HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.2 JTPA Organizational Structure CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 13, 1992
SUBJECT: Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Organizational
Structure
/(Prepared by: Paul S. Rankin, Assistant City Manager)
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Letter Outlining Potential Option for City Input on
JTPA Programs
i
RECOMMENDATION. Cons de r
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Undetermined, however, in the event that City
Staff were actively required to monitor another
agency, Staff costs may be incurred.
DESCRIPTION: In the past, the State of California took action to
require that the Board of Supervisors act as the elected body for all Job
Training Partnership Act programs in the County, except for the City of
Oakland. The City of Oakland has a large enough population to qualify as
its own Service Delivery Area. Prior to this action, the programs were
handled by ACTEB.
The City's representative on ACTEB was Councilmember Moffatt. Elected
Officials who served in this capacity have been working with the County to
identify a role for the jurisdictions served by JTPA programs to have input
into the policies, programs, and funding distributions. The law requires
the County to have a Private Industry Council (PIC) which represents labor
and service providers and the community at large. The PIC is an advisory
body to the Board of Supervisors. The law does not require representation
from each City.
Councilmember Moffatt has requested that the City Council review the
concepts currently being discussed regarding the City's, role in JTPA
oversight. If the City Council has a certain preference, it would be
appropriate to provide Councilmember Moffatt with further direction.
a:413JTPA.agenda#9
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO. CITY CLERK
FILE / d
I I`.VI I . 1 I 1 VI I'ILVJf-I\I
�(c
b - Apt-
-N
C u v ti t�! M L"�.="'fie,C3 G.. L'O ev Ec�Pal�l►�7E,
March 11, 1992 7D��L
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
1221. Oak Street
Oakland, California 94112
Re; Cities Role in Alameda. County Service Delivery ea
Dear Supervisors:
Ci.ty representatives have attended two meetings held jni fitly with the Private In is try
Council for the purpose of defining a role for city representation in the Job Tra' dng
Partnership Act (TI'PA) decision making. Unfortunately we still have not agreei i with
the Private Industry Council on the role that the cities ale going to play in this n w .
Service Delivery Area. The Private Industry Council has suggested a role that w feel is
not consistent with the wishes of city elected officials. For ihis reason The city
representatives met separately in Union City on March 5 1992, to formulate the
following recommendation which we feel is consistent with the wishes of all city
representatives. We would like to call this Option #5.
Board of
supervisors
. 1
City Advisory Private Ind try
tY rY �����...I..«1„��I.,.NII 1�1 Brie rr ���
Roprosontativo Council
PIC Department
Staff
j
Alameda County Board of Supervisors - Page 2 March 11, 1992
We recommend under this Option that the city elected r presentatives and the 'vate
Industry Council provide recommendations to the Board of Supervisors as fo110
+ Policy Guidance.and Oversight;
Program Design Outcomes and Guidelines;
+ Budget/Personnel;
Geographic Distribution of Funds;
Evaluation;
+ Funding Decisions;
+ Target Populations;
+ Demand Occupations.
Under this Option the following characteristics would ap�ly:
1. Each city would be responsible for selecting an el�cted official to sit on t 's
advisory-board;
2. A voting process of one city, one vote, would be a tablished;
3. Items for ,Board of Supervisors/Private Industry C uncil concurrence would be
presented to cities prior to submission to the Board of Supervisors;
4. For those decisions where the cities and the PIC o not agree, the cities ee to
set up a joint City/PIC committee made up of three representatives from ach
body to resolve the issues;
s, An annual meeting between the Board of Supervi ors, the Private Indust
Council and the cities would be held;
6. The majority as well as minority opinions of the es would be represent d in
any recommendations to the Board of Supervisors
The cities realize that this Option may entail'additional s affing, and for this real n, the
cities propose to hold meetings at the same time and plae as the existing ACAP Board
meet:; which will be adjusted to conform with the new meting schedule. Becaus the
material is already prepared.for the Private Industry Co cil as well as the Boar of
Supervisors, the incremental duplication and staffing we el would be minimal.
is Option is a workable compromise that Oermits cities the oppor inity to
We feel that th p P
have significant decision making prerogatives, while at th same time, minirz WI-
additional staffing. We think that this is well within applicable federal regulatio
TOTAL F.04