A BILL for an Act to provide an appropriation to the department of public instruction for a passthrough grant for a science museum construction project.
HB 1492 would appropriate $24 million from the state general fund to the North Dakota Department of Public Instruction for a passthrough grant to support construction of a science museum project during the 2025-2027 biennium. The money is designated as one-time funding, meaning it is not intended to create an ongoing program or recurring obligation.
The grant could only be awarded if the prospective recipient certifies that it has already raised at least $24 million in matching funds from nonstate sources. In effect, the bill pairs state support with a dollar-for-dollar private or nonstate fundraising requirement, making the state appropriation contingent on substantial outside investment in the project.
The bill would not broadly change regulatory law, but it would create a specific one-time appropriation in state budget law and direct the Department of Public Instruction to serve as the pass-through entity for the grant. Its practical effect would be to authorize state funding for a science museum construction project, conditioned on matching funds, and to commit general fund dollars to a capital project outside the department’s core education functions.
Based on the available record, there is little direct evidence of committee debate or floor discussion because no transcripts or recorded votes are provided. The bill ultimately failed on February 5, 2025, which suggests it did not secure enough support to advance. The text itself reflects a targeted, project-specific funding request rather than a broad policy initiative, so the overall sentiment appears to have been limited to support for the museum project versus reluctance to commit state general funds.
The main point of contention is likely the use of $24 million in general fund money for a single science museum construction project, especially through the Department of Public Instruction rather than a more directly related capital or cultural agency. Another likely issue is the size of the appropriation and whether the state should participate in a project only after equivalent nonstate matching funds are raised. Supporters would likely emphasize economic, educational, and community benefits, while opponents would likely question the priority of the expenditure and the reliance on public funds for a private or quasi-private capital project.