Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing CareS Rental Assistance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah County weighs using state portal to distribute $19.2 million in rental-assistance funds
Summary
County staff outlined options for distributing $19,200,000 in CARES emergency rental assistance: use the state portal (which would have the state fulfill payments but bill the county 45% of fulfilled checks), run a county system, or contract third parties; commissioners requested state pricing and scheduled follow-up work to decide.
Utah County officials on the record said the county has $19,200,000 in emergency rental assistance funds and must decide how to deliver those dollars to tenants before federal deadlines. Peter Brown, the county’s CARES finance manager, told the commission the money can cover rent, utilities and other housing costs but not mortgage payments and that the county can spend up to 10% on direct administration costs.
Brown said one key choice is whether the county should use the state’s portal. ‘‘If it comes from Utah County through the state portal, they’ll bill us 45% of that payment,’’ Brown said, adding that the state has indicated it will invoice the county for fulfilled payments rather than treat the state payment as a match. That option, Brown said, could allow the county’s dollars to reach more households overall because the state would front fulfillment and invoice Utah County for the county’s share.
Brown described four operational steps: (1) an information portal; (2) a call center for application help; (3) application assessment (eligibility decisions); and (4) payment fulfillment. For the call center and assessments he said the county could use state-contracted partners (including Community Action and Mountain Land), or build local capacity, and that 40–60% of applicants might need help completing the application. For payment fulfillment Brown said the state charges roughly $6 per check to execute payments; Mountain Land (MAG) also has payment infrastructure that could be used.
Brown emphasized timing constraints: the county must spend 65% of funds by Sept. 30 to avoid clawback, with final payments expected to be completed by Dec. 31 unless extensions are approved. He also warned of duplication-of-benefit issues if the county and state both process the same applicants and said those checks would need operational rules to prevent double payments.
Commissioners pressed for state pricing and contract language and asked staff to return with cost modeling. Several commissioners said they prefer to wait for the state’s final pricing and portal design before committing, while Brown said staff are preparing internal logistics in case the county must operate its own portal. The commission agreed to continue the work-session conversation and to place the item on a future agenda for a decision once pricing is available.
