Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workforce Shared Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Scott County officials briefed on shared-liability plan for Eastern Iowa workforce area
Summary
Presenters told the Board of Supervisors that a draft shared-liability agreement would allocate regional workforce audit liability by county population; presenters cited past disallowed-cost findings totaling roughly $361,000 and $321,000 and said improved monitoring is in place to prevent repeats.
Presenters for the Eastern Iowa workforce development area outlined a proposed shared-liability agreement and answered supervisors’ questions at the Nov. 4 Scott County Committee of the Whole meeting.
The presenters said the draft would apportion potential liability among counties by population. “Scott County’s population of the former Pacific Valley was 43%,” a presenter said, and he added that the Davenport Iowa Center received “57.73% of the services” provided within the workforce area. The presenters said the population rule was chosen because it is simpler to administer and less likely to generate repeated disputes than a usage-based split.
The presenters also described two past audit findings involving disallowed federal costs. One was tied to a former director who exceeded federal salary caps, cited in the meeting as totaling about $361,009.71; the other involved provider billing errors aggregated across multiple years, cited at roughly $321,000. According to the presenters, Iowa Workforce Development and federal monitors allowed those costs to be offset in later years and contemporaneous monitoring has since been strengthened. “Now that we’ve got the monitoring report … that nips it in the bud,” a presenter said.
Board members asked whether liability should instead be keyed to actual service usage rather than population. One supervisor said Scott County appears to use a large share of services (about 57%) and asked whether repayments for disallowed costs should follow usage. Presenters acknowledged that usage-based splits could be more precise but argued they would be more contentious and harder to administer.
Presenters and supervisors also placed the proposal in the context of declining federal workforce funding; presenters said programs have seen cuts on the order of the high teens (examples cited during the discussion). They described regional consolidation as a response to shrinking funds and urged local control of dollars to preserve services.
No formal vote on the proposed agreement was recorded in the meeting transcript; staff provided materials and recommended continuing to refine the shared-liability language. The board thanked the presenters and signaled general support for proceeding with the draft and additional information by email and future packet materials.
The board packet and the presenters’ handouts were cited repeatedly during the exchange; staff said they would provide follow-up emails with further documentation.
