County considers pulling CDBG administration in‑house after federal audit
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Commissioners reviewed a federal audit of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) administration and directed staff to notify current contractor and prepare steps to transfer program administration in‑house if needed, using existing CDBG funds.
Utah County commissioners discussed a recent federal audit of the county's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and signaled support for moving administration from the current contractor back to county management.
The commission's discussion focused on compliance findings in the audit, the county's contract with the existing administrator (referred to in the meeting as "Mag"/Mac), and the practical steps needed to bring program administration into county operations. Staff said a county position could be funded from the same CDBG dollars currently paid to the contractor, so there would be no immediate general‑fund cost if the county takes that work in house.
Commission staff said they had shared the audit with the contractor and were awaiting the contractor's response. Commissioners asked staff to send a direct email notifying the contractor leadership (Michelle was named in the meeting) that the county is aware of the audit findings and that the commission is considering reassigning administration. Commissioners also directed staff to prepare a revised contract and a transition plan— including use of a consultant already under contract to stand up temporary operations—so the county could assume administration without service interruption if the contractor cannot correct the audit findings.
Commissioners discussed political and operational impacts: the contractor could choose to retain the administration role, but staff warned the current arrangement (contractor both administering and operating programs) creates a conflict the audit flagged and is atypical for CDBG programs nationwide. Commissioners repeatedly emphasized the change would use the same federal funds rather than county general fund dollars and that any reallocation would be subject to follow‑up and further legal review.
Commissioners asked staff to return with contract language, an estimated timeline for transition, and outreach to the contractor. They also asked staff to clarify which board-level decisions continue under the multi‑county CDBG board and which decisions would shift operationally to county staff.