Laserfiche WebLink
165 <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stated that she supported the request but that she <br />would want to inform the community of the Council's intention in <br />order to give all those interested the opportunity to come forward. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer requested Staff to put the matter on the Agenda of <br />a future Council meeting. <br /> <br />Sub-Reqional Affordable Housing <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer informed the Councilmembers that he is writing to <br />the mayors of five cities and two members of the Board of <br />Supervisors requesting them to come together to discuss the <br />possibility of coming up with a sub-regional solution on affordable <br />housing. <br /> <br />9. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS <br /> <br />Alameda County Traininq and Employment Board (ACTEB) <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stated that the Alameda County Training and <br />Employment Board (ACTEB) is a 14-member Board that dispenses <br />federal funds for various training programs. She explained that <br />because of some problems with the criteria for acceptable programs, <br />the City of Berkeley withdrew from the consortium, which resulted <br />in the possibility of Alameda County taking over the responsibility <br />for all the cities in the County except Oakland, which is its own <br />district. However, in cases like this, federal directives provide <br />that existing consortiums be disbanded, and cities be assigned to <br />already existing consortiums in the area. Since Alameda County is <br />not an existing consortium, the northern cities of the County would <br />be assigned to Contra Costa, the Valley cities to San Joaquin, and <br />the southern cities to Santa Clara. She added that it would be <br />inappropriate for people in the Valley to go to San Joaquin to be <br />trained for agriculture-related jobs. Consequently, the Board <br />decided that working out differences would be to everybody's <br />advantage in order that the consortium could be reconvened. She <br />proposed that Council draft two letters to be sent to the <br />appropriate government bodies, one letter requesting a stay of the <br />action disbanding ACTEB to give the member cities the opportunity <br />to resolve their differences and be re-instituted, and a second <br />letter indicating that the Alameda County plan was drafted with no <br />input from the participating cities on how the program would be <br />administered in each of the areas. <br /> <br /> - 13 - <br /> 5-7-91 <br /> <br /> <br />