Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cib Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Audit committee hears midpoint update on CIB community-projects review
Summary
Dr. Britt and staff told the St. Paul Audit Committee they are midstream on an audit of the community-projects portion of the Community Investment Budget (CIB), describing methods, a draft timeline and early themes from interviews and data mapping; the team recommended possible public engagement options and said a February report is aspirational.
The St. Paul Audit Committee heard a midpoint briefing on the audit of the community-projects portion of the Community Investment Budget (CIB) from Dr. Britt and Office of Financial Services staff, with the audit team outlining its methods, an aspirational timeline and preliminary findings.
Dr. Britt, audit consultant, told the committee the review focuses on three question sets: process mechanics, community engagement, and equitable distribution of CIB funding. She said the team is combining quantitative analysis — including GIS mapping done by the Minnesota Compass team — with qualitative interviews of Office of Financial Services (OFS) staff, CIB committee members and applicants to the program.
The audit team reported it has completed “group interviews” with OFS staff and three of four planned individual staff interviews; it has done one CIB committee interview and is rescheduling others. The team said it has completed four interviews with applicants and expects to do two to four more. “Our aim is to, if we can, complete our sort of full round of all those interviews, hopefully, by the end of the first week of February, at latest, the end of the second week of February,” Dr. Britt said, adding analysis would follow and OFS staff would get a chance to review a draft before the report returns to the audit committee.
Committee members cautioned that February is aspirational. Chair Naker and others said they would prefer a higher-quality product even if the timeline slips into March; one member said the committee is willing to accept a mid-March deliverable rather than rush the work.
Preliminary feedback themes the audit team described included improved inclusiveness and engagement compared with past rounds, but persistent needs around timing and communications, broader use of city communication channels, and clearer boundaries on the kinds of projects that are eligible given limited funds. The team told the committee it would present several option paths for how to approach equitable distribution — reflecting that stakeholders offered differing definitions of equity, including “something in every part of the city” versus prioritizing areas identified by data.
The committee also discussed public engagement options. The Highland Villager had asked whether a public hearing would be held; Dr. Britt and committee members said a public forum could help gather broader input but cautioned a public hearing alone would not serve as a substitute for the audit’s structured qualitative methods. Mr. Master noted that public testimony must be balanced against the research role of interviews, saying that those who show up in public meetings are not necessarily representative of all stakeholders.
Next steps described to the committee include completing outstanding interviews, finishing analysis in mid-February if possible, circulating a draft to OFS staff for feedback, and returning a report to the audit committee. The audit team said that if scheduling or participation problems persist, it might convene a limited public forum to gather additional perspectives.
No formal committee vote or action was taken during the briefing. The committee directed staff to continue coordinating with OFS and to schedule follow-up as needed.
