Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workforce Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Employment Training Panel approves roughly $4.7 million for 15 training projects, flags vendor concentration
Summary
The Employment Training Panel on Feb. 28 approved about $4.7 million across 15 training contracts, including large awards to manufacturing, beverage and semiconductor employers. Panelists raised repeated questions about a single subcontractor appearing across multiple proposals and required vendors to be disclosed on the record.
The Employment Training Panel approved roughly $4.7 million in training contracts on Feb. 28, 2025, funding 15 projects that include manufacturers, biopharma firms and semiconductor suppliers.
Panel Chair Bettencourt opened the meeting at 9:30 a.m. and staff reported the panel would consider roughly $4.7 million in requests, one delegation order and five consent items. After discussion and questions, the panel voted to fund a slate of projects spanning small businesses and large employers.
Why it matters: the approvals authorize state training dollars that employers use to upskill workers, aim to improve retention and can increase access to higher‑paying, industry‑recognized work. Panelists repeatedly emphasized that the program should advance “high road” wage progression and asked applicants to better explain how training will translate into higher wages.
What the panel approved: (votes taken by roll call)
- Cornerstone Building Brands — $243,712 (first‑time contractor) — Approved - Genesys/Agenus West LLC — $127,400 (first‑time contractor) — Approved - ORIC Pharmaceuticals — $186,648 (first‑time contractor) — Approved - Buck Institute for Research on Aging (DBA Buck Institute) — $249,760 — Approved - MGM/NGM Biopharmaceuticals (ET number referenced ET250234 in packet) — $200,200 — Approved - Alpine Corporation — $89,544 (repeat contractor) — Approved - Brown’s Construction Services (ET25-0239) — $98,560 — Approved - Hydro Air / Crane Aerospace & Electronics — $599,200 — Approved - Reyes Coca‑Cola Bottling LLC — $599,760 — Approved - Karma Automotive Inc. — $327,600 — Approved - Lam Research Corporation — $599,760 — Approved (two abstentions recorded during roll call) - Niagara Bottling LLC — $349,440 — Approved - Workforce Development Corporation of Southeast Los Angeles County — $849,981 — Approved - Additional smaller contracts and delegation order (combined in staff totals) — Approved
Panel concerns and clarifications: multiple panelists asked applicants about wage progression timelines, turnover rates and administrative capacity to manage ETP contracts. A recurring concern was concentration of a single subcontractor/training vendor (Hands On Training LLC) across multiple first‑time applicants; panelists asked that any subcontractors be disclosed in the record and asked applicants to clarify whether vendors customize curricula for firm needs or simply deliver a standard package.
How applicants responded: employer representatives said many found the vendor through HR networks, trade associations (for example BioCom) or previous positive experience. Several companies said the subcontractor would deliver only a portion of the curriculum (often soft skills), with employer staff or other vendors covering technical content. Applicants described administrative plans—dedicated HR staff, in‑house data entry, or planned hires—intended to meet ETP reporting requirements.
Out‑of‑state vendor amendment: the panel approved an amendment permitting Dumont Printing (Fresno) to use Bindery Machine Repair (Oakdale, Pennsylvania) to provide on‑site installation and training for specialized folder equipment. The company said it exhausted California vendor options and that on‑site instruction from the equipment seller best met warranty/installation needs.
What’s next: approved contracts move to implementation; staff will continue to monitor performance and report back. Several panelists asked staff to ensure vendor subcontractors are listed in future packets to improve transparency.
Votes and procedural notes: votes were taken by roll call and recorded in the meeting transcript; where the packet contained a corrected dollar figure the panel restated and approved corrected amounts on the record.
