Laserfiche WebLink
166 <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer asked Ms. Mohr what the draft report she referred <br /> to was about and what has happened to the $15,000 Pleasanton <br /> contributed for a study on the Fertile Crescent area. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr replied that the draft report was prepared by the <br /> County staff for the FCS Committee's review and recommendations, <br /> after which it would be returned to the County staff for revision. <br /> The final draft would then be sent back to the Committee and to the <br /> Councils of the various cities affected by the study for further <br /> review prior to its adoption by the Board of Supervisors, after <br /> which the Committee would probably be dissolved. She added that <br /> Pleasanton's contribution of $15,000 was utilized for a partial <br /> Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was done by a consultant who <br /> indicated that he could not complete the study under the parameters <br /> established by the Board of Supervisors. The EIR would be <br /> considered by the Board of Supervisors in the County's General Plan <br /> review process. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer indicated that this item would be continued to the <br /> January 22, 1991 City Council Meeting. <br /> <br /> Item 9b <br /> Alameda County Training and Employment Board (ACTEB) <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush presented his report (SR 90:497) regarding the <br /> matter. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr related the background of how ACTEB has administered <br /> the Job Training Partnership Act of 1982 (JTPA), until the City of <br /> Berkeley withdrew from ACTEB, which led to the disapproval of the <br /> Job Training Plan for 1990 and the consequent State decision that <br /> the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, rather than ACTEB, would <br /> now act as the governing board of the JTPA program. Staff <br /> recommends that Council take formal action indicating that ACTEB <br /> has provided excellent training and supporting its continued <br /> existence and operation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler indicated that he served on the ACTEB a few years <br /> ago and that during that time, the JTPA represented all the cities <br /> and areas of the County very well. He added that this would <br /> probably not be the case if the administration were transferred to <br /> the Board of Supervisors. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver commented that at its meeting, the Alameda County <br /> Social Services Commission indicated that the County is not <br /> interested in administering the JTPA and that ACTEB is doing a good <br /> job. He added that the East Bay Division of the League of <br /> California Cities also agreed that ACTEB should continue to <br /> supervise the program. <br /> <br /> - 28 - <br /> 12-11-90 <br /> <br /> <br />