Citizen Portal
Sign In

Committee questions port grant language change; bill laid over

Senate Capital Investment Committee ยท March 18, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Sign Up Free
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senate File 4124 would replace a 'non-federal share' reference with 'total cost' in port development grant language to help ports fully leverage federal funds. Testimony from the Duluth Seaway Port Authority prompted concerns about state exposure; members laid the bill over for further work.

Sen. Pappas introduced Senate File 4124 on March 17, proposing a narrow change to port development assistance language intended to make it easier for port authorities to combine state PDAAP funds with federal grants. The sponsor said the change is meant to avoid an interpretation that limits state reimbursement and can prevent awarded state funds from being used.

Kevin Beardsley, executive director of the Duluth Seaway Port Authority and a Minnesota Port Association representative, said the current statutory restriction that ties PDAAP reimbursements to the "non-federal share" has left awarded PDAAP funds unused and hampered projects' ability to fully leverage federal grants. Beardsley gave an example in which a previously awarded $10,000,000 PDAAP grant could be effectively limited to $8,000,000 for reimbursement because of the non-federal share restriction, leaving $2,000,000 unspent.

Committee members pressed on how many projects and what dollar amounts would be affected by the change. Beardsley said ports requested $45,000,000; he said the governors budget included $4,000,000 for the program and that in 2023 the program received $18,000,000. Several senators, including Sen. Pratt and Sen. Nelson, questioned whether the proposed language change could increase the state's exposure on large projects or reduce local "skin in the game." They asked the sponsor and the testimony team for clearer drafting and analysis on the fiscal impact.

Because members found the language confusing and wanted to resolve the mathematical and policy implications, the committee laid Senate File 4124 over for possible inclusion after discussing next steps with staff and the author.