Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Research Park Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee pauses action on NDSU Research Park grant; lawmakers debate one-time funding and matching requirements
Summary
Discussion of Senate Bill 2256 focused on a proposed $7.5 million state grant paired with a two-for-one match to generate $15 million from the NDSU Research Park. Lawmakers raised concerns about whether the appropriation should be explicitly 'one time' and about continuing-appropriation and line-of-credit language; a motion on the bill was later
Legislative discussion on Senate Bill 2256, proposing a state grant tied to a matching requirement for the NDSU Research Park, focused on funding structure, whether the appropriation should be explicitly labeled "one time," and how continuing-appropriation and line-of-credit language would affect release of funds.
Under the proposal discussed in committee, the state would provide a $7.5 million grant and the park would be required to raise $15,000,000, structured as a two-for-one match for the second $7.5 million. Committee members and presenters debated whether the bill's current language—which in briefing documents described the appropriation as continuing—should be changed to state clearly that the grant is "one time." Representative Steiner said she wanted to ensure the funding did not become ongoing and proposed replacing the word "continuing" with "one time" in the bill text.
Members also discussed whether authorization of a line of credit or continuing appropriation language could allow staggered payments (for example, releasing some funds after match proof) and whether statutory phrasing would permit the park to claim funds in pieces. Representative Steiner asked for legislative counsel assistance to make the bill’s intent explicit. Committee members agreed to work with legislative counsel and bill sponsors to refine language and return with clarified amendment text.
At one point a motion to adopt an amendment was made; later Representative Snyder withdrew his motion on the record and the committee did not take a final vote on the bill. Committee leaders arranged to continue drafting with interested members and relevant staff before bringing the bill back for further consideration. Committee members identified Representative Schneider, Representative Grinberg and Representative Vetter among those who would assist drafting, and Representative TJ Brown expressed interest in carrying the bill forward if adopted.
No formal committee recommendation or final vote was recorded for Senate Bill 2256 during the hearing; members said additional work on bill language and consultation with legislative counsel was needed before advancing the bill.
