Port training campus update: Long Beach withdraws, funding and timeline still uncertain
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
Staff updated the committee on the proposed Good Movement Training Campus, saying the Port of Long Beach notified the project team it would withdraw on Feb. 2, 2026; staff described environmental review progress, pledged to respond to union letters and said construction could start in 2027 while final costs and funding sources remain to be clarified.
A committee member moved for a verbal update on the Good Movement Training Campus and workforce-development efforts tied to port operations. Edwin Sharon, who identified himself as "director antiguo de asuntos gubernamentales del pueblo de Los Ángeles," presented the project background, outreach history and remaining tasks.
Sharon said the project began joint planning with the Port of Long Beach in 2022 and that staff had published an initial environmental readiness study in February 2024. He said the Port of Long Beach notified the project team on Feb. 2, 2026, that it would no longer participate in the project. "Es lamentable que no vayan a participar en este proyecto," Sharon said, and staff would reassign personnel and continue design and environmental work.
Sharon reported several funding references in the presentation but the transcript contains unclear numeric wording. He said the state had committed funds (referred to repeatedly as "110" in the transcript), that $70,000,000 and two $20,000,000 tranches were discussed, and that a first tranche is expected this fiscal year while a later tranche would arrive in the next fiscal year. He added that staff expects to begin construction in 2027 but that total project cost and which municipal funds (for example, CIP lines) will cover remaining costs remain to be determined.
Union and industry groups have submitted letters with questions and proposed terms; Sharon said responses will be provided but that many items are subject to negotiation. Committee members asked for clearer cost estimates and the source of remaining funds; the presenter acknowledged the need for further detail and indicated staff would return with a refined cost estimate and a plan for responding to stakeholders.
The committee approved Item 2 after discussion. The motion and recorded approval were brief; the transcript does not include a detailed roll-call tally in the record provided.
