HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5.1 Create New Agency for JTPA (2) CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 8, 1991
SUBJECT: Written Communication:
Request from Mayor of Fremont to consider applying
to the State for the creation of a new Agency to
administer Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)
Funds.
PYL-'(Prepared by Paul S. Rankin, Assistant City
Manager)
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Letter dated June 25, 1991 to Mayor Snyder from
Mayor Ball of Fremont.
RECOMMENDATION: w Consider Request
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: City of Fremont estimates the initial cost of
making an application would be $5, 500. They have
requested a commitment from participating agencies
to share the expense on the basis of population.
Based on this estimate, Staff estimates the
maximum City of Dublin contribution at $660.
There is also potential for Staff time to be
expended on this process. No funds have been
included in the Budget for this program.
DESCRIPTION: Mayor Ball of Fremont has directed a request to
the City of Dublin regarding the potential formation of a new agency to
administer JTPA funds. The City of Fremont is offering to be the lead in
the application process, which would create an agency consisting of cities
in Southern-Eastern Alameda County. It will be necessary for all
participating agencies to have contiguous boundaries and an aggregate
population of 200, 000 or more which serves a substantial part of the labor
market area.
The City of Fremont is concerned about the current administration of JTPA
funds under the auspices of Alameda County. Although funding is
anticipated to be provided to agencies throughout the County, the cities
have no direct influence or control over the allocation decisions. Under
the ACTEB operation, the cities had one elected official who served on the
Board of Directors. This is no longer the case, since the Board of
Supervisors is designated as the "Chief Elected Official" administering the
JTPA funds.
The City of Fremont is requesting that the City of Dublin consider
participating in the application process. An application must be filed by
August 1 , 1991 . The City of Fremont has estimated the cost at $5,500 and
proposed that it be shared on a population basis. In the event that the
application were approved, additional costs would be incurred to become a
fully functioning JTPA Administration. The actual operation would occur at
some time in the future. Fremont Staff estimated that Alameda County
expended approximately $25, 000 to establish their organization. The City's
involvement in this program was not contemplated when Staff prepared the
Fiscal Year 1991-92 budget. Therefore, Staff time required to review
documents or respond to requests from those preparing the application may
impact other projects. The extent of this involvement cannot be determined
at this time.
In the event that the City Council agrees to pursue the application, a
budget transfer from the Contingent Reserve Account in the amount of $660
would be necessary. This would cover the maximum City of Dublin cost for
submitting an application, in the event that the application process is
completed at a cost of $5,500. Staff would propose that if this is
approved, a future report be prepared on other costs associated with
establishing a new JTPA, prior to the City Council approval to proceed
further in the process to establish a new agency.
Staff would recommend that the City Council consider the request from the
City of Fremont. Councilmember Moffatt, who is the City's ACTEB
representative, may also be able to provide additional information.
PSR/lss a:L72JTPA.doc.agenda#5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO: �/
ITEM NO. ('�
City of ivE D
Fremont - X1991
39100 Liberty Street
C.I O- DUBLIN.
P. O. Box 5006
Fremont,CA 94537 William"Bill"Ball,Mayor
(415) 745 - 2704
June 25, 1991
Mayor Peter W. Snyder
City of Dublin Civic Center
P. 0. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mayor Snyde "�f;:
On June 25, 1991, the Fremont City Council will hear an item (Supplemental
Agenda 7. 12, enclosed) to consider playing a leadership role in making
application to the State for the creation of a new Southern-Eastern Alameda
County State Designated Agency (SDA) to administer Job Training Partnership
Act (JTPA) Funds.
Fremont is willing to undertake this task, only with the support of other
jurisdictions. To that end, I would like to receive from you, in writing, an
expression of your City's interest in such an endeavor.
As you are aware, the time line for completing an application to the State is
very short and must be accomplished by August 1, 1991. It is our intent to
hire a consultant who has expertise in this area, to help us prepare the
necessary paperwork and make a presentation to the State. The estimated cost
for doing this is $4000. In addition, there may be associated legal costs for
document review and consultation. If this cannot be handled by in-house legal
staff, we might seek outside counsel. An additional $1500 has been budgeted
for this purpose. It would be our intent to prorate a fair share of the costs
accrued by Fremont for completion of the application, to each jurisdiction
wishing to participate in this venture.
We would use population as the basis for doing this once we know how broad a
geographic area the SDA would cover. It should be mentioned all jurisdictions
wishing to become a part of a new Southern-Eastern Alameda County SDA must
have contiguous boundaries.
Mayor Peter W. Snyder Page 2
City of Dublin
A more formal council action from each participating jurisdiction may be
requested in the near future for all cities wishing to be included as part of
this venture. Please provide to me, in writing, no later than July 5, the
interest of your City in participating in this joint application process.
S.i.nceT-e l--
}r,
Mayor William (Bill) Ball
WB:cd
Enclosure: Supplemental Agenda 7. 12
cc: Fremont City Council
City Manager
7.12 DISBANDING OF TIE ALAMEDA COUNTY TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT
(ACTEB) AND CONSIDERATION OF THE CREATION OF A NEW CO BOARD AND
STATE DESIGNA'T`ED AGENCY (SDA) TO ADMINISTER JOB TRAINING PARTNERSH[P
ACT(JTPA)FUNDS FOR THE SOUTHERN AND EASTM N CrMS IN AX.A)A=A COUNTY
SEPARATE FROM THE SDA .PRESENTLY ADMINISTERED BY THE COUNTY
(Shenfil, 745-2804)
BACKGROUND:, In the mid-1970's two Joint Power Agencies were "established in Alameda*
County, one to receive monies'from the Economic.Opportunity Act, to operate programs in the war.
against poverty. Thi$ was called.the Associated Community Action Program (ACAP). Original
signatories to ACAP. in 1974 included the. County, Livermore, Fremont, Newark, Ray-ward,
Pleasanton; San Leandro and Union City, The Cities of Alameda, Albany, Emeryville and
Piedmont joined in 1976.
In 1975, the County of Alameda and the City of Fremont created a second Joint Powers Agency, the
Alameda County Training and Employment Board (ACTEB),. which was established to receive
Federal job training monies under CETA, the Comprehensive Employment and 'I'raining Act.
June 25, 1991 . Supplemental Agenda Fremont City Council Meeting
Page 4
A single Governing Board was established to administer both joint power agreements with elected
representatives serving from the Board of Supervisors and each represented jurisdiction. The
Cities of Alameda, Albany, Emeryville, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Piedmont, Pleasanton,
San Leandro, and Hayward have participated with full voting rights, in the ACTEB Joint Powers
Agency since its inception, even though they were not signatories to the original agreement.
Voting has been weighted based on population with Fremont having the greatest number of votes,
followed by Alameda County and Hayward and smaller jurisdictions.
Under the CETA legislation, cities with a population of 100,000 or more persons could act as prime
sponsors and independently operate their own employment and training programs. The Cities of
Berkeley and Oakland chose to run their own programs.
In 1983, Federal manpower legislation changed. The Comprehensive Employment and Training
Act (CETA) was replaced with the Job Training Partnership ACT (JTPA) and the Economic
Opportunity Act was replaced with Community Service Block Grants (CSBG). The JTPA Program
required a jurisdiction to have a population of 200,000 or more persons in order to operate an
independent program, or be a state designated agency (SDA).
A second requirement of JTPA created a new governing body called the Private Industry Council
(PIC). JTPA law required the majority of PIC members, a minimum of seven, to be from the
private sector with six from other organizational entities.
With the change in Federal legislation in 1983, Berkeley applied to the State to become an
independent SDA and to continue to operate its own program even though it did not have the
required 200,000 population base. In late August, Governor Deukmejian, concerned with
restricting the number of SDAs in the State, designated ACTEB as an SDA, but not Berkeley. The
alternative was to allow Berkeley to join the ACTEB Consortium. However, participation on the
Governing Board was denied to Berkeley because of a controversy related to Berkeley's policy with
regard to saluting the flag. A suit ensued which finally resulted in Berkeley joining the
Consortium in 1984 with agreement to special conditions:
• Berkeley would receive pass through JTPA fund;
• Berkeley would have first right of refusal to deliver JTPA services to its residents; and,
• Berkeley would be admitted into the consortium as a full voting member.
The relationship between Berkeley and ACTEB during 1984-85 was one of guarded cooperation. In
subsequent years a number of issues arose around deficiencies in Berkeley's JTPA programs and
requests from ACTEB that corrective action be taken. In both 1988 and 1989, Berkeley was placed
on administrative probation.
Last year the City of Berkeley refused to agree to the proposed 1990-1992 JTPA Program Plan which
was submitted by ACTEB to the State in April 1990. Because all chief elected officials in a
consortium must agree to the plan, the Governor could not approve it. In July ACTEB appealed the
Governor's decision to the Secretary of Labor. On September 14, 1990, the Secretary of Labor issued
a decision upholding the Governor's decision to deny approval of the proposed plan. The State
encouraged ACTEB and Berkeley to negotiate a compromise and granted them until October 31,
1990, to achieve an agreement.
The State Employment Development Department worked diligently to mediate the situation
between the disputants. However, disagreement was not resolved and the Governor redesignated
June 25, 1991 Supplemental Agenda Fremont City Council Meeting Page 5
the County of Alameda, effective November 1, 1990, as the service delivery area for the balance of
Alameda County (excluding the City of Oakland which is a separate SDA). The Board of
Supervisors delegated lead agency responsibility for the transition to the County's Social Services
Agency. A new PIC Department has been created within the Social Services Agency to administer
the JTPA program
Impact of JTPA and Community Service Block Grant Funding for the Tri-City Area: Of the
approximately $6.8 million dollars received by ACTEB, roughly $1.55 million has been used to
assist in areas where there are plant closures or layoffs. Of the remaining $5.25 million, 30% has
gone directly to the City of Berkeley. The remaining $3.68 million is allocated to the other areas
within the consortium. A four-part formula has been established to determine how this money
should be allocated geographically.Three parts of the formula are based on the formula used by the
Department of Labor to allocate JTPA funds to California; and by the State, in turn, to allocate
funds to State Designated Agencies. The factors in the formula include: 1) total low income
population, 2) total unemployed population, 3) total excessive unemployed population (unemployed
above 6.5%). In addition, ACTEB has added a fourth variable — gross population — to account for
significant population growth which has occurred in the southern part of the County since the 1980
census was taken.
Based on the above formula, 20.93% of$3.68 million, or approximately $770,224, has been used to
provide job training and employment services to Tri-City residents. This figure includes
administrative cost, participant certification of eligibility, marketing, job placement and linking
of participants with educational programs. One of the major providers of these services in
Fremont is the Mission Valley ROP program. Funding also goes to the FUSD Young Mothers
Program and Vallecitos in Union City for youth services, the California School for the Deaf and
Resources to Family Development for Child Care Vouchers for those enrolled in training
programs.
It is as yet undetermined as to how the County will chose to allocate JTPA funds. It is likely some
unknown amount of funding would continue to flow to agencies serving Fremont, but the City
would have no direct influence or control over those allocation decisions.
Transition of JTPA Program to Alameda County and Disbanding of ACTEB: As part of the
transition of the JTPA program from ACTEB to the County, the County,entered into an agreement
with ACTEB, through June 30, 1991, to maintain the established service provider network, to
provide current planned services to participants and to perform related administrative activities
identified by the Social Service Agency which would assure the continuity of JTPA services to
residents of Alameda County. As part of the transition, the County has agreed to hire some of the
ACTEB staff. The County will take on 21 of the existing 33 personnel, based on seniority. Once
program services and staff have been transferred and audit issues resolved between ACTEB and
the Department of Labor, cities will be asked to adopt a formal resolution disbanding the ACTEB
Joint Powers Consortium.
The County has redesignated and appointed a new Private Industry Council (PIC). One of the
concerns expressed by city representatives was that appointments to the PIC were made by at least
two Supervisors, both of whom represent interests in large sections of Oakland, which is not part of
the SDA. The PIC, as well as the Board of Supervisors, approved and submitted an Alameda County
Job Training Plan to the State on April 23, 1991.
Problems with Alameda County' s Job Training Plan: Despite the County's stated objective to
"fairly receive local government input on how to best administer job training funds," the County
failed to find a solution to the primary concern of local jurisdictions, i.e. that cities continue to
June 25, 1991 Supplemental Agenda Fremont City Council Meeting Page 6
have a meaningful role in making decisions about how Job Training Partnership Funds are
allocated and used in local areas throughout the county.
From the perspective of many of the participant cities which have worked in a collaborative
manner for almost 15 years to create a manpower agency which received both State and National
recognition for excellence, there is extreme reluctance to see the program placed under County
control. The County agency which will administer the program is already seen as a large
bureaucracy which manages the welfare program and which has little expertise in managing job
training, there is uncertainty as to how the program will be operated. In particular, there are
strong reservations by South County cities, which feel County resources are not always shared
equitably in the southern and eastern parts of the County and are disproportionately used in the
northern urban areas.
As a result, eight of the thirteen consortium cities, including Fremont, filed a petition to the State of
California in objection to the Alameda County Job Training Plan. Objections included arguments
the plan was in violation of Section 103(d) of the JTPA legislation which requires there be plan
approval and authorization for plan submittal from all chief elected officials in the SDA. This is
the very same argument which Berkeley used the previous year. To date, the State has indicated it
intends to deny the petitions of the eight cities which have objected to the County plan. A decision
from the Department of Labor is still pending.
Alternatives for Local Jurisdictions Interested in Continued Involvement in the Administration
of Job Training Partnership Act Funds: The remaining alternative for local jurisdictions in
Alameda County interested in continued involvement in the administration of job training funds
in their local areas is for Southern-Eastern Alameda Cities to join together in making application
to the State to form their own State Designated Agency(SDA).
A new consortium could be created as long as the units of government participating have
contiguous boundaries and an aggregate population of 200,000 or more which serves a substantial
part of the labor market area.
A formal request to establish a new SDA must be made to the State no later than August 1, 1991.
Applications for SDA redesignation are only accepted by the State every other year. It has been
suggested, because Fremont has played a leadership role in the ACTEB Consortium for many
years and represents the jurisdiction with the largest population, it should now play a leadership
role in submitting a request to ask for the formation of the new SDA.
Requirements for Requesting a New SDA Designation: The following is information which must
be gathered and presented in a comprehensive way in order to convince the State of the need to
create a new SDA serving Southern-Eastern Alameda County:
• Documentation and a case showing the proposed SDA serves a substantial part of the labor
market must be established. The term "labor market area" means an economically integrated
geographic area within which individuals can reside and find employment within a
reasonable distance, or can readily change employment without changing their place of
residence. We would have to convince the State the southern and eastern interests of the County
might not be best served by a County administrative entity, where north county interests
frequently take precedence. In addition we would have to establish, through considerable
documentation, our own economic subarea within the county with unique industry and labor
patterns which are uncharacteristic of the county as a whole.
June 25, 1991 Supplemental Agenda Fremont City Council Meeting Page 7
• City Council Resolutions and signatures of authorized representatives are required for
submittal. Prospective members must assure the State of their intent to enter into a joint powers
agreement.
• A contact person must be named to communicate and work with the State as the request is being
processed.
• A map of the proposed SDA must be submitted, with indications of commute corridors and
major employment areas.
• A description must be submitted for existing employment training services and linkages for
these services.
• New requests must show evidence activities are underway to assure coordination with the
existing SDA.
Additional Requirements if a new South County SDA is Created in Order to Become a Fully
Functioning JTPA Administration:
• Negotiation of a Joint Powers Agreement;
• Establishment of a Private Industry Council (PIC) and securing of State certification of 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.
Time has not been available to establish a cost estimate for completing the requirements to become
a fully functioning JTPA administration, once SDA approval has been granted. It is believed the
County's cost to meet these requirements has been about$25,000.
Cost to Prepare and Submit South County SDA Application to the State:The City of Fremont does not
have available the staff time or the expertise to complete a South County SDA application in a five
and a half week turn around time. It is possible some technical assistance might be provided by
ACTEB staff until the end of June 1991, if the agency can charge the costs to non JTPA resources. It
is also possible the City might contract with a former ACTEB employee to prepare the application.
Inclusive of travel time to Sacramento for presentations on the request. The estimated cost for
doing this is $4,000. In addition there may be a need for review of documents by outside legal
Counsel if the City's Legal Department is unable to due so. Costs are estimated at $1500. The
estimated total application preparation fee would be $5,500.
June 25, 1991 Supplemental Agenda Fremont City Council Meeting Page 8
It is known there is interest by other jurisdictions in participating in this effort although no
confirmation has yet been received in writing. It is unknown if those other jurisdictions would be
willing to assume a portion of the costs necessary to complete and submit the SDA application by the
August 1 deadline.
Because of the very tight timeline for establishment of a new SDA, the Mayor has sent letter to the
other involved jurisdictions inquiring as to their interest in formation of a new joint powers
agency.
RECONEVIENDED AC'T'ION: If Council determines the best interest of the City would be served by
formation of a new joint powers agency, the following action should be taken:
1. Subject to confirmation of other cities' support for designation as an SDA, direct staff to have
prepared an application to the State for designation of a new joint powers SDA for
administration of Job Training Partnership Act funds for southern and eastern Alameda
County, and authorize the Mayor to sign the application.
2. Authorize the utilization of consultant services, not to exceed $5,500, for the preparation of the
application, and direct staff to secure a commitment from the participating agencies to share
the expense on the basis of population. Additional costs could be accrued to meet the additional
requirements of becoming a JTPA Administration. Council would be given an opportunity to
review these costs before proceeding to the next step in the process. A pro-rated share of these
costs would be passed on to other participating jurisdictions.
June 25, 1991 Supplemental Agenda 11-em011t City Council Meeting Page 9