Transcript Highlights:

• First, we don't see an immediate need for this funding, as the existing special fund loan that it took
• not need to rely on General Fund appropriations moving forward.
• The remaining funds support counseling, academic services, and basic needs supports.
• But I think when we talk about cost, when we talk about what we aren't funding, that we need to think
• This amount will also fund the scholarship at the 17.5% level of unmet need.

Summary: The committee first heard updates from the California State University on its turnaround plans for seven campuses with enrollment declines. CSU said overall enrollment has grown for three straight years, but some campuses—especially in Northern California—continue to face structural declines tied to demographics and community college pipelines. The system described campus-specific strategies such as outreach to stopped-out and adult learners, guaranteed admissions, partnerships with community colleges and high schools, expanded high-demand programs, and cost reductions including hiring freezes, program suspensions, and shared administrative services. The LAO said the plans were reasonable but urged regular reporting so the Legislature can track results. Committee members pressed CSU for ongoing implementation updates, stronger recruiting efforts, and safeguards around AI use; CSU said it would continue regular check-ins and share best practices across campuses. The second item focused on the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education and its request for a $10 million General Fund appropriation to repay a special fund loan used for litigation costs. DCA and BPPE said the bureau has long had a structural deficit and has already cut positions, streamlined operations, and shifted some costs to the Student Tuition Recovery Fund, but still needs fee increases through the sunset review process. The LAO opposed the General Fund backfill, arguing the bureau can cover near-term costs with its loan, that litigation costs should generally be borne by regulated entities through fees, and that using General Fund money could set a precedent. Finance supported the one-time backfill as a way to avoid larger fee increases on institutions and to isolate the litigation expense from the bureau’s ongoing structural shortfall. Members asked how the bureau would avoid repeating the problem; BPPE said it has updated policies and practices, including disability accommodation procedures and non-discrimination training. The committee then reviewed Cal Grant funding and program updates from CSAC, UC, CSU, and the community colleges. CSAC said the Governor’s budget would increase Cal Grant funding to about $3.2 billion in 2026-27, driven by enrollment growth and higher tuition at UC and CSU, and highlighted efforts to improve payment processing and financial aid data. UC and CSU emphasized that Cal Grants are central to affordability and debt reduction, while also warning that federal changes under H.R. 1 could reduce access to loans and harm graduate and part-time students. Community colleges reported rising aid applications and awards, but said students still face major affordability barriers, especially mixed-status and undocumented students, and asked for more support for aid administration and completion grants. The chair repeatedly asked for data on eligible students who are not receiving Cal Grants and for a phased-in path to implement the Cal Grant Equity Framework; Finance said full implementation would cost hundreds of millions and the state is not currently in a position to fund it. Finally, the committee began discussion of the Middle Class Scholarship Program. CSAC said the program helps low- and middle-income students cover total cost of attendance, not just tuition, and warned that cutting funding by more than half would reduce award coverage from 35% to 17.5% of cost of attendance. CSU and UC said the program is important for reducing student debt and supporting affordability, and CSU noted recent administrative changes have reduced workload and award adjustments. The hearing continued into the next agenda item after these presentations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, Representative, that every transportation district needs extra funding for projects, and maintenance
• So I think we need to supplement the funding for the Department of Transportation.
• the fund.
• , 15% of the Transportation Project Fund, And, much needed, I know, 15% of the Transportation Project
• I appreciate that because I need to make sure my school districts are using that funding too.

Summary: The committee first received a detailed New Mexico DOT District 5 presentation from Rhonda Lopez. She reviewed District 5’s budget, staffing vacancies, completed and ongoing special appropriations from 2020 through 2025, active construction projects, maintenance work, STIP and local government funding, and equipment needs. Members asked about a guardrail issue near U.S. 64, the status of the 5% local match for Transportation Project Fund projects, and the New Mexico 371/Navajo Route 36 intersection; DOT said the match agreements were in place or waived where eligible, and that the Navajo Nation funding agreement was nearly finalized. The chair then moved the agenda to bills before finishing the remaining presentations later. House Bill 270, dealing with contributions to apprenticeship and training programs on public works projects, was presented by Rep. Borrego as a follow-up to the 2024 workforce development and apprenticeship trust fund law. The bill would remove an exclusion for street, highway, bridge, road, utility, and maintenance contracts and require contributions unless a trade classification has no approved apprenticeship program. Associated Contractors and the Asphalt Pavement Association opposed the bill, arguing it would raise road project costs and duplicate existing training programs. Members raised concerns about notice, added costs, and whether contractors with existing programs would be paying twice. A motion to table failed on a tie vote, and a later motion to pass also failed on a tie vote, leaving the bill in committee and available for reconsideration. Ranking Member Brown then presented House Bill 322, which would create a transportation trust fund and transportation program fund, with a planned distribution beginning in 2029, including a 5% use for federal matching funds. The bill would also dedicate a portion of the gross receipts tax on electricity and redirect part of the motor vehicle excise tax to grow the fund. Associated Contractors and the Asphalt Pavement Association supported the concept, saying it would help sustain DOT and address the state’s road maintenance gap. Members questioned the electricity tax component, its effect on ratepayers and data centers, the interaction with SB 2 and bond financing, and how projects would be prioritized. A motion to pass failed on a tie vote, and the ranking member suggested the bill could be reconsidered with an amendment removing the electricity portion. The committee then heard a District 4 DOT presentation from assistant district engineer Cruz Sudoste, covering the district’s geography, budget, staffing, completed and active projects, STIP and local government programs, and equipment replacement needs. Members asked about school district uses of transportation project funds and the impact of aging equipment on repair costs. The presentation concluded without any vote or other action on the district report.

Transcript Highlights:

• Do we need to think about a more systematic way of funding it, to your point earlier...
• Do we need to think about a more systematic way of funding it, to your point earlier, where it's going
• And then the court tells us you need to fund this, right?
• And then the court tells us you need to fund this, right?
• We need to establish the administrative structure to get the funding out the door, identify practical

Committees: Senate Senate Finance , Senate House Appropriations & Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• And that's other funds. And that's other funds.
• general fund.
• It was just the illusion that we needed to request the difference from the employee funding pool.
• It was just the illusion that we needed to request the difference from the employee funding pool.
• So that's the areas where they would need to have those funds obligated, have had them obligated by the

Committee: House Appropriations - Human Resources Division

Summary: The committee took up Senate Bill 2025, the Veterans Home/Veterans Affairs budget, and worked through the long sheet line by line. Members discussed base payroll, salary and health insurance increases, FTE pool adjustments, IT rate increases, operating expenses, transportation grants, the PTSD service dog program, salary equity requests, temporary help/intern funding, a Veterans Benefit Specialist FTE, accrued leave, and several one-time or carryover items including the Fisher House, document scanning, and veterans medical transportation. The committee also reviewed proposed policy language that would shift governance authority for the Veterans Home and Department of Veterans Affairs from the Administrative Committee on Veterans Affairs to the governor, and would remove board authority over salary-setting and related hiring powers. A major portion of the meeting focused on clarifying the commissioner salary equity line and how the agency had shifted operating dollars to fund the commissioner’s current salary increase. After discussion with agency staff and Lonnie, the committee voted to remove the separate commissioner salary equity increase line and instead restore operating funding, ultimately setting the operating line at $50,000 above the prior amount rather than fully funding the executive request. The committee also approved funding for the Veterans Benefit Specialist FTE, approved a carryforward/exemption for accrued leave, approved authority to accept $200,000 in federal transportation grant funds, approved the $500,000 transfers related to veterans homelessness, and approved the exemption language for certain federal/state fiscal recovery funds after discussing whether the funds were properly obligated. On the governance amendment, members expressed concern about making a major policy change in an appropriations bill, but also frustration over the board’s salary actions. After debate, the committee adopted the amendment transferring governance authority to the governor by a 7-1 vote. The committee also approved a smaller amount for veteran service officer salary equity than requested, and rejected funding for temporary salaries and an intern. The chair then directed staff to prepare the amended bill for further action, with the committee planning to revisit it once the revised version was ready.

Transcript Highlights:

• At our current funding levels, UC cannot fulfill all of the construction needs at the pace necessary
• At our current funding levels, UC cannot fulfill all of the construction needs at the pace necessary
• Like my colleagues, I want to really emphasize that we desperately need funding to go to students and
• UCSA is seeking support for emergency basic needs funding to staff centers, housing case management,
• We need to fully fund the compact.

Transcript Highlights:

• sources are going to be available or which funds it needs to be.
• Other funding sources are going to be available or which funds it needs to be.
• Are any one of those three contributing the most to the increase in the funding that's needed?
• Some funding that needs to be retained.
• This is another one where there will be ongoing funding that's needed to support ongoing vendor costs

Committee: House Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• We can't take these funds out of the fire operations money, so there needs to be General Fund monies
• And so those funds are needed specifically for that work that we do.
• We need that funding to enforce the Idaho Forest Practices Act.
• And I have no doubt that there are needs here, that there are things that we need to fund, but there
• And I have no doubt that there are needs here, that there are things that we need to fund, but there

Summary: The committee first considered the Department of Environmental Quality budget. Janet Jessup outlined enhancements for Triumph Mine monitoring and maintenance, a transfer for the Cordilleran Basin Superfund cleanup, and a fund shift to move two positions from federal support to the IPDES Program Fund. Members also discussed language to consolidate air permitting and drinking water permitting fee funds, and a separate cash transfer related to the new solid waste regulatory fund created by House Bill 555. The budget motion and the related language both passed, and the committee issued do-pass recommendations. The committee then took up the Department of Lands budget, focusing on Forest and Range Fire Protection funding. Members debated a one-time General Fund restoration for fire preparedness in FY 2026 and a similar request for FY 2027, with concerns raised about prior reversions and whether dedicated funds could be used instead. Director Dustin Miller explained that the other funds cited were restricted to forest practices enforcement and equipment replacement, and that the preparedness money supports standby crews, including seasonal firefighters in eastern Idaho and other regions. The FY 2026 request passed, the initial FY 2027 request failed, reconsideration was later allowed under parliamentary ruling, and the FY 2027 request then passed. The committee also adopted language limiting General Fund firefighter bonus appropriations to firefighters, after some discussion about whether the wording was too narrow. Next, the committee considered Educational Services for the Deaf and the Blind. The agency’s request included career ladder adjustments, a van for student transport, staffing for a new 18-bed residential building in Gooding, replacement items, and an endowment fund adjustment. A substitute motion to add the cottage staff funding failed, but the original motion passed, providing funding for the career ladder, replacement items, and the endowment adjustment, with a do-pass recommendation. Finally, the State Department of Education budget was reviewed. The agency requested additional spending authority for school bus camera grants, an extended USDA farm-to-school grant, and ongoing technology grants for the child nutrition program. A substitute motion to increase the farm-to-school authority to cover the anticipated extension failed, but the original motion passed, approving the school bus camera fund increase, the farm-to-school grant authority, and the child nutrition technology funding, with a do-pass recommendation. The committee then announced the next day’s agenda and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Semiconductor fund. Do you feel that's the I think that's exactly what you're going to need.
• That is the most important reason that this funding needs to be maintained.
• The agency has identified additional funding needs over the next biennium.
• So we're very close to the amount that's needed to fully fund these requests.
• As you've heard today, there's a tremendous unmet need for these grants, only funding 4.6.

Committee: House Appropriations - S/C on Articles I, IV, & V

Transcript Highlights:

• by special funds, positions that are funded by general funds.
• Do you feel like the agency has the authority and the funding that it needs to be able to assist rather
• But we need the funding for the second half of this.
• Granted, special funds can be used to provide loans to the General Fund when needed, but as I just went
• that fund it and the General Fund.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation heard an informational hearing with Secretary Garcia and CalEPA-related departments on the administration’s budget proposals and related environmental programs. Secretary Garcia highlighted CalEPA’s work on methane reduction, community air protection, water infrastructure, Exide cleanup, safer pesticide alternatives, Prop 4 implementation, and Bay-Delta water quality, while emphasizing the impact of federal rollbacks and the need for flexible state response. Members raised broader policy concerns about the polluter-pays principle, special fund vacancies, and whether the state is maintaining sufficient staffing and enforcement capacity, especially after recent fee increases. A major portion of the hearing focused on landfill support, response, and enforcement, particularly subsurface elevated temperature events at Chiquita Canyon and El Sobrante. CalEPA requested $5.1 million and 12 positions to improve monitoring, technical response, coordination, and enforcement across CalRecycle, CARB, DTSC, the Water Board, and OEHHA. Assembly Member Schiavo described severe community impacts from Chiquita Canyon and pressed for stronger state action, more transparency, and accountability from landfill operators; Assembly Member Rogers emphasized that accountability must mean forcing operators to take preventive measures and bear the costs. Agency staff said the proposal would help augment current response efforts, support local enforcement agencies, and improve early detection, while acknowledging that the causes of set events are not fully understood and may involve factors such as lithium-ion batteries, oxygen intrusion, and gas extraction practices. The committee then heard an update on the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water program and the effects of the new cap-and-invest structure. State Water Board Chair Joaquin Esquivel reported that the program has reduced the number of Californians without safe drinking water from 1.6 million to about 600,000 since 2019, while also bringing 320 systems back into compliance and distributing $1.8 billion in drinking water grants. The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained that under SB 840, SAFER is now in a lower funding tier, which could reduce annual proceeds from the prior $130 million level to a projected $92 million in 2026-27 and delay funding until later in the year. Members expressed concern that this deprioritizes rural drinking water needs, while the board said it would continue using SAFER’s flexible funds for emergency water, technical assistance, and construction, and would keep pushing consolidations and other long-term solutions for the remaining failing systems.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's why I'm truly praying and hoping you consider this year the funding needed to increase home and
• We simply need the additional funding because we can do much, much, much, much more.
• These children need broadening. find that same success without Gator funding.
• Increasing Gator funds for students with special needs is not about politics. It's about dignity.
• I believe that alligator needs to be fully funded to allow kids, like my daughter Gabrielle, to be in

Committee: Senate Finance

Summary: The committee met for public testimony on the Finance budget, with the main discussion focused first on funding for disability services and then on the LA GATOR scholarship program. Several individuals testified in support of fully funding Families Helping Families and Louisiana Rehabilitation Services (LRS), describing how advocacy, transition services, and direct support workers help people with disabilities access education, employment, and independent living. Witnesses urged the committee to preserve or increase state general funds to draw down federal matching dollars, and provider groups said current reimbursement rates and staffing shortages are leaving agencies in deficit, creating waitlists, overtime costs, and difficulty retaining workers. Committee members thanked the speakers and noted that the testimony would be used to compare the governor’s, House, and remaining budget requests. The committee then heard extensive testimony in support of increasing funding for the LA GATOR scholarship program. Supporters included policy groups, school leaders, parents, and students who argued that the program expands educational choice, helps low-income and special-needs students find schools that fit their needs, and should be fully funded at the level of demonstrated demand. Speakers from Catholic and Christian schools said GATOR funding had helped students thrive academically and spiritually, but that shortfalls left many eligible students without awards, hurt kindergarten enrollment, and forced schools to raise private donations to cover gaps. Several witnesses emphasized that the program is not a zero-sum attack on public schools, but a way to let education dollars follow students. A few committee questions focused on the fiscal impact and on whether choice programs improve outcomes without harming public schools. Testimony cited enrollment growth, parent demand, and data from other states to argue that school choice can improve student and parent outcomes and may also strengthen traditional public schools through competition. No votes or formal actions were taken during the public testimony portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• meet their specific funding needs.
• went toward safety allotment funds went toward mental health needs.
• Special Education Funding, which really needs your attention this session.
• study we've ever done says that they need to be funded at.
• Schools need more funding, that's simply put, yet as proposed not a dime. of that.

Committee: House Appropriations - S/C on Article III

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll start with the need versus the assessment. So our needs...
• And all of that funding comes into the affordable housing fund.
• Overall, farm worker housing needs to be flexible, funding needs to be flexible, and it needs to be developed
• By utilizing CERNA funds.
• to our region, who also desperately needs these funding allocations?

Committee: House Housing and Community Development

Transcript Highlights:

• You had low-income or high-growth areas that were not getting the funds that they needed to address the
• Education needs were not funded first. This is despite that doomsday provision.
• Funding was based on funds available and not what was needed.
• So the General Assembly needs to be sure that the change in funding will continue to ensure an equal
• Is it based on need and not the availability of funds?

Summary: The meeting began with approval of the previous minutes and then focused on an update from the Department of Education on early childhood programs, especially the state-funded Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) program. Secretary Jacob Oliva and Deputy Commissioner Stacey Smith said Arkansas had received a federal Preschool Development Grant and described ongoing work to review ABC slots, which have been flat for years at about 23,800 slots and roughly $114 million. They said about 1,000 slots statewide are currently unfilled despite a waiting list of more than 2,000 families, and the department is shifting toward paying based on enrollment rather than guaranteed slots. Members asked about school choice, income eligibility, year-round access, curriculum flexibility, transportation, and whether funding should be increased or rebalanced; the department said it is collecting data, may survey providers more formally, and is considering whether to modernize income thresholds, daily rates, and other program rules. The committee agreed to form an early childhood subcommittee and asked the Bureau of Legislative Research to help gather historical information on income limits and other program details. The second major portion of the meeting was a legal presentation on the framework for Arkansas school adequacy by BLR education attorney Taylor Lloyd. She reviewed the constitutional basis for a “general, suitable, and efficient” public school system, the Dupree and Lake View cases, and the principle that adequacy and equity are different but related: adequacy asks what resources are needed, while equity asks whether those resources are distributed fairly. She explained that the General Assembly must define adequacy, study it, and react to evidence over time, and that the current adequacy definition includes curriculum and career/technical frameworks, the 38 mandatory Carnegie units, state testing standards, and sufficient funding. She also described the matrix as a funding tool, not a spending mandate, and noted that categorical funds are separate from the matrix. BLR’s Elizabeth Bynum then gave the historical framework, tracing legislative responses from Dupree through Lake View and into the present. She highlighted major changes such as the creation of equalization funding, fiscal distress and academic distress laws, the adequacy study process, the Educational Adequacy Fund, facilities and transportation changes, declining enrollment and student growth funding, and later adjustments to teacher salaries, isolated funding, and categorical programs. She explained that the adequacy study has evolved through committee hearings, surveys, site visits, and outside consultants, and that recent changes include updates to accountability references and the addition or removal of certain funding categories. Members asked follow-up questions about how the matrix is used, whether homeschool or private-school funding raises comparable issues, whether stakeholders include private and homeschool participants, whether school board members should be surveyed, and whether the state should revisit average daily membership versus attendance-based funding. No votes were taken on the adequacy presentations, but the committee did agree to continue the early childhood discussion in a future subcommittee meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• everybody else fights for too and take away from their needs to further fund water needs.
• everybody else fights for too and take away from their needs to further fund water needs.
• But when they did this study, there's more funding needs that I'm aware of?
• Is there more dollars needed out there that we're not funding that are being asked for?
• other state needs outside of the water community to fund water projects because we're going to have

Summary: The Water Topics Overview Committee met to receive interim status updates on several water-related studies and Department of Water Resources projects. The committee approved the March 26, 2026 minutes, observed a moment of silence for the late Representative Conmy, and then heard updates on the watershed management study and the stormwater/wastewater study. Staff reported that the committee had already received the testimony contemplated in the study plans, including input from state agencies, local governments, and out-of-state entities, and that any further action would be at the committee’s discretion. The Department of Water Resources then provided project and budget updates on NAWS and the Southwest Pipeline Project. Reese reported NAWS is expected to serve about 81,000 users, with a total projected cost of about $571 million and about $96 million remaining, while the Southwest Pipeline Project is estimated at $1.06 billion total with about $409 million remaining. Members asked about funding sources, capacity needs, and whether current and future construction is being designed for increased demand; department staff said current work is designed for ultimate capacity, but some future components may need redesign based on new requests. The committee also discussed local cost shares, Minot’s role in NAWS funding, and whether the system is adequate for peak demand. A major portion of the meeting focused on the department’s cash management, carryover, and long-term water funding outlook. The department said Resources Trust Fund revenues are tied to oil extraction taxes and are affected by stripper well exemptions and future oil price declines. Members expressed concern about large carryover balances and whether the state is obligating more money than can realistically be spent in a biennium. The department reported about $340.6 million in remaining carryover and said it is trying to reduce that through a two-tier pre-construction/construction process and closer project vetting. The department also summarized the Deloitte studies on regional governance and finance and on cost-share policy. Stakeholders generally favored keeping the current governance structures for NAWS and Southwest with improvements, while Red River stakeholders leaned toward a different option; the department said it will bring an implementation plan back in September. On cost share, Deloitte’s recommendations would reduce some percentages, prioritize projects differently, and use other measures to close a projected long-term funding gap. Members debated affordability, local burden, deferred maintenance, and whether statutory changes may be needed to allow the commission more flexibility in prioritizing and funding projects. No formal votes or final actions were taken beyond approving the minutes and receiving the updates.

Transcript Highlights:

• Their current gap funding needed is 5.3 million.
• </c> funding needed was about $7.6 funding needed was about $7.6 million<00:04:29.400><c> I</c><00:04
• Lewis County—that’s the second school, Madam Chair, that did not need local funding.
• ><c> not</c><00:06:52.560><c> need</c><00:06:52.759><c> local</c><00:06:53.039><c> funding</c><00:06:
• 53.560><c> I'm</c><00:06:53.720><c> sorry</c> did not need local funding I'm sorry did not need local

Summary: The House Budget Review Committee on Primary and Secondary Education and Workforce Development met, approved the minutes from its first meeting, and then received a presentation on the School Facility Assistance Fund audit. State Auditor Allison Ball’s office and its third-party contractor, Blue and Co., explained that the audit followed the scope set in the budget bill: to review each school project’s cost, available local resources, and eligibility criteria for state gap funding, with the Auditor of Public Accounts certifying the final report. The presenters walked through the 20 school projects identified for review and gave the current gap funding amounts found for each. Examples included Adair County at about $7.6 million, Augusta Independent at $5.3 million, B.S. Down Independent at just over $43 million, Fleming County at about $15 million, Garrard County at $14.9 million, Johnson County at $78 million, Somerset Independent at $1.7 million, Walton Verona at $48,000, Williams Town Independent at $7.4 million, and several others. They also noted that some districts were fully funded before the audit or withdrew because they had secured enough local funding, including Breathitt County, Kent County, and Lewis County. Washington County’s project was flagged as failing some House Bill 6 eligibility criteria even though the report calculated a $27.6 million gap. Members asked whether districts that secured funding on their own were being penalized, and the auditors responded that changes in gap amounts reflected several factors, including rising project costs and newly available local funding. They also said the audit did not attempt to determine whether local funds were earmarked for one project versus another, because the budget bill directed them to assess available local funding as provided. The committee requested the presentation slides, and the meeting concluded with no further questions and a motion to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• If we don't have the funding, we need to cut that right there, and we would not have visibility into
• Okay, so I think we need to look at something we need to consider as far as more funding for that.
• And so after that year, they need to either reapply for additional funding if we've received funding,
• or they need to find some other source of funding so they can continue to provide services to their
• I think, to put it bluntly, has never been funded to be the type of agency that the state needs it to

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• , the water infrastructure needs, kind of a summary of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Drinking
• , the water infrastructure needs, kind of a summary of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Drinking
• , the water infrastructure needs, kind of a summary of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Drinking
• </c> that funding. that funding.
• cash and bonding would both general fund cash and bonding would be<01:30:21.680><c> needed</c><01:30

Committee: Senate Capital Investment

Transcript Highlights:

• We will also discuss Title IX, basic needs funding, as we have seen students have needs that go beyond
• The proposed budget pushes deferrals from 2025-26 to future years, but those funds are needed to support
• Go on to our final issue: basic needs funding. So no action on this item.
• Go on to our final issue: basic needs funding.
• So there's a breakdown on the basic needs, rapid rehousing, and mental health funds.

Transcript Highlights:

• The number of people coming in the door saying, we need GGRF funding, it's the only revenue source.
• are currently in the GGRF fund, unless instead of siphoning them off for other programs, you need to
• I'd also like to echo the need to provide funding for the FARMER program. Thank you. Mr.
• for SB. stress the need to fulfill our funding commitments for SB 125 funding for transit.
• I'd also like to echo the need to provide funding for the Farmer program. Thank you.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, they need more than that; they need a skilled person to be able to do the job.
• That had some other funding.
• I was just talking earlier about how we need funding to incentivize regional collaborations across segments
• We need to take a vote, so we need a motion.
• oppose the combination of any of those funds into one singular funding source.