X hits on this document

Word document

Agenda Item III. – *Discussion/Possible Action–Approval of the December 9, 2005, SWIB ... - page 10 / 19





10 / 19

Clausen:Governor’s Workforce Investment Board’s Budget Committee met on February 28, 2006.  Terry Johnson, Director of the Department of Employment, Training and Rehab made $148,000 of the remaining $250,656 in Program Year 2005 Governor’s Reserve Funds available for possible allocation by the Committee.  The Committee had the following requests to consider.  Southern Nevada, Good Will of Southern Nevada Pilot Project for $50,000.  This item was in fact pulled by the Southern Nevada Workforce Investment Board for consideration.  Southern Nevada, as well, Center Management and Resource Room Specialist for the Nevada JobConnect Center in Pahrump, Nevada, $120,156.  The Committee made a recommendation to the Governor to award the Southern Nevada Workforce Investment Board $33,000 of the $120,156 requested.  The Committee will consider making a recommendation to the Governor on the remainder of the requests sometime in April.  By then, we should know what Nevada’s WIA funding allocations will be for the Program Year 2006.  Nevadaworks Services Representative, for $135,390 and the Nevada JobConnect Operating Infrastructure for $298,978.11. The two requests from Nevadaworks are for expenditures that will be incurred in the Program Year 2006.  The Committee considered both items and together made a recommendation to the Governor to award Nevadaworks $115,000 of the $434,368 they requested. Again, the Committee will consider making a recommendation to the Governor on the remainder of the requests sometime in April, when we know what the funding levels will be for program year 2006.  Additionally, the Committee reviewed ten proposals that were submitted in response to requests for proposal that was sent out by the Department of Employment, Training and Rehab for innovative At-Risk Youth Projects.  The funds that are being used to fund one or more of these projects is the Section 502, State Incentive Award, that Nevada received for meeting or exceeding all of its performance measures in Program Year 2003.  The total amount of the grant was for $255,996.  The following entities received funding under this grant.  Number One, Nevada Partners in Las Vegas, was awarded $205,554 to serve 199 youth.  Number Two; Academy for Career Education, Reno, was awarded $34,800 to serve 35 youth.  And then finally, Three, Truckee Meadows Community College in Reno was awarded $15,642 to serve 40 youth.  If there are no questions, I’d like to turn it over to Terry Johnson, Director of Department, Employment, Training and Rehab who will summarize the February 28, 2006, Memorandum to Tamara Nash, State Board Liaison on Governor’s Reserve Funds under the Workforce Investment Act.  Thank you.

Johnson:Alright.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  If I might, what was made available was a memorandum that sought to overview the Governor’s Reserve Fund process and how we would be approaching that and forwarding those recommendations made by this Board’s Budget Committee and working in conjunction with this Board and its Budget Committee to certainly entertain those recommendations as to what the local workforce investment areas need, in particular.  But it was a starting point to outline the process and how it works.  And in conjunction with this, I asked our staff to compile the uses of the reserve funds over the past four years or so.  And I believe that information has been provided to each member of the Board.  As well, copies are made available here for the public.  Basically, with the Reserve Fund, we have a set of required activities that we are to pursue under the Workforce Investment Act, as well as a set of discretionary areas that we can approach under the Act.  And this analysis gives you a summary of where that money has been spent over the last four program years, for example.  How it breaks down between required spending versus discretionary spending for each year.  And I think you’ll see some trends there, particularly in how much is being allocated to assisting and operating the One-Stop Delivery System throughout the State.  You’ll see in the last three years, whereas on a percentage basis, those amounts have gone from 21% to 53% to 83%.  So for me, this was helpful coming in as Director so that I could see where we were, where we have spent this money, where we perhaps have not taken advantage of some of the things that could be done out there, some innovative new programs.  And I’ve also had some conversations with some of the folks at the local board level too.  Just reminding them and letting them know that this is not a source of funding that should be disproportionately relied upon, that it is not a guarantee of availability.  While we work in good faith and do all that we can to keep the system running and serving the customers, that I just asked them to continually examine their internal spending priorities and their internal budget plans to ensure that they make the decisions that need to be made as to how best to serve their local workforce investment areas.  That’s what this information is for.  It gives you a little bit of history over the past few years as to how this money has been spent, where it’s been allocated.  That’s the


Document info
Document views34
Page views34
Page last viewedThu Oct 27 10:53:24 UTC 2016