051711 california workforce investment board agenda

8/6/2019 051711 California Workforce Investment Board Agenda

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/051711-california-workforce-investment-board-agenda 1/194

Agenda Packet

Tuesday, May 17, 201112:30 p.m.—4:00 p.m..

DoubleTree Hotel 2001 Point West Way

Sacramento, California 95815(916) 929-8855

Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr.

Acting Executive Director Douglas Sale



CALIFORNIA WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARDMEETING NOTICE

May 17, 201112:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

DoubleTree Hotel2001 Point West Way

Sacramento, CA 95815(916) 929-8855

Edmund G. Brown, Jr.Governor

Douglas SaleActing Executive Director

AGENDA

1. Welcome and Opening Remarks

2. Update: Labor and Workforce Development Agency Report

3. Update: Acting Executive Director’s Report

4. Update: Employment Development Department Report

5. Update: Governor’s Committee on the Employment of People with DisabilitiesPaul Miller, PhD., Chair of the Committee

6. Action:

a. Approval of February 15, 2011 State Board Meeting Summary

b. Application for Local Workforce Investment Area ModificationApplication from Lake County requesting to become part of theNapa County Workforce Investment Area

c. Approve Scope of Work for Outreach StrategyThis scope of work will require the successful bidder to perform expert analysis anddevelop recommendations on the development of a statewide outreach strategy for theworkforce system

7. Information:

a. Quarterly Update of Local Workforce Investment Board Compositionb. Quarterly Update of Local Performance, Program Year 2010 3rd Quarter

(January 1, 2011 – March 31, 2011)

8. Update: State Board Committee and Industry Council Reports

a. Green Collar Jobs Councilb. Issues and Policy Committeec. Health Workforce Development Council

9. Public Comment

10. Other BusinessMeeting conclusion time is an estimate; meeting may end earlier subject to completion of agenda items and/or approved motion toadjourn. In order for the State Board to provide an opportunity for interested parties to speak at the public meetings, public commentmay be limited. Written comments provided to the Committee must be made available to the public, in compliance with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, §11125.1, with copies available in sufficient supply. Individuals who require accommodations for theirdisabilities (including interpreters and alternate formats) are requested to contact the California Workforce Investment Board staff at(916) 324-3425 at least ten days prior to the meeting. TTY line: (916) 324-6523. Please visit the California Workforce Investment

Board website at http://www.cwib.ca.gov or contact Daniel Patterson for additional information. Meeting materials for the public willbe available at the meeting location.



ITEMS 1 ‐ 5


2. Update: Labor and Workforce Development Agency Report

3. Update: Acting Executive Director’s Report

4. Update: Employment Development Department Report

5. Update: Governor’s Committee on the Employment of People with

Disabilities Paul Miller, PhD., Chair of the Comittee

California Workforce Investment Board www.cwib.ca.gov



ITEM 6

Action:

a. Approval of February 15, 2011 State Board Meeting Summary

b. Application for Local Workforce Investment Area Modification

c. Approval of Scope of Work for Outreach Strategy

California Workforce Investment Boardwww.cwib.ca.gov



ITEM 6.a.

Action:

• Approval of February 15, 2011 State Board Meeting Summary




Item 6.a.Page 1 of 7

California Workforce Investment BoardMeeting Summary

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

The California Workforce Investment Board meeting was held from 1:00 pm to 4:00 pmat the Four Points by Sheraton in Sacramento, CA.

The following members were present:

Marty Morgenstern, Secretary of the Labor and Workforce Development AgencyBarbara Halsey, Executive Director of the California Workforce Investment BoardJamil Dada, ChairDouglas SaleGay Plair Cobb representing Assembly Member Sandre SwansonDebra Jones Representing Tom TorlaksonJeremy Smith representing Bob BalgenorthPeter Barth representing Diana S. DooleyKen Burt, California Federation of TeachersWillie Washington, California Manufacturers & Technology AssociationDoug Hoffner, Labor and Workforce Development AgencyBarry Sedlik, California Business VenturesRichard Rubin, Richard A. Rubin AssociatesAudrey Taylor, Chabin Concepts Inc.Faye Huang, Asian Pacific ConsultingVictor Franco, NBC/Telemundo 52 – Los AngelesPete Parra, Parra Family FoundationPeter Cooper representing Art Pulaski, California Labor Federation, AFL-CIOTim Rainey representing Art Pulaski, California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO

Members Absent:

Dale Bonner, Business, Transportation and Housing AgencyHonorable Wilmer Amino Carter, Assembly MemberLouis Franchimon, Napa Solano Buildings Trades CouncilPam Harris, Employment Development DepartmentKathleen Milnes, Entertainment Economy InstituteElvin W. Moon, E.W. Moon, Inc., Infrastructure GroupHonorable Miguel Pulido, City of Santa AnaArturo Rodriguez, United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO


Mr. Dada opened the meeting, introduced the new Labor Secretary, Marty Morgenstern,and also Carol Padovan, Federal Project Officer of the Department of Labor,Employment and Training Administration, Region 6 in San Francisco. He also asked theBoard members to introduce themselves and their affiliation. He encouraged membersof the pubic to participate in the discussion.





2. Update – Labor and Workforce Development Agency Report

Secretary Morgenstern provided a brief summary on his transition of the Administrationand its focus on passing a budget being the main focus of the administration. Heemphasized that training programs should be for jobs and that growth in industry isimportant to our economy.

3. Update – Executive Director’s Report

Mr. Dada announced Ms. Halsey’s departure as Executive Director of the WorkforceInvestment Board and thanked her for her work and contributions. She has taken aposition with the California Workforce Association. Douglas Sale will be the new contactpoint and Acting Executive Director. Ms. Halsey gave an overview of the Board’s workand initiatives being implemented as a result of the Board adopting the sector strategiesframework.

Employment Development Department (EDD) ReportMr. Petrie provided an update of their efforts to replace the CalJobs and the JTA system.The vendor, Geo Solutions, already has a presence in the state with local areas as wellas in other states as a statewide system. Full implementation is expected on January 1,2012.

He also updated the members on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)expenditure levels. These funds expire on June 30, 2011 and must be spent, just notobligated. There are some concerns about the level of expenditure for the 25% and15% funds. EDD has been in ongoing consultation with the Department of Labor’sEmployment and Training Administration at the regional office in San Francisco and hasprovided technical assistance to local areas and grantees, and where necessary hasasked for corrective action plans.

He discussed the option of de-obligating 25% funds from local areas that seem to havesignificant challenges in spending that money, and will reallocate to local areas that areachieving higher rates of expenditures. EDD has been in ongoing conversations with15% grantees and is looking at many of the same mitigation strategies.

A member asked how much money is in question. Mr. Petrie stated that for the 25%funds, $55,476,728 was allocated and $31,733,832 has been spent. He also stated thathe can provide the Board with LWIB formula information and 15% funds. There is a totalof $125-150 million unspent out of $588 million. LWIBs have until June 30, 2011 tospend the funds, not just to have them obligated.

A member asked what the actual number of people served is, not just percentages.What is the actual number of jobs created, what are the numbers of jobs by occupationalcategory? He will make a motion to request the information from EDD so the Board canget up-to-date statistics.

Mr. Petrie responded by briefly discussing the allowable uses of WIA and ARRA funding.He also pointed out that it is also very difficult for the Labor Market Information Division(LMID) to track which job might have been created by an ARRA dollar; but it can identifynet gains or losses of jobs.





Part 2:

As soon as possible, if it can be determined, actual dollar amount left of 15%, 25%, andARRA categories. If not available, that can be an answer.

Part 3:

A formal opinion as to whether or not we can accelerate a process by which all funds inour control can be expended by June 30, 2011 so we’re not caught in a situation wherethe news says, “State of California has to give money back to the Feds”. Can weconsolidate process by which dollars are expended effectively?

Mr. Burt seconded the motion.

Mr. Washington clarified that EDD is only to report those funds for which they areresponsible, not statewide ARRA funds.

A member stated that she would like a better understanding of how the funds are flowingregarding the negotiated performance levels with the LWIBs. The percentages are reallygood, but it would be good to understand how they’re really working. Additionally,regarding unspent ARRA funds, she would like to know more about reallocating thosefunds and how LWIBs can spend that money in a short timeframe.

Mr. Parra and Ms. Taylor seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously.

Mr. Dada reviewed his earlier discussion about the issues and problems in Washington,DC. He added that he is a big proponent of some kind of certification or branding of astatewide system. He also noted that WIA states that LWIBs should be business leadbecause private business is what creates jobs. He will be on the phone calling peopleand collecting letters from LWIBs. He also urged business leaders to contact members

of Congress.

A member made a motion to write a letter on behalf of the State Board in support ofWIA. Ms. Halsey noted that CWA is already working with member boards to make sureletters are written in support of WIA. Mr. Hoffner, representing Secretary Morgenstern,said that the Secretary would handle any letter at the State level. Mr. Parra suggested toalso have local boards provide input regarding the campaign, and can look tobusinesses to play an active role.

5. Presentation: NEXT 10 Report Many Shades of Green 2011 and Regional IndustryCluster of Opportunities Grantees Progress Update,John Melville, Vice President, Collaborative Economics, Inc

Mr. Dada introduced John Melville, who gave an overview of the Next 10’s report entitledMany Shades of Green 2011. A link to the report and presentation is provided on theState Board’s website at www.cwib.ca.gov

A member noted that procurement has to be a major part of “green” efforts. Is there anydata available so the Board can see how procurement is taking shape? Secondly,regarding public policy and request for proposals (RFP) s, do they include anexpectation of green practices, is there data regarding that?


http://www.cwib.ca.gov/






Mr. Melville responded that this approach is being talked about at the State level, butneeds to be implemented further. The Regional Clusters of Opportunity Grant RFPs askfor regional cooperation, and they are a model which sets the standard that we can nolonger work in silos. RFPs can build in requirements which produce better partnershipsand help people be ready to make connections.

A member asked if there is an opportunity to secure data regarding RFPs andprocurements of this nature. Ms. Halsey responded by saying that it would beappropriate to look at the GCJC because they have critical agencies that are setting upincentive programs. They can investigate. He also stated that he sees one impedimentwhich is how State and local regulations prohibit the expansion of the green economy,and that overlapping regulations at state and local levels cause a lot of frustration forthose wishing to jump into green economy. He asked, along with procurement policies,what current regulations are impediments to green economy?

Mr. Melville stated that in his experience, the problem for businesses is mostly notunderstanding what gets in the way, like codes. Codes can get very complicated at thelocal level. For example, a fire marshal might not really understand that solar panels aresafe. Perhaps there needs to be continuing education for fire marshals? He statedthere are really no strong anti-green regulations; it’s just that people haven’t thoughtabout certain things, like the inspection process. As these things come up, localities areforced to deal with it and that causes delays. Those delays greatly affect solar installersalready working on very thin margins, as an example.

He pointed out that people are finding ways of doing their work within the existingframework of regulations. We need to find those people and share their ways of workingwithin the frameworks. These challenges can’t be unsolvable – it does, however, requirework at the local level and not ideological gamesmanship at other levels. Business,labor, and government need to work together.

A member suggested that states are looking at more creative ways of engagingprivate/public partnerships. He asked if Mr. Melville could identify ways we caninvestigate to be creative and put jobs in the green economy, which can multiply evenfaster than what we’re currently doing.

Mr. Melville pointed out that there are already tools in place for finding theseopportunities, but there are ways to improve how we use them to leverage moreresources. The U.S. Department of Energy innovation grants were given to companies,but now they’re looking into using consortia, and bringing down the cost of permitting. Aleader in the conversation about permitting is SolarTech. California has a full toolbox,but we have to learn to use it better, there are more ways of stimulating investment.

A member commented that yes, we have tools in our toolbox but execution is thechallenge. Some local areas are better prepared than others, and that challenges theState Board. It would be great if people in every community could understand whatthose tools are. We have a wonderful book [Business Services Catalog] and we need toget that message out to businesses. How does a business access those tools – whetherit is a farmer or a huge corporation? It is our network that can help those businesses,there’s no other network in the state that can help deploy this information, especiallyworking at the city level and local staff. Execution is the key. The Business ServicesCatalog is available on the State Board website at www.cwib.ca.gov .







6. Information Update:

a. Quarterly Update of Local Workforce Investment Board Composition

b. Quarterly Update of Local Performance, Program Year 2010 1 st Quarter(July 2010 – Sept 2010)

Ms. Halsey gave an overview of the local workforce investment board composition data,stating that it is a trending document.After some questions members again stated that they want to see performance data withactual numbers of people served. Ms. Halsey summarized by stating that the Issues andPolicies Committee can dig deeper and refine the data for presentation to the full Board.Mr. Rubin reiterated the importance of this information.

7. Update – Committee and Industry Council Reports

The Committee Chairs provided verbal updates. The Committee’s written report isincluded as a part of the agenda packet.

8. Public Comment

Maureen White from the California Community Colleges acknowledged Ms. Taylor, Mr.Rubin, and Mr. Petrie for their discussions regarding ARRA funding. She has writtengrant requests for the Sacramento Employment and Training Agency. Ms. White askedwhere the rest of the ARRA funds are and what kind of criteria will be used, and how arethe rest of the ARRA funds going to be dispersed? There are vocational schools thattrain people in excellent fields that could use some of that funding.

Also, career professional are losing jobs. Some are getting trained and they need more

money. If extra money can be given to these people that would be great.

Her other comment is about communication and publicity out in the field. How are youcommunicating with human resources professionals? These are wonderful people whoare gatekeepers to hiring, training, educating, and now they are also laid off. They aregood people who care about their employees.

Mr. Nick Sommerfield, Chair of the Lake County One-Stop Center also submitted apublic comment. He stated that his Board of Supervisors asked him to comment on theirbehalf. He noted that the current process calls for public notices, and he showed thepublic notice to the State Board announcing comments were welcome regarding LakeCounty’s request to move from the North Central Counties Consortium (NCCC) to the

Napa County Workforce Investment Area, and which appeared on the Napa WorkforceInvestment Area website. He stated that not many people in Lake County go to thatspecific website, so public comments not in support of the move were very few butsignificant.

He identified several local entities that do not support the application. Ms. Halseyclarified that the issue will be heard by Issues and Policies Committee on February 24,2011.






Carol West also provided public comment. She asked the State Board to look atcommunity health workers as a valuable resource.

9. Other Business

There was no further business, the meeting was adjourned.



ITEM 6.b.

Action:

• Approval of Napa County Application for Local Area Modification




Item 6.b.Page 1 of 2

Action Requested

Review and approve the Napa County Local Workforce Investment Board application tomodify its local workforce investment area boundaries to include Lake County.

Background

Section 116 of the federal Workforce Investment Act (WIA) provides the Governor withthe authority and the responsibility to designate Local Workforce Investment Areas(local area). These responsibilities are also codified in the California UnemploymentInsurance Code. The California Workforce Investment Board’s (State Board) policy for

requesting a local area modification is contained in Directive WIAD05-02, published onJuly 29, 2005.

In December 2009 the State Board received written notification from Lake County thatthe Northern Central Counties Consortium (NCCC) Governing body had accepted itsapplication to withdraw as a member of the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA), and havebeen pursuing relationships with the other local areas that border their County. OnDecember 21, 2010, the State Board received an application from the Napa CountyWorkforce Investment Board requesting a local area modification. The applicationrequests that Lake County be allowed to move from NCCC to the Napa County localarea (Attachment b1). The application was referred to the Employment Development

Department for review and analysis (Attachment b2).

The Napa County local area is defined by its county boundaries. Lake County is amember of a consortium of five counties: Colusa, Glenn, Lake, Sutter and Yuba.

A local public hearing was conducted on the modification request and a comment periodprovided. Notices were also placed in local periodicals. Letters of support werereceived from Lake County Board of Supervisors, Congressman Mike Thompson andCalifornia Assemblyman Wesley Chesbro among others. Letters of opposition werealso received from the NCCC Governing Body, Lake County businesses, cities, serviceproviders, high schools, college instructors and the general public (Attachment b3).






Discussion

This application was heard by the State Board’s Issues and Policy Committee onFebruary 24, 2011. A quorum was not achieved for the Committee’s meeting but those

present directed the staff to do additional analysis in preparation for the State Board’smeeting. Due to the need for expediency, (the new program year begins July 1, 2011)the Committee has referred the matter to the full State Board. The EmploymentDevelopment Department (EDD) provided its analysis and recommendation of non-support, but added that the analysis is a point in time and the additional public testimonyis meant to add to the record and flesh out the analysis. This has occurred. Officialsfrom the Lake County Board of Supervisors, NCCC, Napa Workforce Investment Boardand members of the public were present and made statements. Lake Countyrepresentatives have stated that they have no desire to rejoin the NCCC JPA and if thisapplication is not approved will continue to seek other alternatives. A copy of themeeting minutes is included as Attachment b4.

It is the opinion of the Committee staff that the key issues identified in the EDD analysisare ones of local governance, of which the WIA provides a significant amount ofautonomy to the local chief elected officials to determine and act on. There does notappear to be any objective indication that service delivery will be negatively impacted byapproval of the application. The State Board should also consider and weigh thepolitical will of the elected bodies involved in the application that have localresponsibility for service delivery, in this case the local Board of Supervisors from Napaand Lake County.

Recommendation

The State Board approves the application and forwards it to the Governor for his action.



Item 6.b., Attachment 1

Napa County Application for Local Area Modification




ITEM 6.b., Attachment 3


• Letters of Non ‐ Support




C O M M U N IT Y D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S

fu ~ E C O N O M IC D E V E L O P M E N T C O N S U L T IN G F IR M

P .O . Box 645 • G le nha v en , CA 954 43

7 07.998 .9203 • FAX 998 .9209 • cdsca@mchsi .com

Januar y 20, 2011

Ms. Barbara HalseyExecutive DirectorCalifornia workforce Investment Board777 I i Street , Suite 200Sacramento , CA 95814

Dear Ms . Halse y,

I am a small business owner with a background in job training , Small Business Dev elopmentCenter management , economic development services , and commercial lending. I do not supportthe merging of Lake and Napa counties into one LWIA .

I do support the Lake One Stop operation as a locally managed , non -profit organization workingin close cooperation with multiple service pro viders , the most important being EDD . I think thatthe local One Stop operat ion can improve th eir ser vices , especiall y to local busin esses, if theNorth Central Counties Consortium merges with NoRTE C. I support that consolidation o fLWI A's. It would be a bet ter match.

cc: Seth D e Simone , Executive Director , Lake One-Stop , Inc .Kelly Co x, Count y of Lak e Administrative O fficerNancy Crooks, Interim Executive Director, NCCCStewart Knox, Executive Director, NoRTEC



CITY OF LAKEPORTOuer 100 years o/ rommunitypide. progress and servire

January L8,201,1

Ms. Barbara HalseyExecutive DirectorCalifornia Workforce lnvestment Board777 L2th Street, Suite 200

Sacramento CA 95814

Re: Letter of Non-support for the Napa Workforce Investment BoardApplication to Modify the Lake County Workforce lnvestment Area

Ms. Halsey:

The City of Lakeport has been made aware of a proposal by the Napa Workforce lnvestmentBoard to realign its Workforce lnvestment Area to include Lake County. The City does notsupport this initiative.

My staff and I have reviewed the modification proposal by Napa County and found that it does

not meet the needs of the City, its business community, or localjob seekers. ln addition to thepotential for decreased funding for this region, modifying the current Lake Workforcelnvestment Area would create a disruption of valuable services for our community during a verydifficult economic time when they are needed most. Napa's proposed modification does notadequately address these issues nor does it make any pragmatic recommendations tocompensate our surrounding community for the loss of funding and services.

A tenet of the modification describes the relocation of the One-Stop center to theClearlake/Lowerlake area. Not only will this remove many well-paying jobs from the City, itdislocates services from the Lakeport area: Lake County's economic center, employment core,

and county seat. Such a move also may vacate even more office space, which property owners

and managers already face difficulty in leasing. The City is not in favor of any initiative that will,or has the potential to, decrease its economic base.

The City of Lakeport values its relationship with the Lake One-Stop and has found the currentOne-Stop operator, Lake One-Stop lnc., to be responsive to the City's needs and to those of the

225 PARK STREET. LAKEPORT, CALIFORNIA 95453. TELEPHONE(707)

263-5615.FAX (707) 263-8584



Ms. Barbara HalseyJanuary L8,20tlPage 2

community. Their location makes them convenient for local businesses and job-seekers, andthe services they provide have been consistent and of quality.

lf you have any questions about this letter or the City's position regarding this matter, pleasecontact me. My phone number is listed below.

Sincerely,

Margaret SilveiraCity Manager(707) 263-5615, ext. 32

cc: Governor Jerry BrownMembers of the California Workforce lnvestment BoardLakeport City CouncilLakeport Economic Development Advisory CommitteeRichard Knoll, Lakeport Economic Development DirectorDan Buffalo, Lakeport Economic Development ManagerLake County Board of SupervisorsKelly Cox, Lake County CAO





• Employment Development Department Analysis




Item 6.b., Attachment 4Page 1 of 7

LOCAL AREA MODIFICATION REQUESTNapa County Request to Add Lake County

Summary:

On December 21, 2010, the signed hard copy of Napa County’s Request forLocal Area Modification was received by the California Workforce InvestmentBoard (CWIB). The modification requests that Lake County be allowed to movefrom the North Central Counties Consortium (NCCC) to the Napa County LocalWorkforce Investment Area.

The Napa County Local Workforce Investment Area appears to have followed allrequirements described in WIA Directive WIAD05-2, “Local Area ModificationProcess” dated July 29, 2005.

Local Area Descriptions:Napa County is currently a single county local area. The Workforce InvestmentBoard works in partnership with the Napa County Board of Supervisors tooversee local workforce development activities and to establish programs andservices in response to the workforce needs of Napa County.

Napa County is primarily recognized for its agricultural industry evolving from itshighly productive and successful wine-growing industry. The Napa Valley hasover 63,000 acres of vineyards, and offers internationally famous wines that areshipped world wide and offered via wine clubs and web sites. There are over300 wineries located in the Napa Valley. Because of the attractiveness of itsrural location, but yet close proximity to the Bay Area, tourism is anotherprominent feature drawing business into Napa. As many as 5 million touriststravel every year to Napa because of its vineyards and resorts. For California,Disneyland is the foremost travel destination with Napa ranked number two.Napa, although a rural location, is among the nine counties (Napa, Alameda,Contra Costa, Marin, Santa Clara, San Francisco, Sonoma, Solano, and SanMateo) which significantly contribute to the economy of the Bay Area urbancenter. Since much of Napa’s land is cultivated for grapes, newer residential andcommercial development is concentrated in the existing cities, located mostly inthe southern part of the county. Napa and Lake Counties share a commonboundary on the southern end of Lake County.

Lake County is currently a member of the NCCC. The NCCC is a Consortium ofthe five counties of Colusa, Glenn, Lake, Sutter, and Yuba. NCCC wasestablished as a separate public entity through a Joint Powers Agreementexecuted between the five counties in 1983. The consortium is governed by aGoverning board comprised of delegates of the Board of Supervisors from eachof the member counties.




Lake County is a wine grape-growing area and is also famous for its pears andwalnuts. Lake County’s, Clear Lake is the largest natural lake in the state ofCalifornia. The Geysers is the largest geothermal field complex in the world.Lake County is home to Tule Elk, more than 150 bird species, the Clear LakeHitch, a native fish found only in Clear Lake, and native trees – all of which makeLake County a natural wonderland.

Lake County joining Napa County LWIA would increase Napa’s population by65,279 to 199,929, and its area from 758 square miles to 2,012. It would changeNCCC’s population from 280,438 to 215,159 and its area from 4,957 to 3,703square miles.

Development of the Request for Modification:

1. Has the initiating local board provided signed support for the modificationfrom the local board and designated local CEO?

Yes. On December 14, 2010, the Board of Supervisors of the County ofNapa authorized the Napa County Board of Supervisors Chairman to sign theApplication for Modification of the Napa County Local Workforce InvestmentArea to include Lake County. Diane Dillon, Chair of the Napa County Boardof Supervisors, signed the Local Area Modification Request signature pageon that date. The request was also co-signed by Mary Ann Mancuso, Chairof the Napa county Workforce Investment Board.

2. Have the local board and local CEO Designees for the other local area(s)whose boundaries will change submitted support for the modification?

No. NCCC submitted a letter dated January 20, 2011, opposing themodification. The letter was submitted by Nancy Crooks, Interim Director forthe North Central Counties Consortium on behalf of the NCCC GoverningBoard and Local Workforce Investment Board.

3. Has the public been notified of the request and allowed sufficient time forpublic comment?

Yes. The application was made available to the public via the Internet usingthe www.napaworkforce.org website. An official public comment period wasannounced on October 29, 2010. Appropriate notices announcing thiscomment period were placed in the Napa Valley Register, the Lake CountyRecord-Bee, the Middletown Times Star, and online at lakeconews.com. Thepreviously mentioned Lake and Napa County Board of Supervisors meetingswere also properly noticed and allowed for public comment.

http://www.napaworkforce.org/

http://www.napaworkforce.org/




During the comment period, letters of support were provided by Congressmember Mike Thompson, California Assemblyman Wesley Chesbro, LakeCounty Board of Supervisors Chairman Anthony W. Farrington, and formerExecutive Director of the Lake One-Stop Inc., Tedron Pierce. Additionally, 27letters of non-support from individuals representing Lake County businessesand organizations were also received during this period. Copies of theseletters were submitted with the modification request.

An additional 35 letters opposing the modification were received by the Statein January 2011. All but one of these letters was faxed to the State by thecurrent Lake County One-Stop Operator. The letters were written by lakecounty businesses (22), cities (2), service providers (2), high schools (3),college instructors (2), and the general public (3). An additional letteropposing the modification was submitted separately from another LakeCounty business.

Assessment of the Application by the EDD:

1. Describe the resources available in each of the local areas to administer WIAactivities.

Napa County’s Workforce Investment Act (WIA) formula allotments total$625,152 for the last Program Year (PY 2009-10) and $793,542 for thecurrent PY (2010-11).

NCCC‘s formula allotments (including Lake County) for PYs 2009-10 and2010-11 were $5,046,157, and $4,422,347 respectively. The relative sharesattributed to Lake County for these two PYs were $912,249 for the last PYand $836,897 for the current PY. The formula allotments for a new LocalArea consisting of Napa and Lake Counties would total approximately$1,630,439 ($836,897 from Lake County and $793,542 from Napa County)for the current PY. Note: While WIA funding is based on formulas for eachfund source (Youth, Adult and Dislocated Worker), it is also driven by eachlocal jurisdiction’s “relative share” of the whole. As a result, historically, thevariance has been relatively insignificant when Local Areas realign. i.e., theamount of funding that a county brings to its new local area remains roughlythe same.

Over its history, the Napa WIB has secured over $15 million in supplementalfunding for local and regional workforce development programs. Likewise,NCCC has consistently secured additional WIA resources for its consortiummembers through the WIA Dislocated Worker Additional Assistance fund andsuccessfully competing in State-level WIA Solicitations for Proposals. Futurespecial requests for Lake would have to be addressed via resources available




through Napa County as the proposed administrative entity for this new LocalArea.

2. How will the boundary change help produce a more comprehensive and

integrated workforce development system?This is unknown. The applicant claims that the boundary change would helpproduce a more comprehensive and integrated workforce developmentsystem by immediately connecting these two counties that share anexpanding tourism and vineyard driven economy. The applicant also claimsthat Lake county residents will garner access to Napa’s vintner and culinarycooking classes, as well as a broader array of programs and services for both

job seekers and businesses that can be accessed more readily with lessinvestment in transportation and lodging costs.

3. Describe the geographic area served by local educational agencies andintermediate educational agencies within the modified boundaries.

Generally, the number of local education agencies, K-12, communitycolleges, adult education, regional occupational programs/centers (ROP/Cs),or their respective geographic areas served as a result of the requested WIAboundary modification will remain unchanged. Lake County is currentlyserved by both the Mendocino Community College (its Lake Center inLakeport) and the Yuba Community College (its Clearlake Campus inClearlake).

4. Identify the extent to which the service area affected by the boundary changeis consistent with the local labor market.

Generally, this modification would be consistent with local labor marketconditions. Napa and Lake Counties share three out of four of their topindustries: leisure and hospitality; trade, transportation and utilities; andgovernment. These three industries compose 43% of the total industrymakeup in Napa, and almost 60% of the makeup in Lake County. Retailtrade accounted for 66% of the trade, transportation and utilities industry inNapa County and 74% in Lake County.

Visitor spending by Traveler Accommodations between 1992 and 2008 shows

the following: Lake generated $48.6 million and Napa generated $691.5million in revenue from visitor spending on hotel/motel accommodations.Lake far exceeded the remaining counties in NCCC, in that Yuba generated$8.8 million, Sutter $17.2 million, Colusa $10.7 million, and Glenn made $15.2million.

However, the unemployment rates between the counties of Lake and Napavary significantly with the unemployment rate for Napa County usually beingnearly half of Lake County’s rate. For example, the unemployment rate in




December 2010 was 10.6 percent in Napa and 19.1 percent in Lake County,and the annual unemployment rate for 2009 was 8.7 percent for Napa Countyand 15.6 percent for Lake County.

Labor Market information regarding commute patterns confirms there iscommuting between the two counties of Lake and Napa. More Lake Countyresidents travel to Napa for work and vice versa than travel to and from LakeCounty to all NCCC member counties combined. In fact, commute data showlittle to no commute pattern between Lake County and the two largest NCCCcounties of Sutter and Yuba.

The commute patterns between Napa and Lake Counties show that 92percent of the commuters are traveling from Lake to Napa Counties. Theremaining 2 percent are divided between the remaining four NCCC Countiesof Colusa, Glenn, Sutter and Yuba.

Napa County and Lake County both send a significant portion of theircommuting workforce to Sonoma County. Of the labor force commuting out ofNapa, 16 percent commute to Sonoma. Meanwhile, 33 percent of LakeCounty’s commuting workforce travels to Sonoma, and 18 percent commuteto Napa County.

5. Identify the maximum distances that individual will need to travel to receiveservices within the proposed service area.

The proposed service area should not impact the distance that customershave to travel to receive services because the location of the One-Stops in

Lake County and Napa are not changing. Napa has recently added twosatellite service locations in its County, which may enhance services tocustomers in Lake County.

In reviewing distances from Lake County’s comprehensive One-Stop center inLakeport to the remaining One-Stops in NCCC, the distance is further to theColusa and Sutter One-Stops, than to the Napa Comprehensive One-Stop.The distance between the Napa and Lakeport One-Stops is 50 miles lessthan the distance between Lakeport and the One-Stops in Colusa and SutterCounties.

6. Provide any other information that may be relevant to an objectiveassessment of the modification request.

The fact that Napa will serve as the administrative entity for the new LocalArea and be responsible for over twice the amount of federal funds theycurrently receive, requires the State to consider whether they have theadministrative capacity to do so. During the past 12 months, Napa has beenlate nearly 75 percent of the time in providing required financial reports to theState. The only assurance that has been provided related to this issue is that




Napa does not plan to use more than the 10 percent allowed foradministration by WIA from the funds provided by adding Lake County to theirLocal Area.

Another consideration is that the roles and responsibilities of their futuregoverning body have yet to be fully defined. The applicant states that theyplan on entering into a Joint Powers Agreement between the two counties butdon’t plan on establishing a formal Joint Powers Agency. Further work on thisgovernance structure is being deferred until the request has been approved.

The public record related to this request, contains nearly 60 letters ofopposition to this modification request. The majority of these letters are fromLake County businesses. Their principle concerns noted in the letters relateto potential changes in the location of the one-stop center and of the currentone-stop operator with whom they’ve enjoyed positive working relationships.It’s uncertain what affect this opposition will have on this modification if it’sapproved, especially if neither the location nor the operator of Lake County’scomprehensive One-Stop Center are changed as a result of this modification.Note: The applicant has stated that both will remain unchanged through atleast June 20, 2012, which is the end of PY 2011-12.

Review of Key assessment Criteria:

1. Will the modification improve the operations and services in the participatinglocal areas?

This is unknown. It’s not clear whether this will strictly be a “marriage of

convenience” allowing for independent county operations, or whether thismerger will allow these two counties to focus on providing training anddeveloping employment opportunities for their shared industries andemerging economies.

2. Will the modification provide greater accessibility to services for customersin the service area(s) affected by the change?

It’s possible, but not likely. As noted earlier, the modification should notaffect accessibility to services because there are no plans to change thecurrent one-stop locations in either County. Napa has recently added two

satellite service locations in its County, which may enhance services tosome customers in Lake County.

3. Will the modification better align workforce resources?

This is unknown. The primary basis for this modification request is that itwill improve both areas’ future economic and workforce development effortsby strategically aligning Lake’s interests with Napa. By joining Napa, Lake




County hopes to share the national and international branding opportunitiesprovided by Napa Valley’s reputation as an award winning wine producer,and agricultural festival destination. However, sufficient detail is notprovided in the modification application nor in subsequent discussions withthe applicant to clearly demonstrate how this will happen.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this request not be approved . This recommendationis based on EDD’s opinion, formed after reviewing all of the availableobjective information that this modification will not result in improved servicedelivery to Lake County customers - both job seekers and employers.




Napa County Local Area Modification Application

• Issues and Policies Committee Meeting Summary February 24, 2011





Page 1 of 5

ISSUES AND POLICY COMMITTEE

February 24, 2011

The Issues and Policy Committee met on February 24, 2011 from 9:30 am to 12:00 pm in

Sacramento. The following members of the Committee and staff were present:

Present

Jamal Dada (By telephone)

Barry Sedlik (By telephone)

Adam Peck

Absent

Felicia Flournoy

Stewart Knox

Richard Rubin

Faye Huang

Elvin Moon

Staff Jose Luis Marquez, Employment Development Department (EDD) Section Manager

Terry Austin, EDD Regional Advisor for Lake County

Dathan Moore, EDD Workforce Services Division

John Williams, California Workforce Investment Board (CWIB) Luis Bermudez, CWIB

Shelly Green, CWIB

Daniel Patterson, CWIB

Doug Sale, CWIB Acting Executive Director


Mr. Dada opened the meeting by welcoming everyone and invited attendees to identify

themselves.

2. Action Items

Approval of Meeting Summaries

Mr. Dada moved for the approval of the July 2010 and October 2010 meeting minutes; Mr.

Sedlik seconded the motion. At this time, no other members of the Committee were

present, so the approval of the meeting minutes was deferred to the next meeting.

Local Area Modification Request

Mr. Marquez presented the Employment Development Department (EDD) staff report. He

explained that his EDD section analyzes requests for modification of Local Workforce

Investment Areas (local area). The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) requires the Governor

to designate local areas. However, the WIA does not provide a methodology for

modification of local areas. The process was established by State Board policy several years




Page 2 of 5

ago. Three local area modifications have been requested to date. Two were basically by

consensus. The other dealt with dissolving a local area and where to place the cities

contained therein. This request is unique in that all affected parties are not in agreement

with the stated goals of the application. They took very literally the parts of the policy to

establish a higher level of scrutiny and evaluated and considered all opinions and available

information in their evaluation of the modification request. There was a considerable

amount of material to analyze. Especially of note were the local market conditions. The

staff report was challenging since some things relative to the request are unknown. EDD’s

recommendation is to not approve the local area modification request.

Bruce Wilson, Director of the Napa County Workforce Investment Board (Napa) read from a

prepared statement, which is included in its entirety as an attachment to these minutes. His

statement emphasized the benefits to Napa and Lake County to be achieved through the

approval of the local area modification and rebutted the statements in the analysis

regarding: program delivery impacts, administrative capacity, development of governing

language in a Joint Powers Agreement, their working with EDD through the entire

application development process.

Ms. Denise Rushings, a member of the Lake County Board of Supervisors (BOS), representing

their Board, and the interests of Lake County constituents and local businesses. She wanted

to address the perception of the apparent controversy regarding the Lake County One Stop.

There is no issue with the Lake County One Stop, but this application is rather a fundamental

issue of governance and oversight, strategy and missed opportunity. The Board has a desire

that CalWORKs and the One Stop should work together and align efforts with businesses

that are actually growing in the area. The BOS did not attempt to generate letters in

support of the application. The letters opposing the modification request were generated

by the One Stop because it felt threatened. There is no intention of disrupting the One Stop

or intention of moving it out of Lakeport, and had $5M unspent because of a lack of

strategic

alliance

between

Welfare

and

the

One

Stop.

Lake

County

is

effectively

no

longer

part of North Central Counties Consortium (NCCC), and does not desire to be a part of NCCC.

Ms. Rushings then read a letter from the Lake County administrator to wit: “Lake County

has never been a good fit with NCCC. Lake County is more closely aligned with Napa

County. He fully understands resistance to change. However, once modification is

accomplished, all will agree things are better. If a letter writing campaign had been

conducted by the Board, more support than opposition would have been received. The

decision should be made based on the benefits received from those it serves. If One Stop

had not solicited letters, most businesses would not have commented. The BOS has been

working on this application process for 1.5 years, they would like to move forward with the

modification as the public will benefit.

Mr. Patterson asked Mr. Marquez what impact the letters for or against the modification

request had in the analysis. Mr. Marquez replied they had an impact, but is only a part of the total analysis.

Ms. Carol Hutchingson, the Director of Lake County Social Services, stated she served on the

NCCC WIB for more than a decade, and then was appointed to be a member of the

governing body of NCCC representing Lake County. She conducted the process of exploring




Page 3 of 5

options for finding a new partner. She contacted other counties and after an exhaustive

analysis settled on Napa. Napa shares commonality in interests in wine and tourism that

they do not share with the other NCCC counties.

Mr. Larry Munger, Supervisor of Sutter County, Chair of NCCC for last 6 or 7 years and a

member of the Board for approximately 17 years. He stated that all five counties in the

consortium have similar unemployment levels. He sees an advantage to keeping the

Consortium together, particularly when competing for grant funding. Although Carol did a

great job representing Lake County, the relationship deteriorated when no Supervisor from

Lake County was present on the NCCC board. They have changed the NCCC by ‐ laws to

require that level of representation. The five counties are a good fit with similar

employment opportunities; agriculture. The five counties are pretty similar in general.

Ms. Rushings noted that Lake County is a party to the NCCC by ‐ laws, but changes were

adopted without representation. She then stated that NCCC voted to take no position on

the modification, but then submitted a letter of opposition. She asked if another vote had

been taken.

Mr. Munger stated that Lake County is receiving copies of the agendas but they are not

being distributed. His communication with Lake County Supervisors was that they were not

aware of what was going on relative to this issue. NCCC tried to set up meetings with Lake

County supervisors to try and get Lake County not to leave the Consortium. That if a

Supervisor had been attending the meetings they wouldn’t have the problems they have

now. When Carol Hutchins was representing Lake County, it was not possible to let her sit in

during meetings on the Request for Proposal (RFP) discussions because her agency had

submitted a response to the RFP for One Stop Operator. Ms. Rushings asked if they had

changed the bylaws without representation. It was stated that Lake County had terminated

their Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with NCCC so they were no longer represented on the

Board.

Terri Austin from EDD asked for clarification on the last statement. Ms. Crook stated that

they would take a neutral stance on the application, but was fighting for the funding to

support Lake County. There was a later vote by NCCC.

Ms. Rushings reiterated her point that there was never a vote for opposition, yet a letter

was sent. Ms. Rushings stated the Lake County letter of support should have been

referenced front and center as a very significant element of the process. The CWIB’s review

will weigh heavily on the EDD analysis.

Dathan Moore said that it was quite challenging to do an analysis and that there should be

the possibility for a neutral position rather than just a support or non support position. Ms.

Hutchingson asked if there is something in WIA that supersedes the desire of a County BOS’s

ability to determine its destiny regarding services to their constituencies. This is not heavily

weighted in the EDD analysis.

Mr. Marquez stated this issue is not covered in WIA, which is why the State Board

established the policy. The public record is built and enhanced through this process, like




Page 4 of 5

what we are having today. The analysis is point in time based upon the information

available.

Ms. Hutchingson stated since the directive is silent on the issue of the County BOS having a

say. It is the political will and desire of Lake County to be partnered with Napa.

Mr. Peck asked where we go from here, and to be very purposeful to how we continue. Is it

appropriate to close the public hearing at this point or do we continue to gather

information.

Mr. Patterson reminded those attending that the public addresses the members of the

Committee who has been asked to form a recommendation to the State Board. A copy of this meeting transcript will be attached to the State Board agenda packet for their meeting

in May. The full State Board will again hear public comment prior to making a final

recommendation to the Governor, who will have the final decision.

Mr. Peck asked that since a quorum is not present, can the Committee do anything? Mr.

Patterson stated that a consensus of the Committee would be reported to the State Board.

Ms. Nancy Crooks, Interim Director for NCCC stated they have a lot invested in Lake County

and Napa has not shown how it would improve services above those already provided by

the One Stop. She referenced demographics of the counties within NCCC and how these

factors affect funding, which could potentially reduce funding if the application goes

forward. She also highlighted the level of benefit received by Lake County being a part of NCCC: grant funding, One Stop service levels, in ‐ kind contributions through staff time. NCCC

would like to work with the Lake County leadership, but needs a positive active role, not

focused on funding, but on providing services to those who need them.

Seth

DeSimone,

Executive

Director

of

the

Lakeport

One

Stop

stated

that

providing

services

to clients is the most important factor. They have a non ‐ profit Board of Directors made up

of community leaders. They saw the potential to lose funding, and did reach out to the

business community to make the potential effect of the modification known.

Mr. Summerfield, Chair of the Lake County One Stop, stated he just wants to get this

resolved. In the beginning of WIA, Boards of Supervisors had an opportunity when they

could state where they wanted to be. Lake County pulled out of the PA, and this affected

communications.

Mr. Sale in summary stated a common theme he heard was we the parties just want a

decision. Staff will put together a summary of the discussion for the Board’s consideration

at their meeting in May 2011. In summary:

• Lake County Board of Supervisors has made a final decision to no longer be part of NCCC and needs to partner somewhere.

• Napa did not seek Lake County, Lake County approached Napa. Napa performed its

due diligence in developing and submitting the application.

• If the State Board does not recommend approval of the application, returning to

NCCC is not an option for Lake County and other options are limited.




Page 5 of 5

• NCCC is currently receiving funding and providing services for Lake County.

• The State Board will consider whether there is something in the modification that is

egregious, and will form a recommendation to the Governor.

• The members representing the Lake County BOS affirmed that regardless of the

impact on funding, they would continue to pursue the intent of the application, and

that

if

not

approved

by

the

State

Board,

would

seek

other

avenues,

but

would

not

rejoin NCCC.

Mr. Peck concurred with the summary. He asked what kind of analysis needs to be done

when a BOS wants to leave a Consortium. What happens when local elected officials want

to make a change? We have to listen to them. The federal law takes great care to listen to

local officials as they are closer to those who receive services.

Mr. Patterson stated the Committee should try to reach a consensus considering the public

comment and EDD analysis to support or not to support the application to the full State

Board.

Mr. Dada asked for a motion.

Mr. Peck wondered whether this should be another phase of information gathering to

inform the record for the full State Board. Do we need a definitive recommendation? Mr.

Sale stated that since a quorum is not present, the Committee can just recommend the

matter to the State Board for their consideration.

Mr. Peck agreed to move the item forward to the full Board. They need to address the

larger issue of how you deal with JPAs breaking apart when Consortiums are built on that.

Also need to look at the position of local elected officials representing the residents since

they will ultimately be held accountable for service delivery. We need further analysis of

these factors.

Mr. Marquez stated that California would receive the WIA planning allotments in late April

or early May. EDD will run the allocations based on both scenarios in anticipation of a

decision by the State Board.

Mr. Peck recommended moving the item to the State Board with the additional analysis,

and recommended EDD put out draft allocations for both scenarios and suggested the State

Board meeting be conducted in hearing format. He then tabled all other items on the

agenda.

The interested parties were reminded that the full State Board would hear the issue during

their May 2011 meeting. They were invited to participate in that meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.



ITEM 6.c.

Action:

• Approval of Scope of Work for Outreach Strategy




Item 6.c.Page 2 of 2


The California Workforce Investment Board (State Board), as an advisory body to theGovernor, represents the platform from which this outreach strategy can be realized andimplemented. The State Board’s membership is comprised of leaders from the privateand public sectors that use their expertise to support and build a demand-drivenworkforce investment system that meets both statewide and local needs. As leaders

from business, state agencies, and state and local organizations, the State Board hasthe ability to employ resources from each community for the purpose of developing astrong statewide workforce investment system.

The workforce investment system is comprised of 49 Local Workforce InvestmentAreas, each with its own business-led Local Workforce Investment Board (Local Board).These Local Boards work in concert with their local Chief Elected Official to oversee thedelivery of workforce services to their local residents and businesses, act as a catalystin providing seamless services among various workforce programs and providecommunity leadership around workforce issues.

Critical to their charge is their oversight of the local One-Stop Career Centers. These

Centers are the delivery vehicle for workforce, education and business services.Through partnerships with other local, state and federal agencies, education andeconomic development organizations, the Centers provide access to jobs, skilldevelopment and business services vital to the social and economic well-being of theircommunities, and represent the statewide system, working locally.

Each Local Board has developed its own unique outreach strategy. However, this localidentification method does not facilitate the customer’s (job seekers, business,economic development, education) recognition of the larger statewide workforcesystem, as it includes 49 disparate pieces; each uniquely branded and locallycommunicated. A common statewide outreach strategy and identity would link these

pieces and serve as a clearinghouse of information for all who are seeking informationabout California’s workforce and its opportunity.

This effort will strengthen the statewide and local network and provide the humancapital foundation necessary to support new and growing sectors of thelocal/regional/statewide economy, including alternative energy and other “green”industries, health care, and advanced manufacturing.



Item 6.c., Attachment 1Page 1 of 4

Scope of Services

The California Workforce Investment Board seeks the services of a consultant todevelop an outreach strategy architecture (values and consistent system

characteristics) and identity (graphic presentation of system identification) for the state’sworkforce investment delivery system.

The successful consultant will provide the following services. Those include but are notlimited to:

1. Provide a detailed assessment of the system’s perceived identity of all points ofpublic contact, including on line and local one stop offices. This may beaccomplished through a review of recent studies in addition to original research.

2. Review other California out reach strategies for leveraging opportunities.

3. Work with the State Workforce Investment Board’s Issue and Policies SpecialCommittee (Committee), and selected members representing state agencies andlocal workforce investment boards to develop an outreach strategy architecturedocument. This will include facilitating up to three meetings of the Committee. Thisdocument will describe the core values and baseline characteristics that should beconsistent across the system, identification of opportunities for local customizationand partner agency participation. Each meeting of the Committee will be 3 hourslong. The dates and times of these meetings are to be determined.

4. Provide recommendations and technical expertise for the development of astatewide workforce portal. This portal will provide links and information to all onestop delivery components, as well as major partner sites.

5. Develop a process for maintaining this out reach strategy’s consistency within thesystem.




6. Provide 3-5 concepts for branding to identify to include logos, slogans, graphicdesign treatments for signage, printed materials, etc. suitable for both physical andvirtual service delivery facilities. These concepts must also demonstrate how thesystem’s identity can be adapted by local areas while reflecting the local or regional

presence.7. Provide a rollout plan to include public relations and other outreach activities. This

plan should include a proposed schedule, list of activities, materials, and estimatedcosts, etc.

8. Provide a users guide in PDF format which describes both the architecture and theidentity and how each is to be appropriately applied throughout the system. Thisguide should identify both correct and incorrect uses of the identity and includeappropriate illustrations.

9. Examples should be provided to demonstrate local adaptation and application of theidentity elements in a variety of applications from signage to print materials toelectronic communications.

10. Report regularly in-person at quarterly meetings of the California WorkforceInvestment Board, as well as provide monthly updates in an electronic formatsuitable for distribution to all project stakeholders and posting on websites.

Deliverables

All deliverables are expected to be provided in both hard copy and PDF formats, unlessnotes otherwise.

o Identity assessmento Outreach strategy architecture documento Strategy maintenance processo System identity conceptso Strategy rollout plano Users Guide (PDF Format only) 100 copies on customized thumb driveso Monthly reportso Attendance at quarterly California Workforce Investment Board meetings

Qualifications and Proposal

Proposal must be received by Time and Date

Selection of the consultant will be based on Qualifications, the proposed Scope ofServices and proposed Fee. Page limits for each section of the proposal are provided.




To be considered responsive, ten (10) copies of the proposal shall be submitted,including one original signed by a member of the firm with contracting authority. Theproposal must include the following items in order:Firm Experience – 25 Points: Proposer’s experience includes similar projects foridentification of a service delivery system or rebranding of a government service

(particularly workforce, education or economic development) or other complex system,etc.

o Cover letter (1 page maximum)o History of firm and description of services offered (1 page maximum)o Project Team (5 pages maximum)o Team organizational charto Project manager resumeo Key tem member resumeso Experience on similar projects (4 pages maximum)o Detailed Scope of Services, based on Scope listed in the RFP (3 pages

maximum)o Proposed Timeline, including major milestones and meetings (2 pages

maximum)o Proposed fee – to be presented as a lump sum and shall include all fees for

services and expenses.o References (1 page maximum)o Additional materials (no page limit)

Selection Process

Selection committee made up of key stakeholders will review and score proposals.

Top three rated proposals will be interviewed by the selection committee.Selection committee will recommend preferred consultant for contract.Proposers may not contact members of the selection committee at any point during theselection process.

Evaluation Criteria

Selection Committee will score each proposal based on the following criteria with thecorresponding total possible points for each criterion

Project Manager – 15 Points: The point person assigned to manage the project has

experience working with similar clients on similar projectsCreativity and Innovation – 15 Points: Project manager and staff demonstrate creativityand innovation in past experience

References – 5 Points: Listed references provide positive feedback about theirexperience with the proposer and would use the consultant again.




Project Approach – 50 Points: Consultant is responsive to the scope and demonstratesan approach that improves upon the written scope. Consultant proposes a reasonabletimeline for completion of the proposed Scope

Project Team – 15 Points: Staff assigned to the project have experience with similar orcomplex projects, variety of disciplines required to fulfill scope is represented.

Cost – 10 Points: Proposed fee for services is reasonable and within budget for thescope of the project



ITEM 7

Information:

a. Quarterly Update of Local Workforce Investment Board Composition

b. Quarterly Update of Local Performance and Expenditures for 3 rd

Quarter of Program Year 2010 (January 1, 2011 – March 31, 2011)




Local Workforce Investment Board Membership Representation

Local Business* Labor Organizations

WIA Section: 117(b)(2)(A)(i) 117(b)(2)(A)(iii)SB 293 (UI): 14202(a) 14202(c)**

Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2Alameda 51% 51% 15% 15%Anaheim 56% 54% 12% 13%

Contra Costa 50% 52% 13% 12%

Foothill 53% 53% 16% 16%Fresno 52% 52% 13% 13%Golden Sierra 50% 50% 8% 8%Humboldt 58% 58% 15% 13%Imperial 46% 46% 13% 13%Kern/Inyo/Mono 51% 49% 15% 16%Kings 52% 52% 13% 14%Long Beach (Pacific Gateway) 50% 48% 13% 15%

Los Angeles City 57% 58% 16% 17%Los Angeles County 52% 53% 12% 12%Madera 40% 42% 8% 8%Marin 51% 51% 14% 14%

Mendocino 52% 54% 12% 4%Merced 48% 46% 17% 14%Monterey 47% 48% 16% 15%Motherlode 48% 50% 20% 21%Napa 52% 14% 14%NCCC 54% 54% 15% 15%NoRTEC 54% 54% 13% 13%Nova 61% 61% 10% 10%Oakland

Orange 57% 55% 11% 13%Richmond 51% 51% 13% 13%Riverside 52% 40% 15% 15%Sacramento 51% 51% 15% 15%San Benito 46% 44% 12% 12%

San Bernardino City 51% 51% 12% 15%San Bernardino County 52% 52% 16% 16%

San Diego 37% 35% 10% 10%San Francisco 55% 56% 6% 4%San Joaquin 44% 44% 13% 10%San Jose/Silicon Valley 63% 65% 14% 14%

San Luis Obispo 53% 53% 15% 15%San Mateo 58% 53% 13% 10%Santa Ana 51% 50% 14% 16%Santa Barbara 44% 11%Santa Cruz 50% 51% 15% 15%SELACO 63% 60% 13% 12%Solano 51% 51% 15% 15%Sonoma 35% 36% 7% 7%South Bay 58% 58% 10% 10%Stanislaus 55% 54% 16% 15%Tulare 64% 54% 16% 14%Ventura 45% 47% 16% 16%Verdugo 59% 59% 17% 17%Yolo 43% 39% 12% 10%




Green Collar Jobs CouncilMay 17, 2011

This report provides an update on the activities and results of the Green Collar JobsCouncil (Council). The report outlines the issues and strategies the Council is pursuing.

Green Collar Jobs Council Description

The Green Collar Jobs Act, signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger onSeptember 26, 2008, established the Council under the purview of the CaliforniaWorkforce Investment Board (State Board). The Green Collar Jobs Council istasked with understanding the current and future workforce needs of theGreen/Clean economy, developing a comprehensive strategy to prepare California’sworkforce to meet the needs of businesses supporting the economy and ensure thatefforts aimed at improving worker’s skills are coordinated and effective.

Summary of Activities

The Green Collar Jobs Council is currently overseeing the implementation, with theintent to provide technical assistance, of the California Green Workforce Initiative.Those efforts consist of the following:

• California Clean Energy Workforce Training Program ; which consists of 34grantees that were awarded $27 million. This program, because of a 100%dollar match requirement, amounts to approximately $54 million.

• Regional Industry Cluster of Opportunity Grants (RICOG) ; 10 regionalinitiatives were awarded grants that ranged from $200,000 to $250,000,encompassing over 45 counties and 31 local workforce investment boards todevelop data driven regional industry cluster strategies. RICOG initiatives arerequired to be driven by industry cluster businesses and include a broad range ofpartners that includes economic development, education, and labor.

The fourth and final action clinic is scheduled for June 16, 2010. The principalpurpose of the fourth action clinic is for representatives from each regional teamto present their final industry cluster action plans to their peers and otherstakeholders.

• State Energy Sector Partnership (SESP) ; California received a $6 million dollargrant for the Council, as the SESP, to oversee the fostering of six regionalcollaborations that are responsive to the needs of their emerging regional greenindustries. Currently the six regional teams are in the process of enrollingparticipants for training.





The California Workforce Investment Board underwent a monitoring review bythe U.S. Department of Labor of the State Energy Sector Partnership grant. Thereview went very well and some best practices were identified and shared withthe national office. The first SESP Action Clinic was held on Friday May 13 th,

2011 at the Courtyard Marriot, to assist teams to align with state level policiesand share challenges and best practices.

At its March 22, 2011 meeting, the Council approved their Green Workforce MasterPlan (Master Plan) . The Master Plan provides an overview of the green economy,lessons learned in the development of a green sector strategy, andrecommendations for investment and alignment. The Green Workforce Master Planis a distillation of the information submitted by the member organizations of theGreen Collar Jobs Council.

Additionally, the staff to the Green Collar Jobs Council is continuing its work on the

Business Resources Catalog . This Catalog packages California’s businessresources with the purpose of supporting businesses in all phases of development,and encouraging businesses to invest in and grow in California. To this end, staffcompleted the fourth phase. The Catalog is as a tool that documents businessincentives, grants, rebates, and tax credits and will be housed on a website (to bedetermined) and utilized by business services representatives to engage businessesto support regional economic competitiveness. Staff conducted a workshop at theCWA conference on April 20 th regarding the Catalog.

At its May 17 th meeting the agenda mainly focused on the issue of financing in the“green space” in accordance to its Master Plan’s recommendation of expanding itseconomic development focus, in part, to provide its members and stakeholders abetter understanding of job creation in the “green space.”

Next Steps for the Green Collar Jobs Council

• The final RICOG Action Clinic will be on June 16, 2011. The Action Clinic willprovide an opportunity for Regional Teams to discuss shared challenges,promising practices, and showcase their Industry Cluster Action Plans.

• There is no specific date scheduled for the next Green Collar Jobs Councilmeeting, however, polling will begin for a July 2011 meeting. Staff will continue to

act upon the meeting outcomes and the direction provided in the Master Plan.





Issues and Policy Special Committee ReportFebruary 2011

Committee Mission Statement

Our mission is to provide advice, counsel and recommendations to the full CaliforniaWorkforce Investment Board that improve Local Workforce Investment Boards’(LWIB) ability to provide world-class services to constituents; and to provide overallstrategic recommendations to the full Board in identifying the most critical priorities.


The Committee’s last meeting was held April 5 th, 2011. The future meeting datesare May 19, 2011 and June 28, 2011.

Workforce System Out-Reach StrategyDuring the October meeting the Committee recommended the formation of aworking group to further explore the development of a brand and logo for thestatewide workforce investment system. The effort will also include the writing of anew State Board policy and implementation instructions for local areas. Workgroupmembership includes local workforce board directors, California WorkforceAssociation, State Board Chair, Employment Development Department, and StateBoard staff.

The workgroup held its first meeting on January 27. After reaching a consensusamong the members the Committee recommended contracting with a facilitator toassist in moving the discussion forward. Committee staff is pursuing thatrecommendation. The State Board heard that item this morning.

Local Workforce Investment Area (LWIA) Modification ApplicationThe Napa County Workforce Investment Board has submitted an application to theState Board requesting to modify their LWIA boundary to include the County of Lake.The Committee heard the report, and staff presented the recommendations to thefull Board today.

Local Plan Modification for Program Year 2011-12The Committee and staff, in partnership with the EDD released local planningguidance April 7, 2011, for the Program Year beginning July 1, 2011. The finalDirective is published. Local Plan modifications are due June 30, 2011. This planmodification is to ensure the local plans reflect the current and future strategies ofthe local area, and that the submission of local plans corresponds more closely withlocal planning and budgetary cycles.





California Workforce Investment Board

High Concentration of Youth Incentive GrantsThe Committee completed its work with EDD/Labor Market Information Division torecalculate the eligibility criteria using the 2010 Census information. That Directivewill be released the week of May 9, 2011 and grants awarded by June 30, 2011.

Ongoing WorkThe Committee continues to work on the following items:

• Modification of the State Board policy for listing eligible training providers,specifically; Apprenticeship programs and Community College programs.

• Development and implementation of a dashboard reporting system to track andreport performance of the workforce system.

• Conduct a strategic planning session to determine short and long rangeinitiatives for the Committee’s work.

• Working with the Employment Development Department to complete themodifications to the application process for additional assistance grants.• Development of a system outreach strategy.

www.cwib.ca.gov




Health Workforce Development CouncilMay 17, 2011

This report provides an update on the activities and results of the Health WorkforceDevelopment Council (Council). The report outlines the issues and strategies the

Council is pursuing.Council Description

The Council was established at the August 17, 2010 State Board meeting to helpensure that California has the health workforce needed to provide all Californianswith access to quality health care.

The Council is tasked with understanding the current and future workforce needs ofCalifornia and with developing a comprehensive strategy to meet those needs.Health workforce development issues will be addressed by the Council through

strategic actions at the state, regional, and local levels. The Council provides aforum for broad stakeholder engagement by ensuring its public deliberations includethe expertise and perspective of industry representatives, education, economicdevelopment, elected officials, the public workforce system, philanthropicorganizations, health professional and advocacy organizations and organized labor.

Currently, the work of the Council has focused on the requirements of the federalhealth workforce development grant that was awarded to the State Board onSeptember 27, 2010.


Council Meetings

• March 10, 2011• April 20, 2011

Regional Focus Groups

During February and March 2011, a series of eleven regional focus groups was heldstatewide. The regional focus groups offered leaders from each area the opportunity

to consider how the ACA will affect their region’s health delivery systems, discussnew models of care that would be beneficial to the region, the region’s healthworkforce needs, the availability of education and training opportunities for healthcare occupations, and explore partnerships and priorities that are critical to ensureaccess to quality health care for the region’s residents.

The regional focus groups were held in the following areas:





• Oakland• Fresno• Redding• Ukiah• El Centro• Oxnard

• Orange• Los Angeles• Sacramento• Ontario• Monterey

Career Pathway Sub-Committee

A Career Pathway Sub-Committee of the Council was established to developstatewide planning recommendations that address the following six areas:

• Existing and potential health career pathways that may increase access toprimary care

• Existing education and training capacity and infrastructure to accommodatethe career pathways needed to increase access to primary care

• Academic and healthcare industry skill standards for high school graduation,entry into postsecondary education, and various credentials and licensure

• Availability of career information and guidance counseling to existing andpotential health professions students and residents

• Big picture issues around recruitment, retention, attrition, transfer, articulationand curricular disconnects, and the identification of policies needed tofacilitate the progress of students between education segments in California

• Need for pilot/demonstration projects in eligible health personnel categories,or new health personnel categories

The Committee is comprised a cross-section of educational system representatives,employers, workforce development professionals, advocacy and professionalassociations, and researchers. The State Board entered into an Inter-AgencyAgreement with UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health to provide meetingpreparation and meeting facilitation and draft Committee deliverables in the form ofsummary reports.

Next Steps for the Council

The State Board and Office of Statewide Planning and Development will be doing anin-depth review of the materials/outcomes from the various initiatives, research andother activities and to identify emerging themes for review and discussion by the fullCouncil at its next meeting.• The next scheduled Council meeting is June 17, 2011




ITEMS 9 ‐ 10

Item 9: Public Comment

Item 10: Other Business

051711 california workforce investment board agenda

Documents