Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Epa Grant Termination topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bluff staff recommends closing EPA grant under protest, flags SAM.gov risk and possible Court of Federal Claims intake
Summary
At a Dec. 9 Bluff work session staff outlined three responses to an EPA grant termination — accept closeout, close out under protest, or litigate — recommending closeout under protest while completing an intake with Lawyers for Good Government for possible Court of Federal Claims action; councilmen expressed skepticism about lengthy litigation and asked staff for clearer deadline impacts.
Town staff briefed the Bluff Town Council on Dec. 9 about options after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency terminated an EPA grant tied to the Cooperative Cultural Center and the tradeoffs each option would carry.
Project presenter Malia Collins told the council the three principal options are to close out and accept termination; close out under protest while reserving the right to sue; or attempt litigation in federal court. "If we choose to go the Court of Federal Claims route, we will still want to close out under protest," Collins said, noting she had completed an intake form with Lawyers for Good Government and that pro bono counsel might be available.
Staff warned that a closeout could lead to a SAM.gov noncompliant standing that would remain visible for five years and could affect subawardees; Collins specifically flagged Stewardship Utah as a subaward partner that might also see a negative SAM.gov entry. A councilmember asked whether anything could be noted in SAM.gov to explain the termination; staff said they would explore whether administrators would add such context but emphasized there is no guarantee.
Several councilmembers expressed skepticism about spending council or staff time pursuing litigation for the immediate practical return, arguing that closing out under protest preserves legal rights while freeing staff to pursue other funding. One councilmember characterized the situation bluntly as having had "your money stolen from you," reflecting frustration among some members. Collins said she would attend a Lawyers for Good Government webinar and bring updated information to the next meeting.
Council asked staff for clearer information on the practical differences and harms between accepting a closeout and closing under protest; members agreed to revisit the question at the next meeting so the council could make a formal determination once deadlines and consequences are clearer.
Next steps: staff recommended closing out under protest, completing the Court of Federal Claims intake, contacting subawardees, and returning with a clearer comparison of harms and deadlines at the next meeting. No vote was taken at the work session.
