Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Grants Oversight topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pratt bill would tighten reporting and penalties for DEED grants after OLA audit

2778521 · March 26, 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

Senate File 24-65 would require DEED grantees to provide more detailed, measurable reporting and would create statutory penalties—repayment and temporary ineligibility—if grantees fail to comply with reporting terms, sponsor Eric Pratt told the committee.

Senate File 24-65, sponsored by Sen. Eric Pratt as amended, would tighten statutory reporting requirements for grants administered or overseen by the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). The bill seeks to require grantees to provide clearer measurable objectives, past and current award amounts, other public funding received, counts of people served and program completion metrics where applicable, and the number of participants earning a living wage. The sponsor said the goal is to improve legislative oversight and the state’s ability to evaluate grant effectiveness.

Sen. Eric Pratt cited the Office of Legislative Auditor (OLA) report released the prior week, which found incomplete progress reporting on some DEED grants and noted DEED had made additional payments to grantees with overdue reports (the sponsor referenced $5 million in additional grants for two programs with past-due reports). Pratt said the bill’s A1 amendment added provisions requiring grantees to agree to reporting terms before receiving funding and allowing repayment and temporary ineligibility for future grants if grantees fail to comply.

The committee discussed the proposal’s intent and potential administrative implications. Chair and sponsor said they would continue discussions about the repayment and ineligibility language and examine the fiscal note once completed; the committee adopted the A1 amendment and laid the bill on the table for possible inclusion. No final statutory changes were enacted during the hearing.

Discussion vs. decision: the hearing was a policy discussion prompted by an audit; the committee did not enact statute but adopted an author’s amendment and left the bill under consideration for the omnibus bill.