Grand Forks County commissioners voted July 1 to participate in a property-tax incentive package for Agristo’s proposed potato processing facility after presentations from project backers and state and local representatives. The motion passed with a single dissenting vote.

Supporters told the commission the project would be a major regional investment. “One of the big things that we got done in this legislative session is a $30,000,000, forgivable line of credit, through the Department of Ag,” State Representative Jared Hager said during the public presentation. Satya, introduced as a state administrator for the city of Grand Forks, described the project as “a game changer for Grand Forks” and said Agristo selected the site after competing with out‑of‑state locations.

The company is considering the Fuquam site north of the city, and presenters said construction is planned to start in 2026 with operations beginning in 2028. Project backers provided a baseline financial estimate of a $450 million processing facility; they estimated roughly $186 million of that value would be real estate and put land value at about $11 million. They also estimated about 660 direct jobs and roughly 4,900 construction‑period jobs over three years.

Project proponents asked the county to participate in a 20‑year property‑tax incentive. Presentation materials and speakers described the county’s modeled tax revenue under the proposed 90% stepdown exemption: in 2025 the taxable value would generate a county share of roughly $45,000, growing in later years as the facility is built and operations stabilize. Presenters said once the project is fully taxed (post‑exemption) the county’s annual share could reach more than $300,000 and that the investment could make the facility one of the county’s top property‑tax payers.

Commissioners asked about traffic and county‑road impacts. A county representative said the county would be included in future transportation studies and that county staff would participate in meetings when those studies begin. The commission also heard from local farmers and industry representatives who described multi‑year local efforts to recruit the plant and how the facility could expand acreage devoted to potatoes in the region.

After discussion, the commission approved participation in the incentive package. The motion passed with a majority; one commissioner registered a dissent.

County staff and project proponents said the incentive participation does not change state funding decisions and that other approvals and agreements—land purchase, infrastructure work and development agreements—still need to be completed before construction begins.

The county’s engagement on the incentive will be followed by more detailed engineering, traffic and infrastructure studies and by final development agreements to be reviewed by county counsel and returned to the board if they contain specific conditions or financial commitments.