Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Grant Reporting topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Senators propose raising grant-reporting trigger to $5 million to ease DBM workload

2836290 · April 1, 2025
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

Senators told the Health, Government and Operations Committee on April 1 they would seek to align House and Senate grant‑reporting bills by raising the reporting trigger to $5 million and adjusting the bill’s effective date.

Senators told the Health, Government and Operations Committee on April 1 that they would seek to align a House and Senate version of a grant‑reporting bill by changing the reporting trigger and the effective date.

Senate Bill 127 is the cross‑file of House Bill 300 and would adjust the dollar threshold that triggers a grant‑reporting requirement. Sponsor representatives told the committee the House amendment included a $1 million trigger for required reports; the Department of Budget and Management expressed concerns that the $1 million threshold would impose an excessive administrative burden. The Senate sponsor proposed keeping the Senate language, which raises the reporting trigger to $5,000,000 and makes the bill an emergency measure, to address DBM’s concerns and make the two bills identical.

Why it matters: The bill concerns how and when substantial state grants are reported to oversight entities; the reporting threshold determines the number of grants that will require notice and triggers administrative work by DBM.

Details from the hearing: Sponsor counsel said the bills differ in two ways — the effective date and the grant amount that triggers reporting — and recommended adopting the Senate figure of $5,000,000 and the House effective date so the bills align. Committee members did not record an extended debate on the policy merits in the transcript; the matter concluded with the sponsor noting the proposed amendment would make the two versions identical.

The transcript does not record a committee vote; the item was advanced through the hearing with the sponsor indicating planned amendments to make the bills identical.