Wasatch Front regional panel backs CDBG process changes and approves plan updates

Members of the Wasatch Front Regional Council approved two planning documents and discussed recommended changes to how small‑city Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) applications are advertised and scheduled, saying the proposed changes aim to reduce administrative burdens for small towns.

The council voted to approve the May meeting minutes and later approved two planning documents — the annual action plan and the five‑year consolidated plan — with a request that staff double‑check page numbering and minor typos before final submission. Council members also reviewed a set of recommendations the council will carry to the upcoming state policy meeting, including asking the state and HUD administrators to remove a newspaper posting requirement and to shift application deadlines one month later to ease holiday‑season timing pressures.

Why it matters: The Regional Council’s recommendations would affect the small‑city CDBG application process that dozens of local governments use to seek federal housing and community development funds. Members said current timing and application complexity discourage participation from small towns that lack dedicated grant staff and make it difficult to get bids, engineering work and contracts in place for the same program year.

Council discussion and recommended changes

Staff reported that several Area Office of Governments (AOGs) and the state have raised similar concerns and that the council intends to push a set of modest changes at the state policy meeting chaired by Mayor Allen. Christie, a council staff member who presented the item, told the group the council will recommend complying with the state’s recent change that removed the mandatory newspaper posting: “We’re going to recommend that we comply with state law and get rid of the newspaper posting,” Christie said.

Staff described three principal operational proposals: - Move the initial application deadline from January 31 to February 28 to give applicants more time after the holidays. - Move the second‑phase application window from May to June so grant award packets and bids are more current when contracts take effect in July. - Simplify the initial web application (WebGrants) so applicants supply fewer details up front and provide full documentation only if they advance to the second phase.

Christie told members the grant award timing would remain tied to the federal/state contract schedule: contracts and funds typically arrive in July, so the proposed schedule shift would not change the fiscal‑year start but would give applicants more time in the months before awards are announced.

Members from small towns described practical problems that motivated the changes: login or technical failures with WebGrants, staff turnover at small cities, and difficulty getting contractors to bid late in winter. John, a city representative, said shifting the deadline to February would help: “I love not having to have it due till February because that gives you — you really get back into things in January,” he said. Multiple members supported offering a post‑holiday, hands‑on WebGrants workshop where applicants could bring laptops and complete or upload parts of their applications with staff assistance.

HUD rules, LMI surveys and other operational concerns

Members discussed federal and state constraints the council cannot override. Staff repeated that HUD establishes many requirements for CDBG projects, including low‑ and moderate‑income (LMI) beneficiary documentation; the state tries not to add extra layers. Christie said some survey requirements are HUD‑mandated and that targeted, site‑specific projects frequently still require household income surveys even if a broader census‑based LMI determination exists for a jurisdiction.

Participants described practical challenges conducting HUD‑required income surveys. Several small towns said residents often will not complete the household paperwork, and one town reported randomized survey samples that produced unexpectedly low LMI percentages.

Scoring language and contingency

The council reviewed several technical edits to the plan and scoring sheet. Members agreed to replace a labeling term with “LMI” to match HUD and plan language. Staff also reported guidance allowing a contingency line in grant budgets; the council discussed using a contingency of up to 10% of a project budget as an allowable line item, with the understanding that including contingency in applications could reduce the amount available to other applicants in a competitive year.

Funding status and allocations

Staff noted that one spreadsheet formula had been corrected and that the council’s available unallocated CDBG balance is larger than an earlier version showed: $518,000 remains available to the region for reallocation through next year’s formula, staff said. The council discussed that those funds are returned into the statewide pot and redistributed to AOGs in the next allocation cycle.

Votes and formal actions

- Approval of May meeting minutes: motion made and seconded; voice vote recorded as "aye." Outcome: approved (no individual mover/second recorded in the transcript). - Approval of the annual action plan and five‑year consolidated plan (two documents) with instruction for staff to double‑check paging and typos: motion made and seconded; voice vote recorded as "aye." Outcome: approved; staff directed to review paging/typographical errors before final submission. - Approval to adopt the proposed scoring/match changes and the editorial/technical changes Christie presented (including the LMI label and related scoring clarifications): motion by Charlie, seconded; voice vote recorded as "aye." Outcome: approved.

What was not decided

Council members did not — and cannot — unilaterally change HUD requirements. Several members urged continued state and HUD engagement on survey methodology, posting and other requirements. Staff said the council will present the recommendations to the state at the upcoming policy meeting; any final changes to state practice or to HUD implementation would rely on state or federal action.

Next steps and follow‑up

Staff said they will present the council’s comments at the state policy meeting and will bring any state feedback back to the Regional Council at its next monthly meeting. Members asked staff to circulate corrected documents before final submission and to schedule one or more hands‑on WebGrants workshops for small communities.

Ending note

Several members emphasized the administrative strain on small jurisdictions and expressed support for modest reforms that could increase participation without changing HUD’s fundamental requirements. The council set items related to policy feedback and the updated consolidated plan on the agenda for the next meeting and asked staff to confirm final page numbering and any state edits before submission to the state and HUD.