HomeMy WebLinkAbout20001181.tiff CCI
Colorado Counties, Inc.
1700 Broadway • Suite 1510 • Denver,Colorado 80290-1501 _
Phone: 303.861 4076 • Fax:303.861.2818 i i..
e-mail: cci Cw ccionline.org
MEMORANDUM
April 10, 2000
TO: Boards of County Commissioners; Directors, Local Workforce Service Delivery
Areas; Other Interested Parties'
FROM: Larry Kallenberger, CCI Executive Director
Michelle Stermer, CCI
RE: FY00-01 Wagner-Pesyer Allocation; March 31 meeting summary
Attached for your review is a meeting summary from the March 31 CCI Wagner-Peyser Work
Group meeting. Included in the decisions approved at the meeting is a revised FY00-01 Wagner-
Peyser allocation formula from the formula previously adopted by CCI at its February 25 Wagner-
Peyser allocation meeting.
Please accept CCI's sincere apologizes to those counties who were not aware that CCI would be
making additional decisions on the allocation at this meeting. As explained in the meeting
summary, it was not CCI's intention to include discussion and another vote on the FY00-01
Wagner-Peyser allocation. For reasons explained in the summary, a vote to approve a revised
allocation was taken and approved at the March 31 meeting. The CCI notice for this meeting did
not indicate any vote would take place and for this CCI apologizes. Another vote on the revised
allocation with a notice to all counties could not take place due to an April 1 deadline for approving
the FY00-01 allocation.
CCI fully recognizes and appreciates the fact that this explanation will not help those counties
whose allocation from the approved February 25 allocation and the new March 31 allocation is
decreased without an opportunity to vote on the decision. However, I can ensure and commit to
counties that the CCI process for approving the Wagner-Peyser allocation for FY01-02 will include
a meeting and voting format approved by the CCI Board of Directors and the involvement of
myself, Larry Kallenberger, CCI Executive Director. With the knowledge that this year's allocation
decisions have inconvenienced many and negatively impacted some counties, we still believe it is
better for CO to develop these allocation formulas rather than a state agency or other entity making
these decisions for us. Again, CCI will ensure that all county commissioners have an opportunity to
participate in the Wagner-Peyser allocation discussion for FY01-02.
If you have any questions, please contact me or Michelle Stermer at CCI, 303.861.4076.
' cc: Vickie Armstrong, Executive Director, and Jeff Wells,Deputy Executive Director, Colorado
Department of Labor and Employment
t,tS1 `(t h.yll President Johnnette Phillips,Eagle•President-elect Leroy Mauch,Prowers•lames Sullivan,Douglas•Marianna Raftol
Uj517 ° Jerry Allen,Cheyenne•Treasurer Barbara Kirkmever,Weld•Secretary Ed Jones,El Paso•Past President Mark Am
a. ,Y y 2000-1181
CCI Wagner-Pevser Work Group
9 —10:30 a.m., March 31, 2000 Meeting
CCI Offices, 1700 Broadway, Denver CO
Meeting Summary
Participants
County Commissioners
Cheryl Olson (Larimer), Chair, CCI Bob Bauserman (Otero)
Wagner-Peyser Work Group Kevin Kamey (Otero)
Charlotte Bobicki (Alamosa) Jake Klein (Otero)
Bill Downey (Archuleta) Bill Wallace(Summit)
Joe Rall (Fremont) Clarke Becker(Teller)
Kathy Hall, (Mesa) Barbara Kirkrneyer (Weld)
Dave Ubell (Montrose) Glen Vaad (Weld)
Mike Harms (Morgan)
Other county representatives
Judi Richendifer(Adams) Terry Green (Jefferson)
Elroy Kelzenberg (Arapahoe) Joni Friedman (Larimer)
Toya Speckman (Boulder) Sue Tuffin (Mesa)
Rick Espinosa (Conejos) Mark Carmel (Pueblo)
Tom Miller (Denver) Suzanne Benton (Rio Grande)
Dennis Pearson (Kiowa) John Martinez (Saguache/Costilla)
Other participants
Dwight Steele, Colorado Department of Jeff Wells, CDLE
Labor and Employment(CDLE) Michelle Stermer, CCI
Introduction and purpose of meeting.
• Commissioner Cheryl Olson began the meeting by clarifying that the voting
procedures for the work group would be the same as for CCI Steering Committees -
one county, one vote and vote by proxy.
• Discussion then included explaining the charge and purpose of the CCI Wagner-
Peyser Work Group. The purpose was to develop a transition plan to make the
adjustment from the FY00-01 Wagner-Peyser allocation adopted on February 25 by
CCI to the target FY02-03 allocation adopted by CCI to get to within three years.
The target allocation was an allocation approved by CCI two years ago to arrive at
within three years. This transition plan was to include allocation issues as well as
policy and program considerations that should be addressed in making the transition.
Some of the issues are listed in the attached handout #1.
• Discussion also included a review of where CCI was and how CCI got there related to
the Wagner-Peyser allocation and based on the past two years of Wagner-Peyser
allocation discussions by CCI.
New Wagner-Peyser allocation adopted for FY00-01. Discussion quickly evolved into
issues with the FY00-01 Wagner-Peyser allocation adopted by CCI on February 25.
Counties voiced their objection to the allocation. After also receiving complaints in his
office with the allocation, CDLE Deputy Director Jeff Wells indicated he had prepared an
alternative allocation based on the FY00-01 allocation adopted by CCI with some
adjustments.
Motion to approve a new Wagner-Peyser allocation for FY00-01. Commissioner
Barbara Kirkmeyer made a motion to approve a new FY00-01 allocation since counties
did not agree with the one adopted on February 25. A motion was made and seconded to
approve the following allocation: (Please refer to attached handout #1.)
• Use Column 4 as the allocation for FY00-01. Allocate the funds as provided in
Column 4 and, as a percentage change to a county's or region's FY99-00 Wagner-
Peyser allocation, cap any increase at 18%, and cap any decrease at not more than
10%.
• Additional adjustment for those counties getting a decrease in Column 4
compared to Column 1, FY99-00 allocation. For those counties with a decrease
in their allocation in Column 4 compared to their FY99-00 allocation in Column
1, CDLE anticipates that it will have enough Wagner-Peyser carry over funds to
replace the decrease and adjust the county's allocation to the amount indicated in
Column 1. For example, since Adams County's allocation is decreased by
$39,901 in Column 4 in comparison to the county's FY99-00 allocation in
Column 1 and it is within the 10% cap for a decrease, CDLE will allocate $39,901
to Adams County to make up that decrease.
• Motion was approved on a 15-9 vote.
Important additional considerations and discussion.
It was suggested that the allocation adopted start with Column 1, but CDLE said it did
not have enough carry over funds to arrive at Column 4. The work group also discussed
delaying the vote — since the CCI meeting notice and purpose of the meeting did not
include discussion and a vote on the Wagner-Peyser allocation. However, CDLE
explained that the deadline for approving the allocation was April 1, which was too short
of a time period for CCI to inform counties that the allocation was being reconsidered.
Please note that the FY00-01 allocation adopted by CCI on February 25 was used -- with
modifications preseated by CDLE that were subsequently approved by CCI at the March
31 meeting.
FY02-03 Target allocation still applies (Handout#2). Please note that the target
FY02-03 Wagner-Peyser allocation to get to within 3 years that CCI approved at the
February 25 meeting has not changed and still applies. Thus, the important and necessary
work of the CCI Wagner-Peyser Work Group to develop a transition plan still needs to be
addressed.
Next meeting. As soon as Work Group Chair Commissioner Olson schedules the next
meeting for the CCI Wagner-Peyser Work Group, CCI will notice all counties and
interested participants.
Iot4 1
• Wagner Peyser 200012001 Allocation Comparison
cot 4
ul" I
4 5
Alternate Proposal-
199912000 Wagner With Bass With HH Change from
Peyser Allocation (11 95100
Adams $714,164.00 $674,263.05 -5.59%
Arapahoe!Douglas $806,211.00 $951,328.98 18.00%
Big Ten $431,273.00 $436,496.26 1.21%
Boulder $515,057.00 $607,767.26 18.00%
Denver $1,370,994.00 $1,264,732.76 -7.75%
El PasolTeller $945,426.00 $952,214.29 0.72%
• Lorimer $702,389.00 $649,620.09 -7.51%
Mesa $470,684.00 $460,865.71 -2.09%
Northwest $384,699.00 $373,287.79 -2.97%
Pueblo $506,837.00 $496,754.91 -1.99%
Region 10 $494,970.00 $456,606.50 -7.75%
Rural Resort $621,128.00 $572,986.41 -7.75%
South Central $498,142.00 $459,532.65 -7.75%
Southeast $436,845.00 $402,986.58 -7.759'.
• Southwest $480,873.00 $443,602.11 -7.75%
▪ TA-County $512,374.00 $604,601.32 10.00%
Upper Arkansas $468,835.00 $432,497.14 -7.75%
Weld $332,190.00 $391,984.20 18.00%
S
Total Allocation $10,683,091.00 $10,632,128.00
• (I) Eadi region given a base of 5 times their average PSPB,remainder of funds distributed by CCI workgroup proposal
Hold harmless applied lo bring region up to 90%of previous year funds a below and to cap funds at 118%of previous year funds.
(2) Each region given a base allocation of an equal share of pm{ected E SF funds for 00/01,rest of allocation distributed by the Wagner Peyser formula used for 99/00 funds
Hold hannlass applied by bringing the region up to Cie amount of their minimum projected costs rf below,then holding stem to between 90 and 120%of the dollars allocated In the previous year
Colorado Department of labor and Employment•March 31,2000
3131/00 9:58 M1 Wagner Peyser Comparison sls KS
_ . 44.0.6.46K4.- 4iipit.
5F9 o143 Wagner Peyser 2000/2001 Allocation Comparison if 1 7,5
3 4 5 6 7 8
CCI Workgroup Alternate Proposal- Alternate Proposal- Alternate Proposal-
1999/2000 Wagner Proposal-With Change from With Base With HH Change from Fixed Base With Chan om 2nd Year 99/00
Peyser Allocation Base No HH (1) 99/00 (1) 99/00 HH(2) 00 Formula
Adams $714,164.00 $657,822.40 -7.89% $657,822.40 -7.89% $673,654.0 -5.67% $649,799.87
Arapahoe/Douglas $806,211.00 $1,056,391.95 31.03% $1,006,325.24 24.82% $1,028,56 5 27.58% $932,930.28
Big Ten $431,273.00 $425,853.11 -1.26% $42.5,853.11 -1.26% $391 1.36 -918% $418,919.58
Boulder $515,057.00 $702,193.28 36.33% $647,144.83 25.65% $6 ,529.41 27.66% $590,730.57
Denver $1,370,994.00 $1,069,542.72 -21.99% $1,233,894.60 -10.00% $ 33,894.60 -10.00% $1,265,077.00
El Paso/Teller $945,426.00 $928,996.32 -1.74% $928,996.32 -1.74% $951,915.79 0.69% $892,437.49
Larimer $702,389.00 $633,780.31 -9.77% $633,780.31 -9.77% $632,150.10 -10.00% $725,646.00
Mesa $470,684.00 $449,628.36 -4.47% $449,628.36 -4.4 ° $423,615.60 -10.00% $466,346.92
Northwest $384,699.00 $364,185.86 -5.33% $364,185.86 3% $346,229.10 -10.00% $400,503.17
Pueblo $506,837.00 $484,642.47 -4.38% $484,642.47 .38% $456,153.30 -10.00% $496,832.90
Region 10 $494,970.00 $430,772.86 -12.97% $445,473.00 -10.00% $445,473.00 -10.00% $453,992.28
Rural Resort $621,128.00 $520,704.44 -16.17% $559,015.2 -10.00% $559,015.20 -10.00% $629,687.00
South Central $498,142.00 $374,974.31 -24.73% $448,327 0 -10.00% $448,327.80 -10.00% $461,155.94
Southeast $436,845.00 $339,163.13 -22.36% $393, .50 -10.00% $393,160.50 -10.00% $451,078.00
Southwest $480,873.00 $423,146.01 -12.00% $4 , 85.70 -10.00% $432,785.70 -10.00% $453,733.00
Tri- County $512,374.00 $946,462.85 84.72% 2,295.66 33.16% $709,158.23 38.41% $546,643.07
Upper Arkansas $468,835.00 $374,431.83 -20.14% 421,951.50 -10.00% $421,951.50 -10.00% $430,671.00
Weld $332,190.00 $449,435.78 35.29% $416,845.15 25.48% $426,846.82 28.49% $365,943.95
Total Allocation $10,693,091.00 $10,632,128.00 $10,632,128.00 $10,632,128.00 $10,632,128.00
(1) Each region given a base of 5 times their average PSPB, remainder of funds distributed by CCI workgroup proposal
(2) Each region given a base allocation of an equal share of projected ESF funds for 00/01, rest of allocation distributed by the Wagner Peyser formula used for 99/00 funds.
Hold harmless applied by bringing the region up to the amount of their minimum projected costs if below,then holding them to between 90 and 120%of the dollars allocated in the previcu
Colorado Department of Labor and Employment-February 25, 2000
2/25/00
Hello