Part 20.
TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION
Chapter 803.
SKILLS DEVELOPMENT FUND
The Texas Workforce Commission (Commission) adopts amendments to rules
concerning the Skills Development Fund. Texas Government Code §2001.039
requires that each state agency review and consider for readoption each rule
adopted by that agency. The Commission has reviewed Chapter 803 and determined
that reasons for adopting the chapter exist; however, amendments to the rules
are needed in order to update terminology and reflect recent changes in state
law.
The Commission adopts the repeal of the following sections of Chapter 803
relating to the Skills Development Fund without changes to the proposal as
published in the October 7, 2005, issue of the
Texas
Register
(30 TexReg 6412):
Subchapter C, Program Administration After Award of Contract, §§803.31
- 803.36
The Commission adopts the following new sections to Chapter 803 relating
to the Skills Development Fund without changes to the proposed text as published
in the October 7, 2005, issue of the
Texas Register
:
Subchapter C, Program Administration After Award of Contract, §803.31
and §803.32
The Commission adopts amendments to the following sections of Chapter 803
relating to the Skills Development Fund without changes to the proposed text
as published in the October 7, 2005, issue of the
Texas Register
:
Subchapter A, General Provisions Regarding the Skills Development Fund, §803.1
and §803.3
Subchapter B, Program Administration, §§803.12, 803.13, and 803.15
The Commission adopts amendments to the following sections of Chapter 803
relating to the Skills Development Fund with changes to the proposed text
as published in the October 7, 2005, issue of the
Texas Register
:
Subchapter A, General Provisions Regarding the Skills Development Fund, §803.2
Subchapter B, Program Administration, §803.11 and §803.14
PART I. PURPOSE, BACKGROUND, AND AUTHORITY
PART II. EXPLANATION OF INDIVIDUAL PROVISIONS WITH COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PART III. COORDINATION ACTIVITIES
PART I. PURPOSE, BACKGROUND, AND AUTHORITY
The purpose of the adopted Chapter 803 rule change is to:
(1) address additional priorities in awarding Skills Development Fund grants
as directed by House Bill (HB) 2421, enacted by the 79th Texas Legislature,
Regular Session;
(2) eliminate certain rule language also found in statute;
(3) remove administrative processes and procedures that are unnecessary
in rules; and
(4) incorporate minor technical edits throughout the rules for improved
clarity and consistency.
The additional requirements for Skills Development Fund grants include
providing notification of concurrent participation with the Skills Development
Fund and the Texas Enterprise Fund with the Office of the Governor Economic
Development and Tourism division; training incentives for small businesses;
and the availability of funds for incumbent worker training and training focused
on economic development.
Effective June 18, 2005, HB 2421 amended Texas Labor Code §303.005
to prohibit an employer from applying for both a Skills Development Fund grant
[in conjunction with a community or technical college or the Texas Engineering
Extension Service (TEEX)] and a Texas Enterprise Fund grant, unless the employer
and the college file an application for concurrent participation.
Additionally, HB 2421 directs the Commission to consider giving priority
to training incentives for small businesses. Pursuant to Texas Labor Code §303.003(b)(2),
one of the purposes of the Skills Development Fund is to sponsor small businesses,
which is addressed in the current rules under Uses of the Fund. The adopted
rules add a cross-reference to this existing section under Procedures for
Proposal Evaluation to ensure that the purposes of the Skills Development
Fund grants are included in the evaluation of proposals.
PART II. EXPLANATION OF INDIVIDUAL PROVISIONS WITH COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
(Note: Minor, nonsubstantive, editorial changes are made throughout Chapter
803 that do not change the meaning of the rules and, therefore, are not discussed
in the Explanation of Individual Provisions.)
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING THE SKILLS DEVELOPMENT FUND
§803.2. Definitions.
The Commission adopts the removal of §803.2(1), the definition of
"assessment," and §803.2(2), the definition of "community-based organization,"
because both terms are defined in Texas Labor Code §303.001(b)(1) and §303.001(b)(2),
respectively.
Current §803.2(3), the definition of "customized training project,"
is reorganized and renumbered as §803.2(1). The Commission amends the
definition to state that not only a private business, but also a business
consortium, or a community-based organization only in partnership with a public
community college, a technical college, or TEEX, may participate in designing
the customized training project.
Comment: One commenter expressed support of the clarification that a business
consortium may participate in designing the customized training project.
Response: The Commission appreciates the commenter's support.
Comment: One commenter recommended clarifying the definition of customized
training project by specifying that the training offered is not part of the
training provider's regular curriculum.
Response: The Commission agrees that customized training must be specific
to an employer's needs, and clarifies the definition by adding that a customized
training project provides workforce training that is "specifically designed
to meet the needs and special requirements of employers" and employees or
prospective employees of the private business or business consortium, or members
of the trade union.
However, the Commission disagrees that customized training does not include
standard courses available through the provider. While customized training
extends beyond the course curriculum, it may also encompass standard courses.
The overall unique design and development of a training project creates customization.
A truly customized training project meets an employer's specific training
requirements, such as customizing the curriculum, classes scheduled around
the employees' schedules, application to specific company examples, as well
as addressing needs in real time with real situations.
The Commission adopts the deletion of §803.2(4), the definition of
"director," because it is defined in §800.2 of this title; therefore,
it is unnecessary to redefine the term in this chapter. Further, the Commission
adopts the proposal to update references to director throughout Chapter 803
to "executive director," to correctly reflect the Chapter 800 definition.
Current §803.2(5), the definition of "grant recipient," is reorganized
and renumbered as §803.2(2).
Comment: One commenter recommended allowing the Local Workforce Development
Boards (Boards) to be included as grant recipients with a private business
or consortium of businesses.
Response: The commenter's recommendation is not within the purview of the
Commission's authority. The definition of grant recipient mirrors Texas Labor
Code §303.003(b), which directs that the Skills Development Fund be used
by public community and technical colleges, community-based organizations,
and TEEX as start-up or emergency funds for job training purposes.
Current §803.2(12), the definition of "training provider," is reorganized
and renumbered as §803.2(9). The Commission adopts the amended definition
to include a community-based organization only in partnership with a public
community college, technical college, or TEEX as a training provider.
§803.3. Uses of the Fund.
The Commission adopts the amendment of §803.3(a) by specifying that
a grant recipient may use the Skills Development Fund as start-up or emergency
funds, as specified. Additionally, the Commission adopts the amendment of §803.3(a)(2),
which clarifies that the sponsorship of small and medium-sized business networks
and consortiums is for the purpose of developing customized training.
SUBCHAPTER B. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
§803.11. Grant Administration.
The Commission adopts the removal of §803.11(a) regarding the director's
responsibility for grant administration because this information is set forth
in Texas Labor Code §303.003(d). Additionally, the Commission adopts
the removal of §803.11(b) because this information is an established
grants administration principle not necessary in rule.
The Commission adopts new §803.11, which states that grant recipients
must enter into an agreement with the Agency to comply with contract requirements,
which include, but are not limited to, regulations listed in these paragraphs.
The Commission also amends this section by specifying in §803.11(4)(A)
that final payment is contingent upon the determination by the executive director,
or designee, that a project has met the training objectives, outcomes, and
requirements (an attrition rate of up to 15% of the total number of trainees
in the contract is allowed). Additionally, the Commission adds in §803.11(4)(B)
that the contract's final payment will be withheld for 60 days after the completion
of training and after the Agency's receipt of verification from the employer
that the trainees are employed.
§803.13. Program Objectives.
The Commission adopts the amendment of §803.13(2) by referring to
"local workforce development areas" as "workforce areas," as set forth in
the definition in §800.2 of this title. Further, the Commission adopts
changing references from local workforce development area to workforce area
throughout Chapter 803.
The Commission adopts the amendment of §803.13 by including an additional
program objective §803.13(6), which allows the Agency, to the greatest
extent practicable, to award Skills Development Fund grants as follows: (1)
approximately 60% of the funds may be for job retention training; and (2)
the remaining funds may be for training for job creation. With the exception
of the Skills Development Fund, limited resources have been available to upgrade
the skills of existing workers to assist with job retention. Because the Legislature
has recognized that the Skills Development Fund is available for training
the existing workforce, as well as training to create new jobs, the Commission
is establishing a flexible goal to meet the economic needs of the state and
the skills' needs of employers.
Comment: A majority of the commenters supported the use of 60% of the funds
for job retention training. Many of these commenters specifically stated that
40% of the funds should be used for new job creation.
Response: The Commission believes the commenters' intent is to support
a funding split that ensures incumbent workers, as well as new workers, receive
critically needed Skills Development Fund training. While the Commission appreciates
the commenters' suggestion of a 60/40 split, the Commission believes that
the rule language provides the greatest flexibility to make adjustments, as
warranted, to maximize these funds. The increased flexibility allows the Agency
to be as responsive as possible to employers, while providing employers the
ability to retain and upgrade the skills of current employees, as well as
meeting the need for job creation.
Comment: One commenter suggested using 60% of the funds or more as needed
to meet the demand of local businesses for job retention training, as well
as for the training of new hires, with the remaining funds to be used toward
job creation training of new businesses and expansion of existing businesses.
Response: The Commission believes the commenter's suggestion will dilute
the impact of the proposed 60/40 split by making each of these categories
of funds available for both job retention training, as well as the training
of new hires. Further, the commentor may be concerned that a single training
project cannot contain both training for job retention and training for job
creation and, therefore, is attempting to dilute the funding distinctions
by including both activities in both categories. The Commission maintains
that the addition of this program objective to §803.13 does not change
the proposal submission process or burden entities with applying for separate
funds. Rather, the entities are applying for funding that provides them with
flexibility because this particular funding mechanism will be monitored and
managed at the state level.
Comment: One commenter stated that if job retention projects are to become
the main priority of the Skills Development Fund, the Agency should expand
proposal eligibility to other job retention efforts, including workplace literacy,
adult education, and employee asset development programs. The commenter also
stated that the Agency should evaluate the proposed rule change to determine
if it limits access to customized training for unemployed or underemployed
Texans.
Response: Although the Chapter 803 rules do not specify literacy and adult
education as part of the information contained in the proposal, employers
still have the ability to incorporate these services for those individuals
who need it. The Skills Development Fund does not preclude the use of funds
for literacy and adult education, if an employer identifies this to be a need.
The Commission disagrees with the commenter's assertion that proposal eligibility
should include employee asset development programs (aka Individual Development
Accounts [IDAs]). In its January 1, 2005, Report to the Legislature entitled
"Status of the Texas Individual Development Account Pilot Project," the Commission
determined that:
Given the cost of administration and program services, the lack of data
concerning long-term benefits and the low rate of asset purchases, it would
be difficult to recommend implementing IDA programs statewide without further
research and outcome data supportive of such an effort.
Additionally, the Commission believes that the rule does not limit access
to customized training for unemployed or underemployed Texans. The Commission's
intent is, to the greatest extent practicable, to award approximately 60%
of the funds for job retention training, allowing the remaining funds to be
used for job creation. The Commission believes that training for job creation
benefits unemployed individuals by developing skills that may lead to a job.
The Commission also believes that underemployed individuals benefit by receiving
skills enhancement and occupational advancement training, thereby helping
them climb the career ladder.
The Commission adopts the removal of §803.13(b) because it duplicates
information found in §803.13(4).
§803.14. Procedure for Requesting Funding.
For consistency with the definition of "private partner," renumbered as §803.2(4),
the Commission adopts the amendment of current §803.14(a) and §803.14(c)
to remove the term "prospective." Additionally, references to a "joint" proposal
in §803.14(a) and §803.14(b) are removed to eliminate confusion
with references to "concurrent" proposals. Further, in §803.14(a) regarding
applicable Boards reviewing and commenting on Skills Development Fund proposals,
it is the Commission's intent that "applicable" refer only to the workforce
areas where there would be a significant impact on job creation or incumbent
worker training. To ensure consistency with §803.14(a), which sets forth
that private partners or trade unions may partner with community colleges
to receive grants from the Skills Development Fund, a technical amendment
is made to add the phrase "or trade union" in §803.14(c), (f)(6), and
(f)(9).
In addition, §803.14(c) is amended and streamlined to state that a
training proposal shall not duplicate a training project available in the
workforce area in which the private partner is located.
The Commission adopts new §803.14(d), which requires that proposals
disclose other grant funds sought or awarded from the Agency or other state
or federal entities. This information does not prevent or hinder consideration
of applicants' proposals for Skills Development Fund grants; rather it allows
the Agency to provide technical assistance to the applicants for locating
additional funding sources that might be available, and to better understand
the total amount of funding for all training impacting the project.
Comment: One commenter stated that the purpose and administration of the
Skills Development Fund is strengthened by requiring applicants to disclose
other potential grant funds that might subsidize training projects.
Response: The Commission appreciates the commenter's support.
The Commission adopts new §803.14(e), which states that applicants
shall indicate whether they are submitting concurrent proposals for the Skills
Development Fund and the Texas Enterprise Fund. Concurrent proposal is defined
in this section as (1) a proposal for the Skills Development Fund that has
been filed and is pending at the time the applicant submits a proposal for
the Texas Enterprise Fund, or (2) a proposal for the Texas Enterprise Fund
that has been submitted and is pending at the time the applicant submits a
proposal for the Skills Development Fund. The addition of this new subsection
reflects the direction in HB 2421, which does not allow an applicant to apply
for both the Skills Development Fund and the Texas Enterprise Fund unless
the applicant files for concurrent participation in both programs.
Comment: One commenter supported the proposed rule changes requiring applicants
to disclose whether they are submitting concurrent applications for the Texas
Enterprise Fund. The commenter also stated that because many companies receiving
Texas Enterprise Fund grants may not be contributing to the Unemployment Insurance
(UI) Fund-the main source of funding for the Skills Development Fund-the Texas
Enterprise Fund should compensate the Skills Development Fund for training
costs associated with companies that become dual recipients.
Response: The Commission appreciates the commenter's support for the submission
of concurrent applications. HB 2421 amends Texas Labor Code §303.005
by directing the Commission to require an applicant to disclose concurrent
participation in the Skills Development Fund and the Texas Enterprise Fund.
Payment into the UI Trust Fund is not an eligibility issue for the Skills
Development Fund. HB 2421 sets forth the funding strategies that encompass
the Training Stabilization Fund, the set-aside holding fund, the Skills Development
Fund, and the Texas Enterprise Fund. The new statute establishes certain percentage
amounts to be transferred to the Skills Development Fund and the Texas Enterprise
Fund. The training provided by the Skills Development Fund grants for new
or existing jobs, which encourage long-term employment opportunities, will
generate new or increased contributions to the UI Trust Fund.
The Commission adopts the amendment of §803.14 to add new §803.14(f)(11),
which requires that proposals include an indication of a concurrent proposal
as set forth in §803.14(e). Current §803.14(d)(11) is renumbered
as §803.14(f)(12).
Comment: One commenter suggested the following revisions to the proposal
submission form criteria:
1. Delineate more clearly the current pay for each position and any anticipated
increases in wages.
Response: The Commission notes that current pay and wage increase data
is contained in §803.14(f)(4), which requires the occupation and wages
for participants who complete the customized training project.
2. Describe how the employer is involved in the planning and design of
the proposed project.
Response: The Commission notes that this information is contained in §803.2(1),
which defines customized training project. To further clarify, however, the
Commission adds to §803.14(f)(2) that the employer's involvement in the
planning and design of the proposed training project be outlined in the proposal
submission form.
3. Describe the employer's financial commitment.
Response: The Commission notes that this information is contained in §803.14(f)(5),
which requires a budget summary, disclosing anticipated project costs and
resource contributions, including the dollar amount the private partner is
willing to commit to the project.
4. Describe how the project will be delivered and staffed, including the
roles of each partner.
Response: The Commission notes that this information is contained in §803.14(f)(6),
which requires each entity's roles and responsibilities to be outlined if
a grant is awarded.
5. Include how trainees' progress will be measured and evaluated.
Response: The Commission notes that this information is contained in §803.14(f)(3),
which requires that proposals include a brief description of the measurable
training objectives and outcomes. However, the Commission amends §803.11
to clarify that trainees' progress will be measured and evaluated prior to
final payment at contract closeout.
6. Include a section on sustainability and administration.
Response: The Commission believes that the intent of the commenter's suggestion
is to sustain the efforts of the training project once funding has ended.
The Skills Development Fund grants provide training to enhance the skills
of employers' existing workforce or attract individuals for new jobs. The
Commission encourages colleges and employers to utilize their own or other
resources as needed to continue to build the skill levels of their workforce
to enhance the area's economic competitiveness. While employers are not limited
to one grant from the Skills Development Fund, the grants are approved based
on merit and other factors set forth in statute and rule, including geographic
distribution, and additional grants may not be available.
7. Describe how the Board and workforce centers were involved in the project
design and how it will be coordinated locally.
Response: The Commission notes that this information is contained in §803.13(2),
which requires that projects be developed in collaboration with the Boards.
§803.15. Procedure for Proposal Evaluation.
The Commission adopts §803.15(a) by adding a cross-reference to the
uses of the funds set forth in §803.3(a) to ensure that small businesses
are a factor considered in the proposal evaluation procedure. Additionally,
for consistency with the definition of private partner at §803.2(4) of
this chapter, the Commission adopts §803.15(a) to remove the term "prospective."
General Comments on Subchapter B
Comment: One commenter recommended the elimination of the additional 5%
administrative funds for projects that include more than one employer. The
commenter stated that this is inconsistent with other Commission-funded programs
in which the allowed administrative percentage remains constant regardless
of the number of entities involved.
Response: The Commission believes it is necessary to maintain its flexibility
to allow additional funds for overseeing the additional entities in a business
consortium. Management of these types of grants requires greater oversight
on the part of the training institution, including additional monitoring,
technical assistance, site visits, and coordination and tracking for performance.
SUBCHAPTER C. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AFTER AWARD OF CONTRACT
§803.31. Grant Recipient Responsibilities.
The Commission adopts the repeal of §803.31 in order to remove redundant
administrative processes and procedures from rule that are set forth in the
Skills Development Fund contracts.
§803.32. Contract Completion Reports.
The Commission adopts the repeal of §803.32 in order to remove redundant
administrative processes and procedures from rule that are set forth in the
Skills Development Fund contracts.
§803.33. Contract Payment.
The Commission adopts the repeal of §803.33 to remove redundant administrative
processes and procedures from rule that are set forth in the Skills Development
Fund contracts.
§803.34. Notice to Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.
The Commission adopts the repeal of §803.34 to remove redundant administrative
processes and procedures from rule that are set forth in Texas Labor Code §303.34
and in the memorandum of understanding between the Agency and the Texas Higher
Education Coordinating Board regarding the Skills Development Fund.
§803.35. Notice to Local Workforce Development Board.
The Commission adopts the repeal of §803.35 and adopts it as new §803.31,
which clarifies that the Agency shall inform a Board in the applicable workforce
area of final decisions concerning Skills Development Fund grants in the workforce
area.
Comment: One commenter supported the requirement to inform the Board in
the applicable workforce area of final decisions concerning Skills Development
Fund grants. The commenter stated that Boards may benefit from being notified
when a Skills Development Fund application is pending or under review within
or near the applicable workforce area.
Response: The Commission appreciates the commenter's support. As under
the prior rule, the Commission will notify a Board that has an approved Skills
Development Fund project in its workforce area. However, the Commission does
not intend to notify Boards in workforce areas near a funded project. Skills
Development Fund projects are for specific customized projects, and only Boards
that are directly impacted will be notified.
§803.36. Waivers.
The Commission adopts the repeal of §803.36 and adopts it as new §803.32
to clarify that in addition to the executive director, the executive director's
designee also has the authority to suspend or waive a section of this chapter
that is not statutorily imposed, if there is a showing of good cause and a
finding that the public interest would be served by such a suspension or waiver.
General Comments on Chapter 803
Comment: Two commenters expressed strong support for the proposed rules.
One commenter stated the amendments provide clarity and reduce unnecessary
language and the second commenter thanked the Commission for its support of
the Skills Development Fund.
Response: The Commission appreciates the commenters' support.
PART III. COORDINATION ACTIVITIES
In the development of these rules for publication and public comment, the
Commission sought the involvement of Texas' twenty-eight Boards and the Texas
Association of Workforce Boards (TAWB). During the development of the proposed
rules, the Commission considered the information gathered in order to develop
rules that provide clear and concise direction to the parties involved.
The Commission received public comments from:
State Representative Norma Chavez, Chair, House Committee on Border and
International Affairs
Bonnie Gonzales, ED, Lower Rio Grande Workforce Development Board
Mary Ross, ED, West Central Texas Workforce Development Board
Edelmiro Alaniz, GM, Worth McAllen Bolt & Screw Co.
Roy Arterbury, Call Center Director, Hotels.com
Al Beck, Vice President and General Manager, King's Prosperity, L.P.
Mario Bermudez, General Manager, Textape, Inc.
Boyd Cockrill, Owner, AEF Plating, LLC
Dean Conner, Owner, SGS Industrial
Ron Coronado, Operations Manager, Panasonic Corporation
Norma Diaz, President, Promos, Etc., Inc.
Paul Fielder, Operations, Sapphire Custom Manufacturing
Steven Frank, Area General Manager, Weyerhaeuser
Roberto Garcia, General Manager, HI-TEK Automation Supply
Mark Gibbs, Co-Owner, Rio Grande Container, Inc.
Frank Gomez, Senior Manager, Human Resources, Convergys
Ernesto Gonzales, President, ILP Label Printers
Steve Greer, Senior Vice President, TallyGenicom
Kyle Griffiths, General Manager, General Electric
Adriana Guerrero, Owner, Alpha XL Mold and Tool
Felix Guerrero, Moldmaker/Specialist, Alpha XL Mold and Tool
Julio Guerrero, Owner, Alpha XL Mold and Tool
James R. Hatton, President, Semco Manufacturing
Neal R. Heikkinen, Executive Vice President, Border Comm
Juan Hernandez, Branch Manager, Acetylene Oxygen Company
Liborio Hinojosa, CEO, H&H Foods
Ricardo Hinojosa, Vice President, D&R Precision Manufacturing, Inc.
Dan Ingersoll, PRC Manager, JVC Company of America, Product Return Center
Jeff Jones, Manager, Millard Refrigerated Services
Frank King, Vice President, U.S. Ops and Marketing, Am-Mex
Lorraine Kolenda, Vice President, K-10 Enterprizes, Inc.
Don Kurth, Operations Manager, ALPS Automotive, Inc.
Don Kurth, Operations Manager, Alpine Electronics of America
Kevin LaPorte, General Manager, Titan Plastics Group
Ted C. Link, President/CEO, Link & Associates, Inc.
Ronald Loidl, Senior Manager, Human Resources, Symbol Technologies
Erasmo P. Lozano, Quality Manager, Atlantis Plastics, Inc.
Felipe Marcio, President, DynaCal
Angela Miller, Business Analyst, Seagate Technology
Paula Moore, President, Reynolds International Equipment, L.P.
Sam Olivarez, President, Barrera's Supply Company, Inc.
Maria Patterson, Plant Manager, Gerber Manufacturing, Inc.
Judy Rodriguez, President/CEO, Texas Citrus Exchange
Henry Sanchez, Plant Manager, Hi-Tech Plastics Rio Grande
Stan J. Sawko, General Manager, Action Coil Spring Co., Inc.
Heriberto Solis, Vice President of Operations, Plastron Industries
Steve Stauffer, Director of Operations, Pennero Associates, Inc.
Gerald Stinson, Plant Manager, King's Prosperity L.P.
Lawrence R. Thompson, Jr., Sales Manager, Quality Screw and Nut Logistics
Noe Trevino, Plant Manager, Regency Plastics
Richard Vaughan, President, Burton Auto Supply
Michael Weaver, Director of Operations, Black and Decker
Mike Willis, Executive Director, South Texas Manufacturers Association
Stephen Wolf, Director, Global Operations, TI Automotive
Carlos Zambito, Marketing Director, McAllen Produce Terminal Market
Luis Zeledon, Plant Manager, Humanetics
Mike Allen, President & CEO, McAllen Economic Development Corporation
Don Baylor, Center for Public Policy Priorities
Thomas N. Applegate, Executive Dean, Austin Community College
Jerry Cash, Director of Economic Development, City of Cleburne
Paul J. Curtin, Project Manger, Hunt Valley Development I, LLC
Patty Ford, Training Coordinator, Kilgore College Workforce Development
Ramiro Garza, Jr., Executive Director, Edinburg Economic Development Corporation
Wanda Garza, South Texas College
Juan Gonzalez, Economic Development Director, City of Del Rio
Steve Hardy, Associate Vice President, Continuing Education and Workforce
Development, Collin County Community College District
Dr. Richard C. Jolly, Executive Vice President, Midland College
Andrew C. Jones, Ed.D., Vice Chancellor of Educational Affairs, The Dallas
County Community Colleges
Marie McDermott, President, Harlingen Area Chamber of Commerce
Mike Midgley, Vice President, Workforce Education and Business Development,
Austin Community College
Olivia Rodriguez, South Texas College
Pat Townsend, Jr., President/CEO, Mission Economic Development Authority,
Inc.
Danny Uptmore, Corporate & Professional Training, McLennan Community
College
Antonio Zavaleta, for U.T. Brownsville and Texas Southmost College
Dr. Frederico Zaragoza, Vice Chancellor, Professional Technical and Workforce
Education, Alamo Community College District
Subchapter A. GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING THE SKILLS DEVELOPMENT FUND
40 TAC §§803.1 - 803.3
The amendments are adopted under Texas Labor Code §301.0015
and §302.002(d), which provide the Texas Workforce Commission with the
authority to adopt, amend, or repeal such rules as it deems necessary for
the effective administration of Agency services and activities.
The amended rules affect Title 4, Texas Labor Code, particularly Chapter
301 and Chapter 302, as well as Texas Labor Code, Chapter 303, regarding the
Skills Development Fund.
§803.2.Definitions.
In addition to the definitions contained in §800.2 of this title,
the following words and terms, when used in this chapter, shall have the following
meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
(1)
Customized training project--A project that:
(A)
provides workforce training, with the intent of either
adding to the workforce or preventing a reduction in the workforce, and is
specifically designed to meet the needs and special requirements of:
(i)
employers and employees or prospective employees of the
private business or business consortium; or
(ii)
members of the trade union; and
(B)
is designed by a private business or business consortium,
or trade union in partnership with:
(i)
a public community college;
(ii)
a technical college;
(iii)
TEEX; or
(iv)
a community-based organization only in partnership with
the public community and technical colleges or TEEX.
(2)
Grant recipient--A recipient of a Skills Development Fund
grant that is:
(A)
a public community college;
(B)
a technical college;
(C)
TEEX; or
(D)
a community-based organization only in partnership with
the public community and technical colleges or TEEX.
(3)
Non-local public community and technical college--A public
community college or technical college providing training outside of its local
taxing district.
(4)
Private partner--A person, sole proprietorship, partnership,
corporation, association, consortium, or private organization that enters
into a partnership for a customized training project with:
(A)
a public community college;
(B)
a technical college;
(C)
TEEX; or
(D)
a community-based organization only in partnership with
the public community and technical colleges or TEEX.
(5)
Public community college--A state-funded, two-year educational
institution primarily serving its local taxing district and service area in
Texas and offering vocational, technical, and academic courses for certification
or associate's degrees.
(6)
Public technical college--A state-funded coeducational
institution of higher education offering courses of study in vocational and
technical education, for certification or associate's degrees.
(7)
Texas Engineering Extension Service (TEEX)--A higher education
agency and service established by the Board of Regents of the Texas A&M
University System.
(8)
Trade union--An organization, agency, or employee committee
in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose of dealing
with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or conditions of work.
(9)
Training provider--An entity or individual that provides
training, including:
(A)
a public community college;
(B)
a technical college;
(C)
TEEX;
(D)
a community-based organization only in partnership with
the public community college or technical college or TEEX; or
(E)
a person, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation,
association, consortium, governmental subdivision, or public or private organization
with whom a public community or technical college or TEEX has subcontracted
to provide training.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption
has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the
agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on December 20, 2005.
TRD-200505996
Reagan Miller
Deputy Director for Workforce and UI Policy
Texas Workforce Commission
Effective date: January 9, 2006
Proposal publication date: October 7, 2005
For further information, please call: (512) 475-0829
40 TAC §§803.11 - 803.15
The amendments are adopted under Texas Labor Code §301.0015
and §302.002(d), which provide the Texas Workforce Commission with the
authority to adopt, amend, or repeal such rules as it deems necessary for
the effective administration of Agency services and activities.
The amended rules affect Title 4, Texas Labor Code, particularly Chapter
301 and Chapter 302, as well as Texas Labor Code, Chapter 303, regarding the
Skills Development Fund.
§803.11.Grant Administration.
Grant recipients must enter into an agreement with the Agency to comply
with contract requirements that include, but are not limited to:
(1)
submitting all required reports, including financial and
performance reports, in the format and time frame required by the Agency;
(2)
maintaining fiscal data needed for independent verification
of expenditures of funds received for the customized training project;
(3)
cooperating and complying with Agency monitoring activities
as required by Chapter 800, Subchapter H of this title (relating to Agency
Monitoring Activities); and
(4)
submitting contract completion reports:
(A)
The final payment is contingent upon the executive director's,
or designee's, determination that a project has met the training objectives,
outcomes, and requirements (an attrition rate of up to 15% of the total number
of trainees in the contract is allowed).
(B)
The final payment of the contract will be withheld for
60 days after the completion of training and after receipt by the Agency of
verification from the employer that the trainees are employed.
§803.14.Procedure for Requesting Funding.
(a)
After obtaining the review and comments of the Board in
the applicable workforce area(s), where there is a significant impact on job
creation or incumbent worker training, a private partner or a trade union,
together with a public community or technical college or TEEX, shall present
to the executive director, or designee, a proposal requesting funding for
a customized training project or other appropriate use of the fund.
(b)
TEEX, or the public community or technical college that
is a partner to a training proposal for a grant from the Skills Development
Fund, may be non-local.
(c)
The training proposal shall not duplicate a training project
available in the workforce area in which the private partner or trade union
is located.
(d)
Proposals shall disclose other grant funds sought or awarded
from the Agency or other state and federal entities for the proposed job training
project.
(e)
Applicants shall indicate whether they are submitting concurrent
proposals for the Skills Development Fund and the Texas Enterprise Fund. For
the purposes of this subsection, "concurrent proposal" shall mean:
(1)
a proposal for the Skills Development Fund that has been
submitted and is pending at the time an applicant submits a proposal for the
Texas Enterprise Fund; or
(2)
a proposal for the Texas Enterprise Fund that has been
submitted and is pending at the time an applicant submits a proposal for the
Skills Development Fund.
(f)
Proposals shall be written and contain the following information:
(1)
The number of proposed jobs created and/or retained;
(2)
A brief outline of the proposed training project, including
the skills acquired through training and the employer's involvement in the
planning and design;
(3)
A brief description of the measurable training objectives
and outcomes;
(4)
The occupation and wages for participants who complete
the customized training project;
(5)
A budget summary, disclosing anticipated project costs
and resource contributions, including the dollar amount the private partner
is willing to commit to the project;
(6)
A signed agreement between the private partner or trade
union and the public community or technical college or TEEX outlining each
entity's roles and responsibilities if a grant is awarded;
(7)
A statement explaining the basis for the determination
that there is an actual or projected labor shortage in the occupation in which
the proposed training project will be provided that is not being met by an
existing institution or program in the workforce area;
(8)
A comparison of costs per trainee for the customized training
project and costs for similar instruction at the public community or technical
college or TEEX;
(9)
A statement describing the private partner's or trade union's
equal opportunity employment policy;
(10)
A list of the proposed employment benefits;
(11)
An indication of a concurrent proposal as required by
subsection (e) of this section; and
(12)
Any additional information deemed necessary by the Agency
to complete evaluation of a proposal.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been
reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's
legal authority.
Filed
with the Office of the Secretary of State on December 20, 2005.
TRD-200505999
Reagan Miller
Deputy Director for Workforce and UI Policy
Texas Workforce Commission
Effective date: January 9, 2006
Proposal publication date: October 7, 2005
For further information, please call: (512) 475-0829
Subchapter B. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
Subchapter C. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AFTER AWARD OF CONTRACT