State auditor advises Hooper City to put professional services contracts out to bid; council tables legal‑services RFP

Seth Olesund, manager of the Local Government Division at the Utah State Auditor's Office, told the Hooper City Council on April 3 that municipal professional‑services contracts should be documented and competitively procured when they exceed the local thresholds established in the city's purchasing policy.

Olesund said the auditor's office had received complaints and recommended that the city issue requests for proposals (RFPs) or requests for qualifications (RFQs) for recurring professional services such as legal, engineering and accounting. ‘‘You should have a contract for those,’’ he said, and added that when the total payments to a vendor cross a locally set bidding threshold the contracts should be put out to bid and periodically rebid—his office recommends every four years.

Why it matters: Council discussion showed the issue affects multiple city vendors (legal counsel, engineering, and accounting) and touches on public‑funds stewardship. Council members asked for an itemized accounting after public and auditor records suggested legal services payments were substantially higher in recent years than historical averages.

Olesund reviewed procurement obligations and a ‘‘reasonable person’’ standard in administrative rules for procurement. He said sole‑source procurement should be limited to narrowly documented exceptions—an example the city cited for engineering (a specialized vacuum‑sewer system) might qualify if sufficiently documented, but routine legal and accounting services generally do not.

During the meeting council members cited research on TransparentUtah.gov that appeared to show about $67,000 paid to the city's legal provider in 2024 and asked for an itemization. Council Member Maragoni moved to table a proposal to draft an RFP for legal services until the council's May 1, 2025 meeting so members could review itemized billing; Council Member Wilcox seconded the motion. The motion to table carried after a council vote to delay further action and request billing detail.

Olesund recommended the city audit or inventory its active contracts, set reasonable procurement thresholds in its purchasing policy, and follow those rules except in documented emergency situations. He also told the council that external auditors can be asked to take deeper dives into specific contract questions during the city's annual financial audit.

Council members asked about the city's current purchasing thresholds: staff noted an ordinance text that requires council approval for purchases over $5,000, while others said their legal‑services threshold had been interpreted as $25,000. Council members agreed to obtain the itemized invoices for the $67,000 figure and to revisit the RFP item at the May 1 meeting.

No RFP was issued at this meeting; the council's action was to table the proposal and request detailed billing for review.