03/26/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e memo, Lane County's performance ranks at average or lower than average with regard to service delivery. Funding volume involved is $14 million, the City's portion is approximately $4 million. It is felt that it would be better to have two separate programs than joint liability in another organization. In regard to competitive bidding, the hope is to improve service delivery to target groups. There is also the question of residency and its impact with regard to each of the choices presented. A consortium is recommended rather than prime sponsorship. The residency issue will not go away, no matter which option is chosen. There is quite a bit of flexibility either with the consortium or as a prime sponsor. Reciprocal arrangements can be made to reduce hardships to employers or to applicants. There have been questions raised as to the accuracy of the Staff report statistics. They have double checked and staff believes that the informa- tion is accurate. April 7 is the deadline for consorting with Lane County or filing an intent to consort. By this date, a letter outlining intent and some basic elements of the consortium relationship must arrive in Seattle. e Mr. Obie asked how Chart IB in Attachment 0 is to be read. Randy Miller, CETA Program Manager for the City, responded that the first column is actual performance, the second column is the planned performance, and the third column is a comparison. The rating is from top to bottom and Lane County is at the very bottom. This concerns Title. lIB, training for 10ng- term unemployed with no skills, and the number of these individuals who enter the job market after the CETA position is terminated. Mr. Lieuallen asked if Option B is recommended rather than Option C. Mr. Long responded that Option B is recommended by City staff but the County feels Option C would be best. Mr. Lieua11en asked if the defects that the City staff sees in the options are a difference in service delivery and a difference in administrative approach. He asked if identif- ication of trainers and target populations would be contracted out. Mr. Long responded that many of the services could be contracted out. Mr. Lieua11en asked if the County provides these services in-house. Mr. Long responded yes, it has been, as Lane County does not feel contracting would provide them with sufficient control. Mr. Lieuallen asked how City staff responded to the issues of control. Mr. Long replied he views accountability as being good management regardless of whether it is contract management or staff supervision. Mr. Lieua11en asked how Mr. Long sees the residency situation. Mr. Long responded that Federal regulations require that monies be allocated to city and county residents in proportionate amounts. Mr. Lieuallen asked if residency would continue to be a problem. Mr. Long responded that the residency situation, regardless of the option chosen, must be managed much as it is now. City money goes to city residents and County money goes to county residents. Positions can be swapped between the two or a pool of money can be set up. Mr. Lieual1en asked if City policy might be ignored in a consortium arrangement. Mr. Long responded that it has been very diff- icult at the present time, especially in the PSE program, to get the necessary attention regarding City concerns. It has been a problem since the City e 3/26/80--7