Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ag Value Added Grants Apuc topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appropriations committee moves $3 million APUC grant to one‑time funding, cites Bank of North Dakota partnership
Summary
Lawmakers shifted a requested $3 million agriculture project/innovation grant to one‑time funding and discussed the program’s partnership with the Bank of North Dakota and its usual base funding levels.
Committee members and Department of Agriculture staff debated whether the Agriculture Value‑Added/Project grant program should be funded ongoing or as one‑time money. Tom Bodine described the program’s relationship with the Bank of North Dakota and the grant structure.
Bodine said the program’s base is roughly “2.1” million and that the program traditionally comes back to the legislature for funding each biennium. He told the committee that the Bank of North Dakota has provided grant support in prior cycles at amounts of “2.7 and 3,000,000” and that individuals or projects generally may receive a grant “one time” but can return for a second phase in limited circumstances.
Representative Pyle and others argued for moving the current $3,000,000 ask to one‑time funding so future legislators can review outcomes. Representative Fisher and other members said one‑time funding reflects turnover and the need for education of new legislators. The committee chair instructed staff to “put that down to the one‑time column,” and members expressed agreement.
Why it matters: committee members said the program functions as risk capital for start‑ups and phased projects, and several members urged better public clarity that the money originates from state taxpayers. Bodine said the industrial commission and the Bank of North Dakota view the program as a tool to stimulate agricultural growth.
Program details offered on the record: Bodine said the bank has been willing to provide $3,000,000 again and that “since 02/2001, 9 companies have received multiple grants” though not for the same issue; he described the typical phase‑1/phase‑2 pattern for awards. A staff member who manages the program (identified in the discussion as Madison) provided committee members with a document describing program processes; Representative Bosch reported that material increased confidence in program oversight.
Action recorded in the transcript: committee members agreed by consensus to move the $3,000,000 request to one‑time funding for the coming biennium; staff (Grant) was instructed to place that amount in the one‑time column on the worksheet.
