Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sheridan County weighing quick letter of support for Habitat housing project as auditors await federal compliance guidance
Summary
County officials said a delayed federal compliance supplement is holding up final single audits; separately, Habitat for Humanity asked for a rapid letter explaining why an ARPA‑funded housing project targets AMI up to 120%, prompting commissioners to debate signing immediately versus scheduling fuller review on the next agenda.
Clerk Eda Shep Thompson updated commissioners on two related matters Nov. 10: an external compliance delay affecting single‑audit finalization and a time‑sensitive request from Habitat for Humanity to explain why a local ARPA‑funded housing project is using an area median income (AMI) threshold higher than Habitat International's usual guidance.
Thompson said the state had not issued a compliance supplement for single‑audit federal funds that auditors normally receive in May. "To this date, they still have not issued that," she said, and explained auditors cannot complete final single audits until the compliance report is published; local auditors may seek an extension tied to the federal release date. The pause is a federal timing issue predating the government shutdown, she said.
On housing, Thompson and other county staff described a draft letter requested by the city and by Christine Dietrich that would explain why the local program uses AMI levels up to about 120% to reach middle‑income households. Commissioners were told Habitat for Humanity International typically vets eligibility at 60–80% AMI; the local project’s higher threshold prompted the international organization to question documentation. Thompson said the county had a short turnaround — she asked commissioners to respond quickly in order to avoid jeopardizing scheduled property closings.
Commissioners expressed divisions about signing a letter immediately without reviewing project documents. One commissioner said he was "a little bit reticent to... sign something without having a little bit more thought to it for myself" and requested the original project documents and contracts before committing. Another commissioner urged urgency, noting closings could be put at risk if the letter is delayed. The chairman said he would pass commissioners' concerns along and that the board could place the item on the next meeting agenda for fuller review; commissioners agreed that waiting a week could imperil finalized contracts but also that signing hastily posed risks.
No formal board vote or binding commitment to sign the draft letter occurred at the staff meeting; the clerk said she would place the matter on the agenda for the next meeting at the commissioners' request.
