Appropriations panel questions ROI on APUC grants, weighs trade-office funding and bioscience shift

The House Appropriations Government Operations Division on Tuesday pressed the North Dakota Department of Agriculture for clearer performance metrics on grant programs and debated several budget adjustments, including a $3 million addition to Agricultural Products Utilization Commission (APUC) funding authority, a $2 million authority increase to the specialty-crop block grant program and a $400,000 restoration for the North Dakota Trade Office.

Lawmakers repeatedly asked department officials for measurable results tied to many small grants, questioning how the state evaluates return on investment for APUC and related programs. “I can’t find one mention of if the program was successful, or if it did anything, or if it accomplished anything, or if we got a return on investment,” Representative Bosch said after reviewing the APUC grant booklet. Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring replied that the department does follow up on projects and cited examples of businesses the program helped commercialize.

Why it matters: the committee is setting base appropriations and authorities that let the department accept and pass through federal and other special funds. Those authorizations shape whether grants and trade promotion programs continue to receive taxpayer or public-corporation support and whether state funding is allocated to new FTEs or operating costs.

APUC grants and metrics

Members asked for more consistent outcome reporting on APUC grants. Representative Bosch and others said the APUC packet lists grant recipients and project descriptions but not measurable results; Bosch said he could not find “one mention” of success or a return on investment in the packet. Commissioner Goehring said the agency does follow up on projects to confirm completion: “We do a follow-up to make sure that they that they’ve actually completed the project,” he told the committee. He also said some projects yielded clear commercial outcomes — citing Dot’s Pretzels, Corvent Medical and Safety Spec as companies that received early support and later commercialized products — and that some grants are inherently higher-risk and long‑term.

Specialty crop block grant authority and federal pass-throughs

The department requested additional authority for the specialty-crop block grant program, which the commissioner described as a federal pass-through that fluctuates with USDA allocations. Goehring told the panel North Dakota’s annual specialty-crop block grant has ranged roughly from about $3.6 million to $4.1 million in recent years and that the request reflects anticipated federal awards; the committee asked staff for the historic award totals and for a list of recently funded projects.

Grape and wine research funding

Committee members debated a governor-proposed cut that would remove roughly $80,000 historically used for grape-and-wine research and marketing. Representative Fisher and others said the program supports a small but active constituency, including research at the North Central Research Extension Center; committee members placed a question mark beside that line pending additional information and signaled the issue may return in conference or later budgets.

Trade office and perceived duplication with Commerce

A $400,000 increase proposed by the governor to restore the state trade office’s appropriation to about $2 million prompted questions about overlap with Commerce’s recently created Global Engagement Office. Committee members asked for clarification of the two offices’ missions, budgets and travel practices before deciding whether to advance the increase. “These should be working hand in glove, not in opposition to each other,” Representative Bosch said. Commissioner Goehring and members noted the trade office is a public‑private partnership that supports exporters and foreign market access, while Commerce runs other outward-facing engagement activities; the committee requested a comparison of duties, recent missions and funding sources.

Bioscience Innovation Grant program and proposed statutory change

Richard Glynn, representing the state bioscience association, urged continued funding for bioscience grants and said some state-supported projects produced substantial private investment. Glynn told the committee Corvent Medical invested about $21 million to establish operations in Fargo after receiving early support, and he cited other firms that have later expanded in-state. Committee members were briefed on a Senate bill (Senate Bill 2328) to move bioscience grant authority into a newly defined life‑sciences program overseen by an industrial-commission style board; the department said remaining Biotech Innovation Grant dollars would run at least one more competitive round and that SB 2328 would, if enacted, repeal the existing bioscience grant statute and transfer functions as described in the bill.

Other line items and process

Lawmakers reviewed several base adjustments that reflect federal and special‑funds mixes — including funding for the noxious‑weed program, board of animal health changes, travel and operating adjustments tied to inspection workloads, and a requested plant‑protection FTE funded 50/50 by special funds. Committee staff and the department agreed to supply more detail on special‑fund balances (for example, fertilizer and feed tonnage fees that flow into the Environmental Rangeland Protection/IRP fund) and on how much of particular special‑fund revenue rolls to the general fund.

Committee next steps

The panel did not take final votes on these items. Members asked the department for supplemental data: historic specialty-crop award totals, APUC follow‑up/metrics on prior grants, special‑fund balances and a comparison of the trade office and Commerce global engagement work. The division indicated it would revisit these line items after receiving the requested materials and when it considers related budgets (research and extension, commerce) later in the session.

Quotes used in this article are taken verbatim from the committee transcript and attributed to speakers who appear in the hearing record.