEREAS, the JTPA legislation provides an opportunity for
redesignation of SDAs on a calendar of every two years; and
WHEREAS, the JTPA program is administered by the various states,
and the Governor of California has identified the State of California
Employment Development Department (EDD) to administer California' s JTPA
program; and
WHEREAS, California has determined that designated SDAs shall
automatically also serve as designated substate area grantees for
purposes of administering the JTPA plant closure and layoff assistance
programs; and
WHEREAS, the California EDD is currently soliciting applications
from local political jurisdictions interested in a redesignation of
their SDA and in serving as part of a new SDA governance structure; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has previously participated as an
active, involved member of a city/county SDA consortium for this area,
known as the Alameda County Training and Employment Board (ACTEB) ; and
WHEREAS, the State of California has determined it necessary to
revoke ACTEB' s status as the SDA for the balance of Alameda County
(aside from the City of Oakland) and to redesignate the SDA to the
County of Alameda Board of Supervisors, effective December 1 , 1990; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is committed to administering and
operating the highest quality of educational, training, and employment
services for eligible area residents and believes strongly in
maintaining a public/private partnership with local businesses and
employers; and
Y
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is desirous of reestablishing a
partnership with local city jurisdictions in order to once more
administer and operate a JTPA consortium SDA; and
WHEREAS, a number of cities in Alameda County are expressing the
intention to form a SDA, and such a configuration would represent a
major portion of the labor market area, easily surpassing the
requirement for a service population in excess of 200, 000 ; and
WHEREAS, the proposed SDA consortium will be self-supporting with
available federal entitlement and discretionary funds for administration
and operations .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Dublin does hereby authorize the filing of an application for Service
Delivery Area designation with other Alameda County cities holding the
common interest in serving as a new SDA. Furthermore, the City of
Dublin commits itself to negotiating an acceptable joint powers
agreement with the other consortium members and completing all necessary
start-up activities, should the SDA redesignation be approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor is authorized to execute the
application on behalf of the City of Dublin.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of July, 1991 .
AYES:
NOES :
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
a:resojtp2 .doc.agenda#5