Chairman Thomas called the conference committee on Senate Bill 2009 to order and asked the clerk to take roll. Committee members spent the session reviewing three State Fair budget items where the House and Senate budgets differ: two changes in funding amounts and one newly added item.

The committee focused on whether the State Fair should use reserves to cover some projects, on proposed security infrastructure spending, and on a $100,000 one-time line item described in the bills as coming from “SIF” for facility enhancements. Committee members agreed to seek a clearer explanation of that $100,000 item at the next meeting.

Why it matters: the State Fair hosts large events — a committee member referenced an annual attendance figure of about 300,000 — and the fair authority maintains a multi‑million dollar reserve that members said has been saved for major capital needs. How the state contributes to security and building repairs affects both taxpayer exposure and event safety at a high‑use venue.

During the discussion a committee member said the State Fair had roughly $12,000,000 in reserves and that about $6,000,000 of that had been estimated for re‑roofing the main fairgrounds building. That member also said the fair’s annual operating budget is roughly $13,000,000 and that the fair has in recent years weathered cancellations (cited years: 2020 and 2011) without seeking state assistance for operations.

On specific budget language, committee members noted the House version includes a provision tied to the campground restroom project that “provides the state funding made available for the campground rest facility to provide a 75% cost share not to exceed 900,000.” Members described that provision as a cost‑share for building infrastructure. By contrast, the committee discussed security upgrades — described in committee discussion as including fencing, radio systems and related safety and security work — as a separate line where some members argued the state should fund the improvement without requiring a local match.

Committee members described a prior decision to split the cost of a fence (one member summarized it as a 50/50 split) and said the conference panel had proposed paying half of that cost. Other members responded that security investments are already made annually by the fair and that requiring a state/local match for security may be unnecessary. No formal agreement was reached; members asked staff to bring back more detail at the next meeting.

A separate item raised was a $100,000 one‑time allocation labeled as SIF funding for facility enhancements. Committee members said that allocation did not appear in their House papers, that Representative Louser was the carrier on that provision, and they requested a detailed explanation of what the $100,000 would cover at the next meeting.

The committee concluded by agreeing to reconvene with the requested clarifications. Chairman Thomas then adjourned the conference committee on Senate Bill 2009.

Ending: Committee members scheduled follow‑up for the next meeting to receive an itemized explanation of the $100,000 SIF facility enhancement and additional documentation on the proposed security measures and the campground restroom cost‑share language.