Members discuss 'Slowcamp' omission, program history and match rules for working‑lands funding
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Committee members reviewed past program investments and debated whether to set a fixed match percentage for working‑lands grants; members favored leaving match terms open for agency expertise and noted that 'Slowcamp' was not included in the governor's recommendation.
Committee members discussed program history, recent investments, and the practical challenge of specifying match requirements for working‑lands grants.
Unidentified Speaker (S1) noted that 'Slowcamp' does not appear in the governor's recommended budget and raised the question of which groups recommended the figure "750." Speaker 3 and Speaker 4 cited previous presentations by organizations identified as FTR and ELC, describing the program as "historically effective" and noting investment and start‑up costs. One speaker stated the program had received $1,000,000 in the prior year.
Speaker 5 asked whether the committee should define a specific match percentage (for example, 50%) or leave match language open. Multiple members expressed support for leaving match percentages unspecified so agency staff can recommend appropriate match levels, acknowledging that eligible applicants may have widely varying capacity to provide matching funds.
Members asked agency 'working lands' staff to return with more detailed options and said the committee should coordinate with other committees that have jurisdiction over certain funding decisions. There was consensus to avoid specifying dollar amounts in the transmittal letter while other committees continue deliberations.
Next steps: the committee expects to invite agency staff back for clarifying conversations about match structures and program design before committing to fixed match percentages or dollar figures.